Amend 3 Morehead City_CERT3AUG2021

MEMORANDUM

TO: Tancred Miller, Policy & Planning Section Chief
Division of Coastal Management

FROM: Rachel Love-Adrick, Morehead City District Planner
Division of Coastal Management

DATE: August 3, 2021

SUBJECT: Certification of the third amendment to the Town of Morehead City’s Core LUP

Overview
The town is requesting the certification of the third amendment to the Core Land Use Plan. The town is
seeking certification of a map amendment in order to make a rezoning consistent with the Future Land
Use Map (hereinafter the “FLUM”). The town rezoned the easternmost 11.7 acres of the parcel at 301
Highway 24 (Tax PIN #635615741744000) from R20 (Single-Family Residential District) to CH-CZ (Highway
Commercial Conditional Zoning District), the amendment changes this portion of the parcel from FLUM
Classification Medium Density Residential to General Commercial.

The Morehead City Town Council held a duly advertised public hearing to consider the proposed
amendment to the Core Land Use Plan and by resolution approved the amendment on May 19, 2021. The
public had the opportunity to provide written comments on the plan up to thirty (30) calendar days after
local adoption. One written comment was submitted June 17, 2021 via email by Susan McGrath
(Attached).
Written objections are limited to the criteria for certification found in the Coastal Resources Commission’s
Rule 15A NCAC 07B .0803(a)(3) [Attached]. The applicable objections per 07B .0803(a)(3) as outlined in
Ms. McGrath’s public comments relate to the public hearing notification requirements as outlined in G.S.
113A-110(e) (Attached), specifically that copies of the proposed amendment were not available for public
inspection at a designated office in the county courthouse, and that the day of the week was incorrect in
the duly published public hearing notice.
Regarding the availability of the proposed amendment. Per email correspondence (Attached) from Sandi
Watkins, Morehead City Planning and Inspections Director it was confirmed that the proposed
amendment was made available at two locations at the county courthouse and at the Town of Morehead
City’s Planning Department. Additionally, it was noted that Ms. McGrath was provided a copy of the
packet via email on April 9, 2021.

Regarding the incorrect day of the week in the public hearing notice. While the incorrect day of the week
was noted as Tuesday instead of Wednesday, the correct date and time were given as May 19, 2021 at
5:30pm. If the public had tried to attend on that Tuesday, or contacted the town, they would have been
informed that the meeting was on Wednesday, therefore there was no lost opportunity to the public to
provide comments at the public hearing or to submit written comments.
Recommendation
Certification of the Town of Morehead City’s 2007 Core Land Use Plan amendment with the determination
that the Town has met the substantive requirements outlined in the 15 NCAC 7B Land Use Plan Guidelines
and that there are no conflicts with either state or federal law or the State’s Coastal Management Program.

Attachments:
Public Comment - from Ms. Susan McGrath
Coastal Resources Commission’s Rule 15A NCAC 07B .0803(a)(3)
Coastal Area Management Act General Statute 113A-110(e)
Email – from Sandi Watkins
Resolution
Affidavit of Publication
Amended Future Land Use Map

From:[e-mail]
To:Love-Adrick, Rachel A
Subject:RE: [External] 301 Highway 24 Rezoning
Date:Thursday, June 17, 2021 8:09:13 AM
Attachments:C57982F2499E4AD892BF562FA09F951C.png
image002.png
image003.png
image005.png
image007.png
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam.
Hi Ms. Love-Aldrick,

I have revised my letter and referenced the appropriate statute. Please let me know if email submission of my letter is insufficient.
Thanks for your help.

June 17, 2021

Rachel Love-Adrick
Division of Coastal Management District Planner
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557

Dear Ms. Love-Adrick,

I am writing to express concern about the way Morehead City notified the public about proposed amendments to its CAMA
Core Land Use Plan (the Plan) and its Land Use Map (the Map) in connection with the recent change in zoning of 301 Highway
24. The Morehead City Town Council voted to rezone the parcel at its May 19, 2021 meeting, which resulted in a change to
the Map; the proposed text amendments were rejected by the Council.

