agenda packet

AGENDA CITY OF NEWTON

January 17, 2012

AGENDA CITY OF NEWTON

NEWTON CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING

January 17, 2012

7:00 p.m.

1. Call to Order – Mayor Anne P. Stedman

2. Opening – Council Member Mary Bess Lawing

3. Approval of Minutes from the January 3, 2012 Regular Meeting

4. Consideration of Consent Agenda Items

A. Tax Releases – December 2011

B. Sewer Adjustments – January 2012

C. Consideration of Rural Fire District Budget to be Submitted to County

D. Acceptance of $1,000 Grant to Newton Police Department from Target

5. Comments from the Public: (PERSONS WANTING TO MAKE A PUBLIC

COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS ARE REQUESTED TO SIGN IN

WITH THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE MEETING):

6. Public Hearing

A. Rezoning Application #2011-04 – Property located at 2223 Indian Trail

B. Rezoning Application #2011-05 – Property located at 100 SW Blvd.

C. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment #2011-05 – Temporary Signs

7. New Business

A. Closure of City Compost Facility

8. City Manager’s Report

9. Questions and Comments From Mayor and Council

10. Adjournment PERSONS WANTING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM MUST SIGN IN WITH THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE MEETING. PERSONS

WANTING TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING MUST CONTACT THE CITY MANAGER AT LEAST SEVEN WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING.

The City of Newton does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the provision of its services as charged by the City Council of the City of Newton. All meetings are held in accessible facilities. Any person with a disability needing special accommodations should contact Teresa Laffon, ADA Coordinator, at

least 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.

Page

1

5

6

7

11

13

33

54

92

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE NEWTON CITY COUNCIL

January 3, 2012 – 7:00 P.M.

The regular meeting of the Newton City Council was held on Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 7:00

p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

PRESENT: Mayor Anne P. Stedman, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Lutz, Council Members Wayne

Dellinger, Mary Bess Lawing, Tom Rowe, Robert C. Abernethy, Jr., and Wes

Weaver

STAFF: City Manager Todd Clark, City Attorney Larry Pitts, City Clerk Amy S.

Falowski, City Department Heads, and members of the Management Team.

ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Anne P. Stedman:

Mayor Anne P. Stedman welcomed everyone, and called the meeting to order.

ITEM 2: OPENING – Council Member Tom Rowe

Council Member Tom Rowe provided the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 13, 2011 REGULAR

CITY COUNCIL MEETING:

Upon motion duly made by Council Member Mary Bess Lawing, seconded by Council Member

Tom Rowe, it was unanimously RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the December 13, 2011 Regular City Council Meeting be –

APPROVED.

ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:

Upon motion duly made by Council Member Mary Bess Lawing, seconded by Council Member

Tom Rowe, it was unanimously RESOLVED:

That Consent Agenda be – APPROVED.

A. Consideration to Ratify “Piggyback” Awards

B. Consideration of Annual Fire Department Membership Roster

And Department Certification for Year 2012

ITEM 5: COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: (PERSONS WANTING TO MAKE A

PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS ARE REQUESTED TO

SIGN IN WITH THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE MEETING):

Mayor Anne P. Stedman asked if there was anyone present that would like to make any

comments concerning non-agenda items.

No one appeared.

1

ITEM 6: Old Business:

A. Downtown Historic District Update & Public Meeting

Rob Powell, Commercial Development Coordinator, stated that Ms. Ann Swallow of the State

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) made a presentation to the City Council and interested

citizens on October 19, 2010 concerning the possible establishment of a National Register

Historic District for the downtown area. Mr. Powell stated that at that meeting, staff was directed

by Council to obtain proposals for preparation of a study list application and nomination for

National Register District designation. He explained that City Council approved the execution of

a contract with Acme Preservation Services for the preparation of a National Register

Nomination at the December 8, 2010 Council Meeting.

Mr. Powell stated that at a meeting in Raleigh on February 10, 2011, the National Register

Advisory Committee (NRAC) approved the addition of the Newton Downtown Historic District

to the National Register Study List, making it possible for the City to pursue a formal

registration.

Mr. Powell explained that the Downtown Newton Historic District National Register draft

nomination has been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office and that the City’s

historian, Acme Preservation Services, completed final map and text revisions during December

of 2011. Mr. Powell stated that the Newton Downtown Historic District nomination will be on

the agenda of the NRAC at its February 9, 2012 meeting, and that staff anticipates approval at

that meeting. He stated that prior to the NRAC meeting, the City must publish a legal notice in a

local newspaper and must hold a public information meeting which has been set for 5:30 p.m. on

Monday, January 23, 2012 in the Council Chambers. Mr. Powell stated that the meeting will be

conducted by Ms. Ann Swallow of the State Historic Preservation Office and by Mr. Clay

Griffith of Acme Preservation Services. Mr. Powell explained that the purpose of this public

information meeting will be to review the benefits of establishing a National Register historic

district, to describe the process for establishing a National Register historic district, to describe

the final boundary of the proposed Downtown Newton Historic District, to note the non-

contributing properties, and to describe the significance of the “contributing” versus “non-

contributing” status. Mr. Powell stated that a brief history of the Downtown Newton Historic

District and its architecture will be presented as well.

Mr. Powell stated that no action was required by City Council at this time.

ITEM 7: New Business:

A. Recommendation from Recreation Committee Concerning City Pool

Robert Coulter, Parks and Recreation Commission Chairperson, stated that the City Council

appropriated $85,250.00 in the FY 2012 budget for the operation of the city swimming pool.

This includes $17,400.00 to purchase and install equipment required to meet new standards

enforced through the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Coulter stated that after making the

decision to operate the pool this fiscal year, members of the City Council asked staff to meet

with the Recreation Commission so that they could make a recommendation on whether to

permanently close the pool or continue operations.

Mr. Coulter explained that the Newton Recreation Commission met on December 12, 2011, and

discussed the swimming pool at great length. He stated that the Recreation Commission’s

concerns were: (1) whether or not the Department had purchased the required equipment to meet

the ADA mandate, (2) whether the City Council will approve funding for the operation of the

swimming pool in the FY 2012 Budget, and (3) whether or not the money appropriated could be

better spent in the Recreation Department to upgrade existing facilities and/or programs if the 2

City Council chooses not to continue swimming pool operations. Mr. Coulter added that after

extensive discussion, the Recreation Commission was not able to make a formal

recommendation to City Council concerning the future operation of the pool.

Mr. Coulter stated that the Recreation Commission, while a majority of the Commission supports

the pool and its continued operation, needs direction from City Council regarding operation of

the pool as certain purchases will need to be made by March of this year to comply with the

Americans with Disabilities Act. He stated that these purchases include a new ADA compliant

swimmer lift system as well as a new ADA compliant set of steps/ladder or ramp.

