MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR SCHEDULED MONTHLY MEETING
OF THE TOWN OF
EMERALD ISLE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TUESDAY, JUNE 11,
2002 – 7:00 P.M. – TOWN HALL
Mayor Arthur Schools called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Board members present were Commissioners “Doje” Marks, Pat McElraft,
Floyd Messer, Dick Eckhardt and Emily Farmer.
Staff members present were Town Attorney Derek Taylor, Town Manager Frank
Rush, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Officer Georgia Overman, Town Clerk Carolyn
Custy, Parks & Recreation Director Alesia Sanderson, and Building Inspector
James Taylor.
After Roll Call, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Mr. Rush asked that a Budget Amendment to the Storm Water Project for
Fiscal year 2001/2002 be added. This
is a procedural Amendment that deals with the Storm Water Fund and is simply a
clean up of that fund. He asked
that it be included as “item f.” under the Consent Agenda.
Another change is to remove the Public Hearing from Item 14 – the
Zoning Ordinance Amendment related to the Dunes and Vegetation Ordinance.
It has been advertised as a Public Hearing but is not in a form at this
time to go to a Public Hearing.
Another change is that Item 17 “Resolution Urging the General Assembly
and the Carteret County Board of Commissioners to Enact an Additional ½ cent
Sales Tax for Local Governments” be moved to Item 7 c. FY 2002-2003 Budget.
This is very important because of the impact it will have on the FY
2002-2003 budget.
Also the Potential Consideration of Budget Ordinance and Fee Schedule
should be changed to be entitled “Consideration of Interim Budget Ordinance
for Fiscal Year 2002-2003”.
Commissioner McElraft made a motion to adopt the Agenda with the
above noted changes and the board’s vote was unanimous, 5-0.
ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
a)
Minutes of Regular Meeting – May 14, 2002
b)
Minutes of Special Meeting – April 23, 2002
c)
Tax Refunds / Releases
d)
Resolution Authorizing Town Manager to Amend Waste Industries Contract
e)
Resolution Authorizing Town Manager to Extend Hadnot Creek Kennels
Contract
f)
ADDED ITEM – Storm water Project Fund Budget Amendment for Fiscal Year
2001-2002.
Commissioner McElraft questioned the Hadnot Creek Kennels Contract and
asked if that is for 6 months? Mr.
Rush replied it is a one-year extension to that contract, with the same terms,
as opposed to 6 months. She also
had a question about Kennels holding the town harmless and the town holding
Kennels harmless and asked who is held liable?
Attorney Taylor replied there is one section that deals with something
that was cleared up in the past via an ordinance change, when it come to the aid
of an injured animal and it appears to be primarily injured while being
captured, they have a right to go to court with anything they need to get
attention for that animal. He
thinks it might be a good idea to give some consideration in the ordinance that
if it occurs, the owner needs to pay for any medical services were provided to
that particular animal. The board
might want to make a decision whether or not they want that included in the
Contract as the town’s expense.
As to the “Hold Harmless Section” in the Contracts, they are saying
they are held harmless from anything the town does wrong and the town is held
harmless from anything they do wrong. They get responsibility for their own
liability. If they do something
wrong and they get sued, we are not involved and vice versus. Attorney Taylor
said how are we going to deal with an animal that was injured in the process of
capture and how are we going to pay for that is still open.
Commissioner McElraft made a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda as
written and the board’s vote was unanimous, 5-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Frank Vance, 2302 Ocean Drive, came forward with three items of
concern. He referred to the house at the corner of 15th Street and
Emerald Drive. He said he saw four
children, two up on the deck and two down underneath the deck close to the old
utility room. He went back and
asked the children if their parents owned the property and their answer was
“No”. Mr. Vance asked them where they were staying and one motioned
down toward Ocean Drive. He
explained that the house was condemned and in poor shape and they might get hurt
in it. They were very polite and
they left. He suggested putting
yellow tape around that house. He
goes by there about twice a day and has never seen anyone at that house that he
can ever remember. It could be a
dangerous situation.
Mr. Vance brought up the issue of garbage cans and trash. He tried several years ago to get something done about those
trashcans and nobody would do anything about it. He was glad to see the Ordinance written because when you go
back and he was on the Planning Board, talk was about the Gateway and wanting
the property to look good. The
garbage cans and racks are one of the sore-eyed things in this town. He keeps
his garbage racks up and he takes care of his trash but he lives here.
He spent the money to build new racks.
He tore up too good ones and rebuilt and bought new trashcans so he would
meet the regulations of the new Ordinance.
A lot of other people have. Mr.
Vance related that up in his area this past weekend, garbage was on top of the
racks and people were using other peoples garbage cans. Mr. Vance talked to the
Mayor and he and the Mayor got a little excited.
The Mayor asked Mr. Vance to go and bring him some house numbers. Mr. Vance said he did not think that was his job, he thinks
that is Frank Rush’s job. Mr.
Vance did go to the immediate area in his neighborhood and he found 13 where the
racks do not meet this ordinance. He
did not count the roll-out recycle cans. He
just counted the garbage racks. He
gave the Mayor a list of the house numbers.
Mr. Vance said he thinks that whoever is responsible for this should get
off their “can” and start taking down the numbers and getting these things
enforced. He would like to see it
done. He would like to see some of
the old garbage racks that removed and proper racks put in.
Mayor Schools interjected that he thinks everyone agrees with Mr. Vance
and the town is working on that. The
Mayor gets phone calls from people too. The
town is not doing as much as Mr. Vance wants but it is making some progress.
Mr. Vance related that when the two parking lots (Eastern and Western
Regional Accesses) were complete, the town was going to charge for using them.
He has seen where Atlantic Beach has raised their prices on parking and
they are in-line with other beach resorts and when he goes by the Eastern
Regional Access, it is full of cars, using the water and facilities and throwing
beer cans out and cigarette packs and etc. and he does not see anything wrong
with trying to get a little income to meet some of the budget needs.
Mr. Vance thanked the board for hearing his concerns.
Gregory Rudolph, Carteret County Shores Protection Manager made note that
Emerald Isle hosted the Coastal Dunes and Re-Vegetation Workshop. It was a huge success and will go a long way toward shore
protection efforts. He thanked the
sponsors, The Town of Emerald Isle, The Town of Emerald Isle Re-forestation and
Re-Vegetation Committee and the North Carolina Shore and Beach Preservation.
He thanked Commissioner Marks for her “behind the scene work”,
Commissioner McElraft for planting the seed for this meeting, Alesia Sanderson
for coordinating the program and all the speakers and those who attended.
FY 2002-2003 BUDGET
.
FY
2002-2003 Budget
a.
Public Hearing
b.
Potential
Consideration of Budget Ordinance and
Fee
Schedule
A Public Hearing was scheduled on the fiscal year 2002-2003 at this
meeting in hopes that the people in the audience would share their views on the
budget. To bring the public up to
date on what the Mayor and Board of Commissioners have accomplished on the
Budget since it was present on May 15th.
That recommended budget was put together by staff and included a
recommended General Fund rate of 20 cents for next.
