Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Final Western Bank Briefing
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Western Bank Work Session March 31, 2022 2:00 PM at Lucie Harrell Conference Room 230 Government Center Dr., Wilmington, NC AGENDA Call to Order Welcome Staff Overview Presentation Board Discussion Next Steps Adjourn Date: March 24, 2022 To: New Hanover County Commissioners From: Rebekah Roth, Planning Director Re: Western Bank Work Session Briefing Materials Commissioners: In preparation for next Thursday’s Western Bank Work Session, staff has prepared the attached briefing materials to aid your discussion. These materials are a summary of the information we have been provided over the past several months related to development of the western bank of the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers across from downtown Wilmington, as well as additional staff research to answer questions that have been raised. It is not comprehensive, and some information would require additional research, additional stakeholder input, and likely outside expertise, e.g., financial feasibility of development and potential architectural design standards. However, we have addressed past policies, regulatory standards and processes, environmental constraints, infrastructure requirements, etc. At the meeting, we will have technical experts on hand and staff support to address questions you might have. If, after reviewing the briefing materials, you would like additional information or would like to make sure a technical expert for a specific topic is in attendance, please let me know. This information is being provided for public review prior to the meeting. If we receive supplemental information or clarifications from stakeholders, we will provide that to you as part of the staff overview next week. A public comment period has not been placed on the agenda for this meeting, however, to allow sufficient time for your discussion. The direction you provide to staff on additional stakeholder meetings, plans or studies, or other assignments will allow for additional public comment or forums. Please let me know if you have any questions about the briefing materials and/or meeting framework. Rebekah Roth Contents Context .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Land Use History ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Prior Plans & Policies for Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 7 Current Conditions .................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Current Land Use & Ownership .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Environmental Features .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Natural Resources ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Environmental Constraints ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Transportation .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Water and Sewer/Septic ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Other ............................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Regulatory Framework for Development ......................................................................................................................... 13 Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) ........................................................................................................................ 14 Jurisdictional Wetlands ................................................................................................................................................. 14 Floodplain Management Regulations ........................................................................................................................... 14 Policy Considerations ............................................................................................................................................................ 15 Community Feedback ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 Changing Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Infrastructure Projects .................................................................................................................................................. 16 Changing Waterline ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 Municipal Annexations ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix A: Construction Techniques for Flood-Prone Places ....................................................................................... A - 1 Appendix B: Best Practices – Case Studies in Riverine Development ............................................................................... B - 1 Annapolis, Maryland ...................................................................................................................................................... B - 2 Augusta, Georgia/North Augusta, South Carolina ......................................................................................................... B - 4 Charleston, South Carolina ............................................................................................................................................ B - 7 Norfolk, Virginia ............................................................................................................................................................. B - 9 Savannah, Georgia ........................................................................................................................................................ B -11 Appendix C: Full Size Maps .................................................................................................................................................... C Aerial Map of New Hanover County’s Riverine Parcels with Study Area Inset............................................................... C- 1 Zoning Map of New Hanover County’s Riverine Parcels with Study Area Inset ............................................................ C - 2 1 Future Land Use Map of New Hanover County’s Riverine Parcels with Study Area Inset ............................................ C - 3 Aerial Map of Study Area ............................................................................................................................................... C - 4 Zoning Map of Study Area ............................................................................................................................................. C - 5 Future Land Use Map of Study Area .............................................................................................................................. C - 6 Appendix D: Additional Information .................................................................................................................................. D - 1 1 New Hanover County’s Western Bank • In total, forty-six New Hanover County tax parcels directly abut either the Cape Fear or Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. Most of these parcels have been designated as Conservation in the County’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan, which places limits on uses that require special use permits or CAMA permits. However, current policy allows for industrial development along the river on approximately ten parcels between I- 140 and the Isabel Holmes Bridge. • All of the parcels along the western bank are zoned for industrial uses, except for one just south of Isabel Holmes Bridge rezoned for mixed-use in 2008 and the commercially-zoned Eagles Island properties. • The focus of this report are the parcels along the rivers between the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and the Isabel Holmes Bridge, especially those located east of Hwy 421 that are included in the National Register Historic District for downtown Wilmington. 2 • They are found in two general areas, on Eagles Island where the U.S.S. Battleship North Carolina is moored and on what is referred to in this report as the “northern bank,” the area between the Thomas Rhodes Memorial Bridge and Isabel Holmes bridges. • These parcels have been the subject of two major development proposals over the past six months, which have been met by sizable community concern related to the impact of future development on the character of downtown, natural and cultural resources, and the long-term sustainability of the community. • The northern bank project proposed for the Point Peter property is currently on hold, as the Board of Commissioners voted to table the request for new Riverfront Urban Mixed Use (RUMXZ) zoning district in January to allow for closer consideration of future land uses on the western bank as a whole. • A project is also currently proposed for Eagles Island—the Wilmington Hotel and Spa, which was submitted for county Technical Review Committee (TRC) review in December. While the project is by- right, meaning no board approvals are necessary, it must still meet all development regulations and standards. The applicant was provided with a number of technical comments in December, and an updated plan has not been submitted for re-review at this time. Northern Bank Eagles Island Point Peter Wilmington Hotel & Spa Western Bank – Cape Fear River 3 • The current policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the most intensive development pattern outlined for the unincorporated county. This reflects the County’s long-term vision of developing the western bank of the river so that it reflects the development pattern of downtown Wilmington on the eastern bank. Western Bank – Cape Fear River 4 • Existing zoning designations for the parcels in the study area allow for higher intensity uses. The parcels on Eagles Island are zoned B-2, Regional Business, and those on the northern bank largely retain the I-2, Heavy Industrial, zoning that was originally applied back in the early 1970s. The RFMU zoning of the parcel just south of the Isabel Holmes bridge does allow for mixed-use development, but the master planned development associated with the zoning has not moved forward since originally approved in 2008. • As currently zoned, properties within the study area allow for a wide variety of by- right development. Many uses would require utility upgrades, but some of those permitted uses do not generally require water and sewer. These include, but are not limited to, marinas, dry-stack boat storage, RV and travel trailer storage, self-storage facilities, commercial parking lots, equipment rental and leasing, and warehouses. • The I-2 zoning of the northern bank would also allow billboards, heliports, and solar energy collection facilities in addition to the wide variety of manufacturing uses that would require utility upgrades. Western Bank – Cape Fear River 5 Context Land Use History • The western bank of the Cape Fear River has a rich history of farming and industry. While the land was originally used for farming rice, the land uses have changed over time due to rising industrial activity, new transportation routes, and other factors. • Cash crops, such as rice, led to the development of large plantations in many areas along the rivers of the lower Cape Fear. Figure 1: Rice plantations in the general areas, from a map included in the Eagles Island Nature Park plan (2021). 