CRC Meeting Proceedings, Continued

Petitioner's Position

Allen O'Neal, New Hanover County Manager, stated the issues in this matter were complex and the consequences of the Commission's decision were significant.

Problems With the Intial Development Permit

Mr. O'Neal reported a minor CAMA was issued for the construction of the 169 unit resort hotel in May of 1985.

Mr. O'Neal stated the CAMA permit, unfortunately, was erroneosly issued in violation of CAMA regulations.

Mr. O'Neal advised the circumstances of the error were that the CRC in 1981 adopted Priddy and Carraway maps as the official inlet hazard AEC maps.

Mr. O'Neal said the Priddy and Carraway map for Mason's Inlet showed the inlet hazard AEC to be roughly 3,200 feet south of where the inlet was.

Mr. O'Neal stated that a 1984 map was provided to the Town of Wrightsville Beach by the Division of Coastal Management to show the inlet hazard AEC for Maon's Inlet.

Dave Weaver showed the Commission the two maps.

Mr. Weaver advised that, unfortunately, the map sent to the Town of Wrightsville Beach to make its permit decisions indicated that the inlet hazard AEC was much farther north than it was in reality.

Mr. O'Neal reiterated that the 1984 map showed Mason's Inlet hazard area to be approximately 3,000 feet north of the real boundary delineated on the official 1981 map.

Mr. O'Neal stated the resort hotel was located within the official inlet hazard AEC boundary but not within the inlet hazard AEC boundary shown on the 1984 map.

Mr. O'Neal said that at the time the permit was issued, the CAMA regulations allowed residential structures with only two units or less in the inlet hazard AECs.

Mr. O'Neal stated that Shell Island Resort had 169 units.

He said the hotel was obviousily permitted in 1985 in violation of the CAMA regulations for inlet hazard AECs.

Mr. O'Neal advised the hotel should not have been permitted to be constructed within the inlet hazard area but since it was the Petitioners were requesting the CRC allow them to protect Shell Island due to the unfortunate error made by the State.

Mr. O'Neal stated the Petitioners did not wish to assess blame for the mistake in issuance of the permit. He said they sought only to remedy this mistake which had not been the fault of the developer.

Requested Variance From Sandbag Regulations

Mr. O'Neal advised the petitioners were also seeking a variance specifically from the existing sandbag regulations because the resort could not be moved and because there were really no other pratical options.

Mr. O'Neal stated the Petitioners sought to construct a sandbag revetment which would provise a level of temporary protection for the five year period allowed for protection of oceanfront property.

Mr. O'Neal noted that the current proposed sandbag revetment in comparison to the design in their first variance request was 1/2 the volume, over 100 feet shorter and used sandbag tubes which were less than 1/2 the size.

Mr. O'Neal sated the Petitioners had significantly reduced the scale of the sandbag revetment even though the reduction in scale would reduce its effectiveness and would require considerable more maintenance over the five year period.

Mr. O'Neal advised the Petioners had reduced the scale in an effort to meet the Commissioner's earlier concerns.

Engineer's Design for the Sandbag Revetment

Mr. O'Neal introduced Karyn Erickson ATM advising that Ms. Erikson would discuss the design of the proposed sandbag revetment.

Ms. Erikson stated she was a Registered Professional Engineer in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida. Ms. Erikson stated she would provide a brief overview of the project design features.

Ms. Erikson reported the purpose of this project was to stabilize the south bank which had migrated very rapidly towards the south.

Ms. Erikson advised they had migration rates which ranged from 185 feet to 450 feet since 1989.

Ms. Erikson stated the purpose of this project was to stabilize the south channel back as the inlet migrated up against Shell Island Resort and the Town of Wrightsville Beach.

She said the project was designed to minimize the impacts and scouring at the base of the structure and onto the adjacent land.

Ms. Erikson advised this structure was "user friendly" and would allow recreational use in this area which currently received a lot of use for beach and inlet activities.

Ms. Erikson stated the project was designed to withstand the weight of the tide forces as the inlet migrated to the south and to provide protection for high frequency storm events.

Ms. Erikson said it was anticipated that the structure would have a design life of three to five years.

Ms. Erikson advised the structure was 345 feet in length and approximately 50 feet at the ocean terminus.

Ms. Erikson stated the structure was configured in a stair-step manner with tubes placed one layer above the next and then reviewed the alignment and dimensions of the structure.

Ms. Erikson advised that the location of the structure had been proposed to be moved towards the building by approximately an average of 50 feet. She stated that, at that point, the corner of the seaward of the structure would be 25 feet from the building.