Town of Emerald Isle Planning Board
Regular Meeting for Monday, June 23, 2003

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by chairman, Anne Erikson. Members present were: Anne Erikson, Frank Erwin, Pat Patteson, Ed Dowling, Pam Minnick, and James Craig. Also attending were, Secretary, Carol Angus, Planning Consultant, Michael Harvey and Chief Building Inspector, James Taylor.

The minutes of the regular May meeting, were unanimously approved, as written.

1. Report from Planning Director – Carol Angus

A. Town Board of Commissioners meeting on July 8, 2003, with the results of that meeting was in the submission.

B. The Steering Committee for the Land Use Plan, June 11, agenda and submission were also available to the Planning Board members. The Planning Board members had some questions regarding the status of the citizen survey to be sent out and were advised that the survey is about 30 days behind in being prepared due to some changes by the committee.

C. Building Inspections Report for the month of May, 2003, included 29 permits with value for a total of $1,638,945 and a total of 298 recorded inspections performed for the month.

2. Consideration of an application for rezoning within one year of previous request provided it is for a lesser intensive zoning.

There was only one question regarding this issue from Mr. Craig who asked whether this would create any problems for staff. Mr. Harvey replied it would not.

Ms. Angus had prepared the level of intensity and the members unanimously agreed that it should be as follows: B-3, B-2, B-1, Institutional (commercial), Campground, RMH (residential motel-hotel), RMF (residential multi-family), MH (Mobile Home), R-2/R-1 (single family/duplex).

Ms. Minnick made the motion to recommend the amendment to Section 19-8(b) to the Town Board for consideration to allow an applicant to file an application for a rezoning within one year of denial or change from a previous request, the motion was seconded by James Craig and passed unanimously.

3. Rezoning Request from B-3 to R-2 from Randy Campbell for 4.03 acres Block 40.

This item may be discussed and considered; however, a recommendation cannot be made until a period of 30 days has passed from the date of consideration.

Mr. Craig added since this is consistent with the recommendation that was just made he had no problem with the request.

Mr. Erwin wanted to be sure that this item will return to the Planning Board at a future meeting, and was assured it will be appearing again on the agenda.

Mr. Dowling asked if the adjoining property owners were notified of this proposed change. Ms. Angus advised they had been notified at the time of the first rezoning request which was denied by a vote of the Board of Commissioners; they were again notified of this subsequent rezoning request, and will be notified again at the time of the Public Hearing at the Town Board meeting in early Fall.

Mr. Dowling asked about a possibility of ‘spot zoning’. Mr. Harvey advised that if it allows for a use of property that is not indicative of surrounding uses, it is spot zoning. Essentially, it would be spot zoning. There is a B-3 parcel, surrounded by residential property. The request submitted may not be R-2, it does represent a use of the property that is consistent with the surrounding property uses.

This agenda item will be tabled until the next available meeting for discussion and recommendation.

4. Discussion of Section 16-7(b) whether a stormwater plan should be required for a subdivision that will require no infrastructure or land disturbance.

Ms. Erikson read from the ordinance that states that a stormwater management plan must be submitted and approved for:

a. Preliminary plat (being considered)

b. An existing drainage system is altered or rerouted

c. Or a building permit is issued.

Mr. Harvey explained the scenario of why this issue is before the Board. He stated that if a subdivision came before the Board with no infrastructure for a division of property. Because, a stormwater plan is required when a building permit is required, and a developer has no idea of how a potential lot will be developed at the time of subdivision. Is this considered ‘overkill’ to require a stormwater management plan when there is no land disturbance proposed at the time of subdivision only?

Mr. Craig asked if it would not be likely that some of the division of property into lots might depend on a pond for what you will do with stormwater.

Mr. Harvey, said that in those cases, a topographical map would be submitted for each individual lot at the time of its development. He questioned whether we need to force a developer to come up with a stormwater plan that essentially gets trashed at the time of the sale of the lot because the person who buys the lot has to redesign the plan in order to place his house location, scope, location to the way he wants it.

Mr. Craig asked what was done in the past. Ms. Angus advised that it had been handled in the past that it would not be required because no land disturbance had taken place to subdivide the property. The land looked the same after the subdivision was recorded as it did prior to subdivision. The Commissioners felt that previous subdivisions should have required a stormwater management plan at the time of preliminary plat approval. There was some discussion as to whether this was what was intended by the original ordinance, and this needs to be settled.

Mr. Taylor advised that should a plan be submitted and a new property owner were to submit his plan at the time for the building permit, there may not be as much impervious area to be calculated and the plan could have been simpler, but that is something that cannot be determined until development of the property. For roads or any improvements to a proposed subdivision there definitely should be a stormwater management plan.

