20160682 Ver 1_Response to PN Comments_20161219

LMG
Environmentol
December 1, 2016
TO: Mr. Brad Shaver
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
RE: Response to Public Notice Comments
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace; Brunswick County, NC
Action ID#: SAW -2015-01887 & DWR Project # 2016-0682
Dear Brad:
Thank you for your letter dated November 8, 2016 in which you provide comments received
during the Public Notice for the Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace project. Comments were received from
the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), NC Division of Water Resources (DWR), Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) and several citizens. Below is a response to each of
these comments.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Comment 1a. The current off-site alternatives is limited and weak. Please further explain why the
current location is limited to Ocean Isle Beach and Sunset Beach and not the Hwy 179 corridor between
the two beach communities..... Please outline the citing criteria, properties that were considered for this
development, and how those properties were eliminated from consideration due to the citing criteria.
This should include basic information on the extent of Waters of the US that may be present on these
properties.
RESPONSE: The intended customer base of this retail development is full-time residents and visitors to
the southern Brunswick Beaches area, including Ocean Isle Beach, Sunset Beach, Calabash, Carolina
Shores, Shallotte, Goose Creek, and Brick Landing. In order to be centrally located to this customer
base, the applicant focused its study area for this project to tracts on the southern portion of the
mainland of Ocean Isle Beach and Sunset Beach so that it would be conveniently located to both the
mainland and beach communities. As suggested above, this included evaluating tracts along the
Highway 179, Georgetown Road and even Highway 17 to determine their viability. Enclosed is an
alternatives analysis that evaluates several off-site options. Six sites in addition to the preferred site
were evaluated. These tracts were evaluated because they were large enough to accommodate a
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15 • Wilmington, NC 28403
1

grocery store and additional retail development, were located at intersections that provided traffic
from different directions (requirement of anchor tenant), and were located within the general service
area noted above. The preferred site was selected because of its convenient centralized location to
residential communities and the beaches, access to major roads, and minimal wetland areas.
Comment 1b. Furthermore, a minimum of three outparcels with no apparent purpose, are cited as a
requirement for this development. Please explain the basis of this requirement and how none vs. one vs.
two vs. three outparcels are critical to the success of the shopping complex. You should be aware that
we are unable to issue permits for purely speculative development.
RESPONSE: Selling outparcels and leasing retail areas are an essential part of this development as they
help to make the project economically viable for the developer and promote cross -shopping within the
shopping center. The enclosed alternatives analysis evaluates several on-site options with varying
numbers of outparcels and retail shops. The applicant has also prepared a proforma that identifies
development costs as well as the anticipated revenue from outparcels and retail leasing and how it
relates to the overall return on investment from the different on-site scenarios. Note that the applicant
has already had discussions with several retailers interested in these outparcels and retail space, which
indicates a tangible need for this development.
The revised site plan has five outparcels that vary in size from 0.69 acre to 2.61 acres (hotel). Note that
the original site plan depicted four outparcels, which included two large hotels. A feasibility study was
recently performed and determined that there was not a need for two hotels within the service area
and the site plan has been revised to eliminate the second hotel. This large outparcel has been divided
into two smaller outparcels, which reduces overall wetland impacts (Figure 12).
Comment 2a. The application does not provide sufficient information regarding why there is the need
for type and amount of the additional retail construction on the property.......
RESPONSE: The intended service area of this development includes the southern Brunswick Beaches
area, which is experiencing rapid growth. There are several residential subdivisions currently being
developed or expanded within the Ocean Isle Beach area (i.e. Retreat, Phase 3 of Waterway Cove,
Ocean Isle Palms, Ocean Isle Beach East End, and Little Beach Landing) which are expected to add
several hundred single-family units and will increase both the permanent and tourist populations of
the service area. Sunset Beach and Shallotte are also experiencing rapid growth. During peak summer
days, up to 30,000 visitors and residents travel the NC 904/Causeway Drive corridor to Ocean Isle
Beach. Retail development, both the grocery store and ancillary retail stores, is needed to provide
services to this expanding population. As stated previously, convenience is of upmost importance to
vacationers. Having retail services in close proximity to where they are staying will bring people back to
the area year after year. As mentioned above, the applicant has already had discussions with several
retailers interested in the outparcels and/or retail leasing, which suggests a need for these services.
Comment 2b. Please indicate all that you have done, especially regarding the development and
modification of plans and proposed construction techniques, including reducing the amount of
additional retail space to minimize adverse impacts. You are strongly encouraged to provide data that
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15 • Wilmington, NC 28403
2

supports your contention that without the additional retail facilities, the project would not be
financially viable.
RESPONSE: Enclosed is a revised site plan that significantly reduces wetland impacts from 2.04 acres to
1.508 acres and eliminates stream impacts. Impacts have been reduced by removing a restaurant,
removing a hotel outparcel and replacing it with two smaller outparcels, removing a roundabout,
shifting an access road, and bridging a stream and its adjacent wetlands from the southern end of the
site. This revised plan is included in the proforma and is compared against other on-site alternatives
described in the alternatives analysis. The proposed plan is the least damaging yet financially viable
alternative for the applicant. The return on investment of the preferred site plan is 7.07°/x. A project
yielding less than 7.0% ROI would not be financially viable for the applicant and, thus, not a practicable
alternative.
Comment 2c. Although the plans provided with the application indicate that the lower 22 -acre tract
would remain vacant, we are aware of plans to develop this property. We strongly encourage complete
development plans for a single and complete project as it allows us, and the project proponent, to more
fully consider options to avoid and minimize impacts to WouS and allow proposed development to
advance more efficiently. As it appears that this southern tract may allow for options to further avoid
and minimize impacts to WouS, are there opportunities to shift a portion of the development from the
northern tract to the southern tract in order to minimize wetland impacts?
RESPONSE: As stated in the project narrative, the current landowner plans to retain this portion of his
site and construct a residential development. The applicant is only purchasing an easement through
this area on which to construct alternate access to the retail site. The stream/wetland system will be
bridged at this location and no impacts will be needed. This area has been removed from the revised
site plan and the project area is now considered to be the 22.4 -acre area north of Kilbart Slough (see
attached Figures 6-8 and 12).
Comment 2d. We note that the wet pond on the northern tract encompasses a significant amount of
upland area. Please explore the possibility of innovative storm water designs to minimize the amount of
wet pond necessary and/or utilize the existing wetlands as part of the overall treatment system. We
can assist in facilitating coordination with the NCDEQ-DMLR regarding options to release treated storm
water into wetlands in order to minimize additional wetland drainage and to ensure that the remaining
wetlands on the tract remain hydrated.
RESPONSE: LMG recently evaluated the soils in upland areas behind the proposed grocery store to
determine if they would be suitable to treat some stormwater via infiltration. It appears this is feasible
and the project engineer is evaluating opportunities to utilize BMPs in these locations.
Comment 2e. Kilbart Slough, which runs through the center of the tract, drains to SA tidal waters, which
is one of the highest water quality classifications in eastern NC. Given that there will be a roundabout
constructed at the corner of Hwy 904 and Hwy 179, it is unclear why an additional crossing of Kilbart
Slough is necessary. We note that with this improvement that there will be three ingress and egress
points into the proposed development.
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15 • Wilmington, NC 28403
3