6 • The tidal method of rice production and irrigation was introduced in South Carolina in the 1750s. This method was also found to be practical in areas in the lower Cape Fear region, including the western bank. • While highly productive, this arduous method required a significant amount of labor from enslaved people to cultivate and clean the rice. • Within the focus area, the Potter family’s Point Peter plantation was located at the junction point of the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear rivers. This general area was owned by the Potter family through the late 1800s and was used as a plantation and rice mill. • In the 20th century, the primary use of the site shifted from rice cultivation to a rice mill. Later, this location became more valuable for industry, it eventually became the site of the Point Peter Sawmill. • Other portions of the northern bank area were used for industrial uses, such as a turpentine distillery and the Cape Fear and Yadkin Valley Railroad terminal. • Land uses on Eagles Island to the south were tied to the activities of the port beginning in the late 1700s. They included warehouses for naval storage and raw and milled lumber, turpentine stills, shipbuilding, and ship repair. Over the course of the 20th century, these uses declined and most had left the island by the 1960s. • There has been little in the way of formal archaeological investigations in the region. Evidence of cultural resources was discovered in the Environmental Assesment for the Rail Realignment and in an archological survey of Eagle Island. Resources identified should be preserveed in accordance with state and federal requirements. Prior Plans & Policies for Study Area • When zoning regulations were first applied to the western bank in the early 1970s, they generally reflected the historic industrial uses sited in the area. Early planning policies, however, designated the area as Conservation, lands that should be preserved in their natural state. Exceptions were provided for water-dependent uses, shared industrial access corridors, and proposals designed to be sensitive to the natural functions of the site. • Decisions about zoning and land use in this area have largely leaned toward higher intensity uses. Since 1996, four rezonings have been approved to either a mix of uses or commercial/industrial zoning, and one rezoning request for large lot residential was ultimately not pursued after initial Planning Board consideration. Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage The Gullah Geechee people are direct descendants of west and central Africans taken to the United States and enslaved for generations. The Gullah community brought with them from West Africa the agricultural practice that transformed rice production along the coast, including along New Hanover County’s western bank. According to the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission – “The Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor is a 12,000 square mile federal National Heritage Area designated by the U.S. Congress to recognize the unique culture of the Gullah Geechee people who have traditionally resided in the coastal areas and sea islands of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida—from Pender County to our north to St. Johns County, Florida. The Corridor is not a national park of a single site but is comprised of many historic and cultural places of significance to the Gullah Geechee people.” The Wilmington area is home to two recognized sites—Bellamy Mansion Museum and Poplar Grove Plantation. 7 • In addition, in 2006, a new zoning district—Riverfront Mixed Use (RFMU)—was established after several months of workshops and meetings led by the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County planning departments. This district specifically applied to properties on the western bank between the Cape Fear Memorial and Isabel Holmes bridges and was initiated in response to increasing interest in development in this area across from downtown Wilmington. Height standards and other regulations were established in order to reflect the development of downtown, take into account environmentally sensitive areas, and provide for quality development that would provide a community benefit. The district included no residential density limit, a 240 ft. height allowance on the northern bank (75 ft. on Eagles Island), and a 50% lot coverage maximum. Specific requirements included provisions for a public riverwalk, similar to the one on the eastern bank of the river. • Since 1996, planning policies have also recognized development pressures from the growth the region was experiencing. Though CAMA plans maintained the early Conservation classification, the language to describe uses in these areas began to evolve. For instance, the 1997-2010 CAMA Plan noted that “lands placed in the Conservation class present challenges from a land use standpoint, as they are often the most desirable from a development perspective and they may be, at the same time, the most undesirable to development from an environmental perspective.” To balance these interests, the plan encouraged incentives such as density credits and performance criteria as well as regulations that would reduce environmental impact. • Plans at this time that specifically identified the western bank—Wilmington Downtown Plan: Vision 2020 and the Cape Fear River Corridor Plan, both of which were collaborative ventures of the city, county, and other partners—did differentiate between the Eagles Island and northern bank areas. Conservation and recreational uses were recommended for Eagles Island, while conservation and sensitively designed mixed use development were identified as more appropriate for the northern bank. • In the 2016 New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan, the first plan for this area that was not co- sponsored by the City of Wilmington was incorporated, evolving the vision for development on the western bank. These parcels were designated as Urban Mixed Use, the land use classification with the most residential density and urban development pattern outlined on the plan’s Future Land Use Map. While project design was still intended to be sensitive to the environmental resources and constraints on the site, a mix of uses, higher residential densities, and taller structures were identified as appropriate and desirable in this area. • These county plans were not the only studies being conducted for the western bank during this time period. Since 2011, a coalition of conservation groups have been focusing on preservation of Eagles Island, including the portions within Brunswick County and the Town of Leland. They have published a series of studies and reports (Eagles Island, A History of a Landscape—2011, Eagles Island Conservation Management Plan—2015, Eagles Island Nature Park—2021) that are more aligned with the county/city plans for this area from the 1980s and 1990s—preservation of land with recreational amenities. 