That is a 2 ½ cents tax increase over the current tax rate of 17 1/2
cents. The Board has met four
different times, very long Special Meetings, and have worked hard to cut that
tax rate. As of tonight, the board
has agreed to several budget adjustments that have the tax rate at 18 ½ cents
at this point in time. The changes
that have been agreed to thus far are using some reserve funds, the beach
nourishment reserve funds and the storm water reserve funds, which are old funds
that are not related to the beach nourishment project that is coming up later
this year or the Coast Guard Road Storm Water Project.
They are reserve fund that have been set aside in the past and would be
available to the board to balance the budget with some portions of them.
They have made several miscellaneous additional budget cuts and have
tweaked the budget revenue estimate for next year in order to get down to the 18
½ cent tax rate. The Governor’s budget for next year did not include
reimbursements. For Emerald Isle
that was very significant in that it means $175,000 that will not be received
next year. That money is not
included in the town’s budget at this time.
In exchanged for the State withholding of the reimbursements, the
Governor recommended that the State allow Counties to levy an additional ½
cents Sales Tax effective next year. That
proposal is pending at this time. The
Senate did include the additional ½ cents in their budget that was released as
of this date, 6-11-02. This will be
a challenge in the House where there is a lot closer division in the House
Members. If that additional ½ cents Sales Tax does come through it will result
in as much as $175,000 and possibly $200,000 in additional revenue for the town
next year depending on the effective date of that Sales Tax. If this money does come in, it will enable Emerald Isle to
cut its tax rate even further.
The town board intends to wait a little longer to see what the State
does. The town board intends to
adopt an Interim Budget Ordinance Amendment that will allow the town to continue
operation for the month of July. This
will provide a little more time for the State to make a decision on the Sales
Tax issue. When this comes through,
the board will meet sometime in July and attempt to finalize the budget again
with the goal of trying to get to 17 ½ cents tax rate.
If this does not come through, the board will have to deliberate to see
what else can be cut out to lower the tax rate.
Commissioner Farmer commented that the Town Manager is giving the
board way too much credit. The Town
Manager and department heads have been wonderful.
They are the ones who have enabled the board to get this far.
Commissioner McElraft also thanked the staff and Town Manager Rush.
Some commitments were added this year, i.e. EMS, and the board members
have agreed on 18 ½ cents but that is not where she wants to stop.
She does not want to give any tax increase this year and will not support
an increase. She has a way to balance the budget without the local option sales
tax but she does not think her fellow Commissioners will agree on it.
It would be taking the Storm Water Project and instead of paying it off
in two year paying it off in four.
Commissioner Farmer made a motion to open the Public Hearing on the
Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget and the board’s vote was unanimous, 5-0.
There were no public comments made.
Commissioner Marks made a motion to close the Public Hearing and
the board’s vote was unanimous, 5-0.
Commissioner Marks remarked on the people who are on fixed incomes are
not really on fixed incomes. Those
who are on Social Security will be getting a cost of living increase. This
budget includes all expenses for Fire and EMS.
Other EMS organizations in the County are asking for increases. Cape
Carteret is asking for a combined tax rate for Fire and EMS to go from 12 cents
per hundred to 16.6 cents per hundred and that is to keep the same staffing they
have this year (two firemen and two EMS workers 24 hours a day 7 days a week).
Beaufort is going from 9 cents per hundred to 12.2 cents per hundred.
When this picture is looked at, 1 cents per hundred is not that much.
Commissioner Messer commented on something he has said at a couple of the
workshops. Mr. Rush and the staff
have done a fantastic job with the loss of revenue from the State to get the
budget where it is. He will not
support a budget that has a tax rate in excess of 17 ½ cents.
The reason for that, if the petition for a referendum on the storm water
issue had been brought to the people and the people had voted for it and the 2
cents that would have costs, if that had happened and the people had voted for
it there would be a 19 ½ cents tax rate and he would have voted for it.
With the petition not being acknowledged, he cannot vote for anything
that will reflect a tax rate of over 17 ½ cents.
Commissioner Farmer clarified that with or without a referendum, the
storm water project is not increasing the current tax rate.
The 2 cents that is paying for the storm water project is already in the
budget.
Commissioner McElraft said the plan she has would not do anything to
change the storm water project. It
will only extend the payments from two years to four years. If she had cash in
her pocket, she would be paying for her house and car but that is not the case.
The town does not have cash in its pocket and has to pay this out.
It is not going to hurt anything. You
do not have to go to the Local Government Commission.
This can be done without the local option sales tax if it does not go
through. She reminded everyone that
$125,000 is coming out of beach nourishment fund, $125,000 we are getting a
rebate on our sale tax. That rebate
will continue on for about $400,000 to $500,000 for a maximum of 9 years.
This is helping the taxpayers to pay the $ .03 cents and the $ .48 cents
for beach nourishment.
Commissioner Eckhardt saved his comments for the July meeting.
Mayor Schools asked for a motion on Consideration to adopt an Interim
Budget.
Commissioner Marks made a motion to adopt the Interim Budget as
prepared by Town Manager Frank Rush that will be in effect July 1 through July
31, 2002 and the board’s vote was unanimous with a vote of 5-0.
RESOLUTION URGING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE CARTERET
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO ENACT AN ADDITIONAL ONE-HALF CENT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT SALES AND USE TAX
This resolution urges the General
Assembly to follow the Governor’s recommendation and enact the additional
half-cent sales tax one year earlier than planned in order to replace lost local
government reimbursement revenues, and also urges the County Commissioners to
act locally to enact the additional half-cent sales tax, effective at the
earliest possible date.
As has been discussed previously,
the additional half-cent sales tax would result in an approximately $175,000 -
$200,000 of additional revenue annually for the Town of Emerald Isle, and would
more than offset the lost reimbursement revenues (equal to approximately
$75,000). Carteret County and each
of the municipalities in the County would also receive more revenue with the
additional half-cent sales tax than with the reimbursements.
There is strong support at both
the County level and among the County’s municipalities for the additional
half-cent sales tax. It is hopeful that all of the County’s local governments
will communicate their position on this matter to our elected representatives in
the General Assembly. If the Board
adopts the proposed resolution, copies will be forwarded to Representatives
Smith and Preston, and Senators Ballantine and Thomas.
RESOLUTION URGING THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND
THE CARTERET
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TO ENACT AN
ADDITIONAL ONE-HALF CENT
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT SALES AND USE TAX
WHEREAS, the Governor has recommended that counties have the
authority to levy an additional half-cent local sales and use tax one year
earlier than originally planned in order to replace local government
reimbursements that would not be distributed in FY 02-03, and
WHEREAS, Carteret County and the
municipalities within Carteret County will lose approximately $1.65 million if
the local government reimbursements are not included in the State budget in FY
02-03, and these funds are sorely needed to provide local government services
and minimize the property tax burden on our taxpayers, and
WHEREAS, Carteret County and the
municipalities within Carteret County would receive approximately $3.3 million
in new revenues generated by an additional half-cent sales tax,
which would enable Carteret County and the
municipalities to enhance local government services and/or minimize the property
tax burden on our taxpayers, and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly will
consider the Governor’s recommendation during the development of the State
budget, and will make the final decision on the additional half-cent sales tax,
and
WHEREAS, if the General Assembly
approves the additional half-cent sales tax one year earlier, or if the
additional half-cent sales tax becomes effective according to the previously
approved schedule (in FY 03-04), the individual counties will be charged with
locally enacting the additional half-cent sales tax,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by
the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Emerald Isle that:
(1)
The Town of Emerald Isle urges the General Assembly to adopt the
Governor’s recommendation and enact the additional half-cent sales tax one
year earlier to replace the local government reimbursements.
