[0:00] Mr. Abell, good start. My cell phone says 5:30 p.m. so I'm gonna go ahead and start and call this
[0:07] city council meeting to order for today, Tuesday, August 11, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. Just want to thank all
[0:15] the attendees. Thank you guys for coming out and attending this meeting and for the ones that
[0:19] couldn't make it, our staff is recording this meeting and it'll be available on our website 24 hours
[0:25] afterwards. So with no further ado, I'm gonna ask Mayor Pro Tem Ballou to bless us with the
[0:31] invocation. Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Let us pray.
[0:35] Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day and for all the many blessings that you provide for us
[0:41] each and every day. Heavenly Father, thank you for Morehead City and all the good things that are
[0:47] going on in our city and all the ones working behind the scenes to make it happen. We thank
[0:54] you for all who are here tonight as we do the business of our city. We pray you give our mayor,
[1:01] council and staff wisdom and guidance as we work together for the better of Morehead City. All this
[1:08] we ask in Jesus name. Amen. Amen. Let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
[1:18] Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it
[1:24] stands, one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
[1:33] And if everyone can put your cell phones on silence to avoid interruptions and distractions, please.
[1:42] Thank you for that.
[1:44] So for item number two, the council has had ample time to look over the agenda. And at this time, if
[1:52] you guys want to remove something for the agenda or add something to the agenda, you have the power
[1:59] to do so at this time.
[2:04] I move we accept the agenda. Okay. Motion made by Councilman Bill Taylor to accept the agenda as
[2:13] presented. Will there be a second? I second. Councilman Harvey Walker seconded. Any discussion on
[2:19] this motion hearing? No discussion. All in favor, indicate by raising your hand. It's unanimous.
[2:27] Okay, so item number three. The adoption of consent agenda. So the consent agenda is a list of items
[2:34] that are discussed in our committee meetings and vetted through all the council over a couple, couple
[2:42] week period of time. And at this time, any council member wants to pull any consent agenda consent
[2:49] agenda item off, you have the power to do so at this time.
[2:56] If not, is there a motion to accept or adopt the consent agenda as presented? Mayor, I make a motion
[3:02] with a such agenda as presented. Motion made by council member Harvey Walker. I second. Seconded by
[3:08] council member Nathan Chambers. Any discussion on this motion? hearing no discussion. All in favor,
[3:15] indicate by raising your hand. It's unanimous.
[3:19] Okay, so for item number four, public hearing section, item 4A, annexation of 191 and 195
[3:29] Morgan Street and 201 Marine Drive. Sandi, your presentation.
[3:48] This request includes an undeveloped 9 and a half acre tract at 191 and 195 Morgan Street and 201
[3:55] Marine Drive, located on Radio Island. The property is presently within the Carteret County's
[4:01] jurisdiction and is contiguous to the Morehead City's existing corporate limits. The tract is
[4:07] currently zoned Port Industrial by Carteret County. The associated request for initial city zoning
[4:13] will be considered separately under item 4B.
[4:19] Should this annexation be approved.
[4:23] At the city's current tax rate, the annexation would generate approximately $3,300 in annual city
[4:28] property tax revenue,
[4:32] and all costs associated with extending water and sewer service to the property would be the
[4:36] responsibility of the property owner. Annexation would also bring the property within the city's
[4:42] corporate jurisdiction and make it eligible for city services.
[4:47] Notice was provided in accordance with the requirements applicable to the annexation hearing.
[4:52] Approval of the annexation is necessary before the city can apply the requested city commercial
[4:58] marina zoning designation, which is under item B of this, the city council agenda.
[5:05] Okay, thank you, Sandi. Does any council members have any questions for Sandi?
[5:12] Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you. Public hearing is now open. If any citizen wants to get up
[5:21] and speak in favor of this annexation or in opposition, you have the right to do so at this time.
[5:27] Mr. Cullipher you have a three minute time limit, sir. Just state your name and address. Good
[5:34] evening. My name is Ron Cullipher. I'm an engineer with the Cullipher Group, located Morehead City,
[5:38] 151A Highway 24. I'm representing the Ude family and Boline Capital in this request. And as Sandi
[5:46] said, it's currently in the county jurisdiction and we'd like to annex into the city and be able to
[5:53] receive city services and respectfully request approval for the annexation.
[6:01] Thank you. Mr. Culipher. Is there anyone else out in the audience wants to speak in favor or in
[6:07] opposition of this annexation?
[6:11] Okay. Public hearing is now closed. Gonna defer to our planning committee chair. Yeah, Mr. Mayor,
[6:20] obviously this was vetted in our committee not long ago. We talked about it and therefore I'm. I
[6:28] move that we. We go ahead and adopt this. I think it's going to be. Is it Resolution 2026-0-12? That
[6:37] be right? Yes, sir. Ordinance not. Yeah. Adopt the annexation of that property. Okay, so. Motion
[6:43] made by council member Richard Abell. Is there a second?
[6:49] I'll second it, Mayor. Okay. Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem George Ballou. Any discussion on this motion?
[6:56] Okay. Hearing none. All in favor, Indicate by raising your hand. It's unanimous. Okay, Sandi.
[7:05] Item number 4B, rezoning of 191 and 195 Morgan Street and 201 Marine Drive. The applicant has
[7:15] requested that the same track that you just reviewed for the annexation request be initially zoned
[7:21] to commercial marina district and this aerial identifies the subject property along Marine Drive and
[7:28] Morgan Street. The tract is undeveloped except for three existing docks. The surrounding area
[7:34] contains a mixture of residential, multifamily, marina, port and industrial development.
[7:41] This map shows the requested commercial marina zoning designation in relation to the current county
[7:47] and city zoning.
[7:50] The property is currently zoned Port Industrial under Carteret county zoning and immediately
[7:56] surrounding zoning includes port industrial districts to the north, south and west, planned
[8:01] development and commercial marina zoning to the northwest, and residential zoning and development
[8:06] across Morgan Creek and Morgan Street to the east
[8:11] and the property is presently not included on Morehead City's future land use map or neighborhood
[8:18] planning area maps. Carteret County's plan identifies the property as developed. Once the city
[8:23] initially zones the property, the city's comprehensive plan map should also be amended to
[8:29] incorporate it into Morehead City's planning framework. Formal action on these amendments would
[8:34] occur under item 4e of the agenda.
[8:38] The applicant is requested that the track be added to the east neighborhood planning area and the
[8:44] current and proposed land use maps are shown here. Neighborhood planning area maps are shown here.
[8:53] These are the future land use map designations. The applicant also requests that the property be
[8:59] designated Port Mixed use on the future land use map. All portions of Radio island currently
[9:05] included on the city's future land use map carry the Port mixed use designation as depicted on the
[9:10] screen. Formal action on the proposed amendments, land use map amendments would occur again under
[9:16] item 4E.
[9:19] This table depicts the uses presently permitted in the county port industrial use list and this is
[9:28] also included in the agenda materials online and in your packets. And this table depicts the
[9:34] permitted and special uses within Morehead City's commercial marina district. Because this is a
[9:40] conventional zoning request, Council must consider the full range of uses allowed in the CM
[9:45] district. No site specific conditions may be attached to a conventional rezoning request and
[9:52] depending upon the uses ultimately proposed, additional planning board for council review may not be
[9:56] required.
[9:59] The property was posted with public hearing signs along both Marine Drive and Morgan Street. The
[10:04] hearing was advertised and abutting property owners were notified.Staff had received five inquiries
[10:10] as of the Planning Board presentation last month. At the planning board meeting, one person spoke in
[10:16] favor and two in opposition to the request. On July 21, the planning board voted unanimously to
[10:22] recommend approval of the commercial marina zoning and the associated comprehensive plan amendment
[10:28] and adopted Planning Board Resolution 2026-0005. Council will consider any land use plan
[10:35] amendment separately under item 4E. That concludes my report. Thank you, Sandi. Thank you. Does the
[10:41] council have any questions for Sandi? Sandi, can you put that map? Zoning?Is that what you're
[10:47] requesting, sir? Map.
[10:50] Sorry, Go back this one. Zoning. So. So the area that we're talking about is the, what's in that
[10:57] diagram there, the little area that's to the south. So that. That still remains Port Industrial.
[11:04] Yes, sir. That property is not part of the current request. That's under. Not, not included in this.
[11:11] So that is not included. So that'll remain?
[11:14] County Port Industrial. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. That's not in the city limits at this
[11:20] time, nor it's under separate ownership. Yes, sir. Correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
[11:27] Are there any other questions for Sandi? Okay. Hearing none. Public hearing is now open. There's
[11:34] anybody wants to get up and speak in favor or in opposition of this reasoning. Mr. Cullipher.
[11:43] Thank you again. Ron Cullipher, representing the applicant in this rezoning request. You saw the list
[11:49] of potential uses under the county's jurisdiction. Our proposed rezoning limits those uses quite a
[11:56] bit to something that's less, less intrusive into the neighborhood as it currently exists. And
[12:03] again, we just request approval to move forward with the rezoning.
[12:08] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. There anyone else in the audience that wants to speak
[12:14] in favor or in opposition of this rezoning request? Yes, sir.
[12:20] You state your name and your address.
[12:24] Good evening. My name is Eric Remington. I'm with the law firm of Ward and Smith. I'm out of New Bern,
[12:29] but I'm here representing the Old Towne Commute, Condominium Owners association and Old Town Yacht
[12:35] Club Marina Owners Association. We're opposed to this request for rezoning. The , the applicants have
[12:44] asked for the property to be annexed into and at the same time be rezoned. There's a significant
[12:50] change that is being done here to the zoning. Under the county's plan, the zoning would require a
[12:58] special use permit for things like commercial marinas and, and dry stack storage and things like
[13:04] that. Under this new zoning, it would be permitted use as of right. And the people of Old Towne, both
[13:13] the condominium owners association and the marina association were not given proper notice of this
[13:19] hearing. The requirements under the, the Morehead City zoning ordinance require. Section 24-7 of the
[13:32] ordinance requires that in addition to the published notice requirements in section 24-5, the
[13:40] following shall apply to zoning map amendments which this is, and it says that the owners of
[13:45] affected parcels of land and the owners of all parcels of land abutting the parcel of land shall be
[13:52] mailed a notice of the hearing on the proposed zoning map. Certainly the folks of Old Towne and the,
[13:57] and the Old Towne, those two associations are affected by this and it says that they shall be mailed
[14:04] notice and they've not been given any notice. So we would ask that this be continued to a different
[14:10] date to allow the planning staff to give the proper notice to these associations so that they can
[14:15] actually study this and determine whether they can still want to oppose it and further find out more
[14:23] details about about it because they don't really know anything about it. We'd ask that if you're not
[14:30] willing to continue the hearing, then we would ask that you consider some sort of a lesser zoning.
[14:35] You know, the portion, obviously a lot of this is residential, multifamily, things like that, or
[14:42] something like port, maritime or industrial may be the best, most comparable uses to what it is
[14:48] currently. So, but again, we'd ask that you continue this hearing to allow the notice to be
[14:53] properly mailed to these two associations so that they can determine how they want to address the
[14:58] situation and find out more about it. Oka. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else?
[15:12] My name is Brandon Pittman, one of the condo owners and also the homeowners associate
[15:17] president for Old Towne Yacht Club. And I can attest that none of the residents were served via mail,
[15:24] United States Postal Service mail, a notice of this. We also checked with our neighbors at Inlet
[15:28] Cove. Several of them did not get any mailing notification of that as well. The one thing that I may
[15:36] mention, we have 102 condominium units there, approximately 100 boat slips.
[15:43] The concerns that we have with this is currently there's one means of ingress and egress off of
[15:48] Radio Island. And when you go to any type of marine zoning like what we're seeing, it kind of lends
[15:55] itself towards either a public marina like what's across the street, or a dry stack type situation
[16:02] or something like that. You could be looking at a significant number of automobiles coming back and
[16:07] forth off of that one means. In addition to that, you're at the bottom of the bridge coming from
[16:12] Morehead City to Radio Island and at the bottom of the bridge coming from Beaufort. So to realign
[16:19] that traffic or to put a stoplight at the bottom of a bridge is really kind of unorthodox. Nobody
[16:23] comes to the bottom of the bridge expecting to stop. So we feel like it would be a pretty
[16:28] significant
[16:31] hazard to be able to do that. The other thing, if I could ask, since you got it, could I see the
[16:35] aerial map again, please?
[16:41] One of the things, if I could direct your attention, probably see it better on this one. If you look
[16:46] at Morgans Creek, if there's a marina put in there, we've done an informal boat count, if you will,
[16:53] of what goes up and down Morgans Creek. And you can see in this picture over at Inlet Cove, there's
[17:00] a basin that there's boats inside that basin. There's also boats along Morgans Creek that face
[17:06] Inlet Cove and also Old Towne Yacht Club. And we figured that there's about 75 boats a day that go in
[17:14] and out of there. And that's boat traffic, not counting recreational fishermen that come in there
[17:18] and fish. And if you put, depending on what type of marina you put in there, this is already a no
[17:24] wake zone, which shows that it's a hazardous area or else it wouldn't have been slowed down. So if
[17:30] you put another hundred boats in this area, what have you done? We'd need somebody out there in a
[17:35] flat bottom skiff with a yellow vest on directing boat traffic for the already the owners of these
[17:41] slips that face Morgan Creek to even be able to get out. And so, you know, it's our opinion and
[17:48] feeling that what would happen is you would actually diminish the value of the docks. And also you
[17:53] would create a hazardous area, people to get in and out that already have ownership there. The other
[17:58] thing, if you'll notice the width of that, there's a big salt marsh in the middle. That's only about
[18:03] a 40-yard area right there. That's a pretty constricted area to put that much boat traffic back and
[18:10] forth in every day. So these are just a few of the points that we'd want to mention. And thank you
[18:16] for your audience and listening to what we have to say. Mr. Pittman. And then what's your address, Mr.
[18:20] Pittman for our records? 100 Old Town Yacht Club. Okay, thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else from
[18:29] the audience? But. Okay, sir, state your name and address.
[18:38] I'm Sam Judy, 902 Oak Drive in Morehead. And I represent the family that's trying to get this annexation and rezoning.
[18:49] I asked the council do our property is not directly adjacent to the people that are talking about
[18:55] notice. And what is the regulation, the number of feet
[19:00] from the property lines since they're not abutting? Yes, Sandi can answer that question for you. (unintelligible)
[19:10] Okay, thank you. Wait a minute. Oh, say that again. Say it again. So the people that are speaking
[19:16] tonight do not have abutting property. There is the, the piece of property that's remaining in the
[19:23] county separating Old Towne Yacht Club from property in question.
[19:32] It's not abutting. And so what is that? That's my point. Okay. About the notice that he was talking
[19:42] about, since it's not abutting property.
[19:47] And Sandi, because I didn't hear. What. What did you say the time frame was Sandi? I'm sorry, do you want me to come up?
[19:55] What the time frame you referred to, what was it? What was the time frame within which we. Sorry, we
[20:01] notify folks when we advertise? It appears we sent notice to 47 different property owners that were
[20:10] abutting. The notification for the public hearing is not less than 10 or more than 25 days. I
[20:15] believe in my report indicated we had two public hearing signs up. We also notify prior to planning
[20:22] board meeting. And the signs are up prior to that meeting as well. It's on the agenda center and in
[20:28] the lobby in city hall. Those are our advertising
[20:32] methods. Thank you. So people within 300, 300 feet are not notified anymore? Under our current
[20:39] ordinance, it's not indicated that way. So it's abutting property owners, yes, sir. Yes, sir. If
[20:47] we'd like to go above and beyond that, then we should amend the ordinance and we can do that in a
[20:52] new ordinance. But currently it's abutting.
[20:57] From the attorney, is there a comment that you can make on the necessity of one versus another
[21:06] approach or is it sufficient as written? Do you want to comment now or hold it till after the public
[21:13] hearings close? Yeah, we can hold it. We can hold it. And public hearing would be probably more
[21:17] appropriate. Yeah, yeah, we'll hold it till after the public hearing is closed. Okay. Is there
[21:22] anyone else from the audience that wants to speak in favor? Yes, sir. You state your name and
[21:26] address, please.
[21:36] Thank you. Yes, sir. I'm Eddie Youngblood, 141 Morgan. I'm the only permanent property owner that
[21:46] lives on Morgan Street.
[21:52] I live on an island that's within an island. My property is in the city. On all sides of me are
[21:58] county property. County, non-city property and water. So it's an island. And this board approved
[22:07] recently three additional lots on Morgan. There were initially five. Now there are eight. And you've
[22:14] annexed and zoned these lots for residential use. These lots are surrounded by the county land and
[22:22] water, as I said. And I, I'm not against this development. I'm very optimistic to have something
[22:27] positive going on on Radio Island because it's been negative for a long time.
[22:33] The state of affairs concerning this property is a sad tale of industrial dumping, multiple boat
[22:40] sinkings and abandonment. Two are still there if you haven't been there lately. Water pollution and
[22:46] even illegal drug activity.
