MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING
OF THE EMERALD ISLE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 – 7:00 P.M. – TOWN HALL

Present for the meeting were Mayor Art Schools, Commissioners Dick Eckhardt, Emily Farmer, Doje Marks, Pat McElraft, and Floyd Messer. Others present were Town Attorney Derek Taylor, Town Manager Frank Rush, Assistant Town Manager/Finance Officer Georgia Overman, Town Clerk Rhonda Ferebee, Planning Director Kevin Reed, Fire Chief Bill Walker and Artie Dunn, Public Works Director.

After roll call all who were present recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Motion was made by Commissioner Eckhardt to adopt the Agenda. The Board voted unanimously 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.

5. PROCLAMATION – NATIONAL PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS MONTH

Mayor Schools said that he had been contacted by someone from Wake Forest University researching prostate cancer and they had requested the Town of Emerald Isle sign a Proclamation declaring the month of September “National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month”. Mayor Schools added that on

September 20, Carteret General Hospital was offering a screening program as well as blood tests as part of their yearly program for anyone interested.

6. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT

Anne Erikson, 9304 Ocean Drive, announced that the League of Women Voters would be having the Candidate Forum on October 20 from 7-9 PM. This will be held in the Parks & Recreation Community Center. Ms. Erikson also extended an invitation to the public to attend the candidate forums. They will be having the candidate forums in Atlantic Beach, Beaufort, Pine Knoll Shores and Emerald Isle.

Pam Minnick, co-coordinator of the Emerald Isle Turtle Protection Program, gave a brief update on the current status of the turtles. She said there had been 11 hatches. She noted that they had just found a new nest last week making the total number of nests 22. This latest nest will probably not hatch until sometime in November or December. Ms. Minnick said this was very unusual in North Carolina. She said the hatch rate had ranged from 98% down to 48%.

Mayor Schools mentioned that the “Walk to D’feet ALS” was scheduled for September 13. He said that on Friday night at 6:30 there would be entertainment at the Holiday Trav-L Park. Saturday morning is the actual walk. The festivities will begin at 9:00 AM and the actual walk starts at 10:00 AM at the Western Ocean Regional Access.

Mayor Schools noted that on the following weekend, September 20, at the Western Ocean Regional Access, the Fall Clean-up would take place at 9:00 AM, with hotdogs and drinks afterwards.

Mayor Schools said that the new celebration “Dog Days of Summer” will be September 27^th at the Western Ocean Regional Access. He said that there will be many events, such as fishing tournament, surfing tournament, volleyball tournament, etc.

The next blood drive, according to Mayor Schools, will be October 10 here in Town Hall from 2-7 PM. He noted that 3 of the last 4 blood drives they had not been able to take all the people that showed up because they ran out of time.

Mayor Schools pointed out the new art exhibit on the wall in Town Hall. Jeanne McNeil is the artist.

7. CONSENT AGENDA

Motion was made by Commissioner Marks to approve the Consent Agenda.

Commissioner McElraft asked Mr. Rush about the fee schedule for the floodplain development. She asked if the fee instituted by Carteret County would be for the unincorporated areas and would not cause a double permit fee. Mr. Rush responded that this was correct.

The Board voted unanimously 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.

8. PUBLIC COMMENT

There were no comments from the public.

9. REZONING REQUEST – 4.03 ACRES ON OCEANFRONT BETWEEN JANELL LANE AND BOARDWALK RV PARK FROM B-3 TO R-2

Kevin Reed, Planning Director, presented information to the Board along with an overhead presentation concerning this rezoning request. Mr. W. Randy Campbell is requesting that this 4.03 acre site be rezoned from B-3 to R-2. This is the same parcel of land that was the subject of a denied RMF rezoning request earlier this year. Mr. Campbell has reevaluated his plans in light of that denial, and is now seeking an R-2 zoning. The Planning Board discussed this request at its August 25 meeting and unanimously recommended approval.

Motion was made by Commissioner Farmer to open the Public Hearing. The Board voted unanimously 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.

There were no comments from the public.

Motion was made by Commissioner Marks to close the Public Hearing. The Board voted unanimously 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.

Motion was made by Commissioner Farmer to approve the rezoning of 4.03 acres on the oceanfront between Janell Lane and Boardwalk RV Park from B-3 to R-2. The Board voted unanimously 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.

10. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 – ZONING – TO AMEND THE DUNES AND VEGETATION ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO WASTEWATER SYSTEM SITE MODIFICATIONS

Kevin Reed Planning Director, presented the information concerning this ordinance amendment to the Board. The Board of Commissioners is scheduled to consider the attached ordinance amending the Town’s Dunes and Vegetation ordinance adopted in July. The attached ordinance resolves the “Catch 22” issue that arose regarding site modifications required in order to obtain a wastewater system construction authorization permit by allowing limited clearing of a lot prior to the issuance of building permit to make site modifications required by the Carteret County Health Department only.

ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 – ZONING – TO AMEND

THE DUNES AND VEGETATION ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO

WASTEWATER SYSTEM SITE MODIFICATIONS

WHEREAS, the Town of Emerald Isle desires to protect the unique natural environment as much as practical while continuing to allow for responsible development, and

WHEREAS, the existing natural dunes and vegetation that remains on undeveloped parcels are an important component of our unique natural environment, and it is the Town’s desire to protect, as much as practical, the existing natural dunes and vegetation, and

WHEREAS, a Town of Emerald Isle recently adopted comprehensive amendments to the Dunes and Vegetation Ordinance, and

WHEREAS, the current Dunes and Vegetation Ordinance is considered to be in need of amendment in order to clarify one issue relative to wastewater system site modifications,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners that

1. Chapter 19 – Zoning – Section 19-333 Applicability be amended to add subsection (4) as follows:

(4) Site modifications to a parcel, as required by the Carteret County Health Department in the issuance of an improvement permit, in order to obtain authorization for the installation of a wastewater system. These regulations shall apply to all lots of record within the town. All proposed site modifications to a parcel, as required by the Carteret County Health Department, shall be reviewed by the dunes and vegetation protection officer (DVPO) prior to land disturbing activity and/or tree removal.

2. Chapter 19 – Zoning – Section 19-334 Permit Required, subsection (c)(1)g. be amended as follows:

g. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate that he or she has applied for a Town of Emerald Isle building permit. The DVPO shall only issue a permit to allow for the clearing or disturbance of a lot to allow for new development if all requirements outlined within this article are adhered to and if the applicant has submitted a complete application for a building permit to the Town of Emerald Isle Planning and Inspections Department for review. Under no circumstances may a permit to authorize clearing and/or disturbance be issued unless a building permit has been issued, unless such activity is considered exempt as outlined in Section 19-335 of this ordinance.

3. Chapter 19 – Zoning – Sections 19-334 Permit Required, subsection (c) be amended to add subsection (4) as follows:

a. A copy of the improvement permit issued by the Carteret County Health Department.

b. A sketch indicating the property lines, the area to be disturbed in order to perform the required site modifications

c. required by the Carteret County Health Department, and the area to be cleared to access the area to be modified.

d. The applicant shall be required to physically flag the area to be disturbed.

4. Chapter 19 – Zoning – Section 336 Design Standards be amended to add subsection (4) as follows:

a. Modifications to the site shall be limited to only those activities required by Health Department, including the limited disturbance of land necessary to access the site.

b. Modifications shall not include any disturbance of land to any repair area.

c. Area modified under this subsection may not be included in the natural area required under subsection (1)(c) of Section 336 at such time that a building permit is obtained for the lot and a dunes and vegetation permit application is submitted.

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

Motion was made by Commissioner Farmer to open the Public Hearing. The Board voted unanimously 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.

There were no comments from the public.

Motion was made by Commissioner McElraft to close the Public Hearing. The Board voted unanimously 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.

Commissioner Marks commented that the Planning Board and the Town Board spent almost 18 months on revising this ordinance to try and tighten up on the clearing of vegetation and she said if they had voted that down they would have had to start over at square one and she felt that to dump all those months of work would not have been in the best interest of the Town.

Motion was made by Commissioner Eckhardt to approve the Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 – Zoning – To Amend the Dunes and Vegetation Ordinance Relative to Wastewater System Site Modifications.

Mayor Schools asked if this included the extra sentence that the Planning Board put in.

Mr. Rush said that the draft in the packets incorporates the recommendation from the Planning Board as well as a couple of other technical additions to the ordinance.

Commissioner Farmer said that what the Planning Board did recommend was to not allow any disturbance in the repair field.

Commissioner McElraft commented that she would vote for this tonight but said that there was a chance to take this out of the ordinance the last time and not go back to square one. She said that she was still in favor of people being able to put their septic tanks in.

Commissioner Farmer said that she was not entirely convinced that it was necessary to go this extra step but at the same time she would vote for it too.

The Board voted unanimously 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.

11. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 – ZONING – TO ESTABLISH

REGULATIONS FOR COMMUNITY OR REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS

Kevin Reed, Planning Director, presented the information to the Board concerning this ordinance amendment.

The Board of Commissioners is scheduled to consider the attached ordinance amendment establishing additional regulations for Community or Regional Shopping Centers, which are defined as greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in area. The ordinance amendment is intended to replace the Town’s previous ordinance that required commercial structures greater than 8,000 sq. ft. in area to secure a special use permit.

The attached ordinance amendment was reviewed in detail by the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board at a joint meeting held on August 12. At that meeting, it was the consensus of the two boards that the ordinance was acceptable as presented, with one exception regarding storm water runoff requirements. Consensus emerged at the August 12 meeting that the originally proposed requirement to contain 4.24” of storm water runoff should be deleted, and that large commercial structures should only be required to contain 2” of storm water runoff, as is required for all other uses per the Emerald Isle Storm Water Management Ordinance. The Planning Board discussed the attached ordinance amendment again at its August 25 meeting, and unanimously recommended approval, with the change to 2” of storm water runoff.

For your convenience, I have summarized the most significant new policy provisions in the attached ordinance amendment:

All commercial development, regardless of size and type, must install sidewalks on the right of way at the time of development.

The ordinance establishes definitions for Community or Regional Shopping Centers, which are defined as having greater than 10,000 sq. ft. of floor area, and Retail Shopping Centers, which are defined as having less than 10,000 sq. ft. of floor area.

Community orf of Regional Shopping Centers are added to the Table of Permitted Uses in the B-3 zone only, while Retail Shopping Centers are added to the B-1, B-2, and B-3 zones.

Community or Regional Shopping Centers must have dedicated fire lanes.

Community or Regional Shopping Centers must provide adequate pedestrian amenities on-site to serve the patrons of the commercial development.

Community or Regional Shopping Centers must either utilize fire sprinklers or conduct a fire flow test.

Community or Regional Shopping Centers must have a traffic analysis completed by a qualified consulting firm with traffic engineering experience.

