10132015IRA]
MINUTES
CITY OF DUNN
DUNN, NORTH CAROLINA
The City Council of the City of Dunn held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, October 13, 2015, at 7:00
p.m. in the Dunn Municipal Building. Present was Mayor Oscar N. Harris, Council Members Buddy
Maness, N. Carnell Robinson, Frank McLean, Billy Tart, and. Billy Barfield. Also present was City
Manager Ronnie Autry, Assistant City Manager Steven Neuschafer, Finance Director Drew Holland,
Human Resources Director Anne Thompson, Public Utilities Director Dean Gaster, Chief Building
Inspector Steven King, Fire Inspector Anthony Haney, Interim Recreation Director Brian McNeill,
Police Chief Jimmy Pope, Librarian Mike Williams, City Clerk Debra West, Administrative Support
Specialist Melissa Dudley, City Attorney P. Tilghman Pope and Daily Record Reporter Keilah Goff.
Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Turnage
INVOCATION
Mayor Harris opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and asked Reverend Floyd Ray, who serves as Pastor of Mt.
Zion Missionary Baptist Church, vice-president of Midway Area Churches (MAC) and Chaplain for
Harnett Health System, to give the invocation.
Afterwards, the Pledge of Allegiance was repeated.
AGENDA ADJUSTMENT AND APPROVAL
Motion by Council Member Robinson and seconded by Council Member Maness to adopt the October 13,
2015 meeting agenda with changes, if any, as listed below.
Items Added to the Agenda:
none
Agenda Items Removed:
• Presentation by Harnett Health System
Motion unanimously approved.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Mayor Harris opened the floor for a (30) minute public comment period.
Hearing no comments, the public comment period was closed.
Mayor Harris recessed the regular meeting and opened public hearings at 7:08 pm.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Rezoning Request RZ-05-15
Kenneth & Linda Lee
Pin #1517-50-9170.000
610 N. Ellis Avenue
Mayor Harris stated that the public has been notified that oral and written comments will be heard and
received concerning the request by Kenneth & Linda Lee to rezone approximately .23f acres located at 610
N. Ellis Avenue.
This property is currently zoned C-3; Highway Commercial District and is proposed to be rezoned to R-10;
Single Family Dwelling District.
The public hearing was duly advertised on September 15, 29 & October 6, 2015
Mayor Harris asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak for or against this rezoning request
Hearing no comments, Mayor Harris closed the public hearing.
Conditional Use Permit CU -02-15
Meadowlark Solar, LLC (applicant)
Elmore Farms, LLC (owner)
PIN #1517-55-1245.000
2000 block of Meadowlark Road
Mayor Harris stated that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit (Zoning Ordinance Article IX
Section 22-461 (2)] from Meadowlark Solar, LLC. The conditional use will allow the operation of a solar
farm along the 2000 block of Meadowlark Road.
This Public Hearing is an opportunity for the Council to hear sworn testimony and receive specific
evidence from the public to include any party for or against the request. During the deliberation for
decision, questions may only be asked to clarify previous testimony.
174
The public hearing was duly advertised on September 15, 29 & October 6, 2015
Mayor Harris yielded to City Attorney Pope.
City Attorney Pope introduced CU 02-15, a request by Meadowlark Solar, LLC for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow for the operation of a solar farm. The hearing on this matter is judicial in nature and will be
conducted in accordance with special due process safeguards. Attorney Pope asked that all persons who
wish to testify in this case, approach the podium to be sworn or give their affirmation.
Swearing -In:
City Attorney Pope administered oaths to.
Assistant City Manager Steven Neuschafer
Elizabeth C. Trahos (Smithmoore Leatherwood Attorneys at Law, Raleigh, NC)
George Retschle, PE (President of engineering firm Ballentine Associates, PA -Chapel Hill, NC)
Thomas Cleveland, III, PE (Renewable Energy Project Coordinator w/NC Clean Energy Technology
Center, a public service center in the college of Engineering at NC State
University)
Richard C. Kirkland, Jr., MAI (Licensed NC real estate appraiser -owner of Kirkland Appraisals,
Fuquay-Marina, NC)
James Lester (Pine Gate Development)
William P. Elmore, Jr.
Explanation of Proceeding
Attorney Pope explained that testimony will first be given by Assistant City Manager Steven Neuschafer,
then from the applicant and their witnesses, and then from opponents to the request. Parties may cross-
examine witnesses after the witness testifies when questions are called for. If you want the Council to see
written evidence, such as reports, maps, or exhibits, the witness who is familiar with the evidence should
ask that it be introduced during or at the end of his or her testimony.. Reports from persons who are not
present to testify will not be accepted. Attorneys who speak should not give factual testimony but may
summarize their client's case. Before beginning your testimony, please clearly identify yourself for the
record.
City Attorney Pope opened the hearing on Case #CU 02-15 Conditional Use Permit Application and asked
for testimony from Assistant City Manager Neuschafer.
