|
Town of Emerald Isle
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor, Art
Schools due to previous resignation of Chairman. He also advised the members of meetings to held relating to the Planning Board. 1. January 25, 2002 for a Planning Board Retreat to begin at 10:00 A.M. 2. January 28, 2002 for a Joint Planning Board/Town Board Workshop beginning at 10:00 A.M. Report from Building Inspector - James W. Taylor gave the report for the month of November for permits that had a calculated value, not including service permits: 6 Single-family dwellings $1,330,510.00 3 Addition 43,800.00 9 Accessory 43,620.00 2 Water access 10,700.00 $1,428,630.00 Mr. Taylor asked for any further questions. Mr. Art Daniel said “CVS seems to be in the same situation it was before. They still have a traffic problem.” Mr. Taylor said he remembered it was discussed before and he had gone back to talk to the contractor on the site. The contractor immediately painted the “exit” arrows black on the parking lot to indicate only the “enter” arrows at the entrance to the business. That blacked out arrow has worn off and the customers are not following the safest traffic pattern. He knows no other way of correcting the problem. Mr. Daniel said he had gone to the drive-up window and when he left the premises and came around the side of the building a vehicle pulled out in front of him without even looking. There were two vehicles coming along Emerald Drive making a right turn to get into CVS and they backed up. The rear of one vehicle was sitting where the pavement is on Emerald Drive. People are not paying attention. The parking is not like at Town Hall where the parking is set at an angle to assist people in making the right maneuver. These (CVS) are at 90 degrees and the parking at 90 degrees on the street. Mr. Taylor said he will talk to the manager at the store and get the name of a contact person to follow up on this. Mr. McLaughlin asked, “Is there is a way to put in a concrete sidewalk so there is only one way in. Park on the left side, no problem. If you put in some curb, or whatever, to funnel it all the way in, then you could put up signs “Enter Only” and “No Exit”. I know they don’t pay attention to it at the Post Office. If it’s just over car width, people ought to get the clue.” Mr. Daniel said he hated to impose on Mr. Taylor, but this should have been caught in the early stages. Mr. Taylor said when he first approached them, they were most cooperative to eliminate the problem. Mr. Dowling asked “Since safety is a paramount consideration, is there anything the town has in the way of enforcement, like an engineering study and then they’d have to follow it at their expense? You can’t be going down there on a monthly basis, perhaps it’s on the planner or the Town Manager.” Mr. Rush asked Ms. Angus and Mr. Taylor if the project was in compliance with what was approved for the project. Mr. Taylor said the contractor had complied with all the necessary requirements on the plat as it was approved. Mr. Rush advised that he and Mr. Conrad, Public Works Director, had discussed this situation recently and Mr. Conrad is drawing up some sort of proposal to look at and see if it would be feasible to implement. Then to contact the CVS personnel about going through with the proposal. Ms. Angus said that she had indicated in a letter to CVS during the period of their final inspection and trying to get their financing approved that this traffic flow situation might need to be addressed. So there is a letter on file in their records that states a potential problem. Mr. Dowling said, “I think the Town does have an obligation since safety is an issue. There is a problem there with the traffic. You can’t put a policeman there. Something needs to be done about it before the tourists descend on us again.” Mr. Taylor said the contractor had complied with the original approved plat which had shown an arrow on the driveway in both directions. When we saw that it was a problem, and was asked to black out the exiting arrow he did comply immediately. He went on to advise that he will talk with the manager for a contact person to get this resolved.NEW BUSINESSA. Osprey Bluff S/D, Final Plat, Block 43 North – Mr. Larry Spell was in attendance for this project.Mr. Patteson asked about the responsibility of street lighting, there are no lights at all. Mr. Rush replied that it is the responsibility of the town for street lighting. However, the town should have arranged for the developer to install the lighting or arrange installation of lights. Ms. Angus replied that lighting has not been a requirement in the past, only that the power poles be installed. Mr. McLaughlin made the motion to recommend Osprey Bluff S/D to review committee, Wednesday, December 19, Mr. Dowling seconded this motion and it was unanimously approved. B. Sunset Harbor Condominium, Final Plat, Lot 4, 8628 (correction) Sound Drive – This six-unit condominium project was represented by Ricky Farrington, and Ms. Lori Morris with Parker and Associates.Ms. Angus