Agendas and Minutes

May 9, 2000 

Board of Commissioners
Posted by The Town of Emerald Isle 05/09/2000

April 17, 2000 

Planning Board

Minutes of Regular Planning Board Meeting

Monday, April 17, 2000

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Roy Brownlow at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Roy Brownlow, Ceil Saunders, George McLaughlin, Frank Vance, Phil Almeida, and David Schock. Cary Harrison was excused, being out of town.

Also, in attendance: Pete Allen, Town Manager; Carol Angus, Secretary; and Building Inspector, Jim Taylor.

Chairman Brownlow asked for a motion to remove Section 16-4 issues regard-ing wetlands from the agenda. This item is being further reviewed. Phil Almeida made the motion to remove this item from the agenda; Frank Vance seconded with unanimous board approval.

Approval of Minutes of March 20, 2000 – Mr. McLaughlin asked that NAS be changed to MCAS in regard to Cherry Point. Motion to approve the minutes as amended was made by Ceil Saunders, second by George McLaughlin, with unanimous board approval.

Report from Town Manager – Mr. Allen gave the members a brief summary of the agenda for the Town Board Meeting on April 12, 2000.

Report from Building Inspector – James W. Taylor

Type     Valuation
Single family dwellings 8   $1,143,760
Duplex 1   284,960
Miscellaneous 169   400,060
Total 178   $1,828,780

Chairman Brownlow asked how many lots are not yet developed. Mr. Allen said that if the Land Use Plan is correct there should be between 400 to 500 available. Mr. Brownlow then asked, on average, how many residential permits are written. Ms. Angus replied that it usually runs about 115 permits. Mr. Allen advised the board that for a number of years the Inspections Dept. had run in the black, when construction was heavy; now things are slowing down, the department is not generating the resources it did in the past. He felt that 7 to 10 years should see Emerald Isle about as built out as it will be.

COMMENTS: Mr. Bill Reist asked that the Chairman define the abbreviations as each item is addressed. (R1-R-2) Residential/1 and 2 family only; (RMF) Residential Multi-family; (RMH) Residential/Motel/Hotel

OLD BUSINESS:

Motion to amend the motion to include Items B, C, and D, was made by George McLaughlin, second by David Schock with unanimous board approval to delete the two references to "mean roof height" in Sections 19-102 (RMH); 19-103 (Mobile Home) and 19-106 (Institutional).

  1. Section 19-101 (R2-R2-RMF) to limit building height to 40 feet.

    Mr. Brownlow said he felt that a correction be made to the proposal if he understood what the committee had recommended. The roof height not be 40’ from mean roof height, but 40’ from the highest roof ridge. The board agreed that this is the recommendation they had made, to the highest roof ridge.

    Motion was made by George McLaughlin, second to Phil Almeida and unanimous board approval that the recommendation to the Town Board is to remove the two references "mean roof height of" be deleted.

Discussion determined that the amendment was correctly worded as was discussed and recommended. Ms. Saunders asked if this request had not been handled in 1997. Ms. Angus replied that it was, but never was codified. The Inspections Department had been enforcing one access to the sound from that time.

Motion was made by Ceil Saunders, second by Dave Schock to recommend that each soundfront lot be limited to one access to Bogue Sound, the board unanimously approved the motion.

Chairman Brownlow asked that since Items F and H are similar that they be considered in that order.

  1. Section 6-82 – To limit each lot to one access per lot (to Bogue Sound).
  2. Section 6-83 – to delete entirely and refer to N.C. Building Code.

Mr. Brownlow asked Mr. Taylor if this amendment would make his job easier, or more teeth in the mechanism. Mr. Taylor said that the ordinance was not in conformance with N.C. State Building Code. When changes are made to the code, it conflicts with the ordinance.

Phil Almeida made motion, second by Ceil Sanders with unanimous approval in favor of the motion to delete the building specifications and refer to N.C. Building Code in sections 6-83 and 6-85.

  1. Section 6-85 – to delete entirely and refer to N.C. Building Code.

Motion to recommend the amendment to read "Maximum length of pier shall be one hundred (100) feet from the high-water mark, unless permitted by the Coastal Area Management Agency District office, however, not to exceed four hundred (400) feet, including any "T" or "L" additions and, the "T" or "L" platform not to exceed two hundred (200) square feet" made by David Schock, second by Ceil Saunders, with unanimous board approval in favor of the motion.

