Beach nourishment is in the forefront of the Town Council’s meeting Tuesday, at 10 a.m., as coastal engineering consultant Ken Willson returns to present the results of the latest Southern Shores beach monitoring and the Council decides whether to contract for pre-construction services for a 2027 renourishment project, which it has yet to approve.

The meeting will be held in the Pitts Center. You may access the meeting agenda and packet of materials here:

https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/soshoresnc-pubu/MEET-Packet-777fb80cbab347d387ecd2c94ce0b7cd.pdf

Also on the meeting agenda are:

• Town Manager Cliff Ogburn’s presentation of the details of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Grant awarded by the N.C. Dept. of Transportation;
• Continued discussion among Council members of setback reductions for auxiliary structures, as requested by Mayor Pro Tem Matt Neal; and
• Consideration by the Council of term limits for Planning Board members, also requested by Mr. Neal.

BEACH MONITORING

The beach monitoring report by Mr. Willson’s firm, Coastal Protection Engineering (CPE), is not in the meeting packet, for the public to peruse, as is customarily the case. If Mr. Willson does not give the extensive report to the Council until Tuesday, members will not have time to analyze it in any detail.

It is well known that the Outer Banks beaches have their greatest sand volume (accumulation)—a key measurement of a beach’s condition—during the summer months, peaking in July and August. This is because of strong seasonal wind patterns that push sand from the bottom of the ocean onto the beaches.  

Last year’s beach monitoring project revealed that the sand volume on the Southern Shores beaches had increased far beyond anyone’s expectations.

“We have more sand on the beach today,” Mr. Willson told the Town Council at its Aug. 5, 2025 meeting, “than we did at the completion” of the beach nourishment project three years ago.

According to Mr. Willson, the “cumulative” naturally gained sand volume on the Southern Shores beaches—discounting any effect from the beach nourishment the Town performed in 2022—“is greater than what we had intended to place there in 2022.”

(See The Beacon, 8/24/25; see also, The Beacon, 12/19/23: “Southern Shores Beaches Gain Nearly 400,000 Cubic Yards in Sand in Past Year—From Natural Accretion, Not Beach Nourishment, Consultant Tells Town Council.”)

CPE moved its usual June monitoring to the springtime this year in order to provide the Council with data before it decides whether to go forward with renourishment next year.

The Council, thus, will not know on Tuesday what the Southern Shores beaches’ peak condition will be this summer. This is an unfortunate disadvantage.

SETBACK REDUCTION CONT.

The Town Council voted 4-1 at its June meeting to reject a five-foot reduction in the minimum side- and rear-yard setbacks in the RS-1 residential district for the placement of pool and mechanical equipment, generators, and 144-square-foot accessory structures.

Mr. Neal, a homebuilder, cast the dissenting vote.

The Council’s vote on Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 26-04 meant that setbacks in the primary residential district of Southern Shores (RS-1) would remain 15 feet for the side-yard and 25 feet for the rear-yard.

The Beacon extensively reported on action taken in the Planning Board and the Town Council on the proposed setback reduction, which was supported by local builders.

(See The Beacon, 6/8/26, for a summary.)

ZTA 26-04 grew out of ZTA 26-01, which was submitted in March by a local general contractor who sought a reduction in the setback minimums so he could use a pool cabana that, as mistakenly constructed, infringed upon a setback by eight inches. The contractor ultimately withdrew his application when he learned that the Town Council planned to enact an “honest mistake” exception to setbacks.

The honest mistake exception, drafted as ZTA 26-03 and passed unanimously by the Town Council last month, allows the Zoning Administrator—Wes Haskett, the Town’s Deputy Managing Editor/Planning Director—to approve up to a 10 percent reduction in “minimum yard requirements” when a good-faith, “honest mistake” by a builder has occurred.

Town Councilwoman Paula Sherlock led the opposition to ZTA 26-04, recounting for the meeting her own experience in owning a house next to a vintage flat top that was subsequently demolished and replaced by a seven-bedroom, 5,825-square-foot oceanfront “estate” with a swimming pool. (The Beacon obtained the number of bedrooms and house size from Dare County Parcel Data on Dare County-GIS.)

The 15-foot side-yard setback, she said, gave her much-needed protection from noise, outdoor lighting, and equipment and accessory structure encroachment.

Town Councilmen Mark Batenic and Rob Neilson related their own stories about actions taken by their neighbors that increased noise in their home environments and obstructed their properties’ sight lines.

In a statement clearly supported by the two of them, Ms. Sherlock concluded: “You buy a piece of property and you know what the rules are. These are the restrictions and that’s what you have to live with.”

Mr. Neal took a different approach, saying that the setback change was coming “from our homeowners” and that the setbacks that exist now are not necessarily logical or modern.

“Why can’t I have a greenhouse in the rear-yard setback” of my property? he asked.

The Beacon takes issue with Mr. Neal’s observation that the request for reductions came from homeowners, unless he means new homeowners who are building 4,000-square-foot homes with swimming pools.  

Historically, the side-yard setback for development on lots in the residential district was 10 feet, a reflection of the reality that beach homes were modest—either flat tops or beach boxes with three or four bedrooms—and did not have back-yard swimming pools.

The Town Council increased the setback to 15 feet after the McMansion movement started in Corolla in the 1990s. The movement toward big-is-better, and the bigger-the-better, started north of us.  

“I don’t want the town to look like Nags Head or Kill Devil Hills,” Mr. Batenic said at last month’s Town Council meeting.

It was, in fact, looking like Corolla that the Town Council feared when it mandated 15-foot side setbacks.

The Council also limited the number of bedrooms in a house to seven, a restriction that eventually became illegal when the N.C. General Assembly prohibited it, along with other building restrictions, in 2015. (See The Beacon, 10/11/18; the enabling legislation was Senate Bill 25.)