Mayor Anne Stedman asked if the 1,800 visitors to the pool in 2011 included repeat visitors. Mr.

Coulter stated that yes, and that it included day camps, however not as many as in past years due

to the late opening of the facility.

Council Member Mary Bess Lawing stated that she would like to see the pool opened earlier this

year in order for more day camps to be able to enroll. Council Member Wes Weaver asked if

there was a big difference between the number of camps from previous years. Recreation

Director Sandra Waters stated that yes, there was and that Community Schools was one of the

biggest camps that did not come this past year, and that they would need to know by March if the

pool would be opened. Ms. Waters also commented that day care attendance is down in general.

Council Member Mary Bess Lawing stated that the City of Newton pool is a great pool and that

everybody should have the opportunity to use it.

City Manager Todd Clark stated that it would cost $68,000 to $70,000 plus $17,400 for ADA

upgrades to open and operate the pool this season. Ms. Waters stated that the pool would also

need to be caulked at a cost of $2,500. Mayor Stedman asked if there would be any more

mandatory regulations in the future. Ms. Waters stated that future needs of the pool include a

possible new filtration system drain by 2014 if the current one does not pass inspection, new

shower stalls in the next two to three years, and new lounge chairs and umbrellas.

Mayor Stedman asked the Council if they would like to discuss the matter of opening the

swimming pool. Council Member Mary Bess Lawing stated that she felt like it was a quality of

life issue. Council Member Robert C. Abernethy, Jr. stated that it costs $70,000 to open the pool

and that in the last census the city had around 14,000 people. At about $5 a person, he didn’t

feel like that was too steep to give the pool at least one more year. Mayor Stedman asked

Council Member Abernethy if he supports the opening of the pool, and he stated that he did.

Council Member Bill Lutz stated that the pool is great, but that other recreation programs are

bursting at the seams and he would like to see money go toward some of these programs too.

Mr. Lutz stated that there are no facilities for some of the ball teams to practice in and he asked

Ms. Waters if there are other ways in which the city could serve children with these programs.

Ms. Waters stated that yes, all programs are growing. Council Member Mary Bess Lawing

asked why, if that many teams need space, the Council is just hearing about it now. She stated

that the pool should be opened because it meets a certain need in the city. Council Member

Wayne Dellinger stated that he felt like $70,000 was being spent for 800 to 1,000 people as

opposed to helping other programs that could use the money. Council Member Abernethy stated

that 14,000 people have the opportunity to use the pool, and that it is not about making money.

Council Member Wes Weaver asked about a future water park, and stated that he would like to

table the matter in order to give staff time to explore other alternatives such as the splash park.

Council Member Mary Bess Lawing made a motion to open the pool for the 2012 season. The

motion was seconded by Council Member Robert C. Abernethy, Jr.

3

Mayor Stedman asked if there was any more discussion.

Council Member Bill Lutz stated that the pool is not going to get any cheaper, but that he thinks

it is a great thing for the city to offer. He also stated that he would like to look closely at the

other sports programs that are offered by the Recreation Department and see what their needs

may be in the coming year. Council Members Mary Bess Lawing and Wayne Dellinger agreed

that they would like to see a plan for the future sports programs.

It was RESOLVED in a 5-1 vote, with Council Member Wayne Dellinger voting in opposition,

That the Newton City Pool be OPENED for the 2012 season.

ITEM 8: City Manager’s Report:

Burris Road Pump Station gravity line should be finished by the end of February

Sewer line project on North College Avenue complete

Asplundh is doing tree trimming in South Newton for the next 30 days

The city will begin replacing street signs to meet Federal size and reflectivity regulations

Leaf collection nearly complete

The Water/Sewer study is under way with McGill

Red Flag Requirement renovations will be taking place in the Finance Department for the

next 4-6 weeks

Economic Development will become a function of the Administration Department

Planning Director applications are being reviewed and the position will hopefully be

filled by the end of February or beginning of March

January 24th

at 6:30 p.m. is the WPCOG annual meeting at the Crowne Plaza

January 11th

is the Chamber of Commerce Job Summitt

ITEM 9: Questions and Comments from Mayor and Council:

There were none

ITEM 10: Adjournment:

There being no further business, upon motion duly made by Council Member Mary Bess

Lawing, seconded by Council Member Tom Rowe, it was unanimously RESOLVED:

That the meeting be ADJOURNED.

___________________________________

Anne P. Stedman, Mayor

__________________________________

Amy S. Falowski, City Clerk

4

CITY OF NEWTON

Inter-office Correspondence

TO: E. Todd Clark, City Manager DATE: January 5, 2012

RE: Tax Releases – December 2011

FROM: Serina T. Hinson, Finance Director

The following tax releases have been received from the Catawba County Tax Collector.

The reason for each release is annotated beside the name.

Tax Year Tax Release

Number

Name Reason Amount

of

Release

2011 9 MDT Personnel, LLC Situs Change $35.29

2011 10 Sonic Transport, LLC Secretary of State shows

dissolved in 2010

$22.97

Should you have any questions or need clarification, please notify. Releases are

submitted as required by NCGS § 105-381(b).

5

CITY OF NEWTON

Inter-office Correspondence

TO: E. Todd Clark, City Manager DATE: January 9, 2012

RE: Sewer Adjustments – January 17, 2012

FROM: Serina Hinson, Finance Director

The following sewer adjustment is recommended for approval. The adjustment is

recommended as a result of a water leak at the service address or a pool fill up.

Account

Number

Name Service Address Adjustment

Period

Amount of

Adjustment

3000600-014 Chad Eric Leatherman 1042 S. Brady

Ave.

Dec 40.22

Backup documentation to support each adjustment is on file in the Finance Department.

Should you have questions or require further clarification, please notify.

6

CITY OF NEWTON

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

DATE: January 11, 2012

TO: E. Todd Clark, City Manager

FROM: Kevin Yoder, Fire Chief

CONSIDERATION OF: Review and Approval of the Rural Fire District budget to be submitted to

Catawba County Fire Marshal’s Office for FY 2012-2013

Approved for Council Consideration

______________________________

1. The City of Newton Fire Department provides fire protection services to approximately 25 square

miles of rural area adjacent to the City of Newton corporate limits. This area is referred to as the

Newton Rural Fire District.

2. The Fire Protection Services within the Newton Rural Fire District are funded through a Rural

Fire Tax. The current Rural Fire Tax rate is 7.00 cents per $100 valuation.

3. We are proposing an increase in the Newton Rural Fire Tax Rate of two (2) cents per $100 of

property valuation.

4. This increase will primarily fund personnel costs. The increase will allow the department to

increase the hours of three Part-Time Firefighters to Full-Time Status.

5. The Fire Marshal’s Office of Catawba County has requested that the Rural Budgets be submitted

by the respective Fire Departments and Boards as soon as possible during the new calendar year.

