More Info On New Set Back Rules

This sounds like positive progress, larger structure being considered plus excluding covered porches, take a look, and give them your input! Looks like the final decision might be delayed a bit from my earlier expectations, but they are going in the RIGHT direction!



Beachfront building rule delayed
by Shannon Kemp
NEWS-TIMES
NEW BERN — The state’s Coastal Resource Commission voted Friday to again put beachfront building setback rules back up for a public hearing.
During the meeting at the Sheraton Hotel and Marina, the commission had the opportunity to vote on setback rules that deal with the size of structures rather than their use. But because changes have been made to the rules since the last public hearing held last year, the CRC voted to obtain more public comment.
Commissioner Bill Peele made the motion to send the rule to public hearing. His fellow commissioner Joan Weld was supportive of the move.
She said there was a need for more public information and input. Ms. Weld said she felt the commission, as well as other coastal agencies, needed to make it easier for the public to get to public hearings on the big coastal issues.
“The last one was held in Greenville … I think it should have been held somewhere on the coast,” she said.
The tentative date for a public hearing is set for May with a July adoption and the rules going into effect either in August or September.
The commission did vote on minor changes to the proposed rules, including taking covered porches out of the equation for total square footage of a structure and changed road rules to include them as infrastructure.
In North Carolina, setbacks for oceanfront structures are measured from the first line of stable vegetation and extend 30 times the annual erosion rate to a particular development. For North Carolina, the annual erosion rate is 2 feet, making the minimum setback 60 feet.
However, setback rules were made in the 1970s and seem to be in need of an update since there were no houses that exceeded 7,000 square feet back then, said an N.C. Division of Coastal Management (DCM) representative.
The proposed rules will allow setbacks to increase gradually and not all in one big jump, said Jeff Warren, a coastal hazards analyst with DCM.
The minimum setback is proposed to remain at 30 times the annual erosion rate for structures less than 5,000 square feet but increases, at seven additional increments, with the maximum setback at 90 times the erosion rate for 100,000-square-foot structures.
“We’re not saying you can’t build them (large structures), just build it farther from the ocean,” Mr. Warren said.
He also said that while some felt the commission should not be dabbling in the issue of floor size and that it should be left up to the towns, it was well within the commission’s jurisdiction to base the rules on square footage.
In addition to setbacks, the commission also discussed static vegetation line regulations. While the two go hand-in-hand, the commission voted on the proposed changes to the static line definitions because they were not substantial changes. The vegetation line is set just before a town undergoes a beach nourishment project which pumps the shore line with needed sand.
“It is not a change in how we do business or how we define the vegetation line … there are additional words in there for clarification. Overall, the definition remains the same,” Mr. Warren said.
One change that seemed to please some coastal town residents was a change in a 2,000-square-foot limitation for any construction that has received a static line exemption. The board voted to change the limitation from 2,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet.
This means if a house that received a static line exemption received more than 50-percent damage because of natural hazards, it can be rebuilt up to 2,500 square feet.
Mr. Warren said coastal management staff felt 2,000 square feet was the overall size of residential buildings on the coast right now and a size more easily moved. However, he said some towns felt 2,000 square feet was too small by today’s standards.
Bill Morrison from Pender County said he was glad of the commission made the change from 2,000 to 2,500 square feet.
“There is a definite need because 2,000 square feet is too small,” he said.
Frank Rush, town manager from Emerald Isle, said he was pleased with the direction the board is going in and pleased of the increase to 2,500 square feet as well.
“I’m happy they took our concerns seriously,” he said.
Pine Knoll Shores Town Manager, Brian Kramer, said he had been concerned that homeowners be allowed to rebuild their homes at the same square footage if something were to happen to the home.
“Our concern is how homeowners in Pine Knoll Shores who lose their house will have the ability to replace that home on the same footprint, the same square footage.
“We aren’t interested in promoting the development of condominiums or large development on the ocean front, simply single-family residential rebuilding homes – assuming, of course, the static vegetation line hasn’t moved,” he said.
Mr. Kramer said Pine Knoll Shores was supportive of the commission, “but if the rules are so stringent that they reduce the ability of the homeowners to rebuild homes, it’s something we are concerned about.”
Mr. Kramer said he was interested in the concept of a grandfather clause and whether the commission would consider such a clause.
Mr. Warren did bring the issue of grandfathering to the commission, saying it was a concern from some coastal towns, but no decision was made on the issue.
Talks concerning setback regulations began in 2006 when the current state of the coast was addressed. In light of rising sea levels, development pressures and natural pressures on the coast, the commission was asked if setback rules should be addressed.
In July 2007 draft language was written and sent to a public hearing stage, which ran from Nov. 1, 2007 to Dec. 31, 2007.
“There was no setback rule in 1978 but there was one in 1979. It’s safe to say while many may not like it, they are used to the setback,” Mr. Warren said.