July 9, 2002
Agenda
July 9, 2002
Minutes
|
Action Agenda |
MINUTES OF REGULAR
SCHEDULED MEETING
OF THE EMERALD
ISLE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TUESDAY, JULY 9,
2002 – 7:00 P.M. – TOWN HALL
Mayor Art Schools called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Board members present were Commissioners McElraft, Farmer,
Marks, Messer, Eckhardt. Staff
members present were Town Manager Frank Rush, Town Attorney Derek Taylor, Town
Clerk Carolyn Custy.
a. Minutes of Regular Meeting – June 11, 2002
b. Minutes of Special Meeting – April 29, 2002
c. Minutes of Special Meeting – June 10, 2002
d. Tax Refunds / Releases
e. Resolution Authorizing Final CAMA Grant Application –
Lee Street / Seagull Drive Public Access Walkways
Motion was made by Commissioner Eckhardt to adopt the Consent Agenda as written and approve all items listed. 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 (Second Reading)
Background: Mr. Rush commented that this is the second reading of a rezoning request from Mr. William Farrington. Mr. Farrington is requesting the rezoning of 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). This rezoning was approved by a 3-2 vote at the June 11 meeting. Because the rezoning did not receive the required 4-1 super-majority vote on its first reading, the rezoning request has been scheduled for the second reading on July 9. A simple 3-2 majority vote on the second reading would officially approve the rezoning request.
The same supporting materials that were distributed to the Board of Commissioners prior to the June meeting for easy review of the issues associated with this rezoning request has been included. The Board should note that another public hearing on this rezoning request has been scheduled for the July 9 meeting, and should be conducted prior to voting on this matter. After the June 11 meeting, it was learned that staff had not mailed the required notice to adjacent property owners on the other side of Bogue Inlet Drive, as required by law. Staff was directed to re-notify all adjacent property owners, including those notified prior to the June public hearing, about the rezoning request and the second public hearing on July 9.
Town Manager Rush discussed the public notice oversight with Town Attorney Derek Taylor to determine if the Board’s vote on July 9 will still constitute the second reading of the rezoning request. The Town Attorney and Mr. Rush both believe that the Board’s vote on July 9 is the second reading, and only a simple 3-2 majority is required to officially approve the rezoning request.
Commissioner Marks made a motion
to open the Public Hearing and the board voted unanimously with a vote of 5-0.
There were no public comments on this issue.
Commissioner McElraft made a
motion to close the Public Hearing and the board voted unanimously with a vote
of 5-0.
Commissioner McElraft made a
motion to approve rezoning of approximately 2.0 acres of land near Bogue Inlet
Drive and NC 58 – from R-2 to B-3.
Commissioner Farmer indicated there were several reasons why she could not vote for this zoning change. The Planning Board approved a 50 foot buffer between the trees and the buildable portion of this parcel. That buffer has now been reduced to 35 feet plus a 15-foot setback on which a driveway and parking could be placed. She has knowledge of at least one Planning Board member who is unhappy about this change. She was concerned about sometime in the future the 35 feet deep lots that would be remaining may be sold without the buyers being made aware that they are too small to be buildable. There is already a large commercial district on Emerald Drive. Much of it has yet to be developed and of the developed portion, there are a number of vacant storefronts. She questioned if the town needs to be adding more land to the commercial district. Increasing the commercial district goes against what the people said in the 2000 survey that they wanted to see in Emerald Isle. Sixty of the approximately 1,000 respondents wanted to see the commercial district increased; 623 did not. Those responses were totally consistent with the previous survey done in 1990. It is Commissioner Farmer’s belief that this zoning change will encroach on the residential district and she could not support it.
Commissioner Eckhardt’s understanding was that the 50-foot buffer was a 50-foot buffer. Going back to the restrictions that was placed, it mentions the 50 feet as a vegetative buffer that should be left in as near a natural state as possible with no development therein except for the clearing or removal of dead or decayed plants, trees and vegetation. To him this was truly a 50-foot vegetative buffer and that was why he voted for it. He asked that someone explain to him when a vegetative buffer is not a vegetative buffer.
Mr. Rush replied the rezoning request presented to the board at the June meeting did not have those restrictions because that was the recommendations that came from the Planning Board. He presented an alternative scenario, which left the creek and 35 feet directly south of the creek in R-2 zoning. In the Planning Board’s proposal that area would have been in B-3 and left as a vegetative buffer. There was some question as to whether or not that was a legal recommendation from the Planning Board. Although the developer was quite willing to provide them, they were not enforceable and you cannot apply additional conditions to one property in a zoning district that you do not apply to all properties in that zoning district. This would be contract zoning.
