Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Height topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pender planning board debates raising residential height limits, freeboard incentives
Summary
Planning staff opened a workshop-style discussion about raising the 35-foot maximum for single-family residential districts to 45 feet (and related freeboard incentives in flood-prone areas). Board members raised concerns about consumer protection, speculative building, service impacts, and trade-offs tied to setbacks and flood safety; staff will return with diagrams, comparative examples and options including targeted overlays and incentives for raising the lowest habitable floor in lower-risk flood areas.
Planning staff led a workshop-style discussion on proposed changes to residential height provisions in the Unified Development Ordinance, including a staff proposal to increase the base height maximum in RA and RP districts from 35 feet to 45 feet and to reconcile that change with existing freeboard-based height allowances in special flood hazard areas.
Staff explained how the current code grants additional height in regulated flood zones by allowing five additional feet of height per every two feet of building elevation above the regulatory freeboard, up to 45 feet, and described the policy intent as balancing flood safety and reasonable building height. Staff also proposed exploring applying a similar incentive in the 500-year (yellow) flood category to encourage higher lowest-habitable floors where freeboard is not otherwise required.
Board concerns and questions: Members raised multiple issues. Some said a flat increase to 45 feet county-wide could encourage speculative construction, reduce privacy and neighborhood character on small lots, and increase demands on county services (roads, schools). Others said the change could help owners rebuild after flood events or enable practical designs (e.g., taller garages or outbuildings) and noted surrounding jurisdictions have higher maximums (examples cited included Surf City and Brunswick County). Several members recommended trade-offs, such as tying additional height to greater setbacks (one foot of setback per additional foot of height) or limiting increased heights to larger lots or to targeted overlay areas rather than a flat county-wide change.
Flood-safety trade-offs: Board members discussed whether raising the maximum height could inadvertently reduce incentives to elevate homes in regulated flood zones. Staff suggested options including: (1) keep current freeboard-based path to additional height inside regulated AE flood zones while allowing higher caps outside those zones; (2) permit additional height only when property owners raise the lowest habitable floor (i.e., buy into more freeboard) in the 500-year flood area; or (3) adopt setback/compatibility requirements that scale with height to protect neighbors.
Next steps and staff direction: Board members requested more detailed diagrams and worked examples showing how freeboard, base flood elevation, and building-height math interact on typical Pender County lots, plus comparative code excerpts from neighboring jurisdictions. Staff said they will explore targeted overlays, setback-for-height trade-offs, and small-area plans to better identify suitable places for any change. No formal vote or text amendment was adopted during the meeting; the board treated the discussion as guidance and asked staff to return with refined options.
Context: The discussion followed a recent case in which a homeowner who lost a fire then faced revised flood maps that made rebuilding under prior dimensions infeasible; that example prompted the board to examine how height and flood regulations interact.