[22:51] Provisional zoning is a normal process in most jurisdictions, and I'm here to ask you to provide
[22:58] provisional zoning for this request. I only ask for two concessions to make this zoning conditional.
[23:06] One, is that the access to this new marina complex be only from Marine Drive and not via Morgan
[23:14] Street. Morgan Street is a dirt path in the area under consideration here, and the traffic from this
[23:23] marina will make for a dangerous and undesirable situation for all the existing residences.
[23:31] I also ask that the borders for the existing residential property owners be shielded by a
[23:38] substantial buffer system of berm and vegetation, and that any offensive system, such as fuel
[23:45] storage tanks, cannot be located within 100 feet of residential properties.
[23:52] In conclusion, the board established
[23:56] these residential properties along Morgan Street, and the residents of Morgan Street have paid city
[24:02] property taxes for over a decade. We deserve your protection from commercial operations who have yet
[24:09] to pay any, any city property taxes, and only want annexation and zoning now that they have decided
[24:16] to sell this property. Thank you. Any questions? I'll answer. Thank you, sir.
[24:24] Is there anyone else from the audience that wants to speak in favor or in opposition of this
[24:28] rezoning request? Mayor, I'd just like to remind everyone to speak into the microphones, whether
[24:33] you're at the podium, and you need to move the microphone, or here along the dais. Thank you. Absolutely.
[24:38] Thank you, Anna. (unintelligible)
[24:44] I will allow. Yes, sir.
[24:51] Again, my name is Eric Remington. I'm with the law firm of Ward and Smith, representing the two
[24:55] associations I mentioned earlier. My understanding, unless I'm drastically wrong about what Municode
[25:02] says about the ordinance, is that it says the owners of affected parcels of land and the owners
[25:09] of all parcels of land abutting the parcel of land shall be made and mailed a notice. Clearly,
[25:15] there's a distinction between people who are affected by this zoning request and those who have abutting
[25:22] property. So it's not just abutting property. It is also people who are affected by it. I
[25:29] just wanted to make that point clear. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
[25:37] Yes, sir.
[25:41] My name is Brandon Pitman. 100 Old Towne Yacht Club Road.
[25:47] The one comment I wanted to make that we did, and most residents at Old Towne didn't realize this
[25:53] until probably about the last month and a half. And I bring this up because I can understand
[25:58] completely where Mr. Youngblood was coming from on wanting access coming off of Marine Drive. Marine
[26:05] Drive is a really interesting road in our area because we recently called the police one Saturday
[26:12] because of about 200 vehicles being parked up and down it at the public beach next door. And it was
[26:19] blocking the entrance into Old Towne. And we had the police come out. And the police said, well, we
[26:24] see what you got in the problem, but we have no jurisdiction here. And I said, okay. So I said,
[26:29] well, is it Carteret County? The sheriff's department? We'll call them. No, no, they don't have it
[26:34] either. I said, the highway patrol? They said, no, it's not the state at all. In order to have
[26:39] anything done on that road, you've got to call the United States Navy. You ever tried to get a Navy
[26:45] cop out to tow somebody's car? Or suppose there was a wreck on Marine Drive? Who comes and writes a
[26:53] ticket? Who investigates it? If a car caught fire now, they could come, put it out. The fire
[26:58] department could. If I even asked the question. I said, well, somebody got shot on Marine Drive.
[27:02] What do you do? They said, you'd have to call NCIS and have them come from Wilmington to
[27:07] investigate. So as you take all of this into consideration, I just want to make sure that. And I'm
[27:12] sure everybody here does their homework, but Marine Drive into itself is a mess just because of
[27:17] how it, the jurisdiction of it is. And so just kind of put that into the sauce as you shake it up
[27:25] and make it and how that impacts things. But thank you again. Thank you. Is there anyone else?
[27:33] All right. Seeing and hearing anyone? I'm gonna close the public hearing. All right. So, Council
[27:40] member Taylor, you had a question for our city attorney? Yes, certainly there's been a lot of
[27:48] legal questions raised. And I wanted in my mind to ask our attorney, Derek Taylor, to, to sort of
[28:00] make sense out of this (unintelligible)
[28:03] and suggest some possible ways for it.
[28:08] Both. It's not testimony because it's not quasi -eneral, but both folks that have addressed the
[28:16] council have said truths. We have to do the abutting property owners. Then we get into the soft
[28:23] language of who's affected. Okay. It is compound in statute, as Mr. Remington has pointed out.
[28:30] It does. And I've looked it up, say the owners of affected parcels of land and the owners of parcels
[28:37] of land abutting the parcel of land shall be mailed notice.
[28:43] Council can decide, I think that this document, our ordinance says affected and, but really, who
[28:53] you're looking for are the people that are joining. But council could also continue this if you want
[28:58] this to be done. You can imagine with a condominium complex, I don't know how many people are over
[29:03] there, but that's going to significantly increase what we do for mailed notices if that's what you're
[29:10] going to be doing in every case where something is possibly affected and you need to do the mailing
[29:17] to those people. I'm not saying you can't decide that's what you want to do and continue this, but I
[29:22] do believe that it will be something that you can go forward with if you would like tonight. Because
[29:28] affected is a nebulous term. Nobody has presented to you other than what you've heard tonight, that
[29:36] they are actually affected, other than the things that you have heard, what they have concerns
[29:41] about. And you have now heard those things from people that are representative of those
[29:46] organizations. Maybe not all of them, but from some of them.
[29:55] Mr. Mayor, can I? Yes, sir. Comment? I would like the planning director or attorney, whichever feels
[30:01] comfortable or both, to comment on what the practice of the city has been
[30:08] while this ordinance has been in effect. Because I think consistency is important and if you've
[30:14] consistently interpreted it and applied it one way. I just wanted to hear if the attorney or
[30:23] planning director want to comment on that. Excuse me, I want to say something for that.
[30:30] When you say consistency. Yeah. And all other rezoning. I understand. But sometimes things can be
[30:38] consistently wrong, okay. So I'd like to look at it the weigh it on its merits rather than what
[30:45] we've done in the past. Because sometimes things in the past haven't been always right. So I'd like
[30:52] to weigh it on its merits. I'm listening to citizens and they brought some. You know, I don't think
[31:01] the decision we have to make is not a technical one. I think it's the one that we need to listen to
[31:06] the citizens and how they're being affected by what's going on.
[31:12] So I just want to make that comment. Yeah. You know, the pastor ain't always right. True, but the
[31:20] only footnote I would add is if we have consistently done it a way, and that has been in the
[31:27] interpretation of the ordinance and applying the ordinance as it's currently written, then I think
[31:33] that's relevant. Second thing is, if we have, whether we've done it consistently or not, the
[31:41] statement was made that we have not complied. And I'm not sure that that is accurate either. Because
[31:49] if the ordinance intent is to notify, because I don't recall ever notifying everybody that can
[31:57] be affected. That could go a mile. I don't know how you leave it that open ended. I think it's got
[32:03] to be relevance. So I agree with your comments about the substance of it. Yeah, I mean, I'm just,
[32:11] you know, I heard some interesting comments, and so I'm just wanting to lay that out there. You
[32:15] know. Mr. Mayor, if I should, if I can. I mean, I, I appreciate what you said, Mr. Martin. It could
[32:21] be a mile, but with my service on the planning board and on this council has always been 300 feet. So
[32:28] when did that get changed? I, I knew I. That was the old way, I don't know when. But I have always
[32:34] been under the assumption that it's anybody within 300 feet of a, of a, of the actual rezoning request.
[32:42] So, Mr. Attorney, did I miss something or, or Sandi did I miss something? When did that get changed to
[32:50] someone being affected by, and like Mr. Martin said, that could be a mile. Well, it's subject to
[32:55] interpretation. Okay, but when do we change from 300 feet? I know that the ordinance had some changes
[33:02] when we had 160D come into play. And we're reading the language based upon what it says. And
[33:09] increasingly we're encountering situations where some of our regulatory authority is being
[33:16] diminished. So we're reading things as we believe that they're written. I believe that the affected
[33:22] language went back to when third party rezonings were allowed, and those are no longer allowed under
[33:29] the statute. I think that's what that affected language was. So you used to be able to rezone
[33:35] somebody else's property and that's not allowed anymore. That may have been the case, and I believe
[33:41] that's how it's been interpreted. The 300 feet has been probably a decade. It's been a long time ago.
[33:47] It's been a while. Right now the language in the ordinance says abutting we can certainly do
[33:52] something greater, which is what I was mentioning earlier, but that's where I was getting to. Your
[33:58] consistency will be important. It needs to be clarified and compliant with the statute, obviously.
[34:03] So I would leave that to the city attorney to evaluate. So the, so the, so the current ordinance said,
[34:09] the current ordinance states that abutting, that only someone abutting a rezoning is going to be
[34:18] notified. Mr. Remington, read into the record exactly what it says, but I'll do it again. The owners
[34:24] of affected parcels of land and the owners of parcels of land abutting the parcel of land shall be
[34:31] mailed a notice of the hearing. So. And. That's what this that's what it says now. It doesn't say
[34:38] anything about 300 feet. And this is developed over time, probably, as she said, 160D changed
[34:45] everything. I don't know exactly. That's what it reads now. So the issue is what property might be
[34:51] affected? Beyond. (unintelligible)
[34:57] Do we have to make a decision tonight? Well, you have the option. Yeah. To decide to continue this or to go
[35:04] on. If you want greater notification, that's up to the council. We don't have to make a decision tonight. How to make a decision. All right.
[35:09] I've been told to stop talking, so I will stop talking. I, I, I, you know, but just for the sake of,
[35:14] we've already got an issue right now. I'd like to see us table if we could.
[35:20] You want to put that in the form of a motion? Well, I just want to point out one thing, if I could.
[35:26] I just asked the attorney if our memory is certainly correct. Unless it's changed in the statute,
[35:32] there is a limited amount of time that the city has to act upon zoning after the annexation period.
[35:42] It used to be, I think 60 days, but there is some statutory language over it, unless it's changed. I
[35:49] don't know if Sandi can look that up. But I just want to caution the board. We don't want to run
[35:54] afoul of that requirement, whatever it is, that it wouldn't preclude you from tabling or continuing.
[36:02] But I just want to make sure we don't stub our toes. Is that a statute that we make? Or the state? No, that's
[36:08] in Raleigh. Yeah, it's either 60 or 30. Yeah. There is a limited period of time. She's
[36:14] looking. From, from today? From the time the annexation's affected. So that would be today. Yeah. We did
[36:21] the same thing with the Spooner's Cove where we tabled it. That was 30 days, though. Yeah. As long
[36:27] as we don't run afoul of that, I got no objection to continue it until you get further
[36:31] clarification. I think Sandi made a very good point, though. Affected property could be interpreted
[36:39] as the property that's being zoned. Is that a fair assessment of what you tried to relay? Yeah, but
[36:47] I think, I think Ballou made a good point about the 300 feet. I just. No, no. The 300 feet was a
[36:54] requirement for notice to other properties, not affected property. I just would like to see if we
[36:59] can table it, if we can. But not only does this. Not only does it affect what we are on the table with
[37:06] right now, but how many other. We've got public hearings coming and how many people were. The ordinance
[37:13] needs to be more clearly defined. I mean, I mean. We noticed abutting on all of, I presume. Abutting? Abutting.
[37:19] Yeah, so that's been the practice and that's what I was referring to earlier. Since the ordinance
[37:24] was written the way it is, which has been a while, I'd like to table it if it. But can I ask this,
[37:31] Mr. Walker? Yes. You want to table it for what reason? To do what? To clarify this. Well, I think
[37:37] we're getting a clarification.
[37:39] Well, I think decisions have already been made using what, whatever,
[37:47] whatever guidelines have been there that we're questioning today.
[37:53] But why is it coming up now if it's been done that way now? No, remember, that way has always been.
[37:59] Just a minute. Okay. You know these folks out here and I just met them right before the meeting, a
[38:05] lot of them are not full time residents.
[38:09] Some of them may be, I don't know, but they're not. Obviously the zoning signs were out there and if
[38:17] curiosity strikes you make a phone call and the telephone numbers on there to find out what the
[38:21] rezoning, what, what, what that's all about. So I don't fault, I don't fault the planning
[38:29] department. Oh no, this is not doing what they have been doing for a decade because that's the way
[38:36] it's done.
[38:38] But I don't see all of a sudden we're going to change in fifth gear on this and turn around and I
[38:47] just, I don't see it. Okay. We just verified it's within 60 days. So we obviously can table to next
[38:54] meeting and then you can. Can we, can we verify when we changed? Sure. Anyone affected within 300 feet? (unintelligible) She can
[39:05] verify when the ordinance amended, when that was handed.
[39:10] I do not believe the ordinance said 300. And I think it's more of making sure that our procedures
[39:18] are in line with what the ordinance actually says. We can certainly expand that when we look to
[39:24] adjust the ordinance, but we're not holding the developers to a higher standard than the council set
[39:29] forth in the ordinances that you've enacted. So you don't, so you don't think the 300 get has ever
[39:34] been. I do not think so, but I will go back and we will be sure. I promise. We check it before the
[39:39] next. I have a question for council. Yes, sir. So when you are talking about the affected property,
[39:46] is it, is there two ways you could read that? One would be the affected property is actually the
[39:51] property that's been rezoned,. along with the abutting property. So you have that interpretation. But
[39:57] then you also have an interpretation where George is talking about 300 feet and clarification. In your
[40:03] opinion, do you think that that was written to talk about the property being zoned as the effective
[40:09] property? Well, as you have heard from the planning department, this affected parcels came into play
[40:17] about third parties being able to rezone somebody else's property and therefore they were affected.
[40:24] But the applicants now are not in that category because they can't be. So I think this is legacy
[40:31] language. Okay. And the meant, what is meant by it and what the planning department has done is
[40:38] these parts properties that are being annexed and then particularly with initial zoning like we're
[40:44] talking about the effective property is the property that's the subject property of those, those
[40:50] particular items. Now I'm not saying there isn't an alternative interpretation which has been
[40:55] presented to you by Mr. Remington and that is everybody doesn't know about this. Council can. It's
[41:04] a, they decide to do that. Continue this hearing through the next meeting and ask the planning
[41:10] department to notify how many people you want to go, how far you want to go out. Need to let them
[41:15] know what you consider to be effective property. What precedents are we setting then? That's right.
[41:19] Well, what kind of length do you have? How far out, you know, how many people and then do we have
[41:24] somebody else saying, well you know, 235. 300 feet, that's what you have before. I, I really think that if you want
[41:30] to go forward tonight, you'll be okay. And then if we get into court, we get into court. The issue
[41:35] is up to council whether they want more people here and more people notified or not. Jewel just came
[41:41] out of that. The chapter 160B of the General statutes of your. (unintelligible)
[41:51] Table. It defines effective property, okay. In the statute apparently, that 160D. And what. And what
[41:58] is. They're trying to pull it back up. Pull it back up. I messed it up. And don't let me touch it.. But,
[42:07] but your points well taken, if affected were broadly construed that could be anybody in town on
[42:13] certain rezones. That's right. You know they could make that argument. So I don't think that. Let's
[42:18] see what Counsel Taylor has to say.
[42:23] You reading it first.
[42:30] This is an opinion, right?
[42:34] What is the source of this? (unintelligible)
[43:09] What did the old jeopardy school? (unintelligible)
[43:19] While we're waiting can I, can I ask Ron a question? Mr. Mayor? Yes, I'll permit it. Ron, can you
[43:24] come back up to the., the podium.
[43:28] You've heard the discussion is the access to this property, are they going to be using everything
[43:34] Marine Drive, are they going to be using Morgan Street? They're going to have their access if they
[43:40] develop a marina. Has not been determined. There's not a site plan in place. Is there any thing there
[43:46] as far as putting up any kind of buffering? There's. You have buffering and landscaping requirements
[43:51] in your ordinance that would be adhered to no matter what happens when you have different zones. So
[43:57] that's what your ordinance covers. But do you have a, do you have a.
[44:04] Do you have a better., as far as, which way you would go? As far as Marine Drive, I think. Are you
[44:09] going to use. I mean, there's been several developers that have looked at this property over the
[44:14] years. Right.
[44:17] Most of the traffic is on Marine Drive on those concept plans that they develop versus Morgan
[44:23] Street.
[44:25] Because, you know, the. I don't have to tell you the condition of Morgan Street. No, it's
[44:29] terrible. No, it is. I just cannot believe that someone would go and put a development there and plan on
[44:37] using Morgan Street without getting on green. But if you look at the sketch that's up on there right
[44:42] now, councilman, if I was developing a multi-million dollar project, I'd improve that road if I was
[44:50] using it. And you can see everything on the west side the of Morgan, you know, if they were
[44:57] trying to use it, any developer that I work with would improve that street. But there's not a plan
[45:03] that's been developed that's to my knowledge anywhere in that vicinity.
[45:12] Thank you.
