June 24, 2002 Agenda
June 24, 2002 Minutes

Town of Emerald Isle
Regular Planning Board Minutes
Monday, June 24, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Almeida at 7:00 P.M.   Members in attendance: Phil Almeida, George McLaughlin, Art Daniel, Pat Patteson, Frank Erwin, and Anne Erikson.  Ed Dowling was excused, being out of town.  Carolyn Custy, Town Clerk, substituted for Secretary, Carol Angus.

            Total monthly value for May 2002,  $2,012,870.00; year to date, $17,251,339.00.

1. Consideration and possible recommendation for Special Uses to be added to the Permitted Special Use Table, Chapter 19-81 through 100 .

(Agenda order was introduced out of order, with Item A to follow Item B).

B.     To allow dog grooming in B-3 (Commercial Zoning) as a Special Use with specific conditions.   Mr. Rush advised the board in the absence of Secretary, Carol Angus, that a memo is included with the submission to protect the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding community.  A list of possible conditions has been prepared for this use as well.  The most being significant being there would be no boarding of animals. 

Mr. Rush advised it will be up to this board to determine whether the requests will be for a permitted or special use and what conditions to be applied if it were a special use.

Chairman Almeida asked if an existing building were converted to a light industrial use, is there anything to bring the existing building up to code.  Mr. Taylor advised that when there is any change in occupancy, building code does require that it meet the current standards.

Mr. Daniel had a concern with the application following this agenda item from Island Automation, Inc.  He felt the application was being presented as an electrical engineering firm. 

Mr. Jeff Meier, Island Automation, Inc., said he felt this was a misnomer and would like to apply for the special use for the panel assembly shop. He had pictures of the panels he builds.  He has an engineering firm, not a manufacturing company. The issue comes up that the engineering side makes up the biggest majority  of the business, specifically electrical engineering for control systems for pharmaceutical companies, and others.  As an ancillary business he assembles the panels. So he does not want a permit to go into manufacturing, simply to take a portion of the space and use it with hand tools for assembling the panel boxes.  This is ancillary to the engineering side of the business.  The building at 7703 Emerald Drive happens to be perfectly suited to this business for their needs; half for offices and half for panel assembly.  Basic carpenter tools will all that will be used, so the noise factor will not be a problem. He reiterated that it is an engineering firm, not manufacturing.

Mr. Daniel returned to his original question about the engineering firm.  Mr. Meier said it is different from the usual engineering firm.  They do not do certified site plans, they do not do mechanical engineers.

Mr. Daniel said that Mr. Meier cannot use the word “engineering” unless you have a license to prove it. 

Ms. Erikson asked that if the use were permitted, what would be the guarantee that the business would not be increased?  Mr. Meier said they now have 3 full-time engineers and 2 technicians.  He would not like to see a restriction put on the use that would not allow them to grow within occupational limits of the building.  He could not guarantee that they would not grow to the size of the building.

Mr. Erwin asked assemble a product for each of the contracts?  Mr. Meier said not all customers, about a 50/50 split on assembly or engineering alone.

Chairman Almeida asked to return to the original two  issues to amend the permitted/special use table.  He does not want to allow dog grooming in B-3 as a special use.  Secretary Angus has itemized conditions that would allow a special use to be granted. 

Mr. Patteson said he was concerned about a walking area for the animals.

Ms. Erikson said if the dogs are taken outside to walk, they are going to bark.  She felt they have to look at where it would be located, as far as the noise factor and odor.

Mr. Erwin asked if there was any district where dog grooming facility is located?  Mr. Rush replied there is not.  Under this proposal it would be allowed only in B-3 zone.

Mr. Erwin then asked the same question of the previous request for assembly of products, as far as, is there any district where it would be permitted at this time? 

Mr. Rush replied that is not, and to clarify, the table of permitted uses does not allow assembling of product, light manufacturing, light industrial.  It certainly allows engineering/professional offices in those districts.  Because neither of these is specifically mentioned in our permitted or special uses table, it is being presented tonight as to whether it is appropriate to have them in these districts.

