1978-05-15 RM Exhibits
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
ENGINEERING AND
SERVICES
County Administration Bui~nq
320 Chestnut Street
Room 608
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
April 7, 1978
Mr Paul M Newby
Mr John Parks Newby
Mrs Ruth Newby
Mrs Fleta L Parks
Mr ~ Mrs Jack Durham
Ladies 6 Gentlemen
PAone 1919) 762-1831
r
Robert M William:, P.E
County Engineer
Subject Application for Sand Dune Permit
by D M.C Management Company, Inc.
at Ocean Boulevard, Wilmington
Beach, North Carolina
Pursuant to the requirements of the Sand Dune Protection Ordinance of New Hanover
Gounty, there is enclosed a copy of my formal findings relative to the applica-
tion referred to above, as well as a copy of the permit which I have issued this
date to D M C Management Company, Inc and designated DP-50
The Sand Dune Ordinance provides that any property owner whose property is or may
be damaged by action to be taken under the permit, may file, within 15 days from
the issuance of the permit, an appeal with the Board of County Commissioners
I hope that each of you understands that I am charged with the responsibility of
using my professional judgement and experience to ensure that any work to be per-
formed in the areas defined by the Sand Dune Ordinance is accomplished consistent
with the requirements of that Ordinance. Having spent the great majority of my per-
sonal life in intimite proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and having devoted a con-
siderable amount of my professional life to problems spec if ically related to
coastal engineering, I am reasonably familiar with most of the points of objection
rained in your several presentations However, it is my honest opinion that the
work proposed by the applicant in this case is consistent with the requirements of
the particular Ordinance in question, even though from your points of view the
project may be aesthetically distasteful and even though the project may adversely
affect your ability to enjoy your property in the same manner as you did before
Those factors, as well as any beneficial impact upon the economy of the area can-
not be considered in evaluating the requirements of the Sand Dune Protection Ordinance
Very truly yours,
~~
/~
Robert M Williams, Jr
New Hanover County Engineer
RMW/bbm
Enclosures
r -~
1
..
Findings
of
Shoreline Protection Officer
concerning
Application Submitted February 13, 1978
by
D M C Management, Inc
for
Sand Dune Permit
at
Wilmington Beach, N C
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 Name and Address of Applicant D M C Management Company, Inc
Post Off ice Box 781
Carolina Beach, N C 28428
2 Location of Proposed Work On ocean front at Wilmington Beach, N C on north
side of Ocean Boulevard
3 Nature of Proposed Work Construction of concrete bulkhead, parking areas,
and a motel to replace the existing motel located at the site The project
is being designed by Altobellas and Associates, Architect, Wilmington, N C
4 Effect on Sand Dune The extent of the proposed work and its effect on sand
dunes was considered in detail in accordance with the guidelines stated in
Section 2 4 of the Sand Dune Protection Ordinance Since the investigation of
the proposed activity indicated it would not cause any material weakening of
the dune, abutting property owners were so advised by certified mail and notice
placed on the site
5 Views of Other Interest Town of Carolina
diction over building permits in this area
of the project The District Engineer, N
whose road right-of-way borders the southe
oceanfront advised verbally that he had no
as concerned sand dunes
Beach officials, who have jurie-
have expressed strong endorsement
C. Department of Transportation,
rn property line of the project to
objection to the project, insofar
During the entire process of evaluation of the application, full discussions
have been conducted with Mr Rob Maul, Permit Coordinator for the Coastal Zone
Resources Commission, who has expressed no adverse comment as to the effect
of the proposed work on the sand dunes.
One abutting property owner, whose lot is located on U S. 421 to the west of
the proposed motel site, wrote a letter stating their objection on the grounds
that the proposed construction would adversely affect the beauty of the area
and would be a nuisance because numerous people coming and going and increased
noise
Another property owner, Mrs Ruth P Newby, whose property borders the northern
property line of the project from the oceanfront to 100 feet landward has strong
objections to the proposed construction and at her request a hearing by the
Shoreline Protection Officer was held on March 29, 1978
Mrs Newby's son, Mr Paul M Newby, represented Mrs Newby at the March 29,
1978 hearing, and presented a letter dated March 24, 1976 objecting to holding
of the hearing at that time Copy of the response of the County Engineer, who
4
Page 2
is also the Shoreline Protection Officer, in letter dated March 31, 1978,
is attached hereto along with a copy of Mr Newby's letter For the rea-
sons stated in the County Engineer's letter he concluded that the hearing
accomplished the objective intended by the Ordinance and was properly
conducted
Mr Paul Newby also submitted a letter and brief of a Mr John Parks Newby,
dated March 28, 1978, and a letter signed by him and his mother dated
March 29, 1978
The letters of Mr John Parka Newby and Mrs Ruth P Newby and Mr Paul M
Newby voice many objections to the project from numerous standpoints and
copies of the letters are attached It is obvious that considerable research
in coastal processes and engineering was conducted by the writers in the pre-
paration of the documents
6 Findings All of the available data collected during the investigation includ-
ing especially the letters of objection were carefully studied with respect to
the requirements of the Sand Dune Protection Ordinance Following ie a list
of certain findings relative to the application
(1) The proposed work will require a permit under the Sand Dune Protection
Ordinance of New Hanover County
(2) It is the responsibility of the New Hanover County Engineer to issue
such a permit provided that the action proposed will not materially
weaken the dune or reduce its effectiveness as a means of protection
from the effects of high wind and water, taking into consideration the
height, width, and slope of the dune and vegetation thereon
(3) Certain guidelines are set forth in the Ordinance to be used by the
Shoreline Protection Officer in determining what activities can occur
in the shoreline protection area without materially weakening the dune
The following comments relate specifically to those guidelines
a The proposed project will not require any sand be moved
landward of the shore protection line
b The proposed project will not redistribute any sand from
the property to adjacent property
c The alteration of the dune system proposed by the appli-
cant will result in a bulkhead, building, and paved parking
area being constructed on a site on which an existing bulk-