In January 2016, the Town Council, by a 3-2 vote, capped house size at 6000 square feet, a move that defeated the construction by SAGA of an oceanfront “wedding destination” or “event house” with a ballroom and 25 bedrooms at 64 Ocean Blvd.

Councilwoman Sherlock would have moved if this development had been permitted. It would have destroyed what Mr. Batenic referred to as the “uniqueness” of Southern Shores, in particular, its open space.

Mayor Elizabeth Morey said very little during the discussion of ZTA 26-04. At the May meeting, she seemed inclined to support the local builders’ position that setbacks should be reduced for the limited purposes cited in the ZTA.

Last month, she said only that 15-foot side-yard setbacks should be left “alone,” but that a change to the rear-yard setback might be possible.

According to the Agenda Item Summary in the Meeting Packet for the setbacks discussion: “There was agreement [among Council members] that the matter be revisited in July to explore whether any narrower consensus might exist, particularly regarding rear yard setbacks and smaller auxiliary structures.”

Stay tuned.

BUDGET POSTSCRIPT

In our 6/8/26 report, we indicated that we would like to follow up on some matters pertinent to the recently approved Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget for the Town.

Regretfully, we ran out of time to do so, but we still would like to say here that one of the Council members asked an excellent question of Mr. Ogburn during the budget hearing, to wit: How do the FY 2025-26 expenses of each department compare with the approved FY 2026-27 budgets of each one?

There was a time, before Mayor Morey’s tenure, when public budget meetings were held in the Pitts Center and the Town Council had the opportunity to question the heads of the Town departments—police, fire, public works, administration, planning—about their proposed expenses.

The Town Manager is the Budget Officer and is legally responsible for preparing the budget and capital program, but previous mayors thought it advisable to have open budgetary discussions with the decision-makers before the June budget hearing.

If the Town Council has any input in the budget, it is not clear to us from the Council’s budget hearing.

The answer to the question posed by the Council member should have been known to all Council members because they are responsible for review and oversight of the budget. The proposed budget that Mr. Ogburn published on the Town website contained this information.

The only Town department whose expenses in FY 2026-27 declined from the previous fiscal year is Public Works, Mr. Ogburn replied, and that occurred only because the Town Manager scaled back PW’s request.  

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon, 7/5/26     

A crash in Chicahauk Saturday morning involving an unlicensed minor driving a rented four-seat low-speed vehicle (LSV) with four passengers aboard resulted in minor injuries to three of the individuals and a criminal citation of the driver’s father for allowing him to operate a motor vehicle on a highway, according to a news release issued today by the Southern Shores Police Dept.  

The single-vehicle crash occurred at 10:54 a.m. Saturday (June 27) at the intersection of Trinitie Trail and Chicahauk Trail, according to police, who said that alcohol was not believed to be a factor.

Police said the minor driver missed a turn at the intersection and then over-corrected his steering in an attempt to make the turn, which caused the LSV to flip over and eject one of the rear passengers, causing an injury. Another passenger and the driver also suffered minor injuries, police said.

One of the injured parties was transported to the Outer Banks Hospital by Dare County EMS, according to police, while the other two left the accident in their parents/guardians’ custody.  

Police charged the driver’s father, Kevin Titherington, 53, of Woodbine, Md., with permitting an unlicensed minor—a person under the age of 18—to operate a motor vehicle upon a highway in violation of N.C. General Statutes (NCGS) sec. 20-32.  

What is an LSV?

North Carolina defines a low-speed vehicle as a four-wheeled electric or gas-powered vehicle with a top speed between 20 and 25 mph that complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. An LSV has a 17-digit vehicle identification number (VIN) and must be titled, registered, and insured like any other motor vehicle in the state.  

State law specifies the required equipment that all LSVs must have in “proper working order,” including headlamps, parking brakes, rearview mirrors, windshield wipers, speedometer, seat belts, etc. (See NCGS sec. 20-121.1.)

The law also mandates that LSVs be driven only on North Carolina roads with speed limits of 35 mph or less, and that all operators hold valid driver’s licenses. (Sec. 20-121.1)

Distinguishing Golf Carts

Many people refer to low-speed vehicles as golf carts, but they are not the same.

A golf cart is not a motor vehicle under federal law. It has no VIN, no state registration, and no N.C. DMV title. Golf carts are manufactured and designed to be driven on golf courses and have a top speed of 20 mph.

According to our research, North Carolina does not allow golf carts on public roads by default. Golf carts cannot legally travel on streets and highways unless a municipality enacts an ordinance authorizing their use of the roads. The Town of Southern Shores has not passed such an ordinance.

Bottom line: Standard golf carts are not street-legal in Southern Shores.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon, 6/29/26

The in-season Friday trash pickups started on May 29 and will continue until Sept. 4.

Judging from the number of trashcans we have seen on the roadside on the Thursdays before the past two Fridays, we think word about the increase in pickups may not have reached many Southern Shores residents.

The increase in garbage collections during the summertime accommodates both the increase in the town’s population and an increase in the garbage that the population generates with outdoor activities.

Monday trash pickups will continue as usual, as will Friday recycling pickups. We will give you a heads-up when the two-per-week collections end.  

PLANNING BOARD

The Southern Shores Planning Board meeting scheduled for Monday at 5 p.m. in the Pitts Center has been canceled. The next meeting is scheduled July 20. In other Planning Board news:

The Town Council voted unanimously at its June 2 meeting to appoint regular Planning Board member Ed Lawler to another three-year term on the five-member Board, starting July 1.

Mr. Lawler was first appointed to the Board in 2018 to fill the unexpired term of Board member Glenn Wyder after his death. Mr. Wyder had recently been elected chairperson.

Board members’ terms run on the fiscal year, from July 1 to June 30, and are staggered. Mr. Lawler is the only Board member whose term expires in 2026.

See https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/bc-pb for a list of Planning Board members and their terms.

