HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember_14_2006_Regular_MinutesIREDELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MINUTES
NOVEMBER 14 2006
The Iredell County Board of Commissioners met in Regular Session on Tuesday,
November 14, 2006, at 7:00 P.M., in the Iredell County Government Center (Commissioners'
Meeting Room), 200 South Center Street, Statesville, NC.
Present were:
Chairman Sara Haire Tice
Vice Chairman Godfrey Williams
Steve Johnson
Marvin Norman
Ken Robertson
Staff present: County Manager Joel Mashburn, County Attorney Bill Pope, and Clerk to
the Board Jean Moore.
CALL TO ORDER by Chairman Tice
INVOCATION by Commissioner Johnson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Boy Scout Troop 174 consisting of Tre' Reid, Nick
Ramsey, Collin Murray, Alex Hall, Adam Murray, Jason Shumake, Nick Collins, Kendall Cook,
and Matthew Holbrook led the Pledge of Allegiance. Scout Master Tom Sherrill, Assistant
Scout Masters Gary Cook, Frank Hall, and Trent Holbrook accompanied the boys to the
meeting. (The troop is affiliated with Troutman United Methodist Church.)
ADJUSTMENTS OF THE AGENDA: MOTION by Chairman Tice to approve the
following agenda adjustments.
Addition: •Closed Session Pursuant to Economic Development — G.S. 143-318.11 (a) (4)
*Request for Approval of a Lease with the National Weather Service in Regards to
the Installation of an All -Hazards Transmitter at the Rhinehart Road Tower
Delete: *Update Regarding Manufactured Housing Standards & the Commissioner of
Insurance's Interpretation Regarding Footing Requirements (see briefing minutes)
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Tice declared the meeting to be in a public hearing.
Consideration of the FY 08 NCDOT Public Division/Community Transportation
Application for ICATS: Transportation Director Ben Garrison said a legal notice had been
published inviting the public to speak about the Fiscal Year 2008 transportation application. He
said administrative funding of $226,787 would be requested (15% local match needed), along
with a capital request of $380,703 (10% local match).
Garrison said the application included a request for 11 vehicle replacements, and it was
anticipated that 7 would be approved. He said the Fiscal Year 2007 application included a
technology project that was not funded, and this request would be resubmitted. Garrison said the
ICATS Department operated through an enterprise fund, and local matches needed for the
application would be supplied through fares and fees.
Mr. Garrison said from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, that 105,796 passenger trips
were supplied with 824,143 service miles. In addition, he said 46,317 vehicle service hours were
recorded, and that ICATS operated 312 days. He said the automated scheduling software assisted
the department in operating more efficiently.
No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Tice adjourned the hearing.
OTIO by Commissioner Johnson to adopt the resolution authorizing the
Transportation Director to submit the application for state funding.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays - 0.
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
FY 2007-2008
RESOLUTION
Applicant Seeking Permission to Apply for Community Transportation Program Funding,
Enter Into Agreement with the North Carolina Department Of Transportation,
and to Provide the Necessary Assurances.
WHEREAS, Article 2B of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Governor of North
Carolina have designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as the agency
respomahlefor administering federal and state public transportation funds; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation will apply jor a grant from the US
Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and receive funds jrom the North Carolina
General Assembly to provide assistance for rural public transportation projects; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of these transportation funds is to provide grant monies to local agencies,/or the
provision of rural public transportation services consistent with the policy, requirements for planning,
community and agency involvement, service design, service alternatives, training and conference
participation, reporting and other requirements (drug and alcohol testing policy and program,
disadvantaged business enterprise program, and fully allocated costs analysis); and
WHEREAS, Iredell County hereby assures and certifies that it will comply with the federal and state
statutes, regulations, executive orders, Section 5333 (h) Warranty, and all administrative requirements
which relates to the applications made to and grants received from the Federal Transit Administration, as
well as the provisions ofSection 1001 of Title 18, U. S. C.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Transportation Director of Iredell County Board of
Commissioners is hereby authorized to submit a grant application for federal and state finding, make the
necessary assurances and certifications and be empowered to enter into an agreement with the NCDOT to
provide rural public transportation services.
Chairman Tice declared the meeting to be in a public hearing.
Consideration of Case No. 0610-2, a Request from Brawtus Management Company
for a Rezoning of Property from Residential Agriculture Zoning District to General
Business District: Acting planning Director Steve Warren reviewed the staff report for this case
as follows:
OWNERS: Brawtus Management Company (David Brady)
494 Eufola Road
Statesville, NC 28677
LOCATION: Sallie Drive in Statesville, more specifically identified as PIN # 4704-55-8986.
Directions: Old Mountain Road west, right on Sallie Drive (bef)re Island Ford Road
intersection), on left next to the Pneu-Meth building.
REQUESTED ACTION AND CONDITIONS: Rezone the property from RA, Residential
Agriculture Zoning District to GB, General Business District.
PROPOSED USE: Parking lot and septic system for business next door, which is
expanding.
SIZE: The parcel is .55 acres.
