Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly_17_2012_Regular_MinutesIREDELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MINUTES JULY 17, 2012 The Iredell County Board of Commissioners met on Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 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, Finance Director Susan Blumenstein, Planning and Transportation Director Joey Raczkowski, Planner Rebecca Harper, Erosion Control Officer Randy Moore, Deputy Fire Marshal Garland Cloer, Purchasing Agent Dean Lail, and Clerk to the Board Jean Moore. CALL TO ORDER by Chairman Johnson INVOCATION by Commissioner Griffith PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADJUSTMENTS OF THE AGENDA: MOTION by Vice Chairman Norman to approve the agenda with the following adjustments: Additions: *Budget Amendment #2 was added to the Request for Approval of a Lease/Purchase Master Agreement and other Documents Required for the Information Technology Services (ITS) Virtualization Project *Request for Consideration/Approval of a Pyrotechnic Application for a Private Wedding Ceremony in an Unincorporated Area of Iredell County Deletion: Closed Session Pursuant to Attorney-Client/G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3) VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. APPOINTMENTS BEFORE THE BOARD Ms. Dawn LeFaivre Spoke on Behalf of a Citizens Group Requesting for the Animal Control Department to Become a "No Kill" Facility: Ms. LeFaivre presented each commissioner a copy of her presentation as follows: Gond evening_ My name is Dawn LeFaivre_ I am representing a group of Iredell County facebook members that have areal concern and passion for the animals in our county that arc being cuthanizetl in staggering num bars every week at the Iredell County Anlmal Control facility. It has bean really hard to get concrete facts with actual numbers, but it has bean rocontly rumored that approximately 600 animals are put Co death each month here in Iredcll County_ We Cl" have some statistics for the state for the years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009_ These records show that an average over these years is sx-/ of all cats and 63 /0 of all rings in public Animal S'h elters are outhanized. Total cats put to death In this time period was 437,244 and total dogs were 402,305_ wa know that Iretlell Cuunty's numbers are included in those statistics. we would like to ask you to consider changing our county's record to O cats and O dogs by changing our Animal Control to a -no kill" facility_ Animals do not deserve a death sentence just because they are born. we truly believe that with public education, affordable spay and neuter clinics, new foster care homes, fund raising projects, more strict laws concerning animal neglect and abuse along with the abolishment of puppy mills that this county can sat the mark For the entire state to says the lives of th®s® innocent animals. All of us are willing to help make this happen. we know, as a whole, that the rrrintlsat of tha public has to change. yV have to get them etlucated as to the horrors of what happens to that dog or cat they `dropped off' at Animal Control. A lot of oxcusos aro used such as: rnoying, landlord issues, cost of pet mai ntena nee, lack of time to interact with the pot, allergies, and inadequate facilities or just have too many pots. vo any of these `reasons" justify death7 we do not believo so_ Also, having been told Irodell County uses the gas chamber, we would like to ask you it you ever been to the Anirrral Control Facility on a kill day? Hayo you over looked into the eyes of the dogs and cats as they wait? Have you ever scan them taken fur that last walk to the gas chamber'? Have you ever heard thoir cries as they begin to inhale the gas? Flere is a viral letter written by an anon mous animal control worker here in Hmth Carolina_ "Yes, I Gas Dogs and Cats for a Living. I'm an Animal Control officer in a very small town in central North Carolina. I'rn in my mid thirties, and have been working for the town in different positions since high school. There is not much work here, and working for the county provides good pay and benefits for a person like me without a higher education. I'm the person you all write about how horrible I am. I'm the one that gasses the dogs and cats and makes them suffer. Via the one that pulls their dead corpses out smelling of Carbon Monoxide and throws them into green plastic bags. But I'm also the one that hates my job and hates what I have to do. First off, all you people out there that judge me, don't. God is judging me, and I know I'm going to Well. Yes, I'm going to hell. I won't lie, it's despicable, cold, and cruel and I feel like a serial killer. I'm not all to blame, if the law would mandate spay and neuter, lots of these dogs and cats wouldn't be here for me to gas. I'm the devil, I know it, but I want you people to see that there is another side to me the devil Gas Chamber man. The shelter usually gasses on Friday morning. Friday's are the day that most people look forward to, this is the day that I hate, and wish that time will stand still on Thursday night. Thursday night, late after nobody's around, my friend and I go through a fast food line and buy 50 dollars worth of cheeseburgers and fries and chicken. I'm not allowed to food the dogs on Thursday, for I'm told that they will make a mess in the gas chamber, avid why waste the food. So, Thursday night, with the lights still closed, I go into the saddest room that anyone can ever imagine, and let all the doomed dogs out out their cages. I have never been bit, and in all my years doing this, the dogs have never fought over the food. My buddy and I, open each wrapper of cheeseburger and chicken sandwich, and feed them to the skinny, starving dogs. They swallow the food so fast, that I don't believe they even taste it. -1"here tails are wagging, and some don't even go for the food, they roll on their backs wanting a scratch on their bellys. They start running, jumping and kissing vita and my buddy. They go back to their food, and come back to us. All their eyes are on us with such trust and hope, and their tails wag so fast, that I have come out with black and blues on my thighs.. They devour the food, then it's time for therm to devour some love and peace. My buddy and I sit down on the dirty, pee stained concrete floor, and we let the dogs jump on us. They lick us, they put their butts in the air to play, and they play with each other. Some lick each other, but most are glued on me and my buddy. I look into the eyes of each dog. I give each dog a name. They will not die without a name. I give each dog 5 minutes of unconditional love and touch. I talk to them, and tell them that I'in so sorry that tomorrow they will die a gruesome, long, torturous death at the hands of me in the gas chamber. Some tilt their heads to try to understand. I tell them, that they will be in a better place, and I beg them not to hate site. I tell them that I know I'm going to hell, but they will all be playing with all the dogs and cats in heaven. After about 30 minutes, I take each dog individually, into their feces filled concrete jail cell, and pet them and scratch them under their chins. Some give me their paw, and I just want to die. I just want to die. I close the jail cell on each dog, and ask them to forgive me. As my buddy and I are walking out, we watch as every dog is smiling at us and them don't even move their heads. They will sleep, with a full belly, and a false sense of security. As we walk out of the doomed dog room, my buddy and I go to the cat room. We take our box, and put the very friendly kittens and pregnant cats in our box. The shelter doesn't keep tabs on the cats, like they do the dogs. As I hand pick which cats are going to make it out, I feel like I'm playing God, deciding whose going to live and die. We take the cats into my truck, and put them on blankets in the back. 2 IJsually, as soon as we start to arive away, there are purring cats sitting on parr o.c Rs or rubbing against us. M, buddy and I to Re our one way two hourtrip to a county that is very wealthy and they use injection to Kill animals. We go to excausive neighborhoods, and lot ooe or two cats out at a Lima. Tho, doo't want to run, Loa., want A.. stay with us_ W. shoo them away, which makes na. feel sad. I toll them that these rich people will adopt them, a"a if worse comas to worse and Lhey do net Put down, they will be put down with a painless raccdle being cradled by o loving veterinarian. After the last cat is Free, we drive back to our town. It's about 5 nn the morning now, about two hours- until I hay. r. gas my best friends_ I go home, Take a shower, Ca Ke my 4 anti --anxiety pills and drive to work.. I don't eat, I coo -t eat It's now tiro., to Put these animals in the gas chamber. I put my ear plugs in, and when I go to the collect the dogs, the dogs are so excited to see me, that they jump up to Kiss me and think they are going to play_ I put them in the roiling cage and Take Cham to Cha gas chamber. They Know. They just Know. They can sme11 the death.. They can smell thtc fear. Thcy start whimpering, the second I put them in the U.W. Tho boss tells me to syuecze in us many s I can to save on gas_ H. waCches_ He Knows I haL. hirn, he Knows I hate my job. I do as I'na told. He watches until all the dogs, and cats (thrown in togeth.rj ar. fighting and screaming. The sounds is very muffled to me because of my car plugs. Ho wants out, I turn the gas an, and walk out. I walk out as fast as I can. I walk pato the bathroom, and Ito Kc- a pin and draw blood from my hand. Why3 The pain anti blood to K.s my brain off of what T just did. In 40 minutes, I have to go back and unload the dead animals_ I pray that none survived, which happens when I overstuff the chamber. I pull them out with thick gloves, anti the smell of carbon monoxide makes me sick. So does the vomit and blood, and all the bowel movements. I pull them out, put them in plastic bags. They are in heaven now, I tell myself. I then start cleaning up the mess, the mess, that YOU PEOPLE are creating by not spay or neutering your animals. The mass that YOU PEOPLE are creating by not demanding that a vet carne in and do this humanely_ You ARE THE TAXPAYERS, DFMAND that this practice STOP! So, don't call me the monster, the devil, the gasser, call the politicians, the shelter directors, and the county people the devil. Heck, call the governor, tell him to make it stop. AS LISual, I will take sleeping pills tonight to drown out the screams I heard in the past, before I discovered the ear plugs. I will jump and twitch in my sleep, and I believe I'm starting to hallucinate. This is my life. Don't judge me. Relieve ma I - If II21l9.i1.- Folks, if this were not enough to open your eyes, we, the people, invite you, the council, to spend a day at the shelter, on a kill day. Pick out just ane of the animals on death row that day and touch it, talk to it, comfort it and follow its day from beginning to the awful end. Give just one animal a happy few hours before its death. Then watch as it is loaded into the gas chamber and listen to its fear as the gas replaces the air it breathes. We are working on plans to start another rescue in this county. It Is ha the baby stages at this point, but we will see it thru. We want to be granted the opportunity to have fund raisers to support it and volunteers to run it. We want to put alp billboards encouraging spay/neuter practices. We want to recruit all the vets in our county to volunteer their services at least 2 days a month for whatever the animals need. We want to continue our fight to have mora strict laws against hoard.rs, animal cruelty off.nd.rs and thos. who Faay. bac Rya rd puppy mains. H.L rnost of all, W. want YOU to SC.P the Ruling! You have in fro nC of you a HogKK-it wrth all the information us.d tq p c mt aur case to Va.- Please I..R at it and give our God given furry cgnaPanions another cha nc.. Much, much more can be viewed on Iin.. Google animal as chamber Photos fora real awakening. We emcourago you to sot the standard for the enklr- state. ban th. gas chamlo." the no. you Say. just Haight b. your n..1, "host friend. - In addition, Ms. LeFaivre presented a petition secured through FaceBook group sites containing 387 names. The petition request was titled as follows: We the undersigned citizens of Iredell County and all the cities, townships and communities within, hereby petition, request and pray, the Iredell County Commissioners along with any other political organizations that have a responsibiliq� in this area, to change our Animal Control center to a "No Kill" facility. We also petition, request, and pray, that it will work hand in hand with legitimate adoption web sites, focal veterinarians, legitimate rescues, Humane Societies and any other entii), that wishes to help curb the destruction of animals in our count)% No action was taken regarding the request. Mr. Frank Del Piano Speaks in Reference to a Cracked Storm Drain Pipe on his Property: Mr. Del Piano, a resident of 134 Eclipse Way, Mooresville, NC, said that in April 2010 an area was noticed in his lawn that developed into a deep sinkhole (four feet across and three feet deep). He said the drain pipe extended 250 feet with the actual sinkhole being located about 150 feet off the street. Del Piano said a camera was inserted, and it revealed numerous breaks and cracks in the pipe. He said consultations had occurred with engineers, and they all said the pipe had been incorrectly installed which later led to shifting. Del Piano said when it rained, and the soil became wet, erosion had occurred which lead to the sinkhole. Continuing, Del Piano said the State Department of Transportation was contacted, but this office indicated it was only responsible for the first 10 feet off the street. Del Piano said the subdivision's developer had gone out of business, so he next contacted the county. He said the county was asked who was responsible for the inspection, and he was told this was not required. Mr. Del Piano said the sinkhole was 15 feet from his home, plus there were numerous other areas where holes were occurring. He said one was about two -feet by two -feet, and the holes were safety hazards. Del Piano said the pipe should have been inspected by the county, especially since it was so close to his home. He said the Land Design Company provided sewer and street inspections, but nothing had occurred for the pipe. Mr. Del Piano asked for the county to take responsibility for the pipe as well as the maintenance and repair. Commissioner Robertson said the developer constructed the roads and installed the storm drains. He said it was understood that the developer then built the house, and Mr. Del Piano purchased it. Del Piano said yes. He said, however, the county knew that a home was going to be constructed at the site, plus it was known that the state was not going inspect the pipe. Robertson asked, pertaining to the scope work, if the water went underneath the pipe and this created an uneven surface, or did the engineers feel it was broken upon installation. He said a ceramic or concrete pipe could not handle any bending. Del Piano said he was informed the pipe was not correctly packed. Robertson asked if the construction delivery trucks could have driven over the pipe and crushed it when the house was built. He also asked the developer's name. Del Piano said the developer was Robert Dienst, with Sundown Cove, LLC, and it was unknown if the pipe could have been damaged while the house was being built. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Johnson declared the meeting to be in a public hearing. Consideration of Amendments to Iredell County's Voluntary and Enhanced Farmland Preservation Ordinance — Article VI. Certification for Qualifying Farmland: Planning and Development Director Joey Raczkowski said an amendment was being presented due to the North Carolina General Assembly changing a statute as to what defined an eligible tract of farmland to participate in the enhanced agricultural program. Raczkowski said the amendment simply referred to the statute, and if the law changed in the future, it would not be necessary to revise the ordinance. A copy of the staff report is as follows: EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST In 2011 per HB 406 S.L. 2011-219 the legislature amended GS 106-737 to provide that land that is engaged in agriculture may qualify for enrollment in a voluntary or enhanced agricultural district even though it does not qualify for taxation at its present -use value. An amendment of the Iredell County Voluntary and Enhanced Farmland Preservation Ordinances' is needed in order to reflect the change in the General Statutes. Proposed Text Amendment The following changes are being proposed to text in the Voluntary and the Enhanced Farmland Preservation Ordinances. Existing text that is bold and Iffith strike through is text to be removed. Text in red and underlined is new text to be added. 4 ARTICLE VI. Certification for Qualifying Farmland Section 601. Requirements To secure County certification as qualifying farmland, a parcel must: (601.1) Be participating in the sarin present use value taxation program established by G.S. 105_077 2 through 105_077 7 or be otherwise qualified by the r my ie meet all the requirements of this program et forth in G.S. 105.277 3 engaged in agriculture as that word is defined in G.S. 106-581.1; Reference The G.S. referenced in the proposed amendment is as follows: ♦ G.S 106-581.1 Agriculture defined. For purposes of this Article, the terms "agriculture", "agricultural', and "farming" refer to all of the following: (1) The cultivation of soil for production and harvesting of crops, including but not limited to fruits, vegetables, sod, flowers and ornamental plants. (2) The planting and production of trees and timber. (3) Dairying and the raising, management, care, and training of livestock, including horses, bees, poultry, and other animals for individual and public use, consumption, and marketing. (4) Aquaculture as defined in G.S. 106-758. (5) The operation, management, conservation, improvement, and maintenance of a farm and the structures and buildings on the farm, including building and structure repair, replacement, expansion, and construction incident to the farming operation. (6) When performed on the farm, "agriculture", "agricultural', and "farming" also include the marketing and selling of agricultural products, agritourism, the storage and use of materials for agricultural purposes, packing, treating, processing, sorting, storage, and other activities performed to add value to crops, livestock, and agricultural items produced on the farm, and similar activities incident to the operation of a farm. (1991, c. 81, s. 1; 2005-390, s. 18; 2006-255, s. 6.) IREDELL COUNTY FARMLAND ADVISORY BOARD On October 13, 2011 the Iredell County Farmland Advisory Board voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend approval of the amendment as proposed. STAFF COMMENTS Staff recommendation is to adopt the amendment as proposed. No one requested to speak, and Chairman Johnson declared the hearing closed. OTION by Commissioner Robertson to amend the Iredell County Voluntary and Enhanced Farmland Preservation Ordinance to reflect the definition of agriculture as presented. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Chairman Johnson declared the meeting to be in a public hearing. Consideration of Land Development Code Text Amendments Mr. Raczkowski said eight amendments were being proposed for the land development code. He said an annual review had occurred, and this would be the first of two batches to be presented this year. Section 1.3.6 Bona Fide Farms Exempt & Section 16.4 Definitions: Raczkowski said similar to the farmland preservation ordinance amendment, the state had changed definitions relating to bona fide farms. He said the changes were occurring for flexibility, as the staff was trying to eliminate the necessity for frequent amendments. Raczkowski said specific references to the statute would occur in the code. No one else desired to speak on this amendment, and a copy of the staff's report is as follows: EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST The following staff -initiated text amendment to the Land Development Code is being presented for a recommendation at this time. k, Existing text that is hold and with SfFilke thFOugh is text to be removed. Text in red and underlined is new text to be added. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Section 1.3.6 Bona Fide Farms Exempt The provisions of this ordinance shall NOT apply to bona fide farms including start up farms, except that a farm property used for non-farm purposes shall NOT be exempt from regulation; except that the floodplain management provisions of Chapter 4 of this ordinance, regulating development in the special flood hazard areas, as required for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, shall apply to all development including bona fide farms located within the special flood hazard areas of Iredell County. For the purposes of this ordinance, a bona fide farm is any tract or tracts of land, which meets the criteria as established in G.S. 105-277.2 - 105-977.7 G.S. 153A -340(b)(2) together with anv subsequent amendments and has tax deferment on the county tax records. Start-up farms requesting bona fide farm status shall provide documentation that they satisfy all the requirements set forth in G.S. 105 277.2 -1.55-277_ -.7 G.S. 153A -340(b)(2) together with any subsequent amendments and that they have applied for tax deferment status with the Iredell County Tax Department. Definitions Bona Fide Farm. The production and activities relating or incidental to the production of crops, fruits, vegetables, ornamental and flowering plants, dairy, livestock, poultry, and all other forms of agricultural products having a domesti^ OF a^.eig ^.i,et ^,ee"^^ a of the following ^.i+eiQ* if the applicant cannot meet I or 9 above, the applicant (or owner) has the option of applying-fGF Rona Fidp Form status by showing that the properly has farm income by submitting the previews Form Schea,ae corm of the o e g federal income tax re+,,..., and as provided for in G.S. 153A -340(b)(2). REFERENCE 153A-340. Grant of power. (b) (2) Except as provided in G.S. 106-743.4 for farms that are subject to a conservation agreement under G.S. 106-743.2, bona fide farm purposes include the production and activities relating or incidental to the production of crops, fruits, vegetables, ornamental and flowering plants, dairy, livestock, poultry, and all other forms of agriculture as defined in G.S. 106-581.1. For purposes of this subdivision, the production of a nonfarm product that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services recognizes as a "Goodness Grows in North Carolina' product that is produced on a farm subject to a conservation agreement under G.S. 106-743.2 is a bona fide farm purpose. For purposes of determining whether a property is being used for bona fide farm purposes, any of the following shall constitute sufficient evidence that the property is being used for bona fide farm purposes: a. A farm sales tax exemption certificate issued by the Department of Revenue. b. A copy of the property tax listing showing that the property is eligible for participation in the present use value program pursuant to G.S. 105-277.3. c. A copy of the farm owner's or operator's Schedule F from the owner's or operator's most recent federal income tax return. d. A forest management plan. e. A Farm Identification Number issued by the United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency. PLANNING BOARD The Planning Board first reviewed this staff -initiated text amendment on May 2, 2012. At this meeting, the proposal was presented for information only. The Board asked the staff to add "together with any subsequent amendments" after the statutes in Section 1.3.6. The staff made the changes recommended by the Board. The Planning Board heard the request for a second time on June 6, 2012 and had no recommended changes to the text amendment. The Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. 6 STAFF COMMENTS The purpose of this amendment is to be more consistent with the General Statutes regarding bona fide farms. The definition changed during the last legislative session and the staff feels that this may continue to evolve. Rather than changing the definition in the Land Development Code every time the Statutes change, the staff fells we should just reference the General Statute and follow the State's lead in determining what qualifies as a bona fide farm. Therefore, the staff is recommending the changes above to the LDC regarding bona fide farms. Section 2.2.3 Lot of Record — Non -Conforming Lot of Record: Raczkowski said the definition of a non -conforming lot did not conform to the ordinance standards primarily due to the lots being created prior to Iredell County zoning. He said there was an equity issue, and gave the following scenario to explain: Two lots are side by side with Lot A being owned by one owner and Lot B owned by another. Raczkowski said the ordinance currently required that both lots be combined for full compliance, and this created the equity issue. He said the amendment would indicate that regardless of ownership, a house could be built on a non -conforming lot as long as other standards were met. Raczkowski said Table 2.1 pertaining to watershed requirements also had changes, but the non -conforming issue previously mentioned did not apply to these lots. A copy of the staff report is as follows: EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST The following staff -initiated text amendment to the Land Development Code is being presented for a recommendation at this time. Existing text that is hold and i.A.4th strike through is text to be removed. Text in red and underlined is new text to be added. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Lot of Record Where the GINner of a lawfully existing lot of official record in any residential distric - tt or the 01AF n difle thereto .dee; NOT wAfn guffiriend rondiguous land to enable the oi.A.Fnpr to y nfnrm de the minimum Int sllze requirenk ed i1.ie n..di.%ance such led may be used as residential ~,aiding site, where permitted, With regards to minimum lot size, any legally non- conforming lot may be developed as a residential building site, provided however, that the other requirements of the district are complied with or a variance is obtained from the Board of Adjustment. However, this exemption is not applicable to multiple contiguous undeveloped lots under single ownership within the watershed areas that were recorded prior to January 1, 1994. These lots shall comply with the minimum lot size requirements in Table 2.1. iowe z. i Minimum LOT Jaen Tor tXISTing LOTS OT Kecora Lots Recorded Watershed Minimum Lot Size WSII-BW 1 acre January 1, 1994 to adoption of March 3, 1998 March 3, 1998 to adoption of t)i3QLDC WSII-BW WSIII-BW W S I V -PA WSIV-CA WSIV-CA on Brawley chool Road Peninsula 1 acre 1 acre )00 21, 880 sq. ft. 25,000 sq. ft. 30,000 Sq. ft. PLANNING BOARD The Planning Board first reviewed this staff -initiated text amendment on May 2, 2012. At this meeting, the proposal was presented for information only. A grammatical change was recommended at that time. The staff made the change recommended by the Board. The Planning Board heard the request for a second time on June 6, 2012 and had no recommended changes to the text amendment. The Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. %I STAFF COMMENTS The purpose of this amendment is clarify the intent of this section and amend sections in the table that were not correct. The intent of this section was to allow lots that were cut out legally prior to zoning to be able to have a home built on it without having to combine to an adjoining lot under the same ownership. Currently, if we have two non -conforming lots (based on minimum lot size) owned by two separate people, we would allow both lots to have a residence built on it. If someone owns two adjoining non -conforming lots (based on minimum lot size), we would require that they combine them in order to have a residence on one lot. The Planning staff feels it is unfair to treat the lots differently based on whether or not they are owned by one person or two. Therefore, the staff is recommending the proposed text change to allow the lots to be treated the same no matter who owns them. However, this does not apply in the Water Supply Watershed because the State does not allow it in their Model Watershed Ordinance. Also, the changes in the table were errors that were found during the amendment review process. Section 2.14.1 H -B Highway Business District — Consistency of Setback Requirements in Commercial Districts: Raczkowski said in an effort to obtain consistency, the staff desired to make the setbacks the same for the Highway Business District as well as the Neighborhood and General Business District. He then explained the frontage, side and back changes. In reference to Highway Business, Commissioner Robertson asked how the changes compared to Statesville and Mooresville. Raczkowski said the information would be reviewed. Chairman Johnson said that if a Roadway Protection Overlay Plan was created with a municipality there would be some type of mutual agreement. Raczkowski said it was believed this had occurred with the Land Development Code and the Horizon Plan. There were no other questions, and a copy of the staff report is as follows: EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST The following staff -initiated text amendment to the Land Development Code is being presented for a recommendation at this time. Existing text that is is text to be removed. Text in red and underlined is new text to be added. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT H -B Highway Business District Intent These commercial districts are designed to serve the special needs of the traveling public. They also provide space for indoor and outdoor recreational uses which require large lots. It is very important that such districts be developed in accordance with high standards. Table 2.23 Dimensional Requirements in the H -B District See the Tables below for the setbacks in the NB and GB districts. Table 2.21 Dimensional Reauirements in the N -B District Minimum Yard Requirements Minimum Lot Size See Appendix A Sq. ftJ Principal Lot Maximum dwelling Front Side Rear Corner Structures width Height unit All None None 4030 2,010 20 3020 35 See the Tables below for the setbacks in the NB and GB districts. Table 2.21 Dimensional Reauirements in the N -B District 8 Minimum Yard Requirements Minimum Lot Size See Appendix A Sq. ftJ Principal Lot Maximum dwelling Front Side Rear Corner Structures width Height unit All None None 30 10 2D 20 35 8 Table 2.25 Dimensional Requirements in the G -B District The Planning Board first reviewed this staff -initiated text amendment on May 2, 2012. At this meeting, the proposal was presented for information only. The Board asked the staff to show the sections from the other commercial districts so they could see the comparison between the districts. The staff added the charts showing the other commercial districts to the staff report as recommended by the Board. The Planning Board heard the request for a second time on June b, 2012 and had no recommended changes to the text amendment. The Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. STAFF COMMENTS The purpose of this amendment is to make the setbacks in our commercial districts more consistent. The Planning staff has reviewed the old zoning codes and the setbacks in the HB district have always been 40 feet in the front, 20 feet on the side, and 30 feet on the corner. In all other commercial districts the setbacks have always been 30 feet in the front, 10 feet on the side and 20 feet on the corner. We have not been able to determine why this was so. The staff sees no reason why all of the setbacks are not the some. Therefore, we are recommending that the setbacks in the HB district be changed to match those in the NB and GB districts. Section 2.21.2 Recreational, Educational, & Institutional - Fraternal & Social Organizations: Raczkowski said these amendments related to fraternal and social organizations being allowed in resort residential and R20 districts by special use permits. He said property owners had inquired about establishing these types of organizations in the two districts, and the staff was recommending for them to be allowed. Robertson asked if a retreat center referred to a halfway house or a recreational facility. County Manager Smith said retreat centers would be for team building and things of this nature, he said there were other standards for these types of facilities. There were no other questions, and the staff report is as follows: EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST The following staff -initiated text amendment to the Land Development Code is being presented for a recommendation at this time. There is no text being proposed for removal in this section. Text in red and underlined is new text to be added. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Section 2.21.2 Recreational, Educational, & Institutional USES AC Minimum Yard Requirements RUR RR Minimum Lot Size Z R8 RO OI See Appendix A HB GB Sq. ft✓ 2 R Churches, Principal Lot Maximum dwelling Front Side Rear Corner Structures width Fraternal & Height unit All None None 30 10 20 20 35 PLANNING BOARD The Planning Board first reviewed this staff -initiated text amendment on May 2, 2012. At this meeting, the proposal was presented for information only. The Board asked the staff to show the sections from the other commercial districts so they could see the comparison between the districts. The staff added the charts showing the other commercial districts to the staff report as recommended by the Board. The Planning Board heard the request for a second time on June b, 2012 and had no recommended changes to the text amendment. The Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. STAFF COMMENTS The purpose of this amendment is to make the setbacks in our commercial districts more consistent. The Planning staff has reviewed the old zoning codes and the setbacks in the HB district have always been 40 feet in the front, 20 feet on the side, and 30 feet on the corner. In all other commercial districts the setbacks have always been 30 feet in the front, 10 feet on the side and 20 feet on the corner. We have not been able to determine why this was so. The staff sees no reason why all of the setbacks are not the some. Therefore, we are recommending that the setbacks in the HB district be changed to match those in the NB and GB districts. Section 2.21.2 Recreational, Educational, & Institutional - Fraternal & Social Organizations: Raczkowski said these amendments related to fraternal and social organizations being allowed in resort residential and R20 districts by special use permits. He said property owners had inquired about establishing these types of organizations in the two districts, and the staff was recommending for them to be allowed. Robertson asked if a retreat center referred to a halfway house or a recreational facility. County Manager Smith said retreat centers would be for team building and things of this nature, he said there were other standards for these types of facilities. There were no other questions, and the staff report is as follows: EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST The following staff -initiated text amendment to the Land Development Code is being presented for a recommendation at this time. There is no text being proposed for removal in this section. Text in red and underlined is new text to be added. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Section 2.21.2 Recreational, Educational, & Institutional USES AC RA RUR RR 0 Z R8 RO OI NB HB GB Ml 2 R Churches, Fraternal & social S S S S S R R X X X X X X X 30 associations or - - or anizations See the chart below for similar uses in RR and R-20 USES AC RA RUR RR 0 2 R8 RO OI NB HB GB Ml 2 R Churches, synagogues & other R R R R R R R R R R R R 26 associated activities 9 Golf course, including pro R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 30 shop Recreation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X facilities, Public Retreat centers S S S S S R R R R 27 Schools, including public schools private schools, R R R S S S S R R R R 35 having a curriculum similar to those given in public schools PLANNING BOARD The Planning Board first reviewed this staff -initiated text amendment on May 2, 2012. At this meeting, the proposal was presented for information only. The Board asked the staff to show the chart with other similar uses so they could see the comparison. The staff added the chart showing the uses to the staff report as recommended by the Board. The Planning Board heard the request for a second time on June 6, 2012 and had no recommended changes to the text amendment. The Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. STAFF COMMENTS The purpose of this amendment is to allow fraternal and social organizations in the R-20 and RR zoning districts with a Special Use Permit. These uses were added in the AC, RA, and RU -R districts with the adoption of the Land Development Code provided a Special Use Permit be granted. Since the adoption of the LDC, it has come to our attention that there were several types of fraternal and social organizations already existing in the R-20 district. The staff reviewed the uses in Section 2.14.2 and found similar uses that were permitted in the R-20 and RR districts such as retreat centers, schools, churches, golf courses, and public recreation facilities. Some require a Special Use Permit and some do not. Therefore, the staff is recommending to allow fraternal and social organizations in the R-20 and RR districts with a Special Use Permit. R8 Accessory Mobile Home — Chapter 3 Performance Requirements for Accessory Mobile Homes: Raczkowski said R8 Accessory Mobile Home amendments were being recommended for clarification purposes due to many people becoming confused about the requirements. Commissioner Mitchell asked the difference between a Class A or B mobile home. Raczkowski said it applied to the size as in single wide or double wide. There were no other questions, and the staff report is as follows: EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST The following staff -initiated text amendment to the Land Development Code is being presented for a recommendation at this time. Existing text that is is text to be removed. Text in red and underlined is new text to be added. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Chapter 3 Performance Requirements 1. Accessory Mobile Home An accessory mobile home is a manufactured home permitted on the same parcel as a stick - built or modular home, but that is clearly incidental and subordinate to the principle building. A. Only one accessory Class A or B mobile home shall be permitted per lot or parcel. 10 B. The lot or parcel shall contain sufficient land area for the principal residential structure and the accessory mobile home to be considered independent principal dwelling units with both individually meeting the minimum lot size and required setbacks. An imaginary lot line shall be assumed between the structures. See Figure 3.1. Accessory Home Mobile —� �5'Sd• serea,k House Road Right Of Way C. The accessory mobile home shall be occupied only by the following categories of persons: 1. Any relative including in-laws, under the civil law of the first, second, or third degree of consanguinity to the head of the household owning and occupying the principal dwelling on the lot, or to the spouse (whether living or deceased) of the head of the household; or 2. A son or daughter by legal adoption or the adoptive parents of the household or of his spouse (whether spouse is living or deceased). D. Any other residential occupancy of the structure is NOT permissible and is a violation of this ordinance unless a formal legal subdivision of the parcel takes place. E. The mobile home shall meet the requirements of R 9 or 10. PLANNING BOARD The Planning Board first reviewed this staff -initiated text amendment on May 2, 2012. At this meeting, the proposal was presented for information only. The Board did not have any recommended changes to this amendment. The Planning Board heard the request for a second time on June 6, 2012 and again had not recommended changes to the text amendment. The Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. STAFF COMMENTS The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the requirements for accessory mobile homes. The definition of an accessory mobile home states that it is accessory to a stick -built or modular home. It does not currently mention that stipulation in Section R 8 with the other performance requirements. The Planning staff felt that moving the definition to the performance requirements section would provide the information in one location. The definition will also remain in Chapter 16 with the other definitions. Therefore, the staff is recommending the proposed text change. R24 Temporary Events — Chapter 3 Performance Requirements for Temporary Events: Raczkowski said the land development code currently allowed for two events on a piece of property each year. He said it had been determined that many property owners wanted to have these events more frequently and variances were sometimes provided. Raczkowski said a change would be made to allow for up to four temporary events for any group on a given parcel. He said some of the events became quite large, and the Department of Transportation, the health department, and other groups had to be notified. Raczkowski said asking the property owners to submit an application only five days prior to the event made it difficult for the staff to review the request. Raczkowski said for this reason, a ten-day window was recommended prior to the events. Commissioner Griffith asked why there was already a limit. Raczkowski said the temporary event requirement was implemented to allow flexibility for the property owner. He said this was a method to allow a public gathering without that much regulation. Griffith