[45:17] Any other thoughts for the council? I'm trying to wonder if they're taking you that long. Guys over
[45:22] there find stuff. He's reading it. (unintelligble)
[45:29] Yes, I closed the public hearing. It's already closed, sir. (unintelligble)
[45:40] Marines Drive. (unintelligible)
[45:46] Yeah. Okay. Can I call him to the podium if I. We have to have a motion to open public comment.
[45:52] Yeah, but I mean, if I call them up here, we're not in a public hearing, but we can call somebody to
[45:56] the podium. You should have it on the record in a public hearing. So reopen the public hearing.
[46:02] Yeah, I thought we could call somebody. No, we got to reopen the public hearing. Because if you
[46:05] don't. A council member cannot call someone to the podium? After you reopen the public hearing. Oh.
[46:11] If you don't. If you. Are you going to let him do it? Not everybody else? Because I called him and a council member has to.
[46:18] and therefore when somebody says you can't call him and not allow me to speak, you're going. The
[46:23] public hearing is a public hearing. Anybody else? Yes, sir. You know. Yes, that's the purpose for
[46:28] closing it down. Thank you.
[46:43] But.
[46:52] Can you show him? (unintelligible)
[47:02] Thank You.
[47:06] It's always been 300 feet. We never had a (unintelligible).
[47:22] That was a long time ago when you were on the planning board. That's 20 years ago.
[47:29] I've always been, under that assumption, (unintelligible)
[47:34] That we'd notified (unintelligible)
[47:37] But there is a situation
[47:41] that has been described on Marine Drive where you have conflict in jurisdictions. Yeah. And of
[47:49] course, when you get the federal government involved, it don't get better. No, I mean, it just
[47:53] doesn't. Councilman, Taylor, tou know that there's always been a gray when it comes to Marine. It's
[47:58] always been. But you know, what I was saying is
[48:04] if we're going to send it back, and I think we need to get the answers before we proceed forward. If
[48:14] we're going to send it back. I can see that if I was one of the people that owned property against
[48:22] that little body of water, that I would want the developer to develop an appropriate road and have
[48:32] it owned by the city, because otherwise it's going to continue to be a trashy road. Good point. That is always
[48:41] debated on who's supposed to fix it. And the real truth is it never gets fixed. It remains
[48:50] substandard. We ought to take this opportunity while we're fixing some of this other stuff
[48:58] to guarantee the people that's investing that money into a decent street.
[49:06] But then I heard. I heard from a comment
[49:12] that they were planning on using Marine Drive.
[49:16] So that changes the whole. I think they. Yes, they did say that. But I wonder if they understood the
[49:23] full ramification for what they said. I understand.
[49:28] Because certainly no one, unless it's come up before, like we've had in different planets, no one
[49:35] knows about these problems on Marine Drive. It's terrible. It's terrible.
[49:44] That came up, Marine Drive came up way back when Old Towne was originally built.
[49:53] I recall.
[49:56] Any other thoughts?
[49:59] At this point, have you got a motion yet? No, not yet. Your answer is still the same as we did
[50:04] before. I was reading Vested Rights, which is a different statute than the one we're talking about,
[50:11] defines affected property as being the subject property that might be influential. But here's the
[50:18] bottom line. You want to give more notice to more people and continue this hearing to the next
[50:25] meeting so that everybody gets notice that you want to get notice. And if so, how do you want to
[50:31] define how far you want to go? Because I don't think that our ordinance requires it. I don't
[50:37] think the statute requires it. But if you want it, you can do that and tell the planning department
[50:44] to expand their notice. Leave the signs up, create the new hearing date, and then leave this hearing
[50:52] as a continued hearing for the next meeting. It'll be republished. Well, you don't really have to
[50:57] republish, but you might want to. This is up to you. I don't believe you have to, but if that's what
[51:03] you want to do. And I think I'm hearing from one of our council people. That's what he wants to do.
[51:07] You need a motion to continue this hearing to the next meeting. That will still be within the 60 day
[51:13] period that we have for the initial zoning. And you can do that. Well, it's it's only fair that we
[51:19] set a perimeter that, that our citizens of Morehead City or Carteret County need to be notified of
[51:26] anything that's going on or any changes going on within their area. There needs to be a perimeter.
[51:33] And, and I, and again, I will stand on the 300 feet that I was always under the impression that was
[51:41] from the planning board when I served. And what I've always thought that that was the perimeter
[51:47] now. And I'm going to research it. I would like to. There's not time enough tonight if we search it,
[51:52] but I will research it. We can certainly do that. And it may have been a practice of 300 feet as a one
[51:59] way to interpret, but I think that exceeded the ordinance requirement, likely, it sounds like. Mr.
[52:08] Mayor, I'd like to put forward a motion. Okay. That we table this. How many days? 30 or 60. We'll go
[52:14] to 60 days. Well, no, no, no, we can't go to 60 days. Well, I mean, to be within the limit. Right.
[52:20] I'd say I'd go to the next meeting. All right. To the next meeting. It'd be September 8th. All
[52:24] right. To the next meeting. September 8th. And during that time that the planning department gets to
[52:29] notify everybody within 300 feet of the affected area. Okay. Okay. If I might assist with your motion.
[52:39] Yes, sir. That you reopen the hearing because it's closed right now. And continue that hearing to
[52:46] the next meeting.
[52:49] Giving a notice to the planning department to publish or do what they need to do for their mailing.
[52:56] And I'm hearing over here for 300 feet from the subject property. Is that what you want? That's what I
[53:04] would like to do. That's, that's, hat's what I've always. And I will. I would certainly second the
[53:09] motion and see where it goes. So what would. I think that's been. What would be accomplished out of
[53:14] that? The, the accomplished would be, Councilman Abell, that I feel like as a practice, the town has
[53:21] always notified anyone within a 300 foot perimeter of any changes. Well, and that's a practice that
[53:28] I've always. You said have always. Obviously it hasn't been always the last 10 years. You just heard
[53:34] Sandi talk about that. But what I'm getting at, what are we going to accomplish by
[53:39] pushing it out for 30? We're going to. What is what. Other than you're notifying more people to come
[53:44] to the next city council meeting to either talk against it or talk for it and we're back to square
[53:51] one. What, what is going to be accomplished? We won't be at square one. We'll be able to make a decision
[53:55] because at that point we'll have people who have now been notified. If we continue the closed
[54:01] hearing, though, does that, does that. I'm sorry?, If we continue the closed hearing, does, does that
[54:06] mean that the next time we meet, does that mean that we have to reopen for public comment first? No.
[54:11] If you'll deny tonight, you would. Part of the motion that he is making to reopen the public hearing
[54:18] and continue it to the next meeting. Okay. Yeah. And to instruct the planning department to go, if
[54:24] that's what you desire, 300 feet out from the affected property. So if we choose the table, we can
[54:29] choose it during the closed part, but then. Or do we have to open it first? You have to open it as.
[54:35] You can do it as part of this motion. You can do it as a separate motion. The idea is to get it
[54:39] reopened and continued, right now it's closed. Therefore you can't continue with a closed hearing. Let's make
[54:45] what happened, let's include what Nate is trying to put in, in this motion. What are you trying to
[54:51] put in there, Nate, to make. Just wanted to make sure that we're following the right procedure as far
[54:56] as whether we have to open it, the meeting before we vote on the tabling or whether we do that
[55:01] during closed session and then. Or the closed meeting. So I just want to make sure. You could, with a
[55:07] closed meeting, you could republish. What you're doing when you continue a hearing is that you don't
[55:14] have to go through the newspaper stuff, et cetera. All those people that have been notified have
[55:18] been notified. If you continue it, you only have to notify those that say they weren't notified and
[55:24] you want to expand that notification process. But in other words, open it up. Open the open the
[55:29] public hearing back up is what he's trying to say is the easiest and best way to do it, and then
[55:36] make a motion to table it for the next meeting. It's not even. It's not even a table because. So
[55:43] we're going to continue. Continue. Continue is the word.
[55:47] Motion is to reopen the hearing, the public hearing. Continue it to the next meeting. And
[55:53] notify people within 300 feet of this rezoning request. I'm gonna. That's by mail. Yeah, right. I don't know that
[56:01] it needs to be 300 feet, but that's not my decision, so. Anyhow, I believe that when you do the research,
[56:08] you're going to find that the 300 feet was not a matter of law at that time, but it was a matter of
[56:16] policy.Practice. Yes, sir. Practice it was another. So that. That carries less of legal requirement
[56:27] for simplicity that we've got enough floating around in the air tonight. I think we're safe to go
[56:34] ahead and notify for the 300 feet and move this thing forward to get the more important question
[56:42] questions researched and a clarification available to us next. Now it's up to you to do that. I
[56:52] think that's what the motion was. I think the secretary, our clerk, not secretary, has got that. I
[56:59] have not heard a second yet, but I'll second it. Okay. Motion made by council member Harvey Walker.
[57:05] To do what? To open the public hearing back up. Okay. So open the public here if you want. Okay,
[57:10] fine. Okay. Open the public hearing. We'll go to the second motion. I don't care. I was trying to
[57:15] combine it all together, but that's fine.
[57:19] If you want. Are you going to second, Yes. Mr. Walker's motion, sir? Repeat my motion. All right.
[57:28] His motion is to reopen the public hearing and continue that hearing to the next meeting and
[57:35] instruct the planning department to do mail notice to everyone within 300 feet of the affected
[57:40] property. I will second that motion. Right. Okay. Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem George Ballou. Any
[57:45] discussion on this motion hearing? None. All in favor? Indicate by raising your hand.
[57:53] Okay, it's unanimous. So
[57:57] public hearing is now reopen for the rezoning of 191 and 195 Morgan Street and 201 Marine Drive. To
[58:06] be continued till the next council meeting in September. Okay, I have a question.
[58:15] We have other matters dealing with rezoning and property. Does the conversation that we've had up to
[58:24] this point affect any of these cases? And it's so high?
[58:30] Well, I'm going to say that I think the ordinance says affected property. And looking at the whole
[58:38] of 160d the how you have heard from the planning department that affected property is the subject
[58:46] property. And I think that's what was intended with our ordinance, you have determined that, that
[58:52] based on what you have heard, that for this particular matter that you have done, you would like to
[58:57] hear from more people and have taken the action to do so.
[59:01] I believe that you are safe to say that the next thing comes up. Effective property means the
[59:07] subject property. I do believe we might want to spend a little time on actually defining that in our
[59:12] ordinance. Maybe we'll look at that, maybe bring you an ordinance amendment that says that whether
[59:17] it's necessary or not, it clarifies the world. And that's a good thing. But for the other things
[59:23] that are coming forward, unless you consider the need for additional information for you to be able
[59:28] to proceed with whatever these things are, I don't think you are controlled by what you did in this
[59:33] case. I think that for reasons of moving our business forward, as you said,
[59:43] that we look at the one we just did as a specific problem or situation and the rest we consider as
[59:53] valid as presented.
[59:56] You will have that opportunity. And we continue our business for the night. Yes. Thank you. I will give
[1:00:01] you the general interpretation of what you said you want to hear from more people. Okay. If you
[1:00:07] don't consider that to be necessary for anything else that you got business for, then you can make
[1:00:12] that decision as well. Thank you, Mr. Attorney. And Shawne, for our public records, can you put in the
[1:00:19] record that at our next planning committee of meeting that we're going to discuss
[1:00:27] that ordinance and see if the council needs to more clearly divine, define that ordinance and that
[1:00:35] can be vetted in our next planning committee meeting in September.
[1:00:40] Okay, thank you. I would stretch that to include the notification process. Okay. And to include a
[1:00:47] notification process. Thank you, Councilman Taylor. Okay, so moving on to Item 4C. Rezoning of 202
[1:00:58] Pensacola Avenue,
[1:01:01] Sandi.
[1:01:10] Okay. The Cullipher Group on behalf of Pelletier Properties, LLC requests to rezone approximately 0.35
[1:01:18] acres from R-10 single family residential to CMCZ Commercial Marina conditional Zoning District. A
[1:01:27] prior conventional rezoning request was reviewed by the planning board in April but was withdrawn
[1:01:35] prior to council action. The present request uses conditional zoning to limit the property to
[1:01:41] specified marina related uses and to prohibit certain activities.
[1:01:47] The subject property is currently undeveloped and lies within the corporate limits. The surrounding
[1:01:53] area includes single family residences and vacant residential property to the east, south and west
[1:02:00] with marina uses to the north and northeast. The property is currently zoned R10. Residential zoning
[1:02:08] continues primarily to the east, south and west while CM zoning is located to the north and
[1:02:13] northeast.
[1:02:15] The property is within the midtown neighborhood planning area of the Morehead City Plan 2032 and is
[1:02:23] classified as neighborhood residential on the future land use map. The Planning Board conducted a
[1:02:28] review of neighborhood residential classification and the midtown neighborhood planning area
[1:02:33] objectives and the Planning Board ultimately found the request to be generally consistent with the
[1:02:40] Morehead City Plan 2032 reasonable and in the public interest. Those findings were adopted in Place
[1:02:46] landing board resolution 2026-0006 and are reflected in the draft council resolution 2026-R30.
[1:02:55] This is a list of the uses permitted in the R10 zoning district which the property is currently
[1:03:01] zoned,
[1:03:04] and this table shows the uses permitted in the commercial marina district. The highlighted uses are
[1:03:10] the uses the applicant has requested to be allowed in the proposed conditional zoning district.
[1:03:15] Unlike a conventional rezoning, only the uses and conditions incorporated into the conditional
[1:03:21] zoning ordinance would apply to this property. Conditions must be approved by Council and consented
[1:03:27] to by the petitioner.
[1:03:30] UDO's Commercial Marina Standards ordinarily identify several activities that may be associated with
[1:03:35] a marina and for this property, boat stand service and repair and boat petroleum service areas would
[1:03:42] be prohibited as proposed.
[1:03:46] Approval would be subject to the two applicant agreed upon conditions as shown on the screen. First,
[1:03:53] the CMCZ district would be limited to listed marina related uses and marine storage and repair yards,
[1:04:01] and all unlisted uses would be prohibited. Second, the activities associated with a commercial
[1:04:06] marina would be narrowed, expressly prohibiting boat service and repair and boat petroleum service
[1:04:12] areas.
[1:04:14] The property was posted with a public hearing sign. The hearing was advertised and abutting property
[1:04:20] owners were notified. During the Planning Board meeting, three individuals spoke in favor of the
[1:04:25] request and six spoke in opposition. The Planning Board recommended approval as such subject to the
[1:04:31] two proposed conditions and adopted resolution 2026-0006 which is reflected in the Council's
[1:04:38] resolution. And that concludes my report. Thank you, Sandi. Thank you. Yes, sir. Sandi, that map
[1:04:46] right there. Yes, that's in your agenda materials. Okay, so. So that, so those that were people that
[1:04:51] were contacted, those are the folks. So, in lieu of a community meeting because this is a
[1:04:57] conditional. So the last request was conventional, but with conditional rezonings there is a
[1:05:04] recommended community meeting and in lieu of doing that community meeting, the developer opted to do
[1:05:12] one on one outreach. And so some of the folks that received outreach also commented just because of
[1:05:20] the similarities where some of the addressing street to street was similar and the copies of the
[1:05:27] written comment are included in your agenda as well.
[1:05:34] Any other questions for Sandi? Okay, public hearing is now open.
[1:05:41] Anyone in the audience want to get up and speak in favor or in opposition? Mr. Cullipher.
[1:05:48] Good evening again. Ron Cullipher representing the applicant in this rezoning request. We
[1:05:54] were before you several months ago with a blanket rezoning request to commercial marina, not the
[1:06:02] conditional zoning. The reason for that request from this council was that they felt like there was
[1:06:11] some uses that are allowed in that zone that were not conducive to the neighborhood. So we took
[1:06:16] those comments and questions and modified our request to have the conditional zoning addition to
[1:06:24] restrict those uses that we saw earlier that we think it was more intrusive to the neighborhood.
[1:06:43] So this tract of land, you know, it's relatively small. It's 0.3535 acres. And should you rezone
[1:06:53] this and it get developed? What I've kind of shown in green is the buffering requirements that we
[1:06:59] talked about on the earlier project. So to the west, should this be developed, there's a type B buffer
[1:07:10] that would be required. And also to basically the south,
[1:07:16] that type B buffer would require an eight foot fence and two separate rows of landscaping, as shown.
[1:07:24] If you take the area of the required landscaping out, the available area is about. I can read my own
[1:07:32] notes here, about 11,000 square feet. So there's not a lot that can be done with this other
[1:07:36] than the circulation and parking and storage. My clients included in your packet. You know what
[1:07:45] they're, what we are proposing in their community outreach, and there's, what they are proposing is
[1:07:53] additional boat and trailer storage, improve access to their marina, which is joining them directly
[1:08:00] north of this property, better traffic flow. And there was a lot of conversation about traffic flow
[1:08:06] at the planning board meeting. And then basically a clean, professional managed property, which is
[1:08:11] their development.
