The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOctober_4_2011_Regular_MinutesIREDELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2011 The Iredell County Board of Commissioners met on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, at 7:00 P.M., in the Iredell County Government Center (Commissioners' Meeting Room), 200 South Center Street, Statesville, NC. Board Members Present Chairman Steve Johnson Vice Chairman Marvin Norman Renee Griffith Frank Mitchell Ken Robertson Staff present: County Manager Ron Smith, County Attorney Bill Pope, Deputy County Manager Tracy Jackson, Fire Marshal Ronny Thompson, Planning & Development Director Joey Raczkowski, Captain Mike Phillips with the Sheriff's Office, Solid Waste Director David Lambert, Environmental Health Supervisor David Hinson, and Clerk to the Board Jean Moore. CALL TO ORDER by Chairman Johnson INVOCATION by Chairman Johnson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Boy Scout Troop 171, affiliated with Williamson Chapel Methodist Church, 589 Brawley School Road, Mooresville, NC led the Pledge. In attendance were 14 scouts and 5 troop leaders. ADJUSTMENTS OF THE AGENDA: MOTION by Commissioner Mitchell to approve the agenda with the following adjustment: Deletion: Request from EMS for Approval to Apply for a Firefighter's Grant Sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Office for the Purpose of Obtaining Automated Chest Compression Devices VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. PRESENTATION OF SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS Recognition of Iredell County Retiree Stanley Watkins & Presentation of a Retirement Plaque: Captain Mike Phillips, with the sheriff's office, accompanied Watkins to the meeting. Chairman Johnson thanked Captain Watkins for his 25 years of service. Watkins said he wanted to accept the plaque in honor and memory of Bruce Kennerly, a former patrol deputy who passed away a few years ago due to cancer. APPOINTMENT BEFORE THE BOARD Mr. Rick Christenberry Discusses a Wood -Burning Boiler/Furnace in his Neighborhood that is a Nuisance & Health Hazard: Christenberry, a resident of the Spring Shore Development, located off of Pineville Road, East Monbo, and Buffalo Shoals Road, said a neighbor behind him had an outdoor wood burner, and the Environmental Protection Agency had defined these devices as "accessory structures designated and intended for the burning of wood for the purpose of heating principal structures or any other site building on the premises." Christenberry asked if the county had any rules, or ordinances, regulating the furnaces due to North Carolina not having any regulations. Christenberry said he had lived in the neighborhood for 14 years, and the neighbor, who owned 30 acres, moved in after him and placed the burner 125 feet from the property line. He continued by making the following remarks: • Many agencies have been contacted about the furnace (Iredell County Zoning Department, Fire Department & Health Department, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, NC General Assembly Members, the EPA, and Congressman Patrick McHenry) • The smoke from the furnace penetrates into the Christenberry home even with the windows and doors closed. (When confronted about the smoke, the neighbor said, "It's only wood smoke, and it will not hurt you.") The Christenberry's smoke alarm went off so frequently it had to be disconnected. • The neighbor uses the boiler's heat as a supplement to warm his house as well as to heat water. This occurs even though Duke Power could provide the utilities. When asked how much was saved in a month's time, the neighbor said $67. • The smoke is creating health problems for the Christenberry family. Specifically, Mr. Christenberry has been told by his doctor that he has "allergy induced asthma" due to the buildup of smoke. (His lungs function; however, the airways are irritated which creates difficulty in walking. Particles called "pms" get lodged into his lungs with no way to remove or expel them.) The Christenberry family cannot hang clothing outside, or enjoy their property due to the smoke. (If clothing is hung outside, there are tiny tar drops or creosote that collects on them.) • When the fire starts up, a huge bellow of smoke comes out, then it shuts off when the heat rises to a certain temperature. When it cools, it restarts again with the smoke coming out. . • When the neighbor was confronted, the Christenberry family was told nothing illegal was occurring, and if the situation created dissatisfaction, they could move. • Some states, New York, Washington, Vermont, and Maine have enacted laws to prohibit these types of burners in residential settings. Commissioner Robertson asked Attorney Pope if the owner of the furnace would be grandfathered even if the county adopted an ordinance with wood burning boiler regulations. Attorney Pope said probably. Robertson told Mr. Christenberry that if the county adopted an ordinance it would only apply to new construction, and this would not assist him. Mr. Christenberry said this meant he didn't have any rights to enjoy his home and yard while his neighbor did. He said the county had the right to inspect the unit to make sure it was properly operating. Christenberry said the stack could be raised so the smoke would disburse above the air. Robertson again stated that even if rules were adopted, the neighbor would be grandfathered and exempt. He said, however, the situation might be prevented for future property owners. Christenberry said that if he had to become a guinea pig to help others, it would be worth it. Chairman Johnson requested County Manager Ron Smith to discuss the matter with the Planning Director to see if there were any applicable state laws, or if the county had the authority to regulate the wood -burning units. Mr. Smith said he would report on the matter at a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Johnson declared the meeting to be in a public hearing. CASE # 1109-1; Owner/Applicant Bob H. Stilp Requests to Rezone Property from RA, Residential Agricultural to NB, Neighborhood Business Zoning District: Planning & Development Director Joey Raczkowski said the Stilp property was currently being used for residential purposes, but the area had been converting to retail and office uses. He shared information from the staff report as follows: REZONING CASE # 1109-1 2 EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST This is a request to rezone 1.21 acres at 911 Brawley School Road in Mooresville from RA, Residential Agricultural District to NB, Neighborhood Business District. The owner is proposing retail and office uses for the site. OWNER/APPLICANT OWNER: Bob H. Stilp 2474 Green Point Lane Denver, N.C. 28037 PROPERTY INFORMATION LOCATION: At 911 Brawley School Road Case# 1109-1 in Mooresville; more J RA to NB # ; specifically identified Current Zoning as PIN # 4636-78- 5939. 636-78 5939. -- DIRECTIONS: Brawley School Road, on left past Canvasback Road. SURROUNDING LAND USE: This property is surrounded by residential, office, and retail uses. SIZE: The property is 1.21 acres. EXISTING LAND USE: The parcel is currently being used for residential purposes. ZONING HISTORY: This property has been zoned R -A since 1991. The lot adjoining this property to the west was rezoned from RA to R -O in 2007. The four parcels further west were rezoned to R -O in 1984. The lot to the east was rezoned from RA to R -O CUD in 2006, the conditions being no outside storage and a screening device along the rear of the property. The property to the south has been zoned R-20 since 1991. OTHER JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION: This property is located between the Town of Mooresville's short-range and long-range USA boundaries as identified in the 2030 Horizon Plan and across the street from their ETJ. The Town zoning district across from this property is Neighborhood Mixed -Use. This district allows high-density residential uses in the same structure or close proximity to nonresidential uses, which provide goods and services to the surrounding neighborhood. Nonresidential uses that are permitted include retail, services, and professional offices. The only comment concerning the rezoning was that the Mooresville Planning staff would like to see parking in the rear so that it is in line with their plan of development. OTHER SITE CHARACTERISTICS: This property is located in the Catawba/Lake Norman WSIV-CA water supply watershed. The site plan for future development will be reviewed for compliance with the watershed regulations in the Land Development Code. IMPACTS ON LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND/OR FACILITES TRAFFIC: In 2008, the average number of vehicles per day on Brawley School Road was 26,000. Based on the uses permitted in the district and the size of the structures on the lot, development could generate approximately 125 trips per day. The driveway cuts on the property were constructed by NC DOT during the widening project. 