minpln082503

UNAPPROVED
Town of Emerald Isle
Planning Board Minutes
Monday, August 25, 2003

The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Anne Erikson at 7:00 PM.

Members in attendance were: Anne Erikson, Pat Patteson, Ed Dowling, Jim Craig, Pam Minnick, and Frank Erwin. Mr. Quigley was absent. Also present were; Planning Director, Kevin Reed and Secretary, Carol Angus.

The minutes of the meeting of July 28, 2003 were unanimously approved with a change to the last page #11. to say “….and should not be considered”

Report from the Planning Director – Kevin Reed gave the members an update on the Town’s Board of Commissioners meeting on August 12, 2003.

Adoption of the amendment to Sec. 19-8(b) to allow an applicant to request a rezoning to a property that had previously been denied if the request is for a lesser intensity zoning.
Adoption of the amendment to Sec. 19-82 to add licensed health care professionals to the permitted use table, a definition of licensed health care professional and to repeal the current massage parlor ordinance.
Land Use Steering Committee Update, July 8, 2003. Mr. Reed had no information available to for the upcoming meeting and gave a brief overview of the July 8 meeting.
The Building Inspections Report noted fees collected of $14,689.95 and a construction value of $1,460,425 for the month and in excess of 213 inspections.

Presentation by Ted Tyndall on the development of piers relative to the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). Mr. Tyndall, District Manager of the Morehead City CAMA office gave the members an in depth explanation of what is required and qualifies an applicant to build a pier into Bogue Sound. Following are the specific sections of the guidelines as pertains to piers, docks, tees, etc.

15A NCAC 07H.0208 Specific Use Standards (6) Docks and Piers:

(a) Docks and piers shall not exceed six feet in width. Wider docks and piers shall be permitted only if the greater width is necessary for safe use, to improve public access; or to support a water dependent use that cannot otherwise occur.

(b) Any portion of a dock or pier (either fixed or floating) extending from the main structure and six feet or less in width shall be considered either a “T” or a finger pier.

(c) Any portion of a dock or pier (either fixed or floating) greater than six feet wide shall be considered a platform or dock.

(d) The combined area of all “T”s, finger piers, platforms, and decks must not exceed a combined total area of four square feet per linear foot of shoreline. Projects requiring dimensions greater than those stated in this rule shall be permitted only if the greater dimensions are necessary for safe use, or to support a water dependent use that cannot otherwise occur.

(e) “T”s, platforms and decks shall have no more than six feet of any dimension extend-ing over coastal wetlands.

(f) Docks, piers, “T”s and associated structures built over wetlands must be elevated at least three feet over the wetland substrate measured from the bottom of the decking.

(g) Boathouses shall not exceed 400 square feet except to accommodate a demonstrated need for a larger boathouse and shall have sides extending no farther than one-half the height of the walls and only covering the top half of the walls. Measurements of square footage shall be taken of the greatest exterior dimensions. Boathouses shall not be allowed on lots with less than 75 linear feet of shoreline. Size restrictions will not apply to marinas.

(h) The total area enclosed by boat lifts shall not exceed 400 square feet.

(i) Piers, docks, decks, platforms and boat houses shall be single story. They may be roofed but shall not be designed to allow second story use.

(j) Pier length shall be limited by:

(i) not extending beyond the established pier length along the same shoreline for similar use. (This restriction shall not apply to piers 100 feet or less in length unless necessary to avoid unreasonable interference with navigation or other uses of the waters by the public);

(ii) not extending into the channel portion of the water body; and

(iii) not extending more than one-fourth the width of a natural water body, or human made canal or basin. Measurements to determine widths of the water body, canals or basins shall be made from the waterward edge of any coastal wetland vegetation which boarders the water body. The one-fourth length limitation shall not apply in areas where the US Army Corps of Engineers, or a local government in consultation with the Corps of Engineers, has established an official pier-head line. The one-fourth length limitation shall not apply when the proposed pier is located between longer piers within 200 feet of the applicant’s property. However, the proposed pier cannot be longer than the pier head line established by the adjacent piers, nor longer than 1/3 the width of the water body.

(k) Piers longer than 400 feet shall be permitted only if the proposed length gives access to deeper water at a rate of at least one foot each 100 foot increment of pier length longer than 400 feet, or, if the additional length is necessary to span some obstruction to navigation. Measurements to determine pier lengths shall be made from the waterward edge of any coastal wetland vegetation which borders the water body.

(l) Piers shall not interfere with the access to any riparian property and shall have a minimum setback of 15 feet between any part of the pier and the adjacent property owner’s areas of riparian access. The line of division of areas of riparian access shall be established by drawing a line along the channel or deep water in front of the properties, then drawing a line perpendicular to the line of the channel so that it intersects with the shore at the point the upland property meets the water’s edge. The minimum setback provided in the rule may be waived by the written agreement of the adjacent riparian owner(s) or when two adjoining riparian owners are co-applicants. Should the adjacent property be sold before construction of the pier commences, the applicant shall obtain a written agreement with the new owner waiving the minimum setback and submit it to the permitting agency prior to initiating any development on the pier. Application of this rule may be aided by reference to the approved diagram in 15A NCAC 7H .125(q) illustrating the rule as applied to various shoreline configurations. Copies of the diagram may be obtained from the Division of Coastal Management. When shoreline configuration is such that a perpendicular alignment cannot be achieved, the pier shall be aligned to meet the intent of this rule to the maximum extent practicable.