Community or Regional Shopping Centers must contain on site the first 2” of storm water runoff.

The Board and the public should note that these additional requirements would apply only to developments meeting the definition of Community or Regional Shopping Centers, and not other buildings that are greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in floor area, including hotels, motels, and condominiums.

ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 – ZONING –

TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR COMMUNITY OR REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS

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 Subsection (14):

(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 for the first two (2) 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.

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. Reed noted that a revised amendment had been placed in front of the Board.

Mr. Rush added concerning this revision in front of the Board, that in reviewing the ordinance they discovered that there should be additional clarification in the requirement for sidewalks along public rights-of-ways. He noted there were several parcels in the commercial district that front on one, two and in some cases three public rights-of-ways. The ordinance placed in front of them tonight specifies that a sidewalk is only required to be installed along one of those public right-of-ways as determined by the Town during the review process.

Commissioner Farmer said if this is the case then Jordan’s, for instance, would not have a sidewalk along Bogue Inlet Drive.

Mr. Rush said that may not be a relative comparison as that was a Town sponsored project. This requirement would apply to any new commercial developments. When that applicant presents their building plans, during that review process the Town would specify where the sidewalk would be required.

Commissioner Farmer, said her point was, that if Jordan’s had been new development, there would have been no sidewalk going in on Bogue Inlet Drive. Mr. Rush responded that was correct.

Mayor Schools said that it wouldn’t have been required but it did not mean that they wouldn’t have done it.

Mr. Rush added that the only thing different on the revised version ed from what was in their packet was they specified 6’ wide sidewalks along Highway 58 and 5’ wide along all other streets which is the standard they used for the recent sidewalk project. He said also in Section 10 it now states that traffic shall be diverted upon entering the parking lot in order to facilitate low speed travel through the parking lot. The last change is a technical correction regarding curb cutting.

Commissioner Messer said he is reading commercial development and shopping centers. He asked if you can assume that commercial development would be an office complex and a shopping center would be a shopping center.

Mr. Reed said in this instance you are talking about retail versus office type uses.

Commissioner McElraft said that in the ordinance it says all commercial development.

Mr. Reed clarified that based on his interpretation if it was commercially zoned property and was being developed for commercial purposes whether office complex or retail this ordinance would certainly require sidewalks.

Commissioner McElraft said she was disturbed about the advertising. She said when you look at the agenda packet you are talking about regional shopping centers and community shopping centers, it doesn’t say anything about sidewalks in commercial areas. She felt this needed to be re-advertised that it is not just regional shopping centers or 10,000 square foot buildings, but that it will impact anyone with commercial property.

Mr. Rush said that they had scheduled a public hearing on this matter and that the Board could cancel that public hearing but they will have to have one at some point in time. If the Board decides that they do not want to consider this tonight we can re-advertise the public hearing and make it clear that the sidewalks are a part of the ordinance also.

Mayor Schools asked if there were any comments from the public.

Pam Minnick, Planning Board member, Dolphin Ridge, said that she was a part of the committee that put this together and she said they had always intended for the sidewalks to be on all development trying to make this what they envisioned as a sidewalk friendly community. They felt - why have the Town pay to put in sidewalks at a later date – why not have the developer do it right now. She said that she read this as any public right-of-way would have to have a sidewalk – that, she felt, was the intent as chairperson of that committee.

Commissioner Farmer said that she agreed with Ms. Minnick on the sidewalks.

Commissioner McElraft asked Ms. Minnick if for instance, at the new golf course, would they have required sidewalks on Reed Drive and Emerald Drive. Ms. Minnick responded yes they would in her opinion.

Commissioner Marks said that what is planned for the Emerald Drive side of Emerald Forest Golf is a bike path.

Mr. Rush clarified that they have grant funds that have been awarded to put bicycle paths along that entire right-of-way from Merchants Park to Holiday Trav-L Park. At the staff level it would be the intention only to have a bicycle path on that side of Highway 58 and hypothetically if the Emerald Forest Mini Golf came before them and this requirement was in place they would require them to put the sidewalk on Reed Drive. He said this was the rationale for having the flexibility during the review process.

Motion was made by Commissioner Messer to table this item. The Board voted unanimously 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.

Commissioner Farmer said she had a problem in the ordinance with page 3, number 11, concerning the traffic study that has to be done for the large developments. She mentions the sentence that states that the traffic study must indicate that the local roadway that vehicular traffic will be utilizing to enter and leave the site can handle the increase in vehicular traffic. She would like to know the definition of “can handle”. She said that when they were looking at Reed Drive extension, Kimley -Horn did a study that talked about DOT’s capacity. They said that capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a particular road segment or through a particular intersection within a set timed duration. She felt they need to quantify this rather than saying “can handle”.

Mr. Reed said that in his experience what communities normally do is set a target. He said if you are seen to have some kind of definition for that rather than “can handle” then they should focus on some level of service that they would like to achieve or have as a worst case scenario and include in place that that is the requirement as far as the traffic study.

Mayor Schools asked Mr. Reed if he had heard enough to come back to the Board with something that might be reasonable.

There followed further discussion concerning traffic studies after which Commissioner Eckhardt wanted to clarify what they are asking Mr. Reed to do. He said that it was his understanding that it would not have to go back to the Planning Board.

Mr. Reed said that it was his understanding that the issue the Board would like for staff to look into is rather than saying “can handle”, that they establish some type of minimal criteria or threshold of level of service that development cannot go beyond.