The Coastal Area Management Act requires the following public notice procedures when amending a CAMA Land Use Plan:
§ 113A-110. Land-use plans.
(e) Prior to adoption or subsequent amendment of any land-use plan, the body charged with its preparation
and adoption (whether the county or the Commission or a unit delegated such responsibility) shall hold a public
hearing at which public and private parties shall have the opportunity to present comments and
recommendations. Notice of the hearing shall be given not less than 30 days before the date of the hearing and
shall state the date, time, and place of the hearing; the subject of the hearing; the action which is proposed; and
that copies of the proposed plan or amendment are available for public inspection at a designated office in the
county courthouse during designated hours. Any such notice shall be published at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation in the county.

The proposed changes to the Plan and the Map were advertised in the Carteret News-Times on April 18, 2021:

The timing of the meeting in the public announcement above was incorrect – the meeting was to take place on Wednesday,
May 19th, rather than on Tuesday of that week. Subsequent notices in the News-Times about the May 19th meeting only
covered the proposed rezoning, and did not mention the potential changes to the Plan and Map, leaving interested parties to
assume that they were removed from the agenda. In addition, these changes were characterized as amendments that, if
approved, “may or would require” changes to the Plan and Map. This was a mischaracterization, as a change in the zoning of
the parcel would clearly require or result in a change to the Map, but the text amendments were gratuitous and not needed
regardless of whether the rezoning request was approved.

The proposed amendments were not available to the public for review, as required under
§ 113A-110 the Coastal Area Management Act. I tried to obtain copies of the proposed amendments on numerous occasions
proceeding the May 19th meeting; the City Clerk and staff at Planning and Inspections did not have them, they were not on
file at a designated office for public inspection, and they were not posted with the other meeting materials on the Town’s
website.

The proposed amendments were not included in the materials for the Planning Board Meeting where the rezoning was
approved.
The proposed amendments were included without explanation in the materials posted to the Council website the day before
the April 13th meeting; when discussion of the rezoning was cancelled, they were quickly removed. The proposed amendments were not included in the materials provided for the Council’s workshop on May 4th.The proposed text amendments only reappeared on the town website the day before the May 19th meeting - at 11:40 am,buried in an attachment that was 102 pages long. As late as the Monday before the Wednesday meeting, I was told that I would have to wait for the agenda materials to appearon the Council’s website to find out if the text amendments were still on the table. When the agenda materials were finally
posted on May 18th, I waded through the 102-page attachment to find the proposed text amendments in a new place –
within the Consistency Statements – and not attached to the proposed amendments to the Map where they had appeared
before. In fact, the draft documents and resolutions posted on the 18th didn’t even say definitively whether the text
amendments were to be approved in the event that the Council approved the rezoning. These documents and resolutions
contained potential inserts like the following:

I don’t see how this process invites public consideration and engagement on far-reaching changes to the Town’s development
intentions. While the text amendments to the Plan were ultimately rejected by the Town Council, I do not believe that the
public was adequately informed about the inconsistency of the rezoning of the 301 Highway 24 parcel with the Town’s Land Use
Plan – a document that is supposed to reflect the future intentions of the Town with respect to development, in part, so that
buyers can have confidence in the zoning of areas in which they invest. These far-reaching consequences were described at the
meeting, by one of the Council members who voted to oppose the rezoning – Bill Taylor. Mr. Taylor noted that the approval of
the rezoning of 301 parcel would make it difficult for the Council to reject any future request to rezone other parcels in the
surrounding area from residential to commercial use, which affects all homeowners on the southern side of Highway 24 in the
adjacent areas who purchased under the assumption that their side of the highway would continue to be zoned single-family
residential.
The ambiguous public notice of the potential changes to the Plan and Map and the absence of documents explaining these
changes in the materials included on the Council’s website resulted in inadequate public awareness of changes to the Map that
would have significant knock-on effects to the Town’s future development – violations of the CAMA requirements in § 113A-
110. I urge you to reject the proposed change in the Land Use Map, as the public was not adequately informed of this
important issue.

Sincerely,

Susan McGrath
165 Lands End Road, Morehead City

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Love-Adrick, Rachel A
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 9:38 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Miller, Tancred
Subject: RE: [External] 301 Highway 24 Rezoning

Good Morning Ms. McGrath –

Thank you for providing comments regarding the certification of a locally adopted amendment to the Town of Morehead City’s Core
Land Use Plan. Please note that written objections are limited to the criteria for certification found in the Coastal Resource Commission’s
Rule 15A NCAC 07B .0803, included below.

