HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAMA Land Use Plan 1985 Update-1986WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, N.C.
CAMA LAND USE PLAN
1985 UPDATE .
PREPARED BY
TALBERT9 COX & ASSOCIATES
ADOPTED BY WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH: D.ECEMBER 16, 1985
CERTIFIED BY THE CRC: FEBRUARY 7, 1686
She preparation of this document
"a financed in part through a
grant provided by the Worth
Carolina Coastal Management
Progreso through fonds provided
by the Coastal gone 14069ement
Act of 1972, as amended, which !s _
administered by the office of
Coantai Managamento National
oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration.
PROPERTY OF
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
I
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
LAND USE PLAN: 1985 UPDATE
PREPARED FOR
1
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
I
' WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH BOARD OF ALDERMEN
' Carlton G. Hall, Mayor
Frances L. Russ, Mayor Pro-Tem
M. E. (Ned) Dowd
' W. W. Golder, Jr.
Roy A. Sandlin
' PREPARED BY WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH PLANNING BOARD
' Jerry Ramsay, Chairman
W. W. Golder, Jr.
Harold B. King, Jr.
' Laura Head
James A. Smith
James Woodson
' Steve Wright
AND
' WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
John T. Nesbitt, Director
Barbara Gibson, Administrative Assistant
' PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROVIDED
BY
T. Dale Holland, AICP Project Manager
Talbert, Cox & Associates, Inc.
' Kenneth Weeden, APA Project Planner
Talbert, Cox & Associates, Inc.
i
I
P.
MAP ._1
Location Map
'
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
LAND USE PLAN: 1985 UPDATE
'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
'
SECTION
I: Analysis of Existing Conditions
'
A.
Establishment of Information Base
1
B.
Present Conditions
2
1.
Population
2
2.
Economy
7
3.
Impact of Seasonal Population
9
4.
Existing Land Use Analysis
10
'
a. Current Conditions
10
b. Land Compatibility Problems
12
c. Problems from Unplanned Development
13
'
d. Areas Experiencing or Likely to Experience
Major Land Use Changes
13
e. Areas of Environmental Concern
15
'
5.
Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations
19
C.
Constraints: Land Suitability
24
'
1.
Physical Limitations
24
2.
Fragile Areas
31
3.
Areas with Resource Potential
32
'
D.
Constraints:
Capacity of Community Facilities
33
1.
Land
33
'
2.
Water
34
3.
Sewer
35
'
4.
5.
Transportation
Solid Waste
35
37
6.
Schools
37
7.
Police
38
'
8.
Fire
38
9.
Recreation
39
'
E.
Estimated Demand and Carrying Capacity
40
1.
Population Trends
40
'
2.
3.
Future Land Need
Community Facilities Need
41
41
4.
Summary of Trends and Policy Issues
44
1
' ii
PAGE
SECTION II:
POLICY STATEMENTS
46
A. Resource
Protection: Estuarine
System
47
1. Areas of Environmental Concern 47
2. Areas of Environmental Concern: Ocean Hazards Area 49
3. Development in Areas with Constraints 51
4. Hurricane and Flood Evacuation Needs 53
5. Protection of Potable Water Supplies 53
6. Use of Package Treatment Plants 53
7. Stormwater Runoff 53
S. Marina and Floating Home Development 54
9. Industrial Impacts of Fragile Areas 55
10. Development of Sound and Estuarine System Islands 55
B. Resource Production and Management 55
1. Recreational Resources/Fisheries 55
2. Off -Road Vehicles 56
C. Economic and Community Development Policies 56
1. Local Commitment to Providing Services
to Development 56
2. Redevelopment of Developed Areas 56
3. Desired Urban Growth Patterns 57
4. Commitment to State and Federal Programs 58
5. Assistance to Channel Maintenance and Beach
Renourishment 58
6. Tourism and Beach and Waterfront Access 58
7. Types, Density and Location of Development 59
D. Continuing Public Participation Policies 60
E. Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery, and
Evacuation Plans 62
1. Storm Hazard Mitigation: Discussion 63
a. High Winds 63
b. Flooding 64
c. Wave Action 65
d. Erosion 66
e. Summary: Storm Hazard Mitigation Considerations 66
f. Policy Statements: Storm Hazard Mitigation 67
g. Implementation: Storm Hazard Mitigation 68
2. Post -Disaster Reconstruction Plan 69
3. Hurricane Evacuation Plan 73
4. Re -Entry 75
iii
1
SECTION III: LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
A. Developed
B. Transition
C. Conservation
D. Land Classification Summary
SECTION IV: RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND
CLASSIFICATIONS
A. Developed and Transition Classes
B. Conservation Class
PAGE
76
77
77
78
79
iv
' WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH LAND USE PLAN: 1985 UPDATE
LIST OF TABLES AND MAPS
' TABLE NUMBERS PAGE
1.
Wrightsville Beach Population by Dwelling'Unit Type,
'
1980-1985
5
2.
Wrightsville Beach Population Summary, 1980-1985
7
'
3.
4.
Tourism Income for New Hanover County, 1980-1983
Wrightsville Beach Assessed Tax Base, 1980-1984
8
8
5.
Summary of Seasonal Impact on Selected Services/
Facilities, 1984
9
6.
Corporate Limits Land Use Acreages, 1980-1985
10
7.
Wrightsville Beach Building Trends, 1981-1984
12
8.
Currently Scheduled Developments in Wrightsville Beach
14
9.
Impact of Vacant Lot "Buildout" by 1995
15
'
10.
Population Impact of Wrightsville Beach Buildout
34
11.
Traffic Volume/Road Capacity
36
12.
Wrightsville Beach Population Projection, 1986-1995
40
'
13.
Estimated Peak Water Demand, 1986-1995
42
14.
Estimated Peak Sewer Demand, 1986-1995
43
15.
Carrying Capacity Summary: Peak Population Limits
with Existing Facilities
44
16.
Summary of Property Most Susceptible to Water
Action Damage
65
17.
Percent of Structures Subject to Storm Damage Factors,
Wrightsville Beach
66
MAPS
1.
Location Map
i
2.
Prohibited Shell -Fishing Area, 6-30-83
29
3.
Prohibited Shell -Fishing Area, 1-24-85
30
'
4.
Existing Land Use Map (Attached)
5.
Composite Hazards Map (Attached)
'
6.
Land Classification Map (Attached)
[1
I
' v
SECTION I :
Analysis of Existing Conditions
and
Projected Demand
' WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH LAND USE PLAN UPDATE
1985
' A. Establishment of Information Base
' This 1985 Land Use Plan Update for Wrightsville Beach has
been prepared in accordance with requirements of the North Caroli-
na Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). Specifically, this docu-
ment complies with Subchapter 7B, "Land Use Planning Guidelines,"
of the North Carolina Administrative Code, as amended, July 9,
1984.
The initial Land Use Plan was prepared for Wrightsville
Beach in 1976, and the first update in 1981. According to the
' Land Use Planning Guidelines, the major purpose of periodic updat-
ing of local land use plans is to identify and analyze newly
emerging community issues and problems. An additional element
which was not required in either the 1976 Plan or the 1981 Update
' is a "Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery, and Hurri-
cane Evacuation Plan," and is required to be included in the 1985
Update. This element is designed to help local governments effec-
tively coordinate policies and actions relating to the impact of
hurricanes or other severe storms.
The guidelines further give the following objectives the
' update should meet:
-- to further define and refine local policies and issues;
' -- to further examine and refine the land classification
system and the land classification map;
-- to assess the effectiveness of the existing land use
' - plan and its implementation;
to further explore implementation procedures, and;
to promote a better understanding of the land use plan-
ning process.
' Both the 1976 Land Use Plan and the 1981 Update provided
much of the needed information base for this most recent update.
' However, in many cases, new information had to be developed. A
number of data sources were tapped during the preparation of this
plan in order to prepare updated analyses of population, housing,
the economy, and existing land uses. Most of the data came from
primary and secondary sources in the form of direct contacts with
Town officials, representatives of various state and federal agen-
cies and/or previously published documents or reports. Also,
"windshield" surveys were conducted to obtain data on existing
land use patterns. Efforts were made to obtain data that was as
up to date and accurate as possible. Also, several public meet-
ings were held with the Planning Board in order to solicit citi-
zens' input on identifying preliminary land development issues.
11
' B. Present Conditions
1. Population
In conventional land use planning, population analysis and
future growth projections are often relatively uncomplicated pro-
cedures of collecting one set of figures from standard secondary
sources, such as the U. S. Census Bureau or State agencies, and
making estimates of future growth based on recent or existing
trends. For seasonally attractive localities, particularly those
with a high tourist orientation, population analysis and attendant
forecasting is not as uncomplicated. Such is the case with
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina.
For all of this century, this beach community, which consists
of two islands, the first one from the mainland known as Harbor
Island, and a 5-mile long, slender, natural barrier island, has
attracted thousands upon thousands of beachgoers each summer to
its clean, sandy Atlantic Ocean shores. Many visitors only come
for a few hours, while others stay overnight in motels or rental
cottages. And more and more, in recent years, many have "come to
the beach" to stay - - forming part of the ever-growing year-round
or "permanent" population of Wrightsville Beach. Thus, the popu-
lation of Wrightsville Beach for land use planning purposes, has
four distinctive components; 1) permanent or "year-round" popula-
tion; 2) property -owning summer residents; 3) renters and over-
night visitors, and 4) day visitors. Each of these components
will be addressed separately below.
a. Year -Round Population:
The 1980 U. S. Census reported a total of 2,884 persons resid-
ing at Wrightsville Beach year-round. However, Town officials
felt quite strongly that this figure was somewhat low, although it
represented a 70% increase over the 1970 Census year-round figure
of 1,701 persons. The year-round population contained in the 1981
Land Use Plan Update as the "base" population, was 3,081, i.e. 197
persons more than the official Census figure. In 1984, statistics
reported by the N. C. Department of Revenue projected the current
year-round population to be 3,092 persons, which is 208 more per-
sons than the official 1980 Census, but only 11 persons more than
the 1981 Land Use Plan figure. The recent State estimate, like
the 1980 Census figure, is considered by Town officials, to be
"low." Based on water usage and utilization of other local utili-
ties and services, Wrightsville Beach Town officials estimate the
year-round population in January, 1985, to be near 5,000 persons.
For analytical purposes, it will be assumed that the current popu-
lation lies between the State's and the Town's estimate, or about
4,046 persons. This figure, i.e. 4,046, represents an increase of
965 persons over the 1981 Land Use Plan estimate of 3,081 persons,
or a total increase of 31% at an annual average rate of 6.2`k. For
this 1985 Land Use Plan Update, 4,046 will be considered as the
"base" year-round population estimate for Wrightsville Beach.
However, it is important to note that a number of "new" year-
round residents were likely former "summer -owners," i.e., absentee
owners who lived in residences they owned only during the summer
months or portions of the summer. The remainder of the time, the
units were either vacant or rented out as "beach" cottages. With
more people either retiring or just relocating to the "beach"
' full-time, the number of available rentals will likely decline
(See the following section, and Table 2, page 7). The average
household size for year-round residents in the 1981 Plan was esti-
mated at 3.0 persons. It is likely that this estimate is still
' valid. Assuming 3.0 persons per dwelling, 1,349 of the Town's
total dwelling units house year-round residents.
11
11
r
II
b. Property -Owning Summer Residents
A growing number of persons maintain legal or voting residen-
ces in other locations, but who own property in Wrightsville Beach
and reside there during the summer months. The 1981 Land Use Plan
reported that an estimated 200 units were used for this purpose in
1980, with an average occupancy of four (4) persons per unit. In
1985 however, Town officials estimate that a total of 336 units --
136 more than 1980, are used as summer residences. This is an
average annual increase of 27 units per year, or a total percent-
age increase of nearly 68%. Using an average occupancy rate of
four persons per unit, as reported in the 1981 Plan, the total
population from property -owning summer residents at Wrightsville
Beach is estimated to be 1,344 persons in 1985. Again, it should
be noted that this increase represents to some degree "conver-
sions" from some units which were absentee owned and available as
rental "cottages" year-round, but now are lived in by the owners
or their families during the summer. As stated previously, as
more owners take up residence in their properties, the number of
available conventional rental "cottages" can be expected to de-
cline.
Again, it should be noted that this increase represents, to
some degree, "conversions" from some units which were absentee
— owned and available as rental "cottages" year-round, but now are
lived in by the owners or their families during the summer. As
stated previously, as more owners take up residence in their pro-
perties, the number of available conventional rental "cottages"
can be expected to decline.
C. Overnight Visitor Population
The motels at Wrightsville Beach, along with the many rental
units or "cottages," host many "overnight visitors" to the beach.
An estimate of the population resulting from overnight visitors
3
can be made by multiplying an average occupancy rate in motels or
rental units times the number of units available.
1) Motel Units
In 1981, there were 9 motels with 483 total units. In 1985,
however, there are 12 motels with 536 total units -- a gain of
three motels and 53 additional units. The motel occupancy rate is
projected to be an average 3.0 persons per unit. Therefore, at
complete occupancy, the motels at Wrightsville Beach can host
1,608 overnight visitors.
2) Rental Units
The number of non -motel rental units is estimated to be 530 in
1985 at Wrightsville Beach, representing a decrease of 220 avail-
able units since 1980. As discussed above, the trend of increas-
ing numbers of both year-round residents and summer owner -resi-
dents has had an impact on the availability of rental units. An
occupancy rate of 4.0 persons per unit, as reported in the 1981
Plan, is still considered a reasonable average for rental units by
local realtors. Thus, the 530 units, when completely occupied,
contain an average of 2,120 overnight visitors.
The total peak overnight visitor population, i.e. from cottage
rentals and motels, is projected to be 3,728 persons, which is
715 fewer persons than the number shown in the 1981 Plan Update.
As noted previously, however, this may be attributable to increas-
es in both year-round and summer resident occupancy, and a corres-
ponding decrease in the availability of rental units. Notice
Table 1, which summarizes the data on the number of units and
population.
P
Table 1: Wrightsville Beach Population by Dwelling Unit Type
1980-85
1980
No. Persons No. Persons
Population Category Units Per Unit at Peak
' - Year Round 1,027 3.0 3,081
- Summer Owners 200 4.0 800
- "Overnight"
- Cottages 750 4.0 3,000
- Motels 483 3.0 1,440
TOTAL 2,460 8,321
1985
Change 80-85
Units Persons
- Year Round 1,349 3.0 *4,046 322 965
- Summer Owners 336 4.0 1,344 136 544
- "Overnight"
Cottages 530 4.0 2,120 -220 -880
' - Motels 536 3.0 1,608 53 159
2,751 9,118 +291 +788
Sources: 1981 Plan Update, Town Public Works Department;
Projections by Talbert, Cox & Associates, Inc. *See p. 2, B.1,
a.; Figures are rounded.
These three components of Wrightsville Beach's population,
i.e., year-round and summer residents, and overnight visitors,
' might be considered to be the "resident" population. If all
available units are occupied to average occupancy levels, then the
resident population is projected to be 9,118 persons in 1985.
d. Day Visitor Population
The final component of the population picture at Wrightsville
' Beach is the day visitor population, i.e., people coming from
Wilmington or other nearby communities to spend a few hours or a
whole day at the beach. The "day visiting" population, although
largest in numbers, has a more short-term impact upon the Town's
public facilities and services than the three other components of
the population. The most pronounced impact of this group is upon
traffic and parking, both of which are very serious and will be
discussed in later sections of the Plan.
It is rather difficult to estimate the total number of "day
visitors" to the beach community. However, since the Intracoastal
Waterway drawbridge is the only means of access to Wrightsville
Beach from the mainland, an analysis of traffic counts across the
5
bridge can provide some indication. Peak daily traffic volumes
across the bridge occurs usually in July, at the height of the
summer season, while the lowest volumes are normally recorded in
January. The N. C. Department of Transportation recorded that the
peak traffic across the bridge on an average Saturday in July,
1983, reached 38,.875 vehicles. Saturday is the traditional peak
"day at the beach". In January, 1984, however, an average peak
volume of 14,410 vehicles per day (VPD) was registered, a differ-
ence of 24,465 vehicle trips. The'July weekend peak day repre-
sented an increase over the January average of 170%. (It should
be noted that traffic figures for July, 1984, are not available,
because of a malfunction in the traffic counting device. However,
the historical trend reflects an increase of about 3% per year).
The traffic volume (14,410) in January, 1984, reflects total
trips of the year-round resident population, commercial and busi-
ness traffic, construction crews, and an increasing segment of the
"off-season" population, so called "nine -month rentals". The
9-month rentals are a growing number of units leased out to teach-
ers and UNC-W students for 9 months and as cottages for three
months. At the projected growth rate of 3% per year, the January,
1985, average daily volume would be 14,842 vehicles, while the
July, 1985, peak weekend day is projected to be 41,242 vehicles.
In an attempt to extrapolate the number of "day visitors" from the
projected July, 1985, weekend day peak, it will be assumed that
the January "low" average figure is roughly equivalent to the
traffic generated by year-round residents, general business, as
well as some motel and cottage rental traffic. This figure,
therefore, will be subtracted from the 41,242 July weekend ADT
count, leaving 26,400 vehicle trips per day across the bridge from
other sources. Also, at peak occupancy, residents of all 1,402
units in motels, cottages, and summer -owned units contribute to
the traffic volume. However, because of off-season rentals of
cottages and motel units appealing to more "commercial" business,
about 50%, i.e., 701 units, generate additional traffic during the
January peak period. Assuming one car per unit and an average of
4 trips across the bridge per day, it is projected that an addi-
tional 2,804 trips of the "resident" population should be sub-
tracted from the July peak, leaving an estimated 23,596 trips by
"day visitors". These visitors flow onto the beach at different
times during the day and stay for varying lengths of time.
For analytical and projective purposes, however, it is assumed
' that the directional split is 60% going and 40% leaving, on the
average. Therefore, 14,158 cars carrying day visitors would be on
the beach during a peak weekend day. (This figure, it should be
noted, does not include trips by the "resident" population, i.e.,
year-round, summer -owners, or overnight rental residents). Fur-
ther, assuming that during the course of a 12-hour day, each
vehicle stayed on the beach 1/3 of the day, i.e., 4 hours, then at
any given time during the day, at least 4,719 vehicles carrying
"day visitors" could be on Wrightsville Beach.
II
i
I
If each vehicle carried a conservative average estimate of
4.0 persons each (based on discussions with the Police Chief),
then the typical Saturday peak population of day visitors would be
18,876 persons at any given time. This represents a significant
increase over the 1980 day visitor population estimate.
e. Population Summary
A summary of the population and indication of recent trends
are included in Table 2, below:
Table 2: Wrightsville Beach Population Summary, 1980, 1985
' Number % Annual
Component 1980 1985 Increase Increase
Year -Round Residents 3,081 4,046 965 6.2
Summer Residents 800 1,344 544 13.6
Overnight Visitors 4,440 3,728 -712 -3.2
Day Visitors 15,438 18,876 3,438 4.5
Totals 23,759 27,994 4,235 17.8%
Source: 1981 Land Use Plan: Town of Wrightsville Beach
(Public Works, Police & Tax Departments)
Notice that the most significant numerical gains during the
period came from increases in year-round residents, summer resi-
dents and day visitors. There was as noted previously, a decline
in the number of overnight visitors. Nevertheless, the overall
population trend is one of continual increases throughout the next
10 years, particularly with the development of Shell Island, which
is the largest tract of undeveloped but developable land on the
' barrier island containing Wrightsville Beach. More information on
Shell Island's proposed development will be presented in the dis-
cussion of existing land use.
2. Economy
The word "economy" is synonymous with "Tourism" in Wrights-
ville Beach. The appeal of the Town as a summer recreational and
resort area has constantly increased since the last update of the
CAMA Land Use Plan (1981). This growing appeal has led to signi-
ficant investments in residential and commercial development both
within the Town and even beyond the jurisdictional boundaries as
more and more people want to get close to "the beach," but without
paying the higher housing costs, and as developers move to meet
that demand. (This subject will be expanded upon in the discus-
sion of existing land use and analysis of land use trends, in this
section).
11
It is difficult to assess the detailed impact of tourist -gene-
rated income from Wrightsville Beach. However, according to the
N. C. Division of Travel and Tourism, tourist income in New Han-
over County as a whole, grew at an average annual rate of above
13% from 1980 to 1983. Notice Table 3 below:
Table 3: Tourism Income for New Hanover County: 1980-1983
Change
1980 1981 1982 1983 80-83
Amount ($ Millions) 98.0 111.1 121.3 137.9 +39.9 (41%)
Source: N. C. Division of Travel and Tourism, Department of
Commerce
Tourism dollars in New Hanover County rose from 98 million in
1980 to nearly 138 million in 1983, an increase of nearly 40 mil-
lion dollars over the three-year period. This represents an aver-
age increase of over 13 million dollars per year. Unquestionably,
Wrightsville Beach, with its motels and rental units, restaurants,
marinas, fishing piers, stores and specialty shops, contribute
substantially each year to the total tourism revenue in New Han-
over County.