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE: Residential, commercial, and vacant
2
WATERSHED REGULATIONS: This property is not located in a watershed.
TRAFFIC: The portion of Old Mountain Road at the intersection of Sallie Drive had an
average (?1'4,700 vehicles per day in 2004; according to the Iredell County Thoroughfare
Plan, this section of Old Mountain Road has a carrying capacity of 12,000 vehicles per
day.
ZONING HISTORY. This property has been zoned RA since Countywide zoning went
into effect in 1990. The property to the west was rezoned to GB in February 2002. There
are two other properties nearby that are zoned HB CUD. One was rezoned to HB CUD
on June 2, 1992 with the following conditions: 1) no bay doors to face Old Mountain
Road and 2) allow any or all uses permitted in the NB district and transmission shops
under the HB district. The other was rezoned on November 1, 1994 with the following
condition: that is be used for a mini -warehouse. Other properties in the area have been
rezoned to GB in 1992 and 1997 and to NB in 1993.
STAFF COMMENTS: This property is near the intersection of two major roads in the
County. The applicant is expanding the current building and needs room for septic and
parking, both of which require the same zoning district as the business. There is a
required 30 foot huffer between this use and adjoining residential properties. The
County Land Use Plan designates this property as commercial. Based on the compliance
with the Land Use Plan and the proposed uses, staff recommends in favor this request.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION: On October 4, 2006, the Planning Board voted 10-0 to
recommend approval of this request and to advise that it is consistent with the Iredell
County Land Use Plan.
David Brady, President of the Brawtus Management Company, and the owner of the
property, shared diagrams of the site and explained how the existing business would be
expanded. He noted that with the expansion, trucks would no longer have to park out on the
highway.
No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Tice adjourned the hearing.
OTION by Commissioner Williams to approve the zoning map amendment and to
make a finding that the approval is consistent with the adopted Iredell County Land Use Plan and
that said approval is reasonable and in the public interest due to its consistency with the Iredell
County Land Use Plan; as a result, said approval furthers the goals and objectives of the Iredell
County Land Use Plan.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Chairman Tice declared the meeting to be in a public hearing.
Consideration/Approval of a Draft Erosion Control and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance and Permission to Submit a Petition to the North Carolina Sedimentation
Control Commission for Iredell County to be Authorized to Implement the Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act, Along with the Ordinance, in Compliance with State Regulations:
Erosion Control Administrator Mark Selquist provided a PowerPoint presentation about the draft
erosion control ordinance, and some of his comments are as follows:
■ The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 sets the standard for when an
erosion and sedimentation control plan is required. (No person shall initiate any land -
disturbing activity that will disturb more than one acre on a tract, unless 30 or more days prior
to initiating the activity, an erosion and sedimentation control plan for the activity is filed and
approved with the agency having jurisdiction.
■ County Jurisdiction: The county will have jurisdiction in all areas that fall outside of
the municipalities and municipal ETJ. (This comprises approximately 35% of the countywide
workload.)
3
■ Minimum Control Plan Standard: North Carolina = 1 acre of land disturbing activity.
Iredell County = 1 acre outside of water supply watershed and '/z acre inside water supply
watershed.
■ Importance of Water Supply Watershed '/z to 1 Acre Requirement: Notifies county of
small developments. Informs small lot builder of Erosion Control Regulations. Majority of
complaints = small lot development. Reduce need for investigation and enforcement. Majority
of growth occurs in Water Supply Watersheds.
■ Water Supply Watershed Lots: '/z to 1 acre plan review should be relatively straight
forward. Review time should be quick. Control measures will typically be minimal. Estimate
of '/2 hour review per control plan.
■ Anticipated Workload: Approximately 130 cases to be acquired from DENR.
Estimated annual workload projections are '/z to 1 acre = 95 cases and 1 acre and above = 135
for a total of 230 cases.
■ Who needs a Plan? 1. When land -disturbing activity exceeds 1 acre (1/2 acre in a
water supply watershed) there will be a requirement for an approved sedimentation and erosion
control plan. 2. The aggregate of disturbed land on all lots under ownership within the
subdivision are used to calculate acreage. Lots do not need to be contiguous. 3. An example
would be a subdivision development with 2 front lots (.25 acre each) and 2 back lots (.45 & .33
acre) or 1.28 acres of total land disturbed. Then a plan would be required.
■ Typical Control Measures: 1. Properly installed silt fence. 2. Stabilized construction
entrances. 3. Establish vegetative groundcover. 4. Sediment basins and traps.
■Needed Documentation for Plans (Content): Statement of financial
responsibility/ ownership; engineering/ architectural drawings; maps; narrative statements;
calculations; assumptions.
■ Timeline for Decisions on Plans: The county will review erosion control plans and
approve or disapprove within 30 days. Failure to review within 30 days = approval.
■ Timeline for Decisions on Plans - Revised: The county will review revised erosion
control plans and approve or disapprove within 15 days. Failure to review within 15 days =
approval.
■ Required Revisions: If after plan approval the county determines that the plan is
inadequate; the county may require revision of the plan.
