|
Town of Emerald
Isle
Planning Board
Minutes
Regular Meeting
Monday, March 24,
2003
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman, Art
Daniel. Members present:
Art Daniel, Anne Erikson, Pat Patteson, Ed Dowling, Frank
Erwin, Pam Minnick and Jim Craig.
Chairman Daniel asked for a minute of silence and prayer in
honor of the military.
Chairman Daniel then welcomed newly appointed member Jim
Craig to the members of the board and related some of Mr. Craig’s education
and past experience.
1. Minutes
of Regular Meeting of February 24, 2003 were approved, as written.
Motion to approve the minutes was made by Ms. Erikson with unanimous
approval in favor of the motion.
2. Minutes
of the Committee as a Whole meeting on March 10, 2003 were approved, as
submitted, motion to approve made by Frank Erwin with unanimous approval in
favor of the motion.
3. a) Report of Town Board Meeting, March 11, 2003
– Ms. Angus advised that Christina Drive, Osprey Bluff S/D approved one
year ago had been accepted into the town street system; and Sunset Harbor
Condominium, Lot 6, was given Final Plat approval.
3. b) Land Use Plan Update Steering Committee
– Ms. Angus advised that the last meeting of the Land Use Steering Committee
was held on March 12, and the agenda and vision statement findings of that
meeting are attached to these minutes.
3. c) Building Inspections Report for February, 2003.
There were four new home starts at an estimated value of $1,031,990;
total fees received for the department was $12,897.20.
3. d) Update on necessary changes to Emerald Forest
Miniature Golf project – Ms. Angus asked that Brad Fischer,
Code Enforcement Officer, to update the board on how the situation came about
and was resolved regarding some changes that were necessary at this project.
Mr. Fisher advised the board that he had been notified of a
matter that had come about that needed immediate attention.
He made a visit to the site and stated that as in some projects when they
begin, that things don’t work out as anticipated.
In this instance it had to do with the grades of the property in two
areas. The first was where the rest rooms and ticket booth are located at the
rear left corner of the property. The most logical solution was that since the
owner of the property also owns the adjoining property to allow the slope gently
toward the other property and not create a slope that would require retaining
walls in that corner. The other
issue of the grade change was at the parking lot area where it meets Reed Drive.
The solution reached there was to pipe and cover the ditch on the right-of-way
and to berm the actual entry/exit area to contain all the stormwater on the
property. The parking area had to
be raised with fill in order to be two feet above the water table. The current
stormwater plan would still be in effect and not be compromised by this
solution. This decision was
resolved through an on site visit the following day by Artie Dunn, Public Works
Supervisor; Carol Angus, Planning Director; Art Daniel, Engineer; Bill Blackman,
grading contractor; John McLean, engineer; and developer, Bobby Cook.
The ditch has since been piped and covered and will be landscaped and be
more attractive than the open ditch with the water standing in it.
Ms. Minnick was concerned that this plan may create a water
problem for Pacific and Mr. Fischer assured her that the problem is now less
likely to happen and would accommodate a future access to Hwy 58 for bike trail
and pedestrian access.
Mr. Craig asked about the impervious area of the site and
was advised that the project exceeds the requirement of 15% natural vegetation
as there is no pervious to impervious requirement.
There were no further questions from the board members.
Chairman Daniel asked Mr. Fischer at point he was in
relation to pier lengths. The
current ordinance allows 200’ and there are some property owners that need
more than 200’ to get to deep water. Mr.
Fischer replied that he had read the CAMA regulations and town requirements and
felt that what is in place should serve its purpose. Should a property owner need to go more than that distance
that they should go before the Board of Adjustment for a variance.
Mr. Daniel said that would be fine, but his concern is that
a number of piers that have been previously damaged and are still in a
damaged state. There is no ordinance in effect to require that the owners
remove or repair the pier.
4. Citizens Comments:
None
5. Rezoning
Request for 4.03 acres from B-3 (Commercial) to RMF(Residential Multi-family)
by Randy Campbell, LB Page & Partners and Larry Spell.
