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.

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

Starting tomorrow the speed limit for a section of Duck Road (N.C. Hwy. 12) in Southern Shores will increase from 35 mph to 40 mph. The new 40-mph zone will run from Porpoise Run, which is just north of the cell tower, to Sea Oats Trail/13^th Avenue, according to a Town announcement.

The speed limit for the rest of N.C. Hwy. 12, including all of Ocean Boulevard, will remain 35 mph.

As The Beacon previously reported, the Town Council sought a speed-limit change last year in order to help “reduce conflicts between low-speed vehicles and faster-moving traffic,” as the Town explained in its announcement. (See The Beacon, 12/5/26.)

In fact, the Town Council voted unanimously at its Dec. 2, 2025 meeting to increase the speed limit on the entirety of N.C. Hwy. 12 from 35 mph to 40 mph, after members expressed frustration over driving behind so-called “low-speed vehicles” (LSV), which one Councilman characterized as “upgraded golf carts.”

During the summertime, Town Councilman Mark Batenic noted at the December meeting, vacationers often drive such carts, which can seat up to six passengers, to and from Duck on Duck Road, impeding the traffic flow of other vehicles.

In North Carolina, LSVs, which are street-legal motorized carts with legally mandated safety features (headlights, turn signals, e.g.), licensure, and other requirements, can drive on roads that have speed limits of 35 mph or less.

Their top speed, however, is 20 to 25 mph, thus making them a nuisance to other drivers who wish to proceed at the posted speed limit and get stuck behind them.

While the impetus for the Town Council’s speed-limit change appeared initially to be eliminating the inconvenience that LSVs pose to other drivers, its discussion evolved into one about safety—which was the reason that it voted unanimously on Aug. 2, 2022 to implement the year-round speed limit of 35 mph on N.C. 12.

Previously, the year-round speed limit on N.C. 12 was 45 mph except from May 15 to September 15 when the speed limit decreased to 35 mph for a section of the highway that included all of Ocean Boulevard, which is the Town’s primary beach zone.

Community Feedback After December Vote

After the Town Council’s December vote, it heard from Southern Shores residents, businesses, and others in town who had concerns about the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers along N.C. 12, especially on Ocean Boulevard, if the speed limit were to increase to 40 mph.

LSV drivers also raised the issue of their losing access to interior roads throughout town, if they couldn’t drive on N.C. 12.  

Because of this feedback, the Town Council adjusted its thinking and voted unanimously at its May 5 meeting to increase the speed limit to 40 mph only in the Porpoise Run-to-Sea Oats Trail/13^th Avenue zone. The speed limit will remain 35 mph from the Southern Shores-Kitty Hawk town line to Porpoise Run and from the intersection of Duck Road with Sea Oats Trail/13^th Avenue to the Southern Shores/Duck town line.

The Council’s vote came after the Town met with representatives of the N.C. Dept. of Transportation to request the change. NCDOT, according to Town Manager Cliff Ogburn, who briefed the Council May 5 about this meeting, expressed concern over increased crashes and other deleterious changes with the higher speed limit.

The Town agreed to reinstate the 35 mph limit if adverse effects occur.

The Town also brought up with NCDOT the possibility of eliminating all passing zones on N.C. 12 in Southern Shores, Mr. Ogburn said, but the government agency did not support this change, saying it needed to do further evaluation.

*****

A NOTE TO BEACON READERS: We will do our best in the next two weeks to catch up with Town news, after being “out of pocket” since late April.

Also at the Council’s May 5 meeting, Mr. Ogburn presented a recommended fiscal year 2026-27 budget of $12,981,790, and the Town Council tabled a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA 2026-01) that would have reduced residential side- and back-yard setbacks by five feet for pool equipment and sheds, HVACs, and accessory structures.

The public hearing on the proposed FY 2026-27 budget will be held at the Council’s June 2 meeting at 10 a.m.

You may access the proposed budget here: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13736.

Next year’s budget does not include a property tax increase for the Town’s general fund or for the beach nourishment municipal service districts.

The Southern Shores Planning Board will take up at its May 18 meeting two newly drafted Zoning Text Amendments that relate to the setback changes proposed in ZTA 2026-01. We will try to preview them for you before Monday.