8 Current Conditions Current Land Use & Ownership • With the ongoing loss of industrial uses in this area, environmental constraints, and limited infrastructure to support development, many of the parcels on the western bank are currently vacant except for traces of dock pilings and other artifacts from historic land uses in the area. Notable exceptions include the U.S.S. North Carolina site on Eagles Island and holdover river-based businesses south of the Isabel Holmes Bridge. Western Bank – Cape Fear River Ownership & Existing Land Uses 9 Environmental Features • As reflected in the Conservation classifications of historic CAMA plans, the western bank study area is characterized by natural resources, many of which are currently listed as threatened, and environmental constraints on development. Natural Resources • The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program gathers and shares information about rare species and natural communities. The study area includes the Lower Cape Fear River Aquatic Habitat, which has been identified to support populations of endangered and threatened species. This habitat area is noted to be a critical corridor linking natural areas in both New Hanover and Brunswick counties. It, along with dredge islands within the river, make up the Lower Cape Fear River Macrosite. • Waters within the Northeast Cape Fear and lower Cape Fear Rivers are also considered primary nursery areas. These areas are identified in upper estuarine locations where post-larval development takes place and most juvenile populations are found. They are important for the growth and development of finfish and crustaceans. • The portion of the Cape Fear River within the study area is on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Impaired Waters 303d list. Waters are impaired from the Navassa Rail Bridge to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge due to following: Excessive Hexavalent Chromium Fish Tissue Advisory (DHHS Fish Consumption Advisory), Excessive Arsenic Fish Tissue Advisory (DHHS Fish Consumption Advisory), and Deficient Dissolved Oxygen (below standard). • Several aquatic species found on the federal and state endangered and threatened species lists can be located within the Cape Fear River and study area include the Shortnose Sturgeon, Manatee, and American Alligator. Other rare species in this area include the Spinycheek Sleeper, Marked Goby, Freckled Blenny, and Carolina Diamondback Terrapin. • Wetlands, where water covers the soil or is present at or near the surface, in the study area also serve as important natural habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial species. They also act as natural barriers and can mitigate the effects of storm surge, erosion, and flooding during heavy rain events, tropical storms, and hurricanes. • The western bank study area contains primarily Freshwater Emergent wetlands, which are located directly adjacent to the river. These wetlands provide food and habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. They also provide shelter and nesting sites for several species of migratory birds. Environmental Constraints • The western bank study area, along with portions of the eastern bank within the City of Wilmington, are located within the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) AE flood zone. This flood zone has a modeled 1% or greater annual chance of flooding. This flood zone can be found in proximity to the Cape Fear River, Intracoastal Waterway, and other inland and tidal creeks. • The base flood elevation (BFE), the elevation above sea level that has a 1% chance or greater of flooding each year according to the FEMA models, is set at 9 ft. in the study area. Most of the land on the western bank, is below 9 ft. though there are a few pockets of higher ground: south of the Battleship where the Wilmington Hotel & Spa is proposed, on the central portion of the Point Peter property, and along the northern boundary of the Roderick property. • FEMA flood maps are updated on a regular basis but do not predict risk based on changing development patterns or water tables. • While the FEMA maps depict modeled flood risk, actual water levels and flood levels are monitored in this area via a Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS) water level gauge. The gauge is located on the west side of the Cape Fear River, just south of the Cape Fear 10 Memorial Bridge at the Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington dock and office site and has been in operation for 114 years. • Historic crests measured from this gauge have increased over the past century, with the largest crest of 9.3 feet being recorded on August 4, 2020 during Hurricane Isaias. • Flooding of property in the study area occurs even outside of storm events, such as king high tides and luner tide events, given the tidal nature of the Cape Fear River. Figure 2 Yearly inundation events recorded by NOAA gauge, published by NC King Tides Project. Figure 3 Photograph of flooding on Peter's Point, taken January 3, 2022. Courtesy of Kemp Burdette. Water levels are just under 7 ft. • The majority of soils in this area are associated with flooding and higher water tables. Some of the northern bank land is classified as Dorovan soil, described as poorly drained muck where the seasonal 11 high water table is at or near the surface. These soils are frequently flooded for very long periods and have high organic matter content. If these soils are drained and tilled, the organic matter decomposes, and the soil subsides. • Soils in the study area are mostly classified as Urban Land, however, where original soil has been cut, filled, graded, or paved so that most soil properties have been altered to the extent that a soil series is not recognized. • In addition to the natural environmental constraints of these properties, the western bank’s long history of industrial uses has led to additional issues due to environmental contamination. Sites where the chemicals and byproducts from historic industry exist in the soil, commonly known as brownfields, pose an obstacle for redevelopment. • The Federal government, through the Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of North Carolina, through the Department of Environmental Quality, have created programs to support the safe redevelopment of brownfield sites through site specific mitigation plans, while also making redevelopment more economically feasible. Federal and State brownfields programs and Brownfields Agreements help developers by reducing liability that can come from developing on a contaminated site by performing mitigation actions that make the site safe for reuse. In addition, these agreements help developers obtain loans as Brownfield Agreements will stipulate certain land uses that can be developed based on the environmental site assessment, as well as restrictions, such as the use of ground water. Entering an agreement enables developers to access the brownfields property tax incentive, which reduces property taxes on the improved value for 5 years after completion of improvements. • In the study area, one brownfield assessment and agreement is in place on the site of the proposed Wilmington Hotel and Spa. At that site, soil samples revealed concentrations of metals, pesticides, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in addition to petroleum. While all of these were below the State standard for Health-based Residential/Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRGs) with the metals occurring naturally, additional assessment or remediation of the area was recommended due to elevated levels of 1,2,3-trichloroporpane. It was noted that soils disturbed during site activities will need to be disposed of as if they were contaminated and cannot be placed back on-site or disposed of at non- regulated disposal facilities. Groundwater sampling at the site found the presence of ammonia, causing a risk of vapor intrusion, which would have to be mitigated. Infrastructure • Historically, development in the study area has been limited by both environmental constraints and those posed by transportation and water/sewer infrastructure. Transportation • The western bank parcels are all accessed from Hwy 421 via NCDOT-maintained secondary routes— Point Harbor Drive for the northern bank properties and U.S.S. North Carolina Road and Battleship Road for the Eagles Island properties. • Flooding along these secondary routes, which have elevations in the 2-4 ft. range, has been noted in recent years and could impact access to the subject sites. Proposals would likely require privately-funded improvements in order to facilitate development of the western bank parcels. • No traffic impact analyses (TIAs) have been completed or approved for Eagles Island projects at this point, but both the 2021 TIA for the Villages at Battleship Point project proposed for Point Peter on the northern bank and the TIA for the 2008 RFMU rezoning of the property just south of the Isabel Holmes Bridge included similar required improvements. Access to the site would be limited to right-in/right-out turns from Hwy 421 and would require a new connection between Point Harbor Road and the NHC Sheriff Firing Range Drive using an easement west of Hwy 421 and crossing under the highway overpass. 12 Water and Sewer/Septic • Major improvements in water and sewer would also likely be necessary for future development of the subject site. In the absence of these utilities, development in the study area is limited to what can be served by well and septic systems, which according to New Hanover County Environmental Health, is limited due to the saturated soils and the amount of fill in the area. • Potential well sites are at risk due to the area’s elevation and would likely require mitigation measures like raised wellheads to prevent contamination from flooding. • If reliant on septic systems, development requiring normal to heavy flow, such as multi-family dwellings, customer-oriented commercial establishments, and even large single-family houses, would not be feasible in the study area. Developers could choose to employ soil scientists and engineers to find isolated locations for septic systems that could potentially support these types of uses, but would incur significant planning and construction costs. Septic systems supporting limited flow could potentially be feasible for non-customer-oriented commercial and industrial enterprises with few employees. • Water is not currently available in the study area, but plans were approved in 2019 to extend lines south from South Terminal Road into the study area to accommodate the pending Wilmington Hotel and Spa site. Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) confirmed that plans would need to be resubmitted for an extension of water and sewer, including plans for a required pump station before they will receive TRC approval. CFPUA also stated that there is sufficient capacity to serve all properties in the study area, as existing capacity would be taken from the US 421 corridor. • Per CFPUA, the extension of water utilities into the study area would result in greater feasibility for the wide range of by-right commercial and industrial uses allowed under current zoning. Any new line in the area would be sized to accommodate the uses allowed within the study area’s zoning districts. • CFPUA has requested, but cannot require, the Wilmington Hotel and Spa site to provide a second connection back under the Cape Fear River to the City of Wilmington, which would result in a stronger, more resilient system that would allow CFPUA to isolate areas for repair. • Sewer for future development in the study area would be tied into the existing line at Point Harbor Road. Per CFPUA, the developers for the pending Wilmington Hotel and Spa site are required to install a new pump station prior to the installation of a new force main along the 421 corridor. • These improvements would result in increased suitability for future development than is currently feasible with septic systems, including the wide range of by-right commercial and industrial uses allowed under current zoning. Other • Stormwater infrastructure would also be required of any new development. From a county ordinance standpoint, any new development in the study area would need to demonstrate that the stormwater runoff that is generated by the development does not exceed the level of runoff that existed prior to the development being constructed, referred to as a site’s pre- and post-development state. A development has the option to implement low impact development (LID) practices, which use or mimic natural processes that result in the infiltration, evapotranspiration, or use of stormwater in order to protect water quality and associated aquatic habitat, but these methods are neither required nor likely volunteered in a by- right development. Downstream improvements may be required for some developments in the area depending on the site, but new runoff generated in the study area would likely discharge directly into the Cape Fear River. Regulatory Framework for Development • Development in the western bank study area would be subject to a variety of federal and state regulations in addition to local zoning, fire, and other development standards, including state Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permitting requirements, federal jurisdictional wetland requirements, and 13 floodplain management regulations (which are locally administered but required for the county’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program). Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) • The Division of Coastal Management requires some type of permitting if development is proposed within a designated Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) in one of the 20 coastal counties in the state. The areas adjacent to the Northeast Cape Fear and Cape Fear Rivers are designated as AECs, which extend 75 ft. from the Normal High Water Line. AECs are typically adjacent to tidal waters containing any of the 10 species designated as coastal wetlands. • The agency has different tiers of permits that are contingent on the magnitude of a proposed project; General, Minor, and Major permits. Due to the anticipated scope of a significant development proposal on the West Bank of the river, it is likely that a CAMA Major permit would be required. Major permits are required when a proposal would require the issuance of another state or federal regulatory permit, when the area covered exceeds 20 acres, or for construction covering more than 60,000 square feet. Typical examples of additional required agency permits would include entitlements from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Wildlife Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries, State Stormwater permits, or permits addressing cultural resources. • The CAMA Major permitting process includes significant analysis to ensure consistency with other agencies who may require an entitlement and is often viewed as the “umbrella” to coordinate these approvals. Consistency with agency rules addressing cultural resources, harbor line designations, primary nursery areas, historical and archaeological resources, and consistency with the local government’s land use plan are required prior to the issuance of a Major Permit. Technical design details, such as impervious coverage limits and prohibition of impacts to coastal wetlands, are also addressed within a Major Permit. • The Major Permit process also includes public notification requirements in local media and a sign posting on-site and offers the general public an opportunity to comment on the proposal. Typically, if a request meets all design requirements and is found consistent with additional agency requirements, it will be issued. The issuance of a Major Permit can be appealed, and in the case of a permit denial, a variance request can be made by the applicant to alter any design requirement that may not initially be met. Jurisdictional Wetlands • Wetland species that are not identified as coastal wetland species are often referred to as “jurisdictional” or “404” wetlands after the section of the Clean Water Act that governs their impacts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversees this regulatory process, and will also become involved if navigable waters are affected by a development proposal, such as backfilling below the mean higher water line or placing a structure over water. • Similar to the CAMA Major Permit, entitlements from the Corps are subject to analysis to ensure all other applicable statutes can be met. Typically, such analysis includes compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as well as impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and state Water Quality Certification. Floodplain Management Regulations • Regulations addressing development in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) are administered locally by planning staff as part of the county’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Participating communities are required to adopt and enforce both Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and floodplain management regulations that meet the minimum required NFIP regulations; these regulations are included in Article 9 of the county’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). • As referenced earlier in this report, the FIRMs for the western bank show the majority of the land in the unincorporated county under the designation of the AE zone, where there is a 1% or greater chance of incurring a flood event in any given year. In addition to the 9 ft. Base Flood Elevation (BFE) prescribed 14 by the FIRMs for this area, the county has also adopted a 2-foot freeboard requirement that results in an 11 ft. Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. This elevation is the height above mean sea level that the habitable portions of the building must be elevated in order to mitigate potential flooding effects. • Areas beneath an elevated building in a flood zone may only be used for parking, storage, or access to the structure, but commercial or mixed-use buildings may be floodproofed in lieu of elevation requirements. Both elevation and floodproofing methods are required to be certified by a professional engineer, architect, or surveyor prior to issuance of a building permit. • In addition to the elevation and floodproofing requirements, all electrical, mechanical, or other service equipment must be elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation or otherwise floodproofed, and construction materials below this elevation must be comprised of flood resistant materials. • Minor grading and the placement of minor quantities of fill may be permitted in the AE zone for landscaping, drainage purposes under and around buildings, and to support parking slabs, pool decks, patios, and walkways. Fill greater than two feet must include an analysis prepared by a qualified registered design professional demonstrating no harmful diversion of floodwaters, wave run-up, and/or wave reflection that would increase damage to adjacent elevated buildings and structures. Policy Considerations Community Feedback • The recent development projects proposed on the western bank have prompted unusually high levels of public interest. While comments submitted for these proposals reflect some public support for development in the study area, the majority of comments voiced strong opposition to both the specific developments proposed and development in general in this area. • While not all opposition comments provided insight into the specific reasons for opposition to development on the western bank, they generally reflect four major themes: environmental concerns, economic concerns, historic and cultural concerns, and concerns about the character of New Hanover County. • The ecological impact of development on the western bank was the most common concern. Comments mentioned flooding, habitat destruction, pollution, soil stability, brownfield remediation, and a desire for open/green space. The risk of flooding was a particular concern, with commentors referencing that properties were already flood-prone, that development could worsen the problem due to the removal of vegetation and pervious surfaces, and that changing water levels and storm intensity could render required flood mitigation efforts inadequate. Many commentors voiced a preference to leave the western bank parcels as “untouched, natural space.” • Economic concerns included roadway infrastructure capacity, taxpayer burden, and the affordability of proposed residential units. Some commentors also noted that the proposed developments would likely end up costing taxpayers and the county more than the property taxes they would generate due to the potential for weather-related damage to the property over time. • Opposition comments regarding historic and cultural concerns highlighted the significance of western bank properties for Gullah Geechee heritage, the potential archaeological resources located in the area, and the proximity to the U.S.S. Battleship North Carolina. • Comments also included concern