Another indicator of the Town's economic base is the growth in
its taxable base. Notice Table 4.
Table 4: Wrightsville Beach Assessed Tax Base: 1980-1984
Change
Year
Amount (Millions)
(Millions)
$
1980
$ 106.6
-
1981
110.5
+ 3.9
4.0
1982
117.3
+ 6.8
6.0
*1983
245.0
+ 127.7
109.0
1984
259.3
14.3
6.0
ource: New Hanover County Tax Office
* First year of a major re-evaluation
The tax base has been steadily increasing in Wrightsville
Beach asnewdevelopment of property and/or redevelopment, i.e.,
conversion of older properties into new uses, continue. The fig-
ures presented in the table above are obviously skewed as a result
of the property re-evaluation in 1983. Nevertheless, from 1983
to 1984, the tax base expanded by 14.3 million dollars, or 6% over
the 1983 base. This trend is reflective of the increasing value
of property in Wrightsville Beach, as the amount of developable
land declines.
19
I
Revenues generated directly to the Town government, such as
State Sales Tax receipts, property taxes, and utility fees partly
defray the expense to the Town of accommodating the large summer
populations.
3. Impact of Seasonal Population
As Table 2, page 7, showed, the Town's small year-round popu-
lation, estimated at 4,046, can easily swell nearly seven times to
about 28,000 people on a typical weekend day in the summer -- and
even this projection is considered conservative by Town officials.
while the economic impact of the influx of summer residents, over-
night visitors and day visitors is important, this seasonal popu-
lation bulge places significant stresses on most of the Town's
facilities and services. A general picture of this impact upon
selected services is indicated in Table 5, below, by comparing
peak or "high" utilization, with off-season, or "low" utilization
rates for these services in 1984. Notice also the "Impact
Factor," which is simply the peak use rate divided by the low use
rate.
Table 5: Summary of Seasonal Impact on Selected Services/
Facilities: 1984
Impact
Service/Facility "Low" "High" Factor
1. Streets (traffic, total ADT) 14,410 39,938 2.77
2.. Water (thousands GPD) 431.0 1,247 2.8
3. Sewer (thousands GPD) 248.7 975.8 3.9
4. Solid Waste Incinerator
(days in use) 3 days/wk 6 days/wk 2.0
5. Police Dept. Personnel 21.0 * 46.0 2.2
Source: Town of Wrightsville Beach (Public Works & Police
Departments): Talbert, Cox & Associates, Inc.
* Includes 21 lifeguards, 3 meter maids, and 1 meter mechanic
The data in Table 5 indicates that from periods of "low" util-
ization of these selected facilities (typical of December or Jan-
uary), to periods of "high" utilization (typical of June, July and
August), also affected by watering of lawns, i.e., "the green
thumb" effect, water demand more than doubles and sewer demand
goes up more than three times. The traffic impact is compounded
by the fact that in 1984 there were only 2,490 public parking
spaces in the Town. Also, the Town's two trash incinerators, with
a capacity of 12.5 tons each, do not operate at full capacity
during the off-seasons, but do operate at or near full capacity
during the peak season. In order to help deal with parking, the
Police Department hires three (3) additional meter maids and one
(1) meter mechanic. The Department also takes on 21 lifeguards.
for the summer.
Pi
I
The impact of the seasonal population at Wrightsville Beach is
substantial and appears to be increasing.
4. Existing Land Use Analysis
a. Current Conditions
The overall land use pattern in Wrightsville Beach has changed
little since the preparation of the 1981 Land Use Plan Update, or
even since the 1976 Plan. Although there have been many land use
changes, mainly the conversion of undeveloped land into residen-
tial uses and to a lesser extent, commercial uses, the overall
pattern is basically the same. Within the Town's corporate
limits, are 1,488 acres of land, water, wetlands, and beaches.
Notice Table 5 below, which shows a comparison between 1980 acre-
ages and estimated 1985 acreages within the corporate limits.
Table 6: Corporate Limits Land Use Acreages: 1980-1985
URBAN 1980 1985 % Change
Residential 200 214 7.0
Commercial 30 31 3.3
Industrial 1.5 1.5 0.0
Governmental and institutional 48 48 0.0
Roads 121 121 0.0
Recreation 8.7 8.7 0.0
*Undeveloped 108 93 -14.0
TOTAL URBAN 517.2 517.2 0.0
Water 714 714 0.0
Wetlands 82 82 0.0
Beaches 174 174 0.0
TOTAL ALL AREAS **1,487.2 1,487.2 0.0
Source: 1980 Land Use Plan; Wrightsville Beach Planning and Dev-
elopment Dept.
' * within the existing urbanized area; ** rounded figures.
Wrightsville Beach has the authority to exercise planning
I jurisdiction up to one mile beyond its corporate limits. This
jurisdiction is modified to conform to natural boundaries, e.g.,
the AIWW to the West, but still places 2,474 additional acres
within the Town's jurisdiction for a total of 3,961 acres. How-
ever, nearly all of the acreage in the extraterritorial area,
except for Shell Island, consists of wetlands, spoil areas, beach-
es, and water and are unsuitable for urbanized uses. Shell Is-
land, on the other hand, is a large tract of developable land on
the northern end of the barrier island portion of Wrightsville
Beach, extending from the end of North Lumina Avenue to Mason's
10
Inlet. of the total 84.3 acres of Shell Island (not technically
an "island"), located within the Town's current jurisdictional
limits, 44.3 acres are considered "developable". The other 40
acres are designated as "conservation," or for public use, i.e.,
access. The remaining acreage, extending to Mason's Inlet, is
located outside of the Town's jurisdictional control. Shell
Island is currently in various stages of development. The area
within the Town's jurisdiction is expected to be developed within
the next 10 years (1985-1995). (See Existing Land Use Map,
attached to this report as Map 4).
An indication of the building trends since the preparation of
the 1981 Land Use Plan Update through mid-1984, is shown in Table
7, page 12.
I
I
I
I
I
CI
A
I
u
1 11
L�
ITable 7: Wrightsville Beach Building Trends: 1981-1984
Changes
7/1/81 7/1/84 81-84 % Change
Bldgs. Units Bldgs. Units Bldqs. Units B1dgs.Units
SFD 682 682 736 736 54 54 7.9 7.9
Duplex 348 696 373 746 25 50 7.1 7.1
Triplex 43 129 44 132 1 3 2.3 2.3
Commercial 46 55 54 63 8 8 17_4 14_5
Other 34 150 34 150
Townhouse 5 194 10 206 5 12 100% 6.2
Condo. 3 245 3 245 - -
Totals 1,161 2,151 1,254 2,278 93 127 8.0 5.9
Motel 9 483 12 536 3 53 33.3 11.0
Total All 1,170 2,634 1,266 2,814 96 180 8.2 6.8
Units
Source: Town of Wrightsville Beach Public Works Department
Historical trends have favored single-family detached hous-
ing. However, duplexes, triplexes, or higher density townhouses
figured significantly in recent trends and as available land de-
creases, more emphasis will likely be placed on higher density
housing. Land use surveys conducted in November, 1984 noted a
total of 205 vacant building lots within the Town's already urban-
ized jurisdiction on a total of 31.91 acres. (Surveys were con-
ducted by Talbert, Cox & Associates, Inc. See attached Existing
Land Use Map.) Although single-family detached housing will con-
tinue to be built throughout the current planning period (through
1995), or until complete "buildout", whichever occurs first), the
development trend is leaning toward the higher density townhouse
developments.
b. Land Compatibility Problems
In the conventional land use planning concept, a land com-
patibility problem is generally identified when two or more land
use types are adjacent to each other and one is somehow restricted
from expansion because of adverse conditions caused by the other
use or uses, thus discouraging additional investment. As noted in
the 1981 Plan Update, this situation has not been a major problem
in Wrightsville Beach. However, an unconventional "compatibility"
problem has emerged within the Town's jurisdiction, and that is
the issue of so-called "floating homes," i.e., people living on
boats for extended periods of time. This situation will receive
detailed treatment in Section II of this Plan, "Policy State-
ments". (See page 54.)
1 12
I
I
c. Problems from Unplanned Development
The major land use related problem from the steady growth of
Wrightsville Beach is traffic congestion and inadequate parking.
Adequate transportation access in case of required emergency evac-
uations during peak seasons of the Beach is also of growing con-
cern, since there is only one bridge across the Intracoastal
Waterway. There has been general discussion about the possibility
of a second bridge across the Waterway, either as a high-level
bridge to replace or parallel the existing drawbridge, or a new
bridge connecting the northern end of the beach community to the
mainland.
d. Areas Likely to Experience Changes in Predominant Land Use
The areas within the Town's current jurisdiction likely to
experience changes in predominant land use during the planning
period are those areas which are presently vacant. As previously
alluded to, Shell Island, the largest tract of developable land on
Wrightsville Beach is currently being developed and will likely be
completely developed within the planning period. Approved pro-
posals presented to the Town call for the development of 52
single-family detached units, 274 condominium units, and a 170-
unit resort hotel. It should be noted that the hotel will include
a 150-seat restaurant, a 200-seat meeting room, and a 5-level
parking deck.
In addition to Shell Island, some other already approved dev-
elopments which should take place during the planning period in-
clude: a new 35-unit motel on Short Street on Harbor Island; an
8-unit motel proposed near the Surf Motel; and two separate town-
house developments -- one near Lee's Cut for 28 units, and another
one for 27 units, for a total of 55 townhouse units. These dev-
elopments, and Shell Island, should all.be developed by 1987, by
which time a total of 594 additional new dwelling units will be in
Wrightsville Beach. Notice that Table 8, below, summarizes these
anticipated developments and, by using current occupancy factors,
projects the potential increase in the "resident" population to be
2,111 by 1987.
I
I
I
1 13
I
I
I
J
Table 8: Currently Scheduled Developments in Wrightsville Beach
Occupancy
Type Buildings Units Factor
Projected
Population
SFD
52
52
3.0
156
Townhouse
10
55
4.0
220
Condominiums
21
274
4.0
1,096
Motel
3
213
3.0
639
Totals
86
594
2,111
I
I
I
I
I
i
1
Source: Information Provided by Public Works Department.
However, it is also quite possible that the 31.91 acres (205
lots), noted as vacant.in November, 1984, will also be developed
before the current planning period is over (by or before 1995).
The overwhelming majority of these lots are currently in the R-1
zone, which permits a maximum of five families (or 5 units) per
acre. It is projected that the four non -Shell Island development
proposals will consume about four acres of the 31.91 vacant lot
acreage, leaving 27.91 acres for other development. An estimated
22.21 acres are currently zoned R-1, 4.6 in R-2, which allows up
to 10 families (units) per acre, and 1.1 in the commercial zones,
allowing for up to 48 units per acre. A "buildout" scenario by
1995, assuming no changes in current zoning could result in the
following, shown in Table 91 page 15:
14
I
These species must spend all or part of their life cycle in the
estuary. The preservation and protection of these areas are vit-
ally important.
Within Wrightsville Beach's jurisdiction, the Intracoastal
Waterway, Lee's Cut, Banks Channel, Mott's Channel, Shinn's Creek,
and all of the other natural creeks and channels within the marsh-
land areas, are all estuarine waters. The estuarine shorelines,
which are particularly vulnerable to "erosion, flooding, or other
adverse effects of wind and water" in Wrightsville Beach consist
of the following: all of the shoreline around Harbor Island and
all of the shoreline adjacent to Banks Channel, commonly referred
to as the "soundside" of the slender main island of Wrightsville
Beach to a distance of 75 feet inland from the high water mark.
c. Public Trust Areas
Public trust areas are partially defined as all waters of the
Atlantic Ocean and the lands thereunder from the mean high water
mark to the seaward limit of State jurisdiction; all natural
bodies of water subject to measurable lunar tides and lands there-
under to the mean high mark; all navigable natural bodies of water
and lands thereunder to the mean high water level or mean water
level, as the case may be. In other words, public trust areas are
waters and adjacent lands, the use of which, benefits and belongs
to the public.
jIn Wrightsville Beach, all of the waters described as estu-
arine waters and the Atlantic Ocean along the beachfront are con-
sidered public trust waters.
Currently, all development and development -related activities
within Wrightsville Beach's designated Areas of Environmental Con-
cern are subject to regulations from the State, Federal and local
levels. At the State level, the CAMA major and minor permit pro-
cesses are enforced, while the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
regulates development in "404" wetland areas. Locally, the major
development regulating tool is the Wrightsville Beach Zoning Ordi-
nance. However, it should be noted that CAMA regulations allow
for the Town to develop its own local policies regarding develop-
ment in Areas of Environmental Concern through the Land Use Plan.
Then the CAMA major and minor permit decisions are guided somewhat
by those local policies.
2. Ocean Hazards AECs
The second broad category of Areas of Environmental Concern
which affects Wrightsville Beach are those natural hazard areas
along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline having a special vulnerability
to erosion, or other adverse effects of sand, wind, and water.
' Because of this vulnerability, improperly managed growth and
development could expose life and property to unreasonable levels
17
I
I
of danger. These ocean hazard AECs could include beaches, frontal
dunes, inlet lands, and ". . other areas in which geologic, vege-
tative and soil conditions indicate a substantial possibility of
excessive erosion or flood damage." (NCAC 07H .0301). The sands
which form the Atlantic Ocean shoreline are usually unstable.
Therefore, the primary causes of the ocean hazard AECs are the
continual forces exerted upon these sands by waves, wind and cur-
rents, all of which can intensify significantly during a storm.
With such intensification, significant changes in the bordering
landforms and to structures located on them, can occur. Hazard
area property, i.e. the beach, frontal dunes, and inlet areas, are
usually owned by a large number of individual owners or several
public agencies, and is utilized by vast numbers of visitors to
the coast. Ocean hazards areas are very important considerations
in developing land use policies in shorefront communities.
The ocean hazard system of Areas of Environmental Concern
within Wrightsville Beach's jurisdiction consist of the follow-
ing:
a. Ocean Erodible Area. "This is the area in which there
exists a substantial possibility of excessive erosion and signifi-
cant shoreline fluctuation. The seaward boundary of this area is
the mean low water line. The landward extent of this area is
determined as follows:"
1) a distance landward from the first line of stable natural
vegetation to the recession line that would be established by
multiplying the long-term annual erosion rate which for the pur-
poses of this section shall be those as set forth in tables en-
titled "Long Term Annual Erosion Rates Updated Through 1980,"
approved by the Coastal Resources Commission on March 18, 1983 .
. times 60, provided that where there has been no long-term ero-
sion or the rate is less than two feet per year, this distance
shall be set at 120 feet landward from the first line of stable
natural vegetation; and
2) a distance landward from the recession line established .
[above]. . to the recession line that would be generated by a
storm having a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in
any given year." (NCAC 07H .0301).
In Wrightsville Beach, because of recent and ongoing berm
restoration projects, the oceanfront is not a hazardous "ocean
erodible area."
b. High Hazard Flood Area. "This is the area subject to high
velocity waters (including, but not limited to, hurricane wave
wash) in a storm having a one percent chance of being equalled or
exceeded in any given year, as identified as Zone V1-30 on the
' Flood Insurance Rate Maps of the Federal Insurance Administration,
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In the absence
11
1.
of these rate maps, other available base flood elevation data
prepared by a federal, state, or other source may be used, provid-
ed said data source is approved by the CRC." (NCAC 074 .0301).
The high hazard flood areas in Wrightsville Beach have been
determined by preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by
the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and
identified as Zone V-13. This area runs along the entire
immediate beach front area in Wrightsville Beach. The entire
Town, however, is subject to the 100-year flood.
C. Inlet Hazard Area. "The inlet hazard areas are natural -
hazard areas that are especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding
and other adverse effects of sand, wind, and water because of
their proximity to dynamic ocean inlets. This area shall extend
landward from the mean low water line a distance sufficient to
encompass that area within which the inlet will, based on statis-
tical analysis, migrate, and shall consider such factors as prev-
ious inlet territory, structurally weak areas near the inlet (such
as. an unusually narrow barrier island, an unusually long channel
feeding the inlet, or an overwash area), and external influences
such as jetties and channelization. . . in all cases, this area
shall be an extension of the adjacent ocean erodible area and in
no case shall the width of the inlet hazard area be less than the
width of the adjacent ocean erodible area." (NCAC 07H .0301).
There are no inlet hazard area AECs within Wrightsville
Beach's current jurisdiction, since the northern end of the ocean
front barrier island, which borders Mason's Inlet is currently
beyond the Town's extraterritorial jurisdiction and the land area
near Masonboro Inlet is protected by two jetties.
5. Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations
a. Local Plans and Studies
1. Land Use Survey and Analysis; Population and Economy
and Attitude Survey, 1970. This report was prepared for Wrights-
ville Beach by the North Carolina Division of Community Planning.
2. Land Development Plan and Community Facilities Plan, 1970.
These reports were also prepared by the N. C. Division of Commu-
nity Planning, and were based on the report cited in Number 1,
above. These two reports were adopted by the Town Board of Alder-
men.
3. Traffic and Planning Study (Phase I) for the Town of
Wrightsville Beach, 1973, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates,
Inc. This study was primarily concerned with the improvement of
traffic and parking conditions on Lumina Avenue and Waynick Boule-
vard between Mallard and Seashore Streets, and particularly with
19
i
intersection improvements at North Lumina and U. S. 74, South
Lumina and Stone Street, and Waynick Boulevard with U. S. 76.
4. Greater Wilmington Area Thoroughfare Plan, which includes
Wrightsville Beach, contains a list of planned improvements to
thoroughfares within the Wilmington area, to the year 2005. The
plan is prepared by N.C.D.O.T. in cooperation with the City of
Wilmington Transportation Planning Staff, and adopted by
N.C.D.O.T. and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which
�. is the area Transportation Advisory Committee.
5. The Greater Wilmington 201 Facilities Planning Study Re-
port, Part 1, Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, Final
Revision, June, 1975, is intended to "develop a facilities plan
for the construction of the most logical, economical, socially
acceptable and environmentally sound wastewater treatment and
,t disposal facilities for Wrightsville Beach." The report was pre-
pared by Henry von Oesen and Associates, Consulting Engineers and
Planners.
6. The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land Use Plan,
1975, prepared for the Town with assistance from the Local Plan-
ning and Management Services Section of the N. C. Department of
Natural and Economic Resources. This was the first required CAMA
Plan and was an update to.the 1970 Land Development Plan. The
first CAMA Plan, which contained general policy statements on
growth and development, was also adopted by the Town Board of
Aldermen and approved by the N. C. Coastal Resources Commission.
7. Methods of Financing Beach Preservation Projects, 1978,
was prepared for the Town by the N. C. Department of Natural Re-
sources and Community Development. This study analyzed fiscal and
legal alternatives North Carolina local governments can use to
finance beach renourishment projects and established procedures
and policies for using these methods at Wrightsville Beach.
8. Dune Maintenance and Protection Plan. This Plan estab-
lished procedures and methods for protection of the dune and berm
through vegetation maintenance and by the use of restrictive ordi-
nances. This Plan has been implemented at Wrightsville Beach,
through U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects within the past few
years.
' 9. Wrightsville Beach Access Plan. This Plan set out poli-
cies for development of public access points and to encourage
beach visitors to use alternative modes of transportation, other
than the automobile. With financial assistance from the Office of
Coastal Management, the Town has established a system of public
access points up and down the oceanfront. The implementation of
this plan has assured visitors free and open accessibility to the
oceanfront.
a20
1.
I
1 10. The Wrightsville Beach Coastal Area Management Act Land
Use Plan, February, 1981, prepared by John J. Hooton and ASsO—
ciates, was essentially an "update" of the initial 1975 CAMA Land
A Use Plan. This report represented more of a policy document than
the initial CAMA Plan and contained more specific policy state-
ments on such land use issues as protection of and use restric-
tions in Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC); the location, type,
and density of desired development; and, continuing public parti-
cipation. In addition to the policy statements, specific imple-
mentation actions on the part of the Town were included.
This current report, the 1985 CAMA Land Use Plan, for Wrights-
ville Beach, is both an update of the 1981 Plan, and also a "new"
plan in that it is intended to reflect policies and implementary
actions relevant to current and projected land use trends over the
next 10 years.
b. Local Regulations and Enforcement Provisions
The Town of Wrightsville Beach, like other municipalities in
the State, has been granted general statutory authority by the
North Carolina General Statutes to enact necessary ordinances
designed to protect and promote the safety, health and welfare of
its citizens. The local plans and policies of the Town of
Wrightsville Beach are enforced through ordinances adopted by the
Town Board of Aldermen, which is granted this power by the Charter
N of the Town of Wrightsville Beach (Private Laws 1899, Chapter 305,
ratified March 5, 1899). Below is a listing of Town ordinances
and enforcement provisions related to land use and development.
1. Zoning Ordinance: This is the most prominent land deve-
lopment regulatory device utilized by the Town of Wrightsville
Beach and covers all of the area within the Town limits and to a
line one mile north, called the "extraterritorial jurisdiction".
