1. CONSERVATION ISSUE

The County has only 3,235 acres zoned as Conservation, C-1, out of a total acreage of 124,416. 2.6% of land zoned “Conservation” is very low for a county that has over 500 miles of waterfront, much of which needs protection.

The special exceptions request for the proposed Bluff Point PUD, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan's guidelines for development in these areas; and is inconsistent with the Board of Supervisors' (BOS) two unanimous land use decisions in 2007. The Developer would locate 300+ homes, condominiums, a hotel, 90 slip inland marina on Barnes Creek, a Bay Club, shops, and a chapel on conservation-zoned (C-l) land, that is located in the "rural low shelf" and "shoreline conservation area".

In April 2007, the BOS agreed to protect the County's conservation (C-l) zoned land from over-development as part of the successful effort to forestall a disadvantageous sale of Camp Kittamaqund to a developer.

In May 2007, the BOS unanimously denied a request for a 288-unit cluster housing development on 144 acres near Bluff Point, because, it was "not the right property for the request."

NAPS believes that the Bluff Point proposed PUD is also: "not the right property for the request."

Simply, the proposed development will NOT:

            •  “Improve environmental quality in Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries” because it will remove productive Conservation land from the inventory of preserved areas;

            •  “Foster and preserve Northumberland County’s unique quality of life” since it will substitute hotels and high density housing in an area designated for unique low density conservation areas;

            •  “Promote responsible land use policies …” by putting residences and structures in harm’s way from storms and by replacing conservation areas with parking lots.

Granting the Developer’s request would set a bad precedent regarding the County’s support for conservation and the willingness to protect the remaining small acreage in the County identified as C-1.

2. FLOOD LIABILITY ISSUE

The County Subdivision Ordinance, §128-17 Land must be suitable and § 128-18 Building site require the Subdivision Agent to make certain determinations. The important one is to “demonstrate the land to be completely free of the danger of floodwaters.”

Around the world, as well as in the U.S. coastal communities are concerned about sea level rise from climate change. There are many reports available on their mitigation activities. One reaction is to take action to limit the liability of the local government to claims arising from their approval of construction in areas increasingly prone to rising waters and storm surge. These actions have taken the form of restricting construction in threatened areas.

Several reports have been published directed toward audiences such as the BOS warning of the forecast extent and impact of sea level rise in the Chesapeake Bay and related storm surge levels. The Governor’s Commission on Climate Change, in their December 2008 report recommended that: “ the local governments should revise zoning and permitting ordinances to require projected climate change impacts be addressed in order to minimize threats to life, property, and public infrastructure and to ensure consistency with state and local climate change adaptation plans.”

Further, the Report stated: “State and local agencies should establish policies such as rolling easements, tax incentives, or mandatory setbacks to discourage new development in vulnerable coastal areas.” These recommendations were initiated by VIMS and the Chesapeake Bay Program scientists. Similar recommendations exist in various recent U.S. Government reports that include analysis of sea level and storm surge impacts on the East Coast and the Chesapeake Bay.

The lifetime of the projected development is within the period where the Bay average level is expected to rise over two feet. The County may be liable for allowing construction in an area that is obviously at risk and where there is a very high probability that a storm surge combined with the constant sea level rise causes major damage to property on Bluff Point. The storm surge that occurred during Hurricane Isabel reached 8 feet in height and the winds at the time were less than hurricane force level. There is no reason to believe this kind of event will not be repeated.

County approval of the proposed development implies the development meets the criteria that the land is “completely free of the danger of floodwaters”.

NAPS does not have any objections to a PUD, in fact the concept is very attractive on an appropriate site as a way to minimize environmental impact. Our objection is to the location of this particular PUD. We recommend the BOS not approve any increased density development on the areas zoned Conservation C-1 and make it crystal clear to taxpayers that they will not be liable for flooding events that are certain.

 

Conservation Area and Storm Surge Problems