[1:08:14] So if this were to be rezoned as requested, it gives the users of this facility another opportunity
[1:08:22] to get into this marina. There's a lot of discussion about all the different ways you can go through
[1:08:27] the community. And I agree there's a lot of ways you can come and go, but you can't go to that
[1:08:33] property from here unless we get rezoned. So that at least opens up another avenue of access. I've
[1:08:41] done business with the marina repair shop to the north, and I always came in by the marina. And, and
[1:08:51] it's one of those things that we think is a reasonable request, and we acted based on the guidance
[1:08:57] that you provided us when we were here last and respectfully request approval. All right, thank you,
[1:09:01] Mr. Cullipher. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to get up and speak in favor or opposition of this
[1:09:07] rezoning? Request. Yes, ma'am. State your name and address when you come up.
[1:09:17] Good evening. My name is Emily Nobles, and I live at 210 Pensacola Avenue.
[1:09:24] For those who may not know, my husband's family has deep roots in Bonham Heights. His great-
[1:09:30] grandfather, Alva Hamilton, helped develop this neighborhood along with Dr. Bonner. The name Bonham
[1:09:38] itself comes from their names. Bon for Bonner and Ham for Hamilton. This isn't just where we live.
[1:09:45] It is part of our family history. It is where generations before us helped build a community and
[1:09:51] where we are now raising our children. I'm here tonight to respectfully ask that you vote against
[1:09:58] rezoning 202 Pensacola Avenue, from residential to commercial marine.
[1:10:06] Generally speaking, I do not like telling other people what to do or not do with their property. I
[1:10:13] respect the rights of property owners, but this feels different. Rezoning this property does not
[1:10:19] affect this property alone. It permanently changes what can occur within an established residential
[1:10:26] neighborhood and affects everyone who lives around it. At the July planning board meeting, one board
[1:10:32] member stated what I believe is at the heart of this issue. This neighborhood simply does not have
[1:10:39] the infrastructure to support a marina. Our roads are narrow. In some places, it is difficult for
[1:10:46] even two vehicles to pass each other. We have tight curves and turns, and there is no direct access
[1:10:52] from Arendell Street to the marina. Traffic must travel through residential streets that were never
[1:10:59] designed to accommodate this type of commercial activity.
[1:11:04] Yet, here we are considering expanding a commercial marine zoning further into a neighborhood that
[1:11:11] arguably does not have the infrastructure to support what is already there.
[1:11:17] There is also still not enough information available to the public. At the last town Council,
[1:11:23] Council meeting, the council delayed this request because of unanswered questions about the plans and
[1:11:28] safety, safety concerns. While the property owners have since distributed a flyer, residents still
[1:11:36] have not been presented with formal drawings, renderings, or a detailed plan that would allow us to
[1:11:42] fully understand what is being proposed. A permanent zoning decision should not be made based on
[1:11:49] incomplete information. And once this property is rezoned, that designation stays with the property.
[1:11:56] This decision is not simply about what the current owners intend to do tomorrow. It is about what
[1:12:02] could be permitted there years or even decades from now. I am not opposed to responsible growth or
[1:12:09] property owners making reasonable use of their property, but that growth should be supported by
[1:12:15] adequate infrastructure, and it should not come at the expense of the safety and residential
[1:12:21] character of an established neighborhood. For those reasons, I respectfully ask you to protect
[1:12:26] Bonham Heights and vote no on this rezoning request. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. Is there anyone
[1:12:32] else that would like to get up and speak in favor or opposition. Yes, ma'am. State your name and
[1:12:37] address. Yep. Jana Moss, 217 Pensacola. First of all, thank you for letting me speak tonight. I am
[1:12:45] also opposed to this. Like, I really echo everything Emily mentioned. The infrastructure is just not
[1:12:52] set up to support,
[1:12:55] you know, any added traffic into the neighborhood. We, a lot of the planning board was focused on
[1:13:01] just that parcel. They voted just on that parcel, not necessarily. They had a hard or, there was a
[1:13:05] lot of discussion about do they include, you know, the additional parcel that it's going to be
[1:13:10] joined to. So they really just voted on the little. On the parcel that it is. There is an existing
[1:13:16] marina there. And like, you know, we talked about last time, the roads are already. And you can't
[1:13:22] really fit two cars down the, down the road. Boats. There's a lot of traffic already on Saturdays.
[1:13:28] And just, you know, there's kids. And I walk in the neighborhood a lot. So the infrastructure just I
[1:13:33] do not think can support added. Cannot be expanded. And then similarly to what Emily said when we
[1:13:41] came to this meeting, I think it was in May, you know, y' all did ask for, hey, please come back to
[1:13:47] us with more of a plan. And we still don't feel like we've seen that there's no site plan. And as
[1:13:52] we've seen in other projects with the same developer, they definitely do site plans and they have a
[1:13:58] lot of planning. So I would like to think there's probably one there that's more than just the flyer
[1:14:03] we received. We. But we have not seen it. So I respect, respectfully ask, you know, that y' all
[1:14:08] decline this, you know, based on this feedback. Thank you. Thank you, Jenna. Is there anyone else?
[1:14:17] Yes, sir. State your name and address.
[1:14:24] Blow your ears off. My name is Nick Shiotakis. I live at 208 Pensacola Avenue. I'm speaking in
[1:14:30] opposition of this. Again,
[1:14:34] I it to add to what they have already said, which I agree with. Our neighborhood is a rejuvenating
[1:14:41] neighborhood. There's a lot more younger families moving in. Kids. I have two kids. There's on this
[1:14:48] road in question right here on Pensacola Avenue, there's already four kids under the age of seven.
[1:14:55] You know, we walk our kids and strollers and stuff like that. And what concerns me is
[1:15:03] allowing this access like this, this marina, you know, on the weekends we're going to have. They
[1:15:08] could have 50 to 75 boats or whatever on there. And the amount of traffic. And then what also
[1:15:14] concerns me is the kind of traffic we're going to be having on this road. You know, I know we've all
[1:15:18] had our boat days and stuff like that. And you know, in the afternoons when people get back on the
[1:15:24] boat, you know, I worry about their condition driving on our neighborhood roads. We shouldn't have
[1:15:30] to worry about that. We bought this property and moved to this neighborhood for the safety reasons
[1:15:35] of it and everything like that.
[1:15:39] The other thing is this property. There was a street map a minute ago, but if you look, the land use
[1:15:49] plan obviously for this property was for the past 50 years, was residential. It's consistent with
[1:15:56] all the other residential lots in the neighborhood. The commercial lots around it. They're obviously
[1:16:02] much bigger and that kind of thing, which makes sense. They're on the water. I think their idea for
[1:16:09] the commercial property they bought is fine. I don't see why our neighborhood and
[1:16:15] potentially our property values should be affected. Because they want to take a residential lot and
[1:16:22] add to that. If they wanted to do that, I think the typical procedure would have been prior to
[1:16:29] purchasing the lots, to
[1:16:33] do a contract with the previous landowner or a written agreement or whatever saying, hey, we'll buy
[1:16:40] the property contingent on us being able to rezone this property for commercial if that was our
[1:16:45] intent. So it seems like a lack of due diligence on that, which also concerns me going forward with
[1:16:52] what they do with the land.
[1:16:57] Another concern is, you know, is this going to be a camper lot? There hasn't been anything saying
[1:17:02] that campers can't be there. Is this going to turn into, because there's already a camper on the
[1:17:05] property, on the commercial property next to it.
[1:17:09] I would hope that it's not going to turn into a mini campground with the boat ramp. Sorry, I'm
[1:17:14] trying to shorten this up a little bit. But the last meeting there was one of the council members
[1:17:21] said, well, this, this property, the commercial property beside it that they purchased was always a
[1:17:29] marina. Yes, it was, but it was marina with eight boat slips. One the boat slips was the homeowner,
[1:17:35] the property owner that lived there. It was his. It was not a marina like this. It did not have a
[1:17:38] boat ramp. It had a railway slip. That is the traditional way of pulling boats out of the water. It
[1:17:44] did not have this kind of traffic. And like they said, our streets are not set up for this. They're,
[1:17:48] I mean, a lot of times when you pass somebody, you have to pull over into somebody's yard. So, you
[1:17:53] know, it's going to be a lot more traffic in comparison to what this property has ever been used
[1:17:58] for. So anyways, thank you guys. Thank you, Nick. Is there anyone else?
[1:18:09] Okay, Paula. State your name and address.
[1:18:14] Paula Hoffman. Paula Hoffman. 907 Evans Street. Good evening. A year ago this past spring, Mr. Cullipher was on the City
[1:18:22] Council agenda to reduce setbacks for dry stack storage facilities throughout the entire city by
[1:18:29] changing the UDOs. Additionally, he wanted to change the UDOs for parking requirements at marina
[1:18:35] locations. The fire department and others spoke against the dry stack storage setback reductions
[1:18:40] because of the safety hazards it created to adjacent properties, in particular adjacent residential
[1:18:46] properties. Reduced parking requirements next to adjacent residential neighborhoods was also opposed
[1:18:55] because of the negative impact to the neighbors by parking in front of homes and increased traffic
[1:18:59] putting children and walkers at risk. The UDO request for the dry stack setback changes was
[1:19:05] withdrawn. I believe that this rezoning of 202 Pensacola is a part of the same project Mr. Cullipher
[1:19:13] might have been pursuing a year ago and would not disclose the location to the public.
[1:19:19] Unfortunately, the 202 Pensacola property in combination with the Pelletier Creek Marina, does not
[1:19:25] have the square footage needed for a dry stack storage, a restaurant and a number of other uses
[1:19:30] allowed by the requested zoning not, nor required parking. Allowing this zoning change adjacent to a
[1:19:37] residential area presents a huge change to the quality of life in the neighborhood, potentially
[1:19:43] reduces their property values, increases traffic, puts children and walkers who live in the
[1:19:48] residential area in danger due to increased traffic. This neighborhood does not have sidewalks.
[1:19:53] Additionally, I'm concerned that once the zoning is changed, Mr. Cullipher will return wanting to
[1:20:00] reduce setbacks next to residential areas as he pursued last year. In the completed plan, if the
[1:20:07] completed plan were provided, it would end all of this speculation. If the owner would work with the
[1:20:13] neighborhood, perhaps compromises could be made. If I lived there, I would worry that there was a
[1:20:20] much larger plan, potentially combining more properties to create a much larger project, creating
[1:20:27] even a more significant effect on the neighborhood. I'm seeing many projects like this where the
[1:20:33] future land use map is being ignored and allowed changes are reducing the quality of life that
[1:20:39] Morehead City has enjoyed for so many years. I would ask you to take care of our community and its
[1:20:46] future growth by not allowing the zoning change as it is currently requested. I would suggest Mr.
[1:20:52] Cullipher and the property owner he represents provide a specific plan to the neighbors and see if a
[1:20:59] mutually agreeable plan could be reached. Please do not allow this zoning plan change as it is
[1:21:05] today. Thank you. Thank you, Paula.
[1:21:09] Is there anyone else?
[1:21:12] Seeing and hearing no one, I now close the public hearing.
[1:21:18] Council.
[1:21:21] Yeah, I'm going to try to address what, what a few of y'all were talking about while ago. I don't
[1:21:26] know the, that the property owner and Mr. Cullipher can give a detailed plan of what they're going to
[1:21:33] do until it's rezoned, if it's rezoned. But you know what they, you know what the property is and
[1:21:42] how big it is. And we already know it's not big enough to put a dry stack. It's not big enough, I
[1:21:48] don't think, for a restaurant or anything like that.
[1:21:54] And
[1:21:56] as far as the roads go, I know most of y'all lived on Pensacola Avenue, but it seems like, and to
[1:22:06] me now it just seems like by opening that up as an entrance, it would take the burden off of
[1:22:12] Pensacola Avenue, where they currently have to go down to get down to what is South Shore Drive, and
[1:22:19] be back around to that property. I would think that you would want that. I, I, I don't know. But I'm
[1:22:26] just, at this point, just, just saying some things here, Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir. Any other thoughts?
[1:22:32] Can I, can I ask Sandi that question? Yes.
[1:22:37] Sandi. This being conditional, conditional use zoning, why, why don't we have
[1:22:46] specific uses of what's going to be
[1:22:50] used on this piece of property? I mean, it's conditional use. It's on there. You do? It's right
[1:22:56] there. (unintelligible) Okay.
[1:23:00] So that.
[1:23:06] You got, you got. So, so our ordinance really doesn't specify with a conditional use, really what the
[1:23:13] use is going to be. I mean, it just opens it up that those things could be done.
[1:23:20] If you approve it that way, yes. So it doesn't narrow it down with the conditional use of what's going
[1:23:25] to be used for the piece of property. It can be narrowed down further. It can be more broad. It's
[1:23:31] just a matter at this point of what the applicant has submitted to you. We'll bring it forward through
[1:23:38] the process and bring you their application. And these are the uses that they have proposed in their
[1:23:44] application to the city, in addition to limiting some of the other standards and the extra standards
[1:23:52] section pertaining to boat service and repairs and boat petroleum service areas. And if it's not, my
[1:23:59] mistake, and I didn't mean to cut you out, but if this goes through and they come back with a site
[1:24:06] plan, whatever you want to call it, it's got to probably go back before the planning board. It will
[1:24:11] at least come back for us as well. No, sir. It will not. More than likely it would not. If it's just
[1:24:17] a site plan that's subject typically to an administrative review, which is just staff level review.
[1:24:22] Right. And in conjunction to any, a piece attached to it. Depending on what development they're doing,
[1:24:30] parking requirements may apply. As long as we still have parking requirements,
[1:24:37] buffering would apply. You know, we have a screen requirement. So if there is development that
[1:24:46] occurs, then we would be reviewing that with any application. But typically that's an administrative
[1:24:52] review. Okay, so the picture that Mr. Cullipher put up a few minutes ago, that's not in our packet, pack,
[1:24:59] picture, that's not in our that. Is that the buffering that he is proposing? I think you may have
[1:25:05] received a copy of a site plan in your packet. And if I know that we got a version of this to put in
[1:25:15] the PowerPoint today is this. But I don't know. But you had given it previously. Okay, but. But I
[1:25:19] can't. I didn't. I have not found that in my packet. So maybe, but anyway, so that's a 10 foot
[1:25:24] buffer that he's proposing around the property. So if, if
[1:25:30] the proposed zoning designation is commercial marina and if it is developed adjacent to a
[1:25:38] residential parcel, then a 10 foot wide landscape strip is required with a fence, solid fence and
[1:25:46] two rows of evergreen trees. And there's one row of evergreen trees that's planted on closer
[1:25:56] together and then the second row is planted further apart and that's kind of depicted in that type B
[1:26:02] buffer that. So there'll be no access on Pensacola. It'll be from the adjoining property to the
[1:26:08] north. There is no condition on any of these approvals limiting access. So. So there could be access
[1:26:16] on Pensacola. There could be access on Pensacola. Yes, sir. Okay.
[1:26:22] Could that be a condition? No access from Pensacola, Mr. Attorney. No access or access. No access
[1:26:31] from Pensacola. So you'd rather go. You rather form to travel down Pensacola down to South Shore
[1:26:37] Drive. There would be no access. There would be no access on the east side of Pensacola. They would
[1:26:42] have to. They would have to have the access from the property to the north.
[1:26:47] But then that's not their property. That's not their property. Okay. That. That would be worse. That
[1:26:55] would force them to go down to the other street, I guess. They do not own the property. Okay, Sandy,
[1:27:03] do you have. Wow. One of those infrared lights? I'm not very good at doing that. It'll probably work
[1:27:12] on this screen. A laser,
[1:27:15] Sandy. Also, just for clarification, they can build a marina by right based on the zoning. As it is
[1:27:22] right now. Correct. As it is right now. Are we talking. We're talking about the main piece of main
[1:27:26] piece. Yes. If we go back, if it will allow me now that I have done something to it to the aerial
[1:27:32] image. That piece that they also own to the northwest is not part of the current application. Right.
[1:27:41] And that is currently zone commercial marina. So. Yes, sir. A marina could be constructed on that
[1:27:47] parcel. The parcel that is the subject of this application is the piece that's highlighted in red in
[1:27:54] on the image there. So the piece that they own to the north, which is accessed by Roanoke Avenue,
[1:28:01] they could build a dry stack marina and be able to do everything that's allowed a commercial marina
[1:28:05] as its own. Right now by right, they don't even have to come with an application. Anything that's
[1:28:10] listed as a permitted use they could do by right. Anything that requires a special use permit.
[1:28:16] Sorry, I'm on the wrong one. Would require a special use permit be requested from the board
[1:28:21] of adjustment. So everything on the left permitted uses they could build by right now without even
[1:28:26] have to come in front of us subject to any additional standards. Yes, sir. And so what they're
[1:28:30] proposing is that they get that piece of property so they can come in from the by. Having that
[1:28:35] rezoned allows them to come in with the drive. And that way they don't have to travel around
[1:28:39] Pensacola, South Shore or Roanoke. Potentially. Yes, sir. And so the. So either. Either as a board,
[1:28:47] we have to make a decision to allow that where you have access, where they're traveling down
[1:28:52] Pensacola a little bit, or we deny it and then they continue to do their development that they come
[1:28:58] in through Roanoke Avenue, which would create a lot more traffic. Okay. Do you have that infrared
[1:29:06] thing? Did you. Did you want to use it or do you want stick on that buffer around it? Okay, that
[1:29:13] would be access down Ronoke and there'd be no access on Pensacola without buffering that.
