Dare County has tentatively scheduled a revaluation of all property countywide for Jan. 1, 2025—just five years after it conducted its last real estate appraisal and assessment for tax purposes. This is a shocking change from the County’s customary practice.

The State of North Carolina requires all counties to conduct property revaluations at least every eight years, on an “octennial cycle.” (See N.C. General Statutes sec. 105-286) Counties may “advance” the revaluation cycle, however, if they choose.

Our records show that Dare County has observed a septennial revaluation cycle in recent years, having conducted revaluations on Jan. 1, 1998, Jan. 1, 2005, Jan. 1, 2013, and Jan. 1, 2020. It has never before scheduled a five-year cycle.  

News of the County’s tentatively scheduled revaluation next year is the most significant detail uncovered by The Beacon in its review of Town Manager Cliff Ogburn’s recommended fiscal year 2024-25 budget for the Town of Southern Shores.

The recommended budget included in the Town Council’s meeting packet totals $12,795,709, an increase of $22,217 over what the Town Manager (and The Beacon) previously reported. It will be subject to a State-required public hearing at the Town Council’s regular meeting Tuesday.

The Town Council will meet at 5:30 p.m. in the Kern Pitts Meeting Room for what appears on paper to be a business-heavy agenda.

For the agenda and meeting packet, see: https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/soshoresnc-pubu/MEET- Packet-db4132f33646488b9d04fe19680873c3.pdf.

PRESENTATIONS ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND MILFOIL TREATMENT

Also on the Council’s busy agenda are two special presentations:

The first by Planning Board First Alternate Michael Zehner concerns residents’ interest in exploring the problem of (if, indeed, they believe there it is a problem) and potential solutions for affordable housing opportunities in Southern Shores.

The second by Dr. Rob Richardson, the Aquatic and Non-Cropland Weed Specialist at N.C. State University, concerns the noxious weed, Eurasian milfoil, which exists in Southern Shores’ canals and Ginguite Creek, and whether eradicating it with an herbicide that contains the chemical, 2,4-D, poses harm to aquatic and/or human life.

Mr. Zehner, a professional planner who has been attending meetings of the Dare County Housing Task Force, led a discussion about affordable housing at the Town Planning Board’s May 20 meeting. We encourage all property owners to listen to this discussion, which begins at the two-hour mark of the meeting and lasts just over 40 minutes. You will find the meeting video at https://www.youtube.com/@SouthernShores/streams. (We elaborate on this discussion below.)  

We previously reported on the Town’s interest in treating milfoil in the canals and Ginguite Creek with a 2,4-D herbicide, 2,4-D being short for the chemical 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, which is notorious for being an ingredient in Agent Orange pesticide. Two,4-D herbicides and pesticides are currently the subject of litigation in federal court in Washington, D.C. between three non-profit environmental groups and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (See The Beacon, 5/4/24)

The Town Manager has sought an Aquatic Weed Control grant from the N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) that would permit the Town to partner with NCDEQ in a 50-50 cost-sharing milfoil treatment project. At the May 7 meeting, Mr. Ogburn presented the Town Council with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NCDEQ that it had to approve for the $40,000 treatment plan to go forward. (See The Beacon, 5/4/24.)

Only three Town Council members attended the May meeting: They voted not to take any action on treatment of the Town’s milfoil until NCDEQ conducts a territorial survey of the invasive weed in the canals and Ginguite Creek. (See The Beacon, 6/10/24.)

The Town Council will have a different MOU with NCDEQ before it on Tuesday. This one is an agreement for a $2,000 aquatic vegetation survey to be conducted by NCDEQ between June 3 and Aug. 30.  

Mr. Ogburn informed the Council last month that Dr. Richardson vouched for the safety of NCDEQ’s herbicide, but as The Beacon has subsequently learned, Dr. Gavin Dehnert, an emerging contaminants scientist with Wisconsin Sea Grant at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has found that treatment with 2,4-D kills young fish in freshwater lakes. Dr. Dehnert found in both laboratory and lake studies that young fish experience up to a 35 percent increase in mortality when they are exposed to 2,4-D.

We suggest that Mr. Ogburn give Dr. Dehnert a call.  

GETTING BACK TO THE BUDGET

Mentioned in passing on page seven of the Town Manager’s overview message to the Town Council, Dare County’s 2025 revaluation plan jumped out at us with a consequence lacking in any of Mr. Ogburn’s requested FY 2024-25 budgetary expenditures, which essentially repeat those of FY 2023-24—with one big exception. (Mr. Ogburn asked department heads to think in terms of a two-year budget, and FY 2024-25 is the second year.)

As we have reported, the big exception is the addition of some major capital expenditures in FY 2024-25, including a $2.1 million appropriation to pay for the Trinitie/Juniper Trail Culvert Replacement project. Construction is expected to begin at the bridge in late 2024, according to the Town Manager.

Other FY 2024-25 capital expenditures requested by Mr. Ogburn include $380,000 for an addition and modifications to the Town Hall building; $290,400 for construction of a sidewalk on the west side of Duck Road (N.C. Hwy. 12) from East Dogwood Trail to Hickory Trail; and $150,000 for maintenance and repair of the existing sidewalk along Duck Road north of Hillcrest Drive.

The Town Hall addition, which has been discussed in previous Council meetings, will expand the space for records collection and storage in the Planning and Code Enforcement Department.

According to the Town Manager’s report, the cost of the sidewalk from East Dogwood to Hickory will be offset by a $118,855 grant from the Outer Banks Tourism Bureau.

The recommended budget total of $12,795,709 is an increase of $3,064,259, or 31.7 percent, over the adopted budget for FY 2023-24. After multiple budgetary amendments during the fiscal year, the actual FY 2023-24 budget was $12,005,501, according to Town data. (See The Beacon, 5/10/24.)