  1. Section 6-84 (c)– Fixed Piers definition.
  1. Section 6-102 and 103 to limit one access per lot to ocean and refer to N.C. Building Code.

    Mr. Brownlow advised that the State does not become involved with the specifications for accesses for single family or duplexes. Also, there is no reference in current codification as to where the references came from that are specified in the ordinance.

    Mr. Schock asked Mr. Taylor to explain about the stable line of vegetation. Mr. Taylor explained the procedure to advise that at this vegetation line is where the walkway must end then a landing and steps to the east or west.

    Ms. Saunders read from previous (1997) notes, that this request, too, had been recommended at that time and not codified.

    Mr. Schock said he is concerned about the damage done by the dune alteration to allow the platforms. Mr. Taylor said that CAMA considers the driving of pilings as "negligible" alteration to a dune. Also, that the area should be revegetated after putting down pilings and trampling.

    Mr. Vance said he felt going over the pushed up sand with an access made more sense than to allow the renters to trample all the new pushed sand. If there is a walkway, they might follow that.

    Mr. Taylor advised that to beach bulldoze it is to reinforce the dune face that you have. Typically, you have only a pile of pushed up sand, not a dune. If he allowed people to take structures out over that sand, when it washed away the access is out over the beach, freestanding. Mr. Vance said there should be some type of platform to put on the sand. Mr. Taylor said they can put in sand fencing and some ingenious ideas for a temporary type steps.

    Ms. Angus advised the board that at her CAMA workshop the week before one of the speakers commented on what a good job Mr. Taylor was doing in this regard at Emerald Isle.

    Having the Town or individuals put signs on the property saying "Keep off the dunes" was discussed.

    Mr. Allen asked if he understood correctly, that if beach access was lost, that we are telling them that they can have only one walkway back, and has anybody questioned that? Ms. Angus responded that only one party had challenged it. Mr. Allen was concerned that people who were able to build for each unit, now being told they cannot, could create a problem. Owners who do not get along are an inevitable problem. Mr. Taylor said he was involved in quite a number with Bertha, Fran, and Floyd. He asks each party how he wants to get to the beach. He does a site visit from that drawing prior to a permit. If there is a duplex that had two walkways and lost their steps only, they will be able to get back both sets of steps. For structures that lost back to the deck of the house, he is requiring only one access per lot. Any access that is not destroyed can be repaired to the first line of stable vegetation. The owners have accepted this, and the owners are tired of paying to replace two sets after each storm.

    Motion was made by Ceil Saunders, second by David Schock to recommend that Section 6-102 "Beach walkway structures shall be limited to one (1)per lot, with one two hundred (200) square foot or less sitting area, placed landward of the first line of natural stable vegetation. In some instances, a survey may be required by Dunes and Vegetation Protection (DVPO) to make setback determination. Walkway to terminate at first line of natural stable vegetation. Steps placement to beach, to be determined by Dunes and Vegetation Protection Officer (DVPO)."

    And, Section 6-103 to read "Construction must conform to all applicable State construction requirements." Members voted unanimously in favor of the motion.

  2. Section 19-134(11) to limit temporary signs (banners) only to non-profit organizations only for 30 days.

    Mr. Brownlow asked what had prompted this amendment from the Inspections Department. Ms. Angus said the biggest issue is the policing. They go up without permits, counting the 100 days, take them down and put them up again. The original 100 days was to give them from Memorial Day until Labor Day. "Open" is not a Special Event as most of them go up. A permit will not be required for a recognized non-profit organization. David Schock said he would like to see the banner be placed on a permanent structure not to be allowed on stakes along the right of way. A fence would qualify as a permanent structure.

    Mr. Almeida asked about a group of kids who want to have a jazz festival. Ms. Angus said they would have to prove they are a recognized organization and non-profit.

    Mr. Brownlow asked about someone who put up a banner for 30 days, took it down and put it up another 30 days. Ms. Angus said she didn’t think that would happen with a recognized organization such as Shriners, Mile of Hope, etc. It will come down to interpretation.

    Mr. Allen highly advised that this change and the sign ordinance be distri-buted to every business in Emerald Isle.