Commissioner Eckhardt said that he understood that they were talking about commercial developments and that the only thing they were tabling that particular item for was to come back for a public hearing so that everybody understood it was not only shopping centers but any commercial development.

Mr. Reed said that they would put forth a public hearing notice that is a little clearer.

Commissioner McElraft said that the ordinance itself needs to be clarified with the specifics of the sidewalk sizes, etc.

Mr. Rush asked if it was the consensus of the Board that they are comfortable with his suggestions that only requires a developer to put a sidewalk on one public road frontage or as Planning Board member Minnick mentioned at one point in time they planned on requiring it on 2 or 3 sides.

Commissioner Marks said she had a concern if they just required a one side and it is a corner piece of property and to get a crosswalk across Emerald Drive they must connect to a sidewalk on the other side of Emerald Drive. She said that one of the things the Highway 58 committee was trying to do was to encourage people to get out of their cars and walk from one business to another.

Anne Erikson, Planning Board Chairman, said that she would like to have this back to the Planning Board. She said there were members who worked very hard on this and she would like to give them the opportunity to go over it again.

Mayor Schools then determined from the Board that this would be sent back to the Planning Board as requested.

Commissioner Farmer brought up item (12) and the fact that the code book does not stipulate how far away from an intersection a curb cut has to be and because of that there were some curb cuts in town that are way too close to intersections and are not safe.

Mr. Rush said that is something that the Planning staff and Planning Board could take a look at if that was the Board’s desire.

Mark Brennesholtz, 9322 Ocean Drive, asked to discuss two items. Mr. Brennesholtz was on the Highway 58 committee and noted as a reference point, sidewalks like those just constructed run about $25 and $30 a linear foot. He said that in new construction it would probably be on the low end of that, just to give a dollar reference point. His second point was that the committee recommended a grid of 7.1 miles of sidewalk and bike path. He noted that one of the suggestions that one of the members had was that if you were only going to construct a sidewalk on one side of a Crew Drive that the developers on the opposite side, which did not require a sidewalk, perhaps make a contribution as part of their development to building a sidewalk on the opposite side of the street.

Mr. Rush said that this ordinance as presented would require a developer on the north side of Crew Drive and on the south side of Crew Drive to have a sidewalk, he wanted to clarify that when you are talking about requiring more than one sidewalk you are only talking about those lots with double or triple frontage. As far as the suggestion of charging a fee for sidewalks, that would be a wonderful tool to have at our disposal but the Town does not have that authority and would have to seek special legislation from the General Assembly to do that.

Commissioner McElraft mentioned that there were no spec’s at all for what type of sidewalks we are requiring. It doesn’t say pervious, impervious, concrete, wood, so should this say that the spec’s will be dictated by the Town.

Mr. Rush said the intent was for a typical concrete sidewalk of the impervious type, but they could certainly add that language and if the Board wants to specify pervious concrete then they need that direction.

Mr. Rush said that this would go back to the Planning Board at their next meeting and they would be asked to provide recommendations on sidewalks.

12. DISCUSSION – ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 – STREETS AND SIDEWALKS – TO STRENGTHEN REGULATIONS FOR THE NUMBERING OF STRUCTURES

Bill Walker, Fire Chief, addressed the Board discussing the issues associated with the numbering of structures.

He noted that the addressing committee met to discuss the concerns and problems with the buildings within Emerald Isle. The three main issues of concern were:

1) Addresses are not readily visible on each structure.

2) Ordinances are vague and not being enforced after receiving their final building inspection.

3) Addresses are not correct, different from town maps, 911 centers addressing and owner’s numbers.

Mr. Walker said that the Fire Department now is working to create a database as to where they stand with the correct addresses. The following are the two alternatives being presented to the Board as noted in Mr. Rush’s memo:

Alternative 1 was finalized by the committee at its last meeting in late July. This alternative would require the placement of 6” numbers on the structure (as opposed to current requirement of 4”), and would also require the installation of a green and white metal reflective sign, with 4” numbers, indicating the structure number within 4 feet of the driveway.

Alternative 2 was developed by Bill Walker and Kevin Reed after the last committee meeting in July, and is also presented for the Board’s consideration. I directed Bill and Kevin to develop this alternative because I was concerned about potential difficulty in enforcing Alternative 1 and community reaction to Alternative 1. I wanted to provide the Board with another alternative that would be easier to enforce and that would perhaps be better received in the community while still resolving the problems. This alternative is similar to Alternative 1, however, the structure number would only be required at the driveway if the number on the structure is not visible from the street at which the driveway intersects. There is also no requirement for the standard green and white metal reflective sign; any indication of the structure numbers, provided they meet the 4” size and contrast requirements in the ordinance, would be acceptable.

Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 require oceanfront structures to display structure numbers on the ocean side of the structure in a location that is readily visible from the beach strand. Both alternatives also require the address assigned to be based on the street that the driveway intersects with and the placement of the number on the side of the structure where the driveway intersects with the street.

Please note that our recommendation is that any new ordinance would apply initially only to new construction. As the memo from Bill Walker and Kevin Reed indicates, we are currently in the process of compiling a database that indicates the following:

Structures that have a street address that is different from where the driveway intersects with the street. Typical examples of this are through lots (i.e., Emerald Drive and Ocean Drive frontage) and corner lots.

