Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Evening, it's 6 o 2 to call the meeting of the North Topsail Beach June 11th meeting to order for a planning board and the First action is the adoption of the agenda. Do we have a motion to adopt the agenda make a motion to adopt the agenda? Second I'll second any discussion any

I should have said this before. The minutes aren't ready. They'll be included in your July text.

We get a vote on the motion on adopting the agenda. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. I understand we don't have the minutes from the May 14th aren't prepared yet, so we'll defer that to the next meeting. I don't assume we need a motion to defer it. I think we could just... move it move it to the next meeting um i don't see anybody from the public here unless brady wants to talk uh okay so now old business uh deb would you like to discuss the old business

So the old business is an ordinance, a proposed ordinance amending the Uniform Development Ordinance to establish the official zoning map in the electronic GIS geodatabase format, and it's to convert the paper zoning map into an officially adopted electronic zoning geodatabase. The proposed ordinance would amend the UDO to designate the town's official zoning map in electronic GIS geodatabase based format using Onslow County GIS based map as the town's zoning map of record. North Carolina law allows zoning maps to be maintained in digital format if approved by the local government and kept available for public inspection. This archive, the, this archived paper maps are retained only for historic historical reference. The draft also identifies the planning director as the zoning map administrator, provides for maintenance of the authoritative electronic map in coordination with Onslow County GIS, establishes how the map, how adopted map amendments will be incorporated in states that the Board of Aldermen retains sole legislative authority over zoning designations and amendments. The proposed text is reasonable in the public interest because it improves the administration and accessibility of zoning map without changing underlying zoning districts through this ordinance. It's consistent with the town's adopted land use policies and the North Carolina general statutes permitting zoning maps in digital format. the proposed ordinance i don't know if you want me to read it or if you it's rather lengthy but there's a proposed ordinance uh amending the unified development ordinance to establish official zoning map in gis geo database format and this would be we would be our staff would be requesting that the planning board recommended the board of alderman that they adopt the ordinance and it gives through the authority findings and findings and purpose the establishment of in section 3.03 official zoning map the establishment of the official zoning map it includes status as official record custodian and administration d incorporation of amendments e versioning and archival copies and F interpretation and discrepancies and G public access H clerical errors and section F it just talks about the effective date which would be it would be effective upon adoption by the Board of Aldermen so if we've got a public hearing scheduled for July the 1st so if in fact they adopted it it would be effective July the 1st just the standard severability if any section of the provision of that this ordinance is held invalid such invalid in validity shall not affect the remaining provisions of this ordinance And then, like I said, specific action requested, recommend approval of the proposed text amendment, and forward a consistency and reasonableness recommendation to the Board of Aldermen. The proposed statement of consistency and reasonableness is included right above the ordinance. So if you would agree with that, you could include that in with the... recommendation to approve the ordinance um there was a i had some feedback in the chair had recommended that that there was a memorandum of understanding or some type of agreement between the county and the town with regards to maintaining the gis layer I had gone out on the North Carolina planning website and had asked, you know, were there any local towns or cities that had an agreement with the county? The only response I had was from someone saying, if you get any responses, could you please share them? So other than that, I had zero responses. I'd reached out to the Anza County GIS director and had asked him if any of the other towns had adopted the digital format and he'd said none that he he didn't know of any he was not aware of any so he had reached out whenever i shared the chair's concern with the director he reached out to the director of land records management north carolina's secretary of state who said that he'd seen where i'd posted the question on nc plan the planning listserv and he said that He does not know of any examples, but he thinks it's a very good idea to have a clearly laid out agreement in place for when questions arise. So I don't have a draft of that agreement. What I would recommend, if you did want to include that, is that the attorneys would draft something for the town. and then run it by the county. What we do and what we have done has been standard operating procedure for the last 20 years. I think that I've mentioned before that somebody off the street can't go in there or call them up or email them and say, hey, can you change this parcel from R10 to R5? The only way that they'll change it is with a copy of the ordinance signed by the mayor and certified by the town clerk. That's the only way that they'll change it. That's the only way that they've changed it since I've been here. So I think it would be easy enough to have those policies incorporated into that memorandum of understanding and have the county agree and say, yeah, that's the way we've been doing it. We'll continue to do it that way.