(2)
The Town of Emerald Isle urges the Carteret County Board of Commissioners
to act as soon as possible to locally enact the additional half-cent sales tax
in Carteret County, effective at the earliest possible date approved by the
General Assembly.
Adopted this ____ day of ____________, 2002.
_________________________
Arthur B. Schools, Jr., Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Carolyn K. Custy, Certified Municipal Clerk
Commissioner McElraft made a motion to approve the Resolution
Urging the General Assembly and The Carteret County Board of Commissioners To
enact An Additional One-Half Cent Sales and Use Tax.
Commissioner Farmer asked where the Carteret County Board of
Commissioners is with this? Mr.
Rush said he believes they are conducting a Public Hearing in considering a
local Resolution on Monday evening. He
has been told there is strong support for it.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked if it would take effect in July? Mr. Rush replied that any decision they make would have
probably a month or so implementation time to give the merchants time to get set
up for collection. It all depends
on when the decision is made. If
the decision is made tomorrow (Wednesday, June 12) it is felt there will be an
early July effective date.
The Board voted unanimously with a vote of 5-0.
REZONING REQUEST – PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR BOGUE INLET
DRIVE AND NC 58 – R-2 TO B-3
a.
Public Hearing
b.
Consideration of Rezoning Request
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Commissioners is scheduled to consider a rezoning request
from Mr. William Farrington to rezone approximately 2.0 acres of land on the
east side of Bogue Inlet Drive near NC 58 from R-2 (Residential-2) to B-3
(Business-3). A public hearing has
been scheduled and advertised, and adjacent property owners have been notified.
The total size of the tract is
approximately 3.1 acres, however, approximately .8 acres of the tract is already
zoned B-3, and approximately .3 acres would remain in the R-2 zone.
The balance of the tract, approximately 2.0 acres, is under consideration
for rezoning. The tract to be
rezoned is bordered by B-3 zoning to the south, B-3 and MH-1 (Mobile Home – 1)
to the west, R-2 to the north, and R-2 to the east.
Existing land uses are commercial to the south (seafood restaurant,
motel, bar), commercial (surf shop) and residential (mobile homes) to the west,
residential (single family stick-built homes across the creek) to the north, and
a water storage tank to the east. This
tract is located one lot back from the NC 58 commercial corridor.
The Planning Board discussed this
request at its March, April, and May meetings, and unanimously recommended
approval of the rezoning request at its May meeting, provided that a 50 ft.
vegetated buffer is implemented on the north end of the tract adjacent to the
creek, across from existing single family homes, and that the creek itself
remains in R-2 zoning. Mr.
Farrington agreed to these requirements, and indicated his intentions to record
deed restrictions to maintain the 50 ft. vegetated buffer. After the Planning Board meeting, I performed additional
research on the ability of the Town to require a 50 ft. vegetated buffer as a
condition of rezoning, and was advised by both the Institute of Government and
Town Attorney Derek Taylor that this practice could be considered contract
zoning and that the 50 ft. buffer condition would not be legally enforceable.
I have attached a copy of an excerpt from a book entitled Introduction
to Zoning by David Owens, the planning and zoning expert at the Institute of
Government, that addresses this issue. To
summarize, the Town cannot impose additional conditions on one property in a
zoning district that it does not apply to all properties within that zoning
district.
In light of this development, an
alternative solution is suggested that will achieve the same desired result (a
buffer adjacent to the existing single family residences).
The Town’s existing zoning ordinance already requires a 15 ft side and
rear yard width between commercial and residential zones, with a requirement for
a vegetated buffer / fence in that area. In
this case, The suggestion is that a total of 35 ft of width on the south side of
the creek remain zoned R-2, so that this 35 ft added to the 15 ft side and rear
yard requirement will provide the desired 50 ft buffer for the existing
single-family residences. Because
this 35 ft R-2 area is not large enough to accommodate a single-family home, and
because commercial uses are not permitted in the R-2 zone, this area should
remain as a buffer. This approach
has been discussed with Mr. Farrington, and he is comfortable with this
approach. This approach has been discussed with both David Owens and
Town Attorney Taylor, and both agree that this is a legal and effective
solution.
Two rezoning maps are attached at
the end of these Minutes. The first
map is labeled “Revised Proposal – June 5, 2002”, and reflects the
solution discussed above. The
second map is the rezoning map recommended by the Planning Board, and is labeled
“Planning Board Recommendation – May 28, 2002”.
One other minor issue associated
with this property is that several years ago, the Town constructed perpendicular
on-street parking spaces in the right-of-way adjacent to this tract.
The construction of these parking spaces encroached slightly on to this
tract, and the Town will remove the portion of the spaces that are encroaching. At a minimum, the spaces will need to be realigned diagonally
if the Town wishes to retain these parking spaces. Depending on the actual use of this tract, and other parking
solutions for the nearby businesses, the Town may remove these parking spaces
altogether at some point in the future.
Commissioner Farmer asked if the
Water Company takes up the whole parcel? Mr.
Rush implied a corner of it was and also 100-foot radius around the well is.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked if the
residents to the North of this parcel had been contacted?
Mr. Rush replied that we are required to contact all adjacent property
owners and a notice of the Public Hearing was mailed to them.
Those across Bogue Inlet Drive
have not been mailed a notice.
Commissioner McElraft made a motion to open the
Public Hearing on to Rezoning Request for Property Located at Bogue Inlet Drive
near NC58 from R-2 to B3 and the board’s vote was unanimous, 5-0.
There
were no public comments on this issue.
Commissioner Eckhardt made a motion to close the
Public Hearing and the board’s vote was unanimous, 5-0.
Commissioner McElraft made a motion to approve the
Rezoning Request by Mr. William Farrington to Rezoning Request for Property
Located at Bogue Inlet Drive near NC58 from R-2 to B3 with the revised proposal.
Commissioner
Farmer said the Planning Board worked very hard on this trying to satisfy the
residences that were across the creek and she appreciated that.
She also knows that the Planning Board unanimously approved this.
The problem she has is that what the Planning Board didn’t look at was
really anything beyond this lot. They
did not look at the broader question as to if we should be increasing commercial
zoning in Emerald Isle. Much of the
commercial district that is present now is not developed and we have a lot of
vacant store-fronts too. She is not
really convinced that there is a need for more. According to the Emerald Isle
Town Survey that was sent out in the year of 2000, property owners are less than
enthusiastic about more commercial development in town.
632 wanted areas zoned for business to remain the same and only 60 wanted
to see the commercial district increase in size.
