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

Retired U.S. Coast Guard Chief Warrant Officer Matthew Moyer will speak at the Southern Shores 2024 Veterans Day ceremony on Monday, Nov. 11, at 11 a.m. in the Pitts Center.

Officer Moyer, CW02, is a decorated 26-year veteran of the USCG and a Southern Shores resident, according to a release by the Town of Southern Shores, which sponsors the annual Veterans Day ceremony with the Knights of Columbus Assembly 2989.

The event is free to all members of the public.

The Southern Shores ceremony is one of four ceremonies being held in Dare County towns this year to honor veterans. Kill Devil Hills, Nags Head, and Manteo also are holding memorial celebrations on Veterans Day. You can learn the details about these events and other special activities planned during Dare’s Outer Banks Veterans Week, which runs tomorrow through Nov. 11, at https://www.darearts.org/veteransdirectory.

Outer Banks Veterans Week celebrates veterans and their families through the arts. It is sponsored by The Coastal Studies Institute, Hotel Manteo, the Veterans Writing Project, and the Pioneer Theater, and funded in part by the Outer Banks Visitors Bureau.

Among the upcoming events are:

*Outer Banks Veterans Concert on Sat., Nov. 9, 7 p.m., at the Pioneer Theater, 109 Budleigh St. in downtown Manteo

Musicians Tony Rosario, the co-founder of Soldier Songs and Voices; Ron Capps, the founder of the Veterans Writing Project, and Jana Pochop, a singer/songwriter/producer, will perform a special song swap billed as an “intimate evening of storytelling through song” in a round-table format. The concert costs $5 for attendees with a military or veteran ID and $10 for all others. Tickets may be purchased online at ThePioneerTheater.com or at the door.

*Veterans Writing Workshop on Sat.-Sun., Nov. 9-10, at the UNC Coastal Studies Institute in Wanchese, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day.

Mr. Rosario and Ms. Pochop will lead a “hands-on songwriting workshop” for beginning and experienced songwriters. The two-day workshop is free for veterans, active-duty military, and their family members. Participants may bring a musical instrument, if they choose. Pre-registration for the workshop is required because space is limited.

To register for the songwriting workshop and to find out more about these events and others scheduled during Outer Banks Veterans Week, go to https://www.darearts. org/veterans.

*A new exhibit, “A Thousand Words: Photographs by Vietnam Veterans,” on display at the Outer Banks History Center, Roanoke Island Festival Park, Manteo, starting Tuesday, Nov. 4, and running through Dec. 31.

The photograph exhibit will be on display in the temporary exhibit space at the Outer Banks History Center from Tuesday through Saturday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., until the end of the year. The exhibit is free to the public. (The OBHC is closed for three months of renovations.)

LOCAL DISCOUNTS FOR DARE COUNTY VETERANS WITH ID CARDS

In May 2012, the Dare County Board of Commissioners created the Veterans Advisory Council in recognition of the service and sacrifice of all Dare County veterans. The DCVAC’s signature project is the Dare County Veterans I.D. card, which enables veterans to receive discounts off of goods and services at many local businesses.

To obtain a veterans I.D. card, you must have your DD214 form showing an honorable discharge and a driver’s license with a Dare County address. To obtain your card, call Marsha Brown, Dare County Veterans Advisory Council member, at (252) 202-2058, or Patty O’Sullivan, Dare County Veteran Service Officer, at (252) 475-5604.

Among the businesses that accept the Dare County veterans I.D. card and offer discounts year-round are Ace Hardware, Artsy Octopus, Barefoot Bernie’s, High Cotton BBQ, Jolly Roger Restaurant, Kitty Hawk Kites, and Sugar Shack and Sugar Creek Seafood Restaurant.

Elsewhere in recognition of Veterans Day:

Atlantic Dentistry in Kitty Hawk is offering free dental services to all veterans on Fri., Nov. 9. Call (252) 261-7700 to schedule an appointment.

Morgan Family Dentistry, 10A Juniper Trail in Southern Shores, is holding its 10th annual veterans’ dental clinic on Friday, from 8 a.m. to noon. For more information, call (252) 256-9302.

The N.C. Aquarium on Roanoke Island is offering 50 percent off its admission for all active duty, retired, and reserve members of the military and their immediate family members on Veterans Day. The aquarium is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and is located at 374 Airport Road in Manteo. Proof of service/I.D. is required.

The Wright Brothers National Memorial in Kill Devil Hills will waive all entrance fees on Veterans Day in honor of the holiday.

For all you need to know about the Dare County veterans card and the events being held during Outer Banks Veterans Week, see https://www.darearts.org/veteransdirectory.

AND DON’T FORGET: TUESDAY IS ELECTION DAY.

The Pitts Center is the polling place for all registered voters residing in Southern Shores. Polls will be open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

For a list of candidates, locally, statewide, and nationally, for the election, see https://www.darenc.gov/departments/elections/candidates.

For a sample ballot, see https://www.darenc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/14431/638620773175830000.

---

The Southern Shores Town Council’s regular monthly meeting, which is usually held on the first Tuesday of the month, will be held on Tuesday, Nov. 12, at 5:30 p.m. in the Pitts Center.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Beacon, 11/3/24

After a 5 ½-hour hearing, with two recesses, the Town Board of Adjustment voted unanimously last night to deny a variance to Anthony Mina that would have allowed him to subdivide the 46,500-square-foot property at 75 E. Dogwood Trail that he owns with his fiancée.

(See The Beacon, 10/19/24, for factual background.)

The hearing may have been excessively long, but the Board’s decision was made quickly and without discussion. It was a foregone conclusion. Mr. Mina did not have a meritorious case, just a personal grievance against the Town, in particular, against Town Deputy Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett.

We are not acquainted with how this grievance escalated to the point of wasting 5 ½ hours of attendees’ time and public money spent on two attorneys (one representing the Town; the other representing the Board of Adjustment), one court reporter, three police officers (we believe one left early), and overtime for Mr. Haskett and Town Manager Cliff Ogburn, but we trust the Town will conduct a post-mortem and figure out how it could have handled interactions with Mr. Mina better.

We question the Town’s decision even to let Mr. Mina file a request for a variance, inasmuch as a variance is not the “appropriate remedy,” as Town Attorney Lauren Arigaza-Womble of Hornthal, Riley, Ellis & Maland said several times during the hearing, for the hardship that Mr. Mina claimed.