advised this is a Final Plat for lot 4 in conjunction with the previously approved Preliminary Plat for the 7-lot subdivision. She asked that Mr. Jim Taylor make a statement regarding this project since he has been in charge of the inspections throughout construction. Mr. Taylor said there have been no major problems with any of the buildings, to date. There are the typical building code violations that are easily corrected during the inspection process. He takes the preliminary map with him for the final inspection to assure that all items are addressed. Ms. Angus said this project, too, according to current Policy and Procedure should be referred to review committee Wednesday at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Dowling asked if contours will be on the map Wednesday. Ms. Angus replied that the map before him is the final map and that is what will be reviewed on Wednesday. The contours are not, generally, on a final map, only the preliminary. So members may want to bring their preliminary maps with them. Mr. Patteson asked if there is good drainage around the building itself. Mr. Taylor replied that since it is such a project it is required to have all impervious surfaces have an engineered plan for stormwater. That plan was submitted at preliminary as well. Motion was made by Art Daniel, second by Ed Dowling to refer Sunset Harbor, Lot 4, Final Plat to review committee on December 19, at 3:00 P.M. C. Consider Removal of Townhouses and Condominiums from Mobile Home Zoning in the Permitted/Special UseMr. Rush advised that this topic was discussed by the Town Board at their meeting on December 11, and referred to the Planning Board for their comment. He has been directed to schedule a Public Hearing for January 8, on this matter at the next Town Board meeting. Essentially, what this does is remove townhouses and condominiums from the table of permitted uses in the mobile home I zoning district. Currently, in Mobile Home I in terms of residential uses you can have mobile homes, single family dwellings, duplexes, townhouses, and condominiums. If this ordinance is approved it would remove the townhouses and condominiums from that district. This was added by the previous board in 1993 acting on a recommendation from the Planning Board. There is some desire on the town board as a permitted use feeling that perhaps those uses are not compatible for Mobile Home I. Mr. McLaughlin said “To go along with what we are going to hear later, accident prone zones and things like that, in research they recommend, if the areas are in those zones, and quite a bit of the west end is, it is recommended to have low density. I consider low density, single family dwellings or duplexes at best. When you get into condos, then we’re getting into……. Even though the recommendations are non-binding it still is trying to have a happy medium between the military and the local community working together.” Mr. Rush added that there is a portion of the mobile home district that is in the proposed accident potential zone, it really is a separate matter to be considered. This will apply to all Mobile Home I zoning districts, whether they are in that proposed accident potential zone or not. Mr. Daniel said, “I had the fortune, or misfortune, to spend the middle part of the 70’s and early and middle part of the 80’s as a director of engineering and planning and code administrator and building official to the 11th largest city in Virginia. Virginia cities are a separate entity. They have their own legislative and executive and Judicial systems. This means they have a court and they have a jail, everything as a separate unit. One of the things I learned, relative to zoning and planning, was time line. It takes more time for consideration than the timeline that is shown here. This means that the way it is presented, we should make our recommendation this evening. I think it takes a minimum of 60 days, in a situation like this evening, when we had three planning board members that are here for the first session. We’ve got three that have been here a while longer, and I’m the shortest of the longer members. I think we need more time for consideration. There is always some ramification why you shouldn’t take speedy action in matters of this type. Legal matters for one thing, if you hurry into making a decision, it sometimes considered to be anti-development. I have no problem with what is being presented and I would vote for this. The density of mobile homes and multi-family is not that great. The compatibility of mobile homes with multi-family dwellings is not compatible. From a compatibility and a density issue, I have no problem with removing them. But I do have a problem with the time line. Mr. Rush said that if the Planning Board is not comfortable with making a decision, he would be happy to convey that to the Board of Commissioners. He is sure they would be interested in the board’s thoughts on the time frame. That would leave some time before he has to run the advertisement to meet the legal