head, building, and parking area is presently located The
proposed new structures will be constructed at a significantly
higher elevation overall than now exists on the site The
new bulkhead will be of reinforced concrete, as compared to
the existing wooden bulkhead, adequately tied back to the
foundation piling of the proposed building The alignment
of the bulkhead will be parallel to the shoreline and located
on the property line which 1s situated in the Sand Dune Area
between Ocean Beach and the shore protection line as defined
in the Ordinance The land aide of the bulkhead will be lined
Page 3
with porous filter material which will allow water but
not sand to pass through the material thus reducing
the probability of producing a hydrostatic head pressure
behind the wall The ends of the bulkhead will be turned
back toward the sand along the adjacent property lines to
reduce the likelihood of erosion at the property corners
No structures are proposed to be constructed on the ocean
beach
d The existing property is sparsely vegetated Tdhen the
proposed project is completed virtually all uncovered areas
on the property (these areas will be relatively small by
comparison with the overall property area) must be covered
with acceptable vegetation by the end of the first planting
season following the project
e During the construction period the proposed project may
require interim stabilization to reduce the effects of wind
erosion Such measures as may be required to accomplish
that purpose as evidenced by periodic inspections by the
Shoreline Protection Officer and subsequent instructions by
him will be a condition of any permit issued by the Shore-
line Protection Officer
f The proposed work will, in the opinion of the Shoreline Pro-
tection Officer, result in the dune being substantially
equal to or in excess of the mean mass and height of the
natural dune existing prior to the work and area shall sub-
stantially conform in slope and alignment with the existing
dune on the property
g Access to the beach over the bulkhead will require that steps
be constructed from the top of the bulkhead to its base
Since the overall height of the bulkhead relative to its sea-
ward face is relatively low this will require only a relatively
small step system
h The proposed location for the building will require only minimal
alteration of the existing sand dune No building is proposed
to be erected between the existing sand dunes and the water
adjacent to the shore protection area other as herein before
described
i The pilings for the proposed building will penetrate well below
the base of the dune system
j The proposed work is consistent with the existing and proposed
regulations of the Federal Flood Insurance Administration.
(q) The application for the permit was made upon the prescribed standard form
While the original application, dated February 13, 1978, did not contain all
of the information required, namely a listing of all of the adjacent property
owners, such information was subsequently obtained and was entered on the
application
Page 4
(5) The applicable procedural steps set forth in paragraph 2 i "C "
of the Ordinance were, in the opinion of the Shoreline Protec-
tion Officer, followed strictly, despite allegations by one of
the abutting property owners to the contrary A copy of those
allegations and the response to them by the Shoreline Protection
Officer is attached hereto
7 Conclusions Based upon all of the information and data currently available
it is the Shoreline Protection Officer's conclusion that the work proposed
• by D M C Management Company will not materially weaken the dune or reduce
its effectiveness as a means of protection from the effects of high wind and
water and that a conditional sand dune permit for the construction of the
proposed work should be issued That permit should be conditioned by certain
requirements as follows
(1) No work shall be accomplished under the permit for a period of 15
days following the issuance of the permit and only commence then
provided no appeal is filed to the Board of County Commissioners
in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Ordinance In
the event such an appeal is filed no work shall be accomplished
on the project until the final disposition of that appeal and only
then in accordance with any additional requirements which are set
forth by the $oard of County Commissioners which may result frog
such an appeal
(2) During construction the contractor shall take extraordinary precau-
tions to ensure that material is not removed from the site by wind
erosion The architect for the project shall incorporate in his
bid documents specific instructions in this regard which must be
approved by the County Engineer prior to the receipt of any bids
to insure compliance with this requirements
(3) The project plans and specifications shall provide for requiring the
contractor to provide adequate permanent vegetation on those areas
upon which no buildings or pavement is to be constructed These pro-
visions shall also be subject to the approval of the County Engineer
prior to the receipt of bids for the project to ensure compliance
/~
Robert M Williams, Jr
New Hanover County Engineer
RMW/bbm
P. 0. Box 392
Jamestown, North Carolina 27282
March 24, 1978
Mr. Robert M. Williams, P E.
New Hanover County Engineering and Services
County Administration Building
320 Chestnut Street
Room 608
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Dear Mr. Williams:
Pursuant to our conversation with Ins. Turner and the thwarted one Kith
you on I~n.rch 24, 19?8~ ke are filing this req~e.st for a rescheduling of the
hearing set far '"~a.rch 29, 1978 concerning thA proposed application of
DMC N~.nage:rent CoMYany, Inc. of February 13, 1978. We feel that the
present date for the hearing is unfair due to DMC Management Company's
incomplete application and the improper notice of the proceedings. These
two general categories of objections are discussed in detail below: (The
cited sections pertain to the Sand Dune Protection Ordinance, hereinafter
called the Ordinance).
1. Incomplete Application
a. Failure to Properly Complete Application Form, to wit, Failure to
Describe Work to be Performed.
Section 2.4(B) requires that the application for a Sand Dune Permit
be made upon a "standard form." The standard form requires a des-
cription of the work to be performed affecting the sand dunes.
Section 2.4(C)(iii) provides that the application must be available
for inspectjon. It is obvious that the purpose of these two provisions
is to inform affected pQrsons of the nature of the xork proposed.
Such inforr±s.tion is essential to formulating well-founded opinions.
Unfortunately the application of February 13, 1978 of D"1C Management
Company, Irc. is devoid of a~Y description of the proposed work.
The only statement is an unfounded conclusion that the xork x111 have
"no affect on the sand dunes." Without a description of the nature
of thQ proposed work the application is incomplete on its face and
cannot be processed.
b. Failure to Include Statement of Revegetation Methods.
