Did you know that guest houses, “ancillary” guest suites, and accessory structures may not be leased or rented separately from the main single-family residence on a lot in Chicahauk?
Or that duplexes and multiple-family houses are “expressly prohibited” in this subdivision of Southern Shores, which is subject to the Town Code as well as its own governing rules?
Or how about that no “existing vegetation or sand dunes shall be disturbed, removed or destroyed during construction” unless the Chicahauk Property Owners Assn. (CPOA) gives “express written consent” for such disturbance/removal/destruction to occur?
We are quoting from provisions of Article III of the Chicahauk covenants, as adopted on June 8, 2010 by the CPOA, that plainly prohibit Airbnb and other room/suite/guest house rentals and clear-cutting of lots, as well as less extensive vegetation changes, in the subdivision.
And yet, we all know that such rentals exist in Chicahauk and that homeowners there clear-cut their lots and otherwise “disturb” vegetation during construction without obtaining permission first from the property owners’ association.
What other mandates is the CPOA Board of Directors ignoring? Is its benign neglect what other property owners want?
Do the CPOA covenants need enforcement or revision and updating?
If you live in Chicahauk, you might wish to attend a CPOA meeting tomorrow at 5:30 p.m. in the Pitts Center to discuss a review of the CPOA covenants and bylaws and contribute your thoughts to answering these questions.
(We received word earlier today from CPOA members that the meeting was being held, but they did not identify a presiding committee. Notice of a meeting does not appear on the CPOA website.)
According to our sources, the CPOA will scrutinize the covenants and bylaws, which were last revised on Dec. 6, 2012, and discuss the drafting of a survey to solicit opinions from the membership about possible changes.
You will find the covenants and bylaws at https://www.cpoaobx.org/covenants/bylaws.
If you participate in a community conversation now, you won’t be surprised later.
BEACH NOURISHMENT ASSESSMENT
We regret that we have not had the time or opportunity to report on the update given by Ken Willson of Coastal Protection Engineering at last Tuesday’s Town Council meeting on the status of the Southern Shores beaches.
According to Mr. Willson, CPE surveyed the beaches at its 23 station profiles in late November 2022, after the October-November beach nourishment project, and in June 2023. He generally gave a positive assessment, saying that, even without the sand volume added by the nourishment, the beaches would have gained volume through natural accretion.
Mr. Willson suggested that the Town might not have to maintain its beach nourishment on a five-year cycle, being able to extend out six or seven years before the next project will have to be done.
We would like to give you data from Mr. Willson’s report to back up this overview and will do so as soon as possible.
PLANNING BOARD/BOA MEETING DEC. 18: A Variance Request and Lot-Width ZTA
The Southern Shores Planning Board will sit as the Board of Adjustment next Monday at 5 p.m. in the Pitts Center to hear a request from the owner of 17 Ninth Ave. for a variance that would allow him to locate a 10-foot-by-16-foot shed in the minimally required side-yard setback, as set forth in Town Code sec. 36-202(d)(4).
A side-yard setback of 15 feet is required in the RS-1 single-family residential district between a building and all structures that are at least 30 inches tall and the side boundary line of an adjacent property. If the edge of property owner Gerald Soucy’s shed is closer than 15 feet to the side-lot line, he has violated the ordinance.
In his variance application, Mr. Soucy writes that the shed is five feet “from the side-yard fence.” But he points out that the shed is more than 30 feet from the neighbors’ pool fence and more than 45 feet from their house.
“These distances are in line with the spirit of the setback ordinance,” he writes, if not the letter of it.
Board of Adjustment hearings on variances are quasi-judicial, not legislative public hearings. Members of the public may give factual testimony under oath—not opinions—only if they could be aggrieved by the Board’s decision on the variance application, which is VA-23-02.
According to instructions by the Town, only “immediate neighbors” whose “property use, enjoyment and value would be adversely impacted by the Board’s decision” can be considered “aggrieved.”
The variance application may be found in the supporting documents appended to the Planning Board meeting notice at:
https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/planning/page/planning-board-will-meet-december-18-2023
Also on the Board’s agenda for Monday is consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA 23-05, that rewrites, and presumably clarifies, the language of ordinances pertaining to the minimally required lot widths in the Town’s residential zoning districts.
By a vote of 3-2, the Town Council enacted a “stopgap” ordinance on lot width at its June 6 meeting that enabled only those lots newly created by subdivision or recombination that have uniform minimally required widths from side-lot-line to side-lot-line, to be considered conforming. Thus, in the RS-1 single-family dwelling district, a new lot would have to be 100 feet in width throughout. No irregularly shaped lots would be conforming, only rectangular ones.
Mayor Pro Tem Matt Neal and Councilwoman Paula Sherlock objected to the stopgap ordinance, ZTA 23-03, arguing that it mandated too many Town Code amendments and that the “ambiguity” it sought to resolve, according to Mr. Neal, “was where the front setback is.”
The front building setback line was and is used as a measuring stick for lot width.
“Wouldn’t it be simpler,” Mr. Neal asked, “to fix the front setback at one static location?”
We answered “yes” to him in our blog post of 6/13/23 and are not surprised that the new ZTA, 23-05, develops this concept–with one big wrinkle.
In fixing the front building setback line, at which lot width is to be measured, the new ZTA distinguishes between lots that front on a cul de sac from all other lots.
For example, in the RS-1 district, the building setback line may be established up to 80 feet from the front lot line of cul-de-sac lots, whereas the building setback line for all other lots shall be established 25 feet from the front lot line.
We find the language for where the 100-foot width is to be measured on lots that front on cul de sacs to be problematic and expect it to give the Planning Board pause.
Planning Director/Deputy Town Manager Wes Haskett recommends approval of ZTA 23-05 in his staff report. Both Mr. Haskett’s report and the ZTA may be found in the supporting documents, as cited above.
By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 12/11/23
The Southern Shores Beacon 