Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board backs UDO amendment to exclude waterward areas from 35% natural-area calculation
Summary
The Emerald Isle Planning Board unanimously recommended a text amendment clarifying that areas waterward of the mean high-water mark and the first line of stable vegetation are not counted toward the required 35% natural-area calculation for oceanfront and estuary lots; the change documents current staff practice and will go to the Board of Commissioners for public hearing.
The Emerald Isle Planning Board unanimously recommended a proposed amendment to the town's Unified Development Ordinance that would explicitly exclude areas waterward of the mean high-water mark and the first line of stable vegetation from the calculation of the required 35% natural area on oceanfront and estuary lots.
Planning Director John introduced the text amendment during the board's meeting, telling members the draft language would align the UDO with current staff practice and with coastal definitions used by the Division of Coastal Management. "We are proposing a UDO amendment, a text amendment in 6.4 0.41 and 2 of the ordinance to include text stating that the area waterward of the mean high-water mark and first line of stable vegetation are not allowed in the required 35% natural area calculations," John said.
The change, John said, is intended to document what staff already does when determining natural-area acreage on oceanfront and estuary lots. He cited state law and coastal mapping as background: "The mean high-water mark also shall be used as a seaward boundary for determining the area of any property when such determination is necessary to the application of any rule or regulation issued by any agency," he read from the statute cited in staff materials (General Statute 77-20) and noted the Division of Coastal Management's mapping of the first line of stable vegetation.
Board members asked whether there was a pressing incident prompting the amendment; John said the change grew from a commissioner inquiry and from the board's recent efforts to define "natural area," not from a single contentious application. One member said clarifying the rule in writing was sensible after staff encountered the issue while applying the existing definition.
A board member moved that the planning board recommend the amendment "as written" to the Board of Commissioners and approve the draft statement of consistency and reasonableness prepared by staff; another member seconded. The chair called the voice vote and the motion passed unanimously.
The planning director said that, if the board of commissioners follows the recommendation, the amendment will proceed to a public hearing at the commissioners' next meeting with the staff-drafted statement of consistency. No changes to existing staff practice were indicated; the amendment is intended to make current practice explicit in the UDO.