Section 2.4(C)(i) requires that all applications for Sand Dune
Permits include "a statement describing revegetation methods." This
requirer~ent emphasizes the extreme importance of vegetation to the
perpetuation of the dunes and affords the concerned parties a safe-
gtaard against improper revegetation. Such information is necessary
for a groper evaluation of the proposed project. The Ordinance
recogni^es the importance of a revegetation statement by requiring
it in the application. The DMC Management Company's proposed applica-
tion is devoid of any such statement and as a result cannot be processed.
Su^~r~~arily failure to comply with the above mentioned portions of the
application reach to the very heart of the application. Without compliance
no application exists to be acted upon. The concerned parties are not
given notice as to the proposed xork or the revegetation plan. Without
such vital information the project cannot be evaluated and proper objections
as to the adverse affects cannot be raised.
2. Improper Notice
a. Lack of Seven Day Notice of Bearing.
Section 2.4(C)(v) states that "All parties shall be given notice of
said hearir..g at least seven days prior thereto." This requirement
allows the parties to formulate specific objections and questions
and plan their schedules to attend the meeting. With such a purpose
in mind it would seem that the seven day requirement means seven
working days. We received notice in the late afternoon of Wednesday,
I~iarch 22, 1978. ~landay, Parch 26, is a holiday. This notice gave us
only three days in which to compile inforr~ation and try to attend
the hearing. Under the Ordinance such notice is inadequate. (Note
even in the strictest literal sense we only received six days notice -
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday.)
b. Failure to Post Notice of Application.
Section 2.4(C)(iii) provides that the shoreline protection officer shall
post a notice of application in a "prominent" location upon the site.
The posted notice of application serves to inform concerned members
of the general public that an application to disturb the sand dunes is
pending. This information allows those xho have the most at stake
in the protection of the dune system, the general public, to register
their sentimorts. Such notice has not been, and is not presently
posted on the proposed work site.
This second objection of improper or inadequate notice relates to the
legitimacy of the proposed hearing. The purpose of the notice requirements
in the Ordinance is to allow those concerned persons, both the adjacent
landholders and the public at large, to present their views as to the
propriety of the project. The importance of the inclusion of these individuals'
in the process is recognized by the requirements of the Ordinance. Short
circuiting of the specific steps of the Ordinance does not allow proper
notice and is prohibited.
In conclusion the requirements of application and notice of the Sand Dune
Protection Ordinance recognize the extreme importance of protecting the sand
dunes. The tentative nature of the dunes needs careful management. A scheme
for careful management is embodied in the Ordinance, and to fulfill its purposes,
must be adhered to strictly. The Ordinance requires the following stepss
application, preliminary review and decision, notice, hearing (optional),
final decision. For an adequate preliminary review and notice to concerned
individuals a proper application must be filed. The essence of the application
is the description of the proposed work. The revegetation scheme is also
significant to a complete application. Without such information one cannot logically
evaluate the potential effect of the work on the dunes. Realizing the vital
importance of this information the Sand Dune Protection Ordinance requires
its inclusion to complete an application. Without such information the
application cannot begin to be processed.
2-
Not only is a complete application a necessary safeguard embodied by
the Ordinance, but likewise is the issuance of proper notice. A hearing is
required when requested to bring to light the viexs of interested parties.
The concerns of both public and private individuals about the effect that
the proposed work will have on the continuing effectiveness of the dunes are
Important for a proper deterr~ination of the project. To gather these sentiments
proper notice of the project and the hearing is required. In the pressfit
situation an affected private individual did not receive proper notice of the
hearing and the general public was denied notice of the entire project. In
addition the lack of description of the proposed work and r~vegetation scheme
dc~fe~^ notice to all part:G,~ ar3 L:r:c?rrmir.es ar~y effar.t to evsluate the praFosal.
°~~cPUSe of ttie incariplete application and improper notice we request an
extensiar_ of the proposed hearing date until such time as (1) DMC Management
Company, Inc. files a completed application and (2) proper and adequate notice
under the Ordinance can be given.
This action has r~et with delay due to the applicant's (DMC Management
Company, Inc.) failure to list adjacent property owners on its application.
It does not now seem fair to expedite the proceedings contrary to the safeguards
of the Ordinance and at the expense of the non-delaying parties.