Testimony from the Assistant City Manager
Assistant Manager Neuschafer asked that the documents contained behind tab #15 in the City Council
packet which includes the conditional use application, Planning Department staff report, statement of
justification from the applicant, maps and all other material be entered as evidence. (A copy of these
documents entered as evidence for Case #CU 02-15 Conditional Use Permit is incorporated into these
minutes as Attachment #1).
Mr. Neuschafer stated that the property is currently zoned R-20; Single Family Dwelling District. The
existing use is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned R-10 and R-20; Single Family Dwelling District
and RM; Residential Multi -Family District (Magnolia Apartments). The planning board met and voted
unanimously to recommend approval to the Council with the addition of three (3) proposed conditions:
1) The applicant submits all documentation required under the Article IX of the zoning ordinance
prior to issuance of the development permit.
2) The buffer and screening requirements of Section 22-59 Landscape Regulations shall be used for
this project. All buffer -yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and consist of a variety of
plant materials which meet the landscape regulations and intent of the ordinance.
3) Approved NCDOT guardrail and signage will be placed at the ends of the public right of ways
entering the property at the ends of Merry and Wellons Streets as indicated on the proposed site
plan.
At the end of the Assistant Manager's testimony, Attorney Pope asked if there were any questions of the
Assistant City Manager from the Council.
Council Member Barfield asked if this property is located within the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction to which
Mr. Neuschafer responded yes, this property will fall under the City building and inspection/zoning but will
not be in the city limits of Dunn and no water or sewer services will be available to the property.
Attorney Pope asked if there were additional questions of Mr. Neuschafer. None were heard.
Attorney Pope asked for testimony from the Applicant/Proponents.
Beth Trahos, attorney with Smithmoore Leather -wood, spoke on behalf of Meadowlark Solar, LLC. She
stated that a packet containing the application, site plan and affidavits from each of the experts that will be
testifying, has been prepared to move into evidence. A copy of the packet is incorporated into the minutes
as Attachment #2.
Ms. Trahos stated that it is their burden to show that they meet all of the findings of fact in the ordinance
and with the expert testimony they will do that. Solar farms are good neighbors and are good extra
territorial jurisdiction uses because they don't require city services. The planning board unanimously
recommended approval and she is hoping they will join them.
175
Mr. George Retschle, PE, Civil Engineer and President of Ballentine Associates, Chapel Hill, NC, stated
that his complete testimony is contained within the affidavit in the packet entered as evidence. He stated
that he has been involved with approximately one -hundred (100) solar farms in the last few years and this
is typical of most solar farms where it's enclosed by a fence, there's a landscape buffer around it and the
solar panels themselves are installed in the ground without a lot of mass grading and no changes in the
drainage. The solar farm is quiet, uses no utilities and works in harmony with the area in which it is
proposed to be constructed. His firm did not prepare the site plan but he has reviewed it and it is his
opinion that it meets all the requirements of the ordinance for solar farms.
Mr. Richard Kirkland, Jr., MAI, state certified general appraiser, stated that he has been asked to address
the question about whether a solar farm has an impact on adjoining property values. He's been looking at
this question for about four (4) years and over that period he has visited over 130 solar farm sites and
quantified them. He explained that he looks at how solar farms impact adjacent properties. Mostly
residential uses are next to solar farms where open space meets the homes. This is a harmonious location
for a solar farm and will have no impact on adjoining property values. He looked for matched pairs across
North Carolina by looking at homes that sold next to solar farms. Homes sold for the same price. It is his
professional opinion that the solar farm has no impact on residential property values.
Mayor Harris asked Mr. Kirkland what the property appraised for once construction was completed to
which Mr. Kirkland responded that he did an impact analysis and not an appraisal to say how much any one
property was. They do a before and after analysis so if they appraised a house with a solar farm behind it,
and after it, where would that adjustment come from so his whole study is looking to see what kind of
adjustment would you make; that is generally how you address that question; you do not appraise just one
property.
Council Member Billy Tart asked Mr. Kirkland if the solar farm is considered agriculture land once built.
Mr. Kirkland responded once built, it is no longer considered agriculture land.
Mr. Tommy Cleveland, licensed professional engineer working with solar technology at NC State
explained the system and how power is produced. During the life of the system, there is no emission from
any of the components. Most of the cost of the system is the panels, which contain a twenty-five year
power warranty; the panels are UL certified. This type of solar panel has been in existence for decades.
At the end of life, the system is easy to pull out of the ground and return the land to the way it was. He
explained how the system is anchored. The salvage value of the material will cover the cost of the labor to
pull all the equipment out of the ground and return it to its original state. His opinion is that there is no
health or safety concerns with this system.
Council Member Barfield asked if Meadowlark Solar, LLC or Elmore Farms, LLC will own the property
and who will do the clean-up. Ms. Trahos responded someone else will own the property, adding that part
of the application, is a decommissioning plan that details that clean-up will be done and will be filed with
the Register of Deeds office to confirm that the property owner will complete the clean-up process. The
salvage value of the materials often exceeds the cost of removal.
