|
Minutes of Regular Meeting
The members had no questions for Mr. Taylor. 4. Discussion of Public Comment Point on Agenda – Chairman Almeida asked for comments from the members.Mr. Daniel said he would prefer public comment be allowed as each item is presented with a time limitation. If a group would want to express the same opinion on a topic to have one spokesman. At the end of the meeting, they could express their concern on a non-agenda item regarding planning or zoning or whatever. Ms. Erikson agreed with Mr. Daniel. She wants opinion expressed at the beginning of a topic so that we can hear open discussion. Also, open discussion at the end of the meeting. Chairman Almeida added that he agreed, except at the end of the meeting for general comments, instead of extending the meeting, to have written comments on general issues. That way the members can take the comments home and look them over. Mr. Dowling said that the feedback from the community is important on each item. He strongly supported having discussion at each agenda item. He felt the Chairman should have the extent to which he wanted to have public comment. Mr. Erwin said he had no problem with the suggestions, just that the chairman is going to have to have the authority to vary how a particular meeting is handled; and to make a determination based upon what’s on the agenda, who is in the audience and what comments are desired to be heard. As long as the chairman has the authority to change in a particular case-by-case presence, he goes along with whatever is decided. George McLaughlin agreed as well to hear comments at each agenda item, he did not care whether it be before or after discussion. Pat Patteson agreed with comments at each agenda topic. He felt there might not be time at the end of the meeting for some general comments. So some decision should be made to just how to handle the comments at the end of the meeting. Chairman Almeida said he would like to try this format at this evening’s meeting. To allow public discussion at each item. Osprey Bluff, 12-lot S/D, Block 43 North, Final Plat – Chairman Almeida asked for comments from the public.Ms. Doje Marks, Town of Emerald Isle Commissioner, resident of Sea Dunes, advised that she had visited Christina Drive this same date during rainfall and had taken some digital pictures. She passed them to the Board members for review. She wanted to see the damage to the road. She wanted to have corrections made to the road prior to approval being given to the subdivision. The corrections could be costly to the taxpayers if they are not addressed now. She also addressed the stock piling of sand on the back portion Osprey Ridge Drive. Mr. Larry Spell, developer of the property, advised that he had talked to Frank A. Rush, Town Manager, earlier today on the issue Ms. Marks had brought up and other issues. First, he advised that the sand that is piled up was moved when the project was being developed and they had too much sand. A good bit of it has been moved since then to other places. Also, the area that the sand is piled in, is not a town street, it is his private property. Mr. Spell agreed that the erosion around the street is a problem. Mr. John McLean’s plans referred to a plan of what could be done to alleviate it. He spoke with Mr. McLean and some contractors. Apparently, the best idea is a asphalt swale that would be installed along the road to the width and depth required so the water will run. The rain is coming off the side of the road and eroding along the edge of the asphalt. It is not getting to the ditches. The idea is to have the water come off the roads and dump it to the ditch area at the bottom to the culvert. It then would run under the road to the other side of the street to the large pond. You don’t want a curb on it because you don’t want the water kept on the road. There was some discussion regarding the depth of the swale between Mr. Spell and Jim Taylor. Mr. Spell is aware that he is liable for the period of one year to go back and fix any problem that occurs. The Town will not take it over for one year, but this must be taken care of right now. He felt that a meeting should be held with Mr. Taylor, John McLean, Barrington Page, and himself to handle this problem. Mr. Taylor said he had already met Mr. Page on the site on Friday. Mr. Spell said to tell Mr. Page exactly what is wanted and it will be done. Ms. Angus said she felt Mr. Robert Conrad, Public Works Director should also be a part of that discussion. Mr. Spell went on to say that if this might not be able to be done before it gets to the Town Board of Commissioners, he is willing to submit a check to the Town Manager to cover the cost of the repairs. The check is held until he (Town Manager) is satisfied and then returns the check. Mr. Patteson said it appears that round the cul-de-sac where there are swales at the gravel there is a hump before water can get to the swale. Everything is there, the water just cannot get to it. Mr. Spell agreed, and he will see that any area that the water cannot get to the ditch will be smoothed out. Mr. Page may have to hand rake it out. Mr. McLaughin asked if the portion outlined on the map Mr. Spell had brought forward is actually the shoulder? Mr. Spell agreed that it is the shoulder, not paved. Mr. McLaughlin went on to say that the minimum public