Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Coastal Management topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board adopts UDO amendment excluding waterward beach and estuary areas from natural-area calculations

Town of Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners · March 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board adopted an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance clarifying that areas seaward of the first line of stable vegetation and waterward of the mean high water mark are excluded from the 35% natural area requirement, aligning local rules with state coastal statute and practice.

The Emerald Isle Board of Commissioners adopted an amendment to the town’s Unified Development Ordinance clarifying how required "natural area" is calculated on oceanfront and estuary residential lots.

Planning Director John Neville told the board the amendment (changes to sections 6.4.0.41 and related text) would explicitly state that any portion of an oceanfront lot waterward of the first line of stable vegetation, and any portion of a sound-front or estuary lot waterward of the mean high water mark, cannot be included in the 35% natural area calculation. Neville cited guidance from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management and a portion of North Carolina General Statute 77-20 to explain that beach sand and open water are not vegetative areas and therefore should not be treated as stable vegetation for ordinance calculations.

Neville said the Planning Board reviewed the amendment on Feb. 23 and unanimously recommended adoption, and that the amendment aligns local practice with state statutes. The board opened the public hearing; no members of the public spoke during the hearing. Commissioners discussed the drafting language briefly — including a question about using the word "shall" versus "may" — and the town attorney confirmed that "shall" would have mandatory effect and that the proposed wording was appropriate.

Following those clarifications, a motion to adopt the ordinance amendment passed unanimously.

The amendment is intended to reduce ambiguity for property owners and staff when determining natural-area compliance on lots where official boundaries extend waterward or where the first line of stable vegetation has shifted over time.