Mayor Harris asked if Meadowlark Solar, LLC is a single purpose entity for this solar farm to which Ms.
Trahos responded she does not know the answer to that question. Mr. James Lester responded that yes,
Meadowlark Solar, LLC is a single purpose for the solar farm only.
Mayor Harris questioned how they can enforce the requirement for the partners of Meadowlark Solar, LLC
to complete the clean-up once the twenty-five (25) year life expectancy of the solar farm ends. Ms. Trabos
responded that the decommissioning plan is part of the review process and there is also the ability of the
local government to do clean-up and assess the cost against the landowner if Meadowlark or the property
owner does not do the clean-up that is needed; there are protections to confirm the clean-up will be done.
The salvage value estimates exceed the removal cost.
Mr. Cleveland confirmed that at today's prices, salvage costs of the metal outweigh the cost to clean-up the
farm once the life of the farm expires.
Council Member Barfield stated that he is concerned with the land owner having to do the clean-up once
the life of the farm expires. Ms. Trahos responded that the expectation is the life of the equipment is that
twenty-five (25) years from today, the site will be producing 85% of the power that it is on day one. The
expectation is that the solar farm would continue beyond that period of time. It is unlikely that the entity
that operates the facility, will not have the capital to clean-up the site. The second tier of protection is the
land owner and of course the local government will have the ability to do the clean-up and place a lien
against the property so there are a number of protections. She added that she does land development work
statewide for all types of land uses and this question is common for solar farms but no one ever asks
"who's going to clean up the Super Walmart or the mobile home park when no longer useful"; this only for
whatever reason, comes up with solar farms which are much easier than those uses to remove and have a
green field site ready and available for redevelopment that is clean.
Council Member Tart questioned that once the life of the panel is over, can it be refurbished or is there
anything that would be put in the landfill that is toxic. Mr. Cleveland responded that the panel is recyclable
and it is 80-90% glass and aluminum. There are plastics that would not be recyclable but the silicon that
makes up the cells, is recyclable. There are minute amounts of lead at such low points that they are
considered non-toxic and able to be put in the landfill. There is a large market in Europe to recycle the
panels.
176
Mayor Hams asked if the managing member of the LLC is present tonight to which Ms. Trahos responded
no. Mayor Hams asked if they would consider voluntarily annexing this property into the City limits. Ms.
Trahos responded she does not have that authority; adding this is not a requirement of the review process;
this is a use that is uniquely suited to be in the ETJ in that it doesn't require or demand City services that
another use might demand. She can only assume that they are content to remain in the ETJ.
In summary, Ms. Trahos stated that this use is permitted if they show the expert testimony that the findings
of fact in the ordinance have been met. The general assembly has set out standards for the evidence that
they can consider as they make their deliberations. All of the experts they have put forward tonight meet
the qualifications under the 393 (k) (3) of the NC General Statutes for competent evidence and she has
heard no contrary evidence to the findings of fact. She added that they have provided evidence, and the
City staff agrees that this use is permissible as a conditional use in the district.
Ms. Trahos addressed each finding of fact providing evidence to all findings of fact and requested that the
Council concur with the recommendation of the planning board for approval.
Attorney Pope asked Ms. Trahos if there is someone present on behalf of the owner that has authority to
accept conditions on the granting of the conditional use permit; adding that the planning board has
recommended a number and there may or may not be others that the Council would request. She responded
those conditions by the planning board have been accepted and she has the authority to accept the
additional conditions by the planning board.
City Attorney Pope asked if there were any persons present that have been sworn to provide testimony and
would like to speak in opposition to the request. If there are attorneys or other representatives who will
give a general summary of the client's positions, they may speakfirst None were heard.
Attorney Pope entertained f irther questions from the City Council members for the applicant, proponents,
opponents, or for the Assistant City Manager or other sworn persons. He explained that once the public
hearing is closed, the only questions that the Council may pose to the applicant, proponents or opponents
shall be for clarification. No new evidence can be introduced after closing the public hearing. Any
additional conditions that the Council wishes to consider to place upon the use of the land by the applicant,
must ask the applicant if he/she will voluntarily place the condition upon his/her property at this time.
City Attorney Pope asked if there are any conditions that the Council would like to ask the applicant to
consider in the event of the approval ofthe conditional use permit:
City Attorney Pope stated that the applicant already confirmed they would be willing to accept the
conditions of the planning board. The applicant agreed to accept the following conditions:
1) The applicant submits all documentation required under the Article IX of the zoning ordinance
prior to issuance of the development permit.
2) The buffer and screening requirements of Section 22-59 Landscape Regulations shall be used for
this project. All buffer -yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and consist of a variety of
plant materials which meet the landscape regulations and intent of the ordinance.
