|
MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING
OF THE EMERALD
ISLE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TUESDAY, JULY 8,
2003 – 7:00 P.M. – TOWN HALL
Present for the meeting was Mayor Schools,
Commissioners Messer, Marks, McElraft, and Eckhardt. Commissioner Farmer was
absent. Others present were Town Attorney Derek Taylor, Town Manager Frank
Rush, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Officer Georgia Overman, Town Clerk Rhonda
Ferebee, Assistant Planning Director Carol Angus and newly appointed Planning
Director Kevin Reed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Eckhardt to excuse
the absence of Commissioner Farmer. The Board voted unanimously 4-0 to
approve. Motion carried.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Mayor Schools asked that item 17 (Closed Session
– Pursuant to NCGS 143-318, 11(6), for the Purpose of Evaluating the Town
Manager’s Performance) be dropped from the agenda. Mayor Schools noted that
Frank Rush, Town Manager, had specifically said that he would like for all
commissioners be there for his evaluation.
Motion was made by Commissioner Messer to adopt the
agenda with the removal of Item 17. The Board voted unanimously 4-0 to adopt.
Motion carried.
Mr. Rush stated that he would reschedule the Closed Session
for the August meeting.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Rush introduced Kevin Reed the new Planning and
Inspections Director. Kevin comes to the Town of Emerald Isle from Kinston
where he served as Director of Planning and Inspection for the last year and a
half. Prior to that Kevin had served in similar roles in Martinsville, and
Henry County, Virginia. He has approximately 14 years of experience.
Commissioner McElraft mentioned that the Island Cat Allies
were holding a yard sale on July 19. Donations were needed. She added that
100% of the funds would be used for spaying and neutering cats on this island.
Mayor Schools announced that Pete Allen was in the audience
and commented that he and Mr. Allen both appeared at the same time in the
Elections office to file to run for Mayor.
CONSENT AGENDA
Motion was made by Commissioner Marks to adopt the
Consent Agenda. The Board voted unanimously 4-0. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Carol Osika, 410 Channel Drive, thanked the Town and the
owner of the pier for the great fireworks display.
Mayor Schools thanked the staff for the great job done over
the Fourth of July holiday.
2ND READING – ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER
19 – ZONING – DUNES AND VEGETATION
Michael Harvey, the Town’s Planning Consultant from
Benchmark gave the introductory information. He noted that this is the 2nd
reading because they did not have a super majority.
This ordinance is identical to the ordinance approved by a
3-2 vote at the June 10 meeting. A second reading and vote is required at the
July 8 meeting because the ordinance did not receive the required super-majority
vote (2/3 of Board members, or 4-1 in our case) at the June 10 meeting. Only a
simple majority (3-2) is required to formally adopt the ordinance at the July 8
meeting.
Mayor Schools asked for public comments.
Elton Matheson, 7008 Sound Drive, asked how hurricane
clean-up would be handled as it pertained to this ordinance.
Mr. Harvey said that with respect to clean-up of debris as
a result of a storm event as with current policy there is a moratorium on
issuing of permits for a period of 48 hours for damage assessment to be done.
He added there is nothing in the ordinance specifically forbidding anybody from
cleaning up debris, especially if it creates a potential safety or health
hazard. If there was a tree in imminent danger of collapsing and falling on a structure,
this ordinance would not prevent that tree being removed, in fact, nuisance
vegetation is allowed to be removed without obtaining a permit or permission
from the Town, especially if it poses a direct threat to life, safety and
welfare.
Mr. Matheson asked what about in the CAMA zone?
Mr. Harvey stated again that if it posed a direct threat to
life, safety, health and welfare it can be removed.
Mr. Matheson said that there was nothing in the ordinance
to facilitate hurricane clean-up.
Mr. Rush said that was a very valid question but said that
there was nothing in the ordinance that would prevent someone from cutting down
a tree that is damaged in a hurricane or knocked over.
Mr. Matheson suggested that something specific be put in
the ordinance to address that situation.
Commissioner McElraft asked if permits would be required in
that type of situation or would permitting be waived allowing people to go ahead
and cut trees down. She remembered after previous storms that you had to get
your trees done when you could and was concerned if people had to wait for the
DVPO to come out.
Mr. Rush noted that the ordinance states that if it is a
previously developed lot and it poses a safety hazard that you could get a
permit to remove it. If it’s after a hurricane he would encourage the Board to
waive the permit requirement due to the huge case load. This would be, he
noted, a decision that the Board would make at that time.
Commissioner McElraft felt that there did need to be some
flexibility in the language.
Mr. Matheson asked the definition of mean flood level as it
pertained to estuarine frontal dunes.
Mr. Harvey stated that the mean flood level varies
depending on where your property is located. It is base flood elevation. It is
where your property could potentially have flood waters during a storm event as
defined on the National Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Mr. Matheson asked how he would determine this, to which,
Mr. Harvey responded by saying that the town staff would determine flood zone on
his property.
Mr. Rush added that this would be a determination made by
the Dunes and Vegetation Protection Officer in the field. He noted that
basically what this ordinance does is prevent someone from altering that
estuarine frontal dune and it very strictly prohibits someone from removing any
vegetation within the 30’ setback, but beyond that, the definition is there just
for informational purposes.
Mr. Matheson disagreed and asked what would be wrong with
using the mean high tide mark.
Mr. Rush said that he felt the definition was included for
illustrative purposes. Mr. Rush added for the board’s edification that the
relevant provision that would affect Mr. Matheson or any other sound front
property owner is that person would not be allowed to remove any vegetation
within 30’ of the mean high water mark.
Mr. Harvey also added for the board’s edification,
estuarine frontal dune definition is consistent with what CAMA currently defines
the estuarine frontal dune system to be which is the first mound of sand located
landward of the estuarine water that has a minimum elevation equal to the mean
flood level for that given property plus an additional 6 feet. So that if you
have base flood elevation, mean flood level on your property at 6 feet, then
the first mound of land landward of the estuarine waters has an additional
elevation of 6 feet.
Mr. Matheson said that he has a unique situation and that a
cookie cutter approach doesn’t fit. The back part of his lot is relatively
flat. The house site was built up.
Mr. Harvey said that it would probably say in effect that
he didn’t have what is considered to be an estuarine frontal dune on his
property and it wouldn’t be a problem. Mr. Harvey said that Mr. Matheson should
contact the Dunes and Vegetation Protection Officer of Emerald Isle.
Mr. Rush suggested that if the Board wanted they could
remove the definition from our definitions and not have any change whatsoever on
the impact of this ordinance. It is really more of an illustrative definition
and is not an ordinance requirement.
Mr. Matheson then asked how you determine a tree’s cause of
death.
Mr. Rush said that if the tree is dead it can be removed.
It would be up to the interpretation of the Dunes and Vegetation Protection
Officer.