Ms. Arigaza-Womble quoted Professor Adam Lovelady, an expert in land-use law at the University of North Carolina School of Government, for the principle that: “A variance is not the appropriate remedy for a condition or hardship that is shared by the neighborhood or the community as a whole,” such as would be the case where a zoning ordinance, of which an individual complains, affects everyone in the community.

At the beginning of the hearing, it appeared that Mr. Mina had not even wanted to file a request for a variance, for which he paid a $350 fee. He sought to “preclude” the hearing and told the Board of Adjustment that the Town had “no legal basis to force me to be here.”

This posture was one of many confusing revelations by Mr. Mina, whose recourse with the Town is to attempt to change the ordinance that prevents him from subdividing his property in his favor.

TEDIOUS, EXHAUSTIVE HEARING

We did not stay for the conclusion of the hearing, dear readers, taking our leave at 9 p.m., when the second recess was called.  

By then, we had heard a tedious and exhaustive recitation of Mr. Mina’s Variance Application 24-01, which BOA Chairperson Andy Ward took him through, section by section, even though the application was available for all Board members and the public to read, and Mr. Mina, who represented himself, could have summarized it in his direct testimony.

We also had heard an excessive amount of irrelevant material introduced by Mr. Mina into the record, through his oral testimony and his documentation, even though Ms. Arigaza-Womble, properly and continuously objected to it.

Mr. Ward allowed Mr. Mina to have his say, while also trying to keep him focused on facts and not on “innuendo” and “accusations.”

But Mr. Mina’s argument was based on fraud, not on any of the criteria relevant to the granting of a variance.

“Fraud,” he said early on, after moving to “preclude” last night’s hearing—a motion that became moot as the hearing continued—“is a big factor in me obtaining the variance.”

Mr. Mina claimed that Mr. Haskett and the Town of Southern Shores had led him to believe falsely that the lot at 75 E. Dogwood Trail, which he purchased July 5, 2023, could be subdivided, when, in fact, regulations in the Town Code of Ordinances prevent such a subdivision. He repeatedly said that Mr. Haskett had “hidden” the zoning code(s) from him.

He alleged a “real estate scam” or conspiracy to defraud him, and he has sued those people he believes are co-conspirators in federal court. Mr. Mina filed his lengthy complaint in the Eastern District of the U.S. District Court of North Carolina. (The case number is 2:24-CV-00042.)  

Lest anyone be as confused as Mr. Mina clearly was about the zoning ordinances in the Town Code—which are sometimes referred to as the “Zoning Code” or the “Zoning Ordinance”—we would like to clarify that Southern Shores’ zoning ordinances are part of the Town Code, which is readily available on the Town website.

An ordinance is a municipal law: It is a law enacted by local government.  

Mr. Haskett could not “hide” the Town’s ordinances if he wanted to.

When the Southern Shores Town Council passes a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) or a Town Code Amendment (TCA), it is passing new law. The ZTA or TCA amends (changes) the text that already exists in the Town Code.  

The Town Code is made up of chapters, the 36^th of which is about zoning, and, therefore, is often referred to as the “Zoning Code.” The 30^th chapter is about subdivisions and is often referred to as the “Subdivision Ordinance.” The so-called Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance are not separate from the Town Code; they are part of it.  

ACCESS TO SUBDIVISION LOTS

Access to newly created lots is a significant issue with a subdivision.

Before Aug. 3, 2021, the Town Code allowed subdividers to create access by one of two ways: 1) by having all lots front on a public road; or 2) by creating a public-access easement that connected new lots to a public road and met certain standards of width, length, and the like.

On Aug. 3, 2021, however, the Town Council passed TCA 21-06, which eliminated the access-easement option then codifed in the subdivision chapter at section 30-96(f).

So, two years before Mr. Mina bought his property, the Town Council rendered it impossible for him to subdivide his lot without ensuring that each lot fronted on a public road.

Mr. Mina presented no evidence at the hearing to suggest, much less prove, that the required public notice of the hearing on TCA 21-06 was defective in any way. He insinuated that it was, but he presented no facts to bolster that insinuation.

As Mr. Haskett testified, he did not know Mr. Mina in 2021, and he was not the proponent of TCA 21-06. It was the Town Council that asked for a change in the law. (See our report of 10/19/24.)

Mr. Mina submitted to the Town two applications for a subdivision of 75 E. Dogwood, each of which had a preliminary plat and each of which appears to depend upon an easement for access to a back lot. The Town received both on July 3, 2024, and Mr. Haskett denied both. Mr. Mina did not appeal either denial during the 30 days allotted to him by ordinance for an appeal.

One of the denials also cited Mr. Mina’s failure to conform to a newly enacted zoning ordinance defining mandatory minimum lot size in the RS-1 single-family-dwelling residential district.

Contrary to Mr. Mina’s reading of the new lot-width ordinance, which is Town Code section 36-202(d), it only applies to lots created after June 6, 2023 through subdivision or recombination. It does not render all lots that are not 100 feet wide at every width measurement non-conforming.

The facts established that Mr. Mina exchanged many emails with Mr. Haskett in the month before the lot-width ordinance changed on June 6, 2023, which was about a month before he bought 75 E. Dogwood Trail. There were so many emails, according to Mr. Haskett, that it would take him hours to count them.

Mr. Mina states in his application that the Town Planning Director deliberately withheld from him “pertinent information” about the soon-to-be-changed lot-width ordinance.

Mr. Haskett testified that he had no reason to believe that minimum lot width would be relevant to any applications that Mr. Mina might submit.

Mr. Ward sustained objections from Ms. Arigaza-Womble about Mr. Mina’s allegations that the Town did not give proper notice for the public hearings that were held on the ZTA and TCA that changed the ordinances Mr. Mina cited. Mr. Ward stated for the record that the ordinances were legally adopted.   

COMMUNICATING WITH AGGRIEVED PROPERTY OWNERS

We are not able to comment with knowledge about what happened between Mr. Haskett and Mr. Mina to sour their communications—and between Mr. Mina and Mr. Ogburn—and we will not make any assumptions.

It is clear from Mr. Mina’s variance application and from everything he said last night that he is confused and operating under misconceptions. It is also clear that he believes people have mistreated him. We are not going to speculate as to why.

Mr. Mina came across at the hearing as frenetic—what people would describe as hyper—and intense, but also polite and respectful.

We all know people who cannot be reasoned with, who cannot accept the truth or their own responsibility, and who look to blame others or even believe others are out to get them.   

The question we are left with is the one we started with: How could the Town have prevented the exercise in futility that we witnessed last night?

