CAMA Land Use Plan and Synopsis-

PROPERTY OF
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
I'1
ROBERT SAWYER, MAYOR
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACHTHFLANNiNG BOARD
WALJCER BROWN, CHAIRMAN
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY
�TATE OF NORTH OLINA
DEPAR F NA AND IC RESQURCES
LOCAL FLANNING IWIMEASTE IN ELD EFICEES JECTION
DAB JLoNG, Hoo' RIIE�HNICIAN.
MELBA IHOMPSON, ERIECFNICIAN
AM
HI�GGHH PEF Y, TOWN CLERK
FRED HUTCH, iiUILDING INSPECTOR
Ar -

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
II.
PRESENT CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
A. Population and Economy . . . .. . . . . . . . .
8
B. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
C. Plans, Policies and Regulations . . . . . . . .
15
III.
LAND USE OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND STANDARDS . . . .
17
Goals of CAMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Future Growth Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
Land Use Issues . . . . . . . • . • • • • • •
19
Objectives and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Land Use Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
IV.
CONSTRAINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
A. Land Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Physical limitations - ocean erodible areas . .
30
Physical limitations - estuarine erodible areas
31
Physical limitations - coastal floodplains . . .
32
Physical limitations - soils . . . . . . . . . .
34
Physical limitations - water supply . . . . . .
35
Fragile areas . . . . . . . .
36
B. Capacity of Community Facilities . . . . . . . .
38
V.
ESTIMATED DEMAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
•
A. Population and Economy -Trends
and Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
B, Future Land Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
C, Community Facilities Demand . . . . . . . . . .
44
0

Iti
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Cont.)
VI. LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
VII. AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN . . . . . . . . . . 47
VIII. TOWN - COUNTY RELATIONSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
IX. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
APPENDIX 1 - POPULATION ESTIMATES . . . . . . . . . 65
APPENDIX 2 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . . . 67
I
VD

I. INTRODUCTION.
The Wrightsville Beach Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land
Use Plan is a small but important part of a program generally refer-
red to as coastal area management. This program developed as a response
to rapid and unptw=d development of the Nation's shorelines ac oin-
ing coastal lands and requires the cooperation of Federal, State,
and local governments. Its central purpose is to preserve, protect,
and wisely develop the land and water resources of the Nation's coast
through the application of a comprehensive planning and management
process. The following paragraphs explain some of the laws involved
and defines the responsibilities of the participating agencies.
Finally, and most importantly, the Wrightsville Beach Land Use Plan
is introduced into this process.
The Need for Coastal Management - It was long assumed that the
Nation's lands and waters were inexhaustible and that any development
In any place would be beneficial, or at•least not harmful. However,
several developments over the past two decades have caused the public
to severly question this proposition. The rapid increase in popula-
tion during the 1950's and 1960's, the increase in leisure time and
subsequent interest in the coast as a source of recreation, increased
affluence and the desire for a second home, the energy shortage and
the need for power and refinery sites, and the food shortage have all
contributed heavily to the pressure for use and development of the
Nation's coast. This pressure has dictated one inevitable fact --
the Nation's coast will change. Coastal planning and management pro-
vides a process for involving citizens in the extent, direction, and
timing of this change.
1

The Federal Act - The coastal management program began with the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (PL-92-583) by the U.S. Congress.
Its objective is to encourage states to develop a management program
to guide the public and private use of lands and waters in the coastal
zone. The State programs are to be carried out in two phases - one,
development of the management program, and two, actual management -
in the sense of operational and administrative procedures. North
Carolina's coastal program is now in phase one. The mechanics of
administration of the Federal Act are delegated to the Secretary of
the Department of Commerce who is authorized to make annual grants
to the coastal states for development and administration of their
programs. Actual administration is accomplished through the depart-
ment's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-
Office of Coastal Zone Management.
The State Act - North Carolina, as an.eligible coastal state,
began its coastal management program when the General Assembly passed
the much debated Coastal Area Management Act of 1974. After being
amended more than any other Act in the history of the General Assem-
bly CAMA took effect on July 1. 1974. Shortly thereafter the State
received its first grant and the North Carolina Department of Natural
and Economic Resources, in conjunction with the Department of Admini-
stration, began administration of the Act in the fall of 1974. The
unique feature of the North Carolina Act is that it involves a joint
undertaking between local and State interests. This is accomplished
by giving the authority for planning to local governments and dele-
gating to State Government the responsibility for establishing Areas
of Environmental Concern. Regulation of development within AEC's
is a concurrent State -local responsibility. Generally the CAMA requires
each local government within the 20 county coastal area to prepare
a land use plan in accordance with the State Guidelines for Local
Planning. After adoption of the plan by local government and approval
by the Coastal Resources Commission no development within an AEC will
be permitted unless it is consistent with the Land Use Plan. The
extent of each government's responsibility may be clarified by examin-
ing the four major parts of the CAMA.
2

Part One, "Crganization and Goals", sets out the goals of the
Act, defines terms, and establishes a Coastal Resources Commission
and Coastal Resources Advisory Council. Briefly, the goals of the
CAMA are -
' 1. to provide a management system capable of
preserving and managing the natural ecological
conditions of the estuarine and barrier dune
system, and beaches;
2. to insure that the development or preservation
of coastal land and waters is consistent with
their capability to absorb change;
3. to insure the orderly and balanced use and pre-
servation of coastal resources on behalf of the
State and nation;
4. to establish planning policies and guidelines
for the use and development of coastal lands
waters.
The Coastal Resources Commission is composed of 15 members
nominated by local governments and appointed by the Governor. The
CRC represents the major policy and decision making body for admini-
stration of the Act. To furnish technical advice to the CRC a Coastal
Resources Advisory Council is established and is composed of 47
members drawn from various agencies of State and Local Government.
Thus both the Commission and the Advisory Council are methods of
providing for State -local participation in the Act.
Part Two of the Act is entitled, "Planning Processes". This
part requires that the CRC prepare and addpt guidelines for the pre-
paration of land use plans by local governments which plans will
then serve as criteria for the issuance or denial of development
permits within Areas of Environmental Concern. The Wrightsville
Beach Plan is prepared primarily as a response to this requirement.
Part Three of the CAMA requires the CRC to designate Areas of
Environmental Concern and defines certain categories such as coastal
wetlands, sand dunes, and beaches that may be included as an AEC.
As of this date no AEC's have been designated.
3

Part Four establishes procedures for permit letting and en-
forcement. After a date designated by the Secretary of the Depart-
ment of Natural and Economic Resources no deyelgpment will be allowed
within an AEC without A permit. Briefly, this part allows local
14 government to assume authority for permit letting in AEC's for "minor
developments" but reserves to the CRC the authority for "major develop-
ments."
The Land Use Planning Requirement - Probably the most important
single mechanism for implementation of�the CAMA is the local land use
plan. Its purpose is to extend to citizens and local governments the
opportunity to balance the authority for planning and regulation of
development in the coastal area. The CAMA requires that a land use
plan shall "consist of statements of objectives,.policies, and stan-
dards to be followed in the public and private use of land ."
The Coastal Resources Commission interpreted this definition as pro-
viding it with wide latitude in further refining the scope and require-
ments for local land use plans and considerably expanded the definition
in The State Guidelines for Local Planning. The governing bodies of
each of the 53 cities and counties, including Wrightsville Beach, must
prepare and adopt a land use plan for submission to and approval by
the CRC. All of the plans must be consistent with The State Guide-
lines and shall include several basic elements - a statement or local
land use objectives, policies, and standards; a summary of data analysis
and collection; an existing land use map; a land classification map;
and a written description of proposed AEC's and appropriate standards
for their development. In addition the land use plan must include
a section describing public participation Methods and the extent of
participation achieved. The basic objective is for each local govern-
ment to determine its long and short range development goals which will
serve as a firm foundation and practical guide for future planning
and development.
The Wrightsville Beach Land Use Plan - To assist with the tech-
nical phases of plan preparation the Town contracted with the Division
of Community Assistance, Department of Natural and Economic Resources
4

for planning services. In 1970, with assistance from the same
agency, Wrightsville Beach published its first Land Development
Plan and Community Facilities Plan, and the present plan updates
much of that plan. If a land use plan is to serve as a represen-
tative statement of the current opinions of citizens and Town offi-
cials it should be updated regularly since planning is not static
but is a continuing process.
Prior Development on Wrightsville Beach - Development on Wrights-
ville Beach has been, and still is, largely influenced by two factors -
the attraction of the beach and ocean, and accessibility. Before
1875 inaccessibility largely maintained the island (New Hanover Banks
as it was then known) in an undeveloped state and visitors to the
area vacationed at the Village of Wrightsville, a small resort area
In the vicinity of Babies Hospital. But in 1875 the Wilmington and
Coast Turnpike Company began construction of a toll road from 17th
and Dock Streets in Wilmington to the head of Bradley's Creek in
Harnett Township. The president of the company was W.A. Wright and
the road bed of the original turnpike very closely follows the exist-
ing right-of-way of'Wrightsville Avenue. About 13 years later con-
struction began on the first real means of access from the mainland.
In 1888 the Wilmington and Seacoast Railroad began construction at
8th and Brunswick Streets on a railroad line with its terminus at the
Hammocks, as Harbor Island was then known. Three months after complet-
ion of the railroad, the Island Beach Hotel opened and a footbridge
was constructed as a means of access to the beach. Although the foot-
bridge remained the only means of access for several years the first
buildings, two public bath -houses and a reFtaurant, were constructed
soon after its completion. However, after construction of the Hotel,
the Sea View Railroad Company purchased from the Seacoast Railroad, for
five percent of the gross, the right to transport visitors at the hotel
on the Hammocks to the Carolina Clubhouse on the beach. In 1889 the
Sea View Railroad began construction of the Banks Channel Trestle and
the condominium development known as Station One derives its name from
the first stop on the trolley's route down the beach. The Blockade
5

Runner Hotel now occupies the site of Station Three and South
Lumina Avenue now covers the old right-of-way. Because of the
narrow width of the island, for many years development was restrict-
ed to the area between the trolley tracks and the dunes; but in 1922
the Oleander Development Company began work on a project known as the
Northern Extension. This project resulted in the dredging and fill-
ing of a large marsh area west of South Lumina Island which was later
divided into 50 x 100 foot lots which sold for $500 each. Two years
later, in 1925, marked the first major step in conversion of Wrights-
ville Beach from a limited access beach to an automobile.oriented
residential resort community. Beginning in that year the Shoreacres
Company began construction of the Wrightsville Bridge and Causeway
from the mainland to Harbor Island. Shoreacres then began filling
marshland on either side of the causeway eventually creating 350
building sites. The first home in this development was built in
1927 and was known as the Villa Marguerita. Since that time auto-
mobile access to both Harbor and the Beach Island has been continually
improved and now U.S. Highways 74 and 76 lead directly to the Beach.
Coping with the environmental and fiscal costs imposed by a large
visitor population is one of the most serious problems the town
must attempt to solve.
Methodology - Traditional land use plans follow several steps
in their development: ,
(1) data analysis and collection
(2) problem identification
(3) public participation
(4) goal and policy formulations
(5) future land use map and recommendations
While the methodology anticipated by the State Guidelines generally
follows this format two significant modifications are included. First,
Increased attention to the degree and extent of public participation; .
and, second that State and national interests be reflected in the future
use of land within Areas of Environmental Concern. The basic methodo-
logy of the Wrightsville Beach Land Use Plan is to establish a growth
E

management process which will give equal weight to ecological values
and within AEC's to State and national interests. Ideally a plan that
evolves from this process would provide all data necessary for manage-
ment decisions.
However, it is never possible to include everything that is
needed for future land use decisions. As more data becomes available
it should be incorporated into the plan and outdated sections should
be revised to include more current information. In this way the
Land Use Plan should become a useful tool and reference point for
decisions that affect the future growth and development of Wrights-
ville Beach's land.
7

II. PRESENT CONDITIONS.
A. Population and Economy
This section provides a brief statistical description of the
composition and characteristics of Wrightsville Beach's population
and economy, analyzes past and possible future trends, and briefly
discusses the effects these trends may have on coastal lands and
waters. The population of Wrightsville is much larger and of a more
varied composition than would appear from census figures. This is
because the population that must be considered for planning purposes
is composed of several different groups, or subpopulations, each of
which usually has different residences, views of the Town from
different perspectives, and is present in different numbers and at
different seasons of the year. These groups are (1) permanent
residents, (2) property owning summer residents, (3) overnight visitors,
i.e. non -property owning persons spending one or more nights and
(4) day visitors, i.e. persons who visit the Town for one day only.
Permanent residents - the 1970 census - The 1970 decennial
census recorded 1,701 persons living within the Town limits of
Wrightsville Beach. Thus, 978 persons were added to the permanent
population between 1960 and 1970 - a 135 percent increase. The sex
ratio, or number of males to females, is nearly even; of the total
1970 population, 870 (51 percent) are male and 831 (49 percent) are
female. Thus for each female there are 1.04 males. Agewise the
Wrightsville Beach population is relatively young. In 1970 the
median age was 26 years and 27 percent (466 persons) of the popula-
tion was under 18 years of age; while only 8 percent (134) persons
were 65-and over. Table One shows the number of males and females
within various age groups.
1976 intercensal estimate - Since the 1970 census is conducted
only once every 10 years,,local governments and other agencies need-
ing more current population estimates for revenue sharing programs
or for planning purposes, must either develop their own estimates
0

Age Group
0-4
5-9
M-14
15-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-59
60-64
65-75
75+
Totals
Source:
Number
121
123
124
188
261
234
175
194
75
64
99
43
19701
1970 Census
TABLE ONE
AGE - SEX DISTRIBUTION OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH POPULATION
% of Total
7.1
7.2
7.3
11.1
15.3
13.8
10.3
11.4
4.4
3.8
5.8
2.5
100.
Total Male
68
49
60
-109
150
126
75
96
37
31
37
25
U-M
% of Total
Males: 863
9
5.7
7.0
12.6
17.4
14.6
8.7
11.1
4.3
3.6
4.3
2.9
100.
Total Female
53
74
64
79
ill
108
100
98
38
33
62
18
% of Total
jFema es 838
6.3
8.8
7.6
9.4
13.2
12.9
11.9
11.7
4.5
3.9
7.4
2.1
100.