Written comments limited to the criteria for certification will be considered in the certification. Additionally, the comments will be
shared with the town. If you wish to provide additional comments please provide them to me by 11:59 pm on June 18, 2021; the end of
the 30-day public comment period.

A.

Thank you,
Rachel

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 11:35 AM
To: Love-Adrick, Rachel A <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] 301 Highway 24 Rezoning

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam.

Dear Ms. Love-Adrick,

I mailed a copy of the following letter to you today regarding the proposed changes to the Morehead City Land Use Plan and Map
resulting from the rezoning of parcel 301 Highway 24. Please consider these comments in deciding whether to approve these changes.
Thanks.

Susan McGrath

________________________________________________

June 15, 2021

Rachel Love-Adrick
Division of Coastal Management District Planner
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557

Dear Ms. Love-Adrick,

I am writing to express concern about the way Morehead City notified the public about proposed amendments to its CAMA
Core Land Use Plan (the Plan) and its Land Use Map (the Map) in connection with the recent change in zoning of 301 Highway
24. The Morehead City Town Council voted to rezone the parcel at its May 19, 2021 meeting, which resulted in a change to
the Map; the proposed text amendments were rejected by the Council.

The proposed changes to the Plan and the Map were advertised in the Carteret News-Times on April 18, 2021. These
changes were characterized as amendments that, if approved, “may or would require” changes to the Plan and Map. This
was a mischaracterization, as a change in the zoning of the parcel would clearly require or result in a change to the Map, but
the text amendments were gratuitous and not needed regardless of whether the rezoning request was approved.

Note that the timing of the meeting was incorrect – the meeting was to take place on Wednesday, May 19th, rather than on
Tuesday of that week. Subsequent notices in the News-Times about the May 19th meeting only covered the proposed
rezoning, and did not mention the potential changes to the Plan and Map, leaving interested parties to assume that they
were removed from the agenda.

The public was not adequately informed of these proposed text amendments to the Plan and the inconsistency of the rezoning
with the Map, due to the ambiguous language used in the public meeting notice above, and the Council’s silence regarding
these issues in subsequent meeting notices and materials posted to the Planning Board and City Council websites.

The proposed amendments were not included in the materials for the Planning Board Meeting where the rezoning was
approved.
The proposed amendments were included without explanation in the materials posted to the Council website the day before
the April 13th meeting; when discussion of the rezoning was cancelled, they were quickly removed.
The proposed amendments were not included in the materials provided for the Council’s workshop on May 4th.
The proposed text amendments only reappeared on the town website the day before the May 19th meeting - at 11:40 am,
buried in an attachment that was 102 pages long.

I took an interest in this topic early on – when I noticed the proposed text amendments included in the agenda materials for the
April 13th meeting that were up on the website for just a day or so. Over the subsequent 5 weeks, I was unable get anyone to
tell me why they were being proposed, and even to get a definitive answer as to whether they were still being proposed.
I contacted several members of the town staff on multiple occasions to find out if these text amendments were still beingconsidered or if they were dropped from the proposal, particularly after the amendments were not included in the materials
provided to the Town Council’s workshop meeting preceding the May 19th meeting. I received responses like the following:

I even reached out to one of the Council members for information and to express my views. I never got a definitive answer
from anybody.
As late as the Monday before the Wednesday meeting, I was told that I would have to wait for the agenda materials to appear
on the Council’s website to find out if the text amendments were still on the table. When the agenda materials were finally
posted on May 18th, I waded through the 102-page attachment to find the proposed text amendments in a new place –
within the Consistency Statements – and not attached to the proposed amendments to the Map where they had appeared
before. In fact, the draft documents and resolutions posted on the 18th didn’t even say definitively whether the textamendments were to be approved in the event that the Council approved the rezoning. These documents and resolutionscontained potential inserts like the following:

I don’t see how this process invites public consideration and engagement on far-reaching changes to the Town’s development
intentions. While the text amendments to the Plan were ultimately rejected by the Town Council, I do not believe that the
public was adequately informed about the inconsistency of the rezoning of the 301 Highway 24 parcel with the Town’s Land Use
Plan – a document that is supposed to reflect the future intentions of the Town with respect to development, in part, so that
buyers can have confidence in the zoning of areas in which they invest. These far-reaching consequences were described at the
meeting, by one of the Council members who voted to oppose the rezoning – Bill Taylor. Mr. Taylor noted that the approval of
the rezoning of 301 parcel would make it difficult for the Council to reject any future request to rezone other parcels in the
surrounding area from residential to commercial use, which affects all homeowners on the southern side of Highway 24 in the
adjacent areas who purchased under the assumption that their side of the highway would continue to be zoned single-family
residential.