Mr. Daniel asked is dog walking is necessary in this type of operation (dog grooming)?  Chairman Almeida said he would let the applicant address that issue.

Ms. Beverly Beasley, probable applicant for dog grooming use, advised she has a dog grooming business in Elon College, NC.  She boards 14 dogs during the week, in her home. She grooms 5 to 9 dogs a day.  She walks the dogs and cleans immediately after the animals.  She wants to open a dog grooming business here. The dogs would be there from 7:00 AM until picked up later in the afternoon or she may call the owners and have them pick up the dog when it has been groomed.  During that time the dogs are taken out once or twice through the day. It’s a pet beauty shop.  She has not found a place for the business as yet.  She, first, wanted to be sure it was a permitted use.

Mr. Almeida asked how she handles the noise issue.  Ms. Beasley said she does not have a noise issue.  Usually, the animals are small poodles, schnauzers, cocker spaniels; it is not a barking operation.  She said she could not work in an operation that had barking dogs.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

Ms. Rutter, 108 White Sands Drive, added that when the dogs are outside, they will not all be outside at the same time.  Finding a groomer that will accommodate the animals will be a nice feature.  Cleaning up after them will not be difficult.

Ms. Erikson had no further questions.

Frank Erwin said veterinarians are allowed to have a facility as a permitted use in B-3.  The same concerns would be for groomers. So he would not oppose the issue.

Pat Patteson said he would only be opposed to outside pens; otherwise, he has no problem with the use.  (Outside pens would be prohibited).

Art Daniel said he assumed that if some problems occurred  that they would be addressed and abated and business could go along as usual.

Pat Patteson asked if there would be a health issue with 4 or 5 animals inside? 

Mr. Taylor said there is nothing in the building code to address that, but he is sure the health department may have requirements or conditions.

Frank Rush added that the table does allow for pet shops as a permitted use in B-3 and a special use in B-2.  Indoor containment would be similar in both cases.

Motion was made by Pat Patteson to allow dog grooming in B-3 zoning as a special use, second by Frank Erwin, with majority approval in favor of the motion, Ms. Erikson opposed.

Frank Rush advised that Ms. Beasley will be returning to the Planning Board for a Special Use Permit at such time that she wants to open her business.

A.  To allow assembly of products within a structure in B-2 and B-3 (Commercial zoning) with specific conditions.   Mr. Rush advised the board, in Ms. Angus’ absence, that she had prepared a list of conditions that addressed this use to protect the general health, welfare and safety of the surrounding area.  Some of the conditions for a special use would be limits on delivery trucks, hours of operation, parking, number of employees, etc.  This might promote light industry that really doesn’t have any impact on traffic or neighboring properties over normal retail or office operation.

Chairman Almeida asked if the board wants to set a limit on the number of employees?

George McLaughlin said he saw sufficient parking with the size of the building.  What-ever number he can park can be employed there.  Take out #7 on the list being reviewed.

Mr. McLaughlin said he wanted to change #5, to allow only 4-wheel vehicles, not larger trucks.  He does not want to open it up to bigger trucks.  If they deal with UPS that is all that is around here.

Mr. Meier replied that he is not looking for 18-wheeler to come in.  At most, he has had two larger trucks make a delivery.  The deliveries are less than a truckload.

Mr. Daniel suggested only two-axle vehicles. There could be deliveries of a package larger than UPS could handle, then you need an 18-wheeler for that delivery.

Mr. Patteson said an 18-wheeler can come to any business in town with “a” package.  He does not see a problem with accepting that the primary delivery was by small carriers.

Mr. Meier said he typically has UPS/FedEx delivery and the delivery done to the customer in his own vehicle.

Mr. Erwin commented that this gentleman is here to propose a change to the ordinance. Then to return for a special use permit for that use. Why do we feel that he is not in com-pliance now?  This came about because someone found out there was assembly going on, is that correct? Why do we feel he is in violation, it’s an ancillary service that he provides in connection with his normal services.  He is concerned about changing the statute to opening a use to assembly of product.  He is not sure he wants that in Emerald Isle.  He has no objection to ancillary part of the business.  An example is a lawn service that installs a fence for a customer. But he is not sure he wants a use where some assembles the fence down the street.

