The Town Planning Board will revisit an ordinance regulating tree removal on unimproved lots at its regular monthly meeting tomorrow at 5 p.m., and the newly formed Southern Shores Entry Corridor Committee will hold its first meeting at 10 a.m. Wednesday.
Both meetings will be held in the Pitts Center.
No agenda for the Corridor Committee has been posted on the Town website. The Planning Board agenda may be found at https://www.southernshores- nc.gov/media/11201.
If the Planning Board recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 24-05, which will be before it tomorrow, it may find itself in opposition to views held by members of the Town Council, including Mayor Elizabeth Morey.
While property owners often speak of “individual property rights” as if they were absolute, such rights have long been subjugated to reasonable land-use and zoning regulations that are designed to protect and preserve communities.
PLANNING BOARD HAS SHOWN INTEREST IN REGULATING REMOVAL OF TREES IN YARD SETBACKS ON UNIMPROVED LOTS THROUGHOUT TOWN; TOWN COUNCIL HAS LIMITED REGULATION TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
On April 9, the Town Council adopted Zoning Text Amendment 24-02, which established that a property owner must obtain a lot disturbance/stormwater management (“LDSM”) permit before removing trees that are greater than 6 inches in diameter, measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, within the front, side, and rear yard setbacks on any unimproved lot in the general commercial zoning district.
ZTA 24-02 amended Town Code section 36-171, which pertains to lot disturbance and stormwater management and sets forth the requirements for an LDSM permit. (Chapter 36 of the Town Code is the zoning chapter.)
ZTA 24-02 was a much narrower version of an earlier proposed ordinance, known as ZTA 24-01, that also addressed tree removal and LDSM permits.
ZTA 24-01 required property owners in all zoning districts, not just the general commercial district, to obtain a LDSM permit before removing trees of the specified size from anywhere on an unimproved lot, not just those in the setback areas.
Neither ZTA had any relevance to developed lots.
The Planning Board was scheduled to take action on ZTA 24-01 at its Feb. 21 meeting, but Planning Director/Deputy Managing Editor Wes Haskett withdrew the proposed ordinance, informing the Board that ZTA 24-01 would be redrafted into a new ZTA. He did not explain why.
The revised ZTA 24-02 came before the Planning Board at its March 18 meeting, with its application narrowed to the commercial district only and to trees only in the setback areas, not elsewhere on lots. When questioned about the omission of other zoning districts, in particular, residential districts, Mr. Haskett referred to a preference for focusing on buffers between commercial property and adjacent lots and for not burdening residential property owners.
The five-member Board discussed the ZTA thoroughly, unanimously expressing disappointment that the proposed ordinance no longer applied to residential districts, just the commercial district.
The Board viewed the objective of the ZTA as protecting adjacent properties from stormwater runoff, which typically increases when old-growth trees that absorb the water are removed.
Board Chairperson Andy Ward was especially adamant that the tree-removal permit requirement be extended to residential districts.
The Planning Board ultimately decided to recommend approval of ZTA 24-02, as presented—by a 4-1 vote, with Mr. Ward dissenting—while also recommending, by consensus, that the tree-removal permit requirement be applied to property owners in the residential districts.
The Town Council did not mention this request during its discussion on April 9 after the public hearing on ZTA 24-02. It unanimously approved the ordinance. ZTA 24-02 became law.
The Planning Board brought up the issue again at its June 17 meeting and asked Mr. Haskett to draft a new ZTA to apply the tree-removal permit requirement now imposed only on commercial property owners to property owners in all zoning districts.
ZTA 24-05, which the Planning Board will consider at its meeting tomorrow, is the result.
See the text of ZTA 24-05 at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/11196.
ZTA 24-05 also contains a new proposed section spelling out exceptions to the permit requirement for tree removal when an “emergency” exists. Mayor Pro Tem Matt Neal first mentioned carving out emergency exceptions, for commercial property owners, at the April 9 public hearing.