requirements. Mr. Dowling said, “I would like to have literature or an expert. We are lucky to have you (indicating Mr. Daniel), I would like to be more educated on this. There is so much in zoning that this town needs to address. When you look at the undeveloped areas on the map, it’s not 90% developed, it looks much larger especially when you bring in mobile trailer parks and things along that line. I think you have an mature development, I like that word ‘mature’, which means we’re built out. At that time, towns that are progressive take a deep look at their lineup. They normally have overlays of the land that they are looking at, whether it should be developed with more special permits, perhaps; or more, criteria placed on them, since we are in the build out phase now. We have to consider the people in the town. Again, at the same time, I look at the developer, they’ve been on the island a long time and given us good service, we want to take their considerations in. I would like to have feedback from the developers at this time. In other words, I’m looking for an open session from this board. We voted that down before. I would like to come into a workshop environment, perhaps even marry it up to the commissioners, since it is going to eventually go to them. We have talked amongst ourselves, hiring an engineering firm to come in and do something and take a hard look at it from an engineering standpoint. I realize that’s one, two, three, four thousand dollars again, if not more, but I think the town needs to address this outside the planning board and give us more information. I’m very, I don’t want to use the word “weak”, but I don’t feel I have an in depth knowledge, at the present time, to pass any judgement on this. We need more literature and more expertise is what I’m looking for.” Vice-chairman Erikson agreed. “I myself am completely ignorant of this. What is the difference between Mobile Home I and Mobile Home II?” Ms. Angus advised that Mobile Home I is all of the current mobile home zoning. If you had property developed prior to 6/11/77 there was one set of criteria, after that date the criteria changed and became more restrictive. The square footage, lot width, and setbacks changed. Currently there is no Mobile Home II. She does not know the thinking behind why it was created other than to set design standards to a higher level for a possible new mobile home zoning. She does not know the details of that particular zoning as well as other portions of the zoning simply because there is no zoning of that type now and had no reason to delve into it. She went on to advise that there is an R-1 and R-2 zoning indicated on the zoning map. We have no R-1 zoning, only the classification. Mr. Dowling said, “Perhaps we should remove them. Since they are not in existence and are never used. I would like the town manager to coordinate.” Mr. Rush said that would be fine. If the board needs more time to make a more educated decision, he would assume the town board would recognize that there are three new members on this board and it’s an important issue. Mr. McLaughlin said, “This came from the Town Board, and we table until the Town manager can go and find the information for us.” Mr. Dowling made the motion to table the amendment to remove condominiums and townhouses from Mobile Home I zoning. Second was made by Ms. Erikson, with unanimous approval in favor of the motion. Mr. Rush had one point of information. There was a recent count of developed and undeveloped tracts and parcels in town. The map is on the board for the members. It is about 81% of the parcels and tracts are developed. Mr. McLaughlin asked if that included areas that are undevelopable and Mr. Rush said it does. It counted a single family piece of property the same as the large tract of land behind town hall, so it is not a completely accurate picture but some idea of what is in town. D. Consideration to consider amending Chapter 13 Planning and Development –Mr. Rush again advised the board that this item was also discussed at the town board meeting on December 11. On the draft version you will see that it will formalize Town Board and Planning Board meetings to allow Public Comment and to clarify just what the responsibilities are and removes references to the comprehensive plan replaces it with other planning related duties. It is essentially the same thing, but a little more broad. Mr. Daniel said, “I have no problem with public comment, I think that is very necessary. But, somehow I’d like in there, because of what happened back, that the chairman would have the option of shutting off public comment if the public commentor is attacking any member of the board, or the board as a whole, or turns into arrogance, that the chairman at his(her) call can shut it off. That would be it for the rest of that meeting. Somehow I want that included. So the option is there and not just have to put up with any personal attack or whatever. It’s a safeguard, because it already happened once.” Mr. Dowling said, “I think Rogers Rules gives