Town history teaches us that the adopted FY 2024-25 budget also will grow with amendments to a much larger actual budget, but so, too, will anticipated revenues.

To balance the FY 2024-25 budget, the Town Manager has proposed appropriating $2,940,988 from the Undesignated Fund Balance (UFB), which, “ideally,” Mr. Ogburn writes in his May message to the Town Council, “should be used for future projects rather than budgeted for annual operating expenses.” (The additional $22,217 requested by the Police Department for staff expenses will be covered by the UFB.)

The Town Council has resolved that $3.5 million must be kept in reserve in the UFB for emergency and disaster-relief purposes. Mr. Ogburn reports that $4,830,326 is now available for use in the FY 2024-25 budget over the reserve amount.  

FY 2024-25 marks the fourth year of debt service payments for the 2022 beach nourishment project, which was budgeted at $11,325,189. The Town’s contribution to the cost is $6,065,823, which it satisfies with a special annual tax assessment levied both townwide and according to designated municipal service districts (MSD). The County contributed $4,371,401 to the nourishment project, and the remainder was made up by an NCDEQ grant.

The Town could change the tax rates for beach nourishment debt payment, as long as the required revenue is raised, but the Town Manager makes no recommendation to do so, nor does he recommend a general ad valorem tax rate increase. The property tax levied by the Town on each $100.00 of real and personal property valuation remains 23.58 cents ($0.2358).

We previously published the total appropriations requested by the Town Manager for each Town department. (See The Beacon, 5/10/24.) The only change in those totals is the $22,217 increase in the Police Department budget: from $2,409,492 to $2,431,709.

You will find the Town Manager’s recommended budget at:

https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/town_council/ page/3159/tm_recommended_fy_24-25_budget_filed_with_clerk.pdf.

For Dare County’s notice about the proposed Jan. 1, 2025 revaluation, see: https://darenc-redesign.prod.govaccess.org/departments/tax-department/appraisal#:~:text=The%20next%20countywide%20revaluation%20is,tentatively%20scheduled%20for%20January%201%2C%202025.

DOES SOUTHERN SHORES HAVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROBLEM?

In the Planning Board’s discussion last month, Michael Zehner, who moved to Southern Shores in 2020 and was appointed the Second Alternate to the Board in July 2021, proposed holding “educational sessions” in town about affordable housing and encouraging people to “air their concerns” about its availability in Southern Shores.

Mr. Zehner said the then-cheapest house for sale in Southern Shores was listed at $525,000 and defined affordability as costing “no more than 30 percent of household income.”

(We know the $525k house because we were house-hunting in 2019 when it sold in July that year for $337,500. It is tiny and far from the beach. There is an even smaller house for sale now on South Dogwood Trail for a jaw-dropping $399,000. It is a remodeled, 1950s-era cottage.)

He suggested a starting point for a conversation among residents would be addressing whether people believe a problem in affordable housing exists in Southern Shores and “agreeing what the problem is.”    

Mr. Zehner, who was elevated this year to First Alternate on the Planning Board, expressed an interest in being “proactive,” in taking a leadership role and embarking on a study of both the problem of, and strategies for increasing, affordable housing in Southern Shores.

He envisions a “Town initiative,” he said.

A native Virginian, Mr. Zehner came from Wellesley, Mass., in 2019 to be planning director for the Town of Nags Head. According to his online CV, he served two years, eight months, in that position and is now director of planning and community development with The Berkeley Group, a consulting firm in Bridgewater, Va., that offers local government and public agency services.

Among the five regular Board members—Mr. Zehner sits on the dais during meetings, but is not a voting member—only Jan Collins enthusiastically supported him. She, too, spoke of being proactive and addressing “what we want Southern Shores to be like in 20 years.”

The others said very little, except when the topic of accessory dwelling units arose. ADUs, which provide income to primary homeowners and potentially open up rentals to more year-round occupants, are one way to address the need for affordable housing.

For the record, while the Town of Southern Shores does not allow living quarters in accessory structures, it does permit “temporary family healthcare structures,” as defined in Town Code sec. 36-168(5), to help facilitate care to a mentally or physically impaired relative. Homeowners in Chicahauk are subject to a property association covenant that prohibits ADUs. (See The Beacon, 3/21/24.)   

“From a zoning perspective,” Southern Shores Planning Director Wes Haskett explained to us earlier this year, “someone can live in an accessory structure with living space, and they can be rented, but [the structure] can’t have all of the elements that make up a dwelling unit.”

This has been interpreted in the past to mean that they cannot have ovens and other cooking appliances.

“We want to maintain what we have” in Southern Shores, said Board Chairperson Andy Ward, a longtime resident homeowner who has been critical of ADUs, “and try to be good stewards to a situation that we will never solve at this level.”

At Mr. Ward’s suggestion, the Board agreed to have Mr. Zehner speak to the Town Council about the issue. Ms. Collins suggested that he ask the Council to appoint a study committee.

The Council may wish to wait until after Dare County revalues all real property next year, and we all learn just how “affordable” the booming local housing market is.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 6/2/24

Residential trash collection will occur on Tuesday next week, not Monday, Memorial Day, and the two-times-per-week summer collection schedule will start Friday, May 31, the Town of Southern Shores has announced. Please pass the word to your neighbors. 

From May 31 until Sept. 2, the trash will be picked up on Fridays and Mondays, in order to accommodate the increased seasonal population. The recycling schedule remains the same.

Town offices will be closed on Memorial Day.

Have an enjoyable holiday weekend.

The Beacon, 5/24/24

The decision as to whether and how the Southern Shores canals and Ginguite Creek will be chemically treated this year to eradicate Eurasian milfoil, a noxious aquatic weed that smells like sulfur when it dies, was delayed by the three Town Council members who attended Tuesday’s meeting until the Council’s June 4 meeting.