Well, that was my only concern. If we had an anointing saying that another entity was going to do something without that entity acknowledging that they would agree to do it, that there's an inconsistency there, that they could just say, no, we don't want to do it.

Or if they said, we don't want to do it anymore.

Right. Yeah.

And they would still be able to say, even with the memorandum of understanding, if for whatever reason, five years down the road, they said, we're no longer going to maintain the zoning layer. I don't know why they would do that, because they have zoning also. So it doesn't seem likely that they would. But in the event that they would, we're all agreeing, yes. I don't think that's hard. We're not asking them for funds. We're not asking them for anything that they don't already do. And we're letting them know that formally we're adopting their zoning layer as the town's official zoning map, which I think is courtesy. I've sent them a copy of the staff report, I think, and we've discussed it. So the GIS director is aware of it.

You might have any questions for them. Can we get a motion to amend the ordinance or to recommend to the Board of Aldermen that the ordinance be amended to establish the official zoning map in electric GIS geodatabase format.

I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment and forward a consistent and reasonable recommendation to the Board of Aldermen for the mending the unified development ordinance to establish the official zoning map in electronic GIS geodatabase format.

Second.

Second.

Any discussion? Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

now we have new business and i hope that you're not going to read this word for word to us i was going to have planned to and the town clerk said don't read that entire thing to them uh... all right i want uh... but i will give you an introduction so uh... the two thousand and six changes were sent out by uh... north carolina emergency management department of public safety and we received those and had made the changes to article 7 flood damage prevention what is mostly in green the intent is that what is in green is is the mandatory changes there were some blue text some of the blue text that was optional we we've already adopted so I just left that as black text the way that it was there wasn't there weren't any changes it wasn't it wasn't a change from what we already do So I just turned it to black like everything else. Some of the text that is in blue is meant to highlight what is optional. The only thing optional that we are proposing is the non-conversion agreement. And basically that's an agreement that gets that's signed and recorded by the owner prior to the town issuing any permits and that is an agreement where the owner acknowledges i cannot convert that ground floor enclosure to habitable space it can only be used for parking storage access only it also allows for the town to conduct inspections within a 48 hour notice on an annual basis to address any discrepancies Was there anything that you wanted to add to that? Okay, and basically, you know, we deal with conversions of ground floor enclosure as violations we'll see something posted on uh vrbo and cinema sending them notice a violation handled that way also we receive complaints and we'll we'll address those complaints as no once we do an investigation or have the documentation uh we treat those as violations. So we're basically doing the same thing without the benefit of the additional CRS points that are tied to this, which are substantial. Um, so I think that's the only add on. I think that Terry, you had some changes and I could probably help or changes or questions.

okay yes how does that impact our trailer I don't know what you call the ones like Rogers Bay and those.

Rogers Bay is an existing travel trailer park. So this would be for new? Go to this section. Probably do a word search and find it faster. Is it under G? I think it's under G. specifically and under definitions. So let me find it.

It's right after the conversion agreement.

Let's see.

Okay, back at 6. Is it number 13 where it says placement of recreational vehicles?

In the regulatory floodway, no approach.

Okay, then it's addressed more than one place. It's 6A.

Yeah, it is. It's in there a couple of times. Yeah. 6A. If you find it, what we're talking about with the CRS points, that's what you're going to find.

It must be in 4. Recreational vehicles shall either be... Number 6A. Placement of a recreational vehicle in the regulatory floodway, non-encroachment area, coastal A zone, or coastal high hazard area, VE, is prohibited. This includes both temporary and permanent placement Note, this should be consistent with 7-5-F-4-G-14. I hate to say it, but it sounds like to me that it would be no new RVs coming into Rogers Bay Park. That whatever RVs that are there now would be considered grandfathered. But you wouldn't be able, once they have the adoption, you wouldn't be able to bring in another RV.