■ Fee Schedule: An Erosion Control Plan Fee Schedule will be determined by the Iredell
County Board of County Commissioners at a future date.
■ Should noncompliance occur: The penalty for not complying is a fine of $500 per acre
per day.
■ Section 404 Penalties - Criminal: Any person who knowingly or willfully violates any
provision of this ordinance ... shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. May include a fine not
to exceed $5,000 as provided in G.S. §113A-64.
■ Summary of Benefits: Provides greater local control over erosion and sedimentation
issues. Protects local water supply watershed resources. Reduces offsite sedimentation thus
reducing costs for local stormwater treatment. Minimizes the need for costly offsite
remediation.
(Comments and Questions)
Marvin Norman: At the present time, when you investigate a resident's complaint, what
happens?
Selquist: If there's a violation, we submit a notice of violation to that person. They would have
some time to correct the problem and come into compliance. If they don't do that, this is when
we impose penalties.
Norman: What is in place at the present time?
Selquist: Right now, we are not doing anything. The state is managing this; however, they are
understaffed. Theoretically, the state is using the same process, submitting a notice of violation,
and then trying to get the operation into compliance. If compliance doesn't occur, the staff
would move forward with the penalties.
4
Norman: The State handles the problem now
Selquist: Yes, we do not have jurisdiction. That's the intent of this ordinance -- to allow the
county to assume the duties and to impose penalties.
Attorney Pope: The $500 per acre penalty -- is that per acre disturbed or per acre affected?
Selquist: That would be per acre disturbed activity.
Steve Johnson: In reference to Section 203 (b), or Financial Responsibility & Ownership, it
would appear the staff might find it difficult to hold anyone responsible unless the owner admits
ownership and offers to pay. Has the planning staff considered asking someone to post a bond
-- similar to subdivision street improvements?
Selquist: This is something we can look into. It's not something we had anticipated at this
point; however, it could be a good idea. Financial responsibility/ownership is basically to get a
clear indication as to who is the legal entity that will be developing the project. This has been a
problem in the past, since some builders have multiple entities that they operate under.
Johnson: When someone writes a check to my business, I know who they are. If they don't
write a check, I may or may not know who they are. I'm not saying that's a good idea, but at
some point this needs to be "nailed down."
Johnson: A part of Section 203 (c) reads, " .... shall be deemed incomplete until a complete
environmental document is available for review." Are we putting another step in the process for
these individuals? Do they have to go to the State of North Carolina?
Selquist: This is a special case. This is if they need an environmental assessment or impact
statement. It probably will not enter into our purview. It would have to be a special situation to
require it, and if that's the case, they would have to get a document prior to getting the erosion
control plan approved.
Johnson: If our goal is to protect the lake and property owners, then that is a noble goal. That
goal is compared to some poor guy trying to make an honest living on a backhoe getting
knocked around like a ping-pong ball between a county bureaucracy and state bureaucracy. I'm
sympathetic to this guy because I've been there. It's not pleasant. I don't see that those two
things have to be mutually exclusive. I don't want this poor guy saying, "I'm good with the
state," and he starts digging, then one of our guys shows up and says, "You got to stop." Then
he comes to Statesville and gets another permit, then a person from the state shows up and
tells him that he has to stop. It's ridiculous to put someone in that situation. I'm assuming the
person or governmental entity with the strictest criteria would have the greater weight of
enforcement. You can understand the guy who is going to be asking himself, "Who will try to
stop me next?"
Selquist: If we are still addressing the Environmental Policy Act -- this is mandated by federal
law. It falls under the NEPA statute. It's something we wouldn't be able to remove.
Johnson: I don't mean to be adversarial. You think about these things on the front end so you
don't mess up down the road.
Selquist: Absolutely.
Johnson: I haven't seen anyone from the federal government down here willing to enforce our
ordinances, but we do plenty of work for them.
Johnson: On 203 (d) Content, will they have to hire an engineer to dig up a half -acre of dirt?
Selquist: These items are as needed. They need to provide us a clear understanding as to
what is occurring. If they can do that in a method that is agreeable and sufficient to us, then we
can let them get by with certain items. We will have some leniency in this aspect, especially if
we use a half -acre to one -acre requirement. Anything above the one acre is state mandated.
We are looking at some situations with the half -acre to one acre land disturbing activity, and we
are trying to get a handle on the issues that can occur in high-growth areas. This ordinance
section describes the needed documents, as needed. If they can provide sufficient
documentation so we can determine what's going on and do some calculations as far as runoff
issues, then we could accept that.