The Planning Board elects its chairperson and vice-chairperson at its July meeting each year.  

Mayor Pro Tem Matt Neal suggested at the Town Council meeting that a “rotation” of Planning Board members might be desirable to allow other interested residents, who do not apply for a position because of the perception that longtime members hold on to their seats, to serve. He said he has heard from a number of residents who would like to volunteer for the Planning Board.

Mr. Neal also suggested expanding the Planning Board to include more members.

The Town Council also might consider constituting a separate Board of Adjustment, instead of having the Planning Board members serve in this capacity, too. Southern Shores is the only Dare County town that does not have an independent Board of Adjustment.

If you are interested in volunteering for the Board, you are advised to submit an application to Mr. Haskett, who will keep it on file to consider when a vacancy arises. Mr. Haskett makes appointment recommendations to the Town Council based on the applications on file.

Heretofore, the Town has appointed those Board members whose terms are expiring to another three-year term if they wish to continue.

Besides the five Board member seats, there are two alternate positions. Serving as an alternate is a stepping stone to a Board appointment.

You will find a Board application here: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/10831.

THE SOUTHERN SHORES BEACON, 6/11/26

The Town Council voted 4-1 at its meeting last Tuesday to reject a five-foot reduction in the minimum side- and rear-yard setbacks in the RS-1 residential district for the placement of pool and mechanical equipment, generators, and 144-square-foot accessory structures.

Mayor Pro Tem Matt Neal, a homebuilder, cast the dissenting vote.

The vote on Zoning Text Amendment 26-04 means setbacks in the primary residential district of Southern Shores remain 15 feet for the side-yard and 25 feet for the rear-yard.

ZTA 26-04 grew out of ZTA 26-01, which was submitted in March by a local general contractor who sought a reduction in the setback minimums so he could use a pool cabana that, as mistakenly constructed, infringed upon a setback by about eight inches.   

The Town Council tabled ZTA 26-01 at its May 5 meeting and asked Town staff to prepare two more Zoning Text Amendments to address the factual circumstances raised by the contractor.

One, ZTA 26-03, would allow the Zoning Administrator—Wes Haskett, the Town’s Deputy Managing Editor/Planning Director—to approve up to a 10 percent reduction in “minimum yard requirements” when a good-faith, “honest mistake” by a builder has occurred.

The other, ZTA 26-04, altered ZTA 26-01 by adding generators to the equipment that could be placed five feet closer to a side- or rear-yard property line and reducing the size of allowable accessory structures from 150 square feet to 144 square feet.  

The Beacon has extensively covered the language and the action taken by the Planning Board and the Town Council on all three of these ZTAs in recent posts. See The Beacon, 6/1/26, 5/25/26, 5/17/26, and 4/21/26.

All we can say is what a difference one person makes.

The Town Council held public hearings last Tuesday on ZTA 26-03 and ZTA 26-04, but not on ZTA 26-01, which was withdrawn by the contractor.

While Mr. Neal dissented from the majority opinion on ZTA 26-04, he joined the rest of his Council colleagues in approving the “honest-mistake” exception ZTA.

The Beacon will elaborate upon the Town Council’s discussion about the setbacks reduction proposal later in the week when we have more time.

Councilwoman Paula Sherlock, who was absent for the May meeting and is the one person to which we refer, led the opposition to ZTA 26-04, and Councilmen Mark Batenic and Rob Neilson quickly fell in behind her, after being rather noncommittal at the May meeting when ZTA 26-01 was discussed.

In May, it appeared inevitable that some version of the setbacks-reduction ZTA would be enacted, despite the Planning Board’s keen opposition.

Last week, as soon as Ms. Sherlock announced that she was a “no,” the pendulum swung against enactment. TBC.

***   

ZTA 26-02, EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMBINATION: The Town Council also unanimously approved ZTA 26-02, which excludes from mandatory recombination adjacent lots owned by the same ownership that are subject to development or redevelopment “when there is no proposed increase in the footprint of existing decks and/or stairs.” ZTA 26-02 amends Town Code section 36-132(2).

The primary reason the ordinance on mandatory recombination exists is because most of the land parcels sold and developed on Ocean Boulevard, Skyline Road, and other nearby beach-side roads were 100-foot-wide parcels consisting of two 50-foot-wide lots.

As we said before, Kitty Hawk Land Co. platted land in this manner so that buyers would feel like they were getting “two lots for the price of one.” According to developer and real estate agent David Stick in his memoirs, it was a salesmanship ploy. No buyers treated the parcels as two separate lots for development.  

These sales occurred before the Town was incorporated, and the Town Council set minimum dimension standards for lots. The Town’s mandatory minimum lot width is 100 feet. The Town would like these 50-foot-wide lots to be “recombined” into one 100-foot-wide lot, so that the parcel “conforms” to the width requirement.

Recombination, however, is a costly and time-consuming effort, requiring a land survey (costing at least $1500) and preparation of a recombination plat; presentation of the recombination plat to the Town, which charges a fee of at least $100, for its approval; and registration of the recombination plat by the homeowner or his/her agent in the Register of Deeds office, which also charges a fee.

When homeowners are simply seeking building permits so that they can repair or replace decks and/or stairs on homes—many of them rental homes—that do not increase the development footprint, recombination constitutes an onerous burden. With the Town Council’s enactment of ZTA 26-02, that burden no longer exists.

FISCAL YEAR 2026-27 BUDGET: The Town Council also unanimously approved the Town Manager’s Recommended FY 2026-27 budget of $12,981,790. (See The Beacon, 6/1/26, for background.)

No one spoke during the public hearing on the budget.

As we previously observed, the Town will be buying a new fire engine. We now understand why Town Manager Cliff Ogburn wrote in his narrative accompanying the recommended budget that the fire engine will need to be under contract by July 2026, “with $1,255,000 payable in 2029.” (We quoted this remark in our 6/1/26 meeting preview.)