you that. It’s already written and you use the gavel.” Mr. McLaughlin said he just wants to make sure it’s in there. Mr. Rush said he will convey that to the board and if there is any other procedural amendments that need to be made they certainly will make them. That falls, generally accepted, within the chairman’s roles and responsibilities of any board. Mr. Dowling said, “I for one totally support this amendment. I think it’s well written and needed. I think we need feedback from all the citizens of the community. Truman said ‘If you can’t take the hot water, get out of the kitchen’. That should fall on the chairman and sub-chairman’s shoulders.” Mr. Daniel asked, “Is there any real reason why the Planning Board should not conduct have Public Hearings on zoning matters or other matters that are on the agenda which you automatically get the citizen input on that type of thing and then have the other period of time with the Board of Commissioners? I’m used to that type of scenario, and then you have the citizens to be heard, I’ve never been to a Board meeting, then a separate session. So if you have the agenda items, people would be limited to a certain amount of time to address those issues. Then you go from those agenda items to new New Business, Old Business, the citizens to be heard and let them speak, generally, in terms of planning or zoning issues, limited to a time period.” Mr. Rush agreed that you are not legally required to allow public comment, but meetings are to be open to the public so they are informed in what you are viewing. He sees no downside to allowing public comment at the meeting, it is encouraged in many places. One thing to consider is to what degree do you want to receive public comment. To allow a period at the beginning of the meeting where people can address any issue that is on the agenda, or some other issue not on the agenda. Or do you want to allow public comment at each agenda item. There are pros and cons to both approaches. If you allow it on each item it tends to make the meetings a little bit longer due to interactive dialog. That is a decision for this board to make. He has seen it done both ways. Some boards have designated times for public comment at the beginning or at the end; other limited to the items, it’s a matter of preferences of what you feel is important. Mr. Daniel said his concern is, “If you put your citizens at the end of the meeting, it’s too late to address the agenda item that pertain to the business of the board. My preference is to let them comment as the agenda item appear and are heard. Then, more generally speak at a ‘citizens to be heard’ position on the agenda. So you’ve got every opportunity, limited to a time period. I’ve been in many towns and many cities, and I’ve seen citizens disrupt some of the meetings, and some will keep coming and keep going over and over the same thing. But that is the system in which we operate. That’s the forum in which we have. So I guess we use administrative procedures to try to limit disruption. My preference is to speak to the agenda items and then speak generally to whatever they want to speak to.” Mr. Rush said there is nothing in the proposed ordinance that would prevent the board from adjusting that schedule. Just requires that you have public comment at some point during the meeting. Mr. Daniel responded, “You could say Public Hearing, then you’ve got legal notices.” Ms. Angus replied that the Planning Board does not hold Public Hearings. Mr. Daniel replied, “That’s the reason I asked the question to begin with, is there any reason why not?” Mr. Rush said that legally the Public Hearing is required at the Town Board meeting. One thing he did forget to mention is that the Planning Board meetings need to be posted at the Town Hall. That certainly is a way to inform the public of what business you are considering. (Mr. Daniel made a favorable comment that could not be discerned.) Vice-chairman Erikson added that, “I have been very impressed in the past two years when the citizens were finally allowed make comments on each agenda item. I myself, if I’m going to vote on something, am more comfortable if citizens speak before I go on to another item.” Mr. Rush said that is this boards preference, how to handle this. Mr. McLaughlin made a motion, “We pass agenda item dealing with amending Chapter 13, passing it for approval. No discussion. Second by Pat Patteson, with unanimous approval in favor of the motion. E. Consideration of Commissioner Eckhardt’s Questions of Sunset Harbor Condominiums, Lots 5, 6 & 7, Preliminary Plat, Previously Approved Regarding the AICUZ (Air Installation Compatibility Use Zone) Mr. Rush advised the board there was a copy of the information in their packet of the specific questions asked and discussed at the Town Board of Commissioners meeting. The board is looking for some feedback from the Planning Board on what impact is imposed on the proposed accident potential zone demographic AICUZ should have on the review of Preliminary Plat for buildings 5, 6, and 7 in Sunset Harbor. Some of the specific concerns raised in the letter: 1. How should we interpret the establishment of accident potential zones in an area that is already highly developed and seem to become more highly developed. 