What if they, what if they don't see them? They leave and they come back.

Yeah, like certain city campers.

yeah but this says this includes both temporary and permanent placement and Rogers Bay is considered Rogers Bay is supposed to be temporary Sir City is so it's supposed to be in is considered temporary so if they and then I guess also if they moved it they wouldn't be able to bring it back

Well, see, like with Surf City, I mean, in the fall, you see all, I mean, that place is empty except for like one or two trailers. Right, right. But Rogers Bay, I mean, I've never seen that empty, but I'm assuming if someone decided to sell their trailer or move their trailer and leave, and then someone else would. have that lot I don't know how that works so I was just wondering is there a grandfather and how does this work or how do we address that

I'd say we probably need to double check with Erin when she reviews it and get clarification with her prior to going to the Board of Aldermen for a public hearing.

And it's mandatory language. So that could have a significant impact on the folks that own shares. They have like a 1 500th or 454 whatever number undivided interest in that property. So that would have a significant impact.

I mean, I don't know what it is, but I guess what I was thinking, if for Rogers bay, if they, I assume they own that plot of land or they rent, no, they, they don't own the land itself.

They own a, an undivided share of that entire.

So that allows them though, to put their trailer there. Yes. So if they sell their share, what happens?

They can't leave the trailer there.

If they sell their share, then according to this, nobody else, a new person couldn't. Yeah, they can't put it in there.

Cause you said this green language is the mandatory language.

Correct. I'm going to, yeah, I'm going to clarification, excuse me from Aaron. Uh, she could not do the, she could not do the review any sooner when I spoke to her and she said that she would do the review on Friday tomorrow. So that would be one of the things that I would ask, you know, When I asked when staff asked for a recommendation that the board of Alderman approve the proposed amendments to article seven, um, that it is, and any, um, required changes by the NFIP planner.

So if. The person selling it, why would anybody buy a share if you couldn't put a trailer on it? I wouldn't think you'd be able to sell it to anybody because nobody could put anything there.

There used to be a language. It was on the building code side. There used to be language on the building code side where mobile homes could not be in a high hazard, I think it was high hazard flood area is how they said it. And CAMA had the language of high hazard, high hazard, coastal high hazard flood area. And whatever the description was, it's been a while, but basically it's like that camera had it, it was in the building code. And so when I read it, you know, it was like, okay, you can't put mobile homes in a VE zone. Or if you've got, if you've adopted fee zone construction standards, in all of the special flood hazard area that includes coastal a-zone that means every place in town you no place in town would you be able to put a mobile home and so there was language the udo was amended to include that mobile mobile homes had to be and i think it was two mobile homes had to be in in either an existing mobile home park or the ones that were there were grandfather because we have a lot of mobile homes and that they were considered grandfathered, right? And so then years go by and they've changed that language Came and got rid of it, and then I think the the North Carolina general statutes finally caught up with the changes Made in the building hood. It's like it's it's like this house of cards where you've got the International Code Council And then you've got each of the states adopting their version of the building regulations put out by the International Code Council. And then you have CAML regulations. which change constantly. And then you have local ordinances. And now the local ordinances are generally based on North Carolina General Statute 160D. So when one agency changes, it might take a year or so for the other agencies to catch up with them. So now, point being, you can have a mobile home In MHR zoning, which allows for mobile homes, but it has to be elevated on an engineered piling system. So now we allow for them, but you're going to have to do it on an engineered piling system just like a house and just like a modular. So the mobile homes are treated very similar to what modulars are treated.

And when they say coastal A zone, they mean all A, like A, E, A, Z?

I'm going to say that the green is mandatory And if it says shall not then We do not have any choice, but to adopt it if we want to continue participating with NFIP Which we if we don't participate in then we don't get a There's a lot of things you don't get. Participation is voluntary. However, if you don't participate, none of the mortgages can be federally backed through Fannie Mae, Fannie Mac. Yes, so we can't do that. You do not get any emergency funding from FEMA after a disaster.