5
Robertson: The intent of the ordinance was to deal with the water quality issues and to prevent
some of the problems we had before. Iredell County gets many benefits from having a good,
clean lake. Because of the lake, streams, and the Catawba River, Iredell County is known for
its good quality of life, and there's much value in having clean water sources. Lake property has
high property values, and many parts of the county obtain their drinking water from Lake
Norman. Long term, many governmental entities will be held accountable for the quality of
water or the degradation of the water sources. We have a vested interest in making sure we
don't muck up our water because of irresponsible or shoddy construction. I've built two homes
on the lake. The first was built wrong with a little silt fence on a very steep lot. The builder met
the letter of the law, but not the intent. All of the topsoil from my lot washed into the lake. The
lot for my next house was not as steep, but two silt fences were installed. The lot was seeded
multiple times. We did not remove the first silt fence until there was a stand of grass
established. We didn't remove the second one until a year later. The plant life in the
designated buffer zone wasn't disturbed either. There is a right way and a wrong way. I was
fortunate with the last house. It was done right. You refer to 10 year and 25 year storms. For
clarification, when you talk about stormwater runoff as resulting from precipitation of an intensity
that is expected to be equal or exceeded on average once every x number of years, is that a
peak for how many inches per hour for one hour? Is it inches of rainfall over the course of a
day? What is the time unit?
Selquist: There are tables where you could find this information. You can get the information
from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) to calculate the runoff. As far
as to whether it's a 24-hour period, I believe it's a 24-hour period, but there are tables for this.
Robertson: The standards need to be easily understood. On the buffer zone, the ordinance
states that most of the silting has to occur within 25% of the buffer zone. Can you clarify this --
how big the buffer zone would need to be?
Selquist: This will vary and be dependent upon the area's size that is adjacent. Also, it would
depend upon the slope as far as the velocity of the water. What it is stating is that within the
first 25% of that total buffer zone, all the sediment coming off the exposed area needs to fall out
of the water flow. Basically, if you had a 100 -acre buffer, and the sediment was coming down, it
would have to be filtered out in the first 25 feet. You could make a calculation that if 25 feet
were required, then you would need a 100 -foot buffer.
Robertson: Calculations would have to occur on large-scale projects as opposed to small lots if
there was a fairly steep slope and a high clay -soil content. Then, a greater buffer might be
needed as opposed to a flat property with soil that didn't have as much clay.
Selquist: Yes, calculations would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Robertson: On page nine, Section (b), pertaining to angles, will the staff be measuring these or
using the county's GIS topographic maps?
Selquist: The angles would be dependent upon the type of soil in the area. There would be a
determination on how steep the slopes could be for that soil type. We would look at the slopes
-- it would be on a case-by-case basis dependent upon the soil type.
Robertson: On page ten, Section (d), pertaining to the plan's contents, are these by state and
federal laws? You didn't come up with the requirements for maximum velocity. Most of these
came from state and federal laws. Is this correct?
Selquist: Yes. These were taken right out of the state regulations
Robertson: On page thirteen, Section (f), pertaining to stormwater runoff and "measures to
control the velocity to the point of discharge so as to minimize accelerated erosion of the site
and increased sedimentation of the stream." What does minimize mean as opposed to just
reducing? I'm concerned about what is a threshold with this section. Are we asking them to
show intent, or how do you know when someone has accomplished this?
Selquist: As far as the word "minimize," I would read this to be that it needs to be controlled
down to the threshold levels as far as particle size coming off that slope and there are some
standards within the ordinance that address this. You would have to reduce the velocity so that
you could maintain the threshold requirements for the different size particulate matter.
Robertson: To minimize and accelerate erosion down to the threshold.
6
Selquist: Right.
Robertson: Under ground cover on page 14, and the time span, if a home is built in January
and grass seed is spread on bare soil with a little straw, would you consider this as being done
or finished?
Selquist: When you are laying ground cover, that's going to be part of the erosion control
ordinance. If you look at page 16, Sections 210, 211, and 212, there are some requirements
with on-going maintenance responsibilities. There could be an additional measure required.
Section 210 reads: "The person conducting the land -disturbing activity shall install and maintain
all temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures as required." They
will be required to put these in and maintain them. Section 211, under additional measures
says, "The person conducting the land disturbing activity will be required to and shall take
additional protective action." This is if what is in place is not working adequately. Also, under
Section 212, in existing and uncovered areas, it states that ground cover or other protective
structures or devices sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion and control off-site sedimentation
are required. So these three taken together are basically stating that you need to put the control
measures in place -- in this case -- vegetation, but you also need to maintain it and insure it is
operating sufficiently.
Robertson: Page 15, under Acceptable Management Measures, it reads, "Measures applied
alone or in combination to satisfy the intent of this section are acceptable if there are no
objectionable secondary consequences." Who gets to determine if they are objectionable? Is
that only the inspector or can it be neighbors or people downstream?
Selquist: This is saying you need to put control measures in place that will be suitable. They
will have to perform the way they were supposed to, and I would make that determination by
going out and making an inspection. A neighbor could call me to take a look, and I could
inspect it, or another person could make the inspection.
Robertson: So there aren't consequences unless you say the objection is legitimate.
Selquist: Correct, and a big part of this section is that it is performance based. The builder is
going to put control measures in place that are going to be suitable, and we would encourage
innovative techniques as long as it looks like it is going to work. But, again, if there are
objectionable situations occurring, we are going to require that they be fixed.