about the possible negative impacts of the scale of development on the historic character of downtown Wilmington. Commentors asserted that proposed development would shift the economic focus from serving the needs of residents and local businesses to a more tourist- oriented economy that detracts from residents’ quality of life. Other commentors indicated a preference 15 to preserve the sunset views currently seen from downtown Wilmington, and many comments mentioned a desire to preserve the historic, small-town character of downtown. • The comments in support of development in this area focused on the projects’ improvement to the character of downtown Wilmington, comparison with other southeastern coastal cities, and the benefits that proposed developments would provide to the local economy. • Support comments noted that the western bank, particularly the northern bank, is currently characterized by abandoned industrial sites. These commentors believed that the proposed development would improve the site and overall character of downtown Wilmington and add significantly to the county’s tax base. • Supportive commentors also suggested that large scale development was necessary given the speed of New Hanover County’s growth and asserted that the proposed Villages at Battleship Point development would help to ease the increasing unaffordability of the Wilmington housing market by providing further options for middle to high income earners, freeing up more affordable units for low- to middle-income earners. • One neutral comment provided additional information on environmental concerns in the area; much of this information is reflected in this report. Changing Conditions Infrastructure Projects • Several planned transportation projects in the western bank vicinity could impact properties and future development in this area. For instance, additional right-of-way may be required, access provisions could be altered, and additional mitigation lands could be acquired. • NCDOT has identified an improvement to the Isabel Holmes Bridge interchange in the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), its scheduling and project-funding process. Project U-5731 would convert the existing signalized Isabel Holmes Bridge/Hwy 421 intersection to a flyover and free- flow ramp interchange. Based on a May 2021 NCDOT presentation to the WMPO Board, right-of-way for the project is scheduled to begin in 2024, and construction is expected to let in 2028. The project is estimated to take 3 years to complete. • Three additional improvements in the vicinity are included in the WMPO’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP): o The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement, which is currently anticipated to replace the 4-lane bridge with a 6-lane bridge with a 10-foot-wide multi-use path; o Improvements to the US 17/74/76 Causeway that would increase the number of lanes from 6 to 8, widen 3 bridges, and incorporate a 10-foot-wide multi-use path; and o A widening of US 421/US 74/NC 133 to provide an additional 12-foot westbound lane from the existing ramp to east of Brunswick River, which would include the widening of the Alligator Creek Bridge. None of these projects are currently funded. • The City of Wilmington’s Rail Realignment project would replace and improve the existing freight rail route between Navassa (Davis) Yard and the Port of Wilmington by creating a new, shorter route that no longer runs through some of Wilmington’s busiest streets and most densely populated areas. The project proposes 6 build alternatives, all of which share a common route over the Cape Fear River south of the existing Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and all six run north along the western side of the US 421. The preferred alternative would not directly impact the study area. Project staff are currently in the process of securing NEPA documents, which is expected to be complete in November. 16 Changing Waterline • Based on the 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report (produced by NOAA, NASA, US EPA, USGS, FEMA, Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Defense, Rutgers University and The FIU Institute of Environment), the Wilmington area is expected by 2050 to have sea levels rise ranging from 11.5 inches to 1 foot 7 inches. By 2100, the models predict sea levels to rise by a range of 2.17 feet to just over 6.6 feet. • Sea level rise is especially important given the effects it will have when other natural hazard events occur, such as hurricanes, severe rain events, and higher than normal high tides that are already cause for concern. • Living shorelines, protected and stabilized shorelines made of natural materials, could provide a natural alternative to stabilization methods like rip rap or bulkheads. According to NOAA, research indicates that living shorelines are more resilient than bulkheads in protecting against the effects of hurricanes. • Living shorelines can also improve water quality, provide fisheries habitats, increase biodiversity, and promote recreation. • Due to the rate of flow of the river and rising waters, living shorelines may be less effective in the study area and would need to be studied further. Municipal Annexations • The parcels in the study area are located so as to be eligible for voluntary municipal annexation, and the owners of the Point Peter parcel have already applied for voluntary annexation to the Town of Leland. • In North Carolina, there are three methods outlined in the statutes for municipal annexation, the process by which a piece of property becomes part of a town or city. These three methods include voluntary annexation of contiguous areas; voluntary annexation of noncontiguous areas (also known as satellite annexation); and involuntary annexation of contiguous areas, which requires urban development standards, mandatory service provisions, and a referendum requiring approval by a majority of voters in the area to be annexed. The General Assembly also retains the power to annex land to a city, and only they have the authority to deannex properties. • Based on conversations with Town of Leland staff, the proposed voluntary annexation of the Point Peter property would meet the statutory requirements in 160A-31 for a contiguous annexation because it is only separated from property within the Town of Leland’s corporate limits by state land and a waterway. If it were not considered contiguous, Leland would not be able to annex the property without an annexation agreement with the City of Wilmington, as its primary corporate limits are closer to the parcel than Leland’s. A noncontiguous annexation would also require that Leland be able to provide the same services within the proposed satellite corporate limits that it provides within its primary corporate limits. That is not explicitly required for a contiguous annexation. • On March 17, 2022, the Leland Council voted to direct the town clerk to investigate the petition for voluntary annexation, a procedural requirement. On March 22, the Leland Planning Board recommended approval of a proposed text amendment to create a Riverfront Urban Mixed-Use zoning district that would only apply to properties located between the Thomas Rhodes and Isabel Holmes bridges and an initial zoning recommendation in connection with the proposed voluntary annexation. The Leland Planning Board had continued the text amendment request from its February meeting. 17 Figure 4 Selection from Town of Leland Zoning Map Town of Leland Corporate Limits Peter’s Point Property Land owned by NHC Soil & Water in Town of Leland Corporate Limits NCDOT Mitigation Land Appendix A: Construction Techniques for Flood-Prone Places A - 1 Appendix A: Construction Techniques for Flood-Prone Places Development in flood prone areas takes foresight and creativity to prevent recurring loss to both residential and commercial properties. Creative architectural and construction techniques are cost effective over the long term and can save lives in flooding events. Techniques designed to mitigate floodwater damage can be incorporated both in the original design of new buildings, and as an alteration or refurbishment of existing developments. Developers can also use resilient architecture to address dynamic climate situations. Resilient architecture refers to building designs that can be adapted to changing environments and using data from existing development to inform future development design. Resilient architecture also includes architecture that can be adapted ad hoc to unexpected changes. Developers intending to build in flood prone areas have two primary means for preventing loss of life and recurring damage resulting from flooding – dry proofing and wet proofing. Dry proofing encompasses a variety of techniques that aim to prevent water from reaching habitable and structures. Wet proofing refers to techniques that anticipate flooding, and design buildings that are intended to accommodate flooding to some degree. While architectural innovation is largely at the discretion of developers, it is possible to implement requirements of architectural features to mitigate flooding in development ordinances and zoning codes. Many of the solutions that are presented below can address the potential damage to structures due to flooding but it is important to note that they do not consider other severe weather conditions, like storm surge and high winds. Dry Proofing Techniques Levees, Floodwalls, and other Physical Geography Flood Mitigation Techniques • Levees and floodwalls can prevent flood water from reaching commercial and residential developments by redirecting floodwater away from areas of development. Both levees and floodwalls are expensive and have a lengthy construction and installation process and require regular maintenance to remain effective. Levees are pyramid shaped barriers that hold