No one benefited from what occurred, and if Mr. Mina appeals the Board’s decision to the Superior Court of Dare County—he has 30 days to decide, and he indicated last night he probably would—the Town will expend more hours and money on this case, as will Mr. Mina, who professed to be more interested in working on his home-improvement business than on litigation.

All we would suggest is that the next time a “problem” arises with an aggrieved property owner that the Town staff cannot handle that they have a means for resolving it that does not include referring that property owner to the Town Attorney. No one wants to talk to a lawyer. Unless they’re acting as independent dispute mediators, lawyers are adversaries and can be quite intimidating to people who are not accustomed to engaging with them.

A neutral third party might have been helpful in communicating with Mr. Mina.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon

The evidentiary hearing you might have seen promoted on a large roadside sign at 75 E. Dogwood Trail, near the Dick White Bridge (see above photo), announces a hearing Monday before the Town Board of Adjustment (BOA) about a requested variance.

When you peruse the voluminous documentation in the Town file for this variance application, however, you quickly discover this is not your garden-variety variance request. In fact, it is unprecedented in Southern Shores.

The homeowners at 75 E. Dogwood Trail are asking for a variance that would allow them to subdivide their 46,500-square-foot property into two lots. We explain below why they believe they are entitled to that variance.

The BOA’s hearing, which is quasi-judicial in nature, will be held Monday in the Pitts Center at 5 p.m. The five-member Town Planning Board will sit as the Town’s BOA. The Planning Board Chairperson—or someone serving in his place, if he must recuse himself for any reason—will conduct the hearing much like a trial in a courtroom, only less formally.

Members of the public may not give their opinions as they may in legislative hearings.   

For information about Monday’s hearing, including the ground rules (“order” of hearing), see https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/bc-pb/page/planning-board-will-meet-october-21-2024.

HOMEOWNERS HAVE ALREADY SUED THE TOWN, 11 OTHERS

The same zoning matter that brings homeowners Anthony Mina and Jennifer Franz before the BOA also induced them to file suit in federal court in August against the Town of Southern Shores, Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett, and 10 other defendants whom Mr. Mina and Ms. Franz have dubbed the “Dare County Real Estate Scam Defendants.”

The couple—Mr. Mina describes Ms. Franz in the file as his fiancee—are representing themselves before the BOA and in court. When parties represent themselves in court, they are said to proceed “pro se,” a Latin phrase meaning “in one’s own behalf.”

Inasmuch as Mr. Mina, a former Pennsylvania resident who is described in a 2020 opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit as a “prolific pro se litigant,” authored all of the documentation in the Town’s case file, we will refer to the couple collectively as Mr. Mina.

(Most of the documents in the case file are irrelevant, including the 55 pages that consist of the complaint Mr. Mina filed in the Eastern District of the U.S. District Court of North Carolina. The case number is 2:24-CV-00042.)

(For the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, see https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1479&context=thirdcircuit_2020.)

The nub of Mr. Mina’s dispute with the 12 defendants he names in his complaint and the reason for his variance request concerns the legal circumstances surrounding his and Ms. Franz’s joint purchase of 75 E. Dogwood Trail from its former owner, Linda Lauby. He contends that the Town of Southern Shores illegally amended the Town Zoning Code to prevent their subdivision of the property.  

Dare County records show that Ms. Lauby sold 75 E. Dogwood Trail to the couple on July 5, 2023 for $625,000. A wooden two-story house built in 1970 was on the property then and still is.  

The 46,500-square-foot, rectangular-shaped lot has frontage on East Dogwood Trail on its northern side and abuts a developed adjacent property on its eastern side. The property’s western and southern sides front on canals.   

Mr. Mina claims that he was led to believe by both the Town and the real estate listing agent, James Monroe of Outer Banks Realty Group, that the property possibly could be subdivided such that one lot would be situated behind another lot. The rear lot would abut the southern end of the front lot and not have any public road frontage.

Mr. Mina includes in his variance application a transcript of an email correspondence between Ms. Lauby and Mr. Haskett in which Mr. Haskett writes on April 30, 2021 (not 2023) that “Based on [Mr. Monroe’s] description [of the 75 E. Dogwood Trail property] it sounded possible to subdivide the property but further review would help.”

Indeed, Mr. Monroe notes on the listing document, which is dated Feb. 24, 2023, that the property is “potentially capable of being subdivided.”

After Aug. 3, 2021, however–as we explain below–such a representation would be false.

There is no evidence in the file to establish that Mr. Haskett tentatively approved a subdivision plan by Mr. Mina prior to his purchase of the lot.  

ZONING CHANGE AFTER PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ON HILLCREST

Subsequent to Mr. Haskett’s email exchange with Ms. Lauby, a preliminary subdivision plat for 279 Hillcrest Drive came before the Town Planning Board (May 17, 2021) and the Town Council (June 1, 2021) for approval.

Homeowner Lauren Van Riper sought to subdivide her 100,000+-square-foot lot into two lots, in the same manner as Mr. Mina proposes, with one lot in front of the other, and only the front lot having public-road frontage.

The Planning Board recommended conditional approval of Ms. Van Riper’s plat. The Town Council did the same, advising Ms. Van Riper that, under the Town Code subdivision ordinances then in effect, she would have to create a public-access easement from Hillcrest Drive to the back lot and that this easement would have to have a minimum pavement width of 16 feet and a minimum turnaround area of 20 feet.

She was also advised that, pursuant to the subdivision regulations, the back lot would have to have 30 feet of frontage on that access easement.

We recall the public hearing on Ms. Van Riper’s application very well. We were dismayed by what she proposed and spoke in opposition to it. We have no recollection, however, of a public hearing held on Aug. 3, 2021, the upshot of which was that the Town Council unanimously passed a Town Code Amendment (TCA 21-06), not a Zoning Text Amendment, to require that all lots in a subdivision must front on a public road.

TCA 21-06 eliminated the option of a subdivided lot having frontage on an access easement, instead of a public road, which had been permissible under Town Code sections 36-95 and 30-96(f) before the amendment.

Mr. Mina alleges that the Town failed to give requisite notice to the public of its hearing on TCA 21-06 and, therefore, illegally enacted the zoning ordinance change and violated his due-process rights. (His lawsuit is based on a violation of his constitutional rights.)

We are not going to analyze the merits of his argument. We will say this, however: Immediately after the hearing on Ms. Van Riper’s application, Town Councilman Matt Neal, who is now the Mayor Pro Tem, made a motion that Mr. Haskett work with the Planning Board to amend the language of the Town Code subdivision ordinances to remove the easement option. (See Minutes from the Town Council’s June 1, 2021 meeting, p. 10.)