street standards says a 6’ shoulder. In this case the 6’ shoulder would be a drainage ditch. Mr. Taylor wanted the members to be aware that if the 6’ shoulder is installed there are about 13 trees from 15-40 years old that would have to be removed. In excavating a 6’ shoulder with a 3:1 slope with minimum ditch depth, you will lose much of that vegetation. He also discussed a retaining wall on Friday. If they did that, to pre-locate the driveways before the wall is installed, so that you wouldn’t have to cut through the wall at a later date. Do you want to see the 6’ shoulder with the ditch, or an alternate method, saving the trees. Mr. Rush then addressed Mr. Laughlin’s question. He said he felt there are two issues. One is the issue at the north end of the cul-de-sac where there is no ditch. The other is the solution Mr. Spell is proposing for the hill side area where there is no ditch. He’s proposing the paved swale to direct the stormwater down the hill and into a drainage ditch at the bottom. That is something the Planning Board needs to determine whether that is an acceptable solution to the problem. Mr. Spell’s other alternative is to go in and construct a drainage ditch according to the standards that are outlined in our streets and sidewalks ordinance. That will require additional work to the retaining wall on the hill. One of the things our ordinance requires is a grass swale, in this case it would be a paved chute for the stormwater to run into a grassy area at the bottom of the hill. So there would be some treatment of the stormwater by that method. Mr. Rush also added that the area at the North end of the cul-de-sac has no drainage ditch from 11:00 position to 1:00 position looking North. That was evidently not on the Preliminary Plat from the beginning. We don’t want potential owners to deal with ponding, so there should be some engineering done to take the water to the drainage ditch. Mr. Spell said Mr. McLean’s plan from the end of the cul-de-sac was to channel the water back towards south and to where the ditches are deeper is to shed off into the ditches there. If the water does not do that, as it should, then they will have to deal with some sort of solution. He feels that right now it is doing that, as it should. Mr. Rush agreed, that if the water is running southeast and southwest it will makes it’s way into the ditch. His concern is ponding at the north end. Mr. Dowling asked a hypothetical question. If he were to by lot 8, 9, or 10 there is about a 20 degree steep slope there. How would one get access to the lot, would fill have to be brought in, or would pipe be needed for stormwater? Will it be left to the individual owner? Mr. Spell said it will be an issue for the new owner. If the developer did it, it would entail too much disturbance of the property. He does not want to destroy the vegetation of the lots. There is also an ordinance, or suggestions, on how to install a driveway to address stormwater. Mr. Dowling said he felt if he were buying one of those three lots, he would have a problem with their development. Mr. Rush advised that the lot would have to be developed to use drain pipe or some type of crossing of the ditch to not block it off. That would be part of the stormwater plan when the permits were applied for. Mr. Taylor said he will see to it that the culvert is there and the swale is retained according to what is specified in the ordinance. Mr. Daniel was concerned about the drawn typical of drainage swale that Mr. Spell had drawn and passed among the members. Mr. Spell said he quickly drew it and it has no scale, he wants to leave the specifics to the engineer and the building inspector’s office what it should look like. Mr. Daniel said he hated to see a new street put in with less than ideal design construction. It looks to him, from the illustration submitted, might catch a tire and make you drive on down the ditch. Mr. Taylor added that requiring the slopes to meet minimum standards in that location, doing the excavation, will compromise the existing retaining walls. That is probably why the suggestion of the paved swale to reduce the excavation. Mr. Daniel asked if that had not been known up front? Mr. Taylor replied “Apparently not.” Mr. Daniel said that is why you should require existing contours and proposed contours to visualize the plan. At least from this point forward I would like to see things done the way they should be done rather than hindsight. (Current subdivision ordinance does not require proposed contours). Mr. Taylor, Mr. Spell, and several members approached the board to look at the maps before them. Mr. Spell said there was a heavy rain recently that was heavy enough to wash the rock on the shoulder on to the street. The problem is not the water coming off the sides, it’s the water coming down the street. There are two choices, either a curb to keep the water on the street, or let it go off into swales on the sides to the bottom of the hill. There would be about 100’ on each side of the road. He is open to whatever suggestion the engineer and the building inspector has, and he will do it. Mr. Daniel said that the swale, as proposed, will make more impervious area and he was surprised that one of the other members did not bring that out. Mr. Rush said there may be other solutions other than the ditch that would