RESPONSE: Signalized access from Culpepper Road is a requirement of both the Town of Ocean Isle
Beach and the anchor tenant. However, the developer has agreed to bridge this crossing to avoid
impacts to this system.
Comment 2f. Finally, elimination/reconfiguration of parking spaces can be an important component of
minimizing impacts to WouS, please provide the rational for the number of spaces shown.
RESPONSE: The design specifications of the anchor tenant (grocery store) require 5 parking spaces for
every 1,000 sf of building area. This is based on their requirements for weekends, summers, and
holidays, when parking is at a premium. They view having anything less than a 5/1,000 ratio as
potentially losing customers and are unwilling to reduce their requirements. Since the proposed
grocery store will be 39,500 sf, 198 spaces are needed. The engineer has provided 200 spaces for the
store.
In addition to the anchor tenant, 16,200 sf of retail shops are shown. Of this, 9,000 sf is projected to be
for restaurants and 7,200 sf will be other retail uses. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach requires 1 space for
every 200 sf of restaurant space and 1 space for every 300 sf of retail space. The applicant is using the
1:300 ratio for retail, but the industry standard for restaurants is 10 spaces for every 1,000 sf. Most
restaurants will not lease a space that offers less than that. Therefore, the proposed site plan must use
this higher parking ratio. The table below describes the parking allocation.
Use
Square
Footage
Parking
Ratio
Number of
Spaces Required
Number of
Spaces Provided
Grocery Store
39,500
5: 1,000
198
200
Restaurant
9,000
10:1,000
90
90
Retail
7,200
1:300
24
24
Total
312
314
Comment 3a. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation will be required for all
unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
employed. Your current plan calls for the use of an approved mitigation bank within the Lower Pee Dee
River Basin at a 1:1 ratio. Based on the NC WAM assessment provided in the application, the wetlands
have rated as medium to high quality. This assessment would lead the Corps to believe that a more
appropriate mitigation ratio would be 2:1. There is no other analysis of the stream system but it is
assumed that 2:1 would be appropriate for a system that drains to SA tidal waters.
RESPONSE: The preferred site plan would impact 1.508 acres of wetlands, of which 0.163 acre is
riparian wetlands and 1.345 acre is non -riparian wetlands. The applicant agrees to provide wetland
mitigation at a 2:1 mitigation to impact ratio from the Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank.
Comment 3b. Once key points of the aforementioned MOA have been satisfied and the LEDPA is
identified, you will need to provide better permit drawings that depict fill site cross sections and stream
site cross sections.
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15 • Wilmington, NC 28403
4

RESPONSE: Figure 12 includes cross sections of impact areas.
NC Division of Water Resources
1. The application indicates that three parcels are necessary to meet the minimum site criteria. The
preferred alternative includes four outparcels. Can the proposed restaurant be relocated to
Outparcel #1 or 2 to minimize the amount of wetland and stream impacted by the project?
RESPONSE: The restaurant has been eliminated from the plan in order to further minimize wetland
and stream impacts. Additionally, wetland impacts have been reduced via the removal of one hotel
sites and subsequent revised layout to include two smaller outparcels.
2. The restaurant has a large patio area. Could rooftop outdoor seating be used in order to shift the
restaurant to the northeast to minimize the wetland and stream impact?
RESPONSE: This restaurant has been eliminated from the plan in order to further minimize wetland
and stream impacts.
3. How would the hydrology of the intermittent stream and Kilbart Slough be maintained? The
stormwater collection system transports all runoff to the wet pond that discharges to Kilbart Slough
downstream of the intermittent stream and the upper portion of Kilbart Slough along the southern
property boundary. Could multiple, smaller stormwater BMPs be used to avoid removing the
hydrology to the upper portion of Kilbart Slough and the intermittent stream?
RESPONSE: LMG recently evaluated the soils in upland areas behind the proposed grocery store to
determine if they would be suitable to treat some stormwater via infiltration. It appears this is
feasible and the project engineer is evaluating opportunities to utilize BMPs in these locations.
4. Could the roundabout be eliminated to minimize impacts?
RESPONSE: The roundabout has been eliminated from the revised site plan.
5. Would flipping the hotel locations allow additional minimization to the central portion of the high
quality wetland currently between the restaurant and hotel?
RESPONSE: A feasibility study was recently performed and determined that there was not a need
for two hotels within the service area and the site plan has been revised to eliminate the second
hotel. This large outparcel has been divided into two smaller outparcels.
6. Tract B would utilize the access road between the proposed development and Culpepper Road for
access to this site. Wouldn't Tract B be considered part of the proposed project? Could the
proposed hotels be located to upland portion of this tract and still be visible to Beach Drive?
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15 • Wilmington, NC 28403
5

Tract B is being retained by the current landowner for future development. The revised site plan
has eliminated this section of the tract.
Environmental Protection Agency
1. The EPA recommends that the applicant provide compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts at a
2:1 ratio thereby purchasing 4.1 acres of wetland credit from the Stone Farm Mitigation Bank.
RESPONSE: The applicant agrees to provide wetland mitigation at a 2:1 ratio. We are in the process
of obtaining an acceptance letter from the Stone Farm Regional Mitigation Bank and will forward
this to you once it is received.
2. The EPA recommends that the applicant further minimize impacts on-site by bridging the stream
and wetlands for the secondary road access.
RESPONSE: The applicant agrees to bridge Kilbart Slough to avoid impacting this system.
State Historic Preservation Office
SHPO recommends that an archaeological investigation be conducted by an experienced archaeologist
to evaluate the significance of the known archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by
the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources within the project boundaries should also
be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
RESPONSE: Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. performed an archaeological assessment
of the 22.4 -acre project area (area north of Kilbart Slough). Enclosed is a report that summarizes their
findings. The survey identified four archaeological resources in the project area. Two of these sites may
retain significant deposits and will require a more in-depth evaluation in order to definitively
determine their NRHP eligibility. The applicant is moving forward with this additional work.
Southern Environmental Law Center
The applicant has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that no practicable off-site or on-site
alternatives exist.
RESPONSE: Please see the enclosed alternatives analysis.
Citizen Comments
The USACE received six citizen comments during the Public Notice review. Most of these commenters
own property adjacent to the site and were concerned about traffic, runoff, and noise.
Traffic: There are concerns that the proposed development and the proposed road connection with
Culpepper Drive will increase traffic in this area. The existing intersection of Hwy 179 and Hwy 904 is
busy, especially during the summer season. Culpepper Drive and Eyota Drive are currently used as a
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15 • Wilmington, NC 28403
6