Robertson: The intent isn't to bust the chops of some guy building on a lot in a relatively flat
area that is away from a stream. We are really trying to protect the water, the property owners,
and the watershed areas. Especially the waterfront property owners who've already built, and
now there's a 200 -home subdivision being built 600 yards away uphill with massive areas being
bulldozed. All of a sudden a North Carolina storm produces an inch of rainfall, within an hour,
and this is when problems occur. The way the ordinance is written now is that it has to cross
the half -acre threshold. A lot of residential areas close to the lake are not one-half of an acre.
Certainly, when you take out the home or whatever is not disturbed, then there's not going to be
below that one-half acre. How are we going to make certain that someone doesn't come in,
subdivide the property, and allow many different builders, for many different owners, at different
times? How do we keep them from getting around this half -acre threshold? You could literally
have a 50 -acre subdivision with no one builder building more than one house, or applying for a
building permit at a time? How do we prevent that type of situation from getting under that wire
of the half -acre threshold?
Selquist: Let's say we have a 100 -acre subdivision and 100 builders, they would be able to get
around the ordinance. Also, if you had 100 lots that were sold and the owners hired builders,
then they could get around the ordinance. The way it is worded; however, if you have a builder
coming in and buying multiple lots -- say you have 20 builders to a 100 -acre subdivision, then
the lots to be developed would be aggregated. We would have to look at an estimated
minimum lot size for that subdivision. This would be one way to look at the situation. When you
have multiple lots, we are going to capture those, but you are right, this is something we might
have to review. A project could be arranged in order to circumvent the ordinance.
Robertson: There has to be someway to capture this. Otherwise, you could buy one lot on
Monday, one on Tuesday, and so forth. I would like to capture this so we don't have large-scale
subdivisions built that miraculously fall outside the ordinance.
Selquist: We could look into this.
7
Robertson: A first draft is always difficult, but this is a good first step. The ordinance is worded
in a fashion that will not impact the people living outside the watershed areas.
No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Tice closed the public hearing.
Robertson asked if the staff could revise the ordinance utilizing some of the concerns
mentioned by the board members.
Chairman Tice said a work session might be held between the board members and staff to
further review the ordinance.
County Manager Mashburn suggested that a work session be held prior to the next
agenda briefing, or at 4:00 p.m.
Robertson asked how long it would take the staff to incorporate the board's suggestions
into the document.
Interim Planning Director Warren said December 5 would be the next board meeting.
Commissioner Williams asked the deadline to apply for the erosion control grant.
Selquist said December 1.
Williams asked if the ordinance could be adopted with the board's suggestions in order to
meet the grant deadline.
Several commissioners said they were not ready to adopt the ordinance.
(Questions and Answers Continued)
Johnson: Page 10, Section 203 (e) reads that a district will review the plan and submit any
comments. I talked to Mr. Summers with the Soil and Water District several years ago and was
told his office had no regulatory authority. Summers said advice and recommendations could
be given, but the office had no "teeth" as far as enforcement. On page 11, under (i) there's a
reference to the Environmental Management Commission. Who are these guys? Will we have
people bumping into one another regulating this thing, or do we have a problem where there is
plenty of regulation on paper but no one enforcing it?
Robertson: I think you hit the nail on the head.
Johnson: Somebody needs to be out there getting their boots muddy. We don't have to re-
invent the wheel. We sit here time after time, and we whine and we moan about the State
telling us, "Well you have to do this for us because we are not going to pay for it anymore." Are
we fixing to pick up another responsibility? If we are going to do this, how many people will it
take to regulate or enforce 500 miles of lake shoreline? Much less, if they are preoccupied with
writing regulations. Maybe we need to just put more on the enforcement end rather than trying
to write laws.
Robertson: Well, this enables us to enforce it. All we have done is quote other standards
Johnson: I'm not so sure. Some of these things are more restrictive than the State. If they are
not more restrictive then why are we doing this?
Selquist: On page 11, Section (i), that's straight out of the model ordinance. I didn't put that in
there. I didn't change it. Basically, it's stating that if the plan would result in a violation of these
riparian areas, which are also protected, in that case, the plan itself could be disapproved.
Norman: We are taking on more responsibility from the state, as I've mentioned before. We will
have to fund this. The state should be enforcing this now. When will we be reimbursed from
the state?
Robertson: We decided to put a new erosion control specialist in the budget last year. That's
when we made the financial commitment to address this. That question has already been
decided.
8
Norman: What is the budget?
Mashburn: We have three staff persons to enforce this ordinance.
Norman: Will that be enough?
Selquist: The three people would be myself, an inspector, and an administrative person.
Robertson: Would it be better to eliminate many of the references and just have them to come
to us.
Johnson: I sold a product several years ago. A federal person then came by and said, "You
have to do it this way." Then the guy from the state said, "No, he's wrong, you have to do it this
way." Then another guy said, "No, they are both wrong, you have to do it this way." After about
six trips, I told him what part of his anatomy could exit my property as quickly as possible. I quit
selling that product. Now who suffered? I did and the customer did. We have an obligation to
protect the lake, but consider the backhoe operator. Let's not make his life anymore rough then
we have to. The backhoe operators are not raping the land, they are trying to make an honest
living. The people buying the house are trying to buy a house. The builder is not building the
house to knock down trees, he is supplying a need. Let's not make this difficult.