3) Approved NCDOT guardrail and signage will be placed at the ends of the public right of ways
entering the property at the ends of Merry and Wellons Streets as indicated on the proposed plan.
City Attorney Pope asked if there are any other conditions that any member of the Council would like to
ask the applicant to consider:
Mayor Harris asked Mr. Neuschafer if there are any ordinances regulating solar farms to which Mr.
Neuschafer responded yes, there is a solar farm ordinance in the zoning chapter of the code of ordinances
which is the ordinance the applicant used in the application process.
Mayor Harris asked Mr. Neuschafer that in the application process, did he see any additional changes that
the City needs to make to the ordinance to make sure they have authority to monitor the solar farm as the
City sees fit to which Mr. Neuschafer responded that the only inconsistency that he noticed was for
landscaping which did not match with the original landscaping ordinance in place and that is the reason for
the additional conditions. The City ordinance that regulates solar farms was written after reviewing many
other existing ordinances across the state and it is consistent with other solar farm ordinances. This
ordinance was written in anticipation of this emerging technology across the state.
Mayor Harris asked Mr. Neuschafer what is the City's responsibility for monitoring the solar farm and
what type of cost could the City incur to which Mr. Neuschafer responded that a continuous monitoring
condition would be maintaining the landscape buffering between the residential houses and the farm itself
to ensure that if there is any damage to the existing buffer, that it is replaced.
Mayor Hams asked Mr. Neuschafer, if the City has any authority to charge them for any cost incurred in
carrying out the duties and responsibilities for monitoring the buffering since the applicant would like the
property to remain in the ETJ to which Mr. Neuschafer responded that since this property is in the ETJ and
already falls within the zoning ordinance, he doesn't think there is anything extra that the City could charge
or re -coup. Mr. Neuschafer added that the City enforces the zoning ordinance across the extra tentorial
jurisdiction whether it be inside or outside the City limits. Mayor Hams responded that when you have a
situation inside the City limits, property taxes are paid versus a situation in the ETJ where property taxes
are not paid even though the City will incur expenses over the twenty-five years of monitoring the solar
farm.
177
Council Member Barfield stated that there is no one present who has authority to agree to other conditions
adding that the only fees the City will receive from this is the $700 application fee and building permit fees.
Council Member Maness asked that in light of the fact that the property owner is the responsible party for
removal of this equipment, what would happen if the property were sold; would that same responsibility
transfer to whoever purchased the property. Ms. Trahos responded that the deed commissioning plan
anticipates being recorded in the Register of Deeds so it would be in the title to the property so any
potential purchasers would be obligated.
Council Member Tart questioned if the owners failed to clean-up this property once the solar farm use
ends, can the City clean it up and bill the property owner even though this property is in the ETJ and they
do not pay City taxes. City Attorney Pope responded that if the City did the removal and assessed the lien
against the property, the City could enforce the lien by foreclosing on the property but they could not assess
property taxes unless this property is brought into the City limits. The lien for removal is different from a
property tax lien.
Mayor Harris asked Ms. Trahos that since the owner of the LLC wishes to remain in the ETJ, would they
be willing to pay the City for costs incurred to carry out the ordinances for this property within the ETJ in
lieu of taxes to which Ms. Trahos responded she does not have the authority to commit to this. She added
that a neighborhood meeting was held where they met with the adjacent property owners including home
owners who live in the area. She stated that most inspections and planning departments are complaint
driven and these folks were particularly interested in the buffers and the separation between the uses and
she feels certain that if there is an issue, those folks will come to the Council and let them know that there
is a concern on the property. She said that generally an ETJ is something that a community wants and as
that decision is made, there are benefits and costs to that control and she submits that costs would be very
minimal and benefits to the community include not using community resources, they will pay county taxes
and they will not use county resources either so for the larger community, there is a financial benefit from
the solar farms.
Mayor Harris asked Ms. Trahos to name the benefits for the City from the solar farm to which Ms. Trahos
responded they will pay county taxes but will not use county resources so they are helping to fund schools
but they are not putting any children in the schools; the county and the state participate in road construction
and there is very little traffic generated. There will be less traffic with a solar farm after construction than
one single family home. The site is visited about once a week during the growing season to make sure the
landscaping is maintained and occasionally to do the repairs needed. The facility is monitored remotely.
This is really a use with no impacts.
Mayor Harris stated that it concerns him, with something this serious, that there is no one present tonight
who has the authority on behalf of the LLC, to respond to the Council's questions and requests to which
Ms. Trahos responded that she understands their frustration; the expectation is that this is within the ETJ;
that they would consider this as a property within the ETJ and rule upon it based upon their regulations and
she would ask that they do this today.
Council Member Barfield stated that be is in favor of solar farms but he does not want the Elmore family
(Elmore Farms) to be stuck with the clean-up; adding that Ms. Trahos does not have authority to do
anything except explain this to the Council.