At Tuesday’s meeting, Mr. Ogburn explained that “it takes three years to take possession” of a new fire engine, so the Town plans to order the truck in July and receive it in 2029. The expense for the fire engine will be in the FY 2029-30 budget.

When we elaborate on the Town Council’s discussion about the setbacks ZTA that it defeated, we also will address some aspects of the new budget.  

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon, 6/8/26

The community seminar about seagrass accumulation on the soundfront scheduled today from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. has been canceled because of the illness of one of the presenters, according to a notice posted on the Town of Southern Shores website.

The event, which was co-sponsored by the towns of Southern Shores and Duck, will likely be rescheduled in early fall. In the meantime, according to the Town’s notice, the towns will work together to develop and share educational resources and to answer residents’ questions on websites and social media.

Please see The Beacon, 5/31/26, for more information.

Public hearings will be held at the Town Council’s meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) at 10 a.m., on the four Zoning Text Amendments that The Beacon reported upon recently and on the Town Manager’s recommended fiscal year 2026-27 budget of $12,981,790.

The meeting will be in the Pitts Center and can be live-streamed on the Town’s You Tube website.

Absent from the meeting agenda is any mention of beach nourishment.

The Town Council has delayed making a commitment to another dredging project in 2027 until after it receives a May update on the condition of the Southern Shores beaches from its coastal engineering consultant. The first nourishment project was performed in 2022-23.

(See The Beacon, 5/25/26 and 5/17/26, for background on the ZTAs, one of which is the original setbacks reduction proposal, ZTA 2026-01, which the Town Council tabled at its May 5 meeting.)

For tomorrow’s meeting agenda, see https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/soshoresnc-pubu/MEET-Agenda-014d3bf7204d423a9bcd7b9987c85b0c.pdf.

For the agenda and meeting packet of materials, including the text of the proposed ZTAs, see https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/soshoresnc-pubu/MEET-Packet-014d3bf7204d423a9bcd7b9987c85b0c.pdf.

THE RECOMMENDED FY 2026-27 BUDGET

For the full report on Town Manager Cliff Ogburn’s recommended FY 2026-27 budget, see https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13736.

The budget total of $12,981,790 is an increase of $1,185,018 or 10.04 percent over the FY 2025-26 adopted budget. The Town budget is subject to amendment throughout the fiscal year.  

Page 26 of Mr. Ogburn’s recommended budget enumerates the proposed expenses, by Town department or service. The five departments or services that have the highest line-item budgets include:

Streets, Bridges, [Beaches,] and Canals: $3,055,124

The Town Manager has added “beaches” to this category this year and included the last year of debt service on the 2022 beach nourishment project: It amounts to $1,119,534. Infrastructure costs are projected at $1.3 million, and a list of streets targeted for reconstruction is included in the report.

Police Department: $2,803,037

Salaries make up 57 percent of the police-department budget. Expenses for holiday and overtime pay, FICA, group health insurance, and the employee retirement account for another 28 percent.

Fire Department: $2,323,908

The Town continues to pay $314,020 annually in debt for the firehouse construction. It will buy a new fire engine in FY 26-27, but we are uncertain how much of the truck’s cost will be paid in this fiscal year. According to the Town Manager’s narrative accompanying the Fire Department budget, the fire engine will need to be under contract by July 2026, “with $1,255,000 payable in 2029.”

Salaries and other employee expenses account for about 46 percent of the department’s budget. The Town added eight full-time Fire Department employees in FY 2025-26 and plans to add four more full-time firefighters in FY 2027-28.

Administration Dept.: $1,860,276

Salaries and other expenses related to employees account for the lion’s share of the Administration Department’s costs.

Sanitation Services: $1,071,503

The major costs within sanitation services are, in descending order of amount:

• Landfill tipping fee: $306,687
• Recycling collection: $252,810
• Residential collection: $226,000
• Limb and branch removal: $199,006

BALANCING THE BUDGET: The recommended budget is being balanced with a transfer of $537,000 from the Unassigned Fund Balance, which must maintain $3.5 million for emergency and disaster relief, and $950,000 from the Capital Reserve Fund.  

Projected fiscal-year revenues without these transfers are $11,494,783, of which $5,870.904 comes from ad valorem taxes and $3,932,856 from occupancy, sales, and land-transfer taxes.

ALSO ON THE AGENDA TOMORROW . . .

• Introduction and ceremonial swearing in of Deputy Fire Chief Jim Davidson.
• Presentation about the Door Saver Program, an initiative by the Southern Shores Fire Department to help emergency responders access homes quickly and safely without causing damage by forced entry.
• An update on the Mid-Currituck Bridge by Mr. Ogburn, who is expected to encourage residents to write to Governor Stein, North Carolina’s U.S. senators, our U.S. Congress representatives, and other public officials for help in securing funding to build the bridge. A sample letter and addresses of public officials are included in the meeting packet.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon, 6/1/26

The towns of Southern Shores and Duck will host a community seminar tomorrow, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., in the Pitts Center about the noxious problem of soundside seagrass accumulation, which has caused a foul odor to infiltrate the air on South and North Dogwood trails in Southern Shores for months (and months).

Sean Charles, Ph.D., a scientist, researcher, and assistant professor with the Coastal Studies Institute, and other experts will speak, after which a moderated panel discussion with environmental, scientific, and state regulatory experts and a community Q&A session will occur, according to a news release by the Town that we are just learning about.

There has been no mention of this event in the Town’s most recent newsletters, nor did The Beacon receive a press release about it, otherwise we would have promoted it sooner. Notice of the event has just hit the Town website news page. (We check it every day.)

Southern Shores Town Manager Cliff Ogburn apparently sent emails to people who attended a previous meeting about the seagrass problem and signed a contact list, notifying them about tomorrow’s seminar. They were able to submit questions in advance—the deadline was May 27—for the panel to consider.