3 SCHOOLS: Because this is a commercial rezoning, there should be no implications on local schools. FIRE MARSHAL: This proposal has been reviewed by the Iredell County Fire Marshal's Office. The Fire Marshal's Office has no issues with the proposal. EMS: This proposal has been reviewed by the EMS Director and he had no problems or comments with regards to the request. REQUIRED REVIEWS BY OTHER AGENCIES LOCAL: The applicant will have to provide a site plan to the Planning & Development Department for review to develop the property. Screening will be required and shall meet the requirements in Chapter 5 of the Land Development Code. A minimum of 60% of parking spaces must be located in the side or rear yard, which would address the concerns brought up by the Town of Mooresville. Plans would not be reviewed by the Planning & Development Department for compliance with Erosion & Sedimentation Control standards unless there is more than '/2 acre of disturbed area. In this case, the structures and driveway are already in place, so it most likely will not be required. STATE: Other than building code, there should be no formal state agency review at this time. FEDERAL: None at this time STAFF AND BOARD COMMENTS STAFF COMMENTS: This site is designated as corridor commercial on the 2030 Horizon Plan. The proposed NB district fits into the commercial designation. There are commercial and office uses on adjoining properties along the same stretch of Brawley School Road. This district is the County's equivalent to the Neighborhood Mixed -Use district in the Town of Mooresville's jurisdiction across Brawly School Road. The Planning staff can support the proposed rezoning request based on the following: The NB district complies with the corridor commercial designation on the 2030 Horizon Plan future land use map. The property is located on a section of Brawley School Road where the widening project is completed. The property adjoins the RO district on two sides as well as across from Mooresville's Neighborhood Mixed -Use district. The proposed use and permitted uses in the NB district should not have a negative impact on the surrounding area at the scale that would be permitted on this lot. SITE REVIEW COMMITTEE: Gene Mahaffey and Thomas Alexander visited this site with the staff on August 16, 2011. PLANNING BOARD ACTION: On September 7, 2011, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of this request based on the consistency with the 2030 Horizon Plan. Commissioner Griffith asked if the property was located inside Mooresville's jurisdiction. Raczkowski said no. Chairman Johnson asked if the applicant desired to obtain utilities from the Town of Mooresville. Raczkowski said not at this time. Bob Stilp, the property owner, advised that he was present if there were questions. Commissioner Robertson asked if the property was being reviewed for a specific purpose. 4 Stilt said there had been several inquiries, and much of the surrounding property had been rezoned, but there was no specific purpose for the site at this time. No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Johnson closed the hearing. OTION by Commissioner Mitchell to approve the zoning map amendment and to make a finding that approval was consistent with the adopted 2030 Horizon Plan and that said approval was reasonable and in the public's interest due to its consistency with the 2030 Horizon Plan; as a result, said approval furthers the goals and objectives of the 2030 Horizon Plan. VOTING: Ayes - 5; Nays — 0. Chairman Johnson declared the meeting to be in a public hearing. Consideration of a Proposed Amendment to the Iredell County Land Development Code; Distributed Antenna Systems (Chapter 3, R64; Chapter 2, Section 2.21.5 and Chapter 16, Section 16.4), Submitted by ATC Outdoor DAS, LLC: Planning & Development Director Joey Raczkowski said this request had much history dating to over a year ago. He said a distributive antenna system was a collection of separate poles having antennas on top to form a network to provide better communication services. He said typically, the areas chosen were urban, but this particular request was for the Brawley School Road peninsula, a dense residential development. Raczkowski said that in order to provide better wireless phone service, ATC was trying to install this type of system in the area. He said the structures were sometimes installed on existing structures such as power poles, and utility line poles in the rights of way, as well as on private property through contractual arrangements. Raczkowski said the staff acknowledged that this technology would more likely be prevalent in higher density areas; however, it was considered a necessity due to industry improvements. Raczkowski said the staff did not want to create a situation where the poles looked out of character, but the system had to operate functionally. He said distributed antenna systems should, in theory, decrease the need for new future large, tall, cell towers in the future. Raczkowski said to date, across the county's zoning districts, no special use permit processes for telephone or utility poles, serving in a similar functions, inside or outside of rights of ways. He said furthermore, in the current ordinance, cell towers lower than 250 feet in height were not required to proceed through the special use process. Raczkowski said that in the staff's opinion, the impact on communities was less for poles than for large, tall, cell towers. He said the staff had discussed the request with the county attorney and was advised to create some legislation without "going over board." Raczkowski said the planning board thoroughly reviewed the request and there was some agreement regarding height, setback, and concealment standards, but there was not consensus on whether or not to allow a special use process. He said that during the planning board's third meeting, when a discussion occurred about the request, the American Tower representatives were asked if they would go through a special permit process. Raczkowski said the ATC reps said no, but they would be agreeable to a text amendment. He said an amendment was created to regulate the height and setbacks, but it also recognized that through concealment standards, flexibility could be found without attaching a special use process. He said there were also minor changes, not necessarily in regards to this request, but relating to the land development code. A copy of the staff report is as follows: Proposed Text Amendment EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST Taylor Stukes, representing ATC Outdoor DAS, LLC has requested a text amendment to the Iredell County Land Development Code concerning distributed antenna systems. APPLICANT APPLICANT: Karmen Rajamani, representing ATC Outdoor DAS, LLC 400 Regency Forest Drive, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 HISTORY The American Tower Corporation (ATC) request for Distributed Antennae Systems (DAS) first came in to our office almost a year ago. The request at that time was for a number of electrical permits to allow them to locate DAS infrastructure on existing Duke Power poles. This was not a problem and we would have handled these as co -location requests and issued the permits. However, as time went on we were informed that Duke Power was not going to allow these co -locations. ATC then changed their request to our office to erect their own poles and then attach the antennae to the top. The requests were for poles both inside and outside the public right of way. When the request changed, we decided that it was substantially different from the original and it needed more study. We denied their permits and began looking into the issue. ATC's claim was that they are a public utility and are therefore not bound by the zoning regulations, or in the least should be treated the same as a standard power or telephone pole (allowed everywhere with no rest(ctions). We did not agree with this entirely. The poles that would have been in the r -o -w probably would be all right under that thinking. However, those that are outside the r -o -w are different entirely. Because we did not want to issue permits, ATC has requested a text amendment to the Land Development Code. This would allow them to construct the poles within the r -o -w with minimal requirements geared towards making them look "normal" in comparison to other telephone and power poles. The amendment would also allow for poles outside the r -o -w to be constructed with height and separation requirements. This is similar to what we require for the bigger towers, but much less restrictive based on scale. We have repeatedly looked for information from other communities, but have only been successful finding information where ATC has collaborated with a city to locate the antennae on existing facilities/poles. The Planning staff's thought is that because Brawley School Road is a relatively small geographic area that is heavily populated it is being targeted for this service. We do not think it would be likely that this type of arrangement would take place in other parts of the county - although we have to plan for it. At the some time ATC submitted a text amendment, they also submitted an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's interpretation concerning the County's authority to regulate DAS facilities since they had obtained public utility status. The Board of Adjustment heard the appeal case on August 18, 2011 and upheld the Zoning administrator's determination thus requiring that the amendment be made to the Land Development Code to address distributed antenna systems. During this time, we submitted a request to Bill Pope to determine if ATC and their DAS facilities are exempt from zoning. Based on several court decisions and a ruling by the State Utilities Commission, Mr. Pope made the interpretation that DAS facilities can and should be regulated, but only to a degree. He felt uncomfortable with disallowing them altogether from any zoning districts, but did feel we had the authority to put minimal separation and height requirements on the poles. The concern was primarily because of the poles outside the r -o -w. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT (SUBMITTED BY ATC OUTDOOR DAS LLC) The following proposal would be inserted into Section 3.1 R 64 of the Iredell County Land Development Code. The proposed text will be added after the section with requirements for co -location. Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) are permitted by right in all zoning districts provided the following criteria are met: Facilities located in a dedicated right-of-way must meet the following criteria: a. A permit issued by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. b. The DAS facility shall not exceed fifty (50) feet in height. C. No DAS facility shall be permitted in a dedicated right-of-way in a residential community where all utilities are underground unless the DAS facility is (1) concealed by existing vegetation and is no more than 10 6 (ten) feet above the existing vegetation canopy or (2) otherwise reasonably concealed by another method as approved by the Zoning Administrator. 2. Facilities not located in the right-of-way must meet following criteria: a. Any DAS facility shall be set back from any existing residential dwelling at least one (1) foot for every foot in height of the DAS facility. Excluded from this subsection are dwellings located on the same parcel as the DAS structure; b. Any DAS facility shall be set back thirty (30) feet from the property line; C. Any DAS facility shall not exceed a height of sixty (60) feet; d. Notwithstanding the above, if the DAS facility is (1) concealed by existing vegetation and is no more than 10 (ten) feet above the existing vegetation canopy or (2) otherwise reasonably concealed by another method as approved by the Zoning Administrator, it is not subject to any height or setback restriction. 