Ms. Trahos stated that she would like to say that there has been no expert testimony about people being
stuck with solar farm clean-up or those materials not being recyclable; in fact just the opposite, the only
expert testimony has been that those things are recyclable and that there are protections in place to provide
for the removal of the facility. The sale of power to Duke Progress Energy is a lucrative endeavor and this
entity should have no difficulty in cleaning the site up when the time comes.
Mr. William Elmore stated that he is the current land owner who is selling the property so the responsibility
will not come back on him. He stated that most of the Council members know him and know the type of
work he does in the community; adding that he is a builder. He had plans to build housing on this property
years ago but with the recession, he chose not to do that. He's had opportunities to sell this property for
construction of apartments, smaller homes and a livestock operation but he chose not to sell the property
because he did not think that was good for the community. He's done quite a bit of research on solar farms
and he feels this is a good clean industry and it is something that the planning board had the foresight to see
and it is happening all over the United States. He feels the solar farm is good for the community,
neighborhood meetings have been held and they fully understand what is going on and there is no one
present to oppose this project tonight. He asked that the Council support this project. He has to make a
living in this City and he wouldn't put something on this property to cause a decrease in property values;
adding that he runs a real estate business. He didn't sell the property for other reasons because it could
have had a negative effect on housing prices in this area.
Council Member Barfield asked Mr. Elmore if he sells the property, will the new owner agree to the
annexation to which Mr. Elmore responded that he cannot answer that question.
Mayor Harris asked if this hearing could be continued until the owner or someone with authority could act
on behalf of the LLC to which Attorney Pope responded that if it is the wishes of the Council, at the
appropriate time, they could make a motion to recess this hearing to be convened at a later date.
Ms. Trahos stated that through technology, she has been in touch with the owner and at this time, they wish
to remain in the ETJ but if there are other conditions during the decision of this process, she would be
happy to take those back to the owner.
178
City Attorney Pope asked if there are other conditions that the Council would like to ask the applicant to
consider being placed as part ofgranting the conditional use permit.
Mayor Harris stated that he previously suggested payment in lieu of taxes for the cost the City would incur
in monitoring this facility but there is no one present to accept that condition.
Mr. Neuschafer stated that if there is a request for him to look at the cost of monitoring the property, he
would need to determine if there is a true cost in monitoring.
Ms. Trahos stated that through the use of the phone, she has communicated with folks who are able to make
decisions and she thinks that the cost of enforcing the ordinance in the ETJ is something which they are
already charged, is minimal but if the Council is willing to act tonight, her client is willing to offer the City
of Dunn $1,000 per year to defray the cost of enforcement.
City Attorney Pope stated that the applicant has indicated that they are willing to accept a condition for
granting the conditional use permit for $1,000 per year fee for payment of ordinance enforcement for the
project.
City Attorney Pope asked if there are other conditions that the Council would like to ask the applicant to
consider on the granting of the conditional use permit.
Mayor Hams asked Mr. Neuschafer if this offer of $1,000 per year fee would be sufficient to which he
responded he cannot confirm if this amount would be too much or enough at this point. He does not know
what it might take to do this.
Council Member Maness asked Mr. Neuschafer if there were a problem (ex. storm event) with any of the
buffer, materials, plants or vegetation or if there were a problem with any of the other conditions, who
would be responsible for replacing, repairing, removing or fixing and restoring back to the state it should be
to which Mr. Neuschafer responded it would be the applicant of the conditional use permit, Meadowlark
Solar, LLC. Mr. Maness asked Mr. Neuschafer if the applicant is aware of this to which he responded he
believes they are to which Mr. Maness responded he does not see a problem.
With no further testimony, a motion was made by Council Member Tart and seconded by Council Member
McLean to close the public hearing for CU -02-15 at 8:10 p.m. Motion unanimously approved.
Demolition of House
306 S. Washington Avenue
PIN #1516-75-1517.000
Mayor Hams stated that the public has been notified that oral and written comments will be heard and
received concerning the demolition of the dwelling located at 306 S. Washington Avenue.
The public hearing was duly advertised on September 29, 2015 and October 6, 2015.
Mayor Harris asked if there was anyone present that wished to speak for or against this demolition.
Mr. Stanley Williams, 207 S. Magnolia Avenue, Dunn, NC stated that he is the responsible party of the
property. He added that he met with the Building Inspector and he has been given a building permit to do
the work; he's talked to the contractor and the contractor indicates that as long as he has a building permit,
he has up to six months to complete the work. He requested an extension of time to have the work
completed.
Hearing no further comments, Mayor Harris closed the public hearings and reconvened the regular meeting
at 8:11 p.m.
CONSENT ITEMS
Minutes — Council considered approval of minutes of the September 8, 2015 City Council meeting
Proclamation - Council considered approval of a proclamation designating October 18-24, 2015 as National
Friends of Libraries Week. Council Member Barfield read the proclamation. A copy of Proclamation
(P2015-21) designating National Friends of Libraries Week is incorporated into these minutes as
Attachment #3.