(m) Applicants for authorization to construct a dock or pier shall provide notice of the permit application or exemption request to the owner of any part of a shellfish franchise or lease over which the proposed dock or pier would extend. The applicant shall allow the lease holder the opportunity to mark a navigation route from the pier to the edge of the lease.

Mr. Tyndall then referred to 15A NCAC GENERAL CONDITIONS 07H.1205 under SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:

(a) Piers, docks, and boat houses may extend or be located up to a maximum of 400 feet from the normal high waterline, or the normal water level, whichever is applicable.

(b) Piers, docks, and boat houses shall not extend beyond the established pier length along the same shoreline for similar use. This restriction shall not apply to piers 100 feet or less in length unless necessary to avoid unreasonable interference with navigation or other uses of the waters by the public. The length of the piers shall be measured from the waterward edge of any wetlands that border the water body.

(c) Piers longer than 200 feet shall be permitted only if the proposed length gives access to deeper water at a rate of at least one foot at each 100 foot increment of pier length longer than 200 feet, or if the additional length is necessary to span some obstruction to navigation. Measurements to determine pier lengths shall be made from the water-ward edge of any coastal wetland vegetation which boarders the water body.

(d) Piers and docks shall be no wider than six feet and shall be elevated at least three feet above any coastal wetland substrate as measured from the bottom of the decking.

(e) Any portion of a pier (either fixed or floating) extending from the main structure and six feet or less in width shall be considered either a “T” or a finger pier.

(f) Any portion of a pier (either fixed or floating) greater than six feet wide shall be con-sidered a platform or a deck.

(g) “T”s, finger piers, platforms, and decks of piers on lots with shorelines of 100 feet or greater in length shall not exceed a combined total are of 400 square feet. The combined total area for lots less than 100 feet shall not exceed four square feet per linear foot of shoreline.

(h) Platforms an decks shall have no more than six feet of any dimension extending over coastal wetlands.

(i) Boathouses shall not exceed 400 square feet and shall have sides extending no further than one-half the height of the walls and only covering the top half of the walls. Measurements of square footage shall be taken of the greatest exterior dimensions. Boathouses shall not be allowed on lots with less than 75 linear feet of shoreline.

(j) Areas enclosed by boat lifts shall not exceed 400 square feet.

(k) Piers, docks, decks, platforms and boat houses shall be single story. They may be roofed but shall not be designed to allow second story use.

(l) Pier alignments along federally maintained channels must also meet Corps of Engineers regulations for pier construction pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

(m) Piers, docks, and boat houses shall in no case extend more than ¼ the width of a natural water body, human-made canal or basin. Measurements to determine widths of the water body, human-made canals or basins shall be made from the waterward edge of any coastal wetland vegetation which borders the water body. The ¼ length limitation shall not apply with the proposed pier is located between longer piers within 200 feet of the applicant’s property. However, the proposed pier shall not be longer than the pier head line established by the adjacent piers, nor, longer than 1/3 the width of the water body.

(n) Piers, docks, and boat houses shall not interfere with the access to any riparian property, and shall have a minimum setback of 15 feet between any part of the pier and the adjacent property liens extended into the water at the points that they intersect the shoreline. The minimum setbacks provided in the rule may be waived by the written agreement of the adjacent riparian owner(s) for when two adjoining riparian owners are co-applicants. Should the adjacent property be sold before construction of the pier comments, the applicant shall obtain a written agreement with the new owner waiving the minimum setback and submit it to the Division of Coastal Management prior to initiating any development of the pier, dock, or boat house. The line of division of areas of riparian access shall be established by drawing a line along the channel or deep water in front of the property, then drawing a line perpendicular to the line of the channel so that it intersects with the shore at the point the upland property lie meets the water’s edge.

(o) Piers, and mooring facilities shall be designed to provide docking space for no more than two boats.

(p) Applicants for authorization to construction a dock or pier shall provide notice of the permit application to the owner of any part of a shellfish franchise or lease over which the proposed dock or pier would extend. The applicant shall allow the lease holder the opportunity to mark a navigation route from the pier to the edge of the lease.

Mr. Tyndall advised the most of the changes were made due to the debris the cluttered entire Bogue Sound after significant storms.

The members asked several questions for clarification of the regulations that Mr. Tyndall had just gone through. He stated that a number of existing projects had been grand-fathered if they were built prior to 1998. Projects today would fall under more restrictive guidelines. A jet ski slip counts as a boat slip/lift for a pier.