The Planning Board also will discuss a proposed ZTA that amends the Town’s lot recombination requirements in Town Code sec. 36-132 by establishing an exclusion for development “when there is no proposed increase in the footprint of an existing structure.”

It is a shame that this logical exception was not present in the ordinance from the beginning. It would have saved some homeowners the hefty costs of a recombination, which includes the price of a land survey.

The Planning Board meets at 5 p.m. Monday in the Pitts Center. To access the Board’s agenda and the three ZTAs, go to:

https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/bc-pb/meeting/planning-board-will-meet-may-18-2026.

THE SOUTHERN SHORES BEACON, MAY 14, 2026

Happy Earth Day, everyone. Today marks the 56^th anniversary of this day founded by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin to raise awareness about U.S. environmental issues, particularly air and water pollution, and to shake up the political establishment about the planet’s well-being.

Inspired by protests in the 1960s, the late Senator Nelson envisioned the holiday as a series of rallies and environmental “teach-ins” across the country—essentially, a large-scale grass-roots demonstration on behalf of protecting the environment.

Senator Nelson’s Earth Day took off like gangbusters and has evolved into a worldwide celebration of the Earth’s natural resources.  

As you may have heard, the Town of Southern Shores is participating in the N.C. Resilient Coastal Communities Program (RCCP) and working with the N.C. Division of Coastal Management to identify storm, flooding, and other coastal hazards in order to plan better for community response to them.

The RCCP aims to identify coastal risks and develop strategies that protect neighborhoods, infrastructure, and natural resources.

Currently in the early phases of the RCCP, the Town is seeking residents’ responses to a short online survey that is designed to assess the current state of flooding and storm impact in Southern Shores through on-the-ground experiences–your experiences.

You will find the survey and more information about the RCCP here:

https://www.inspire-engagement.com/southern-shores-rccp

THE SOUTHERN SHORES BEACON, 4/22/26

The Southern Shores Planning Board last night unanimously recommended a revised version of a Zoning Text Amendment seeking to reduce setbacks in the Town’s single-family dwelling district for pool-related equipment and structures that did not give its applicant the relief he sought.

As previously reported, general contractor Daniel S. Osman submitted ZTA 26-01 to reduce the minimum required residential side- and rear-yard setbacks in the RS-1 residential district by five feet for pool-related equipment, small accessory structures, and HVACs.  

Mr. Osman’s ZTA would achieve this by adding an exception to Town Code section 36-202(d)(4) and (5), which mandate a 15-foot side-yard and 25-foot rear-yard setback, respectively, that reads:

“Notwithstanding [these requirements], for pool equipment, pool sheds, accessory structures up to 150 sf, and mechanical equipment (HVAC),” the minimum side-yard setback shall be 10 feet and the minimum rear-yard setback shall be 20 feet.

See ZTA 26-01 at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13566

After extensive discussion of the ZTA, the Planning Board settled on a “compromise” suggested by Board Chairman Andy Ward reading:

“Notwithstanding [these requirements]. . ., for platforms for pool mechanical equipment and mechanical equipment (HVAC),” the minimum side-yard setback shall be 10 feet and the minimum rear-yard setback shall be 20 feet.

According to Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett, both the original version of the ZTA and the recommended revised version will go to the Town Council for consideration.

THE SOUTHERN SHORES BEACON, 4/21/26

(TO ALL BEACON READERS: We have retracted the post we hastily published on 4/19/26 about ZTA 26-01 because of factual inaccuracies made clear to us subsequent to publication. The Town’s public record online was scant, and we made false assumptions. We apologize for these errors and publish below a correct rewrite of the post. Later today, we will publish a report about the Planning Board’s decision on ZTA 26-01.)

A general contractor who lives in Southern Shores has submitted a Zoning Text Amendment that would reduce the minimum required residential side- and rear-yard setbacks by five feet for pool-related equipment, small accessory structures, and HVACs.

The Southern Shores Planning Board will hold a public hearing tomorrow on proposed ZTA 26-01, during its 5 p.m. meeting at the Pitts Center. The meeting will be live-streamed on the Town’s You Tube site.

