Back to Board Meeting Minutes Home Page
TOWN OF NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH
JOINT WORKSHOP ON ZONING MAP
BOARD OF ALDERMEN AND PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 12, 2007 10:00 A.M.
PRESENT:
Mayor W. Rodney Knowles, Mayor Pro-tem Larry Hardison, Aldermen Richard Farley, Fred Handy, Richard Peters and Daniel Tuman; Planning Board Members: Mike Yawn, Sue Tuman, Damon Savas, Gary Rowland, Don Martin; Bradley Smith, Town Manager, Loraine Carbone, Town Clerk, Deborah Hill, Planning/Zoning/CAMA Office
QUORUM:
Mayor Knowles called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the North Topsail Beach meeting room and declared a quorum present.
Mike Yawn said that one issue is the jut out in the Surf City town line. It does match Surf City boundaries and it has accreted in the canal. This property is taxed in Onslow County and he thought they should leave this alone since it is not an issue. The next one is Sanford Island and they have drawn this up and it matches the stack of 34 properties. Mr. Riggs felt it should have more R5 there. The other issue Mr. Riggs has is the area shown over the water and it has accreted now and he may have to appeal that one. Mr. Riggs looked at the 82 and 92 maps and he is also concerned about the area under the water and he wants that shown on the map and it needs to be zoned and shown ownership.
Mr. Yawn noted that another issue is Goldsboro Lane and the actual rezoning amendment and motion that occurred. There are 18 different tax parcels and it doesn’t say which lot is R5 or R10 and the map isn’t mentioned in the motion and the motion is vague. It is R10 in the Onslow County GIS data base and Mr. Yawn recommended leaving that as it is on the map today as R10 and if someone wants to repeal it they could. Alderman Farley said it could have been that R10 was the argument to rezone it to R20.
Mr. Yawn noted on another property it was only intended to rezone a portion and leave the rest Conservation District (ConD) and the way the motion was stated it doesn’t say that. The property that is owned by Otha Herring does the whole property and this was brought up in 2005. Mayor Knowles said that the front of the property went from R10 to R20 with the remainder being ConD. When the property was rezoned it came out as “no zoning”, which we can’t have. The Board acted on incorrect information. Mr. Yawn noted that the way the motion was worded it wasn’t ConD and we have to go with the actual motion even though it was a mistake and it was intended as ConD. Property owners could come back to dispute it. We need to do it all as R20 and to immediately rezone the back of it to ConD. There are other properties like that.
Alderman Tuman said that they could change it the way they want it and the way it was intended and hold a public hearing prior to adopting the map. Mr. Yawn said that they would have to identify all the property owners.
Manager Smith noted that when the motion was made it was poorly worded and when the Board approved it they adopted the minutes and then they had 6 months to change it and that has now passed. The proper way is to leave it and do a rezoning and go back and justify that it was a mistake. Alderman Tuman said to do them all at once and hold a hearing. Mr. Yawn said that Ms. Hill’s hands are tied right now without a current zoning map and Alderman Tuman suggested that they identify those things that are not correct and at the next meeting hold a public hearing and adopt it. Manager Smith said that they couldn’t call for a public hearing at a workshop, but they could do that at the February meeting. Mr. Yawn noted that the Planning Board has to hold a hearing first.
Alderman Peters asked if they could determine where the zoning changes were and Mr. Yawn said that they had to go through the list of properties. It is proper to adopt the map as it is and then rezone it. They could rezone it like the 92 map and put ConD back. Alderman Farley noted that once you mention the parcel number then that is the problem, so whatever Mr. Minshew had asked us to rezone the Board did that. Mr. Yawn said that Mr. Richter told them that unless a specific portion was to be rezoned one way or another, the fact they said “property” means the whole property. Alderman Farley said that they were supposed to give them a map of what they wanted rezoned and Mr. Yawn questioned if the motion determined that. Alderman Tuman said that the Board has the authority to do less or more than the original request. The way it was recorded, the Board rezoned the entire lot. Alderman Farley noted that recording is administrative. Alderman Tuman said they are basically going back and changing it to the intent of the Board to what the original request was. Manager Smith said we would have to do it legally since they could come back and challenge it and take the minutes to court. Alderman Farley questioned if someone requested something to be changed and we voted yes he didn’t know where you could expand on that further. Alderman Peters asked if the minutes were a literal interpretation and Manager Smith said yes, but a motion didn’t identify the sections of the property.
Sue Tuman noted that because of these problems they now have a form determining the area of the property to be re-zoned. Alderman Farley said if they didn’t ask us for it why were they given more than what they asked for. Mrs. Tuman noted that a number of properties got rezoned that way but we now have a form that is specific. Mayor Knowles stated that most of these properties were never addressed to be rezoned, but it was just added to the back. Mr. Yawn said that ambiguous motions were made and our consultant and attorney said to do it this way and we need to follow processes. At the August 2005 Board meeting the Aldermen said not to arbitrarily rezone these and to follow the process. Alderman Tuman noted that he had made a proposal if we believe that was the intent of the Board and it was an administrative problem, then we need to follow proper procedures now.