3. The fiber optic cable in a DAS system shall follow the existing aerial utility line routes. If no aerial utility lines exist, the DAS fiber optic cable shall be buried underground. 4. All accessory and component buildings associated with the DAS facility must meet the setbacks for the district in which they are located. 5. The Applicant shall submit a site plan setting forth its compliance with this Section. Within fifteen (15) days of receiving the site plan, the Zoning Administrator shall review the site plan and issue a written determination that the Applicant has or has not met the above criteria. The Zoning Administrator shall issue a permit for the DAS facilities upon a determination that the Applicant has met the requirements of this Section. Antenna ---p Pole --- 1� Equipment Box Power Meter Distributed Antenna System (DAS). A network of spatially separated antenna nodes connected to a common source via a transport medium that provides wireless service within a geographic area or structure. ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUIRED Inserting the proposed amendment into the Land Development Code as written would require that other changes be made to accommodate the proposal. This is necessary because of the fact that some of the uses under the heading of Wireless Telecommunication Towers and Facilities require a Special Use Permit and some do not. The changes that are necessary to accommodate the text amendment as written have been identified using underlined and bold text. A reason for the change is also identified in italics after each change. VA Chapter 3: Performance Requirements R64 Wireless Telecommunication Towers and Facilities Wireless Telecommunication Towers are required to have a Special Use Permit in the R- 20, R-12, R-8, RO, and OI zonina districts. (This change addresses the fact that cell towers are still going to require a Special use Permit for districts listed, which is not a change, but allows for other facilities such as co -locations and DAS facilities that will not require a Special Use permit in those districts) V. Co -location is permitted by right in all zoning districts provided the following criteria are met: (This change addresses the fact that co -locations and DAS nodes will be allowed in all zoning districts) Chapter 2, Section 2.21.5 Pubic Works Facilities, Utilities, & Infrastructure Uses USES R20 R12 R8 RO OI Wireless telecommunication 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S towers & facilities (This change to the Table of Permitted Uses addresses the fact that not only are there Special Use Permit requirement for facilities in those districts, but there are also some uses such as co -locations and DAS facilities that do not require a Special Use Permit but do have regulations associated with the use) PLANNING BOARD The Planning Board first heard the request from ATC Outdoor DAS LLC for an amendment concerning DAS facilities on June 1, 2011. At this meeting, the proposal was presented for information only. The Board had questions about the proposed use being that it is a new use for Iredell County. The questions related to the difference between the DAS structures and cell towers, coverage for the nodes, the fiber optics associated with the nodes, concealment issues, and how other jurisdictions regulate these uses. Mr. Walt Overcash was present to address the concerns of the community and suggested changes to the amendment that would add protection for the neighborhood, including requiring a Special Use Permit, shorter heights for the poles and antennas, placement of the structures and co-location/demand requirements. The request was brought to the Planning Board again at the August 3, 2011 meeting for a recommendation, including changes that were inserted to try to address the concerns brought up at June meeting. Issues addressed by the Board at this meeting included placement of the poles, height of the poles, right-of-way agreements with INC DOT, easement agreements with private property owners, other county regulations for the use, and the appeal of interpretation filed by ATC concerning the County's authority to regulate the use and its status. Alan Boyce, Walt Overcash, Chuck Carlyle, and Bob McKenzie (all residents of The Point subdivision) spoke in opposition of the text amendment as proposed and recommended changes to address shorter heights for the poles and antennas, placement of the structures, co-location/demand requirements, and issues concerning locations with underground utilities. Jim Litsey addressed the Board as President of the Point Homeowners Association who was in support of the text amendment that would allow for better wireless coverage for the neighborhood. After hearing the testimony from those in attendance, the Board recommended that the amendment request be tabled suggesting that more language be added to address easements. The request was brought back to the Planning Board on September 7, 2011 for a recommendation, including changes to try to address more of the neighbors concerns as well as some of the concerns identified by the Planning Board. The Planning Board addressed the outcome of the appeal to the Board of Adjustment, concerns about developer's involvement since the DAS facilities would most likely be installed after the developer sold all the lots, and minor text changes. Alan Boyce, Walt Overcash, Kenneth Woodward, Bob McKenzie, and Rick Jess (all residents of The Point) spoke in 8 opposition addressing the same concerns from pervious meetings. Hank Hale and Jim Litsey (from The Point Homeowners Association) spoke in favor of the request. After further discussion, Mr. Santoni made a motion to recommend denial of the amendment as submitted by the applicant due to it not being in the best interest of Iredell County and he also proposed the amendment go back to the staff for rewrite. Mr. McNeely seconded said motion. Mr. McNeely stated that he thinks the staff needs to go back and work with ATC and the County in general because he doesn't think there's been enough protection to the residents of Iredell County; especially requiring a special use permit. Chairman Fields stated one point of clarification; that should this motion pass (to recommend denial), ATC has the option of carrying this forward to the Board of Commissioners for their consideration with our recommendation and vote. This will not necessarily go back to the staff. The Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the request. STAFF COMMENTS The staff recommends approval of the amendment based on the following: The Land Development Code does not require a Special Use Permit for poles outside the r -o -w because most wireless towers are not required to go through that process unless they are over 250 feet in height and in our opinion the impact on the neighborhood is less for the poles than the towers. The Planning staff feels that this technology is going to become more common in higher density areas and is a necessity when considering the way technological advances are taking place. The Planning staff also wanted to create a situation where the poles do not look out of character with the surrounding facilities while also allowing them to operate functionally. DAS should also decrease the number of towers overall. The Planning staff wanted to stay true to Bill Pope's interpretation about some regulation without going overboard but rather making sure we found middle ground. Commissioner Griffith asked if ATC was a public works utility. Planner Rebecca Harper said the company had been deemed a public utility by the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission. Griffith asked if the company did not have the right to place the system in the area through the state's designation, and they did not require the county's consent. Raczkowski said the county attorney felt that some safety standards could be stipulated without creating cumbersome rules, such as the special use process. Commissioner Robertson said there appeared to be a gray area, but it appeared that if the company was a public utility the poles could be installed. He asked Attorney Pope to clarify the situation when a company wanted to install the system outside the right of way. Pope said Attorney Martha Peed was attending the meeting, and she had expertise in this type of technology. He said it was believed that just because a company was a public utility, it wasn't exempt from zoning regulations. Pope said additionally, there was a state statute that allowed counties to regulate wireless structures. Robertson said he understood how the companies had access to rights of ways, but he didn't understand how they had the same rights for areas outside of them (rights of way). Pope said easements could be acquired either by a grant from the property owner or from the state. He said the state granted encroachment agreements where public utilities were allowed to encroach on the right of way for certain defined purposes. Pope said that in this particular case, the property owners had agreed. Robertson said in essence, the system could not be installed on private property without the owners consent. Pope said this was correct. Griffith asked how many structures would be erected. 