asked the reason for any limitation --as in only four temporary events. Raczkowski said that if a property owner could indefinitely hold events, it would be difficult to police. He said limitations were needed due to some of the large events (tractor pulls, mud bogs) having potential safety issues. He said there was a trend in planning across the state to have some control. Griffith asked if the property owner wouldn't be held liable for the safety issues. Raczkowski said yes, but it was felt there should be some due diligence upfront on as many of the preventable issues as possible. Griffith voiced concern about restricting property owners in regards to the events. Chairman Johnson said history had taught that one group's personal amusement could be another group's nuisance. He said one instance could be remembered where the health department was involved as well as inspections. Johnson said some events started taking a life of their own, and if buildings were constructed that someone could get hurt. Griffith asked if the temporary event requirement applied to churches. Raczkowski said no --it would be a parcel that did not have any initial structures. Griffith asked if the requirement applied to schools. Raczkowski said no. Robertson said Lincoln County had experienced a problem with standup rodeos. He said they had become so frequent (every other weekend) the neighbors said the event was becoming a business. Griffith said the owner would have to apply for a permit each time there was an event. Raczkowski said yes. Griffith asked if the requirement applied to nonprofits. Raczkowski said yes, if the nonprofit was not hosting it at a church, on school property, or some place that had a building. He said the requirement was for undeveloped property where someone had an idea to raise money for a good cause. Griffith asked the rationale for four events --not five or six. Raczkowski said this seemed to meet the historical demand. He said the staff would work with the limit of four, but if people started requesting more, the issue could be revisited. Chairman Johnson said he would make an argument for some type of regulation. He said, if not, there could be instances where people were conducting commercial activities in areas not properly zoned. Johnson said that if it was their intent to operate a legitimate business there was a zoning process. He said the requirement was there to keep the abuse down, and sometimes people were less than ethical in regards to their intentions. Griffith asked if the planning board would suggest for the property owner to seek the right type of zoning if five temporary events were requested. Raczkowski said not necessarily. No other questions were asked and the staff report is as follows: 12 EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST The following staff -initiated text amendment to the Land Development Code is being presented for a recommendation at this time. Existing text that is hold and i.A.rith strike through is text to be removed. Text in red and underlined is new text to be added. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Chapter 3 Performance Requirements 2. Temporary Events The Planning Director may issue a permit for temporary events and structures provided he makes the following affirmative determinations: A. The duration of the event will be for fourteen (14) days or less. B. The location for the event has NOT had more than two (2) four 4 temporary events in the past twelve (12) months and no events in the past thirty (30) days. C. The owner of the property, or his agent, has authorized in writing for the event to be held on the property. D. The application for the permit is made at least five (5) ten 10 working days prior to the event. E. That ample off-street parking is available. F. That arrangements are made for suitable garbage disposal and site clean-up. G. That activities within 1,000 feet of residences NOT on the site are to be conducted in such a manner as to not create noise that will disturb the occupants of those residences. H. Structures associated with the use shall be permitted provided they are removed at the end of the event. 1. Health Department approval if required. J. The applicant shall be required to provide written documentation stating that the event is in compliance with all applicable Local, State, and Federal regulations. PLANNING BOARD The Planning Board first reviewed this staff -initiated text amendment on May 2, 2012. At this meeting, the proposal was presented for information only. The Board recommended that a section should be added to require that the applicant meet all local, state, and federal requirements. The staff used verbiage from the cell tower requirements to added letter J at the end of the Section R24 to address the Board's recommendation. The Planning Board heard the request for a second time on June 6, 2012 and had no changes to the text amendment. The Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment STAFF COMMENTS The purpose of this amendment is to address issues that have come up in the past with regards to temporary events. These are events that are permitted in residential districts that usually last one or two days and are intended to raise money for some type of charity, although they could last up to 14 days and not be intended to support a charity. The first item staff addressed was the number of days prior to the event that an application has to be made. We felt that five days was not enough time to give the application adequate review and chose to replace it with ten days instead. The second item addressed was the number of times a property could have a temporary event within a twelve month period. This issue came about when a group of local fire departments wanted to use vacant property they owned to hold events to raise money to pay off the property. They already had two temporary events and wanted to have more events than was permitted in the code. The staff reviewed this requirement and felt that allowing four events per year was not too many, especially since temporary events require approval of the Planning Director. If issues arise on a particular property, the Planning Director could deny requests for future temporary events or require measures to prevent the problems. Therefore, the staff is recommending the proposed text change. 13 Section 6.7.1 Signs Permitted in Non Residential Zoning Districts with a Zoning Permit Along with 6.7.4 Permanent On -Premises Signs Permitted for Establishments At Interstate Interchanges, and Section 16.4 Definitions: Raczkowski said the ordinance language in red was recommended to be changed or returned to the verbiage in the original document. He said the language needed to be clarified in order to (1) indicate that one free standing sign per parcel was allowed, and (2) to allow two free standing signs if there was a lot with frontage on two streets, such as a corner lot. Raczkowski said the maximum height and copy area restrictions still applied. Commissioner Griffith asked why business owners could not erect as many signs as they desired. Raczkowski said for esthetic appeal reasons. He said current regulations had been about the same for many years. Griffith said that if a person bought the property and paid the taxes, the county could limit them to one sign. Raczkowski said there could be two on corner lots. Chairman Johnson said the county's sign setback was more than what the Department of Transportation required. He asked if the setback remained in compliance with the DOT (line of sight). County Manager Smith said yes. Johnson said nothing had changed in regards to the sign's placement. Raczkowski said this was correct. Smith said there were wall signs and other types, or options, for signage. Raczkowski then updated the board about a change in the maximum freestanding copy area from 16 to 32 square feet. He said this was being done for equity and consistency. Mr. Raczkowski said the last amendment for the sign ordinance was actually in the former document (2006). He said at that time, greater flexibility was allowed for automotive service or filling stations, restaurants, and places of lodging. Raczkowski said more flexibility would be allowed for these types of businesses as follows: "freestanding pole signs located within four hundred (400) feet of the right of way of an interstate interchange may be increased in sign copy area up to a maximum of two hundred square feet and up to a maximum height of eighty feet and may be illuminated." Chairman Johnson said the new language would help a situation in the Tomlin Mill Road area. Raczkowski said due to the planning board making a request, a definition for a filling station and automotive service station was added. Commissioner Griffith voiced concerns about the loopholes that small business owners had to endure between the federal, state and local governments. She said that with the current business climate the county needed to do whatever it could to help businesses survive. Griffith said that if the regulations were too restrictive, they needed to be modified across the board. A copy of the staff report is as follows: EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST The following staff -initiated text amendment to the Land Development Code is being presented for a recommendation at this time. Existing text that is h9ld GAGI NA4111 strike thFOUgh is text to be removed. Text in red and underlined is new text to be added. 14 PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Signs Permitted in Non -Residential Zoning Districts with a Zoning Permit This section regulates the types of signs that are allowed only in non-residential districts. One may think of these types of signs as the typical restaurant, gas station, or storefront signs. Sign permits are required for these signs. The following section uses road classification to set sign regulations. These road designations are defined in the Iredell County Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Permanent On -Premise Signs on a Single Parcel or Lot Permanent on -premises signs are permitted in the respective non-residential zoning districts for single establishments on single parcels or lots upon issuance of a zoning permit regarding the proposed sign (s), provided stated conditions and stipulations are met, as follows. One freestanding sign is allowed per Parcel. Except, lots with frontage on two minor thoroughfares or higher classified roads may have one freestanding sign per road, where each sign is allowed to have the maximum copy area as designated in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 Permanent On -Premise Sign Standards Permanent On -Premise Signs Permitted for Multiple Establishments on a Single Parcel or Lot One combined or common permanent on -premise freestanding sign for multiple establishments on a single parcel or lot shall be allowed on each public road and may exceed the maximum copy area for freestanding signs in Section 6.6 by the following percentages: • 2- 10 establishments - up to 25% • 1 1 - 20 establishments - up to 50% • 21 - 30 establishments - up to 75% • 31 - 40 establishments - up to 100% • 41 - 50 establishments - up to 125% • 51 or more establishments - up to 150% Wall signage shall be figured based on a ten percent (10%) of wall space formula. The wall space of each establishment shall be figured separately. Permanent On -Premises Signs Permitted for Establishments on Adjacent Parcels or Lots Utilizing Shared Parking and Driveway Connections Establishments on adjacent parcels or lots utilizing shared parking and driveway connections may exceed maximum copy area for freestanding signs in Section 6.7 by twenty-five percent (25%) for a combined or common freestanding sign. Such combined or common freestanding sign shall not be considered to be an off -premise sign for any of the establishments advertising on the sign. Establishments participating in combined or common freestanding signs may not also have individual freestanding signs. 15 Maximum Freestanding Max. Max. Wall Sign Use Road Type Copy Area Signage Height �on (Square (Feet) Feet Major 10% of Wall Thoroughfare 72 Space 18 yes and Office, Boulevard Institutional, 10% of Wall Commercial Minor 32 Space 10 Yes Thoroughfare All Lesser 10% of Wall Roads 1632 Space 6 NO Major Thoroughfare 72 100 Square 18 Yes and Feet Boulevard Industrial Minor 72 100 Square 10 Yes Thoroughfare Feet All Lesser 32 100 Square 6 NO Roads Feet Permanent On -Premise Signs Permitted for Multiple Establishments on a Single Parcel or Lot One combined or common permanent on -premise freestanding sign for multiple establishments on a single parcel or lot shall be allowed on each public road and may exceed the maximum copy area for freestanding signs in Section 6.6 by the following percentages: • 2- 10 establishments - up to 25% • 1 1 - 20 establishments - up to 50% • 21 - 30 establishments - up to 75% • 31 - 40 establishments - up to 100% • 41 - 50 establishments - up to 125% • 51 or more establishments - up to 150% Wall signage shall be figured based on a ten percent (10%) of wall space formula. The wall space of each establishment shall be figured separately. Permanent On -Premises Signs Permitted for Establishments on Adjacent Parcels or Lots Utilizing Shared Parking and Driveway Connections Establishments on adjacent parcels or lots utilizing shared parking and driveway connections may exceed maximum copy area for freestanding signs in Section 6.7 by twenty-five percent (25%) for a combined or common freestanding sign. Such combined or common freestanding sign shall not be considered to be an off -premise sign for any of the establishments advertising on the sign. Establishments participating in combined or common freestanding signs may not also have individual freestanding signs. 