A standing-room-only crowd of Southern Shores property owners turned out yesterday evening at the Planning Board meeting to oppose the Board’s approval of a SAGA investor group’s proposal/site plan to develop a large tract on U.S. Hwy. 158 that fronts on Ginguite Creek into a “mixed-use” development of condominiums, offices, retail shops, restaurants, and a marina.
Common among the sentiments expressed by the 20 property owners who spoke against the project at 6195 N. Croatan Hwy., which is located next to the Southern Shores Landing, were those of Dixie Kirby of North Dogwood Trail who said she was “appalled” by its “size and extent” and called it “against the spirit of Southern Shores.”
Although the Planning Board did not meet yesterday to approve or disapprove the proposed development—that boat already has sailed (see below)—it did begin a painstaking review of the special use permit application (SUP 23-01) that must be approved by the Town Council before property owner Ginguite LLC can apply for a building permit.
Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett has recommended that the SUP be approved, subject to a number of conditions–ranging from the procurement of mandatory State permits to the conduct of an updated fire hydrant flow test–to which the Planning Board may add more.
The Planning Board will make a recommendation about Ginguite’s application to the Town Council, and the Council will make the final decision.
According to SUP 23-01, Ginguite LLC, which was represented at the Board meeting by Sumit Gupta, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of SAGA Realty & Construction, and engineer Michael Strader of Quible & Associates, proposes to build two three-story wood-framed buildings, 200 parking spaces, a marina, and associated infrastructure on what it claims is about 4.55 acres (net acreage) of a 6.96-acre property that is zoned predominantly commercial, with a small section of R-1 low-density residential in the northern end. (The “net acreage” does not include any areas covered by “waterways, wetlands, or marshes.”)
The easternmost building would house 30 residences, which Mr. Gupta heretofore has referred to as “luxury condominiums,” and the western building would house six residences, about 9,255 square feet of office space, and 6,985 square feet of combined retail and restaurant space.
Upon questioning by Planning Board member Robert McClendon, Mr. Gupta revealed that the “multi-family” residences he intends to build in the eastern building would have two or three bedrooms, and the residences in the western building would have three or four bedrooms.
He waffled on whether they would be rentals or sales, expressed a clear preference for condos, not apartments, and declined to mention a sales price. He told Board Chairperson Andy Ward that he envisions a total of 140 bedrooms.
None of the lot being developed includes areas covered by “waterways, wetlands, or marshes,” according to Ginguite’s application, although it is difficult to argue that the development will not have, as homeowner Elizabeth Ryan said in public comments, a “detrimental effect” on the “unique and natural beauty” of the Ginguite Creek area.
In its review of Ginguite’s SUP, the Planning Board is analyzing the impact of the proposed development on adjacent properties, transportation and transportation systems, stormwater, utilities and telecommunications, vegetation and other elements of the natural environment, and noise, among other factors, and ensuring Ginguite’s compliance with regulations and requirements imposed by the Town Code.
Questions posed by the Planning Board were so detailed and wide-ranging that Mr. Strader remarked in frustration that the “types of questions” being asked “should have been ironed out before tonight, quite frankly.” (We will delve into some of the questions, especially those pertaining to lot coverage, in Part Two of our report.)
Mr. Strader’s comment came after an extended exchange over a wastewater utility easement and the use of a lift station in a common area of the Landing development. (We struggled to follow Board members’ train of thought.)
Mr. Ward replied that “We intend to question everything” on Ginguite’s “site narrative,” which was submitted with its site plan and other materials.
“It’s our right,” he emphasized, adding “Just as long as we can make reasonable progress, we can move forward.”
Earlier, the Board Chairperson informed the audience that last night’s meeting was “just the starting point in our process” of a “complex review” that was “likely to take at least two meetings.”
CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SUP
Among the many conditions that Mr. Haskett recommended in his staff report were two that dealt with mandatory 50-foot setbacks from the property lines of the adjacent Southern Shores Landing and All Saints’ Episcopal Church, as well as the preservation of existing natural vegetative buffers between them.
Lynn Usher of Ocean Boulevard, who described himself as a member of the vestry of All Saints’, spoke beautifully about how the Ginguite development “will inevitably intrude on our outdoor sanctuary,” where people “contemplate their lives and remember those who have passed.”
Equally poignant were remarks by Arline Arnold of Holly Trail about the detrimental impact of the development on the children’s playground at All Saints’ that she dedicated “in memory of our granddaughter who was killed at Sandy Hook [Elementary School].”
Mr. Haskett further pointed out that marinas, which he defined as a “series of docks and piers,” are not permitted in the C General Commercial District. He cited an unattributed “interpretation letter” dated Aug. 14, 2023, for this opinion, which we have learned was written by him to the named SUP applicant, Quible engineer Cathleen M. Saunders.