Mr. Neal’s idea was to write a Zoning Text Amendment—not a Town Code Amendment, which originates with the Town Council—that would be subject to public notice and hearing in the Planning Board and the Town Council.

According to Mr. Haskett’s Staff Report for the Aug. 3, 2021 public hearing on TCA 21-06, Town Staff did draft a new Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA 21-07, to address the road/easement access concerns, and the Planning Board recommended its approval in June. But the ZTA was withdrawn, Mr. Haskett writes, when “further review . . . determined that the ZTA would render existing lots with frontage on an easement nonconforming.”

The further review was done either by the Town Attorney or members of the Town Council, or both. Mr. Haskett does not specify. When Mr. Haskett brought up the zoning change at the Planning Board’s July 2021 meeting, it was in the form of a Town Code Amendment, not a ZTA, so no hearing was ever held before the Board.

The Beacon mentions the Aug. 3, 2021 hearing on TCA 21-06 in a July 29, 2021 blog we wrote in which we previewed the Town Council’s agenda for Aug. 3, 2021. We did not cover the hearing. Instead, we filled August 2021 blog posts with news of Covid, cut-through traffic, the Marketplace proposal, and beach nourishment.

THE LOT-WIDTH “QUAGMIRE”

Mr. Mina also challenges as illegal the Town Council’s enactment on June 6, 2023 of ZTA 23-03, which altered the wording of Town Code sec. 36-202(d)(2) concerning the mandatory minimum width of a lot. He again cites deficient notice for the hearing.

He further states in his variance application that Mr. Haskett “illegally adopted” this ZTA—Mr. Haskett has no power or authority to pass ordinances—and that he “secretly planned without my knowledge to intentionally prevent lot subdivision. . . . All evidence indicates [that] Wes Haskett was helping a real estate scam.”

We are very familiar with what we now call the lot-width “quagmire.” ZTA 23-03 was enacted by the Town Council as a stop-gap measure to bring clarity to an ambiguous area of the Town Code, to wit, how to measure minimum lot width.

ZTA 23-03 replaced confusing language that relied for this measurement upon the “building setback line” from the front of a property. Unfortunately, the new language is rigid. The width of all lots created since June 6, 2023 is now measured from the front lot line at right angles to the rear lot line. In other words, in the RS-1 single family dwelling residential district, all lots created since June 6, 2023 through subdivision or recombination, must be 100 feet wide throughout.

A ZTA designed to replace this definition, and to allow for pie-shaped and other irregularly shaped lots, was tabled by the Town Council in May of this year. The stop-gap remains in force.

Mr. Mina consulted with Mr. Haskett in the months before his July 5, 2023 purchase of 75 E. Dogwood Trail and states in his application his belief that the Town Planning Director deliberately withheld from him “pertinent information” about the soon-to-be-changed lot-width ordinance. Mr. Mina says he relied upon the lot-width ordinance that was in effect before June 6, 2023, in buying the property and planning his proposed subdivision, and Mr. Haskett knew this.

We don’t see Mr. Mina even reaching the issue of lot width because he can’t hurdle the road frontage requirement for a subdivision. TCA 21-06 became law nearly two years before he bought Ms. Lauby’s lot.

Mr. Mina submitted to the Town in July two applications for a subdivision of 75 East Dogwood, and Mr. Haskett denied both.

Mr. Haskett denied what he calls Application 1 in a letter to the homeowners on the grounds that the two proposed lots do not front upon a public road. He denied Application 2 because the two proposed lots do not meet the Town’s lot-width requirement. Mr. Mina did not appeal either of these rulings to the Dare County Superior Court.

At the Town Council’s Oct. 1 meeting, Town Attorney Phillip Hornthal read a statement by Mr. Mina into the record, prefacing it by saying that Mr. Mina was “currently banned from Town property for 30 days.”

Mr. Mina sought in the statement to alert “Town property owners” to the Town actions that he now disputes and described the effect of the subdivision ordinance amendment as “down-zoning.”

It is clear from the case file and Mr. Mina’s statement that he has been hostile toward Town employees.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon

Revised, 10/20/24

Earlier this month the Southern Shores Town Council appointed seven people to what is currently being called the Southern Shores Entry Corridor Enhancement Committee.

The idea for the “entry corridor” committee flows from Mayor Pro Tem Matt Neal’s long-held desire, as he explained at the Council’s Aug. 6 meeting, “to build a blue-sky vision” of Southern Shores, which would be, essentially, a future plan for the town that might extend up to 30 years.

Mr. Neal, a local builder, has described his goal as designing the commercial district—into which the “entry corridor,” or main entry route into Southern Shores, leads—as well as beautifying and improving the remainder of the town.

Mr. Neal nominated the following residents as committee members, all of whom were unanimously approved by the Council at its Oct. 1 meeting:

*Mayor Elizabeth Morey

*Mr. Neal himself

*Matt Savage Price, a partner in Savage Land LLC, a real estate holding company

*Wes Haskett, Deputy Town Manager/Town Planning Director

*Michael Zehner, an Alternate on the Town Planning Board and a professional planning consultant

*Jim Gould, Community Planner for the Town of Duck

*Linda Lauby, an independent publisher and writer

Mr. Neal said at the October meeting that he “canvassed our community” for members of the committee, but we submit that he didn’t conduct a very wide canvass. We know all of these people, and they do not represent what we would consider a cross-section of the community. Also, none of them is a commercial property owner in Southern Shores or likely to become one.

Further, it seems redundant to us to have three professional planners on the committee, even if Mr. Haskett serves exclusively as staff.

Mr. Zehner is the Director of Planning and Community Development for Berkley Group, a private consulting firm operating in Virginia and North Carolina that specializes in municipal planning. Since his appointment to the Planning Board as its Second Alternate—he is now the First Alternate—Mr. Zehner has functioned largely as a full member of the Planning Board, without voting power.

A former planning director for the Town of Nags Head, Mr. Zehner took a very prominent role in the Planning Board’s hearings during September-November 2023 on SAGA’s special use permit application for its Ginguite Creek project. He also has actively promoted affordable housing with the Board and the Town Council.   

Mr. Zehner would seem to be a better choice for an adviser to the “entry corridor” committee, rather than a voting member.

Why not appoint one of the five regular members of the Town Planning Board to the committee? They have their fingers on the pulse of Southern Shores residents and know the Town Zoning Ordinance.

In Mr. Neal’s selection of committee members, we do not see the “citizen input” that the Town Council spoke of seeking when it considered committee membership in September.