15 Permanent On -Premises Signs Permitted for Establishments at Interstate Interchanges This exception shall be allowed only for signs for automotive service or filling stations, restaurants or places of lodging. Permanent on -premises freestanding pole signs located within four hundred (400) feet of the right-of-way of an interstate interchange may be increased in sign copy area up to a maximum of two hundred (200) square feet and up to a maximum height of eighty (80) feet and may be illuminated. Definitions Filling Station. An establishment where flammable or combustible liquids or gases used as fuel are stored and dispersed from fixed equipment into the fuel tanks of motor vehicles. Such an establishment may offer for sale at retail other convenience items and may also include a freestanding automatic carwash. Automotive Service Station. An establishment where flammable or combustable liquids or gases used as fuel are stored and dispersed from fixed equipment into the fuel tanks of motor vehicles and where light maintenance activities such os enigine tune-ups, lubrication, battery replacement, and minor repairs may be provided. Maior repairs such as motor replacement or rebuilding, painting and body repair are not permitted. PLANNING BOARD The Planning Board first reviewed this staff -initiated text amendment on May 2, 2012. At this meeting, the proposal was presented for information only. A few grammatical changes and definitions for filling station and automotive service stations were recommended at that time. The staff made the changes recommended by the Board. The Planning Board heard the request for a second time on June 6, 2012 and recommended the staff add a 100 square foot maximum for freestanding signage in office, commercial, and institutional districts so that it did not exceed the amount allowed for industrial uses. This proposed change is not included in this staff report because the staff feels there could be ramifications that the Planning Board is not aware of. The Planning staff would like to review this to make sure there are no negative impacts as a result of the change. Once the staff review is complete, we will bring the request back to the Planning Board for review. However, staff would like to proceed with the original amendment as proposed. The Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment STAFF COMMENTS The purpose of this amendment is to assign a maximum number of signs for a parcel, which was not carried over from the previous Zoning Ordinance, to clarify an issue with illuminated signs and sign size for non-residential uses that are permitted in residential districts, and to allow more visibility for uses that are typically located at interstate interchanges but that might not be located right at the interchange. The Zoning Ordinance had a maximum number of signs for a parcel as did the old RPO regulations. The changes in Section 6.7.1 above are intended to get that regulation back in the code. The changes in Table 6.2 are intended to make sure that uses that are permitted in both residential and commercial districts located on lesser roads such as churches have the same sign regulations. The current code would allow a church located on a lesser road in a residential district to have a 32 square foot sign, but a church in the NB district on a lesser road would only be allowed a 16 square foot sign. Also, those signs in residential districts could be illuminated, while those in commercial districts could not. The new Section 6.7.4 was based on a section that was located in the Zoning Ordinance until 2006, when it was removed as part of an amendment to the entire sign section. Since then, we have had multiple requests for additional signage for these type uses. The staff feels that the regulations that were deleted should be reinstated. Therefore, the staff is recommending the proposed text changes. Section 8.12 Erosion Control Permit Approval Process; Section 9.6.8 Pre - Construction Conference; Section 9.6.13 Inspections; Section 10.18.3 Graded Slopes and Fills; Section 10.18.5 Ground Cover; Section 10.18.11 Additional Measures and Section 16.4 Definitions: Raczkowski said the county had agreed to enforce the state's model erosion control ordinance. He said changes were now recommended due to the state making revisions. Raczkowski said the only revision that was not a result of the state changes related to pre - construction meetings. 16 Commissioner Griffith asked if a pre -construction meeting might have helped in the case of the earlier speaker (Frank Del Piano) and his cracked storm drain pipe. Raczkowski said probably not. He said the county records indicated that everything was in order in regards to Del Piano's subdivision development. Commissioner Robertson said the state inspected roads to see if they were up to standards but no one was there to decide how to handle runoff. He said there had been many problems associated with water in Mr. Del Piano's subdivision. Raczkowski said the planning department had engineering certification records on the development. A copy of the staff report is as follows: EXPLANATION OF THE REQUEST The following text amendments to the Land Development Code are related to Erosion Control requirements and are being presented for information only at this time. Existing text that is bold and with SIFike thFOugh is text to be removed. Text in red and underlined is new text to be added. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Section 8.12 Erosion Control Permit Approval Process No person shall undertake any land -disturbing activity that will disturb more than one (1) acre (more than one half ('/2) acre in a water supply watershed area) on a tract unless, thirty (30) or more days prior to initiating the activity, a Plan for the activity is filed with and approved by the County. This shall include the aggregation of smaller lots within a subdivision or development that are under the same ownership and which are equal to or greater than one (1) acre. The process for gaining plan approval is found in the steps detailed on the following pages. The County shall forward to the Director of the Division of Water Quality a copy of each Plan for a land -disturbing activity that involves the utilization of ditches for the purpose of de -watering or lowering the water table of the tract. The land -disturbing activity shall be conducted in accordance with the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan. Step 2. Erosion Control Plan is Step 3. Plan is reviewed submitted to the Erosion Control by the Administrator and Administrator and an Erosion any necessary change' Control Permit is issued. made. Step 4. redificate of .e of Plan Approval is issued and posted on site and 1 etter of Approval is sent to applicant authorizing tha oro can begin. Erosion control plan is aaproved and Letter of Approval sent. Depending upon the size and scope of the project the applicant may schedule a pre - application meeting with the Erosion Control Administrator to review the proposed plan and control measures. Step 2. Plan is Submitted The Erosion Control Plan is submitted to the Administrator and an Erosion Control Permit is issued. This permit acknowledges receipt of the plan but does NOT authorize any work to begin. Work may only commence after Step 4. Step 3. Plan is Reviewed The Plan is reviewed by the Administrator and anv reauired chanaes are made. 17 Step 4. Plan Approval The Erosion Control Administrator shall approve the plans and will send the Letter of Approval to the financially responsible party. Work cannot begin until the Certificate of Approval has been The Erosion Control Administrator shall require a pre -construction meeting prior to beginning any site work. As part of the pre -construction meeting, the Erosion Control Administrator shall issue a Certificate of Plan Approval on the site. This shall, authorize the applicant to begin work. See Section 9.6.8 for information on the pre -construction meeting. Section 9.6.2 Plan Types Plans shall be broken into two categories, minor and major. The minimum requirements for these plans are shown in Table 9.2. Major Erosion and Sediment Control Plan A plan for the location, installation and maintenance of measures to control all anticipated erosion, and prevent sediment and increased runoff from leaving the site of a land disturbing activity of one (1) acre or greater. This plan requires a seal from an Engineer, Architect, or Surveyor. Minor Erosion and Sediment Control Plan A plan for the location, installation and maintenance of measures to control all anticipated erosion, and prevent sediment and increased runoff from leaving the site of a land disturbing activity of one half (1/2) acre to one (1) acres inside a water supply watershed. This plan may NOT require a seal from an Engineer, Architect, or Surveyor. Table 9. 2 Erosion Control Plan Reauirements Required Information Major Plan Minor Plan Vicinity Ma w/North Arrow and Scale x x General Site Features Legend w/North Arrow, Scale, etc. x x Property Lines x x Existing Contours to o lines x x Proposed Contours x x Limits of Disturbed Area (acreage total, delineated limits, and label)x x Planned and Existing Building Locations and Elevations x x Planned and Existing Road Locations and Elevations x x Lot and/or Building Numbers x x Geologic Features (rock outcrops, seeps, springs, wetlands, streams, lakes, ponds, dams, etc. x x Easements and Drainage Was x x Profiles of Streets, Ditch Lines, Utilities, etc. x x Stockpiled Topsoil or Subsoil Locations x x Soil Borrow Info* x x Army Corps 404 Permit and Water Quality 401 Certification if applicable) x x Erosion Control Measures on Plan Legend x x Location of Permanent Measures x Location of Temporary Measures x x Construction Drawings and Details for Temporary and Permanent Measures x Maintenance Requirements for Measures x Contact Person Responsible for Maintenance x Site Drainage Features Existing and Planned Drainage Patterns (include off-site areas that drain throughproject)x Method of Determination of and Calculations for Acreage of Land Being Disturbed x Size and Location of Culverts and Sewers x Soil Information: type andspecial characteristics x Soil Information Below Culvert Storm Outlets x 18 Required Information Major Plan Minor Plan Name and Classification of Receiving Water Course or Name of Municipal Operator (only where storm water x discharges are to occur Stormwater Calculations Pre -construction runoff calculations for each outlet from the site at peak dischargepoints) x Design calculations for peak discharges of runoff (including the construction phase and the final runoff x coefficients of the site Design calculations of culverts and storm sewers x Discharge and velocity calculations for open channel and ditch flows easements and rights-of-way)x Design calculations of cross sections and method of stabilization of existing and planned channels (include x temporary linings) Design calculations and construction details of energy dissipators below culvert and storm sewer outlets x diameters and apron dimensions Design calculations and dimension of sediment basins x Surface area and settling efficiency information for proposed sediment traps and/or basins x Vegetative Stabilization Area and acreage to be vegetatively stabilized x x Methods of soil preparation x x Seed type and rates (temporary andpermanent) x x Fertilizer type and rates x Mulch type and rates x x Financial Responsibility and Ownership Form Completed, signed and notarized Financial Responsibility/Ownershipform x x Copy of the most current deed for the site x x Certificate of assumed name, if the owner is a partnership x x Name of registered agent if applicable) x x Narrative and Construction Sequence Narrative describing the nature and purpose of the construction activityx Construction sequence related to erosion and sedimentation control (including installation of critical measures prior to the initiation of the land disturbing x activity and removal of measures after areas they serve are permanently stabilized Bidspecifications related only to erosion control x If within the municipal limits, a letter from that municipality stating the project meets their zoning x x requirements. Designation on the plans where the 7 or 14 day around x x stabilization requirements apply as per Section II.B.2 of the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit NCGO10000 Design of basins with one acre or more of drainage x x area for surface withdrawal as per Section 11.6.4 of the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit NCG010000 *If the same person conducts the land -disturbing activity and any related borrow or waste activity, the related borrow or waste activity shall constitute part of the land -disturbing activity unless the borrow or waste activity is regulated under the Mining Act of 1971, or is a landfill regulated by the Division of Waste Management. If the land -disturbing activity and any related borrow or waste activity are not conducted by the some person, they shall be considered separate land -disturbing activities and must be permitted either through the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act as a one -use borrow site or through the Mining Act. Section 9.6.8 Pre -Construction Conference When deemed necessary by the A.dministrato.,a pre nets . Alen conference may be requ e.d The contractor or financially responsible party shall contact the Erosion Control Administrator to set up a pre -construction meeting on site. Plans will need to be present at the pre -construction conference, where Iredell County will stamp it approved and issue a Certificate of Approval. 