The ordinance was originally adopted in 1972, with subsequent
amendments. The Zoning Ordinance is designed to accomplish
Iseveral purposes, including:
"to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure
safety from fire, panic and other dangers; to pro-
mote health and the general welfare; to provide
adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding
of land; to avoid undue concentration of population;
to facilitate the adequate provisions of transporta-
tion, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other
public requirements."
(Town of Wrightsville Beach Zoning Ordinance, adopt-
ed May 15, 1972)
The ordinance attempts to carry out its functions by regulat-
ing the location and height of buildings, establishing minimum
21
I
I
building lot sizes, and establishing certain "districts" in which
particular uses relating to residential, commercial, or institu-
tional uses, are either allowed or prohibited. In its initial
adoption, it was further stated that:
"Such regulations have been made with reasonable
consideration, among other things, to the character
of the districts, of their peculiar suitability for
particular uses and with a view to conserving the
value of the buildings and encouraging the most
appropriate use of land throughout the Town." (Town
Zoning Ordinance)
Currently, the Town has 10 "districts": two residential dis-
tricts (R-1 and R-2), a Private Club District; four commercial
districts, allowing for increasing densities (C-1 through C-4);_,a
public and semi-public district for institutional uses, a shore
district for the beachfront area; and a conservation district,
which restricts all uses except for piers and marinas.
In addition to the uses allowed "by right" within each dis-
trict, certain "conditional" uses are permitted on a case -by -case
review basis. Conditional use permits have been used quite effec-
tively at Wrightsville Beach.
Overall, the Zoning Ordinance is effective in Wrightsville
Beach. However, criticism has arisen from developers who some-
times claim that the boundary lines separating districts, and
subsequent uses, are unclear and arbitrary. For example, the R-1
district, which allows primarily for single-family low -density
housing, may be just across the street from, or on the border line
with the slightly higher density R-2 district. The issue is
usually raised by investors seeking to obtain "the highest and
best use" of a parcel in the economic sense by developing at a
higher density. However, what appears to be arbitrary boundary
dines may not necessarily be true in Wrightsville Beach. The
initial Zoning Ordinance was developed by carefully examining then
existing land use patterns -- patterns which had developed over a
number of years without zoning. Being in primarily a linear pat-
tern, as opposed to the "square blocks" or dominant grid -like
pattern of non -oceanfront towns, it was not unusual for duplexes
or higher density residential uses to be developed adjacent to or
across the street from single-family residences. The Zoning Ordi-
nance itself did and still does represent an attempt to regulate
potential incompatible land uses as much as possible. The deci-
sion for the determination of particular district boundary lines
' must, therefore, be in the interest of the Town as a whole, if the
Zoning Ordinance is to fulfill its purpose and intent.
22
I
I
2. Subdivision Regulations: The Wrightsville Beach subdivi-
sion regulations basically regulate the conversion of raw land
into building sites. in conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance,
these regulations help ensure consistent development, by estab-
lishing design standards for provision of certain facilities and
infra -structure such as streets, water and sewer service, and
drainage facilities. Developers of raw, i.e., unplatted, land,
must comply with these standards.
3. Pierhead Line Ordinance: This is a set of regulations
enforced by the Town of Wrightsville Beach concerning how far a
pier can extend out into the water.
4. State Building Code: The Town of Wrightsville Beach has
an active Eb lding inspections program and enforces the North
Carolina State Building Code.
5. General Enforcement Provisions: The responsibility for
enforcing all local land use ordinances, including the State
Building Code in Wrightsville Beach, is the responsibility of the
Town's Department of Building and Land Use Development. This
department is headed by a Director, with three additional full-
time personnel. All planning and land development matters are
brought before the Wrightsville Beach Planning Board, which meets
monthly. The Planning Board conducts reviews and makes recommend-
ations to the Town Board of Aldermen, which has final responsibi-
lity for making planning decisions. The Town does not have a
full-time staff planner.
1
1,
1 23
I
C. Constraints: Land Suitability
The purpose of this section of the Wrightsville Beach Land Use
Plan proposes to identify features of the land or landscape of the
Town which are or could pose serious constraints to development.
Under land suitability, these constraints are generally considered
under the broad categories of 1) physical limitations, i.e., haz-
ardous (man-made or natural) areas, areas with soil limitations,
hazardous slopes, etc., 2) fragile areas, i.e., AECs, complex
natural areas, or areas with cultural (architectural or archaeo-
logical) significance, and 3) areas with resource potential.
1. Physical Limitations
In developed or developing barrier island communities like
Wrightsville Beach, the major physical limitation is land availa-
bility. As noted under the discussion of existing land uses,
there were only 205 platted vacant lots left in Wrightsville Beach
as of November, 1984. The only substantial tract of developable
raw land is Shell Island, on the northern end of the beach commu-
nity and which is currently being developed with a mixture of
uses.
As Table 7, page 12, showed, a net total of 93 structures,
including all residential types (single-family, duplex, triplex,
and townhouse) and commercial buildings, were developed within the
three-year period from 1981 to 1984. This is an average of 31
total new structures (not counting units within the structures)
per year. Shell Island is projected to be developed within three
years, or by 1988. This will also likely accelerate the total
build -out within the current Town jurisdiction to about the same
time frame. It should be noted that Wrightsville Beach has
annexed a small tract of land west of the Intracoastal Waterway,
on which is being developed a shopping center. This area was
annexed as a result of a petition by the owners. It is antici-
pated that additional commercial developers in the same general
area may request similar "satellite" annexations. The impact of
these annexations upon residential development is uncertain.
However, potential mainland well sites for future water supplies
may result.
Although land availability, from a physical standpoint, is the
overshadowing "land suitability" constraint to development in the
Town over the next 10 years, it is useful to mention other con-
straints under this category.
a. Man -Made Hazards
There are no known man-made hazards limiting development in
Wrightsville Beach.
24
1.
I
Ib. Natural Hazard Areas
1. Ocean Area Hazards
The only natural hazard area posing a limitation to devel-
opment in Wrightsville Beach is the high hazard flood area, which
was described under the Ocean Hazards Areas of Environmental Con-
cern. The ocean erodible area, frontal dunes, high hazard flood
area, and inlet hazard areas are limitations to development. These
1 areas were discussed on pages 17 and 18 of this report.
Currently, however, and in accord with existing local policies,
development is prohibited in potential hazard areas through the
enforcement of local ordinances and support of federal and state
permitting procedures. Wrightsville Beach's oceanfront "buildable
line" is located well outside of potential natural hazard areas.
It should be noted that the entire Town is located in the 100-year
r flood area.
2. Areas with Soils Limitations
As a constraint to development, the physical properties
and capabilities of various soil types are among the most import-
ant considerations. Unlike many other localities which may con-
tain a large number of complex soil types and associations, there
are only three soil associations within Wrightsville Beach's jur-
isdiction, according to the Soil Survey of New Hanover County,
published by the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service, 1977. These three soil types are: Newhan fine sand,
Tidal Marsh, and Urban Land. All three are generally described
below: 1
a. Newhan Fine Sand: This soil type consists of gently slop-
ing, excessively drained sands on dunes and along beaches and
coastal waterways. Newhan soils are very low in natural ferti-
lity, organic matter content and available water capacity, have
rapid permeability and a low shrink -swell potential. The water
table is generally about 6 feet below the surface, except in lower
lying areas that are subject to tidal fluctuations. Due to the
rapid soil permeability, there is a probable danger of contamina-
tion of groundwater supplies from use of septic tanks or other
pollution sources. However, Wrightsville Beach has centralized
sewage collection and disposal facilities. virtually all of the
barrier island portion of Wrightsville Beach, including the beach
area and all of the developed area backing up to Banks Channel,
consists of Newhan fine sands. There are also smaller "pockets"
of Newhan fine sand on some of the marsh islands near the Intra-
coastal Waterway.
1 Soils information taken from 1981 Land Use Plan, and Soil Sur-
vey of New Hanover County
25
I
I
b. Tidal Marsh: These are the soils of the tidal flood
plains between the coastal sand dunes on the ocean and the upland
areas on the mainland. Most of these soils are covered by smooth
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), but farther inland may be in-
creasingly covered by black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus).
These soils are very poorly drained, have slopes of 0 to 2 per-
cent, and are used mainly for natural habitat for shore and water
birds except in those areas where they have been drained and fill-
ed for construction. Most of the area within Wrightsville Beach's
' jurisdiction is classified as Tidal Marsh. The area between Banks
Channel and the Intracoastal Waterway (except for Harbor Island),
is basically all Tidal Marsh. As mentioned above, however, there
are pockets of Newhan fine sand soils in some of the upper marsh
islands near the Intracoastal Waterway. Generally, tidal marsh
areas have no potential for conventional development.
c. Urban Land: This is a miscellaneous soil type that exists
in areas where the original soil profiles have been cut, filled,
graded, paved or otherwise changed so that the original soil types
(mostly dry, poorly drained sands) have been substantially altered
or destroyed. All of the developed portion of Harbor Island is
classified as Urban Land. A more detailed explanation of the
capabilities and characteristics of these three soil types is
contained in the Soil Survey report. The report also shows the
general location and extent of these soils on maps. However,
these maps and interpretations will not eliminate the need for on -
site sampling, testing and study of specific sites for design and
construction projects. They should be used primarily to plan more
6 detailed field investigations to determine the conditions of the
soil at the proposed site for the intended use.
3. Estuarine Erosion Area
The estuarine erosion natural hazard area is defined as the
non -ocean shoreline subject to erosion or similar effects of wind
and water, which is usually the immediate estuarine shoreline. In
Wrightsville Beach, however, the estuarine shoreline is not con-
sidered to be an estuarine erosion hazard area.
4. Sources and Estimated Quantity of Groundwater Supplyl
Within the Lower Cape Fear River Basin, Wrightsville Beach
uses groundwater to supply all water demands. By definition,
Wrightsville Beach is not in any designated public water supply
watershed, since groundwater is used exclusively. In another
sense, however, since the water is publicly used, it is a "public
water supply watershed".
1 Groundwater information taken from 1981 Land Use Plan, and
based on discussions with N. C. Division of Environmental Manage-
ment Water Quality personnel.
20
I
I
I
°T
II
l-
A
The hydrogeology of Wrightsville Beach is complex. An uncon-
solidated sand occurs between surface and 60 feet Below Land Sur-
face (BLS) and contains water under water table and/or semi -arte-
sian condition; tentatively, this aquifer is the Post -Miocene
Aquifer. Underlying the Post -Miocene Aquifer is the Tertiary
System Aquifer, and artesian aquifer comprised of limestone;
groundwater is stored within this aquifer from 60 to 190 feet BLS.
From 190 feet to an estimated 1,100 feet BLS is the Cretaceous
System Aquifer which is composed of sands containing brackish
groundwater under artesian and flowing artesian conditions. Base-
ment is at 1,100 feet BLS.
Rainfall directly infiltrates into the Post -Miocene Aquifer
and is a source of recharge. Under favorable circumstances, the
Tertiary System Aquifer would probably receive recharge from the
overlying Post -Miocene Aquifer.
Potable and brackish groundwater exists in the Post -Miocene
Aquifer in significant quantities. Potable groundwater exists in
the Tertiary System Aquifer in sizable quantities.
The aquifer of importance to Wrightsville Beach's water supply
is the Tertiary System Aquifer. Eight wells that are open end
from 128 to 180 feet BLS provide a potential 1,315 GPM or 1.89 MGD
of water. (Well locations are shown on Map 4, Existing Land Use,
attached). However, two wells are currently closed due to
chloride intrusion. They are used only in times of emergency.
Currently, the quantity and quality of the groundwater from the
six remaining wells is sufficient except for peak usage periods
when some of the Town's stored water supply must also be used.
However, as withdrawals increase, there is also the increased
likelihood of increasing chlorides, i.e., saltwater intrusion,
into the groundwater supply source. If major chloride intrusion
becomes a serious problem, the Town may wish to develop wells
across the Intracoastal Waterway on the mainland and/or expand its
water treatment. capacity. The addition of wells on the mainland
would lessen the intensity of utilization of the Town's other
wells; Currently, however, because of the depth of the wells and
the hydraulic separation between the Town's withdrawal aquifer and
the "unconfined," or saltwater aquifer, above -ground development
poses no threat to existing well fields. Because of a recent
;satellite annexation, the Town may eventually be able to develop
well sites on the mainland.
5. Surface Water
a. General Use. Wrightsville Beach has substantial amounts
of surface waters which are affected by land development in terms
of water quality. According to reports from the Water Quality
Section of the N. C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM),
and the Shellfish Sanitation Unit of the N. C. Division of Health
Services, surface water quality has been improving in some areas
and declining in others. The Division of Environmental Management
currently does not have any detailed data on "nutrient" content,
27
I
I
i.e. substances which determine the level of pollution such as
fecal coliform and metallic substances. However, DOOM established
a monitoring station, for the first time, at Wrightsville Beach in
January, 1985. The station is located at the Intracoastal Water-
way bridge. Representatives of DEM expect water quality in
Wrightsville Beach's waters, i.e. the Intracoastal Waterway, the
waters of the Greenville and Middle Sounds, Lee's Cut, Motts Chan-
nel and Banks Channel, to continually improve, particularly since
all of the Town's wastewater is now tied into the New Hanover
County northeast interceptor. Prior to tying into the regional
interceptor in September, 1983, the Town's system discharged
treated effluent directly into the Sound.
According to the DEM, water quality standards and stream clas-
sification for "saline," i.e. coastal waters, most of the waters
around Wrightsville Beach were classified as "SC" i.e., suitable
only for fishing and fish propagation and not for swimming. How-
ever, a request submitted to DEM petitioning an upgraded classifi-
cation to "SA," i.e., not only suitable for fishing, but also for
swimming and body contact sports, was approved in late 1985. This
higher DEM classification also allows for shellfishing. According
to the regional DEM office, there have been no water quality vio-
lations or other major problems in Wrightsville Beach. However,
there is increasing concern on the part of DEM over storm -water
runoff from all urbanized areas and subsequent fecal coliform
counts. The Division of Coastal Management is also very much
concerned about stormwater runoff and the resultant increase in
various pollutants, including fecal coliform.
b. Shellfish Waters. The determination of the suitability of
waters for shellfish harvesting is determined by the Shellfish
Sanitation Unit of the Division of Health Services, based on lev-
els of fecal coliform in these waters. The most recent map of
shellfish waters in Wrightsville Beach (January 24, 1985) shows
some areas in the Greenville Sound area as "open," which have been
"closed" for several years. The recent upgrading is attributed to
ending the direct discharge of effluent into the Sound since the
Town has tied into the northeast sewer interceptor. However, some
areas which were "open" have been "closed" for shellfishing due to
increased counts of fecal coliform. Compare Map 2, page 29, which
shows the prohibited areas as of June 30, 1983, with Map 3, Page
30, which shows the areas in January, 1985. The major suspect in
increased fecal coliform counts is urban storm -water runoff. It
should be noted that coliform counts fluctuate and the Marine
Fisheries Reports are issued regularly. However, if surface water
quality is to be maintained and continue to improve in Wrights-
ville Beach's waters, then the issues of urban storm -water runoff
and other contributors to high fecal coliform counts must be ad-
dressed by the Town.
28
I
...... .......i . u.. ..VC... ,
(Prohibited are�.�rc shaded)
.. . .
n or c1aMs or ossess sell or offer for sale an o .
P Y Y P > > y ysters or cla,:.s
taker fron, the following areas, at any time:
Wrightsville Beach Area:
ON
N
(a) In all of the waters of Page and Pibbs Creeks north and west of a line drawn from a point on they east shore of Page
Creek 340 16' 50" N - 770 46' 43" W; thence 2240 M, 400 yards to a point on the west shore of Page Creek 340 16' 40" N -
77° 46' 53" W.
(b) In Middle Sound within two hundred (200) feet of Iiarrelson's Marina
(c)
All those waters bounded on the north by a straight line across the creek at 340 14' 10" N - 770 46' 41" W, and a line
across the ICWW beginning on the east shore at 340 14' 42" N - 770 47' 10" W; thence to the west shore at 34° 14' 47" N
- 77° 47' 17" W, (with Stokely Cut, Daniel Drain and Spring Landing Channel remaining closed), and bounded on the south
by a line beginning on the shore near Bradley Creek at 340 12' 17" N - 770 49' 25" W; thence across the ICWW to a point
at 34° 12' 13" N - 770 49' 12" W; thence northerly 575 yards to a point at 340 12' 27" N - 770 49' 06" W; thence east
750 yards to a point at 340 12' 30" N - 770 48' 40" W; thence across the creek to a point on the west end of Borrow Pit
at 34° 12' 27" N - 77° 48' 37" W; thence along the north shore.of Borrow Pit to a point at 340 12' 22" N - 770 48' 25" i•;;
thence across Motts Channel to a point on harbor Island at 340 12' 28" N - 770 48' 19" W; thence southeasterly along
shoreline 375 yards; thence 1,450 yards northeasterly to the Highway 74 bridge; thence along the bridge to the shore on
Wrightsville Beach. This includes all creeks and tributaries within said boundary.
(d) All waters within Johnson Marina upstream of the mouth of the Marina.
mom "& am � M '� "W cM 0000 No
ft* j&W tom? M r mom
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH AREA
k KULUbI1L'll tmt"
11AP 3
A T L A N T / c o c E A N 4
J �'(' 6�' /) b •� � e�a�.�...,.h�. 1 .+w. i, a$�iq y'xT' � 6rrenviUs Sexed c
r .
,�, .E vso O V A(D
D D w ` a
� � M See Masonboro
p Sound Prohibited°
r y
Area Map
e
Q Rev. 1 24 85 /9.0 yes'
Fr 6
No person shall take or attempt to take any oysters or clams or possess, sell, or offer for sale, any oysters or clams
taken from the following areas, at any time:
0
Wrightsville Beach Area:
In all of the waters of Page and Fibbs Creeks north and west of a line drawn from a point on the east shore of Page Creek
340 16' 50" N - 770 46' 43" W; thence 224° M, 400 yards to a point on the west shore of Page Creek 34° 16' 40" N - 770 46'
53" W.
In Middle Sound within two hundred (200) feet of Harrelson's Marina.
All those waters in Middle Sound and the ICWW bounded on the southwest by a straight line beginning at Money Point 34° 11'
58" N - 77° 49' 27" W; thence to a point on the northwest shore of Banks Channel at 34° 12' 03" N - 77° 48' 08" W and
bounded on the northeast by a line beginning at a point 34° 13' 14" N - 77° 47' 21" W; thence in a straight line to 340 13'
24" N - 770 47' 22" W; thence in a straight line to the east shore of the ICWW at 34° 13' 50" N - 77° 47' 57" W, near IC1%7W
F1 Beacon "125"; thence in a northeasterly direction along the shoreline across the mouth of Stokley Cut and proceeding
along the shoreline in a northeasterly direction to 34° 14' 42" N - 77° 47' 10" W; thence in a straight line to 340 14'
47" N - 770 47' 17" W, to include Bradley Creek and all other tributaries.
All waters within Johnson Marina upstream of the mouth of the Marina.
M W W�wft� v-= M_ M mW as a r u> ar i m ER M
I
6. Slopes in Excess of 12%
Although there are some frontal and primary dunes in the Shell
Island oceanfront area of Wrightsville Beach, there are none with
hazardous slopes, i.e. in excess of 12%.
' 2. Fragile Areas
Coastal fragile areas are those which could easily be damaged
or destroyed by inappropriate or poorly planned development. in
Wrightsville Beach, all of the Estuarine System Areas of Environ-
mental Concern, i.e. coastal wetlands (marshlands), estuarine
waters, estuarine shorelines, and public trust waters, might be
L considered "fragile areas." Natural resource and cultural re-
source fragile areas are generally recognized to be of education-
al, scientific, or cultural value because of the natural features
or cultural significance of the particular site, and are therefore
environmentally sensitive and have features which distinguish them
from the majority of the surrounding landscape. This could in-
elude: complex natural areas, areas that sustain remnant species,
unique geologic formations, prime wildlife habitats, or registered
natural landmarks.