Mr. Campbell reminded the members that he had changed his
original request from RMH to RMF to accommodate their request. He has not taken
the project very far because he wanted to be sure of the outcome of the
rezoning.
Chairman Daniel advised if the request for rezoning were
granted, that he had done some calculations and found that if condo project were
proposed that there could be a maximum of 32 units on the four acres; 15,000 sq.
ft lots would accommodate 11 duplexes or 22 units; 12,500 sq. ft. would allow 14
single family dwellings.
Mr. Patteson asked Mr. Daniel for a copy of what he had
just read to the members. Chairman
Daniel advised that he did not have a copies of that information, that he had
formulated it on his own. He said he is trying to get to the point where staff
will provide the board all this type of information in their packets and until
we get to that point he will continue to do this. What he looks forward to from
staff, including the consultant, will present a report of findings. Zoning is a
bit different to the extend that he does not think he will get a recommendation
from the staff regarding a rezoning application. It is discretionary, but saw no
reason why the board cannot get the background information and the reasons for
granting or denial of a request, or
the options. He hopes to be able to do this during the transition.
Chairman Daniel said these figures he quoted are not including roads,
access, infrastructure, etc.
Mr. Patteson commended Chairman Daniel for the thought put
into the information just given, but he thought it would be nice if it had been
shared. Chairman said he did not
want to find fault with the staff but sometimes when you ‘go the extra mile’
you get your legs cut off’. The
board countered that that was not the case, that they appreciated his comments.
Mr. Dowling asked that when the minutes are prepared that
this be put in quotes and it was agreed to be included in the minutes.
Ms. Angus commented that, what she was doing, was
presenting a rezoning request, not taking it any further than that.
Chairman Daniel said that is how things were done in the
past. It is left at the discretion
of the board, and he would like to see some background.
Ms. Minnick asked if this request might be in conflict with
the Land Use Plan Steering Committee and what it is proposing.
Ms. Erikson said she had also intended to bring this up.
Chairman Daniel then commented that there had been previous
discussion that this request may be considered spot zoning from B-3 to RMF
because there is no contiguous RMF zoning. If this rezoning were not challenged
in 60 days it would be considered a moot issue as to whether it is spot zoning
or not. “But, what’s wrong with a little spot zoning?”
He feels residential is better than commercial.
Residential generates less traffic, and there is ample commercial zoning
available. He went on to advise that he has a ‘slight’ hangup, is that the
2000 town survey indicated a preference for R-1 over R-2, RMF, or business.
The Land Use Plan (LUP) study seems to be leaning in the same direction.
He also advises that although the ordinance calls for R- and R-2, there
is no specific R-1 within the town. There
is no place for just single family dwellings, and to rezone to R-1 gets beyond
the scope of the board’s consideration. Does this board need to wait until the
LUP can be rewritten to reflect the results of the new plan. That may be
available, perhaps, in August. It
is difficult to interpret the present ordinance.
Pat Patteson agreed that the Land Use Plan is a good
thought, but the issue is that the new LUP is not available and this rezoning is
before them tonight. He cannot see
how this board might anticipate the outcome of the LUP.
He feels this issue should be dealt with what is in force now.
Ms. Erikson said that since there are results from citizens
that were made available at the last LUP meeting. She read the results of the
five groups within the LUP study that indicated to
- limit
multi-family housing
- eliminate
multi-use zoning
- limit
multi-family developments
- maintain
present ratio of development for commercialization
- residential
and family, no zoning change.
She said that one of the main thrusts of the LUP update is
to deal with zoning. It has not been dealt with as yet, but there will be zoning
changes as a result of the input from the citizens. She went to the survey
results from 698 citizens for Multi-family zoning.
- 56
encouraged
- 180
neutral
- 662
discourage
She said she has no personal feeling in this, but she feels
she should represent the LUP, although she does not know what that will be.
Zoning will be addressed and she guarantees changes. She would like to request that a moratorium be placed on any
zoning changes.
Ms. Minnick said she did not like that idea.
If Mr. Campbell had applied before the committee began it would have been
able to consider and possibly get this change, and now you want him to wait up
to a year to be able to do what he wants to do with the property.
Until something in writing from the LUP that this request should be
considered.