This is insufficient notice. We did not attend the previous meeting because of insufficient notice, and the Town has repeated this failing.

It is past time for the Town to bring this foul predicament out of the closet so that all residents can understand why it has occurred and what can/will be done about it.

Many residents take advantage of Soundview Park and the soundside marinas, which are owned by the Southern Shores Civic Assn., and walk on North Dogwood Trail. (The stench can be smelled on South Dogwood Trail, too, but not with the same potency as the stench on North Dogwood Trail, especially when the wind blows off the Currituck Sound.)

If the SSCA is tasked with cleaning up the beach at Soundview Park (above, as pictured today), all members of the SSCA will be financially affected. Members who have rental properties in Southern Shores and pay for SSCA memberships for them have lost an asset that is popular with vacationers.

No one with roots in Southern Shores can feel good about what has happened to David Stick’s soundfront park, which was once known quaintly as the Bathing Beach, because you could swim there!   

According to the Town’s news release, “The seminar will feature scientists, environmental experts, and regulators discussing the causes, impacts, and environmental significance of increasing seagrass accumulation along the soundside. Following the presentations, Southern Shores Town Manager Cliff Ogburn and Duck Planning and Permits Manager Cross will lead a panel discussion and community Q&A session.”

Regretfully, we cannot attend the seminar. Had we known earlier about the event, we might have changed our schedule, but we cannot now.

We ask members of the community who can attend the seminar to send reports of the proceedings, especially news of any proposed solutions, to Ann Sjoerdsma at ssbeaconeditor@gmail.com.

Thank you.

[PLEASE NOTE: We had planned to post a preview today of the Town Council’s Tuesday meeting, which will be held at 10 a.m. in the Pitts Center. To give this post its due, we will postpone that post until tomorrow. For the meeting agenda and packet of materials, see https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/soshoresnc-pubu/MEET-Packet-014d3bf7204d423a9bcd7b9987c85b0c.pdf.]

THE SOUTHERN SHORES BEACON, 5/31/26

The three members of the Planning Board who attended last Monday’s regular monthly meeting voted to recommend to the Town Council the three Zoning Text Amendments (ZTA) before them, subject to their own amendments, as we will discuss below.

Two of the ZTAs stem from a ZTA submitted in March by a local general contractor who sought relief from an “honest mistake” that was made when a constructed pool cabana encroached 7.4 inches into a yard setback. The other ZTA seeks redress for an onerous situation that has developed under the Town’s nonconforming lots/recombination ordinance.

The Town submitted all three, the first two at the Town Council’s request during its May 5 hearing on the contractor’s ZTA 26-01 and the third at Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett’s initiation.

(See The Beacon, 5/17/26 for more background.)

The Planning Board’s votes were not all unanimous.

Board member Robert McClendon did not join colleagues Jan Collins and Board Chairperson Andy Ward in recommending approval of an amended version of the new setback-reduction proposal, ZTA 26-04, but did not explain why. Ms. Collins and Mr. Ward continued the objection all Board members raised in their April 20 hearing on ZTA 26-01 to allowing “accessory structures” to be five feet closer to property lines.

To read all three ZTAs and Mr. Haskett’s staff reports, see https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/bc-pb/meeting/planning-board-will-meet-may-18-2026.

RECENT HISTORY OF PROPOSED ZTAS ON SETBACKS REDUCTION

As you will recall, ZTA 26-01 sought to reduce by five feet the minimum required 15-foot side- and 25-foot rear-yard setbacks in the RS-1 single-family-dwelling district for pool equipment and sheds, mechanical equipment (HVACs), and accessory structures up to 150 square feet.

The Planning Board, including Mr. McClendon, unanimously recommended a scaled-back version of this ZTA, allowing for reduced setbacks for platforms for pool mechanical equipment and HVACs only. It also indicated that a variance might be a more appropriate remedy for the contractor with the 7.4-inch mistake.

The Board adamantly opposed including accessory structures. Such structures are defined in Town Code section 36-57 under “use, accessory,” strictly in relation to the principal building or use of the property that they serve.

Mr. Haskett supported 144 square-foot accessory structures, which do not require a building permit to build, but not 150 square-foot structures, which do.

Mr. McClendon’s “no” vote last week left Mr. Ward perplexed. Mr. McClendon’s failure to explain his vote perplexed us.

Was he refusing to permit generators in reduced setbacks, a local builder’s suggestion that ZTA 26-04 now allows? Or had he changed his mind about accessory structures? Inasmuch as he represents the public, he should have gone on the record.

We raised in our last posting the question of whether the Planning Board “process,” which involves, in important part, holding hearings on proposed amendments to the Town’s zoning code and making recommendations to the Town Council, is working.   

The five-member Board, and its two alternates, represent the public’s interests and must ensure, when a proposed Town Code zoning amendment comes before them, that the change conforms to the Town’s coastal Land Use Plan (LUP), in particular its’ “community vision statement.”

(The latest LUP was revised by the Town and certified by the N.C. Division of Coastal Management in 2024. It is available on the Town website.)

Each member should know more about the LUP and the Town zoning ordinances than the average Southern Shores resident. Each member also should do his or her homework before a meeting—doing a memory refresh and/or a deep dive into the Code, if necessary—and show up prepared to discuss the issues. Each member also should make clear his/her views.

A lot of responsibility comes with being a volunteer member of the Planning Board.

Although the Board has the authority under the Town Code to request that new ZTAs be prepared by Town staff to address a planning concern, it largely has functioned reactively, and, increasingly, the Town Council is not heeding its advice on ZTAs.

Perhaps members’ frustration with the disconnect between its Board and the Town Council accounts for the absenteeism last Monday.   