I
I
I
1
According to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Re-
sources, there are no recorded archeological or historic sites
within the Town's jurisdiction. There are no habitats for endan-
gered or remnant species of areas containing unique geologic for-
mations. However, spoil islands are considered as natural re-
source fragile areas because of their importance as a wildlife
habitat. Research has proven that. North Carolina seabirds utilize
dredge islands extensively for their breeding activities; and
further, that because of lower elevations, vulnerability to storm
waters and increased human activity, nesting mortalities are high-
er on "natural" sites. These natural sites are ordinarily the
dunes and beaches of barrier islands. However, as development and
human activity have increased in these areas, birds have been
forced to find other sites for breeding and nesting. These sub-
stitute sites are very often the spoil islands. These islands are
not only important for breeding and nesting activities, but there
is also support for their value as a resting and feeding area for
migrating birds. The number and variety of birds will vary with
each stage of the island's vegetational succession --from bare,
sandy dome to forests. A bare island, devoid of vegetation, will
be used by royal terns (Thalasseus maximus), sandwich terns
(Thalasseus sandvicensis), least terns Sterna albinfrons, and
oyster catcners tmaemato us a
established, common terns Tste
(Gelochelidon nilotica), black
plovers Charadrius Wilsonia),
laratus). As vegetation becomes
na h rundo) and gull -billed terns
skimmers TR ncho s ni ra) Wilson
and willets Cataotroohorus semi-
31
I
LJ
I
r
I
II
1
I
I
I
palmatus) will inhabit the island. As the density of the grasses
increases, willets will continue to increase and laughing gulls
(Larces articilla) will move in. With the emergence of shrubs and
thickets, redwinged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), boat -tailed
grackles (Cassidix mexicanus), and common grackles (Quiscalus
quiscula) immediately colonize the island. (Proceedings of a
Conference on Management of Dredge Islands in North Carolina
zscuaries,
A vegetation survey of the several spoil islands and deposit
areas within the planning jurisdiction shows that each of these
stages of vegetational succession exists in one or more locations.
While detailed investigations of these areas have not been con-
ducted, the continued use and development of that natural habitat
in that beach area has undoubtedly forced many of the above birds
to seek the artificial habitat of the spoil islands. Recent
surveys indicate that the majority of these birds are actively
present within the planning area.
3. Areas with Resource Potential
Wrightsville Beach, being primarily a barrier island resort
community has no agricultural, forest, or known mineral resource
areas. The most significant resource is the beach itself, which
is the primary attraction for the thousands of visitors each year.
Some of the waters on the sound side areas of Wrightsville Beach
are productive recreational and commercial fishing areas, which
should also be a consideration in formulating land development
policies.
1 Natural resource fragile area discussion excerpted from 1981
Land Use Plan
32
' D. Constraints: Capacity of Community Facilities
' Introduction
Of crucial importance to any community experiencing growth and
the pressures for more growth is its capacity to accommodate that
' growth. The support facilities and services operated and main-
tained by and within a locality can be likened to a living organic
"system", in which continual population growth represents "injec-
tions" into that system. However, within the confines of certain
limitations, such a "system" can only take so many injections
before it reaches a "critical threshold". In the case of a com-
munity, at the point which the population growth reaches the maxi-
mum service capacity of that community, it can be said to have
reached its critical threshold, or its "carrying capacity".
' In a broad sense, carrying capacity is reached when any one
necessary parameter reaches its limit, whether natural or
man-made. However, the concept of "carrying capacity" will
generally be applied to Wrightsville Beach with emphasis on
service provisions, i.e., in order to determine the ability of
existing and proposed developable land, water, sewer, solid waste
disposal, transportation facilities (including parking and bridge
' access), police protection, and recreational facilities to
accommodate growth. At the point of critical threshold or maximum
carrying capacity, the decision must be made by the community to
' either increase the system's capacity, or do something to stem its
populatio�wth.
' This discussion will begin with a look at the capacity of
developable land and its impact upon future population. Although
not a "community facility" in a technical sense, without land,
nothing else would take place. Therefore, this brief discussion
' will serve to lay the foundation for the remaining discussion of
community facilities.
1
1. Land
Developable land is a major physical constraint to development
in barrier island communities. As discussed under physical con-
straints to development, besides Shell Island, there are just
under 28 acres of land not already scheduled for development.
(See Tables 8 and 9, pages 14 and 15). At current development
rates, and assuming no changes in current densities allowed in the
Town's Zoning Ordinance and assuming current occupancy averages,
the maximum population for the Town's "buildout" can be projected.
Notice the following Table 10:
33
I
1
I
F
11
Table 10: Population Impact of Wrightsville Beach Buildout
"Resident"
Factor Population Time Frame
1. Shell Island & Other Scheduled
Development
2. Vacant lot buildout
Sub -total
Current "Resident" Population
TOTAL POPULATION CAPACITY
2,111 1988
676 1988
2,787
* 9,118
11,905
Source: Projected by Talbert, Cox and Associates, Inc. *(See
Table 1, page 5)
Thus, the current developable land along with already programmed
developments could support 21787 additional "residents", i.e.,
non -day visitors who could reside in single or multi -family dwel-
lings and motels either seasonally, or theoretically, all year-
round. It is important to keep in mind that this projection can-
not take into account possible zoning changes which would allow
higher than current densities, or the possibility that average
occupancy sizes per unit will increase or decrease. The assump-
tion is made for projective purposes that these factors will re-
main constant throughout the planning period. A total buildout is
projected by 1988, at which time the development could sustain
11,905 residents. Now it is important to look at the capacity of
the Town's service facilities.
1 2. Water
' The current capacity of the seven regularly utilized wells at
Wrightsville Beach is 1,533,600 gallons per day (gpd). The
seventh well, with a capacity of 360,000 gpd, was developed by the
developers of Shell Island. In addition, the Town has a 1.5
million gallon storage capacity. The water storage capacity is
very important, since, as Table 5, page 9 showed, the peak daily
demand for water in the summer could approach the peak pumping
' capacity. The storage is also important for maintaining fire flow
and other emergencies. According to the Public Works Department,
water utilization has declined in recent years due to an emphasis
' on conservation measures. Assuming that water usage per capita
has not changed significantly since 1984, then these figures can
be utilized to project current and future demand. For projection
purposes, it will be assumed that the average consumption per
' capita of the "resident" population is 90 gallons per day (gpd)
during the "off-peak" or "low" periods of the year, and 110 gpd
during the summer "peak" season. During the summer, residents,
34
1
' including year-round occupants, summer residents and overnight
visitors, generally use more water. More showers are taken to
' remove sand and salt, cars are washed more frequently for the same
reason, and the "green thumb effect" leads to the almost continual
watering of lawns or floral gardens. Although these factors ac-
count for most of the increased water use during the summer months
' among the "resident" population, day visitors also have an impact
upon peak water consumption. By taking the "peak" water use
figure shown in Table 5, page 9, the impact of the day visiting
population can be projected by subtracting the estimated water
usage of the resident population, and dividing the balance by the
estimated number of day visitors. The results show an average
' demand upon the Town's water system of about 13 gpd.
The Town's water distribution system serves the entirety of the
Town.
' 3. Sewer
Since the preparation of the 1981 Land Use Plan, the Wrights-
ville Beach sewer treatment capacity has nearly doubled --from
870,000 gpd to 1.5 mgd. This is because of the Town's connection
' onto the Wilmington -New Hanover County northeast sewer intercep-
tor in September, 1983. Connection onto the regional sewer system
is quite a beneficial element in the Town's current and projected
ability to meet sewer demands. As Table 5, page 9 shows, "peak"
demand for sewer service in the summer was .975 mgd in 1984, and a
"low" demand of .248 mgd. The "low" demand, compared to a year-
round population and estimated "off-season" rentals (estimated
' based on water usage), indicates a per capita demand of 75 gallons
per day for the "resident," non -day visiting population. If this
rate of demand is applied to the peak resident population of 9,118
persons, then peak sewer use is projected to be at 683,850 gpd,
' excluding day visitors. The impact of the day visitors might be
estimated by subtracting the peak utilization for the resident
population from the total peak (i.e., .975-.684 mgd) to project
' sewer utilization by the non-resident populace. When the day -
visitor population is divided into the remaining peak sewer utili-
zation, a factor of about 15 gpd per visitor is the result.
Thus, the current total peak demand of .975 mgd is only 65%
current capacity. The entire Town is served by central sewer
service and the new development on Shell Island will also be serv-
ed by the Town's sewer system.
4. Transportation
' Transportation routes and traffic, while not constituting
current constraints to development in Wrightsville Beach, repre-
sent on -going important issues in the beach community. At the
heart of the issue is the fact that there is only one means of
ingress and egress to the Town from the mainland, and that is the
35
I
' US 74-76 bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Cros-
sing the bridge onto Harbor Island, the 4-lane drawbridge connects
' into a five -lane road (US 76), which has a two-lane fork heading
to the north end of the beach (US 74-Pelican Drive), intersecting
with North Lumina. On the other hand, the 5-laned US 76 runs into
Waynick Boulevard and Lumina across the Banks Channel Bridge at
the center of the Town. Waynick Boulevard, which is 4-laned, is
the major thoroughfare to the southern end of the beach. Utiliza-
tion of the main roads on Wrightsville Beach, like all other faci-
lities, is subject to the seasonal peaks: notice Table 11, below,
which shows the annual average daily traffic volumes, compared to
peak "high" traffic volumes, along with estimated design capaci-
ties:
Table 11: Traffic Volume/Road Capacity
*Peak
Annual ADT Day Volume **Est. Design $ Use
Thoroughfare '82 '83 1983 (VPD) Capacity(VPD) At Peak
1 1. AIWW Bridge 20,590 18,500 38,875 50,000 78
2. US 76 10,600 12,000 23,280 35,000 67
3. US 74 5,000 5,500 10,670 20,000 53
' 4. Waynick Bd. 5,300 6,000 11,640 28,000 42
Source: N. C. Department of Transportation and Talbert, Cox &
' Associates, Inc.
* Projections based on the percentage increase factor across the
AIWW bridge from "average" to "peak," i.e. 94%, applied uni-
formly for projection purposes.
** Provided by NCDOT, based on maximum "free flow" capacity, i.e.
no traffic lights, roadside parking or other obstructions.
Compared to the maximum design capacities, all of the major
thoroughfares appear to have current excess capacities. However,
this is assuming free and open flow on all thoroughfares, without
obstructions and limited roadside parking.
' As the 1981 Plan noted, in case of a severe storm or other emer-
gency requiring evacuation, the AIWW bridge is the only evacuation
route across to the mainland. From May 1 through October (which
falls within the hurricane season), the bridge opens every hour
' "on the hour" from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and on demand for com-
mercial vessels and government vessels, i.e., U. S. Coast Guard,
Army Corps of Engineers, and U. S. Navy. The average opening of
' the drawbridge lasts about 4 minutes per vessel passing through,
but could be longer. If the bridge becomes "stuck" because of
mechanical problems, or is "knocked out" for other reasons, many
beachgoers or resident travellers could find themselves stranded
on the beach. According to the N. C. Department of Transporta-
tion, if the bridge were ever disabled during a storm or during
' 36
h
1
[1
11
dangerous or threatening weather, a temporary ferry shuttle system
would be established, using DOT supplied ferry boats. Ferries
would be located here from other areas, depending on which ones
are available. These ferries would be used to transfer cars and.
people across the AIWW to the mainland. The boats would also be
used to ferry emergency vehicles, school buses, commercial traffic
(food delivery trucks, for example). To supplement the ferries,
smaller State-owned boats would also be mobilized in order to move
people without vehicles.
Another serious problem related to traffic is the shortage of
public parking spaces. With ever-increasing numbers of day visi-
tors to the beach during the summer season, traffic congestion
often results because of the limited availability of parking
spaces. Recent estimates by the Public Works Department showed
that there were 2,490 public parking spaces, with an additional
300 proposed as part of North Shell Island's development, for a
total of 2,790. Addressing the issue of public parking is cru-
cial, particularly since the discussion of day visitors pointed
out 4,719 cars could be out looking for parking at any time on
peak days.
5. Solid Waste
The Town of Wrightsville Beach handles its own solid waste
collection and disposal. The Town has four compactor trucks --two
in regular use and two reserved as "back-up" trucks. Solid waste
disposal is by incineration in the Town's two incinerators. Each
incinerator has a rated capacity of 12.5 tons. In the "off" sea-
son, the incinerator operates from two to three days per week.
During the summer, however, with population peaks, the incinera-
tors must be utilized on the average of six days per week. If the
Town's population continues to expand, the Town will need to ex-
pand its own solid waste disposal capacity, or make plans to
utilize New Hanover County's disposal facilities.
6. Schools
The Wrightsville Beach Elementary School, serving grades R
through 6, is the only school in the Town. In addition to serving
residents, the school, located on Harbor Island, also serves the
Wrightsville Sound area on the mainland across the Intracoastal
Waterway. The school's 7 classrooms have a State Department of
Education mandated capacity of 26 pupils per room, or a maximum of
182. The 1984-85 enrollment is 177, or 97.2% of capacity.
' New Hanover County Schools officials do not anticipate much
growth in the numbers of elementary school age children within
Wrightsville Beach over the next few years. However, growth in
the elementary school age population is expected to occur in the
' wrightsboro Sound area outside of the Town's jurisdiction, but
within the same school district. According to school officials,
the demand for more classroom space cannot be fulfilled at the
37
1
ni
IH
I
1
1
1
11
Wrightsville Beach Elementary School since it is already near
capacity and has no real potential for expansion due to limited
land availability. A school official also stated that the acqui-
sition costs of additional property within Wrighsville Beach would
likely make construction of a new facility too expensive. If
demand for school space substantially exceeds the availability of
space, one alternative may be redistricting in order to reassign
pupils to other area schools with the required capacity. However,
this would be a responsibility of the County and not of Wrights-
ville Beach. Also, it should be noted that a new elementary
school is under construction on Greenville Sound Road about 5
miles from the corporatelimits and is designed to meet the area
needs for a number of years.
7. Police
The Wrightsville Beach Police Department currently provides
police protection for the Town. The year-round full-time staff of
21 personnel consists of 15 police officers, 4 desk officers (in-
cluding the Chief of Police), 1 secretary, and 1 animal control
officer. The 19 officers serve both the year-round population and
the seasonably high summer population. However, in the summer,
three additional parking meter maids and one meter mechanic are
employed, along with 21 lifeguards. In addition to the full-time
personnel, the Town employs 5 auxiliary officers on a part-time
basis. The current size of the police force, according to the
Police Chief, is adequate to serve the Town year-round. Also,
within the planning period, because of the development of Shell
Island, the police department anticipates hiring 4 additional
full-time officers. This will give the Town a force of 28 sworn -
in officers, including the 5 auxiliary officers. Additional
police personnel may also be required as a result of satellite
annexation of land areas across the waterway, such as the Galleria
Shopping Center.
8. Fire
Fire protection is provided to the Town through the Wrights-
ville Beach Volunteer Fire Department. The Department consists of
a Fire Chief, who is employed full-time, and an average of 25
volunteers. The Town's equipment includes three pumpers. Accord-
ing to the Fire Chief, the level of volunteers is adequate for
year-round service to the Town. However, response time can be
delayed during high population periods because of traffic conges-
tion along the beach strand, i.e., Lumina Avenue. To decrease
response time during these periods, pumper trucks are occasionally
stationed along Lumina Avenue, and from April 1st through October
1st, the east side of Lumina from Stone to Salisbury Streets,
normally used for parking; is used as an extra traffic lane for
emergency vehicles. This takes place only on weekends and holi-
days. With the development of Shell Island, approximately one
additional mile of developed area along the extension of North
Lumina will occur. Within current service levels, response time
In
11
11
I
[1
11
to the north end of Shell Island will also be delayed. The Fire
Chief further stated that to assure a consistent and rapid
response, and to maintain the Town's Fire Prevention Codes, the
Town will maintain a sufficient number of full-time personnel,
i.e., two men in rotation.
9. Recreation
The Wrightsville Beach Parks and Recreation Department oper-
ates a major outdoor park (13 acres), which has a variety of out-
door recreational and sports facilities. Also, the Town has fine
"mini -parks", ranging from .5 to .85 of an acre located in both
Harbor Island and the barrier island portions of the Town. These
facilities are summarized below.
The Parks and Recreation Director estimates that between
60-75,000 persons per year utilize these facilities, mostly on
weekends. Generally, the outdoor facilities are adequate to
handle the resident population of Wrightsville Beach and a number
of "day visitors" from surrounding areas to the 13-acre park.
However, the Town does not currently have an adequate indoor fac-
ility. It appears that a growing community of Wrightsville
Beach's size should consider the provision of an indoor facility
for multi -purposed recreational, instructional and cultural uses.
1. Wrightsville Beach Recreational Park
(13-acre park with tennis courts/backwall, sand volleyball
Courts, basketball court, shuffleboard courts, horseshoes,
one softball field, soccer/football field, jogging/fitness
trail, tot lot, children's playground area & equipment,
overlook deck, 150-car parking lot).
2. Lees Nature Park
(.5-acre nature oriented park for plant and bird identifi-
cation)
3. Greensboro Street Park
(.8-acre park with playground equipment)
4. Wynn Plaza
(.85-acre park on Banks Chanel used for water -oriented
activities)
5. South Channel Drive Park
(.5-acre park on Banks Channel for water -oriented activi-
ties)
6. Island Drive Park
(.5-acre park with benches for passive atmosphere)
39
E. Estimated Demand and Carrying Capacit
1. Population Trends
The demand for housing and other goods and services and the
use of public facilities is a direct function of population
levels. As Table 1, page 5, indicates, in summarizing the four
components of Wrightsville Beach's population, the total 1985
"resident" population, i.e., year-round residents, summer resi-
dents, and overnight visitors, is estimated at 9,118 persons,
growing since 1980 at an average rate of 28 per year. The "day
visitor" population during the same period, however, grew at an
average rate of 4.5% per year. Assuming that the recent histori-
cal growth will continue at the same rates, Table 12, below, shows
the projected peak populations for Wrightsville Beach from 1986
through 1995.
' Table 12. .Wrightsville Population Projection: 1986-1995
1 Population
Year * Resident Day Visitors Total "Peak"
' 1986
9,300
19,725
29,025
1987**
10,602
20,142
30,744
1988*
11,905
21,049
32,954
1989
12,143
21,996
34,139
1990
12,386
22,986
35,372
1991
12,634
24,020
36,654
1992
12,886
25,101
37,987
1993
13,144
26,230
39,374
1994
13,406
27,411
40,817
1995
13,675
28,644
42,319
11
Source: Talbert, Cox & Associates, Architects, Engineers & Plan-
ners
* Year-round residents, summer residents, and overnight visitors
**Completion of Shell Island North and other developments.
Partial completion of Shell Island and other developments; also
reaching maximum land supporting capacity
Assuming that the growth rates occurring during the past five
years will remain constant, and taking into account the develop-
ment of Shell Island, and other scheduled developments and current
vacant, but developable land, the resident population, i.e., those
exerting full demand on community services and facilities, will
increase by nearly 3,000 persons by 1988, to 11,905 persons.
According to current land use regulations, this is the maximum
capacity of the Town's current buildable land. After the Town's
resident "capacity," or critical threshold is reached, if the
40
' resident population could continue to increase at the average rate
of 2% per year through 1995, the population could expand to nearly
14,000 people. However, within existing allowable densities and
current zoning, the "resident" capacity should be reached by 1988.
Of more concern, however, is the projected increase of day visi-
tors from 18,876 in 1985 to 22,986 in 1990, to 28,644 in 1995. In
addition, accommodating the increased resident population, the
projected growth in the day visitor population will also exert
substantial pressures on the Town's facilities and services.
' These will be addressed in more detail below.
2. Future Land Need
Most of the land needed to accommodate the projected maximum
resident population will be developed at Shell Island. With cur-
rent vacant, developable lots accounting for the rest. Section
4a, page 14 of this report, noted a total of 205 vacant lots con-
sisting of 31.91 acres, within the currently developed portion of
the Town. Most of these lots are currently zoned R-1, i.e., main-
ly single-family residential. The maximum density for the R-1
district is currently 5 families per acre. If the total vacant
acreage is developed within current density requirements, 676
persons could be added to the resident population. This is in
' addition to the 2,111 persons resulting from the Shell Island
development and other scheduled developments.
However, if demands and historical growth rates are examined
without regard to current land constraints, as Table 12 showed,
the resident population could reach 13,675 by 1995. This is 1,770
persons over the projected maximum of 11,905 persons. Assuming an
average dwelling unit occupancy size of 3.0 persons, to accommo-
date this increase would require 590 dwellings. At current max-
imum allowable density, i.e., 48 dwellings per acre under the C-4
' zone, at least 12 additional developable acres would be required,
not including land for parking, side yards, open space, etc. (al-
though there is no additional developable land within the Town's
' current jurisdiction, there still remains about 8+ acres, known as
the "Hutaff property," located from the northern end of the cur-
rent Shell Island development, but outside of the current extra-
territorial jurisdiction).
1 3. Community Facilities Need
' Steadily increasing populations, both resident (year-round,
summer, and overnight visitors) and day visitors are projected to
continue at Wrightsville Beach throughout the period covered by
this plan -- through 1995. Obviously, an increase in the "peak"
population from just under 28,000 in 1985, to possibly 42,000
projected by 1995, has some implications for the provision of
public services, most notably water and sewer.
41
11
i
1
i
1
I
i
1
1
i
1
[1
I
1
11
1
1
a. Water. Notice Table 13, below, which is estimated based
on current total peak water demands per capita, remaining constant
throughout the forecast period. This table reflects both resident
and day visitor peak demand.