cut -through for many travelers as a way to avoid the light at this intersection. NC DOT is planning a
roundabout at this intersection in order to alleviate wait times and decrease the number of cars finding
alternate routes around it. Furthermore, a traffic analysis determined that the proposed road off of
Culpepper Drive to the south of the site will draw some of the current cut -through traffic along Eyota
Drive and Culpepper Road into the proposed development as they shop at the grocery store on their
way to work or home or other daily trips. Therefore, it is expected that the proposed development will
have a positive effect in reducing cut -through traffic on Eyota Drive and Culpepper Road.
Runoff. • There are concerns that the proposed development will cause runoff onto adjacent properties
and will cause existing ponds in the area to overflow. The project engineer will develop a stormwater
plan and a sedimentation and erosion control plan for the proposed project that meet Town and State
requirements. These regulations require that the development control the amount and release time of
any upstream water before it is released off of their property to flow downstream.
Noise: There are concerns that the proposed project will increase noise in the area. Trucks related to
the development will be required to enter and exit onto Beach Drive only (Hwy 179) and will not use
Culpepper Drive. The developer also plans to use wooded buffers and berms adjacent to the proposed
hotel to decrease noise. Furthermore, the entrance road to the hotel site has been relocated to the
interior portion of the site and away from the eastern property boundary adjoining residential
properties.
Note that the project site is currently zoned for commercial development. The applicant is working
closely with the Town of Ocean Isle Beach to obtain approval of a site plan that is compatible with the
existing zoning and adjacent land uses. Several public meetings have been held to discuss the project.
These meetings provide a suitable public forum for citizens to voice their concerns and to work
through the local planning and approval process to resolve as many of these concerns as possible.
We hope this response adequately addresses all of your concerns. Please give me a call if you need any
additional information. Thank you for your continued assistance with this project.
Sincerely,
Kimberlee Digitallysigned by Kimberlee Williams
DN:cn=Kimberlee Williams, -MG, 0u,
Williams email=kwilliams�almgr0upne us
Date: 2016.1 2.02 08:33:12
Kim Williams
Environmental Scientist
Encl.
Cc: Mr. Charlie Worthen, Halpern Development Company LLC
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15 • Wilmington, NC 28403
7

Revised Alternatives Analysis
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace
Brunswick County, NC

Alternate Sites
The area evaluated for the placement of the Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace project included the
southern end of the Brunswick County Beaches, as another Publix is already planned for Oak
Island. In order to be centrally located to the intended customer base, the applicant focused its
study area for this project to tracts on the southern portion of the mainland of Ocean Isle Beach
and Sunset Beach so that it would be conveniently located to both the mainland and beach
communities. Several site characteristics are required in order to create a viable project for the
community. The site needs to be large enough to accommodate a grocery store, parking,
stormwater facilities, additional retail development, and several outparcels. The site also
requires a minimum of two access points to other roads, bringing in traffic from multiple
directions. This was a requirement of Publix, the anchor tenant. Based on these criteria, several
sites were identified and evaluated (Figure 1).
Off -Site Alternative #1: Sierra Pacific Tract (21.5 acres; Parcel ID# 22700002426)
This 21.5 -acre site is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of NC 904 and NC 179
and north of Sunset Beach (Figure 2). It is zoned SB -MB -2, which is a mixed use district within the
Town of Sunset Beach. Soils within the site are mapped as Murville mucky fine sand and Leon
fine sand, both of which are hydric soils. Wetland maps available through the Brunswick County
GIS website classify the site as pocosin habitat. Based on a review of available maps and aerial
photographs, it appears that that between 50% and 70% of this site is jurisdictional wetlands,
which is more wetlands than the preferred site. Furthermore, this tract is narrow and it would be
difficult to position a grocery store, retail shops, and outparcels with the required parking and
access ways within it. Finally, the tract is located approximately five miles from the islands of
Ocean Isle Beach and Sunset Beach. Tourists visiting these islands are not likely to travel this far
off the island for groceries, especially when there are other grocery stores in closer proximity to
these beaches. Therefore, the customer base would be limited. For these reasons, this site was
determined to not be viable.
Off -Site Alternative #2: Sunset Park LLC (28.3 acres; Parcel ID# 22700002308)
This 28.3 acre tract is located at the intersection of NC 904 and Chatham Glenn SW (Figure 2).
Although it is very close to NC 179, it currently does not have direct access off of this major road.
The site is zoned CO -CLD, which is a commercial low density district within Brunswick County.
Soils within the site are mapped as Murville mucky fine sand and Leon fine sand, both of which
are hydric soils. Based on a review of available maps and aerial photographs, it appears that
approximately 50% of this tract may be jurisdictional wetlands. Although NC 904 is a main
thoroughfare, Chatham Glenn SW is a residential road and ends in a subdivision. Therefore, traffic
coming from one of these roads is limited. Furthermore, this site is located approximately five
miles from the islands of both Sunset Beach and Ocean Isle Beach. As with Alternative #1, the
INJ

tourist population would not travel that far during the week to purchase groceries. Therefore,
the customer base would be limited. Additionally, this site appears to have more wetlands than
the preferred project. For these reasons, this site was determined to not be viable.
Off -Site Alternative #3: CGS Land Holdings Tract (46.27 acres; Parcel ID# 22800012)
This parcel is located on the east side of the intersection of Ocean Isle Beach Road SW and Old
Georgetown Road (Figure 3). It is zoned commercial low density within Brunswick County.
According to the Brunswick County GIS wetland layer, the entire site is identified as pocosin
wetland. This site is composed of approximately 70% Murville mucky fine sand, and 30% Leon
fine sand, both hydric soils. Based on a review of available maps and aerial photographs, it
appears that this site contains between 50-70% jurisdictional wetlands. Like Off -Site Alternative
#1, this site was determined to be located too far north to adequately capture all of the beach
traffic. It would also not attract travelers using other major roads including NC 179 and NC 904.
Off -Site Alternative #4: OIB Golf Course Tract (35 acres; Parcel ID# 24400011)
This 35 -acre tract is located at the intersection of NC 179 and Duck Pond Road (Figure 4). The site
is composed of approximately 40% Foreston loamy fine sand, 30% Wando fine sand, and 30%
Leon fine sand. Out of these three, only the Leon series is considered a hydric soil. Although the
site appears to be dominated by non -hydric soil units, it appears as though hardwood wetland
crenulations may be present by review of aerial photography and LiDAR maps. Based upon an
evaluation of available aerial photographs and supporting maps, it is estimated that this site
contains between 15-25% jurisdictional wetlands. This site is located in closer proximity to the
beach than Sites 1 - 3, but it only has one major road access point (NC 179). Duck Pond Road is a
small road that only provides access to a few tracts before terminating at the AIWW.
Furthermore, the major road frontage of this site is narrow (approx. 300'). The proposed grocery
store building is 200' x 200'. It would be difficult to construct a building of this size and multiple
outparcels within this narrow tract. For these reasons, this site is not feasible.
Off -Site Alternative #5: Quaintance Inc Tract (13.4 acres; Parcel #2110004103)
This 13.4 -acre tract is located in the southwest corner of the Hwy 17 and NC 904 intersection
(Figure 5). Although this site has visibility from two high -traffic roads, it likely only has access off
of NC 904 and eastbound traffic from Highway 17. The site appears to have few wetlands, but is
far removed from the beaches of Ocean Isle Beach and Sunset Beach. Tourists staying on these
beaches would not travel that far during the week to purchase groceries. Therefore, this was not
considered a viable site.
9