So then placement of recreational vehicles is prohibited, so that's a...

I'll shoot y'all an email, uh, tomorrow after I talked to Aaron, uh, and we will accept for now that that is mandatory language. Okay. And, uh, if something is catastrophic, catastrophically different from either what we have presented or how we presented it, if we've made an error, then what we'll do is take it upon ourselves to pull it back and not present it to the board of Alderman. And we'll come back to the planning board and say, Hey, look, we, we goofed.

So you want this to go before the board for the June or the July meeting?

We've advertised for a July 1st public hearing. Excuse me. I have to advertise so many days in advance. So I already put that advertisement in even before I get to the planning board, trying to be consistent where you go to, you go to the planning board, planning board makes a recommendation, and then you go to the board of Alderman, the following meeting that they have. So I've got to anticipate having that meeting, having that public hearing and advertising. I can always ask that they, uh, continue their public hearing. Like they would open the public hearing and then they would continue it to the following month. And that way we don't have to re advertise. That would give me a chance to come back to the planning board, get any, anything cleared up and then bring it back.

So if I'm understanding correctly, what's in green is mandatory. We need to recommend this to the board. And we could always pull it back if there's an issue or we've misunderstood this.

Yeah. And I will say that on the page, I do want to make kind of a correction on this. Um, the, I just, my eyeballs hit one F under a four. I think this is going to be seven Oh four.

Yeah.

If you go to, If you go to section 705, which is the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. It's probably an easier count from where I had it. Give me a second. It's about halfway.

it's literally half the time

make a recommendation that you number two pages yeah yeah yeah if you count 15 pages from the back Which one? Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Or eight. Eight pieces of paper. Under F, where it says property owner shall be required to execute and record a non-conversion agreement. That should have been in blue, but I could not change that to blue text. But that should have been in blue.

So we're in 705F.

Yeah, there's numbers that come before it. I was trying to figure it out. EB. 705A. B. B, B, B. That's 4AB. 705A. Yeah. 4F.

Yeah, 4F.

Do you see how that goes? 705B. Yeah, 705B4F.

B4F.

Yeah, 705B4F. It's 4F.

Oh, this is it.

It's what we're talking about, this whole thing.

Property owner shall be required to execute the report.

Right, that should be in blue ink. Anything that references that conversion agreement should be in blue ink.

So this should be in blue ink.

So that's saying that those annual inspections, it's not saying that those annual inspections are mandatory.

Property owners should be required to execute, record, non-conversion agreement, clearing the air flow... The town will have a right to inspect. The town will conduct annual inspections. This agreement shall be recorded with Onsel County Registered Deeds and shall transfer the property in perpetuity.

It says the town will conduct. Does that not mean may conduct?

Well, I think it was that The town will conduct, but...

It doesn't say the town shall conduct. It says the town will have a right and will conduct. I think it may go to... I'd have to ask the attorneys, but I would think that typically if you want something emphatically done, the language is thou shall. And if it says will, then it's your intention that you will conduct annual inspections.

We're recommending this to the Board of Aldermen subject to minor changes that may report to your attention prior to the July 1st public hearing.

Do we need to address the items in yellow? Like I know there was what we discussed about the Board of Adjustments, but there's also a place where it says insert dollar amount. For a fine?

Yeah, I thought I had $100 in there.

One place says $100. Okay. And then a couple pages later, I forget how many pages later, it says insert dollar amount. It's in yellow. It's under a C1. Hang on, let me see if I can. It's under a 3. D. Okay, so D, corrective procedures.

Yeah, it's on the day one, two.

Three.

Yeah.

C1.

Three, C. Three, C1.

Yes, three, C1.

Oh, yeah, and a certain dollar.

You're saying that should be a dollar?

There we go. Not more than $100. Yeah.

Per day. Is that right?