What has been presented to the board achieves the same goals that the Planning Board recommendations achieved but in a manner that would not be viewed as Contract Zoning.
Mr. Rush noted that the buffer that remains, the 35 feet width remaining in R-2 zoning, for all practical purposes could not be developed. The parking for commercial uses could not be in that area and it is not wide enough to put a single-family home on that lot. There is essentially nothing that could be done with that area of the property. Commissioner Farmer is correct in her assumption that the 15-foot setback area remaining in R-2 zoning can be used for parking lots or sidewalks or driveways or whatever.
Commissioner Marks asked Mr. Billy Farrington if he was in agreement to the Town Manager’s suggestion that the 35-feet be kept in a natural vegetative state and Mr. Farrington answered that he would.
Commissioner McElraft indicated she had done her own survey and most people thought this area was already commercial. She thinks the results of the survey are very important.
Attorney Derek Taylor cautioned the board that things Mr. Farrington has said he will put in his deed should not enter into their decision at all. Their decision is whether this piece of property, with all possible uses of the property under the new zoning that has come forward, is in conformity with the area, it is good for the town generally and meets with the town’s plan. If thought is given to what he has promised to do, then the board is Contract Zoning. It must be looked at as a whole, not just the deed level.
Mayor Schools called for a vote on Commissioner McElraft’s motion to approve rezoning of approximately 2.0 acres of land near Bogue Inlet Drive and NC 58 – from R-2 to B-3 and the board’s vote was a split vote of 4-1. Voting in favor of the rezoning were Commissioners McElraft, Eckhardt, Marks and Messer. Voting against was Commissioner Farmer. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 – SUBDIVISIONS –
REGARDING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL (Second Reading)
Background:
The second reading of an ordinance amending the subdivision ordinance
regarding final plat approval is scheduled for the July 9 meeting.
The proposed ordinance adjusts the deadline for completing required
subdivision improvements for certain subdivisions and establishes more stringent
criteria for the use of a financial guarantee in lieu of completing required
subdivision improvements. This ordinance amendment was approved by a 3-2 vote at the
June 11 meeting. Because the
ordinance amendment did not receive the required 4-1 super-majority vote on its
first reading, it has been scheduled for the second reading on July 9.
A simple 3-2 majority vote on the second reading would officially approve
the ordinance amendment.
A
copy of the same supporting materials that were distributed to the Board of
Commissioners prior to the June meeting for easy review of the issues associated
with this ordinance amendment. The
Board should note that the attached ordinance amendment has been updated to also
allow the developer to post a cashiers check in lieu of completing required
subdivision improvements, as discussed at the Board’s June 11 meeting.
Commissioner Farmer made a motion
to approve the Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 – Subdivisions – Regarding
Final Plat Approval.
Commissioner McElraft reiterated why she was against approval of this
amendment. She is not against
holding someone’s money or Surety Bond until they get the improvements made. She thinks there are certain circumstances that will prevent
some of the requirements being done. She
thinks one thing that might happen is if the board starts asking people to put
their subdivision lighting in and then they sell it to someone else before the
final decision is made about what that subdivision is going to look like, then
there will be lighting that will have one design to it and a piece of property
that is different.
Commissioner Farmer commented this ordinance change will have no impact
whatsoever on most of the developers and she made it clear that most of the
developers do their subdivisions the right way.
Most get preliminary plat approval and then get to work making the
improvements shown on that preliminary plat. Those improvements are
substantially finished by the time they come back for final plat approval.
The purpose of the two-step approval process is for the Planning Board
and Board of Commissioners to make sure that what was agreed to on the
preliminary plat has actually gone on the ground. Her one concern is for the few who get preliminary plat
approval and then come back to the town for final approval having made few or no
improvements at all. The town is
left with assurances and a Surety Bond. Should
those assurances not be met the town is forced into the position of playing
General Contractor to see that permits are received and the work is done and she
feels town staff have better uses of their time. The town is also put into the position of being the “bad
guy” when people buy lots and come for permits and are told the town in fact
cannot give them permits because the subdivision was incomplete.
For the majority of the developers, there is no need for this ordinance
change.
Mayor Schools called for a vote.