The ambiguous public notice of the potential changes to the Plan and Map and the absence of documents explaining these
changes in the materials included on the Council’s website resulted in inadequate public awareness of changes to the Map that
would have significant knock-on effects to the Town’s future development. I urge you to reject the proposed change in the Land
Use Map, as the public was not adequately informed of this important issue.

Sincerely,

Susan McGrath
165 Lands End Road, Morehead City

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

ATTACHMENTS:
Coastal Resources Commission’s Rule 15A NCAC 07B .0803(a)(3)

Coastal Area Management Act General Statute 113A-110(e):
(e) Prior to adoption or subsequent amendment of any land-use plan, the body charged with its
preparation and adoption (whether the county or the Commission or a unit delegated such
responsibility) shall hold a public hearing at which public and private parties shall have the opportunity
to present comments and recommendations. Notice of the hearing shall be given not less than 30 days
before the date of the hearing and shall state the date, time, and place of the hearing; the subject of the
hearing; the action which is proposed; and that copies of the proposed plan or amendment are available
for public inspection at a designated office in the county courthouse during designated hours. Any such
notice shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the county.
From:Miller, Tancred
To:Sandi Watkins
Cc:Love-Adrick, Rachel A
Subject:RE: [External] RE: Public comment on 301 Highway 24 Rezoning
Date:Thursday, July 1, 2021 9:53:05 AM
Attachments:image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image013.png
image014.png
image016.png
Thank you, Ms. Watkins, that’s very helpful.

Best wishes,
Tancred

Tancred Miller
Policy & Planning Section Chief
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
[phone] ext. 224
[e-mail]

Subscribe to the Division of Coastal Management’s
Interested Parties List

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Sandi Watkins [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 4:51 PM
To: Miller, Tancred <[e-mail]>
Cc: Love-Adrick, Rachel A <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Public comment on 301 Highway 24 Rezoning

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Miller:

The May 19, 2021 public hearing during which the land use plan amendment was heard was advertised in the April 18, 2021 edition of
the Carteret County News-Times. A copy of the affidavit of publication is attached.

A copy of the draft land use plan amendment was made available in two locations at the courthouse complex on April 16, 2021 and was
also available with the Planning Board Secretary and myself. The packet included the draft land use plan amendments (map and text), as
well as the legal advertisement, a packet of all land use plan policies, and DRAFT resolutions for Council consideration. A copy of the
packet is attached.

The Council reviewed the amendments and ultimately opted to only amend a portion of the site to the General Commercial future land
use designation and made no other adjustments to the Land Use Plan. A copy of the map which includes that amendment is attached as
well as a copy of the resolution of adoption.

I’m not aware of anyone who reached out to this office who was unable to obtain a copy of the draft land use plan amendments. Ms.
McGrath was provided a copy of the packet via email on April 19, 2021.

Please let me know if you require any additional information.

Thank you,

Sandi Watkins, CZO, CFM
Planning and Inspections Director
Town of Morehead City
252.726.6848 ext. 140
www.moreheadcitync.org

“Morehead City is dedicated to the well-being and safety of our community through exceptional service with a warm coastal
smile.”
This institution is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, found online at
http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html or at any USDA office, or call [phone] to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information
requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter by US Mail to U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjunction, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington,
D.C. 20250-9410, by fax [phone] or email to [e-mail]
DISCLAIMER: Pursuant to the Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts (FOIPA) and North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132, Public Records, this electronic mail message and any
attachments hereto, as well as any electronic mail message(s) sent in response to it may be considered public record and as such subject to request and review by anyone at any time.

From: Miller, Tancred <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 1:48 PM
To: Sandi Watkins <[e-mail]>
Cc: Love-Adrick, Rachel A <[e-mail]>
Subject: Public comment on 301 Highway 24 Rezoning

Good afternoon Ms. Watkins,

Please find below the only public comment (original and revised) that we received on the 301 Highway 24 Rezoning, along with Rachel’s
response to the original submission.