Mr. Rush responded that if you wanted to limit the special use permit to ancillary use, that could be crafted to be only to design work.  This business has been in operation for some time in Emerald Isle. The planning staff was unaware of the type of work going on.  It never became an issue until this came up.  He approached Carol with the proposal and she informed him there was no permitted use for this type of operation.  So it was brought before this board to consider the proposal.

Mr. Erwin asked if Mr. Meier if he pays sales tax on the equipment he sells. Mr. Meier  said he pays sales tax on the goods he purchases.

Mr. Daniel said it appears that Mr. Meier is assembling analog equipment.  Mr. Meier said it is analog and digital.

Mr. Daniel said he still has a problem with the “engineering operation”.  You cannot practice law without a license.

Pat Patteson commented that rather than opening it up to light industry, if it is a ancillary portion of the operation that wouldn’t exceed 50% of the actual business conducted inside the building, he would have no objection.

Mr. Rush said the main issue with this type of use, and may not be a low impact in another case, is truck traffic and noise.  Jim Taylor has pointed out that the proposal mentions hand tools and an electric power saw.  Is that appropriate, and what kind of noise does that generate? Would it be a problem for the surrounding businesses or neighbors.  There have been no complaints from where he operates now. You do need to consider the full range of manufacturing that might be allowed.

Mr. Erwin said a veterinarian can sell drugs for cats and dogs, that is an ancillary service. He has a problem with someone who was providing system services, didn’t provide system services, and sold the product that he manufactured. He would have a problem with that.  He has no problem with manufacturing a product that is an integral part of the package he is providing.

Mr. Rush said one option might be to allow the sale of electronic equipment along with computer engineered solutions as a permitted use within the B-3 district.  There is a better way to word that, but something low impact.

Mr. Erwin commented that we have a glass company on Reed Drive and he is sure that they cut glass and assemble it. 

Mr. Rush reiterated that this business (Mr. Meier) has been in operation for some time in Emerald Isle.

Ms. Erikson asked about hand tools or equipment.

Mr. Rush said he felt Ms. Angus’ intent here is to limit the noise that would be generated and to limit it to hand tools.

Mr. Frank Erwin made the motion not to adopt the proposed request, perhaps to explore another way to do it, second by Anne Erikson.  The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. 

Chairman Almeida asked Mr. Rush he could explore other options and have it brought back to the next meeting (July)?

Mr. Daniel reiterated that he felt the engineering issue needs to be dealt with.  Mr. Meier needs to take care of that issue.  He doesn’t want to participate until the licensing board makes a final decision. Mr. Meier needs to find out whether he can practice as an electrical engineering firm without licensing from the state.

Mr. Rush said that he felt that is an issue between the service and the client.  Whether or not someone is certified to provide that service seems to be a matter outside the realm of the town’s control through the zoning ordinance. That is his recommendation to this board.

He will try to find the answer to that question, if this board would like.

Mr. Daniel said he is suggesting that Mr. Meier do that. He is bound by his code to report Mr. Meier.

Mr. Rush repeated that he feels this is a relevant issue, however, not pertinent to the zoning ordinance.

Chairman Almeida suggested that Mr. Meier pursue that end and put it to rest the next time it comes up.  Mr. Erwin is to work with Mr. Rush to come up with an alternative to the suggestions that are before them now.

Mr. Rush asked if he understood that the board would like to find some way to accom-modate Mr. Meier in this issue.  The business has limited impact.

Mr. Erwin said if the board thinks Mr. Meier is in violation of the ordinance, we need to work and try to keep it here.

Mr. Daniel made a comment that is not audible.

Mr. Patteson asked if delaying this for 30 days is a serious impact on Mr. Meier? Mr. Meier replied it is not a serious impact. The would like to begin renovations to the building, but they are doing fine where they are now located.

Mr. Patteson said he really does want to go about finding a better way of doing this.

They do not want to open it up.  Mr. Meier said he could appreciate that.