The board’s
vote was a split vote, 3-2 with Commissioners Eckhardt, Farmer and Marks voting
for approval and Commissioners Messer and McElraft voting against.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 – ZONING – TO CORRECT
AN ERROR RESTRICTING THE NUMNBER OF STORIES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND DUPLEX
RESIDENTIAL USES
Background: Presented for the Board’s consideration is an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance to correct an error restricting the number of stories for single-family and duplex (two-family) residential uses. The attached ordinance would remove the current limit of three stories for single-family and duplex (two-family) residential structures, but would retain the maximum building height limit of forty (40) feet. A public hearing is required prior to adopting this ordinance amendment, and has been scheduled for the July 9 meeting.
This ordinance amendment was originally requested by Curtis Estes, a local building contractor, who is seeking to construct what is considered to be a four-story single-family dwelling according to the Town’s ordinances. When informed that the Town’s ordinance does not allow more than three stories, Mr. Estes requested that the Board consider amending the ordinance. After review of old meeting minutes and discussions with Board members serving on the previous Board, it now appears that it was not the previous Board’s intent to limit single-family and duplex (two-family) residential structures to three stories when the previous Board adopted building height amendments in March and May 2000.
Mr. Rush has reviewed copies of 1) a February 25, 2000 memo from then-Planning Board chairperson Ceil Saunders that references proposed changes for commercial and multi-family, 2) March 14, 2000 Board of Commissioners minutes when the building height in business districts was amended, and 3) May 8, 2000 Board of Commissioners minutes when the building height in other zoning districts was amended. A review of these documents appears to indicate that there was no intent to change the building height limit for single-family and duplex residential structures, nor limit these structures to three stories. The error appears to have been caused by the fact that our ordinances group the building height limits for single-family, duplex (two-family), and multi-family residential structures into the same sections, thus resulting in the same building height limits for single-family, duplex (two-family), and multi-family residential structures. It appears that when the language was amended for multi-family residential structures, they also inadvertently applied to single-family and duplex (two-family) residential structures.
The Board should note that the NC Building Code limits single-family and duplex (two-family) residential structures to three stories. However, the NC Building Code does allow a three-story building on pilings, provided that the piling level is not habitable (pilings plus three stories). A garage or storage area is permissible, but an improved habitable space is not. The Town’s ordinances consider the piling area, whether habitable or not, as a story, and this area would count toward the three story limit, which ultimately restricts a single-family or duplex (two-family) structure to two stories on pilings, or three stories on a slab. If the Board adopts the attached ordinance amendment, it would be permissible to build three stories on pilings (provided the piling level is not habitable) or three stories on a slab.
There is another related issue that should be addressed at some point in time. The Town’s ordinances require additional side and rear yard setbacks if a building is greater than 2 or 3 stories. The existing layout of single-family residential lots in town (many are 75 feet wide) may make it difficult for someone to build a house that is three stories on pilings, and meet the additional side-yard setback. It is my belief that this requirement was also intended to apply to multi-family structures rather than single-family and duplex (two-family) structures. The Planning Board is currently studying this issue, and will likely present a recommendation to the Board in the near future.
Mr. Rush commented that recently a builder came in with a building plan
for something that the town’s ordinance would consider to be 4 stories.
The Building Permit was denied. This
builder has requested that the board consider amending the ordinance.
After that request was made, it was realized that this was simply an
error that occurred at the time the previous board approved an amendment.
The town’s definition of a story is different from the North Carolina
Building Code definition. The
town’s ordinance, as it is now written with the 3-story limitation limits
someone to build a single-family residence or a duplex either 3-stories on a
slab or a piling foundation with 2-stories above that, whereas, the North
Carolina Building Code allows 3-stories on pilings or 3-stories on slab. The ordinance amendment as presented at this meeting simply
removes the limits on the number of stories on the single-family, duplex
residential uses. It maintains the
40-foot height required. There is
still some confusion over how the town applies the North Carolina Building Code
in town zoning ordinances, whether or not you can enclose the ground floor
piling area with 3-stories above this.
Mr. Jimmy Taylor said the NC Building Code definition for story is the
same one in use today and is also consistent with the new Code that will be
effective January 2003. Mr. Taylor
said the town is going to the International Model Code, which is a different
model code than what is being used now, however, the “story” definition is
the same in both codes.