Chairman Daniel added if the applicant is denied this
rezoning, he has to wait one year before he can reapply for rezoning.
Mr. Dowling said he is still opposed to the rezoning there
is a gray area, it borders on spot zoning.
He cannot deviate from North Carolina law, it is incumbent of this board
and any elected officer, officer of the court or wherever you want to go in the
government, based on what we swore to, to faithfully and fully follow the law.
The board still needs an engineered study of traffic.
An engineered study might sway him in his approach. This request is
premature.
Chairman Daniel proceeded to give Mr. Dowling a traffic
analysis of this property. If you
took 32 condo units would possibly generate 320 vehicles (at 10 vehicles per day
per unit. i.e. owner vehicles, service vehicles, UPS/FED EX/ babysitters, etc.)
from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM, and 12 to 15% of that would be at peak hours.
That is insignificant. To throw all those people on Reed Drive on the 4th
of July, or during vacation season, you generate traffic because of property. To
look at this four acres by itself at 22 duplex units or 14 single family it is
not enough impact to be of concern.
Pat Patteson agreed and commented that this property is
between developed properties and residential would be a minimal impact on the
area. He went on to say that he did
not think that he wanted to live in town that everyone lived in expensive
communities and catered to people with money. There needs to be a place for
“little” people. Multi-family
housing would allow the “little” people or the “real” people to be able
to afford housing. These are the people that work in the surf shops and
restaurants that would be using this housing. He feels this would bring a nice
diversity to the island.
Ms. Erikson agreed with Mr. Patteson, but felt strongly
that the LUP will address this and saw no reason why this cannot wait to see
what the study says.
Mr. Patteson said he felt his charge is to voice his
opinion not necessarily voice the opinion of 670 people that say he should vote
a certain way. He recommends what
he thinks is right for the town as a whole and what he believes in. He did not
feel he was appointed to the Planning Board to recommend what 500 to 1000 people
wrote in to tell him how to vote. He
is listening to his own conscience, not to surveys.
Ms. Erikson said she listens to her conscience as well, and
the entire board was appointed to this board under the same conditions.
Each member has different values, ideas, but each member does vote their
conscience.
Chairman Daniel agreed with both parties in this discussion
with Ms. Erikson philosophically but in the matter of practicality he is not
sure the LUP applies in this instance because we do not have it as a guide.
He sympathizes with the applicant to come in good faith, then modified
his request as well to comply with what seemed to be a consensus at that time.
The Chair has the right to vote, and he may or may not
vote, but he will entertain a motion.
Pat Patteson made the motion to recommend to the town
board that the rezoning request be approved
from B-3 to RMF. The second was
made by Frank Erwin. Vote was three in favor of the rezoning and two opposed.
Those voting in favor were, Pat Patteson, Frank Erwin, and Pam Minnick;
opposed, Anne Erikson and Ed Dowling. Chairman
Daniel did not vote.
6. Bluewater Associates, Commercial Review for
additional office space at corner of Reed, Mangrove and Emerald Drives. Sherrell
Futral and Woody Warren were in attendance for this project.
Chairman Daniel read Section 19-69 Commercial use, motel
and hotel review. “All site plans for motels, hotels, and commercial uses
and/or additions shall first be reviewed by the planning board and the board of
commissioners in order to insure compliance with the requirements of this
chapter and the town’s building regulations before a building permit be
issued.
Exception: Site plans for additions to existing structures,
not exceeding one thousand square feet can be reviewed and approved by the
building inspector to insure compliance with building codes, zoning regulations,
and any other conditions addressed in this chapter.
The building inspector has the authority to recommend that the site plans
not exceeding one thousand square feet be reviewed by the planning board and
town board of commissioners if he feels such review is necessary.
Not more than two additions of five hundred square feet or less each,
will be added to the original site plan. Subsequent request of more than one
hundred square feel will require a review by the planning board and town board.
Additions preceding this amendment shall not be exempt from, when a
subsequent request is sought.” The last sentence meaning that nothing is grandfathered.
In this case, it seems Bluewater had exceeded the square
footage limitations allowed by the building permit previously issued under
Section 19-69 that square footage was less than 1000 square feet.