Off -Site Alternative #6: McCauley & McDonald Tract (11.32 acres; Parcel ID# 2110004106)
This site is located in the southeastern corner of the same intersection as Site #5 (Figure 5). A
review of available maps and aerial photographs indicate that most of the site is uplands.
However, there appear to be channels located along the southern project boundary and through
the middle of the site. Another depressional wetland appears to be located in the eastern portion
of the site. It is estimated that this site contains between 15-25% jurisdictional wetlands.
Although this tract has visibility from two high -traffic roads, it appears to only have access off of
NC 904 and eastbound traffic off of Highway 17. Like Site #5, it is too far removed to capture
tourist traffic from the beach communities during the week and would not be viable for the
intended customer base.
Prafnrrar) Cita
The 22.4 -acre preferred site is located at the intersection of Causeway Drive (Highway 904) and
Beach Drive (Highway 179) and has direct access to both of these major roads (Figures 6-8). This
preferred site was chosen because of its proximity to Ocean Isle Beach and its central location
between Shallotte and Sunset Beach. In addition, it provides access off two highly traveled roads.
It is viewed as a hub to capture a large percentage of the tourism trade. Convenience to a tourist
is of paramount importance. Therefore, positioning this shopping center in a location easily
accessible to the most people was key. Please see the Figure 9 that shows the customer base
within a 10 -minute drive of the site. Furthermore, the site has fewer wetlands than most other
sites evaluated (— 90% of site is uplands) and is large enough to support a high-end grocery store,
retail development, and several outparcels. It also has two access points to majortravel corridors,
one of which will be a signalized access point planned at Culpepper Road. The site is zoned
commercial and no rezoning will be required for this project.
Once the specific project location was determined, several on-site alternatives were evaluated.
A description of the on-site alternatives is provided below.
On-site Alternatives
In addition to the three on-site alternatives presented in the original IP application (No -Action,
Amenities Center, and Originally Preferred), the applicant has evaluated five additional site plans.
These five plans and the original site plan are discussed in detail below. All of these site plans
include a 39,500-sf grocery store (anchor tenant), access ways and stormwater. However, they
differ in the number of other outparcels shown, retail space, and method used to gain access
from the south. An economic analysis is also enclosed that identifies development costs,
projected sales and leasing income, and an anticipated return on investment (ROI) (Table 2). An
acceptable ROI for a project of this size and scope was determined to be at least 7%.
rd

Original Site Plan (#1)
The initial site plan submitted in the Individual Permit application proposed a 39,500-sf grocery
store, four outparcels (two of which would contain hotels), a restaurant, and 16,200-sf of retail
development (Figure 10). It also proposed to cross Kilbart Slough using a culvert. The project
would result in 2.04 acres of wetland impacts, 205 LF of RPW impacts, and 152 LF of stream
impacts. The return on investment (ROI) for this plan is 7.34°/x. Based on comments received
during the public notice ofthe permit application, the environmental impacts associated with the
project are too high and the site plan is not feasible.
On -Site Alternative #2
Once it was determined that two hotels were not feasible and wetland and stream impacts were
excessive, the applicant reconfigured the outparcel boundaries and removed the restaurant. This
new plan shows five outparcels, one of which is a hotel, and 16,200-sf of retail development
(Figure 11). Two of these outparcels (#1 and #2) are small in size and are intended for smaller
users, such as a kiosk and a drive-through restaurant. These small outparcels are positioned in
such a way that they can also utilize parking spaces adjacent to them within the shopping
center. It also repositioned the access road to the hotel so that it was not adjacent to adjoining
residential properties. The two other outparcels are 1.37 acres (#3) and 1.38 acres (#4) in size.
These outparcels will have access with the grocery store and the hotel, which will promote cross
shopping.
With this site plan, a culvert would be utilized to cross Kilbart Slough. These changes reduced
impacts to 1.652 acre of wetlands, 205 LF of RPW, and 114 LF of stream. The ROI is projected to
be 7.17%, which is lower than the original site plan but still meets the applicant's minimum ROI
of 7%. However, the environmental impacts were still considered too high and this option was
rejected.
On -Site Alternative #3 (Preferred
The preferred site plan is similar to Alternative #2, however it proposes crossing Kilbart Slough
using a bridge, which would remove all stream impacts and 0.2 acre of riparian wetland impacts
(Figure 12). Total remaining impacts would be 1.508 acre of wetlands (0.163 acre of riparian and
1.345 acres of non -riparian) and 205 LF of RPW. The ROI for this project is 7.07°/x, which is lower
than Options 1 and 2 above but still acceptable to the developer.
On -Site Alternative #4
The applicant evaluated whether impacts could be reduced further by removing the retail
development next to the grocery store and only having one hotel outparcel and a 4,600 sf leased
space next to the hotel, likely for a restaurant (Figure 13). This plan would also cross Kilbart
9

Slough using a bridge. This plan would have only 0.21 acre of wetland impacts and 205 LF of RPW
impacts. However, with the loss of four outparcels and retail leasing, the ROI is only 5.41%, which
is too low to be economically viable to the applicant. Therefore, this plan was rejected.
On -Site Alternative #5
The next plan evaluated included a grocery store, 16,200 sf of retail development next to the
grocery store, three outparcels (one hotel and two small kiosks), and a 4,600-sf restaurant next
to the hotel (Figure 14). It would cross Kilbart Slough using a bridge. This option would result in
0.763 acre of wetland impacts, 205 LF of RPW impacts, and no stream impacts. The ROI for this
project is 6.62%, which is not high enough to be economically viable. Therefore, this plan was
rejected.
On -Site Alternative #6
This plan is similar to Alternative #3, however is does not include the 16,200 sf of retail
development next to the grocery store (Figure 15). Wetland impacts would be further reduced
to 0.707 acre. However, the ROI is 5.78°/x, which is, again, too low to be economically viable for
the applicant. Therefore, it was rejected.
Conclusions
After reviewing all of these alternatives, Alternative #3 offered the least amount of
environmental impacts (1.508 acre of wetlands, 205 LF of RPW, and no stream impacts) while
still providing an economically viable project for the applicant. Therefore, it is selected as the
preferred option.
on

`c� ''r� �` s .�1�i';r�iFi.^ �•�°� y'4J �!� � q 1 � 1 i�� _ �� '�"1;� x+
7 `� " � f . - j ! f _ � .. �? X71 - .i !� 1 r• '� - z'- •t
a a -SI
'i - �. _`, •.�•,}'�r - i y�`.,
c �a
rwo
.� . o N r �� Off -Site #3
CD
rte #2�
ti
Z
W-1
O11-J71
Owl
.s�'mp
7'.-• ''Ap. �, �i. .F� 1 � 1 , ,.y-� '. eAl+ � , : r •• 1' ,}., ¢T�!` -'S, Ito -� _xr , y �� 5.
r•�" Fy �--• y ,t �� ',. ,r-�ih. t� � y,� `., .�`t ;,� �. ;,�- fjlBeacf�
- � . Vii' r. t: '� �' iC' � I ,4 � ,,,i'/• l�� ,�+.: ��',�;V"a - �'R. �+L. YI•���Y�-` - ��
asAl
�r �,� ;i�_•p "� ,A
M� jet; ' 'i�I ! }..r S` t 4 Y ti •.k 1