Commissioner McElraft questioned how 4-stories have been allowed in the
past and Mr. Taylor answered by engineering certification for design, however
under the scope of Volume 7 which deals with one or two family and townhouses,
they are clearly limited to no more than 3-stories, whether a certified North
Carolina engineer seals that design or not it is still limited to no more than
3-stories. Volume 7 takes into consideration one-family, duplex and townhouses
only. Mr. Taylor indicated he was
under the impression that if a design professional could certify the design that
it was acceptable however after conferring with the Building Code Consultants at
the Department of Insurance, they corrected him and said the scope was only
2-story and 3-story. Anything over
the 3rd-story, you get into a higher level of fire protection, which
is not recognized, in Volume 7.
Mr. Rush felt that the town should go back and take a look at its
definition of a “story”.
Commissioner Messer asked if there was a conflict between the State
Building Code and town ordinances who was in control and Mr. Taylor answered
that the State Building Code was.
Mr. Curtis Estes, a builder on Emerald Isle commented he thought it was
3- stories with pilings underneath but that appears not to be the case.
Under the current definition of “story” it is 2-story on pilings
whether or not you enclose the bottom or not is considered a story.
Another point is that if you had another story you would have to comply
with additional sideline setbacks. He
views this as a serious issue especially if you are trying to comply with CAMA
setbacks, septic setbacks, natural areas, etc.
Commissioner Farmer implied that the Planning Board is looking at the
additional setback requirement and she thinks this has never been enforced.
Mr. Rush agreed. His guess is the intent of the additional setback requirement
was for multi-family structures. He doubts that it was intended to apply to
single-family and duplexes.
Commissioner Farmer said since the new ordinance language which is
reflecting the way it was suppose to read before there was any change is not
requiring the stories. She is not
convinced that the board needs to table this item.
Mr. Rush suggested talking a look at the definition of “stories” the
town code has and if it is classified the same way as the NC Building Code, then
it doesn’t matter if there is a limit of 3-stories in it because the town
would be considering the stories the same way the State does.
Mr. Taylor clarified for Commissioner Messer that the NC State Building
Code will allow 3-stories above pilings only with a concrete pad underneath the
elevated structure for parking purposes, however if someone would choose to come
in and enclose a storage room or garage area, a permit would be denied because
that would constitute a 4th-story.
A ground floor entry would also have to be considered a story.
An elevator shaft would not be considered a story.
Commissioner Marks made a motion to table this item until next month for further study and the board voted unanimously, 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 limited situations, most notably when a
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 and June 11 meetings, a slightly
revised ordinance is now presented for formal consideration.
The attached ordinance includes new language to address concerns raised
by the Board at the June 11 meeting regarding the protection of septic systems.
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 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
July 9 version of the ordinance has been revised based on comments at the June
11 meeting, and now classifies a structure as imminently threatened if the
foundation of the structure is within 20 feet of the toe of the erosion scarp
and / or the septic system is exposed.
The version presented on June 11 would have defined a structure as
imminently threatened if the septic system was within 20 feet of the toe of the
erosion scarp. There was concern
that that provision could have allowed more structures to bulldoze sand, thereby
decreasing the overall effectiveness of the prohibition on beach bulldozing by
classifying many of the existing structures on the oceanfront as “imminently
threatened”.
It
is not certain whether most septic systems on the oceanfront are on the seaward
side of the structure or the road-side of the structure.
The general belief is that most newer structures, and those that were
relocated after the recent hurricanes, have the septic systems on the road-side
of the structure, and in these cases the ‘20 ft. from the foundation’
provision would govern in determining if a structure is “imminently
threatened”. There are some older
structures that may have the septic system on the seaward side of the structure,
and these structures may have their septic systems exposed as a result of
additional beach erosion. In the
event that a storm event or normal erosion exposes a septic system, the owner
would be allowed to bulldoze under the Town’s ordinance. However, the County Environmental Health Division would be
consulted prior to authorizing bulldozing, and they would make one of the
following determinations: 1) if the
exposure is minor, the owner would be allowed to bulldoze and cover the exposed
septic system, 2) if the exposure
is more significant, the owner may be required to relocate the septic system to
another area of the lot, 3) if
there is not sufficient area available, the Environmental Health Division will
explore the feasibility of a smaller septic system or alternative technologies,
4) if no other alternatives are feasible, Environmental Health could
require the owner to ‘pump-and-haul’ on a regular basis,
or 5) as a last resort, they could declare the structure uninhabitable.
Mr. Rush has spoken with Troy Dees, County Environmental Health
Supervisor, and he stated that their policy is to work with the owner in any way
possible to maintain use of the structure.