Resolution — Council considered approval of a Resolution Urging a Safe and Courteous Halloween on
Saturday, October 31, 2015. Council Member Barfield read the Resolution. A copy of Resolution (R2015-
16) Urging a Safe and Courteous Halloween is incorporated into these minutes as Attachment #4.
Destruction of Municipal Records - Council considered approving the destruction of Finance Department
records which have exceeded the required retention time pursuant to the Municipal Disposition Schedule.
A list of those records that have exceeded the required retention schedule and approved for destruction is
incorporated into these minutes as Attachment #5.
Budget Amendment - Council considered approval of Budget Amendment #1. A copy of BA #1 is
incorporated into these minutes as Attachment #6.
WAN
Quarterly Performance Status Report -HTC — Council considered approval of the Quarterly Progress Report
for the period of 07/01/2015 — 09/30/2015 for the NC Catalyst Grant 12-C-2476 — Harnett Training School
Apartments Project.
Surplus Resolution — Council considered approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Disposition of Personal
Property by electronic means through www.GovDeals.com. A copy of Surplus Resolution (R2015-17) is
incorporated into these minutes as Attachment #7.
Motion by Council Member Barfield and seconded by Council Member McLean to approve all consent
items. Motion unanimously approved.
ITEMS FOR DECISION
Rezoning Request RZ-05-15
Kenneth & Linda Lee
PIN #1517-50-9170.000
610 N. Ellis Avenue
This is a request to rezone a parcel of land totaling .23f acres, located at 610 N. Ellis Avenue. This
property is currently zoned C-3; Highway Commercial District and is proposed to be rezoned to R-10;
Single Family Dwelling District.
The Planning Board met on September 22, 2015 to review the request and ask for comments from the
public. After hearing comments from the public and the request from the applicant, the Planning Board
voted unanimously to recommend approval of this request.
Motion by Council Member Maness and seconded by Council Member Barfield to approve the request
from Kenneth & Linda Lee to rezone (PIN #1517-50-9170.000) totaling .23f acres and located at 610 N.
Ellis Avenue to R-10; Single Family Dwelling District based on the following justification:
1) The City of Dunn Land Use Plan identifies this property as residential on the future land use map.
This property is located in area one of the Land Use Plan.
2) The amendments are not inconsistent with the adjoining and surrounding land uses which are
residential to the north and the proposed change is not considered detrimental.
3) The permitted uses in the R-10 District are not considered detrimental to the area.
Motion unanimously approved.
Conditional Use Permit CU -02-15
Meadowlark Solar, LLC (applicant)
Elmore Farms, LLC (owner)
PIN #1517-55-1245.000
2000 block of Meadowlark Road
This is a request from Meadowlark Solar, LLC to operate a solar farm along the 2000 block of Meadowlark
Road. This property is currently zoned R-20; Single Family Dwelling District.
The Planning Board met on September 22, 2015, reviewed the request and asked for comments from the
public. After hearing the request from the applicant, there were several individuals present to speak with
regards to how the project would look and operate and how the project would impact adjacent property
values. The planning board recommended in a unanimous vote to approve this request with the following
suggested conditions:
1. The applicant submits all documentation required under the Article IX of the zoning ordinance
prior to issuance of the development permit.
2. The buffer and screening requirements of Section 22-59 Landscape Regulations shall be used for
this project. All buffer -yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and consist of a variety of
plant materials which meet the landscape regulations and intent of the ordinance.
3. Approved NCDOT guardrail and signage will be placed at the ends of the public right of ways
entering the property at the ends of Merry and Wellons Streets as indicated on the proposed plan.
Motion by Council Member Maness and seconded by Council Member Tart to approve CU -02-15 based on
the following statements of justification being in the affirmative and to include the three additional
conditions recommended by the planning board and a fourth condition rendered by the City Council that
the holder of the Conditional Use Permit pay a $1,000 annual fee for ordinance monitoring and
enforcement to defray the cost to the City of Dunn:
1. The use requested is listed among the conditional uses in the district for which the application is
made. Per the zoning ordinance Article IX Division I Section 22-461 (2), the Conditional Use is
listed in the ordinance.
2. The requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare. The requested use
is desirable to the public convenience, and will meet the requirements of the conditional use
permit.
3. The requested use will not impair the integrity or character of the surrounding or adjoining
districts, nor be detrimental to the health, morals, or welfare. The property and surrounding
properties are currently residential. The solar farm would be appropriately screened from
adjoining properties to help mitigate any negative visual aspects of the development.
4. The requested use will be in conformity with the land development plan. The location of this
request is surrounded by residential zoning districts. The issuance of this permit will be
appropriate with the anticipated growth pattern identified in area one of the 2030 Land Use Plan.
5. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, sanitation, and other necessary facilities have been or
are being provided. All facilities are adequate for the proposed development.