During the Council’s May 5 hearing on the setbacks ZTA, the Town Council clearly responded to comments by local builders—who unsurprisingly supported the setback-space reduction—but not to Mr. Ward, who also spoke. The Planning Board had a robust discussion about ZTA 26-01 in April with four regular members and both alternates present.      

When Mayor Pro Tem Matt Neal, a homebuilder, made a motion to redraft the ZTA, he largely dismissed the Planning Board’s concerns about noise and other nuisances—apparently assuming that other Town ordinances would deal with them—and Mayor Elizabeth Morey said, “We are relying on the expertise of the staff and the interaction with our local builders and homeowners to come up with their best recommendation.”

This was after she earlier had said she would like “more input from the public.”

Town Councilman Rob Neilson added to the Mayor’s list of parties upon whom the Town is relying for a ZTA redraft, “and the Planning Board,” and she hastened to add it.

Besides Mr. Ward, the only member of the public who spoke during the Council’s hearing was a relatively new homeowner who said he wanted to clean out his garage and move the contents to an accessory structure on his property.

Absent a reduction in the side-yard setback, he said, his only choices would be to ruin “sight lines” by putting the structure toward the middle of his 20,000-square-foot canalfront lot or cut down trees in the 15-foot side-yard setback.

It is at the Planning Board that the Mayor and other Town Council members are most likely to get “input from the public.” The Planning Board is the public. No Council member regularly attends the Board’s meetings.

Mr. Haskett said the desire for more setback space to contain equipment and accessory structures is a “common concern” among people, but he did not identify which people: home builders, new property owners who are building their first house, and/or longtime homeowners? Nor could he quantify this concern, when asked by the Town Council to do so.

SETBACKS REDUCTION, NEW ZTA 2026-04 is the “best recommendation” to which Mayor Morey referred. It amends Town Code section 36-202 to allow a minimum side-yard setback of 10 feet and a minimum rear-yard setback of 20 feet for “generators, pool equipment, mechanical equipment (HVAC), and their associated platforms” and for “accessory structures up to 144 square feet.”

ZTA 26-04 reflects what builders want. Mr. Haskett did not support adding generators to the setback exceptions because of their noise, but included them at the Town Council’s request.

At last Monday’s hearing on ZTA 26-04, Mr. Ward read from the 2024 LUP vision statement, which stresses the Town’s identity as “a quiet coastal community . . . of low-density single homes with . . . forests, and open space,” and seeks to preserve the “Town’s unique qualities by maintaining the existing community appearance and form.”

During their discussion, all three of the Planning Board members rejected allowing “accessory structures” to be built five feet closer to side and rear property lines, or at least they appeared to. Mr. McClendon supported “sheds,” which are a form of accessory structure. (See photo above.)  

Mr. Ward said he struggled with the revised ZTA and concluded with an observation with which many homeowners might agree:

“We’re the envy of a lot of places, and if you want more and you want to be more crowded into your neighbors, maybe this isn’t the place for you.”

See ZTA 26-04 at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13791.

“HONEST MISTAKE,” ZTA 26-03, which was requested by the Town Council on May 5, adds section 36-103 to the Town Code, establishing requirements for the approval of a reduction in “minimum yard requirements” when a good-faith, no-fault error has occurred in the construction process.

Pursuant to ZTA 26-03, the “Zoning Administrator”—Mr. Haskett—determines whether the error qualifies for such a setback reduction. The proposed ZTA sets forth five determinations that the Administrator must make first before permitting a reduction. The most important is that the error cannot exceed 10 percent of the minimum yard-setback requirement, which would be 18 inches for 15-foot setbacks and 30 inches for 25-foot setbacks.

For ZTA 26-03, see https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13786.

The Town based the language of ZTA 26-03 on Duck’s ordinance about “minimum yard requirements in residential districts based on error in building, structure, or site feature location.” See: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13816.

The three Planning Board members unanimously recommended approval of ZTA 26-03, subject to the following proposed amendments:

• The original ZTA language refers to the Zoning Administrator having determined that the mistake “occurred in good faith and through no fault of the property owners.” The Planning Board recommended revising this to having “occurred in good faith by the property owner and/or his agent,” striking the fault consideration.
• The original language states that the Zoning Administrator also must determine that enforcing “the minimum yard or setback requirements would cause unreasonable hardship upon the owner.” The Board recommended revising this to “unreasonable hardship upon the owner and/or his agent.”

ELIMINATING AN ONEROUS EFFECT OF RECOMBINATION ORDINANCE

ZTA 2026-02, the third ZTA that the Planning Board took up, was one of first impression and had not been previously discussed. Mr. Haskett said last Monday that a homeowner had earlier spoken to the Planning Board at a public meeting on Jan. 29, 2025, about the problem, but the Board had not followed up.

We wonder why Mr. Haskett did not follow up, considering that the problem was “another common concern,” as he said, among homeowners. Well, he has now.  

ZTA 2026-02 adds exceptions to Town Code section 36-132(2), which requires recombination of adjacent lots owned by the “same ownership” when certain situations of development, demolition or redevelopment, sale, or transfer of lots are proposed.

(See our discussion of the history of the recombination ordinance on 5/17/26. The ordinance was rewritten in 2019 to clearly prevent property owners from dividing 100-foot-wide lots in half and selling  them as two 50-footers.)

Many 100-foot-wide lots in Southern Shores were platted as two 50-foot-wide lots, not one single lot. According to written accounts by Southern Shores developer and real estate agent David Stick, this was done to make buyers believe they were getting two lots for the price of one. It was strictly a salesmanship ploy. 

Under the current ordinance, if a homeowner wants to renovate, repair, or replace old decks or stairs on a dwelling that sits on a single lot comprised of two or more lots, he or she has to “recombine” the lots before qualifying for a Town building permit.

The recombination process is costly, cumbersome, and time-consuming. The homeowner first must commission a land survey ($1500), then present the survey with a fee to the Town ($50 per lot), which issues a recombination that the homeowner must physically take to the Dare County Register of Deeds in Manteo and file with a fee.