6. The Budget and associated Rural Fire Tax Increase is consistent with prior budgets presented to

Catawba County for each of the past three years.

ACTION SUGGESTED:

Review and approve the Rural Fire District budget letter to be submitted to the Catawba County Fire

Marshal’s Office for FY 2011-2012.

7

January 12, 2012

Mark Pettit, Fire/Rescue Manager

Catawba County Emergency Services Office

P.O. Box 389

Newton, NC 28658

Mark,

You will find attached to this letter the budget document you distributed in December for the

Newton Rural Fire District. Please note that we are again requesting that the tax rate be increased

by two (2) cents per $100 valuation. This rate increase has been requested in at least two

previous years for the very same reasons you and I have discussed. I have outlined some of the

many needs and justifications in this letter and am willing to discuss this issue at length if you so

desire.

The increase is primarily due to the need for additional staffing. The Fire Department does

not currently meet Nationally Recognized Standards for minimum staffing at the scene of

Structural Fires and Alarms.

As I’m sure you are aware, volunteer participation is at an all time low nationwide. We at the

Newton Fire Department, like most Fire Departments, have experienced a sharp decline in

volunteer response. Numerous attempts have been made to improve the level of response by

volunteers. However, the response has only continued to decline. Without additional staffing

the department will not meet Nationally Recognized Standards (NFPA).

The City of Newton Fire Department serves approximately 25 square miles of rural area. The

total area within the city of Newton is a mere 13 square miles. What this tells us is that almost

65% of our total area of 38 square miles is within the rural areas of Catawba County. Currently

the Rural Fire Tax only supports approximately 15% of our total budget. Based on area we think

you will see that this increase is certainly justified.

The City of Newton responded to a total of 188 incidents within the Newton Rural Area. This

represents approximately 22% of the total call volume of the Newton Fire Department. In

addition, the rural Fire District Tax currently represents only 15% of our total budget. Therefore,

based on call volume we think you will see that this increase is certainly justified.

8

We are requesting the total available fund balance of $8114.00 be forwarded to the City of

Newton as well. These funds will purchase Firefighter protective equipment (Turnout Gear). The

fund balance will purchase approximately six sets of protective gear.

This funding request has been reviewed by the Newton City Manager and Finance Director and

will be reviewed in detail by the Newton City council during the customary annual budget

review process.

I look forward to discussing this year’s annual budget with you and your budget department in

great detail. Please let me know if additional information is needed.

If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Kevin L. Yoder

Kevin Yoder, Fire Chief

City of Newton Fire Department

cc. Todd Clark, Newton City Manager

Serina Hinson, Newton Finance Director

9

Property Tax Collection Rate 98.44%Motor Vehicle Tax Collection Rate 83.52%2010/11 Actual

Tax Rate 0.0700Budget 335,674Property Tax Collected 343,896

2011/12 BudgetTax Rate 0.0700Revenue

Ad Valorem 315,598Motor Vehicles 28,541Ad Valorem ‐ Prior Year 1,794Motor Vehicles ‐ Prior Year 1,258Fund Balance 4,125

Total Revenue 351,316Expense

Operating Budget 351,316Capital Budget 0

Total Expense 351,316

2012/13 Budget Requested BudgetFire/Rescue Manager Recommendation

Tax Rate 0.0900Revenue

Ad Valorem 403,699Motor Vehicles 34,474Ad Valorem ‐ Prior Year (50%) 2,466Motor Vehicles ‐ Prior Year (50%) 2,383Fund Balance 8,114

Total Revenue 451,136Expense

Operating Budget 443,022Capital Budget 8,114

Total Expense 451,136

Projected Tax Base 2012/13 2011/12Motor Vehicles 45,862,195 48,643,040

Real Estate 438,267,891 441,455,487Personal Property 5,204,604 5,034,189Public Service 10,834,695 10,720,524Discoveries 1,355,526 1,347,522Total excluding Motor Vehicles 455,662,716 458,557,722

At collection rate, 1 cent will produce 49,379Population of District 7,251Square Miles of District 25.05Fund Balance Available (90%) 8,114

Catawba County Fire Districts Budget Request ‐ Fiscal Year 2012/13Newton ‐ Fund 363

10

CITY OF NEWTON




FROM: Donald G. Brown II, Police Chief

CONSIDERATION OF: Budget Ordinance to recognize grant revenues and authorize

expenditure appropriation within the Police Department Budget


______________________________

Background:

In October of 2011 the Newton Police Department applied for a public safety grant through

Target Corporation. The dollar amount requested was $2,000 and the funds requested are for the

purchase of “Weather and Alert Radios” to be distributed to all senior citizens on the police

department “Senior Citizen List” and for the assisted living facilities within the city limits of

Newton. The amount granted to the Police Department is $1,000. The grant will allow the

purchase of the weather and alert radios for the individuals on the senior citizen list but not the

assisted living facilities.

Summary:

The above listed grant is for the purpose of purchasing “Weather and Alert Radios.”

Requested Action:

Adoption of the attached budget ordinance to recognize grant revenues and authorize the

expenditure appropriation in the Police Department operating budget.

11

ORDINANCE 2012-1

CITY OF NEWTON

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEAR

2011-2012

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newton has adopted a Budget Ordinance for

fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011, and ending June 30, 2012, in accordance with the General

Statutes of the State of North Carolina, and

WHEREAS, The City Council has authorized the Police Department to apply for a grant

from Target through their Law Enforcement Grant Program. The Police Department was notified

that it had been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000. The purpose of this grant is to

purchase weather and alert radios to be distributed to all senior citizens on the Police Department

“Senior Citizen List”, and

WHEREAS, The City Council desires to recognize the grant revenues and authorize the

related expenditure appropriation within the police department operating budget.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA, THAT:

THE FOLLOWING SOURCE OF REVENUE AND APPROPRIATION ARE HEREBY

APPROVED.

Section 1

General Fund Revenues

Special Project Contributions/Other Grants 11.0000.3845 $1,000

Section 2

General Fund Appropriations

Crime Prevention/Program Supplies 11.4310.5280 $1,000

Adopted this 17th day of January, 2012.

Anne P. Stedman, Mayor

_______

Amy S. Falowski, City Clerk

12

CITY OF NEWTON




FROM: Max Sigler, Planner

CONSIDERATION OF: Rezoning Application #2011-04


______________________________

Property Owner: Marvelle Price

Rezoning Application by Albert Kennedy

Location: 2223 Indian Trail

1 parcel with the area of 2.85 acres located approximately 1400 feet to the

Southwest of the intersection of Indian Trail and Smyre Farm Road.

Request: EM-1, Exclusive Manufacturing District to an M-1, General

Manufacturing District

Summary

The Property is located within the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction of the City of Newton.