For the meeting agenda, see https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13541

Contractor Daniel S. Osman submitted the ZTA application after learning that a pool cabana he recently constructed for a customer violates the current rear-yard setback requirement of 25 feet, according to a report by Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett in the record.  

For Mr. Haskett’s staff report, see https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13556

Town Code section 36-202(d) specifies the dimensional requirements for development on lots in the RS-1 district, which is the low-density single-family residential district in which most of us live, including.

Among the many requirements it sets forth to promote stable low-density development and to protect the coastal environment (e.g., minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage), section 36-202(d) mandates the minimum side and rear building setbacks. Currently, the minimum side-yard setback is 15 feet, and the minimum rear-yard setback is 25 feet. (See sections 36-202(d)(4) and (d)(5), respectively.)

Mr. Osman’s ZTA 26-01 proposes to add a caveat to each of these sections that reads:

“Notwithstanding [these requirements], for pool equipment, pool sheds, accessory structures up to 150 sf, and mechanical equipment (HVAC),” the minimum side-yard setback shall be 10 feet and the minimum rear-yard setback shall be 20 feet.

See ZTA 26-01 at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13566

Mr. Osman’s dilemma is not made clear in the ZTA 26-01-related materials on the Town website. The size and cost of the cabana are not specified, nor are the location of the cabana and the cost of its removal. We also wonder if Mr. Osman intends to include his cabana in the language, “pool equipment,” or in his “accessory structures” language.

According to Mr. Haskett’s report, the current 25-foot rear setback requirement has been in place since 1981, meaning since the first Town Code was enacted.

The Town of Southern Shores had a 10-foot side-yard setback until 2000, when the Town Council enacted the current 15-foot side-yard setback, after housing development began to increase dramatically in the 1990s.

Mr. Haskett points out in his report that the definition of “yard”—which is required open space—can be found in Town Code section 36-57.

As we read the definition, structures up to 30 inches in height are permitted in a yard’s open space, as are enumerated objects such as fences, walls, poles, dune decks, and other “customary yard accessories,” provided they meet height limitations and any other requirements of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance.       

A pool cabana is clearly outside the scope of this definition’s permissible “accessories,” as are most of the other structures included in ZTA 26-01 and what we imagine “pool equipment” might be.

Another ambiguity exists in the language “mechanical equipment (HVAC).”

Does this phrase mean all mechanical equipment, such as HVACs, or does it mean HVACs only? If it means the latter, then the words “mechanical equipment” should be deleted and the acronym HVAC should be spelled out.

Mr. Haskett recommends in his report that the ZTA be approved, provided it is revised to eliminate pool sheds and to limit acceptable accessory structures to 144 square feet, or 12-by-12.

We respectfully disagree, especially as the ZTA concerns HVAC units, which are noisy, particularly when running air conditioning full-blast in the summertime.

As the ZTA is written, we believe other “mechanical equipment” also might slip by, equipment that might be even noisier than an HVAC.

We do not see how allowing potential nuisance structures to be erected five feet closer to adjacent properties “preserves local character,” as is the policy in the Town’s Land Use Plan.

We believe that a better approach for Mr. Osman to take is a request for a variance. We make no judgment, however, on whether or not he can meet the exacting standards for being granted a variance. (See Town Code section 36-367.)

**

The Planning Board also will hold a public hearing on Town Code Amendment 2026-01, which is an overhaul of the requirements in Town Code Chapter 32, “Utilities,” concerning wastewater systems.

The Town of Southern Shores submitted TCA 2026-01.

See TCA 2026-01 at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/13561

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon, 4/19/26

Delegates from the 10 counties* represented by the Albemarle Rural Planning Organization (ARPO), which include Dare and Currituck, voted yesterday in Hertford to maintain the “regional priority” status of the Mid-Currituck Bridge project, thereby preserving the State’s committed funding of $173 million for another budgetary year.

The vote was 6-1, according to CBS affiliate WTKR (channel 3), which did not elaborate further.   

“We’re asking for one more budget cycle,” Southern Shores Mayor Elizabeth Morey told representatives from the N.C. Dept. of Transportation who attended the Town Council’s special meeting Tuesday, which was more of an information session than the public hearing that the Town had promoted in a news release.

The ARPO gave her the year. But the extension of the priority designation does not come with any more guaranteed State funds for the seven-mile-long, two-lane toll bridge that would connect Aydlett on the Currituck mainland to Corolla.