For that reason, she felt that voting for this change would be going
against what property owners have said they want. Commissioner Farmer’s other concern is for what is
residential across the street, across Bogue Inlet Drive.
Commissioner
McElraft commented when the survey was done, it was probably thought that the
parcel behind Jordan’s Seafood was commercial since it is surrounded by
commercial property there. She did
not think that you could absolutely go by a survey when you don’t have all the
facts. In looking at this, she felt
it was quite proper as the Planning Board recommended it. She does not know that
the Planning Board didn’t take all the other adjacent properties into
consideration. She thinks they did.
Mayor
Schools commented that the way it is now, there is not much property between the
residential and commercial and what they have proposed will require a buffer.
Mr. Rush said this is correct. The buffers are discussed in the
Background information above.
Commissioner
Messer said he could not imagine anyone wanting to build a house that would back
up to Jordan’s and to the Bar with a 15-foot set-back.
The property will probably stay just like it is.
It makes no sense to build a house there.
Mayor
Schools implied this looks like a good way to get away from the 15-foot setback
to a 50 foot plus buffer.
Commissioner
Farmer questioned having a driveway if there were a 15-foot setback?
Mr. Rush replied there could be one.
Mayor
Schools asked for a vote.
The board’s vote was split, 3-2, with
Commissioners Eckhardt, McElraft and Messer voting for and Commissioners Marks
and Farmer voting against approval. Motion
carried for first reading.
NOTE:
This item will require a second reading on July 9, 2002 for final
approval.
FINAL PLAT – WEST END SUBDIVISION
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Commissioners is scheduled to consider the final plat for
West End subdivision at the June 11 meeting.
The applicant, Mr. Jerry Cook, is seeking final plat approval for a 23
lot residential subdivision on the north side of Coast Guard Road near the
southern curve of Coast Guard Road near the Point.
The Planning Board discussed the
final plat for West End at its March and April meetings, and recommended a
one-year time extension for Mr. Cook to complete required subdivision
improvements (5-1 vote). Mr. Cook
has not yet initiated required common driveway improvements and the removal of
an old road bed in the subdivision, but is seeking final plat approval by
posting a surety for the value of the improvements, as authorized in Section
18-22 (a) (3). The majority of the
Planning Board felt strongly that Mr. Cook should be required to at least
initiate completion of the required improvements before utilizing the surety
option, and for that reason they did not recommend final plat approval, but
rather a one-year time extension. Mr.
Cook is not satisfied with a one-year extension, and is requesting that the
Board of Commissioners consider his request for final plat approval regardless
of the Planning Board’s recommendation.
Although the majority of the
Planning Board felt strongly about the fact that Mr. Cook had not yet initiated
the required improvements, the Town’s ordinance does allow Mr. Cook to post a
surety in lieu of the required improvements.
This matter has been discussed with Town Attorney Derek Taylor, and he
and Mr. Rush are both of the opinion that Mr. Cook has the option to utilize
that provision in the Town’s ordinance, and that his final plat can not be
denied for that reason. Mr. Cook
has posted a letter-of-credit in the amount of $65,000 to cover the cost of
these improvements. Public Works
Director Bob Conrad has estimated the cost of the required improvements at
approximately $40,000, and the amount of the letter of credit is set at $65,000
to 1) cover any potential cost over-runs, and
2) cover Town administrative costs to manage the construction of the
required improvements in the event that Mr. Cook does not complete the
improvements by May 14, 2003. If
the Board grants final plat approval, Mr. Cook will have a period of one year to
install the required improvements. If
the required improvements are not installed by May 14, 2003, the Town can redeem
the letter-of-credit anytime between May 15 and September 14, 2003.
The Town would then complete the required improvements associated with
the subdivision.
There have been several concerns
expressed about this subdivision. Mr.
Rush has worked closely with Mr. Cook to address the concerns that are valid
with regard to compliance with the Town’s development ordinances.
The known remaining concerns were outlined in an email to Mr. Cook on May
23, 2002, and Mr. Cook has addressed each of these concerns in the documents
submitted for final plat approval.
There are two wetlands area, one larger one located in the corner close
to the bend and there is also an area of isolated wetlands in the southeastern
corner of the tract. The applicant
has submitted that he plans to fill approximately 9400 square feet of wetlands
for this subdivision and in accords with the town’s new Storm Water Ordinance,
he is proposing to construct at least 9400 square feet of new wetlands on the
tract directly across from the 23 lot subdivision on Coast Guard Road.
The tract is currently classified as wetlands.
There is about an acre of upland area and there will be a minimum of 9400
square feet of new wetlands created on the site.
This tract has been included on the final plat of the West End
Subdivision in order to meet the storm water requirements for wetlands filling
issues associated with the subdivision.
Mr. Jerry Cook came forward and introduced John Odum, Surveyor and
Attorney John Wessel, who is also town attorney for Wrightsville Beach who are
here to help answer any questions.
Commissioner McElraft asked if Mr. Cook was complying with the
ordinances? Mr. Cook said he has
tried to comply with all town ordinances and his intention is to do that and in
fact he will go way beyond most of the ordinances.
Commissioner Messer asked what date the preliminary plat approval was
received on this project? Mr. Cook
answered the preliminary plat approval, and he may be off a month, occurred in
April 1999. Just after that time
the town got involved with the storm water and trying to do something with it.
Then Town Manager Pete Allen asked Mr. Cook if he was willing to include
his property as part of the solution and he acknowledged he was and the town
said “Go away, don’t come back, don’t talk to us, until we solve the storm
water problem”. When he heard
Pete Allen was leaving as Town Manager, he took Mr. Allen to lunch to wish him
good luck. Then Commissioner John
Wootten came along and told Mr. Cook that his year was up.
Mr. Cook asked what Mr. Wootten meant because he was told to go away.
That was when Mr. Cook returned a year ago and asked for an extension
that was granted by the board for a year. Mr.
Cook related he was doing what the town asked him to do and didn’t know that
he needed the extension until Mr. Wootten said something to him.
Mr. Cook related that one of the reason for having a “Letter of
Credit” is that just after the approval of the preliminary plat in 1999, he
sent a check to the Health Department in Carteret County to get their written
approval and he finally received that in March of this year. Almost three years
went by before the Health Department answered his request.
Without the Health Departments approval, he did not feel like he could do
anything development wise and that was the reason for putting up the “Letter
of Credit”.
Mayor Schools asked when Mr. Cook anticipated starting and finishing it?
Mr. Cook said he did not think it would take too long to finish.
(1) He is not sure the town wants him to do it until September or October
when the crowds thin out a little before they start doing very much work there
and (2) the landscaping cannot be done until fall.
He would anticipate having worked on it by late fall.
Commissioner Marks was concerned about the driveways on Coast Guard Road
and asked about the 8 entrances on to Coast Guard Road.
Mr. Cook said he understood her concerns and explained that by having the
semi-circular driveway it allows the fire trucks and EMS trucks work well for
them if you have a one-way in and one-way out.
No one ever backs into Coast Guard Road, which makes it much safer.