Town Councilman Mark Batenic and Councilwoman Paula Sherlock did not attend the May 7 meeting. No reason for their absences was given.

Town Manager Cliff Ogburn informed the Council that the N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality had not performed a requisite survey of the Southern Shores waters to determine how much territory should be treated with a herbicide before presenting the Town with a treatment plan. Sentiment among the Council was that a survey of the milfoil must be performed before the Town can make a commitment to partner 50-50 with the NCDEQ for herbicide treatment. (See The Beacon, 5/4/24, for background.)

Homeowners from Martin’s Point and Southern Shores presented differing views at the Council’s meeting on how much milfoil exists in the Southern Shores canals and Ginguite Creek and whether the herbicide the State proposes to use could do harm to other aquatic plants and fish, as well as to humans.

Mr. Ogburn said he had been in touch with Rob Richardson, a professor at North Carolina State University who is an expert in aquatic weed management, and Dr. Richardson vouched for the safety of NCDEQ’s herbicide, which contains 2,4-D, an ingredient in Agent Orange pesticide that is currently the subject of a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (See The Beacon’s 5/4/24 post.)

RECOMMENDED FY 2024-25 BUDGET  

Also Tuesday, Mr. Ogburn presented a recommended fiscal year (FY) 2024-25 budget of $12,773,492, an increase of $3,042,042, or about 31 percent, over the recommended FY 2023-24 budget presented at this time last year.  

With budget amendments made by the Council throughout the current fiscal year, the actual budget for FY 2023-24 grew from $9,731,450 to $12,005,501, according to Town data.

More than $2 million of the additional expenditures in 2023-24 were covered by funds from the Undesignated (aka Unassigned) Fund Balance, which, according to Mr. Ogburn, totaled $7.8 million, as of the 2023 audit. The Town Council has resolved that $3.5 million must be held in reserve in the UFB and designated for emergency and disaster-relief purposees.

The remaining additional expenditures were covered by higher-than-anticipated revenues, particularly interest.

We would expect the FY 2024-25 budget, which covers July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025, to similarly grow over the course of the fiscal year.

We will take a closer look at the recommended FY 2024-25 budget before the Town Council’s June 4 meeting, when a State-mandated public hearing on the budget will be held.

The expenses in the recommended FY 2024-25 budget, by department or category, are:

$1,465,842: Administration (the largest line item is salaries, $476,346)

$426,067: Planning & Code Enforcement (salaries, $281,296)

$2,409,492: Police Department (salaries, $1,301,457)

$5,235,462: Streets, Bridges, Beaches and Canals ($1,161,237 in debt payment for the beach nourishment project; $3,480,000 for infrastructure, which includes $2.1 million for the Juniper Trail Culvert replacement project, according to Mr. Ogburn. The Town Manager previously said the bridge project would cost $1.6 million.)

$733,924: Public Works (salaries, $381,892)

$991,125: Sanitation ($208,025, for residential solid waste collection; $238,500 for recycling collection; $280,900 for a landfill tipping fee)

$1,207,335: Fire Department ($868,315, for contracted fire protection services; $314,020 for debt payment on fire station)

$229,245: Ocean Rescue

$75,000: Capital Reserve Fund (for canal maintenance)

As of June 2023, the Southern Shores Cemetery Fund had a balance of $92,244 and anticipated expenses of only $3,750 in the next fiscal year. The Town intends to upgrade the cemetery, which is located on South Dogwood Trail next to the Duck Woods Country Club, but it did not budget for improvement expenses.

You may read Mr. Ogburn’s message to the Town Council about his recommended FY 2024-25 budget and the budget itself at:

https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/town_council/page/3159/tm_recommended_fy_24- 25_budget_filed_with_clerk.pdf

For more background, see The Beacon, 4/7/24, and our breakdown of the “big-ticket” items in next fiscal year’s budget.

BALLOONS AND LOT WIDTH

Mayor Elizabeth Morey, Mayor Pro Tem Matt Neal, and Town Councilman Rob Neilson unanimously passed an ordinance banning the release of balloons into the open air in Southern Shores, with the exception of balloons used for scientific or meteorological purposes. The ordinance adds section 22-12 to the Town Code and includes a civil penalty of $250 for each violation of the balloon ban.   

The three Council members also unanimously voted to “table” Zoning Text Amendment 23-05, which redefines the measurement of lot width, for purposes of establishing minimum lot width for lots created after June 6, 2023.

The Beacon has written extensively about the long-term effort by Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett, the Planning Board, and the Town Attorney to rewrite the language in the Town Code about lot width to make it less ambiguous. Our last salvo was written 4/23/24.

Before Mayor Pro Tem Neal made a motion to table the ZTA, citing its “lack of clarity,” Mr. Haskett advised the Council during Tuesday’s public hearing on ZTA 23-05 that he did not recommend approval of the version of ZTA 23-05 before it and would like to withdraw the ZTA for further discussion with the Planning Board.   

“I don’t think there’s any rush” to finalize the ZTA, Mr. Neal said.

It goes without saying that the unanimous quorum vote on the balloon ordinance was known in advance of the meeting, otherwise the ordinance would not have been on the agenda. We are certain that postponement of the Council’s action on ZTA 23-05 was also known, and we believe that the postponement should have occurred before the meeting. It is conceivable that some of us would have prepared remarks about ZTA 23-05 for the public meeting, unnecessarily so.

We have never known the May meeting of the Town Council, during which the next fiscal year’s budget is presented by the Town Manager, to be attended by only three elected officials.