or rely on those provided by the Bureau of the Census. Because
of the wide range of estimates made by various agencies, and apparent
discrepancies in the results, the Town elected to conduct a special
census to determine the number of persons living in Wrightsville
Beach in 1976. The preliminary results of this census show 2,521
persons permanently residing in the Town. Therefore, 820 persons
(a 48% increase) have been added since 1970.
The property owning summer resident - This segment of the popu-
lation is composed of those persons who maintain their legal or voting
residence in another area but own property and usually live at the
beach several months (usually June, July, and August) out of the year.
There is no precise method of estimating this population, but if it
is assumed that those housing units not occupied by permanent resi-
dents are occupied by summer residents then the summer population
could be estimated as follows: number of structures X persons per
household. This would result in an additional summer population of
3,291 persons. Appendix One more fully describes how this method of
calculating the summer resident population.
Overnight visitors -.An estimate of the number of persons that
might be expected on Wrightsville Beach on a peak weekend as an over-
night visitor can be made by determining the number of units avail-
able for overnight visitors and multiplying this number by the number
of persons that may be expected to occupy the unit. Thus, the 10
motels and 467 multi -family dwelling units, if fully occupied,
could result in an overnight visitor population as high as 6,506
persons. The assumptions and methodology used to arrive at this
estimate are included in Appendix One.
Day visitors - Providing a reasonable accurate estimate of the
number of persons who make one day recreation -oriented visits to
the Town is the most difficult estimate to make. The only acceptable
method of obtaining sufficient data to make such an estimate would be
through an origin and destination -study of the vehicle flow to
Wrightsville Beach during both the peak and off seasons of the year.
However, no such study has been made in the past, and because of the
E

time and expense involved the N.C. Department of Transportation
has no plans to conduct one in the near future. Therefore, any
estimates of the day -tourist population must be based on assumptions
about the traffic count information that is available hourly
through the year at the Intracoastal Waterway Bridge. Using this
data, it is estimated that on a Saturday or Sunday during the months
June, July, or August, 12,447 day visitors may travel to and from
Wrightsville Beach. An explanation of how this estimate was made is
Included in Appendix 1.
The "total" population - As the preceding analysis indicates
the total population that may be present in the Town during a peak
period is considerably larger than that shown in the 1970 decennial
or 1976 special censuses. On a peak day, such as the fourth of July,
a total of 24,825 persons may be present in the Town at one time.
TOTAL "PLANNING POPULATION" OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
Permanent population' 2,521
Summer residents 3,291
Overnight visitors 6,566
Day visitors 12,447
Total 24,825
Thus, instead of providing services and facilities for the 2,521
permanent population, the Town must provide for a population ten times
that size.
Economy of Wrightsville Beach,- The character and composition of
the four subpopulations of'Wrightsville Beach provides an indication
of the economic structure that exists within the Town. The permanent
resident and summer resident populations are largely dependent upon
the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County for major retail outlets
and employment opportunities. This is the choice of the residents as
well as the result of normal economic factors. Both public opinion
surveys indicate a strong preference by residents to restrict commercial
development to service stores and low intensity tourist oriented establish-
ments (motels, fishing piers, and restaurants). The visi6r populations,
day and overnight, create the demand for the development of these land
uses.
10

Two major impacts of seasonal populations on the land and
surrounding waters of Wrightsville Beach are apparent. The first
Is the direct impact on public and private land and facilities.
Damage to sand dunes and protective vegetation, negative aesthetic
impacts from increased litter and automobile traffic, and increased
wear on roads and other public facilities are the major direct impacts.
Of equal importance, however, is the secondary impact on coastal waters
from increased flow to the sewerage treatment plant. The 201 Facili-
ties Plan for Wrightsville Beach states that if the present plant
is not upgraded "the existing treatment facility will soon be threat-
ened with hydraulic and organic overloads and diminution of the treat-
ment efficiency. Adverse effects on the physical environmental of the
receiving waters (Shell Island Sound) are possible due to discharges
of inadequately treated wastewater. The public health would be en-
danagered."
B. Existing Land Use
Methodology and Purpose - The existing land use map shows the
land use survey conducted in April of 1975 and compares these results
with the 1970 survey. Most of the data shown in the urban and built-
up categories was obtained by a windshield survey. Basically, this
survey method involves recording the observed dominant activity of each
parcel of property on a base map while riding in a car. The number
of acres devoted to each activity is then determined by measuring all
of the parcels with a polar planimeter. The water, wetland, and bar-
ren categories were largely identified from aerial photography filmed
by the N.C. Department of Transportation in December of 1974. Copies
of this photography at a scale of one inch -equals 400 feet is avail-
able for public inspection at the Wrightsville Beach Town Hall. There
are no agriculture or forestlands within the Town limits or extrater-
ritorial jurisdiction.
The major purpose of the existing land use survey, map, and analy-
sis is to aid in decision making. The map not only permits comparisons
of various land uses to be made but also helps the user visualize
patterns of space and location of these land uses. When used with
other maps and data, it may explain why certain land use conflicts have
11

EXISTING LAND USE ACREAGES
WITHIN ALL
WITHIN TOWN LIMITS
WITHIN PROPOSED EXTRATERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION
PLANNING AREAS
No. of
% of total
No. of
% of total
% Change
i No. of % of total No. of % of total % Change
No. of
% of
acres-175.
175 acres:.
acres-170
170 acres
'70-'75
acres-175
175 acres
acres-170
170 acres
170-175
acres
total
Urban and Built Up .
residential
185
12.5.
127
8.6
+45
-0-
•' -0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
185
4.6
commercial
25
1.7
14.6
1
+70
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
25
0.6
industrial
1.5
'Ll
1.5
d1
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
1.5
0.03
govt. and inst.
48
3.2
48
3.2
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
48
1.2
transportation (roads)
120
8.7
120 .
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
120
3.0
culti., enter., rec.
6.7
A
6.7
M
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
6.7
0.1
undevelo d
129
8.7
192
12,9='
-33
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
129
3.2
TU T UR
t
-
-
_
Water
714
47.9
707
47.5
41
805
32.6
790
31.9
41
1,520
38.3
1
Wetland
85
6.7
97
6.5
-12
1,112
61.6
1,12&
62.2
tl
1,198
30.2
Barren
beaches
174
II J
174
11.7
-0-
145
5.8
145
5.8
-0-
319
8.0
spoil islands
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
411
16.6
411
16.6
-0-
1 411
•10.3
TOTALS
1,488
100
1,488
100
-0-
2,474
100
2,474
100
-0-
3,962
700
I

arisen. The Existing Land Use Acreages Table shows both absolute
and percentage changes that have occurred in the various land use
categories within the Town corporate limits and the proposed extra-
territorial planning area. These comparisons should aid the user
in identifying land use trends and help determine future land use
needs when considered with population and economic data.
Analysis - The Existing Land Use Acreages Table indicates
several possible land use trends and significant facts. First,
since 1970, there has been an increase of 58 acres (45 percent) in
the number of acres used for residential purposes, an increase of
10.4 acres (70 percent) in commercially used land and a decrease of
63 acres (33 percent) in available undeveloped lands. In the Wetland
category, there has been a decrease of 12 acres (12 percent) since
1970. Changes in all other categories have been either nonexistent
or less than one percent. Two facts should be noted concerning these
statistics: 1) the 70 percent increase in commercial lands repre-
sents a conversion of only 10.4 acres, and 2) the 33 percent decrease
in the Wetland category cannot be realistically regarded as an indi-
cation of a land use trend since large conversions of marshland, or
wetlands, have generally not been allowed under the North Carolina
Dredge and Fill Law. Because of this law, land classified in the
Wetland category cannot be legitimately identified as an area exper-
iencing or likely to experience a major change in predominant land use.
These statistics reflect the basic trend during the last five
years toward conversion of undeveloped lands to residential and com-
mercial uses to accomodate the additional 820 persons added since 1970.
Thus for each additional 14 persons, one aore of residential land was
required and for each additional 78 persons, one acre of commercial
land was required. Whether or not these trends will continue during
the next ten years will depend on two basic factors - the demand for
and the availability of land within the Town. The availability of land
will be largely determined by the amount of vacant and undeveloped
land and land use policies and regulations. Five major areas, or
types of areas, have been identified as likely to experience change
12

in their predominant land use within the next ten years. The first
of these is the northend of Wrightsville Beach from the Town limits
to Mason's Inlet.
The Shell Island Corporation has presented to the Planning
Board a master plan for the development of approximately two-thirds
of this area into low density residential use. The present plan
calls for development of 83.4 acres into 114 single family lots and
24 patio houses for a density of 1.65 dwelling units per acre. While
this area is not presently within the Town's corporate limits, it
is within the extraterritorial jurisdiction. A second type of area
that will probably continue to change is the undeveloped lot. There
are approximately 468 undeveloped lots within the corporate limits,
but many of these do not have sufficient footage for development
under current zoning regulations. However, if the value of beach
property continues to rise, property owners who purchased these lots
for additional space may give consideration to development or sale
of these lots if variances are granted. A third area that will ex-
perience change sometime in the near future is the tract of land
located south of Highway 74 across from the Topps service station
and bound on the east by Banks Channel. This area is proposed to be
developed for luxury apartments, a restaurant, and limited office
facilities. A fourth type of area is undeveloped land currently zoned
for commercial usage. Two specific areas now exist in the Town. One
Is the proposed site of the Lumina Club condominiums; and the second
is the commercially zoned strip south of Highway 74.
A fifth area that could possibly undergo development are the
spoil islands. These islands represent considerable acreage and are
of high enough elevation to provide suitable development sites. Even
though these islands remain subject to the fill easement of the Army
Corps of Engineers, they are in private ownership and would be poten-
tial development sites if this easement were ever released.
After development of these areas, the amount of vacant land of
developable size will have been significantly reduced. While
possibilities for development are present under the existing zoning
13

ordinance, it is doubtful that, given the currently planned develop-
ments, demand will be sufficient during the next ten years for any
significant redevelopment.
There are no major compatibility or other land use problems that
have resulted from unplanned development. Perhaps the major problem
that occurs on a barrier island is the placement of either buildings
or facilities in close proximity to sand dunes or highly erosive areas.
This has occurred in only two relatively minor areas on the beach.
Serious erosion of property has occurred on the southwest shoreline
from the Coast Guard Station to the western end of Meir Street. The
second area is located on the ocean side of the beach approximately
from Mallard Street to the northern most edge of the Town limits.
Along this portion of the beach property lines encroach heavily on
both the dunes and even public trust areas below the mean high water
line. The Islander, a condominium development, and the Holiday Inn
have seawalls that have no protective dune structure and closely
approach the mean high water line. The remainder of the ocean or
sound shoreline is well protected by restricted areas or is not sub-
ject to serious erosion problems. The most serious problems facing
the Town relate to the adverse effects from overcrowding and traffic
congestion. However, these problems are discussed under the section
on land use objectives and policies and were caused largely by cir-
cumstances beyond the control of the Town.
Several other significant facts appear from the Table. Of the
approximately 4000 acres of land and water within the planning area,
only 13 percent of these are develoted to urban uses. Forty percent
are covered by water and 30 percent by maish grass. The remaining
18 percent fall into the Barren Class and are categorized as either
beaches or spoil islands. Therefore, it appears that almost 87 per-
cent of all the acreage over which the Town exercises jurisdiction
will fall into one of the areas proposed for designation as an Interim
Area of Environmental Concern, and of the approximately 4,000 acres
within the entire planning area, about 2,500 (62 percent) of these
are within the extraterritorial jurisdiction. The facts reinforce
14

the conclusion that extensive future development will probably
be very limited without major changes in existing Town, State and
Federal land use restrictions.
C. Plans Policies and Regulations
In 1970, a report entitled the Land USe Survey and Analysis:
Population and Economy and Attitude Survey, Wrightsville Beach, North
Carolina, was written for the Town by the N.C. Division of Community
Planning. Based on this survey and analysis, the Land Development Plan
and Community Facilities Plan was prepared in October of 1970 which
was subsequently adopted by the Board of Aldermen.
In February of 1973, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. submitted
a Traffice and Planning Study (Phase I) for the Town of Wrightsville
Beach. This study was primarily concerned with the improvement of
traffic and parking conditions on Lumina Avenue and Waynick Blvd. be-
tween Mallard and Seashore Streets, and particularly with intersection
improvements at North Lumina and U.S. 74, South Lumina and Stone St.
and Waynick Blvd. with U.S. 76. The Shell Island Master Plan Report
by Robert E. Marvin and Associates 1975 has been presented to both the
Board of Aldermen and the Planning Board. This report describes the
proposed development for the north end of Wrightsville Beach by the
Shell Island Corporation. The Greater Wilmington 201 Facilities Plan-
ning Study Report, Part I, 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 accept-
able and environmentally sound wastewater treatment and disposal
facilities for Wrightsville Beach". This report was written by Henry
tes Consult
ing En ineers and Plan
ners. The water
von Oesen and Associa , 9 9
sewer extension policies of the Town are found in Chapter 20 of the
Code of the Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. Briefly,
these policies and ordinances require an approved application before
any extensions of water or sewer lines will be made. If the extension
is to currently developed property or an approved subdivision within the
Town, the extension will be made (subject to the availability of funds)
15

and the owner assessed on a per front foot basis in accord with
N.C. General Statute 160A-216. If the extension is to property
outside of the corporate limits, the applicant must pay for the
entire cost prior to installation. In addition, for installations
requiring lines greater than 8 inches, payment to the applicant by
the Town for any difference in cost is optional for extensions
outside the Town limits.
Means of Enforcement - The Town of Wrightsville Beach has
adopted and is enforcing a comprehensive zoning ordinance and sub-
division regulations (Code of the Town of Wrightsville Beach, Chapter
21 and 18). Under Chapter 16.1 of the Town Code, the Town has
adopted the New Hanover County Ordinance to Provide for the Control
of Soil Erosion and Sedimentation. The Sand Dune Protection Ordinance
of New Hanover County is enforceable within the Town and is intended
to maintain the existence of the natural or constructed dunes which
provide a protective barrier from the actions of the Atlantic Ocean
and storms. In addition, Section 14-17 of the Town Code makes it
unlawful to remove sea oats or other vegetation from flown owned
property. The use of septic tanks or privies is prohibited within
the Town's corporate limits by Section 20-12.
Section 15-5 Dredging prohibits the dredging or alteration of
the course of any water adjacent to the Town without having an approved
plan from the Board of Aldermen. Section 15-6 prohibits 'bulkheading'
except in the public interest as determined by the Board of Aldermen.
The Town's police powers are extended to its extraterritorial juris-
diction although this area has not yet been zoned. County septic tank,
mobile home, subdivision regulation, and sand dune protection ordinances
are in effect in those areas; however, New Hanover County has not
zoned any of the area east of the Intracoastal Waterway between Mason-
boro and Masons Inlet.
16