9 Raczkowski said 14; however, 10 were in the right of way. Griffith asked Attorney Pope if the county had the right to place restrictions on the structures located inside the right of way. Attorney Pope said yes. He said the Utilities Commission could preempt the county's authority, but this had not occurred. Robertson asked how the figure for the setback was derived. Harper said it was the same formula used for cell towers --one foot for each foot in the tower. Chairman Johnson said cell towers were designed to fall straight down, if they fell. Johnson said a one-to-one ratio had caused some concern. He said the poles might not strike a home; however, they might remain in someone's yard causing some degree of inconvenience until removed. Raczkowski said the staff was comfortable with the ratio due to it being applied to similar uses. He said this could be reviewed at the staff level. Robertson said Duke Power did not allow the antenna system to be erected on its poles. He said that if ATC were allowed to erect the structures, what happened when another company made a similar request. Robertson said that with electric companies, such as Duke Power, the residents could only purchase from the utility providing service in their area. Raczkowski said the American Tower Company could discuss their marketing strategy. He said it was believed the ATC structures would be built for co -location of carriers. Robertson said this might be true, but companies made their own rules, and the county might be limited to what had been written in the ordinance. He asked what would happen if more companies came to the county wanting to erect similar structures in the same area of the county. Raczkowski said this was a valid concern. County Manager Smith said this had been discussed without resolution. He said the 14 poles were basically a unit, and without one, there would have to be adjustments. Smith said it was felt the staff could not address this concern without coming up with an arbitrary solution. Robertson said it was reasoned that the county could not restrict the situation to just one set of 14 poles. Smith said yes, the county would have to provide for competition, and let the free market make the determination. He said input from the North Carolina Department of Transportation was also necessary because it controlled the rights of way. Griffith said the structures were being installed on private property which meant the property owner had the right to say no to other companies making similar requests. Smith agreed. He said it would be a larger issue in the rights of way. Griffith mentioned concerns about county regulations being implemented on a public utility and not wanting to overstep state law. She said the property owner had the right to say no to the structures. Sean Phelan, a representative of ATC, requested approval of the DAS text amendment for the Iredell County Land Development Code. He said DAS was a new technology that benefited communities by allowing wireless development in areas, where for some reason, such as technology or esthetic concerns, a full blown 200 ft. wireless tower did not make sense. Phelan said the current code did not address DAS technology due to the size of the poles (50 or 60 ft.) while the ones planned for Iredell County were 45 feet which included the antenna. He said the current ordinance required an eight -foot fence surrounding the tower along with a 500 - foot separation from the residential structures which did not make sense with the DAS build out. Phelan said DAS had a utility pole with antennas, and they were connected to each other by optic fiber that was usually buried or extended through other utility lines. He said the text amendment was supported by the county staff as well as The Point Homeowner Association which unanimously approved it. Phelan then reviewed the amendments as follows: Section 1 deals with the facilities in the right of way. A North Carolina DOT permit is required, and the DAS structure cannot exceed 50 feet in areas that have no above ground utilities. DAS is required to be concealed, to the extent as possible, and with approval of the zoning administrator. Section 2 deals with DAS on private property which has more restrictions. The structure has to be one - 10 foot away from a residential structure for every one foot of height in the pole, plus it has to be 30 feet from the property line. The setbacks can be moved to allow the planning staff to work with the parties in placing the poles to different sides of the property, or into existing vegetation in an effort to make them less visible. Section 3 requires that any DAS cable be extended along with any other utility cable to avoid clutter. The next section requires that any hub, or accessory component building, meets the setback requirements in the area in which they were located. The last section requires the zoning administrator to review the application and determine that it complies with the ordinance. Phelan said two questions were asked, and one was about poles falling to the ground, while the other pertained to how the structures were built. He said the poles being erected would be in essence utility poles. Phelan said Duke Power used Class 4 poles while DAS used the Class 3 types which were stronger and could withstand strong storms. He said the poles were designed for co -location, and the company would be amenable to adding this to the text amendment. Phelan said the amendment was a balance between trying not to over regulate the industry, but to also protect the county's citizens. Robertson asked why Duke Power did not allow the company to install the structures on top of its poles. Phelan said Duke Power had certain levels of power lines, and the ones on Brawley School Road had a voltage that was too high. He said there were safety concerns. Robertson asked which wireless system wanted the structures. Phelan said AT&T. Robertson asked why Verizon had not made the request. Phelan said this was unknown. He said it might depend upon how the systems were built out. Robertson asked the location of Verizon's antenna that covered The Point. Phelan said this was unknown. Karmen Rajamani, representing ATC Outdoor DAS, LLC, said Verizon had inquired about the proposed network. She said typically, Verizon preferred for the structures to be built, and then they selected the nodes. She said Duke Power had its own standards and allowed ATC equipment on secondary poles, but not on primary ones. She said ATC had installed the structures on Duke Power poles in other areas of the county. Griffith asked if ATC had the approval of the homeowner association (HOA). Rajamani said the HOA board had agreed to the placement of nodes in the homeowner association's common property, plus there was an agreement with The Point Golf Club to place two nodes. Robertson expressed concern about the pole's setback from a dwelling. He said Duke Power had Class 4 poles while DAS used Class 3. Robertson asked if the Class 3 poles were a requirement, or policy. He asked what prohibited the company from installing a Class 6 pole. Rajamani said the poles went up to Class 5. She said it was an ATC policy to install Class 3, and this was the company's standard. Robertson said this could change. Rajamani said yes, but that any public utility could make changes. Phelan said there was a setback away from residential dwellings within the amendment. Johnson said that if a pole fell, and it was stretched across someone's yard, there could be complaints to the board of commissioners. He said the board members might say, "Well, it shouldn't have, it's a Class 3 pole." Johnson said this type of statement wouldn't be of much assistance to the property owner. Phelan said ATC would be willing to accept larger setbacks, such as one and a half feet for every foot in height. Griffith asked if the one foot in height began at 30 feet off the property. Phelan said the text amendment read from residential dwellings. He said it was not a property line issue, it was away from residences. Harper said there were two setbacks, with one being from a residential dwelling (one foot for every foot in the tower, and with a 60 -foot pole, it's at least 60 feet away from the house), plus there is a 30 -foot setback from the property line due to perhaps having a dwelling far away from the property line or close to it. She said the setback used would be the one greatest from the property line and home. Alan Boyce, a resident of Lightship Drive, off of the Brawley School Road, and a member of The Point Development, said there were many area residents who were concerned about the request. Boyce said the proposal had been discussed many times, and the residents had learned about it over a year ago. He said extensive review had occurred by the planning board, and it had been discussed at three meetings. Boyce said that at the last planning board meeting, the proposal was rejected due to it not being in the county's interest along with the need for a special use permit. He said it had been stated that a special use permit was cumbersome, but it was important for the citizens to know about these types of structures. Boyce said the homeowner association was in favor of the proposal; however, there were residents who had concerns. He said petitions, meetings, and emails had been used to express opposition, and at least 20 citizens had voiced concern and interest. He said one contentious aspect was the effect the structures would have on the community. Boyce said there were underground utilities which provided a clutter -free environment, and they added to the property values. He said four mini cell tower structures would be installed that would be tied together with about four and one half miles of cabling with a hub the size of a small building. Boyce said the clutter -free environment would be lost. He said cell phone service was already available from the Mayhew tower that was located in a remote area. Boyce said, in general, the homes in The Point received good coverage. He said Verizon, Sprint, Team Mobile and AT&T all used the tower, but only AT&T was complaining about the service. Boyce said the other three companies said they didn't receive that many complaints. He said the company was proposing to locate the structures in the community while the Mayhew tower was in a remote location. Boyce said there were 867 lots in The Point, and the structures would be in various locations. He said the towers would be an eyesore to the homeowners nearby, plus an element of danger would occur. Boyce said there was much lightning damage in the area already, and the structures would become lightning rods. (He showed a home that was totally destroyed when lightning struck piping in the yard.) He said telephone poles had been snapped at the base due to violent storms, and this was a concern. Boyce said that due to these issues (appearance, quality of the neighborhood, the danger factor) it was believed that if DAS were allowed, then reasonable restrictions should be implemented. He said the first one should be a special use permit in order for the public to understand the proposal. Boyce said there should also be a height limit of 45 feet, plus there should be adequate separation from the towers to any residence. He said this