Mr. Matheson also mentioned having to provide a sketch if
he wanted to remove a tree and it also referred to a stormwater system.
Mr. Rush said that this is a relatively new requirement and
depending on when Mr. Matheson’s house was built he may not have been required
to have one. The requirement is that new construction has to have a stormwater
system to retain the first 2” of stormwater.
Jim Heatherly, 8512 Woodcliff Drive, said that apparently
the soundfront restriction in excess of CAMA still exists. He felt that this
was wrong and un-American.
Carol Osika, 410 Channel Drive, asked if you have a tree
removed and it has to be replaced did it have to go back in the same place or
could it go anywhere on the property.
Mr. Harvey said that you would designate it’s location to
the DVPO and you would not have to replace in the same spot, unless you removed
it from the natural area.
Clint Routson, 9721 Green Glen Road, said that he still had
concerns about a couple of main issues in the ordinance. One is the
restriction that has been imposed in 19-334 1(g) which requires you to have a
building permit before you can get a DVPO permit. This prevents you from doing
anything on your lot unless you are ready to start your house construction or
any other construction which he opposes and feels is overreaching. He said this
also ties in to the comment in 19-335 Exemptions - paragraph 6 where it talks
about the cutting of brush or vegetation to allow for the evaluation of a parcel
for wastewater system purposes. He said that he had requested previously that
this language be modified to at least allow and to expand saying “modifications
necessary to obtain a septic permit”. The concern is that if he can’t get a
septic permit, he can’t get a building permit and he is caught in a catch-22
with the other restriction. He also mentioned the last restriction under 10
which prevents putting in a septic system before having a building permit. If
he has his permit why can he not go in and install his septic system. He felt
he should be able to put the system in so that he is able to use his property
when he desired to do so. With those modifications he would not have a problem
with it but felt that those three issues should be addressed and requested that
the board do so.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked for clarification on the
catch-22 situation.
Mr. Rush said that what Mr. Routson was saying was that if
you cannot get a septic permit you cannot get a building permit.
Jim Taylor, Building Inspector, confirmed to Mr. Rush that
you could not receive a building permit without having a septic permit in hand.
Mr. Rush said that this was in fact a catch-22, if in order
to get a septic permit you are required to do some alteration to the site. On
many sites you can get the permit based on the existing topography and on some
locations you must do some modification to get the wastewater permit.
Commissioner Marks asked Jim Taylor if you could get a
septic permit without clearing an area.
Mr. Taylor said that the Health Department may issue you a
septic permit without having a building permit. Mr. Taylor said that he cannot
issue a building permit until you have submitted a copy of the Health
Department’s permit.
Commissioner Marks asked what if someone said they want
their septic system in one place and the County Health Department says no it has
to be here and they’ve already cleared the lot. This was one of the things they
were trying to protect against.
Mr. Taylor said that once the Health Department has
designated the suitable site for the placement of the system it’s pretty well
etched in stone. There may be some small revisions to that, however, that would
take another visit with your Carteret County Health Specialist to determine if
there are other suitable placements for the system.
Mr. Rush asked if there were situations where the Health
Department might conduct a site visit and say based on the existing condition of
the lot we cannot issue a septic permit but if you build a mound in this
location or make some other site alteration we will issue the permit. Mr.
Taylor said that this was correct. Mr. Rush asked if they would issue the
permit only after the alteration was made or do they issue the permit contingent
on that alteration being done? Mr. Taylor said they would make it contingent on
the alteration being performed.
Mr. Rush asked if you could secure the septic permit on a
promise to, when you actually install the system, build the mound or do the
alteration. Mr. Taylor said that you would have to comply with the requirements
that they have set forth and they would come out and inspect to make sure that
it was in compliance.
Mr. Routson said if it requires you to modify and make
modification to your lot to get your septic permit - just because you make the
modifications it doesn’t say you are going to get one until the Health
Department comes back out to look at it and they may or may not approve at that
time.
Mr. Rush asked if they would issue a 5 year permit on the
condition that when you do put the septic system in you make the modifications
that they describe.
Mr. Routson said it would depend on the modifications
required. Before you buy a lot you want to know you’re going to get a septic
permit. You don’t want to worry about the Health Department saying we gave you
this modification but now we’re deciding you have to do something else after you
bought the property.
Mr. Rush asked if once the Health Department says in order
to get the permit you have to modify the lot, if you have to actually modify the
lot in order to get the permit. Mr. Rush asked if to get the five year
authorization it’s basically contingent on a commitment to make those site
alterations before you put in your septic system. He said so this might be a
catch-22 situation after the five year period but shouldn’t be a catch-22 for
the initial five year period. Mr. Jim Taylor said that this was a correct
assessment.
Pat Patteson, 8706 Emerald Plantation Road, said he
understood about the catch-22 but the issue of it is that if you get a
provisional permit from the Health Department and they say that you have to do
modifications to get the permit – how can you do these modifications to get the
permit if you’re not allowed to do them? The issue is if he makes that
modification he can get the permit. The way it is written now you can’t make
those modifications until you have a building permit so it is a catch-22 because
you can’t get a septic permit, you can get a provisional, which as Clint Routson
is saying, is useless until you know that you can physically do the system.
Maybe they need to look at situations where the County says this is a
provisional permit that requires modification. This may need to be looked at as
a different issue. He still agreed with what they’re trying to accomplish. He
felt that when you get an issue where a modification is required before they’re
allowed to get a permit, which would allow them to get a building permit, that
particular aspect may need to be looked at.
Commissioner Marks said they should go ahead and pass the
ordinance and then make that kind of modification that allows for when the
County requires modification to get their permit. She felt that the intent of
this whole ordinance was to try and prohibit the clear cutting of lots. She
mentioned a lot on Conch Court that has been cleared for five years. They got
their septic permit and there is water flowing off every time there is a heavy
rain.
Commissioner McElraft asked Ms. Angus how many Dunes and
Vegetation permits had been issued in the last few weeks in anticipation of this
ordinance passing.
Mrs. Angus said about 25 which is quadruple the normal
volume of permits.
Commissioner McElraft said that her point was, if they are
trying to save trees, this was not the way to go about it. She felt that what
they are in essence doing is giving permits for people to go out and clear as
much as they can to get the septic tanks in, where if they had a five year
permit they may wait until that fifth year to go ahead and get their septic
tanks in. She said now we are going to have lots cleared, leaving their 45%
vegetation, but the trees will be missing for the next four to five years for
those people that have five year permits. She said when you have an extreme
ordinance people take extreme measures and that is what she felt the citizens
have decided.
Commissioner Marks disagreed saying that the intention is
to save trees. If they keep clearing all the undergrowth there are no juvenile
trees to replace them. She didn’t believe that it was about trying to get
septic tanks put in but it’s about trying to clear as much of that lot as they
can possible clear.
Commissioner McElraft said that she has seen so many people
so wanting to save every tree on their lot.