back floodwaters and storm surge. • Levee heights can be determined based on the needs of specific geography. Floodwalls are large man-made vertical walls, constructed out of durable materials and anchored into the ground to redirect floodwaters away from chosen areas. Floodwalls are more common than levees in more developed areas as they require less space. • Additionally, developers can grade lawns and surrounding land away from development, which can prevent or reduce the impact of flooding. This option is less viable for areas that are below base flood elevation or experience significant flooding. The above options potentially require large amount of soil and intensive construction in order to effectively reduce risk to residents’ safety and flood damage to structures. Appendix A: Construction Techniques for Flood-Prone Places A - 2 Materials • In addition to structural mitigation techniques, developers can also strategically select materials for buildings to better withstand both static and dynamic flooding. These materials include concrete, glazed brick, foam insulation, steel hardware, sealants, and marine grade plywood among others. • Materials need to be able to withstand not only initial flooding, but also ongoing high humidity. In countries that experience a variety of natural disasters like India, homes are designed to be easily assembled, broken down, and adapted. Such designs use materials like wood, which can be easily raised to accommodate unusually high floods. Elevation • One technique developers can use to develop both residential and commercial buildings in flood prone areas is elevating structures on stilts or columns to prevent flood water from reach habitable areas in buildings. In highly flood prone countries, developers build homes with water resistant and waterproof materials atop concrete stilts. Elevation structures can also serve a functional purpose including parking garage or storage. • In addition to the buildings themselves, developers can also use various techniques to elevate home systems including HVAC, plumbing, and electrical systems. By elevating structures and integral systems above anticipated flood levels, developers can reduce the expense associated with natural disasters like flooding and hurricanes. Appendix A: Construction Techniques for Flood-Prone Places A - 3 Wet Proofing Techniques Pontoons/Floating Foundations • In Australia, an innovative approach to flooding includes building structures on pontoon foundations attached to columns that are fixed into the ground. The pontoon foundation can rise with flood waters, and materials allow for water to drain in and out – protecting the habitable structure from water damage and reducing the need for evacuation of residents in flood events. Lower sections or living areas can be designed to withstand and accommodate flooding, while upstairs areas float above flood waters. This kind of approach can be customized to needs of areas based on the type of anticipated events and specific geography. Amphibious and Floating Houses • In Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia, developers focus on adapting to annual floods by combining buoyant foundations with light weight, easily replaceable building materials like bamboo. Bamboo stilts and foundations are waterproofed and cemented into the ground and this in combination with buoyant foundations allows buildings to experience flooding with minimal damage and repair cost. • Floating houses are also becoming increasingly popular in the Netherlands and even American cities like Portland. These homes provide an advantage for cities that are short on land by creating housing units on the water, supported by floating foundations. These types of homes also provide a creative solution to increased water levels resulting from climate change, as they can rise and fall freely with dynamic water levels. While these homes are an innovative solution to many problems, they do pose problems for affordability of housing units, as these floating homes are typically considerably more expensive than traditionally built homes of a comparable size. Image Source: Pontoon construction, Source ©James Davidson Architects Appendix A: Construction Techniques for Flood-Prone Places A - 4 Formosa UK • Along the River Thames, developers in the United Kingdom have implemented a creative technique to accommodate for flooding. In the Formosa housing development, architects have built homes with buoyant foundations and light weight materials inside of retaining units that extend below ground. The underground retaining units allow for flooding and the buoyant foundation of the home allows the home to float atop flood waters. Posts guide the building up as flooding fills the space underneath. Prior to floods, these retaining units can be drained and posts guide the home back to floor of the retaining unit. Citations Cao, L. (2021, August 20). How can architecture combat flooding? 9 practical solutions. ArchDaily. Retrieved March 18, 2022, from https://www.archdaily.com/940206/how-can-architecture- combat-flooding-9-practical-solutions Nagendran, A. N. K. R. (2021, May 29). Flood resistant construction techniques used around the world - RTF: Rethinking the future. RTF | Rethinking The Future. Retrieved March 18, 2022, from https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/designing-for-typologies/a4171-flood-resistant- construction-techniques-used-around-the-world/ Image Source: ©Baca Architects Appendix B: Best Practices – Case Studies in Riverine Development B - 1 Appendix B: Best Practices— Case Studies in Riverine Development Historically, sites along rivers were prime locations for industry and port uses. Over time, uses have transitioned and introduced residential and mixed-uses along the water. Many coastal and riverfront communities are establishing regulations that allow developments to occur while reducing risk of the impact of severe storms, increased river discharge, and sea level rise. Case study communities were selected to showcase examples of regulations and policies that have been applied along riverfront communities to guide investment and development. Communities chosen share similar features with New Hanover County. Each case study includes population and background information, existing conditions, and riverfront actions and policies. Communities include: · Annapolis, Maryland · Augusta, Georgia/North Augusta, South Carolina · Charleston, South Carolina · Norfolk, Virginia · Savannah, Georgia Appendix B: Best Practices – Case Studies in Riverine Development B - 2 Annapolis, Maryland City Profile Annapolis is located along the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland between the South and Severn Rivers. The city was incorporated in 1708 and recorded a population of 40,812 in the 2020 Census. Annapolis lies generally east of Washington D.C. and Baltimore and forms part of a larger metropolitan area with these cities. The Annapolis economy is largely based on the presence of the US Naval Academy in addition to maritime, cybersecurity, technology, professional and business services. Tourism plays a large role in the economy, particularly in the downtown waterfront areas. Southwest of the Severn River, four separate creeks traverse through the city, forming several different waterfront areas. Except for the Naval Academy, the predominant land uses along these creeks and the Severn River contain residential, maritime, and tourism related uses. The zoning of the waterfront areas of Annapolis varies along the different creeks that traverse the city from the Severn River. In general, these waterfront areas contain a mix of districts that allow residential, maritime, and commercial uses related to tourism and professional activities. Certain districts within the historic core of Annapolis are further designated with a conservation residential or commercial district in order to preserve the historic nature of structures. Industrial zoning is limited to the eastern shore of Back Creek with a Maritime Industrial District; this district is intended to provide a location for land intensive maritime and accessory uses which require, or clearly benefit from, a waterfront location, such as marinas, boat sales, services, and storage. Special Flood Hazard Areas are generally located along the immediate shoreline of the town’s creeks and Severn River, with some limited areas that are subject to a .2% annual flooding chance further inland from the shorelines. Appendix B: Best Practices – Case Studies in Riverine Development B - 3 The draft 2040 Future Land Use Map for Annapolis is parcel specific, and the waterfront properties are coded with a range of land uses including Residential, Institutional, Maritime, and Recreational Enhancement. Analysis of aerial imagery concludes that a vast majority of waterfront properties are built-out with a land use pattern that reflects both the zoning and future land use designations. Riverfront Development Actions and Policies Efforts regarding the protection and enhancement of the natural environment in Annapolis are generally the responsibility of the Office of Environmental Policy. Such efforts include, but are not limited to, floodplain management, environmental grants, environmental policies and initiatives, stormwater management, and initiatives addressing resiliency and sustainability. The city has undertaken several initiatives in recent years to address topics related to development on or near waterfront areas. In 2018, Annapolis adopted the Weather It Together Cultural Resources Hazard Mitigation Plan (CRHMP). This plan used a community‐based approach to hazard mitigation planning to support a more resilient and sustainable historic downtown for the near-term threats of tidal flooding and natural disasters and for the longer‐term inevitability of sea level rise. Annapolis has also established