The effective accomplishment of any task requires a firm under-
standing of what needs to be done and how it is to be carried out.
Objectives, policies, and standards provide the what and how for
the use and development of public and private land. Objectives gene-
rally describe the way of life and environmental character that the '
citizens desire to see for the Town, while policies are statements
of the long range course of action to be taken to achieve these ob-
jectives. Standards are more specific statements intended to pro-
vide qualitative and quantitative measurement of the desirability
of a particular land use. However, any statement of objectives,
policies, and standards must give adequate consideration to the
long range trends that will affect Town growth, the capability of
the Town's fiscal and natural resources to sustain these trends,
whether or not these trends and their effects are consistent with
the desires of the citizens, and the goals and standards of the
Coastal Area Management Act.
Goals of the CAMA - The CAMA requires that all Land Use Plans
be consistent with the goals of the Act. While these goals are more
fully expressed in the Introduction, the major intent of the Act is
to extablish a management system, based on ecological considerations,
which will insure that the use of coastal lands and waters is con-
sistent with their capability to support the use and is balanced on
behalf of the people of North Carolina and the nation.
Future Growth Trends - As is true of many smaller communities
situated in close proximity to a larger urban area (such as Cary or
Garner, North Carolina outside of Raleigh) Wrightsville Beach will
experience the "spillover" effects from growth in the larger urban
area. Thus the growth trends in both the county and the region
must be considered to fully understand the pressures and problems
in Wrightsville Beach. However, Wrightsville Beach is both similar
17

and different from such bedroom communities as Garner and Cary --
similar in that the beach is sought as a permanent residence by
retired persons and commuters to Wilmington, but different because
of its attractiveness for recreational purposes. As the City of
Wilmington, New Hanover County, and the region grow there will be
inevitable corresponding increases in demand for the Town's resources
as a place to live and as a source of recreation.
The extent of growth changes in the region and County are more
fully discussed under "Present Conditions" but several trends stand
out as significant for the Town's future. First, since 1950 New
Hanover County has not only been growing faster than the State but
has increased its share of the State's population. The County
population increased almost 13.5% between 1950 and 1960 while the
State's growth was 12%. The difference was even more apparent
between 1960 and 1970 when the State's percentage increase dropped
to 11.5% while the County's increased to 15.5%. A second significant
trend is evident at the regional level. Between 1950 and 1970 Region
"0" (composed of the counties of New Hanover, Brunswick, Columbus,
and Pender) increased approximately 14% as a result of natural in-
crease. A third major trend has been the growth trend within the
Town itself. Between 1960 and 1970 the Town's population increased
by 978 persons for a 135% growth rate and since 1970 an additional
799 persons have been added (a 47% increase). However, because of
the Town's small population base small numerical changes result in
large geometric rates of change; thus the geometric rate is not
a reliable figure for estimating future population levels. Although
the numerical increase is not necessarily highly accurate it provides
a more realistic assessment of the possible future population of the
Town. If the same number of persons are added each 5 years for the
next 50 years as were added between 1960 and 1975 the 1980 population
would be 3,300 persons. In ten years the population would have
reached 4,900 and at the turn of the century there would be 7,300
persons residing on the beach. By the year 2025, 50 years from now,
the population will have reached 11,300. These population levels
FU

are not necessarily what will happen but should provide a long
range perspective of potential changes if past trends continue.
The important question is what effects these potential changes
might have on the Town's fiscal and environmental capability to
support these population levels, and are these changes desirable.
Capability - The question of capability is more a question
of judgment and opinion than of scientific fact. That is, the
Town can through land use regulation and community facilities plan-
ning, absorb or exclude as much of its potential growth as it
desires; but it must also accept the costs, financial and environ-
mental, of an increased population. Another land -locked community,
New York City, chose to accept high growth levels but at severe
environmental and economic costs. The central issue is - how much
growth can, and should, the Town absorb and still maintain the way
of life and character of the Town the citizens desire. The first
question that must be answered is what type of place do most citizens
want Wrightsville Beach to be, or continue to be.
The 1975 public opinion survey confirms the results of the 1970
survey -most citizens want Wrightsville Beach to continue as a low
to moderate density single-family residential community. However,
the rising pressures exerted by a growing region and county will .
make maintaining this way of life increasingly difficult if environ-
mental quality and financial stability are to be preserved. In order
to determine what the problems are in maintaining this type of
community the Wrightsville Beach Planning Board was asked to identify
the major issues that would confront the Town during the next 10
years and require policy direction.
Land Use Issues - The following discussion of issues is not
intended to provide specific solutions but rather to identify and
clarify problems and suggest alternatives for their solution.
Overcrowding and Congestion - The Planning Board felt that the
most significant issue was the adverse effects that result from over-
crowding and congestion caused by visitors during the summer months.
While much of this crowding, is the normal result of vacationing
tourists or overnight visitors, a large part may be attributed to
19

local residents of the surrounding area who visit the Town for one
day, A major undersirable effect associated with the visitor popula-
tion is congestion -pedestrian and automotive. Not only are normal
problems of safety encountered but a potentially dangerous situation
results from Wrightsville Beach having only one means of access to and
from the Island - the drawbridge over the Intracoastal waterway. If
an emergency evacuation was necessary during a peak period of vehicle
use considerable delay would inevitably result. A second major pro-
blem results from the large number of persons seeking access to the
water. Extensive damage is often caused to the Island's most important
protective feature - the dunes and their stabilizing vegetation of
beach grass and sea oats on the ocean side and marsh grass on the
sound. This uncontrolled pedestrian traffic also results in littering
and sometimes destruction of private property. However, the most
serious effect of the tourist population is on the Town's ability to
provide services and facilities. Since the major revenue source for
financing these services and facilities is the property tax the major
burden falls on the property owner. In the case of commercial property
owners the burden is more equitably distributed since the tax is passed
on to the consumer in the form of higher costs. Thus the real "inci-
dence" of the tax falls on the persons who make it necessary. But the
day visitors, who do not stay at a motel and most of whom probably
do not eat at the restaurants, mostly avoids the costs of the services
and facilities that they may use. Thus any additional costs caused by
the day visitor population will fall on the property owner. Economists
refer to these costs as "external" costs and how to internalize them
so that the individual who receives services also pays for them is a
major problem for tax payers and Town officials. The alternatives for
solution are both limited in number and applicability because of the
difficulty of,controlling the visitor population. Therefore, one of the
first steps must be to determine the extent of these costs.
Future Development - A second important issue identified by the
Planning Board concerns how and what lands will be developed in the
future. Compared to several other barrier islands on the North Carolina
9E

coast, development on Wrightsville Beach has been good. Densities
have generally been maintained within the capacity of facilities,
and building has followed environmentally sound practices in most
instances. With the exception of the north end of the beach island
(from the north end of Lumina Avenue to Mason's Inlet), it is doubt-
ful that there will be extensive development of most of the remaining
undeveloped land within the planning area. The major reason for
this conclusion is that the vast majority of undeveloped property
would require extensive dredging and filling. Development in marsh-
lands have generally been denied under N.C. General Statute 113-229,
the dredge and fill law, or by the N.C. Department of Administration
which requires an easement for filling of State owned lands. The two
undeveloped areas that are most likely to experience change during
the next 10 years are the approximately 468 undeveloped lots and the
north end of the beach island. Many of the undeveloped lots are owned
by adjacent property owners and will probably be held as "buffer"
lots. Those that are eventually developed will probably be primarily
as single-family residences. All town services and facilities are
available to these lots, and if past rates of building permit issuance
continue, development will be gradual and no particular burden will
be placed on the Town. The most obvious, and controversial area,
that may experience development is the north end of the beach. Most
of this area is owned by the Shell Island Corporation and is proposed
for single-family low density development. Many residents feel that
the property should not be developed in any form but should remain in
its present state. However, if this viewpoint is advanced by the Town
as official policy through its zoning ordinance it would likely require
condemnation and eventual purchase of the property at considerable
expense to all residents of the Town. Thus the question is when, and
what type and density of development will be permitted.
Perhaps the most debated land use issue on Wrightville Beach during
• the past five years has been the subject of condominium development.
Much of the emotion generated by this issue has been the result of
misunderstanding and lack of accurate information. Prior to 1970
the Town had little in the way of effective land use planning or
21

zoning controls and many potential sites existed for intensive .
development. As a result several high rise structures were built,
two of which are condominium units and contrast sharply with the
low profile skyline of the remainder of the beach. These two
developments have caused many citizens to confuse high rise buildings
with the condominium form of ownership. Action has since been taken
to substantially reduce the number of potential high rise sites so
that the chances for further esthetic contrasts are now effectively
minimized. Despite this action some antipathy still exists toward
the condominium form of ownership. Since condominium owners have
all the rights and responsibilities of other property owners (in-
cluding paying taxes) the issue should not focus on -the form of own-
ership but on the location and density of proposed structures.
The problem of any future development on Wrightsville Beach is
concerned with four alternatives --type, location, timing, and density
of development. The previous discussion should have illustrated
some of the view points, mistaken or otherwise, to be considered in
making decisions on these alternatives. However, as long as the pro-
perty tax remains the major source of revenue for the Town, the resi-
dents must decide in choosing alternative land use types whether they
are willing to pay for maintaining the Town as a single-family low
to moderate density residential community or whether they will allow
additional commercial and high density development to alleviate some
of this burden.
Erosion - Like other islands on the coast of North Carolina,
Wrightsville Beach is subject to loss of its shore, both ocean and
sound, from the forces of erosion. On the ocean side the primary force
a
is wind generated waves from the sea and on the sound side these
waves are augmented by the wakes of passing power boats. Wrightsville
Beach made its first effort at erosion control in 1923, when with
the assistance of the Tidewater Power Company and New Hanover County
it constructed five wooden jetties at a cost of $27,721. Since that
time costs have increased greatly for this type of erosion control.
The erosion issue is particularly important for several reasons. The
22

first is that collapse of the berm and protective dune system
will inevitably follow ocean side erosion; the destruction of this
system would expose both public and private property to extensive
damage in the event of a hurricane or a severe storm. Likewise
sound side erosion has already undercut several residences on Banks
Channel. The consequences of erosion extend well beyond damage
to resident's property. The beach, berm, and dune represent a
resource of high recreational and esthetic value to the thousands
of visitors who use the beach; thus, loss of this resource would
not only directly affect the non-resident visitor by depriving him
of a recreational resource but would indirectly affect him since
property values, and their ability to generate revenue to finance
services and facilities would be lowered. The question then is not
whether to control erosion but how to control it. A balance should
be struck between expensive protection works and the use of property
and location of structures in erosion prone areas that necessitate
such structures.
Provision of Public Services and Utilities - The basic question
here is how and what.services will be provided to existing and planned
development and to the various segments of the Town's population.
Many facets of this problem have been previously discussed and the
question is essentially the same --how to distribute the costs of
services and facilities equitably among those who receive or pay for
them.
nhiprrivps and Policies - In identifying these problems the Plan-
ning Board did not intend to provide specific solutions but to
isolate problems that the Town must attempt to solve. However, the
solution to any of these problems will be easier if there is a firm
understanding of what needs to be done and how it is to be carried
out. Objectives, policies, and standards provide the what and how for
the use and development of land. Objectives and policies must give
adequate consideration to the long-range trends that will affect the
Town's growth, the capability of the Town's fiscal and natural resources
to sustain these trends, if these trends and their effects are con-
sistent with the desires of the citizens, and the goals and standards
23

of the Coastal Area Management Act. To provide the citizens
and officials of Wrightsville Beach guides for making land use
decisions the following land use objectives and policies were
adopted by the Planning Board.
LAND USE OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND STANDARDS
FOR THE TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
LONG RANGE OBJECTIVE - To create and maintain, for all citizens
of the community, and within Areas of Environmental Concern for
citizens of the State and Nation, a quality environment that will make
a wise and balanced use of the economic and natural resources of the
Town and thus promote and protect the public health, safety and
welfare.
Policy - To establish a management system, based on ecological
consideration, that will provide the necessary information and gui-
dance to town citizens and officials for making land use decisions.
TEN YEAR LAND USE OBJECTIVE - To maintain and enhance Wrightsville
Beach as a predominantly low to moderate density, single family
residential community.
policy - To continuously review existing land use ordinances
and plans and revise or adopt new ordinances and plans as necessary
to insure consistency with the Ten Year Land Use Objective.
Policy - To encourage only those non-residential land uses
(commercial, industrial, public or institutional) which can and will
generate sufficient tax revenues to pay for the costs of services
required or created by the particular use.
OBJECTIVE - To maintain and enhance the esthetic and ecological
values inherent in the formation and development of Wrightsville
Beach as a barrier island.
Polic - To guide development into, and permit land use changes
in only those areas where the impact or change will result in a
24

mlriimun; reduction of values represented by natural processes,
and where such a reduction occurs the use or development causing
the reduction should be permitted "only if superior economic or
social values to the flown still be created,
polit � To protect the dune system and it's 'stabilizing vege=
tation by 1) routing the flow of pedestra% traffic to central
points of access to the water and 2) by enforci"ng; or enacting it
'necessary, dune protection brdinances.
To provide, at may he economically feasible, erosion
control structures and works to protect exi"sting property, and to
guide future development or redevelopment away from those areas
that are susceptible to erosion and may later require protection.
0&1fGiTkIr - To provide reasonable means and opportunity 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 right: of
residents to the use and enjoyment of their propert} and residences.
perlic�, - To dpvplor a fiscal structure that will pouitably
aliocate the cnvt of town se•viceot and facilities hetwea those
segments of the population receiving the benefit of theta services
and facilities and those segmpni:s of the population paying Poi the
services and facilities.
In ordpr to achieve these ohiectives and implempnt thpsp pnli-
cies, the following taropt are set for the following years. Some
of t:hesp may be accompliahpd within the next two years hilt coma may
require longer periods of time and should he cont.inoously ree%•alrjatpd
to detemine 1hp feasibility of pursnina them.
Gower^irnlent l_lfficienc= - l'valuate the adpquacy of town cpi%icae.
the cost people paid t:o provide them, and considpr chanops deoionpd in
improve services and control costs.
Revenue Sourvr$ Sindy and evaluate allaunativps to ilia
prnporty tax ac a method of providing revenue: evalliatp rate mtIednrpc
for all sprvil'p5 io corrpct. inpquiiiet.
;5