Tuesday, David Wasserman, Deputy Director of the NCDOT Division of Planning, identified a $832 million shortfall between the current $1.2 billion estimated cost of the Mid-Currituck Bridge and the State’s committed funding ($173 million) plus projected toll revenues.

His calculation factored in $195 million for the net cash flow from tolling operations, which is less than the $238 million in toll revenue that was estimated when the NCDOT approved the Mid-Currituck Bridge in 2014 for funding during the 10-year budget that started in 2016.

Proponents of the Mid-Currituck Bridge have advocated for higher tolls being imposed than NCDOT has calculated, but neither Mr. Wasserman nor his colleague, Ronnie Sawyer, Deputy Division Engineer for NCDOT-Division One, who also attended the meeting, responded to inquiries Tuesday about the bridge’s toll rate.

We have heard suggestions made by local elected officials and Dare residents of $50 to $100 tolls for a one-way trip. NCDOT’s initial discussions about the toll rate focused on $15.  

Only two Southern Shores homeowners spoke while the NCDOT representatives were at the meeting. Hand-picked by Mayor Morey, they were Geri Sullivan of 10th Avenue, near Duck Road, and Jim LeBlanc, of South Dogwood Trail. Both addressed safety problems posed by the summer weekend traffic congestion and the inconvenience of coming and going in Southern Shores, not the funding gap.

For organizational purposes, it is helpful to know that the NCDOT has 14 highway divisions statewide, and that Division One is comprised of 14 counties in Northeastern North Carolina, including the 10 served by the ARPO.

An NCDOT “Region” is a broader category that encompasses multiple divisions. Dare and Currituck counties are in Region A, which, Mr. Wasserman said, has 8 percent of the State’s population. There are seven regions: A through G.

****  

As we learned Tuesday, the NCDOT operates with 10-year budgets for transportation projects across the state. The funding for the 2026-2035 budget is $32 billion, an amount determined by the N.C. General Assembly that does not begin to meet the need, according to Mr. Wasserman.

During the upcoming additional “status quo” year for the Mid-Currituck Bridge, he said, NCDOT will continue to “work through legal challenges” and seek additional alternative funds, chiefly federal grants.  

The time, effort, and money the State has spent on legal challenges already have been significant.

Since NCDOT’s 2014 approval, the bridge project has been beset by litigation initiated by the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of Currituck County residents who formed non-profit organizations to qualify for the SELC’s representation.

Litigation, which is still ongoing, has prevented the bridge from going forward. In the interim, the cost of the Mid-Currituck Bridge has skyrocketed.

While the SELC has not won in court on any of its claims, it has succeeded in delaying the bridge construction and “upping the ante” on the bridge.

NCDOT has already spent an estimated $63 million in engineering, litigation, and other costs for the Mid-Currituck Bridge, according to Mr. Wasserman. No one wants this much taxpayer money to go for naught.

The ARPO could have voted to change the bridge’s status from priority, also known as “Scheduled for Delivery,” to “Funded for Preliminary Engineering Only.” Had it done so, the Mid-Currituck Bridge would have had to undergo another ranking process, the result of which would have determined the NCDOT funds for which it might be eligible.

Also, the $173 million in allocated funds would have been available for other selected projects in Division One of NCDOT.

Mr. Wasserman presented a PowerPoint on Tuesday that explained how the State determines which transportation projects get funded and where the funding comes from.

It is for such processes that the word bureaucracy was coined. Not surprisingly, Mr. Wasserman and Mr. Sawyer referred to funding sources as “buckets” rather than by their technical names.  

As we understand it, before a transportation project can be considered for funding from one or more of three buckets—Statewide Mobility, Region, or Division Needs—it must be quantitatively evaluated by the State according to criteria such as benefit/cost; safety; accessibility/connectivity; and congestion.

Mr. Wasserman’s PowerPoint data show the Mid-Currituck Bridge having scored high enough for funding in the Division One Needs category, but not in the other two.

It might qualify for Region A funding if both the ARPO and NCDOT Division One each assigned it additional points, but its current funding is only from the Division bucket. It would never qualify for Statewide Mobility funding.