It appears the town issued a certificate of occupancy for the addition
without having the applicant comply with the stormwater management ordinance and
requirements for additional parking. In an effort to correct this violation it
appears the town has erred by granting another building permit and certificate
of occupancy with floorspace that exceeded the administrative authority allowed
by Sec. 19-69. It appears the
Planning Board is being requested to bail everyone out of this dilemma. He then
asked Mr. Futral to comment on how this happened.
Mr. Futral said that the original plan showed the roof line
of the existing building. When they applied for the permit this was the look
they wanted on the new addition. They
did complete the downstairs less than 1000 square feet, initially.
Upstairs was to be retained s storage area and for future use. The
inspector inspected the downstairs and upstairs for structural compliance.
Then during the fall and early winter, they were pressured heavily by
personnel for more space. They had employees that were sitting on top of each
other. A bad decision was made on
their part to go ahead just add sheet rock and carpet use the space. A visit from the Fire Inspector noted that the upstairs was
being used and the town was notified. Frank
Rush called and at that point tried to rectify the problem. To date, the
requirements have been met to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the
upstairs. There is one 500 gallon tank to be installed to bring the stormwater
plan up to compliance. It is a drive-over tank and has to be manufactured by
custom order. The additional parking will be done as soon as this tank is
installed covered and paved over. The
building will then be in total compliance.
Ms. Minnick asked Mr. Futral how a company that does
general contracting not know what permit they should have? Mr. Futral replied that they do know, but during the winter
months they were receiving tremendous pressure from the employees needing the
space. It was a mistake, looking back he knows he should have gone back through
the proper procedures with all the permits in place before he finished the
upstairs. He went on to advise that
the structural permits and inspections were done, they had just gone ahead and
finished off the inside.
Ms. Erikson asked how the office became so overcrowded if
there was no increase in employees.
Mr. Futral said they had not planned efficiently enough to
allow enough square footage for all the employees involved, especially when they
acquired Sands Realty. Too little
workspace.
Mr. Erwin said he did not understand why this project is
before them, they are not a sanctioning board.
Mr. Futral has admitted to ignoring the rules and intentionally defied
the ordinance. That is for somebody else to take care of unless the staff tells
the board that it can’t prevent this at this point.
Ms. Angus added that if another firm were to ignore the
permit process for an expansion project and it has not gone through the board
process, someone will come back on the planner and inspections department for
letting it happen. She wants to see
the planning board follow due process and ‘jump through all the hoops’ to
make that happen. The ordinance
says that commercial review of over 1000 square feet
is to go to the planning board. The
original request was for 997 square feet, and when the upper story was added it
far exceed 1,000 square feet to kick in the planning board review. In the
future, no matter how large or small the addition might be, the plan will be
presented to the Planning Board.
Mr. Harvey then added that this project is before you
because the ordinance mandates that this proposed addition has to be reviewed by
the planning board in an official capacity.
The punitive measures that staff deals with are double permit fees and
advising the proper licensing boards.
Ms. Minnick asked how the penalty of $100.00 per day is
calculated according to the ordinance.
Ms. Angus advised that the double building permit and
commercial review fees have been paid.
The $100.00/day was not charged because she was not aware
of how long the violation had been ongoing.
Chairman Daniel had a question regarding the stormwater
plan being revised for this project. The original
plan for 997 square feet had submitted a stormwater plan and it was adequate;
however with the subsequent amendment to the stormwater ordinance from 1-1/2”
to 2” being contained the entire plan and to be revised and a custom built
tank installed to meet the requirement.
Parking space issue was not relative due to the fact no
more employees have been added at the time of the first permit; however, when
the upstairs was completed Ms. Angus did a calculation of the size of the
building and determined that 3 more spaces were needed.
Also, when dealing with a real estate office, a large portion of your
regular employees are not there at all times, that they work varied shifts
especially over the weekend. So far
no problems with the business have been brought to the attention of the planning
department.
Once the violation was noted, a permit was written so that
the proper inspections could be done and any building or fire violations might
be noted. There has since been a
certificate of compliance issued and all work is in compliance with the building
and fire code.