Structures that have a street address based on the front of the structure, but the front is not accessible by emergency vehicles and/or is difficult for emergency personnel to access. A typical example of this is the dirt lane that serves several homes off of Fairfax Street; these homes have Ocean Drive addresses but are not easily accessible from Ocean Drive.

Inconsistencies in addressing between the Town’s records, the tax records, the number on the structure, and the E911 system. This problem is further complicated by the fact that we have numerous vacationers who may not be aware of exactly where they are staying if an emergency occurs.

After this database is complete, we plan to present our findings to the Board for future direction on whether or not to re-assign new addresses to these structures. We do not recommend applying any new ordinance to existing homes until after we have determined the magnitude of this problem and re-assigned the correct addresses. Until we complete the database, we do not have a good handle on the actual number of addresses that may need to be re-assigned, however, educated guesses by our personnel suggest that the number may be in the +/- 500 range. We hope to complete the database during the slower winter season and return to the Board next spring.

Staff firmly believes that the addressing problems must be resolved, and thus we are working diligently on this issue. However, the Board should be cautioned that re-assigning addresses is not an easy or popular task, and should be thoroughly considered after we complete our database. Practical issues to consider include:

· Re-assigned addresses will require the property owner to change mailing addresses and stationery.

· Some properties prefer an Ocean Drive address for rental marketing purposes.

· Rental companies would need ample notice before they print their new vacation rental guides.

As I mentioned earlier, our goal is to complete our database and return to the Board with a quantification of these problems in the spring of 2004. If the Board chooses to re-assign addresses, I would envision making the new addresses effective after the 2004 tourism season for the reasons presented above.

In the meantime, we recommend that the Board adopt one, or some variation of one of the alternatives presented in the near future. As stated earlier, we would enforce the new ordinance on new construction only until after the database is complete and the Board provides additional direction on re-assignment of addresses.

Commissioner Farmer said she felt it was very hard to see what the house number is and felt that could be solved if all the houses had a number at the street by their driveways. You would be looking in the same place for the number. The number on the house really isn’t necessary.

Commissioner Farmer said that she felt it was important that the Fire Department, EMS and the Police all see street numbers at a relatively uniform place and she thought that would be on the street by the driveway. She thought people should be able to do what they wanted as long as the numbers were a minimum of 4” and visible. On the oceanfront she felt it would be easier to see the number if you look up at the first walkway and see the number there.

Commissioner Eckhardt asked Mr. Walker and Mr. Reed if there had been any opposition.

Mr. Reed said there were some on the committee that had expressed concerns about the aesthetics.

Commissioner Farmer said she felt it was much easier for emergency personnel to find a building if they are looking in consistent places.

Commissioner Marks said that the way the ordinance is written right now the house number has to be on the house. There are houses that have never had a house number or they have plants in front of the numbers. She felt it was imperative that they do something about requiring house numbers on the street. She added that the numbers need to be on both sides of a post.

Donnie Askew, Assistant Fire Chief, mentioned that many homeowners had their house numbers on their trash racks and since they have been removed there are many homes with no numbers at all on their homes.

Commissioner Farmer said when she saw that Mr. Rush was anticipating about 500 addresses as needing changed that she would have difficulty doing that and hoped that there would be other solutions.

Commissioner McElraft asked if there was anything that would have to be done legally to change the address.

Attorney Derek Taylor said he would suggest that if this change was to be done that they would be sent a change of address card with an explanation. It would not change the legal description of your property.

Commissioner Eckhardt said he would like for them to look at having something that would show up at night, seen from both directions.

After further discussion by the Board concerning this issue staff was directed to come back with an Option 3 for their consideration.

Attorney Derek Taylor recommended that they give thought to the penalty phase of this, as to how they will enforce it.

13. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – WEST END SUBDIVISION

Town Attorney Derek Taylor discussed with the Board the proposed agreements with Mr. Jerry Cook. One is an agreement drafted by Attorney Taylor sent to Mr. Cook’s attorney, Mr. Wessell. Mr. Wessell in return, returned an item to him that was essentially the same, the biggest difference being that Mr. Wessell and Mr. Cook are most concerned about a drop dead date which he had included because of a lack of control by permitting agencies or unforeseen circumstances. Attorney Taylor said he tried to provide a sixty day period or some other period after the time the permits were issued, but no later than a particular date. The issue brought to Mr. Taylor’s attention that was of most concern is that the permitting agencies aren’t always controllable and what looks like a fine application at this particular time could require additional data in the future before it would actually be approved. What the Town wanted to do to ensure due diligence, as described to Mr. Taylor, was that to make sure that it didn’t fall through the cracks for any other reason to put a drop dead date, but Mr. Cook was concerned as well as Mr. Cook’s attorney, that that wouldn’t work very well under the circumstances.

Attorney Taylor said that it is up to the Board as to how they want to proceed. If they cannot come to an agreement in either of these versions or some hybrid thereof, the alternative is to cash in the Letter of Credit and take it upon themselves to make the improvements.

The following is from Mr. Rush’s memo to the Board concerning this item:

The main provisions common to both agreements are as follows:

The Town would allow the $65,000 letter of credit to lapse at the time of its maturity. If a firm date is established at which time the subdivision preliminary and final plats are null and void, then there is no need to retain the letter of credit.

Infrastructure improvements must be complete within 60 days after issuance of all required permits, or the preliminary and final plat approval for West End subdivision is null and void.

Mr. Cook must complete the common driveway improvements, remove the old Coast Guard Road bed, and construct 9,000 sq. ft. of wetlands as mitigation for the filling of wetlands.