5,
�A.
IL
N
'A
49
%
411
V
V - OF
77
L I.
W -A
pie,- `;et'
'41*
\N
44 ills
17jO t4 e,
A,
t
0
_e t rkl_ rn_trr;7a. -bri a
NC 0 V nd Ana 9111
IYANI
_Bo r
AL 14&�
Toundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 2012 NC OneMap Aerial Photography SCALE 1" = 600'
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace LMG
LAND MANAGEMPUNT GROUP
Brunswick County, NC 1E,­--wl C­Wr­r� Figure 2
www.lmgroup.net Off -Site Alternatives
July 2016 3805 Wrightsville Avenue #1 &#2
LMG # 40-15-071 P Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

1' i� Yi y - 1 •4- r f `. r� ♦ i ,?yR _ir
.
-C
P'RX - _. �i"'►♦Zi, #'u..ii r. _. 4`h, i, .,-4
�!eAFin}l°r",, t.. 32i
_ i.� �_� c +4.1�; f s
.. y 'l t t. � ''T'i,. —�"� •� �'�
f f -+. •A � � }t n _ 4„ - l• 7a .. .r _ir� tr in�' �}
-. � 4 •!l :0.4♦ ti { � s� i ` � f�` Y � }ta .. j't 4\; �f t iS•� l �'� r �� �,�, �t `
> a .. - ee1..C1 ��� �'. �.''.ss '�- I � � - �♦�y. ,,t l,oi' �'7: k r�. t .,t
z• r a i it F i:X
t r� y �"� i `fit 5 �♦ l« _
- i"_'j Jt T ✓ L _ H A el ' Y Y a4
AP
� v
y`
%F
g,, _ 4 i � FsYrr • s - - -
' • SY`.. i ~ 'R'....� � +�I � fly :- k
aS 1- S� t _ s,.: a, a r>•. 4n'E C'.' ti •-, �
. eOt e � r• a°' _ fir:. .' S,F.c> .. _ •�.
� a
t ]�.
Y; r
J
4 �
r r
I*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 2012 NC OneMap Aerial Photography
SCALE 1" = 800'
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace LMG
LAND MANAGEM PUNT GROUP me
Brunswick County, NC _1E,­--wl C­Wrr rs Figure 3
www.lmgroup.net Off -Site Alternative #3
July 2016 3805 Wrightsville Avenue
LMG # 40-15-071 P Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

A
•1�.. _.-. .aC
I*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 2012 NC OneMap Aerial Photography
SCALE 1" = 800'
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace LMG
LAND MANAGEM PUNT GROUP me
Brunswick County, NC _1E,­--wlC°^_Wrr rs Figure 4
www.lmgroup.net Off -Site Alternative #4
July 2016 3805 Wrightsville Avenue
LMG # 40-15-071 P Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

E
%*' s
——jotr
.-Ala
Alt
•y y �.µr-
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 2012 NC OneMap Aerial Photography SCALE 1” = 600'
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace LMG
LAND MANAGERFUNT GROUP—
Brunswick County, NC _ E° °^Te °^_� °^{ Figure 5
www.lmgroup.net Off -Site Alternatives
July 2016 3805 Wrightsville Avenue #5 and #6
LMG # 40-15-071 P Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
tit
-. 1r!
r •y L, -
r•
!n ' j•.•"ffi► fly + 1
r+
At,
'r.
•_ ,_
l , o. •.A
��
-. „� _
ria �•- .,r+
6
,.
r
fT
V.
ri,ss'
NC OneMap, NdIII�e�ter fo Geographic�lnf rmation aid Analy s„NC'911
t l`ri t
���.1
4- — —
•t•
.....
.., +Ertl
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 2012 NC OneMap Aerial Photography SCALE 1” = 600'
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace LMG
LAND MANAGERFUNT GROUP—
Brunswick County, NC _ E° °^Te °^_� °^{ Figure 5
www.lmgroup.net Off -Site Alternatives
July 2016 3805 Wrightsville Avenue #5 and #6
LMG # 40-15-071 P Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

O Yarm
I TAAN61" I
I*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: USGS Southport Quadrangle 7.5 minute
t
c
9
i
i'�1S1-E i
I - -
SCALE 1" = 2000'
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP m:
Brunswick County, NC llEnvito—owl Cons Wrants
Figure 6
www.lgroup.net USGS Topographic Map
July 2016 3805 Wrightsville Avenue
LMG # 40-15-071 P Wilmington, NC 28403 of Preferred Site
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

,���•tl.-y��T�yn ,��" .��. � r :ks� +' f•' ° yrs*
—A
h t k ti3� A
• '� fr t w
{ii
f
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: NRCS Soil Survey
SCALE 1" = 600'
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace LMG
LAND h1ANAGLMEN IGROUP,-
Brunswick County, NC _t E--Te^I°l1°^=01-1, Figure 7
www.lmgroup.net Soils Map of
July 2016 3805 Wrightsville Avenue Preferred Site
LMG # 40-15-071 P Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

4�� CST �F����"'TTT� ":. •+ !�' f�� �
;3+tSITE
ir
11! 14
UI s d C I r N" ap, ter for G g rap Inf r 'ati a d^ nalysi ,JNC,.
:W_ t -t � •;; 91,1 oar .� I �'�
*Boundaries are approximate and are not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 2012 NC OneMap Aerial Photography SCALE 1" = 400'
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace LMG
LAND MANAGEM PUNT GROUP me
Brunswick County, NC _IE---wl C­Wr my Figure 8
www.lmgroup.net Aerial Photograph
July 2016 3805 Wrightsville Avenue of Preferred Site
LMG # 40-15-071 P Wilmington, NC 28403
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

p
E� 7 F:� rFrwi
Trade Area
W1
Beach Dr SW
Ocean Isle, NC 28469
10 -Minute Drive Time O Hand Drawn Trade Area
NCDOT 2013 Traffic Volumes ■ ■ ■
June 2015 HAL I'ERN
GIS: 33 904554,-78 440175
' m+•�ya+r'a�mo�=]'nd.mx� cl-c-rc-:•. '
FIGURE 9. 10 -Minute Drive Time From Project Area
oil