Yours truly, •/
(Mrs.) Ruth P. Newby
Paul M. Newby
cc: Mr. David Adams, Asst. Secretary of Natural Resources
Mr. Rob Moul, Wilmington Field Office, DNR
I~"rr. Claude O'Shields, Jr., Chairman, N H. County Board of Commissioners
-3-
-6-
REFERENCES
1 Bascom, Willard, WAVES AND BP;ACHES THE DYNAMICS OF THE OCEAN
SURFACE, pp 68-92, 184-256 Anchor Books, Doubleday and
Conpany, New York, 1964
2 "The Sand Dune Protection Ordinance of New Hanover County " 1973
3 North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15, Department of
Natural Resources and Community Developemnt, Chapter 7 --
Coastal Resources Commission
28 March 78
Mr Robert M Williams, P E _
County Engineer, h'ew Hanover County
County Administration Building
320 Chestnut Street
Room 608
Wilmington, N C 28401
Dear Sir
As a regular visitor to Wilmington Beach for over 25 years and as a heir
to~djoining property, I an concerned about the pending construction project
of a greatly enlarged Sun-N-Surf Motel by DMC Management, Inc
I object to the granting of a dune construction permit for this development
I believe this project to be unsuitable for this site for the reasons I
will set forth in the attached brief Basically, I feel that the plans for
this development do not demonstrate that it will
1. not reduce the sand held in storage in beaches or frontal dune
2 not cause accelerated erosion along shore
3 not otherwise increase risk of loss or damage to life or property
4 do not represent the only practical use of the lots envolved
and therefore the construction permit should not be approved
I feel that this development would not be in the best interest of the
people of North Carolina and especially the people of Wilmington Beach
If this project is approved it will be the beginning of the end of the
peaceful serenity and natural beauty of this area that I have known and
enjoyed through the years Following in the footsteps of this project
will be the urban sprall and clutter and gross commercialism which many
have come to this area to escape from for many years
Please respectfully consider these points and those in the attached brief
before you act on the dune construction permit for this project
I remain
sincerely,
John Parks Newby
JPN jpn 1518 Duplin Road
enclosure Raleigh, N C 27607
cc Mrs Ruth P Newby
We would like the following points of concern entered into the
proceedings of this hearing of March 29, 1978 and considered as
grounds for rejecting the app'ication for a dune construction permit
for DMC Corporation
These concerns are areas where we believe the project under
consideration will cause irreversible damage to natural shoreline
protection features -- the berm, and the primary dune line and its
protective vegetation -- and thereby unreasonably endanger life or
property
CLASSIFICATION OF PROJECT
1 The land under consideration is defined under the State Guidelines
for Local Planning Subchapter 7B (d)(5)(A)(B)(C)(i-ii) "Land Use
Planning Guidelines" as a "conservation class land" and as such
to be "those least desirable for development Under the general
classification of "Conservation" it is further classified as
"FRAGILE" (beaches) and "HAZARD" (ocean erosion areas)
2 The land under consideration is also classified in the North
Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15, DNRCD, Chapter 7 --
"Coastal Resources Commission," Subchapter 7I "State Guidelines
for Areas of Environmental Concern" as within an ocean hazard
area as well as an area of environmental concern and as such must
meet the guidelines set forth in the General Use Standards in
Paragraph 0306 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e) for ocean hazard areas a nd
exceptions to General t?se Standards 0307 (a)(b)(c) As can be
readily judged by an on-site inspection, the area under concern
is very susceptible to storm damage and erosion This is evidenced
both by the continuous erosion of the berm and by the replenishment
of the berm after severe storms several times in the last twenty
years at a considerable cost to the AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE
-2-
We feel like a project of this magnitude in this location
will accelerate erosion of the berm and frontal dune and as
such, the project should be libel to repair all such damages
in the future
We feel that this development will accelerate erosion of
the berm and frontal dune in the following ways and thereby
endanger life and property
I DIRECT IMPACT
A Construction -
Construction of a sea wall as set forth in the plot plan of
the SUN N SURF Hotel will involve extensive excavation in the area
in and around the frontal dune There are no guidelines for
appropriate construction pr.~cedures to be considered as a part of
the proposal to be approved It can be assumed that for any
number of reasons, a large amount of sand in the frontal dune
will be removed and left in storage to be moved by wind and tide
while construction of seawall is accomplished Heavy construction
of this type will also compact the sand on the berm and dune and
destroy the fragile negation on the primary dune
While the project is under construction, it will also
restrict the full use of the berm area by local landowners and
tourists
SUGGESTIONS
1 Construction of the sea wall and other protective measures
should be accomplished in such a way as to minimally disturb the
surrounding dune and berm
2 Tight time constrictions should be enforced so as the
disturbed sand and excavated material will be replaced and
any eroded material replinished in as short a time as feasible
3. Construction equipment should be limited to the property
in question and a distance no closer to the mean high water line
as set forth by the County Engineer to protect the berm from
unnecessary damage
- 3-
4 Guidelines should be followed such as to minimally
disturb the normal use of the beach area during construction
5 Construction should be timed such that all protective
structures (seawall, etc ) are in place and the dune returned
to as near its natural state is possible before the annual
storm season as established by the U S NOAA Weather Service
DIRECT IMPACT (Continued)
B Design of Protective Measures -
We feel that the design of the sea wall is inadequate to
protect life and property from the onrush of storm-surged seas
1 Protection should be afforded to adjoining property as
well as to property of devei.upment because of characteristics
of interaction of wave with this type of sea wall Assuming
storm-surged seas washing up to the sea wall, the wave will
cause increased erosion on each end causing erosion of protec-
tive frontal dune and increasing storm damage of adjoining
property
"Almost anything that either s}~eeds up erosion of a
coast or retards the normal motion of sand alongshore affects
all other property within the same littoral zone Any remedial
action that does not consider the effects on downstream beaches
only causes more problems "
2 The structure of the sea wall should be such that wave
energy is absorbed -- not reflected into adjoining property,
and/or extend a distance along the beach to protect adjoining
property
"If the face of the sea wall curves so as to guide the
water straight upward as some old designs did, the water will
fall back on the wall possibly damaging it and eroding the
land it is intended to protect "
-4~
3 Parking lots should be sloped and drained such that runoff
will not exit onto adjoining property No storm drains from
the parking area or gutters from roof should exit onto the beach
area This would cause erosion of the berm, particularly during
a storm
4 The sea wall should be sufficiently permeable to prevent
the containment of water should it be topped during a storm or
high tide surge
5 The unnatural movement of sand along the berm and primary
dune might have an adverse affect on the annual tidal bar
formation offshore and adversely affect the suitability of the
beach for bathers during the summer months when the beach is
usually protected by the bar
As the Purpose of New Hanover County's Dune Protection Ordinance
Section 1 2 states "This ordinance is therefore adopted for the health,
safety and welfare of persons living, visiting or sojourning in the
outer b anks area of New Hanover County and for the protection of public
and private property " The following are observations that pertain
to this project
SECONDARY IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
A Increase in Population Density of Area -
1 With the completion of this project (a resort hotel)
the population served by the beach and bathing facilities
will be significantly increased This increased use of the
beach will destroy important vegetation and cause erosion
of the berm and primary dune
2 The increase in population will cause an increase in the
demand for local government services for the area
a It will force construction of a new sewer line
b It will force construction of a new water line
and possibly water supply facilities
c It will significantly increase the volume of
solid wastes to be disposed of by a local municipality
d Is the structure energy efficient? Will it cause an
increase of power usage?