should be 150 feet. Boyce said that if the towers were surrounded by trees, then there would not be a height limit. He said the community did not want the towers to collapse onto a vehicle, a child's swing set, and so forth. Boyce said they should fall into the yard in which they were placed. He said it was also felt the staff should certify that no other infrastructures were available for the antenna placement rather than moving into a community and establishing a network. Boyce said technology was undergoing rapid change, and a system of towers would likely become outmoded in a few years. He said that once the technology became obsolete the community would be stuck with the towers. Boyce said that by allowing the towers, developers would not see the use in placing the more expensive underground utilities. He said the agenda package contained a comment from the 2030 plan that suggested the county should have a business -friendly environment. Boyce said the proposal affected the property owners, many of whom had invested much in their homes, and while the county might want a business -friendly environment, it also should consider a community -friendly environment. He said ATC was in the business to build towers and wireless systems, and it was not proposing to construct in north Iredell were the service was needed. Boyce said instead, the company was in his high density neighborhood where the service was not needed. He said ATC was making the proposal for his area due to it being the market area where they could make the money. Boyce said the company was concerned about a business plan while his neighborhood was concerned about its community. He requested for the board to consider reasonable restrictions. Commissioner Mitchell asked if Mr. Boyce was a member of The Point's Homeowner Association. Boyce said yes. Mitchell said he understood The Point's HOA voted unanimously in favor of the request. He said it had been stated there were 867 lots, and that 20 people showed up that the planning 12 board meeting with concerns. Mitchell asked how large the homeowner association was compared to the people in opposition. Boyce said it was a unanimous vote on the part of the HOA board of directors. He said the president of the association had made the proposal to the members, but there were concerns. Boyce said a community meeting was held with 50 people present and 49 were not in favor. He said a survey of the entire community was requested, but this did not occur. Boyce said there was dissension between the HOA board, and the will of the people residing at The Point. Robertson said the company wanted to erect 60 -foot poles while Mr. Boyce had suggested 45 -foot poles. He said the taller the poles, the fewer the poles. Robertson asked if Boyce was willing to allow more poles. Boyce said there was already one large tower that served the purpose. He said the proposals were quadrupling the number of towers. Boyce said the structures were intrusive and they would be placed in someone's back yard. Robertson said a slide indicated the structure would be on a lot that did not contain a house. He said the person who owned the lot had evidently given permission for the structure's placement. Robertson asked if this were true. Boyce said it was on a septic lot owned by the homeowner association, or all of the residents. Robertson asked how many poles were used when the individual property owner agreed. Boyce said they were designed to be placed on individually designed properties. Robertson asked if any were on individually owned property. Boyce said no; however, elsewhere in the county they could be located on individually owned property, and the next door neighbor might not have any provision to voice concerns. He said much of this was a "not in your backyard issue," but the ones mostly affected were the ones mostly involved. Boyce said, however, the community was trying to protect the entire county when subdivisions were created. He said the HOA board of directors agreed with the proposal, but none of the seven members lived within a quarter of a mile of the proposed structures. Commissioner Robertson asked Mr. Boyce how close the structures would be to his property. Boyce said about 800 feet away. He said the proposal was "sort of an attack upon the community." Griffith asked Mr. Boyce if he had AT&T as a wireless provider. Boyce said he used Verizon. Robertson said the commissioners would go home after the meeting trying to figure out if the right decision had been made due to the planning board voted unanimously voting against the proposal while the staff recommended approval. He said a discussion with ATC's representatives revealed that they wanted to do the right thing. Jim Litsev, President of the The Point's Homeowner Association, said he had been a member of the board since Crescent Resources developed the area five years ago. He said ATC approached the HOA board over a year ago, and many issues had been studied. Litsey said (1) a community meeting was held (2) residents were asked to send emails if there were concerns and (3) there was a post on the association's web site describing the proposal. He said different sites had been considered for the structures, and none of the current ones were in the original plan. Litsey said six sites were originally proposed with two being moved outside The Point to above ground utility poles. He said two of the four proposed structures were on Land owned by the homeowner association and the other two were on land owned by the golf club. Litsey said the text amendment was not about The Point, or whether it needed the DAS. He said one unique quality about the area was that it was surrounded by water on three sides, and the large cell tower that was mentioned happened to be on the side not surrounded by water. Litsey said that in most locations, outside high density urban areas, a person could always find a place not near residential development to locate a Large tower. He said this was not the case for the southern Brawley peninsula unless one went across the water on the other side which was too far away. Litsey said there was no place to locate a large cell tower that would be esthetically pleasing as well as meeting the existing requirements. He said the association's board had determined there was a need for the structures to improve cell service. Litsey said the system covered one half of The Point, or at the traffic circle extending southward. He said the communication carriers 13 wanted to improve their service due to customer dissatisfaction. Litsey said no one would invest millions of dollars in improving a wireless system unless people felt it was necessary, and the consumer was willing to pay for the service. Litsey said there were seven elected members to the homeowner association, and four were present at the meeting. He acknowledged there was some opposition, but it was primarily those speaking at the meeting. Litsey said the proposal was not a contentious issue, and as a matter of fact, he received inquiries as to when the service would be available, especially from real estate brokers and from physicians. He said the residents near the circle might have good wireless service, but further south the signal became worse. Litsey said the homeowner association had worked with ATC for over a year in trying to balance the community's needs, and in an effort to be esthetically pleasing. He said all four nodes were located in areas that would make them invisible. Litsey said pine trees fell at times in the area, and these were more dangerous than the poles that would be studier. He said the pine trees provided a good screening for the accessory structures. Litsey said an agreement had been developed with ATC, and the company had agreed to not extend the poles above the tree canopy making the antennas the only part above the tree line. He said there was a removal bond, in case the structures were no longer used. Litsey said the amendment protected communities with above ground utilities as well as those that were underground. Robertson asked if the association's board of directors had agreed with all of the sites. Litsey said yes, but there was one pole that might be moved. He said this one would be moved to a location not near a home, but in the traffic circle at The Point inside a flag pole. Litsey said ATC would pay to have the pole lit, and it would have a US flag. Griffith asked if the homeowner association listened to residents both for and against the proposal. Litsey said yes. Griffith asked Litsey if the proposal was in the best interest of The Point's residents. Litsey said absolutely. Robertson asked if there was a mechanism to run cable without digging underground. Litsey said Time Warner had underground conduit, but they did not have the capacity. He said this company "pulled" the cable rather than digging. Litsey said Time Warner had upgraded its system. Robertson said it was understood there was a bond requiring the company to remove the poles, antennas, and substation if the technology became obsolete. Litsey said the agreement required the removal of any improvements to three feet below grade Robertson asked if this type of provision (bond) couldn't be incorporated into the county's ordinance. Attorney Pope said sure. Walt Overcash, a resident of The Point at 170 Old Post Road, said a proposed pole was 222 1/2 feet from his bedroom. Overcash said he was glad to hear the company planned on moving the structure. He spoke in opposition to the proposal, and said the planning board had rejected the request at three consecutive monthly meetings. Overcash said an appeals board had also discussed the issue. He said it had been reported that the association's board of directors had unanimously voted to approve the request, but the planning board unanimously voted to reject it. Overcash said the 725 residents at The Point had not been allowed to vote and neither had the other 159,000 people in the county. He voiced two objections: 1) the height and setback restrictions were not sufficient and 2) the lack of requiring special use permits for installing DAS units on residential private property outside the DOT right of way by a for profit corporation. Overcash suggested the following amendments to the amendment: Under Item 1 c: to remove the language pertaining to the ability to place the structure in a DOT right of