After listening to strong opinions expressed by town residents during a public hearing Thursday, Jan. 8, the Wrightsville Beach Board of Aldermen unanimously voted down a text amendment allowing planning staff to accept applications for mixed-use projects greater than 40 feet tall.
Eight residents spoke against the amendment, saying removing the height requirement would invite the construction of buildings that would change the town’s unique family atmosphere.
Although director of planning and parks Tony Wilson pointed out the amendment would merely allow more projects to be considered, not actually constructed, citizens worried where such allowances might lead.
“We don’t want to be Carolina Beach or Myrtle Beach,” Charlotte Murchison said. “One of the glories of this beach is we keep it a community area without high-rises. … This puts a chink in the wall and it’s going to snowball.”
Alderwoman Elizabeth King questioned the purpose of allowing applications to be accepted by planning staff only to be denied by the town boards.
“I cannot agree with accepting a project to look at when we know we’re not actually going to accept it because of a height limit,” she said. “I think that’s a waste of time and money.”
Overall density on the island was another concern of citizens.
“We can barely handle the traffic we have now,” Murchison said. “Residents that live here can’t park their own family cars on the weekends sometimes.”
Resident Neal Briggi acknowledged it was necessary to address the future of development at the beach, but said a more comprehensive approach was needed to address multiple issues, not just height.
“With the realities of FEMA [regulations] and vacant or declining mixed-use parcels . . . it isn’t going to get better,” he said. “But changing the ordinance tonight doesn’t really deal with the issue.”
Wrightsville Beach Chamber of Commerce chair Sue Bulluck expressed similar concerns as she spoke in favor of adjusting the 40-foot limit, saying it was necessary because of changes to the FEMA building regulations and the town’s scale for measuring structures.
Bulluck said the 40-foot height limit was originally put in place to allow structures four usable floors. Under FEMA’s new regulations, however, a 40-foot structure has only three usable floors.
The town’s scale for measuring building height has also changed, she added. When the 40-foot requirement was created, structures were measured from the height of the nearest fire hydrant. Then, the town began measuring from street level, so existing 40-foot buildings instantly became nonconforming structures at 42 or 43 feet.
One of Bulluck’s main concerns is how the town would rebuild these noncompliant structures in the commercial districts in the event of a catastrophic storm. The current height regulation would not allow the buildings to be constructed as they are now.
After hearing the citizens’ input, the aldermen offered their own opinions. They all opposed the text amendment, saying the town needed a broader, more long-term solution taking into consideration whether residents even wanted mixed-use development at the beach.
“We’re starting to see that trend of going down a path of losing what little business we have on the beach,” Alderwoman Lisa Weeks said. “Instead of something like this, I would much rather see a comprehensive plan … to sit down and figure out what’s best for the beach … instead of just putting a Band-Aid on it.”
email [email protected]
We now live in a city with a 40′ height limit, but we’re considering moving to a Wrightsville Beach property we own. Since we are considering having the house raised to help prevent flood damage, as have most other home-owners in our neighborhood, I’m surprised that the WB Aldermen didn’t take floods into consideration when deciding height limits. While a 40′ limit makes sense is areas not concerned about flooding, is that limit reasonable in WB?