-S-
3 The increase of population will also further crowd a
road system already operating at near capacity, especially
during the tourist season
4 Are sufficient parking spaces available for the number
of rooms and also for other facilities (restaurant, convention
hall, etc )?
5 There are no sidewalks or bike lanes provided for the
increase in pedestrian traffic and bike traffic to/from
downtown amusement area
B The Structure and Equipment -
1 The air conditioning equipment will contribute to the
noise and thermal pollution of the area The equipment should
be located so as to minimize the nuisance to adjacent property
owners
2 The design of the project is such that it would interfere
with normal air movement and combined with the heat output of
the air conditioning equipment will make the ambient temperature
in the area rise during certain natural conditions
3 The size of the structure is such that its shadow will
cause much of the adjacent beach to be useless for sunbathing
in the afternoon -- reducing the value of adjoining property
4 The residents of the hotel would so crowd the beach as to
make it undesirable as a tourist attraction -- thereby reducing
property value even more
5 The project does not fit with the present makeup of the
area -- it would stick out like a sore thumb
6 The project will detract from the inherent natural heauty
of the natural dune line
3 P 23 ewby
March 28, 1978
P 0 Box 342
Jamestown. North Carolina 27282
March 29, 1978
Ns Robert I~. Williams, P E,
hew Hanover County Engineering and Services
County Administration Building
320 Chestnut Street
Ac~om 608
Wilmington, North Carolina 2 8401
Dear Jas. Wit] iams
Our concerns about the proposed application of DMC Management Company, Inc
are both of a procedural and substantive nature. In our letter of March 24, 1978
we disc~.:ssed our procedural concerns and will not restate them here (though
they are incorporated in our overall objection). This does not mean to imply
that we feel these viewpoints are not important. Contrarily, we believe
that the procedural safeguards are vital to the fulfillment of the Sand
Dune Protection Ordira.nce (hereinafter called Ordinance) and cannot be
~u3ordirated. Without adherence to the guidelines for application, no
applicatior. exists to be acted upon.
respite our disadvantaged position of inadequate information from the
applicatior. and inadequate notice of the hearing, we will briefly discuss
o:.Tr substantive objections. In the course of the discussion it will be obvious
that Wore questions than ansxers arise Indeed this is proper given the
extreme importance of our sand dunes and the urcertainty of the effects of
mar-made changes in the natural system.
The purpose of the Ordinance in Section 1 2 is to preserve the sand
dines which provide the protective barrier. In evaluating this (or any)
project the two major underlying tests area 1)What will the future effect
of these changes be in the natural processes (both short term and long term);
and 2}What impact x111 these changes have given bad conditions (storms), not
just the usual conditions. These two tests must be considered together as
each will affect the other. These tests are proper given the essential role
that the dunes play in the protection of the landowners, the unpredictable
conditions of the future, and the uncertain results of man-made interference.
The dunes are for the protection of all the landowners, and all share
equally in the dunes along the beach. The Ordinance adopts this view in
Section 1.2 "The past practice of destroying said dunes constitutes a
serious threat to the safety of adjacent properties." The disturbance of
any ore dune or group of dunes can result in the xhole beach being unprotected.
As a result we feel that these tests must be applied stringently. Anyone
wishing to alter the existing dunes in any way has the complete burden of
proving that the alterations will not decrease the effectiveness of the dunes
now, or in the future, given the most adverse conditions. This burden must
rest on the one seeking to alter the present scheme as he brings unwarranted
dar.Fer into the situation:
"'+~hen all.cwed to function naturally, these natural processes ensure
the car.timaed maintenance of the barrier islands and, therefore, the
c^~tinued protection of the estuary and man's endeavors. Unfortunately
^c~ple so^~etimes interfere with the natural processes...This inter-
frrcnce thre!.tens the functions of those vital systems, and in turn
people's safety and well-being. 'Stabilized' dunes and shorelines
soneti.mes create more prob3ems than they solve."1
The test must be stringent because xhat may be deemed minor protective dunes
today will be the major protection tomorroxs
"As a rule, North Carolina's barrier islands are eroding and moving
westward. Though the rate varies from place to place, erosion can
range up to as much 80 to 100 feet a year on the ocean side."2
We are convinced that the project proposed by DMC Mar~ement Company, Inc.
will substantially decrease the protection of the dunes as prohibited in
Seotion 2.4(A) of the Ordinance. The reasoning is t~rofolds
1 . ?`t' A rra^^~ d b~~1 ~cheac~ will so stabilize the 340' of dune on the site
it question as to cause eresian and starvation of the dunes primarily protecting
adjoining propertys
"A beach responds with great sensitivity to the forces that act upon
it - waves, current, winds. It is a deposit of material i~z transit,
either alongshore or off- and onshore. The important thought in the
definition is that of motion, for beaches are everchanging, restless
armies of sand particles, always on the move...k'henever there are waves
there is cor.start shifting, constant readjustments." 3
"The reaction of the shore to these changing wave properties is a
constant change in profile -- a state of dynamic equilibrium in which
the beach constantly, and the dunes periodically, readjust to the wave
conditions prevailing at a given time."~'
When the beach and dunes are not allowed to adjust to the changing forces
a breakdown and erosion of the surrounding dunes occur. This breakdown is due
to both water and wind forces. "Large 'stabilized' dunes don't renex themselves...
These dunes have interfered with the natural washover transport of sand."4
When the water dogs xash over the bulkhead it becomes trapped and must escape
via either end (See Appendix I). This escape of 740' of water around the
ends de~.•astatingly erodes the beach. In the present situation, given the layout
of the beach the runoff would be predominantly at our end since it is the
lowest. This escaping water washes the sand doti.-n the beach into the ocean.