Tax Inequities - Analyze taxes paid to county to determine
methods of correcting inequities, particularly as related to retired
persons.
Erosion Control - Continue efforts to secure funding for the
Navigation and Shore Protection Project and to establish an erosion
control line for sound and channel front property owners.
Water and Sewer Projects - Continue efforts to expand and improve
the wastewater treatment plant; review status of pipeline project and
analyze the condition and capacity of the well system --prepare
alternative project for reservoir and treatment facility.
Solid Waste Disposal - Complete analysis of alternative system,
determine methods of implementation and seek funding sources.
Development Regulation Consolidation - Review and consolidate
present regulatory ordinances, regarding water, sewer, streets,
storm drainage and building code.
Public Safety - Review law enforcement related problems and
devise new methods that will relate solution of the problems to the
persons paying for enforcement.
•Park Development - Continue the development of the recreation
park and evaluate the community needs for beautification, open
space, and bikeways.
LAND USE STANDARDS - Land use standards are intended to provide
more specific guides to town citizens and officials in making land
use decisions. Many standards are already in effect in the form of
zoning and subdivision ordinances and other development or environ-
mental regulations. It is not necessary or feasible to restate
these standards but only to recognize that they must be consistent
with the Ten Year Land Use Objective and revised accordingly as re-
quired by the implementing policy. However, two other forms of
standards should be considered --general standards for assessing the
impact of any proposed land use, and standards for development
within Areas of Environmental Concern.
26

General Standards for Assessing Project Impact - In evaluating
the impact of a proposed land use, the Town will consider the follow-
ing standards:
1) the extent of the impact on the Town's fiscal and
economic resources and whether such impact will be
positive or negative;
2) any significant adverse effects should the use be allowed;
3) mitigation measures proposed to minimize adverse impacts;
4) the relationship between short-term land uses involved
in the proposed use and the maintenance and enhancement of
the Town's land use objective;
5) any irreversible and irretrievable changes that would
occur if the proposed use were allowed.
Standards for Development Within Areas of Environmental Concern
The State Guidelines for Local Planning establishes development
policies and standards for appropriate land uses within proposed
AEC's. If final AEC's are ever designated and standards for develop-
ment within these areas ever promulgated, the Town of Wrightsville
Beach will fully cooperate with the Coastal Resources Commission
in the enforcement of these standards and will revise its policies
and ordinances as is necessary to insure this cooperation: Until
this designation is made it shall be the policy of the Town to recog-
nize those potential AEC's proposed for eventual designation as In-
terim Areas of Environmental Concern as areas that should receive the
fullest protection possible by the Town under its existing policies
and ordinances so as to comply with the preliminary policies and
use standards set out in the State Guidelines. Those potential
AEC's that are likely to be found within the Town are more fully
described under Section VII-Areas of Environmental Concern.
Public Participation - The previous paragraphs would provide
• a good view of the methods used to formulate objectives, policies,
and standards. These methods cannot be neatly defined but are the
product of many months of effort by Town officials, citizens and
staff to reach common, although broad, grounds of agreement. Effort
has been made to extend to all citizens the opportunity to parti-
27

cipate in this discussion, both indirectly through elected and
appointed officials and directly by contact with the individual
citizens. Thus the process used may best be described as one of
mutual responsibility - the responsibility of the staff and Town
officials to provide the opportunity to participate and the respon-
sibility of the citizen to exploit this opportunity. While the
degree of participation achieved was comparatively high it certainly
did not involve all citizens as would be ideally desired. Several
factors influenced this successful but less than ideal participation
by Town citizens. The first reason, and one that is often overlooked,
is that many citizens are basically satisfied with the management and
planning of the Town and have confidence in their elected officials
to continue. As such they do not feel the need to use public hear-
ings or meeting as a forum for protest. The second reason is common
to all governments --apathy and lack of interest. Perhaps the major
factor accounting for this apathy has been that most citizens have
had difficulty determining how the land use plan will in some way
directly affect their economic or social well being. If Areas of
Environmental Concern had been designated the true and intended im-
pact of the Land Use Plan would have been more apparent. Thus the
process used to secure citizen participation has been one of inter-
action between the three major participants - citizens, Town official,
and staff. The staff role in this process has been to inform, clarify,
and interpret the perceived views and opinions of Town officials and.
citizens. The methods used to secure the views and opinions and the
degree of success is outlined in the following paragraph.
Since one of the major responsibilities of<staff in the public
participation process is interpretation the most effective method of
assuring accurate interpretation is direct exposure to the political
process. This exposure was gained by attendance at all Planning Board
meetings and many Board and Aldermen meetings. In this way the pro-
blems and administrative policies and solutions could be observed and
compared with proposed long range objectives and policies. To
establish what these long range objectives and policies are a more
formal process was initiated. First, the citizens were contacted direct-

ly by use of the Town newsletter, by invitations to citizen groups
to request speakers, and by use of the citizen opinion survey.
Posters and direct mailings were used to notify the public of the
availability of educational materials and to supply citizen groups
with these materials. A public meeting was held in May of 1975
which notification was given in all media -radio, television, and
newspaper. An additional public meeting and hearing was held in
April and May of 1976. A citizen opinion survey was mailed to all
citizens receiving water bills and using the results of this survey
the Planning Board identified the major problems that the Town must
solve to maintain the way of life and character of the Town desired
by those returning the survey. The Public Participation appendix
Includes some of the materials and results of this effort.
The exact degree of success achieved is not easily measured.
Although 30% of the citizen opinion surveys were returned (a re-
latively high number) it is still•less than the 100% desired. And
while few citizen groups requested speakers many citizens contacted
staff and Town Officials personally to express their views.
Close to 50 persons attended the first two public meetings but
less than 20 attended the public hearing. Perhaps the only true
measure of whether or not the public participation program has been
successful will be the extent to which the plan is followed and the
objectives and policies realized in the future.
1
29

IV, CONSTRAINTS.
A,' Lind Potential
Physical Limitations -Ocean Erodible Areas - An ocean erodible
area is defined as the area above mean high water where excessive
erosion has a high probability of occurring. Two major sources of
information are available for determining trends in ocean side shore -
changes on Wrightsville Beach, "A Survey of North Carolina Beach
Erosion by Air Photo Methods, 1973," by H.E. Wahls Report No. 73-1,
NCSU, and Chapter 10 - Coastal Erosion, DNER-NC Water Plan. However
even though both of these documents are comprehensive and competently
done, the complexity of the forces that cause beach erosion (or accretion)
make it impossible to predict the degree of change that may occur in
a particular area at a precise point in time. This point is confirmed
by the statement in the Coastal Erosion study that "the importance of the
information lies in its use by those concerned with coastal zone manage-
ment as an indicator of what may happen... along the coast. In no
case... should... this be used as a basis for dogmatic statements that
a particular construction proposal will be safe. Rather, it should be
used as an exploratory mechanism to be substantiated by detailed and
specific investigation at any location in question." "In A Survey of
North Carolina Beach Erosion by Air Photo Methods, 1973," it was found
that between 1938 and 1972 the composite mean annual rates of change
for the dune line was an accretion of 3.6 feet and for the high water
line an accretion of 5.3 feet. Between 1966 and 1972 the mean annual
rate of change was an accretion of 16.3 feet per year at the dune line
7.7'feet per year of accretion at the high water line. At first glance
the data would seem to indicate that the amount of shoreline on Wrights-
ville Beach is increasing at an increasing rate. However, several
• factors should be considered before the conclusion is reached that the
offshore processes are such that accretion is the normal trend. The
first, and most important, is that dune and berm construction project
was initiated on Wrightsville Beach in 1965 and extended approximately
30

14,000 feet north from Masonboro Inlet. This fact alonc would
account for significant distortion in the 1966-1972 data and
would negate any reliable conclusion concerning trends indicated
by the 1938-1972 data. Second, this study does not indicate what
changes have taken place since 1972.
A more accurate indication of current trends in shoreline change
may be found in the results of a recent survey conducted by the Army
Corps of Engineers. This survey concludes that the shoreline area
between the Holiday Inn and the Blockade Runner has been eroding at
the rate of 12 cubic yards of sand per linear foot per year since
1970. This rate of erosion results in a net loss of shoreline of
approximately 7,000 square feet per year. From the Blockade Runner
to the Masonboro Inlet jetty the trend has been one of accretion al-
though at an undetermined rate. Furthermore, this survey indicates
that prior to 1970 the rate of erosion for the entire beach was two
cubic yards per linear foot per year. An examination of recent aerial
photography shows that significant shoreline erosion problems do
exist from the northern most town limits to the Blockade Runner.
From the foregoing discussion it may be concluded that previous
available studies do not realistically reflect actual,trends in shore-
line change in all areas on the Wrightsville Beach strand; and, that
significant erosion problems do exist along approximately 11,200 feet
of shoreline.
Physical Limitations -Estuarine Erodible Areas - The definition of
an estuarine erodible area is the same as that of an ocean erodible
area except that the seaward limit of the area is ordinary high water,
rather than mean high water, where excessive erosion has a high pro-
bability of occurring and'the landward extent is a reasonable 25
year recession line. The only available study of estuarine erosion
in North Carolina is the Inland Shoreline Erosion Study conducted by
the Soil Conservation Service. Initial reconnaissance surveys con-
ducted by the SCS did not indicate severe enough estuarine erosion
problems to extend the study limits to New Hanover County. However,
field observations and interviews with property owners indicate that
31

a critical erosion problem exists between the Coast Guard Station
and Sunset Boulevard, Unless preventative measures are taken in
this area some property owners may face severe property damage.
Although not as critical, but of importance, are the remaining sound
side waterfront areas. There are approximately 91200 linear feet
(2,304 meters) of shoreline frontage on the Beach Island and 9,600
feet (2,926 meters) on Harbor Island. This is a total of 18,800
feet (5,730 meters) of property frontage exposed to the erosive
effects of tides, wind driven waves, and wakes from passing boats.
This property represents a total of 124.58 acres or nearly 25%
of the developed land in Wrightsville Beach. Erosion control struc-
tures (bulkheads) have been constructed by numerous property owners,"
along the shoreline but because of the lack of a uniform erosion
control line an "inlet" effect is often created where bulkheads
Join or where an adjoining property owner has not been able to
obtain the necessary permits and easements to construct protective
structures. In addition these erosion control works are often con-
structed of different materials which results in a poor "fit" of
adjoining structures as well as a look that is esthetically unpleasing.
The importance of effective erosion control measures is indicated
not only from field observations and individual property owners but
also from the Planning Board's determination that erosion control is
one of the most serious problems facing the entire Town. Thus, it
is the policy of the Town "to privide, as may be economically feasi-
ble, erosion control structures and works to protect existing pro-
perty, and to guide future development or redevelopment away from
those areas that are susceptible to erosion and may later require
protection.
Physical Limitations -Coastal Floodplains - A coastal floodplain
is the land area adjacent to a coastal sound, estuary, or the ocean
which is subject to flooding from storms with an annual probability
of one percent or greater, and is comparable to the 100 year flood -
plain on a river. Floods occurring at Wrightsville Beach are mostly
the result of storm tides generated by hurricanes and severe wind
storms. In October of 1971 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
KPH

Development conducted a flood insurance rate study of Wrightsville
Beach for the purposes of assisting the Town in developing a flood
plain management program and establishing rate tables for federally
subsidized flood insurance. This study found that the berm and
dune structure would provide protection from ocean storm waves pro-
ducing a mean water elevation of 10 feet or less. During such a
storm, waves would be dissipated on the beach and wave runup would
not overtop the dune. However, in storms which caused water eleva-
tions in excess of 10 feet overtopping would not provide any sub-
stantial protection; and, further, due to rapid passage of tidal
flows through the inlets in the immediate vicinity which directly
affect the water levels in the sounds, the man-made dune structures
would not materially reduce flooding.
By statistically analyzing historical hurricane and storm data
it is possible to predict various flood frequencies and their corre-
sponding stage relationships (i.e., their elevation above mean sea
level.) Some of these relationships are shown in the table below.
As the table shows the elevation above mean sea level for the 100
year flood is 12.1 feet. The hundred year flood is that flood,
measured in feet above sea level, that can be expected to occur once
every 100 years or that has a one percent chance of occurring in any
year.
Feet below or above Elevation above Frequence
the 100 year flood mean sea level years
-8.5 3.6 0.5
-8.0 4.1 1.0
-7.0 5.1 5.2
-5.5 6.6 10.5
-4.5 7.6 15.7
-3.5 8.6 24.0
-1.5 10.6 54.0
0.0 12.1 100.0
+1.5 13.6 210.0
Source: Flood Insurance Study -Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
Based on this study the 100 year flood plain in Wrightsville
Beach was delineated by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment. Except for the dunes and the Saline Water Research Plant
33