The request is to rezone approximately 2.85 acres from EM-1, Exclusive Manufacturing

District, to an M-1, General Manufacturing District. The site is currently undeveloped.

Consistency and Conclusion

The proposed request is consistent with the 2008 Southeast Area Plan’s Future Land Use

Map (see attached Future Land Use map). The property for which the applicant is

applying for the rezoning is located within the Southeast Industrial District (Attached

Economic Development Map). The plan and the associated map document do not

differentiate between the Exclusive and General Manufacturing Districts.

13

M-1 general manufacturing districts. The M-1 districts provide a place for the location of

manufacturing and other uses which would be incompatible with general business areas.

It is intended to permit in these districts any use which is inherently obnoxious to urban

areas because of noise, odors, smoke, light, dust or the use of dangerous material.

EM-1 exclusive manufacturing districts. The EM-1 districts are intended to accommodate

the exclusive use of land and structures for manufacturing purposes. The districts are

established to provide for and maintain manufacturing areas and to prohibit the intrusion

of incompatible uses. It is not intended to permit in these districts any use which is

inherently obnoxious to urban areas, because of noise, odors, smoke, light, dust or the use

of dangerous materials.

Please see attached land use list.

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

The area surrounding the site is currently a mix of vacant land and industrial. The parcel

adjoining the applicant’s parcel to the North is zoned M-1 and was rezoned in 1994 from

an EM-1 classification. The surrounding land is zoned EM-1 and M-1. Please see the

attached zoning map.

Zoning Landuse

Subject EM-1 Exclusive Manufacturing Vacant

North M-1 General Manufacturing Mid-State Contractors Inc.

South EM-1 Exclusive Manufacturing Vacant

East EM-1 Exclusive Manufacturing Sherrill Furniture Company

West EM-1 Exclusive Manufacturing Vacant

Zoning History:

1982 Subject Site Zoned Exclusive Manufacturing

1994 #3-94 – Mid-State Contractors, 2260 Indian Trail. Rezoned from an EM-1

to an M-1 District.

2011 RZ2011-01 – Hmong Christian Life Center. The property at 1175 Smyre

Farm Road was rezoned from an EM-1 to an R-20.

Transportation:

There will be minimal impact on the surrounding transportation network. Average daily

traffic counts for Smyre Farm Road are as follows:

14

Year of Count: Smyre Farm Road:

2001 2,000

2003 2,100

2005 2,500

2007 2,500

2009 2,500

Utilities:

The site will utilize a well and septic system

Public Notice:

Public notice for this rezoning case been performed as follows:

Newspaper: published on January 6th

and January 13th

, 2012

Sign posted on-site: posted December 2nd

, 2011

Mailed notices: sent notice to 16 property owners on January 6th

, 2012 (Attached)

Recommendation:

It is the Newton Planning Commission’s recommendation that the Newton City Council

approve the application as requested as the application was found to be in compliance

with the intent and policies the Southeast Area Plan adopted by the City Council in 2008.

15

Minutes

Newton Planning Commission

December 14, 2011

Council Chambers

City Hall

The regular meeting of the Newton Planning Commission was held at 7:00 p.m. on December

14, 2011 in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

Members Present:

Jim Granny

Donnie Setzer

Mark Stalnaker

Stan Gabriel

Ken Simmons

Jim Smith

Melinda Travis

Members Absent:

none

Staff Present:

Glenn Pattishall, AICP, Planning Director/Asst. City Manager

Alex Fulbright, AICP, Assistant Planning Director

Max Sigler, Planner

Rob Powell, Community Development Coordinator

Todd Clark, City Manager

Item 1: Call to Order

Chairman Simmons called the meeting to order and requested that Mr. Pattishall introduce a

new member of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Pattishall introduced Mrs. Melinda Travis as an ETJ member of the Planning

Commission.

Mr. Todd Clark, City Manager requested to speak to the Planning Commission about Glenn

Pattishall’s upcoming retirement. He stated that he appreciated Glenn’s professionalism and

service with the City. He explained the process that would be used to select a new planning

director. He also took a moment to thank the Planning Commission for all that they do.

Mr. Simmons thanked Mr. Clark and presented Mr. Pattishall a card that was signed by all the

members of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Pattishall expressed his gratitude for the card.

28

Item 2: Consideration of Minutes November 22, 2011 Meeting

Chairman Simmons asked for consideration of the minutes of the November 22, 2011 meeting.

There being no corrections or additions, Chairman Simmons ruled that the minutes were

approved as presented.

Item 3a: Public Hearing – Text Amendment 2011-05 – Temporary Signs

Chairman Simmons called to order a Public Hearing as scheduled and advertised, and

recognized Mr. Glenn Pattishall to make a presentation to the Planning Commission. Mr.

Pattishall stated that at the November 15, 2011 City Council meeting, the Council by consensus

directed staff to request that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on a proposed

Zoning Ordinance text amendment concerning temporary signs.

Mr. Pattishall explained that the Planning Commission took up the matter for a second time in

2011 at its September meeting as a result of the Mayor making a personal appearance and asking

the Planning Commission to reconsider the matter, and after considerable discussion directed

staff to prepare additional information on the matter for continued discussion at its October

meeting. The Commission at its October meeting reviewed the additional information requested

and after lengthy deliberation voted in favor of keeping the existing ordinance with no changes.

Mr. Pattishall went on to explain that in order for this or any amendment to the Zoning

Ordinance to be adopted under the Newton City Code, it must first be considered during a public

hearing by the Planning Commission who must make a recommendation on the proposed

ordinance and then considered during a public hearing held by Council before it may be adopted

by Council. Any deviation from this protocol would result in an invalid ordinance.

Mr. Pattishall stated that the proposed ordinance would allow temporary signs, balloons, aerial

signs or banners may be erected for a period not to exceed seven (7) days for the purpose of

announcing commercial and non-commercial openings, closings, management changes, special

events and sales. There shall be no limit to the number or location where such signs may be

placed including street rights of way provided such signs do not create a hazard to public safety.

Mr. Pattishall then recapped the Planning Commission concerns that were expressed in the past

about proposed ordinance, which were that there would be no limits to the number of signs, that

the time limit would be difficult to enforce with no permit, and that buy not regulating the

number or the location that the proposal would lead to visual clutter.

Mr. Simmons asked if there were any questions.

Mr. Simmons stated that he did not want signs in his neighborhood and that under the proposal

presented that temporary signs could be placed on any street in the City. He commented that the

Planning Commission has considered the issue two times already and each time voted

unanimously against amending the current ordinance.

With no further discussion, Chairman Simmons closed the Public Hearing and asked for a

motion. A Motion was made by Mr. Jim Granny, second by Mr. Jim Smith to recommend

29

that the City Council not approve the proposed changes and that the sign ordinance remain

unchanged. There was no discussion on the motion, and the motion carried 7 to 0.