The break~?nwn of the surrounding dunes is also caused by inhibited wind-
flow. Dunes are for?~ed and replenished when "wind picks up the particles of
sand and carries them over the land. If anything -- a shoot of grass, a boulder,
a piece of tidal litter abandoned on the beach -- is in the way, the wind x311 6
be slowed. If the wind is slowed enough it will drop a portion of its sand load."
-2 -
"1lunes migrate and shift position frequently through continous xind
erosion and sand buildup on the backside. While these are gradual
changes, a storm can cause dune blowout or buildup in much shorter
periods of time."~
W1.th the 750' long, 2• high wall and terraced area, the wind x111 be blocked
from delivering sand to the adjacent sand dunes and will not be able to migrate.
This starvation of sand and inability to move to compensate x111 acerbate
the water erasion problem.
"There is a rather delicate balance betwQen the forces that tend to bring
sand ashore and those that move it seaward." When the dunes are not allowed
to move to compensate for the natural energy changes they deplenish. When
the sand dunes deplenish they create another danger by starving the sand
bFrs xhich protect the share from powerful waves. "The more sand held in
s~orage in dunes, the more there is to feed offshore bars, keeping all but
the largest waves breaking at a greater distance seaward."9
Nature has provided an unequaled method of protecting the coastal landholders.
The shifting of the sand from bar to berm to dune to berm to bar, etc. buffers
the land against seasonal variations in wave energy. The shifting of the dunes
and their permeability allows the dunes to absorb the shock of the waves xithout
unduly pouring excess water in one area. The proposed stabilization will
result in starvation of the surrounding dunes by restricting both wind and
wave deposits. It will also cause erasion of dunes adjacent to the proposed
site through flooding and runoff. In addition the delicate balance of sand
movement will be upset and sand x111 be lost to the sea. The proposed bulkhead
will necessarily stabilize the dunes at the site but by so doing, will diminish
those of adjoining land.
Note: One must continually keep in mind that although presently the ocean
m~t~ not "swash" continually onto the affected dunes the North Carolina coast i_s
eroding at a fervent rate. The protection of the future must be considered nox.
2. The Praposad Project will destroy the vegetation of the dunes by
overloading the beach with people. Such a concern is within the jurisdiction
of the Ordinance. Section 2.2 states: "It shall be unlawful for any
person, firm or corporation in any manner to damage, destroy or mwe any
sand dune or part thereof... or to kill, destroy or remove a,Y trees, shrubbery
ar other vegetation growing on said dunes without having first obtained from
a shoreline protection officer a permit." (emphasis added). Clearly the
Ordinance is concerned with the ultimate protection of the dunes from tampering
for any purpose. Not only does this language include the direct impact of
implanting a trzlkhead but also that of drastically increasing the population
on the dunes. Due to the small width of the beach at the proposed site, not
only will the dunes on and in front of the motel be worn, but also those of
adjacent landowners. Such a large number of people will kill the vegetation
on the dunes. With no or decreased vegetation the dunes will further erode
and lase their effectiveness.
When the problems presented by dune stabilization are coupled with those of
devegetation the future of the dunes looks bleak. The erosions and starvation
ceased by each problem alone will r,~ore than double when working together. The
tarrible possibilities presented by either one of these two impacts of the
proposed work cause one to stop and reflect. a reflection xelltucrth its time.
-3-
The concerns of the use of private property vs. the mut~i~ protection afforded
by the dunes are not easy to xei~*h. However when the question is put in terms
of an ir.dividu3l's right to use private property vs. no private property for
anyone to use, the weights may be rightly decided.
Our concern here is not anti-project but as xith the Ordinance, pro-protection
of the dunes which protect the property of all at Wilmington Beach. The
Ordinance states a major concern and it cannot be shrugged off lightly.
Therefore, after a proper application has been filed, we request the
following information as we believe conter:plated by the Ordinances
1) An Array C~Mps cf Enoi:~eers' a~ Y~{~^1 of the rr~;r~.t.
rp- ~'.:
?) ~ sl ~~ r^^.^.~ of t~:^ 1^st::c i~t act of the du~si~;n cf b~.~lkhead chasm by ~"".C.
~) A sta.tcTMcrt of the prnposed nathods of pratectirg the vegetation of the
dunes from the greatly increased population.
We believe that with a properly administered Ordinance, the interests of each
party can be protected and an ecological disaster (like the erosion resulting
from the Holiday Inn bulkhead at Wrightsville Beach) can be avoided. We are
convinced that a Brain of prevention is worth a whole beach of cure. We must
t:=ke tir~:e nox to protect our future.
Yours truly,
1
(N~s.)Ruth P.llNehby(~
~~~ ~
Paul M. Newby
-4-
APPk'NnTg I
NEWBY
PROPERTY
750'
~ A - - - - - -
14.8 12.9 elevation
Because of the impermeable nature of the bulkhead, xhen the swish goes
over the landh~rd Gide, A, the rater rill be trapped. It rill excape at the
open ends, B and C, (primarily at B due to loxer elevation) and return to
the sea. This return of a large quantity of rater rill increase the velocity
of the returning r,±eter causing the transport of more and more sand, and
consequently, erosion. The present effect of this erosion rill be major,
the future effect deve.stating.
-5-
FOOTNOTES
1. "Know Your Mud, Sand and Water, a Practical Guide to Coastal Development,"
K. M. Jur~ensen, UNC Sea Grant Publication, September, 1976, p. 4.
2. Ibid., p. 7.
3. Waves and Beaches, Willard Bascom, Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, Inc.,
Garden City, N Y , 1964, p. 186,
4. "Proposed Amendments to the State Guildelines for Lxal Planning in the
Coastal Area Under the Coastal Area Management Act of 1974," Technical
AppQndix ~?, N. C. Coastal Resources Commission, N~rch 25~ 1977, P. 1.