[1:29:20] Right. That's the reason I was asking. Is there access off Pensacola Avenue or would they use
[1:29:25] Roanoke Avenue. Speak into the mic.
[1:29:30] My mic. Yeah. I'm sorry. That's the reason I asked that question. Councilman Taylor has a question. He won't
[1:29:35] say. He wants the. The infrared.
[1:29:49] Did it work it at all? I'm pointing it everywhere. I don't see anything. Let me see it a minute.
[1:29:58] That's a laser. That's a laser.
[1:30:01] There it is. What? Give it to me. All right, you see that? You see here, here, look at it. That's
[1:30:06] that button right there. Jesus. No wonder I can't see that.
[1:30:12] There you go. Whoa, whoa, whoa.
[1:30:18] You really hit the button. Holly, you okay? All right.
[1:30:25] In my mind, I'm. I'm going to give that up. In my mind, we talked about making this a conditional
[1:30:36] Speak into the mic, Councilman Taylor. It's right here. And if you tell me where you want me to point
[1:30:41] it,
[1:30:44] we talked about making it a conditional zone. In my mind,
[1:30:53] the less intrusive way to provide access for marina that already exist. You're not going to
[1:31:03] eliminate that marina that's there now? Absolutely. But when it changes hands, you still, we, the
[1:31:11] city has got to provide them access to the water's edge and their boats.
[1:31:19] To me,
[1:31:22] traffic should be allowed to come in on Neuse Avenue, turn right on Central Avenue, turn left on
[1:31:32] Pensacola and across that vacant lot, and would not be able to continue down Pensacola, get involved
[1:31:43] with North Shore Drive or Roanoke Drive.
[1:31:49] I don't think boat traffic belongs on those little narrow Pensacola and Roanoke Avenue roads. We
[1:32:01] ought to get that traffic off of Central and Pensacola as fast as we can, get them to the boat and
[1:32:11] get them away from the dock. And that was part of the purpose of the conditional uses.
[1:32:21] And I think that would be easy to put on a diagram by the developers and see if that traffic pattern
[1:32:29] could work on the property. That's (intelligible).
[1:32:33] Can you do that, Ron?
[1:32:40] Can you engineer the traffic to make primary turns at Central Avenue, Pensacola and into that newly
[1:32:53] purchased vacant lot
[1:32:56] and get the traffic back out into the highway the same way without involving the rest of Pensacola,
[1:33:09] South Shore Drive or Roanoke,
[1:33:14] and present it to this group of citizens in the neighborhood? I think that's the type of detail. How
[1:33:25] are you going to get traffic into and out of the marina without putting traffic in the lower end of
[1:33:37] Pensacola, South Shore or Roanoke? That's what they don't want.
[1:33:47] And that, and that was where my question. Because when the, when I saw the picture of the buffering
[1:33:52] around that piece of property, that's the reason I was asking, where is the access? Are they going
[1:33:58] to have access off of Pensacola? Are they going to go down Roanoke? That was the reason I was
[1:34:02] asking, and I certainly agree with what you just said, but I don't think that's the plan of the
[1:34:07] developer that they want to use that for access. They've got to redo the buffer plan in order to
[1:34:14] make that work. But because you got to drive through what was the buffer to get into the rest of
[1:34:20] the parking lot. I don't think that's what they want. That little travel trailer I understood
[1:34:27] was a sales office, you know, type of thing. You know, maybe have a few snacks in there or
[1:34:34] something. But it. It was never intended to be, as somebody said, a camper trailer
[1:34:45] parking lot. So. So what I'm gathering is figure out a way to engineer it so that there's no access
[1:34:51] in there from Roanoke Avenue. That part. Part gets closed off and the upper end of Pensacola. But.
[1:34:57] But if I could interject you. You have. They have that now. The marina has access. You can't take
[1:35:05] that away. Okay, yeah. Roanoke is their access. And I don't know. And you're right, you can't take
[1:35:15] that away. But if it was opened up on that. That's an alternative. You can have an alternative. You
[1:35:22] open the lock and make it attractive for it to be the primary. You certainly can do that if the
[1:35:30] rezoning. That is within our requirements, within our allowance. And now whether is intended or not, I.
[1:35:38] And I'm sure y' all have seen this, the way I look at this is what they see improved access to
[1:35:46] Pelletier Creek Marina. Marina. I'll talk in a minute. Better access to marina facilities and the
[1:35:52] waterfront. To me, that's saying opening that up as an entrance exit. And I see some head shaking
[1:35:59] out there. Well, I certainly agree with Emily and her friend. Excuse me for me not remembering.
[1:36:09] That traffic on the other end of Pensacola, where most of the small kids and family and walking
[1:36:16] takes place. We should try to keep that road free and clear. They're too narrow and too I guess,
[1:36:27] right. Too cramped.
[1:36:31] So that's my suggestion that we ask Ron and the group to again meet with the owners with a full
[1:36:43] direct diagram of how they're going to get traffic in and out with the minimum of intrusion in to
[1:36:54] Pensacola,
[1:36:57] Roanoke and South Shore. Are you making a motion to reopen the public hearing and continuing until
[1:37:03] next month? Right. Okay. All right. So condition that they would also meet with the neighbors. You
[1:37:11] know, if you don't communicate, it ain't going to do any good. I agree. I will bring up one thing
[1:37:17] that's important to you. The proposal before you is conditional zoning to allow them to do
[1:37:23] anything that they have not eliminated from that zone. You're now asking for a specific site plan
[1:37:30] which is not something that they have actually provided. So what we're talking about, the hearing
[1:37:35] tonight, has to be on what has been proposed unless they come back with a different plan than what
[1:37:41] you have before you tonight.
[1:37:45] Thank you, Mr. Attorney. So what is your solution to accomplish that?
[1:37:50] I.
[1:37:53] There is no solution. What you have before you tonight is what you have before you tonight. That's
[1:37:58] right. It is a conditional request because they have eliminated things from the list of things they
[1:38:04] could do if it were not conditional. But what you have before you is they can do anything that is
[1:38:10] remaining on that list. And how they do it is entirely up to them. So what you want is what you
[1:38:17] want, but what you got is what you got. So the picture that Mr. Cullipher presented a while ago with that
[1:38:23] buffer around it, that's the issue that's on the table tonight. He's going to. He's going to put
[1:38:27] that buffer around that property, and they're going to come down Pensacola, Roanoke Avenue, and they're
[1:38:33] going to access the marina property. You do, I think. Yes. Please, you step forward, Mr. Cullipher.
[1:38:39] Yeah. Please, please put that picture, the one that you. Because I don't have it. I don't have that
[1:38:44] picture. Just for clarity, that's what our ordinance requires unless it's modified. Yes, sir, but I
[1:38:50] don't have. Where's the clicker at?
[1:38:54] Yes, sir.
[1:38:56] This is the landscape strip. Yes, sir.
[1:39:00] Okay.
[1:39:07] Mr. Cullipher, can you put that picture? If you can repeat that for the record so we have it. Yes.
[1:39:11] Can you put that picture back up there? Sandy? She's going there. Yep. Right. Okay. All right. So.
[1:39:21] So the access on Pensacola is proposed. The green there is actually a landscape strip, not a buffer.
[1:39:27] There is a note on there that says the driveway is proposed. And that would break that. That
[1:39:31] buffer up wherever the driveway ends up being planned. Yes, sir.
[1:39:38] Can you draw that somehow? Yes, sir. I mean, I think if that's what helps solve the confusion, you
[1:39:46] know, developing a parking plan, a circulation plan. I'm looking for my clients. We can do that.
[1:39:54] Yes, Client saying.
[1:40:06] Should be right to be determined. It was to be determined with a plan that has not been developed.
[1:40:12] And what you're asking is to develop that plan. And you can do that. We can do that.
[1:40:20] We do it.
[1:40:22] I think question becomes is, can we continue this and provide that, or do we got to go all the way
[1:40:29] back to the beginning, which is what kept us here for three months already?
[1:40:36] I'm going to ask the planning director. She has a shortcut, but I don't know what that shortcut
[1:40:41] would be because now we're taking to a specific plan from options. It's a conditional
[1:40:48] zoning sketch. Conditional zoning plan being modified as requested by the council. That's it. I
[1:40:55] mean, that's exactly right. It's a conditional use. And. And we can set conditions with that
[1:41:02] conditional use of this council. I mean. You can. I feel like we've always done that before, and we
[1:41:07] can certainly table it and put those conditions and see if the applicant will agree to them and
[1:41:13] come back with. To At a. At the next council meeting. I believe you can do that. And. And we're
[1:41:19] willing to do that. Okay. All right. Well, then I will make the motion that we table this with the
[1:41:26] conditions that we've said to see if the applicant will agree and bring them back at the next
[1:41:30] council meeting. I'll make that in the form of a motion. I'm going to ask the question that we asked
[1:41:35] before, and that is, do you want to have more of a hearing or are you through the hearings? You just
[1:41:40] want to see the plan? I. I think we need to have a hearing in case someone wants speak. I would agree to
[1:41:47] continue the public hearing. So that way, when they bring. When they bring the changes back, if the
[1:41:53] applicant agrees, when they bring them back, that gives the, the adjoining property owners an
[1:41:58] opportunity to speak. Well, like you did before, the motion should be to reopen the hearing and
[1:42:03] continue it to the next meeting, at which time you'll get a presentation from the applicant about
[1:42:09] what their plan is. Okay, Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we reopen the public hearing. Okay. Motion
[1:42:15] made by Mayor Pro Tem Ballou. Seconded by Councilmember Harvey Walker. May I ask for an amendment? Yes, sir.
[1:42:23] I love the idea that we're going to postpone it. We're going to come back. I would only
[1:42:32] ask that we amend the motion to stipulate that in the interim, they meet with the surrounding
[1:42:41] property owners they've already met with and go over the diagram so they've had time to absorb it.
[1:42:51] And then we come to a meeting that don't have that many questions because they should have
[1:42:56] communicated to each other, neighbors and owner. I don't have a problem. Are you okay with that,
[1:43:04] Harvey? I mean. I'm good with that. Yes. So now there's a motion to amend the motion. Yeah. I'm trying to think of
[1:43:12] whether you. The motion that was made was to reopen the hearing. Now, nobody has continued it, but,
[1:43:19] I was going to put it all into one motion. That is to reopen the hearing, continue it to the
[1:43:27] next meeting, and in the meantime, instruct the developer to have a meeting with the folks that are
[1:43:34] affected. Yes, sir. Let them decide. All right. So moved. You restate. Is that all right with you,
[1:43:38] Harvey? Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. So motion made by Mayor Pro Ballou. Seconded by Councilmember Harvey
[1:43:47] Walker. Any discussion on this motion? Okay, hearing no discussion. All in favor, indicate by
[1:43:52] raising your hand. It's unanimous. So that public hearing is now reopened until our September 8th
[1:44:00] council meeting of the rezoning of 202 Pensacola Avenue. Thank you. Thank you guys. Thank you, Ron. Item
[1:44:09] number 4D rezoning a portion of 101 and 105 Gloria Dawn Road and four adjacent unaddressed parcels.
[1:44:18] Sandy.
[1:44:25] The Cullipher Group on behalf of Bridges Park One LLC requests rezoning of a 19.34 acre portion of
[1:44:32] six tracks from highway commercial and industrial to PD planned development. The request includes
[1:44:38] approval of a sketch development plan for a maximum of 310 dwelling units. The applicant also
[1:44:44] requests a future land use map amendment from Industrial and Commercial Corridor to Mixed Use Center.
[1:44:50] That amendment is relevant to this rezoning presentation but will be formally considered under item
[1:44:56] 4E
[1:44:59] should the council approve the item. The aerial shows the project area near the intersection of
[1:45:06] Gloria Dawn Road and Bridges Street Extension. The six tracks contain approximately 23.3 acres in
[1:45:13] total. 19 acres are proposed for the planned development as shown in the hatched blue. The survey
[1:45:20] delineates the portion proposed for PD zoning. Approximately 4 acres shown in yellow would remain in
[1:45:26] the Highway Commercial District. Project is partly within the corporate limits and partly within the
[1:45:31] city's ETJ and the applicant has agreed to annex the remaining ETJ portion as a condition of
[1:45:37] approval.
[1:45:40] The five parcels nearest Gloria Dawn Road are currently zoned Highway Commercial and a larger tract
[1:45:45] set back from the road is zoned Industrial. The surrounding area contains a mix of commercial,
[1:45:51] industrial, office, residential and manufacturing home development. The property is located within
[1:45:57] the Northwest Neighborhood Planning area and the current future land use map identifies the project
[1:46:04] area as Industrial and Commercial Corridor.
[1:46:09] The applicant has requested the area be redesignated as Mixed Use Center. Any amendment will be
[1:46:15] formally considered under item 4E if the rezoning request is approved. These are the allowable uses
[1:46:22] permitted in special in the Highway Commercial district and this is all in your agenda packet and
[1:46:28] the table shows the uses currently available under the Industrial designation
[1:46:34] For this project, the proposed uses would be limited to multi family dwellings, two family
[1:46:39] dwellings, accessory uses and amenities and signage. This is the sketch development plan. The
[1:46:46] proposal contains a maximum of 310 units at a density of approximately 16 units per acre. The plan
[1:46:53] provides 3.63 acres of open space exceeding the 3.56 acres required and provides the required 670
[1:47:01] parking spaces. A public street is proposed from Gloria Dawn Road to the development entrance.
[1:47:07] Internal drives would be private. The rear connection adjoining the Creek Fever Subdivision to the
[1:47:12] west is proposed to remain locked and available only for emergency access.
[1:47:19] Staff proposed and the applicant agreed to a condition requiring a traffic impact analysis with the
[1:47:25] Site Development Master Plan. The TIA would evaluate the project's anticipated traffic and its
[1:47:30] effects on access points, nearby roads and intersections and identify any improvements recommended
[1:47:36] through the subsequent review process. This is the first of four phases in the plan development
[1:47:42] process. Rezoning and Sketch Development Plan that's the phase we're at currently. Site Development
[1:47:47] Master Plan should this phase be approved is next and then preliminary and final plat. Sketch plan
[1:47:53] establishes the general development pattern. Detailed engineering and final compliance review occur
[1:47:59] later in the process. If the rezoning and and sketch plan are approved, the applicant must obtain
[1:48:07] the additional state, federal and local permits shown on the screen during subsequent review. These
[1:48:13] include stormwater, erosion and sedimentation control, wetlands and water quality approvals, NCDOT
[1:48:20] access approval and water and sewer extension approvals.
[1:48:27] The applicant has preliminarily agreed to see six conditions shown on the screen. In summary, they
[1:48:33] limit the permitted uses and amenities, cap the development at 310 units, require a compliant
[1:48:39] lighting plan, require wastewater system capacity improvements identified by public services,
[1:48:45] require annexation of the remaining ETJ area and require submission of a traffic impact analysis
[1:48:51] with the Site Development Master Plan.
[1:48:54] The hearing was advertised, abutting property owners were notified and the site was posted in
[1:48:59] accordance with applicable requirements and no public inquiries were received by planning staff. No
[1:49:06] one spoke in opposition to the item during the Planning Board meeting. Planning Board voted
[1:49:10] unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning and the sketch development plan subject to the six
[1:49:15] conditions on the previous screen and adopted resolution 20260007. The Planning Board also
[1:49:23] recommended approval of an associated future land use map amendment which council may consider under
[1:49:29] item E. That concludes my report. Thank you, Sandy. Does the council have any questions for Sandy?
[1:49:35] None of this time. Okay, thank you. Public hearing is now open.
[1:49:41] Anyone out in the audience wants to get up and speak in favor of this rezoning or in opposition?
[1:49:48] Yes, sir. State your name and address. Good evening council. My name is Chase Cullipher, Project
[1:49:53] Manager with The Cullipher Group. I'm located at 151A NC Highway 24 in Morehead City.
[1:50:01] I'm here on behalf of my client and I just wanted to
[1:50:07] illustrate that there's a mix of uses in this here development. We have townhomes, we have what's
[1:50:12] called a carriage house where there's garages underneath and then living units on top. And then
[1:50:17] we have four story apartment complex buildings. These four story buildings will have elevators which
[1:50:24] is a rare product here in in the apartment community in Morehead City.
[1:50:32] There were conditions as Sandy just listed before about capacity improvements to the wastewater
[1:50:40] system, which I think we're working towards currently.
[1:50:44] And the TIA, which I know is kind of a big deal as far as traffic at Gloria Dawn. I mean I live
[1:50:49] here. I know that traffic can be dense at Glory Dawn during certain times of day.