ARTY, THE TOWN’S K-9 OFFICER

If you’d like to see K-9 Arty eagerly in action with his handler, Southern Shores Patrol Officer Thomas Long, go to the Town of Southern Shores You Tube site, click on the “Live” link, and tune into the first 20 minutes of the May 7, 2024 meeting. (See https://www.youtube.com/@ SouthernShores/streams)

Arty is a friendly 2-year-old Dutch Shepherd who was born in Poland and came to the United States in August 2023, when he met Officer Long and went through basic training. The sleek 57-pound “single-purpose” canine was originally trained with Dutch commands and still responds to them.

Arty’s expertise is in narcotics detection and tracking, which he does by “scent discrimination,” Officer Long explained. The officer took Arty through some basic obedience commands and a narcotics detection exercise at the Town Council meeting, and he enthusiastically responded to every task asked of him.

Arty is one of nine K-9s working in Dare County, according to Officer Long.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 5/10/24

Town Manager Cliff Ogburn will present his recommended budget for fiscal year 2024-25, and the Town Council will consider adopting an ordinance banning the release of balloons in town and partnering with the N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality to treat Eurasian watermilfoil, a noxious aquatic weed, in the Southern Shores canals and Ginguite Creek, at the Town Council’s regular monthly meeting Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. in the Kern Pitts Center.

The Council also will hold a public hearing on Zoning Text Amendment 23-05, the latest version of the new lot-width ordinance, whose progress The Beacon has covered during the past year (for the latest report, see 4/23/24 post), and will decide whether, and to whom, to award a contract for the construction of a sidewalk on the north side of Skyline Road from Ocean Boulevard to an existing path that connects the road to Spindrift Trail.

Before conducting all of this business, however, the Town Council will take time to meet and recognize Arty, a K-9 in the Police Department, and his K-9 handler, Patrol Officer Thomas Long.

For background, see:

AGENDA: https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/soshoresnc-pubu/MEET-Agenda-1dbdcec1125f49fcbe9abe2a4a444b4a.pdf.

MEETING PACKET: https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/soshoresnc-pubu/MEET-Packet-1dbdcec1125f49fcbe9abe2a4a444b4a.pdf.

Notes on the issues:

Budget: Mr. Ogburn will distribute his recommended FY 2024-25 budget, which he has previously previewed, to Town Council members at the meeting; the budget is not yet publicly available on the Town website.

A public hearing on the budget will be held during the Council’s June 7 meeting. (See The Beacon, 4/6/24.)

The Town Council held a budget workshop meeting on April 16, at which time Mr. Ogburn said that a property tax increase would not be necessary to balance next year’s budget.

Balloons: The Town Council passed a resolution on March 12 opposing the release of balloons in town. Since then, both Duck and Nags Head have passed ordinances making it unlawful to release balloons within their jurisdictions and imposing fines on offenders—$250 in Duck and $50 in Nags Head. Once balloons lose their buoyancy, they become non-biodegradable far-flung litter that can harm the environment, aquatic creatures, and wildlife. The Council is likely to pass an ordinance—a draft of which is included in the meeting packet—that bans the release of balloons in town and imposes a $250 fine on offenders.

Sidewalk on Skyline Road: The Town has used an informal bidding process to solicit bids for construction of a sidewalk on the north side of Skyline Road from Ocean Boulevard to the Chicahauk Homeowners Assn.’s cut-through path to Spindrift Trail. The Town received two bids, one of which it rejected for “non-responsiveness,” according to the Town’s agenda item report.

“For construction projects within the informal bidding range,” the Town writes, “the record of bids and bid documents become open for public inspection when the contract is awarded.”

The staff has recommended that the Council award the contract to the low bidder.

An aerial map of the sidewalk under consideration is included in the meeting packet on p. 22.

HERBICIDE TREATMENT OF CANALS AND GINGUITE CREEK

A canalfront homeowner has contacted The Beacon with concerns about the chemical product that the N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) would use on Southern Shores’ canals and Ginguite Creek to eradicate watermilfoil, if the Town Council votes Tuesday to partner with the State in a 50-50 cost-sharing treatment plan.

The Town of Southern Shores has requested assistance from the N.C. Aquatic Weed Control Program, which is housed within the NCDEQ, and applied for an Aquatic Weed Control grant. For the program to go forward, the Town Council must vote Tuesday to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NCDEQ, a copy of which is in the meeting packet. The MOU sets the cost of the project at $40,000, for which the Town would pay $20,000.

According to the Town staff summary attached to the MOU, “the Town has been meeting with State Aquatic Weed Specialists to seek State support to treat the milfoil. Representatives from the Southern Shores Civic Association and Martin’s Point Homeowners Association participated in these meetings.

“DEQ performed a survey of the canals and creek last fall. The information received during the survey helped to develop a potential treatment program in the spring of 2024.”

DEQ reportedly identified a treatment map of roughly 32 acres and targeted late June as the treatment time.

Safety of Herbicide Ingredient, 2,4-D

The Eurasian milfoil eradication program in Southern Shores dates to 1971, when pellets of an herbicide containing 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, abbreviated as “2,4-D, were reportedly scattered from the air over Ginguite Creek, some of the canals, and sections of Currituck Sound where the weed infestation was severe.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which was created during the Nixon Administration, had only been in existence then for a matter of months.

We do not have a record of how often and when the Southern Shores waters were treated for milfoil thereafter, what herbicides were used, and what the consequences of their use were to aquatic life.    

Since enactment of the Aquatic Weed Control Act of 1991, the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality has directed a statewide program to control, eradicate, and regulate noxious aquatic weeds in order to “protect and preserve human health, safety, and the beneficial uses of the waters,” and to benefit plant and animal life.

According to NCDEQ, Eurasian watermilfoil is a “submersed aquatic perennial” that was introduced to the United States from Eurasia in the 1940s as an aquarium ornamental. Considered one of the worst aquatic weeds, milfoil often forms large infestations, NCDEQ says.