be more appropriate, and the standard ditch dimensions could be enforced. That would require reworking of that retaining wall. Mr. Daniel said that was beyond the realm of being practical. Mr. Spell said it’s the rock along the side that the water is too swift for the rock to stay stabilized. If grass had grown before the heavy rain, it would have probably been fine. Ms. Erikson asked where all the water went that came into the drainage system at the bottom of the drive. Mr. Spell said it goes into the pond across the street. Ms. Erikson said the water looks pretty high already. Mr. Spell said it is an isolated wetland, it doesn’t connect to the sound. It is a large pond. There is a smaller pond the water can get to on the North side of the road. That road hasn’t been recorded. The water then seeps out to the sound. Ms. Erikson is concerned about flooding of the pond. Mr. Spell said it has never gone over that road. She responded that there was never a drive going into it before. He said he has had runoff from the area and it never flooded. It is also a drainage from Coast Guard Road. It has never gotten close to overflowing. He added that he had offered this property to the town to use for its drainage problems. It would save hundreds to millions of dollars, but no one took his offer. Mr. Dowling asked if the grate at the bottom of the hill will now be sufficient from and engineering standpoint to handle the paved swales? Mr. Spell said the water that comes off the side of the road will never get to that grate. That grate is only for the water coming off the street itself, not the water from the swales. That has been adequate. Chairman Almeida asked Mr. Spell to ask if Mr. McLean (engineer) would roll a golf ball from the top of Christina Drive and watch the ball path. It should follow the pattern that water would follow down the road. Do they go straight down, or to the swale? Or, open the fire hydrant and see if the water goes to the sides. He feels the slope of the road is much higher than the crest. Most of the water goes down the surface of the road. Chairman Almeida went on to add that the design has to be Mr. McLean’s not the Planning Board. It is Mr. McLean’s field to address that issue. He would be glad to help Mr. McLean in that endeavor. He does not feel that the Planning Board is empowered to issue a waiver to use the paved swale instead of the grassed sloped ditches. Mr. Rush said that if there is another way to deal with stormwater, he thought that would be acceptable, if an engineer’s certified that his plan would handle the water. Mr. Patteson asked if Mr. Conrad, Public Works Director, got involved with the streets? He is the one who has to maintain it in the future. He should have looked at it and let someone know if it fit the criteria. There were several issues brought up tonight that Mr. Conrad could look at and say it will or will not meet criteria. Mr. Almeida said he felt that before a final plat is submitted to the Planning Board there should be some type of certification from the town that the work been completed. That should be done in the future. Mr. Rush said he agreed, and it should be done. The problem is that the retaining wall appears to be too close within the right-of-way in terms of the ditch requirement. Mr. Spell interrupted Mr. Rush to say that was not correct, that the wall is on the property it is not on the right-of-way. The ditch is along the side and the rock area that is supposed to slow down the flow of water. That is not eroding, that is working. The water coming from the lots toward the road is flowing down the hill appropriately. That is not the problem, the problem is water coming off the street itself too fast along the edge and washed out the rock along the edge. It has nothing to do with the ditch that’s in there with the rock swales that come down the side. Mr. Rush said he was told it was not possible for water running off the road to make its way into the ditches. There is a question as to whether the ditch is deep enough. The comment about the retaining wall is, that in order to get the ditch deep enough to meet the required 3:1 slope on the ditch, it takes you exceedingly close to that retaining wall and could possibly undermine it. It is a preliminary plat issue that, for whatever reason, was not addressed at that time. Mr. Spell said he did not know whether the ditches were too shallow or not. That is not where the problem is. The problem is along the side of the road with washout. The water is coming off so fast it’s digging a channel along the side of the road. How do we get it off the road and down the hill without washing out the edge. Mr. Taylor said that when he met with Mr. Page, grading contractor, he had no problem with going in to correct the problem where the edge of the shoulder was higher than the road. Mr. Almeida asked if Osprey Ridge Drive is it a public street, or still under Mr. Spell’s ownership? Mr. Spell said that up to the entrance (Christina Court) will be a dedicated public street, but as yet has not been turned over to the town. Mr. Almeida asked that Mr. McLean look at the stormwater situation, if he cannot do a specific thing, like Frank was pointing out, ask him to put down on paper why it is not possible at this stage. We need a waiver from the town board. That way it is a formal deviation