Table 13. Estimated Peak Water Demand - 1986-1995
* Projected ** 1985 % of
Year Peak Demand (MGD) Capacity (MGD) Current Capacity
1986
1.273
1.53
83.0
1987
1.428
1.53
93.3
1988+
1.583
1.53
103.5
1989
1.623
1.53
106.0
1990
1.661
1.53
108.5
1991
1.702
1.53
111.2
1992
1.744
1.53
114.0
1993
1.787
1.53
116.8
1994
1.831
1.53
119.8
1995
1.878
1.53
122.7
*Based on the "highest use" day; **Not including 1.5 MG storage
capacity: +Projected "buildout" year
Source: Projections by Talbert, Cox & Associates, Inc.
The 1985 maximum pumping capacity is sufficient to handle peak
seasonal demands until 1988, which is the projected "buildout"
year for the Town, within current density regulations. The daily
maximum capacity does not include the 1.5 million gallons of water
contained in storage, since this total amount would not be avail-
able every day but is reserved for occasional peak mitigation,
maintenance of sufficient fire flow and emergency reserve. If all
of the storage capacity is used, the same wells must also be pump-
ed to refill the storage tanks. If the populations continue to
increase and consumption patterns continue, Wrightsville Beach
will need expanded water supply capacity after 1988. The water
system could supply the needs of the resident population through
1995, were it to continue to grow. The increased peak demand will
come from day visitors. (See pages 5-7, and 52, for discussion on
population and service extension policy).
b. Sewer. The demand for sewer service will increase sub-
stantially also, assuming per capita peak demand remains constant
as the population expands. Notice Table 14, below.
42
I
Table 14. Estimated Peak Sewer Demand: 1986-1995
* Projected 1985 % of
Year Peak Demand (MGD) Capacity (MGD) Current Capacity
1986
.993
1.5
66.2
1987
1.097
1.5
73.1
1988
1.209
1.5
80.6
1989
1.241
1.5
82.7
1990
1991
1.274
1.308
1.5
1.5
85.0
87.2
1992
1.343
1.5
89.5
1993
1.379
1.5
92.0
1994 1.417 1.5 94.5
1995 1.455 1.5 97.0
* Based on "highest use" day.
Source: Projections by Talbert, Cox & Associates, Inc.
At current population growth rates and sewage treatment rates,
the existing capacity would be sufficient through 1995.
C. Roads. Although the capacity of the AIWW bridge and major
streets 7=thin Wrightsville Beach appears adequate through most of
the planning period, problems of traffic congestion and public
parking difficulties will continue unless some mitigative actions
are taken. Roadside parking and traffic congestion may cause
serious delays in response times for emergency vehicles, i.e.,
police, fire, and emergency rescue. Also, of important considera-
tion during the next 10 years as more and more people come to the
beach community in the summers, is the issue of access to and from
the mainland. As populations increase, the issue of evacuability
due to an emergency must be considered in light of the current
' road network and single access bridge to the mainland. A second
bridge across the Intracoastal Waterway from the northern end of
the island, may be a solution.
' d. Other Facilities. Current and projected police personnel
may not be adequate for the entire planning period, even though
the Town has a relatively low crime rate. However, with increas-
ing density of residential development (mostly of wood frame con-
struction), the Volunteer Fire Department may need to have more
full-time personnel in addition to the Fire Chief.
e. Carrying Capacity Summary
By merging the analyses of facility constraints to growth and
estimated demand, the general "carrying capacity," i.e. the popu-
lation limit the Town's facilities and services can support can be
projected. Notice Table 15, below:
1 43
I
Table 15: Carryinq�Capacity Summary: Peak Population
Lime wit!;
Existing Facilities
Facility Resident Day Visiting Total Year
*Land 11,905 28,644 40,549 -
Water 11,905 21,049 32,954 1988
Sewer 13,675 28,644 42,319 1995
Solid Waste 9,118 18,876 27,994 1985
i Police 11,905 21,049 32,954 1988
Fire 11,990 21,049 33,039 1988
Parking 9,118 18,876 28,575 1985
**Recreation 13,675 28,444 42,319 1995
* Refers only to developable land for residences, and motels, etc.
under, current regulations. Will not affect day visiting popu-
lation.
** Outdoor facilities are adequate throughout planning period.
Source: Projections by Talbert, Cox & Associates, Inc.
Table 15 shows that public parking and solid waste disposal are
already at or over capacity during peak seasons. By 1988, at
' current building rates and densities, along with the projected
completion of Shell Island North and other proposed developments,
Wrightsville Beach could be "built out," with its maximum peak
"resident" population of 11,905 persons, i.e. year-round resi-
dents, summer owners, and overnight visitors in rental units and
motels. Also, by 1988, the threshold capacity of the current
water system, police service, and fire proteciton will be reached.
outdoor recreation facilities, mainly because of the 13 acre park,
will likely be adequate throughout the period. However, the Town
may wish to consider developing an indoor "community center" type
recreational facility suitable for multi -uses to serve the growing
resident population.
With more people will inevitably come more solid waste. The
Town's incinerators already operate at capacity during peak sea-
sons. During the planning period, expanded capacity will likely
be required.
4. Summary of Trends and Policy Issues
The following statements are presented in summary of this
Section I of the 1985 Land Use Plan Update, analyzing development
trends and policy implications for the next 10 years. Because of
land limitations, the resident population may reach capacity by
1988.
1 44
LJ
I
a. Both the resident and day visitor populations at Wrights-
ville Beach have shown steady increases in recent years.
However, the day visiting population is projected to continue
increasing throughout the planning period.
b. The resort -tourist based economy of Wrightsville Beach is
strong, contributing significantly to growing tourism revenues
in New Hanover County each year.
c. Residential and commercial development (including motels)
in the community will continue and possibly, along with the
development of Shell Island, cover all of the developable land
within the Town's current jurisdiction. Although outside of
Wrightsville Beach's jurisdiction, major developments across
the Waterway such as that proposed for the Pembroke Jones
property, will impact the Town. The Town might consider
extending its jurisdictional limits in order to exercise zon-
ing and other land use controls in those areas.
I
11
I
I
d. Surface water quality has improved in some areas and needs
continued enhancement. Policies dealing with urban stormwater
runoff certainly need to be addresed. The Town also recog-
nizes the need to define and address the issue of regulating
"floating homes" and has already taken action on this issue.
Additional details are presented in the following section.
e. At current demand rates, water, sewer, and solid waste
disposal capacities will need to increase during the planning
period in order to adequately handle "peak" demands, particu-
larly from day visitors.
f. Public safety, i.e., provision of adequate police and fire
protection, and evacuation needs, may be affected by limited
roadways and the one accessway to the mainland. Adequate
public parking provisions will also have to be addressed.
All of the above issues and others, including storm hazard
mitigation, and post -disaster recovery, will be addressed in more
detail in Section II of this Plan, "Policy Statements."
45
I
I
� �
I
SECTION II :
Policy Statements
SECTION II: POLICY STATEMENTS
' The formulation of specific policies regarding growth, devel-
opment, and management objectives is perhaps the most important
part of any land use plan prepared under the State's Coastal Area
Management Act. Because of regulatory requirements, these poli-
cies must often strike a delicate balance between desires and
objectives of the citizens and the local government of Wrights-
ville Beach and the objectives of the CAMA program, as overseen by
the Coastal Resources Commission. Land development policies,
which should be based on an analysis of existing conditions and
projected trends, serve as general guides for effectuating desired
development patterns. The land use policies also have important
interface with local regulations, such as the zoning ordinance or
subdivision regulations, as well as with State and Federal regula-
tions and programs. For example, development permits issued under
CAMA must be consistent with the local land use plans. Also,
projects supported by State and Federal funds must be consistent
with the local land use plans, prior to allowing expenditures.
Some relevant trends identified in Section I of this Plan
include: the population of Wrightsville Beach, both resident and
day visitors, is constantly increasing; the Town's tourist -based
economy continues to contribute strongly to tourist revenues in
New Hanover County; with the projected development of Shell Is-
land, along with continued growth of residential and commercial
development in other parts of Town, all of the developable areas
will likely be covered during this planning period; additional
I stresses will be placed on public facilities and services, such as
water, sewer, police and fire protection, and parking, as the
population increases. These are some of the issues which need to
be addressed by the Town during the planning period.
The Coastal Resources Commission, recognizing the diversities
which exist among the coastal communities, required the Town to
specify particular development policies under four rather broad
topics in 1980. For the 1985 Update, however, the CRC has added a
fifth issue, i.e. "Storm Hazard Mitigation." In most cases, poli-
cies developed under these topics will cover most of the local
development issues, but in some cases, they do not. In the latter
case, the locality has the flexibility to address its own locally
defined issues. The five required broad topics are:
-- Resource Protection
-- Resource Production and Management
_=Economic and Community Development
Continuing Public Participation
Storm Hazard Mitigation
After an analysis of the existing conditions and trends and
input from the Town's citizens, the foregoing policies were devel-
1 46
I
n
J
oped to provide an overall framework for guiding growth and devel-
opment in Wrightsville Beach throughout the next 10-year planning
period (1985-1995).
A. Resource Protection: Estuarine System.
1. Areas of Environmental Concern: Wrightsville Beach recognizes
the primary concern of the Coastal Resources Commission, in terms
of protecting resources, as managing Areas of Environmental Con-
cern (AECs). The Town also shares this concern for the protection
and sound management of these environmentally sensitive lands and
waters. The AECs which occur in Wrightsville Beach were identi-
fied in Section I of this Plan on pages 15 through 19, with areas
within both the Estuarine System and Ocean Hazards area. In terms
of developing policies, the Estuarine System AECs, which include
Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine Waters, Estuarine Shorelines, and
Public Trust Areas, will be treated as one uniform grouping since
they are so closely interrelated. Another reason for grouping
these AECs together is the fact that the effective use of maps to
detail exact on -ground location of a particular area, sometimes
pose serious limitations.
Wrightsville Beach's overall policy and management objective
for the Estuarine System is "to give the highest priority to the
protection and perpetuate their biological, social, economic, and
aesthetic values and to ensure that development occurring within
these AECs is compatible with natural characteristics so as to
minimize the likelihood of significant loss of private property
and public resources." (15 NCAC 7H. 0203) In accordance with
this overall objective, Wrightsville Beach will permit those land
' uses which conform to the general use standards of the North Caro-
lina Administrative Code (15 NCAC 7H) for development within the
Estuarine System. Generally, only those uses which are water
dependent will be permitted. Specifically, each of the AECs with-
in the Estuarine System is discussed below.
a. Coastal Wetlands
The coastal wetlands or "marsh" in Wrightsville Beach, as
discussed on Page 16 and shown on Map 1, are located mainly in the
' extraterritorial area of Wrightsville Beach's jurisdiction between
Banks Channel and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The first
priority of uses of land in these areas should be the allowance of
uses which promote "conservation" of the sensitive areas, with
conservation meaning the lack of imposition of irreversible damage
to the wetlands. Generally, uses which require water access and
uses such as utility easements, fishing piers and docks, will be
allowed, but must adhere to use standards of the Coastal Area
:Management Act (CAMA: 15 NCAC 7H).
47
I
I
' b. Estuarine Waters and Estuarine Shorelines
The importance of the estuarine waters and adjacent estuarine
shorelines in Wrightsville Beach was discussed in Section I of
this document on pages 16-17. Although there are no "hazardous"
estuarine shorelines in Wrightsville Beach subject to severe ero-
sion, the Town is very much aware that protection of the estuarine
waters and adjacent estuarine shorelines is of paramount impor-
tance to fishing, both commercially and for recreation. Wrights-
ville Beach recognizes that certain actions within the estuarine
shoreline, which is defined as the area extending 75 feet landward
of the mean high waterline of the estuarine waters, could possibly
have a substantial effect upon the quality of these waters.
In order to promote the quality of the estuarine waters,
Wrightsville Beach will permit only those uses which are compati-
ble with both the estuarine shorelines and which protect the val-
ues of the estuarine system. Residential, recreational, and com-
mercial uses may be permitted within the estuarine shoreline,
provided that:
1. a substantial chance of pollution occurring from the dev-
elopment does not exist;
2. development does not have a significant adverse impact on
estuarine resources;
3. development does not significantly interfere with existing
public rights or access to, or use of, navigable waters or
public resources.
1 c. Public Trust Areas
Wrightsville Beach recognizes that the public has certain
established rights to certain land and water areas. (For defini-
tions and geographic locations of public trust areas, see Page 17,
Section I). These public areas also support valuable commercial
and recreational fisheries, tourism, and also are of significant
aesthetic value. Wrightsville Beach will continue to promote the
conservation and management of public trust areas. Appropriate
uses include those which protect public rights for navigation and
recreation. Projects which would directly or indirectly block or
impair existing navigation channels, increase shoreline erosion,
deposit spoils below mean high tide, cause adverse water circula-
tion patterns, violate water quality standards, or cause degrada-
tion of shellfish waters, shall generally not be allowed. Allow-
able uses shall be those which do not cause detriment to the
physical or biological functions of public trust areas. Such uses
e as navigational channels, drainage ditches, bulkheads to prevent
erosion, piers or docks, shall be permitted.
i
1 48
d. Policy Statements: Development in ADCs
Sections a, b, and c, above, included a discussion of Wrights-
ville Beach's policy on land uses in the statutorily defined Areas
of Environmental Concern (ABCs). Protection of environmentally
sensitive as well as vitally important public resources is a
strong ongoing concern of the Town of Wrightsville Beach. The
overall policy of the Town in relation to Resource Protection
shall be as follows:
1. Wrightsville Beach shall continue to give priority to
those uses which are supportive of the protection and coordinated
management of the Estuarine System. It is the intent of the Town
to safeguard and perpetuate the system's biological, social, eco-
nomic and aesthetic values and to insure that any development
occurring within the system is compatible with natural character-
istics, so as to minimize the likelihood of significant loss of
private property and public resources.
e. Policy Implementation
Wrightsville Beach believes that the existing development
permit system enforced by CAMA, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
combined with enforcement of the Town's Zoning Ordinance (which
includes a "Conservation Zone" for AECs), Pierhead Line Ordinance
.(which regulates the construction of bulkheads and piers beyond
the mean high water mark), Subdivision Regulations and Dune Main-
tenance and Protection Plan, represent adequate measures to pro-
tect the discussed resources. Enforcement of these provisions
will continue.
2. Areas of Environmental Concern: Ocean Hazards Areas
Ocean Hazards Areas of Environmental Concern are the second
broad category of ABCs occurring in Wrightsville Beach. These
are areas along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline which have a special
vulnerability to erosion or other adverse effects of sand, wind,
and water. Because of this vulnerability, improperly managed
growth and development could expose life and property to unreason-
able levels of danger. The Ocean Hazards in Wrightsville Beach,
as discussed on Pages 17-19 of this document include: 1) the
ocean erodible area, 2) the high hazard flood area, and 3) the
inlet hazard area. However, in the conventional sense of
"hazards," the only Ocean Hazards area is the high hazard flood
areas, or "V" zones, i.e. high velocity areas identified on Flood
Insurance Rate Maps. Due to recent and ongoing beach renourish-
ment and berm restoration projects, the ocean erodible area is
currently not considered "hazardous" in Wrightsville Beach. Also,
a jetty on the south end of the beach community has helped stabil-
ize the area near the Masonboro Inlet, so that it is also current-
ly not considered "hazardous." This was a federally funded navi-
gation project, not an activity conducted by Wrightsville Beach.
Mason's Inlet, at the northern end of the island, is beyond the
Town's current jurisdiction.
49
For both the ocean erodible and inlet hazard areas, develop-
ment of any type is prohibited or tightly controlled by existing
regulations and enforcement provisions. It is the susceptibility
to change from the constant forces of waves, wind, and water upon
the normally unstable sands that form the shore, which causes
these areas to be considered "hazardous." These forces are magni-
fied during storms and can cause significant changes in bordering
land forms (such as dunes and beaches), as well as to any struc-
tures located on them. It is the flexibility of these land forms
(dunes and beaches), however, which also lends protection from the
magnified energies of wind and water as a first line of defense
for development located behind them. The important, basic and
essential function of the beach and dunes is their capacity for
storing sand, serving to absorb and thereby dissipate the initial
impact of excessive wind and waves.
I Thus, it is important to consider policies which are aimed
both at protecting the land forms (dunes and beach) and any struc-
tures which are allowed to be constructed in those areas.
a. Policy Statements: Ocean Hazards Area
Generally, all land uses in the areas classified under the
"Ocean Hazards" category, i.e. ocean erodible, high hazard flood,
and inlet hazard areas, shall be consistent with the requirements
of the Wrightsville Beach Zoning Ordinance (with particular regard
to the "Conservation Zone"), Subdivision Regulations, Dune Main-
tenance and Protection Plan, and the Town's requirements for the
National Flood Insurance Program and the Town's ocean areas
"building line."
1. Any allowable land use shall be designed and constructed
so as to maximize structural protection from wind and water and to
minimize damage to the protective land forms of dunes and
beaches.
2. Wrightsville Beach continues to support comprehensive
shoreline management such as the Corps of Engineers beach renour-
ishment project as a preferred control measure to combat ocean-
front erosion.
3. When existing dunes are "added to," this shall be accom-
plished in a manner which minimizes damage to existing vegetation.
Any areas filled should be replanted immediately or stabilized
temporarily until planting can be successfully completed.
b. Implementation
1. Wrightsville Beach will continue to enforce its local
regulations as cited above, and continue to support the CAMA major
and minor permitting, and the Corps of Engineers 404 wetlands
permitting programs.
' 50
i
11
1 3. Development in Areas with Constraints
The constraints to development in Wrightsville Beach were
discussed in Section I, pages 24-44 of this report. Elements
posing constraints to growth and development can relate to physi-
cal land capability constraints such as availability of develop-
able land, man-made or natural hazards, AECs, special fragile
areas, or areas with soils limitations. Also, the capacity of
community facilities and services such as water, sewer, solid
waste disposal, police and fire protection and parking can often
pose constraints to development. All of these are facilities
which need to be considered by any community in proposing land
development policies.
There are no known man-made hazards in Wrightsville Beach
prohibiting development and the natural hazards are closely linked
I, to AECs in both the Estuarine System and Ocean Hazards category,
as are also the "fragile" areas. The areas with soils limita-
tions, as discussed on pages 25-26, are not developable. Also,
the entire Town is served by a central sewer system and since
private septic tanks and small package treatment plants are not
allowed, soil conditions as they relate to septic tank placement
are not major policy concerns.
As a barrier island community, it is not suprising that
Wrightsville Beach's entire jurisdiction is located in the 100-
year flood zone area, i.e. subject to a one percent chance of
major flooding in any given year. Also, as stated previously, the
Town has certain "high velocity" or "V-13" flood zones identified
on recent Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency. Both the 100-year flood area and V-Zones
pose possible serious constraints to development. However, most
of the V-Zones are located along the immediate oceanfront in areas
where virtually any type of development is prohibited. But the
100-year flood zones includes the Town's entire jurisdiction and
it is not practical to prohibit development in all areas.
As the discussion and tables on pages 42-44, indicated, at
current and projected demand rates during "peak" utilization,
Wrightsville Beach will need expanded capacity in the provision of
water, sewer, and solid waste disposal services during the next 10
years. Also, it was noted that transportation access and parking
would likely increase in significance as constraints to develop-
ment during the planning period. In consideration of all of the
constraints relating to the physical capacity of the land, and the
capacity of community facilities, the following policies are pro-
posed:
I
51
i
I
1 a. Policy Statements: Physical Constraints to Development
I 1. Since in many cases, conditions posing physical limitation to
growth and development in Wrightsville Beach are closely associ-
ated with identified areas of environmental concern or other sen-
sitive areas, the Town believes that these areas should generally
be protected from any adverse or potentially adverse development.
Also, development in certain areas which could result in unneces-
sary risks to the safety and protection of life and property
should also be prohibited.
2. Allowable land uses in areas posing physical constraints
should be only those approved through the CAMA and Army Corps of
Engineers "404" permitting processes and by the Town of Wrights-
ville Beach's Zoning and Pierhead Line Ordinances, as well as its
Dune Maintenance and Protection Plan.
3. All uses allowed in the Town's Zoning Ordinance shall be per-
missable in the 100-year flood zones, provided that all new con-
struction and substantial improvements comply strictly to the
Town's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, which shall be adopted
in conjunction with Wrightsville Beach's participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
4. In relation to capacity of community facilities, it shall be
the policy of the Town of Wrightsville Beach to attempt to provide
services, such as, water and sewer, to meet anticipated peak de-
mand during the planning period.
5. Because of the current development trends in the Town and the
limited availability of developable land, services will not be
extended or established solely as an incentive for increased resi-
dential, commercial, or institutional development.
6. The Town of Wrightsville Beach believes that improved access
from the beach to the mainland, either in the form of a replace-
ment for the existing AIWW drawbridge or a second bridge across
the Waterway, must be provided. Therefore, adequate land should
be preserved for bridge rights -of -way.
b. Policy Implementation
1. The existing local ordinances and building regulations in
Wrightville Beach shall continue to be enforced. Also, the Town
will continue to support State and Federal regulatory programs for
areas with physical constraints to development, including CAMA and
the Corps of Engineers 404 program.