Commissioner McElraft said that she could not support the
part concerning the 30’ CAMA setback. She said we are going above CAMA reg’s.
We are taking away the value of someone’s property. She said that soundfront
lots now that are heavily wooded would never get a sound view. She said that
you cannot prune trees enough to get a sound view. She gave the example of
someone purchasing a soundfront lot, anticipating being able to clear according
to CAMA guidelines their trees down to the root structure so that they could get
a view. They will not be able to do that now. She said that their property has
been devalued while in essence we have made other soundfront properties more
valuable.
Commissioner Eckhardt said that he could see no reason not
to pass the ordinance tonight. He would like, if they did pass the ordinance,
to go back to the Planning Board and have them look at the catch-22 to see if
there is anything they feel does need to be amended.
Motion was made by Commissioner Eckhardt to adopt the
Ordinance amending Chapter 19 – Zoning – Dunes and Vegetation as presented.
A motion to amend that motion was made by
Commissioner McElraft to have the areas in 19-334 1(g) and 19-335 (10) and any
other areas struck from the ordinance that mentions building permit being
required and also the CAMA setback area amended to keep with CAMA guidelines.
Mayor Schools asked for any discussion.
Commissioner Marks said that this would nullify the whole
thing and they would be starting over from square one.
Commissioner McElraft said she was absolutely for passing
the ordinance tonight with those two exceptions.
The Board voted on the amended motion as made by
Commissioner McElraft. The vote was 3-2 with Marks, Eckhardt, Schools opposed
and McElraft and Messer in favor. Motion failed.
The Board voted on the original motion made by
Commissioner Eckhardt. The vote was 3-2 with Marks, Eckhardt, Schools in favor
and McElraft and Messer opposed. Motion carried.
Mayor Schools said that they had been discussing, debating
and revising this ordinance for 15-16 months. Input has been received from
citizens, developers, Planning Board, Benchmark, staff and Commissioners. I
doubt that those who voted for the ordinance think it’s perfect and those that
are against it certainly don’t think so. However, in his opinion, this is as
close as we’re going to get to being an acceptable ordinance to all
Commissioners and certainly it is much closer than it was 6 months ago.
Commissioner Eckhardt added his thanks to the Planning
Board.
Commissioner Marks thanked all those who called and made
comments, sent emails and letters of support.
Mr. Rush said that it was his understanding that the
direction was to go back to the Planning Board with additional input on the
catch-22 and they would do that at the next Planning Board meeting. They’re
also working on revising the commercial area standards.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 – ZONING – TO
INCORPORATE COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE
(INCLUDING NEW FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS)
Jim Taylor, Building Inspector, presented the introductory
information concerning the amendment to the Town’s Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance, which included a reference to the new Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The
proposed ordinance amendment is based on a new model ordinance prepared by the
NC Division of Emergency Management. The ordinance amendment includes
additional definitions and additional clarification of policy provisions, but
does not include any notable changes in existing policy. The new flood
Insurance Rate Maps presented for adoption as part of the ordinance amendment
include the changes discussed with the board earlier this year. The two areas
of Emerald Isle affected are on the oceanfront near Ocean View Drive, Heverly
Drive, and Janell Lane, and in various neighborhoods in low spots along the
Coast Guard Road corridor. These areas will now be included in designated flood
zones and subject to flood damage prevention regulations. The Board must adopt
the proposed ordinance amendment and new maps by July 16, 2003 in order to
maintain the Town’s eligibility for the National Flood Insurance Program.
Commissioner Marks asked if those property owners affected
by the changes had been notified.
Mr. Taylor stated that there had been public notification.
There had been several ads and an article in the Island Review. Ms. Angus said
they had actually gone above and beyond what is required by FEMA.
Commissioner Marks said it was her understanding that
people could get flood insurance now if they apply before this is finalized at
the low rates.
Mr. Rush said that they would try and get another article
in the newspaper and send out another email newsletter as a reminder to property
owners to contact the Planning Department if they think they may be affected.
Mr. Rush said that he would also contact the Homeowner
Association presidents in those affected neighborhoods.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marks to open the
Public Hearing. The Board voted unanimously 4-0 in favor. Motion carried.
Ms. Angus showed an overhead presentation of the areas most
affected by changes on the new maps.
Mr. Taylor added that those people currently located in a
special flood hazard area can submit for a letter of map revision or letter of
map amendment which could possibly exclude them from that flood zone. FEMA
would review if enough evidence could be substantiated to prove that they have
enough elevation to get out of the flood zone.
Commissioner McElraft questioned the changes in the
oceanfront areas along Ocean View and Heverly.
Mr. Taylor said that he understood that Spencer Rogers with
Sea Grant had contacted FEMA to ask that this area be included in the VE zones.
Commissioner McElraft asked Mr. Taylor if people in that
area could get an elevation shot and get a LOMA. Mr. Taylor said that was
correct.
Commissioner McElraft had a question for Mr. Taylor
concerning breakaway walls and other structural areas that you can’t put in VE
zones now on the bottom level.
Mr. Taylor clarified that in the VE zone there will be a
delineation on the Federal Insurance Rate Map – this will be a numbered zone.
Primarily most of the lots on the oceanfront are either a VE14 , 15 or 16.
Currently in the Flood Prevention Ordinance there is a 2 foot freeboard.
Whatever the Federal Insurance Rate Map tells you as far as the number behind
the VE delineation, you add 2 feet to that. In the VE zone the lowest
horizontal structural member must be elevated to that base flood plus 2 feet.
Don Russell, 112 Bluewater Drive, gave a perspective from
his point of view. He said he carries flood insurance by choice. He said that
several years ago he had read about preferred policies and didn’t know if he was
eligible, so he went to his insurance agency and they had no idea where he was
on the flood plain. They had no access to maps, they were just charging
everyone the going rate for flood insurance. He changed insurance companies and
they did have flood maps and he found he was eligible for a preferred policy
which saves quite a bit because he is not in a flood plain. He said that the
access to this information has been lousy. He felt others may be able to find if they are eligible for
a preferred policy if they can determine if they are not in a flood plain.
Commissioner Messer said there are flood maps currently on
the wall in Town Hall.
Mr. Taylor said that in addition to having this map posted
on the wall in Town Hall for anyone to view it is also available on the
internet. Anyone interested in having a flood determination done may call the
Inspections Department.
Motion was made by Commissioner Eckhardt to close the
Public Hearing. The Board voted unanimously 4-0 in favor. Motion carried.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marks to adopt the
Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 – Zoning – To Incorporate Comprehensive Amendments
to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (including the New Flood Insurance Rate
Maps). The Board voted unanimously 4-0 in favor. Motion carried.
DISCUSSION – ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 – ZONING-
TO ALLOW LESS INTENSIVE REZONING REQUESTS WITHIN ONE YEAR OF REZONING DENIAL
Ms. Angus presented the information for discussion to the
Board concerning this item.