TOWN OF
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
NORTH CAROLINA n^^
SOIL MAP
LeoeNo
7-.N6WNIW p1me "No
M nou mush
-
``J
vof •n
0 C E A N

almost all of the land within the town limits falls within the 100
year flood plain. A map of these areas is available at the town
building inspector's office.
Physical Limitations -Soils: The properties and capabilities
of soils are some of the most important physical factors to be con-
sidered in land use planning. Due to the interaction of physical,
chemical, and biological processes, the limitations and potential
of each soil type will vary over any geographical area. According
to the soil survey conducted by the Soil Conservation Service for
New Hanover County there are only three major soil types within
the Wrightsville Beach Planning Area. The general characteristics
and capabilities of these three types are discussed in the following
paragraphs. A more detailed explanation is provided by the summary
of Soil Survey Interpretations chart and the general location and
extent of these soils are shown on the soil map. 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 detailed field
investigations to determine the conditions of the soil at the proposed
site for the intended use.
Newhan fine sand (7): 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 fertility, 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 sub-
ject to tidal fluctuations. Due to the rapid soil permeability,
there is a probably danger of contamination of groundwater supplies
from use of septic tank or other pollution sources.
Tidal marsh (892): 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 increas-
ingly covered by black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus). These soils
34

SUMMARY OF SOIL SURVEY INTERPRETATIONS
Degree of Limitation and
Major Feature Affecting Use (1)
Selected Use Newhan Fine Sand (7)
Corrosivity-uncoated steel
Corrosivity-concrete
Dwellings
Septic tank filter fields
Sewage lagoons
Local roads and streets
Camp areas
Picnic areas
Playgrounds
Paths and Trails
SOURCE: Soil Survey Ii
Nigh; low resistivity
at field capacity
low; reaction
and soil texture
severe: flooding
slight: pollution
to water supplies
severe: permeability
filtering capacity
moderate; flood hazard
soil binder needed
severe: loose sand
severe blowing
severe: loose sand
severe blowing
severe: loose sand
severe blowing
severe: loose sand
severe blowing
,ions and Maas For New
Tidal Marsh (7).
Very high
high salinity
high: high sodium
chloride
severe high shrink -
swell, flooding
severe: flooding,
high water table
severe: high
organic matter
severe: flooding
low bearing capacity
severe: flooding,
high water table
severe: flooding,
high water table
severe: flooding,
high water table
severe: flooding,
high water table
on class

are very poorly drained, have slopes of 0-2 percent and are used
mainly for natural habitat for shore and water birds except in
these areas where they have been drained and filled for construction.
Urban land (6): 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.
DEFINITIONS OF DEGREES OF LIMITATION
Slight (low) - properties are favorable for the
intended use and any limitations
can be easily overcome.
Moderate - the soil properties are moderately
favorable and the degree of limitation
can be overcome by planning, design,
or maintenance. Such design or modi-
fications as artificial drainage, run-
off control --to reduce erosion, extra
excavation, special foundations or extra
reinforcement may be required.
Severe (high) - this rating indicates that the soil has
one or more properties unfavorable for
the indicated use, e.g., flood hazard,
high shrink swell potential, seasonable
high water table, or low bearing strength.
This degree of limitation will generally require major soil recla-
mation or special design, but in most situations it will be difficult
or costly to alter the soil to compensate for this degree of limitation.
Physical Limitations -Water Supply: Within the Lower Cape Fear
River Basin, Wrightsville Beach uses groundwater to supply all the
water demands. By definition, Wrightsville Beach is not in any de-
signated public water supply watershed since groundwater is used
35

exclusively.
The hydrogeology of Wrightsville Beach is complex. An uncon-
solidated sand occurs between land surface and 60 feet below land
surface(BLS) and contains water under water table and/or semi -
artesian conditions; tentatively, this aquifer is the Post -Miocene
Aquifer. Underlying the Post -Miocene Aquifer is the Tertiary
System Aquifer, an artesian aquifer comprised of limestone; ground-
water is stored within this aquifer from 60 feet to 190 feet BLS.
From 190 feet to an estimated 1100 feet BLS is the Cretaceous System
Aquifer which is composed of sands containing brachish groundwater
under artesian and flowing artesian conditions. Basement is at
1100 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 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 1315 GPM or 1.89 MGD of water.
There is now adequate good quality groundwater available, and if
used reasonably, there should be a satisfactory quantity and quality
groundwater available for future uses. Any future strains on the
availability of groundwater that the Town might experience will most
likely result from aquifer depletion caused by industrial and do-
mestic users in the surrounding county and not from the anticipated
demands of future population growth.
Fragile Areas - The guidelines require that an identification
be made of "those areas which could easily be damaged or destroyed
by inappropriate or poorly planned development." The types of areas
36

that shall be considered are shown on the "Fragile Areas Map."
The definitions of these areas, with the exception of the category
"Others -Spoil Islands" are identical with the definitions of Pro-
posed Interim AEC's and may be found in the AEC section. A more
detailed delineation of these areas may be found by examining the
identical categories on the Proposed Interim AEC maps available for
Inspection at Town Hall.
Spoil islands are included as a fragile area because of their
importance as a wildlife habitat. Research has proved 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 higher on "natural" sites. These natural sites are
ordinarily the dunes and beaches of barrier islands. However, as
development and human activity has increased in these areas birds have
been forced to find other sites for breeding and nesting. These
substitute 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 islands 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 catchers
(Haematopus pallaratus). As vegetation becomes established Common
Terns (Sterna hirundo), and Gull -Billed Terns (Gelochelidon nilotica),
Black Skimmers (Rvnchops nigra), Wilson Plovers (Charadrius Wilsonia),
and Willets (Cataptrophorus semi-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 (A ey laius
hoeniceus , 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 Estuaries; 1974).
37

A vegetation survey conducted by Dr. Paul Hosier, plant
ecologist, UNC-Ws of the several spoil islands And deposit areas
within the planning jurisdiction shows that each of these stages
of vegetational succession exist in or more locations, While de-
tailed investigations of these areas have not been conducted, the
continued use and development of natural habitat in the beach area
has undoubtedly forced many of the above birds to seek the artificial
habitat of the spoil islands. Preliminary surveys conducted by the
Local Planning and Management Section of the Department of Natural
and Economic Resources (DNER) indicate that the majority of these
birds are actively present within the planning area. It should also
be noted that at present at least one of these species, the Least
Tern, is an endangered species (Preliminary List of Endangered Plant
and Animal Species in North Carolina). If further investigation
shows that these birds are actively nesting and breeding on a parti-
cular site this may provide a basis for recategorizing that as
an "Area That Sustains Remant Species", and subsequently including
the particular island as a recommended Interim Area of Environmental
Concern.
Capacity of Community Facilities - Each of the major facilities
discussed in the following paragraphs is located on the community
facilities map that follows. Wrightsville Beach's first wastewater
treatment facility was constructed in 1944 and was a primary treat-
ment plant with effluent chlorination, anerobic sludge deposition
and sludge drying beds. The plant was modified in 1964 to a contract
stabilization type activated sludge secondary treatment plant with
chloring contact tank, effluent gas chlorination facilities, anerobic
sludge digestion and sludge digestion and sludge drying beds. The
treated effluent is discharged by a 14-inch gravity outfall into Shell
Island Sound. The existing plant has a design capacity of 0.65 MGD
with a permissive BOD5 loading of 1,100 pounds per day. Sewage
influent is almost 100% domestic with a small commercial component.
Because of the tourist character of the Town'.s population and
economy, flows to the plant will necessarily show a marked seasonal
variation.
m

The collection system covers the entire town (see "Current
Plans, Policies, and Regulations for discussion of water and sewer
extension policies) and consists of four (4) pumping stations and
8", 1080 1211, and 15" diameter gravity lines. The following graph
indicates the relationship between flows and months of the year
(201 Plan for Wrightsville Beach, Henry von Oesen and Associates).
The capacity and adequacy of groundwater is discussed under
"physical limitations -water supply." Treatment of the water is by
chlorination with storage facilities consisting of two elevated
tanks of 300,000 and 70,000 gallons. Current demands will vary
from a low of 400,000 GPD to a seasonal high of over 1,000,000 GPD.
The following table indicates the capacities of each of the wells
on Wrightsville Beach for which data was available.
WELL LOCATION MAP REFERENCE CAPACITY -GPM
Corbett Street W-1 150
Waynick Boulevard
W-2
175
U. S. 76 Bridge
W-3
175
Charlotte Street
W-4
140
Bay Drive
W-5
150
Saline Water Plant
W-6
152
Channel Walk
W-7
N/A
Marina Street
W-8
125
SOURCE: DNER Groundwater
Section
While this capacity is adequate to meet existing demands, both
on and off season, the relatively poor quality and low yield of two of
the wells could result in deficiencies in the case of an emergency
if peak demand were maintained for several. days in a row. To elimi-
nate this possibility the Town will construct a 1,000,000 ground
level reservoir in the new community park. The reservoir is current-
ly in the planning stage but construction should be completed in mid
1977. Completion of the reservoir should more than adequately provide
the needed extra capacity.
Based on a Traffic and Parking Study (Phase I) by Kimley-Horn
and Associates the 1977 and 1982 annual daily traffic (includes
39

• •.
0 600
molu•Z•l
3
0
J
W
V
zoo
<
I
MAY JUNE JULY AUO. SEPT. OCT. NOK DEC JAN. FE& MAR. APAL. ^ MAY JUNE
ISTS 1974
TIME--*--
SOURCE: Henry von Oesen and Associates
EXISTING WRIGHTSVILLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
SEASONAL FLOW VARIATIONS

Saturday and Sunday) at the Inland Waterway Bridge can be expected
to be 201750 and 30,500 vehicles respectively, The July 1977 and
July 1982 traffic may be expected to reach 29,000 and 42,700 respect-
ively. The projected average daily traffic on the U.S. 76 bridge
is expected to be 13,400 annually in 1977 (18,750) and 19,850 annual-
ly in 1982 (27,800 in July).
Based on the Highway Capacity Manual it is estimated that the
maximum capacity of the Intracoastal Waterway Bridge is 1040 vehicles
per hour (in one direction) or approximately 50,000 per day. Thus,
design capacity at this point is adequate to handle future projected
traffic flows through 1982.. However, when this volume of traffic is
funnelled into .the Town's street system considerable congestion results
with consequent loss in parking spaces and ease of vehicle movement.
Although the significant improvements have been made, the design ca-
pacity of the U.S. 74-Waynick Boulevard,.North Lumina Street intersec-
tion and the U.S. 76-North Lumina Intersection may be deficient by
1977 if past trends in vehicle traffic•increase continue. This
problem of vehicle congestion represents a serious constraint on the
Town, but one over which it has little influence. If the problem is
to be adequately resolved it will require the cooperation of State
and county governments in controlling the flow and amount of traffic
and providing alternative methods of access to the beach.
The Wrightsville Beach Elementary School presently has seven
(7) classrooms and 163 students currently enrolled in grades K
through 4. A recent survey conducted by the North Carolina Department
of Education indicated that the maximum number of students per class-
room should not exceed 26 in grades 1-3 or 33 in the fourth grade.
Based on these limits the maximum number of students which could be
accommodated at the school would be 189. Therefore, the percent of
utilization at present is 86% (163•r 189) leaving an excess capacity
of 14% or 26 students. The following table shows the number of students
per classroom and the corresponding percent of utilization of each
_ classroom.
40

Grade Students Percent Utilization
Kindergarten 26 100
First 25 99
First -Second 25 99
Second 23 88
Second -Third 21 81
Third -Fourth 21 81
Fourth 22 85
TOTAL 163
SOURCE: Wrightsville Beach Elementary School
t
41

V. ESTIMATED DEMAND.
A, Population and Economy -Trends and Projections
A population projection is not an absolute and unconditional
forecast of the number of persons that will be living in an area
at a predicted future date; neither is it a statement of what future
growth should be. A future population projection is the best esti-
mate of the number of persons that would choose to live in an area
if past and current trends do not change drastically. Thus a popula-
tion projection is only as good as its underlying assumptions. In
an indirect sense it is a measure of the degree of _population growth
pressure an area may expect to experience in the future. As such
any projection, and particularly one made for small population bases
such as Wrightsville Beach, should give consideration to the actual
factors that influence and reflect population change:(number of
dwelling units added, land use controls, and amount of developable
land). If, for the next 10 years, it is assumed that --
1. existing development will remain approximately
the same
2. there will not be significant zoning or density
changes
3. the demand for land will remain constant as
shown by past building trends
4. occupancy ratios and the number of persons
9
per household will remain constant
Then given the current zoning, the amount of vacant and developable
land in both the Town limits and the extraterritorial area, and
regional growth trends it is reasonable to project that the average
number of persons added to the Town's population between mid -year of
1970 through 1975 will continue to be added until the year 1985.
This would result in a 1985 permanent population of 4011 persons
42