Please feel free to follow up with Rachel when she is back in the office next week, and in the meantime, is there any way the Town can
verify where and when the documents were made available for public review?

Thanks and best regards,
Tancred

Tancred Miller
Policy & Planning Section Chief
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
[phone] ext. 224
[e-mail]

Subscribe to the Division of Coastal Management’s
Interested Parties List

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Love-Adrick, Rachel A
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 4:42 PM
To: Miller, Tancred <[e-mail]>
Cc: Davis, Braxton C <[e-mail]>; Goebel, Christine A <[e-mail]>; Lopazanski, Mike
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: [External] 301 Highway 24 Rezoning

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 8:09 AM
To: Love-Adrick, Rachel A
Subject: RE: [External] 301 Highway 24 Rezoning

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam.

Hi Ms. Love-Aldrick,

I have revised my letter and referenced the appropriate statute. Please let me know if email submission of my letter is insufficient.
Thanks for your help.

June 17, 2021

Rachel Love-Adrick
Division of Coastal Management District Planner
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557

Dear Ms. Love-Adrick,

I am writing to express concern about the way Morehead City notified the public about proposed amendments to its CAMA
Core Land Use Plan (the Plan) and its Land Use Map (the Map) in connection with the recent change in zoning of 301 Highway
24. The Morehead City Town Council voted to rezone the parcel at its May 19, 2021 meeting, which resulted in a change to
the Map; the proposed text amendments were rejected by the Council.

The Coastal Area Management Act requires the following public notice procedures when amending a CAMA Land Use Plan:
§ 113A-110. Land-use plans.
(e) Prior to adoption or subsequent amendment of any land-use plan, the body charged with its preparation
and adoption (whether the county or the Commission or a unit delegated such responsibility) shall hold a public
hearing at which public and private parties shall have the opportunity to present comments and
recommendations. Notice of the hearing shall be given not less than 30 days before the date of the hearing and
shall state the date, time, and place of the hearing; the subject of the hearing; the action which is proposed; and
that copies of the proposed plan or amendment are available for public inspection at a designated office in the
county courthouse during designated hours. Any such notice shall be published at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation in the county.

The proposed changes to the Plan and the Map were advertised in the Carteret News-Times on April 18, 2021:

The timing of the meeting in the public announcement above was incorrect – the meeting was to take place on Wednesday,
May 19th, rather than on Tuesday of that week. Subsequent notices in the News-Times about the May 19th meeting only
covered the proposed rezoning, and did not mention the potential changes to the Plan and Map, leaving interested parties to
assume that they were removed from the agenda. In addition, these changes were characterized as amendments that, if
approved, “may or would require” changes to the Plan and Map. This was a mischaracterization, as a change in the zoning of
the parcel would clearly require or result in a change to the Map, but the text amendments were gratuitous and not needed
regardless of whether the rezoning request was approved.

The proposed amendments were not available to the public for review, as required under
§ 113A-110 the Coastal Area Management Act. I tried to obtain copies of the proposed amendments on numerous occasions
proceeding the May 19th meeting; the City Clerk and staff at Planning and Inspections did not have them, they were not on
file at a designated office for public inspection, and they were not posted with the other meeting materials on the Town’s
website.

The proposed amendments were not included in the materials for the Planning Board Meeting where the rezoning wasapproved.The proposed amendments were included without explanation in the materials posted to the Council website the day
before the April 13th meeting; when discussion of the rezoning was cancelled, they were quickly removed.
The proposed amendments were not included in the materials provided for the Council’s workshop on May 4th.
The proposed text amendments only reappeared on the town website the day before the May 19th meeting - at 11:40
am, buried in an attachment that was 102 pages long.
As late as the Monday before the Wednesday meeting, I was told that I would have to wait for the agenda materials to
appear on the Council’s website to find out if the text amendments were still on the table. When the agenda materials
were finally posted on May 18th, I waded through the 102-page attachment to find the proposed text amendments in a
new place – within the Consistency Statements – and not attached to the proposed amendments to the Map where they
had appeared before. In fact, the draft documents and resolutions posted on the 18th didn’t even say definitively whether
the text amendments were to be approved in the event that the Council approved the rezoning. These documents and
resolutions contained potential inserts like the following:

I don’t see how this process invites public consideration and engagement on far-reaching changes to the Town’s development
intentions. While the text amendments to the Plan were ultimately rejected by the Town Council, I do not believe that the
public was adequately informed about the inconsistency of the rezoning of the 301 Highway 24 parcel with the Town’s Land Use
Plan – a document that is supposed to reflect the future intentions of the Town with respect to development, in part, so that
buyers can have confidence in the zoning of areas in which they invest. These far-reaching consequences were described at the
meeting, by one of the Council members who voted to oppose the rezoning – Bill Taylor. Mr. Taylor noted that the approval of
the rezoning of 301 parcel would make it difficult for the Council to reject any future request to rezone other parcels in the
surrounding area from residential to commercial use, which affects all homeowners on the southern side of Highway 24 in the
adjacent areas who purchased under the assumption that their side of the highway would continue to be zoned single-family
residential.
The ambiguous public notice of the potential changes to the Plan and Map and the absence of documents explaining these
changes in the materials included on the Council’s website resulted in inadequate public awareness of changes to the Map that
would have significant knock-on effects to the Town’s future development – violations of the CAMA requirements in § 113A-
110. I urge you to reject the proposed change in the Land Use Map, as the public was not adequately informed of this important
issue.

Sincerely,

Susan McGrath
165 Lands End Road, Morehead City

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Love-Adrick, Rachel A
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 9:38 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Miller, Tancred
Subject: RE: [External] 301 Highway 24 Rezoning

Good Morning Ms. McGrath –

Thank you for providing comments regarding the certification of a locally adopted amendment to the Town of Morehead City’s Core Land
Use Plan. Please note that written objections are limited to the criteria for certification found in the Coastal Resource Commission’s Rule
15A NCAC 07B .0803, included below.

Written comments limited to the criteria for certification will be considered in the certification. Additionally, the comments will be shared
with the town. If you wish to provide additional comments please provide them to me by 11:59 pm on June 18, 2021; the end of the 30-
day public comment period.

A.

Thank you,
Rachel

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 11:35 AM
To: Love-Adrick, Rachel A <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] 301 Highway 24 Rezoning

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report Spam.

Dear Ms. Love-Adrick,

I mailed a copy of the following letter to you today regarding the proposed changes to the Morehead City Land Use Plan and Map
resulting from the rezoning of parcel 301 Highway 24. Please consider these comments in deciding whether to approve these changes.
Thanks.

Susan McGrath

________________________________________________

June 15, 2021

Rachel Love-Adrick
Division of Coastal Management District Planner
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557

Dear Ms. Love-Adrick,

I am writing to express concern about the way Morehead City notified the public about proposed amendments to its CAMA
Core Land Use Plan (the Plan) and its Land Use Map (the Map) in connection with the recent change in zoning of 301 Highway
24. The Morehead City Town Council voted to rezone the parcel at its May 19, 2021 meeting, which resulted in a change to
the Map; the proposed text amendments were rejected by the Council.

The proposed changes to the Plan and the Map were advertised in the Carteret News-Times on April 18, 2021. These
changes were characterized as amendments that, if approved, “may or would require” changes to the Plan and Map. This
was a mischaracterization, as a change in the zoning of the parcel would clearly require or result in a change to the Map, but
the text amendments were gratuitous and not needed regardless of whether the rezoning request was approved.

Note that the timing of the meeting was incorrect – the meeting was to take place on Wednesday, May 19th, rather than on
Tuesday of that week. Subsequent notices in the News-Times about the May 19th meeting only covered the proposed
rezoning, and did not mention the potential changes to the Plan and Map, leaving interested parties to assume that they
were removed from the agenda.

The public was not adequately informed of these proposed text amendments to the Plan and the inconsistency of the rezoning
with the Map, due to the ambiguous language used in the public meeting notice above, and the Council’s silence regarding these
issues in subsequent meeting notices and materials posted to the Planning Board and City Council websites.