way behind trees. Under item 2a: there should be a 150 foot minimum. Under 2b: the pole should be set back at least one foot for every foot of height for a fall zone. Under 2d: this should be deleted entirely. (As written, the language provides people with the right to place a pole anywhere they see fit or give someone's opinion about it if hidden behind a tree --even it is two feet from a property line or 25 feet from someone's house.) Under 2e: there should be a requirement for a special use permit before any construction is granted on these types of units on any property. He said the amendment, as drafted, would allow placement of DAS on private property zoned R-20 without 14 a special use permit. Overcash said ATC had selected a 125 x 225 lot for the installation of a 60 - foot pole, 30 feet from a property line, and 60 feet from a house. He said there were existing homes on both sides, across the street, and around the lot. Overcash said the selected lot was dedicated and reserved for septic service by its recorded plat and by a North Carolina Special Warranty Deed and Bill of Sale. He contended that the placement of a pole on a quasi - commercial application should at least require a special use permit in order for careful consideration to be given for esthetics, safety, and property values. Overcash said that if the pole were on private property, and without a special use permit, he could let the National Tower Corporation come in and place a structure on it without the next door neighbor's input. He requested for the amendment to be rejected as written. Hank Hale, a resident of The Point's south side community, along with being a board member of the homeowner association, said he had Verizon service, and it was "atrocious." He said a call could not be completed in his house as well as most of the time in his yard. Hale asked the commissioners to consider the residents in this particular area. He said that even with underground utilities, there were hundreds of above ground utility pieces of equipment operated by Duke Power, the golf club, the homeowner association, PCW Wastewater, an irrigation company, and a water company. (Hale showed photographs of these types of structures.) He said all of them were within sight of at least one or more residences. Hale said the community was not burdened by overhead power lines, but there were existing utility structures and four single poles concealed in trees would not be as visually objectionable as some of the existing accessories. Boyce said the majority of the structures, shown in the pictures, were required for utilities, and they were not 60 foot tall poles. He said Duke Power, had a pole with a siren on it to announce nuclear power problems. Boyce said people came to The Point area for its appearance, not because they wanted cell phone service. Rajamani said the planning board vote was actually 6-1. She said DAS was the most visually unobtrusive infrastructure method for wireless technology. Rajamani said there was poor coverage, and a survey had been conducted with the major carriers. She said Team Mobile had poor coverage, as well as Verizon. She said Sprint had been contacted, and it was found that its service was marginal when proceeding south towards the water. Rajamani said that in regards to lightning strikes, that node poles, in and of themselves, did not attract lightning. She said every piece of equipment was grounded and the antenna was encased in fiber glass. Rajamani said the node pole actually had places where it was grounded (at the base and six feet away). She said Duke Power took this issue seriously, and the company would not allow DAS on their poles if it attracted lightning. Rajamani said that in regards to special use permits, the residents had been provided notice of the ATC's proposal through an open house and information appeared on the HOA web site. She said ATC preferred to use existing infrastructure, due to the expense, and Duke Power was contacted first. Rajamani said ATC had concern for The Point's community, and that's why the company had tried negotiating the past two years. She said ATC's competitors would have installed the structures in the right of way. Chairman Johnson adjourned the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson mentioned Section 2d, line two, where it mentioned the zoning administrator. He asked the name of the zoning administrator. Raczkowski said he was the zoning administrator. Robertson said it appeared then, that Raczkowski would determine if the structure(s) could be placed on a property line if appropriately concealed. Raczkowski said not necessarily. He said the setback and height limitation would have to be reviewed. He said a grove of pine trees might be considered in factoring the setback to the property line. Robertson said the amendment read that if it was reasonably concealed, it wasn't subject to any height or setback restriction. Raczkowski said this was correct, if the structure was concealed. Robertson said then, someone could erect a 60 -foot tower, a 60 -foot pole, 40 feet from a roof. Raczkowski said concealed meant it could be in a flag pole or a steeple --it wasn't limited to a telephone pole. 15 Robertson said a free standing pole would be subject to height or setback restrictions. Raczkowski said yes, providing it wasn't concealed. Smith said a good example would be flag poles, and these might be 80 -feet tall. He said the devices would be concealed, and if Mr. Raczkowski felt they were adequate, then it was an approved method. Robertson said that if there was a 60 foot utility pole next to a 60 foot pine tree, then the tree would fall long before the pole. He asked if being obscured by pine trees was enough to avoid the restrictions. Raczkowski said the staff would also determine if the property could someday be used for a home as well as taking into consideration the existing homes. He said there was flexibility that could be used case-by-case countywide. Raczkowski said the planning staff could not write text to cover every circumstance. Robertson asked Attorney Pope what happened if a less reputable company, in a different subdivision, concealed the structures but did not have concerns about the setbacks. Pope said that if the structure happened to be concealed, it appeared to be exempt from any height or setback restriction. He said the question would be: Do you trust the zoning administrator's judgment on concealment? Robertson said there was a difference between concealment and fall protection. He said being concealed meant being obstructed from view, and it didn't mean that someone's roof was protected. Pope agreed. Robertson said the setback provision was to not allow the structure to fall on someone's roof. He said that if it was installed on a property owner's house, and they had agreed, that was their business. Robertson asked if the structure was obscured from view, did this take it out of the zoning administrator's hands. Pope said the way Robertson had described the language was correct. He said that if the zoning administrator determined that it was concealed, then they were exempt. Robertson said then, there was some exposure. Chairman Johnson said that to make the situation work, there needed to be some subjectivity in any type of ordinance. He said the goal should not be to insulate the public totally from any negative vicissitudes of life, but to limit them the best way that could be found. Pope agreed. Robertson said his inclination was to have an amendment to allow the technology, but there were four concerns such as the following: 1) what keeps other cell phone companies from making a similar request and at some point 40 poles are being considered 2) the last line of Section 2 d should be deleted (The eliminated phrase would be "it is not subject to any height or setback restriction") 3) that text be added indicating that a bond would be required for the removal of the structures and 4) that instead of the poles being described in a specific manner (Class 3 or Class 4) that wording be used indicating the standard of an adjacent utility or the utility serving the area would be used. He said a few years from now there might be new technology for poles and people might use sub grade poles. Griffith said AT&T was using the company as a provider. She said that in the interest of saving money, it would be the most natural route for other companies to install their systems on existing infrastructure. Griffith said the market would take care of the issues. Robertson said it this were true, AT&T would be doing the same thing on the big tower. Griffith said the large tower was not providing coverage to the southern end. She said the existing infrastructure might need to be in the ordinance, and this was really what the text amendment was about. Robertson said Duke Power would not extend into EnergyUnited's territory and EnergyUnited would not provide service in Duke Power's district. He said this system had worked out well, and he wanted to make sure there was a good system for the communication providers. Griffith asked if DAS was not available in other areas of the state. 