It gives a place for trash cans, mail boxes, etc., and a truck can pull
off the road and never have to back out onto the road.
Everything is always going forward and the driver can always see the
traffic. If a single driveway where all four lots come off of, if someone pulls
in and realizes they are in the wrong spot, they only way to get back onto Coast
Guard Road is to back out
Commissioner Farmer said the preliminary plat was approved even before
she and Commissioner McElraft were on the Board.
Commissioner Eckhardt commented that he assumes the wetlands area that
was used to mitigate the flooding problems in the area is no longer available to
the town. Mr. Cook said he would
not assume that. Mr. Cook said the area on the South side of Coast Guard Road is
probably still available just as it has been in the past.
Commissioner Farmer said it was her understanding that the wetland that
is on the sound side in Mr. Cook’s property was part of the mitigation for the
flooding that was in Wyndtree of which Mr. Cook was a part of the developers.
It was used to bring storm water from that subdivision on Coast Guard
Road. Mr. Cook said personally he
did not give that permission. He was not aware of that permission until Pete Allen gave him
a copy of the letter but he never gave that permission. He does not have a real problem with what has been done in
the past. The town also put a berm
on old Coast Guard Road without asking and he does have a problem with that.
Mr. Cook said from the very beginning he has always been willing to push
the wheel and as far as the storm water on the west end of the island, it can be
worked out.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked of the north and south were connected? Mr. Cook said he has been told there is a pipe under the
road.
Commissioner McElraft made a motion to approve the final plat of
the West End Subdivision and the board’s vote was unanimous, 5-0.
FINAL PLAT – REED DRIVE COMMERCIAL PARK
BACKGROUND: The Board of
Commissioners is asked to consider the final plat for the Reed Drive Commercial
Park subdivision at the June 11 meeting. The
applicant, Mrs. Paxon Holz, is seeking final plat approval for a 2 lot
commercial subdivision on the west side of Coast Guard Road near its
intersection with NC 58.
The Planning Board discussed the
final plat for Reed Drive Commercial Park at its April and May meetings, and
unanimously recommends approval of the final plat. All required subdivision improvements have been completed,
and Public Works Director Bob Conrad and Chief Building Inspector Jim Taylor
have verified that the construction is consistent with Town standards and the
preliminary plat.
When the preliminary plat was
approved in December 2001, most of the concerns associated with this subdivision
were regarding traffic patterns near the Reed Drive / Coast Guard Road
intersection. As a result, the
preliminary plat was approved with a right-turn-in only feature at this
intersection. The board has
stressed the importance of constructing this feature in such a manner so that it
is effective in preventing illegal straight-through movements from Reed Drive
and illegal left-turn movements off of Coast Guard Road.
The applicant’s representatives have worked diligently to maximize the
effectiveness of the right-turn-in only feature. The entrance to Reed Drive contains a larger turning area for
vehicles exiting Coast Guard Road entering the subdivision, the entrance to the
subdivision is offset from existing Reed Drive across Coast Guard Road, and
decorative landscape boulders have been placed in the areas adjacent to the new
roadway to further prevent vehicles from making a straight-through movement from
Reed Drive. There will also be
several traffic control signs and markings installed in this area.
These signs are on order and should arrive within the next month.
If these approaches do not prove to be effective, the Town may want to
consider installing barriers in the center of Coast Guard Road to prevent
illegal turn movements. Bob Conrad,
Public Works Director has devised a plan for the placement of barriers that may
be effective and acceptable if the need arises in the future. Mr. Conrad’s proposal would not limit any other turning
movements at this intersection.
Because the property is currently
undeveloped, we do not anticipate any immediate traffic impacts associated with
the new subdivision. The Town will
have the opportunity to review specific commercial development plans for the
lots in the subdivision as development is proposed.
One item that the Board may want to consider when the lots are developed
is a requirement for the developer to install a right-turn lane on Coast Guard
Road into the subdivision between Reed Drive and NC 58.
Additional research will be necessary to insure that the Town has the
appropriate ordinances in place to require such an improvement.
In accordance with town ordinances it is required that the developers
present documents creating the Home Owners Association, the By-Laws of the
Restrictive Covenants and a budget for that Owner’s Association. The
developers have provided those documents. Everything appears to be in accordance
with the town ordinances.
Mr. John McLean, associated with the developers, provided Pictures of the
roadway and they were asked to show the alignment of the road on the final plat
within the right-of-way on Coast Guard Road and which has been done that also.
Commissioner Farmer asked about signs being installed.
Mr. Rush said the signs have been ordered and received within the last
day or so but have not been installed yet.
The town ordered the signs but will be reimbursed by the applicant for
the cost of the signs.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked why, at this time, is the town requesting
signs?
Mr. Rush replied that several
concerns were raised about the traffic patterns that might occur for this new
subdivision and it is to make an effort to direct people in the appropriate
manner.
Commissioner Eckhardt thanked Mr. McLean for taking him around the
property as it helped tremendously. He
suggested more of that should be done. One thing he questions was almost the
direct drive out on Coast Guard Road from the Reed Drive Extension.
Mr. McLean assured him that was town property, not the owners property
and that in the future, depending on what the usage of that property is, that
direct link from Reed Drive across Coast Guard Road into the subdivision could
be alleviated and Commissioner Eckhardt asked if this were true?
Mr. Rush answered “Yes”. Mr.
Rush went on to say the design of that intersection at this time does an
adequate job of prohibiting people from making a direct connection from Reed
Drive into the subdivision or making a left hand turn from Coast Guard Road into
the subdivision. In the event
problems are found there, a plan for centerline dividers are planned to enhance
the assurance that people could not make those moves.
Mr. Rush suggested monitoring the situation and seeing if this is
something the board would like to proceed with.
Commissioner Messer made a motion to approve the final plat for
Reed Drive Commercial Park and the board’s vote was unanimous with a vote of
5-0.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 – BEACH AND SHORE
REGULATIONS – TO REGULATE BEACH BULLDOZING ACTIVITIES
BACKGROUND: The
attached ordinance amendment would prohibit future beach bulldozing activities
in Emerald Isle, except in situations in which the structure is imminently
threatened. This ordinance is
presented in anticipation of the Emerald Isle beach nourishment project, which
is scheduled to begin construction in November 2002.
After initial discussion at the May 15 meeting, the ordinance is now
presented for formal consideration. The
attached ordinance amendment reflects the changes discussed by the Board at the
May 15 meeting.
CAMA
authorizes beach bulldozing through a 3-year minor permit.
This permit authorizes beach bulldozing in areas experiencing erosion,
but structures need not be imminently threatened.
(CAMA regulations are scheduled to change in August 2002, and beach
bulldozing permits will then expire after 30 days.)
As of April 16, there were 156 currently authorized 3-year minor beach
bulldozing permits in Emerald Isle, with the vast majority (123) of these are
set to expire on December 31, 2002. With
the beach nourishment project set to begin, there exists the possibility that
oceanfront property owners will seek to bulldoze prior to the nourishment
project, thereby increasing the necessary volume of sand on the berm and/or
decreasing the overall effectiveness of the nourishment project.