Robertson: I don't think that those are mutually exclusive objectives.
Johnson: On page 13, Section 205 (b), in reference to high quality water zones, and the
definition on page 5 (High quality waters means those classified as such in 15A
NCAC28.0101(e)(5)- General Procedures, which is incorporated herein by reference to include
further amendments pursuant to G.S. 1508-14[c]), what does this mean? Write this thing for the
people that have to live with it everyday. I want this to be where they can understand it.
Selquist: I think I can clarify this.
Johnson: We serve the public. Write it where people can understand it.
Chairman Tice asked if one hour would be adequate for the work session.
Commissioner Williams said the revised ordinance needed to be submitted to the board
members prior to the work session.
Robertson requested for the revised ordinance to be shared with the board members
before the agenda packets were delivered. He said this way, the board could continue to share
suggestions with the staff.
Mashburn said the staff could incorporate the changes; however, in doing so,
enforcement powers might be stripped away making the ordinance unhelpful.
Williams said the board needed to be notified if this occurred.
Selquist said that in reference to Commissioner Johnson's comment about the backhoe
operators, that a conversation had occurred with several builders. He said the builders mentioned
that they, too, experienced sediment problems caused by other builders. Selquist said there had
to be a balancing act to protect the waters, the residents, and indirectly some of the builders,
while at the same time allowing construction to continue.
OTION by Commissioner Johnson to defer the erosion control ordinance to a 4 P.M.
work session on December 5, 2006.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
OTION by Chairman Tice delete Item A on the agenda which pertained to a Request
to apply for a Local Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program Grant from the North Carolina
Sedimentation Control Commission.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0
9
MOTION by Commissioner Johnson to approve the following 14 consent agenda
items.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
(All items were described at the 5:00 p.m. agenda briefing.)
1. Request from Peoples Bank (Applicant Miles Wright) for the Release of
Zoning/Subdivision Jurisdiction to the Town of Mooresville: Acting Planning Director Steve
Warren said the staff was recommending a release of zoning jurisdiction to the Town of
Mooresville for a new bank on a one -acre tract at 1080 River Highway in Mooresville. He said the
request met the release criteria, and a banking institution would fit into the transitional uses
proposed in the River Highway Corridor Plan. Warren then provided the following additional
material about the request.
OWNER: Peoples Bank
PO Box 467
Newton, NC 28658
APPLICANT: Miles A. Wright
Wright & Associates
4190 Hwy. 16 South
Newton, NC 28658
(828)465-2205
LOCATION: 1080 River Highway, more specifically PIN#s 4638-40-1424 and 4638-40-1576.
Directions: Highway 150 west, at the corner or Highway 150 and Fuller Drive.
REQUESTED ACTION AND CONDITIONS: Release Zoning and Subdivision Jurisdiction
to the Town of Mooresville.
PROPOSED USE: Branch office for Peoples Bank.
SIZE: The proposed area to be rezoned is 1.465 acres
EXISTING ZONING: The property is currently zoned Highway Business (1.095 acres) and
Residential Agricultural (.37 acres).
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant, but has been used for commercial purposes in the past.
SURROUNDING LAND USE: Commercial, vacant, and residential.
WATERSHED REGULATIONS: This property is located in the Catawba/Lake Norman
WSIV-CA Water Supply Watershed. The County's requirements limit the development to
24% impervious coverage unless the High Density option has been approved.
TRAFFIC: This segment of Highway 150 has been widened with a middle turn lane. The
most recent traffic count (in 2005) indicated a 37,000 vehicles per day.
ZONING HISTORY: This property is currently zoned HB, Highway Business. It was
rezoned Highway Business in May 1985. The River Highway Corridor Plan calls for
transitional uses on the property.
STAFF COMMENTS: This request meets the criteria for a Release of Jurisdiction. The
proposed use of the property as a bank fits into the transitional uses proposed in the River
Highway Corridor Plan. Because of the need for water and sewer for this type of
development and the consistency with the current zoning and future land use plan, the
Planning Staff recommends approval for this request.
2. Request for Consideration/Approval of the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) Recommendations from the Staff: Acting Planning Director Steve Warren said the
10
Division 12 TIP meeting would be on November 15 in Dallas, NC. He requested affirmation of the
following submittals that have been presented to the state for the past several years.
FUNDED
1. Widening of Brawley School Road (Chuckwood to Williamson; and Williamson to I-77
including interchange).