[1:50:55] We originally, before submitting to the town or city actually reached out to NCDOT and submitted
[1:51:03] this very plan just in anticipation of what they may or may not want to see. And while it wasn't an
[1:51:09] official application, they did say that a TIA would be warranted on their behalf as well and that
[1:51:17] they would anticipate some significant improvements in that area. When he listed out would be a high
[1:51:23] probability of roadway improvements consisting of left and right turn lanes, median islands and
[1:51:29] restricted movements driveways. This would be a proactive measure in preparation for the current
[1:51:34] additional traffic in this area. And it would pretty much be a complete road widening with dedicated
[1:51:41] center turn lane going left north off of Bridges Street and then a dedicated right turn lane coming
[1:51:47] south down Glory Dawn accessing the property.
[1:51:54] I believe one of the other major issues that came up was this becoming going from industrial
[1:52:01] property to a mixed use center land classification. And I know that there's parts of the city that
[1:52:08] probably have a desire for more industry, but there's also a big need for housing. And there's 310
[1:52:14] units of one, two and three bedroom mix in this at different price points. Would be market rate but
[1:52:21] with the buildings being four stories,
[1:52:25] they call it verticality. I don't know if that's a real word, but it allows a
[1:52:30] lower construction cost per unit by going up to four floors as opposed to two or three.
[1:52:38] And we also are kind of looking at this area in general as, it's
[1:52:45] kind of in the development community, it's understood that industry and business will kind of follow
[1:52:49] behind residential development.
[1:52:53] And we kind of see this as an opportunity to provide more workforce housing that's adjacent to some
[1:52:59] industry. It is kind of located on a corner of the industrious area in a manner that's not centrally
[1:53:06] located. It's closer to commercial and schools and parks and other public resources and,
[1:53:17] I think would be a good transition between the neighborhoods and. And then into that light
[1:53:21] industrial stuff that's there that's kind of visible from the intersection of 70 and Highway 24 now.
[1:53:26] I'd be willing to answer any questions. I have a question, Mayor. Yes, Chase. Can you repeat again
[1:53:31] what the DOT I heard you say wide widening of Gloria Dawn. So. So. And you also said a turning lane
[1:53:40] on Gloria Dawn. Can you repeat what you said? Yes, sir. So the specific response from Dwayne Smith
[1:53:48] with DOT was a high probability of roadway improvement will be required up to but not limited to
[1:53:53] left and right turn lanes, median islands, restricted movement driveways, et cetera. So if you were
[1:54:00] coming west on Bridges Street Extension and you wanted to turn right or north onto Gloria Dawn and
[1:54:06] then make a left into this project, there will be a center turn lane that is dedicated to that, kind
[1:54:12] of like if you were going to Friendly Market off the Friendly Road. So if you're going west, then
[1:54:16] you're going to turn on Gloria Dawn and then you're going to have a center turn lane to go in this
[1:54:22] project to prevent from queuing of traffic back and out into Bridge Street. Yes, sir.
[1:54:28] How wide is it. Is there another it was there anything else besides. Well, it was an unofficial
[1:54:35] response because we hadn't actually applied. And with this being the sketch process and it being a
[1:54:42] condition from the city and from DOT, we're hoping to be able to move forward from sketch review
[1:54:48] with an approval from you today and then pursue those, those answers. He. Excuse me. They're saying
[1:54:55] that they're seeing this as what you may need to have done. They haven't committed to doing it,
[1:55:01] right. My client has committed to doing whatever is required by the city and NCDOT. They're aware
[1:55:07] that there would be significant infrastructure improvements and they're willing to pay for it. Okay,
[1:55:12] now my question is I use that road quite often. How far are you going to be off of Bridges Street for
[1:55:19] you all to turn left? Because you're saying you're going to have a,
[1:55:24] you're going to have a lane that you're going to have be able to turn in. And I mean I didn't
[1:55:30] measure it, but I believe it's a couple hundred feet. But a typical queuing would be like a, you
[1:55:39] know, 50 to 100 storage lane and then like a 50 to 100 foot taper. So you're saying about 100 feet?
[1:55:46] That I'm looking at that entrance right there. Councilman Walker, speak into the mic.
[1:55:52] You're saying that
[1:55:55] it's a hundred feet from your entrance, which I think that entrance is where you've got. That's
[1:56:02] colored in blue, right? Yes, sir. Sorry. So you're saying that's about a hundred feet from Bridges
[1:56:07] Street? I believe it's further than that. I believe that the, the improvement for stacking of cars
[1:56:12] would be at least 100ft. So you're going to. But you're status Wayne at Wayne Drive is right There.
[1:56:18] When I turn that corner, I'm almost at Wayne Drive. So you're saying you're, you're, you're this
[1:56:24] side of Wayne Drive. So I'm saying for you to, so you're saying when we make that turn off of
[1:56:29] Bridges, you're going to have a, another lane. In other words, they're going to widen Gloria Dawn.
[1:56:36] They would widen it two lanes worth. And so you would have the center turn lane. So it would be a
[1:56:44] through lane going north, a dedicated left turn lane in the middle, through lane going south, and
[1:56:49] then a dedicated turn lane going south. Right. So it, it would double the width of the road and have
[1:56:55] queuing and tapers suitable to what the TIA results say.
[1:57:03] Okay. Now, okay, so DOT has not committed to doing this. This is something that they have to do. Or
[1:57:08] do you do. We, we would do it if they require it. So they would take the TIA, they would make their
[1:57:14] recommendations and then they would say if you want to get a driveway permit, these are the
[1:57:18] improvements you have to make. Okay. Our client is responsible. So you're saying it's going to be 300
[1:57:23] units, 600 parking spaces because you're anticipating 600. That's the ordinance requirements. Okay.
[1:57:36] I understand it's tight, but we're trying to get through sketch plan. I think when we, if we, if we
[1:57:41] could, you know, humbly request your approval tonight, we would be able to move forward and get that
[1:57:46] information and we'd be able to come back to you guys in the future with what DOT recommends.
[1:57:54] So go. Councilman Walker, can I ask? Yeah. So you're, so you're saying four lanes. It's going, it's two lanes now.
[1:58:01] Right. So we're going to go four lanes. Correct. Well, preliminary, you're here so that, so when you
[1:58:06] turn off, when you turn, when you're coming west, you can continue going on Gloria Dawn. There's a
[1:58:13] continuous road going lane. Without, without. Okay. And then you've got a lane that's going to be
[1:58:19] designated to turn in this project. Specifically for this project. Not all the way through, just all
[1:58:25] the way through. And then if you're going south, you've got a designated turning lane that will be
[1:58:31] going west. Yes. And then you've got a designated lane that would be straight if you're going either
[1:58:39] way, correct? Yes, sir.
[1:58:43] Councilman Taylor, did you have a question? Well, we have to remember that in order for the DOT
[1:58:53] to do, to do the design engineering for what Chase is describing, we need to make a decision to pass
[1:59:06] this project to take it to the next step. So if we number one think that we need housing in our
[1:59:17] community and we need to offer a variety housing at different price points. This is an opportunity
[1:59:26] to add 300 units. That's a big project. In addition, we have talked about we would love the
[1:59:36] opportunity
[1:59:39] to gain more citizens and reduce the property rate for all of Morehead. Picking up 300 folks at one
[1:59:51] time at a substantial increase
[1:59:56] in property tax roll. This is an opportunity to do that. Yeah, so you said advantages are to add
[2:00:05] to workforce housing that's needed in Morehead City and to increase the tax base. But to get it started
[2:00:13] it has to pass step one. Correct me if I'm wrong. This is step one. Mayor I'm just going to say you
[2:00:23] guys are getting in an awful lot of discussion. We're still in the public hearing. We might want to
[2:00:27] finish the public hearing. I mean you everything you just said was absolutely correct and
[2:00:32] intelligent. But we're still in the public hearing. Collect the information and then get into
[2:00:37] because I have. Anybody else have any questions for Chase? I got a couple more questions. Sure.
[2:00:41] Chase, you understand it? I, you know the traffic stacks, it backs up. Yes, sir. There's no
[2:00:50] way for it to get on Bridges Street.
[2:00:53] I've been there. I usually the road a lot. I mean I've seen eight or ten cars backed up there. I see
[2:00:59] concrete trucks backed up there. Right. Rock trucks. So is there any discussion with DOT of how
[2:01:05] we're going to get the traffic moving and to be able to get them on Bridges Street? So I don't want
[2:01:13] to speculate that that could trigger further DOT involvement on Bridges street extension. But it is
[2:01:19] a possibility where something like this creates where they would look into alternative things in the
[2:01:27] general area. But the TIA would be kind of the starting point for that. Is there is there a
[2:01:34] possibility of diverting traffic to keep it from going to Bridges Street Extension to a different
[2:01:38] direction? I mean there is a possibility where it gets cycled in a different way. I mean if it goes
[2:01:44] to Gloria Dawn to Business Drive or if goes up and turns around and we all know that the Business
[2:01:49] Drive Extension Extension, you know, has been in discussion for some time. There's no current plan
[2:01:55] for it. But you know, things like this would drive what those results would be. Right. I mean I
[2:02:01] understand we, we need this project and, and I'm not against this project. I want this project to
[2:02:08] happen. But I do understand and I think you, you understand the problem that we're going to create
[2:02:15] here and we've got a problem with traffic and whether it's directional of getting traffic to go a
[2:02:22] different direction. But if you've got eight or 10 cars that are they're backed up on Gloria Dawn
[2:02:30] and they cannot get out of Bridges Street and you've got them backed in your project, we got a problem.
[2:02:36] Understand. And there's got to be some kind of discussion of either diverting traffic to go a
[2:02:42] different direction or how we're going to get the traffic that's already on Gloria Dawn and then the
[2:02:49] traffic that's going to be generated by 600 vehicles, how we're going to get them on Bridges Street.
[2:02:56] That has been my concern since I've seen this project and I understand that we've got to approve
[2:03:02] this to get DOT moving on it, but I'm very concerned with what, with how the DOT is going to
[2:03:10] respond to us. One more quick question for you. Have they talked to you about traffic lights or
[2:03:16] anything like that? No, sir. Again, I requested a preliminary review of what they thought would
[2:03:23] happen and their response was substantial improvements that I listed before. I think Mr. Ballou
[2:03:29] brought up a good point because at any time of day, not trying, coming off a Gloria Dawn, you're
[2:03:35] sitting there maybe five or ten minutes waiting for you to merge onto Bridges Street. You know what
[2:03:41] you're saying now you're going to put potentially 600 cars there and they're going to be trying to
[2:03:49] merge onto Bridges Street. I'm just saying I like the project but please don't underestimate the
[2:03:56] congestion that can be generated at that intersection. It's a busy intersection. My office on 24, my
[2:04:05] daughter goes Morehead Middle. I drive past it every morning at rush hour. I'm aware and I'd be
[2:04:12] interested to see what the results are and what the potential. The thing we need to remember
[2:04:19] is that we have to talked about Bridges Street Extension for what seems like 10 years. For a long,
[2:04:27] long time. You got another question for him? Because we could talk about that when y'all do y'all
[2:04:31] discussion. We got to move on in the public hearing. Yeah, we're still in public. If you don't
[2:04:36] interrupt me, I'll try to do that.
[2:04:40] Can you do that?
[2:04:45] When you get this projects built, you are increasing the probability because they can see more
[2:04:54] traffics being added. They've got to make the decisions that they haven't made yet to pull Bridges
[2:05:03] Street forward in the construction plan. That's another reason we need this project. It's going to
[2:05:11] help us put additional emphasis in getting Bridges Street approval and getting the intersections
[2:05:20] coming down Bridges Street revamped. So now I'll shut. Are you finished? We done lost somebody. Thank
[2:05:29] you, Chase. Yes, sir. You're welcome. Yeah. Is there anybody else in the audience that wants to get
[2:05:32] up and speak in favor or in opposition? Yes, sir. You state your name. Address.
[2:05:41] Scott Maddox, 5101 Business Drive. I'm not for or against, but if y'all seen the proposal for the
[2:05:49] Bridge Street Extension, it goes right through this property. And I was just concerned about what would be
[2:05:55] the redirection or, or whatever if this is developed. But I'm not for or against it. Just that's
[2:06:03] only concern I have is how the project can be done, the extension can be done if it's supposed to go
[2:06:08] through this property. I didn't hear what you. So. Okay, now I think I understand. I didn't hear
[2:06:12] what you first said. That that's one of the diagrams that DOT put out about a potential area. And I
[2:06:19] think all those business owners out there realize that at some point their property is going to be
[2:06:24] touched. Yes. So yeah, if we, if we taking this concern. That's only the question. But if, if that
[2:06:32] building gets built first, DOT is required to accommodate it. And it's up to them. Well, it's up to
[2:06:42] them to go around it or whatever to make accommodations. All right, is there anyone else in the
[2:06:50] audience? Let's speak in favor and opposition of this rezoning request.
[2:06:59] Okay, sir. State your name and address.
[2:07:05] My name is Ralph Nitt. 5010 Business Drive in Morehead City.
[2:07:13] I've had property back at the industrial park for quite a few years. Watched a lot of development
[2:07:20] that has happened in and around our area, which I'll call the Industrial park our area for
[2:07:27] the sake of this conversation.
[2:07:30] I've seen the Bridges Street Extension be put in. I've seen probably one of the worst intersections
[2:07:36] I've ever seen the DOT create at Highway 24 and 70.
[2:07:44] and Bridges Street Extension. It's is just dangerous.
[2:07:49] Traffic cutoff, shortcuts. That's what Bridges Street Extension has really become. I'm all for
[2:07:57] development, don't get me wrong, but
[2:08:01] it's a dangerous road. You know, there's a lot of kids on bicycles that are out riding on Gloria
[2:08:07] Dawn. They might be on Business Drive.
[2:08:10] I just hate to see
[2:08:13] fatalities. Anyone get hurt just for the sake of developing a piece of property to put homes in.
[2:08:23] I think homes are needed in Morehead City and land is definitely scarce. They're not making any more
[2:08:30] of it. But I know back before the port even bought that property. It was laid out many, many years
[2:08:39] ago. The roads were cut, power lines were put in, phone boxes were added and then that was abandoned
[2:08:48] to accommodate the port for future use, which didn't happen. And I guess it was sold off, broken up
[2:08:56] into pieces.
[2:09:00] It would be really interesting to see what they would do with the Bridges Street Extension Extension
[2:09:06] and how that would accommodate
[2:09:10] the whole area because ingress and egress is never, never fun.
[2:09:17] The reason I was late for tonight's meeting is because I had to pull out of there and that's the
[2:09:25] reason I leave 15 or 20 minutes early when I leave my shop to go anywhere. So I guess a minimum of 315
[2:09:36] units, you know, with the cars and people that are in them.
[2:09:44] I mean I say, I say safety first. And,
[2:09:50] But just wanted to share my comments and thoughts about what I see every day and what I continue to
[2:09:59] see.
[2:10:01] Hopefully it'll be some good decisions made for the benefit of Morehead City. And I appreciate my 3
[2:10:08] minute time. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All righty. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Do I need to
[2:10:15] sign that? Okay. Okay. So seeing or hearing no one else? Public hearing is now closed. Council
[2:10:24] remember that? Well, I was just going to make one comment that I'm not. It's not going to be a long
[2:10:32] comment. It could be what Mr. Cullipher was talking about with the state, the DOT that may get them
[2:10:43] and I think Bill alluded to this
[2:10:46] about the Bridges Street Extension Extension is that they may say, wow, you know, maybe we need to
[2:10:54] look at where is the best entrance for that. I don't know. But at least I think the, I think it's
[2:11:02] what the conversation is going to start and it seems like that the developer is obviously is willing
[2:11:12] to do what it takes.
[2:11:14] And I've traveled that road many a time too, but you know, I just understand it is what it is. And
[2:11:21] if I feel like I needed to go east, sometimes I go west to go east because, you know, there's
[2:11:28] different ways of getting where you need to get. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. You know, if
[2:11:32] anybody else has anything to say, I'm ready. Mr. Mayor, can I ask either the manager or the attorney a
[2:11:37] question? Yes. Do we have any, any input with DOT when they come back as far as traffic patterns or
[2:11:48] what they're recommending? Do we have any influence? On state roads, the state obviously has a final
[2:11:54] say, but they typically want and desire local input whenever development and redevelopment and
[2:12:01] traffic patterns are revisited through the normal processes. Yes. I think we'll have
[2:12:08] input whether we are effective in that enough to make a difference. We'll see. Time will tell. Yeah.