16 Rajamani said it was operating in Huntersville, Cornelius, Blowing Rock, and Charlotte. Robertson said there were buildings that could be used in the cities. Griffith asked if DAS was in Chapel Hill. Rajamani said yes. Chairman Johnson said the one foot setback was inadequate. He suggested one and one half feet. The other board members agreed. Johnson said there should be a condition to require co -locations of new antennas on existing towers or poles. He said it was realized that by making this stipulation, that business would be "funneled" to ATC, and this was a concern. Johnson said, however, ATC was taking the risk. Raczkowski said that in the existing ordinance for new cell towers, there was some language that emphasized the co -location or the necessity to prove there was a need for new facilities. He said some of this language could be used in the text. Johnson said ATC had agreed to post a bond indicating that if the poles had to be removed, and the company couldn't pay for this, the bond would secure the removal. Raczkowski said in the cell tower ordinance that a bond wasn't stipulated, but there was language indicating the removal. He said the staff could incorporate similar language. Johnson said that if a bond were posted, then this would secure the removal at no expense to the county. He asked Attorney Pope's opinion. Attorney Pope said this was correct, but as a practical matter, he didn't know how easy it would be to obtain the bonds. He said a company was currently trying to secure a bond for ambulance service, and it was experiencing difficulty. Pope said he didn't know if bonds were market or circumstance driven. He said it was suspected there would be a limited market for this type of bond. Johnson said there probably wouldn't be that much money made off of them because the expense to remove a 60 -foot pole would not be that tremendous. Commissioner Mitchell asked if the county would be liable if the structure were located on the homeowner association's property. Johnson said that with Commissioner Mitchell's remark, and the comments from Attorney Pope, his concern in this regard had been alleviated. OTION by Commissioner Mitchell to approve the proposed text amendment for distributed antenna systems as requested by ATC Outdoor DAS LLC with the following four amendments to the text amendment: 1. A setback of one and one half feet 2. That a co -location stipulation be inserted (see 3 & 4 on next page) A discussion on Section 2d then occurred. Mr. Raczkowski reminded the board that to some degree this was ATC's text amendment as well, and the company officials wanted to provide some input, especially in regards to the concealment issue. Commissioner Griffith said that if a person was placed in a position to manage a department, then that person's judgment should be trusted. She said that if any decisions were made that were detrimental, then decisions in leadership might have to occur. Robertson said a building code was used simply because some people wouldn't build a suitable home unless forced. He said without requirements, there would be someone who installed the structures without taking the prescribed approach. He asked Attorney Pope if someone could seek court action if the zoning administrator said the structure wasn't concealed enough. Pope said court action could occur, but there would be a strong burden to show some complete arbitrariness and capriciousness. 17 Chairman Johnson said ATC had agreed to remove any structure necessary at the termination of the facility. Robertson asked if this could be used instead of a bond. Griffith asked Raczkowski if there wasn't current language that already addressed the removal issue. Raczkowski said there was language, and it simply became a zoning enforcement issue. Mitchell continued with his motion as follows: 3. that language be inserted for the structure's removal 4. for the pole being used to be as least as strong as what the electrical utility was using in the area VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Chairman Johnson at 9:30 P.M., declared a five minute recess. At 9:35 P.M., Chairman Johnson declared the meeting to be in a public hearing. Consideration of a Request from James F. Martin, Crescent Resources, for a Release of Zoning/Subdivision Jurisdiction to the Town of Mooresville for a Parcel of land located at the Corner of Brawley School Road and Forest Lake Boulevard in Mooresville, NC: Planning and Development Director Raczkowski said the Town of Mooresville had requested for this 88.4 acre parcel to be released to the Town of Mooresville. He continued to describe the request and the staff report as follows: Release of Zoning & Subdivision Jurisdiction EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST James F. Martin, Crescent Resources, has requested the zoning and subdivision jurisdiction of an 88.4 acre parcel be released to the Town of Mooresville. The proposed use of the property is a single-family subdivision with 140 to 180 homes. They are requesting the release in order to get water and sewer from the Town of Mooresville due to unfavorable soil characteristics on the property for septic systems. OWNER/APPLICANT OWNER: Crescent Resources, LLC 227 West Trade Street Charlotte, N.C. 28202 PROPERTY INFORMATION LOCATION: At the corner of Brawley School Road and Forest Lake Boulevard in Mooresville; more specifically identified as PIN # 4636-06-5499. DIRECTIONS: Brawley School Road, right Forest Lake Boulevard, on both side of the road. APPLICANT: James F. Martin 706 Mendenhall Court Fort Mill, S.C. 29715 SURROUNDING LAND USE: This property is surrounded by residential uses and vacant land. SIZE: The property is 88.4 acres. EXISTING LAND USE: The parcel is currently vacant. ZONING HISTORY: This property has been zoned R -A since county -wide zoning was established in 1990. The R-20 zoning districts to the north were rezoned in the late 1980s. The RR zoning district to the north and the NB district to the south has been in place since county -wide zoning. A portion of the NB district to the southeast has been in place since 1990, but a couple of the parcels were rezoned in 2004 and 2006. OTHER JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION: This property is located just outside Mooresville's short range USA boundary. The Town has approved water and sewer extension to the project and the Planning staff has submitted a letter of acknowledgement, both of which have been included in the packet. OTHER SITE CHARACTERISTICS: This property is located in the Catawba/Lake Norman WSIV-CA water supply watershed therefore there are minimum lot size/impervious coverage restrictions. IMPACTS ON LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND/OR FACILITES TRAFFIC: In 2008, the average number of vehicles per day on this section of Brawley School Road was 18,000. A single-family subdivision with up to 180 homes could generate approximately 1755 trips per day. However, the widening of Brawley School Road and the traffic light at the intersection of Brawley School Road and Forest Lake Boulevard should help minimize the impact of these trips. SCHOOLS: In a subdivision of 180 homes, approximately 58 kids could be added to the area schools (27 elementary, 13 middle, and 18 high school). STAFF COMMENTS STAFF COMMENTS: The release would allow the development to begin sooner rather than having to wait until they are annexed in June of 2012 and would not likely have an impact on the total number of houses. Based on the septic issues for this property, continuing water supply issues that face the Brawley School Road peninsula, and the Town's willingness to take the jurisdiction and provide water and sewer for the project, and the fact that the widening of the road will reduce any negative traffic impacts, the staff supports the request and recommends for its approval. Alan Boyce, a Mooresville resident, said it was understood the property would be turned over to Mooresville. He said The Farms subdivision was developed by Crescent Resources, and the residents believed they would be residing in the county. He said now, a portion of them would be paying county as well as town taxes. Boyce said the area had a homeowner association, and if the request were granted, there would be a mixture of fire and law enforcement protection. Clavton Brawlev, the President of the Poplar Grove Homeowner Association spoke about the nearby watershed as well as a deep valley in the area. He asked why this type of property was being developed. Brawley said the town continued to encroach further and further around his community. He shared concerns that his neighborhood would be chosen next for annexation. Boyce asked if Mooresville could rezone the area to multi -family. He said if this happened, there could be a substantial increase in students for the school system. Chairman Johnson said this was possible. He said next June the area would be annexed by Mooresville regardless of the action taken by the board of commissioners. Johnson said that if the board of commissioners agreed to the release, it simply allowed the developer to begin earlier in meeting the Town's regulations. Boyce asked if multi -family was an option. He said the property was not contiguous to Mooresville, and the county had helped to finance the pipeline and sewage extension to the school. Boyce said the taxpayers had paid for the infrastructure --not Crescent Resources. 19 No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Johnson adjourned the hearing. Robertson said the Town of Mooresville had a policy to not engage in involuntary annexation. He said the North Carolina General Assembly had been making legislation to make it more difficult for towns that did not have this type of policy. Robertson said that in connection with the runoff and topography, this was the reason why the erosion control ordinance was enacted. OTION by Commissioner Robertson to approve the zoning and subdivision jurisdiction for PIN# 4636-06-5499 to the Town of Mooresville. VOTING: Ayes - 4; Nays - 1 (Griffith) Request from the Iredell-Statesville Schools to Transfer $114,094.52 in Excess Debt Service Funds to Annual Renovations: County Manager Ron Smith said the Iredell-Statesville School System was requesting that $114,094.52 in excess debt service funds be transferred to annual renovations to pay for the replacement of a failed chiller at Lake Norman Elementary School as well as to upgrade HVAC controls at four other schools. Smith said this was the ten percent referred to in the budget ordinance that required commissioners' approval before the transfer could occur. He said that Dr. Kenny Miller, with the school system, was present if there were questions. OTION by Commissioner Norman to approve the request to transfer the $114,094.52 as presented. VOTING: Ayes - 5; Nays - 0. Request from the Sheriffs Office for Approval of Budget Amendment #12 to Use Seized Funds for the Purchase of Two Computers: County Manager Ron Smith said the sheriffs office was requesting to move $5,106 from seized funds to purchase two Alienware computers. He said the computers would be used by detectives for video enhancement and the investigation of digital image evidence. Smith said the computers would be geared specifically to this type of purpose or role. MOTION by Commissioner Norman to approve the request as presented. VOTING: Ayes - 5; Nays - 0. Request from Solid Waste for Approval of a Contract with Joyce Engineering, Inc., to Develop and Evaluate a Request for Proposals for Firms Interested in Developing & Operating the Gas to Energy Potential at the Iredell County