2. Construction of Highway 70 from Statesville to county line.
3. Langtree Road/I-77 interchange
PARTIALLY FUNDED
1. I-40 Interchange
2. 1-40/Hwy 21 improvements
UNFUNDED
1. I-77 Widening (county line to I-40)
2. Hwy 150 widening from County line to I-77
3. Cornelius Road interchange at I-77 and connector road built to Mazeppa Road
4. Hwy 21/N.C. 115 Widening
5. Gardner Bagnal Road Widening
6. Brawley School Road Widening from Talbert Road to Hwy. 21
3. Request from the NC Department of Transportation for the Abandonment of a
Portion of State Road 1245 — Centre Church Road: Acting Planning Director Steve Warren
said Centre Presbyterian Church members had petitioned for a portion SR 1245' to be abandoned
from state maintenance due to growth and road widening/upgrading projects. He said the church
was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the abandonment was for 995 feet at
the northern end of Centre Church Road.
4. Request for the Consideration of a Small Area Plan for the Statesville Regional
Airport Area (See briefing minutes for additional information.)
5. Request for Approval of Budget Amendment #20 for the Acceptance of a $20,355
Waste Reduction Recycling Grant: Recycling Coordinator Carla Parks said a budget
amendment was needed to accept a $20,355 grant to expand the recycling program. She said a
10% match was needed, and it was budgeted.
6. Request for Approval of the October 2006 Refunds and Releases: Tax Administrator
Bill Doolittle requested approval of the following refunds and releases:
OCTOBER
2006 TAX RELEASES & REFUNDS
Releases
Refunds
County
$28,552.86
5,395.34
Solid Waste Fees
10,348.00
108.16
East Alexander Co. Fire #1
145.47
0
Shepherd's Fire # 2
186.83
0
Mount Mourne Fire # 3
106.70
0
All County Fire # 4
3,850.83
534.55
Statesville City
3,673.21
192.03
Statesville Downtown
0.27
0
Mooresville Town
8,876.19
1,303.31
Mooresville Downtown
38.73
0
Mooresville School
1,510.76
339.07
Love Valley
22.50
0
Harmony
14.76
0
Troutman
149.32
0
Total
$57,476.43
$7,872.46
A complete list, of the individual tax releases and refunds,
into the minutes by reference.
is hereby incorporated
7. Presentation on the 2007 True Value and Present Use Value Schedules, Standards, &
Rules for the 2007 Revaluation Along with a Request to Call for a Public Hearing on
December 5, 2006, to Receive Public Comments Regarding the Proposed Schedules,
Standards, and Rules for Real Property Reappraisal: (Additional information regarding this
item may be found in the briefing minutes.) A public hearing will be held December 5 at 7 p.m.
regarding the revaluation schedules, standards, and rules.
8. Request from the Health Department for Permission to Apply for a $73,481 Dental
Equipment Grant from the NC Department of Health and Human Services: Health
Director Donna Campbell requested approval to apply for funding to expand the dental clinic.
She said new equipment would be used in two new clinical rooms, one new hygiene room, and
some of the supplies would replace older equipment. Campbell said a new compressor system
was also being purchased.
9. Request from the Health Department for Approval of an Amended Fee Schedule:
Health Director Donna Campbell said an amended fee schedule was developed in order to have
consistency in all patient accounts. (Minor revisions were noted on the first seven pages of the
eight -page operations manual.)
10. Request from the Health Department for Approval of a Resolution in Support of
Local Fees for Services Associated with Food and Lodging Establishments: Health Director
Donna Campbell said state mandates required local governments to provide services or
inspections for food and lodging facilities; however, counties were not allowed to charge fees.
She said the state charged $25 a year for restaurant inspections, yet the counties received only a
small portion. Campbell said the county had 475 establishments that paid the fees, but many
others, such as day care facilities and jails were not charged or "counted." She said the local fee
would apply to only "counted" services, and health departments throughout the state were trying
to make this a legislative priority. The approved resolution is as follows:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF LOCAL FEES FOR FOOD AND LODGING
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina mandates that local government provide Food and
Lodging support and inspections; and
WHEREAS, the State Food and Lodging Grant provides less than $7,000 per year in support of
providing Food and Lodging support and inspections, and
WHEREAS, it costs the local taxpayers of Iredell County upwards of $360,500 to meet the State
mandated requirements of the Food and Lodging Program, and
WHEREAS, Local Health Departments fully support holding the State Environmental Health
Division harmless for the funding to develop and maintain the environmental health data system; and
WHEREAS, the Iredell County Board of Health and County Commissioners believe fee for
service funding for Food and Lodging support and inspections would be a more equitable than asking
county residents to bare the cost of this State mandated service through the use of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, other State mandated services such as the On -Site Sewage Program are funded
using a fee for service approach; and
WHEREAS, Food and Lodging facility owners and operators are the ones who draw financial
benefit from such facilities.
THEREFORE, the Iredell County Board of Health and County Commissioners hereby requests
the General Assembly to enact legislation empowering local government to enact, collect and retain fees
for providing Food and Lodging support and inspections from such enterprises operating within their
boundaries.
11. Request for Approval of a Pratt Industries Public Facilities Grant Project
Ordinance: County Manager Mashburn said grants had been awarded from three sources to
fund the Pratt Industries public facilities project. He said an ordinance was needed to recognize
the funding and to appropriate the funds for water/sewer services and rail construction.