The adoption of this ordinance would prevent this from occurring, except
in situations in which the structure is imminently threatened.
The attached ordinance will also prevent the bulldozing of newly placed
nourishment sand after the nourishment project is complete, and will help to
ensure that the nourished beach maintains its design profile.
Although CAMA does permit beach bulldozing, the adoption of this
ordinance would take precedent over the CAMA permit, as it would be more
restrictive than CAMA regulations.
The
Emerald Isle ordinance, as it is currently written, classifies a structure as
imminently threatened if the foundation of the structure and / or the septic
system is within 20 feet of the toe of the erosion scarp.
The Board should note that this language has been changed as a result of
the Board’s discussion at the May 15 meeting.
The May 15 version did not include ‘the septic system’ in the
definition of imminently threatened. The
NC Division of Coastal Management has been consulted and their definition of
imminently threatened does actually include ‘the septic system’. The Board and the public should note, however, that
classification of a structure as imminently threatened does not automatically
guarantee that the owner will be allowed to engage in beach bulldozing
activities. Depending on the
availability of dry sand beach to be used as the borrow source, the position of
the high water mark, and turtle nesting concerns, the owner may have to secure
additional permits in order to engage in beach bulldozing activities.
The
Board also received public comment at the May 15 meeting requesting different
effective dates for different areas of the beach strand.
The rationale for this request was that the beach nourishment project
will be conducted over two winter seasons, and that a storm may impact the
western phase properties after the eastern phase is completed.
As noted in the ordinance language, there is a provision whereby the
Board of Commissioners can grant a general waiver of the beach bulldozing
prohibition following a natural disaster. Rather
than establishing different effective dates for the ordinance, the Board may
wish to utilize this authority if it becomes necessary or desirable to allow
beach bulldozing after a major storm event.
Commissioner Eckhardt commented he was concerned that the board has to
deal with the ordinance by making the changes.
He agrees, especially when it comes down to the west end, that bulldozing
needs to be allowed to protect the septic system because these owners are not
going to get any beach nourishment until 2003-2004. The problem is if the septic
systems through to the Eastern Regional Access that are not 20 feet from the toe
of the dunes. This leaves it open
November 1st, nourishment or no nourishment, it really doesn’t
matter, the bulldozers can be out there given a CAMA Permit.
He feels the door has been left open. Commissioner Eckhardt indicated
what he would like to see done is take a breath, this time, and somehow come up
with some language that will address Phase I and Phase II.
Pine Knoll Shores came up with what they thought to be a solid ordinance
and people are violating it anyway. Commissioner
Eckhardt is afraid Emerald Isle will get the same thing from 1st Street through
30th Street.
Mr. Rush indicated he would be happy to do additional research to the
ordinance in any way the board desired.
Commissioner Farmer asked if it was possible to write an ordinance
effective for a time? Attorney
Taylor said he guesses you could write one and amend it later but he has never
seen one. What it would say is for this period of time he thought.
Attorney Taylor suggested if the board wants to establish the
effectiveness of the ordinance for a particular geographical area and
justification of the reason for it can be done, then the board could probably do
that.
Attorney Taylor addressed Commissioner Eckhardt’s concerns about
enforcement. He said one of the
problems int Pine Knoll Shores, he and Mr. Whitford discussed it, was the fines
were light and it didn’t address the 20 feet.
Emerald Isle’s ordinance has more teeth in it and it is a daily
recurring fine so it is expensive to violate this ordinance.
The issue of the 20 feet may have just have a geographical area that is
greatly affected than other areas and it could be defined with some sort of
certainty. The board could see of
they can create an ordinance for that purpose.
Commissioner Farmer said she does not think it would be so much the area
that is more greatly affected as the fact that one part of town is getting
re-nourishment one year and the other part has a whole year to wait before their
part of the project is done.
Attorney Taylor said he has not seen an ordinance of this type. He would need to check this outlandish statement he has just
made to be sure he is right but his feeling is that you can do that as long as
there is a reason for the classification differences between the properties.
The other thing to consider in this situation is, as one Commissioner has
pointed out, you will have bulldozing to save homes if they are in the 20 foot
area or they will be condemned. That
will happen. As to what this board wants to do with those properties down
there is really the crutch on which this ordinance should be drawn.
Do you want to allow them to save their homes waiting for re-nourishment
or not. The way this ordinance is designed will directly bear upon that
particular factor.
Commissioner Farmer stated she wished it were that black and white but
the problem is that the amount of sand the town will be getting is based on the
beach profile and by having a lot of beach bulldozing, you are changing the
profile so that that project ends up being less effective than it would have
been without the beach bulldozing. She
went on to say that you are taking sand that was lying on the beach and pushing
it up.
Commissioner McElraft said this would be prohibiting that.
Commissioner Farmer went on to say there are likely to be a lot of
properties that would qualify under that 20 foot for septic.
Mr. James Taylor said about 40 per-cent to 45 per-cent of lots on the
ocean on the numbered streets have septic systems that are seaward.
Commissioner Farmer reasoned that if what we are talking about is waiting
one month to get sand put on the beach in front of those so the project would be
more effective overall then this is what should be done.
Commissioner Messer said the way he read the article about the people in
Pine Knoll Shores who were in violation were not trying to save or protect
anything. They were trying to get a jump on nourishment to get more sand. He
thinks this board could prohibit that from happening.
Mayor Schools said nothing could be done until November 1st.
If a hurricane arrives, they will have to wait until November 1st
to do anything.
Commissioner Farmer suggested having the ability to say, “When such
work is authorized by the issuance of a general waiver of this section by the
Board of Commissioners following a natural disaster”. This language would take
care of that problem.
Commissioner Marks suggested tabling this item for now until some work
could be done on it. There is no
rush on doing this right now.
Commissioner Marks made a motion to table the Ordinance Amending
Chapter 5 – Beach and Shore Regulations – To Regulate Beach Bulldozing
Activities for further study. The
board voted unanimously with a vote of 5-0.
Mr. Rush asked for clarification if the additional information the board
wanted was a count of the structures where the septic systems are currently
located seaward to the house in relation to the total number of properties? Commissioner Marks said she has a feeling that most of the
dwellings on the west end itself is really in no danger but would like to get an
idea of what the situation is.
Commissioner Farmer said the argument was that it could not be made a
blanket. It cannot be done the way
Pine Knoll Shores did it because Emerald Isle’s is a two-year project and not
a one-year and the people who are not getting re-nourishment the first year
should be able to bulldoze if they need to.
Commissioner McElraft reminded Commissioner Farmer that is why there
should be a general waiver, so the board can, after a natural disaster, go in
and give a general waiver.
Mr. Rush said if there is no natural disaster, you would not allow any
bulldozing in the western area of town unless they are within 20 feet of the
septic field.
Commissioner Messer made note that most of the ones on the western end is
on the sound side and most on the eastern end is on the sea side.
Commissioner Eckhardt interjected he does not think the numbers are
important whether it be 6 or 60. He
thinks the board is trying to get at the question of can the ordinance be
written so that it addresses the fact that the west end properties are not going
to be nourished for another year and address those properties on the east end
which probably, based on what is here, could begin to plow November 1st.