2. How does further high density development in this area and accident potential zones encroach on Bogue Field. A comment was made that we expect the Marine Corps to address our safety and noise concerns, then it’s fitting we address the encroachment concerns of the military regarding Bogue Field. 3. Next, was asking if the town could be considered negligent for permitting development in the hazardous areas associated with the accident potential zones. 4. Finally should we consider disclosure relative to notifying prospective owners and/or renters that they will be in a measurable area for accident potential. He went on to advise that he had prepared a lengthy four-page document associated with this subject. To keep in mind, the AICUZ is a document that is produced by the military. They have been in the process for at least a year and probably longer. The document is a draft document that is being referenced. The military is expecting to release a final document in late winter or early spring of 2002. It is not binding on the town, and will include recommendations to provide for compatibility between Bogue Field and the Town in terms of Land Use. The AICUZ is being used by the Joint Land Use Study Policy Committee (JLUS) to come up with recommendations in a cooperative effort with the Town of Emerald Isle, Havelock, Craven County, Carteret County, Bogue and Cherry Point and Bogue Field to look at specific land use issues related to the military bases. They will be preparing recommendations for the Town Board of Commissioners to consider. It will be up to the Planning Board and the Town Board of Commissioners to determine whether to follow those recommendations; whether to be more or less strict than the recommendations; or perhaps, to do nothing with them. It will be completely within the purview of the Town to take its existing developed ordinances and amend them in a manner that they see fit. It’s a way of providing information to the Town as they make their Land Use decisions. Mr. Rush then laid out the legal limitations and other issues involved in addition to the history of the Sunset Harbor project. In terms of options at this time, as far as he has been able to determine with the Town Attorney, people with the JLUS, and Cherry Point and Bogue Field. Basically, the North Carolina subdivision law treats such action as an administrative matter. If all the Town ordinances are followed, it should pretty much be able to be approved by the Town Board of Commissioners, and should be. There are court cases to identify that. It is his understanding that this subdivision does comply with the ordinances. It was recommended unanimously to the Town Board of Commissioners. In light of the issue about AICUZ and the accident potential zone, he thinks that the Town Board has two options at their disposal. First to recommend approval, because it complies with the ordinances. The other alternative to consider is to recommend a moratorium in new development in proposed accident potential zones in order to provide time to see the result of the JLUS and AICUZ. The JLUS is due in June of 2002. If the board wants to wait and see the results of those studies. The recommended way to do that would be to recommend a moratorium this type of development in a certain area of town. Mr. Rush pointed out a map displayed on the wall depicting the proposed AICUZ over the town and its zoning. He also pointed out some of the relative information in the members packets of maps text that should be of interest. Mr. Rush said item has been tabled until the January 8, 2002 Town Board of Commissioners meeting. He then introduced Lt. Col. Barry Fetzer from Cherry Point. He was asked to be here as a resource for any questions and not asked to make a formal presentation. Mr. Dowling asked Lt. Col. Fetzer, “Is it in cement or is it going to be delivered on the date that the Marine Corps has indicated?” Lt. Col. Fetzer replied, “Sir, the contractor that is doing the study, is the one who will determine whether the study will actually be completed. Unfortunately, with this contract, there is no penalty for the contractor if the product is not delivered prior to a certain date. I am not a contract expert, it seems like, the Federal government should have insisted (on) that, but in this case it wasn’t done. Consequently, they don’t have any ‘sword of Damocles’ hanging over the contractors head to force them to deliver product when they say they are going to do it. But, I believe late winter or early spring is a very accurate ideal of when to receive it.” Mr. Dowling continued, “Can you draw down, based on your expertise and study, on any scenario or pilot program that is in existence, or a town that actually has the same problem that we are encountering? And, what has that town done, in the way of