In response to a request by the Town Council at its August meeting that Town Staff make recommendations to the Council about developing a vision for the Town’s 38-acre commercial district, Town Manager Cliff Ogburn suggested at the September meeting that the working committee charged with this task consist of:

*The Mayor or another Council member

*The Mayor Pro Tem or another Council member

*Two commercial property owners

*Three at-large members

*The Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director

Mr. Haskett would serve as staff to the other seven people.

The Town Council—in particular, Council Members Mark Batenic and Rob Neilson—responded favorably to the inclusion of commercial property owners, as obvious “stakeholders,” and stressed “input” from the community. Either one could serve in lieu of the Mayor and bring a fresh perspective.  

Mr. Neal clearly has ideas for this endeavor, which he has called his “baby,” and spoke at the October meeting about “enhancing the commercial district” and “designing a small area plan.” He mentioned the interest that some residents have in a town square or a central gathering place in town.  

He also said that developing a “mission statement” and “goals” would be the first action items for the “entry corridor” committee.  

*******

In his presentation to the Council in September, Mr. Ogburn recommended that the “entry corridor” committee consider the following in developing a vision for the commercial district:

*Current Town ordinances

*Enhancements for pedestrians and bicyclists

*Connectivity

*Architectural standards

*Economic vitality

*Potential stressors, such as burdens on adjacent property owners

*A Process for continuous review for compliance and success

*Maintenance of the Town’s identity

To be honest, we’re not that keen on thinking of our small neighborly beach town/community as having an entry corridor, like a billboard-marked or banner-decorated roadway into a city, but if this is the direction that Southern Shores homeowners would like to go, we would not vigorously object. We also appreciate the concept of a “blue-sky vision” for Southern Shores, especially for the commercial district.

Regardless of what may emerge from the committee about the appearance of the entry corridor, Kitty Hawk, which shares that corridor, would have to be consulted.

We would like to point out, however, that Southern Shores is not Duck. (We note Mr. Gould’s participation.) Duck is a tourist village, a happy vacation playground with only 746 year-round residents, as of the 2020 U.S. Census. Duck was designed to cater to vacationers’ amusement, not year-rounders’ needs. Southern Shores is a year-round town with a population of 3,107 people.

Since Southern Shores’ 1979 incorporation, it has had a “small” commercial district located on “the southern edge of town” that has been focused on “convenience shopping and services” for residents, according to the vision statements of all of the Land Use Plans of the past 45 years.   

The recently approved Land Use Plan update, which is now being reviewed by the N.C. Division of Coastal Management, encourages the sort of planning that Mr. Neal proposes with his committee. We would just ask that the viewpoints of people in the larger community be considered, not just those of the relatively small sampling of committee members who have been handpicked to participate in the discussion.

One final thought: As a committee officially appointed by the Town Council, the Southern Shores Entry Corridor Enhancement Committee should hold all of its meetings in public, and minutes of its meetings should be recorded and readily available to the public.

The Council did not address the workings of the committee when it approved its membership.

A WORD ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

Also at the October meeting, the Town Council expressed an interest in getting out in front of the N.C. General Assembly in legislating the legalities of accessory dwelling units in Southern Shores.

A pair of House and Senate bills introduced in the 2023-24 N.C. General Assembly session would have required local governments to allow at least one ADU per single-family dwelling.

The House Bill (409) passed; the Senate Bill (374) did not. Had it been enacted, the legislation would not have affected Chicahauk because it has private covenants among property owners relating to dwelling type restrictions.

See the text of the bill here: https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewBillDocument/2023/2431/0/DRS55034-MQ-72A.

Currently, the Southern Shores Town Code permits accessory dwelling units on residential property, as long as they are not used for “living space.” Living space has typically been evaluated by whether there are cooking facilities in the ADU.   

Viewing ADUs as a means by which affordable housing may be created, the Town Council decided at its October meeting to engage in pertinent information gathering before deciding what, if any, Zoning Code amendments it might recommend.

Mayor Pro Tem Neal suggested that all existing covenants that run with deeds to Southern Shores properties be ascertained to determine how many landowners already have the right to build an ADU.

It was fairly common for the original Southern Shores developers to create lots that would accommodate both a primary residence and a guest house. You still can see evidence of this trend on the oceanfront.

Mayor Elizabeth Morey also suggested that a count of the lots that still have coverage space for building be ascertained. New homeowners who have developed vacant lots or torn down existing structures in order to build have tended to max out the allowable 30-percent lot coverage.

Council members said they would try to enlist the help of the Southern Shores Civic Assn., the Chicahauk Property Owners Assn., and the Town staff in collecting this data—although Mr. Neal offered to do some searches himself and tried to draft his Council colleagues into doing the same.

The next Town Council meeting will be Tuesday, Nov. 12, at 5:30 p.m. in the Pitts Center.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon  

The Southern Shores Town Council unanimously voted this morning to accept a bid of $1,667,178.70 by Smith-Rowe LLC for what is now being called the Trinitie Trail Bridge Construction Project and to authorize the Town Manager to execute a contract on behalf of the Town with the Mt. Airy, N.C. construction company.

Town Councilman Mark Batenic did not attend this morning’s meeting, described by the Town as a “reconvening” of the Council’s Oct. 1 regular meeting. The vote, therefore, was 4-0.

According to Town Manager Cliff Ogburn, the Town received four bids for the proposed bridge reconstruction project, ranging from Smith-Rowe’s low bid of nearly $1.7 million to the highest bid, which, he said, was $900,000 more.

Because the project involved a public construction contract financed by more than $500,000 in public money, the Town was required by State statute to award it to the “lowest responsible bidder,” after taking into consideration the quality, performance, and time specified in the bidder’s proposal. (See N.C. General Statutes sec. 143-129.)  

Smith-Rowe’s bid qualified it as both the lowest responsible and lowest “responsive” bidder, Mr. Ogburn said, explaining that a responsive bid meets all of the requirements of the bid submission process, as well as all applicable legal requirements.

North Carolina courts have interpreted “responsible” to imply “skill, judgment, and integrity, necessary to the faithful performance of the contract, as well as sufficient financial resources and ability.” (Kinsey Contracting Co. v. The City of Fayetteville, a 1992 N.C. Court of Appeals decision.)

To see a photo gallery of bridges that Smith-Rowe has built in North Carolina, see https://www.smithrowe.com/bridge- construction-services/.

The 32-year-old company claims on its website to have built more than 400 bridges in its service area, which includes Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Georgia, as well as the heart of North Carolina.