from the standard ordinance. Mr. Spell repeated, that whatever changes are to be done? You want that in writing? Mr. Almeida said that is correct. If you cannot meet town standards, you should say why you cannot meet town standards and ask for a waiver from the standards. Mr. Spell said the standards can be met, but that doesn’t solve the water eroding the edge of the street. If there are higher edges, they should be smoothed off, that doesn’t stop water from coming down the edge of the road. So there is no need to change town standards. Something needs to be done because a specific circumstance created it. Mr. Almeida said there is still a problem with the top cul-de-sac. Cannot have a ditch, cannot have 6’ shoulder, so some type of waiver is required. Mr. Rush said that the preliminary plat was approved without a drainage ditch in that location, so he is in compliance with the plat. What he would like to do is explore some other solution with Mr. Spell and Mr. Taylor to be sure the water does not pond. If that requires a waiver, or a variance from the board of adjustment, we need to go that way. He is making the assumption on both sides of the hillside meeting the town standards. It will have to be field checked to see that it meets town standards for slope and depth. Mr. Patteson said there may be some things unaddressed, but Mr. Spell does have a year to take care of these things. He had looked at the drainage situation and felt that some-thing should be done. Mr. Spell’s plan looks like a decent solution, but he agreed with Mr. Daniel that it should not be a deep ditch that could catch a car wheel. Mr. McLaughlin said he is not comfortable going against the minimum standards. There is nothing before them to explain what will be the finished product. Right now the pavement is 20’6”, then it rises up, before it goes into the swale on the other side. There is no way for the water to get over there. Is there a possibility the grassed swale could be filled with crushed stone or rock to help the drainage to get it off the street? He sees it now as going against the design standards. He understands that when the commissioners accept the final plat, that means they accept it as a public street. Mr. Spell said it is not accepted at that time, it is accepted in a year. The commissioners are approving the final plat, the layout of the property, as far as the streets are concerned. They to accept the street as something satisfactory to them. That will happen in one year. Mr. McLaughlin asked if it comes up as a formal issue to the board? Mr. Spell said he has to submit it to the commissioners to approve acceptance. Ms. Angus asked if Mr. Spell did not simply request that his check be returned after the year. Mr. Spell explained that the money submitted is to make sure the things that have come up are done. A year from approval date, Mr. Bob Conrad asks ‘is this street o.k.? is it working fine? Or do we have to do something to it to fix this street?’ If Mr. Conrad is satisfied the street is acceptable, then the town accepts the street. If the town doesn’t like the performance, it does not accept the street. Mr. Daniel reiterated that the developer does maintenance for one year, not reconstruc-tion? The contractor has one year warranty of his work? Mr. Spell replied that was correct. Mr. Almeida asked Mr. Rush what are the warranty standards for the town, he thought the warranty started from the day the town took over the street, and extended for a year from that date? Also, he asked if there had been a formal document, in the past, requesting the town to accept the street for town maintenance. Ms. Angus said that so far as she could remember, there was not previous formal action taken at the board meeting. Mr. Daniel said it becomes a dedicated public street once the plat is approved. It’s not a private street until one year, otherwise he has lots he can’t do anything with for one year. That is not the same as saying the Town has accepted the street for maintenance, that is a side issue. Mr. Rush agreed that when the plat is approved, it is a street that is recorded, people can buy lots there that front on a public street. The town has not yet accepted it for mainten-ance. Typically, there is another document executed by the town with the developer formally recognizing that and taking it into the town’s maintained street system. He was not sure whether this practice has been taken in Emerald Isle. Ms. Angus read from Section 17-34 Warranty and acceptance: “Upon completion of a street/subdivision in conformance with the street construction standards; the street inspector shall certify that the street/subdivision is constructed to the minimum standards and recommend that the street/subdivision be accepted by the board of commissioners. The warranty period will begin on the date of acceptance by the town board of commissioners. Any developer/owner who has failed to provide a one-year warranty or failed to honor a warranty shall not be allowed the privilege of additional subdivision approval within the town until such warranty provision has been satisfied.” Mr. Frank Erwin said he was under the impression that when the board recommended approval of a final plat that all the improvements are in according to town requirements. He then asked if all the improvements are in place? Mr. Rush