This noxious weed forms a dense canopy along the surfaces of water, shading out the vegetation below; degrades water quality; hinders recreational activities; obstructs water intake; and fouls adjacent beaches, according to NCDEQ, which uses both biological and chemical control to prevent the spread of milfoil.  

2,4-D was one of the active ingredients in Agent Orange, a chemical herbicide and defoliant that was used by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971.

Exposure to Agent Orange proved devastating to people, as allegedly thousands of U.S. soldiers and millions of Vietnamese civilians suffered major health problems, including leukemia, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and other types of cancer, and Vietnamese children, as well as children of U.S. military, experienced a high rate of unusual birth defects.

(The story of Agent Orange’s toxic fallout is a complicated one that we cannot begin to cover. Chemically speaking, it was the trace dioxin in Agent Orange, which resulted from a mixture of 2,4-D and another phenoxy herbicide, that caused the human damage. We are not qualified to delve into the chemistry.)

NCDEQ has used herbicides that contain 2,4-D, but it is unclear from the information in the Town Council’s meeting packet whether it intends to do so in treating the Southern Shores waters.    

Lawsuit Against EPA for Its Reapproval of Two Herbicides With 2,4-D

The ingredients in the NCDEQ’s herbicide concern the Beacon’s reader, who referred us to on-going litigation in federal court in Washington, D.C., between three non-profit environmental groups and the Environmental Protection Agency over the EPA’s reapproval in January 2022 of two herbicides that contain 2,4-D. The herbicides, known as Enlist One and Enlist Duo, are manufactured by Corteva Agriscience.

The Center for Food Safety (CFS), the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), and Alianza Nacional de Campesinas allege in their complaint against the EPA that the federal agency unlawfully reapproved the Enlist herbicides without properly considering their environmental and public health risks; that its decision jeopardizes hundreds of endangered species across the country; and that the herbicides harm rural communities and wildlife by increasing concentrations of 2,4-D and glyphosate in the environment, damaging habitats, polluting waters, and affecting native plants and crops.

The reader who contacted The Beacon is especially concerned about the harm that a 2,4-D herbicide would cause fish and other aquatic life in the canals.

The plaintiffs, who targeted the use of Enlist on crops, argue that the EPA’s 2022 registration decisions violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act. They seek injunctive and declaratory relief.

You may access their 105-page complaint, which was filed June 6, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. (Civil Action 23-1633), here:

https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/2023-06-06-doc-01–cfs-et-al-complaint_92063.pdf. (This link is correct. If it does not work for you, we suggest you manually input it.)

Here’s a link to an article about the lawsuit:

https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/6831/epa-failed-to-protect-against-toxic-enlist-herbicides-lawsuit-alleges.

The U.S. District Court recently allowed Corteva to intervene in the action as a defendant.           

We share our canalfront reader’s concern and caution about herbicides that NCDEQ may use in Southern Shores’ waters to eradicate milfoil and would like some assurance that they do not pose a health or safety risk to the public or to aquatic life. We would expect the Town Manager and the Town Council to do their due diligence before agreeing to partner with the NCDEQ to treat the milfoil in Southern Shores’ canals and Ginguite Creek with chemicals.

MORE THAN 1,000 TICKETS SOLD FOR FLAT TOP TOUR

We conclude the business of this post, which grew like milfoil from the brief we intended, by reporting that 1,013 tickets were sold for the April 27 Southern Shores Historic Flat Top Cottage Tour, according to tour organizer Sally Gudas, who said that 758 tickets were sold online and 255 were purchased on the day of the tour.

This total is 302 tickets more than were sold for the last tour, which was held in 2022, representing an increase of nearly 40 percent.

Congratulations to everyone who made this year’s tour such a successful and enjoyable event.

****

ON A PERSONAL NOTE, I would like to wish my mother, Fern MacAllister Sjoerdsma, who has resided on North Dogwood Trail since 1996, a happy 100^th birthday on May 5. Mom may not be the oldest resident homeowner in Southern Shores, but I don’t know anyone who is older. She continues to amaze and inspire me with her love for life and her ability to adjust to whatever comes her way. May she enjoy every day that she has with loved ones and nature’s creatures in the beautiful maritime forest on the sound.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 5/4/24   

The Town of Southern Shores will host a ribbon-cutting ceremony 11 a.m. Saturday at its newly renovated flat top cottage at 13 Skyline Road, shortly before the start of the sixth-ever flat top cottage tour, which is scheduled from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Fourteen mid-century flat tops, including all five of the cottages that have been designated historic landmarks, will be open for viewing.

Tour tickets are $10 each and are available in person, by cash or check, from the Southern Shores Historic Flat Top Cottages group’s box-office tent in the southeast corner of the parking lot of the Southern Shores Crossing shopping center, from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Saturday; and online, with a $1.50 handling fee, at https://southernshoreshistoricflattops.ticketleap.com.

All ticket proceeds will benefit the Flat Top Preservation Fund of the Outer Banks Community Foundation (OBCF).

The Southern Shores Crossing is located at 1 Ocean Blvd., behind Southern Shores Realty, and is a good place to gather before the tour starts.

Shore Coffee Roasters, a roastery café whose space in the Crossing is being readied for opening, will be set up outside Saturday, offering tour ticketholders a free cup of coffee from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., as well as selling coffee to paying customers.

According to tour organizer Sally Gudas, who will be selling tickets, four merchants in the Crossing will be donating 10 percent of their day’s sales proceeds to the preservation fund. They are Shore Coffee Roasters, Southern Shores Pizza, Sojourn, and Steamers.

You may pick up your ticket, a tour map, and a handout about the 14 cottages’ histories at the box office tent. Those who purchase their tickets online may print out these materials in advance or pick them up at the box office—and grab a cup of coffee nearby. Shore Coffee Roasters is located in the space once occupied by Coastal Provisions.   