5. Juraensen, p. 17.
6. "The Dane Book," Johanna Seltz, UNC Sea Grant Publication, December 1976, p. 4.
7. J~~.r~crsen, p. 12.
8. Bascom, p. 189.
9. Fropo~ed Amendments, pp. 2-3.
-6-
m
lu[u a IIII
I
____r~
~ f tore ee ~F~II
i [
~ ~ Hey eatlunel yu+tl [ Le
1 [
[ I
ltltfORt) ~ i
h. I I~n~li uue
~ ~,~,
W I e r
Nurnel pr fl le
.~ befure sr ewoll
-Seawall ~"~~
Note the[ re~ree[[mial pur[ton
/ of beach is smaller '~~+
Nonoal hlyh tide
r
7~ W a [ e r
Profile after time lapse n11,
Note the[ profile Is steeper and ~~~JI Profile 1n.uedfately after
narrower that recreational area i~ installing seawall
has diminished or disappeared i~~ f
Fig 6
Effect of Seawall on Profile of Beach
w
v
2
O
f
O
r
m
f
z
D
Z
Z
O
N
F
ro
6'.
S`
~.
~'
~ro
m
N
~.
x
O
O
r
m
x
D
Z
Z
v
Plate II
Seawall at Atlantic Beach The beach has been getting progressively
narrower here each year because of wave reflection from the seawall
I to a IIII
_1 --{ i h to a ~I
~ I
I i Reu duuual V~ a 14
~ ~
1 1
(tlkFORE) I I
11
h, I hi ~h CI Je
W a t e r
Nui ndl V of lle v
f DefUre 5eewall
Sedwdl I ~~~
~/.
Note that re~rea [tuo I pm non
u pf Death t sumller
No Waal htyh tide
(AFTER) o ~ ! ~~
n ~~~~
~1i/j~ - M a t o r -_
Prufile after ttme lapse i~
Note [hat profile fs steeper and '~111,~ Profile inmedtate ly after
narrower that recreational area ~/,/~~ f installing seawall
has diminished or disappeared ,~
a
Fig 6
Effect of Seawall on Profile of Beach
,.. -...Y~ -..
S
r
m
~_
-~
z
D
z
~~~''''
Z
v
N
F
v
~'
m
A
r
n
A
f(~Q~$
l0 :t'
m
Plate II
Seawall at Atlantic Beach The beach has been getting progressively
narrower here each year because of wave reflection from the seawall
r~ ,
..~ r
m
_ ~
~y, x
si
'"R?a "~ Z
nnA V1
t
'" h $ Z
~ Y6' K
E} 1:~~ ~
A~
1~yh
tt• r
~ .~
._
~ :~ 1~ _
O S
`
'
I O N ~ ~-- =
Profile 8 - Initiol ollock of
,
dorm waves ~~`
-.~ ~• ~..
.
M
L
W
•
1;,•
^
.
.
ACCRETION '~
.:~
~ 1~ ~~ ~4
~
/ ~ Profile A
r.. ~::.... ''.~ \
\ ~~
\
`"~
- "" "'~ ~
~~
EROS f Store Tide
_ _ MHW_
ON
. ....
• ~
~
~~
~ ~
\
Crest
~
`
'' "•• ~~
.Lowerin Profile C -Storm wove ollock
9 '~~~~'~•~{;;~{'":.
..
"?Y?,;;;`;~: •
Crest of foredune .
M.L.W.
.~,~;..•. _
. ^
.
Recession
~ ;
.
/ ~\ ACCRETION
/
\ Profile A
~„,+• .• \
FR
._ .._ _,,.
O S U
,`\
N
• .. _
~_ _ _ M. H W
~~
;:":~;~::... .:
Profile O -After aform wave attack, r
M.L.W~
~
normol wove oction "'`
:
``
~
.:•.
ACCRETION ~`~'••.~..
Profile A
Figure 5-6 Schematic Diagram of Storm Wave Attack on Beach and Dune
5-23
~ JULIAN A ALTOBELLIS/ARCHITECT/WILMINGTON, NC
PROPOSED SUN-N-SURF MOTEL/CONVENTION FACILITY/U S HIGHWAY 421 SOUTH/
CAROLINA BEACH/NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Seven stories comprising 100,000 square feet of enclosed building area
First through sixth Floors, including
118 motel rooms
six two bedroom apartments
1700 square feet entertainment lounge on main floor
2000 square feet enclosed swimming pool area
1900 square feet of second floor meeting room areas
750 square feet of food service area on main floor
Seventh Floor area, including
Convention hall area seating 400 persons
Food Service/Restaurant area seating 200 persons
two bed room penthouse apartment
Off-street parking facilities 200 spaces, ( on site and across Highway 421 )
Beach Bulkhead 375 linear feet of concrete construction
Structure concrete/masonry construction supported on treated wood piles
with concrete cap and grade beam system
Life Safety Features, designed in accordance with the North Carolina Building
High Rise Code
Smoke detector/alarms in all bedrooms, apartments, public areas,
and corridors Alarm system is connected with the fire depart-
ment, and includes an intercommunication system with master
station at the reception desk, for conveying evacuation instruct-
ions to all building areas
Emergency power generator, activated by the alarm system, for
emergency lights, intercom system and elevators
Three high speed elevators in air-pressurized shafts, connected
into the alarm system for control by the fire department
Four concrete construction exit stairways, each containing
fire hydrants Two are enclosed and air pressureized
~ NEW HANOVER COUNTY
~~INEERING AND SERVICES
County Admmistrahon Building Phone (919) 7~+~4H 762-1831
320 Chestnut Street ~~~4~
Room 608
Wilmington. North Carolina 28401
April 25, 1978
Mrs Samuel 0 Newby
203 I:nollwood Drive
Jamestown, N C 27282
Dear Mrs Newby
Robert M Williams. P E
County Engineer
This will acknowledge our receipt of your April 19, 1978 letter addressed to
Mr Claud 0`Shields, Jr and myself in which you gave formal notice of appeal
regarding the issuance of a Sand Dune Permit to D M C Management, Company,
Inc Wilmington, Beach, N C
In accordance with your expressed desire the hearing has been scheduled for the
regular Board of County Commissioners meeting to be held on Monday, May 15, 1978
It is my understanding that this hearing will be an agenda item during the meet-