[2:12:15] Yeah. I mean, I, I like the project. I know we need the housing. I just don't. I just think if DOT
[2:12:25] does not come in and do some significant changes to that intersection and that traffic pattern, that
[2:12:35] we're putting people in jeopardy. Well, I would tend to agree that one thing I would say is this
[2:12:43] project. Put it out of your mind for a moment. That area needs addressing. It doesn't have anything
[2:12:50] to do with this project because this project can be commercial industrial tomorrow with permits and
[2:12:57] they go to work and we may see a we would see a substantial increase in traffic that's going to
[2:13:03] exacerbate the existing conditions, make it worse, particularly if it's more truck traffic. Not to
[2:13:09] pick on trucks, but we want economic development. But the reality is any development that occurs on
[2:13:15] Business Drive that's going east is primarily going to come this route and that needs addressing
[2:13:22] regardless of this rezoning. So. But this rezoning could be commercial, and I think it could be
[2:13:29] developed and substantially impact the same things. And it should be addressed through a traffic
[2:13:38] impact study, which might not be required by DOT for a driveway permit there for a commercial. We
[2:13:44] don't know, because that is a different process. It's not a rezoning because it's already zoned,
[2:13:50] unless they want to change something. But I do think there's opportunities for us to revisit that
[2:13:57] area with DOT,
[2:14:01] but it would help us to have this project on the table, to get them to the table and focus on it,
[2:14:08] because it's going to be impactful, as several commissioners have pointed out. Of course, that's not
[2:14:14] going to happen overnight. It's. It would be likely a phase development based on market conditions
[2:14:20] and demand for the housing. But assuming it was, you're talking about a few years before it would be
[2:14:27] built out, which gives us ample opportunity to work with DOT to look at this end of future Bridges
[2:14:35] Street Extension Extension, whatever you call it, needs to be addressed now, not 10 years from now
[2:14:42] in terms of planning for the traffic patterns going towards Gloria Dawn, Vashti,
[2:14:50] Riggs, Wayne, all of those streets, even Country Club Road, to some extent, need to be revisited.
[2:14:59] And even if we don't have immediate plans, as we don't with DOT for the future Bridges Street
[2:15:07] Extension Extension, we can have a plan for this area and DOT could begin to consider funding that
[2:15:15] would address the traffic issues in there long before that final project gets built, but it could be
[2:15:24] built in a way that would accommodate the future. So I think that's a high priority for the city to
[2:15:31] work with DOT to get done and this project
[2:15:36] helps bring them to the table in a more immediate fashion. So I would advocate that we make that a
[2:15:43] priority for the city. I know from administrative standpoint, I've already looking at the plans that
[2:15:48] were developed previously. They're helpful, but they would have to be revisited because as one
[2:15:53] gentleman pointed out, this changes at least one of the options. But I'm not sure that an option
[2:15:59] that extends it along the railroad right away and similar fashion to the existing Bridges Street
[2:16:04] Extension is in long term best interest of Morehead City. I think something further north opens up
[2:16:11] more property for development and access and it allows us to preserve some properties along the
[2:16:19] railroad right of way for industrial development that might need rail access. If you put a road
[2:16:24] through there, you're going to eliminate that. So I think that's worthy of consideration and we need
[2:16:30] to present that to DOT and others and the economic development folks need to look at it.
[2:16:36] But right now we need to focus on this end of the access and this project. Certainly I think there
[2:16:44] are options that could eliminate part of the congestion there if we can work with DOT to get them
[2:16:52] built. And that's what I hope Mr. Martin, you know, and I know there's probably some property
[2:16:58] owners would not like to see it happen. But like you just said, I mean, DOT created this when they
[2:17:05] designed Bridges Street Extension. And then you've got Wayne Drive, Riggs Road, Vashti. I mean
[2:17:12] there, there's a lot that, that could be done. Maybe, maybe DOT could look at it and, and maybe
[2:17:19] because again, there's got to be some, some different directional traffic patterns. If this project,
[2:17:27] they cannot dump that traffic on Bridges Street Extension. There's no, they can't get out. They're
[2:17:33] going to back traffic up. There's got to be a different direction for traffic. Yeah. And I think
[2:17:37] it's reasonable for the DOT to require within their permitting for this particular proposed
[2:17:43] development things like Chase just described, multi lanes, whatever. But that's not the long term
[2:17:50] fix all for the whole area. And obviously this developer and this parcel shouldn't bear the burden
[2:17:56] for the whole area. Yes. The whole area needs to be addressed in a grander fashion with DOT and the
[2:18:02] city working together. Yes.
[2:18:06] So is there a motion? Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I'm gonna make a motion that we adopt Ordinance
[2:18:11] 2020-0-13 to rezone a portion of 101 and 105 Gloria Dawn Road and four adjacent unaddressed
[2:18:20] parcels. And I'm not going to forego. I'm going to forego reading those tax pin numbers
[2:18:27] from commercial highway district and industrial district to plan development district and resolution
[2:18:35] 2026-R-49 of plan consistency in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 160D-604 for map
[2:18:45] amendment. I'd second. Okay. Motion made by Councilmember Abell. Seconded by Councilmember
[2:18:51] Taylor. Any discussion on this motion? Yes.
[2:18:56] Okay, go ahead. Councilmember Walker. I'll let you go first.
[2:19:02] I'm, I'm torn
[2:19:05] because basically. Speak into the mic.
[2:19:10] I travel that road.
[2:19:14] When I look at this
[2:19:17] layout,
[2:19:20] if those people would try right now the way it is, and Randy, I hear what you're saying that the
[2:19:23] problem is there right now.
[2:19:26] Those people would not even be able to leave if they were trying to be to work at 8 o'clock. It
[2:19:33] ain't happening. If you got 300 people in there trying to get out that, that the way it is, it is
[2:19:38] not going to happen. And so I'm sitting here saying, how do we fix that? Because.
[2:19:49] That's where I'm torn because I want to develop it, but I'm sitting here saying,
[2:19:58] how do we fix it? Are we going to set ourselves up for a situation that is not going to be fixable?
[2:20:06] Because right now, as I say, I'm sitting here envisioning 300 units, 600 cars and that section where
[2:20:15] he's saying 100ft, a little over 100ft, he's going to put a lane. Those people who are in the
[2:20:20] apartment may not even be able to get on,
[2:20:23] get out of the parking lot because so this is where I'm torn. And I understand. Okay.
[2:20:33] But, you got to give them the. But that's why I feel I'm going to have to vote with it because I think
[2:20:40] it's not their fault that this situation is there. But at the same time, we as a city need to sit
[2:20:48] here and realize that we need to move forward to prevent this problem. Because this is a
[2:20:54] serious situation because you know, like Mr. Nitts had just previous said, trying to get out of that,
[2:21:04] out of Gloria Dawn. You're sitting there waiting for the people that come across 24. And then you
[2:21:09] try to get, get ahead of people that's coming out of Country Club and there's no light. And so it's
[2:21:16] just like, so what did, what do you. The way they're beating it, people are pulling out there and
[2:21:21] running in the middle lane
[2:21:24] to try to get out there. So the next guy will be able to come and make a right hand turn. So I'm
[2:21:30] just saying,
[2:21:32] when this thing
[2:21:35] is presented, please do not underestimate that, that, that intersection. Oh, it could be Harvey, Mr.
[2:21:45] Walker. It, it could be Red Barn Road out on Highway 24. I believe that's the road that, you know
[2:21:52] where I'm talking about, out towards Bogue. I believe it's Red Barn where the,
[2:22:00] Anyhow, there's, when you come out of that, you can only turn right. You can only turn right,
[2:22:06] period. If you want to go back to the left and you got to travel down, yeah, they got a quarter of a
[2:22:11] mile and then make a U turn, that's, that's where those bump outs are. Same way going in, you just
[2:22:18] can't turn into Red Barn Road. You got to go down about a block to make a turn to get in there. You
[2:22:24] know, there could be something like that. Who knows? But unless it happens, DOT is not going to work
[2:22:29] with it. And that's where I'm at. I'm the same way, Councilman. I am, I am, I'm torn. When I
[2:22:36] saw the project, I, I, I just, I just couldn't imagine of, of developing this property with
[2:22:42] additional. I couldn't, I couldn't. Well, we all know the 300 cars ain't gonna come out at the same
[2:22:46] time. I understand, we all know. But again, if it takes a project like this to get DOT to the table,
[2:22:52] and I hear Mr. Martin, and I've heard Sandy, if it takes this project to get them to the table to
[2:22:58] see what we can do to make the whole area better, then I, I'm going to support. But, but everybody
[2:23:07] here tonight has heard my concerns. I think Councilman Walker's concerned, Everyone's concerned. I
[2:23:13] think Chase has heard our concerns. The developer has heard. Everyone has heard our concerns. And if
[2:23:18] it takes approving this project to get DOT to the table to make the improvements, because again,
[2:23:25] there is a problem now that needs to be addressed. The problem. We don't have to wait for the
[2:23:30] problem. The problem is there. And Mr. Martin, you know that. So hopefully DOT will come to the
[2:23:37] table and work with the developer and work with the city and we can improve the whole area. That's,
[2:23:43] that is my prayer that it'll happen. One more question. When they do a traffic study, what will that
[2:23:51] do? What would a traffic study do? Well, this traffic impact analysis. Chase can give us the formula
[2:24:00] of how they do that, but I'm sure they're going to run scenarios based on typical traffic for these,
[2:24:08] how much this will add to the current situation. They'll analyze the traffic patterns and the counts
[2:24:14] currently and then project what the new development would add to it. So those would be some of the
[2:24:20] elements. But I think that as was pointed out, DOT has already recognized that substantial
[2:24:26] improvements are needed now. Well, they didn't say that, but substantial improvements, additional
[2:24:32] improvements will be necessary as a result of this development. The other part of it, though, just
[2:24:38] to expand on it, DOT doesn't typically, in my experience,
[2:24:45] act until they typically react. They don't take the initiative to do things that might be a need.
[2:24:54] They're going to do it after it is a need. And I think traffic counts and all of that will increase
[2:25:01] the likelihood of DOT paying attention more so than maybe they have. I think they're aware of some
[2:25:08] of the things, but unless you have something on the table that's going to show them new numbers that
[2:25:13] are going to increase the problem. They're, they're, the roads are designed to handle this current
[2:25:19] traffic. It's just the way it's configured and all the different movements they've learned from it
[2:25:25] over the years with Bridges Street Extension. So I think that's some of the elements that'll be
[2:25:29] included and probably a lot more.
[2:25:34] So can I ask one more? So, Mr. Martin, who drives, who drives this boat? Do we as, I mean as
[2:25:39] the developer, or do we get involved with this as a city? I think both. Both. So, so we'll, we'll
[2:25:46] work in tandem. Developer work on what's required to get a permit and what's tied to their project.
[2:25:54] But obviously they're interested in this because if it's an unsafe, not a good situation and it's
[2:26:01] negative, they're going to have a hard time marketing this property to residents. It's going to be
[2:26:06] an adverse impact. So I think they're just as interested in a resolution and it could be other
[2:26:11] resolutions we can certainly explore. But until they have the zoning, I understand their hesitancy
[2:26:17] to invest additional dollars in planning for it and they may not get it. As Sandi pointed out,
[2:26:24] though, this is not the final action. This is the first step of multi phase because of the planned
[2:26:29] development, as you're well aware of, that's going to take a while. And so it gives us a window of
[2:26:36] opportunity to work with DOT. But I think we need to initiate the discussion on the connectivity and
[2:26:43] access of that whole area,
[2:26:46] independent of their effort, but use their effort as a catalyst, if you will, to get DOT to take it
[2:26:54] serious. And I hope we will Mr. Martin. Well, I intend to and Sandi and I have talked about about that
[2:26:59] and I've talked to Bill who's chair of the county planning transportation committee of it could be
[2:27:05] that we bring it to them whether there's other pots of money in DOT that could work on traffic
[2:27:11] safety issues in this area, short of this, the impacts of this development. Okay, thank you. All
[2:27:19] right, there's a motion on the floor. Yes. (unintelligible) any further discussion? All right. Hearing none.
[2:27:25] All in favor with this motion, Indicate by raising your hand. It's unanimous. All right, item 4e,
[2:27:33] land use plan for Radio Island and Gloria Dawn Road. Sandi.
[2:27:46] A lot in that one. Okay. And this final item is the land use plan amendments. As a result of
[2:27:53] annexing an additional area into our city limits. You can see currently the area is not shown on our
[2:28:03] neighborhood planning area map over on Radio Island, but it's now in the city. And so the planning
[2:28:10] board recommended that it come into the east neighborhood planning area. And that is consistent with
[2:28:15] the rest of the of our jurisdiction over on Radio Island. In addition to that, then we've got the
[2:28:22] future land use map. And Radio Island is all identified as port mixed use. And so the proposal is to
[2:28:30] bring it into the city's land use plan on the, as port mixed use on the future land use map. And
[2:28:37] finally the Gloria Dawn Road piece that was just rezone that would come into the.
[2:28:48] Wow. What is the designation that we're proposing? There we go. Mixed use center from commercial
[2:28:55] corridor and industrial. So as proposed mixed use center, the planning board also made that
[2:29:00] recommendation along with its planning board resolution. And that's, that's the land use plan
[2:29:08] amendments.
[2:29:12] All right, thank you, Sandi. Does the council have any questions for Sandi? Okay, public hearing is
[2:29:18] now open. There anyone out in the audience that wants to get up and speak in favor and opposition of
[2:29:23] this? Yes, sir.
[2:29:28] Good evening. Eric Remington again representing the condo associations. I think because the. Thank
[2:29:34] you all for continuing the earlier rezoning request. But I think because that rezoning request has
[2:29:42] been continued, we would ask that you pull out the Radio Island part of this and not do that
[2:29:48] tonight, but put that off also until the 30 days out until your next meeting for consistency
[2:29:55] purposes, because these maps depending on depend on the underlying zoning. If you look at the maps
[2:30:03] that Ms. Watkins just put up, it says that it's going to commercial marine district. And that's not
[2:30:09] happening tonight. So to approve these would be incorrect, I think. So we'd ask you to take to
[2:30:15] continue that till the next meeting also. Thank You. Thank you. Is there anyone else?
[2:30:24] Yes, sir.
[2:30:32] Ralph Knitt, 5010 Business Drive, Morehead City. Could I, could I just make a comment about the,
[2:30:42] the public notice portion of the property going back to the planning of it or am I too late to ask
[2:30:51] or say something about the planning? No, go ahead. Planning of what? Well, regarding the, the public
[2:30:59] notice postings of contiguous property owners and putting a sign up and advertising in the paper, to
[2:31:05] me it seems like it. It's not an island. But it is an island. Yeah. I'm just saying. Would that be
[2:31:12] your own citizens comment to, to address? Because I don't want to get out of turn. Yeah. This
[2:31:18] got to be specific to the item we're covering with the land. Oh, so yeah. Not regarding the. Yeah,
[2:31:24] you can speak about that during public comment, but your comments have to be specific to the item
[2:31:29] we're on right now and that is the, the adopting the land use plan for Radio Island and Gloria Dawn
[2:31:34] Road. No, if this was regarding actually the public notification. Yeah, you can, you can speak about
[2:31:40] that during public public comment, sir. Citizens comment. It'll be coming up. It's an island, but it is going
[2:31:46] to be coming. Yeah, yeah, I'll call you up when we get that to that section. Okay. Section of the
[2:31:50] agenda. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else? Okay. Hearing no one, public hearing's now closed.
[2:31:59] Council.
[2:32:01] Okay. Mr. City Attorney, Mr. Taylor, do we or don't we?
[2:32:09] Well, that's your determination, but nevertheless I would suggest that you have Sandi come back up
[2:32:15] and describe to you whether there is a problem with incorporating what you're going to be dealing
[2:32:21] with later in the land use plan, which is what we're talking about
[2:32:26] anyway. She and I have talked about it. I don't believe you have a problem with doing this because
[2:32:32] the other thing will be an entirely different issue.
[2:32:37] So we can, we can do either. We can either with, you know, not take that forward or we can go ahead
[2:32:45] and take it forward. If the council decides to initially zone to something other than commercial
[2:32:55] marina, then we would. We just need to evaluate whether that's consistent with the port mixed use
[2:33:01] future land use designation. The neighborhood planning area really is about the location in the
[2:33:08] town. And so that is just, you know, the east. It's the most easternmost neighborhood planning area
[2:33:15] we have. So that probably makes sense to be east. If for some reason, whatever designation the
[2:33:23] council, you know, adopts for the property in question is not consistent with port mixed east use,
[2:33:29] then it could be evaluated and something else could be proposed. In addition to that, we can always
[2:33:34] bring forward a land use plan amendment subsequent to that. So in other words, it's up to you. But
[2:33:42] currently, Sandi, though, I think you said that the whole area there is under that same land use.
[2:33:48] Yes, sir, you can see on that. And this would not obligate, I'll say to the attorney, or Sandi
[2:33:55] to our attorney, this would not obligate the council on the zoning action that's subsequently going
[2:34:01] to occur. But for consistency, I, I, I, I think it would be safe for us. My opinion, I think it
[2:34:09] would be safe for us to take it out and then that way we, we just deal with it at a different. Well,
[2:34:16] you're required to do it. And I don't see the connection though, if you do this, that does not
[2:34:23] obligate your action on zoning. If I understand it correctly, you still have the full range of
[2:34:29] options that you have on the continued public hearing. They're two separate matters because
[2:34:35] everything needs to be within the land use plan. And in good conscience, I don't think the staff
[2:34:41] would recommend any other category because that would be inconsistent with the rest of
[2:34:47] the property over there being currently one category. Yeah. And what I'm going to say is if it turns
[2:34:57] out that when you rezone doesn't fit, you fix, then. Yeah. So this, this is not setting it in the
[2:35:05] concrete forever and ever. In fact, the folks at CAMA are going to have to go through whatever we
[2:35:10] change in the land use plan. So if anything is directly affecting what their decision might be, then
[2:35:16] we'll run it through with that as well. And it goes through as a separate amendment through CAMA's
[2:35:22] process through Coastal Resources Commission. If we can keep it together procedurally, that's, you
[2:35:28] know, from an administrative perspective that is helpful.