a Working Waterfront Awareness Program. Using its maritime zoning districts as the basis for the program, this effort works to enhance and promote the city’s maritime industry from development pressures by providing assistance with networking and marketing, helping organize and coordinate promotion of the industry, and providing better customer service from a City standpoint to this important industry. The city initiated a Sea Level Rise study for the Eastport and City Dock areas in 2012 in order to identify options to mitigate flooding events in this area of the city. Similarly, other agencies have performed Sea Level Rise analyses for Annapolis including a study performed by Stanford University (2017) and NASA in 2020 as areas of the city are subject to high-tide flooding. Appendix B: Best Practices – Case Studies in Riverine Development B - 4 Augusta City Profile Augusta is located on the eastern border of Georgia along the Savannah River, which acts as the border between Georgia and South Carolina (North Augusta). The city was founded in 1736 and later consolidated in 1995 with Richmond County. Augusta-Richmond has a population of 200,000. Fort Gordon, a US Army Garrison, is also located within Richmond County but is not included in the population total for Augusta- Richmond. Augusta is the principal city of the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) that includes Richmond, Burke, Columbia, Lincoln, and McDuffie Counties in Georgia, and Aiken and Edgefield Counties in South Carolina. The MSA has a population of just over 600,000. Historically, Augusta’s economy was based on the production of textiles, gunpowder, and paper due to the construction of the Augusta Canal and access to the Savannah River. Built in 1845, the canal became a major manufacturing center in the American South and remained through the American Civil War until the mid-20th Century. Major flooding in Augusta during the 1920s and 1930s resulted in attempts to make improvements, including raising the banks along the canal and Savannah River and building a spillway however, due to neglect, mills and other industrial facilities began to close. Today, Augusta’s three largest employers include the Savannah River Site for nuclear energy, the U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence at Fort Gordon, and Augusta University and University Hospital system. Manufacturing and industry such as chemical manufacturing, biomanufacturing, and mining also make up some of the larger employers in the city. Originally adopted in 1963, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta has been amended many times over the years with the latest in April 2020. The zoning along the Savannah River includes districts that allow for uses generally associated with light to heavy industry, retail and commercial, single family detached and attached residential, and agricultural. Much of the “vacant” land along the river is zoned for lighter industrial uses or agricultural. In addition to the zoning districts, there is the Savannah River Protection overly district which limits the use and protects existing natural vegetation within 100 feet of the riverbank. Augusta, Georgia / North Augusta, South Carolina Appendix B: Best Practices – Case Studies in Riverine Development B - 5 North Augusta City Profile Incorporated in 1906, North Augusta (formerly Hamburg, pre-civil war) is within the counties of Aiken and Edgefield located along South Carolina’s eastern boarder with Georgia on the Savannah River. Upon the commissioning of the Savannah River Plant in 1951, North Augusta went from a size of 772 acres to 5,139 acres and saw the population quadruple. The current population of North Augusta is about 24,400 and is part of the Augusta MSA. North Augusta is home to the discovery to the neutrino by Fred Reines and Clyde Cowan. Historically, North Augusta’s economy began as a major trade center with Native Americans and flourished later with the creation of the Charleston to Hamburg Railroad, shipping agricultural products such as cotton and tobacco. However, competition across the river made it difficult for North Augusta to thrive after the completion of the Augusta Canal which diverted the rivers’ commerce into Augusta. Additionally, with the extension of the Charleston Railroad in 1852, which included the Columbia and Greenville railroads, Hamburg was no longer needed as a shipping hub and saw a sharp decline prior to the Civil War. It was not until the commissioning of Savannah River Site by the U.S. Department of Energy in the 1950’s that gave North Augusta a major leap in population and economic growth. The nuclear facilities site discontinued the production for nuclear materials in 1988. Today, North Augusta’s economy and employment comes from a variety of sectors including retail/trade, healthcare and social assistance, and manufacturing. North Augusta has implemented a future land use plan and zoning districts to deter intense uses away from the Savannah River. The future land use calls for mixed use along the river across from Augusta with a public greenway directly adjacent to the river to act as a buffer. Open space and single family residential are envisioned north of the central area with single family envisioned south of the central area. Augusta Tomorrow (Joint Augusta/N. Augusta Master Plan) Completed in 2009, the Augusta Tomorrow joint Augusta and North Augusta master plan was a planning process to merge the vision for development along the Savannah River and to link the two cities. Since then, well over half of the projects identified in the master plan have been completed which include the redevelopment of buildings for residential and commercial use, public facilities projects such as the riverwalk along the Savannah River, cultural arts projects, and transportation projects. The master plan also includes large scale development ideas and calls for a River Management Plan to protect the Savannah River. Appendix B: Best Practices – Case Studies in Riverine Development B - 6 Riverfront Development Actions and Policies The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDRN) while not a regulatory agency, manages, protects and enhances wildlife, fisheries, and marine resources for the State by reviewing various water quality and other natural resource projects and permits. It also participates in programs such as the National Flood Insurance Program through its Flood Mitigation Program to reduce risks associated with special flood hazard areas. While no statewide regulations exist to protect river corridors like in Augusta, Georgia, North Augusta and Aiken County have taken it upon themselves to adopt stormwater standards while expanding on state flood prevention standards. In addition to including flood prevention standards and stormwater management, which includes design and water quality standards, Aiken County has adopted a Hazard Mitigation Plan that calls for the identification of flood prone areas and necessary improvements for drainage and flood mitigation. However, this mitigation action has a low priority and from funding grant sources is needed. Augusta FEMA Flood Zones Appendix B: Best Practices – Case Studies in Riverine Development B - 7 Charleston, SC City Profile The City of Charleston lies just south of the geographical midpoint of South Carolina's coastline on Charleston Harbor, an inlet of the Atlantic Ocean formed by the confluence of the Ashley, Cooper, and Wando rivers. The city was incorporated in 1783 and recorded a population of 150,277 in the 2020 Census. Separated from Charleston by the Cooper River lies Mount Pleasant. It is the fourth largest municipality and largest town in South Carolina, and for several years was one of the state's fastest-growing areas, doubling in population between 1990 and 2000 following Hurricane Hugo. The estimated population in 2019 was 91,684. Charleston’s significance in history is tied to its role as a major slave trading port. Presently, the economy is largely based on art and tourism. Commercial shipping is important to the economy, and Charleston is becoming a popular location for IT jobs and corporations. The western portion of riverfront areas on the peninsula, along the Ashley River, are currently zoned to accommodate residential with a small amount of conservation and mixed-use. Along the eastern portion of the peninsula on the Cooper River, facing Mount Pleasant, properties are zoned a mix of high and low industrial and business uses. On West Ashley, along the Ashley River, properties are zoned residential and conservation. Appendix B: Best Practices – Case Studies in Riverine Development B - 8 Riverfront Development Actions and Policies In the 1970s, tidal flooding in Charleston averaged twice per year. By 2045, tidal flooding is projected to strike up to 180 times yearly. Charleston has undertaken several studies and plans over the past decade to guide development and planning strategies. The city’s original sea level rise strategy was adopted in 2015, but in 2019 Charleston officials upped the elevation guidance on new, city-owned buildings and infrastructure by one-half foot. Charleston’s stricter elevation guidance—from 1.5/2.0 feet to 2.0/3.0 feet—appeared in the second edition of Charleston’s Flooding and Sea Level Rise Strategy and reflect the greater probability of intensified sea level rise by 2070. Less vulnerable new infrastructure, such as parking lots, would be elevated by two feet. Long-term critical infrastruc- ture, such as medical facilities, would be elevated by three feet. The Charleston strategy aims to prepare the city for the next 50 years. Dutch Dialogues Charleston was finalized in September 2019 as a pathway to resilience and reduced flooding while maintaining the identify and history of the community. The Dutch Dialogues do not produce project lists or engineering plans but pathways