ing and at this time I am unable to advise you of the exact time the hearing will
begin For your information and guidance the regular Board meetings regularly
begin at 9 00 a m and continue until all agenda items have been covered
At this time, the Commissioners have not advised me as to whether they will
request oral or written presentations or both I have advised the County Manager
that this office's file, including the written presentations which were made dur-
ing the March 29, 1978 hearing which I conducted in accordance with the Ordinance,
will be available for inspection by any of the commissioners who may desire to
study it At any rate, those documents will be certainly available to the Board
during the hearing I suggest that you or whoever you designate to represent you
at the hearing be prepared to make whatever oral and/or presentation which you
feel may supplement the information previously supplied
If you have any further questions regarding the procedures which will be followed
please contact me and I will attempt to obtain the answers
Very truly yours,
1~~~,~
Robert M [~illiams, Jr~
New Hanover County Engineer
RMW/bbm
cc Mr Dan W Eller, County *lanager
NORTH CAROLINA
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has
decided on the route of Interstate-40 from Benson to Wilmington, and
WHEREAS, the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners endorses
the route of I-40 selected, and
WHEREAS, the selected route of I-40 will mean a great deal to
Eastern North Carolina in economic growth, tourist travel, and industrial
expansion,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS
that they respectfully request the Congress of United States
to help fund the construction of this Interstate-40 route
from Benson to Wilmington as soon as possible
THIS the 15th day of May, 1978
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Claud O'Shields, Jr Chairman (/
ATTEST
Clerk J
~, ~..
May 8, 1978
MEMORANDUM
TO Mr Dan W Eller, County Manager
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
FROM Larry J Powell ~ ~~
Tax Administrator
SUBJ Abatements and Refunds
Request the following taxes be abated as taxpayers
reported incorrect information
1 Phyllis Bright $21 36
2 James Collins 22 36
3 H Graham Dail, Jr 37 92 (1969)
4 Billy Hufham 67 27 (1976)
5 Bettie Nixon 107 69 (1973 & 1974)
6 Louis Richmond 115 39 (1973-1975)
7 David Rodgers 16 29
8 Jeffrey Thomas 12 37
Request the following taxes be released as they are
double charged
1 Marcelle Austin $ 2 81 (1976)
2 Mary Eason 14 75
3 Ivey Johnson 121 09 (1976 & 1977)
4 John Mobley 8 23 (1974)
5 Matt Leasing Co 254 54
6 Northeast River Exxon 44 98
7 Zella Smith 13 81
Request the following taxes be released as these individuals
do not reside within the city or town limits or the personal property
is located within the county
1 Larry Beckham $37 37
2 Waltsy Bradford 15 73 (1969)
3 Connie Casteen 40 02
4 Darlene Kerlin 59 36 (1976)
5 George Rifenburg, Jr 7 17 (1976)
6 WMW Service Co 37 03
Request the taxes for 1975 charged to Love Chapel of God
in Christ be released as this is an exempt organization Total
taxes are $430 96
J
Mr Dan W Eller
Page 2
May 8, 1978
First Mortgage Investors (Wilmington Hilton)
request they be refunded on the 1977 valuation reduction
approved by the Board on March 20, 1978 Total refund is
$9,832 97
Request these items be placed on the agenda for
the County Commissioners' meeting of May 15, 1978
cc Mrs Rusmisell
Mr Taylor
LJP/pjr
~a~
LARRY J POWELL
Tax Administrator
RAYMOND E BLAKE, JR
Appraisal Supervisor
~~~~~~
320 Chestnut St
~Arinber
E,~,
~~~
s.,.
~o~
~~
~tCmtngtort, ~ 28401
NEW HANOVER COUNTY TAX COLLECTIONS
COLLECTIONS THRU APRIL 30, 1978
1977
MAE B. STUART
Listing Supervisor
JANIE B. STRAUGHN
Collector of Revenue
x,~~,x
763-0991
1976
Regular Scroll Charges $11,092,525 59 $ 9,887,734 29
Discoveries Added 1,781,668 62 1,635,979 81
12,874,194 21 11,523,714 10
Less Abatements - 34,507 48 - 79,436 58
Total Taxes Due New Hanover Co 12,839,686 73 11,444,277 52
Total Collected -12,415,536 58 -11,044,019 33
Outstanding Balance $ 424,150 15 $ 400,258 19
Percentage Collected 96 7% 96 5%
Back Taxes
Real Estate Taxes $ 467,381 79 $ 466,470 92
Less Abatements - 2,990 09 - 11,975 71
Total Collections to Date - 255,417 38 -199,720 32
Outstanding Balance $ 208,974 32 $ 254,774 89
Percentage Collected 55 ~, 43 94%
Personal Property Taxes $ 361,133 31 $ 328,845 80
Less Abatements - 12,844 05 - 12,700 40
Collections to Date - 60,971 11 - 30,813 87
Outstanding Balance $ 287,318 15 $ 285,331 53
Percentage Collected 17 51~ 9 75%
Total money processed through Collection Office for New Hanover County,
City of Wilmington, Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, and Wrightsville Beach
to date $19,647,300 95
This report is for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1977
spectfully Submitted,
n
nie B Strau n
Collector of Revenue
JBS/pjr