Mr. Rush clarified “You want to allow the eastern end properties to
bulldoze if they are imminently threatened”?
Commissioner Eckhardt said he does not know that they want to do that.
All he wants is to write the ordinance so that the board can control
beach bulldozing for the east end because it seems there is a loop hole now.
Commissioner McElraft said if someone’s house is imminent threatened,
if there is sand there and they have not had nourishment yet, absolutely they
should be able to protect their house before that nourishment gets there.
Commissioner Eckhardt made note he does not think at this time there is
any reason to argue that because it has been covered in the ordinance. What he is saying, there is a loop hole as far as whether
someone is threatened or not threatened, they can get the bulldozer out November
1st.
Mr. Rush asked if the board was looking to tighten up the ability to
bulldoze? Make it more stringent
than it is currently in the ordinance before the board?
Commissioner McElraft asked who would make the decision of a property is
imminently threatened and Building Inspector Jimmy Taylor answered he would.
The way it would be determined would of course be a site visit and would
it also would apply to the building foundation and well as the septic system
with the erosion escarpment is within 20 feet or less, then they would quality
under this ordinance for assistance.
Commissioner McElraft does not want it to get any stricter.
This is as strict as she wants it to get. If the structures and septic fields are threatened within 20
feet then they bulldoze. She thinks
the ordinance is written exactly as the board wanted it to start with.
Mayor Schools interjected this item had been tabled and the board needs
to figure out what Mr. Rush needs to do between this meeting and the next one
next month.
Commissioner Eckhart is not trying to tighten up the ordinance. He is only trying to take the loop hole out.
The loop hole is that on November 1st someone can go to CAMA
and get a permit to bulldoze, danger or no danger, because right now, today,
their septic field is within 20 feet of the toe of the dune.
November 1st they go to CAMA and get the permit no matter what
this board says. Nourishment or no nourishment! This would be before the
nourishment.
Commissioner
Farmer posed the question of how far is the edge of the septic field from the
foundation and Jimmy Taylor replied it would be hard to say.
It would be based on the dates the houses were built and most of the time
the Health Department has no record of them and they have to go out and evaluate
them.
Commissioner Farmer does not think anyone is arguing protecting the
structure. The problem is that when
the re-nourishment project is imminent, the concern is that a lot of these
houses are already going to comply because their septic fields are going to be
within 20 feet. Basically, the town
is just letting everybody bulldoze.
Mr. Taylor relayed to the Commissioners he had a couple of applicants
this past Spring who proposed for a beach push under the exemption.
They were imminently threatened; in fact they were a little less than 20
feet, based on where the mean high water mark was which determines the area that
you have left to push. In this
particular instance, where the mean high water mark was, there was not enough
available material landward of the mean high water mark to achieve the push.
Therefore, that would require going below mean high water, which at that
point in time, would take a Major CAMA Permit and a State Dredge and Fill
Permit. Based on the time frame and
when the moratorium became effective, he was not able to pursue that and
therefore he was not able to push. The
town does have structures that are imminently threatened.
Mr. Rush said there are other structures on the beach that are not
imminently threatened; they can currently procure a CAMA Permit for beach
bulldozing. This ordinance would
not allow them to do that anymore.
Commissioner Farmer said, again, the issue is infrastructure. She thinks anyone should be able to push to protect their
structures even though beach bulldozing does nothing to protect them at all.
The issue is that when there is a re-nourishment project coming in on the
east end where a lot of these septic fields are so close to the beach, does the
town want people pushing up sand that is going to be the basis of its project
when if they wait a month they would have enough sand in front of them and they
would not be imminently threatened anymore.
The problem would be taken care of.
Mayor Schools questioned about the people who have to wait 4 to 5 months.
Some will get sand starting December 1, and others in the first phase
will have to wait until March.
Mr.
Rush said the original version did not mention the septic field. It only
mentioned within 20 feet of the structure.
Based on the discussion in May where the language was amended, the board
can go back to the original language if that clearly indicates the board’s
intent. Mr. Rush offered to come up
with some alternatives to be a little more stringent and close the loop hole if
the board wants him to.
Mr. Rush stated he thinks he is to come up
with language that would not make it as easy or not allow bulldozing in as many
instances as would be allowed under this ordinance and asked if this was a fair
statement. Commissioner Farmer answered, not from her. Her septic field must be
25 feet from her house or maybe 30 feet from her house.
She would like Mr. Rush to take a look at this.
Building Inspector Taylor input that you have your septic tank and
distribution box and then the drain field as part of the system.
A lot of those cases, where most are currently imminently threatened, the
septic tanks are not exposed but he would venture they are not more than 30 feet
otherwise, they would be exposed. All
repairs the Health Department does approve, they do require it be at least
landward of the structure.
Commissioner McElraft asked, for those who have septic systems within 20
feet, right now could beach bulldoze. With
this ordinance stating it has to be imminently threatened, it is any more likely
or less likely that they would be able to beach bulldoze.
Mr. Taylor answered that in most cases, if they are within 20 feet they
do not know that until it becomes exposed, to say that they are within 20 feet,
there would have to be some type of evaluation to find out where the system is.
Commissioner McElraft said if it was that close, she wants that house
protected until we get beach nourishment.
Mr. Taylor answered a question that Commissioner Marks asked regarding
alternatives, saying that one thing about beach bulldozing and the way the CAMA
Regulations refer to that activity, it is only to reinforced the suffered dunes
that has been eroded. It is just to
reinforce those dunes and to try to
protect them from continuing to erode. There
is one other alternative to protect your structure.
The only other one would be to sandbag at that time. That is truly a
protection of the structure. Beach
bulldozing activity only reinforces the erosion escarpment dune.
Commissioner McElraft stated she is fine with beach bulldozing for those
that are imminently threatened but we have been having those who are not
threatened doing bulldozing. This
is why she is in favor of this. She
is not in favor of taking someone’s property that is imminently threatened and
allowing it to go into the water before the nourishment project.
That is what they are going to be paying big dollars for.
Commissioner Farmer agreed with Commissioner McElraft that she is not
either. The issue is the septic
system.
Attorney Taylor asked that a few things be clarified because he is going
to have a part in the development of this ordinance.
He said he knows there is one problem with the issue of the 20 foot
setback from the septic system but he also thinks he heard Commissioner Eckhardt
say that if they got the permit and then the re-nourishment came that they could
push the nourished sand up. He
asked if this was the loop hole Commissioner Eckhardt wanted closed?
Commissioner Eckhardt replied he had not even thought of that.
Attorney Taylor said from that respect, the language could be made clear
as long as that imminent problem exists, they could do it, but if that ever
changes they could not. If by
chance we got a little wind and built up the sand that would invalidate the
permit. They would have to remain in this imminent situation.
Jimmy
Taylor indicated there are three ways to permit bulldozing, (1) currently with
an exemption, which is by CAMA definition if you are imminent threatened, (2) a
General Permit which would be a one time push and (3) a Minor Permit which is a
3 year push. Mr. Taylor said he
thinks the rules will change in August on the 3-year push and the 3-year will be
taken out of it.