Chairman Erikson set a committee of Frank Erwin, Jim Craig and Michael Harvey to study this issue and report back to the Planning Board on their recommendation for the July meeting.

5. Discussion to determine the calculation for commercial district natural area into the newly adopted Dunes and Vegetation Ordinance Section 19-336(1)(d)

Mr. Harvey addressed the Board to advise that at the time of adoption of the new ordinance, the Commissioners asked that the Planning Board consider again the difference in methodology for commercial/residential natural area. If the Board is pleased with the way it was presented to the Commissioners that will be taken to them for your decision. The new ordinance states that 35% of the lot remains in its natural state and the wastewater system is not to be calculated in that percentage as it was in the past. The commercial property situation was left as it had been previously, to require a percentage of calculation for natural area and be able to include the wastewater system. This requires two sets of guidelines, one for residential and another for commercial.

Mr. Dowling said he is still comfortable with the original recommendation to leave it as it was.

Mr. Patteson said he had given this issue a lot of thought and would like to recommend that a commercial property be able to pretty much do what they might want to take down, but prior to that, during commercial review that an extensive landscaping plan be provided and approved through the Planning Board and Town Board approval process. The commercial lots that have been developed do not retain the ‘natural’ vegetation. They are planting other more practical and attractive vegetation on the property. Ms. Angus added that the “oasis” that have been added throughout the Hwy 58 corridor are not “natural” to the right-of-way; however, they work well. There can still be specific percentages, however, it should not include the wastewater system and should be approved with a landscape plan. We would probably end up with more attractive development if we know ahead of time what type of vegetation must be in place to receive a certificate of occupancy when the project is complete.

Mr. Harvey asked if it would be helpful if staff were to draft some language and practical examples for the July meeting. He indicated that each site would require a plan that would be site specific.

It was agreed that staff, presumably Mr. Harvey, would draft some language for this issue.

6. Discussion of amending Section 6-84(c) related to pier length to allow a pier to extend more than the 400’ by current regulation.

Mr. Taylor advised the Board that there are a few places on Bogue Sound that even with a length of 400’ from mean high water cannot reach beyond marsh grasses. Because they cannot reach beyond the marsh grasses, a CAMA permit cannot be issued, as it must reach water. CAMA will allow piers beyond 400’ feet; however, certain criteria must be met to obtain that length. This issue is before the Planning Board due to a recent denial for a variance for a land owner to extend past the 400’ to a point that water can be attained and the applicant does have a CAMA General Permit issued by the Morehead City office.

There was discussion between the members and Mr. Taylor on the specifics of the length of piers. Mr. Taylor feeling that if a party cannot reach water after 400’ that he should be allowed to go further if it is within CAMA regulations and a CAMA General Permit is in hand stating the specifics.

The members felt that they would be more comfortable with making a recommendation on this if a representative from the CAMA office in Morehead City were to address them and be able to answer all their questions prior to making such a recommendation.

Chairman Erikson asked Ms. Angus to contact the Morehead City office to see if an agent could address the Board for their next meeting.

The issue of extending pier length will be tabled to a later date for the CAMA representative to advise their criteria.

7. Revision of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and related Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

Mr. Taylor advised the members that this ordinance is critical to be recommended for approval at this meeting. The ordinance is very similar to the one the Town has in effect; however, there has been considerable clarification in definitions. This helps the party that is enforcing the ordinance and even more so helps the applicant to be able to understand what is being required of them. Mr. Taylor stated that he and Ms. Angus made no specific changes to the ordinance because of the time constraint and should the members want to make any change, that we might look at it later and amend the ordinance. July 16, 2003 is the date of map amendment and it still must proceed to the Town Board for their Public Hearing and final decision on July 8, 2003.

Mr. Dowling asked what the Classification 7 was indicative of regarding flood insurance rates? Ms. Angus advised him that as a result of continued diligent records keeping and implementing some higher standards than what is required the town has achieved a 15% reduction in flood insurance premiums for its property owners.

Motion was made by Pam Minnick, seconded by Ed Dowling to recommend the revised Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and related Flood Maps to the Town Board for their approval at the July 8, 2003 meeting. The motion was approved unanimously.

8. Comments

Mr. Dowling asked if there was any further work done on an engineered profile on redefining on the size of a road and ditching. Ms. Angus said she did not receive any further advice on that issue. Mr. Dowling asked Mr. Harvey to look into this; however, Mr. Harvey said that any issue he is to consider has to be considered through the new planner, Mr. Kevin Reed and Mr. Frank Rush.

Chairman Erikson commented that she missed Mr. Art Daniel.

Motion was made to adjourn by Frank Erwin, seconded by Ed Dowling with unanimous approval in favor of the motion. Meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M.

Respectfully submitted by:

Carol Angus, Secretary
Town of Emerald Isle Planning Board