In the 2026-2035 budget for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Mr. Wasserman’s data show, only about $800 million is available in Region A for all projects. The same is true for Division One: $800 million for all projects.

Available “Regional Impact” funding is apportioned according to the region’s percentage of the State population, and Northeastern North Carolina is sparsely populated compared to other regions where urban areas are located.

We will leave our explanation there and hope that we have not added to the bureaucratic confusion. The bottom line is cost.

* The 10 counties are Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington. The other four counties in Division One are Bertie, Hertford, Martin, and Northampton.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon, 4/16/26

The special session about the Mid-Currituck Bridge scheduled within the Southern Shores Town Council’s regular meeting tomorrow, at 10 a.m., in the Pitts Center, is being held a day before a critical vote on the bridge’s future by delegates from 10 counties in Northeastern North Carolina.

The Albemarle Rural Planning Organization (ARPO), which serves Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington countries, will vote Wednesday in Hertford on whether to keep the bridge project as a “regional priority” or to allow it to go back into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to re-compete for funding with other regional transportation projects.

If the Mid-Currituck Bridge, which currently enjoys a commitment of $173 million in State funding, were to lose its priority, it essentially would return to Square One after decades of effort and advocacy by proponents, failed litigation by opponents, pre-construction meetings and permitting applications, and so much more that has been necessary to launch the project.

We recall speaking at a public hearing about the bridge in Aydlett, which would be its mainland entry point, about 1997.

Thirty years ago, the traffic heading north on N.C. Hwy 12 in Southern Shores on summer weekends was an inconvenience, not the disaster it has become, and the cut-through route on South Dogwood Trail had not been discovered. Duck also was not an incorporated town, and Corolla had just started to boom beyond its infrastructure capabilities.

The ARPO, which develops and advances transportation planning for the 10-county region, collaborates in that process with District One of the N.C. Dept. of Transportation. District One covers a 14-county region that overlaps the ARPO’s 10 counties.

As previously reported, representatives from the NCDOT will be present at the Town Council’s special meeting to update the public on the status of the bridge and to answer questions. (See The Beacon, 4/9/26)

In its resolution supporting the “continued inclusion” of the bridge project in the NCDOT’s STIP, the Town Council acknowledges the profound funding gap between the State’s committed $173 million funding and projected toll revenues and the current cost estimate to build the bridge of $1.2 billion, and asks NCDOT to keep the bridge in STIP as a prioritized project long enough for “stakeholders,” including the N.C. Turnpike Authority and regional partners, to identify new revenue sources, such as federal grants.

The financial shortfall seems overwhelming, but so does its hasty abandonment.   

The Southern Shores Town Council would like to fill the chairs in the Pitts Center for the meeting and hear from a long line of residents at the public lectern.

If you cannot make it to the meeting, you may live-stream it on the Southern Shores You Tube site at https://www.youtube.com/c/SouthernShores (be sure to click on “Live” at the top).

LONGER HOURS FOR LEAVING UNATTENDED TENTS ON BEACH

We mentioned in our previous post about Tuesday’s meeting that a Town Code Text Amendment (TCA) on “tents” would be considered by the Council. This TCA turns out to be about tents and other belongings being left on the beach overnight.

Currently, Town Code section 34-55(b)(2) prohibits leaving unattended personal articles on the beach, such as poles, tents, chairs, cabanas, umbrellas, volleyball nets, and “any other personal property items,” between the hours of 5 p.m. and 7 a.m. TCA 2026-2 would amend the ordinance to prohibit personal belongings being left unattended between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m.

The longer daytime hours “better reflect how people actually use the beach,” according to the Town staff’s recommendation.  

We would expect this amendment to sail through.

****

You may access the Town Council’s meeting packet at https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/soshoresnc-pubu/MEET-Packet-eafc09aadc914edfa3132352db910d68.pdf

An item on the Consent Agenda, which usually consists of routine, non-controversial items that do not require extensive discussion, caught our eye.

It is a resolution by the Town Council in opposition to the N.C. General Assembly’s proposal to amend the N.C. Constitution to require the State legislature to limit the amount local governments can increase property taxes.

According to a Town staff agenda item in the meeting packet, “If enacted, this policy would automatically lower property tax rates when property values rise during revaluations to prevent local governments from gaining a ‘windfall.’”