Mr. Dees could only recall one instance on the oceanfront where a
solution could not be implemented to maintain the habitability of the structure.
The
practical effect of the language in the July 9 version of the ordinance is
essentially identical to that originally proposed in May.
The July 9 language is more restrictive than the language proposed in
June, and should improve the overall effectiveness of the ordinance in
preserving the pre- and post-nourishment beach profile.
WHEREAS, the Town of Emerald
Isle is undertaking a project of ocean beach nourishment to widen the beach
thereby protecting ocean front structures from erosion; and
WHEREAS,
it is in the interest of the public welfare that restrictions be placed on the
pushing of sand on the ocean beaches in order that a fair allocation of the
nourishment sand can be made in the current and future nourishment projects; and
WHEREAS,
to enhance qualification for Federal Emergency Management Act ("FEMA")
benefits in the event of shoreline erosion resulting from natural disasters, it
is prudent for the Town to maintain regulations and restrictions with respect to
the moving of sand along the beach; and
WHEREAS,
beach bulldozing and other movement of sand along the beach, unless carefully
monitored and regulated, can destroy vegetation and other devices designed to
stabilize the beach.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED
by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Emerald Isle as follows:
1.
Chapter 5 of the Emerald Isle Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by
adding a new section which shall read as follows:
ARTICLE V. BEACH BULLDOZING RESTRICTED
Sec 5-70.
Bulldozing Restrictions. On
the ocean beaches, bulldozing sand, pushing of sand by mechanical means, or
other mechanical change to the topography is prohibited except in the following
situations:
(i)
When such work is performed as a part of a hurricane or erosion
protection project or beach nourishment project sponsored by the Town of Emerald
Isle or any local, state, or federal governmental agency;
(ii)
When such work is performed at the direction of the Town of Emerald Isle
for purpose of beach maintenance;
(iii) When such work is performed by any non-governmental person or entity to protect primary structures (not including walkways to the ocean beach, swimming pools, or accessory use structures), that are imminently threatened as a result of severe erosion of the ocean beaches or the sand dune structure, but only upon receipt of a permit for such work from the local CAMA permitting officer after a finding by such officer that the structure is imminently threatened ("imminently threatened" means that the foundation of the structure is less than 20 feet from the toe of the erosion scarp and / or the septic system is exposed); or
(iv) When
such work is authorized by the issuance of a general waiver of this section by
the Board of Commissioners following a natural disaster.
Sec 5-71.
Penalties. Any person who violates this section shall be subject
to a civil fine of $500.00, and each day that the property is not restored to
its pre-bulldozed condition shall be a separate violation.
Collection and enforcement of this civil penalty shall be in accordance
with Section 1-6 of the Town’s Code of Ordinances.
2. The Town Clerk is authorized to number the section set forth above and insert the same as appropriate in the Town Code.
3.
This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance.
DULY ADOPTED THIS _________ day of _____________,
2002 by a vote of
Commissioner(s)___________________________________________
voting for,
Commissioner(s)
_______________________________ voting against and
Commissioner(s)__________________________ absent.
Carolyn K. Custy, Town Clerk
Mayor Schools asked for public comment and none were forthcoming.
The board also had no comment.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT WITH BENCHMARK, INC. FOR PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES.
Background: The Board is asked to consider a resolution authorizing a contract with Benchmark, Inc. for planning and zoning services. If approved, Benchmark will assist Town staff, the Planning Board, and the Town Board in the review of major development proposals, and also assist in the preparation of development ordinance amendments.
The contract is based on an hourly rate of $44, with a not to exceed amount of $12,000 for FY 2002-2003. Based on these amounts, Benchmark will provide approximately 22 hours of service per month. Benchmark will work under the direction of the Town Manager, and will assist Planning and Inspections staff with the review of new subdivisions, commercial projects, and multi-family housing developments. As funds permit, Benchmark will also assist in the drafting of development ordinance revisions for consideration by the Planning Board and the Town Board.
Mr. Rush has discussed the need to revise and improve the town’s development review process with Benchmark and Town staff over the past several months, and if Benchmark is added to our team, Mr. Rush envisions implementing several changes in the town’s development review process in the next few months. Potential changes include an earlier application deadline for development proposals (currently 10 days prior to the Planning Board meeting; increase to 14-21 days to allow for more thorough staff review), more thorough staff-level review prior to the Planning Board meeting, a more formalized staff review process that includes Public Works, Fire, and other department representatives on a routine basis, and improved “case summaries” in Planning Board agenda packets to provide a thorough and easy explanation of the issues associated with development proposals.