19 Any constructions prior to the pre -construction meeting will be considered work without an approved plan and in violation of this ordinance. Section 9.6.13 Phase Self Inspections The landowner, the financially responsible party, or the landowner's or financially responsible party's agent shall perform an inspection of the area covered by the plan after each phase of the plan has been completed and after establishment of temporary ground cover in accordance with G.S. 113A-57(2). The person who performs the inspection shall maintain and make available a record of the inspection at the site of the land -disturbing activity. The record shall set out any significant deviation from the approved erosion control plan, identify any measures that may be required to correct the deviation, and document the completion of those measures. The record shall be maintained until permanent ground cover has been established as required by the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan. The inspections required by this subsection shall be in addition to inspections required by G.S. 1 13A- 61.1 . These self inspection reports are subject to review by Iredell County when requested at the time of inspection. Section 10.18.1 Design and Performance Standards A. Maximum Peak Rate of Runoff Except as provided in Section 205(b)(2) of this ordinance, erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices shall be planned, designed, and constructed to provide protection from the calculated maximum peak rate of runoff from the ten-year storm. Runoff rates shall be calculated using the procedures included in but NOT limited to the "North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual". B. HQW Zones In High Quality Water (HQW) zones the following design standards shall apply: 1. Uncovered areas in HQW zones shall be limited at any time to a maximum total area of twenty acres within the boundaries of the tract. Only the portion of the land -disturbing activity within a HQW zone shall be governed by this section. Larger areas may be uncovered within the boundaries of the tract with the written approval of the Administrator. 2. Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices within HQW zones shall be planned, designed and constructed to provide protection from the runoff of the twenty-five year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as calculated according to procedures in the "North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual" or according to procedures adopted by any other agency of this state or the United States or any generally recognized organization or association. 3. Sediment basins within HQW zones shall be designed and constructed such that the basin will have a settling efficiency of at least seventy percent (70%) for the forty (40) micron (0.04 millimeter) size soil particle transported into the basin by the runoff of that two year storm which produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as calculated according to procedures in the "North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual" or according to procedures adopted by any other agency of this state or the United States or any generally recognized organization or association. 4. Newly constructed open channels in HQW zones shall be designed and constructed with side slopes no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical if a vegetative cover is used for stabilization unless soil conditions permit a steeper slope or where the slopes are stabilized by using mechanical devices, structural devices or other acceptable ditch liners. In any event, the angle for side slopes shall be sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion. 5. Ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be provided for any portion of a land - disturbing activity in a HQW zone within fifteen (15) working days or sixty (60) colen i^ days following completion of construction or development, whichever period is shorter seven (7) days. Table 10.5 Stabilization Timeframes: Site Area Description Stabilization Timeframe Exceptions O Perimeter dikes, swales. ditches. 7 dans None and slopes High Quality Water (HQW) Zones 7 days None Slopes steeper than 3:1 7 days If slopes are 10' or less in length and are not steeper than 2:1 14 do s 20 Section 10.18.3 Graded Slopes and Fills The angle for graded slopes and fills shall be no greater than the angle that can be retained by vegetative cover or other adequate erosion control devices or structures. In any event, slopes left exposed will, within twenty-one (21) Galendar days seven (7) days on slopes greater than 3:1 and fourteen (14) days on other areas (See Table 10.5) of completion of any phase of grading, be planted or otherwise provided with temporary or permanent ground cover, devices, or structures sufficient to restrain erosion. The angle for graded slopes and fills must be demonstrated to be stable. Stable is the condition where the soil remains in its original configuration, with or without mechanical constraints. Section 10.18.5 Ground Cover Whenever land -disturbing activity is undertaken on a tract, the person conducting the land - disturbing activity shall install erosion and sedimentation control devices and practices that are sufficient to retain the sediment generated by the land -disturbing activity within the boundaries of the tract during construction upon and development of said tract, and shall plant or otherwise provide a viable permanent ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion after completion of construction or development. The viable permanent ground cover must be established prior to the removal of existing erosion control measures. Except as provided in Section 10. 17.1 B(5) of this ordinance, provisions for a ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be accomplished within fifteen (15) working .days or ninety rom calendar days following completion of construction or development, whichever period i st.^.de, seven (7) days on perimeter areas and slopes greater than 3:1 and fourteen (14) days on other areas (See Table 10.5). Table " 10.6 Maximum Permissible Velocities for storm water discharges in feet per second (F.P.S.) and meters per second (M.P.S.): Material are allowed. Slopes 3:1 or flatter 14 days 7 days for slopes greater than 50' in len th. E All other areas with slopes flatter 14 days None, except for perimeters and than 4:1 HQW Zones. Section 10.18.3 Graded Slopes and Fills The angle for graded slopes and fills shall be no greater than the angle that can be retained by vegetative cover or other adequate erosion control devices or structures. In any event, slopes left exposed will, within twenty-one (21) Galendar days seven (7) days on slopes greater than 3:1 and fourteen (14) days on other areas (See Table 10.5) of completion of any phase of grading, be planted or otherwise provided with temporary or permanent ground cover, devices, or structures sufficient to restrain erosion. The angle for graded slopes and fills must be demonstrated to be stable. Stable is the condition where the soil remains in its original configuration, with or without mechanical constraints. Section 10.18.5 Ground Cover Whenever land -disturbing activity is undertaken on a tract, the person conducting the land - disturbing activity shall install erosion and sedimentation control devices and practices that are sufficient to retain the sediment generated by the land -disturbing activity within the boundaries of the tract during construction upon and development of said tract, and shall plant or otherwise provide a viable permanent ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion after completion of construction or development. The viable permanent ground cover must be established prior to the removal of existing erosion control measures. Except as provided in Section 10. 17.1 B(5) of this ordinance, provisions for a ground cover sufficient to restrain erosion must be accomplished within fifteen (15) working .days or ninety rom calendar days following completion of construction or development, whichever period i st.^.de, seven (7) days on perimeter areas and slopes greater than 3:1 and fourteen (14) days on other areas (See Table 10.5). Table " 10.6 Maximum Permissible Velocities for storm water discharges in feet per second (F.P.S.) and meters per second (M.P.S.): Source: Adapted from recommendations by Special Committee on Irrigation Research, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1926, for channels with straight alignment. For sinuous channels, multiply allowable velocity by 0.95 for slightly sinuous, by 0.9 for moderately sinuous channels, and by 0.8 for highly sinuous channels. Section 10.18.11 Additional Measures A. Whenever the County determines that significant erosion and sedimentation is occurring as a result of land -disturbing activity, despite application and maintenance of protective practices, the person conducting the land -disturbing activity will be required to and shall take additional protective action. B. On any project where there is more than 1 acre of drainage going to an erosion control measure, a surface dewatering device will need to be installed to this measure. Refer to Section 11.6.4 of the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit NCGO10000 for further information. Section 16.4 Definitions Erosion Control Measure. Those best management practices employed to prevent or reduce erosion or sedimentation and are typically necessary when ground disturbance occurs. PLANNING BOARD The Planning Board first reviewed this staff -initiated text amendment on May 2, 2012. At this meeting, the proposal was presented for information only. The Board recommended changes in the process in Section 8.12, changes to the Pre -construction conference in Section 9.6.8, and a 21 Material F.P.S. M.P.S. Fine sand (noncolloidal) 2.5 0.8 Sandy loam (noncolloidal) 2.5 0.8 Silt loam (noncolloidal) 3.0 0.9 Ordinary firm loam 3.5 1.1 Fine gravel 5.0 1.5 Stiff clay (very colloidal) 5.0 1.5 Graded, loam to cobbles (noncolloidal) 5.0 1.5 Graded, silt to cobbles (colloidal) 5.5 1.7 Alluvial silts (noncolloidal) 3.5 1.1 Alluvial silts (colloidal) 5.0 1.5 Coarse gravel (noncolloidal) 6.0 1.8 Cobbles and shingles 5.5 1.7 Shales and had pans 6.0 1.8 Source: Adapted from recommendations by Special Committee on Irrigation Research, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1926, for channels with straight alignment. For sinuous channels, multiply allowable velocity by 0.95 for slightly sinuous, by 0.9 for moderately sinuous channels, and by 0.8 for highly sinuous channels. Section 10.18.11 Additional Measures A. Whenever the County determines that significant erosion and sedimentation is occurring as a result of land -disturbing activity, despite application and maintenance of protective practices, the person conducting the land -disturbing activity will be required to and shall take additional protective action. B. On any project where there is more than 1 acre of drainage going to an erosion control measure, a surface dewatering device will need to be installed to this measure. Refer to Section 11.6.4 of the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit NCGO10000 for further information. Section 16.4 Definitions Erosion Control Measure. Those best management practices employed to prevent or reduce erosion or sedimentation and are typically necessary when ground disturbance occurs. PLANNING BOARD The Planning Board first reviewed this staff -initiated text amendment on May 2, 2012. At this meeting, the proposal was presented for information only. The Board recommended changes in the process in Section 8.12, changes to the Pre -construction conference in Section 9.6.8, and a 21 definition for erosion control measure. The staff made the changes recommended by the Board. The Planning Board heard the request for a second time on June 6, 2012 and recommended text changes to the wording taken directly from the State's Model Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance. The Planning Board voted 6-2 to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment with the changes recommended by Mr. Fields. STAFF COMMENTS The purpose of these amendments is to parallel regulation changes made by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in August 2011. DENR made changes related to groundcover requirements and surface dewater measures. These changes can be seen in Chapters 9 & 10. The changes in Section 8.12 and 9.6.8 have been proposed by the Erosion Control staff in order to address problems with projects started before contacting the County and changes to plans after they have been approved. The Erosion Control staff contacted State Sediment Specialist T. Gray Hauser, Jr. with NC DENR, Land Quality Section, Division of Land Resources, Erosion and Sedimentation Control to discuss the proposed changes since text changes to the Erosion Control regulations are required to be approved by the State. The proposed change was not supported by Mr. Hauser. The recommended text change by the Planning Board was not supported by the State; therefore it has not been included in the proposed text changes in this staff report. The staff is recommending the changes proposed. Commissioner Robertson commended the planning department on the way the written document material was submitted. No one else desired to speak, and Chairman Johnson adjourned the hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Mitchell to approve the changes as proposed by the staff. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Update Regarding the Expansion of the Charlotte Urbanized Area Boundary: Planning and Development Director Joey Raczkowski said the board of commissioners was informed in May that due to federal regulations, and the 2010 Census, portions of Iredell County as well as the towns of Mooresville, Troutman, and Statesville were now considered to be a part of the Charlotte Urbanized Area. He said several meetings had occurred and the Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) had formed a subcommittee of the Technical Coordinating Committee to study the issue. He said in May the board directed him to find out the associated costs, but this had not been determined. Raczkowski said, however, a consultant would be hired to develop a MUMPO membership fee schedule with preliminary estimates available by August 1. Commissioner Robertson and Commissioner Griffith asked what would happen if the county refused to join MUMPO. Raczkowski said the county could say no; however, due to federal regulations the Charlotte Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) would receive the funds to provide transportation planning for Iredell County. He said the risk would be no voting representation for Iredell County. Griffith voiced concern about being connected to Mecklenburg County in road planning. She asked if Charlotte would stop road construction in Iredell County is the membership vote was no. Griffith also asked who would pay the consultant's fees. Raczkowski said anything paid into the MPO would not be effective until next year. He said existing federal government planning funds would be used for any studies. known. Griffith asked if the county would have to vote on the matter before the costs were 22 Raczkowski said no. Commissioner Robertson asked if the county used council of governments' hours to pay administrative costs for the Lake Norman Regional Planning Organization. He said it was understood this organization was going to be abolished and replaced by the MUMPO. Robertson asked why the council of governments would not continue to be used. Raczkowski said that annually $4,800 was paid to the council of governments, and the cost was based on population. He said each RPO and MUMPO could have different methods for their fee structure. County Manager Smith said the county line was the delineation between two different funding districts in the state. He said a discussion had occurred about the possibility of establishing an entity even if it was a part of the overall MUMPO (separate but joined entity to provide Iredell County's work). Smith said the funding line might also be a good tool for some negotiating power. He said, however, it was unknown if this would be possible. Commissioner Griffith said, "It's just like with the light rail. They want to come one mile into Iredell County and have us share the bulk or a good portion of the expense with no plans of ever moving it forward and no plans to end it or the amount of money we will pay forever, because they've now come into Iredell County. If they are going to do it anyway, I'll vote no strictly on principle. At some point we can say no to the federal government. We have to at some point. They can't just continue to force things down people's throats. If we're going to do it, 1 say no on the principle." Chairman Johnson asked if Smith was proposing for the county to have its own appointee for the MUMPO, or to have our own MUMPO in an effort to have more representation. Smith said the county would have to fall into MUMPO's organizational structure. He said possibly the structure could be changed where the county was a part of MUMPO, but Iredell County, Statesville and Troutman would have more influence on what goes on north of the county line. Smith said the funding might be negotiated. Raczkowski said MUMPO was aware the county wanted some type of agreement. He said Iredell County was not alone in this endeavor as Gaston, Catawba and others felt the same way. Chairman Johnson said some organizations were too heavily influenced by Raleigh and Chapel Hill, and they forgot how they impacted the people in the real world. Griffith asked, assuming the county said no to being a MUMPO member, what authority that organization would have over the roads. Raczkowski said the agency would provide the future planning for transportation improvements. Griffith asked how many people would represent Iredell County. Raczkowski said this was unknown. He said this would be a part of the memorandum of understanding, and the subcommittee would work with the staff on this. Raczkowski said at some point input from the board would be needed on the planning area or the final border. He offered two scenarios (A & B) or maps for possible boundaries. No action was requested from the board at this time, and the two scenarios as well as the staff report for this item are as follows: 23 Valk—Pnany High Country RPO MCA— Curt, High Country RPO yadkin County vadat.... ...................�.._.._..._�_.._...._...__ _....._..�_......__ _......_.�_......_ _-�_ Northwest Piedmont RPO Northwest Piedmont RPO m Civil) Alexander County Dame County �E. Cut, Pitrin, Ali it,, tmwuy �' 90.•x,... 70 se", in J Ya •. r Unifour RPO t 1 , •,..'tl_5 i T) Linwln Pxunly Mecken6ury County 1 Capemtt County sauStatesville 70 Pld —.-pol.MFORPOBo°ea .�. M �ntio,RpinnnlnaAl.u,M Scenario B r Moto uman 119 are.... e uman CIL—r. liedell County Planning, Development & Tranepertatlon 5ervlcea June 26, 2012 J C, Troutman "C". Cilrud, y"'{ Rowan wormy (go PC 11 Mi kesville Linnvin Crunty s+s lm Nmiklen nl Crime, \ anus Gounry Scenario A Iredell County Planning, Development & Transportation 3ervloes 24 MCA— Curt, High Country RPO yadkin County ...................�.._.._..._�_.._...._...__ _....._..�_......__ _......_.�_......_ _-�_ Northwest Piedmont RPO _ 21 E Alexander County Dame County �E. n� 66 r �' 90.•x,... 70 Catawba County tet" Rowan cin my g1 (pgj5 t 1 , •,..'tl_5 i T) Linwln Pxunly Mecken6ury County 1 Capemtt County 1 Pld —.-pol.MFORPOBo°ea .�. M �ntio,RpinnnlnaAl.u,M Scenario B Moto uman 119 are.... e uman CIL—r. liedell County Planning, Development & Tranepertatlon 5ervlcea June 26, 2012 24 CHARLOTTE URBANIZED AREA EXPANSION As a result of the 2010 Census, portions of Iredell County and the towns of Mooresville, Troutman, and Statesville are now considered part of the Charlotte Urbanized Area. Federal regulations require the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to incorporate all urbanized areas into their transportation planning processes. Locally, the Mecklenburg Union MPO (MUMPO) will be tasked with this responsibility. Federal regulations mandate that all urbanized areas be transitioned under the umbrella of the MUMPO by March 27, 2013. The Urbanized Area boundaries as delineated by the Census Bureau have 'rough' or 'jagged' edges because the boundary follows census tracts. This boundary must now be 'smoothed' to include a logical area that encompasses the various transportation systems (primarily road networks) that will be included in the MUMPO planning area. Ultimately, MUMPO prefers that Iredell County and the three municipalities work out the final border proposal and collectively submit one agreed upon border to MUMPO for their review and consideration. FEES/COSTS TO PARTICIPATE At the May 1, 2012 Board of Commissioner meeting, the commissioners expressed interest regarding fees/costs for the county to participate in MUMPO. Staff from the three municipalities has also expressed this same interest on behalf of their respective jurisdictions. MUMPO is well aware of the need to further clarify a revised fee structure. However, the fee structure will depend largely upon how much of Iredell County is incorporated into the MUMPO planning area. In addition, the amount of Iredell County that will be incorporated into MUMPO depends largely upon how much land area each of the three municipalities decides to include in the MUMPO planning area. The fees and costs to participate in MUMPO will be discussed at upcoming MUMPO meetings. There are several factors that could affect how the fee schedule is developed, including population as well as the number of on-going and future transportation related projects in the future areas to be served by MUMPO. MUNICIPALITY UPDATES Statesville and Troutman Staff from these two jurisdictions report that they do not intend to bring anything further to their elected officials until more is known about the costs to participate. However, staff from both municipalities has indicated that the potential land area they are considering to include in the MUMPO planning area includes the current boundary for the long-range transportation planning area. Mooresville On July 2, 2012, the Town of Mooresville will consider a request from staff to endorse a boundary outlining the area to include in the MUMPO planning area. Similar to Statesville and Troutman, this boundary reflects the same area included in the long-range transportation planning area. Iredell County Scenarios As previously mentioned, the area that Iredell County ultimately selects to include in the MUMPO planning area greatly depends upon decisions yet to be made by the municipalities. However, two scenarios have been developed by county staff in order to assist with the decision making process (see attached maps). The 'Scenario A' map depicts the area of Iredell County that could possibly be included in the MUMPO planning area. This scenario assumes that the three municipalities will use each of their respective long-range transportation planning area boundaries as the area to include in the MUMPO planning area. There are several fragmented areas left over that surround the municipalities and fall within the county's transportation planning area. The 'Scenario B' map also assumes that the municipalities will use each of their respective long- range transportation planning area boundaries as the area to include in the MUMPO planning area. This map depicts a potential boundary for Iredell County that has received a lot of discussion in the past few weeks, with the northern most boundary of the MUMPO planning area being extended to the South Yadkin River. This potential MUMPO boundary offers a distinct physical feature for the MUMPO planning area to follow, incorporates the residual areas that remain outside of the municipal long-range transportation planning areas, and includes all of the major transportation systems that feed into the Urbanized Areas within the municipalities. Lastly, this potential MUMPO border scenario also corresponds with the borders of Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) which are used extensively to predict future transportation improvements and needs (see attached TAZ map). 25 Additional agreement may be necessary on the east end of I-40 so that the entire interstate corridor is located within the MUMPO planning area. LAKE NORMAN RURAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION (LKN RPO) Regardless of where the new MUMPO planning area boundary will ultimately be defined, most likely the existing Lake Normal Rural Planning Organization will cease to exist. The LKN RPO is the current agency that provides transportation planning for Iredell County and the surrounding area to the west. This issue presents another set of challenges. The Board of Commissioners will have to decide which of the surrounding Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) to join in order for the remainder of the county (outside of the MUMPO planning area) to remain eligible to receive transportation planning services. County staff has already begun conversations with the three RPOs that surround Iredell County to the west, north, and east. Initially, it appears that joining the Unifour RPO may make the most logical sense due to examining commuting patterns, interconnectivity of existing road networks, and given that the Unifour RPO is located within the same NC DOT Division 12 as Iredell County. MUMPO ACTIONS Given the size of the Charlotte Urbanized Area, many counties and municipalities in this region have been affected and are underway with similar processes of evaluating scenarios and are involved in similar discussions with MUMPO. The MUMPO staff and members of MUMPO committees have been very receptive and engaging with county and municipal staff. Therefore, communication and information sharing between the county, the municipalities, and MUMPO is positive and free flowing. On June 20, 2012, the MUMPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), which is comprised of elected officials from the MUMPO membership, agreed to create a small subcommittee to work through the logistics of this difficult transition. The TCC emphasized MUMPO's commitment to working with every county and municipality. Joey Raczkowski was present for this meeting and was able to introduce himself to the Chair of the TCC, Mint Hill Mayor Ted Biggers, and emphasize that Iredell County will be fully participating in the transition process. NEXT STEPS & RECOMMENDATIONS o Feedback and/or general consensus from Board of Commissioners regarding the two scenarios presented that outline potential MUMPO boundaries. o Feedback and/or general consensus from the Board of Commissioners regarding the potential for the remainder of Iredell County (outside of the MUMPO planning area) to join an existing and adjoining Rural Planning Organization. o Awaiting announcement from MUMPO of the first subcommittee meeting. The first subcommittee meeting will provide additional details regarding the overall schedule of the transition as well as outline the major topics to be discussed (fees, amended Memorandums of Agreement, MUMPO boundaries, etc). o Joey Raczkowski will continue to meet with MUMPO and adjoining RPOs. Updates will be provided to management and the Board of Commissioners on an as -needed basis, and will advise when management and/or elected official presence is necessary at future MUMPO or RPO meetings. o Once the transition is complete, Iredell County elected official participation and presence within MUMPO will be critical. Request for Approval of Budget Amendment #1 for the Purpose of Funding Union Grove VFD $19,729.25 as a Match to a Grant from the North Carolina Office of the State Fire Marshal: County Manager Ron Smith said the Union Grove VFD had received a grant in the amount of $19,729.25 through the North Carolina Volunteer Fire Department Fund for 2012. He said a 50% match was needed, and it would be derived from fund balance. OTIO by Commissioner Mitchell to approve Budget Amendment #1 in the amount of $19,730 for the grant match. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0 26 Request for Approval of a Lease/Purchase Master Agreement as well as Budget Amendment #2 and Other Documents Required for the Information Technology Services (ITS) Virtualization Project: Finance Director Susan Blumenstein recommended approval of a 59 month lease/purchase with IBM for hardware/software required for the county's IT department. She said the agreement would not bind future boards as it included a non -appropriations clause. Blumenstein said that if a future board decided to not appropriate the funds, the equipment would be returned. OTIO by Commissioner Mitchell to approve (1) the Lease/Purchase Master Agreement (2) Budget Amendment #2 for $563,446 and (3) all other documents relevant to the lease/purchase. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays - 0 recognize value of BM Lease as Financing Proceeds and BA#2 7/77/2012 04880 05445 61080 0 Deprecliable Assets -Tech I 138,500 I (563,446 563,446 (563,446) 701,946 Hardware & Software for Virtualization Project To appropriate fund balance for a grant match for Union Grove Volunteer Fire Department in the amount of $19,730. BA#1 $ 435,771 7/17/2012 Software 127,675 Account# Current Change Amended $ 563,446 General *Commercial Governmental Fund Operating Lease Financing Savings 204880 499500 Appropriated Fund Balance - (19,730) (19,730) 205525 537610 Union Grove VFD 263,100 19,730 282,830 Request for Approval of a Lease/Purchase Master Agreement as well as Budget Amendment #2 and Other Documents Required for the Information Technology Services (ITS) Virtualization Project: Finance Director Susan Blumenstein recommended approval of a 59 month lease/purchase with IBM for hardware/software required for the county's IT department. She said the agreement would not bind future boards as it included a non -appropriations clause. Blumenstein said that if a future board decided to not appropriate the funds, the equipment would be returned. OTIO by Commissioner Mitchell to approve (1) the Lease/Purchase Master Agreement (2) Budget Amendment #2 for $563,446 and (3) all other documents relevant to the lease/purchase. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays - 0 recognize value of BM Lease as Financing Proceeds and BA#2 7/77/2012 04880 05445 61080 0 Deprecliable Assets -Tech I 138,500 I (563,446 563,446 (563,446) 701,946 Hardware & Software for Virtualization Project Total Amount to be leased or financed Hardware $ 435,771 Software 127,675 $ 563,446 *Commercial Governmental Operating Lease Financing Savings Total Amount Financed $ 563,446 $ 563,446 Imputed Interest Rate 6.92% Stated Interest Rate 3.58% Monthly Payment 11,293 10,429 864 Annual Payments 135,516 125,146 10,370 Total Cost 59 Months $ 666,288 $ 615,302 50,986 Remains with Ownership IBM County Information Technology - Budget FY13 $130,000 Transfer to Debt Service Principal $106,740 Interest 18,410 $125,150 * Although this is proposed as a commercial lease, Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) 13 requires "capitalization" of the lease since the term (59 months) will exceed 75% of the estimated useful life of the equipment and software. Capitalized leases are treated as debt (installment financing) for financial statement purposes. 27 Request for Approval to Award a Purchase Contract for Three New Ambulance Chassis with Turn -Key Remount of Currently Owned Modular Bodies: Purchasing Agent Dean Lail said the FY 12-13 budget included the remount of three ambulances at a cost of $285,259. He said bids were solicited, and the low bid was $80,998 per vehicle remount for a total of $242,994. Lail said the EMS department had reviewed the bids, and the recommendation was for the contract to be awarded to Northwestern Emergency Vehicles, the low bidder. He said also that if awarded, the purchase contract included a one-year additional quantities clause that would allow EMS to purchase additional remount vehicles at this same price should the need arise and additional funds were approved. Chairman Johnson asked if this type of truck was running well. Assistant EMS Director Steve Mauney said the Chevrolet 4500 chassis with the Duramax motor was "pretty much the gold standard of the industry." Commissioner Mitchell said there was only a $1 difference on a couple of the bids. He asked if the county had used Southeastern and Northwestern before. Mauney said historically, Northwestern had been providing the construction. He said last year was the first time the county had gone through a remount, and Southeastern had provided it. MOTION by Commissioner Mitchell to approve the purchase contract with Northwestern Emergency Vehicles. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. BID OPENING AMBULANCE REMOUNTS 10:BOAM JULY 3, 2012 Staff: Antonla earcelo, Purchasing Specialist P.S. Mauney, Asst Dir, EMS Blair Ritchey, EMS Special Services ATTENDEES: Stafford Easshender, Southwestern Specialty Vehicles Rick Chiavichlen, Select Custom Appara' BID COMPANY NAME SIGNED PER UNIT BID TOTAL BID AWARD TO START DELIVERY PERIOD E%CEPTIONS Northwestern EV X $ 80,998.00 PER VEHICLE RECEIPT OF AWARD 90 DAYS NONE FIRST CLASS FIRE X $ 87,777.00 PER 2012 VEHICLE RECEIPTOFAWARD 90 DAYS NONE ALT $ 87,314.00 PER 2011 VEHICLE MndelYear SOUTH EASTERN SV % $ 80,999.00 PERVEHICLE 7/9/2012 75-90 DAYS NONE SELECT CA X $ 89,817.00 PER VEHICLE 60 DAYS 90-120 DAYS NONE Request to Decrease Zoning/Building Permit Fees for Small Scale Construction Projects that Satisfy a Requirement or Goal for a Club or Organization such as an Eagle Scout Project or Similar Projects: County Manager Ron Smith said at a recent meeting the board had requested a review of the fee schedule in relation to scout projects. He said that after consulting with the Central Permitting Manager and the Director of Code Enforcement, there was a recommendation to use the base fee ($60) and to add a small amount for technology for a flat charge of $61.80 for the projects. Smith said, however, it was recommended for the central permitting manager to be given the flexibility to insure the projects met the intent of the board's direction. Commissioner Robertson said the action would assist the Boy Scouts. OTION by Commissioner Robertson to decrease the zoning/building permit fees for small scale construction projects that satisfy a requirement or goal for a club or organization such as an Eagle Scout Project or Similar Projects. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Request from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners for an Annual Conference Voting Delegate: County Manager Smith said the business meeting for the NCACC Annual Conference would be on August 18, 2012. Chairman Johnson asked for any volunteers. Commissioner Griffith volunteered to attend the conference's business meeting. 28 OTION by Chairman Johnson to appoint Commissioner Griffith as the voting delegate for the conference. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Request for Approval of the June 2012 Refunds & Releases: MOTIO by Commissioner Griffith to approve the June 2012 refunds and releases. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Releases for the Month of June 2012 Refunds for the Month of June 2012 Breakdown of Releases: County $ 38,145.45 Solid Waste Fees $ 26.00 E. Alex. Co. Fire #1 $ 13.16 Shepherd's Fire #2 $ 26.51 Mt. Mourne Fire #3 $ 20.89 All County Fire #4 $ 658.10 B&F Fire #5 $ 31.63 Statesville City $ 21,973.35 Statesville Statesville Downtown $ - Mooresville Town $ 7,104.66 Mooresville Mooresville Downtown $ - Mooresville School $ 743.14 Love Valley $ - Harmony $ - Troutman $ 14.41 Davidson $ 13.97 Refunds for the Month of June 2012 Monthly $68,771.27 Monthly Total $1,532.26 Request for Approval of the June 19, 2012 Minutes: MOTION by Commissioner Griffith to approve the minutes as presented. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Request for Consideration/Approval of a Pyrotechnic Application for a Private Wedding Ceremony in an Unincorporated Area of Iredell County: Chief Deputy Fire Marshal Garland Cloer said an application had been submitted from East Coast Pyrotechnics for an event (wedding) that would occur at Carrigan Farms in August. He said all requirements had been met, and due to the display site being in a wooded area, the South Iredell VFD had been contacted to be on standby. 29 Breakdown of Refunds: County $ 718.08 Solid Waste Fees $ - E. Alex. Co. Fire #1 $ - Shepherd's Fire #2 $ - Mt. Mourne Fire #3 $ - All County Fire #4 $ 96.24 B&F Fire #5 $ - Statesville City $ - Statesville Downtown $ - Mooresville Town $ 582.39 Mooresville Downtown $ - Mooresville School $ 135.55 Love Valley $ - Harmony $ - Troutman $ - Davidson $ - Monthly $68,771.27 Monthly Total $1,532.26 Request for Approval of the June 19, 2012 Minutes: MOTION by Commissioner Griffith to approve the minutes as presented. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Request for Consideration/Approval of a Pyrotechnic Application for a Private Wedding Ceremony in an Unincorporated Area of Iredell County: Chief Deputy Fire Marshal Garland Cloer said an application had been submitted from East Coast Pyrotechnics for an event (wedding) that would occur at Carrigan Farms in August. He said all requirements had been met, and due to the display site being in a wooded area, the South Iredell VFD had been contacted to be on standby. 29 OTION by Commissioner Robertson to approve the request in order for the engaged couple to have fireworks on their wedding night. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Troutman Planning/Zoning Board-ETJ (1 appointment): Commissioner Mitchell nominated Katie Barnwell. OTION by Chairman Johnson to close the nominations and to appoint Barnwell by acclamation. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD REQUEST FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE: Mr. Jerry Carr, a resident of 154 Deerfield Lane, Statesville, NC, requested financial assistance in improving a road not on the state maintained list. Carr, a retiree and former resident of New York, said he purchased his property located off of Buffalo Shoals Road about one year ago, and the postal service was threatening do stop delivering mail due to the road condition. He said it was understood the county had denied the request in the past, but his neighborhood had many retirees. Commissioner Mitchell asked how many people residing off of Deerfield Lane, would be willing to assist. Carr said 23 people had agreed and several of these owned four or five tracts. Commissioner Mitchell asked if a cost estimate had been received for road paving. Carr said several people had been called, but no one had agreed to visit the area and provide an estimate. Mr. Mitchell said his experience had been that with the non -state maintained roads, the residents would not even agree to help pay for gravel. He said it was difficult to obtain 75% participation for a road paving. Chairman Johnson mentioned concerns about a precedent being set. He said at one time the county had approximately 200 miles of unpaved road, and there would be large costs to assist with all of them. Johnson said that if a project cost $100,000.00, with the residents paying their share over five years with $20,000 being paid annually, that soon the county would have a cash flow problem as more requests were added. He said much money would be on credit with an assumption it would be paid. Johnson mentioned sympathy for the retirees, but he said money would have to be taken from other retirees to repair the road. He said, "I don't know how fair it is to them (other retirees)." Johnson said the board of commissioners couldn't just look at one road, that all of the roads would have to be reviewed. He said many people were in the same situation, and it would cost a lot of money. Continuing, Johnson said he had traveled on the road and was aware of its condition. He said that if four or five road projects were occurring at one time, the county's debt could easily be a million dollars. Carr said all of the residents he talked to had indicated a willingness to pay some money upfront and to have the remainder placed on their taxes. Johnson asked Mr. Carr to provide an estimate on how much money the residents were willing to pay upfront and the total project cost. Carr mentioned difficulty in finding someone to provide a cost estimate. He said one individual had provided an estimate of $29,000 to gravel the road only to his residence, and this included cutting the ditches, draining the water, and bringing the segment up to meet state standards. Mr. Carr said the individual said it would cost $39,000 to include blacktop. 30 Chairman Johnson said the county was not in the road construction business, and it was expressly prohibited from engaging into this by state law. He said the residents would have to provide the cost estimate before it could be considered, plus information would need to be provided on how much participation would occur from the residents. Johnson said the county did not have an engineer on staff to inspect the roadway and develop a cost amount. Mr. Johnson mentioned that he could provide the names of some individuals who might be able to assist, and Mr. Carr could telephone him for the information. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT Industrial Land Use Study: County Manager Smith presented an industrial land use study to each commissioner. He said the board had discussed one particular area a few weeks ago, but the planning department had evaluated the entire county. Smith said the planning director would be asked to summarize the report at a future meeting. Citizens' Informational Workshop for Proposed Interstate Improvements & High Occupancy Toll Lanes: Mr. Smith said the public was invited to attend a meeting in regards to this matter on the following dates: • Wednesday, August 1, 2012 at the Cornelius Town Hall, 21445 Catawba Avenue, Cornelius or • Thursday, August 2, 2012 at Ivory Baker Recreation Center, 1920 Stroud Park Court, Charlotte Ambulance Chassis/Remounts: County Manager Smith thanked the board for approving the ambulance remount agenda item. He said the EMS Department needed the new chassis and remounts. CLOSED SESSIONS: Pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(a) 5/Property Acquisition and G.S. 143-318.1 l(a) 6/Personnel, Chairman Johnson made a motion at 8:55 p.m. to enter into closed session. VOTING: Ayes - 5; Nays — 0. (RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AT 9:25 P.M.) Performance Pay Increase: OTION by Chairman Johnson to award a 2% performance pay increase to the county manager and register of deeds. VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. ADJOURNMENT: MOTIO by Chairman Johnson to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 P.M. (NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 7:00 P.M., in the Iredell County Government Center, 200 South Center Street, Statesville, NC) VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0. Approval: August 7, 2012 31 Jean C. 91lloore Clerk to the Board