6. Incorporate the (3) additional stated conditions recommended by the planning board.
7. Incorporate (1) additional stated condition recommended by the City Council that the holder of the
conditional use permit pay a $1,000 annual fee for ordinance monitoring and enforcement to
defray the cost to the City of Dunn.
Motion unanimously approved.
Consideration of Ordinance to
Demolish House -
306 S. Washington Avenue
PIN #1516-75-1517.000
Chief Building Inspector Steven King stated that this property was condemned on May 23, 2015 followed
by a hearing with Mr. Stanley Williams and it was explained to him that he had 60 days to make the
repairs. On August 3, 2015, the 60 days expired and Mr. Williams purchased a permit on August 11, 2015
which was after the 60 days. He added that as of September 23, 2015, there appears that no work has been
done.
Council Member Tart stated that Mr. Williams had stated that once he received a building permit, he had
six months to do the work and he questioned Mr. King if that is correct to which Mr. King responded that is
the term used on the permit; that doesn't extend the time on the 60 days that's required by the General
Statues; issuing the permit was a good faith effort.
Council Member Maness asked Mr. King if the permit should have been applied for and received prior to
the deadline to which Mr. King responded they would like that. Mr. Maness stated that Mr. Williams did
not apply for the permit until a week after the 60 days expired.
Council Member Robinson asked Mr. King if the permit was issued through his office to which he
responded yes. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. King if he was already aware that he had exceeded the deadline to
which Mr. King responded that is correct.
Council Member Maness asked Mr. King if he is required to issue a permit to which he responded yes. Mr.
Maness asked Mr. King if he had the authority to not issue a permit to which Mr. King responded that is
correct, as long as all the terms are correct within the permit and contractors check out, then he can issue a
permit.
Council Member Robinson stated that the point of his question would be if there was any effort at that point
and time to explain this situation to Mr. Williams to which Mr. King responded that Mr. Williams was
made aware of the time line at the hearing which took place on June 16, 2015.
Mayor Harris stated that he is unclear with the concept of issuing a building permit when the 60 days had
expired and questioned how the City could legally issue a building permit to which Mr. King responded
that they are all in favor of someone repairing a house versus tearing one down and if a good faith effort is
being made, then technically Mr. Williams had time before the City Council considers the demolition
order. He added that if any progress had been made between the time the building permit was issued and
the Council meeting, then they would take that into consideration.
Mayor Harris stated that Mr. Williams has had the permit but he has not made any good faith effort to
restore the house to which Mr. King agreed and added that there has been no inspections scheduled and as
far as appearance on the outside, it appears that nothing has been done.
Council Member Barfield asked Mr. King who owns this house to which Mr. King responded that the tax
records state Patricia Grier (who is deceased) in care of Mr. Stanley Williams.
Council Member Barfield asked if there are occupants in this house. Mr. King responded yes.
Council Member Maness questioned how occupants could be in this house. Mr. King responded that once
the Council takes action to demolish the property, then the occupants are given 10 days to vacate the
dwelling.
Discussion was held that once the Council takes action to condemn a property, the inspections department
can then take action to remove the occupants of the property.
City Attorney Pope explained that the Building Inspector entered an order giving the property owner 60
days to make the property habitable but to have it declared under the statute as unfit for human habitation
which gives the City the authority to remove the occupants, must be approved by the Council.
Council Member Maness stated that Mr. Williams stated his address earlier tonight and Mr. Maness
suggested that the inspections department mail all correspondence to that address as opposed to the post
office box because every piece of certified mail was returned as undeliverable and unable to forward so
obviously he no longer has the post office box. He added that with all future dealings with Mr. Williams,
utilize the address that he stated tonight.
181
Mayor Harris questioned if Mr. Williams has the authority to represent this lady and by what means. Mr.
King responded that Mr. Williams filled out the application and building permit and he put down that he is
the contractor and his address on the building permit is 1512 to which Council Member Maness stated that
is a problem because on every one of the certified letters, it states return to sender -unclaimed -unable to
forward. Mr. King responded that some people deny signing the certified mail to which Mr. Maness stated
that is not a good faith effort to work with the City. Mr. King stated that the City also mailed fust class
letters as well and none of those were returned.
Council Member Maness questioned that this house was condemned in May and now it is October to which
Mr. King responded that by Mr. Williams securing a building permit, they gave him a good faith effort
before bringing this before the Council.
Motion by Council Member Maness and seconded by Council Member Tart to adopt the Ordinance
Directing the Building Inspector to proceed with the demolition of the dwelling located at 306 S.
Washington Avenue (PIN #1516-75-1517.000) due to the fact that there has been no progress and no
improvements made and the time to do so has expired.
Council Member Barfield stated that he disagrees, that this lady is deceased, the certified mailings were
returned and it has been five to six months before the Council received this ordinance for demolition.