Item 3b: Public Hearing – Rezoning Application 2011-04 - Albert Kennedy


recognized Mr. Sigler who read from his December 7, 2011 memo. He stated that the property

was owned by Marvelle Price and is located at 2223 Indian Trail. The property was 2.85 acres,

approximately 1400 feet to the Southwest of the intersection of Indian Trail and Smyre Farm

Road. The request was to rezone the property from and existing EM-1, Exclusive

Manufacturing District to an M-1, General Manufacturing District. He then recommended that

the Planning Commission approve the application as requested because the application is in

compliance with the intent and policies the Southeast Area Plan adopted by the City Council in

2008.

Mr. Smith asked about the applicant’s intent.

Mr. Sigler explained that the applicant has expressed interest in operating a truck repair garage

on the site; however, any use allowed in the M-1 General Manufacturing District would be

permitted if the request were approved.

Mr. Mark Stalnaker asked about what types of the uses would be allowed if the request was

approved.

Mr. Alex Fulbright listed uses that could be allowed if the request was approved and explained

that the asphalt plant adjacent to the site was also zoned M-1.

Chairmen Simmons asked Mr. Albert Kennedy, applicant if he would like to speak.

Mr. Kennedy approached the commission and explained that he intended to build a 3 bay

garage, which could eventually be expanded in the future if need. He went on to explain that the

property was great for his needs.

Mr. Stalnaker asked about the access to the site.

Mr. Kennedy explained that he would use Indian Trail and Wagon Wheel Road to access the

property.

Mr. Smith asked Mr. Kennedy about what function would the facility serve.

Mr. Kennedy explained that he would perform the regular maintenance on his fleet of truck

such as changing the oil, replacing brakes, and similar maintenance related task.

There was conversation about the asphalt plant and the noise that it produces and that grouping

obnoxious uses would be desired if possible as opposed to spreading out the intense

manufacturing uses.

Mr. Kennedy stated that his garage would be quieter than the asphalt plant.

30

Mr. Stalnaker asked if the Church that was recently the subject of a nearby zoning request was

notified of the public hearing.

Mr. Sigler stated that they were notified as required.


motion. A motion was made by Mr. Granny, second by Mr. Stalnaker to recommend that the

City Council approve the request as presented. There was no discussion on the motion, and the

motion carried 7 to 0.

Item 3c: Public Hearing – Rezoning Application 2011-05 - Catawba County


recognized Mr. Fulbright. Mr. Fulbright read from his memo dated December 9, 2011. He

stated that the property was located at 100 Southwest Blvd and is owned by Catawba County.

The property is physically located on Southwest Boulevard at the Southwest corner of the

intersection of Southwest Boulevard and Radio Station Road. The applicant Catawba County is

requesting to rezone the property from the existing R-20 Single Family Residential District to a

PD-O&I Planned Development Office and Institutional District. The property is currently being

used for the County Government Center Complex and it will continue to be used as such.

Mr. Fulbright explained that the intent of the rezoning was to allow for the County to have

more flexibility over what can occur on the site and eliminate the need to amend the current

special use permit which was approved in 1977. The original special use permit has been amend

several times since.

Mr. Jackie Eubanks, County Planning Director explained the site plan to the planning

commission and expressed their desire to have a master plan to accommodate their future needs.

The planning commission expressed concerns about the adjoining neighborhood and need for a

buffer to be maintained. It was explained the site plan shows the extent of development on the

site and would have to be amended if there was substantial changes.

Mr. Todd Clark, City Manager discussed the site plan and its relation to the City’s Heritage

Trail Greenway. He explained that the site plan shows a parking area that would be used to

provide parking for users of the greenway.

Mr. Stan Gabriel expressed concerns about the traffic along Radio Station Road.

Mr. Fulbright responded that while the site plan shows new components that does not mean that

the amount of trips generated by the facility would increase at the same rate. It will provide

more space for existing activities that are currently occurring. He also explained that staff has

expressed concerns about the government center’s driveway on Radio Station Road to the North

Carolina Department of Transportation. These discussions were the driving reason that created

the driveway at the maintenance facility, which serves the detention facility on the site. He also

explained that the topography and the historic stack rock wall near the original driveway on

Radio Station Road limits what could be done to improve the situation.

31

Mr. Eubanks concurred with Mr. Fulbright and stated that looping the access road and

connecting it to the newer driveway could improve the situation. He explained that the second

driveway on Radio Station Road was created when the Western Piedmont Transit Authority was

looking at locating a maintenance facility on the County’s property.


motion. Motion made by Mr. Stalnaker, second by Mr. Granny to recommend that the City

Council approve the request as presented with the exception that any major modification to the

plan is brought before the Planning Commission and that public hearings are held. There was no

discussion on the motion, and the motion carried 7 to 0.

Item 4: Old Business Presentation of Draft – B-1 Discussion

Chairman Simmons recognized Mr. Fulbright. Mr. Fulbright reminded the Planning

Commission that there would be a public meeting held at the January Planning Commission

meeting and that notices would be sent to the residents in the North Rankin Avenue and East 20th

Street Area.

Item 5: New Business

None

Item 6: Reports

Mr. Fulbright reviewed the monthly departmental reports for November 2011.

Item 7: Training

Mr. Fulbright spoke to the Planning Commission about the stormwater permit that was recently

approved. He reminded the Planning Commission of their duties as the stormwater advisory

board and discussed the actions that would be needed to comply with the permit over the next

five (5) years.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Alex S. Fulbright/AICP

Recording Secretary

32

CITY OF NEWTON




FROM: Alex Fulbright, AICP, Assistant Planning Director

CONSIDERATION OF: Rezoning Application #2011-05


______________________________

Property Owners: Catawba County

Applicant: Catawba County

Location: 100 Southwest Blvd

The property is located on Southwest Boulevard at the Southwest corner

of the intersection of Southwest Boulevard and Radio Station Road.

Request: R-20 Single Family Residential District to a PD-O&I Planned

Development Office and Institutional District.

Summary

The Property is located within the City of Newton.

The area requested to be rezoned is approximately 115 acres from R-20, Single Family

Residential, to PD-O&I Planned Development Office and Institutional District.

Consistency and Conclusion

The 1988 Land Development Plan indicates the property as being residential. The

current use is allowed as special use in the R-20 District. The request is not a change of

use, but changing the zoning to facilitate the development of the County’s property

without utilizing the special use permit process. See attached land development plan

map.

33

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

Zoning Landuse

Subject R-20 Single Family Residential Government Center Complex

North PD-MX Planned Development Mixed Use Court Street Commons

R-20 Single Family Residential Assisted Living Facility and Residential

South B-4 General Business Restaurant

R-20 Single Family Residential Residential


East B-4 General Business Bowling, general commercial, & bank offices


West R-20 Single Family Residential Residential

Zoning History:

The site has been zoned R-20 Single family residential dating back to 1982. This campus

is home to the Government Center, the Justice Center, the Sheriff’s Department, Vehicle

Facility Maintenance, childcare homes, and an animal shelter. The original special use

permit was granted in 1977 and has been amended over the years to include some of the

above uses, most recently the Charter Communications substation on Radio Station Road

and an operation and maintenance facility for Piedmont Wagon Transit System.