and principles to inform planning, engineering and investment. As part of the US Army Corps of Engineers’ disaster recovery efforts, a 3 x 3 Peninsula Flood Risk Management study is currently underway. Appendix B: Best Practices – Case Studies in Riverine Development B - 9 Norfolk, Virginia City Profile Norfolk is located in the southeastern Tidewater region of Virginia along the northern branch of the Elizabeth River. The city was incorporated in 1705 and recorded a population of 238,005 in the 2020 Census. Norfolk is a central municipality within a larger metropolitan area at the southern end of the Chesapeake Bay consisting of Newport News, Hampton, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach. Norfolk’s economy is largely based on the presence of Naval Station Norfolk and the Port of Virginia, and the riverfront areas are developed with several related land-uses. Closer to the central business district, riverfront uses are more related to tourism, civic, and recreational land uses. The riverfront areas of Norfolk are currently zoned largely to accommodate military and industrial uses northwest of the central business district as well as on the southern side of the Elizabeth River across the central business district. Riverfront areas closest to the central business district are zoned to accommodate outdoor recreation opportunities, shoreline access and views, and connections to a wide range of intensive multi-family, commercial, civic, institutional, and office uses. A mix of lighter industrial and suburban zoning districts are found along other areas of the riverfront. Properties adjacent to the Elizabeth River are coded with a range of Future Land Use Classifications. Prominent facilities such as military bases and ports are designated Military and Utility/Transportation, respectively, to mirror those existing land uses. The central business district is classified as Downtown, while on the south bank of the Elizabeth River, properties are largely classified as Industrial, Multi-Family, or Commercial. Throughout the city there are some waterfront areas classified as Residential where the typical land use pattern is comprised of established residential areas. Analysis of aerial imagery concludes that a vast majority of waterfront properties are built-out with a land use pattern that reflects both the zoning and future land use designations. Appendix B: Best Practices – Case Studies in Riverine Development B - 10 Special Flood Hazard Areas in Norfolk are considerable in areas adjacent to the Elizabeth River and the Lafa- yette River and its tributaries which traverse through the center of the city. Some areas closer to these water bodies are designated under an AE zone for several blocks from the water body itself, with additional areas further inland having a .2% annual chance of incurring a flood event. Near the central business district, several main transportation facilities and structures are located within Special Flood Hazard Areas. Riverfront Development Actions and Policies Norfolk has established an Office of Resiliency and adopted the Norfolk Resiliency Strategy, which outlines three overarching goals with supporting strategies in order to promote resilience and address environmental challenges. In 2015, Norfolk conducted a Dutch Dialogues effort, which has been used in many cities internationally to identify ways to integrate flood risk mitigation, engineering, spatial planning, urban design, environmental restoration, community amenities, and economic development. Norfolk’s comprehensive land use plan, plaNorfolk 2030, was adopted in 2013 and contains chapters supporting both economic development and environmental sustainability, in addition to specific area plans. As Norfolk has identified that it is subject to flooding from heavy precipitation, storms, and tidal variations, the city has several public outreach efforts addressing flood mitigation. These generally include efforts to educate and improve storm water management, erosion and sediment control, drainage system maintenance, public education, code enforcement and emergency preparedness. Appendix B: Best Practices – Case Studies in Riverine Development B - 11 Savannah, Georgia City Profile Savannah is located along the Southeastern coast of Georgia in Chatham County, bordered to the north by the Savannah River. Savannah was originally incorporated in 1789 and the city’s current population is approximately 145,403 residents. Savannah is the largest and most developed city in Southeastern, GA. Major industries include advanced manufacturing, entertainment production, marine, tourism and hospitality, and aerospace. Current zoning and development along the southern bank of the Savannah River includes light and heavy industrial (I-L, I-H), downtown central business district (DCBD), downtown commercial (DCS), and downtown residential (D-R). The southern bank of the Savannah River is home to historic downtown Savannah, which is largely built out. The areas surrounding either side of historic downtown are currently being used for industrial purposes. Directly across from historic downtown Savannah is Hutchinson Island, a partially developed island approximately seven miles long and one mile wide at its widest point. Hutchinson Island falls under the jurisdiction of both the city and county with the area immediately across from historic downtown and eastern section of the island in the city’s jurisdiction, and the western sections of the island primarily in the county’s jurisdiction. Previously, the entirety of Hutchinson Island was in the county’s jurisdiction, however portions of the island were annexed into the city in 2019 to allow for further development. Hutchinson Island is currently zoned for planned development (PD), downtown expansion (DX), and heavy industrial (I-H). Existing development on Hutchinson Island includes a golf course and resort, convention center, and a residential subdivision. Major infrastructure within the city of Savannah includes I-16, I-516, and state route 17 which connects Savannah with Hutchinson Island and South Carolina to the North via the Talmadge Bridge. Hutchinson Island is accessible by car and ferry routes that connect it to historic downtown Savannah. Existing bus routes do not provide access to Hutchinson Island. Appendix B: Best Practices – Case Studies in Riverine Development B - 12 Riverfront Development Actions and Policies Savannah recently implemented a new comprehensive plan in partnership with Chatham County and other jurisdictions in the county’s boundary (Plan 2040). According to this plan, Hutchinson Island is designated as a growth area due to existing public infrastructure investment. According to Plan 2040, Hutchinson Island is primarily designated on the northeastern side as suburban residential (single family homes on large / medium lots), and on the southeastern side as urban transitional (attached and detached residential with commercial, civic, and industrial uses). The western side of the island is primarily designated as Industrial with the far Western side designated as environmentally sensitive. As recently as July of 2021, there has been development activity on a large 27-acre parcel on Hutchinson Island, with a developer planning to complete a large-scale multi-use development with housing, lodging, retail, public waterfront, marina, and a medical complex. The development includes an agreement for public funding of infrastructure involved in the project. Existing zoning on Hutchinson Island does seem to reflect the comprehensive land use plan. An older single family residential development project on the island has been stalled—with the majority of lots included in that project remaining unimproved. There are also plans in place, and funding approved, to expand the existing Savannah Convention Center, which is owned by the State of Georgia. In 2015, the City of Savannah created the West Downtown Urban Redevelopment Plan to target and redevelop blighted areas of the city. One of the areas identified in this plan includes parcels along the Savannah River (North Segment). While this area is currently characterized by urban blight and industrial uses, the West Downtown Urban Redevelopment plan identifies these sites as areas that should focus on redevelopment for mixed-use. According to the City of Savannah’s Repetitive Loss Area Analysis, the majority of riverfront downtown and Hutchinson Island are not in repetitive loss areas. C - 1 C - 2 C - 3 C - 4 C - 5 C - 6 Appendix D: Additional Information D - 1 Appendix D: Additional Information Context Land Use History • Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission Prior Plans & Policies for Study Area • Wilmington Downtown Vision 2020 • Cape Fear River Corridor Plan • 2016 New Hanover County Comprehensive Plan • Eagles Island, A History of a Landscape—2011 • Eagles Island Conservation Management Plan—2015 • Eagles Island Nature Park—2021 Environmental Features • North Carolina Natural Heritage Program • Natural Heritage Areas • Interagency Sea Level Rise Scenario Tool based on the recently released 2022 technical report (updated Sweet 2017 report) (NASA Sea Level Change Observations from Space) • NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer v 3.0.0 uses 2018 data (based on origin data from 2015). Updates came via new Lidar data and National Land Cover data. • 2017 Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States • NOAA Wilmington Tidal Gauge at the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge • DEQ Brownfields Infrastructure • New Hanover County Stormwater Ordinance • New Hanover County Stormwater Design Manual • Cape Fear Moving Forward 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan • Cape Fear Moving Forward 2045 MTP Technical Appendix • NCDOT 2020-2029 Current STIP (Updated March 2022) • City of Wilmington Rail Realignment