(1490 + 1976 population 2521 = 4011). This figure is undoubtedly
biased since it reflects an unusually high period of development
in Wrightsville's history (1970-1973). Since that time the number
of building permits and dwelling units has dropped sharply, However,
this estimate is for the next ten years and in light of the factors
discussed above (availability and demand for land and current
zoning) an increase of 1490 persons is a definite probability.
Seasonal Population Trends - The preceding has dealt only with
the permanent population. While projecting exact future changes in
the seasonal populations is difficult, several generalizations can
be made. Since motel, rental, and units owned by summer residents
approach 100% occupancy during the summer months, it is doubtful that
there will be any significant increases in either the peak summer
resident or overnight population without major zoning changes. While
the day visitor population will probably increase as the county
and region increases the absence'of parking space on the Beach will
undoubtedly impose a limit on the number of vehicles and persons that
can visit at any one time. Observations indicate that this limit is
quickly reached on peak days. It may be concluded that the seasonal
populations will not significantly increase during the next 10 years
without major zoning or land use changes.
B. Future Land Needs
Population density is the ratio of people to space and in the
case of Wrightsville Beach much of the space within the Town limits
is unuseable for accommodating growth (i.e., marshes, water, beaches).
Thus the space that can be considered for computing density is only
the 515 acres of urban and built-up lands, Using this acreage
figure the population density of Wrightsville is 4.9 persons per acre
(2521 + 515). If the Town accommodates the projected increase
of 1,490 persons and maintains this density level an additional 304
acres of land would be required if all are to be accommodate on un-
developed land within the existing Town limits. Since there are only
129 acres of undeveloped land within the Town a shortfall might seem
apparent
. This shortfall is nonexistent for two reasons, (1) occu-
pancy ratios are less than 50%; therefore, the future projected popu-
43

lation could be more than accommodated in existing unoccupied
dwelling units, (2) there are an additional 83 acres of developable
land outside of the Town limits but within its extraterritorial
jurisdiction.
Thus, there is more than sufficient land available to accommodate
the anticipated 1985 estimated population; however, overall density
levels will increase to 7.8 persons per acre for the permanent popu-
lation.
C. Community Facilities Demand
In estimating the demand that will be placed on Town facilities
it is important to consider that facilities must be adequate to
meet peak demand from the total population of visitors and permanent
residents. Wrightsville has had past experience in providing services
and facilities for visitors and has largely provided adequate facili-
ties and services to meet peak demands. However during the past five
years both the demand for and the cost of providing these facilities
has increased disproportionately. In addition environmental restric-
tions have complicated problems of solid and sewage waste disposal.
The major facilities that are presently reaching capacity are water,
sewer, and solid waste and each is being planned for modification or
expansion as future demands require. The Town is presently prepar-
ing a 201 Facilities Plan which, if approved, should eventually be
funded for expansion of the existing sewage treatment plant to 1.0
MGD-an amount more than adequate to handle projected future popula-
tion levels. If the Phase I plan is approved funding should be
available through the Environmental Protection Agency 201 Program.
The Town's proposed ground level reservoir will supplement the
storage capacity of its two elevated tanks by 1.0 MGD. This added
ca acit will
the 1.368 MGD pumping p Y,
capacity, in conjunction with P P
be more than sufficient to meet existing and future peak service
demands and any emergenctes that might arise during a peak demand
period. In order to meet the rising costs of solid waste disposal
the Town is studying the installation of an environmentally accept-
able incinerator that will substantially reduce the high cost of
44

travel to the land fill. Funding will be provided through bond
issue if the referendum is approved by the voters, Recreational
facilities have been recently expanded with the dedication of the
new community park adjacent to the Saline Water Research Plant. This
park will provide approximately 15 acres of recreational space with
facilities for softball, football, soccer, basketball, tennis, and
picnicing. Funding and land acquisition has been provided through
donation and The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
45

..
VI, LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP
The State Guidelines for Local Planning require that future
land use be described using the State Land Classification System.
This system establishes five broad categories for classifying land
for future use and requires that future 10 year anticipated popula-
tion increases be allocated to these classes. Two of these classes,
Community and Rural, are not applicable to Wrightsville Beach. The
remaining classes are described as follows:
Developed - lands with an existing population density of at
least 3.12 persons per acre and which have major
facilities and services available.
Transition - land which will in the future accommodate popula-
tion illsbeies of providedrwithan 3 major2persons facilitieseandcre
services.
Conservation - land which should be maintained in its natural
state with limited or no public services.
From these definitions it should be obvious that the Developed
and Transition classes will overlap. Furthermore, since some of the
anticipated 10 year population will be absorbed into existing unoc-
cupied structures it is not possible to identify all Transition areas
that will absorb the future population increase. Thus, while all of
the land in the Town is by definition in the Developed class (density
is 4.9 persons per acre with major services available) much of the
land will experience changes in density or existing land use as
occupancy increases and planned developments are realized. Therefore,
as was discussed under Existing Land Ule two types of areas are likely
to undergo a transition in land use within the next 10 years - vacant
lots, and planned or approved development with appropriate zoning.
These areas are shown on the Land Classification Map which follows.
These areas in addition to all other areas of the Town that may ex-
perience density increases because of increased occupancies will be
the area that will accommodate the future population increases for
the next 10 years.
46

VII. AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
One of the major purposes of local governments preparing land
' use plans was to provide them the opportunity to participate in the
permit letting process within the Areas of Environmental Concern. It
Is unfortunate that because of technical problems with description
and mapping of these areas that none have been designated for regu-
lation at this time. Interim Areas of Environmental Concern should
be designated within the next two months but only notice of the
proposed development will be required until final AEC's are designated.
The following list describes the types of areas from which the Coastal
Resources Commission will eventually select both Interim and final
AECs. Thus the list represents only potential AECs. The paragraphs
that follow describe those potential AEC's on this list which are
likely to be found within Wrightsville Beach's planning jurisdiction.
1.0 Coastal Wetlands
1.1 Low Tidal Marshland
1.2 Other Coastal Marshlands
2.0 Estuarine Waters
3.0 Resource Areas -Watersheds or Aquifers
3.1 Small Surface Water Supplies
3.2 Special Aquifers Areas - Outer Banks and Barrier Islands
4.0 Fragile, Historic or Natural Resource Areas
4.1 Existing National or State Parks
4.2 Complex Natural Areas
4.3 Areas that Sustain Remnant Species
4.4 Areas Containing Unique Geologic Formations
4.5 Historic Places
4.6 Registered Natural Landmarks
5.0 Areas Subject to Public Rights
5.1 Certain Public Trust Areas
47

6.0 Natural Hazard Areas
6.1 Sand Dunes Along the Outer Banks
6.2 Ocean Beaches and Shorelines (on the Outer Banks)
• 6.3 Coastal Flood Plains
6.4 Excessive Erosion Areas
6.4.1 Coastal Inlet Lands
6.4.2 Ocean Erodible Areas
6.4.3 Estuarine, Sound and River Erodible Areas
Coastal Wetlands - General
Coastal wetlands are defined as "any salt marsh or other marsh
subject to regular or occasional flooding by tides, including wind
tides (whether or not the tide waters reach the marshland areas
through natural or artificial watercourses), provided this shall
not include hurricane or tropical storm tides. Salt marshland or
other marsh shall be those areas upon which grow some, but not neces-
sarily all, of the following salt.marsh and marsh plant species:
Smooth or salt water Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora); Black Needle -
rush (Juncus roemerianus); Glasswort (Salicornia spp.); Salt Grass
(Distichlis Specata); Sea Lavender(Limonium spp.); Bulrush (Scirpus
spp.); Saw Grass (Cladium Jamaicense); Cat -Tail (JX6a spp.); Salt -
Meadow Grass (Spartina Patens); and Salt Reed Grass (Spartina
cynosuroides).0 Included in this statutory definition of wetlands
Is "such contiguous land as the Secretary of NER reasonably deems
necessary to affect by any such order in carrying out the purposes
of this Section." (G.S. 113-230 (a))
For policy purposes, coastal wetlands may be considered in two
categories: (1) low tidal marsh; (2) other coastal marshlands which
have different significance and policy implications.
Coastal Wetlands - Low Tidal Marshland
a. Description. Defined as marshland consisting primarily of
Spartina alterniflora and usually subject to inundation by the normal
rise and fall of lunar tides.
Significance. Low tidal marshland serves as a critical compo-
nent in the coastal ecosystem. The marsh is the basis for the high
IN

net yield system of the estuary through the production of organic
detritus (partially decomposed plant material) which is the primary
input source for the food chain of the entire estuarine system.
Estuarine dependent species of fish and shellfish such as menhaden,
shrimp, flounder, oysters and crabs currently make up over 90 percent
of the total value of North Carolina's commercial catch.
In addition, the roots and rhizomes of the Spartina alterni-
flora serve as waterfowl food and the stems as wildlife nesting
material. Low tidal marsh also serves as the first line of defense
In retarding shoreline erosion. The plant stems and leaves tend to
dissipate wave action while the vast network of roots resists soil
erosion. Marshes of this type operate additionally as traps for
sediment originating from upland runoff thus reducing siltation of
the estuarine bottoms and consequent detriment to marine organisms.
Policy Objective. To give the highest priority to the pre-
servation of low tidal marshland..
Appropriate land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those
consistent with the above policy objective. These marshes should
be considered unsuitable for all development which will alter their
natural functions. Inappropriate land uses include, but are not
limited to the following examples: restaurants and businesses; resi-
dences, apartments, motels, hotels, and trailer parks; parking lots
and offices; spoil and dump sites; wastewater lagoons; public and
private roads and highways; and factories. Examples of acceptable
land uses may include utility easements, fishing piers, docks, cer-
tain agricultural uses except when excavation or filling affecting
estuarine or navigable waters is involved, and such other uses which
9
do not significantly alter the natural functions of the marsh.
Coastal Wetlands - Other Coastal Marshland
Description, All other marshland which is not low tidal marsh-
land and which contains the species of vegetation as listed in the
first paragraph under Coastal Wetlands -General.
Significance. This marshland type also contributes to the
detritus supply necessary to the highly productive estuarine system
49

essential to North Carolina's economically valuable commercial and
sports fisheries,
The higher marsh types offfer quality wildlife and waterfowl
habitat depending on the biological and physical conditions of the
marsh. The vegetative diversity in the higher marshes usually
supports a greater diversity of wildlife types than the limited
habitat of the low tidal marsh. This marshland type also serves as
an important deterrent to shoreline erosion especially in those
marshes containing heavily rooted species. The dense system of
rhizomes and roots of Juncus roemerianus are highly resistant to
erosion. In addition, the higher marshes are effective sediment traps.
Policy Objective. To give a high priority to the preservation
and management of the marsh so as to safeguard and perpetuate their
biological, economic and aesthetic values.
Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those
consistent with the above policy objective. Highest priority shall
be allocated to the conservation of existing marshlands. Second
priority for land uses allocation of this type shall be given to
development which requires water access and cannot function anywhere
Carolina's commercial catch. These species must spend all or some
part of their life cycle in the estuary. The high level of commer-
cial and sports fisheries and the aesthetic appeal of coastal North
Carolina is dependent upon the protection and sustained quality of
our estuarine areas.
Policy Objective. To preserve and manage estuarine waters so
as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, economic and
aesthetic values.
Appropriate Uses. Appropriate uses shall be those consistent
with the above policy objective. Highest priority shall be allocated
to the conservation of estuarine waters. The development of navi-
gational channels, the use of bulkheads to prevent erosion, and the
building of piers or wharfs where no other feasible alternative exists
are examples of land uses appropriate within estuarine waters, pro-
vided that such land uses will not be deterimental to the biological
50

f
and physical estuarine functions and public trust rights. Projects
which would directly or indirectly block or impair existing navi-
gation channels, increase shoreline erosion, deposit spoils below
mean high tide, cause adverse water circulation patterns, violate
water quality standards, or cause degradation of shellfish waters
are generally considered incompatable with the management of estuarine
waters.
fragile, Historic or Natural Resource Areas - ComplexNatural
Areas
Description. Complex natural areas are defined as lands that
support native plant and animal communities and provide habitat con-
ditions or characteristics that have remained essentially unchanged
by human activity. Such areas are surrounded by landscapes that have
been modified but that do not drastically alter the conditions within
the natural areas or their scientific or educational value. Such
areas will be determined by the Commission, after consideration of
written reports or testimony of competent experts, to be rare within
a county or to be of particualr scientific or educational value.
Significance. Complex natural areas provide the few remaining
examples of conditions that existed within the coastal area prior
to settlement by Western than. Often these natural areas provide
habitat conditions suitable for rare or endangered species or they
support plant and animal communities representative of presettlement
conditions. These areas help provide a historical perspective to
changing natural conditions in the coastal area and together are
important and irreplaceable scientific and educational resources.
policy Objective. To preserve the natural conditions of the site
so as to safeguard its existence as an example of naturally occurring,
relatively undisturbed plant and animal communities of major scienti-
fic or educational value.
Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those
consistent with the above policy objective. Lands within the AEC
shall not be planned for uses or kinds of development that will un-
51

necessarily Jeopardize the natural or primitive character of the
natural area directly or indirectly through increased accessibility.
Additionally, lands adjacent to the complex natural area should not
' be planned for additional development that would unnecessarily
endanger the recognized value of the AEC. The variability between
kinds of complex natural areas and between land uses adjacent to
those natural areas means that the range of permissible uses and
intensity of use must be carefully tailored to the individual area.
aranilp_ Historic or Natural Resource Areas'= Areas that
Description. Areas that sustain remnant species are those
places that support native plants or animals, rare or endangered,
within the coastal area. Such places provide habitat conditions
necessary for the survival of existing populations or communities
of rare or endangered species within the county. Determination will
be by the Commission based upon accepted lists published by the
State or Federal Government and written reports or testimony of
competent experts indicating that a species is rare or endangered
within the coastal area.
Significance. The continued survival of certain native plants
and animals in the coastal area that are now rare or endangered
cannot be assured unless the relatively few well defined areas pro-
viding necessary habitat conditions are protected from development
or land uses that might alter these conditions. These habitats and
the species they support provide a valuable educational and scien-
tific resource.
Policy Objective. To preserve habitat conditions necessary to
eyed native plants and
the continued survival of rare or endan 9
animals and minimize development or land uses that might Jeopardize
known areas that support remnant species.
Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those
consistent with the above policy objective. Lands within the AEC
shall not be planned for uses or kinds of development that will un-
necessarily jeopardize the habitat conditions responsible for the
52

continued survival of the respective plants or animals,
Are s Subject to Public Riqhts - Certain Public Trust Areas
Descri tt n, 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 measur-
able lunar tides and lands thereunder to the mean high water mark;
all navigable natural bodies of water and lands thereunder to the
mean high water mark or ordinary high water mark as the case may be,
except privately owned lakes to which the public has no right of
access; all waters in artificially created bodies of water in which
exists significant public fishing resources or other public resources,
which are accessible to the public by navigation from bodies of water
in which the public has rights of navigation; all waters in artifi-
cially created bodies of water in which the public has acquired
rights by prescription, custom, usage, dedication or any other means.
In determining whether the public has acquired rights in artificially
created bodies of water, the following factors shall be considered:
(i) the use of the body of water by the public; 0 1) the length of
time the public has used the area; (III) the value of public re-
sources in the body of water; (iv) whether the public resources .
in the body of water are mobile to the extent that they can move into
natural bodies of water; (v) whether the creation of the artificial
body of water required permission from the State; and (vi) the
value of the body of water to the public for navigation from one
public area to another public area.
For purposes of the description in 5.0 and 5.1, the following
definitions shall apply:
(1) Mean High water Mark means the line on the shore
established by the average of all high tides. It is
established by survey based on available tidal datum.
In the absence of such datum, the mean high water mark
shall be determined by physical markings or comparison
• of the area in question with an area having similar
physical characteristics for which tidal datum is readily
available.
53