replied they are not. Mr. Erwin then said he did not know why this plat is before them tonight. Mr. Rush said it was before them tonight because the prior planning board meeting and it was stated then the plan was in compliance with all components, when, in fact, it was not. It subsequently came back tonight and the deficiencies have not been corrected, and they need to be corrected. Ms. Angus asked Mr. Rush who is designated as the ‘street inspector’. Mr. Rush replied that it is Mr. Bob Conrad working in conjunction with Jim Taylor. Mr. Dowling then made the motion that the project be tabled. Mr. Rush agreed, to table it until staff has seen that all corrections have been made and bring it back at the appropriate time. Mr. Daniel said he wanted to be sure Mr. Spell got proper direction and assistance from town staff. Ms. Erikson seconded the motion to table. Discussion: Mr. Erwin said his point was not to delay approval of the subdivision, (Mr. Spell interjected that it will take a month), is he not correct in assuming that the improvements have to be in? Mr. Spell said the improvements have been made, they are in exactly according to the plans Mr. McLean said had to be done. The only thing of essence is whether these little humps are too big or not. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t done, it may not be the way you wanted it done, it can be corrected easily. That is why you have a surety bond to be sure of this type correction. He has been here 30 years he knows the procedure. It has always, in the past been a friendly working relationship with the boards. You don’t always find out everything that might go wrong with a street right away. That does not mean the road was not constructed the way it was supposed to be constructed, it was. Now we find out the water is too fast, so now a correction needs to be made. That is not a change to the town ordinance. Mr. Almeida asked for any other board comments. Mr. Erwin said if the staff tells him that all the improvements are not in according to the plans, he does not think the board has the authority to proceed. Mr. Rush then added that the only other option is for Mr. Spell to post a surety bond for the value of the improvements. He had that option several months ago and is still open to him tonight. However, there is not a dollar value available to set the bond to guarantee any improvements. Mr. Spell said he did have the bids for the contractor. Mr. Almeida asked if there was a surety bond in place to present to the board? Mr. Rush said there is not. Mr. Almeida said he does not think they can proceed on that basis. Mr. Spell (addressing Mr. Rush) said he had told him that he would write one earlier today. He felt he was being unfairly treated. Mr. Rush then asked to clarify the situation. Mr. Spell had called him this afternoon expressing concern on these issues. He said he would write a check to the town for the value of the improvements. He indicated that he does have quotes from a contractor for these improvements. However, no disrespect to Mr. Spell or his contractor, but he would rather have those costs figures verified by someone on the town staff in the interest of fairness and lack of perception of a conflict of interest involved with the town. Mr. Spell injected to triple the estimates he gave Mr. Rush. Mr. Rush said he does not know that the original estimate is valid. Mr. Spell then said he would write a check for $50,000.00. Mr. Rush replied that is what happened earlier today. Mr. Daniel asked if the storm event had any bearing on the project. Mr. Almeida’s response was that the rainfall on Friday showed the problems in real life. Mr. Daniel responded that the conditions had not changed, we are still looking at the same situation. We’re looking through the rain, we didn’t see any rain. Mr. Almeida agreed. Those voting in favor of the motion to table the project was Mr. Dowling, Ms. Erikson, Mr. Erwin, Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Patteson; Mr. Daniel said he had no vote, making this a unanimous decision. 6. Sunset Harbor 6-Unit Condominium, Lot 4, 8628 Sound Drive – Mr. Almeida asked for any public comment. There was none.Mr. Daniel asked if this project had not already been reviewed at review committee? It is only being brought back by formality for the board recommendation to the town board. There was quite a lengthy discussion trying to make a change in the process where that the preliminary plat approval became a formality. Everything had been approved prior. So that this board could approve a plat without referring it on to the review committee. This has gone from the board to the review committee and is now back to this board. All remedies have been taken care of. Pat Patteson made the motion to recommend approval Sunset Harbor, Lot 4, to the Town Board; Ed Dowling seconded, no discussion. Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.