2. Beginning in Fiscal Year 1986, the Town will initiate discus-
sions with the City of Wilmington concerning the provision of
additional water after 1988, to help meet projected peak demands,
and additional sewer capacity to help meet projected peak demand
after 1993. The Town will also seek grant assistance from federal
and/or state sources for funds to support water and/or sewer
capacity expansion projects.
52
3. In FY 1986, the Town will seek assistance in the preparation
of a "Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives", study, in order to help
determine the most efficient and economical means of handling peak
' loads of solid wastes.
4. In FY 1986, the Town of Wrightsville Beach will seek assist-
ance in the preparation of a report on "Feasible Alternatives for
Public Parking" to help clearly define the extent of the parking
problem in the Town and to propose feasible solutions.
5. In FY 1986, the Town will request that the State Department of
Transportation make a preliminary evaluation of the need to
replace the existing drawbridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway.
4. Hurricane and Flood Evacuation Needs and Plans
This area will treated in a separate section of this Land Use
Plan, which will include policy statements on hurricane and flood
evacuation as well as storm mitigation and post disaster recovery
policies.
5. Protection of Potable Water Supplies
As stated in the discussion on ground water resources (p. 26-
27), above ground development poses no immediate threat to the
water supply.
6. Use of Package Treatment Plants
' In 1983, the Town of Wrightsville Beach's sewer system became
connected to the Wilmington regional sewer system's northeast
interceptor. As a result, the use of all package treatment sys-
tems has been eliminated and all future new developments will be
required to connect onto the Town's sewer system. This provision
is expected to foster improvement in the quality of the Town's
surface waters.
7. Stormwater Runoff
The Town of Wrightsville Beach shares the concern of the State
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) that stormwater runoff
from urbanized areas may be contributing to declining surface
' water quality in some areas (see p. 27-28). Maintenance of water
quality is of utmost concern to Wrightsville Beach. The Town
recognizes the value of water quality maintenance both in terms of
protecting commercial and recreational fishing resources and pro-
viding clean water for other recreational purposes. The Town will
continue to enforce local ordinances and state building regula-
tions relating to stormwater runoff resulting from development.
Currently, Wrightsville Beach is considering adoption of local
stormwater management and runoff requirements. If adopted, the
new requirements will call for strict on -site retention (See
Appendix 1).
53
LJ
I(r III
l_1
' 8. Marina and Floating Home Development
The development of bulkheads, marinas, and private boatslips
in Wrightsville Beach have generally been allowed and regulated by
the Town's Zoning and Pierhead Line Ordinances and CAMA. These
uses will be continued as long as they do not result in any ad-
verse impacts on identified environmentally sensitive areas, in
compliance with State, federal and local regulations.
In recent years, Wrightsville Beach and other coastal communi-
ties have become increasingly concerned over the issue of "float-
ing homes", i.e., waterborne vessels used not only as "boats" but
as permanent domiciles. The legal aspects of this issue have been
hotly debated in many areas, including Wrightsville Beach. The
Town has sought to prohibit a preponderance of long, boxy vessels
with shallow drafts from dominating local marinas and which lack
proper connection to water and sewer services. After nearly two
years of research and debate, Wrightsville Beach has developed a
definition for, a "floating home" to distinguish it from a "boat".
This definition is based on something called a "volume coeffi-
cient", which is derived by dividing the habitable space of a
vessel, measured in cubic feet, by the depth of the vessels's
draft, which is measured in feet. Any vessel with a volume coef-
ficient of greater than 3,000 square feet is not considered a
"boat" but a floating home.
This definition has been included in an amendment to the Zon-
ing Ordinance regulating floating homes, which was adopted by the
Town Board of Aldermen. The overall policy concern stated in the
' ordinance amendment is the protection of the quality of the estua-
rine system (coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust
waters) within the Town's jurisdiction. It is pointed out in the
adopted ordinance that floating homes designed "primarily as per-
manent dwelling units create the same or similar problems associ-
ated with land based housing and require regulation in the same
fashion as land based housing to include the areas of solid waste
disposal, sewerage, police protection, and related requirements."
The ordinance allows "floating homes," as distinguished from
"boats," as a "conditional use" only in commercial marinas. How-
ever, the responsibility of providing all proper connections to or
for services, including water, sewer, solid waste disposal, fire
protection, two automobile parking spaces on land per unit, and at
least 2,000 s.f. of land space contiguous to the dock for each
unit, is placed on the commercial marina.
In summary, the newly adopted or ordinance reflects the policy
of Wrightsville Beach to both protect its estuarine system from
the potential adverse effects of floating homes and keep its
waterways open for general recreational uses. Although these
vessels will be allowed under certain conditions, they will not be
encouraged. (A copy of the ordinance is attached to this Plan as
Appendix 2).
54
I
' 9. Industrial Impacts of Fragile Areas
�J
I
r
,I
I
I
There are
in Wrightsvill
development.
no conventional industrial impacts on fr
e Beach and the Town does not anticipate
10. Development of Sound and Estuarine System Islands
agile areas
industrial
Policies related to managing growth and development in these
areas are included in policy statements regarding development in
Areas of Environmental Concern and in areas with physical con-
straints, particularly dealing with "fragile" areas. Specifi-
cally, it is the Town's policy to disallow development in any
Sound or Estuarine islands in the Town's jurisdiction. These
areas are currently zoned and classified as "conservation".
The Town of Wrightsville Beach also supports County and State
efforts to preserve Masonboro Island.
B. Resource Production and Management
1. Recreational Resources/Fisheries
In most coastal counties and
management" usually relates to ag
fisheries, as well as, recreation
Beach, however, recreational and
relevant ones in the conventional
as Wrightsville Beach, because -of
are also Estuarine and/or Public
fishery resources quite often ove
tional resource is the "beach" an
Atlantic Ocean. Fishing, both as
resource, is important to Wrights
Hanover Countv. From 1980 to 198
towns, "resource production and
ricultural, forestry, mining,
it resources. In Wrightsville
Eisheries resources are the only
sense. In resort settings such
the abundant water areas •(which
Crust Waters), recreational and
clap. The overall, major recrea-
i the attractiveness of the
a recreational and commercial
Mlle Beach and to all of New
3. both commercial catches and
revenues declined -each year in New Hanover County. In 1980, ac-
cording to the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, the total catch
for New Hanover County was 3.14 million pounds with revenues
totaling $2.77 million dollars. in 1983, however, poundage was
down to 1.55 million pounds with revenues of $1.61 million dol-
lars. It is difficult to ascertain the reasons for this dramatic
change. Part of the reason, however, may be due to the closing of
certain shellfishing areas, which is affected by poor water quali-
ty (See Pages 28-30). Maintenance of water quality is of utmost
concern to Wrightsville Beach, as stated above in the discussion
and policy statement on floating homes. The Town recognizes the
value of water quality maintenance both in terms of protecting
commercial and recreational fishing resources and providing clean
water for other recreational purposes.
a. Policv Statements
With the above -stated concerns in mind, the Town of Wrights-
ville Beach adopts the following policies:
55
I
1. The Town supports current on -going State and federal pro-
grams designed to maintain and/or restore water quality within its
jurisdiction.
b. Implementation
1. Wrightsville Beach will begin immediately enforcing the
recently adopted amendment to the Town Zoning Ordinance, regulat-
ing floating homes.
2. The Town will continue to enforce local regulations as
well as support State and Federal initiatives, related to main-
taining and enhancing water quality.
2. Off -Road Vehicles
In accordance with its Dune Maintenance and Protection Plan,
the Town of Wrightsville Beach does not allow off -road vehicles on
dunes or on the shoreline area, with the exception of public ser-
vice or emergency vehicles. These provisions shall continue to be
enforced.
C. Economic and Community Development
Essentially, "development," including residential, commercial,
institutional, etc., is limited in Wrightsville Beach primarily
because of the limited availability of land. With the development
of Shell Island taking place within this planning period, there
remains ever dwindling amounts of land suitable for development.
A significant set of issues before the Town concerns the desired
patterns of use foreseen for the remaining developable land in
terms of types of development, desired densities, responsibility
for service provisions, availability of support facilities such as
parking, and economic impacts. The relevant policy areas to be
addressed are discussed below, along with the Town's policy posi-
tion.
1. Local Commitment to Providing Services to Development
The Town of Wrightsville Beach does not support the concept of
providing urban services, such as water and sewer, to undeveloped
areas solely to attract development. As undeveloped areas devel-
op, it is the policy of the Town that the developer share in the
financial responsibility of providing basic urban services.
2. Redevelopment of Developed Areas:
I Most of Wrightsville Beach has no need for consideration for
redevelopment. However, in some sections of the Town, older
structures, including houses and motels, have been torn down in
recent years to allow for the construction of new similar uses on
the same site. In keeping with the dynamic character of the com-
munity, Wrightsville Beach supports such activity as a positive
56
J
I
re -use of land resources, enhancing the Town as a whole. Such
redevelopment shall be permitted as long as the activity complies
with the spirit and intent of existing regulatory requirements.
It is the Town's policy that density allowances for redevelopment
areas conform to existing Town building and zoning regulations.
3. Desired Urban Growth Patterns
a. Policy
Virtually all of Wrightsville Beach is urbanized with the
predominant development pattern consisting of single-family and
duplex residential units. As the amount of developable land de-
creases in the Town, it is likely that developers will seek in-
creasing development densities in order to maximize their invest-
ment in relatively expensive land. For example, the economic and
financial return on 30 units per acre has much more appeal than
that from five units per acre. And, whereas the Town recognizes
and appreciates the goal of investor -developers, it is the overall
intent of Wrightsville Beach to retain, as much as possible, the
'family character" of the beach community. Therefore, the Town
will continue to encourage single-family and duplex type residen-
tial development as the preferred type of residential development.
However, higher density development may be allowed in the appro-
priate zoning districts according to the Town's Zoning Ordinance.
Since commercial establishments (mostly retail and tourist -
oriented services) have a different "character," which is not
compatible with residential development in many instances, it is
the desire of Wrightsville Beach to keep these uses separate, to
the extent practicable.
In early 1985, the Town annexed by "satellite", a small shop-
ping center on the mainland at the request (or petition) of the
owners. This area is located near the Plaza East Shopping Center
on the south side of U.S. 76. The Town, because of a sincere
concern about the types of development "approaching" Wrightsville
Beach, anticipates additional satellite annexations in the future.
Also, Wrightsville Beach would eventually like to extend its
extraterritorial jurisdiction north of the currently ongoing
development of North Shell Island, out to Mason's Inlet.
b. Implementation
1. The Town will continue to enforce its current land use
regulations to encourage development of the Town primarily as a
single-family/duplex residential area with appropriate supporting
retail and tourist -oriented services.
2. In EY 87, the Town will seek assistance in preparing a
feasibility analysis on expanding jurisdictional control across
57
I
1J
the Waterway. Wrightsville Beach will carefully review each
annexation request by petitioning owners of developing property on
the mainland, on a case -by -case basis to determine if such annexa-
tion is in the best interest of the Town.
4. Commitment to State and Federal Programs
Wrightsville Beach is generally receptive to State and Federal
programs, particularly those which either enhance or improve the
Town's facilities. The Town will continue to fully support such
programs, including CAMA. The North Carolina Department of Trans-
portation road and bridge improvement programs are very important
to Wrightsville Beach because of ever-increasing traffic volumes.
Examples of other State and Federal programs which are import-
ant to and supported by Wrightsville Beach include: dredging and
channel maintenance, as well as beach renourishment and restora-
tion, by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; and Federal and State
projects which provide efficient and safe boat access for sports
fishing.
All of these programs and others are important to Wrightsville
Beach, and the Town is committed to their continued support.
5. Assistance to Channel Maintenance and Beach Renourishment
Proper maintenance of channels, particularly the Atlantic
Intra-Coastal Waterway, is very important to Wrightsville Beach
because of the impact of commercial and recreational fisheries and
general boating. Currently, Wrightsville Beach does not provide
direct assistance to the Corps by helping to obtain or provide
spoil sites. The Corps of Engineers have adequate spoil easements
on either side of the Waterway. The Town will provide indirect
assistance, however, as requested, to aid in channel maintenance.
Beach renourishment, as stated in 4, above, is important to the
Town and,wil-1 continue to be supported by Wrightsville Beach.
6. Tourism and Beach and Waterfront Access
While tourism is obviously important to Wrightsville Beach and
to New Hanover County, the Town views its increasing popularity as
a tourist resort with mixed feelings. The revenues generated by
commercial activities (mainly hotels and restaurants) and the
expanded tax base from new construction are important, but are not
sufficient to cover the costs of providing all of the facilities
and services demanded. Nevertheless, tourism is significant
enough for the Town to take steps to provide facilities and servi-
ces such as water and sewer to the growing tourist population.
Wrightsville Beach recognizes that as the day visiting population
increases, there will be a need for more of certain basic facili-
ties on the beach, e.g., more public bathrooms. The Town will
seek to provide these facilities as the need arises and as finan-
cial capacity permits. Federal and/or State financial assistance
will also be sought when such grant funds are available.
58
I
The Wrightsville Beach Access Plan was an implementary tool
from policies contained in the 1976 Land Use Plan. The Town is
still committed to the provision of "reasonable means and oppor-
tunity for the public to have access to the beach, shore or other
public trust lands and waters, provided such means do not conflict
with the rights of residents to the use and enjoyment of their
property," (1976 Land Use Plan). Subsequently, public access
points including "walkover" sites and "overlook" sites have been
developed with appropriate designations along the beach strand.
Public access sites have also been designated for the sound side
of the community. In 1985, the Town developed another "overlook"
ramp on the southern end of the beach near Jack Parker Drive. The
State -operated public boating access ramp near the Intercoastal
Waterway bridge is currently heavily utilized. The Town believes
that another public ramp should be developed perhaps by New
Hanover County on the West Bank, to relieve the pressures exerted
on the existing facility. Wrightsville Beach supports the utili-
zaton of State and Federal, as well as local resources, to develop
additional access areas. Another tourist -related concern of
Wrightsville Beach is the need for improved enforcement of water
safety regulations, particularly as more and more boats fill Banks
Channel on summer weekends. The Town feels that current enforce-
ment is inadequate and should be improved by the State.
7. Types, Density, and Location of Development
As discussed under "Desired Urban Growth Patterns," the pre-
ferred residential type of development in Wrightsville Beach is
either single-family or duplex construction. However, in accor-
dance with the Town's Zoning ordinance, and policies aimed at
protecting natural resource and fragile areas, more dense residen-
tial development such as townhouses, cluster homes, and mid -rise
to high-rise condominiums may be permitted. Although the Town
recognizes the fact that developable land is diminishing, Wrights-
ville Beach believes that development densities should not be
allowed to exceed those contained in the current zoning ordinance,
which ranges from five families per acre in the R-1 residential
district to 48 families per acre in the C-4 commercial district.
All zoning ordinance amendments reouestina increased densities.
snail oe scrutinizea very carexuiiy oy Dotn the manning boars ana
the Town Board of Aldermen. As stated previously, the Town sees
no need to extend water and sewer services as an incentive for new
development. However, services will need expansion to serve anti-
cipated high levels of "day visitors" during the period.
As far as location of various types of development is concern-
ed, again, in recognition of the limited amount of developable
land within the Town, Wrightsville Beach desires as much as prac-
ticable that all development be designed and placed so as to be
compatible with the residential character of the Town. All new
development will adhere to the Town's building and development
regulations. Also, due to concerns about the "approach" to the
Town from across the Waterway, Wrightsville Beach favors satellite
annexations, if feasible, in order to facilitate orderly growth
and development.
59
I
I. D. Continuing Public Participation Policies
Wrightsville Beach recognizes that an important element in
developing and implementing any local policies or plans regarding
the use of land in the Town, is involvement of the Town's citi-
zenry. From the initial stages of development of this 1985 update
of the Town's CAMA Land Use Plan, Wrightsville Beach has sought to
provide open opportunities for citizen input. A "Public Partici-
pation Plan" was developed for the plan updating process, outlin-
ing the methodology for citizen involvement. The plan stated that
public involvement was to be generated primarily through the
Town Planning Board and through "public information" meetings,
advertised in local newspapers and open to the general public.
' The Planning Board meetings also are open to the general public.
Specifically, during the beginning stages of the update
process, the Planning Board met with the planning consultant to
review and discuss preliminary development issues; afterwards, a
public information meeting was announced in the Wilmington
Star -News newspaper, and public notices of the meeting were posted
in conspicuous places in the Town. This meeting was held with
citizens, the Planning Board, and the planning consultant attend-
ing. Citizens provided input and voiced their concerns about land
use policies. Also, during the second quarter of the plan prepa-
ration, the Town Board of Aldermen received a report on the update
process, and was presented with the major issues identified by the
citizens at the public information meeting. Throughout the plan
development process, the Town Planning Board was actively
involved. A series of meetings, or "working sessions" were held.
All of these meetings were open to the public. Specifically, work
sessions and/or meetings were held on the following dates:
September 25, 1984 (Planning Board); November 15, 1984 (Board of
Aldermen); November 23, 1984 (an advertised and posted Public
Information Meeting); November 23, 1984 (with Town Board of
Aldermen); April 23, 1985 (meeting was announced in the Star -News
newspaper, and public was invited to attend); May 21, 1985; June
11, 13, and 27, 1985.
The final draft plan, prior to submission to the CRC, was
presented to the Town Board of Aldermen on June 27, 1985.
In addition to direct citizen's input through the public
meetings, interviews were conducted with representatives of vari-
ous agencies in the Wilmington -New Hanover County area to solicit
input. These included both the County and City Planning Depart-
ments, and the Bridge Maintenance Division of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation.
In order to continue providing citizens an awareness of the
land use planning process, all of the regular meetings of the
Planning Board will be announced in local newspapers.
1 60
J
It is the belief of the Wrightsville Beach Board of Aldermen
that all citizens be afforded adequate opportunities to partici-
pate in the governmental and planning decisions which affect them.
Therefore, citizens input will continue to be solicited, primarily
through the Planning Board with advertised and adequately publi-
cized public meetings held to discuss special land use issues, and
' to keep citizens informed.
E. Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery,_and
Evacuation Plans
The entire North Carolina Coastal region, including Wright-
sville Beach, faces strong threats of damage each year from hurri-
canes, Northeasters, or other major storms. For nearly 20 years,
' there was a marked "slowdown", or "lull", in hurricane activity
along the State's coast. Predictions were that a major storm
could strike the State at any time during the hurricane season,
since such a storm was "long overdue". And then, in September,
1984? the "waiting" ended. Hurricane Diana, with some of the
strongest sustained winds ever recorded, rammed into the Southeast
coast near, but fortunately not directly on the Wilmington/ -
Wrightsville Beach area. Although damage was extensive, the
potential destruction could have been much greater. The damage
would have been greatly intensified had the storm hit land at a
slightly different location. This time the State and the South-
east coastal area were relatively fortunate. But, what about next
time . . .?
Notice the excerpt below from Before the Storm: Managing
Development to Reduce Hurricane Damages, McElyea, Brower, &
Godschalk, 1982, concerning development in coastal communities:
"At the same time, development along the coast has
grown by leaps and bounds. Unless this development is
wisely located and built to withstand hurricane forces,
North Carolina's coastal communities will face massive
destruction. Local governments, as the primary protect-
ors of the public health, safety, and general welfare,
have a responsibility to reduce the risk of property
damages and loss of life attending coastal development.
They also have a responsibility to ensure that recon-
struction following a major storm can occur quickly and
leave the community safer from disaster in the future.
These are the goals of hazard mitigation and reconstruc-
tion planning." (p.iii)
The purpose of this section of the 1985 CAMA Land Use Plan
Update, is to assist the Town of Wrightsville Beach in managing
development in potentially hazardous areas through establishing
hazard mitigation policies and to reduce the risks associated with
future hurricanes by developing post -disaster reconstruction/ -
recovery policies, and reviewing the adequacy of the Town's cur-
rent evacuation plans. (See "Composite Hazards Map", Map 5,
attached to this report). The overriding concept behind this
exercise is simple - "Plan for disasters ahead of time." Notice
the excerpt below:
"Hazard mitigation includes any activity which
reduces the probability that a disaster will occur or
minimizes the damage caused by a disaster. Hazard miti-
62
I
I
' gation includes not only managing development, but also
evacuation planning and other measures to reduce losses
' of life and property. Reconstruction involves the full
range of repair activities in the wake of a disaster
which seek to return the community to a "normal" level
of operations." (McElyea, Brower, & Godschalk, p. iii).
With this introduction, the following pages will present the
storm hazard mitigation and post -disaster recovery policies, and
review of the existing evacuation plan along with appropriate
discussions and maps.
1. storm Hazard Mitigation: Discussion
Hazard mitigation, or actions taken to reduce the probability
or impact of a disaster could involve a number of activities or
policy decisions. The starting point, however, is to identify the
types of hazards (including the relative severity and magnitude of
risks), and the extent of development (including residential,
commercial, etc.) located in storm hazard areas.
