Loading...
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