Mr. Ogburn said that Smith-Rowe will have 210 days, or about seven months, to complete the construction project after it receives a “notice to proceed” from the Town, which he said should happen soon. The Town Attorney will have to sign off on the contract first.

The Town Manager has previously said that the construction of the new cored slab bridge on Juniper/Trinitie trails would start in November and be finished by “summer 2025,” with the bridge being closed for up to six months. (See The Beacon, 3/8/24.)

Both Town Councilman Robert Neilson and Town Councilwoman Paula Sherlock expressed some concerns at today’s meeting about the design and “aesthetics” of the new bridge, saying they would like it to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood.

The Town has been engaged with engineering/planning/design consultant Kimley-Horn on this project for nearly two years. There has been ample time to explore aesthetics and to confer in public session with Kimley-Horn about design elements.

If members of the Town Council were unresolved about the replacement bridge’s appearance and suitability in Southern Shores, we are of the mind that they should have expressed their concerns long before the contract went out for bid in September.

Indeed, a special town hall meeting for the public to weigh in on Kimley-Horn’s design plans might have been beneficial for Council members and residents, alike.  

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon

The four-day 2024 Outer Banks Parade of Homes starts Thursday and features three properties in Southern Shores, one of which is a space renovation in the Southern Shores Crossing for the long-awaited coffee shop.

The homes in the 32^nd annual Parade of Homes will be open Thursday through Saturday, from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. A trade expo and builder awards ceremony will be held Sunday, from 10 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., at Jennette’s Pier in Nags Head.

Tickets are $20 each and may be purchased online with a credit card or for cash at one of the participating homes. For ticket information, see https://www.obhomebuilders.org/2024-tickets/.

Sixteen of the properties on display are located in the beach zone, from Corolla to Nags Head, and the remaining two are on the mainland, one in Currituck County and the other in Manteo.

The Manteo entry is actually a remodel by SAGA Realty and Construction of the Firetender Restaurant, which is past the Manteo Hotel on Hwy. 64/264. The other commercial remodel in the parade is Neal Contracting Co.’s renovation in the Southern Shores Crossing, at 1 Ocean Blvd., for Shore Coffee Roasters

A list of the 18 homes, with detailed descriptions of each, may be found at https://www.obhomebuilders.org/2024-homes/.

Unfortunately, the Outer Banks Home Builders Assn. (OBHA), which hosts the parade, did not include the addresses of the homes on its listing page. You have to click on the individual home links to uncover them.

An interactive parade map is available on the OBHA’s website, but we did not find it particularly helpful. Perhaps a free Parade of Homes magazine available for pickup at the properties will have an easy-to-use list of addresses.

The other two parade homes in Southern Shores are a renovation by Sandmark Custom Homes, Inc., of a beach cottage at 223 Ocean Blvd. (see photo above), and the construction of a new home by Maso Design Build at 97 Ocean Blvd., which is on the west side of Ocean Boulevard at its intersection with Chicahauk Trail. You may park in the town parking lot on Chicahauk Trail to tour 97 Ocean Blvd.

All three of the builders represented in Southern Shores are husband-and-wife teams who live in the town. Sandmark Custom Homes also has a home in Harbinger, at 204 Cynthia Ct., in the parade.

The 18 properties will be available for viewing online after the parade, according to FAQs on the OBHA website. Virtual tours will remain active for at least one year, it says.

See FAQ at https://www.obhomebuilders.org/2024-poh-faq/?fl_builder.

The Outer Banks Tourism Bureau is a parade partnership sponsor with the OBHA.

COMING UP: EARLY VOTING; BULK TRASH PICKUP

*You no doubt have heard that early voting for the Nov. 5 general election starts Oct. 17 and continues until Nov. 2. If you are a Dare County resident, you may vote at any one of the three voting sites, listed below. On Election Day, you may only vote at your assigned polling place.

Early voting polls are:

Kill Devil Hills Town Hall, 102 Town Hall Drive, KDH

Dare County Administrative Bldg., 954 Marshall C. Collins Drive, Manteo

Fessenden Center Annex, 47017 Buxton Back Road, Buxton

Voting hours are:

Thurs., Oct. 17, and Fri. Oct. 18: 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Mon., Oct. 21 through Fri., Nov. 1: 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Sat., Nov. 2: 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

A list of all of the candidates on your ballot may be obtained on the Dare County Board of Elections website at https://www.darenc.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/12400/638398691853670000.

The ballot also includes an important proposed amendment to the N.C. Constitution that would restrict voting in state elections to U.S. citizens only. You are being asked to vote “for” or “against” citizens-only voting in North Carolina.

BULK TRASH PICKUP IS OCT. 18

The town-wide autumn bulk trash pickup will be held Fri., Oct. 18. You may begin putting approved items—a list of which is available through the website link below—on the roadside a week before. (No TVs, no building supplies, no rugs!)

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

The Town has already scheduled the spring bulk trash pickup on April 4, 2025.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Beacon

We regret that we have been unable to publish The Southern Shores Beacon during the past month. We will resume publication as soon as we can.

Thank you.

The Southern Shores Town Council met on July 2 for its regular monthly business meeting. The following are highlights from the meeting:

COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS: In a rare display of disagreement, Town Council members split on some of the new commercial design standards recommended by the Planning Board and included in a Zoning Text Amendment that the Council first took up at its June meeting and then tabled for further consideration at the July meeting.

Expediency won out, as if often does, with three of the five members voting July 2 to approve the language before them in ZTA 24-03, and only change one word. The ZTA, which was subject to public hearing in June, sets forth 11 design standards with which “new construction and substantial improvements” must comply. It also defines what a substantial improvement is.

To see the latest version of ZTA 24-03, see pages 2-8 of the July 2 meeting packet, which you will find at https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/soshoresnc-pubu/MEET-Packet-b9c1afc388cb479a858efdfa994cef50.pdf 

After the 3-2 vote, the Town Council coalesced around an idea promoted by Mayor Pro Tem Matt Neal, who was in the minority, of involving the “larger community” in a task force- or committee-led effort to create a “real vision” of Southern Shores’ small commercial district at the southern end of town.

Mr. Neal spoke of formulating a “small-area plan” for the “enhancement of our commercial district”—which would apply for 10 years, 20 years, even 50 years “down the line”—and referred to the vision statement and land-use recommendations in the newly updated Southern Shores Comprehensive CAMA Land Use Plan (LUP) for guidance and support.

The Council left the “framework” for such a task force up to the Town staff, which is expected to make a proposal at an upcoming meeting.