Mr. Rush added that there are many individual lots within the mobile home zoning in addition to the mobile home parks. That is indicated on the map the members have before them. Ms. Georgia Murray, 8738 Emerald Plantation Road, owner of some of the mobile home parks, said she felt she and her mother were being targeted. She found this issue by going on the internet to see what is going on with the town. She would appreciate a phone call when their property is being discussed. Ms. Murray said she would like to know the purpose of this proposed change. She said she had emailed Mr. Rush and he had responded, and he could not speak for the commissioners, but he felt the purpose was low density. She felt that the town was going about it backwards, if that is what the goal is. Why not look at the townhouse ordinance, the height limitation to 3 stories. There couldn’t be another Summer Winds or Sound of the Sea. Also, she would like to have the consideration of meeting with the park owners to discuss the issue before you make any decisions. Mr. Daniel said that the general philosophy of planning and zoning…, this is the first time he had been exposed to the land use mix. He doesn’t see a great deal of density difference between mobile homes and triplexes, sixplexes, etc. He does see a difference in compatibility. For that reason, he thinks it is an improper mix. From the standpoint of already being in existence, it makes it unusual. It doesn’t make sense to start out with that mix. In the listing of different concerns, one was redevelopment. If you have a small mobile home lot which has to front on some access street, the possibility of them being able to consolidate those lots into a large enough parcel is highly unlikely unless it is under one ownership. Probably those under one ownership are being used for mobile home parks and mobile homes are owned by the individual where the underlying property is owned by one or more interested parties. In that circumstance he can under-stand Ms. Murray’s concern. You are going to take away a possible development option they would have. All she would have to do is move the mobile homes off when the leases expire and they are ready to go with multi-development. For individual lots owners, somebody would have to enact an acquisition and would be very unlikely this would happen. If the town were starting and doing land use planning, putting zoning districts in, we wouldn’t do it the way it’s zoning had been done in the past. He can see where it may be better to maintain the status quo, under these circumstances, than to go and withdraw this option from a property owner. Mr. Bill Reist, 8520 Woodcliff Drive, (as public comment) said he lives in a zoned mobile home area on a private lot. He felt his lot might accommodate a condominium. He is opposed to condominiums. If you drive up to where Emerald Isle joins Indian Beach and see a mess. That is the kind of thing the town voted the commissioners in, in order to prevent---- just stacking and stacking and stacking condominium, high density, and eyesores. The commissioners were voted in based on low density. There will be people who can come in and buy low priced lots down around Sound Drive, at the Marina, to combine them and raise condominiums. He thinks it is a mistake to not put some kind of restriction and limit the density. Mr. Dowling asked Mr. Reist for his suggestion. Mr. Reist said that some sort of committee should be set up and listen to the people who own the properties. He does not necessarily agree with Ms. Murray, but it does deserve some thought. Mr. Almeida asked for further comment. Ms. Murray said that it might be suggested to put that ruling in Mobile Home II (MHII), and leave MH1 alone. Ms. Angus replied that there is a Mobile Home II classification, by definition; however, there is no designated Mobile Home II at this time. All mobile home zoning now within Emerald Isle is MH1. Mr. Rick Farrington, 8802 Soundview Court, commented that in the past he had purchased a mobile home park at the end of the Emerald Isle Pier which was probably a 1960’s circa park. It was rezoned to Residential/Multi Family when he did Pier Pointe. He thinks the larger parks that are owned by individuals, different from Mr. Reist’s lot that is in a platted subdivision, where each lot can be owned by individuals, if a lot qualifies, a house can be built on it. What he sees are larger tracts, down by the bridge, the marina is under one tract that have not been divided. It gives the owner temporary use of the land so there is income until such time the economy and demand comes up for another use for the property. In the case of Pier Pointe, the mobile home park was no longer feasible because of being on the prime oceanfront location. It is a stepping stone for the landowners and their rights need to be looked at. It’s a permittable use for Ms. Murray to sell me a portion of her property. Her leases go for one year, she tells the affected people that they have one year and sell it to someone. To take that use away the town will be devaluing the property. The tax base at Pier Point is probably 50 times what the mobile home park was. Mobile homes decrease in value each year and the condos appreciate to increase the tax base. Ms. Doje Marks commented to the Board that she and her husband, when they bought their lot in Sea Dunes, thought it was only residential. They did not realize that RMH zoning meant Residential Motel/Hotel. She never, in her wildest dreams, thought there was a possibility there could be a hotel in their subdivision. The Mobile Home 1 zone was changed to include condominiums and townhouses in 1993. It was the result of a particular request for a condominium in a mobile home zone to accommodate a specific request. It