Transportation:

Southwest Boulevard is a major arterial. The cross section is five-lane urban

thoroughfare. Average daily traffic counts are as follows:

Year of Count Volume

2003 23,000Vehicles per Day

2005 21,000

2007 22,000

2009 19,000

Radio Station road is a collector street. The cross section is two-lane rural with shoulder

and swales. Average daily traffic counts are as follows:

Year of Count Volume

2003 4,800 Vehicles per Day

2005 4,700

2007 5,100

2009 4,700

34

Utilities:

City water, sewer, and electric are available to the site.

Public Notice:

Public notice for this rezoning case been performed as follows:

Newspaper: published on January 6th

and January 13th

, 2012 (Attached)

Sign posted on-site: posted December 2, 2011

Mailed notices: 164 letters sent January 6th

, 2012

Comment:

A copy of the application, site plan, and supporting information is attached for the City

Council’s perusal.

Recommendation:

It is the Newton Planning Commission’s recommendation that the Newton City Council

approve the application as requested

35

CITY OF NEWTON




FROM: Alex Fulbright, Assistant Planning Director

CONSIDERATION OF: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 2011 - 05


______________________________

Background:

In early spring of 2011 the City Manager, at the request of the Mayor, asked that the Planning

Commission study the existing ordinance as it relates to temporary signs located within public

road right of ways.

Planning Commission took the matter up at its June 2011 meeting (see attached memo June 21,

2011). They heard a report from me explaining our Ordinance and giving background to the

Planning Commission as to the various portions of the City Code and other regulations enforced

by the DOT with regard to signs in the public rights of way. The Planning Commission

determined at that meeting to take no action to make any changes to the Zoning Ordinance.

The Mayor made an appeal to the Planning Commission at its August 2011 meeting to

reconsider its position with regard to the temporary signs. At the subsequent September and

October meetings, the Planning Commission took the matter up (see September 22, 2011 memo

and October 6, 2011 memo attached). The Planning Commission determined at its October 25th

meeting that it would not recommend any changes to the Zoning Ordinance with regard to

temporary signs or signs in right of way (see attached minutes October 25, 2011 Planning

Commission Meeting).

Review:

As outlined in the September 22, 2011 memo to the Planning Commission the Mayor had

requested that the Planning Commission consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that

would allow an unlimited number of on and off premise signs to be placed anywhere, including

city property and street rights of way. This would include residential zoning districts. In

54

addition, he requested that a time limit for temporary signs be set at seven days; however no

permit would be required for these signs.

The proposed draft ordinance to be considered by the City Council was considered at the

December 14, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting, wherein the Planning Commission voted

unanimously to not recommend adoption of the attached ordinance.

The Planning Commission indicated that their reasons for not recommending any changes are

that there are prohibitions against signs in public rights of way on state maintained roads, that not

requiring permits would make it difficult to enforce, and that allowing temporary signs anywhere

would create a clutter issue throughout the city and diminish the aesthetic appeal of the city.

Recommendation:

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the proposed Zoning

Ordinance Text Amendment (attached) at its December 14, 2011 meeting.

55

Ordinance 2011-__

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA

BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA, THAT:

Section 1. Section 102-341 “Intent” of Chapter 102 “Zoning” of the Newton City code shall be amended by deleting Section 102-341 in its entirety and inserting a new Section 102-341 to read as follows:

Sec. 102-341. Intent.

It is the general intent of this article to prohibit permanent signs of commercial or non-commercial nature in districts in which commerce is barred; to limit permanent signs in the commercial districts in relation to the intensity of the use of the district and its surroundings; and to control the number, area and location of permanent signs in other districts and to ensure that all permanent signs and supports are properly secured and located upon buildings, under canopies or roof overhangs or on properties so as to minimize potential danger to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city and its planning area. These regulations are designed, among other purposes, to stabilize and protect property values, maintain the visual attractiveness of the city and its environs and promote public safety.

Section 2. Subsection 102-348(a)”Signs not requiring permit” of Section 102-348 “Temporary Signs” of Chapter 102 “Zoning’ of the Newton City Code shall be amended by adding a new subsection (a)(4) to read as follows:

(4) Temporary signs, balloons, aerial signs or banners may be erected for a period not to exceed seven (7) days for the purpose of announcing commercial and non-commercial openings, closings, management changes, special events and sales. There shall be no limit to the number or location where such signs may be placed including street rights of way provided such signs do not create a hazard to public safety.

Section 3. Subsection 102-348 (b) “Signs Requiring Permit” of Section 102-348 ”Temporary Signs” of Chapter 102 “Zoning” of the Newton City Code shall be amended by deleting Subsection 102-348 (b) in its entirety and inserting a new Subsection 102-348 (b) to read as follows:

(b) Signs requiring permit. The following temporary signs require a zoning clearance permit:

(1) Temporary signs for the sale of produce, Christmas trees, crafts, seafood or

similar items sold on a seasonal or temporary basis shall not exceed 32 square

feet in area or six feet in height. Only one such sign per temporary business

shall be erected and shall be safely affixed the ground or a permanent

structure on the lot. A copy of the peddler’s license for the temporary

business shall be included in the permit application and the permit shall be

56

kept at the business site. Such signs shall be removed within seven days of

the termination of sale activities. Such signs shall not be placed in any street

right of way.

(2) Two temporary off-premises signs directing construction traffic during the

construction period of a new business. Such signs may not exceed six square

feet in area or three feet in height, shall be limited to one sign per zoning lot

with the written permission of the property owner, may not be located in any

residential or office district, may be located in required yards and must be

removed upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

(3) Trailer signs. A-frame signs or signs on vehicles or electrified signs shall not

be permitted to be used as temporary signs.

Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective from and after the date of its adoption. Adopted this the __ day of __________, 2011. Robert A. Mullinax, Mayor Amy S. Falowski, City Clerk

57

Asheville

Banner Elk

Boone

Catawba County

Conover

Florence

Franklin

Gates County

Hickory

Hillsborough

Lake Lure

Lenoir

Lincoln County

Maiden

Mathews

New Hanover County

Newton

Raeford

Siler City

Sugar Mountain

SummerField

Waxhaw

Wendell

Wilmington

Wilson’s Mills

Whispering Pines

Do

es y

ou

r ju

risd

icti

on

allo

w t

emp

ora

ry s

ign

s?Ye

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

s

Do

es y

ou

r ju

risd

icti

on

req

uir

e a

per

mit

fo

r

tem

po

rary

sig

ns?