a scenario? In Florida, for example, California or Washington, D.C. where there might be a Marine air station, or Naval or Air Force? Do you know of anywhere that has low density development requirements that are compatible with your recommendations?” Lt. Col. Fetzer responded, “Yes sir, there are towns that have adopted recommendations in the AICUZ however, these were municipalities that were far less developed. Most of the land was either State lands or large lumber companies hands, where the Federal government was able to purchase easements on that property. This would allow certain development to occur, and that other developments could not occur. It’s a little different situation in the majority of uses where significant zoning regulations imposed in those situations than compared to Emerald Isle. It was indicated that Emerald Isle is about 80 % +- built out. However, the plan is to be used to plan for the future, not necessarily right now. The Federal government understands this program is about 20 years old and the mainland municipalities were significantly built under or near military installations or traffic patterns prior to 1980 or late 1970’s when the program had begun. So it is really designed for municipalities to think 20 to 25 into the future. Mobile home zoning may change to some other type of zoning or residential use. The intent of AICUZ is to inform local governments that the Federal government feels there are other uses that are more appropriate for lands near air facilities. As you consider the future, you may want to consider rezoning lands at that time to protect citizens 20 years out, rather than right now.” Mr. Dowling went on, “Let me carry the ball a step further. I am comfortable doing this, it’s after the fact and am not in favor of penalizing the developer. I do think safety, health, and welfare, which is in the ordinance, allows us to review it. 19-1 Zoning security and safety, fire, and key word in there from a legal standpoint, is panic and other dangers. You look at a situation when an aircraft goes down, you look at the Pentagon Building, for example, when that bird went down. You have panic and dangers. I think the Marine Corps and the Navy are ahead of its time in advising us to consider this. We should be looking at avoiding over crowding of land and an undue concentration of population. This is in the ordinance. We are duty bound, really, when we consider these plots to take a look at that. 19-2, I feel that the town should, as part of the recommendation, give a disclaimer on the land being developed in this zone, from a legal standpoint. We do have a conflict with other ordinances that need to be addressed, and disregard our greater percentage of land be unoccupied or to impose higher standards. You can do so by limitation on build out phase in that. Bogue Field is a vital, and correct me if I’m wrong, Barry, is vital to the United States Marine Corps mission. It is, as I understand, the only simulated aircraft flight deck on the East Coast for CAS (Coast Air Support) for landings and takeoffs that duplicate the flight deck. Those aviators over in war zone right now are well above their three hour flight times, most 12 to 13 hours, which is unheard of. Those birds, or airplanes, are standing up to the demand over there. Again, an overlay is what we need to use for study. An overlay would show all safety over zone patterns like we’ve got here to incorporate in the ordinance that fly over Emerald Isle and land which is commercial, a domicile of undeveloped land. And last, I would like to, if we do put a disclaimer in the legal adviser, with the consent of this board, should go for that piece of land and be incumbent with the real estate folks to give that letter to any prospective buyer of property in that zone. In other words, right now, it ‘s buyer beware situation. They come in, a prospective owner, and goes ahead and buys that land and all of a sudden they’ve got noise they have problems with and possibly safety, health and welfare from the over flights. I think it is incumbent with the board and the town manager to address that head on and to advise these prospective buyers of these buildings. Let the builders build them, fine, that’s their right, let them go ahead and develop them, but you do have that safety factor and the town is protecting itself from a legal standpoint. You might want to address it from that standpoint too.” Mr. Rush responded that his understanding is that the JLUS report will be approved by a policy committee which has representatives from each of those earlier mentioned towns and the air stations and the two counties. That policy committee will ultimately approve the recommendations to the various local governments. It is possible that those recommendations may be the same things that were just mentioned. Such as rezoning, disclosure statements, combination of the two; but, that report is due in June 2002. The is the appropriate time to do some hard core planning and adjustment of our development ordinances once