“It’s expensive and it cost people a lot of heartache to do,” Mr. Haskett told the Planning Board, especially owners who live out of town.

ZTA 26-02 excludes from mandatory recombination lots that are subject to development and demolition or redevelopment “when there is no proposed increase in the footprint of existing decks and/or stairs.”

The Planning Board unanimously approved recommending ZTA 26-02 to the Town Council.

See ZTA 26-02 at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13811.

But wait! Mr. Ward smartly recognized that other exceptions to recombination—in the interest of fairness—might exist and should be addressed: He focused on interior house renovations that do not increase the footprint of the house.

According to Mr. Haskett, interior renovations that exceed $42,000 require a building permit—and, heretofore, possibly, a lot recombination.

Mr. Ward asked Mr. Haskett to draft a ZTA to relieve homeowners who are doing interior development that does not increase the footprint of the house from filing a recombination.

Good show. That is planning.

(The Town Council will hold a public hearing on each of the ZTAs during its June 2 regular monthly meeting, 5 p.m., at the Pitts Center.)

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon, 5/25/26

The heavy equipment and road-closure signs are gone, and the newly reconstructed East Dogwood Trail is now open to all traffic—just in time for the Memorial Day weekend.

While it appears that a few road tasks remain, such as the painting of crosswalk lines, the heavily used connector between South Dogwood Trail and Duck Road has been restored for both vehicle and pedestrian traffic alike. It is free of obstructions. Enjoy!  

COMING UP ON THE BEACON: We will fill you in on the Southern Shores Planning Board’s action on three Zoning Text Amendments it considered on Monday. (See The Beacon, 5/17/26, for background.)

Unfortunately, only three regular members of the five-member Board attended Monday’s meeting, a number sufficient for a quorum, but not for a cross-section of community opinion. Neither of the two alternates substituted for a missing Board member.

The Planning Board has five regular members and two alternates who are appointed by the Town Council to serve three-year terms. Unlike Council representatives, each of whom receives compensation, Planning Board members are volunteers. Nonetheless, when fewer than half of those volunteers attend a meeting, especially one in which the important subject of changing residential setbacks is discussed, the process is not working. More on this later.  

THE SOUTHERN SHORES BEACON, 5/21/26

The Southern Shores Planning Board will consider three Zoning Text Amendments (ZTAs) tomorrow at its monthly meeting, two of which stem from a ZTA seeking to reduce residential setbacks for pool-related structures and equipment that it considered last month—and the Town Council tabled at its May 5 meeting—and the other of which proposes to amend the Town’s nonconforming lot-recombination requirements to provide exceptions.  

The Board will meet at 5 p.m. in the Pitts Center behind Town Hall. You may live-stream the meeting on the Town’s You Tube website.

Many of you will recall the Town’s efforts in 2019 to regulate nonconforming lots in Southern Shores after enterprising homeowners and builders succeeded in dividing and selling/developing 50-foot-wide lots that formerly were combined to support one house on a 100-foot-wide lot.

Nonconforming lots are those that do not meet the minimum dimensional requirements imposed by the Town Code in the various zoning districts, RS-1 being the single-family-dwelling district where most people live.

The minimum lot width in the RS-1 district is 100 feet, but because 100-foot-wide lots were platted in Southern Shores as two 50-foot-wide lots, long before the Town’s incorporation, an opportunity existed for people to create and sell nonconforming 50-foot-wide lots—absent prohibition by the Town.

Eight years ago, the Town Attorney at the time advised that the existing nonconforming lots ordinance did not prevent such divisions and sales, despite the obvious intent to do so, and the Town held multiple meetings to draft a new ordinance that would.

The resulting Town Code section 36-132 contains a recombination requirement, which, as interpreted strictly by the Town Planning Department, has forced homeowners who simply want to replace a longstanding deck or a set of stairs at a beach cottage to commission a land survey (costing approx. $1500) and “recombine” the lots on which those cottages have sat for decades before they could get a permit.

More about this below. Now let’s tackle setbacks . . .

REDUCING SETBACKS FOR POOL CABANAS, EQUIPMENT, HVACS, ETC.  

On March 20, General Contractor Daniel S. Osman of Southern Shores submitted a ZTA seeking to reduce by five feet the minimum required 15-foot side- and 25-foot rear-yard setbacks in the RS-1 district for pool equipment and sheds, accessory structures up to 150 square feet, and mechanical equipment (HVACs).

The Town Code mandates 15-foot side-yard setbacks in section 36-202(d)(4), and a 25-foot rear-yard setback in section 36-202(d)(5). Mr. Osman’s ZTA 26-01 proposed adding language of exception to these regulations to allow 10-foot side-yard and 20-foot rear-yard setbacks for the aforementioned equipment and structures.

Mr. Osman filed ZTA 26-01 upon the advice of Deputy Town Manager/Town Planning Director Wes Haskett, who refused to approve a “recently constructed pool cabana” at an unspecified property site, one corner of which, the contractor said, encroached the 25-foot rear-yard setback by 7.4 inches.   

The factual circumstances of Mr. Osman’s situation have not been detailed in any public documents that have been posted on the Town website. In a post previewing the Planning Board’s April 20 hearing on ZTA 26-01, The Beacon regretfully assumed Mr. Osman was advocating for his own property, but that was not the case, and we apologized for our error.   

Mr. Osman characterized this 7.4-inch encroachment during the Planning Board hearing as “an honest mistake” and asked the Town to “give us a little graciousness.” The construction cost of the cabana, he said, was $35,000.

The Planning Board did not recommend approval of Mr. Osman’s ZTA 26-01. Instead, it unanimously approved a revised version of ZTA 26-01, which eliminated the inclusion of pool sheds and accessory structures and sought only to allow reduced setbacks for “platforms for pool mechanical equipment and mechanical equipment (HVAC).”  (See The Beacon, 4/21/26.)