2.  Special Use Permit Application – To allow assembly of products within a structure in B-2 and B-3 (Commercial Zoning) with specific conditions.  Chairman Almeida said that

since this request will not be reviewed tonight however, to provide a few more details when it returns.  The sketch prepared did not have the site plan attached, and sketch submitted does not let you know where the building is located.  Return the application with all the pertinent information for the July Planning Board meeting. Mr. Meier should meet with someone on staff to be sure he has a complete information.

Motion was made by Pat Patteson to refer this to the July meeting, Ed Dowling made the second, with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

3.  Preliminary Plat – Bell Cove Village – 8-lot commercial subdivision – Ronnie O. Watson, and Alan Bell.

Mr. Bell advised that Mr. Watson, Mr. Steve Matthews, and Mr. Randy Campbell had purchased the property and wanted to subdivide it into smaller lots.  There will be no new road construction. Utility installation is the only improvements to be done.  He asked the map be forwarded to Review Committee to go over the details.

Chairman Almeida asked for Public Comment.

Unidentified female replied that she works with Mr. Watson and Mr. Matthews and every concept of the proposal is wonderful.  What they do is quality, she knows from personal experience and great integrity.  They want something good for Emerald Isle.

Mr. Bell said his firm is in the process of developing the location of the trees that are 4” or more in size and are trying to work around the nice live oaks and other principle trees.

Chairman Almeida said he has no problem with subdividing, what is missing is the way the checklist has been filled out. Some in error are “location of slope facilities or drainfields”; stormwater management plan submitted is checked as  not applicable, and it is applicable; survey is date 1981, this has been noted before.  He wants the current topo-graphic survey.  Show a new topographic plan that represents the ground configuration rather than one dated years ago.

Mr. Bell said that further down in the same statement is says that he has topoed the road area and the areas that have changed.  Mr. Almeida said he does not believe that statement is quite right.  He wants a topo of the whole area. He does not think there was a retention basin, or pond, that was done to mitigate another pond that was filled.  That is not shown.

It is not shown where the ponds were filled back in 1997 when some filling was done.  Mr. Bell said he had done that area, it is noted.

Mr. Bell went on to advise, that as Mr. Daniel knows, he is required by the state board that if he did not do 100% of the topo then he cannot certify that. The topo did not change since 1991 and he has topoed what has been filled.  It is obvious you can look at the area to see what has been filled and not been filled, because there are pine trees and live oaks in that area where they have not been disturbed.

Chairman Almeida said he wants the stormwater plan, it will not be taken to review committee without the plan.  The ponds should be part of the common property rather than part of a lot.  Is the owner willing to rework the divisions of the lots so that the ponds are dedicated as common property.  Mr. Bell said he cannot answer that. 

Chairman Almeida asked if there is covenants in place for the subdivision?  Mr. Bell said he cannot answer that as a surveyor, he does not see the covenants. 

Mr. Bell asked, related to the stormwater, that if only subdivision is being done, and it is not known what type of land disturbance is going on, he checked that at “not applicable” at the present time.

Chairman Almeida said that according to the new ordinance that is being enforced, a stormwater plan is required.

Mr. Daniel said there are two options; one is to (inaudible); second, to develop a plan lot by lot of the subdivision.  Each lot as site specific.  You have eight lots, you have eight different plans. (Further portions of Mr. Daniel’s comments inaudible).  He commented there can be common area on Lot 6, and wherever the other wetlands are.  To build them in as common area they will be preserved. The packets included a traffic impact study by three different analysis the preponderance of which stated there should be a right turn lane off Coast Guard Rd between Emerald Dr. and this entrance.  So he sees three issues, the right hand turn lane, stormwater management plan, and wetland designated as common area. 

Mr. Bell advised that if this were being submitted to the state and did not know what is going on the site, he would get a general stormwater permit.  They don’t know what is going on the site yet.

Chairman Almeida said he is looking for a stormwater plan that will conform with the current stormwater ordinance. He will go over the requirements at the review committee with whomever is designing the plan.  Mr. Bell said that his request is to take it to the review committee.  Mr. Almeida replied, no, he is not going to take this in incomplete form to the review committee.  He will discuss it informally, what needs to be included in the submittal.  You will have to submit with complete documentation.

