North Topsail Beach - Septl 2007 Planning Board Minutes

Town of North Topsail Beach
Planning Board Minutes
September 13 2007 at 6:30 pm

PRESENT: MIKE YAWN-CHAIRMAN, PAUL DORAZIO- VICE CHAIRMAN, SUE TUMAN, DON MARTIN, GARY ROWLAND, GERALD RIGGLEMAN, GUNNAR MATTHEWS, DEBORAH HILL- ZONING ADMINISTRATOR

CALL TO ORDER: Mr. Yawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the North Topsail Beach meeting room.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
Mr. Matthews made a motion to approve the Agenda. Mr. Rowland seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mr. Rowland made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Martin seconded the motion,
IV. NEW BUSINESS:

A.     Survey for T. P. Inc. (Ron Bryant) Tax Parcel ID# 763-1.4

Ms. Hill came forward and read her staff report as follows:

The survey for TP INC by Danny Marco Padgett, RLS (revised 08/20/06), is for the subdivision of 14.54 acres identified as Tax Parcel ID 763-1.4. The site is located at the northwest end of 23^rd street. The property is mostly wetlands and zoned R-20. The amount uplands available to him is sufficient to build two single family homes. He is proposing to subdivide the property into 2 lots.

The subdivision plat of TP INC by Danny Marco Padgett, RLS (revised (02/20/06) was approved by Joey Moore on March 28, 2006 and recorded in Map Book 50 Page 127. An incorrect note referencing Section 7-27/A indicated that the plat was a combination or recombination of previously subdivided and recorded lots where the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are not equal to or exceed the standards of the municipality as shown in this ordinance and that this plat is exempt from the North Topsail Beach Subdivision Ordinance. The subdivision plat approved by Joey Moore did not qualify as an exemption, despite this claim by the surveyor. There were no map book references and no previously subdivided and recorded lots, but a reference to DB 1874 Page 898 which references MB 15 P 57. Additionally, DB 2039 P 827 for TP Inc references MB 15 P 57.

Ms. Hill stated that Mr. Bryant has resubmitted his subdivision plat to the Planning Board. Ms. Hill stated this has been recorded and Town Staff has signed off on it, she doesn’t consider that it was proper and in an effort to make it proper she is requesting that the Planning Board recommend approval of the subdivision plat to the Board of Aldermen.

               Mr. Bryant stated that he had two sewer taps with these two lots from North Topsail Utilities.

Mr. Dorazio made a motion to recommend the approval of the subdivision plat Tax Parcel Id # 763-1.4 to the Board of Aldermen. Mr. Martin seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously.

B.     Landscape Requirements:

Mr. Yawn drafted up a new Tree Ordinance as follows:
Sec 7-223. Coastal Forest Overlay District (CFOD)

The purpose of this district is to preserve and protect the remaining maritime forests, which are recognized as essential to Topsail Island’s ecosystem. They provide wildlife habitat, stabilization of soil and sand, and are a vital link in natural storm water management through absorption. This natural management acts as a filter necessary to maintaining the health and quality of pristine waters.

Sec 7-223.1 General Requirements.
1. The CFOD shall apply to all properties in North Topsail Beach.
2. The requirements of the CFOD shall be in addition to and apply to all zoning districts.
3. The development of all uses permitted by right or by a conditional use permit in the underlying district shall be subject to the requirements of the CFOD and the underlying zoning district. In the event of a conflict of between the CFOD and the underlying district the CFOD regulations shall apply. If requirements for a particular requirement are not addressed in the CFOD, then the requirements of the underlying regulations shall apply.
Sec 7-223.2 Design standards

Development shall be designed to protect the continuing growth of native trees. In doing so the following conditions shall be met:
1. No alteration of a lot or building site shall take place without a zoning permit.
2. All CFOD requirements shall apply to new and existing lots.
3. The area of disturbance is the proposed or existing structure footprint plus the 6 feet in each direction.
4. Trees are allowed to be removed within the area of disturbance
5. All trees protected by this ordinance three (3) inches in diameter measured four (4) feet from the ground may not be removed outside the area of disturbance.
7. Dead and diseased trees may be removed.
8. Pervious materials shall be used for the construction of any surfaces located outside the footprint of the principal structure and any accessory buildings (Commercial development and roads are exempt from this requirement). Pervious materials are, but not limited to, pervious concrete, pervious asphalt, slate gravel, river rock, slatted wood and other similar materials or products designed to allow water to pass through.
9. Driveway design shall minimize land disturbance as much as possible in order to maximize natural areas.
10. No clear cutting of lots is permitted.
Sec 7-223.3 Site Plan

Prior to development of a lot an applicant must submit a site plan to the zoning office for review and approval. Developing building sites in the CFOD requires maximal preservation of trees and vegetation. The site plan shall show the following:

            a) All requirements for a building permit application.

            b) All trees outside the area of disturbance greater or equal to three (3) inches in diameter measured four (4) feet from the ground.

            c) Location of all structures, utilities, septic tanks, driveways and parking areas.

            d) Location of all natural areas.