Yes. Well, that's what it said before.

Yeah. That's what it says in the other one. Yeah.

It wasn't I think I and I highlighted that for a reason I think Yeah, I Think I got all the changes for community for where it says community names and I put the town But I think I missed where before where it said community even though community is want to say there's some place where i think that we say that community is the town that might be in definitions that might be in the definitions yeah yeah yeah I think FEMA and NFIP use community, like we have a community number, because they're dealing with counties, cities, towns, parishes, and so the generic term for all of their constituents is quote unquote the community. All right. Sunroofs and blue and RVs.

Yeah, you have other 703H. You have the $100. Yeah.

With with reference to travel trailer parks I Years ago, based on the definition of a park model, I did not consider a park model appropriate or legal for a special flood hazard area, although there were parks there. There were park models in Rogers Bay. And as time has gone by, there's more and more and more park models in Rogers Bay. And I think it was maybe two years ago, when 2023 three years ago that the coastal model finally caught up and put they adopted the language and it's in our ordinance that park models are prohibited in special special high hazard flood areas so then they basically codified what i had come to the conclusion of so I think in the, there was something in the coastal model 2026 that we received that was mandatory, but we had already adopted it. So I'm not sure, and that was one of the questions that I had for Aaron, because I was like, you know, some of the numbers, the numbering had changed. So I kind of felt like they must have had a model ordinance that I must have missed between 2023 and 2026. I but I didn't so I'm not sure like when they went through the text I think that they there were some paragraphs that shifted because they thought they would read better and so like decks and there's a section in their decks and patio patios that was originally put together it like in our text the way that we changed it so it looks like I deleted it but it's actually in two separate sections moved under that same subparagraph. It's still there. They just gave decks a number and they gave patios a number to where you're not looking at decks and patios together. If that makes sense. I will tell you, it's really easy to get down into the weeds and get lost and get befuddled going through all this language. It's a challenge. And then for it to tie in to what we do for CRS, so I can certainly understand if any of you read this and go, Deb, that's just confusing to me as it can be. What comes into play for us is We have to use this when we're evaluating whether or not a proposed development meets with the flood requirements. And not everything fits in a cookie-cutter mold. As soon as you think you've seen everything, there's something else that comes up.

Would it be a development or would it be an individual home that someone wants to build?

With the flood rugs, it is all development. And the definition of development per FEMA, NFIP, et cetera, includes repairs. So when you replace your deck boards, FEMA, NFIP, our flood rigs, consider replacing those deck boards like for like in the same footprint as development. Back in January I sent Aaron an email and I said, I don't think we should be requiring permits for deck boards. Like why? It's not structural and you're replacing it in the same footprint. One more thing for me to have to do, and I'm getting lazier the older I get, and why do I have to do this? I don't think we should have to do this. So she emailed back and she says, well, it is considered development. Repairs are considered development. And as such, you'll be required to have issue zoning and flood permits. And then after we got to thinking about it, we're like, well, okay, on the zoning side, if they're not changing the footprint, then why are we requiring a zoning permit? to verify that their proposal, like when we sign off on zoning permits, we say no change in footprint. when we go out there we make sure that there was no change in footprint that they didn't extend the deck that they didn't take a 10 by 10 and make it a 20 you know 20 by 20 and that they're consistent with what they had proposed if we don't issue that if we don't require a zoning application and we don't issue a zoning permit then we have no authority to go out there and make sure that they did what they said they were going to do

So if somebody is replacing boards on the crossover, even if it's taking some rotted boards out and putting some new ones in, they've got to get a permit? Well, nobody's going to do that. I mean, seriously.

Well, not only is it a requirement from FEMA, but also from CAMA. You're supposed to get a maintenance and repair, especially for crossovers or decks if you're in an area of environmental concern. So that's two levels.

I can see if the footprint has changed or more than 50% of the footprint has changed.

Just taking out a rotted board and putting another one in its place doesn't... Because Division of Custom Management also includes replacement of those deck boards, quote-unquote, development, and permits are required.