we know what the recommendations are. You have a more pressing issue here, and that is, to characterize it, should the proposed existence of the accident potential zone affect the development plans that have been submitted for Sunset Harbor buildings 5, 6 and 7? If you think that it should, perhaps you may want to consider the moratorium; if you think is shouldn’t, then you should recommend approval to the Town Board of Commissioners. That is the central issue here. What impact will there be on the eventual 18 occupants of those occupants of those condominium units and is it worth delaying while we wait for JLUS and AICUZ to come out and possibly amend our ordinance? Mr. McLaughlin added, “The Colonel said the studies could be late spring. I don’t think it’s fair to the developer, besides there is nothing……they have complied with the ordinance. The studies are non binding. How well does the community want to work with the results of the study provided by the military. If we re do whole blocks, like if they clear Sea Dunes (subdivision) and start over, think along that line. They have that existing problem at Naval Oceana. They sold a farm 17 acres which was off the end of the runways and developed it. The decibels are higher than the FAA recommends. The new F18’s coming on line are noisier than the one we’ve already got. So as the town and the county, whoever was in charge of that, didn’t get together with the developer and say ‘hey maybe you don’t want to do this’. It was developed and they sold it and people can’t take it. We are in a little different situation, we’re already there a little bit further down the line. A moratorium may be appropriate after we settle the issue at hand. Moratorium is a separate issue and should be addressed so. As Mr. Stanley said in the town board meeting, the ordinances have been complied with and I would find it difficult saying ‘no, you can’t do this now’. Anybody, in my view, that bought a home in Emerald Isle and didn’t know about an existing Bogue Field that is the realtors problem. For those who knew Bogue Field was there, I knew it was there in 1961, when I flew into it for the first time, I knew what I was getting into when I bought a home down here. A lot of other people did too. We would be very unwise not to recommend approval because they do comply with the ordinance. Mr. Patteson said “I feel the issue is that they (developers) have already gone through with what we’ve already heard. Already gone through the hoops and hurdles to get to this point. The thing I think is rather interesting is the date on this thing (four questions sheet), being December 01, 2001. If this was written December 01, now it is being brought up at the meeting, I have a little problem with that. Why wasn’t this brought up before? These things were looked at before, met all they had to do, all they were required to do. Now to come up with something new, that didn’t have anything to do with what they are doing. I personally think they need to be allowed to go on.” Mr. Rush said the first opportunity the new commissioners had to comment on this project, in their official capacity, was at that Dec. 11 meeting. There was no opportunity to express those concerns prior to that meeting. Mr. Erwin asked, “One thing that hadn’t been discussed is one of Eckhardt’s concerns about disclosure. Was that discussed in how a disclosure would work in a situation like this?” Mr. Rush said he didn’t want to provide any early indications, but that is probably a likely recommendation from the JLUS policy committee to go to some sort of disclosure system to require real estate agents to inform potential buyers of that responsibility. Mr. Erwin asked “Would that be for resale as well as new Sales?” Mr. Rush said it would apply to all whether new or resale. Other communities do this type of thing in both safety and noise situations. This is definitely a request to be made to comply with such a requirement. The staff level thought was to wait until recommendations from JLUS and AICUZ report to see if they recommend it. If they do not, it may be something to be considering and implemented. Mr. Erwin asked how it would be implemented? Mr. Rush said it would be required through a local ordinance as part of the real estate transaction. If there is a better mechanism we could implement that. It is a fairly common practice in North Carolina. Mr. Erwin asked Lt. Col. Fetzer what kind of disclosure recommendations he would be anticipating out of the study? Lt. Col. Fetzer spoke from a seated and most of his response was intelligible. But over all, to inform prospective buyers considering purchase that it is in an APZ 1 or 2, and what that means. Is it a noise zone 3, and what that means as far as decibels. Mr. Erwin said, “It would probably be helpful, if the staff is going to look those issues, if you had any resources of what other communities have done that, we would like to know what communities you have knowledge of.” Lt. Col. Fetzer replied that one of the owners in the audience has included