Landfill: Solid Waste Director David Lambert said that around 1995, the county signed a contract for the landfill gas developer relating to energy potential. He said the contract would expire in four and a half years, but the company had sold its rights to DTE. Lambert said the staff recommended amending the contract by inserting some environmental safeguards. He said Joyce Engineering could develop a request for proposals and evaluate the responses for the new contract. Commissioner Robertson said the State of North Carolina mandated that a percentage of electricity be generated from renewable resources. He said in time, this would end up in higher consumer utility costs. MOTIO by Commissioner Robertson to approve the contract with Joyce Engineering. VOTING: Ayes - 5; Nays - 0. Request from Solid Waste for Approval of an Amendment to the Beck Disaster Recovery Company (now known as SAIC) Contract for Debris Management: Solid Waste Director Lambert said that in 2007, contracts were signed for emergency debris removal and emergency debris management services. He said both agreements were initiated with the intent 20 To appropriate Federal Equity Funds to purchase 2 Alienware computers. BA#12 10/4/2011 Account # Current Chane Amended 104880 499404 Appro. Fund Bal -Fed Equity (66,875) (5,106) (71,981) 105510 620150 15510 Non- Depreciable Computer 5,106 5,106 Request from Solid Waste for Approval of a Contract with Joyce Engineering, Inc., to Develop and Evaluate a Request for Proposals for Firms Interested in Developing & Operating the Gas to Energy Potential at the Iredell County Landfill: Solid Waste Director David Lambert said that around 1995, the county signed a contract for the landfill gas developer relating to energy potential. He said the contract would expire in four and a half years, but the company had sold its rights to DTE. Lambert said the staff recommended amending the contract by inserting some environmental safeguards. He said Joyce Engineering could develop a request for proposals and evaluate the responses for the new contract. Commissioner Robertson said the State of North Carolina mandated that a percentage of electricity be generated from renewable resources. He said in time, this would end up in higher consumer utility costs. MOTIO by Commissioner Robertson to approve the contract with Joyce Engineering. VOTING: Ayes - 5; Nays - 0. Request from Solid Waste for Approval of an Amendment to the Beck Disaster Recovery Company (now known as SAIC) Contract for Debris Management: Solid Waste Director Lambert said that in 2007, contracts were signed for emergency debris removal and emergency debris management services. He said both agreements were initiated with the intent 20 of having a three-year term with two annual renewals for a total of five years. Lambert said the management contract was inadvertently written for two years with two annual renewals and an expiration date of December 2011. He requested for this contract to be amended by adding a one-year extension, thereby making both contracts extending concurrently. OTIO by Commissioner Norman to approve the amendment as requested. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Request from Solid Waste for Approval of the Mooresville Transfer Station's White Goods' Facility Design: Solid Waste Director David Lambert said last year the board approved for $350,000 to be taken from the NC White Goods Fund for the design, bidding, and construction of a white goods facility at the Mooresville Transfer Station. He said also, an engineering services agreement with MESCO was approved. Lambert said the design portion was completed and approval was needed. He showed a diagram of the facility and mentioned that it met the Town of Mooresville's approval. Lambert said currently, Mooresville generated 42% of the landfill's white goods. Chairman Johnson said he understood the funds would be taken solely from the White Goods Fund. Lambert said this was correct. OTION by Commissioner Mitchell to approve the request as presented. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Request for Approval of a Contract with McGill Associates for Solid Waste Financial Planning Services: Solid Waste Director Lambert said about one year ago, he was requested by the former county manager to seek out companies to provide solid waste financial planning services. He said McGill Associates provided the design and financial modeling for Catawba County, and one of its engineers, Jeff Bishop, was present at the meeting to explain the company's services. Bishop provided a PowerPoint Presentation describing McGill's services, and some items mentioned are as follows: Financial Considerations Financial mode( is not proprietary Introduces a financial planning process that is updated (Ind calibrated amtualty Provides a logical basis for decision making Provides focus and claritv.j or polic-y board A strategic planning tool to enhance program management Financial Strategy Collect relevantfinancial data Evaluate currentfee structure Develop financial analysis model: - Flow of revenues (past and future) - Future program costs (O&M) - Capital investmentsfreplacentents - Alternative methods offinancing - Assess adequacy of rates and charges Formulate capital financing plan Prepare financial recommendations Bishop said the economy affected the amount of waste going into the landfill. He said a reduction in waste would result in lower revenue. Bishop said financial plans or models helped to stabilize the revenue streams, and the county's historical data, the current budget and fee structure, as well as the capital improvement plan would all be reviewed. He said a 15 -year plan would be developed. years. Chairman Johnson asked if contingency expense was incorporated into the plan for out 21 Bishop said contingencies would be built into the capital improvements plan. He said also, changes in the ordinance might be recommended. Johnson asked how well the company would make the county aware of pending legislative actions that might have an impact. Bishop said one person at the Environmental Management Commission alerted the company about potential rule changes, plus he (Bishop) was on the board of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). He said SWANA was involved in reviewing and providing opinions on future rules and regulations. Johnson asked about changes in economic conditions. He asked if any predictions were used in the plan. Bishop said it was difficult to predict a future solid waste stream. He said some clients were currently 20 to 25% off in revenues, plus there were some landfills that had been predicted to have five years of life, but now had 10 to 12 years remaining. OTION by Chairman Johnson to approve the contract with McGill Associates for Solid Waste Financial Planning Services. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Request from the Health Department for Approval of Budget Amendment #13 for the Transfer of Funds from Salary/Fringe to Contracted Services: County Manager Ron Smith said the environmental health division was requesting a budget amendment to move $16,000 from salary/fringe to contracted services. He said the amendment was based upon a clerk's resignation in the Mooresville office that was 50% funded by environmental health funds and 50% from the clinical program. Smith said the clinical unit would not be funding the position, and a temporary person would be used (.5 FTE). He said the environmental department would evaluate the need for the position. OTION by Commissioner Mitchell to approve Budget Amendment #13. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Cty BA# 13 Purpose: To transfer funds from Salary and Fringe to contracted services line 12- ICHD BA# 1004 for existing .5 FTE clerical position EXISTING AMENDED EXPENSELINE(S) DESCRIPTION BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET 10927510 510002 Salary -Reg 438,770 (8,225) 430,545 10927520 510002 Salary -Reg 320,280 (1,030) 319,250 10927510 512501 FICA 32,895 (655) 32,240 10927520 512501 FICA 24,195 (80) 24,115 10927510 512502 Grp Ins 58,360 (4,295) 54,065 10927520 512502 Grp Ins 43,670 (535) 43,135 10927510 512503 Retirement 52,523 (1,050) 51,473 10927520 512503 Retirement 38,346 (130) 38,216 EXISTING AMENDED EXPENSELINE(S) DESCRIPTION BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET 10927511-537500 Contracted Services - 14,225 14,225 10927521-537500 Contracted Services 1,775 1,775 Request for Approval of the September 20, 2011 Minutes: MOTIO by Vice Chairman Norman for approval of the minutes as presented. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. 22 ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES OCCURRING ON BOARDS & COMMISSIONS Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) (l announcement) Facilities Task Force for Schools (6 announcements (4 from community & 2 electedl) County Manager Smith said the school system desired to obtain community representation from all four quadrants of the county, if possible (north/south/east/west). APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND Personnel Advisory Committee (2 appointments): Commissioner Mitchell nominated John Green. OTIO by Chairman Johnson to close the nominations and to appoint Green by acclamation. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. NEW BUSINESS Illegal Junkyard: Commissioner Mitchell reported that an acquaintance had mentioned a junkyard with 12 vehicles at 197 Josey Road, Statesville, NC. He asked how many cars were allowed. Smith said, generally speaking, six vehicles. Commissioner Mitchell requested the manager to investigate the matter. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT County Manager Smith mentioned the following upcoming events: Lake Norman Bicycle Route & Carolina Thread Trail Dedication Event Saturday, October 15, 2011 Troutman Depot 137 S. Main Street Troutman, NC Joint Information Meeting with the Town of Mooresville Regarding the Cornelius Road Area Thursday, October 20, 2011 7:00 P.M. Troutman Town Hall Troutman, NC ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Chairman Johnson at 10:12 P.M. to adjourn. (NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 7:00 P.M., in the Iredell County Government Center, 200 South Center Street, Statesville, NC) VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Approved: 23 Clerk to the Board