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

If s

o w

hat

is t

he

fee

any?

$25

$0$0

$0$0

$2

5$4

0$0

$28.

2

5$2

0

$55

+

$1 p

er

day

$0/$

7

5$0

$0$0

$4

5$5

0*$0

$0$2

5$5

0$1

1$1

0$3

0$0

$0

Do

es y

ou

r ju

risd

icti

on

allo

w t

emp

ora

ry s

ign

s to

be

pla

ced

wit

hin

rig

hts

-of-

way

s?

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Do

es y

ou

r ju

risd

icti

on

limit

th

e lo

cati

on

in w

hic

h

tem

po

rary

sig

ns

can

be

pla

ced

?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes/

N

oN

oYe

sYe

sN

oYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

s

Do

es y

ou

r ju

risd

icti

on

limit

th

e si

ze o

f

tem

po

rary

sig

ns

allo

wed

?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes/

N

oYe

sYe

sYe

sN

oYe

sYe

sYe

sN

oYe

sye

sYe

sN

oN

oYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sN

oYe

sYe

s

Do

es y

ou

r ju

risd

icti

on

regu

late

th

e n

um

ber

of

tem

po

rary

sig

ns

that

can

be

pla

ced

wit

hin

yo

ur

juri

sdic

tio

n b

y a

bu

sin

ess

or

enti

ty?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes/

N

oYe

sYe

sYe

sN

oYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sN

oN

oYe

sN

oN

oYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

s

Do

es y

ou

r ju

risd

icti

on

limit

th

e d

ura

tio

n in

wh

ich

a t

emp

ora

ry s

ign

can

be

dis

pla

yed

?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Tem

po

rary

Sig

ns

Surv

ey

Sum

mar

y

* -

Tem

po

rary

sig

n b

on

d (

refu

nd

able

)

67

Minutes Newton Planning Commission

December 14, 2011 Council Chambers

City Hall

The regular meeting of the Newton Planning Commission was held at 7:00 p.m. on December 14, 2011 in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Members Present:

Jim Granny Donnie Setzer Mark Stalnaker Stan Gabriel Ken Simmons Jim Smith Melinda Travis

Members Absent:

none Staff Present:

Glenn Pattishall, AICP, Planning Director/Asst. City Manager Alex Fulbright, AICP, Assistant Planning Director Max Sigler, Planner Rob Powell, Community Development Coordinator Todd Clark, City Manager

Item 1: Call to Order Chairman Simmons called the meeting to order and requested that Mr. Pattishall introduce a new member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Pattishall introduced Mrs. Melinda Travis as an ETJ member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Todd Clark, City Manager requested to speak to the Planning Commission about Glenn Pattishall’s upcoming retirement. He stated that he appreciated Glenn’s professionalism and service with the City. He explained the process that would be used to select a new planning director. He also took a moment to thank the Planning Commission for all that they do. Mr. Simmons thanked Mr. Clark and presented Mr. Pattishall a card that was signed by all the members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Pattishall expressed his gratitude for the card. Item 2: Consideration of Minutes November 22, 2011 Meeting

87

Chairman Simmons asked for consideration of the minutes of the November 22, 2011 meeting. There being no corrections or additions, Chairman Simmons ruled that the minutes were approved as presented. Item 3a: Public Hearing – Text Amendment 2011-05 – Temporary Signs Chairman Simmons called to order a Public Hearing as scheduled and advertised, and recognized Mr. Glenn Pattishall to make a presentation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pattishall stated that at the November 15, 2011 City Council meeting, the Council by consensus directed staff to request that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment concerning temporary signs. Mr. Pattishall explained that the Planning Commission took up the matter for a second time in 2011 at its September meeting as a result of the Mayor making a personal appearance and asking the Planning Commission to reconsider the matter, and after considerable discussion directed staff to prepare additional information on the matter for continued discussion at its October meeting. The Commission at its October meeting reviewed the additional information requested and after lengthy deliberation voted in favor of keeping the existing ordinance with no changes. Mr. Pattishall went on to explain that in order for this or any amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to be adopted under the Newton City Code, it must first be considered during a public hearing by the Planning Commission who must make a recommendation on the proposed ordinance and then considered during a public hearing held by Council before it may be adopted by Council. Any deviation from this protocol would result in an invalid ordinance. Mr. Pattishall stated that the proposed ordinance would allow temporary signs, balloons, aerial signs or banners may be erected for a period not to exceed seven (7) days for the purpose of announcing commercial and non-commercial openings, closings, management changes, special events and sales. There shall be no limit to the number or location where such signs may be placed including street rights of way provided such signs do not create a hazard to public safety. Mr. Pattishall then recapped the Planning Commission concerns that were expressed in the past about proposed ordinance, which were that there would be no limits to the number of signs, that the time limit would be difficult to enforce with no permit, and that buy not regulating the number or the location that the proposal would lead to visual clutter. Mr. Simmons asked if there were any questions. Mr. Simmons stated that he did not want signs in his neighborhood and that under the proposal presented that temporary signs could be placed on any street in the City. He commented that the Planning Commission has considered the issue two times already and each time voted unanimously against amending the current ordinance. With no further discussion, Chairman Simmons closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. A Motion was made by Mr. Jim Granny, second by Mr. Jim Smith to recommend that the City Council not approve the proposed changes and that the sign ordinance remain unchanged. There was no discussion on the motion, and the motion carried 7 to 0.

88

Item 3b: Public Hearing – Rezoning Application 2011-04 - Albert Kennedy Chairman Simmons called to order a Public Hearing as scheduled and advertised, and recognized Mr. Sigler who read from his December 7, 2011 memo. He stated that the property was owned by Marvelle Price and is located at 2223 Indian Trail. The property was 2.85 acres, approximately 1400 feet to the Southwest of the intersection of Indian Trail and Smyre Farm Road. The request was to rezone the property from and existing EM-1, Exclusive Manufacturing District to an M-1, General Manufacturing District. He then recommended that the Planning Commission approve the application as requested because the application is in compliance with the intent and policies the Southeast Area Plan adopted by the City Council in 2008. Mr. Smith asked about the applicant’s intent. Mr. Sigler explained that the applicant has expressed interest in operating a truck repair garage on the site; however, any use allowed in the M-1 General Manufacturing District would be permitted if the request were approved. Mr. Mark Stalnaker asked about what types of the uses would be allowed if the request was approved. Mr. Alex Fulbright listed uses that could be allowed if the request was approved and explained that the asphalt plant adjacent to the site was also zoned M-1. Chairmen Simmons asked Mr. Albert Kennedy, applicant if he would like to speak. Mr. Kennedy approached the commission and explained that he intended to build a 3 bay garage, which could eventually be expanded in the future if need. He went on to explain that the property was great for his needs. Mr. Stalnaker asked about the access to the site. Mr. Kennedy explained that he would use Indian Trail and Wagon Wheel Road to access the property. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Kennedy about what function would the facility serve. Mr. Kennedy explained that he would perform the regular maintenance on his fleet of truck such as changing the oil, replacing brakes, and similar maintenance related task. There was conversation about the asphalt plant and the noise that it produces and that grouping obnoxious uses would be desired if possible as opposed to spreading out the intense manufacturing uses. Mr. Kennedy stated that his garage would be quieter than the asphalt plant. Mr. Stalnaker asked if the Church that was recently the subject of a nearby zoning request was notified of the public hearing. Mr. Sigler stated that they were notified as required. With no further discussion, Chairman Simmons closed the Public Hearing and asked for a