The Town’s current zoning ordinance prohibits the
consideration of a rezoning request for a parcel that has been denied a rezoning
for a period of one year. The attached ordinance amendment would allow the same
parcel to be considered for rezoning if the new rezoning request is for a less
intensive zoning district than originally denied. The proposed ordinance
amendment includes a hierarchy of the intensity of the town’s zoning districts.
For example, according to the proposed ordinance amendment, a parcel that was
denied for rezoning to RMH could be considered for R-2 zoning without the
one-year waiting period.
ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 19 – ZONING –
TO ALLOW
LESS INTENSIVE REZONING REQUESTS WITHIN ONE YEAR OF REZONING DENIAL
WHEREAS,
the Town of Emerald
Isle Zoning Ordinance currently requires a one-year waiting period to request
another rezoning for a parcel that has been denied for rezoning, and
WHEREAS,
in many cases, the
Board of Commissioners may want to encourage rezoning of that parcel to a less
intensive zoning district than that sought by the owner / applicant in the
initial request, and
WHEREAS,
if the owner /
applicant chooses to follow this encouragement and pursue such a rezoning he/she
must wait an additional year under the current zoning ordinance, and
WHEREAS,
the proposed
ordinance amendment would resolve this issue,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED
by the Emerald Isle
Board of Commissioners that
1. Chapter 19 –
Zoning – Sections 19-8 Procedures for Amendments, Subsection (b) is hereby
deleted and replaced with the following:
Section 19-8. Procedures for Amendments.
(b)
Persons
requesting a zoning change shall file an application with the town clerk
planning director. Except for petitions and requests initiated by the
board of commissioners and the planning board, all other petitions shall be
accompanied by a fee in the amount that may be established from time to time by
resolution by the board of commissioners, which fee is imposed to partially
defray the public expense in advertising the requested change and in keeping the
records hereof.
No application for any change
in the zone of property for the same property or any part thereof shall be filed
until the expiration of one (1) year from the date of final action by the board
of commissioners on any rezoning request of that property, unless it shall be
for a less intensive zoning district than originally requested within the one
year time frame. For purposes of this ordinance, the following hierarchy of the
intensity of zoning districts is established:
Intensity Level A (Most
Intensive): B-3, B-2, B-1
Intensity Level B: Camp,
MH-1, MH-2, Institutional
Intensity Level C: RMH, RMF
Intensity Level D (Least
Intensive): R-2, R-1.
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.
Adopted this the
_________ day of ____________________, 2003, by a vote of
Commissioner(s)
________________________________________________voting for,
Commissioner(s)
________________________________________________ voting against, and
Commissioner(s)
_________________________________________ absent.
______________________________
Arthur
B. Schools, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
Rhonda Ferebee,
Town Clerk
Ms. Angus said after this discussion, that this item would
be brought back to the Town Board as a Public Hearing at the next scheduled Town
Board meeting in August.
DISCUSSION – ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 – ZONING –
TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR LARGE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES
Introductory information on this item was presented to the
Board by Michael Harvey, Benchmark.
The attached ordinance amendment is presented in response
to the recent invalidation of the Town’s previous ordinance designed to address
impacts from larger commercial developments. The attached ordinance amendment
makes a distinction between commercial developments less than and greater than
10,000 square feet of total area, and imposes additional regulations on those
greater than 10,000 square feet. The ordinance amendment requires all
commercial development, regardless of size, to install sidewalks on the public
right of way at the time of development. Commercial developments greater than
10,000 square feet in area would be required to complete a traffic study,
utilize sprinkler systems or perform fire flow tests, have dedicated fire lanes,
provide pedestrian amenities for patrons of the commercial development, and
contain a total of 4.24 inches of storm water runoff on site, as well as meet
other requirements.
ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 19 – ZONING –
TO
ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR LARGE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES
WHEREAS,
the Town of Emerald
Isle previously enacted a zoning ordinance amendment designed to place
additional regulations on large commercial structures and this amendment was
declared invalid by a court of law, and
WHEREAS,
the Town of Emerald
Isle seeks alternative mechanisms to minimize the impact of large commercial
structures on surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large, and
WHEREAS,
a Planning Board
subcommittee has studied alternative mechanisms to accomplish this goal with the
assistance of Town staff and consultants, and has developed several
recommendations, and
WHEREAS,
the Planning Board
has unanimously recommended these recommendations for adoption by the Board of
Commissioners,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED
by the Emerald Isle
Board of Commissioners that
1. Chapter 19 –
Zoning – Sections 19-83 Notes, Requirements, and Conditions for Certain
Permitted and Special Uses, Subsection (24) is hereby deleted in its entirety
due to a court ruling invalidating this subsection.
(24)
All commercial and retail structures within the B2 and B3 zoning
districts greater than 8,000 sq. sq. ft. in area are a special use and are
subject to the following conditions.
a.
The developer shall construct a sidewalk or boardwalk which provides a
grade separation of pedestrian from vehicular traffic.
b.
The board of commissioners shall determine the number of allowable points
of access to the development and their spacing.
c.
The board of commissioners shall impose additional requirements to assure
the development’s compliance with Section 19-84.
2. Chapter 19 – Zoning is hereby amended by adding the following definitions
to Section 19-62 Definitions:
Community or Regional Shopping
Center(s). A structure or structures which
includes, or is designed to include, multiple retail, office, restaurant, public
assembly commercial use such as a gymnasium, or other similar establishments
with a combined floor area greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet
planned for a single or contiguous lots(s).
Retail Shopping
Center(s). A structure or structures which includes, or is designed to
include two (2) or more retail, office, restaurant, public assembly commercial
use such as a gymnasium, or other similar establishments with a combined floor
area of less that ten thousand (10,000) square feet planned for a single or
contiguous lot(s).
3. Chapter 19 – Zoning is hereby amended by adding the following uses to
Section 19-82 Tabulation of Permitted Uses and Special Uses:
Community or Regional Shopping Center(s). B-3
Permitted Use
Retail Shopping Center(s). B-3
Permitted Use
B-2 Permitted Use
B-1 Permitted Use
4.
Chapter 19 –
Zoning - Section 19-107 Business District Dimensional Requirements is hereby
amended by adding the following Subsections (14) and (15):
(14) All commercial developments, regardless of size, shall be required to
install a pedestrian sidewalk along a public right-of-way between four (4) and
six (6) feet in width to run the entire length of the project along the adjacent
right-of-way.
5. Chapter 19 – Zoning is hereby amended by adding the following Section
19-108. Additional Requirements for Community or Regional Shopping Centers:
Section 19-108. Additional Requirements for Community or Regional
Shopping Centers
Within the business district designated as B-3, and as shown on the
official zoning map, the following additional requirements for Community or
Regional Shopping Centers shall be complied with:
(1)
A twelve (12)
foot wide paved access, which can be used as a fire lane, shall be provided along
each of the four (4) sides of a proposed building.