The addition of Benchmark to our team will also “free up” some of Mrs. Carol Angus’ time in the Planning and Inspections Department, and we are exploring the possibility of transferring some non-building code duties from the building inspectors to Carol in order to “free up” some of the inspectors’ time. There have been concerns recently that building inspections are not being completed in a timely manner, and it is hopeful that these changes, along with other changes being implemented by the Planning and Inspections department, will ensure timely building inspections for our customers.
Mr. Rush also envisions Benchmark assisting with development ordinance revisions over the next fiscal year. Because of Benchmark’s previous involvement in this issue, the first task that he will assign to Benchmark is an amendment to the 8,000 sq. ft. special use permit ordinance that was recently invalidated by the courts. Mr. Rush hopes to have a revised ordinance to present to the Planning Board for consideration in August or September.
The Board is asked to approve the attached resolution authorizing the Benchmark contract, after which a formal contract will be executed with Benchmark. Also attached, for the boards information, a draft contract that will be modified slightly; most notably to extend the deadline for monthly payments to something greater than 14 days.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH BENCHMARK, INC
FOR PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES
Whereas, the Town desires to augment its staff capabilities for the review of development proposals and the revision of town development ordinances, and
Whereas, Benchmark, Inc. has submitted a proposal to the Town Manager for planning and zoning services, and
Whereas, Benchmark is a reputable and respected firm in the planning and zoning field, and
Whereas, sufficient funds for these services are included in the FY 02-03 budget under consideration by the Board of Commissioners,
DISCUSSION – ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 – SUBDIVISIONS – REGARDING SKETCH DESIGN PLANS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS
Background: The Board of Commissioners is scheduled to discuss several proposed amendments to the subdivision ordinance at the July 9 meeting. These ordinance amendments address several separate issues that are summarized below. The proposed amendments are indicated in the attached ordinance with the underline feature (identifying new language) and the strike-through feature (identifying deleted provisions).
The Planning Board and Board of Commissioners discussed the need for amendments to the subdivision ordinance at the January 2002 joint meeting of the two boards. Recognizing the complexity of the subdivision ordinance, a decision was made to divide potential revisions into two categories – the first being a series of relatively minor, quick, and easy-to-accomplish amendments, and the second being a more thorough and comprehensive overhaul of the subdivision ordinance at some future date, perhaps after the Land Use Plan update is completed. The ordinance amendment presented on July 9 represents the completion of the first category (minor, quick, and easy) of subdivision ordinance amendments.
A Planning Board subcommittee chaired by Art Daniel prepared the proposed ordinance amendments. The full Planning Board reviewed the proposed amendments at its June 25 meeting, and unanimously recommends approval. In accordance with the Board’s two step policy for ordinance amendments, this item has been scheduled for discussion at the July Town meeting, with formal consideration anticipated as early as the August regular meeting.
The specific revisions included in the attached ordinance amendment are as follows:
Mr. Rush personally extend his sincere gratitude to Mr. Daniel for his quality work in drafting these ordinance amendments. His assistance is greatly appreciated.
ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 18 – SUBDIVISIONS – REGARDING SKETCH DESIGN PLANS AND OTHER
MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the Planning Board and Town Board expressed a desire for several “minor” revisions to the Emerald Isle subdivision ordinance at its joint meeting in January 2002, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are intended to improve the subdivision review process for both the applicant and the Town’s representatives, and improve the quality of new subdivisions in Emerald Isle, and
WHEREAS, a subcommittee of the Planning Board drafted the proposed amendments herein, and the full Planning Board unanimously recommends approval of the proposed amendments,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners that;
1. Chapter 18 – Subdivisions – is hereby amended by replacing the entire existing Chapter 18 with the following ordinance language:
Chapter 18 SUBDIVISIONS*
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
*Cross reference(s)‑‑Buildings and building regulations, Ch. 6; planning and development, Ch. 13; streets and sidewalks, Ch. 17; zoning, Ch. 19.
State law reference(s)‑‑Regulation of subdivisions by municipalities, G.S. 160A-371‑‑160A-376.
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
Art.
I. In General, §§ 18-1‑‑18-20
Art.
II. Approval of Subdivisions, §§ 18-21‑‑18-40
Art.