I II
II
, I PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYPICAL)
[TRACT BOUNDARY]
BEACH DRIVE (NC HWY 179)
R.P.W. (205 LF IMPACT)
SITE DATA:
~� �y saoas +
OVERALL
ACREAGE 44.859 AC.
HOTPL TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS - 2
h TOTAL R.P.W. IMPACTS 205 LF
TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTS 2.039 AC
f / 00�R. z .
IMPACT A AC.
6 C 4 s IMPACT B = 10.839AC.
IMPACT = 0.144AC.
TOTAL ON-SITE WETLANDS = 4.69 AC.
TOTAL ON-SITE STREAM = 1,758 LF
TOTAL ON-SITER.P.W. = 205 LF
LEGEND:
Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
'7
// `� \ r > \ it 1 II I II
00 SF +/- (70
jo
T GROCERY 38 LF STREAM Stream
�136500SF+/-
, \
6.621L11-1 1/
114 LFSTREAMIMPACT
\PROPOSEDCULVERT CROSSING
TOWN REQUIRED 60' INGRESS /
EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT
z
c
� _ zN
p ¢ ¢ O +
TRACT B J a N 15 Q. Q. 15 m w a Z
22.467 Ac. m a a 3 O
\ - o ME los 10.5' z
z m (7 Z U
5' S 5' 2 2 5 F
/ 1/4' PER FT 1/4" PER FT PER FT J ,,O/
PER FT PER FT PER � 11'�
3"SURFACE COURSE ❑ /� �/ � / /�� j/ / I � � � \ ` \ Z 0 WATER MAIN 8"AGGRAGGREGATE BASE COURSE ug
PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING Hyl
Q FORCE MAIN
// // �r ��\ 7 NOTE: a
PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSINGS WILL BE SIZED TO MAINTAIN [7]
HYDRAULIC BETWEEN WETLAND/STREAM
CROSSING
_J
CROSSING IMPACTS. (=I
/ I ROAD CROSS SECTION C)
(IMPACT C) Z
NOT TO SCALE I
pARAMOUNTE - z
j�
N G ti 122 Cinema Drive G / ` ` \ ��
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 ti / /b W
[phone] (0) [phone] (F)
NC License #: C-2846
Project#:14414.PE FIGURE 10. ORIGINAL PLAN (Option #1)
Scale: 1" = 100' at 22" x 34"
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace60,a
0' 50' 100' 200' 7 Ocean Isle Beach North Carolina w�
North
` \ Dau: 06.27.2016

WPM
"Z
/
OH
OUTPARCEL #2
0.80 Ac. +/- -
_� ` 2,250 SF BLDG.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYPICAL) _EACH DRIVE (NLHWY 1� - -
w� wd w� w� wJ w� [TRACT BOUNDARY] wJ wd — —w� __ __ — — — — — — — — wJ wd—NJ wJ—NJ—NJ—NJ—NJ wd NJ_NJ—NJ —
—34 _
R. P.2W 05 LF IMPACT) 2
v •• : • �- OHE / I 1 OHE OHE� OHE OHE OHE OHE �HE
.Y I=�� 29—
-J \
/ h I OUTPARCEL #3
TRACT A (TOTAL)
—3e 1.38 Ac. + _ I I \ OUTPARCEL #4
11 /
22.392 Ac. 8,020 SF BLDG. 1.37 Ac.
z� PARCEL A 4,450 SF BLDG.
— E I / OUTPARCEL #5 F.
15.55 Ac. +/- I I I � /
2.61 Ac.
�
+/- /
— o /
WE
I /
HC M HCI / / / / I \ •`•. \ / \ / / /
'� � �� iIYV�■■ Lam! a��Kl�� i-:.,- Sao` ■■■■■■ '.Y,' . ■■■ �.:Y��■
AM
' C f J'� %��i ��■ ■■;►rte■K ■; ■■■■Y��Y■►� ■■ o- ■
► ■ I I A■7;ILII■■;;;■■■;;;■■■;;�Y!/;��■■■■■�■■ �.
. — - II \ �� u�� U�1'Ay �' 1 �_- i - � 1� ■' tir>i� � :i_?•,:��"!V1'y�l _ '�
. , / .VIII \� �■■■■�'il■■■■;■■■■■ � ■■■■ ;�■■■■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■
\PR
1:_cas\_�i► iIM
. T�z�1=__�AyWiC-�;�G���IJIK� ■ j0\:� • -� �r1K _
I - - — ■'
MESMERISMEMUS=
395500 SF71
xl I
LAI
\z OUTPARCEL # 1 / _ '' \ \ I
0.69 Ac. + - Www
— SS �S SS ; SS ss—ss ss
O� / 1,400 BLDG.
/�--
�� --24-
pARAMOUNTE
E N G I N E E R 1 N G, 1 N C-
122 Cinema Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
[phone] (0) [phone] (F)
NC License #: C-2846
Project #:14414.PE
Scale: 1" = 60' at 22" x 34"
North
� 2e�
24— —
1 �/ 22—
l
114 LF STREAM IMPACT �
PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING
_—w w
J J
\ p w 0
Y O= 2 2 O J
Q Q 06 (n (n 06 U
U) m Q Q Q
fn w Q 10.5' 10.5' r z
z
0
C9 U U U Z
Q
5 5
I
\�
1
1" 1/4"
1/4" 1"
PER FT I PER FT I
� I
�
J
I
L
� I
-
l
22—
J
w
� 2e�
24— —
1 �/ 22—
l
114 LF STREAM IMPACT �
PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING
_—w w
J J
\ p w 0
Y O= 2 2 O J
Q Q 06 (n (n 06 U
U) m Q Q Q
fn w Q 10.5' 10.5' r z
z
0
C9 U U U Z
Q
5 5
5 2 2 .00 5
w
1" 1/4"
1/4" 1"
PER FT I PER FT I
PER F 1/4" PER FT 1/4" PER FT PER FT
�
J
J
J
Q
o
3" SF9.5A SURFACE COURSE
z
O WATER MAIN 8" AGGREGATE BASE COURSE w
w
z
II PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING
NOTE:
PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSINGS WILL BE SIZED TO MAINTAIN
HYDRAULIC CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN WETLAND/STREAM
CROSSING IMPACTS.
ROAD CROSS SECTION
(IMPACT C)
NOT TO SCALE
O FORCE MAIN
77
/ \
..... �::'.VAET �ON
YPE =120.50 /
:: JJ
SITE DATA:
\ TOTAL OVERALL SITE ACREAGE = 22.39 AC.
/ TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS = 114 LF
TOTAL R.P.W. _
\ \ / TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTS= 1.6502 AC
\ \ NFIL,T$A IO IMPACT A = 0.056 AC.
/ IMPACT B = 1.452 AC.
BAIN ,/ � IMPACT C = 0.144 AC.
\ �T"TOM = q0.5 TOTAL ON-SITE WETLANDS 2.95 AC.
\ �\ TOTAL ON-SITE STREAM 1,758 LF
TOTAL ON-SITE R.P.W. = 205 LF
LEGEND:
\ _ Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
7V Non -Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
/
1_
�•••���•••��� Stream
Figure 11. On -Site Alternative #2
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace
Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina
Date: 11.172016