Ms. Angus said she was not comfortable in having the fire
and inspections departments sign off and not follow through with the proper
board review.
Chairman Daniel said he felt that a certificate of
compliance should not have been issued due to the fact the stormwater plan has
not been completed nor has the parking been added since the parking will be over
the installed tank.
Mr. Futral advised that the parking spaces may not be
delineated as yet, however the employees are parking in this area.
Mr. Dowling asked the percentage of the natural space, it
is not noted on the map. Ms. Angus
advised that the natural area runs along Hwy 58 (Emerald Drive) and on the south
west corner. The checklist notes 18% natural area.
Mr. Craig asked the ramifications of not having this plan
recommended for approval to the town board. Ms. Angus said there are none, in
this case, only the doubling of fees, meeting new stormwater regulations, going
through this process and answering to the board as to why they did not first
obtain proper permits.
Mr. Erwin asked if it would not be normal to rescind the
permit if they had not complied?
Ms. Angus said that would ordinarily have been the case,
however, after speaking with John Yost, Jim Taylor, Brad Fischer, the Fire
Inspector, Dean Griffin, Fire Chief, Wm. Walker, and Mr. Rush.
The point was that there was no safety health or welfare issue at stake.
There would be no purpose served to hold up the use of the space.
However, she did not want to encourage this to happen again by any owner
or contractor by just double fees, that is an easy way out.
Mr. Harvey, consulting Planner, interjected that he is the person who said it must happen
this way.
When the ordinance is read this is the method that is to be
adhered to comply. The Planning
Board has to review it, to approve or not.
If this situation had not occurred, the planning board will still be
reviewing this project by ordinance. This
board must recommend favorably or deny.
Chairman Daniel reiterated that a permit was issued for
less than 1,000 sq. ft., completed that, then went into what was to be
unoccupied space. As far as the ordinance is concerned there is no timeline so
the ordinance kicked in when the second increase in floorspace occurred. This
turned it from storage space to habitable space. As the ordinance is written
they came once and got a permit, if they came a second time, they had to come to
the Planning Board anyway because it exceeded less than 500 sq. ft. twice which
is less than 1,000 ft. once. At any
increase of more than 100 sq. ft there had to be further planning board review.
He went on to add that he wanted a more detailed submittal
to show that all requirements and conditions have been met. Or, to approve the
plan subsequent to the applicant meeting the requirements of the stormwater
management. The staff is supposed to review the plan, bring the plan to the
planning board with their recommendation. That is what the checklist is all
about.
Mr. Futral added that there were some issues at technical
review that were to be addressed and one was the vegetation exceeds requirement
and they have to install the large tank and pave the parking.
(Some discussion between Chairman Daniel and Mr. Dowling
that was inaudible regarding the wording of the motion.)
The motion was reiterated by the Chairman to refer the
matter back to staff for further review and consultation with the applicant. A
submittal to be presented at the next planning board meeting. He wants a
memorandum for the next meeting that states that all conditions have been met,
the checklist is too cumbersome and he does not want to look at it.
He wants the staff to do their “thing” and satisfy all the
conditions.
During discussion of motion, Frank Erwin said he had a
problem with the applicant occupying the space at this time.
Ms. Angus asked the board to clarify that stormwater and
natural area was their concern. The
chairman replied “the whole gamut”.
The vote was unanimous in favor of returning the submission
to the staff to return to the planning board at the first opportunity.
There was discussion between Chairman Daniel and Clint
Routson, attorney, and Bill Reist, a resident, from the audience, as to their
views on this issue and penalties for violations.
7. Large Structure Committee
Status Report - Pam
Minnick, committee chairman, turned this item over to Mike Harvey, Benchmark,
LLC. Mr. Harvey reiterated how this
request had been brought before the board and how the current submission was
drafted. The most prevalent issues
being
- pedestrian
access
- separation
between pedestrians and vehicular traffic
- ensure
adequate distance between property lines and buildings to afford fire and loading lanes
- possibly
adding sprinklers for adequate fire protection or conducting a flow test
- requiring
traffic analysis to be done on all large scale commercial development
- not
to overburden existing roadway traffic problems, and
- if
there is a problem it can be mitigated at the planning stages
- attempt
to afford the town some standards to address on site appearance issues.
