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, AND MORE
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.
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
The Southern Shores Beacon 