In cases
where developers install pedestrian walkways to connect separate buildings
located on the same site, there shall be adequate spacing between these
buildings, no less then twenty-four (24) feet in width, and adequate head
clearance between these buildings, no less than
sixteen (16) feet, to allow for the safe passage of emergency vehicles to access
these individual commercial buildings in case of an emergency.
(2)
Off-street
loading and unloading areas shall be provided in accordance with the parking
regulations within this chapter and shall be marked so as to be distinguished
from driveways and parking areas. Required loading areas shall be designed so as
not to block the required fire lane.
(3)
Screened
dumpsters shall be provided.
(4)
Handicapped
ramps shall be provided adjacent to handicapped parking spaces.
(5)
A sidewalk or
boardwalk constructed to provide a grade separation from vehicular traffic of at
least six (6) inches shall connect all commercial establishments within each
building. Separate buildings shall be connected with pedestrian passageways that
are striped when crossing traffic lanes. These improvements shall be installed
at the developer’s expense.
(6)
A minimum
walkway, pedestrian pavement in front of a retail store or group of stores,
shall be eight (8) feet wide.
(7)
No portion of
any building shall be farther than two hundred fifty (250) feet or closer than
forty (40) feet to a fire hydrant.
(8)
Fire hydrants
shall be protected from traffic in accordance with the Town Code and shall be
marked with stripes on the pavement within the protected area.
(9)
If the
structure(s) are not considered sprinkler protected according to the applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards, the fire flow of the hydrants
serving or intended to serve the structure(s) shall be tested at the developer's
expense by the Emerald Isle Fire Department or by an independent testing firm.
If the test is conducted by an independent testing firm, it shall be made under
the direct supervision of Emerald Isle Fire Chief or his designee. If the flow
is found to be deficient according to the Insurance Service Office standards
applicable to the Town of Emerald Isle, the developer shall bring the fire flow
up to the established requirements set out in the insurance service office
standards. The fire flow test shall be made during the period of peak water
demand as determined from water consumption data maintained by the Bogue Banks
Water Corporation.
(10)
Traffic shall be diverted upon entering the parking lot or speed bumps shall be
provided to slow traffic.
(11)
The
applicant shall be required to conduct a comprehensive traffic analysis of the
project to determine how much vehicular traffic will be generated by the
proposed uses on site. The applicant shall also be responsible for providing
the Town with a traffic study, completed by a certified traffic engineer or a
consulting firm with traffic engineering experience, indicating that the local
roadway that vehicular traffic will be utilizing to enter and leave the site can
handle the increase in vehicular traffic.
(12)
Each
shopping center with its buildings, parking lots and driveways shall be
physically separated from each adjoining street by a curb or other suitable
barrier to prevent unchanneled vehicular ingress or egress. Curb cuts shall
only be allowed after a permit has been issued by the NC Department of
Transportation. These improvements shall be installed at the developer’s
expense.
(13)
If the
shopping center is to be constructed in progressive stages, no occupancy permit
will be granted for any one (1) stage until all site improvements and conditions
assigned to the stage being constructed are completed.
(14)
Outdoor lighting shall be installed and operated in accordance with the Town of
Emerald Isle lighting ordinance.
(15)
Buffer
yards shall be developed in accordance with the Town of Emerald Isle buffer yard
regulations as contained within the Town Zoning Ordinance.
(16)
All
developments with frontage on a public right-of-way shall provide a pedestrian
sidewalk along the right-of-way, between four (4) and six (6) feet in width,
that shall be installed the entire length of the property.
(17)
Public
restrooms shall be provided in a convenient and easily identifiable location at
the developer's expense.
(18)
Any
addition to an existing structure meeting the definition of a Community or
Regional Shopping Center that proposes to increase the floor area by twenty
(20) percent or more shall be required to incorporate these guidelines into the
site. Any existing structure meeting the definition of a Retail Shopping
Center that proposes to increase the floor area to ten thousand (10,000)
square feet or more shall be required to incorporate these guidelines into the
site.
(19)
The
site shall be designed to contain on-site all storm water from impervious
surfaces up to the level of a ten-year, two-hour storm event, the equivalent
being four and twenty-four-hundredths (4.24) inches of rainfall in a two-hour
period.
5.
The Town Clerk is authorized to number the section set forth above and insert
the same as appropriate in the Town Code.
6. 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.
Adopted this the
_________ day of ____________________, 2003, by a vote of
Commissioner(s)
________________________________________________voting for,
Commissioner(s)
________________________________________________ voting against, and
Commissioner(s)
_________________________________________ absent.
______________________________
Arthur
B. Schools, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Rhonda Ferebee,
Town Clerk
Mr. Harvey noted that the Planning Board and ultimately the
subcommittee worked for approximately 8 months to get this recommendation to
this stage.
He said that they would do whatever action the Board felt
was necessary, either to set a Public Hearing or to continue review.
Mayor Schools asked how large Larry Watson’s project was
and according to Mr. Harvey it was approximately 6 – 8,000 and would not
qualify. It would have to be larger than those two buildings.
Commissioner McElraft asked if you had a restaurant and a
bank on a corner, two pieces of property, is that considered a shopping center.
Mr. Harvey said that by the definitions they have
established for either retail shopping center or community regional shopping
center, we stipulate structure or structure(s), so it could be multiple
structures on site. The magic number is the 10,000 square foot threshold. If
you don’t go over the 10,000 square foot threshold then you are considered by
definition a retail shopping center.
Commissioner McElraft asked if this was for each building
or total, to which Mr. Harvey responded by saying total combination.
Commissioner McElraft said then you could have for example, 5,000 square foot
restaurant, 5,000 square foot bank and you would still have to comply with the
4.24” stormwater. Mr. Harvey said no, if you are 10,000 square feet or under
you are exempt from the requirements that are reserved for community regional
shopping centers. Mr. Harvey went on to add that if combined they are 10,001
square feet or 10,002 square feet you are defined as a regional shopping
center. If they are 7,000 and 3,000 respectively, you meet the qualification
definition of retail shopping center.
Commissioner McElraft said then if you had a 6,000 square
foot building and a 5,000 square foot building that would have to meet the 4.24”
stormwater. Mr. Harvey said yes they would have to meet all 19 requirements.
He noted that two different parcels are considered two different developments.
Mr. Rush asked about a 6,000 square foot building that is
on one parcel and it is next to another parcel that has a 5,000 square foot
building, to which Mr. Harvey said it would apply to buildings on the same
parcel.