    Motion was made by David Schock recommending to the Town Board that Section 19-134(11) be amended to read: "Temporary signs as defined in Section 132 shall be permitted provided such signs are for the express purpose of a special event sponsored by a non-profit organization. Temporary signs shall not exceed 32 square feet in size and must be attached to a building or permanent structure. Temporary signs may be displayed for a period not exceeding thirty (30) continuous days". The second by Frank Vance with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

  3. Section 19-101,102,103 to prohibit swimming pools in CAMA Area of Environmental Concern

    Mr. Brownlow asked Mr. Taylor if the intent was to limit the pools from the entire CAMA area of environmental concern, as opposed to the CAMA setback line? Mr. Taylor said it was in the beginning; however, he had thought it through and the intent is not to prohibit the use of pools on oceanfront properties, just to limit them within the oceanfront setback. This is only to prevent the pools from erosion from the ocean and falling to the beachfront. Mr. Brownlow gave the members of the board a quick description of the difference between Area of Environmental Concern (i.e. 170’) and the Ocean Erodible Area (i.e. 60’).

    David Schock made motion, second by Frank Vance to have "Sections 19-101(9), 19-102(9), and 103(7) be amended to read:"Accessory Building/Swimming Pool Location –No accessory building shall be erected in any setback or required side yards. No swimming pool shall be placed or constructed within the Coastal Area Management Agency (CAMA, Coastal Resources Commission) setback area as established by the ocean erodible area." The motion carried unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS:

Items to be reviewed for recommendation at later date (June 30, 2000)

Mr. Brownlow said this must be very carefully looked at, not something that is done in a week’s time. He wants to appoint an ad hoc committee on how it would impact property values, tax base.

Mr. Allen was concerned about all the amendments that had been recommended earlier in these specific zones, now a consideration to change some zoning. Mr. Brownlow said there is no plan, as yet, to make any zoning changes. He does not see doing away with any zoning in particular. He would hope there is no intention to do away with RMH.

Mr. Allen said that is not his understanding. The West End S/D Preliminary Plat is RMH. A motel could be placed on that property, possibly with a package treatment plant. He understands that could be changed to R2. Ms. Farmer added that there are some other RMH areas along the sound that are among residential areas that could be developed into motels or hotels development. Mr. Allen asked if the ultimate goal is to limit density? Ms. Farmer replied "to keep residential neighborhoods residential". You could still have hotels and motels, just not in residential neighborhoods.

Mr. Brownlow said he is not envisioning doing away with RMH zoning. There are some areas that RMH may be reduced, but leave other RMH districts. He sees both sides of the issue.

Mr. Vance said, from the letter he had before him from the Mayor, that the board is concerned about tearing down blocks of existing homes and being able to build a motel or hotel. He feels it should stay RMH.

Mr. Brownlow said he saw no problem with leaving the Point Emerald Villas block, or Sound of the Sea in RMH and a hotel be built. He feels it is vital to keep RMH. He also feels it would be catastrophic to try to redo the entire zoning.

Ms. Saunders said when people buy property, they are aware of zoning.

Ms. Farmer tried to clarify the board’s standing: "What the board is trying to do is take residential areas that are currently residential and maintain them as residential, protect them under zoning so they are zoned appro-priately for what is already there. No one wants to turn Sound of the Sea into single family." (There were then several mingled conversations that could not be discerned).

Mr. Brownlow then referred this topic to Review Committee on April 19, to appoint an ad hoc committee.

There was some discussion as to whether the use might be a Permitted Use or a Special Use in B2.

This issue was referred to Review Committee on April 19, 2000.

  1. Doubling of permit fees for work without permits.

    David Schock asked what "work without permits" meant. Mr. Brownlow responded it is those people who begin a project without first obtaining a building permit.

    Mr. McLaughlin said he felt there should be a fine as well as doubling the fees. It would make it worth their while to not begin without a permit. Mr. Brownlow said Atlantic Beach has the policy of $100.00 fine plus doubling the permit fees. Mr. Taylor said he felt that doubling the fees was adequate. Mr. Brownlow said that Morehead City fees are "steep".

    Mr. Allen said that the problem with the draft the town attorney had before them listed the Town Board as "judge & jury" in an appeals process. They may be some legalities in that. Mr. Taylor is now checking with the League of Municipalities and Institute of Government where a person would go with an appeals process.

    Mayor Pro-Tem, Emily Farmer, added that the board of commissioners was not comfortable to have people appear before them to "lash" them.

    It did not seem like the appropriate place to go. She wonders if doubling the fees alone would solve the problem, particularly in clearing problems, going $50 to $100 (isn’t much).