Sec 7-223.4 Enforcement
1. Trees removed, other than those permitted under this ordinance, shall be replaced by a quantity of trees totaling the diameter of the tree removed (i.e. six 1” inch may replace one 6” tree). Replacement trees are not to be less than one (1) inch in diameter, measured four (4) feet from the ground.
2. Any lot cleared prior to submitting a site plan shall be assessed a penalty of 1 (one) replacement tree, which must be at least one (1) inch in diameter measured four (4) feet from the ground, per foot of road frontage. A fifty-foot lot would require (50) trees for replacement.
Sec 7-223.5 Species of Trees Protected

Trees protected by this ordinance include all native oak, pine, cedar, maple, and willow trees.
Mr. Yawn suggested scheduling a Public Hearing on this issue. Ms. Hill stated that her recommendation is to direct staff to incorporate those changes into the proposed Zoning Ordinance Draft and have a Public Hearing for the whole Ordinance rather than having two Public Hearings.

All of the Planning Board members agreed.

Mrs. Tuman suggested putting Wax Myrtle on the list of native trees. Mr. Yawn stated he would put Wax Myrtles on the list.

After much discussion on changes in the tree ordinance Mr. Yawn stated he would make changes including using circumference instead of diameter, in the tree ordinance and e-mail it out to the Planning Board members.

C.     CRC Proposed Amendments:

Ms. Hill read her staff report as follows:

On Thursday, November 29, 2007 the CRC will hold a Public Hearing for the rule amendments. The Public Hearing will take place at the CRC’s meeting at the Riverfront Hilton in Wilmington N.C.

The original CAMA construction setback rules were established in 1979. When the initial rules were developed, North Carolina had experienced only three hurricanes in the preceding 20 years and oceanfront development consisted of less dense placement of predominately smaller, single-family structures. With the exception of Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach, beach fill projects were not common. Since 1979, development has become larger and denser, the population of oceanfront counties has nearly doubled, 12 hurricanes have hit the State (eight in the past decade), and beach fill projects have become a more frequent response to the erosion problems that many beach communities presently face. In the light of these changes, and with the thirty-year management window quickly approaching ( i.e., 2009), discussion of the effectiveness of existing rules and consideration of factors that could/should be addressed for the next thirty years is appropriate.

Proposed Setback Policy

CRC I&S memo 07-05 and draft setback rule language-

The proposed oceanfront setbacks are based on total square footage regardless of whether the structure is single-family, multi-family, or commercial. Current rules provide an exemption for single-family structures, regardless of size, to be set back 30 times the erosion rate.

In the proposed policy, the minimum setback factor remains 30 times the erosion rate for all structures less than 5,000 sq. ft. but, as it does with existing policy, jumps to 60 times the erosion rate for structures greater than 5,000 sq ft. The setback increases from 60 to 90 in increments of 5 as total square footage increases, and the maximum setback becomes 90 for structures greater than or equal to 100,000sq. ft.

The setback factors for larger structures (i.e.,> 5000 sq. ft) are not reduced for areas with higher shoreline erosion rates (current rules require commercial and multi-family structures 5,000 sq. ft to be setback 60 times the erosion rate until the rate reaches 3.5 feet per year, at which point the setback becomes 30 times the erosion rate plus 105 feet.)

Finally, development such as roads, parking lots, and other public infrastructure such as utilities continue to have the same setback factors as under current policy (i.e., setback factor of 30 if total area <5,000 sq. ft. and setback factor of 60 if total area 5,000 sq. ft. or greater).

Ms. Hill read a memorandum on Setbacks and Static Vegetation Line Policy-

Numerous stakeholders, primarily oceanfront municipalities, have provided DCM staff with written comments re potential changes to oceanfront setbacks and static vegetation line policies. During the past year, correspondence has been received from the following local governments: Atlantic Beach, the Brunswick Beaches Consortium (representing Brunswick County and the towns of Bald Head Island, Caswell Beach, Holden Beach, Oak Island, Ocean Isle Beach, and Sunset Beach), Emerald Isle, Indian Beach, Oak Island, Ocean Isle Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, Surf City and Topsail Beach. Input had also been provided by Spencer Rogers (NC Sea Grant) and Mr. Clyde Hunt, a homeowner from Ocean Isle Beach. To facilitate discussion of setbacks and the static vegetation line at the July 2007 CRC meeting.

Mr. Yawn stated the Planning Board members will read over the information Ms. Hill presented to them and have it on the agenda for next month’s Planning Board meeting.

V.        Other Business:

                  A. Staff Report:   Ms. Hill stated there was nothing to report.

B.     Planning Board discussion of proposed topics for October’s agenda (Note: Public Hearings will be advertised on September 23^rd and 30^th).

Mr. Yawn stated the Planning Board will have the two topics they just talked about (CRC Proposed Amendments and the Setbacks and Static Vegetation Line Policy on October’s agenda, they will also be talking about some inconsistencies that Mr. Swantek brought up with the Zoning Map.   Ms. Hill stated they will have the Jackson Rezoning, and the Fairbanks platted survey.

VI.        Public Comment:

No one from the Public came forward to speak.

VII.      Adjournment:

Mr. Matthews made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Riggleman seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously.

The Planning Board meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. September 13, 2007. Minutes prepared and submitted by Terrie Woodle- Permit Tech/ Recording Secretary.