Commissioner McElraft posed the scenario of having two
structures. One is 6,000 and one is 5,000. She wondered how huge the pipes
would be for 4.24” stormwater. Mr. Harvey said this was up to a stormwater
engineer to design the system. A stormwater engineer would have to devise a
methodology that would meet that requirement that is established under this
ordinance. Mr. Harvey said that under the existing ordinance you are not
required to install piping, that is the preferred method to deal with the issue
but it is not the only means to address that issue.
Commissioner McElraft said she could understand if this was
one big 10,000 square foot building but not she felt if it was two buildings and
each are retaining the 2” of stormwater.
Mr. Harvey said the problem is that if they are on the same
parcel of property then you are dealing essentially with one building as 10,000
square feet in area because you are having the same parking requirement as if it
was just one building over 10,000 square feet in area. He said that a 6,000
square foot building and a 5,000 square foot building on one single parcel of
property has the same effect as just a single 11,000 square foot building when
you look at the overall scope of stormwater coming off of it as well the
requisite parking that will be required by the ordinance to support it.
Commissioner McElraft said to look at the already developed
areas. You have parcels next to parcels next to parcels. They are only
required to do 2”. She felt it was no different from having a building here and
a building here on the same parcel because you are right next to each other.
Mr. Harvey said the problem is that our current ordinance
doesn’t require side yard setbacks or any more intrusive stormwater system over
2”. When you look at large scale commercial development, for an example, a
30,000 or 40,000 commercial shopping center, that’s going to have more impact
than a 7,000 and a 7,000 and a 7,000 even if it’s on separate parcels. His
argument as to the reason for holding them to a different standard is that when
you start looking at large scale commercial developments that this ordinance is
designed to allow the Town to try and work with the developer. You are looking
at more intensive use of property and the potential for more stormwater issues
and problems just given the sheer size and scope. He noted again that the
overall stormwater limitation is up to this Board. If they determine that they
want to stick with the 2” that is their prerogative.
Mayor Schools asked if other communities with larger tracts
required retention of more water.
Mr. Harvey said he had found recommended and been party to
drafting ordinances in communities where the 4.24” is the standard. He noted
they were coastal communities.
Commissioner Eckhardt said this seemed the type of thing
where they would want to go back and have a work session with the Planning
Board.
Commissioner McElraft said she would like to open this
issue up to the people who would be affected by this in the B3 zones.
Commissioner Marks mentioned problems with the existing
ordinance. She said they needed to put in pipes or impervious concrete or
whatever, to prevent this eventually falling on the taxpayers to deal with the
flooding issue.
Mr. Rush said that he would try to set something up with
the Planning Board and he would notify the Board of the date.
FEMA BEACH MAINTENANCE PLAN
Mr. Rush introduced Greg Rudolph, Carteret County Shore
Protection Officer, mentioning the tremendous help he provided in putting this
presentation together and wanted to thank him for his efforts.
Commissioner McElraft also thanked Mr. Rudolph noting that
the Town of Pine Knoll Shores had just spent at least $8,000 doing what Mr.
Rudolph had done for Emerald Isle.
Mr. Rudolph gave a PowerPoint presentation to the Board
outlining the FEMA Beach Maintenance Plan.
According to Mr. Rush the goal of the plan is to document
the Town’s efforts to monitor and maintain the recently nourished beach in
compliance with FEMA regulations so that the Town will be eligible for FEMA
Public Assistance funding to replace any nourishment sand lost in a
federally-declared disaster event. The Beach Monitoring and Maintenance Plan
was prepared by both myself and Greg Rudolph, the Carteret County Shore
Protection Officer, for the Board’s review and eventual submission to FEMA.
FEMA regulations authorize the reimbursement of costs
associated with beach nourishment if sand is lost during a federally-declared
disaster event. If the beach qualifies, FEMA will reimburse the Town for the
actual sand lost during that event only. The Board should note that FEMA would
not reimburse the Town for normal erosion losses that occur prior to the
disaster event. Routine beach profile surveys are essential to determine the
volume lost during the specific disaster event
In order to qualify, the beach must be an engineered beach,
and the Town must maintain the beach in accordance with a maintenance program
involving periodic renourishment. Because the Town has made a multi-million
dollar investment in the recently completed beach nourishment project, it is
advisable to prepare and abide by a maintenance plan in order to enhance the
Town’s chances of receiving disaster funding assistance from FEMA. In essence,
the Beach Monitoring and Maintenance Plan is akin to an “insurance policy” for
the beach nourishment project in the event that a major storm causes severe
erosion of the nourishment sand. Mr. Rudolph and I have researched the FEMA
regulations and have prepared what we believe is a Beach Monitoring and
Maintenance Plan that will meet with approval from FEMA in the event the Town
endures a federally declared-disaster event.
The Beach Monitoring and Maintenance Plan is a detailed
plan that includes scientific, policy, and financial information, and is
designed to meet with approval from FEMA. The highlights of the plan are
summarized below:
- The Town’s nourishment project resulted in approximately
1.66 million cubic yards of sand on the “berm” (the flat beach only; not
including the dune volume and the tapers)
- Approximately 62% of this material was to restore the
“initial deficit”, while the other 38% represented the 10-year advance
nourishment. Theoretically, at the end of 10 years, based on historical
erosion rates, 38% of the volume will have been removed from the system.
- The Town’s plan takes a more conservative approach, and
assumes that 50% of the nourishment volume will have been removed from the
system within 10 years.
- The Town’s plan assumes that the long-term Shore
Protection Project does not occur. (The long-term Shore Protection Project is
not an eligible maintenance plan because it is also sponsored by the federal
government.)
- The Town’s plan commits to continue annual beach profile
monitoring through the County’s arrangement with the UNC Institute of Marine
Sciences. This is a crucial element of the plan to satisfy FEMA requirements,
and will be the basis for determining the amount of sand lost in a disaster
event.
- The Town’s plan divides the 5.9 miles of nourished beach
up into six (6) 5,000 linear feet “analytical cells” for measurement purposes,
and commits to renourish those sections of beach when 50% of the initial
nourishment volume has been removed from the system in each “analytical
cell”. Theoretically, this should occur in 10 years, or FY 12-13.
- Theoretically, the Town will have lost approximately
830,000 cubic yards of material in 10 years, and would need to restore that
amount to the beach to remain eligible for FEMA assistance. The Town’s plan
commits to nourish the beach at that time with that volume of sand.
- The total estimated cost to replace the lost 830,000
cubic yards of material in FY 12-13 is approximately $5.8 million.
- Assuming the long-term Shore Protection Project does not
occur, the County’s Beach Fund projects a balance of approximately $12 million
by FY 12-13. Using the same distribution formula specified in the Room
Occupancy Tax legislation that made short-term allocations to the towns on
Bogue Banks, it is reasonable to assume that Emerald Isle will be entitled to
approximately $6.4 million of these funds for renourishment purposes. (The
Board should note that if the Shore Protection Project occurs, then these
funds will go toward the local match for that project, and the Town will have
no need for FEMA assistance because the Shore Protection Project will likely
include renourishment every 3-5 years.)