[2:35:32] Most counties in North Carolina, when you amend your zoning map, your, your future land use map is
[2:35:40] automatically amended. Because we're a CAMA community, we have an extra step to go through to work
[2:35:46] with the CAMA, the DCM folks. So essentially what I'm saying and what Sandi is saying, you are not
[2:35:53] prejudice to determine whatever you determine in the future. And we'll fix the land use plan
[2:35:58] accordingly if it needs to be done. It may not be the kind of development that that is currently in
[2:36:04] front of you. And if that happens, then we'll fix this part of it. But this part gets it into where
[2:36:10] it needs to be in our land use plan. And that is something's going to go in there right now. That's
[2:36:15] what it is. But it can be anything that you guys decide
[2:36:21] and the neighborhood's going to be the neighborhood.
[2:36:25] It doesn't really matter what we do in that specific parcel. The whole district area is what we're
[2:36:30] defining with the land use plan. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Attorney. Is there a motion on the floor?
[2:36:35] Yeah, I'll go ahead and make that motion. That we go ahead and adopt Resolution 2026-R-51 to add 191
[2:36:41] and 195 Morgan Street and 201 Marine Drive into the port mixed land future use classification, the
[2:36:49] east neighborhood planning area on the future land use and neighborhood planning area maps and to
[2:36:56] redesignate a 19.34 acre portion of 101 and 105 Gloria down, Gloria Dawn Road and four adjacent
[2:37:06] undressed parcels from industrial and commercial corridor future land use classifications into the
[2:37:14] mixed use center classification. Thank you, Councilman Abell. Motion made by Council member Abell. Is
[2:37:20] there a second? I second. Seconded by Council member Nathan Chambers. Any discussion on this motion?
[2:37:27] All right. Hearing no discussion. All indicate by raising, All in favor, indicate by raising your hand.
[2:37:32] It's unanimous. So, moving on to new business, Item 5A. Adopt Resolution 2026-R-44, approving a
[2:37:44] credit toward the License Agreement 2026, baseball season for Riverfront Sports and Entertainment
[2:37:51] LLC. Mr. Randy, I can elaborate that I think the resolution speaks for itself. I'll be glad to
[2:37:59] answer any questions, but I think this is justifiable and the management is recommending this credit
[2:38:05] be approved as recommended for the most recently completed season due to the project implications
[2:38:15] that we had that negatively affected operations and related revenue opportunities as stipulated. And
[2:38:24] the construction continues. And so the credit in the amount of
[2:38:28] $13,579.50
[2:38:34] is the recommendation. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Okay.
[2:38:41] This was, this was discussed at our finance and administration committee meeting. And I, I think
[2:38:49] it received favorable recommendation from our committee. I'll make a motion and then we can have any
[2:38:54] further discussion. Mr. Mayor, I adopt the resolution 2026-R-44, approving a credit toward the
[2:39:02] license agreement baseball season or the 2026 baseball season for Riverfront Sports and
[2:39:09] Entertainment LLC. Motion. Okay. Motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Ballou. Seconded by Council member Harvey
[2:39:16] Walker. Any discussion on this motion? All right, Hearing no discussion. All in favor, indicate by
[2:39:22] raising your hand. It's unanimous. Thank you. Okay. Item number six, city manager's report. Mr.
[2:39:28] Randy, again. The only thing I would like to. I think they're still here. Recognize Kristen, our HR
[2:39:35] director to introduce our someone special we have in the audience tonight. If they'd come up.
[2:39:55] Good evening. Good Evening Council. This is our NC fellow, Mr. Bray Guest. So he's going to be with
[2:40:02] us for the next
[2:40:04] 11 months working on some pretty heavy projects and learning all about local government. So I will.
[2:40:13] Tell us a little bit about yourself. Good evening, Council. As was mentioned, my name is Bray Guest.
[2:40:18] I just graduated from UNC Chapel Hill in in May. So my apologies if you're a State fan or a Duke fan.
[2:40:25] In some crazy world, Mr. Randy, he apologized to you.
[2:40:32] Yeah. As mentioned, I'm going to be working on a variety of projects around our policies capital
[2:40:36] improvement plan and updating our website for ADA compliance. I'm happy to be here and learn and to
[2:40:44] use all of the skills that I've learned over the past month at the School of Government to
[2:40:49] help our city and learn as much as I can about local government. So thank you for having me and I'm
[2:40:54] ready to get to work. Thank you very. And this is done through a fellowship program with the school
[2:40:59] of government and university and we really appreciate them. (unipntegllible)
[2:41:04] and AmeriCorps. Yeah they they that helps pay for it. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Thank you.
[2:41:12] Jewel can answer any questions about that arrangement. I think the city's used this
[2:41:18] third fellow. Awesome.
[2:41:23] Okay, that's all I have. That's all you have for your city manager report. Mr. Randy. Enough's been
[2:41:28] said. Okay. All right, item number seven, citizens comment. So at this time, any citizen that want
[2:41:33] to get up to the podium, come up to the podium and address the city council. You have a three minute
[2:41:39] time limit.
[2:41:42] State your name and address again, sir. Ralph Knit, 5010 Business Drive, Morehead City. Regarding, I
[2:41:50] guess what I listen to with the, the public notice signage, no matter where it is, I know it's
[2:41:56] normally advertised in the paper. People within a certain distance, whether they abut to it or 300
[2:42:02] foot or whatever it might be.
[2:42:05] Radio Island is pretty small and you would think if a boat sank at the marina everyone in that
[2:42:11] complex would know about it before the end of the day. And how everybody didn't know about a sign
[2:42:18] being up there is just totally beyond me. And then the second thing I'd like to say is don't forget
[2:42:23] about the North Carolina Railroad regarding Bridges Street and the, and Gloria Dawn. Because when it
[2:42:32] comes through there,
[2:42:35] they've got the right away. That's exactly. That's about it. All right. Thank you sir. Thank you.
[2:42:41] All right, is there anyone else? All right, Missy. State your name and address, Missy.
[2:42:49] Good evening.
[2:42:53] Thank you.
[2:42:56] I'm glad to see mama here.
[2:43:04] Thank you.
[2:43:15] Thank you ma'am.
[2:43:34] Thank you.
[2:43:38] Thank you.
[2:43:50] Thank you, ma'am. Thank you ma'am. (unintelligible)
[2:43:55] Thank you.
[2:44:02] Thank you.
[2:44:14] Again. I thank you all for your time and attention. I do just want to stand before you because. And
[2:44:20] Missy, can you just state your name and address? I was getting to that. Okay. I'm sorry. Yes, sir. My
[2:44:25] name is Melissa Odin, 1412 Avery Street. I am coming before you just to give you some feedback as a
[2:44:33] citizen, a lifelong citizen, as we know that we've recently
[2:44:40] initiated the W.S. King Project. I did reach out to share some input
[2:44:49] just
[2:44:51] in February the 10th. I reached out to the council and the sitting mayor at that time to request that
[2:44:59] there be more citizen engagement on the plans. At that time, I wasn't able to come. My dad, he spoke
[2:45:06] up. And at that time, it was said there was too much money that had already been invested into the
[2:45:11] project. This comes on the heels of also the eminent domain where the room was packed. And it
[2:45:19] shouldn't have to take a room to be packed, to still be heard, to still be considered, to still be.
[2:45:26] To feel as though there was openness and transparency on what's going on. Same rules apply from the
[2:45:33] Ms. Hamilton and the others that have spoken today. I think the consensus the same. I'm just here to
[2:45:37] voice concern.
[2:45:41] Mr. Harvey, if you can read number one?
[2:45:45] integrity? Yes, sir. Microphone. (unintelligible)
[2:45:49] Yeah. Missy, we got three minutes. I understand. Yeah. and,
[2:45:55] and they'll yield their three minutes. You can't. Can't accumulate. But, but it's only three minutes
[2:46:02] per person. That's all I'm gonna allow, Missy. Yeah, Okay. I can read it myself. Okay. That is, that
[2:46:08] is a perfect reflection of what I'm talking about, of citizen engagement. It was just requests, and
[2:46:14] so I can complete it in the time that's allowed. And I thank you. Integrity. One's moral compass.
[2:46:20] Desire to do right. Character. Say what we do when. What we do when no one is looking. Transparency.
[2:46:27] Clearly state intentions. Deception. To purposefully lead astray. Consciousness. Point of
[2:46:33] reflection. Repentance. The turning away from doing wrong. Restoration. To be made new and to begin
[2:46:40] again. What keeps us from seeing these things is pride. Pride. It blocks our hearing, our eyes and
[2:46:49] our hearts.
[2:46:52] What's the remedy? Humility. It allows you to see differently, to hear differently, and respond with
[2:46:57] love. I received a text from the mayor when I reached out to him with the concern of, in some
[2:47:04] pictures. And he said, excuse me, what are you talking about? The whole building isn't being tore
[2:47:09] down. Speaking of preservation, we are painting the building back the same color it was originally.
[2:47:16] If you would have come to the groundbreaking ceremony, you would have known that. I want to
[2:47:21] point out that there was a Facebook post and one of the individuals who participated in the
[2:47:27] groundbreaking says, this makes me want to cry. Along with all the other homes being torn down. I
[2:47:34] had no idea they were going to they were going to tear down part of it. I got the impression that
[2:47:41] they were going to add on to it. Oh, how we were deceived. Another one said the same thing. I
[2:47:47] thought we were adding on. Another one said, I, too, had no idea that they were going to demolish it.
[2:47:54] I was under the impression that we were going to there was going to be addition, but someone knew
[2:47:59] this was the plan all along. Same thing happened with Queen Street in the past. Finally another one
[2:48:05] said, this makes me sad too. Why did I think they were going to add on? I know this is what I heard.
[2:48:12] Why do the people we think we can trust deceive us the most? And I'll yield the rest of the
[2:48:18] comments. The point is, I'm asking y'all to, to give a point of reflection. It says in God we trust.
[2:48:26] In order to say that in God we trust into these prayers and things that we initiate and say that
[2:48:32] we're seeking God to show us. It takes love. And that's what is on that card that I gave you. Love
[2:48:38] is patient. Love is. I'm not going to read it to you. It's there for you. But we have to start
[2:48:43] operating in love so we can hear one another when we're, we could easily say in pride we trust, in
[2:48:49] self we trust, in all these other things. And until the city's council and the city's officials will
[2:48:55] start listening to the people and their concerns and not to bash them or to blunder them for
[2:49:03] standing up for what they believe in and not be made to feel as though that you're reprimanded when
[2:49:11] you're voicing your concern. I think, I think it's owed to the citizens to, to do a better job of,
[2:49:17] of that engagement that has been requested. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Missy.
[2:49:24] Is there anyone else? And I will just say on these, it was back to the basics. One less thing.
[2:49:30] That's the, the last thing that God had placed on my heart is that we, as a city, as a people, as a
[2:49:37] community, we have to get back to the basis. And these are the fruit of the spirit in love, peace,
[2:49:45] kindness, forbearance, joy, goodness, gentleness, self control and faithfulness. Thank you. Thank
[2:49:53] you. Is there anyone else that like to speak during citizen comment? Reverend Curt, Mrs. Melissa.
[2:50:00] You guys can get up and speak if you want to. (unintelligible)
[2:50:08] I want to hear from all citizens.
[2:50:11] Okay. Is there anyone else?
[2:50:15] Okay. So council comments. I'll start with Councilman Harvey Walker. First of all, I want to thank
[2:50:21] everybody for coming.
[2:50:26] I want to say thank you for getting. Getting up and saying some things. You know, I too thought that
[2:50:32] they were going to add on but at some point there's some things in that building that needs to be
[2:50:37] torn out, so that you need to know there's some asbestos and other things that were unsafe that needed to be taken
[2:50:44] out.
[2:50:47] You know, so those are some of the reasons that we had to do what they had to do.
[2:50:53] But I think you're gonna like it when it's done. But I want to thank everybody for coming. It was a
[2:51:00] very good meeting tonight. It was good discussion with the council. As I always say, if you all have
[2:51:05] a problem, feel free to call us. We're all here to help. And thank you all for coming. Good night.
[2:51:12] Thank you. Councilman Walker, Mayor Pro Tim Ballou. Good to see it, it's good to see everyone tonight.
[2:51:18] I think we've had had a very, very good meeting
[2:51:22] staff. I would, Mr. Martin and Sandi, I would, would ask you, you heard my concern tonight with the,
[2:51:33] the abutton property owners. And, and I, I just, I, I just don't know when we got away from having a
[2:51:42] specific area designed as far as 300 feet. Please research that for me and please let me know when that
[2:51:50] was changed. I think that we need to add that, whatever, there needs to be a designated area that we
[2:52:02] put in our ordinance and the council can I guess make that decision. But I just think it is very
[2:52:09] vague when we say adjoining or abutting, because it's like Mr. Martin said tonight, I mean that could
[2:52:16] be endless, in a mile. So I think there needs to be a point of reference that we contact adjoining
[2:52:25] property owners when we are rezoning or
[2:52:30] anything that's going on within their property. So if you'll research that for me and I will not get
[2:52:36] back on my soapbox with the traffic concerns. I think Mr. Martin and And Councilman Taylor have,
[2:52:43] have heard those concerns and all I ask is, is, is, is work in tandem and side to side with this
[2:52:51] developer to see what we can do to make that a, I just hope that I, I, I, I was in favor of the project and,
[2:52:59] and I hope the project will move forward. But it's sad that we have to
[2:53:06] do what we did tonight in order to get their attention and get them to the plate. But if that's what
[2:53:11] it takes, then I'm willing to do that. So please, please work with the developer and
[2:53:19] let's see what we can do to improve that area. It's good to see everyone tonight, and as always, my
[2:53:28] pleasure to serve. Good evening. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Ballou. Councilman Nathan Chambers. I'm, I'm, I'm always
[2:53:35] impressed because I've thoroughly researched these documents before we come to a meeting and read
[2:53:39] the minutes and, you know, I come in with a, you know, somewhat of a point of view, but then I'm
[2:53:45] continues to be impressed by the other fellow council members who are doing the same amount of
[2:53:49] research, and they come out there with their wise judgment, and it may alter my point of view of
[2:53:53] view or enhance my point of view, but I appreciate the fact that I'm with a group of people that are
[2:53:57] thinkers. You know, lots of times you get some folks that don't really dig into it, but y'all do a
[2:54:02] great job. And also to add to that, our staff is awesome. The way they can put this stuff together
[2:54:08] and the knowledge they have, you know, you can ask a question. I mean, good grief. You know, you're
[2:54:12] like, Sandi, Sandi, Sandi. And she's just right on. Yeah. And so I thank the staff because they're
[2:54:17] great. Jewel, you're great. Daniel, you didn't have much to say tonight, but anyway, so, but thanks
[2:54:23] again, guys. Y'all do a great job. Thank you, Councilman Chambers, Councilman Taylor, I'd like to
[2:54:29] thank everyone for coming out. I'm not going to say very much because I've already ran my mouth a
[2:54:34] lot. No comment.
[2:54:38] But I want you to be aware
[2:54:42] that money for street repair, street improvement is at a limit and it takes a lot longer than you
[2:54:52] would normally think it should take.
[2:54:57] But I do appreciate it and thank you for letting me be here to do that. Thank you, Counselor.
[2:55:05] Yes, sir.
[2:55:07] I didn't know we could call Sandi like that. So you've got a direct line to her? I'm telling you what.
[2:55:12] Okay. Now, of course, obviously, I knew that. Missy, thank you for reminding us of this. That what
[2:55:20] this is what we need to do day in and day out. So thank you for that. Other than that, thank
[2:55:26] everybody else for coming out. And anyhow, I guess we'll wait and see what next, well, in September
[2:55:33] brings, right, is that the next meeting, September? That's all. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Abell.
[2:55:41] Okay. Item number nine. Approved the release of closed session minutes or portions thereof, as
[2:55:48] recommended by the city attorney. And city manager. I passed out those documents.
[2:55:53] If you haven't reviewed it yet. These are ones we are, some of us have already read? Okay. Yeah.
[2:56:02] So if everybody's already read it, I will entertain a motion. Yeah. I approve the release of 21 sets
[2:56:09] of closed session minutes as presented. I'll second. Okay. Motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Ballou.
[2:56:14] Seconded by council member Bill Taylor. Any discussion on this motion hearing? None. All in favor,
[2:56:20] indicate by raising your hand. It's unanimous. Okay. And that's all we have for tonight. Meeting
[2:56:26] adjourned at 8:26 p.m.