Hurricanes are extremely powerful, often unpredictable forces
of nature. The two most severe effects are fatalities and pro-
perty damage, which are usually the result of four causes: high
winds, flooding, wave action, and erosion, each of which are dis-
cussed briefly below:
' a. High Winds
High winds are the major determinants of a hurricane, by
definition, i.e., a tropical disturbance with sustained winds of
at least 73 miles per hour. Extreme hurricanes can have winds of
up to 165 miles per hour, with gusts up to 200 miles per hour.
These winds circulate around the center or "eye" of the storm.
Although the friction or impact of the winds hitting land from the
water causes some dissipation of the full force, there is still a
tremendous amount of energy left to cause damage to buildings,
overturn mobile homes, down trees and powerlines, and destroy
crops. Barrier islands, like the majority of Wrightsville Beach's
Jurisdictions are often the first areas hit. Also, tornadoes are
often spawned by hurricane wind patterns. Wind stress, therefore,
is an important consideration in storm hazard mitigation planning,
particularly for barrier island communities. Wrightsville Beach
' has certain areas identified as "high velocity" or "V-13 zones,"
located along the immediate ocean front, primarily. Because of a
hurricane's size and power, however, it is likely that all of
' Wrightsville Beach would be subject to the same wind velocity in
the event of a major storm.
r
63
'
' b. Flooding
Flooding, on the other hand, may not affect all areas with
' equal rigor. The excessive amounts of rainfall and the "storm
surge" which often accompany hurricanes can cause massive coastal
and riverine flooding causing excessive property damage and deaths
' by drownings. (More deaths are caused by drowning than any other
cause in hurricanes.) Flooding is particularly a problem in bar-
rier island areas because of the storm surge and low-lying areas.
' However, flooding can cause extensive damage in inland areas also,
since many coastal areas have low elevations and are located in
high hazard or "Zone A" flood areas according to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency Maps. Based on recent preliminary
' flood insurance maps prepared for Wrightsville Beach, virtually
all of the Town is classified as being in the 100-year "high
hazard" flood zone, or Zone A. (These maps do not include the
' recently annexed area across the AIWW, which was not part of the
Town at the time of the study.) Because of low elevation, all of
the beach area, including Harbor Island, would be subject to
flooding during a severe hurricane. The wind -driven storm surge
would also affect Harbor Island, since this area is surrounded by
water (i.e., the AIWW, Lee's Cut, Bank's Channel, and Mott's
Channel). See Map 5, "Composite Hazards Map," attached).
' As Map 5 shows, all of the "development" in Wrightsville
Beach's original jurisdiction is in the high hazard Zone A area.
' Consideration of potential flood damage is important to
Wrightsville Beach's efforts to develop storm mitigation
policies.
1
64
F
I
C
t
c. Wave Action
Damage from wave action is connected very closely to the
storm surge, i.e., wind -driven water with high waves moving to
vulnerable shoreline areas. Areas most likely to be affected are
ocean erodible areas and estuarine shoreline areas. The ocean
erodible area in Wrightsville Beach, as defined on page 13 of
this Plan, includes the area basically considered as "the beach."
In conjunction with CAMA requirements and the Town's building
line, the only "development" allowed in this area are piers. The
base flood elevation for Wrightsville is calculated to be 12.1
feet mean sea level (msl), while the wave surge is calculated to
be 2.6 msl, for a total flood elevation of 14.7 feet msl. The
potential for wave action damage to development in Wrightsville
Beach is greatest within the "first row" of development along the
oceanfront behind the official building line. Within this area,
there are 138 single-family lots developed (some lots may contain
duplexes, for projection purposes; however, one unit per lot will
be assumed); 168 condominiums (including 22 townhouse units), 415
motel units, 3 commercial establishments other than motels, and
two lots in institutional use. Notice the summary of property
most susceptible to wave action drainage included below:
' Table 16: Summary of
Damage
P
1
11
Type
Most Susceptible to Water Action
No.
Est. Pct.
Town's Total
1.
Single Family
138
19.0
2.
Condominiums
168
69.0
3.
Motel Units
415
77.0
4.
Commercial
3
5.0
5.
Institutional
2
16.0
Source: Based on data from Town Building Inspector, Public Works
Department; Projections by Talbert, Cox & Associates
Table 16 indicates that about 22% of all structures in the
Town could be affected by severe wave action.
The estuarine shoreline within Wrightsville Beach jurisdic-
tion, as described on page 16, includes all of the land area
around Harbor Island and the Banks Channel Shoreline (referred to
as the "Soundside"), inland to a distance of 75 feet from the mean
high water mark. There is a considerable amount of development in
this area, mostly residential. Wave action would not be antici-
pated to cause significant damage in this area.
65
11
' d. Erosion
The final major consideration in storm hazard mitigation is
' severe erosion, caused by a combination of high winds, high water,
and heavy wave action. Again, in Wrightsville Beach, the areas
most susceptible to storm -related erosion are the undeveloped
' oceanfront areas and estuarine shoreline AEC as described above in
Part c. Shoreline erosion, particularly resulting from rapidly
receding flood waters, could lead to loss of property through
' portions of waterfront lots being washed away or even actual
structural damage to buildings. While erosion potential is an
important factor to consider in developing storm hazard mitigation
policies, it should be noted that there is extensive bulkheading
along Banks Channel, and around Harbor Island. The presence of
these bulkheads could likely mitigate some of the potential ero-
sion damage.
e. Summary: Storm Hazard Mitigation Considerations
' In summary, all four of the major damaging forces of a hurri-
cane, i.e., high winds, flooding, wave action, and shoreline ero-
sion could have a potential significant impact upon Wrightsville
Beach in the event of a major storm. The degree of susceptibility
' to losses and/or damages is an important consideration in storm
hazard mitigation planning. Table 17, below, provides some per-
ception of the percent of the Town's building structures (residen-
tial and commercial, etc.), subject to the potentially devastating
effects of a major storm:
Table 17 *Percent of Structures Subject to Storm Damage Factors,
' Wrightsville Beach
Storm Impact Percent Structures Possibly Affected
' 1. High winds 100%
2. Flooding 100%
3. [lave Action 22%
4. Shoreline Erosion 20%
Based on preliminary projections derived from examination of
Existing Land Use Map and discussion with personnel in Town's
Public Works Department. Map prepared by Talbert, Cox &
Associates.
' The information in the Table above is preliminary and is not
intended to convey the impression that every single structure
' possibly affected by damaging factors would be affected, only that
the potential is there. With a 1984 tax base of nearly 259 mil-
lion dollars (see Table 4, page 8), if every structure susceptible
to damage were damaged 50%, the impact upon the Town's tax base
' would be quite significant. Knowing that the potential exists,
1 66
I
1
therefore, forms the basis for setting forth storm hazard mitiga-
tion policies, keeping in mind that "mitigate" means actions which
may reduce the probability of disaster, or minimize the damage
caused by a disaster (McElyea, Brower, & Godschalk, p, iii).
f. Policy Statements: Storm Hazard Mitigation
In order to minimize the damage potentially caused by the
effects of a hurricane or other major storm, Wrightsville Beach
proposes the following policies.
1. High Winds
Wrightsville Beach supports enforcement of the N. C.
State Building Code. The Town will continue to
enforce the State Building Code on wind resistant
construction with design standards of from 120 to 150
'
mph wind loads.
'
2. Flooding
Wrightsville Beach is an active participant in the
National Flood Insurance Program and is supportive of
'
hazard mitigation elements. Wrightsville Beach is
participating in the regular phase of the insurance
program and enforces a Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance. The base flood elevation, as set out in
'
the ordinance, is 12.1 msl. For all construction,
however, Wrightsville Beach requires an additional
'
2.6 feet for "wave surge height," for a total of 14.7
feet to the bottom of "the first supporting member,"
i.e. joists. This results in the first floor being
more than one foot above the flood stage level and
exceeds the usual standards of the Flood Insurance
Program. Also, the Town allows only 200 S.F. of
entrance and enclosed storage space on the first
floor of structure. This is less than the area
allowable under the National Flood Insurance Program.
Wrightsville Beach also supports continued enforce-
ment of the CAMA and 404 Wetlands development permit
processes in areas potentially susceptible to flood-
ing.
' 3. Wave Action and Shoreline Erosion
Wrightsville Beach is supportive of the CAMA develop-
ment permit process for estuarine shoreline areas and
the requisite development standards which encourage
both shoreline stabilization and facilitation of
proper drainage.
1
67
I
II
I
g. Implementation: Storm Hazard Mitigation
1. Wrightsville Beach will continue to enforce the
standards of the State Building Code.
2. The Town will continue to support enforcement of
1 State and Federal programs which aid in mitigation of
hurricane hazards, including CAMA and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers 404 permit process, FEMA, as well
1 as local ordinances such as zoning and subdivision
regulations.
1
1
1
1
1
C
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1 63
2. Post -Disaster Reconstruction Plan
' Wrightsville Beach recognizes that in the event of a major
storm, it will be very important to have a general recovery and
reconstruction plan. The Town's Civil Defense Plan, which
includes Post -Disaster elements as well, was utilized during after
' Hurricane Diana, in September, 1984. However, the experience
taught the Town that some additional elements were needed. This
section of the Land Use Plan Update will address this issue.
' a. Appointment of a "Post Disaster Recovery Team"
In the event of a major storm having landfall in or near
' Wrightsville Beach, when evacuation orders are issued, the
Mayor shall appoint a "Post -Disaster Recovery Team". The total
team may consist of the following:
' 1. Town Manager
2. Civil Defense Director (Team Leader)
1 3. Police Chief
4. Public Works Director
5. Town Building Inspector
6. Town Council Members
' The Civil Defense Director will serve as the Team Leader and
will be responsible to the Town Manager. The base of operations
' will be the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) identified in the
Town Evacuation Plan or as designated by'the governing body. The
Disaster Recovery Team will be responsible for the following:
' 1. Establishing an overall restoration schedule.
2. Setting restoration priorities.
' 3. Determining requirements for outside assistance and
requesting such assistance when beyond local capabi-
lities.
4. Keeping the appropriate County and State officials
informed.
5. Keeping the public informed.
' 6. Assembling and maintaining records of actions taken
and expenditures and obligations incurred.
' 7. Recommending to the Mayor to proclaim a local "state
of emergency" if warranted.
1
69
iF]
Lj
i
r-�
17
L
8. Commencing and coordinating cleanup, debris removal
and utility restoration which would include coordina-
tion of restoration activities undertaken by private
utility companies.
9. Coordinating repair and restoration of essential
public facilities and services in accordance with
determined priorities.
10. Assisting private businesses and individual property
owners in obtaining information on the various types
of assistance that might be available to them from
federal and state agencies.
b. Immediate Clean -Up amd Debris Removal
As soon as practical after the storm, the Disaster Recovery
Team specifically, the Public Works Director, will direct
appropriate Town personnel, and as necessary, request State and/or
Federal assistance to begin clearing fallen trees and other debris
from the Town's roads and bridges.
c. Long Term Recovery/Restoration
The Disaster Recovery Team will be responsible for overseeing
the orderly implementation of the
major storm or hurricane in accord
land use regulations and policies.
1. Damage Assessments
reconstruction process after a
with the Town's building and
Damage assessments will be necessary to determine as
quickly as possible a realistic estimate of the
amount of damage caused by a hurricane or major
storm. Information such as the number of structures
damaged, the magnitude of damage, and the estimated
total dollar loss will need to be developed.
As soon as practical after the storm, i.e., clearance
of major roadways, the Disaster Recovery Team Leader
shall set up a Damage Assessment Team (DAT),
consisting of the Building Inspector, Civil Defense
Director, a local realtor or building contractor, and
appropriate personnel from the New Hanover County tax
department. If sufficient personnel is available,
two Damage Assessment Teams will be established. The
DAT will immediately begin to make "windshield"
surveys of damaged structures to initially assess
damages and provide a preliminary dollar value of
repairs or replacement. The following general cri-
teria shall be utilized:
70
I
'
a. Destroyed (repairs would cost more than 80
percent of value).
b. Major (repairs would cost more than 30 percent of
the value):
c. Minor (repairs would cost less than 30 percent of
the value, but the structure is currently uninhabit-
able).
d. Habitable (some minor damage, with repairs less
than 15 percent of the value).
Each damage assessment will be documented according
to County tax records. Also, Town tax maps and/or
records may be used for identification purposes).
The total estimated dollar value of damages will be
'
summarized and reported to the Disaster Recovery Team
Leader.
1
2. Reconstruction Development Standards
Generally, reconstruction shall be held at least to
the same development standards as before the storm in
'
accord with Section 21.9.g of the Town zoning
ordinance. However, developed structures which were
destroyed and which did not conform to the Town's
'
building regulations, zoning ordinances, and other
storm hazard mitigation policies, i.e., basic
measures to reduce damage by high winds, flooding,
1
wave action or erosion, must be redeveloped according
to those policies. In some instances, this may mean
relocation of construction, or no reconstruction at
all. Building permits to restore destroyed or
'
damaged structures, which were built in conformance
with the Town's building code and Town storm hazard
mitigation policies, shall be issued automatically.
All structures suffering major damage will be
repaired according to the Town's building code. All
structures suffering minor damage, regardless of
'
location, will be allowed to be rebuilt to the
original condition prior to the storm.
3. Development Moratoria
Because of the density of development at Wrightsville
Beach and the possible extensive damage caused by a
major storm, it may be necessary for the Town to pro-
hibit all redevelopment activities for a certain per-
iod of time after a storm. This "moratorium" could
11
1
71
'
allow the Town time to carefully access all damage in
view of existing policies, building regulations, and
ordinances, in order to help determine whatever
existing policies, etc., should be revised to miti-
gate similar damage from future storms. The intent
of such a moratorium would be to learn all the
lessons possible and try and determine what steps and
precautions the Town can take in rebuilding so as not
to suffer damage to the same extent. If a moratorium
is established, the time frame will be commensurate
with the extent of the damage. The actual time frame
will be established by the Board of Aldermen.
'
4. Repair/Reconstruction Schedule
The following schedule of activities and time frame
are proposed with the realistic idea that many fac-
'
tors of a hurricane may render the Schedule infeasi-
ble.
1
Activity Time Frame
a) Complete and Report Damage
One week after storm
Assessments
b) Begin Repairs to Critical
As soon as possible
Utilities and Facilities
after storm
c) Permitting of Reconstruction
After a 90-day
activities for all damaged
moratorium, and
'
structures ("minor" to pre -storm
completion of all
original status, "major" to State
assessments
Building Code and hazard
mitigation standards
5. Agency Responsible for Implementation
The Civil Defense Director will serve as overall
Emergency Coordinator, under the direction of the
Town Manager. The Mayor may also delegate the over-
sight of the reconstruction and recovery effort and
implementation of the plan to this person or other
Town personnel.
6. Repair and Replacement of Public Utilities
If water lines or any component of the water system
is damaged and it is determined that the facilities
can be relocated to a less hazardous location, then
they will be relocated during reconstruction. This
activity will be coordinated with Carolina Power and
'
Light Company, for electrical service. The Public
Works Department Director will be responsible for
overseeing the repair or replacement of public utili-
'
ties.
'
72
I
9. Hurricane Evacuation Plan
a. General
Wrightsville Beach has an official "Civil Defense Operations
Plan" which includes a general Hurricane Plan. Included in the
' Hurricane Plan are procedures for responses to various pre -hurri-
cane conditions:
a) Condition 3 - Hurricane Watch
1 b) Condition 2 - Hurricane Warning
' c) Condition 1 - Evacuation
For each condition, specific procedures are outlined involv-
ing all of the Town's departments, including Administrative, Pub-
lic Works, Parks and Recreation, and fire departments. The Fire
Chief also serves as Civil Defense Director. Also, all implemen-
tation activities are coordinated with the New Hanover County
Emergency Management office in Wilmington. Unlike many smaller
beach communities, the evacuation provisions of the Wrightsville
Beach Civil Defense Operations Plan is very detailed and spells
out clearly most of the duties and responsibilities of the Town's
staff in the event of a major storm. The Plan had a recent oppor-
tunity to be "tested" in September, 1984 during Hurricane Diana.
Although the Plan was implemented successfully, Town officials
made several observations of how the Plan could be improved.
Also, as part of the 1985 Land Use Plan Update, the evacuation
plan was reviewed by the Assistant Director of the North Carolina
Division of Emergency Management for its adequacy. Generally, the
plan was appraised as adequate to meet the needs of the Town.
Several elements, such as the attachments to the Plan and the
"assistance call checklist" were praised for their innovativeness
(it was noted that Wrightsville Beach's call list was one of only
two the Assistant Director had seen). The attachments and the
call list, he pointed out, do require periodic updating. Other
comments from the Division of Emergency Management are included
below.
b. Review of Adequacy of Evacuation Plan
First, it was pointed out that an "increased readiness check-
list" would simplify the actions required of the several depart-
ments at any level of readiness or operational condition, i.e.,
watch, warning, evacuation, etc. Also, a checklist could
summarize the actions of the 10 agencies shown in the evacuation
' plan, as well as possibly reduce the size of the current plan.
Some of the specific activity shown for the departments
should be included in their internal Standard Operating Procedures
and not just in the Town's Plan. Names and numbers must also be
kept current.
1 73
I
Additional information which should be included would be to
identify who is in operational control and display it with a man-
ning chart. Decisions are made by the executive members of
government, but they are put into effect by the operations
officer. Prior to evacuation, coordination must be made with New
Hanover County to preclude congestion and traffic control problems
' when the beach traffic hits the major highways; otherwise, the
evacuation process could encounter problems.
1 Several activities are to be undertaken at various times
according to the plan. Trailers are to be rented, machinery and
records packed and moved, and identification tags issued. These
activities depend on personnel that may not be available or will-
ing to remain when needed. They should be accomplished prior to
the time that the need for them arises. Agreements should be
developed to assure that trailers are available in an emergency
without a leasing process. Also, it should be clarified which
personnel will be responsible for moving which motors and other
equipment. It should be certain that "packaging material" is
available for the records which will be removed, remembering that
when the need to move them arises, it will likely be in bad wea-
ther. The required identification tags should be readily avail-
able and the personnel who will use them should know where to
locate them. Again, most of this information should be included
in the department's Standard Operating Procedures.
c. Evacuation Time
The evacuation time from Wrightsville Beach would vary
' according to the season in which a storm would be threatening. In
the "off season," when tourism is at its lowest (as occurred
during Hurriane Diana, the evacuation time was approximately 3-4
hours. However, if a storm should occur during the peak of the
summer tourist season, it is projected to take 12 hours. All
projected evacuations, however, are contingent upon proper opera-
tion of the drawbridge. There are currently no specific plans
addressing the situation if the drawbridge were "out" during a
massive evacuation. This is an issue which must be addressed,
particularly since the drawbridge is the Town's only access across
the Intracoastal Waterway to the mainland. Under "normal" bridge
operating conditions, the current projected evacuation times are
adequate within the standard warning time provided by the National
Weather Service.
One possible alternative to the malfunction of the drawbridge
is to identify and designate as much as possible any potential
"shelter" sites on Harbor Island. These sites, while theoretical-
ly not as safe as farther inland shelters, could afford a higher
measure of protection than could be found on the beach strand.
1 74
1
1 4. Re -Entry
Procedures for re-entry are addressed in the existing
evacuation plan. Basically, during the imposition of the
evacuation, no one other than required Town personnel and
emergency personnel are allowed back across the Waterway.
11
I]
I
1
I
I
I
I
75
I
SECTION III :
Land Classification System
SECTION III: LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The land classification system provides a uniform way of
looking at how the planned use of land interacts with environmen-
tally sensitive areas and with the development of a County or
Town. It is not a strict regulatory device in the sense of a
zoning ordinance or zoning map. It represents more of a tool to
understand relationships between various land use categories and
how these relationships help shape local policy. Particular
attention is focused on how intensely land is utilized and the
level of services required to support that intensity. The regula-
tions for the Coastal Area Management Act state:
"The land classification system provides a framework to be
used by local governments to identify the future use of all
lands. The designation of land classes allows the local
government to illustrate their policy statements as to where
and to what density they want growth to occur, and where they
want to conserve natural and cultural resources by guiding
growth." (7B.0204) (b)
There are five general land use classifications under CAMA,
Developed, Transition, Community, Rural, and Conservation. In
applying the land classification system, each local government
should give careful consideration to how, where and when certain
types of, and intensity of "development," will be either encourag-
ed or discouraged. A brief summary of the five broad classifica-
tions, as contained in the CAMA rules, might illustrate this. For
example:
"Urban land uses and higher intensity uses which presently
require the traditional urban services should be directed to
lands classified developed. Areas developing or anticipated
to develop at urban densities which will eventually require
urban services should be directed to lands classified transi-
tion. Low density development in settlements which will not
require sewer services should be directed to areas classified
as community. Agriculture, forestry, mineral extraction and
other similar low intensity uses and very low density, dis-
persed residential uses should be directed to lands classi-
fied rural. Generally, public or private water or sewer
systems will not be provided in areas classified rural as an
incentive for intense development." (7B.0204) (c)
iThe purpose of the conservation class is to "provide for the
effective long-term management and protection of significant,
I limited, or irreplaceable areas." Consequently, urban services
(whether public or private) should not be provided to those areas
as an incentive to "stimulate" more intense development. Each of
these classes must be represented on a Land Classification Map.
