Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dune Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Emerald Isle planning board backs tougher penalties for dune removal
Summary
The planning board voted to recommend a UDO amendment raising the civil fine for damaging or removing primary dunes from $1,000 to $10,000 and shortening the restoration deadline from 60 to 30 days; the recommendation, passed by voice vote, will go to town commissioners for a public hearing.
The Emerald Isle Planning Board voted April 27 to recommend that town commissioners consider a text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance that would increase civil penalties for damage to or removal of primary dunes from $1,000 to $10,000 and shorten the restoration deadline from 60 days to 30 days.
Planning Director Neville told the board the proposed amendment would bring the town’s penalties more in line with penalties used by the Coastal Resources Commission and some neighboring jurisdictions. "Tonight, I am requesting the planning board support in increasing the civil penalty and restoration deadline for the damage or removal of a primary dune," Neville said, noting the change would apply prospectively to new violators and that the town attorney and manager had reviewed the proposal.
The board discussed whether local fines would duplicate state-level enforcement. A board member asked, "Would they get a $10,000 fine from CAMA and from the town?" Neville replied that the Division of Coastal Management (CAMA) conducts its own investigations and sets its own penalties (up to $10,000), and that the town could also pursue a penalty moving forward but the agencies would need to open separate investigations.
Commissioner Roy Brownlow, speaking during public comment, said he supported strengthening penalties and suggested extending fines to contractors as well as property owners. "I'd like to also see penalties go out to the contractor in addition to the property owner," Brownlow said. Neville said staff would consult with the town attorney about contractor liability.
Members cited enforcement tools beyond fines — including withholding final occupancy or certificate-of-occupancy approvals — as practical leverage to prompt timely restoration. The board also asked staff to clarify a surety provision in the UDO language before sending a statement of consistency and reasonableness to the town commissioners.
The motion to recommend the amendment as written, with an added request that commissioners clarify the surety language, was moved by the chair, seconded and approved by voice vote. The recommendation will be forwarded to the town commissioners for a public hearing; if adopted, the changes would apply to violations that occur after the ordinance takes effect.
The board also noted the town has invested in dune restoration and cited public-safety and property-protection rationales for the change. Staff said they would return with any clarifying language requested by the board and coordinate with the town manager and attorney before the commissioners’ hearing.