disclosure statements in the past in his property brochures. He didn’t know if it was done as a directive, or if he thought it was the right thing to do. It’s done in Emerald Isle by developers. He gave a scenario of “The property you are buying is near or under the flight path of Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field, Bogue, as a consequence there is noise associated aircraft operations” something to that effect. Something would be better than nothing. Mr. Erwin asked if this scenario was the Sunset Harbor project? Mr. Rush said he did not know, he was told that Emerald Landing is also a subdivision that gives a disclosure. He has not seen it. It is probably in the covenants. We, at staff level, are waiting for features from Board or study results to proceed. Ms. Erikson asked Mr. Farrington if he disclosed such information? Mr. Farrington said “I gave Mr. Fetzer a disclosure statement from Emerald Landing, Dolphin Ridge, Pointe Bogue, these are not my developments. There is a disclosure statement on the front that says “do not sign anything before reading this agreement” to become aware of the situation. The gentlemen who owns those subdivisions has a lot more assets than I do and he discloses to cover all possible bases. I own property in Emerald Landing and I signed that disclosure prior to buying and building my home. Sunset Harbor has not been using the disclosure. To date there is no accident potential zone there. There is no way for even an attorney doing a title search for a potential buyer to see that map unless he gets wind of this JLUS report. We will make it part of our disclosure once this map is put in, which will require by N.C. condominium act to give a public offering statement. The purchaser will sign the contract, give the deposit, go back to wherever, have their attorney read the document, and back out within 7 days with no penalty under that disclosure. (Some of what Mr. Farrington said was not discernable as he was facing the AICUZ map.)” Mr. Erwin asked, “Would you consider doing a disclosure now on the new building? Now that we’ve seen what suggested may be the AICUZ.” Mr. Farrington said, “There was talk of it on Building 4. That disclosure may already be amended, I’m not sure what the wording is. It does refer to AICUZ . We will definitely be on top of that.” Mr. Erwin said, “I think regarding Mr. Eckhardt’s and Board’s concerns, you would go a long way if you would voluntarily suggest that ‘here is language I will include in all condo contracts that I am going to provide for a potential purchaser, and here’s what it says’. Something that there is an AICUZ study and JLUS study and is in a APZ 1 or 2. Explain what that is. If this has been done the matter would be addressed.” Mr. Farrington, said “I don’t have a problem with that. I haven’t seen an accurate map and I would like to take a look at that. The disclosure will not be a problem.” Mr. Rush said that this is Preliminary approval and by the time Final approval is needed, we may very well have that requirement in our ordinance. Motion was made by Art Daniel that the Planning Board give every consideration to the recommendations to be specific with the JLUS report relative to the flight concerns for Bogue Field, in the meantime, it is recommended to the Board of Commissioners that the previously approved preliminary plats of Sunset Harbor condominiums, lots 5, 6 and 7 be approved by the Board of Commissioners . Second by George McLaughlin. Mr. Dowling asked that the phrase that the uniformity is sought in the way of disclosure throughout the town and that the Board of Commissioners should consider an ordinance rewrite on that. Mr. Patteson and Mr. McLaughlin said they thought that should be for future projects. Mr. Erwin asked if we need to request the developer to voluntarily provide disclosure in this case, it would go a long way to address the board’s concerns. Mr. Daniel said the problem with that is adding a requirement to something on a previously approved preliminary plat. Mr. Richard Stanley, attorney for Mr. Farrington came forward said, “You can rest assured that it will be in the disclosure statement.” Mr. Erwin asked for a copy of the statement to be available to the Board of Commissioners for their next meeting. Ms. Angus spoke as the Planner, that the time for these reports and studies are all coming together at about the same time, Land Use Plan, JLUS, AICUZ and ordinance amendments. It may be in the best interest of the town that they are all coming together at the same time. Mr. Rush agreed. No further discussion. Motion
unaimously carried in favor of the motion. Mr. Dowling thanked Lt. Col. Fetzer for his attendance. Commissioner Marks said she felt this was a perfect opportunity of why public comment is necessary. Mr. Patteson thanked the Town Board of Commissioners for their confidence in him to appoint him. No other comments from members. Motion to adjourn was made by Art Daniel, second by George McLaughlin. Respectfully submitted by:
Carol Angus, Secretary
|