Although the Town did not recommend that Ginguite do a traffic impact assessment or traffic study to evaluate how the mixed-use development will affect traffic in this well-traveled area of U.S. 158—a significant concern for most of the property owners who spoke—it did condition Ginguite’s submission of its Building Permit application on completion of such a study, if the N.C. Dept. of Transportation requires one.
There are two accesses in and out of the proposed development, one of which fronts on the highway and is already being used, and the other of which is Landing Trail, an access easement that Ginguite shares with the Southern Shores Landing. Mr. Strader said Ginguite has in mind preventing a left turn from its development into the Landing and would be “open to further changes” so that “no unchecked through traffic” occurs in the Landing.
Jim Baker, president of the Martin’s Point Homeowners Assn., predicted that it will be “impossible to make a left-hand turn” on to U.S. Hwy. 158 from the Ginguite development, so residents and visitors will turn right on the highway and then use the Martin’s Point service road to turn around.
After a lengthy discussion with Mr. Strader and Mr. Gupta, the Planning Board adjourned without taking a vote on whether to recommend the SUP’s conditional approval.
It will resume its review of what Mr. Ward referred to as Ginguite’s “grandiose proposal” at its next meeting, Oct. 16, at 5 p.m. in the Pitts Center.
WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE: THE MIXED-USE ORDINANCE
It was clear from property owners’ comments that many had just learned yesterday about this controversial creekfront project, even though the Town’s discussion about it dates back to February 2022, when Ginguite, LLC sought to amend the Southern Shores Town Code to authorize and define mixed-use developments in the General C Commercial District. The SAGA investor group introduced a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to make that change.
Until the Town Council unanimously voted on June 7, 2022 to amend Town Code sec. 36-207(c) to add “mixed-use” as a conditional use in the Town’s commercial district, and specified the requirements for such developments, with the Ginguite project specifically in mind, such developments were prohibited in Southern Shores. (See the amendment at Town Code 36-207(c)(11))
The Planning Board negotiated for months with Mr. Gupta on the wording of the ZTA that it eventually recommended for approval to the Town Council. As we previously reported, the SAGA CEO met personally with Mayor Elizabeth Morey, Mayor Pro Tem Matt Neal, and Town Manager Cliff Ogburn on the morning of the meeting in which the Council passed a mixed-used ordinance (ZTA 22-06) that was more generous in terms of maximum allowable lot coverage than the one the Planning Board recommended.
Mr. Neal attended yesterday’s meeting. He was the only one of the four candidates running in November for three seats on the Town Council who did.
We have been writing on the social media site, Next Door, today to try to catch homeowners up with the events last year that led to enactment of Southern Shores’ mixed-use ordinance, which makes “mixed use group development of commercial and residential buildings” a conditional use in the general commercial district. (Because of a change in nomenclature by the N.C. General Assembly, conditional uses are now being called special uses.)
After listening to homeowners’ negative comments about his project, Mr. Gupta informed the Board and the audience yesterday, “We studied the rules. There’s an ordinance in Southern Shores, and we followed it to a T.”
The mixed-use ordinance specifies such matters as minimum building size (2,500 square feet); residential density (limited to RS-8 “high-density” district allowances); minimum front, side, and rear setbacks; maximum building height (35 feet); the minimum and maximum lot coverage of the net parcel area that can be associated with the residential-use footprint (25 and 40 percent, respectively), and more.
“We met all dimensional requirements,” Mr. Gupta said yesterday. “. . . We don’t ask [the Town] for anything.”
He further noted that “We purchased a sewage system to develop this property.”
Mr. Gupta said he has no issue with the SUP approval conditions suggested by Mr. Haskett, except for the 50-foot setback imposed from his property’s eastern boundary line to buildings, parking spaces, incinerators, and other structures on it.
Saying that the Landing is a commercial property—which, because of a Town zoning map error and the type of development it is, appears to be true (more troubled water under the bridge)—Mr. Gupta argued that it was not entitled to such a lengthy setback. Only residential properties receive a 50-foot side setback from commercial developments under the Town Code.
Nonetheless, the SAGA developer said he had arranged for a 34-foot setback, which is more than twice the 15 feet that the mixed-use ordinance requires for side-yard setbacks.
We will stop here and pick up with our report of the Planning Board’s review of Ginguite’s SUP and the history of the mixed-use ordinance in Southern Shores either later this week or next week.
Please let us know if we have misspelled anyone’s name. We did not take the time to verify spelling with the Town Clerk.
You will find Ginguite, LLC’s site narrative and other site plan materials, as well as Mr. Haskett’s staff report, in the links under the meeting notice on the Town website at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/bc-pb/page/planning-board-september-18-2023.
To be continued. Thank you.
Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 9/19/23
The Southern Shores Beacon 