There are 19 standards that have to be adhered to in order
to develop a large commercial structure.
Mr. Harvey advised there are two distinctions for
development, one being a retail shopping center which is “a structure or
structures which includes or is designed to include retail, office, restaurant,
public assembly, commercial use such as gymnasium with a combined floor area of
less than 10,000 square feet on singular or contiguous lots” .
If your project is under 10,000 sq. ft. the standards do not apply to
these 19 standards.
The Community regional shopping centers, should only be
permitted in the B-3 zoning district, as that is the only place there is any
land size to accommodate the building. B-1
and B-2 is totally insignificant for this type of development and is meant to
encourage and support smaller businesses.
Respectfully submitted:
Carol Angus, Secretary
Planning Director
Emerald Isle CAMA
LUP
Natural
Systems
Summary of Findings
The
Natural Systems Analysis section of the plan describes the town’s natural
features and assesses their capabilities and limitations for development and
it describes the “physical state” of the town’s natural environment.
CAMA rules require maps of several features and an assessment of water
quality, natural hazards, and natural resources.
Areas of
Environmental Concern
1.
Emerald Isle has two classes of AECs: Estuarine and Ocean System and the
Ocean Hazard System.
A.
Estuarine system
(1)
Estuarine waters
include Bogue Sound, and its tributary Archer Creek, the Intracoastal Waterway,
the White Oak River and Bogue Inlet, and the Atlantic Ocean.
These estuaries are among the most productive natural systems in the
State. Locally, they support the
region’s valuable commercial and sport fisheries, which include estuary
dependent species such as menhaden, flounder, shrimp, crab, and oysters.
In addition, the estuary defines the beauty of Emerald Isle and makes it
a great place to live and visit.
§
The use classification of all sound and
inlet waters adjacent to the town is SA, which means their highest and best use
is shellfish harvesting.
§
Waters of Bogue Sound have supplemental
designation of Outstanding Resource Water
(ORW), which means that the waters have outstanding fishery, recreation,
scenic, wildlife, and/or ecological and scientific values. ORWs and adjacent watersheds have special development and
discharge rules.
§
The White Oak River at Bogue Inlet has a
supplemental class of High Quality Water
(HQW), which means that the water is excellent based on state chemical and
biological sampling. The intent of
the designation is to prevent degradation of water quality below current levels
from both point and non-point sources. HQWs
also have specific development and discharge rules.
§
Water quality in Bogue Sound and Bogue
Inlet is good. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) rates them as fully
supporting for aquatic life and secondary recreation and primary recreation;
partially supporting for fish consumption; and either partially supporting or
non-supporting for shellfish harvesting. Shellfish
harvesting is closed in two areas adjacent to Emerald Isle.
Archer Creek, a 18-acre tributary of Bogue Sound, is closed.
A 2.2-acre area adjacent to Island Harbor Marina is also closed.
(2)
The estuarine shoreline, which
is a band of contiguous upland area, is an element of the estuary system due to
its close association with the adjacent estuarine waters. For non-ORW waters, the estuarine shoreline extends landward
75 feet from mean or normal high water. For ORW waters, the distance is 575 feet.
§
The ORW estuarine shoreline applies to
virtually all non-ocean shorelines in Emerald Isle. The length of the estuarine
shoreline is approximately 14 miles. Generally,
development in this area may not weaken natural barriers to erosion, must have
limited hard surfaces, and must take steps to prevent pollution of the estuary
by sedimentation and runoff.
§
The ORW shoreline has additional
requirements and limits: no more than 25% ”built upon area” is permitted on
land within the ORW estuarine shoreline; a buffer of 30 feet is required; and no
stormwater collection system is allowed.
(3)
Coastal wetlands,
which are “any salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional
flooding by tides, including wind tides…” , perform a variety of valuable
functions.