According to ZTA 24-05, tree emergencies are deemed to exist when:
(a) A tree has become an imminent danger or hazard to persons or property as a result of fire, motor vehicle accident, or natural occurrence such as lightning, windstorm, ice storm, flood or other similar event; or
(b) A tree must be removed in order to perform emergency repair or replacement of public or private water, sewer, electric, gas, or telecommunications utilities.
The Town’s current Land Use Plan sets forth two land-use compatibility policies that are pertinent to ZTA 24-05: 1) “to monitor and preserve maritime forests and other tree canopy coverage”; and 2) “to consider reviewing standards for tree preservation in new development and redevelopment to ensure they protect and preserve the existing canopy and forest coverage.”
Mr. Haskett cites these policies in his staff report on ZTA 24-05 and recommends approval of the proposed ordinance.
See his staff report at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/11191.
Assuming the Planning Board recommends approval of ZTA 24-05, the measure will likely be subject to a public hearing before the Town Council in January.
HIGHLIGHTS OF TOWN COUNCIL’S NOV. 12 MEETING
The Town Council’s November meeting lasted just a little over an hour. Some highlights include:
TOWN HALL RENOVATIONS: Town Manager Cliff Ogburn informed the Town Council that he had received only two bids for the Town Hall Renovation Project, which he described as constructing interior “improvements mainly for safety reasons.”
The project was bid twice because the Town did not receive the minimum three bids the first time it advertised. The same two bidders, however, submitted bids both times: They were Sussex Development Corp., which was low bidder at $512,041.23; and AR Chesson Construction, which came in slightly higher at $522,000.
Both of these bids exceed the $380,000 that the Town has budgeted for the Town Hall remodel, and neither includes important security improvements for the Police Department and the Pitts Center. Mr. Ogburn sought the Town Council’s permission to “value-engineer” with Sussex to see if he could redefine the project at a lower cost.
Mr. Ogburn and the Town Council engaged in a prolonged discussion about the scope, cost, and priority of various Town Hall renovations, which have long been envisioned, but heretofore not undertaken. According to the Town Manager, they include:
*Making the front entrance compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act
*Remodeling the front reception area, so that the receptionist faces the entry door
*Installing more secure doors and glass
*Expanding the property file room and the conference room
*Removing the half-wall between the front reception area and the current office of Permit Officer Marcey Baum
Mr. Ogburn also identified the replacement of 13 doors in the Police Department (10), and the Pitts Center (three), as well as three doors in the Town Hall, with a new secure door-access system that employs safety glass and cameras as a top priority.
The Town Council gave him permission to proceed with the 16 doors, which Mr. Ogburn priced at $94,573, only $38,00 of which, he said, was included in Sussex’s bid.
The cost to expand the file room has previously been estimated at $111,000, but it was unclear from the Manager-Council discussion how the cost for other improvements might break down. The Council authorized Mr. Ogburn to value-engineer with Sussex and come back with his results.
LIGHT POLLUTION INITIATIVE: In her Council comments at the end of the meeting, Councilwoman Paula Sherlock said several residents had approached her with questions about Dare County’s initiative to reduce light pollution.
We are aware that the Town of Duck has had a Dark Sky Ordinance since its 2002 incorporation, but we have not heard of a county-wide initiative.
Ms. Sherlock said she would look into what Dare County is doing to reduce artificial lighting and see if Southern Shores can join in any on-going effort.
Light pollution can harm wildlife, detract from the natural environment, and diminish residents’ quality of life. We look forward to hearing what Ms. Sherlock has to say at the December Town Council meeting.
PROTECTION OF JOCKEY’S RIDGE: The Town Council unanimously approved a Town resolution in support of reinstituting the designation of an “Area of Environmental Concern” (AEC) for Jockey’s Ridge State Park. The resolution was included in the Council’s consent agenda and did not receive any discussion.
By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Beacon
The Southern Shores Beacon 