III. Approval of Special Developments, §§ 18-41‑‑18-60
Art.
IV. Design Standards, §§ 18-61, 18-62
ARTICLE
I. IN GENERAL
Sec. 18-1. Declaration of purpose.
subdivision of real estate and for the surveying and platting thereof, adopted and prescribed in this chapter and hereby found by the Board of Commissioners to be necessary and appropriate in order:
(1)
To assure that land to be subdivided shall be of such character that it
can be used safely for building purposes without danger to health, or peril from
fire, flood, erosion, or other menace.
(2) To assure that proper provisions shall be made for drainage, water supply, sewerage, and other needed improvements, and that all proposed lots shall be so laid out and of such size as to be in harmony with the development pattern of the neighboring properties.
(3) To provide for dedication of streets and rights-of-ways or easements for vehicular, pedestrian and utility purposes, or to require properly constructed private streets, assuring that provisions are made for the distribution of population and traffic which shall avoid congestion and overcrowding and which shall create conditions essential to public health, safety, and welfare.
(4)
To provide for economical and sufficient streets composing a
convenient
system conforming to the Town’s official street map, if such exists, and shall
be of such width, grade, alignment, and location as to accommodate the
prospective traffic, to facilitate fire protection, and to provide access of
firefighting equipment to buildings, and to conform with existing or planned
streets and with other public facilities.
(5) To save unnecessary expenditure of public funds by studying space and recommending from time to time the purchase of such space for public lands and buildings and by initial proper construction of streets and utilities.
(6) To provide proper land records for the convenience of the public and for better identification and permanent location of real estate boundaries.
(b) The provisions of these regulations are adopted pursuant to authority granted by the General Assembly of the state, particularly article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes.” (As amended on 12/11/01)
(Code 1983, § 9-6001)
Sec. 18-2. Conformance with subdivision regulations required.
After the effective date of this chapter, no real property, including property developed under the North Carolina Unit Ownership Act, within the town, shall be subdivided and a portion thereof offered for sale, sold or transferred except in conformance with all applicable provisions of this chapter.
(Code 1983, § 9-6002)
Sec. 18-3. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Minor subdivision. Division of a tract or parcel of land into not more than four (4) lots, building sites, or other divisions for the purpose of sale, or building development (whether immediate or future), such division of land having all lots abutting an already existing public road and requiring no improvements to the land except for the division referred to herein.
Sawtooth or finger lot. An irregular shaped lot the majority portion of which meets the dimensional requirements for a subdivision lot under the town zoning ordinance, but which has a finger or extension thereon primarily for access to a street or body of water, and with the width of the extension or finger being more narrow than the width of the lot at the required building setback line.
Subdivision. All divisions of a tract or parcel of land into two (2) or more lots, building sites, or other divisions for the purpose of sale, or building development (whether immediate or future) shall include all divisions of land involving the dedication of a new street or a change in existing streets; but the following shall not be included within this definition nor be subject to the regulations of this chapter; provided, however, that any document or plat to be recorded pursuant to such exclusions shall have the notation of "no approval required" and the signature of the planning board chairman, or designee, before filing with the office of the register of deeds:
(1) The combination or recombination of portions of previously platted lots where the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of this chapter and the applicable zoning regulations;
(2) The division of land into parcels greater than ten (10) acres where no street right-of-way dedication is involved;
(3) The public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for the widening or opening of streets; and
(4) The division of a tract in single ownership whose entire area is no greater than two (2) acres into not more than three (3) lots, where no street right-of-way dedication is involved and where the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standard of this chapter and the applicable zoning regulations.
(Code 1983, § 9-6003; Ord. of 9-24-84, § 1; Ord. of 3-11-86(1), § 1)
Cross reference(s)‑‑Definitions and rules of construction generally, § 1-2.
Secs.
18-4‑‑18-20. Reserved.
ARTICLE II. APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISIONS*
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
*State law reference(s)‑‑Certain plat approval regulations required for subdivision ordinances, G.S. 160A-373.
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
Sec. 18-21. Sketch design plan.
The sketch design plan and site planning sketches shall
be drawn at an approximate scale of one inch to one hundred feet (1”=100’)
and include:
(a)
The name and address of the owner and the subdivider.
(b)
Existing conditions of the site including streets, roads,
right-of-ways, easements, watercourses, wetlands, and structures.
(c)
Approximate location of lot lines, approximate number of lots, and
total tract acreage.