§
Emerald Isle has three significant
concentrations of coastal wetlands: (1) approximately 300 acres located north of
Coast Guard Rd. between Channel Dr. and the bridge; (2) approximately 70 acres
located along Archer Creek and Bogue Sound between Maritime Forest Dr. and Old
Cove Rd.; and (3) approximately 20 acres along Bogue Sound from Paxon Dr. to
Georgia Street Extension.
§
Development in these areas is subject to
CAMA development permits. The
highest priority is given to conservation; second priority is given to
water-dependent uses that require access and that cannot be located elsewhere.
(4)
Public trust waters
include all of the town’s estuarine waters and their tributaries, including
the canal at Harbor Drive, and the Atlantic Ocean. The key management principle
for public trust waters is to maintain their accessibility to the public.
B.
Ocean Hazard System ¾ Development within this area must be
landward of an erosion setback line and it must protect the frontal dune system.
In addition, there are special rules that apply to development within
inlet hazard areas. These
include a development density of no more than one residential or commercial unit
per 15,000 square feet; no multi-family structures with more than 4 units; and
no commercial structures greater than 5,000 square feet.
In all ocean hazard areas, growth-inducing public facilities, such as
water and sewer, are strongly discouraged.
(1)
Ocean erodible area is
the area along the beach strand where there is a significant risk of excessive
beach erosion and significant shoreline fluctuation due to natural processes
such as hurricanes and tropical storms. Generally,
the landward boundary of this area is described as 120 feet or 60 times the
established erosion rate, whichever is greater, landward of the first line of
stable natural vegetation – this is called the recession line.
(2)
High hazard flood area
covers lands subject to flooding, high waves and heavy water currents during a
major storm. Development in these
areas is subject to the same setbacks as described for the ocean erodible area.
However, the setback is doubled for any multifamily residential or
non-residential structure of more than 5,000 square feet.
(3)
Inlet hazard area covers
the land next to Bogue Inlet. The
Inlet Hazard Area extends inland sufficient distance to encompass the area where
the State reasonably expects the inlet to migrate.
Soils
According
to information from the Carteret County Soils Survey, the soils in Emerald Isle
limit the type and density of development that is possible without using an
alternative to the septic tank. The
survey rates all of the soils as having “severe” limitations for septic
tanks. There are four different
limitations:
-
Poor filter
-
Poor filter and excessive slope
-
Subject to flooding and poor filter
-
Wet and poor filter
Natural and Manmade Hazards
1.
Flood hazards
A.
The 100-year flood plain is the accepted
benchmark for defining flood hazard. In
Emerald Isle, it is mapped in two classifications: the AE zones are
areas where there is a 1% chance of flooding in any year and the VE zones where there is a 1% chance of flooding with wave action
hazard.
B.
The AE zone touches approximately 1,500
land parcels, 1,015 of which have structures.
C.
The VE zone touches approximately 700
land parcels, 600 of which have structures.
2.
Storm surge ¾
Extensive areas of Emerald Isle are vulnerable to the storm surge hazards
associated with hurricane level storms. Depending
on the level or severity of the storm, as much as 90% of the town’s land area
may be impacted.
A.
Category 1 to 2 storms – beachfront
and sound front areas; Archers Creek and the low lying areas extending west; and
the inter-dune areas on the west end.
B.
Category 3 storms – the areas
described above plus an extensive area at the west end and in the marina area.
C.
Category 4 to 5 storms – except for
the high dune line that forms the spine of the island and a few other isolated
high spots, virtually the entire town is impacted.
D.
The following table shows the
approximate extent of the impact of the various storm levels:
Storm level
|
Approximate Cumulative Percent of Land
Area Impacted
|
|
1 to 2
|
40
|
|
3
|
67
|
|
4 to 5
|
90
|
3.
Bogue Field hazards ¾
Noise and accident potential zones associated with flight operations at Bogue
Field impact a significant area of the town.
Approximately 1,000 parcels with structures are impacted by the accident
potential zones and 1,500 parcels with structures are impacted by noise zones.
The Eastern NC Joint Land Use Study contains land use recommendations for land
impacted by APZs and noise attenuation guidelines.
Non-Coastal Wetlands
1.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers defines wetlands as “those areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions.”
2.