Motion was made by George McLaughlin that the plan be returned to the developer for further consideration with proper submittal.  (Second not audible) vote was unanimous in favor of motion.

4.  Discussion – Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Regarding Additional Setbacks in Residential Zones and Associated with Number of Stories. 

            Chairman Almeida advised that this item was on the agenda at the last meeting. There was  a committee appointed, Pat Patteson, Art Daniel and Ed Dowling, to do a complete study of the issue. His suggestion was to look at northern boundaries outside North Carolina and in South Carolina to see what they have in terms of building heights and setbacks.  He asked Mr. Taylor if the setbacks have been enforced uniformly?  Mr. Taylor said in relation to story height, it had not been. The previous building inspector caught this and since that time, the extra setback has been enforced.

Chairman Almeida said he thought there were two issues to resolve.  He thought that back in 2000 or 2001, by mistake, the 3-story limitation was inadvertently put in the residential section and it was not the intention.  He has looked through the Planning Board minutes and  they never recommended that part.

Mr. Rush agreed, there is the issue of limit of number of stories on single-family and duplex residences.  There is a belief that that was done in error. It’s been difficult to get to the bottom of the issue. He has had one commissioner request asked that this perceived error be on the next town board agenda meeting. The Town Board will consider that amendment at the July meeting regardless of what the Planning Board tonight.  The second issue is the setbacks.  There is confusing language in the ordinance that talks about additional setbacks once you get over a certain number of stories.  There is a different standard for side yard setbacks than for rear yard setbacks with different number of stories.  It is quite confusing. That is probably why, in the past, it was not properly administered.

Chairman Almeida said he felt that the Board of Commissioners could make the change regarding the story limitation without the Planning Board recommendation.  The Planning Board can go ahead and look at the issue in more detail.  Mr. Rush said that is his under-standing.

Mr. Daniel said there is another issue with the limit of the number of stories that the state building code places on the number of habitable stories.  This needs to be discussed with the building inspector. 

Mr. Taylor said he believes Mr. Daniel is referring to the scope of what is allowed in one and two family dwellings and attached townhouses. In the code you are permitted only three stories. Anything over three stories requires a higher level of fire protection.  In a four story building therefore, not recognized in the one and two family portion of the code. He would recommend that we stay within the 3-story scope, for one and two family, and not allow fourth story to stay consistent with the building code.

Mr. Rush said there is another issue that if the house is on pilings, then three stories, that is permitted under the building code.  Mr. Taylor agreed, however, must be designed by a professional after it is above two stories above the pilings. By our ordinance, the pilings are considered a story, which would mean that a 3-story building and pilings would be a 4-story building.  The 40’ height limit still will be enforced.

There were then a number of different scenarios presented by Mr. Daniel as to what does or does not require elevated foundations.  Further discussion on what is considered a story by town ordinance and state code.  Town ordinance states a story is any portion of a floor to a height of 4’ is a story. 

There was a question from the audience by Curtis Estes whether there is a portion of the code that addresses three and one-half stories.  Mr. Taylor’s response was that there  is no reference in Volume VII regarding 3 ½ stories.  He responded that there is a definition for attic story in the building code, which is not calculated as the typical story.

Pat Patteson and Mr. Estes conducted some conversation about Mr. Estes’ particular situation with his house plan. Continued scenarios were discussed regarding the different definitions of the ordinance and code from Volume 1 and Volume VII of state code and flood zone areas.

Mr. Estes it is quite probable that two houses could be designed and look identical from the outside appearance, yet one could be three stories the other four stories.

Mr. Rush said he felt the additional setback requirements are geared toward multi-family residential structures.  The way the ordinance has dimensional requirements spelled out for just residential uses, period.  Those requirements don’t necessarily make the distinction between single-family, duplex, and multi-family structures.  His opinion is that the additional story requirements may have been incorporated for the multi-family aspect.

It is not uncommon for setbacks to be different for single-family and duplexes from multi-family structures.