was not the original intent of the zoning prior to 1993. As a commissioner, the idea to change zoning for one use, one time, that effects every single mobile home is eluding people into what they are buying. If it’s residential, it’s residential. If it’s mobile home it should not also be townhouse or condominium. (Portions of Ms. Marks remarks were indiscernible). Ms. Erikson then asked if Ms. Murray were to decide tomorrow that she wanted to build condos and townhouses, what would she have to do? Ms. Angus said she would have to submit a plan, and because it is a permitted use, she would have had to notify all the mobile home owners that they must vacate, then proceed with the normal boards approval. Mr. Almeida asked what is the practice of the town to inform the potential owners of a possible rezoning? Was this done in this case? Mr. Rush responded that the town is required by law to inform the owners of a rezoning. To take a piece of land and changing it from, say, from mobile home to RMH, for example. This case is NOT a rezoning. This is a text amendment to remove a use from the table of permitted uses. There is no requirement to notify the property owners, there is a requirement to advertise for a Public Hearing at the town board level. If the Planning board should decide to move forward with this request, we will do that advertising before the next town board meeting. It would be posted on the Web site and bulletin board. Mr. Almeida asked if there was any analysis to determine what is the density of mobile home vs. condominium as to specific numbers. Mr. Rush said he had asked Ms. Angus to compile a hypothetical scenario that was included in the correspondence submitted. He went on to say that an average mobile home lot is approximately 6,300 square feet. If someone wanted to build a duplex they would need 15,000 square feet, or three lots to do so. So you would be talking pretty comparable density there. Actually the density is a little more with the mobile homes. Once you get to the sixplex, it balances out a little more. Mr. Farrington asked if the minimum mobile home lot was 6,300 square feet? Ms. Angus said she had used an average lot of 70’x90’ which is 6,300 square feet. Actually, a mobile home can be placed, by ordinance, on a lot with only 6,000 square feet. Mr. Farrington asked the answer to 43,560 divided by 63 is? Mr. Rush replied about 7. Mr. Farrington said that would give you 7 mobile homes in an acre and the density for condominiums is 8 per acre. So there would be only one more unit. A comment from the audience was that you have to consider the number of bedrooms for each condominium compared to the number of bedrooms per mobile home. Duplexes are generally 4 or 5 bedrooms each, and mobile homes are 2 and 3 bedrooms. Mr. Almeida said that is what he was trying to get to, in terms of population for comparable area not the lot sizes. Mr. Billy Farrington added that if you look at Emerald Plantation on the sound front, with the houses that are there, and look at the density of what is at Sunset Harbor there is one building for six units with two bedrooms each. That is 12 bedrooms, per acre. On the sound you could put two duplexes with 4 or 5 bedrooms so you could get 16 to 20 bedrooms. The condominium projects, they are limited to 25% impervious area on the sound. The density, on the sound, is going to be held down due to the CAMA regulations. Some older people do like condos, there is no landscaping or yard work; others like mobile homes, others like houses. You should look at everybody’s opinion. Mr. Dowling said he appreciated all the comments and the memo he had received in the correspondence, he had learned a lot. This is a very complicated subject, with a lot of moral responsibility. He would like to see one or two more working meetings with more public being appraised of the issue. Mr. Erwin said there was a memo sent out of four things that the Planning Board was to look at. He asked who had suggested this change, by whose request, the town board or the Planning Board. Mr. Rush said it was put on the December Town Board of Commissioners agenda by Commissioner Farmer. It was referred by the entire board to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Mr. Erwin asked if the reason for that was abuses, or what was the key issue? Mr. Rush said he thinks it was two things, one being potential incompatibility of uses and also density for this area of Emerald Isle. Mr. Erwin continued that the Planning Board felt that compatibility of uses is an important objective, then he thinks that a Public Hearing would be in order. He will concede if the Planning Board objective is to obtain compatible uses. Mr. McLaughlin said he thinks there should be more discussion. It would be in error to try to move this forward. It might be a good idea to get a 60 or 90 day moratorium to study the issue and make a good decision. He does not have enough expertise here tonight to make that decision to send it to the commissioners for Public Hearing. Pat Patteson said we are talking about two different plats of land. One has mobile homes that the land is for lease, that is on a large tract of land. In that area are the roads private or public? Mr. Rush responded they are private roads. Mr. Patteson went on to add that there is property where you could go in today and