`I
A
GROCERY SHOPPING CENTER SITE TABULATIONS
GROCERY: 39,500 SF
SHOPS: 16,200 SF
TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 55,700 SF
GROCERY PARKING: 200 SPACES
— : —PARKING RATIO: 5.06 SPACES/1000 SF — —
14 �2
PARKING RATIO: 1 7.04 SPACES/1000 SF
—
M
— — 3H,y„dn —
Ij
OUTPARCEL #2
0.80 Ac. +/-
\ 29�n.FRT.T_)C
PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYPICAL) _ /
W� W� W� - [TRACT BOUNDARY] j W� W� wj W� / — NJ wa wa wd Nld V11d VYJ WJ A:I — — — — NJ WJ—NJ—NJ—NJ—NJ NJ WA NJ CIE NJ—NJ
BEACHDRIVE�NE_H�
29-R.P.W. (205 LF IMPACT) AMA
wa - OHE
HE
OHEy OHE
n. �av ,h, .7':. -� ai:Y4wvG`i .P (w. e`•i.�•^..'•..i .:�vv I I / / � � / I
all I
SIT STOP I ■, I OUTPARCEL #4
OUTPARCEL #3
1.37 Ac.
1.38 Ac.
8,020 SF BLDG. I 4,450 SF BLDG. /
2� TRACT A (TOTAL)
I
_ I : I / 22.392 Ac. +/- �� \ b
PARCEL A
� � � �� .I ` • . .
I�
/� `� I .. II��■ ■■• �:r�+:�?a. `%itr.`At't°a•,. �'�5�,-.. h -: - < <,-FK't�<�'t""r ,,,."iltif3z
�;-i '■rte- pP�.l�. .ii Biu ■ ms`s — ,.,'�: i■�%� 1
���■■■ IAS■��■IIII ■i �t■■■■fit ��■����■� ■I
Bill
VIA
�' • / ►_ �%�. �■/��� ■ ■ ■■■ 1'lyl� 11 ■■ ! ■LII■ _ ■■ it 11:• ■!� \■■!
I _ .�� %GC■■ y■■ t�fl■ I ■■ It'tt ■' w■t�ll� ■ �:lw.. -
l / t■t■t p■■■ t■••■�pt!F" I' !!�7 ���■iii 'I■■v■■tt■ty �� �
. � ' \ �f ./� � `■��� �o t■ ► ' � �' �!!� 1 - • ■ � � ■iiii�■ilii �i
I ICS ■ ■ ■ ��r _ -.n -..■� _..■t-- - . . ■r-- �
. � ,III � F •� �i���tA!!:i%� ■:����:�*���:����{
/ �' I. �/Z.. - = ��LzCr•�`- ,��'��Y■C� ■�■��r'Yr�C�j■ c. ■\�_z _ _i.�r.i1.�_.,- r..,.st.�pv.��■i�t�om��� .%t■ �■�B:�/��C����:�■:■■����_j�G'`'% ■'r■�■�����:t�\A��t�e■■■■■■���������1■�����J�■t����:��7���� a
■■■-----Atin ■■R.
1-41=1111111111"s
i-i■1 :11%A: Will low,
��-
I,
�'■r1�.
_ -- �� ��■■! C = . \. � :e. e.. .� .. a .■A-�.A�_a�� _-u�■ _ _ _ -
/ I�� _4tA�������•■%��1.� �� _ _ w,2■_..�dl...�q!*7: dl��Ti9A���ijp��%■•moi►
11 SF
MIKA
I ��� •
,� i G ` _ • .��i SECTION 1f
WA ­
•
I!ARAMOUNTE
122 Cinema
•
1
Drive
• n, N • • Q
1 1 • 1
NC License #: .,
Project #: ,.
North
I r / SITE DATA:
TOTAL OVERALL SITE ACREAGE = 22.39 AC.
2s— I,%,�./ / TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS = 0 LF
TOTAL R.P.W. IMPACTS = 205 LF
TOTAL
MP/c WETLAND IMPACTS - 1.508
0.056 Ac.
IMPACT B- 1.452 AC.
TOTAL ON-SITE WETLAN
TOTAL ON-SITE STREAMDS =
1,7 58 LF
TOTAL ON-SITE R.P.W. = 205 LF
_PROPOSED NO -IMPACT BRIDGE
NFII!TADATIO& % /
LEGEND:
\BOTTpM = 20.50 /
U w \ \ 4� Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
119 TOTAL 70' TOTAL \ \\ \ / I
Q �W / /
jw
ww
O
=
z
Q
0C9
J J
U
U)
06J
J
> w
06 PROPOSED
U)
m
m GRASS/LANDSCAPE ARE
U
U
2.5'
2'
11 11
2' 36' 48'
1/4" PER FT
1/4" PERF
SLOPE +/- 1.5%
SLOPE +/- 1%
O w
U)
Non-Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
z U) °6 w
U) Stream � / �•••���•••��� Stream
w C9 U
W /
12' 3' 2j' 36' TRAVEL WAY z
J �
PROPOSED PARKING AREA
3:1 TIE DOWN0 SEWER OTER
STORMDRAINAGE EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED ROADWAY
5' SIDEWALK
ROAD CROSS SECTION
(IMPACT B)
NOT TO SCALE
3:1 TIE DOW
0 SEWER WOATER
STORMDRAINAGE EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED TRAVEL WAY
ROAD CROSS SECTION
(I M PACT A)
NOT TO SCALE
�j� Figure 12. On -Site Alternative #3 (Preferred Plan)
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace
Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina
Dare: 11.17.2016

SITE DATA
TOTAL OVERALL SITE ACREAGE = 22.39 A.
TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS = 0 LF
TOTAL R.P.W. IMPACTS = 205 LF
TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTS = 0.21 A.
IMPACT A = 0-16 AC-
IMPACT B = 0.02 AC,
IMPACT C= 0.04 AC.
r
TOTAL ON-SITE WETLANDS = 2.95 A.
r _
TOTAL ON-SITE STREAM = 1,758 LF
r �
TOTAL ON-SITE R.P.W. = 205 LF
Future connection to rear
of tract; Future phase
Proposed bridge over
wetlands/ branch
BOUNDARY FOLL WS f
---_- ___---____--,� y► _ LONG FIELD BRANCH
! m--- = f '57°22'59" X79,5? CENTERLINE 4't f'
am" -—
f / l
! 55009' AI'}oll,iiiiii""I'll,llIlljllllllllllllllllllIOM
615,841
x / K
"" _�► � II a � � � � 7 J I P �
TA
1 IMPACT r
0.04r "
- 17 , ''17 17 i 17 17 1 ti {
Proposed Regional = __==____= 1 b-_ P
____- - _ !
tormWat r Pond _ __ ___ I T_
4+ 1 !
Proposed Grocery
39,500 Sf _
T
T IMPA TA 41, T IMPACT B
- �r
7 1 -Y
y
40 /'yam _ y-' T �y
01
05 14
15
12 8,,
115' 1/� ,511`
19, 18 18 18 18 8e
R.P.W. IMPACT
205 LF
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
f
' Proposed 15
Restaurant
4,600 Sf 11
17 11 11 16
1f
! 330° - - - _ _.. - - - -
S 54138'11" 4V
BEACH DR (N.C. H Y179) — — — — — �— – ----- --- _�----- --- –-------
- -- ------ --------------,---
PARAMOUNTEf
1 N rj Y N . . P% 1 N Q. 1 N {l
122 Cinema Drive I '
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 �
WB -67
[phone] (0) [phone] (F)
NC License #: C-2846
DATE: 11/17/2016 Figure 13. On -Site Alternative #4
SCALE' 1 °° = 60° At 24" x 36"
Preliminary - not for construction
This site plan is a graphic representation and should be utilized for discussion cean s e eac rocer
purposes only. This site plan approximates existing conditions relating to structures,
wetlands, roads, parking, vegetation and property boundaries. Plan components
may change based upon regulatory and municipal regulations and requirements Ocean
{ Beach,
� I �i*North 0' 0' 0' 120' at the time of approvals and/or development activity,