(2) Navigable means navigable -in -fact,
(3) Navigable -in -fact means capable of being navigated in its
natural condition by the ordinary modes of navigation
including modes of navigation used for recreational
purposes. The natural condition of a body of water for
purposes of determining navigability shall be the condition
of the body of water at mean high water or ordinary high
water as the case may be, and the condition of the body
of water without man-made obstructions and without tempo-
rary natural obstructions. Temporary natural conditions
such as water level fluctuation and temporary natural
obstructions which do not permanently or totally prevent
navigation do not make an otherwise navigable stream non -
navigable.
(4) Ordinary High Water Mark means the natural or clear line
impressed on the land adjacent to the waterbody. It may
be established by erosion or other easily recognized
characteristics,such as shelving, change in the character
of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation or its
inability to grow, the presence of litter and debris, or
other appropirate means which consider the characteristics
of the surrounding area. The ordinary high water mark does
not extend beyond the well defined banks of a river where
such banks exist.
Significance. The public has rights in these waters including
navigation and recreation. In addition, these waters support valuable
commercial and sports fisheries, have aesthetic value, and are impor-
tant potential resources for economic development.
Policv Objective, To protect public rights for navigation and
• recreation and to preserve and manage the public trust waters so as
to safeguard and perpetuate their biolgical, economic and aesthetic
value,
Appropriate Uses. Appropriate uses shall be those consistent
with the above policy objective. Any land use which interferes with
the public right of navigation, or other public trust rights, which
54

the public may be found to have in these waters, shall not be
allowed. The development of navigational channels, drainage
ditches, the use of bulkheads to prevent erosion, and the building
of piers or wharfs are examples of land uses appropriate within
public trust waters provided that such land uses will not be detri-
mental to the biological and physical functions and public trust
rights. Projects which would directly or indirectly block or impair
existing navigation channels, increase shoreline erosion, deposit
spoils below mean high tide, cause adverse water circulationpatterns,
violate water quality standards, or cause degradation of shellfish
waters are generally considered incompatible with the management of
public trust waters.
Natural Hazard Areas - General
Natural hazard areas where uncontrolled or incompatible
development could unreasonably endanger life or property, and other
areas especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding, or other adverse
effects of sand, wind, and water.
Natural Hazard Areas - Sand Dunes along the Outer Banks
Description. Dunes are defined as ridges or mounds of loose
wind-blown material, usually sand.
Significance. Dunes comprise a major portion of the outer banks
and barrier islands and represent a protective barrier for the sounds,
estuaries, and mainland. Development with inadequate design or
construction may alter the protective character of the dunes and
subject property to an increased risk of substantial damage due to
the adverse effects of wind and water.
Policy Objective. To insure that development which is under-
taken utilizes sound engineering practices to minimize the erosion
effects of wind and water.
Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those
consistent with the above policy objective. Only those developments
that can be safely undertaken utilizing recognized engineering
practices and site preparation and site maintenance to minimize
55

unnecessary damage from wind and water should be allowed.
Description. These are defined as land areas without vegetation
convering consisting of unconsolidated soil material that extends
landward from the mean low tide to a point where any one or combination
of the following occur: (1) vegetation, or (2) a distinct change in
predominant soil particle size, or (3) a change in slope or elevation
which alters the physiographic land form.
Significance. Sand deposits of ocean beaches and shorelines
represent a dynamic zone which does not afford long term protection
for development. The nature of tidal action and the force of storms
is such that they cause the beach areas to constantly shift. Lit-
toral drift is a natural phenomenon whereby sand is removed from
beaches by wave action and littoral currents and is deposited upon
a different stretch of the beach. The action also shifts the line
of high tide and low tide. Ocean beaches and shorelines are valuable
for public and private recreation and are located within a natural
hazard area. Development within this dynamic zone may result in
loss of property and possible loss of life.
Policy Objective. To preserve to the greatest extent feasible
the opportunity to enjoy the physical, aesthetic, cultural and re-
creational qualities of the natural shorelines of the State and to
allow that type development which will withstand the prevalent
natural forces and not unreasonably interfere with the rightful use
and enjoyment of the beach area.
Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those
consistent with the above 'policy objective.
Natural Hazard Areas Coastal Floodplains
Description. Coastal floodplain is defined as the land areas
adjacent to coastal sounds, estuaries or the ocean which are prone
to flooding from storms with an annual probability of one percent
or greater (100 year storm). These areas are analogous to the 100
year floodplain on a river. Information necessary to identify these
56

areas will be supplied by the State Geologist,
Significance, Coastal floodplains are those lands subject to
flooding or wave action during severe storms or hurricanes, They
are lands where uncontrolled, incompatible, or improperly designed
building, structures, facilities, and developments can unreasonably
endanger life and property. Except for those portions of the areas
lying within estuarine or ocean erodible areas, they are not gene-
rally or necessarily subject to severe erosion or dynamic action
leading to replacement of the land with a body of water. In most
instances, structures within this area do not obstruct the flow of
waters or create any additional back waters.
Policy Objective. To ensure that all buildings, structures,
facilities and developments are properly designed and built to main-
tain their stability, integrity, and safety in the event of flood
surge from a 100 year storm.
Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those
consistent with the above policy objective. It is reasonable to
allow a certain degree of development if it is carefully controlled
and meets stringent engineering standards for stability, integrity
and safety during a 100 year storm. The land use plan may allow
development activities, and if such development is undertaken, as
a minimum it must conform with the standards of the Federal Insurance
Administration for coastal high hazard areas and safety during the
flood surge from a 100 year storm. (Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 24, Chapter 10, Subchapter B)
Natural Hazard Areas - Excessive Erosion Areas - General
Areas where geologic and soil conditions are such that there
is substantial possibility of excessive erosion or seismic activity.
Natural Hazard Areas - Excessive Erosion Areas - Coastal
Description. Defined as the natural zone of migration of
coastal inlets. Such a zone covers all areas that are expected to
be eroded b future inlet and inlet migration based on the best
57

avail.able data and studies, including relevant historical photo-
graphys surveys, maps and other appropriate information% The
information necessary to identify these areas will he supplied by
the State Geologist,
Sionificance, The particular location of the inlet channel
Is a temporary one, as such channels are subject to extensive
migration. Coastal inlet lands are extremely dynamic land areas
that are highly suceptible to becoming completely displaced by water.
Policy Objective. To limit unnecessary hazards to life or
property or unreasonable requirements for public expenditures to
protect property or maintain safe conditions.
Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those
consistent with the above policy objective. Recreational or con-
servation activities and easements for access represent the preferred
land use. Moveable temporary structures for recreational purposes
may be appropriate. Permanent or substantial residential, com-
mercial, institutional, or industrial structures are not appropriate'
uses in coastal inlet lands.
Erodible Areas
Description, Defined as the area above mean high water where
excessive erosion has a high probability of occurring. In delineat-
ing the landward extent of this area a reasonable 25 year recession
line shall be determined using the best scientific data available.
The information necessary to identify these areas will be supplied
by the State Geologist. :
e
Sionificance, Ocean erodible areas are extremely dynamic
lands highly susceptible to becoming completely displaced by water.
Policy Objective. To limit unnecessary hazards to life or pro-
perty or unreasonable requirements for public expenditures to protect
property or maintain safe conditions.
Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those
consistent with the above policy objective.
0

! WrL - i VIA 2N.Ii,.l. WA dB: L�
e
Description. Defined as the area above ordinary high water
where excessive erosion has a high probability of occurring. In
delineating the landward extent of this area a reasonable 25 year
recession line shall be determined using the best available infor-
mation. The information necessary to identify these areas will be
supplied by the State Geologist.
Significance. The estuarine and sound and river erodible
areas are natural hazard areas especially vulnerable to erosion.
Development within this type AEC is subjected to the damaging pro-
cess of erosion unless special development standards and preventive
measures are employed.
Policy Objective. To insure that development occurring within
these areas is compatible with the dynamic nature of the erodible
lands thus minimizing the likelihood of significant loss of property.
Appropriate Land Uses. Appropriate land uses shall be those
consistent with the above policy objective. Permanent or substan-
tial residential, commercial, institutional or industrial structures
are not appropriate uses in estuarine and sound and river erodible
areas unless stabilization has been achieved along the affected reach.
Recreational, rural and conservation activities represent appropriate
land uses in those erodible areas where shoreline protective con-
struction has not been completed.
Estuarine Waters
Description. Estuarine waters are defined in G.S. 113-229
(n) (2) as, "all the water of the Atlantic Ocean within the boun-
dary of North Carolina and all the waters of the bays, sounds,
rivers, and tributaries thereto seaward of the dividing line between
coastal fishing waters and inland fishing waters, as set forth in
an agreement adopted by the Wildlife Resources Commission and the
Department of Conservation and Development filed with the Secretary
of State entitled 'Boundary Lines, North Carolina Commercial Fishing -
Inland Fishing Waters, revised March 1, 1965,1" or as it may be sub-
59

sequently revised by the Legislature,
Significance, Estuaries are among the most productive natural
environments of North Carolina, They not only support valuable
commercial and sports fisheries, but are also utilized for commer-
cial navigation, recreation, and aesthetic purposes. Species
dependent upon estuaries such as menhaden, shrimp, flounder, oysters
and crabs make up over 90 percent of the total value of North Caro-
lina's commercial catch. These species must spend all or some
part of their life cycle in the estuary. The high level of com-
mercial and sports fisheries and the aesthetic appeal of coastal
North Caroina is dependent upon the protection and sustained quality
of our estuarine areas.
Policy Objective. To preserve and manage estuarine waters so
as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological, economic and
aesthetic values.
Appropriate Uses, Appropriate uses shall be those consistent
with the above policy objective. Highest priority shall be allocated
to the conservation of estuarine waters. The development of navi-
gational channels, the use of bulkheads to prevent erosion, and the
building of piers or wharfs where no other feasible alternative
exists are examples of land uses appropriate within estuarine waters,
provided that such land uses will not be deterimental to the bio-
logical and physical estuarine functions and public trust rights.
Projects which would directly or indirectly block or impair existing
navigation channels, increase shoreline erosion, deposit spoils be-
low mean high tide, cause adverse water circulation patterns, violate
water quality standards are generally considered incompatible with
the management of estuarine waters.
Development Standards Applicable to All AECs.
No development should be allowed in any AEC which would result
In a contravention or violation of any rules, regulations, or laws
of the State of North Carolina or of local government in which the
development takes place.
r-ie:

No development should be allowed in any AEC which would have
a substantial likelihood of causing pollution of the waters of the
State to the extent that such waters would be closed to the taking
of shellfish under standards set by the Commission for Health Ser-
vices pursuant to G.S. 130-169.01.
61

VIII, CITY -COUNTY RELATIONSHIP
The relationship between the citizens and governments of
Wrightsville Beach and New Hanover County is the product of conflict
between traditional attitudes and change in population levels and
development patterns. As described in the Introduction the citizens
of New Hanover County have long regarded Wrightsville as the "county
beach" and because of its proximity have sought it as a recreational
outlet. However, increasing ease of access and a growing population
has resulted in marked increases in the number of persons using the
beach. But these same factors - ease of access, growing population,
and natural beauty - have made the Town attractive as a place to
live, and as the permanent population has increased the resentment
of some Town residents has grown. This resentment mainly results
from the feeling that Town property owners are inequitably taxed by
the County to provide services for residents who reside in the
County and not on the beach. Compounding this inequity, is the
feeling that the many visitors detract from a quiet residential
community that property owners desire. As growth continues to in-
crease in the surrounding county and region this resentment may well
sharpen unless appropriate concessions are negotiated between Town
and County residents and goverments.
62

IX, SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Synopsis portion of this plan provides a more comprehensive
summary of its contents, conclusions and methodology but some use-,
ful generalizations can be made. First, the plan is not intended
to provide detailed solutions to all land use problems confronting
the Town; neither was it supposed to supply a map or other exact
description of how the Town should look 109 20, or 50 years in the
future. Its major practical purpose was to continue and expand
upon the planning process begun in 1970. This was accomplished by
re-examining population and'•land use trends, soliciting citizen
opinion, and using these factors as a base to establish a broad
but widely acceptable statement of policies and goals for future
development. These statements should provide the guidance for the
work of devising legally and fiscally acceptable solutions to speci-
fic problems. The following recommendations are made to continue
this process and implement the objectives and policies of the land
use plan.
1. Ordinance Review - All development and land use ordinances
should be reviewed to determine if they are consistent with
the land use objectives and policies. Particular attention
should be given to the zoning ordinance to assess whether
full development of permissible uses will result in undesir-
able densities or.land use patterns.
2. Study Feasibility of Architectural Review Board - In order
to enchance and maintain the visull quality of the beaches
man made environment the Planning Board should study and
make recommendations on the feasibility of establishing a
method, such as architectural review board or community
appearance commission, to assure esthetic continuity and
quality in building design and appearance.
3, Consolidation of Development Regulations - Subdivision and
zoning ordinances, and the Town construction codes should be
63

consolidated to provide ease of interpretation to users,
and as may be possible, to be consistent with.other beach
communities.
4. Evaluate Revenue Sources - The existing and future effective-
ness of revenue sources should be evaluated and new sources
of revenue considered as necessary to relieve taxing inequi-
ties.
5. Continue Erosion Control Efforts - Efforts should be continued
to secure available assistance for dune and berm restoration
projects. Work should be continued to establish a common
bulkhead line and if legislation is required appropriate
action should be taken for its introduction.
6. Analysis of Tax Inequities and Cost of Service - The amount
of county taxes paid by Town citizens should be compared with
the services received by property owners and the services pro-
vided to non -property owning beach users.
7. Complete Extraterritorial Zoning - The effort initiated to
exercise zoning powers in the extraterritorial area should be
completed.
B. Encourage County to Exercise Consistent Zoning in the Re-
ma�ninn ]troac n t o Raar t at ara ute P tTa TnWn f { Tt5 -
The Wilmington -New Hanover Planning Board should be encouraged
to zone the northern tip of the beach that lies outside the
Town's extraterritorial area consistent with the adjoining
lands and with the Areas of Environmental Concern proposed
by the Coastal Resources Commission.
9. Access Planning - A pedestrain transportation system should
be designed and implemented that will encourage proper routing
of pedestrians away from private property and dunes and to
public points of access.
10. Parking and Transit Planning - The feasibility of establishing
Joint Town -County parking facilities with transit service to the
beach should be evaluated.
64