12
The ordinance is as follows:
Pratt Industries Public Facilities Project
Grant Project Ordinance
Be it Ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of Iredell County, North Carolina:
Section I. Funds for this project will be provided by:
Community Development Block Grant $ 680,000
NC DOT Rail Access Grant 124,000
Rural Development Center Economic Infrastructure Program 47,500
Iredell County Economic Incentive 180,000
$1,031,500
Section 2. The following costs will be paid from this grant project fund
Professional Services
$ 41,000
Water System Improvements
47,200
Sewer System Improvements
40,800
Rail Construction
902 500
$1,031,500
Section 3. This grant project fund shall continue until the project is complete.
Section 4. Payments from this capital project fund shall be authorized by the county manager or his designee.
12. Request for Consideration/Waiver of the Board's Rules of Procedure Regarding the
9:00 A.M. Incumbent Board Meeting on the First Monday in December: County Manager
Mashburn said the 9 a.m. meeting atter a general election for board members was a time to
conclude old business and to present plaques to commissioners going off the board. He said that
due to the three incumbent board members being re-elected, the early morning meeting was
unnecessary. Mashburn said the oaths of office would remain at 10:30 a.m., followed by the
organizational meeting at 11 a.m., on December 4.
13. Request for Approval of the October 17, 2006 Minutes
14. Request for Approval of a Lease with the National Weather Service in Regards to
the Installation of an All -Hazards Transmitter at the Rhinehart Road Tower:
Communications Director David Martin said the National Weather Service desired to place an
antenna (890 feet) on the Rhinehardt tower. He said a ten -year -renewable lease was proposed,
and the county would assume the electricity costs (estimate of $75 a month). Martin said the
county's citizens would benefit by having better signal strength.
------------------------------------END OF CONSENT AGENDA ----------------------------------------
ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES OCCURRING ON BOARDS &
COMMISSIONS
Pandemic Preparedness Coordinating Committee (25 or more announcements)
Crossroads Behavioral Healthcare (3 announcements)
Criminal Justice Partnership Program Committee (6 announcements)
Board of Health (2 announcements)
Home & Community Care Block Grant Committee (3 announcements)
Information & Referral Services Board (1 announcement)
Recreation Advisory Board (2 announcements)
Zoning Board of Adjustment (2 announcements)
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee (5 appointments): No nominations
were submitted, and Commissioner Norman made a Imotioji to postpone the five appointments until
the December 5 meeting.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays- 0.
Nursing Home Advisory Committee 1 appointment): No nominations were submitted,
and Chairman Tice made a motio to postpone the appointment until the December 5 meeting.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
13
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: A public comment period was offered, but no one
chose to speak.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
APPRECIATION EXTENDED TO ALL VETERANS: Commissioner Robertson
mentioned a recent Veteran's Day event, and he noted that Iredell County, with approximately
136,000 residents, had nearly 15,000 active veterans (individuals receiving retirement, disability or
medical benefits). He said the actual number of veterans probably exceeded 18,000. Mr.
Robertson said, historically, the southern states had provided their share of veterans, and North
Carolina had always been well represented. He thanked all veterans for what they had done in the
past and for what they would do in the future.
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT: The county manager reported on the following
matters:
Criminal Justice Partnership Program Committee: At a recent meeting, Chief Deputy Rick Dowdle
provided an overview of the jail and the inmate population. Capacity is being exceeded at both the
main jail as well as the jail annex. It appears the Department of Correction might vacate more
space near the jail annex (Hwy. 21). Consideration might be given to pursuing another lease with
the state for the additional space.
Business North Carolina Magazine Article: A recent story in this magazine listed the top 10
counties in the state for construction (money), and Iredell County was at the top of the list followed
by Mecklenburg County.
North Carolina Magazine Article: Statesville -Mooresville (Iredell County) was listed as the #1
micropolitan area in North Carolina for new corporate facility and expansion projects. This area
had 40 projects in 2005. The next highest area was Davidson County with 16 projects.
Another article in this magazine said that, "airports big and small were key to attracting new
business and industry." The article mentioned the Lowes Home Improvement facility in Iredell
County and its hangar at the Statesville airport.
LETTER TO BE SENT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION:
OTION by Commissioner Johnson to direct the clerk to the board to draft a letter for the
Chairman's signature to be sent to the Department of Correction advising of the county's interest in
pursuing additional space at the former prison site should it become available.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
CLOSED SESSION: Pursuant to Personnel - G.S. 143-318.11 (a) (6) and
Economic Development — G.S. 143-318.11 (a) (4), Chairman Tice made a Eoti6 at 8:45 p.m. to
enter into closed session.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
(RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AT 9:05 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Tice otione to adjourn the meeting to 4:00 p.m. on
December 5, 2006 for a work session regarding the draft Erosion Control Ordinance. This meeting
will be followed by the regularly scheduled briefing at 5 p.m., and the business meeting at 7:00
p.m. (Prior to the December 5 meetings; however, the board will hold an organizational meeting
on Monday, December 4, 2006.)
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Approval:
14
Clerk to the Board