RE-OPENING 13 SKYLINE ROAD

Nature artist, real estate developer, and Southern Shores founder Frank Stick designed and built the flat top at 13 Skyline Road in 1953. Mr. Stick (1884-1966), who primarily concerned himself with early oceanfront construction, referred to the flat top as “the cottage in the dunes.”  

Much has been written about Frank Stick’s 1947 purchase of the 4-square-mile tract of land north of Kitty Hawk that would become Southern Shores and the artist’s vision of an exclusive oceanfront-to-soundfront community. We will say only that he sought to build dwellings that blended in with the sand and would be sturdy during harsh weather, and was influenced by houses he saw in Key West, Fla.

On the tour you will learn about the 42-pound blocks of concrete that were made with local sand (son David Stick, historian and author, writes in his memoirs about constructing them!), the juniper paneling that came from local trees (and, thus, was more affordable), the no-pitch roofs, and other flat-top features.

The Town purchased the Skyline Road flat top last year for $400,000 from the Outer Banks Community Foundation, which operated its office out of the cottage for 15 years before it relocated to Manteo.

The OBCF acquired the cottage in 2007 as a gift from longtime owners, Dr. John R. Tietjen and his wife, Norma F. Tietjen. The Tietjens, who are now deceased, sought in the covenants to their deed of gift to preserve Southern Shores history, to honor Frank Stick, and to benefit non-profit causes. (For background about the cottage and the Tietjens, each of whom lived nearly 99 years, see The Beacon, 4/14/24.)

The Town has returned the historic flat top to a residence, the restoration of which has been managed by Town Police Chief David Kole. The flat top is expected to be occupied temporarily by newly hired Southern Shores police officers, who may have difficulty finding affordable permanent housing. 

The flat top is adjacent to a now-vacant lot at 7 Skyline Road that the Town bought in 2015 for $205,000. The Town demolished a small single-story house in need of repair that was on the site and has yet to use the property. This lot is next to the Kern Pitts Center and has been described as part of the “Town complex.”

TAKING THE TOUR

The flat top tour is self-guided, so you may start at any one of the 14 open houses. It is not a walking tour, except where some of the cottages are located in close proximity to each other, so be prepared to look for parking as you move en route. Tour parking will be designated in several areas, but most of the parking will be on the street or in the driveways of the tour homes. Parking will be permissible without a permit on Town roads Saturday, but not on N.C. Hwy. 12.

(For those who are unfamiliar with the area: Ocean Boulevard is N.C. Hwy. 12 until the road splits, going north, at the cell tower park. If you stay to the right of the tower, you will continue on the “local” section of Ocean Boulevard, which is Town-owned; if you veer to the left, you will be on a section of N.C. 12 that is called Duck Road and is State-owned.)

If you start with 13 Skyline Road and travel north, your route will take you to these flat tops, in order of location; those that are asterisked have been designated historic landmarks:

78 Skyline Road: Lambroff Cottage

43 Ocean Blvd.: Powell/Harritt Cottage

69 Ocean Blvd.: Sea Spray Cottage

113 Ocean Blvd.: Knight Cottage

142 Ocean Blvd.*: Seaquel

Just past the cell-tower split on Duck Road, you will make a left turn on to Porpoise Run to see the two flat tops located on Wax Myrtle Trail. They are:

156 Wax Myrtle Trail*: Clarke/Gudas Cottage (the third house on the right, at the corner of Porpoise Run and Wax Myrtle)

159 Wax Myrtle Trail: Falconer Cottage

After you’ve toured these two cottages, we suggest that you return to Porpoise Run and cross Duck Road to see the flat top on the east side of Porpoise Run, which is only a block long. If you choose, you can walk from Wax Myrtle Trail to Porpoise Run (or vice versa). The house on Porpoise Run is:

23 Porpoise Run*: Sokol/Clements Cottage (pictured above)

From Porpoise Run, travel east to Ocean Boulevard and turn left. In order of location, you will come to:

157 Ocean Blvd.: Sea Breezes

169 Ocean Blvd.: Atlantic Breezes

170 Ocean Blvd.*: Pink Perfection (the Edith Pipkin Cottage, the oldest and perhaps the loveliest flat top on the tour, it is currently owned by two great-nieces of Ms. Pipkin)

218 Ocean Blvd.*: Mackey Cottage

Before the Mackey Cottage, you may wish to turn left on East Dogwood Trail and visit:

18 East Dogwood Trail: Oh So Sandy! Newman

Or you can visit it before you walk to the Mackey Cottage.

Homeowners will be present in all of the cottages except those at 142 and 170 Ocean Blvd.

You are likely to encounter a display of vintage photographs and other artifacts from bygone years of tranquil beach living at the homes, as well as personable hosts, a few of whom have memories of Southern Shores when it was predominantly a community of flat tops.  

The Town of Southern Shores established a Historic Landmarks Commission in 2016 to raise awareness of the historic significance of properties in town and to encourage preservation. While only five of the approximately 25 existing flat tops have been designated historic landmarks, others are eligible, but homeowners need to apply for the status.  

SAYING HELLO (AND THANK YOU) TO SALLY AND STEVE

If you prefer to start your tour in the middle, or if there is congestion that sends you in that direction, we recommend that you go by the Clarke/Gudas Cottage and meet Sally and Steve Gudas, the very knowledgeable, friendly, and hard-working organizers of the flat top tour. Steve will be on his own at their charming flat top until Sally closes ticket sales and joins him.

Sally’s history with the Outer Banks goes back to the 1970s and, if yours does, too, you may enjoy reminiscing with her about the good old days.

For all of the tour info you may need, please check out https://southernshoreshistoricflattops.ticketleap.com/ southern-shores-historic-flat-top-cottage-tour/.