Alderman Farley noted that another rezoning at the same location was to rezone Hunter Cove and asked if that was part of the same area at the end of 23rd Street. He also asked how the second rezoning impacted the property we are talking about, where is it and if the description was the same, did we rezone the same properties? If all of it is R20 and some is ConD, we need to look at the rezoning of Minshew’s property and the rezoning of Hunter’s Cove. It stated Mobile Home and ConD to R20. Alderman Tuman felt there was no evidence of R20 on the map. Mr. Yawn said if you look back at the 92 map, it shows some bit of R20 in ConD space. Some of the ConD may need to be R20.
Mr. Yawn noted that there were four other properties in question. #11 is the one where they had questions about whether the entire depth of these four lots should have been made conditional use R10 and leave the back as ConD. There are houses on all of these lots now and Mr. Yawn didn’t think that they would rezone this one back to ConD because of that. Alderman Farley questioned if they were large lots would someone come in and subdivide the remaining lots and reconfigure it later on and he asked if there was any way to control that? Mr. Yawn said it was stated in the statutes; that in splitting acres you could do it repetitively and you could join lots by using a loophole in the statutes. We will have the consultant look into this issue.
#15 - the motion of October 2003 made it R20 for the entire property. Mayor Knowles said for some unknown reason, they were under the false impression that they had unzoned property in town which you can’t have. Mr. Yawn said they could go back and take wetlands in the future.
#19 – was rezoned in 02/05 and was donated to the Town as Conditional Use R5 and this may be wrong on the map right now. Manager Smith said in the future they should leave it at R20 and don’t put in conditional use.
#21 – was rezoned to R20 but it was rezoned to R15. Padgett Properties is completely R15 but we didn’t leave ConD.
Gene Graziosi found a mistake on a lot that is completely R10 and the back half should be ConD. Mr. Yawn noted that our zoning map may not show new lots. Mayor Knowles said if someone has 10,000 sq. ft. and if they want to divide it into two lots they don’t have to come to us, but could we be stricter? Manager Smith stated that they couldn’t stop it, but the property owner could notify us to keep our maps straight.
Mr. Yawn said that based on the maps there is a little bit of the Town that is north of the inlet and Mayor Knowles said it could have accreted. Mr. Yawn said that some of these properties were done administratively and do they have an obligation to notify the owners. Mr. Rowland questioned if they have a moral obligation. Manager Smith said they would advertise a public hearing on the changes that will be corrected. Alderman Tuman noted that any property owner who reads the paper and who reads the website should know that. Someone did buy property under the assumption it was R10 only to discover that it wasn’t. Mr. Yawn said they would have to go back to the property owner who sold the property, but if it changed multiple times it may be a problem.
Alderman Farley questioned the property behind the Village of Stump Sound and asked when that was changed since the 82 map doesn’t show it and Manager Smith said that the Mylar shows it. Alderman Farley said that he went to Onslow County and looked at their minutes and it was rezoned to R10 but it was R20 and he asked if they could go back to the County records. Mr. Yawn questioned that when the Town adopted the map in 1990 doesn’t that supersede what the county did and Manager Smith said that becomes the map when the Town was adopted. Mr. Yawn said if we want to go back to ConD we should follow that process and Manager Smith said we should do it all at once at a Public Hearing.
Mr. Graziosi noted that on #25 Mr. Riggs had problems with it because the area was R5 and you are changing it and he thought there were four more lots with questions.
Manager Smith suggested adopting the map in February and then go through the rezoning corrections and plan on holding a Public Hearing in March with the Planning Board and bring it back to the Board in April.
Mr. Yawn asked if Holland Consulting could have the map updated for the February meeting so the Board could adopt this map then and the Planning Board could hold a public hearing in March and the Board of Aldermen hold a public hearing in April.
Alderman Farley noted that is a two month lag time between when we adopt the map and when we make the changes and what happens with people coming in with projects in the meantime. Manager Smith said that staff could do the rezoning and hold off on it.
Alderman Tuman suggested going ahead with the Planning Board holding a public hearing in February to incorporate the changes and not adopt the map until after that and then do it all in March. Advertisement will be done and letters to adjoining property owners will be sent out. Mayor Knowles said to adopt the map in February and they don’t need a public hearing and have the Planning Board hold a public hearing in February.
Manager Smith commended Ms. Hill on all of the violations and work she has done.
Mr. Yawn noted that he wouldn’t be here for the next Board meeting. He said that the Planning Board met last night and reviewed Ms. Hill’s procedures on bridges. In regard to the Land Use Plan (LUP) meeting, he asked the Board if they wanted to review the pages they have before it goes to the state and suggested sending it to them by email. The next LUP meeting will be at 5:00 pm before their February Planning Board meeting.
Manager Smith said that the consultant will be at the February 8th meeting and they will have four to five meetings with her as well as phone conferences.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Minutes prepared and submitted by Loraine M. Carbone, CMC, Town Clerk.