(For further information, see our recap of the Council’s discussion below.)

NEW LAND USE PLAN: After a public hearing, during which no one spoke, the Town Council unanimously approved the updated Comprehensive CAMA Land Use Plan (LUP), which was drafted with Town support by consultant Stewart, Inc.—provided the plan receives a final edit.

Councilwoman Paula Sherlock drew attention to some typographical and syntactic errors in the text, after which Councilman Mark Batenic insisted that the plan be thoroughly reviewed.

(Having been in touch with the consultant about the many errors present in an earlier draft, we would recommend hiring a professional proofreader to bring “fresh eyes” to the document.)

You will find the final draft of the new LUP here: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/page/2509/2-13-24_draft_comprehensive_land_use_plan.pdf

After the final edit is done, Mr. Haskett will submit the plan to the N.C. Division of Coastal Management (DCM) for review. The DCM acts as staff for the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission, which must certify the LUP for it to take effect. The DCM will notify Mr. Haskett of any questions it may have about the LUP.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVE: Michael Zehner, a professional planner and alternate member on the Town Planning Board, spoke to the Town Council, on behalf of the Board, asking the Council to “take some initiative” on addressing affordable housing, aka workforce housing, in Southern Shores.

Mr. Zehner used the official definition promulgated by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development to define “affordable” housing as housing that costs 30 percent or less of a household’s gross income, including utilities. The term is often used in a different sense to refer to specific housing assistance programs, such as those that reserve a number of units in a residential complex for low-income renters or owners.  

Mr. Zehner, who led a discussion about affordable housing in the Planning Board at its May meeting, said he was conveying the Board’s recommendation that the Town engage the public to find out, first of all, if residents believe affordable housing is/is not a “problem” in Southern Shores, and, secondly, if it is, how residents would like to address/resolve it.

He suggested that a public study could be done. The survey done just two years ago for the update of the LUP did not include affordable housing as a topic, per se.    

In advocating for a community task force to develop a plan for the commercial district, Mr. Neal suggested incorporating affordable housing options.

He also expressed, during his closing comments, an interest in talking about accessory dwelling units in Southern Shores, which, under current Town Code ordinance, are not permitted. The Code allows for separate living space that is accessory to a principal residence, but the space cannot constitute a dwelling unit.

The Mayor Pro Tem again turned to the newly approved LUP for support, quoting a land-use recommendation on p. 100 that suggests evaluating “the Town’s current policy on separate living spaces and [considering] revisions to allowances and standards for accessory dwelling units by zoning district.”

(The Chicahauk Property Owners Assn. has a covenant that prohibits accessory dwelling units in Chicahauk and supersedes the Town Code.)

Mr. Neal said he would like to “elevate” the issue of accessory dwelling units, which have been suggested as a means to provide affordable housing, and move toward taking action.

MILFOIL SURVEY: Town Manager Cliff Ogburn reported that the N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality will be conducting a survey of the presence of Eurasian milfoil in the Southern Shores canals during the “second half of July.” Mr. Ogburn anticipates having DEQ’s results to present to the Town Council at its September meeting.  

JUNIPER TRAIL/CHICAHAUK TRAIL BRIDGE/CULVERT: Mr. Ogburn also reported that the construction contract for the renovation of the Juniper Trail/Chicahauk Trail bridge and culvert will be out for bid on Sept. 9 and remain open until Oct. 4. The Town Manager hopes to receive at least three bids and to be able to present them to the Town Council at its November meeting.

SOUTHERN SHORES CEMETERY: Councilwoman Sherlock is heading up an effort to beautify and enhance the Southern Shores Cemetery, which is located at 64 S. Dogwood Trail and has substantial funding for maintenance. Ms. Sherlock reported that she met at the cemetery with 15 people who have family members buried in, and/or own plots in, the cemetery, and with arborist Andy McConaghy, who lives in Southern Shores, to discuss improvements.

Apparently, some people have suggested removing some of the trees that make the cemetery such a desirable resting ground. According to Ms. Sherlock, Mr. McConaghy advised her that there are dogwoods in the cemetery that are more than 100 years old and live oaks that are older than 200 years old.

Ms. Sherlock also reported that she, the Town Manager, Public Works Director David Bradley, and a community volunteer spent a couple of hours the morning of July 2, picking up litter, including beer bottles, “dead plants and faded flowers,” at the cemetery. A volunteer-led litter patrol would seem to be in order.

BONUS COVERAGE: ELABORATING ON COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS

Mayor Pro Tem Neal, who is an experienced builder, initiated the Town Council’s discussion of ZTA 24-03, which adds a new section (36-179), titled “Commercial design standards,” to the Town Code of Ordinances. He also led the Council’s discussion on the measure at the June meeting. (See The Beacon, 6/14/24.)

Mr. Neal made the case for deleting three of the 11 proposed design standards in ZTA 24-03 and received support from Councilman Batenic.

The standard that primarily divided Mr. Neal and Mr. Batenic from the other three Council members was one requiring “exterior building paint colors” to be “subtle, neutral and earth tone colors.”

“That level of detail needs to be more of a community-led decision, rather than a Council [decision],” Mr. Neal said, noting that many of the town’s flat tops wouldn’t meet this requirement.

Councilwoman Sherlock, who was the most vocal in opposing the Mayor Pro Tem’s suggestions, responded: “I think that’s what our community wants in the commercial area. They don’t want some glaring . . . [trickle off inaudibly] I don’t think they want the big, bright-colored buildings. They don’t want the yellow building.”

Mr. Neal replied that he knows “some who wouldn’t care,” and that Ms. Sherlock would be surprised by opinions in town outside of the Council’s “limited circles.”

[We represent such an opinion and prefer a colorful and beachy look in the Town’s commercial buildings to the “neutral,” cookie-cutter façades we currently see at The Marketplace. Not every colorful building is garish.]

Mr. Neal also commented upon the lack of specificity in the adjectives, “neutral” and “subtle,” which may be evaluated differently depending on the eye of the beholder. We note that even the description, “earth tone,” is subject to interpretation, and every effort should be made in legislation to enact unambiguous, precise terms that make clear the intent of the Council.   

Mr. Neal quoted from the newly updated Land Use Plan—which the Town Council unanimously approved later in the meeting—to support his position.

“When creating building design standards,” he read from p. 102 of the LUP, “the community should be involved in the process.”