Commissioner
McElraft asked if right now you have a 3-year permit and it is not imminently
threatened you are not allowed to beach bulldoze are you?
Jimmy Taylor answered that there is a moratorium at this time based on
the sea turtle nesting, however any erosion would give you an escarpment.
If you have the escarpment present you would qualify for the push
currently.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 – SUBDIVISIONS –
REGARDING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
BACKGROUND:
The Board is being asked to consideration an ordinance amending the
subdivision ordinance regarding final plat approval.
The proposed ordinance adjusts the deadline for completing required
subdivision improvements for certain subdivisions and establishes more stringent
criteria for the use of a surety in lieu of completing required subdivision
improvements.
Commissioner
Farmer expressed concern at the May meeting about the fact that the Town’s
subdivision ordinance allows a subdivider to utilize a surety to meet the
requirements for final plat approval. The
Board referred this matter to the Planning Board for further study and a
recommendation, and the Planning Board discussed this issue at their May meeting
and again at a special meeting on June 3. The
Planning Board developed the recommendations included in the attached ordinance,
and I drafted the language in the ordinance for the Board to consider at the
June 11 meeting.
The
Planning Board has recommend that a subdivider no longer have the option of
utilizing a surety in lieu of completing the required improvements, unless the
required improvements are substantially complete, with only punch list items
remaining. The attached ordinance
specifies that if a subdivider utilizes this option, a letter-of-credit must be
utilized, and the amount must be equal to 150% of the estimated cost of the
remaining improvements. In light of
concerns about the length of time necessary to secure state and federal permits
for projects within the CAMA Area of Environmental Concern, the Planning Board
also recommends that the deadline for completing required subdivision
improvements for projects in the AEC be extended to 2 years, compared to the 1
year limit currently included in the ordinance.
The 1 year limit would continue to apply to all projects not in the AEC.
ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 18 - SUBDIVISIONS
–
REGARDING
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
Whereas, the Emerald Isle
subdivision ordinance, as it is currently written, allows a subdivider to post a
surety to secure final plat approval in lieu of constructing the required
subdivision improvements, and
Whereas, it is the intent
of this ordinance to allow this practice only when required improvements are
substantially complete, and not to enable a subdivider to post a surety for the
entire value of required improvements, and
Whereas, the Planning Board
has recommended the proposed ordinance amendment, by a unanimous vote,
Now, therefore, be it ordained
by the Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners that Chapter 18- Subdivisions is
hereby amended as follows:
1.
Section 18-21 Preliminary plats (b) is amended to read as follows:
Sec.
18-21. Preliminary plats
(b)
Approval of a preliminary plat shall constitute tentative
approval of a final subdivision plat. Such approval shall be valid for a period
of one (1) year, with the exception of preliminary plats for subdivisions
located within the NC Coastal Area Management Act Area of Environmental Concern
(AEC), for which such approval shall be valid for a period of two (2) years.
A preliminary plat shall be drawn at a scale of not less than one hundred
(100) feet to the inch and show the following:
(1)
Name. The subdivision name, the names and
addresses of the owners and the designer of the subdivision and his
qualifications.
(2)
Date, etc. Date, approximate north arrow and scale
(3)
Boundaries. The boundary line of the tract to be
subdivided drawn accurately to scale and with accurate linear and angular
dimensions.
(4)
Location map. A map with a scale of not less
than one (1) inch equals one thousand (1,000) feet showing the location of the
subdivision.
(5)
Contours and interval. Contours with a vertical
interval of two (2) feet refer to sea level datum, except that contours shall
not be required in subdivisions not involving new street right-of-way
dedications.
(6)
Primary dunes. The location of the primary
dunes as established by CAMA.
(7)
Existing property lines, etc.
The location of existing and platted property lines, streets, buildings,
watercourses, railroads, bridges, water mains, sewers, culverts, drainpipes, and
public utility easements, both on the land to be subdivided and on the land
immediately adjoining and any other pertinent characteristics of the land. The
names of adjoining subdivisions or the names of record owners of adjoining
parcels of unsubdivided land.
(8)
Proposed improvements. The names, proposed locations,
and approximate dimensions of all proposed improvements.
(9)
Proposed changes. In all cases, shall be shown in
a manner that will distinguish them clearly from the existing characteristics of
the land
(10)
Drainage. The preliminary plat shall also
indicate and show surface water drainage plans and methods.
2.
Section 18-22 Final plat (a) is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 18-22. Final plat
Upon approval of the preliminary plat by the town board of
commissioners, the subdivider may proceed with the preparation of the final
plat, and the construction of required improvements in accordance with the
approved preliminary plat and the requirements of this chapter. Prior to
approval of the final plat, the subdivider must complete the construction of all required improvements, or
substantially complete all required improvements and guarantee completion by
posting a letter-of-credit in accordance with Section 18-22 (b)(3).
(a)
The town planning
board shall review the final plat to insure that the subdivision is equal to or
exceeds the standards of this chapter and the applicable zoning regulations.
Upon determination that these standards have been achieved, the planning board
shall recommend to the town board of commissioners that the final subdivision
plat be approved.
(1)
Submitting
final plat. After
the preliminary plat has been approved, the final subdivision plat, as described
in section 18-24, shall be prepared and submitted for final approval within one
(1) year after approval of the preliminary plat, with the exception of the final subdivision plat for
subdivisions located within the NC Coastal Area Management Act Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC), which shall be prepared and submitted for final
approval within two (2) years after approval of the preliminary plat.
Such owner
or subdivider shall submit an original linen, film, or other permanent material
tracing, one (1) print on cloth, one (1) sepia, and two (2) blueprint copies of
the final plat, properly signed and executed as required for recording in the
office of the register of deeds of the county along with the necessary probate
and recording fees to the planning board chairman. Upon approval by the town
board of commissioners, the planning board chairman, or designee, shall forward
the final plat to the register of deeds for recording.
(2)
Conformity
with preliminary plat.
The final plat shall conform with the preliminary plat as approved, and, if
desired by the owner or subdivider, it may constitute only that portion of the
approved preliminary plat which he proposes to record and develop at the time
provided; however that:
a.
The planning board shall find that the subdivision is reasonably located
with respect to existing roads and utility lines, and
b.
Such portion shall conform to all requirements of this chapter
(3)
Surety bonds
may be required. Letter-of-credit
may be utilized to meet requirements for final plat approval if improvements are
substantially complete. If
the required improvements and utilities are substantially complete, not
with only punch list items remaining installed before the final plat
is submitted for approval, the owner or subdivider shall have the right
to provide a letter-of-credit town board of commissioners shall require a
surety bond in such an amount equal to 150% of the estimated cost
of the remaining improvements to insure the installation of
improvements and utilities. Such sureties The letter-of-credit shall
guarantee the installation construction of required improvements
and utilities within a specific period of time to the standards set forth
within this chapter and shall satisfy the requirements of this section to
secure final plat approval. The
expiration date on the letter-of-credit shall be established by the town board
of commissioners at the time of final plat approval.
(b) &nb