    Mr. Brownlow asked Mr. Taylor at what point a Dunes & Vegetation (grading) Permit is required. Mr. Taylor said 4 or more loads of fill; or grading and installing for septic system. Less than four loads of fill requires only authorization from the Inspector to go ahead. That is determined by how it will affect the adjacent property owner.

    Ms. Saunders is concerned about the requirements that have to be met by the County Health Department. They sometimes require more than was originally intended.

    Mr. Almeida asked how many jobs were found to be without permits. Mr. Taylor advised it is not usually in the residential homes construction, it is in additions, decks, mechanical changeouts, electrical changes, there are about seven a month.

    Mr. Brownlow said the consensus seems to be to double the fees, plus a civil penalty added to that. He asked that it be considered at the review committee meeting on April 19 2000.

  2. Reviewing the necessity and practicality of retaining Residential/Motel/Hotel and Residential/Multi-Family Zoning.
  3. Review stormwater Ordinance, Chapter 16, especially in design for 1 ½" of runoff from single-family and duplex residences.

    Mr. Brownlow referred this topic on to Review Committee on April 19, to pick up where the previous Planning Board had left this issue.

  4. Consider addition of "Fish Market" to Permitted/Special Use Table

Motion to adjourn made by Ceil Saunders, second by Phil Almeida with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

Posted by The Town of Emerald Isle 04/17/2000

April 11, 2000 

Board of Commissioners
Posted by The Town of Emerald Isle 04/11/2000

March 20, 2000 

Planning Board

TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE

REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES

MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2000

 

Chairman, Roy Brownlow called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

Members present were: Chairman Brownlow, Ceil Saunders, George McLaughlin, Frank Vance, Phil Almeida, and David Schock. Also attending: Building Inspector, Jim Taylor; and Secretary, Carol Angus.

Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting, February 28, 2000 – Ceil Saunders made the motion to approve the minutes as written; second by Frank Vance with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

Report from Town Manager – Mr. Allen gave a brief summary of the Board of Commissioners Meeting on March 14, 2000.

Report from Building Inspector – Mr. Taylor gave a brief summary of the February permits written and update on the commercial renovations throughout town.

COMMENTS:

Mr. William Farrington asked if there had every been any thought to having the Town buy a bulldozer and put it on the beach for renourishment? Mr. Allen replied it is cheaper to contract it out. The Town would still have to charge the individual properties.

Mr. William Reist asked how many parcels were pushed on the recent FEMA grant of $168,000? Mr. Allen replied that there were approximately 213 from 1st St. through Regional Park, and about 30 more west of there that were site specific. It was done based on what FEMA said could be done.

Sunset Harbor Condos, Final Plat, Block 38, Lot 3 – Lori Morris/Rick Farrington

Mr. Brownlow reviewed the few items that were to be addressed on the Final Plat from the Review Committee. (1)The "wood walk" was changed to "concrete", (2) a shift in the parking lot to save trees; (3) shift in the building toward the street to take it outside the flood zone (4) indicate the length of the pier and tee, 79.84’.

Ms. Saunders thanked Ms. Morris for the inclusion of the revision date on the plat. This is something that the board felt would help in tracking the different revisions.

Motion was made by Phil Almeida to recommend Sunset Harbor Condos, Final Plat, Lot 3, Block 38 to the Town Board for approval; second by Frank Vance with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

Committee Reports:

Wireless Communications Committee update: Mr. Harrison, chairman of the committee was out of town to give the report. Mr. McLaughlin said he had visited Cherry Point MCAS and had obtained a map of the zone heights permitted in certain zones. The water tower is encroaching on that zone, which is why it is lit up so much. It penetrates the 150’ maximum. He also has a copy of Federal Air Regulations, which were pulled down from the internet. If the town were to allow a tower, they (applicant) have to apply to the FCC for the license to use it. If a license is not issued, a permit cannot be issued to erect the tower.

Building Height Requirement: Ms. Saunders advised the Town Board had adopted the portion of the recommendation made earlier for only the commercial zones of the ordinance. The Planning must now address the residential zones.

Mr. Brownlow said he would like to discuss and recommend this amendment tonight for the multi-family zone. This includes condominiums, apartments, etc. What the Town Board wants is a 40’ maximum height to the highest roof ridge, no more than three stories. Ms. Saunders asked if Pier Pointe Condos was not about 40’, and was informed that it is.