Saying that they “don’t do anything” or “add anything” to the new ordinance, Mr. Neal also argued in favor of deleting the following two design standards:

“Architectural embellishments with a coastal design that add visual interest are encouraged.” (No. 8)

“Low impact development techniques utilized to mitigate potential stormwater impacts are encouraged.” (No. 9)

Clearly, to “encourage” commercial property owners to do something is not the same as to hold them to an enforceable standard, which all Council members recognized. We would have deleted this language for that reason. Mr. Neal noted that the concept of a “coastal architectural style” is very broad, and, again, Mr. Batenic supported him.

Mayor Elizabeth Morey, Councilman Rob Neilson, and Councilwoman Sherlock all said they “like” these two “standards,” and Ms. Sherlock observed that, despite the lack of enforceability, they are a “message about what we want businesses to aspire to.”

Mr. Batenic took issue with another standard that reads: “Building elements that resemble animals, lighthouses, castles or pirate ships are prohibited.” (No. 11)

The Councilman noted that “you could have lollipops” or other elements not singled out in the standards, and said he thought “the whole idea was not to have anything on the outside.”

“You could make a prohibited emblems list a mile long,” Mr. Neal said.

Ms. Sherlock recalled that she asked Mr. Haskett at the June meeting about this standard and posed the hypothetical of having a slice of pizza on the outside: Would that be permissible?

Mr. Haskett distinguished “building elements” from signs and said he thought the pizza slice would be interpreted as a sign, which would be regulated by the Town’s sign ordinance.

The word “element” was not defined in ZTA 24-03.

No one suggested deleting this standard or rewriting it so that the intent behind the prohibition would be effectuated without listing specific “elements.”

Finished vs. Floor Area Ratio

Mr. Neal again brought up the ZTA’s use of the term, “finished area,” which it defines by referring to the definition in the Town Code for “living space.”

At the June meeting, Mr. Neal said that he was not familiar with the ZTA’s terms of “finished area” and “finished area ratio” and explained that professional builders use the standards of “floor area” and “floor area ratio.”  

Mr. Neal said that “floor area,” which he defined as “all square footage within the exterior walls” of a building, is typically used to control density on a commercial property. The floor area ratio is derived by dividing the floor area by the building lot area.     

Under the new ordinance, the square footage of the “finished area,” which as “living space” is essentially the area usable for human habitation, is divided by the land area to arrive at a required “finished area ratio” for buildings in the commercial district. This ratio is limited to 0.35 in one of the new design standards. (No. 10)

Mr. Neal noted at the July meeting that “finished area” is “subject to change” because some of the square footage considered uninhabitable could be converted to “living space” and vice versa.

“I’d like it to be more immutable, personally,” he said, but he eventually withdrew his objection to the new term, provided Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett redefines it so that it has a separate definition, apart from “living space.”

The new definition was not made part of the motion that resulted in the ZTA being adopted nor did the Council provide a definition.

We believe the issue of density and what building area to consider is of more relevance in a mixed-use development, than in a traditional commercial development where there is no residential space.

If SAGA Realty & Construction had been limited to a finished area ratio of 0.35 in the buildings it proposed for its Ginguite Creek property, one Planning Board member informed us, the living space in its buildings would have been reduced.  

According to the new LUP, Southern Shores’ commercial district is 38 acres, or 2 percent of the town’s land area.

According to the current Land Use Plan, which was certified by the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission in 2012, the commercial district is 56 acres, or 2.6 percent of the town’s total land area of 2,175 acres.

We wonder why there is this discrepancy.

As noted above, ZTA 24-03 eventually passed, by a 3-2 vote, with just a one-word change. Although the one word is a significant one—changing “shall” to “may”—in a section pertaining to the submission of a site plan review of a proposed development for new construction or substantial improvements in the general commercial district, we exercise our prerogative not to probe this esoterica further. The new ordinance does not change the fact that the Planning Board will scrutinize all sketch plan reviews.

ZTA 24-03 also changes the off-street parking requirements in the Town Code (Sec. 36-163) by allowing a business to reduce its required parking by one space for every 20 parking spaces, if it plants a shade tree instead. The Town Council unanimously supported this amendment.

The Council’s discussion about the design standards ended with Mr. Neal saying, “This document doesn’t get us there,” and Councilwoman Sherlock responding, “But it’s a step in the right direction.”

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 7/16/24

Mayor Elizabeth Morey will host a Mayor’s chat on Wednesday, at 4:30 p.m., in the Pitts Center—the first such chat this year and in quite some time. Mayor Morey has said that she discontinued her informal gatherings with Southern Shores residents, which she began during the first year of her tenure, because they were poorly attended.

Town staff members, including Town Manager Cliff Ogburn, also will attend the Mayor’s chat.

Also next week, the Southern Shores Planning Board will meet Monday at 5 p.m. in the Pitts Center for its regular monthly meeting. Board members will take up a new Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA 24-04) that proposes establishing planned unit developments as a special use in the general commercial district and prohibiting bitcoin mining in all zoning districts. The Town Code currently permits PUDs as of right.

ZTA 24-04 also revisits an issue that first arose in ZTA 24-02. It proposes requiring property owners to obtain a lot disturbance/stormwater management permit in order to remove trees greater than 6 inches in diameter and at least 4.5 feet tall from a front, side, or rear yard setback on any unimproved lot in all zoning districts. The earlier proposed provision applied only in the general commercial district, not in the residential and government-institutional districts, as well. The Board directed the Town staff to revise the proposed provision so that it applies throughout town.  

The Planning Board will continue its discussion about accessory dwelling units in town. The N.C. General Assembly, which ends its 2023-24 session on July 31, has proposed a bill that would require municipalities to permit accessory dwelling units in single-family housing residential districts. The bill has passed the House, but not the Senate.

For information about the Board’s meeting, see https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/bc-pb/page/planning-board-meeting-july-15-2024. You may live-stream the meeting on the Town’s You Tube website.

We note that when the cut-through weekend traffic was still considered a talking point in town, the Mayor drew a vocal group of residents to a summertime chat. Perhaps residents can target pedestrians in town roadways with more success.

Too often pedestrians walking on roads without sidewalks walk in the direction of the traffic rather than against oncoming traffic, as North Carolina law (N.C. General Statutes sec. 20-174(d)), the National Highway Safety Administration, and common-sense safety dictate. Perhaps the Town could post some “Walk Facing Traffic” signs on heavily traveled roads. (We note that the law requires bicyclists traveling in roadways to go with the traffic.)    

We regret that we have been unable to attend or keep up with Town meetings in recent months. We will strive to have a report of the July 2 Town Council meeting posted on our blog before the Mayor’s chat on Wednesday.

THE SOUTHERN SHORES BEACON