If any “acts of God” or natural disasters shall cause Mr. Cook to not meet the 60 day deadline, then the two parties agree to renegotiate a new deadline.

The significant difference between the two agreements is as follows:

The agreement prepared by Derek Taylor, with my input, called for an absolute deadline of January 14, 2004 in addition to the “60 days after permits are granted” deadline.

The agreement prepared by Mr. Wessell does not include an absolute deadline, but instead commits to monthly progress reports. The “60 days after permits are granted” deadline remains in effect. Mr. Wessell also added language pertaining to necessary NC Division of Water Quality permits, and both Derek Taylor and I are comfortable with this language.

Mr. Jerry Cook, developer of West End Subdivision, addressed the Board. He distributed a handout to all members. The handout included a copy of an email from the Division of Water Quality stating where they are in the process. Also included was a copy of a letter from CAMA along with a copy of the permit applied for that was posted on the property.

Mr. Cook said that the problem he had with the form that Attorney Taylor sent was that he only mentions the CAMA permit, there is also a Division of Water Quality permit.

Mr. Cook pointed out that in the second letter of their handouts from CAMA, Tere Barrett says “the projected decision is October 31, 2003”, but she also says that they have another 75 days if they want it. This would take them to January 15, which is the date that Mr. Taylor put in the agreement. He didn’t see how he could agree to a drop dead date of January 15 if CAMA could take up until that time. Mr. Cook said that he would be happy to keep the Letter of Credit in place, to write the Town a check, or drop the Letter of Credit, whatever the Town wants, but he would request that he have 60 days from the time he gets the two approvals from the State.

Mayor Schools asked Mr. Taylor and Mr. Rush if these were the only permits needed that they were aware of. Mr. Rush said that they are aware of, yes.

Mr. Cook said that once a month he would give a written update on the status.

Mayor Schools asked Mr. Cook how they would get comfort that he would respond quickly to requests for additional information from the Division of Water Quality.

Mr. Cook said that he felt that they had given a full and adequate application to Division of Water Quality and there was so little stormwater on site that he could not imagine it would be a big thing to begin with.

Commissioner Farmer suggested that DWQ should be included in this for permitting. She said if they are indicating that January 14^th is when he might actually hear from them she would be fine with extending the drop dead deadline until March 15^th which would give the 60 days. She said she felt they should have the drop dead deadline.

Mr. Cook said CAMA can take until January 15^th per their letter. He has no idea how long Water Quality may take.

Mayor Schools asked Mr. Cook if there was a date that could be used that he would be comfortable with.

Mr. Cook said that he just didn’t know, he had never been through this process, and just didn’t know when he would get approvals. He certainly agrees to 60 days after getting the two approvals.

Commissioner McElraft said that she sees no problem with 60 days after the permits are issued as long as he provides monthly updates. She added that this was more serious than just cashing the check, Mr. Cook risks giving up his final plat approval and starting all over again.

Commissioner Eckhardt asked about final plat approval.

Mr. Rush said that the version that was written by Derek Taylor (Town Attorney) specifies that he has 60 days after the permits are received to get the improvements completed, however, it does have a drop dead date of January 14^th. If the improvements are not completed by that date final plat approval is null and void.

Attorney Taylor said that is also in Mr. Cook’s version of the agreement that it becomes null and void if not completed within 60 days after the permits are actually granted so the same penalty for non-performance in both versions. The difference between Mr. Taylor’s version and what Mr. Cook has suggested is they have added the stormwater permit, which makes sense, and they have replaced the drop dead date with the clause “developer agrees to use his best efforts to expedite the permit issuance process and will report on the status of said permits to the Town in writing every 30 days with the first report being due October 1, 2003”. So they are suggesting instead of a drop dead date, they will keep the Board up to date so they can tell whether or not he is doing his due diligence.

Mayor Schools asked what if he doesn’t use his best efforts.

Attorney Taylor said they would then consider him to be in breach of contract and try to execute it which would mean that he would lose his approvals.

Mr. Cook said that he would be happy to write the Town a check for the $65,000 or continue the Letter of Credit as a backup.

Mayor Schools commented that Attorney Taylor says that if Mr. Cook doesn’t use due diligence then we have a right to take action on the contract.

Attorney Taylor said that he would try and make it clear that the definition of due diligence as compared to January 14^th is considerably different. It would take some argument for due diligence issues while the January 14^th is drop dead.

Commissioner McElraft felt that we do have a drop dead date, 60 days after permits are issued. She added that she wouldn’t trust the State for permits by January 15^th, especially with wetland issues.

Commissioner Messer said that he didn’t have any problems with the 60 days as long as Mr. Cook reports every month and they have an out if they can prove that he has not been diligent in his efforts.

Mr. Rush reminded the Board that the expiration on the Letter of Credit is September 14^th, Mr. Cook had offered to extend that, however, if there is no agreement tonight then the Town should redeem the Letter of Credit sometime before Sunday.

Mr. Rush said that if the Town redeems the Letter of Credit he would ask the Town Engineer to complete the project at Mr. Cook’s expense with the $65,000.

Attorney Taylor said that one suggestion, if Mr. Cook is amenable, was if they could add a little more language for breach purposes, maybe developer agrees to use his best efforts to expedite permit issuance process and report status, and due diligence as reasonably determined by the Town Council. There would then be a little more clear definition of due diligence.

Mr. Cook said that he promised he would pursue this, hands on, day to day, take care of it, answer any questions, and get permits as quickly as possible.