We hope to see you out there for this celebration of Southern Shores’ singular architectural history.    

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 4/25/24

The Southern Shores Planning Board unanimously recommended approval at its April 15 meeting of the latest Zoning Text Amendment about lot width (ZTA 23-05), accepting a definition that we find questionable, but also amending the proposed ordinance to fix an error. 

Because Board Chairperson Andy Ward arrived late for the meeting, and neither of the two Alternates attended, only four Planning Board members participated in the discussion and vote about ZTA 23-05.

(For background, see The Beacon, 4/12/24. The Beacon has extensively covered the previous versions of the proposed zoning ordinance changes.)

At issue in ZTA 23-05 is the “how to” of measuring the minimally required width of lots created after June 6, 2023, presumably through recombination or subdivision. A stopgap ordinance has been in effect since that date, essentially requiring all newly created lots to meet the mandatory minimum lot width in a zoning district throughout the lot and, thus, be rectangular. It does not permit irregularly shaped lots.

The proposed ordinance creates a “lot width line” at which to measure a lot’s minimum width, which must be 100 feet in the RS-1 single-family residential and the R-1 low-density residential districts; 75 feet in the RS-8 multi-family residential and the RS-10 high density residential districts; and 50 feet in the government and institutional district.

The ZTA eliminates the use of the “building setback line,” which proved to be confusing, as the line where lot width was to be measured.  

Before the Board’s action, the proposed definition of lot width line, which will appear in Town Code sec. 36-57, if the Town Council enacts ZTA 23-05, referred only to 100 feet and not the other mandatory widths in the various districts and read as follows:

“Lot width line means a line established 25 feet from the front lot line, or the point where the lot is 100 feet wide, whichever distance is closer to the front lot line.”

Planning Board Member Robert McClendon picked up on the omission of the other lot widths, as did The Beacon on 4/12/24, and drew it to the attention of Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett, who had reviewed the ZTA with the Town Attorney. The revised ZTA, which may be presented to the Town Council for public hearing at its May 7 meeting, will refer to the various minimum lots in all of the districts.

Even with this correction, we have a problem with the definition. Perhaps you can tell us what we’re missing. Please comment on the blog web site or email us at ssbeaconeditor@gmail.com. The Planning Director, the Town Attorney, and four members of the Planning Board had no issue with the language, which, with the correction, would read similar to this:

“Lot width line means a line established 25 feet from the front lot line, or the point where the lot is [50/75/100 feet wide, depending on the district], whichever distance is closer to the front lot line.”

Mr. Haskett demonstrated with a visual projection at the meeting how to determine minimum lot width where the width does not measure the mandatory minimum 25 feet from the front lot line: He drew a vertical line from the front line to the area in the lot where the mandatory minimum width, say 100 feet, is achieved, and then drew a horizontal line there from one side lot line to the other, saying that this line is the lot width line.

We follow this thinking, but we ask: When, and how often, is that line ever going to be closer to the front lot line than the line that is 25 feet from the front lot line? And if it is not, won’t the 25-foot line, by the ZTA’s definition, supersede it?  

It seems to us that the qualifying phrase “whichever distance is closer to the front lot line,” should be deleted, and the definition written so that the lot width line is where the minimum lot width is first achieved, going from front to back in the lot. It also makes sense to us to require the width of the lot from that line to the back line measure at least the minimum.

Before June 6, 2023, the minimum front-yard setback, also referred to as the building setback line, served as the measuring line for lot width in all of the districts. This setback is 25 feet from the street right of way. With the Town deciding that there no longer is a need or desire to use this setback line for lot width, we see no reason to mention the 25-foot line in ZTA 23-05 and to present an either-or choice.     

The point of rewriting the lot width requirements for newly created lots was to eliminate any ambiguities in the Town Code language. We do not believe this objective has been achieved and welcome your comments.

You may access the uncorrected ZTA 23-05 here: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/meeting/3103/4-5-24_zta-23-05_lot_width.pdf.

COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS PROPOSED

The Planning Board also discussed proposed ZTA 24-03, which the Town submitted and, in its most significant part, establishes design standards for buildings in the commercial district. (See The Beacon, 4/12/24 for the list of proposed standards.)

Mr. Haskett will revise the ZTA to incorporate the feedback he received from the Planning Board and present a new version of the measure at the Board’s May 20 meeting.     

You may access ZTA 24-03 here: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/meeting/3103/zta-24-03_commercial_design_standards.pdf.

A BREAK ON MEETING REPORTS

We have had great difficulty in recent months in keeping up with the Planning Board and the Town Council and, as a result, have too often written posts belatedly and in haste. Errors have crept into our copy that should not occur. Rather than continue to fight an uphill battle, we are going to take time off from reporting on Town meetings for at least a month. If there is anything of note in the Town Manager’s recommended budget for FY 2024-25, which he will present to the Town Council on May 7, we will bring it to your attention.  

Thank you.

EARLY VOTING FOR MAY 14 RUNOFF ELECTION STARTS THURSDAY

Early voting for the May 14 statewide runoff election—aka the second primary election—begins Thursday and will run until May 11, excluding weekends. On the ballot to become their political party’s nominee for the November general election will be two Republican candidates facing off for the offices of N.C. Lieutenant Governor and N.C. Auditor.

A runoff election is held when no candidate from the primary election, which was held on March 5, receives the required 30 percent of the votes cast to be named the party nominee.

James (Jim) O’Neill is vying with Harold (Hal) Wetherman to represent the Republican Party as its nominee for Lieutenant Governor, and David (Dave) Boliek opposes Gerard (Jack) Clark in the second primary race for Auditor.

Only registered Republicans and Unaffiliated voters who voted in the Republican primary on March 5 may vote in the runoff election.