The item was referred back to committee for further study.

5.   Discussion of possible reconfiguration of Hwy 58, Coast Guard Rd – Chairman Almeida

informed the members that it took him 40 minutes to get from Pebble Beach to the Hwy 58 intersection on the weekend. Traffic on Hwy 58 was moving; however, there was a lot of confusion at that junction.  Delivery trucks trying to bring in beer to the Texaco, others filling with gas and exiting, others coming from Reed Dr. trying to turn into the traffic. There was not a policeman in sight. His suggestion is that on important holidays that a tape be taken of the traffic between 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM. to see what is happening. Also, to have a policeman help out with the traffic situation.  A study should be done by NCDOT as a free service to redesign this intersection.

Mr. Rush said he did go with George McLaughlin to look at the problem.  He sees a definite need for a dedicated left turn signal onto Hwy 58.  He has put in a request to DOT for them to look at this and any other signalization idea they feel might be helpful. He received a response from Neil Lassiter, Division Head an 8 county region in eastern North Carolina. He has assigned that to Aaron Everett, local engineer for our region.  He feels they will begin work on that in the near future.

Chairman Almeida asked if the owners of the Bell Cove Village will be advised of the cost and charged for the turning lane from Hwy 58 to Coast Guard Rd.?  So that he knows what he’s getting into.

Mr. Rush said he would think the board consider a 100’ to 125’ long right turn lane on Coast Guard Rd. into the new subdivision.  That expense, in his view, should be borne by the developer. The turn lane would be in the town right-of-way, but because it is associated with that commercial development, he would pursue requesting that the developer pay that.

He does not feel is would be a major expense for the developer.

Mr. Rush went on to advise that there is a shared left turn lane in the middle of Coast Guard Rd. between Hwy 58 and Reed Dr.  The biggest recommendation was to extend those lanes and have dedicated left turn lanes going in both directions.  Possibly extending the left turn lane out extending all the way back to Pebble Beach.  The left turn lane would then shift at Pebble Beach.

Mr. Daniel responded that the Planning Board did make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners that Coast Guard Rd. be improved at that intersection.  It was left out of the letter that went to DOT.

Mr. Rush said he remembered there was a recommendation to widen Hwy 58 near Islander Dr.  Mr. Rush did not recall this explicit request and is not aware of it.

Mr. Patteson asked if there was any study being done on the banking of Hwy 58, but it appears it was banked for something in excess of 65 MPH.  That creates a lot of problems. Mr. Daniel said there was previous discussion on the Planning Board before on that.

 Mr. Rush advised that the right turn out of Coast Guard Rd. is difficult just by the nature of the banking.  Perhaps the Planning Board would want to have DOT look at the entire intersection and consider all the possibilities.  Then give us an update on their recommen-dations.  He will take this request to the Town Board for their consideration. 

Chairman Almeida said he thinks the planning process needs to start now if they are going to get something in place before the developer completes his property and people start coming in.  It takes a couple years to do the plans, then some years to get the money to allocate the funding for it. Then another year or two for the construction.

Mr. Daniel said when he was with the highway commission, he had a 7-year plan. Now it sees 10 to 12 years.

Ms. Erikson said that as a resident of that area, she feels it is critical that this be looked at. If you don’t go down that road every day, you don’t know how horrible it is.  She is not against Bell Cove, but before it is approved, transportation problem there has to be looked at for traffic.

Mr. Rush said he felt that all studies showed that extending left turn lanes was most appropriate improvement.  It is over our heads to design this, there are professionals that are doing this as a career.  He thinks we should contact those who did previous plans.

Mr. Daniel said he thinks the state should take over Coast Guard Road.  They have the Coast Guard Station there, which gives them priority.

Pat Patteson made a motion to bring it to the commissioners that the Planning Board would like to see DOT analyze the Coast Guard Rd./ Hwy 58 intersection.  Ms. Erikson seconded with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

Chairman Almeida asked how you make a U turn on the Pebble Beach side?  Mr. Rush said he feels there will be parking lots on the interior drives, for turnaround.  There is some disagreement among the consultants, there was an original plan back in November, had a right in and right out feature at Reed Drive.  The town board made the decision to limit it to right in only.  There were differing opinions from the various consultants on whether that is the right or wrong thing to do.  The board or the applicant may want to look at that issue for the best solutions.