Known as Bill Draft 2025-MCfy-226, this change in property tax-rate setting would need to be approved by three-fifths of the members in both the N.C. House of Delegates and the N.C. Senate and approved by statewide public referendum in order to become law.

If it comes out of the General Assembly, this constitutional amendment would be on the Nov. 3 general selection ballot. It is currently in the House Select Committee on Property Tax Reduction and Reform.    

See the Bill Draft at https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewDocSiteFile/105417.

We would have liked to know the background behind this apparently audacious maneuver by the General Assembly and have been unable to find anything online.

As you might expect, the Town Council speaks in its resolution to such tax-rate decisions being left to the judgment and discretion of locally elected officials, who know their communities’ needs and the cost of services and are accountable to their constituents.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon, 4/13/26

The Southern Shores Historic Flat Top Tour features 13 iconic mid-century cottages this year and takes place in just two weeks, Sat., April 25, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

Tickets are $10 apiece and may be purchased online at http://bit.ly/4lnhTab (service fee added) or on the day of the tour, from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., at the Flat Top Tour’s box-office tent in the Southern Shores Crossing, 1 Ocean Blvd. (Cash or check only.)

Shore Coffee Roasters, which is in the Crossing, is offering all ticket holders a complimentary cup of coffee on tour day.

The flat top tour is self-guided. Maps and cottage histories will be emailed with tickets that are purchased online and may be picked up at the box-office tent and in the participating cottages.

While you may access many of these distinctive flat-roofed cottages by parking in one spot and walking, you will have to drive to see all of them.

There will be “Tour Parking” signs on the tour route, and attendees will be able to park on the Southern Shores side streets without a town permit, but not on N.C. Hwy. 12.

The 13 cottages on the tour, from south to north, are:

• 13 Skyline Road
• 78 Skyline Road
• 43 Ocean Blvd.
• 69 Ocean Blvd.
• 113 Ocean Blvd.
• 23 Porpoise Run
• 156 Wax Myrtle Trail
• 159 Wax Myrtle Trail (shown above)
• 157 Ocean Blvd.
• 169 Ocean Blvd.
• 170 Ocean Blvd.
• 18 East Dogwood Trail
• 218 Ocean Blvd.

Photographs of all of the cottages are depicted on the Tour’s website in roughly the same order. 

Artist, real estate developer, and visionary Frank Stick, who bought in 1946 the 2,600-acre tract of untouched land that he later named Southern Shores, designed the flat top to withstand the harsh Outer Banks weather and to be affordable. He used materials in the area, such as beach-sand-and-mortar building blocks and juniper for the interior walls and ceilings, and sought to blend his clean-lined, practical, and unostentatious houses into the natural coastal environment.

Like cottages he had seen in Florida, Stick built the flat tops on the ground, not on pilings. Beach houses in Southern Shores were not built on pilings until the 1970s.      

We thank all of the owners who maintain Southern Shores’ remaining flat tops and thus preserve some of our town’s architectural and social history.

Proceeds from the flat top tour benefit the Outer Banks Community Foundation Flat Top Preservation Fund. For more information about the tour and the fund, please contact sshistoricflattops@gmail.com.

The tour will be held, rain or shine.

A FINAL REMINDER . . . BULK TRASH PICKUP IS NEXT FRIDAY

The spring bulk trash collection in town occurs next Friday, April 17. Items for pickup should be out by the roadside the night before.

For the do’s and don’ts of the items you may set out for removal, see:

https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/community/page/bulk-waste-collection-semi-annual

Some of the “don’t” items we routinely see by the road are lumber, building materials, windows, screens, carpets, and rugs. We also suggest that you put items near the road so Bay Disposal workers do not overlook them.

AVOID EAST DOGWOOD TRAIL: We strongly urge you to avoid using East Dogwood Trail in the Southern Shores woods now. It is being repaired and resurfaced and is subject to closures without notice. We have seen too many drivers wishing to turn right on to East Dogwood Trail from South Dogwood Trail compelled to turn around because of a road closure. It’s best not to assume that you will be able to use Hickory Trail.  

THE SOUTHERN SHORES BEACON, 4/11/26