W� W� ll—vizi
3HAr
"•'La.
/ l ., B
IFTJ
0 OH\ O F RCEL #2 I I
2 250 SF BLDG.
M \ /
r
_
PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYPICAL) BEACH D_RIV_E_(NC HWY 179) _ _ _ /
[TRACT BOUNDARY] W=1 W=I WZI W� wa wa nla n _ — — — --- — —— —
_ W/ ll lm WJ W=l 114=1 W=l W=l W=1 W=lVhp —
/ \ /
�- OHE OHE 01{E / 1E OHE� OHE OHE OHE 1 �HE
� ��`�? ., .;r;....�. \ I I I R.P.W.\5 LF) \
h t+ /
h>— 29--
..
P-1
iss
. \ \
— — owlJ C�C' W
—
r„
Y '
1
rO /
Scale: 1" = 60' at 22" x 34"
PARAMOUNTE
E N G I N E E FZ 1 N G, I N C.
122 Cinema Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
[phone] (0) [phone] (F)
NC License #: C-2846
Project #: 14414.PE
.. ��rmAl
ky". Ig
II :�� ��� =iii � ■ ���
i
.0191 PIP it P
1113 ill
.. .••fir � �r _
`n°.-._ ���\./�� �/•���N SII
1- OWN
.� ��
.',./0011110NO
wo
ME ON. 0.000 -
slow
�IWM
ol
low��iii� iiii%��� vIII
wIll wow Wool
--
I
Wei
-
kMET GROCERY
SF FORM IF�
Ol
��
II �
rim -
1 00-mbo -Ills
vo-w-i Ma
!n SO! q l! 104
001 ilill ma
sow 0FA
I
,cam �'- rwnoa
!-►'''Now
-•---
Woo
WEI
r��
• ` ` -� 1
• ` •
• ' • 1
LEGEND:
Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
Non -Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
�•••���•••��� Stream
�—' Figure 14. On -Site Alternative #5
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace
Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina
Date: 11.17.2016

PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYPICAL)
[TRACT BOUNDARY] _NJ _IAld —NJ _NJI _NJ _Nj
BEACH DRIVE C IF)
. . ...... . .. .
HrIV 10
'1Z
/ - TRACT A (TOTAL) >C_
Ile
22.392 Ac. +/- `�
OUTPARCEL #2 PARCEL A
/' Y 0.80 Ac. 15.55 Ac. +/- /
2,250 SF BLDG.
—N-1 —W4 —1A1-1 —1AW — Ad IN24 bNJ N d �VU _NJ —NJ VYJ —NJ —NJ —NJ —NJ —NJ —NJ —"J 3t, __NJ —NA
--ae
29-
2 2
\\-W\_j F
JFY /I -rHE
Whp OHE-- OHE- - OHE
OHE- CC R.P.W. (205 LF) E— — OHE OHE
2'9
OT 1��
96'
29-\
OUTPARCEL #3
>
it F—_ w— w 7 —w— v -v---, 2.61 Ac.
26— OUTPARCEL #3
$: SST SS�S ss
4,600 SF _R F STT T_R A NIT
U)
VV W_ W_ W_ W_ IAI w
1p,"4y
110
(Z
4f
A.
\
FM M F
tv \\ / s : + /
AIJ N3 1IX3
31ur
x
C),
P4f
SS T70
P4f
0(
Lo
GOURMET GROCERY
c'S 39 500 SF +/— T=
f ---
X E
W TPON
P E =\20.50 ____1
C -A
w li�k w
-n
U)
U)
OUTPARCEL # 1 U //X
1S ss—ss ss
0.69 Ac.
L J
110400 SF BLDG. 2—
—2+
WE-
24 -
22
21—
C,
t� —L PROPOSED NO -IMPACT BRIDGE
NFE�J:$AT 0
26 A
()M 5
F,
SITE DATA:
TOTAL OVERALL SITE ACREAGE 22.39 AC.
TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS 0 LIF
TOTAL R.P.W. IMPACTS 205 LIF
pARAMOUNTE TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTS 0.707 AC.
E= r14 C-- 1 N E= FE F' , 1 N1 r%1 C. IMPACT B 0.707 AC.
122 Cinema Drive TOTAL ON-SITE WETLANDS 2.95 AC.
rn-rAl nK1 SITE STREAM I 758 1 C
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
[phone] (0) [phone] (F)
NC License #: C-2846
Project #: 14414.PE
Scale: 1 60' at 22" x 34"
North
TOTAL ON-SITE R.P.W. = 205 LIF
LEGEND:
Figure 15. On -Site Alternative #6
C� Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
Non -Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
Stream
Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace
Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina
Date: 11.17.2016

Table 2. Ocean Isle Beach Marketplace Economic Analysis of On -Site Alternatives
Net Operating Income
Original Preferred
Alternative (#1)
Option 2
Option 3
(preferred)
Option 4
Option 5
Option 6
Description
Culvert (no bridge),
Culvert no bridge),
(
Bridge over stream,
Bridge over stream,
Bridge over stream,
Bridge over stream,
Building Costs
Publix, retail shops, 4
Publix, retail shops, 5
Publix, retail shops, 5
Publix, 1 restaurant, no
Publix, 1 restaurant,
Publix, restaurant, no
Site Work
outlots (2 large),
outlots (1 large)
outlots (1 large)
retail shops, 1 outlot
retail shops, 3 outlots
retail shops, 3 outlots
Soft Costs (includes mitigation)
restaurant
$1,847,200
$1,847,200
(hotel)
(hotel and 2 small)
(hotel and 2 small)
Culvert
$40,000
$40,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Bridge - 90' Span
$0
$0
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
Wetlands Mitigation
$231,853
$196,000
$175,000
$22,500
$90,216
$75,691
Stream Mitigation
$118,864
$90,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Net Operating Income
$856,696
$856,696
$856,696
$607,856
$856,696
$607,856
Land
$2,700,000
$2,700,000
$2,700,000
$2,700,000
$2,700,000
$2,700,000
Building Costs
$4,047,000
$4,047,000
$4,047,000
$2,670,000
$4,047,000
$2,670,000
Site Work
$4,512,957
$4,448,240
$4,597,240
$4,444,740
$4,512,456
$4,497,931
Soft Costs (includes mitigation)
$1,847,200
$1,847,200
$1,847,200
$1,077,700
$1,847,200
$1,077,700
Contingency/Fees
$784,002
$776,640
$793,589
$640,744
$783,944
$646,794
Interest
$714,092
$710,387
$718,918
$592,878
$714,064
$595,923
Development Cost
$14,605,251
$14,529,467
$14,703,947
$12,126,062
$14,604,664
$12,188,349
Outlot Sales
($2,937,500)
$2,585,000
($2,585,000)
($893,000)
($1,668,500)
($1,668,500)
Net Development Cost
$11,667,751
$11,944,467
$12,118,947
$11,233,062
$12,936,164
$10,519,849
ROI 1 7.34%1 7.17%1 7.07%1 5.41%1 6.62%1 5.78%1