Commissioner Eckhardt said that he could support Attorney Taylor’s statement of strengthening the language. He would prefer that we strengthen the language and go with the 60 days after the Division of Water Quality and CAMA.

Attorney Taylor said that the alternative is the same motion that if an agreement can’t be reached with the strengthened language on the breach and administrative review that they cash the Letter of Credit.

Mr. Rush said that if Mr. Taylor proposes language tonight and the Board is comfortable with it and this is acceptable to Mr. Cook and his attorney, but he felt that if there is different language from Mr. Cook’s attorney he would feel more comfortable with that agreement coming back to the Board of Commissioners and he felt they could work with Mr. Cook to extend the Letter of Credit until some date after the next board meeting.

Motion was made by Commissioner Eckhardt to adopt the development agreement West End Subdivision prepared by Derek Taylor with the additional language as Mr. Taylor defined, that language being to add the stormwater permit language, to remove the drop dead date, however, to get a definition of the developers best efforts.

Motion was amended by Commissioner McElraft that if there is no firm agreement reached that they ask for an extension of the Letter of Credit and bring the negotiating compromise back to this Board to make a decision in October. The Board voted on the amendment 3-2 in favor. Eckhardt, McElraft, Messer For, Farmer and Marks Opposed. Motion carried.

The Board then voted on the motion as amended. The Board voted 3-2 in favor. Eckhardt, McElraft, Messer For, Farmer and Marks Opposed. Motion carried.

The Board then took a brief recess at 9:00 PM and reconvened at 9:12 PM.

The Mayor suggested that they go to Item 15 – Appointments at that time.

15. APPOINTMENTS

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee

Mayor Schools said that the Board had received a list of the people he had contacted who were willing to serve on the Bike committee. He hoped that the Board would appoint all ten.

Motion was made by Commissioner Farmer to appoint to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee: Linda McGowen, Rosalie Ruegg, Mark Brennesholtz, Owen Kelly, Mary Woodard, Mary Elesha-Adams, Bob Hines, Ed Johnson, Chris Boyd and Debbie Kulhawik. The Board voted unanimously 5-0. Motion carried.

Community Appearance Committee

Mayor Schools noted that they still did not have enough applicants to form a community appearance committee. He recommended they encourage people that may be interested to serve.

14. DISCUSSION – STREET LIGHTING POLICY

Artie Dunn, Public Works Director, gave the Board a brief overview of the proposed Street Lighting Policy. Mr. Dunn noted that an alternative policy had been given to them at the beginning of the meeting that has a little softer language as this is a policy and not an ordinance. He said that at present the Town has no street light policy at all.

The following is information from Town Manager, Frank Rush’s memo to the Board:

The significant provisions included in the proposed policy are as follows:

In general, street lights will be installed at 400 – 600 ft. intervals.

All new subdivisions, whether public or private, would be required to adhere to the standards for spacing, illumination, pole selection, and pole height specified in this policy. The policy also stipulates that all new subdivisions will use lighting systems that conform to Carteret Craven Electric Cooperative’s standards; i.e., products that they offer and can effectively and efficiently maintain. The Board should note that Carteret Craven occasionally changes their product line, and is also amenable to adding new products at the request of a developer, provided there is sufficient interest in their service area to make adding those products worthwhile.

All lights must be 175 watt mercury high vapor lights. The vast majority of lights in Emerald Isle now are of this strength and appearance. These lights provide a white / blue tint.

The Town would take over maintenance and operation of all street lights along a public street upon request of the initial developer. The Town would take over either basic or decorative lights, provided they conform to the standards in this policy. If the Town is requested to take over decorative lights, the initial developer must bear the $150 capital cost per light upfront, after which the Town would take over the monthly maintenance and operation cost.

The Town would not take over maintenance and operation of street lights along private streets.

Citizens requesting a new street light would be required to present a petition signed by 3/4 of the property owners in that area. The new street light request must also conform to the standards in the Town’s policy.

Citizens requesting a new street light could request a decorative street light if 1) the design of the street light is approved by the nearby property owners as part of the required petition, and 2) the requesting party remits the $150 capital cost for the decorative light. There is no additional capital cost to install a basic light on a wooden or concrete pole.

All new street lights within 300 ft. of the primary dune must be shaded on the ocean side of the light for sea turtle protection. This covers all lights

on Ocean Drive, Oceanview Drive, other oceanfront streets, and nearby side streets. The policy does not require this, but Carteret Craven would be willing to shade all existing lights in this area, provided a significant amount of lead time is provided. The Board should provide direction on this matter if there is interest in making this request of Carteret Craven.

Pole-mounted lights on private property on the oceanfront would be limited to 12 feet in height, must be shaded on the ocean side of the light, and must be located on the street side of the oceanfront structure. The Board should note that Carteret Craven does not install lights less than 17 feet in height, so these lights would have to be installed by a private electrician.

All wall-mounted lights on the oceanfront should be fitted with shields or hoods to contain light on the landward side of the primary dune.

The Board should note that this document is a Town policy that staff will use on a day to day basis, and will attempt to enforce with voluntary compliance. The policy provisions under the Town’s direct control will absolutely be enforced by Town staff on itself, however, this document is not an ordinance, and the portions of the policy that are not under the Town’s direct control could not legally be enforced.