get a permit to build a single family home vs. where the parks that are for lease. You can skirt around it all you want, the reality of it is that you’ve got a large block of land being leased out to derive income, which is their right, you have mobile homes on them. As Mr. Farrington said, at some point in time, someone may want to put some different kind of development on the land. That would be their right to use the land in the way they want to use it. The Planning Board has to look at is does the board want to develop this in a larger buildings. At this juncture, it needs to be looked at some more. Mr. Daniel said he sees a split pyramid, relating to pyramid zoning, which he hopes is in the past. You were allowed to have a catch-all category to put anything in it. Then you step it down from there to where you can put almost anything in, but a few things are missing that were in the catch-all. The town has R1 and R2, but there is no R1. So you can take a duplex zone and put a single-family in it. He wished we did not have that. He has two duplexes across the street from him. It should be an area for R1. Also, there is a pyramid in the residential category. Then go to mobile home where there are four types of development permitted. RMH zoning allowing motels and hotels in a residential zone is pyramiding. On that basis, that we should look at the total picture for a master plan. We need a new Land Use Plan, new zoning to change everything in underlying districts, and address the total issue rather than a moratorium here and a moratorium there until we figure out what to do next. Each time we do that we don’t give the proper solution , by looking at the total picture and trying to develop a plan for Emerald Isle that is going to apply to Emerald Isle in 2002 and hopefully to apply in 2007. We’ve got ‘dukes mixture’ in our ordinance. We’ve been talking about getting some money to take a look at the master plan, and he would be in favor of that rather than sitting on many committees. He would be pleased to be a part of that. Mr. Almeida said he gets the feeling that the board is not ready to make a decision on this issue. His suggestion was that it be discussed with the Board of Commissioners on Jan. 28 at a Joint Meeting. The we can decide from the discussion what we might do from there. Mr. Daniel said he would not be able to attend the 28th, but he was in favor of that. Motion was made by George McLaughlin to table this issue until after discussion with the Board of Commissioners on January 28th, second by Ann Erikson with unanimous vote in favor of the motion. COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Brennesholtz advised that he has an issue he would like to see discussed at the January 28th meeting. There is a lot of commercial property that has been developed is not particularly successful, and it doesn’t meet with the expectations of the residents. That has put pressure on things like the sign ordinance, how properties are developed, and architectural standards are done. The town needs a vision that other areas have adopted successfully. He was in Florida and they have commercial/residential plan that is successful and clear for all concerned. The discussion of sidewalks and boardwalks in downtown, if done right, preferring boardwalks, where it could be used. Boardwalks are permeable and lends an ambiance to the area. Perhaps some of the downtown businesses could change their facades, maybe only slightly, to bring the town together in a theme area. The fact we don’t have waterfront downtown, it could be done compatibly and with goals of the residents. He opposes another building like Wings, but on the other hand, there is positive benefit to work with the businesses to make them successful. This is not just for the business community, town management, or the commissioners, but for the planning board. We must all participate in how the land is going to be developed. Mr. Gus Farmakidis, 322 Loblolly St., said “I was very disappointed that the present commissioners have not been able to appoint anyone to this board. You planning board members act as an advisory committee. Those three commissioners, or 60% of the people that won, the majority have a vision. You people should share that vision. After the last election, Fred, Frank, Gale (Ceil) came up and said ‘We resign because we do not share the philosophies of the majority of the commissioners’. They are courageous people, I disagree with them, but I shake their hands. If Ricky and Wooten and Floyd Messer and Pat had won, I assure you, I am very confident – him, him, and him (pointing to three of the members) would have resigned because they don’t share their philosophies. My question, Mr. Daniel, you were the most vocal of that group to resign, and you didn’t. WHY? When they were putting in that crap down there….” (Mr. Almeida warned Mr. Farmakidis not to get personal). Leaving the podium he went on, “That’s all I have to say really. At least you know what I feel. And if you don’t, put….”. Chairman Almeida then gaveled him and told him to be seated.Mr. Daniel asked if his resignation was wanted. Mr. Dowling immediately replied it was not. Motion was made by George McLaughlin, second by Ed Dowling to adjourn, with unanimous approval in favor of the motion. Respectfully submitted by:
Carol Angus, Secretary
|