The proposed amendments were not included in the materials for the Planning Board Meeting where the rezoning was
approved.
The proposed amendments were included without explanation in the materials posted to the Council website the day
before the April 13th meeting; when discussion of the rezoning was cancelled, they were quickly removed.
The proposed amendments were not included in the materials provided for the Council’s workshop on May 4th.
The proposed text amendments only reappeared on the town website the day before the May 19th meeting - at 11:40
am, buried in an attachment that was 102 pages long.

I took an interest in this topic early on – when I noticed the proposed text amendments included in the agenda materials for the
April 13th meeting that were up on the website for just a day or so. Over the subsequent 5 weeks, I was unable get anyone to
tell me why they were being proposed, and even to get a definitive answer as to whether they were still being proposed.
I contacted several members of the town staff on multiple occasions to find out if these text amendments were still beingconsidered or if they were dropped from the proposal, particularly after the amendments were not included in the
materials provided to the Town Council’s workshop meeting preceding the May 19th meeting. I received responses like
the following:

I even reached out to one of the Council members for information and to express my views. I never got a definitive
answer from anybody. As late as the Monday before the Wednesday meeting, I was told that I would have to wait for the agenda materials toappear on the Council’s website to find out if the text amendments were still on the table. When the agenda materials
were finally posted on May 18th, I waded through the 102-page attachment to find the proposed text amendments in a
new place – within the Consistency Statements – and not attached to the proposed amendments to the Map where they
had appeared before. In fact, the draft documents and resolutions posted on the 18th didn’t even say definitively whetherthe text amendments were to be approved in the event that the Council approved the rezoning. These documents andresolutions contained potential inserts like the following:

I don’t see how this process invites public consideration and engagement on far-reaching changes to the Town’s development
intentions. While the text amendments to the Plan were ultimately rejected by the Town Council, I do not believe that the
public was adequately informed about the inconsistency of the rezoning of the 301 Highway 24 parcel with the Town’s Land Use
Plan – a document that is supposed to reflect the future intentions of the Town with respect to development, in part, so that
buyers can have confidence in the zoning of areas in which they invest. These far-reaching consequences were described at the
meeting, by one of the Council members who voted to oppose the rezoning – Bill Taylor. Mr. Taylor noted that the approval of
the rezoning of 301 parcel would make it difficult for the Council to reject any future request to rezone other parcels in the
surrounding area from residential to commercial use, which affects all homeowners on the southern side of Highway 24 in the
adjacent areas who purchased under the assumption that their side of the highway would continue to be zoned single-family
residential.

The ambiguous public notice of the potential changes to the Plan and Map and the absence of documents explaining these
changes in the materials included on the Council’s website resulted in inadequate public awareness of changes to the Map that
would have significant knock-on effects to the Town’s future development. I urge you to reject the proposed change in the Land
Use Map, as the public was not adequately informed of this important issue.

Sincerely,

Susan McGrath
165 Lands End Road, Morehead City

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

M o r e h e a d C i t yMorehead C i t y
N e w p o r tNewport
A t l a n t i c B e a c hAtlantic B e a c h
P i n e K n o l l S h o r e sPine K n o l l S h o r e s
B e a u f o r tBeaufort
£¤70
£¤70
£¤70
QR58
QR24
Newport River
(Including Intracoastal Waterway to Beaufort Inlet)Hoop Pole CreekMoney Island Bay
Calico Creek
Crab PointBay
Tar Landing Bay
Atlantic Ocean
Harbor Channel
Newport River Restricted Area (Morehead City Harbor)
S
p
o
o
n
e
r Cr
e
e
k
Peltier Creek Willi
s
Cr
e
e
k
Fort Macon Creek
Fishing Creek
Back Sound
Money Island Slough Allen Slough
Ware Creek
Hull Swamp
Mill Creek
Little Creek Swamp
Bogue Sound
7
5
8
1
9
6 4
1 0
3
2
Morehead City Corporate Limits
Morehead City ETJ
Neighborhood Boundaries
USDA Sub-watershed Boundary
Future Land Use
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
General Commercial
Downtown Mixed Use
Public/ Institutional
General Industrial
Port Mixed Use
Conservation/ Open SpaceIThe original version of this map was prepared by the Wooten Company and financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administeredby the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration. The map has been subsequently amended by the Morehead CityPlanning Department.
MOREHEAD CITY, NC Figure 14: Future Land Use
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles
M a y , 2 0 2 1May, 2 0 2 1