6.   Recommendation of Revision of the Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 18 – Art Daniel

addressed the board as chairperson for this committee.  Mr. Daniel had submitted a detailed revision of the ordinance by the committee, with the changes that had been proposed at this time. A more comprehensive revision will be done at a later date. 

There was considerable discussion of these changes and/or additions.

(A copy of these recommendations are attached to these minutes.

Toward the end of the discussion there was an issue presented as far as what changes  may be made by the Board of Commissioners on a plan that has been approved by the Planning Board. 

Mr. Erwin said there has been discussion whether the council has only administerial function after the Planning Board finds that all the requirements of the subdivision ordinance have been met.  Once the Planning Board says they have been met, it goes to the council, unless the council finds that the requirements have not been met, they have no power to do anything but to accept it.  There has been discussion about including in the subdivision ordinance something that provides for a method where the town council can go further than that and determine perhaps the welfare and public safety have been adequately addressed by the subdivision ordinance. Also, whether the ordinance should provide some method by which, if it’s not, that the council will have the authority to deny that adoption of the subdivision ordinance. There has been a case that this had been upheld in court.

To his knowledge, there is only one city in North Carolina that has such a procedure.

Mr. Rush said he thought a number of these issues might be discussed at the Joint Meeting of the Town Board of Commissioners and Planning Board on July 29, 2002 with the personnel from the Institute of Government at Chapel Hill.

Motion was made by George McLaughlin to refer the revised Subdivision Ordinance to the Town Board for approval, second by Pat Patteson, with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

Mr. Daniel agreed to have the adjustments made this evening by Friday, June 26^th.

7.  Update on Farrington Rezoning Request, Dunes and Vegetation Ordinance -

Mr. Rush said he wanted to clarify what has happened with the rezoning request.  It was approved in a slightly different form that what was recommended by the Planning Board.

The original request was for a 50’ buffer to be retained as R-2.  This was not legal.  He consulted with the Institute of Government (IOG) and the town attorney after the recommendation was made. The reason it is not legal is that all parcels within that zoning district, all parcels have to be treated the same.  In this case that was not done, by imposing a higher standard upon this parcel in the B-3 zoning.  It would have been questionable as to whether it was enforceable.  The good will of the applicant could not be forced on him to record those restrictions on the property.

The solution that the board ultimately approved by a 3 to 2 vote accomplished the same goal that the Planning Board was seeking.  The creek was retained as R-2 zoning, as recommended by the Planning Board plus an additional 35’ south of the creek.  That will provide the separation necessary.  There is a 15’ setback requirement in that zoning that will provide the 50’ separation.  The issue will return to the July Town Board meeting because of the 3 to 2 vote and the second vote will be necessary. Mr. Rush said that the adjacent property owners are being notified again.

Mr. Rush proceeded to the issue of the Dunes and Vegetation Ordinance revision.  It is on the agenda for June for a special workshop meeting with the Town Board and Planning Board (July 16, 2002).

8.   Priorities for the Planning Board -

Mr. Rush advised that following a Joint meeting in January there were several issues raised. Following that meeting a survey was sent to all the members asking them to rank the tasks.  Unfortunately, he did not get a response from everyone, only two out of seven planning board members and four out of six town board members.  Based on what he received, he compiled the list of priorities before them.  The shortcoming of the list does not break down what might be long term tasks and short term easily accomplished tasks.

He went on to advise that this is his interpretation and can be changed however the members would care to do it.

The first consideration is a grant to update the Town Land Use Plan.  This is the most important document that the town will put together. 

George McLaughlin was commended for his service to the Planning Board as he steps down to pursue other interests.

Motion to adjourn was made by Art Daniel, second by Pat Patteson, with unanimous approval in favor of the motion at 9:40 P.M.

Respectfully submitted by:

Carol Angus, Secretary
Town of Emerald Isle
Planning Board