Mr. Brownlow reiterated the measurement to the highest roof ridge is to be taken from the lowest grade immediately adjacent to the building foundation. There will not be an additional 10’ for equipment as in commercial. Mr. Taylor asked, to be sure, that there will not be an average of the roof height, it will be the tallest ridge? He was informed that is correct.

Mr. Almeida had concerns regarding the fill of properties. Mr. Taylor advised the members that in many cases there is no other way to get above the required flood height but to fill. In X zones you are also permitted to fill; however V zones are only to have fill for aesthetic landscaping, not for structural purposes. Most of the oceanfront lots are now in V zones, which allow no filling.

Mr. Almeida asked about filling in order to enhance their view. Mr. Taylor said that would be measured from the fill area. Mr. Almeida said he would like to see this topic be reviewed in the future.

A question from the audience from Mr. James Heatherly asked if a residential single family could have a flat roof? Mr. Brownlow said it could.

Motion to recommend to the Town Board was made by George McLaughlin to amend the Multi-family zone to 40’ height limit with measurement to the highest roof ridge to be taken from the lowest grade immediately adjacent to the building foundation; limited to three stories. Second by Frank Vance with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

COMMENTS:

Frank Vance wants to look at how fill is being used on construction sites.

Mr. Taylor added that many of the remaining lots are in a deep valley, which will require fill or it will be unbuildable.

Mr. Vance asked if a house on pilings is still allowed to fill. Mr. Taylor said in A zones, yes they can. Mr. Vance said he understood that if you build on a pad, but on pilings they wouldn’t need to fill because they would be 8 to 10 feet above.

Mr. Almeida asked how Mr. Taylor ensures that fill in a valley does not disturb an existing draining pattern. Mr. Taylor said the ordinance says to capture the first 1 ½ " runoff, off the drip line of the roof and the driveway. Runoff from the land, we don’t have anything to address that. Mr. Almeida asked about water that is running to this area, then gets diverted.

Mr. Taylor responded that the property owner has a right to develop the property, and many times this owner has been taking the runoff from other properties up until the time he wants to develop.

Mr. Almeida said he did not think you can disturb the natural drainage.

Mr. Brownlow disagreed with this point. Mr. Almeida said the intent is not to stop but to be sure it is done in a proper fashion.

Mr. Brownlow said this is an issue that needs to be discussed at a later date.

Ms. Saunders asked Ricky Farrington, who was in the audience, as developer of the Pier Pointe Condominium project, why some buildings are on higher ground than others? Mr. Farrington replied that the buildings are on slabs with the pilings under the slabs, called a pile cap. They were raised for water view and to get them above the flood zone. Ms. Saunders asked if it would have required that much fill to get up above the flood zone, it was done more for ocean view. Mr. Farrington said ocean view was the key, but to raise as high as possible in the event of a storm surge like at Ocean Reef where lower floor units were flooded.

Mr. Taylor added that at the time Ocean Reef was developed, it was located in a "C" zone, which had no restrictions regarding flood zones. They have since been placed in a "V" zone in August of 1998.

Mr. Farrington said that Ocean Reef actually has piling coming through the first floor units that had to be dealt with for floor plans.

Mr. Brownlow briefed the members on a question of whether the board may be violating the open meeting law for committee meetings. Ms. Angus had contacted the Institute of Government, Mr. David Lawrence, and was advised that as long as decisions or recommendations are not made from this body to the Planning Board or the Town Board, and that the public is permitted to attend it is not an illegal meeting. The meetings are to be announced prior to the committee meeting and what is being discussed. A formal agenda is not required, nor minutes required.

Mr. Brownlow added that the Land Use Plan notes that were included in their packets are food for thought and to be reviewed. There are some good points and examples of how vague some of the issues are. He thanked the Secretary for the inclusion of the new zoning maps for each member.

Mr. Brownlow wanted, on behalf of the planning board, to extend sincere appreciation and heartfelt farewell to John Yost, for his service to Emerald Isle, the community, and it citizens; especially for his assistance to the Planning Board.

He will missed, his sense of humor, and he wishes God speed to Mr. Yost in his retirement to "smell the roses".

Motion to adjourn was made by George McLaughlin, second by Phil Almeida with unanimous approval in favor of the motion

Posted by The Town of Emerald Isle 03/20/2000

March 14, 2000 

Board of Commissioners
Posted by The Town of Emerald Isle 03/14/2000
Page 128 of 131 << < 30 70 100 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 > >>

Archives