APPENDIX ME - Assumptions and methodologies for estimating overnight,
day visitor, And summer resident population;
Overnight visitor population estimate = (number of motel units avail-
able X assumed maximum occupancy per unit) + (number of multi -family
structure X assumed number of dwelling units per structure X assumed
maximum occupancy per dwelling unit),
or
OVP = (Nmu X Omu) + (Nms X Ndu X Odu)
where
OVP = overnight visitor population
Nmu - number of motel units available'
Omu = assumed maximum occupancy per motel unit°
Nms = number of multi -family structures'
Ndu = assumed number of dwelling units per multi -family structure'
Odu = assumed maximum occupancy per multi -family dwelling unit structure$
Thus, OVP - (481 X 2) + (467 X 3 X 4) - 69566
1. determined from field and telephone surveys
2. based on motel manager's estimate
3. determined from field survey
4. it was not possible to tell from field survey the number of.
dwelling units per multi -family structure, therefore, an ar-
bitrary assumption of 3 was made
S. arbitrary assumption of a family of 4 renting a unit
day visitor population estimate - average net weekend vehicles per day
- average number of noncommercial tourist vehicles non -tourist vehicles
during offseason - commercial vehicles + 2 X assumed number of persons
per vehicle
or
DUP = day visitor population estimate
65

where
Wupd = average net weekend vehicles per day'
Oupd = average number of noncommercial non -tourist vehicles travel-
ling to Wrightsville Beach during offseason°
C = average number of commercial vehicles'
Np = estimated average number of persons per vehicle during peak
season`
Thus, 0VP = (21 315 - 8160 -'3197) X 2.5 - 12,447
2
1. NC -DOT - Division of Traffic Counts
2. 1974-1975 three months offseason (January, February, March)
UPD average less 15% commercial less 15% out of state
3. arbitrary assumption of 15% from NC -DOT - Division of Traffic
Courts
summer resident population ■ (number df occupied units - number of units
occupied by overnight Visitors X 4) = 3291
66

APPENDIX 2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION /
i +I
i
RESULTS OF FIRST CITIZEN OPINION
SURVEY FOR WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
Appaximate
r
rlrymailed May 12,,pril 197521, 1975
207surveys retuned asof
Percent returned 28.7
1-2 pertanent`residents . . . . 157
n Nopermanent . . . . . 50
3 Ayerage age of respondent . 49.9
4 Number of respondents living in
single family housing 157
duplexes 32
mobile homes 7
apartments 5
condominiums
5 Number of respondents wanting population of Wrightsville Beach to
increase greatly 2
increase slightly 67
decrease greatly 9
\
decrease slightly 27
stay the same 95
6 Number of respondents that would
like
to see
more
less
single-family housing
51
136
16
117
apartments
15
138
condominiums
0
143
mobile homes
21
113
commercial
2
131
industrial
115
18
public open space
128
22
public recreation
other significant responses:
5
boat ramp
4
tennis courts
public beach access and
3
bathhouses
bicycle -walking paths.
1
each
civic center, library
67

7 Number of respondents who chose to live in Wrightsville Beach because of
C.0
closeness to work
46
pleasant surroundings 152
low taxes
16
reasonably priced land
and house
11
close to family and
friends
39
single family beach
54
other significant responses:
perennial summer resident
3
good police and fire
protection
2
no "Coney Island" atmos-
phere
8 Number of respondents that felt public funds should be spent on
more
less
water and sewer
129
40
11
19
garbage
SO
12
fire and police
38
22
schools
parks and recreation
115
18
41
roads and public transportation
49
3
22
environmental protection
113
tl
87
industrial development
32
34
town management
other significant responses:
erosion control (berm and dune) 5
road repair and maintenance 4
ocean outfall 1 each
mosquito control, library,
garbage collection on Saturday,
drainage, lifeguards, recreation
program for senior citizens, town
manager
9 Perhaps Wrightsville Beaches most appealing feature is its status as a family
community. Fifty-five respondents mentioned this specifically. The beauty
of the beach and proximity to water bodies asmallttown atmospresponses.
Other
major categories were (17) . people and good(police protection (7). Responses
cleanliness the town (17)
also included:
quietness ; quality development; fresh air; and convenience
to Wilmington, churches, and schools.
10 The general category of complaints received most oftenns related
eed doto overiums and
crowding problems. Breaking this down:
-10 indents listed parking and
other forms of high density housing, res P
traffic problems, and 25 persons simply replied "crowding." Twenty-seven
persons criticized various (longhairs, surfers, and day-trippers),
pP ),
and twelve persons opposed beer
Other significant categories included: coo much litter (14), high taxes and
68

and inefficient local leadership (13), stray dogs and cats (10), lack of
parks and/or boat ramps (5)9 overcommercialization (5), too many rules and
regulations (4). and poor water quality (13).
11 Number of respondents that felt development should be permitted in
Never Seldom Frequently Always
lands near inlets 112 42 5
29 20
beaches 80 32 6 5
marshes 127 24 9 8
dunes 123 40 17
inland waterway 44 52
Within the option labeled "other", responses were scarce, but varied. A
few persons strongly felt that a land owner should be able to develop his
land as he pleases, while others felt that development having environmental
implications should be regulated by the state or Federal government. One
person feels that the permission or denial of a building permit ny area
should hinge on the proposed quality of the development. Another parson
said that controlled growth on Shell Island would be favorable.
12 Areas that need to be protected or'preserved in present state or form
Marshlands, according to a large number of Wrightsville Beach
respondents, clearly need to be protected-50 persons mentioned
marshes. Masonboro Island registered highly, receiving 34
responses and Shell Island received 19. The area south
ofsaline
Crystal Pier (3), Bird Island (2), Banks Channel (5),
theplant area (4), dunes (13), inlets (5), and the berm (3) were
also mentioned frequently.
69

'heart
ch ho
lds
ec.,
1 problem In,evaivating and up more or
8y GLEN A MILLER several along North Caiollna s dating the towns land use " where d
stag A- I . coastal waters will must ,because he tceb' Wrightst 1IIe Should a
, review • and update lend use Beach is ahead of many coasW Of ,
Wri¢b+ , tUe Beach held the P18°s z towns In land use Pleaning• • ' ' I city fat,,
tint series of several About 50 residents attended He deaeribed the towa'i within.
public m,' tinga on coastal land the meeting which In
an zoning laws end lend use u within '
I and management. explanation of the act by Doug - „comprehensive'.' and said the 'feel Is
tative U the resort,
'A
VtF+I sa
r me town and
in; should or
bnp�ce to
e type of area
oe'dmlts or
+ plann rag Powell, a local represent
Wednesday
ache requirements of : of the North Carolina Coastal t updateof chief concern , P.
` will include those ua-: ,' ,'The tows Ie o
the Coastal Area Management Resources Commiaslon + developed areas surrounding 4 Lending Its: btu
Act of 1974. the Lawn L one of %; } Powell said he foresees little thetown.. i' +` c'+erw a y tr wg llfws o s:
♦ T °};i 'A "r* $ � (�i%1 Mayor RobeR SiwY M�a LiltY ti
t t .r ` , ' citizen opinion survey art tbR=
' j:" ,< �`t ♦ ' .-` islie
j matled to dune.' utd man
• t ' ` a� ' : subject Is now being
;` ► residents t.c , * 4 � ` �s c".A ,u4 1
i P S : • intend w sown,*l
�P! v no survey is , e� ,_
✓ " "` a ei}cb resident the oppor,, How4yeri'1as
ttFord. e r: tunity to express his opW= on are no. timed
'land rue problems and Issues. ' aanez this*"
The survey seeks to detesUte 1
of development E Updermine thetypes , PPQ f^'resldenu- wo�u/lld like tR � '. lu to ytY C
"•t;. �r1:it' - •,i_ .t'."''v, �2` �' 4 °♦•Ire{• '�•�ri ti'9'�— s :.
- ..•'-� _sue :. t•vr n.�
Qt
MORNING STAI
4'w AY rr � '
lai t y
• It
rand its zoning lurlsdletlon one Cerullo a Depiftment p# t
"'Natural `and;
Sn3f° tb9 a
tmllefromitscltyllmlts::, Econom o'northtostoj
v IJp ' thepropapedupdaUd� Resources:. said.r•'ther
;The'ma;
land.use plan, these area —• department's dlvlston of eom-,
espeSlally dunes would b0 ' munity assistance V estsbtlsh-'',,"cequlra
governme
an`4
•—
protected and no, coosfructlon, , ad to provide the.coosultstlon ,
' '
before Nod
allowed on them.' :'-. on the land planning." '' r :
He emphasized the land'usel.
ject can be e
. "We wan
Sawyer said a survey of
curr. I land use was recently plan is to be developed by tbs;,convtnce
'tL
does Indeed,
completed by a consulting -,Iowa, not the state. However.,
'•
agency which shows there are. my plan must be also approv-"
: •'.: "
stlq many areas In the town ad by the' county and Coastal .
limits whkb can be developed. , Resources CommIalon..; i'
Thus, there Is a need for on.: ,. Sawyer said other public
updated land use plan: {` • '. meetings on the land use plan
other areas being re• will be announced as the pro-
the 1974 ` ject progresees,..I. • �
,
evaluated under act ,`.
will be those affected by _ Also discussed at the
erosion and hurricanes. .'c meeting'was i letter wrrjting
Powell said there Is no csmpalgn to North Carolina
queetloa Wrightsville Beach Is congressmen and. senators
included to that category. ' • etressing the need for , the
At the North reotacement of a bermiunning t,
4y `,
Lst f! _
•' WIIatIIJri'I'[l
n
)old be
ring ex.
xi. and
tleo
Is land.
ti from
'w to
aid there
leas to
the city
city or
t Can ex
• t '!j'H6:� WILMINGTON
Klwauto Club. will meet
CI
A Wednesday at, 1 p.m, at the
Cc
� >
Cape e�qr Hylet.Cll
ho
,A PI1B11C MEETWG on the
7:!
yVrlgbtsvijleL each Coastal
Area Management an will be
so.
Co
held Wednesday at 7 p.m. at
+I
" the Wrightsville Beach School.
The propose d erosion lontrol
i
plan wits also be discussed
;,• THE KIWANIS Club of
,
,City will meet Thtas-
„Azalea
day at 7 p.YTL at the Gold-N-
;;•Frust,RestauranL Wthn.ngton
Police Cplef Darryl isrnestle
4 wiq speak on "Crime.'
70

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
Before me, a Notary Public in and for aforesaid State and County, came this14day of April lg_ r-
as
_ Jacob Brinson _ �_, who being duly sworn, deposes and says that he iaCla.Adv,.(lgr.
of the STAR -NEWS NEWSPAPERS, Inc. and that the advertising of HntJ.Ce*-.Theraatill.be..a..-_..........
PublIp a ink
appeared in said publication on the date (or dates) and in the space as specifier �e ow.
DATE
CAPTION Ot AD. SIZE
4pri1.2,_ !! 11-9_76--_._
Subscribed and sworn to
me this._..14 day of_._.'
My commission expires -.—
Upon reading the foregoi
that the said publication was
on the defendant(s).
This-,_ day of —
NOTICE ,
Thera will be a public hearing April 29, 1076 at
_
Ti3O P. M. at the Wrightsville Beach Elemen-.
wry School to egllcn public comments an
Wrightsville Beach Coastal Area Management
Act Land Use Plan. Copps of the plan are
available for Inspection at the Wrightsville
Beach jowl Hall.
For further Information contact:
Hugh Per
John Hoolenr 763,
19_._._.
cols. x:-------------- lines
cola. x-- _lines
cols. x-------- lines
cols. x_..._..__lines
NEWSPAPERS, Inc.
exed it is adjudged by the Court
has been duly and legally served
---- Clerk of Superior Court
71

`User' fee
at berh
discussed
ByCHARLESSNEED
Stall Writer
. WRIGHTSVILLE'BEACH — A
Wrightsville beach public hearing Thorn -
day night on the land use plans Mandated
under the Coastal Area Mwagement AM
(CAMA) evolved Into the second public'
discussion In as many weeks of act
generated fees for iervlcee. •
Following a presentation of the lan4:;•.'
use recommendations developed Jolntly ;.:,
by the state ano the to 'a planAlus � r
board, John Hlnea; a real eat. suggested , ;',
i
the town consider Implementation of a -i'-
toll system of some kind to tax the "day
users" of the beach.'`' : ' `'" '
Respoasing to the Idca, Mayor Robert
Sawyer told the group of about 20
citizens he had Investigated the concept
during a recent trip to New Jersey where
beach users payproblem
admissionfee
Sawyer said,
beach. "'Ibe pro blem Is,"a'Y
"Is that It doean't seem'to generate is
much Income as you might "ILM
Saying the pioblem rests "with the guy
that comes down to the beach for the day
with his family and then goes back,"
Sawyer suggested the town needs a way
of taxing day beach users for the specific ;
services they consume
The discussion was Wtiated by figures
compiled 'by John Hooten of the
Department of Natural and Economic.
Resources citing data showing ■ per.
maneat population of 2.521 people,
Hooten said his calculations show tha
peakseason population Increases teA
fold. He said 12,447 day users, 6.566 fight
users, and 3,261 summer residents flood
the 1,5W acres of water, marsh, and land'
within the city Rmlts during the summer
Leading Hooten's list of recommen. ••
dations to ease the congestion problems
created 'by., the seasonal Influx was
"revenue source evaluation. • Speakh49 to
the notion near the end of the public dls•
cusslon, Alderman Rey Rudd said the •:',
town had encountered legal problems
everytime it moved• toward any kind of
user
He suggested part of the solution may'
rest with the eountys wllilrgness to par- `
ticipate more fully b: beach .wrvices and
benefits the coanty's cllizeu en)oy.
Development of Masonboro Inland State.
Park was also held out as a partial I
solution. When ' dsitvssloa, Hooten
suggested the sub)Lct first op_ned no to
public discussion a parking lot on the
mainland with ferry savlce to the un-
developed Island would serve to relieve
ithe town of traffic couge,:toti • _
7' ;