Mr. Tyndall also advised that should an applicant want to install a project larger (i.e. more than 2 slips), than the criteria described, it may be permitted through a Major CAMA permit which has more stringent regulations and is much longer process to obtain due to the permitting agencies necessary for review, averaging 69 days. Towns or municipalities do have the opportunity to comment during a Major CAMA Permit process.

Aerial photos are often used for comparisons of pier length in permitting process. Should the application warrant, the general permit application can be elevated to a Major CAMA permit. A third party appeal may be heard if the appeal is made within 20 days of the decision date

Chairman Erikson thanked Mr. Tyndall for coming to share his expertise with the members and asked for a motion on this agenda item.

Motion was made by Ed Dowling and seconded by Jim Craig to table the issue of pier lengths into Bogue Sound for not more than 90 days. Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion to table. The members are going to try to arrange a boat tour of the sound to better understand the issues at hand. This date will be later determined for public notice.

6. Consider a request by W. Randy Campbell to rezone 4.03 acres of property located adjacent to Daisywood Subdivision and Boardwalk by the Sea from B-3 (Business) to R-2 (Residential). Mr. Reed went over the submission from Mr. Campbell to request a rezoning of 4.03 acres of currently zoned commercial property to residential. Since this proposal had been mentioned at a previous board of commissioners meeting and the Planning Board members felt this zoning is in the best interest of the citizens a motion was made to recommend the rezoning to R-2 by Pam Minnick, with second by Pat Patteson and unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

Discussion of possible amendments to Section 19 of the Town Code, Dunes and Vegetation Ordinance, in order to address issues related to septic systems. Mr. Reed read his modification of the ordinance:

Site modifications to a parcel, as required by the Carteret County Health Department in the issuance of an improvement permit, in order to obtain authorization for the installation of a wastewater system. Modifications to the site shall e limited to only those activities required by Health Department, including the limited disturbance of land necessary to access the site.

The members discussed the issue that they did not want this modification to allow any disturbance in the designated repair area. Mr. Reed was directed to submit the recommendation to the Town board as he had stated, but with the stipulation that the repair area not be disturbed for this activity. Mr. Jim Craig made the motion to recommend approval of this amendment to the Town board with the change to not allow any disturbance in the repair area; Pam Minnick seconded with unanimous vote in favor of the motion.

Discussion of possible amendments to Section 19 of the Town Code in order to address issues related to the outside display of goods and merchandise in commercial districts. Mr. Reed had canvassed a number of coastal communities for their requirements regarding this issue. The majority had no restrictions and others were permitted within specific guidelines. The Board felt that this is a very delicate issue that could create an enforcement nightmare with the Town’s limited staff. It would have to encompass such things as beverage machines, magazine and newspaper boxes, ice machines, water machines, seasonal items such as Christmas trees, lawn items, etc. After discussion among the members is was recommended that the Board take no action.

9. Discussion of possible amendments to Section 19-107, Paragraph 7, of the Town Code in order to address the required vegetative buffer in business districts. Mr. Reed read his recommendation to clarify this portion of the ordinance:

(7) A buffer shall be required if commercial development abuts a residential or institutional lot. The buffer shall consist of one of the following: (1) a vegetative opaque screen six (6) feet in height; or, (2) an opaque fence six (6) feet in height. The buffer must be located along the perimeter of the project where it abuts the residential or institutional lot and must be approved as part of the commercial development review process.

After discussion on this topic and discussion as to whether the color or types of fencing might be a factor; how much latitude the Planning Board might have in regulating the buffers. The members wanted to look at this in more detail and a committee was set as

Kevin Reed, Frank Rush and Frank Erwin too look at this for the September meeting.

10. Discussion of proposed amendments to Chapter 19 – Zoning – to establish regulations for large commercial structures. Mr. Reed had submitted the members with the ordinance that had originated some time ago with a complete rework by Michael Harvey with Benchmark Consulting. The changes through committees had been discussed previously and the major changes since the last review were that the stormwater collection had been reduced to 2” as the recommendation had seemed excessive. The nineteen recommended points for the revision having been discussed at prior meetings were recommended in this final version with the change to 2” of stormwater containment. Motion to recommend approval to the Town Board for their September 9, 2003 meeting was made by Jim Craig, second, and unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

11. Discussion of stormwater issue at the intersection of Emerald Drive and Crew

Drive Mr. Reed advised that there has been some previous discussion regarding the

retention of stormwater at the Citgo station at the corner of the northern portion of Coast

Guard Road and Emerald Drive. Mr. Reed made several visits to the site with Artie

Dunn, Public Works director as well as the town engineer, Greg Meshaw. These visits concluded that original plan that had been submitted by the business is adequate; however, some light grading is being done to redirect the stormwater to the Hwy 58 swale.

12. Comments: Mr. Ed Dowling asked again about the ditching of the roads and streets throughout Emerald Isle as to why they are not maintained at a 3:1 slope. Mr. Reed advised that he will look into this and have a response for him.

Motion to adjourn was made by Pat Patteson, with second by Pam Minnick and unanimous approval in favor of the motion at 9:00 P.M.

Respectfully submitted by:

Carol Angus, Secretary
Town Of Emerald Isle Planning Board