I thought after Florence, though, they said if there was... The repair is less than 30%. There was some kind of percentage that if it was less than this, you didn't need a permit.

When it comes to recovery, they have like a general permit and executive orders from the governor and everything else. After a hurricane and you're trying to get people back in their house after a catastrophic event, the state and the governor's office have the authority to relax or wave It becomes the law whenever the order is issued.

Just for that situation, not all over.

Yeah, because I know we were doing... I don't think people know that.

Well, if they have any questions, feel free to reach out to our Planning and Zoning Department.

Yeah. If you're watching this video, feel free to call us so we can help you.

So if they stain the board...

I don't care if they stain the board. I don't think staining... Staining's not development. I don't consider staining development. And I'm not going to email Aaron and Heather and say, is staining development? Because... I don't want to give anybody any ideas.

Yeah, that's right.

Well, you know, I... I questioned, you know, before January, and that's why I emailed Aaron, because I, I, I questioned, you know, why are we doing this? This is one more thing that we're doing that I don't think we really need to do. Well, but Deb, you do need to do it. It's your job. Okay. All right. You know, so as we go through and I mean, there's, there's no way that we know absolutely everything all the time. And for me, I think I might have remembered it last week, but I've forgotten it today. And so I'll have to go back and either reread it. I started to send Erin an email today that was identical to the email that I sent her in January. That's why I'm telling you that I sent her an email in January, because I started to send her that same email today. And I was like... And I actually did send it to her. And so I had to get in there and go back and say, hey, I found where you gave me wonderful instructions and guidance and direction in January. Please disregard my last email.

So what are we doing today?

Staff request that the planning board recommend that the Board of Aldermen adopt the amendments to Article 7 to include any corrections directed by the NFIP Planner after they conduct the review tomorrow.

Okay, somebody want to make a motion?

I just have a question. So we would be recommending that Basically all this required language be incorporated and then any little Correct that in it would be

they be adopting yeah because it be adopting the amendments as indicated in the colored text and i mean this is for you to know because i'm trying to work through this kind of i think once upon a time i might have not done it um because don't want to you don't want to say we're adopting this whole new thing altogether because we've already adopted it we're just we're just adopting the amended text in chapter or in article 17 to include any directives by NFIP planner I'll make a motion that we recommend that the Board of Aldermen adopt the

amendments to article 7 based on the recommendations of NFI P with the And with the lit with the language that is required by NFI P along with any Changes clarifications or changes that are required after the review after the review I'll second.

Okay.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

All right.

Thank you, guys. All right. There was one other thing I wanted to mention. I feel like I... FEMA approved the hazard mitigation plan in April. Did I not say all that stuff? I thought I did. I thought there was something else. Yeah.

I cannot read for...

FEMA approved the hazard mitigation plan on April the 21st. They're still waiting for some communities to formally adopt because they wanted to wait until after FEMA approved it for them to adopt it. The town already has adopted that as part of the draft, so we're good, and the rest of them will catch up, and then they will send us a link to the officially adopted FEMA hazard mitigation plan, and we'll post that on the town's website. I think it was... Whatever it is that I'm thinking that I know that I wanted to tell you and I can't remember, I'm going to email it to you. And then any comments that Erin makes after her review, I will also email those to you. And any cleanups that we discussed... uh i'll send you a copy prior to it going to the board and say hey this is what we got and if it's too much and you go nope you got over your skis come back clean it up come back and let us take a look at it again at our meeting in july then i'll say okay no problem i'll ask them to i'll ask the board to continue their public hearing in july to august okay

We get a motion to adjourn This is two out of the 11 chapter Okay, we are reopening the June 11th planning board meeting for North Topsail Beach to discuss another matter.

I'd like to amend my motion to include recommending that the Board of Aldermen adopt the changes to Article 11 definitions as well with those same provisions as the prior motion.

I'll second. All in favor? Aye.

Meeting is adjourned.