- The Town’s plan commits to future maintenance
renourishment without relying on the Town budget.
The Board should note that the plan is based on the theory
that the recently completed beach nourishment project will perform as designed
by the Town’s coastal engineers, CSE. As noted above, Mr. Rudolph and I have
recommended a more conservative approach, and have assumed that 50% of the
material will be lost in 10 years, as opposed to the 38% projected by CSE.
Recognizing that theory does not always hold true, and that the Town needs to
plan for the possibility that the 50% nourishment volume may be lost at some
point in time before the 10 year period at which renourishment is planned, we
have prepared the following scenarios for the Board to consider:
Scenario 1
– 50% of the nourishment volume (10-year advance) is not eroded after 10 years
(March 2013) in any of the six “analytical cells” and the Town continues to
conduct beach surveys and renourish the beach if and when the volume
attributable to the 10-year advance is lost.
Result – EI would likely continue to qualify for FEMA
reimbursement.
Scenario 2
– After 10 years (March 2013), the 10-year advance has been lost from most of
the six “analytical cells” and the Town conducts a renourishment project with
the appropriate volume of sand using Room Occupancy Tax proceeds collected by
the County.
Result – EI would likely continue to qualify for FEMA
reimbursement.
Scenario 3
– The 10-year advance is lost before the next decade expires (i.e., 5, 6, 7,
years, etc. after construction) in most of the six analytical cells and EI
conducts a renourishment project with the appropriate volume of sand using some
portion of the Room Occupancy Tax proceeds collected by the County and other
supplemental funds identified at that time.
Result – EI would likely continue to qualify for FEMA
reimbursement.
Scenario 4
- The 10-year advance is lost before the next decade expires (i.e., 5, 6, 7,
years, etc. after construction) and EI does not renourish the beach.
Result – EI would likely not qualify for FEMA
reimbursement. In essence, the Town would knowingly forfeit its eligibility for
FEMA reimbursement, however, it would have maximized its potential for
reimbursement in the previous years.
With the 2003 hurricane
season already upon us, I am hopeful that the Board will adopt the proposed plan
sooner rather than later in the event that Emerald Isle is hit by a hurricane
this season.
Mr. Rush gave the example that if we get hit with a storm
that the President declares a disaster, and we had 1.6 million cubic yards on
the beach and after the storm we had 1 million cubic yards on the beach we could
only claim reimbursement for the 600,000 cubic yards. He said this is why it is
very important to have the survey as close as possible before a storm event
occurs. They will only replace what you lost in the storm not what is lost as
normal erosion. The second key point was that it has to be a Presidentially
declared disaster and finally there is no timetable for getting a plan approved
but with the hurricane season upon us that was the rationale for bringing this
to the Board now.
Commissioner Marks asked if the county occupancy tax was
designated specifically for beach nourishment.
Mr. Rudolph said it is 5%, half of this is stipulated for
TDA and the other 2.5% is specifically for the purpose of beach nourishment.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked what is FEMA’s condition as far
as sand size.
Mr. Rudolph said it is that the beach must be improved
beach with designed elevation, width and slope and that is all.
Mr. Rush added that there is no requirement for FEMA to
review the plan ahead of time. He added that if the Board approved this tonight
and we were hit with a hurricane tomorrow the first thing he would say is that
we have a Plan. In the interest of being proactive in working with them if the
Board does approve this we will turn around and send this to them and ask for
their feedback now before a storm happens.
Commissioner Eckhardt asked how FEMA treated Inlet Hazard
areas.
Mr. Rudolph said for the purposes of this discussion we
would not be nourishing in the hazard area either for Phase II or Phase III so
it would not be involved.
Commissioner McElraft added for the public’s information
that we have not given up on the Shore Protection 50 Year Plan. It is on target
and going very well.
Mr. Rush said that while we are waiting for the Shore
Protection project, this provides some level of insurance for the town and if
the Shore Protection project never happens then obviously it’s providing a
longer period of time of insurance for the Town.
Wayne Cunningham, 2001 Emerald Drive, asked what was going
to be done at the beach in his area around 20th street. He has heard
a lot of negative comments. He said the beach is nice and wide but full of
rocks and shells.
Mr. Rush said that the Town has completed three
comprehensive rock removals in that area with the Public Works crews. They
patrol the beach every Monday and Friday picking up rocks as they see them. The
Town is making a concerted effort to get the larger rocks up and have gotten
most of the larger ones. He noted the wide range of opinions about the quality
of the beach. He hopes that it will continue to improve over time and finer
grain material will dominate that section of the beach.
Commissioner McElraft commented that rentals in the area
that has not been renourished were down now too. She felt this was due to the
economy and not the condition of the beach. She said due to the east/west drift
a lot of the sand from the other part of the island that they put on the beach
is on our area now.
Mayor Schools said that he serves on the TDA Board and is
looking at the occupancy tax constantly. He has heard for the past two years
that rentals were down but occupancy tax collections were up.
Commissioner Marks thanked Mr. Rush and Mr. Rudolph for the
presentation and felt that they should support this. She wanted everyone to
realize, however, that this applies only to renourished beach and to federally
declared disaster areas. She said back in the 80’s in the west end of the beach
Emerald Isle lost 30 feet of beach front in a winter storm. It was not a
federally declared disaster area. She said this could happen again and it is
not covered by FEMA and she felt people needed to realize this. She felt the
impact on rentals would not show up for another year. She has heard comments
that the beach is so terrible they’re never going to come back again and others
who think it is wonderful that no waves are lapping at the base of their house.
Motion was made by Commissioner Eckhardt to adopt the
Beach Monitoring and Maintenance Plan for submission to FEMA. The Board voted
unanimously 4-0 in favor. Motion carried.
BEACH NOURISHMENT EASTERN PHASE CLOSE-OUT
Mr. Rush gave a summary of this item to the Board.
The Board of Commissioners is asked to approve a final
amendment to the capital project ordinance for the Eastern Phase of the Beach
Nourishment Project in order to proceed with final close-out of the project. A
related procedural budget amendment is also attached for the Board’s
consideration. In total, the attached capital project ordinance amendment
appropriates an additional $210,000 for the project to cover both anticipated
and unanticipated cost over-runs late in the project. The approval of the
attached capital project ordinance amendment would bring the total project
budget for the Eastern Phase of the Beach Nourishment Project to $11,770,000,
which is $210,000, or 1.8%, more than the amended budget established by the
Board of Commissioners for the project.
Explanation of Final
Close-Out Costs
As stated above, an additional $210,000 is necessary to
close-out the Eastern Phase of the Beach Nourishment Project. I had initially
reported to the Board that the project would come in on budget, however, there
were several developments late in the project that have resulted in the capital
project ordinance amendment presented now. The additional cost associated with
some of these late developments was anticipated, and knowingly incurred. Some
additional costs, however, were not anticipated.