89

motion. A motion was made by Mr. Granny, second by Mr. Stalnaker to recommend that the City Council approve the request as presented. There was no discussion on the motion, and the motion carried 7 to 0. Item 3c: Public Hearing – Rezoning Application 2011-05 - Catawba County Chairman Simmons called to order a Public Hearing as scheduled and advertised, and recognized Mr. Fulbright. Mr. Fulbright read from his memo dated December 9, 2011. He stated that the property was located at 100 Southwest Blvd and is owned by Catawba County. The property is physically located on Southwest Boulevard at the Southwest corner of the intersection of Southwest Boulevard and Radio Station Road. The applicant Catawba County is requesting to rezone the property from the existing R-20 Single Family Residential District to a PD-O&I Planned Development Office and Institutional District. The property is currently being used for the County Government Center Complex and it will continue to be used as such. Mr. Fulbright explained that the intent of the rezoning was to allow for the County to have more flexibility over what can occur on the site and eliminate the need to amend the current special use permit which was approved in 1977. The original special use permit has been amend several times since. Mr. Jackie Eubanks, County Planning Director explained the site plan to the planning commission and expressed their desire to have a master plan to accommodate their future needs. The planning commission expressed concerns about the adjoining neighborhood and need for a buffer to be maintained. It was explained the site plan shows the extent of development on the site and would have to be amended if there was substantial changes. Mr. Todd Clark, City Manager discussed the site plan and its relation to the City’s Heritage Trail Greenway. He explained that the site plan shows a parking area that would be used to provide parking for users of the greenway. Mr. Stan Gabriel expressed concerns about the traffic along Radio Station Road. Mr. Fulbright responded that while the site plan shows new components that does not mean that the amount of trips generated by the facility would increase at the same rate. It will provide more space for existing activities that are currently occurring. He also explained that staff has expressed concerns about the government center’s driveway on Radio Station Road to the North Carolina Department of Transportation. These discussions were the driving reason that created the driveway at the maintenance facility, which serves the detention facility on the site. He also explained that the topography and the historic stack rock wall near the original driveway on Radio Station Road limits what could be done to improve the situation. Mr. Eubanks concurred with Mr. Fulbright and stated that looping the access road and connecting it to the newer driveway could improve the situation. He explained that the second driveway on Radio Station Road was created when the Western Piedmont Transit Authority was looking at locating a maintenance facility on the County’s property. With no further discussion, Chairman Simmons closed the Public Hearing and asked for a

90

motion. Motion made by Mr. Stalnaker, second by Mr. Granny to recommend that the City Council approve the request as presented with the exception that any major modification to the plan is brought before the Planning Commission and that public hearings are held. There was no discussion on the motion, and the motion carried 7 to 0.

Item 4: Old Business Presentation of Draft – B-1 Discussion

Chairman Simmons recognized Mr. Fulbright. Mr. Fulbright reminded the Planning

Commission that there would be a public meeting held at the January Planning Commission

meeting and that notices would be sent to the residents in the North Rankin Avenue and East 20th

Street Area.

Item 5: New Business

None

Item 6: Reports

Mr. Fulbright reviewed the monthly departmental reports for November 2011.

Item 7: Training

Mr. Fulbright spoke to the Planning Commission about the stormwater permit that was recently

approved. He reminded the Planning Commission of their duties as the stormwater advisory

board and discussed the actions that would be needed to comply with the permit over the next

five (5) years.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Alex S. Fulbright/AICP

Recording Secretary

91

CITY OF NEWTON




FROM: Wilce Martin, Director of Public Works and Utilities

CONSIDERATION OF: Closure of the City Compost Facility


______________________________

Background:

The City of Newton obtained a permit from the State of North Carolina in 2008 to operate a

Land Clearing and Inert Debris Landfill (LCID) on 65 acres of land on Boston Road. The cost to

construct the landfill that was going to be built for the purpose of accepting debris generated by

the city and contractors of the city was estimated at $360,000.

Over the next couple of years it was apparent that an LCID was not needed since it became clear

that Catawba County would receive clean concrete and asphalt for free at the County Landfill.

Consequently, the City obtained a modified permit from the State in 2010 that would allow the

City to dispose of leaves collected within Newton.

On December 1, 2011 a North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(DENR) inspector made a site visit to the compost facility. As a result of this inspection, the

City was cited for not having an approved erosion control plan or sufficient measures in place to

prevent erosion. The corrective measures required by the inspector were to complete an erosion

control plan for the site by December 15, 2011and install silt fencing around the entire two acre

site at an estimated cost of $1,120. In addition, the City would have to construct an all-weather

access road for fire protection at an estimated cost of $22,970. While construction of a silt pond

is not presently required, the staff believes this may be a requirement at a later time. In

consideration of these requirements, the City staff contacted DENR to request an extension of

time for the purpose of determining whether or not the city wanted to continue the compost

operation. DENR agreed to an extension of time to allow the staff to review this matter and

discuss it with City Council.

Review:

The current expense of building an all-weather road and installing silt fencing is estimated to

cost $24,090 which is not included within the current budget. With the continued new

requirements that are being issued by the Federal Government, staff believes that it is just a

matter of time before the city will be required to install a silt pond estimated at a cost of $35,000,

92

and to also perform testing on the silt pond overflow at an underdetermined cost. The cost of

testing is presumed to be costly however since the samples will have to be sent out to a

commercial laboratory.

If the City decides to close the landfill, DENR will require the City to haul all of the leaves and

any other debris on the site to the landfill. The chippings can still be given away or hauled to the

landfill. Once the site is cleared and reseeded, DENR will do a final inspection and approve the

closure.

Staff does not believe the current and future cost of maintaining the landfill is worth the benefit

of using the site only for the disposal of leaves. The estimated cost to haul leaves and mulch to

the County Landfill is approximately $9,000 per year. This includes the cost for fuel and tipping

fees.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to proceed with closure of the City

Compost Facility.

93

agenda packet

Documents

regular city council

city hall

city managers

city department heads

city clerk amy

city clerk prio

council chambers

minutes regular meeting