The Board’s primary objections to ZTA 26-01 concerned the nuisance posed to neighbors by pool cabanas and other accessory structures being built five feet closer to property lines, especially the noise created by people using such structures. Board members also thought aesthetics would be harmed by the proposed setback changes.

Mr. Haskett recommended a revised version of ZTA 26-01, which supported most of Mr. Osman’s ZTA, but reduced the permissible size of an accessory structure to 144 square feet and eliminated pool “sheds.” A 144-square-foot accessory structure does not need a building permit, just a zoning permit, he explained.

(An “accessory structure” is defined in Town Code section 36-57.)

TOWN COUNCIL MIXES IN AFTER MOSTLY HEARING FROM BUILDERS

The various versions of the ZTA—Mr. Osman’s, the Planning Board’s, and Mr. Haskett’s—went to the Town Council for a public hearing on May 5. The Council did not vote on any of them.

Mr. Haskett told the Council that finding space or encroaching the setbacks for pool-related equipment and accessory structures is “one of our most common concerns.”

When asked by Mayor Pro Tem Matt Neal, who is a home builder, if he could quantify how often the issue arises, Mr. Haskett said he could not, but it is a common question.

During the Planning Board hearing, Mr. Osman told the four regular members and one alternate member who voted on his ZTA, “Everybody [today] wants a 3,000 or 4,000-foot house with a swimming pool,” and the Town’s regulations are “very constrictive.”

Mr. Osman did not speak at the Town Council hearing, but two local builders (Mark Martin of Sandmark Custom Homes and James Mehfoud of Mancuso Development); Joseph (Duke) Geraghty, the Government Affairs Director for the Outer Banks Home Builders Assn., who lives in Manteo; and a homeowner on Duck Woods Drive who would like to “reclaim” his garage and build a shed on his property that does not disturb sight lines, did.

Only Planning Board Chairman Andy Ward spoke in favor of limiting any reduction in the setbacks to equipment only, not structures.

The five members of the Planning Board, none of whom is a builder, conscientiously considered the impact of a setback reduction on adjacent property owners and tried to protect their interests and the community’s vision.

We cannot agree with the Town Council or Mr. Haskett who suggested May 5 that the Town’s noise and lighting ordinances will prevent excessive noise and bothersome lights in accessory structures that are five feet closer. We’ve been around rental cottages for far too long and know better. Plus, the police have better things to do.

In his remarks, Mr. Ward stressed the intent of Town Code section 36-202, which sets forth the land uses and the dimensional requirements in the RS-1 district. Quoting from the intent section, 36-202(a), Mr. Ward read that the district promotes, among other things, “abundant open space, and low impact of development on the natural environment and adjacent land uses.”   

It was our impression that the Town Council, which was operating with only four members—Councilwoman Paula Sherlock was absent—responded to builders’ concerns, but not to the public concerns raised by Mr. Ward.

We would like to know what other members of the community think about the loss of setback space and the proximity of outdoor equipment.   

In a motion made by Mr. Neal, the Town Council asked Mr. Haskett to prepare a new ZTA that would rely primarily upon Mr. Haskett’s recommended version and add generators to the named equipment.

Mr. Martin brought up generators in comments he made during the hearing, saying that increasingly new homeowners want them.

Mr. Neal also moved to ask the Town staff to prepare a ZTA creating what Mayor Elizabeth Morey called “an administrative variance” to address “honest mistakes” by builders.

Clearly, Mr. Neal and Ms. Morey had discussed this remedy before the hearing, but Council members Mark Batenic and Rob Neilson had not been apprised.

Mr. Neal’s motions passed unanimously.     

ZTAS BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD TOMORROW

Tomorrow evening, the Planning Board will consider:

“HONEST MISTAKE”-ZTA 2026-03, which adds a section to the Town Code establishing requirements for the approval of a reduction in “minimum yard requirements” when a good-faith, no-fault error has occurred in the construction process. The “Zoning Administrator”—Mr. Haskett—determines whether the error qualifies for a reduction. The error cannot exceed 10 percent of the minimum yard-setback requirement, so 18 inches for 15-foot setbacks and 30 inches for 25-foot setbacks.

For ZTA 26-03, see https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13786.

The Town based the language of ZTA 26-03 on Duck’s ordinance about “minimum yard requirements in residential districts based on error in building, structure, or site feature location.” See: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13816.

NEW ZTA 2026-04, allows a minimum side-yard setback of 10 feet and a minimum rear-yard setback of 20 feet for “generators, pool equipment, mechanical equipment (HVAC), and their associated platforms” and for “accessory structures up to 144 square feet.”

See ZTA 26-04 at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13791.

And finally . . .

ZTA 2026-02, concerning recombination, adds logical exceptions to Town Code section 36-132(2), which requires recombination of adjacent lots owned by the “same ownership” when certain situations of development, demolition or redevelopment, sale, or transfer of lots are proposed.

The ordinance is unduly complicated. It was in 2019 when it was drafted, and it still is.

All ZTA 26-02 does is exclude from mandatory recombination lots subject to development and demolition or redevelopment “when there is no proposed increase in the footprint of existing decks and/or stairs.”

We have personal knowledge during the past three years of two sets of homeowners having to recombine “lots” on which their beach cottages were built before they could get permits, in one case, to build a new back deck to replace one built in 1981, and in the other, to build a new front staircase to replace one built in 1999.

The lots on which these cottages sit were carved out in the 1970s before the Town was incorporated, and the Kitty Hawk Land Co. made patchwork deals with prospective owners. The two “lots” under the 1981 cottage add up to 14,000 square feet; the lots under the 1999 cottage constitute 25,000 square feet.

You will find ZTA 26-02 at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13811.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon, May 17, 2026