(d)
Proposed rights-of-way, easements, and any sites to be dedicated for
churches or public use.
(e)
Site planning sketches showing:
1.
Slopes in increments of 0-5%, 5-10%, and 10-15% when applicable
(information available from USGS quadrangle maps)
2.
Soils by type; i.e., fine sand, medium grade sand, loamy sand, organic
soils (information available from USDA Soils Survey)
3.
Vegetation by category; i.e., scattered growth, young mixed hardwood,
mature mixed hardwood, coastal marsh, brush.
4.
A composite site planning sketch showing slopes, soils, and vegetation
superimposed over the sketch design plan.
The
Planning Board shall review the sketch design plan for
compliance with the requirements of this Chapter and inform the subdivider about the regulations that govern the proposed development and the procedure the subdivider is to follow in preparing and submitting the preliminary and final plats. The subdivider is to informally explain to the Planning Board the plans for developing the proposed subdivision, including the kind and extent of proposed improvements. The Planning Board is to discuss with the subdivider any suggested changes deemed advisable.
Sec. 18-22. Preliminary plats.
(a)
The submission of a preliminary
plat shall be accompanied by a letter of transmittal describing the proposed
subdivision and a statement that the plat is in compliance with the town
ordinance. The town planning board shall review the preliminary 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 preliminary subdivision plat be approved.
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 contour interval,
and finished grades. Contours with a vertical interval of two (2)
feet referenced to sea level datum, except that contours shall not
be required in subdivisions not involving new street right-of-way dedications.
Proposed finished grades along the
perimeter and in the interior shown in a manner that clearly distinguishes
proposed elevations from existing elevations.
(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. All subdivision plats which will create lots not directly abutting a dedicated and accepted public street shall include proposed improvements for roadway access, either public or private, to each of these lots and such roadways shall conform to the design standards for town streets specified in Section 17-32 of the Emerald Isle Code of Ordinances.
(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. The
preliminary plat shall include a
drawing showing storm water drainage supported by design computations.
The design shall conform to the standards set forth in Chapter 16
(Stormwater Management) of the Emerald Isle Code of Ordinances.
(11)
Utilities. The preliminary plat shall include all
applicable utilities including street lighting.
All utilities shall be underground.
Utility distribution boxes; such as, water meter boxes and transformers,
shall be located where sideyard property lines intersect with street
right-of-way lines (frontyard property lines) and placed at the property corners
in a manner that incompatible types of utility services will not conflict with
each other. (i.e., electric services combined at a common corner of two adjacent
lots and water services combined at another common corner in order to serve two
lots from each location when possible.)
(12)
Sidewalks in commercial subdivisions. The preliminary plat
shall provide for a minimum of a 4-ft. wide sidewalk on the north side of E/W
streets and the east side of N/S streets.
(c) In order to be in compliance with area of environmental concern standards, the preliminary plat shall contain a statement that the subdivision is located either within or without a North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act Area of Environmental Concern and shall show all required AEC data.
(d) In addition to the above, the following information shall be provided:
(1) Profiles. Profiles of all streets showing natural and finished grades drawn to scale of not less than one (1) inch equals forty (40) feet horizontal and one (1) inch equals four (4) feet vertical.
(2) Health department approval. Where public water and/or public sewage is not available for extension to each lot in the subdivision, a written report from the county health department shall be submitted as to the adequacy of the land area, and the suitability as to the soil and topography of the proposed subdivision to accommodate the proposed methods of water supply and sewage disposal.
(3) Required data. The preliminary plat shall be accompanied by a copy of all applications required by agencies other than the town. Applications must contain all pertinent data required to process applications.
(4) Street Access to Subdivided Lots: Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, every subdivision of property within the jurisdiction of the Town shall include access to each and every lot of the subdivision by way of dedicated and accepted public streets or by establishment of private street systems which are platted and approved pursuant to the requirements of this Chapter. All public or private streets shall meet the design standards for town streets specified in Section 17-32 of the Emerald Isle Code of Ordinances and/or any amendments thereof.
(5) Other information. Other information as deemed necessary.
(e)
The application for preliminary approval of the subdivision plat with the
town planning board shall be accompanied by the fee which may be established
and/or amended, from time to time, by resolution of the town board.
(f)
Approval and conditional approval of a preliminary plat.
(1)
When a preliminary plat is approved, approval shall be so indicated on
three (3) copies of the preliminary plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board.