The five land classifications and Land Classification Map are
therefore intended to serve as a visual reflection of the policies
76
I
previously stated in Section II. Ideally, the map which depicts
these classifications should be as flexible as the policies that
guide them. (See attached Land Classification Map) of these five
land classifications, only three, Developed, Transition, and
Conservation, are applicable to Wrightsville Beach.
1 These three land use classifications, as they will be applied
in Wrightsville Beach, are identified and defined below.
A. DEVELOPED
The developed class of land use provides for continued inten-
sive development and redevelopment of existing cities or munici-
palities. Areas to be classified as "developed" include lands
currently developed for urban purposes or approaching a density of
500 dwellings per square mile that are provided with usual munici-
pal or public services, police and fire protection. In other
words, such areas must currently be "urban" in character, i.e.
have mixed land uses such as residential, commercial, industrial
and institutional, or other uses at high to medium densities.
Nearly all of the developable land in Wrightsville Beach's
Jurisdiction comes under this classification, including the
recently annexed Galleria Shopping Center across the Waterway; and
other than the Galleria, the Town's water and sewer system serves
the entire jurisdiction.
B. TRANSITION
Transition land is classified as those lands providing for
future intensive urban development within the ensuing ten years on
lands that are most suitable and that will be scheduled for provi-
sion of necessary public utilities and services. They may also
provide for additional growth when additional lands in the devel-
oped class are not available or when they are severely limited for
development.
jLands classified "transition" may include:
1. lands currently having urban services;
2. lands necessary to accommodate the population and econo-
mic growth anticipated within the planning jurisdiction
over the next five to ten years;
3. areas which are in, or will be in, a "transition" state
of development, i.e. going from a lower intensity to a
higher intensity, of uses and will eventually require
1 urban services.
Transition lands must further:
1. be served or be readily served by public water, sewer,
and other urban services including public streets, and
77
I
2. be generally free of severe physical limitations for
urban development.
The "transition" class should not include:
1. lands of high potential for agriculture, forestry, or
mineral extraction, or land falling within extensive
rural areas being managed commercially for these uses,
when other lands are available;
1 2. lands where urban development might result in major or
irreversible damage to important environmental, scienti-
fic, or scenic values, or;
3. land where urban development might result in damage to
natural systems or processes of more than local concern;
and
4. lands where development will result in undue risk to life
' or property from natural hazards or existing land uses.
The only area to be classified as "transition" in Wrights-
ville Beach is the north end of Shell Island, which is projected
to be developed within the early phases of the planning period.
This area will be provided the same municipal services currently
provided to the rest of the Town.
The Developed and Transition classes should be the only lands
under active consideration by a municipality for intensive urban
development requiring urban services. The area within these
classes is where detailed local land use and public investment
planning will occur. State and Federal expenditures on projects
associated with urban development (water, sewer, urban street
systems, etc.) will be guided to these areas.
C. CONSERVATION
The final land use category for Wrightsville Beach is the
"Conservation" class which provides for.effective long-term
management of significant limited or irreplaceable areas. This
management may be needed because of its natural, cultural,
recreational, productive or scenic values. This class should be
limited to lands that contain: major wetlands; essentially
undeveloped shorelands that are unique, fragile, or hazardous for
development, for providing necessary habitat conditions; publicly
owned water supply watersheds and aquifers.
In Wrightsville Beach, the environmentally sensitive areas
identified as Areas of Environmentally Concern (AECs) i.e. some of
Athe Wetlands, Estuarine Waters, Estuarine Shorelines, Public Trust
I
r78
I
iAreas, and Ocean Hazards AECs are classified as "Conservation."
These areas are designated currently as "conservation zone" in the
Town's zoning ordinance.
D. LAND CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY
' The proposed classification of land, according to the levels
of intensity and provision of public services in Wrightsville
Beach, were presented in parts A through C, above. These classi-
fications relate directly to the "policy statements" contained in
Section II of this Plan. Additional information on the relation-
ship between the land classification system and policies will be
presented in the following Section IV.
T
I
r
11
I
n
i
79
I
SECTION IV:
Relationship Of Policies And
Land Classification System
I
SECTION IV: RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
As required by the Coastal Area Management Act, the land use
plan must relate the policies section to the land classification
map and provide some indication as to which land uses are appro-
priate in each class.
A. DEVELOPED AND TRANSITION CLASSES
As mentioned in the discussion of existing conditions, nearly
all of Wrightsville Beach is developed, and the largest
developable tract of land will be developed within the planning
period. This is the area where basic services such as water,
sewer, and community support services are available and/or will be
available within the planning period. The developed and
transition classes were specifically designated to accommodate the
more intensive land uses, including residential, commercial, and
open space, community facilities and transportation. Hazardous or
offensive uses such as land application systems, power plants, and
chemical storage facilities will not be permitted in these
classes. Land uses will be strictly regulated by the Town's
existing zoning and development regulations.
B. CONSERVATION CLASS
The conservation class is designated to provide for effective
long-term management of significant limited or irreplaceable areas
which include Areas of Environmental Concern, both in the estua-
rine and ocean hazards systems. Development in the estuarine
system should be restricted to such uses as commercial piers,
bulkheads, marinas, and other water -dependent uses which are
judged not to be detrimental to water quality or the overall
integrity of the environment through pollution, etc. Policy
Statements under Resource Protection, and Resource Production and
Management in Section II of this plan address the Town's inten-
tions under this class.
J
I
1 80
LJ
APPENDIX 1
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 4-17(E) OF THE BUILDING CODE
October 11, 1985
Add new paragraph as follows:
All building projects shall be designed, constructed, and
completed in such a manner that no stormwater will run off the
site. The building inspector shall approve all plans and inspect
all construction. Design standards shall be zero stormwater
runoff for up to four (4) inches of rainwater in a 24 hour
period. The building inspector shall certify on the permit
compliance with installation of the design standard.
APPENDIX 2
I
I
I
1-1
I
Board of Aldermen
Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
Date: April 11, 1985
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF
THE TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF
THE TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
WHEREAS, the Board of Aldermen of the Town of Wrightsville
Beach, North Carolina, as public officials acknowledge their duty to
the residents and visitors to Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, in
protecting their health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the Board of Aldermen
that there is potentially a substantial increase in the number of
floating homes designed primarily as permanent dwelling units to be
located on or in the estuaries and public trust waters within the
zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Wrightsville Beach; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Aldermen also are aware that the waterways
and estuaries located within the zoning jurisdiction of the Town of
Wrightsville Beach at the present time are enjoyed by Town residents,
other residents of New Hanover County and visitors to the area for
recreational and other purposes; and
WHEREAS, the preservation of a high water quality within those
waters located within the zoning jurisdiction of the Town of
Wrightsville Beach has been and continues to be of importance to the
Town of Wrightsville Beach; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that the Board of Aldermen control the
growth and density of floating homes designed primarily as permanent
dwelling units within said estuaries and public trust waters; and
WHEREAS, a significant influx of floating homes designed
.primarily as permanent dwelling units will have a detrimental effect
upon the use of the waterways within the zoning jurisdiction of the
Town of Wrightsville Beach; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Aldermen is aware of the dangers of the
introduction of wastewater or "grey water" of any kind into the
waterways of the Town, and of the problems associated with the
potential increase in such discharges resulting from a significant
increase in the number of floating homes; and
WHEREAS, Wrightsville Beach's coastal wetlands, estuarine
waters, estuarine shorelands and public trust waters are a most
important and valuable natural resource for the Town of Wrightsville
Beach; and
I
u
WHEREAS, floating homes designed primarily as permanent dwelling
units create the same or similar problems associated with land based
housing and require regulation in the same fashion as such land based
housing to include the areas of solid -waste disposal, sewage, police
protection and related requirements; and
WHEREAS, floating homes designed primarily as permanent dwelling
units create a fire hazard similar to or greater than that of land
based housing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Aldermen of the Town of
Wrightsville Beach doth ordain:
1. That the zoning ordinance of the Town of Wrightsville
Beach, North Carolina, as amended, be and the same is hereby further
amended as follows:
A. Amend Article I, Section 21-1, definitions, by
adding the following definitions in proper alphabetical order:
Floating Home. Any vessel in fact used,
designed, or occupied as a permanent dwelling unit,
business office, or source of any occupation or for any
private or social club of whatsoever nature, including, but
not limited to, a structure constructed upon a barge
primarily immobile and out of navigation or which functions
substantially as a land structure while the same is
anchored, moored or docked within the zoning jurisdiction
of the Town of Wrightsville Beach, whether such vessel is
self propelled or not and whose volume coefficient is
greater than 3,000 square feet. Volume coefficient shall
be determined by dividing the habitable space of a vessel
'
measured in cubic feet by the draft of a vessel measured in
feet of depth.
Where the dead weight of a vessel is excessive
from the use of ballast or the extensive use of materials
not reasonably needed to provide a safe and durable hull,
the weight of such ballast or additional hull thickness
shall be computed and any draft resulting from such excess
weight or from keels or other projections from the vessel's
bottom shall not be included in the vessel draft used to
compute the volume coefficient of the vessel.
Vessel. Any watercraft of any type or size,
including but not limited to, barges, ferry boats, yachts,
houseboats, floating homes and rafts.
B. Amend Article II, Section 21-27 of the zoning
ordinance of the Town of Wrightsville Beach by adding under
iSubparagraph (E) Additional Conditional Uses, the following:
Commercial marinas with floating homes.
r
C. Amend Article II, Section 21-27 of the zoning
ordinance of the Town of Wrightsville Beach by adding a new
Subparagraph (G) as follows:
(G) Requirements for commercial marinas with
floating homes. Commercial marinas with floating homes
shall be permitted as provided in this Section 21-27
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Not more than one dwelling unit per
'
floating home shall be permitted;
(2) The height of a floating home shall not
exceed sixteen (16) feet above the water line=
provided that antennas, removable canopies, masts and
electronic and navigational equipment shall not be
Iincluded
in making this height determination;
(3) Floating homes shall be moored to
provide a clear waterway projection between adjacent
floating homes or vessels of six feet on all sides;
(4) All walkways or gangways providing
access to any floating home shall comply with the
'
following requirements:
(a) Be constructed in accordance with
the Pier and Dock ordinance of the Town of
Wrightsville Beach;
(b) Be lighted to provide illumination
of 0.1 footcandles at the deck level, but in no
case less than 0.05 footcandles;
t(5)
A minimum of two (2) off-street parking
spaces per floating home shall be provided on shore;
(6) Each marina shall provide for each
floating home permanent water and sewer systems approved by
the Public Works Department of the Town of Wrightsville
Beach. Each floating home shall be connected to such water
and sewer system. All wastewater piping from the floating
homes shall be constructed in accordance with the North
Carolina State Plumbing Code and all water and sewer
connections to the public utility system shall be as
prescribed* under Federal and State Safe Drinking Water
Acts. No overboard discharge openings through the hull or
home shall be permitted except for one dewatering pipe,
which may not be connected to wastewater piping or to any
bilge or sump into which wastewater drains. For purposes of
1
this Ordinance, wastewater shall include bathwater, dishwater
and other greywater as well as sewage.
r
I
I
(7) All electrical
wiring
running
on docks
and/or shore from the distribution
center
to the
point of
supply on the floating home shall
Electrical Code;
conform
to the
National
(8) A system for the collection and removal
of solid wastes approved by the Public Works Department of
the Town of Wrightsville Beach shall be provided by each
marina;
r(9) Each marina shall provide a drypipe
fire fighting system approved by the Fire Chief of the
Wrightsville Beach Fire Department and constructed in
accordance with the provisions of the Pier and Dock
Ordinance of the Town of Wrightsville Beach;
(10) A minimum of 2,000 square feet of gross
land area contiguous to the docks provided for floating
homes and above mean high water shall be provided on -shore
for each floating home;
(11) A site plan shall be submitted for
approval in connection with the application for a
conditional use permit, such plan to indicate all
improvements as required by this ordinance;
(12) Any commercial marinas in which
floating homes are located on the date of adoption of this
ordinance shall have six months from the date of adoption
to comply with all requirements of this ordinance.
D. Amend Article X. Su lementar District
Regulations, by adding new Sections 21-72 and 21- 3 as follows:
' Article X. Supplementary District Regulations.
Sec. 21-72. Floating homes prohibited except in permitted
districts.
I
ri
It shall be unlawful for any floating home
to dock, moor, anchor or remain within the waters
within the zoning jurisdiction of the Town of
Wrightsville Beach except in permitted commercial
marinas.
Sec. 21-73. Prohibited acts and activities regarding
floating homes.
(A) It
occupy, or cause,
any floating home
shall be unlawful for any person to
or permit another person to occupy
within the zoning jurisdiction of
I
n
U
I
I
I
1
I
r
1
[1
I
G
P
the Town of Wrightsville Beach except in permitted
commercial marinas.
(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to
cause or allow a floating home located on or docked or
moored to his property to be occupied in violation of
the zoning ordinance and other applicable ordinances
of the Town of Wrightsville Beach.
2. That ordinance adopted July 28, 1983 controlling the
use of floating homes within the limits of the Town of Wrightsville
Beach entitled in part "Ordinance Controlling the Use of Floating
Structures Within the Limits of the Town of Wrightsville Beach" is
hereby repealed.
3. Any ordinance or any part of any ordinance in conflict
with this ordinance, to the extent of such conflict, is hereby
repealed.
4. This ordinance is adopted in the interest of public
health, safety, morals and general welfare of the inhabitants of the
Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, and shall be in full
force and effect from and after its adoption.
This ordinance adopted this llth day of April, 1985.
ATTEST:
Town Clerk. %
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
T wn Attorney
Mayor
I
TOWN
WRIGHTSVI
NORTH
- EXISTING I
f.
1 \ i
f
• � �j %� I ao �I ll •
- \
----..)
1 � � rll�i -'''I�.r � r-" �I r �.._�•L ._..;_may �- �t - - . _ = -
-77
Vol _j
/ `•-� � \\ - F ` _�� r r � RQ i/,F��+i'_' of-_ ..• , .. _ • _ ! rr�_rr _ '
OF
LLE BEAC H
CAROLINA
4'
tip
t �h
400 400 moo 11200 1e00
SCALE IN PEST
'
VIC&
TAu6M, OOX • AGOOMIS16 MM
/aa oat aftu mov"'k1 coma•
ANU Ubt M A r ,
1965
LE
RESIDENTIAL
AP
4
RESIDENTIAL ANION DENSITY)
.
CO&W9111C)AL
��
tNSTI'fUTlrtiMiNtL •
■
INDUSTRIAL
RECRLATIONAL
�]
VACANT LOT
'
•
♦ -
wELL SIT98
• •�„ { t
�-
•
c� r .:
_
ct-
/ - - • - -- • � .Tim'~'✓ �.� �A .y-' •Y ` -J �+, � � • �-•� ` _ ! - � _ - - ••
/ �...... -L_ - �.c,�J.y�"`-•.N'� • •'.�VM7j r `-+L f J R A+ �-...i 1 -1-�J a�`11j�\' Zr� _ +"-��T""__.__ •�%• I� .. • ' -
ry
O -
2
o�`'�`----
�D y,tl C H A N N E L
O fi }L r&TF01 L SST
•. „••+' •. � r. - _ _ � - 1. ��
9 i;. ;...; .`�•-a_..i'..-i1-.•.-Y+j.«•• � � •_- fi --.. ----- -,:::...-- _ _ ... - _ _.. .1-+ --_—' _.. '� rf \` i <i•. n � -
L W arti.
1
•1
1 1 L-
4
T
-
rN
i � � t � � 1 t i s � 1 f , f ' 1 f v...�.-J I - t ' •'�; � � � -• � - r
SHELL ISLANDLA
s s e s �' c
O r O s A c �: +1 r • w P1 2 a S r J o • ri n ~
m • • - z s ar r • • . 1� L1i1.1; -
1 z e w•i'�-�s _. r~w... z-w•'T.�s _.-__.+�.e+T a = t z s t c T cam'+ z = O wMi ~ n t _— - ----- J r, lot
~�•e. o w. Iw z = s s 'rt _ e w, o o • 7w = = a ►e, u, o -
' _._. M y M • _ • y • ^ 1 M 2 ►��►•"may —'y= 1 r��� � M � ' _ ,fir n_. y _ ._.. _ -_ - _.
38
46
SEE PAGE(S) 5� 7=58 IN REPORT -
- __-----wsw��—r•w—ww�w�wwws��w�—��—�w�aa�wwwa•N�wrw—a•� ...,, .
s
y�Y
1w.Sv#• y�r,��gt
� i +�e,,yr ,•,.,y, •v .4 si�W '4, t:*i: .!6.i"• .. 'J 4 ,..,.
{js+M1•��sr �*asey. AIM r-, r,:,: .-`+'.- a +.: se,; ;,. .. ...,.� - � .-.. _._.._...•..... .--.....¢ . 4` r+ .-.y+<n�. v, #' '.'�eitV-', ¢:',''.i..s.c:.„a ..:2.a e+�, .. 7✓•}'•WJ y f ' ,
. ^'-•''faA-ca...F,.,F.,�'L}yl�` i-ti!,.�A w,.. Y, .'.•:, � .rfi .. '<::: r : *n....,.: ar:, :r Y.. „v. f - �'."„_•.'.-"."'.._'�".�•" ._.. ._ _.-.._.._-_..-._.,_.-.._ ! - - 1�
. , , .; .' t:ii,�•`a�,Sa'it'+t1+4)italk!Fisk��hAinc _
�'ffc#•4tA+'Sim-$i?�1�.�i.Jn�!•�s.'kfa•s•w-t#�+n•'h�4u - -_ - .-' d , .. ,v: •.,
. 'lili�-+".- ... , .. ..�d.4•� . .. . :.. .n. � �.� i !w, .' 6L' y -' .Y. 1 4� - -+`8 ,9. •IJ ' M - - t y¢• f
i +
That preparation of this map was financed in part through a grant provided by
-the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the
Office of Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
0
r
rn
w
It
Ik
C I T Y
•
•
{{
3
♦TER:. •a j
-
ILP
BLVD
LL
_ T
` !yc
_.
.. 1 • — _ -�• - i._
>• ! y�
•► .--mod � •' ( - •�.. r � :.- T
r o Q, -
SHELL ISLAND •
o �-
is
N��N
\ _� 7( _ _ �a..w=ems Z�� �•n�� r�=�0 _ a o s : s .n N o y n D > ..)
. O _ __ -i s —_ may„__. - _.. _._ _'-__-`-�._.♦''-_ - ._ - > - — =S!L � - O ~ O T 7 r r S > C N > as P1 O N M -
,:y30 _.. �. _._ a. O y p C
• .. Y N_� _.> C—_ +a �N -+ p It N S T = r > O O >
N -y � -f H • Y Y H Y r .' __.��r, `. )-`�.> -may Z���•• '� O N M � N E =
39
H Y "• N N _N __ -_ y - -_- ._ _ r- _ 7' -- '- y •,1 -_Y _� S f f ' N y ti - N, _� N r 1 ♦ _
1 n1 [ I
L y
rn
ip
-------MINIM— • 1 ,
0 C E A N
Wax
i�{.•G.•IA„I,�,��;y%i'w-.'.7M,;tr?»+.:w;a'>a,=.,�:��•-.h+,nw.6�a.Ra..,:.... .. -� aw+� �a•wytic,.�W, - -::�4, r' ',:fit
.: 1+sv'+uEr�-�➢iiRv�ff.n!f` ^rhi7`.a"aiMNtW4r...ye _"'-__-'. ,-...,._...-_.. ..- _ - _ .. .... . -
. , r, ....>yh ,..1 ,.e .. _.- ` ..� .v,...t. r . ��.,-. ` wa7 .A>..v •• j f ,.5, . T
,
-. a+�F4Vlklll�.��k�inzi?#�NB�iM�(�l�it4'+l+fik•"+�a. � .
�+:f
ova
WRI
G H TSV
NORTH
ILLE
CAROL-INA
COMPOSITE HAZARDS
EXISTING LAND USE MAP
1985
MAP 5
�a*ABEAC H
y ..
400 0 460 $00 1100 1444
tCAlF IN fEEi
T�warr, arx x xssxax� �,I
L9
f
I��tiIRfANTM4 •
11KgItf�NT1Al. (MIiM I�NiIT�tl
COMMiACtA4
�� INITITYTIONA{,
INf9YfTRIA4
�i_�J�
---_ � N�oM N�►s�►Ro poop �►N��
- II 90TVARM smoiss loo AN
_ •-----------
MARINA
• \ - \
l t
I 4 '
I
I
U
The preparation of this map was financed in part through a grant provided by
the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the
Office of Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
' • . ti x• •