Council Member Robinson stated that they want to save a house and Mr. King said that there was no
inspection inside the property since that time and Mr. King is looking at what has been done outside to
which Mr. King responded that is correct, he has not been inside. Mr. Robinson stated that there seems like
an indication here going to get the permit, even though it was not timely, that they want to save the house
and repair it; that's what he's getting from the actions even though Mr. King issued the permit and he
hasn't heard anything that gave him the impression that there was any explanation or emphasis put on the
timeframe. He understands that there are two separate processes but he also thinks they have a
responsibility to explain to people what they are up against and he's not sure he heard that tonight.
Council Member Maness stated that he's basing his motion off of the timeline and information that is
before them and it indicates that Mr. Williams attended the June 16, 2015 meeting where he discussed his
plans for repair of the house with the chief building inspector. The deadline expired on August 3, 2015.
Mr. Robinson stated that Mr. Williams was issued a permit to which Mr. Maness responded that issuing
another permit is not the question, but rather why the order to do the repairs within the 60 days was
disregarded and not followed.
Council Member Maness called for the question.
Yeas Nays
Maness Robinson
Tart McLean
Barfield
Motion defeated 3-2.
Additional discussion held after the Financial Report.
Council Member Maness asked City Attorney Pope what is the City's obligation when they know there are
people living in a house that has been condemned. Mr. Pope responded this is an issue that he and the city
staff will look into. Mr. Pope stated that the order of the building inspector stands; the Council did not vote
down the order, it merely did not approve a motion to approve the ordinance so at this time the matter is
still unresolved. Mr. Pope stated that the department of social services and other resources may have to be
used in order to address the unlivable conditions. Mr. Maness stated that there could be a liability on the
City.
Mayor Harris stated that based on the direction given from the staff and City Attorney, he plans to place
this item back on the agenda for consideration of an extension or approval to demolish at the next Council
meeting.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
AND/OR DECISION
Financial Report
Finance Director Drew Holland provided the following financial report for the period ending August 31,
2015:
As of August 31, 2015, the City had a total cash balance of $2,990,521. $572,658 in the checking
account; $1,845,076 in the Capital Management Trust accounts; $571,718 in Money Market
Investments; and $1,070 cash on hand. The total cash balance as of August 31, 2014 was
$3,525,555.
Property Tax collections were $140,694 (3.98% of budget). Last year total property tax
collections through August 31, 2014 were $116,670.
Vehicle Tax collections were $50,553 (16.31% of budget). Last year total vehicle tax collections
through August 31, 2014 were $52,443.
182
• Sales Tax Distribution total as of July 31, 2015 was $142,748 (9.68% of budget). Benchmark for
July was 8.33% of budget. Last year total sales tax distribution through July 31, 2014 was
$137,688. Sales Tax Distribution for the month of August will be received on October 15, 2015.
• Building permit fees were $13,385 (20.59% of budget). Benchmark for this month is 16.67% of
budget. Last year total building permit fees were $13,999.
• Water and Sewer revenues were $858,327 (19.07% of budget). Benchmark for this month is
16.67% of budget. Last year total Water and Sewer revenues were $859,055.
• Total expenditures for the month of August were 18.67% of budget in the General Fund and
13.67% of budget in the Water -Sewer fund. The benchmark for this period is 16.67% of budget.
Last year General Fund total expenditures were 21.32% and Water -Sewer Fund was 14.48%.
Motion by Council Member Barfield and seconded by Council Member McLean to accept the Financial
Report. Motion unanimously approved.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Motion by Council Member McLean and seconded by Council Member Tart to accept the Administrative
Reports. Motion unanimously approved.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The following announcements and/or comments were made.
Mayor Harris:
➢ "Trick or Treat' times will be observed in the City limits of Dunn on Saturday, October 31, 2015
from early evening until 8:30 pm.
➢ 171" Annual Touchstone Energy Cotton Festival will be held on Saturday, November 7' from 10
am until pm in Downtown Dunn.
The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 7:00 p.m.
➢ City of Dunn offices will be closed Wednesday, November 11" in observance of Veterans Day.
➢ Rooms To Go Super Center grand opening and ribbon cutting will be held on Saturday, October
17, 2015 at 10 am.
➢ American Legion Post 59 will hold a Veterans Ceremony at the General Lee Memorial Museum
on Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 2 pm.
Council Member Barfield:
➢ A blood drive will be held at the First Presbyterian Church on Tuesday, October 20, 2015 from
2:30 pm - 7:00 pm and encouraged everyone to donate.
➢ He recently attended the NCLM meeting in Winston-Salem and enjoyed the informative sessions.
A run-off election will be held on November 3, 2015 for one Council seat.
➢ Introduced new employee, Fire Inspector Anthony Haney.
With no further business to discuss, a motion was made by Council Member Barfield and seconded by
Council Member McLean to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Motion unanimously approved.
GJY op
::OpRPOggT�."� scar N. Harris
w•+ - Mayor
Attest: SEA1
? n9 ..
/ 'y CAFE ,
Debra G. West
City Clerk