Significant Anticipated Additional Costs
The attached budget amendment is procedural in nature, and
simply appropriates the $200,000 from reserves in the Beach Nourishment Debt
Service / Reserve Fund to be transferred to the project budget for the Eastern
Phase of the Beach Nourishment Project
|
BUDGET AMENDMENT
|
|
FY 2003-2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The budget for
FY 2003-2004 is hereby amended as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BEACH
NOURISHMENT DEBT SERVICE / RESERVE FUND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase
|
Decrease
|
|
Expenditures
|
|
|
|
|
Appropriation to
Fund Balance |
|
-
|
(200,000) |
|
Transfer to
Beach Nourishment -Eastern Phase CPO |
200,000
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
200,000
|
(200,000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies of this
ordinance shall be filed with the Finance Officer, Budget Officer, and Town
|
|
Clerk, to be
kept on file by them for their direction in the disbursement of Town funds
for this project. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adopted this
______ day of _____________ , 2003. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attest:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_____________________________ |
|
___________________________ |
|
Rhonda Ferebee,
Town Clerk |
|
Arthur B.
Schools, Jr., Mayor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPITAL PROJECT
BUDGET ORDINANCE |
|
|
|
BEACH
NOURISHMENT - EASTERN PHASE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be it ordained
by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Emerald Isle that, pursuant to
|
|
|
|
NCGS 159-13.2,
the following amendments are made to Capital Project Ordinance originally
adopted |
|
|
|
on April 9, 2002
for the Beach Nourishment - Eastern Phase project. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amendments
|
Amended Budget
|
|
|
|
|
Amended Budget
|
(July 8, 2003
|
(July 8, 2003
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General
Obligation Bond Proceeds |
11,510,000
|
|
11,510,000
|
|
|
|
Interest
Earnings |
50,000
|
10,000
|
60,000
|
|
|
|
Transfer from
Beach Nourishment |
-
|
200,000
|
200,000
|
|
|
|
Debt Service
/ Reserver Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
11,560,000
|
210,000
|
11,770,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Permitting /
Engineering / Const Admin |
500,000
|
33,500
|
533,500
|
|
|
|
Legal
|
80,000
|
5,000
|
85,000
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
60,000
|
12,000
|
72,000
|
|
|
|
Dredge
Mobilization |
1,000,000
|
-
|
1,000,000
|
|
|
|
Dredge
DeMobilization |
500,000
|
-
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
Construction
|
9,150,000
|
106,000
|
9,256,000
|
|
|
|
Dredge
Relocation |
-
|
55,500
|
55,500
|
|
|
|
Turtle Trawling
|
112,000
|
(7,000) |
105,000
|
|
|
|
Tire Down-Time
|
6,000
|
-
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
Dredge
Monitoring |
10,000
|
4,000
|
14,000
|
|
|
|
Dune Grass
|
42,500
|
(4,000) |
38,500
|
|
|
|
Dune Adjustments
|
39,000
|
-
|
39,000
|
|
|
|
Sand Fencing
|
9,500
|
6,000
|
15,500
|
|
|
|
Public Access
Improvements |
51,000
|
(1,000) |
50,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
11,560,000
|
210,000
|
11,770,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies of this
ordinance shall be filed with the Finance Officer, Budget Officer, and Town
|
|
|
|
Clerk, to be
kept on file by them for their direction in the disbursement of Town funds
for this project. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adopted this
______ day of _____________ , 2003. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attest:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_____________________________ |
|
___________________________ |
|
|
|
Rhonda Ferebee,
Town Clerk |
|
Arthur B.
Schools, Jr., Mayor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motion was made by Commissioner McElraft to adopt the
Capital Project Ordinance Amendment for the Eastern Phase of the Beach
Nourishment. The Board voted unanimously 4-0 in favor. Motion carried.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marks to adopt the
Budget Amendment for the Beach Nourishment Debt Service/Reserve Fund. The
Board voted unanimously 4-0 in favor. Motion carried.
APPOINTMENTS
Motion was made by Commissioner Messer to appoint
Joseph Quigley to the Planning Board. The Board voted unanimously 4-0 in
favor. Motion carried.
Motion was made by Commissioner Messer to appoint
Russell Adams from Alternate I member on the Board of Adjustment to Regular
member of the Board of Adjustment. The Board voted unanimously 4-0 in favor.
Motion carried.
Motion was made by Commissioner Marks to appoint
Nancy Williamson as Alternate I on the Board of Adjustment. The Board voted
unanimously 4-0 in favor. Motion carried.
Mayor Schools noted that these appointments are effective
today July 8, 2003.
COMMENTS FROM TOWN CLERK, TOWN ATTORNEY, AND TOWN
MANAGER
Town Clerk had no comment.
Town Attorney asked about the Bicycle Pedestrian
Committee. Mayor Schools said that they encourage everybody to have anyone they
know that is interested to contact them. He said applications have already been
received but they want to wait until more are received.
Town Manager Rush wanted to point out that the Town had
done $29.5 million worth of new construction this past fiscal year which has
blown the previous record out of the water. He felt this was remarkable and he
thanked the Planning and Inspections Department.
He also mentioned that in May 2002 the Board approved the
subdivision final plat for West End Subdivision with the developer submitting a
Letter of Credit for $65,000 which was 150% of the estimated cost of
constructing shared driveways and removing the old road bed of Coast Guard Road
that bisected many of the lots. The developer had until May 14 of this year to
complete those improvements. He did not do so and therefore the Town has the
right to cash that Letter of Credit. Mr. Rush said he is frustrated with the
lack of activity on this subdivision. He had discussed this situation with the
Town Attorney and essentially the Town has no other recourse other than to
cash the Letter of Credit and construct the improvements ourselves. Mr. Rush
said he is going to give the developer until July 31 to make significant
progress on site. Mr. Rush added that the developer claims permitting issues
with the Corps of Engineers and CAMA have contributed to his delay.
There was discussion concerning this issue by
Commissioners. Attorney Derek Taylor suggested that since they had discussed
having a work session to discuss another issue in mid-July they could possibly
plan to hear the developer at that time and not miss his deadline. He pointed
out however, that it was not necessary for them to do so.
Mr. Rush said that he would try to schedule a special
workshop for early to mid-August.
Attorney Taylor said that if they did give the developer
this opportunity to speak and they also want to hold on to the deadline that he
should be written about the deadline now.
COMMENTS FROM BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND MAYOR
Commissioner Eckhardt welcomed Kevin Reed, newly appointed
Inspector of Planning and Inspections, aboard to his first meeting.
There were no other comments from Commissioners or Mayor.
ADJOURN
Motion was made by Commissioner McElraft to adjourn
the meeting. The Board voted unanimously 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
Rhonda C. Ferebee
Town Clerk |