Emerald Isle has three types of non-coastal wetlands that total
approximately 150 acres. The
following table shows these wetland types:
Wetland Type
|
|
|
Freshwater marsh
|
|
|
Maritime
forest
|
(May be
intact, cut-over, or cleared)
|
|
Pine flats
|
(May be
intact, cut-over, or cleared)
|
Fragile Areas
1.
Fragile areas are not AECs but are “sensitive areas that could be
damaged or destroyed easily by inappropriate or poorly planned development.”
2.
Inventory of fragile areas in Emerald Isle includes three types:
Natural Heritage Areas as identified by the Natural Heritage Program in
the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources; protected lands that are
controlled by the State or subject to easements or covenants that limit
development; and maritime forests that are intact.
Environmental Composite
1.
The environmental composite
combines the town’s environmental features to provide a guide to their limitations and opportunities
for development.
2.
Three classes of land are involved:
A.
Class I – land containing only minimal
hazards and limitations that may be addressed by commonly accepted land planning
and development practices;
B.
Class II – land containing development
hazards and limitations that may be addressed by methods such as restrictions on
types of land uses; special site planning; or the provision of public services;
and
C.
Class III – land containing serious
hazards for development or lands where the impact of development may cause
serious damage to the functions of natural systems.
3.
The following table illustrates the features in each class:
Composite Natural Features
|
Cls.
I
|
Cls.
II
|
Cls.
III
|
Wetlands
|
|
|
|
|
Coastal
wetlands
|
|
|
ü
|
|
Non-coastal,
exceptional or substantial significance
|
|
|
ü
|
|
Non-coastal,
beneficial
|
|
ü
|
|
|
Estuarine
waters
|
|
|
ü
|
|
Estuarine
shoreline
|
|
ü
|
|
|
Soil limitations (septic)
|
|
|
|
|
Slight
to moderate
|
ü
|
|
|
|
Severe
|
|
|
ü
|
Hazards
|
|
|
|
|
In
100-year flood (includes ocean hazard AECs)
|
|
ü
|
|
|
In
storm surge area
|
|
ü
|
|
Water
quality
|
|
|
|
|
ORW
watersheds
|
|
ü
|
|
|
HQW
watersheds
|
|
ü
|
|
|
Wellhead
protection areas
|
|
ü
|
|
|
Water
supply protection watersheds
|
|
ü
|
|
Fragile
areas and resources
|
|
|
|
|
Natural
heritage areas
|
|
ü
|
|
|
Maritime
forests
|
|
ü
|
|
|
Protected
open space
|
|
|
ü
|
This
section of the plan provides a summary assessment of the three priority
environmental conditions or features and describes their limitations or
opportunities for development. These
priority conditions include water quality,
natural hazards, and natural
resources.
|
Estimated permanent population
|
3,700
|
|
Estimated seasonal population
|
36,100
|
|
Estimated peak population
|
39,800
|
Source: WBFI
|
|
2000
|
Percent
of Total
|
Est.
Units Added, 2000-2002a
|
Estimated
Housing Stock, 12/30/02
|
Rounded
|
|
Total housing
units
|
6,017
|
NA
|
248
|
6,265
|
6,300
|
|
Permanent
housing units
|
1,877
|
31.2%
|
77
|
1,954
|
2,000
|
Occupied
|
1,644
|
87.6%
|
--
|
1,720
|
1,700
|
|
Vacant
|
214
|
11.4%
|
--
|
--
|
--
|
|
Owner units
|
1,318
|
80.2%
|
--
|
1,379
|
1,400
|
|
Renter units
|
326
|
19.8%
|
--
|
341
|
300
|
|
Seasonal units
|
4,140
|
68.8%
|
171
|
4,311
|
4,300
|
|
Other units
|
19
|
0.3%
|
NA
|
NA
|
--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63,493
|
3,900
|
|
|
65,729
|
4,400
|
|
|
67,646
|
4,800
|
|
|
69,104
|
5,300
|
|
|
--
|
1,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,900
|
|
|
|
|
4,400
|
|
|
|
|
4,800
|
|
|
|
|
5,300
|
|
|
|
|
1,600
|
|
|
|