Our intention is to use this policy as a guideline and an educational tool. We believe that the provisions in this policy that are not under the Town’s direct control will be perceived as reasonable by the community at large, and we are hopeful that we will enjoy widespread voluntary compliance. We envision Town staff distributing the policy to citizens requesting a new street light, developers planning new subdivisions, and other interested parties, and we also envision the Emerald Isle Sea Turtle Volunteers using the policy to educate oceanfront property owners. We are hopeful that the fact that this is Town policy will connote greater importance, thereby making it easier for the Sea Turtle Volunteers to gain voluntary compliance from oceanfront property owners. If the Board believes that those provisions that are not under the Town’s direct control should be strengthened, we can certainly adopt them in ordinance form. I would caution the Board, however, that it will be resource-consuming to do an effective job of enforcing such an ordinance.

Commissioner Eckhardt mentioned two of the things they face with lighting are turtles, and also light pollution, lights shining onto people’s property. He didn’t feel that this had been addressed. He mentioned shading or getting the light down.

Mr. Dunn said that EMC had a policy that if you can determine which direction the light pollution is affecting the adjacent neighbors they will shade the light lens.

Mr. Eckhardt asked if all the posts were EMC or were some the Town’s. Mr. Dunn said that they were all EMC approved and EMC posts.

Commissioner Farmer wanted clarified that under existing development, the Town is in no way talking about adding street lights in existing neighborhoods unless it is because of a petition.

Commissioner Eckhardt asked if commercial lighting should be included or taken back to the Planning Board to have a second look.

Mr. Rush said that this policy was to deal only with public and private streets in subdivisions. He said there could be a lighting ordinance in the zoning ordinance if that is something that they wanted the Planning Board to take a look at. They could schedule that on one of their agendas.

Commissioner Farmer said that she thought that they might also want the Planning Board to look at the street lighting in new residential developments.

Pam Minnick, Dolphin Ridge, discussed the lighting situation and her concerns as it related to the turtle nesting season.

Mark Brennesholtz, 9322 Ocean Drive, mentioned in his comments that in the first 300’ from the primary dune and back there are no tall trees. He thought there could be a policy that said if there were going to be lights in the first 300’ that they might be a maximum of 12’ high.

Mr. Rush said that Carteret Craven Electric Corporation does not offer any lights smaller than 17 – 28 feet, anything less than that is installed by private electricians and privately maintained. The requirement on the oceanfront is the same height but they would have to be shaded on the ocean side.

Mr. Brennesholtz said that from a policy point of view, in the summer time, the Ocean Drive area is well illuminated by renters and in the winter there is nobody there, so the requirement for lighting is different in that zone from elsewhere. He added that maybe that would require negotiations with Carteret Craven that there were different circumstances there. He also mentioned the possibility of painting the creosote poles that are an eyesore.

Rosalie Ruegg, 111 Pinewood Place, echoed the problems of the glare from the lighting.

Commissioner McElraft said there was a balance between security and aesthetics. She said that if it is too dark it would encourage burglaries so there needed to be some lighting.

Mayor Schools said that the way this policy is structured if the majority of the people want the lighting they can get it.

Commissioner Messer asked if they were going with a majority instead of a percentage. He suggested a simple majority.

Mr. Rush said it would be whatever the Board felt would be the appropriate percentage.

The Board discussed what they felt should be the appropriate percentage.

Motion was made by Commissioner Farmer to adopt the Street Lighting Policy, the version given to the Board at the meeting, but removing street lighting in new developments and send that section and commercial lighting to the Planning Board for further review and using 2/3 for the petition. The Board voted 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.

16. COMMENTS FROM TOWN CLERK, TOWN ATTORNEY, TOWN MANAGER

Town Clerk had no comments.

Town Attorney had no comments.

Town Manager, Frank Rush, said that he had talked about a workshop later this month to discuss the personnel policy but after further thought he would like to hold off on this for a while longer.

17. COMMENTS FROM BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND MAYOR

Commissioner Eckhardt had a question on the CPE on the reschedule.

Mayor Schools said that he and the Town Manager met this afternoon with Tom Campbell, President of CPE, along with Tom Jarrett and Craig Kruempel. They discussed the concern with the schedule being delayed. He said that Mr. Campbell indicated that they have 6 people working full time now. He said that two weeks of the delay was because they thought the schedule was wrong before.

Commissioner Farmer said that the last time they came to a Board meeting they had a vote on this timeline and this is what the Board agreed to and she wondered how they will get us back on the timeline.

Mayor Schools said that the impression he got today was that Tom Campbell is definitely involved in this and will stay on top of it. He said they had gone back to day one and they discussed how they got to where they are, and the disappointments along the way, and that they can’t let this slide. He felt that they are doing all they can right now.

Mr. Rush said that this Project Delivery Team process is set up to actually make this the hard part up front to hopefully make what is normally the hard part a little bit easier down the road. The whole idea of the process is to get everything out on the table at the beginning so that it is identified and researched.

Mayor Schools said that there was a PDT meeting tomorrow.

Commissioner Farmer asked when the PDT will actually get the draft.

Mayor Schools said that they said at the latest on the 19^th.

Mr. Rush said that they are looking at giving it to the PDT on September 19^th, 45 days for them to review, PDT meeting around October 8^th, comments back around November 4^th or 5^th. After that deadline a meeting with CAMA, Corps officials and CPE to look at all the comments and respond.

There were no comments from the rest of the Board.

Motion was made by Commissioner McElraft to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously 5-0 in favor. Motion carried.

Meeting was adjourned at 9:55 PM.

Respectfully submitted:

Rhonda C. Ferebee
Town Clerk