Early voting will be held at the Kill Devil Hills Town Hall, the Dare County Administration Building, and the Fessenden Center Annex in Buxton. The hours are as follows:

April 25 and April 26: from 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Weekdays, Monday, April 29, to Friday, May 10: from 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Saturday, May 11: from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

There will be no weekend hours other than on May 11.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 4/23/24   

The bulk-item pickup scheduled for last Friday will be completed by tomorrow (4/17), according an announcement posted today on the Town of Southern Shores website. The Town thanks you for your patience and requests that you not put any more items out for pickup because they will not be collected.

EARTH DAYS, APRIL 20-22: For information about how you can participate in the cleanups and other activities planned for Earth Days 2024 in Southern Shores, go to https://www.eventbrite.com/e/earth-days-2024-tickets-872011308297.

Earth Day is April 22. It was first celebrated in 1970.

BREAKING NEWS BULLETIN: NO TOWN TAX INCREASE FOR FY 2024-25.

The Town will not seek a tax increase in order to balance the fiscal year 2024-25 Town budget, Town Manager Cliff Ogburn confirmed at this morning’s budget workshop with the Town Council. Any shortfall between revenues and expenditures will be made up by a disbursement of monies from what Mr. Ogburn described as “$4.8 million in spendable fund balance.”

By “fund balance,” Mr. Ogburn refers to the Town’s undesignated fund, which it maintains for emergency purposes, such as natural disaster relief. By order of the Town Council, this fund must contain at least $3.5 million.

The Beacon looked at the big-ticket expenses anticipated in the next fiscal year budget on 4/6/24.

THE BEACON, 4/16/24

The Town of Southern Shores is proposing to define a “lot width line” by which to calculate minimum lot widths in the residential and governmental and institutional (GI) districts and has incorporated this definition into its latest version of Zoning Text Amendment 23-03, which will come before the Planning Board at its regular monthly meeting Monday.

The Board will meet at 5 p.m. in the Pitts Center. You may live-stream its meeting via the Town’s You Tube website.

You may access the Board’s agenda here: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/meeting/3103/4-15-24_pb_meeting_agenda.pdf.

For background on the handful of versions of ZTA 23-03–which has been renumbered ZTA 23-05–that the Planning Board has considered in the past year, see The Beacon, 4/3/24.

In addition to simplifying the measurement of lot width, the new ZTA 23-05 proposes to amend the Subdivision Ordinance definition section (Town Code sec. 30-2) by importing the meaning of “yard” used in the Zoning Ordinance (Code sec. 36-57), and requiring all preliminary plats for subdivisions to show the proposed lot width line and proposed yards.   

Before untangling ZTA 23-05, we further note that the Town has submitted a new zoning text amendment for the Planning Board to consider Monday: ZTA 24-05, which amends parking space requirements for uses other than single-family residential homes and establishes commercial design standards, among other proposed zoning changes.    

The two ZTAs may be accessed here:

ZTA 23-05: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/meeting/3103/4-5-24_zta-23-05_lot_width.pdf.

ZTA 24-03: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/meeting/3103/zta-24-03_commercial_design_standards.pdf.

We do hope members of the Planning Board have received more notice than the public did that these two ZTAs were coming down the pike: The agenda and supporting materials were posted on the Town website this morning. Otherwise, it’s fair to say that they are being inundated.

FIRST UP: ZTA 23-05 AND LOT WIDTH

ZTA 23-05 defines a “lot width line” as a “line established 25 feet from the front lot line, or the point where the lot is 100 feet wide, whichever distance is closer to the front lot line.”

We read this definition to mean that the lot width line is either 25 feet from the front lot line or closer. Clearly, this is not what was intended.

ZTA 23-05 also defines “lot width” as “the width of a lot at the required lot width line.”

The Town previously measured lot width at a point 25 feet from the front lot line, but used different language to define this measurement.

Each of the Town Code sections about minimum lot width in the residential and GI districts now incorporates this concept. For example, proposed section 36-202(d)(2), which applies to the RS-1 single-family residential district, now reads:

“Minimum lot width for lots created after June 6, 2023: 100 feet (measured at the lot width line).”

We do not understand, however, why or how the lot width line, as defined, applies to the RS-8 multifamily residential district and the RS-10 district, both of which have minimum lot widths of 75 feet, or to the GI district, which has a minimum lot width of 50 feet.  

As we reported 4/3/24, the new lot-width measurement only applies to lots newly created through recombination or subdivision. The date, June 6, 2023, references when the Town Council enacted the lot-width measurement that is currently in the Town Code.

ZTA 23-05 also deletes the term “building setback line,” and its definition, in section 36-57 and section 30-2. The term was formerly used in determining minimum lot width and proved to be confusing.

“Yard” actually refers to what we think of more often as a setback. It is a required area of open space that is “unoccupied and unobstructed by any structure or portion of a structure, from 30 inches above the ground level of the graded lot upward.”

There are structural exceptions to this requirement of openness, and they include fences, walls, poles, posts, steps, etc., as qualified in other sections of the Town Code. For example, walls and fences that are higher than 30 inches are allowed in residential-district setbacks, provided they do not exceed six feet. This is Code section 36-97.   

We find a complication with the yard setback provisions and the new definition of lot width. See what you think:

“Yard, rear” is defined currently in sec. 36-57 (and extended to sec. 30-2 by ZTA 23-05) as “a yard extending across the rear of the lot between side lot lines.”

That is clear enough, but there’s more, because the “Depth of a required rear yard shall be measured in such a manner that the yard established is a strip of the minimum width required by district regulations with its inner edge parallel with the rear lot line.”  

Does this mean that the rear setback—which in the single-family residential district is 25 feet in length—must always be 100 feet in width? In other words, the rear yard always must measure 25 by 100?

The same language appears in “Yard, side,” which is defined as a “yard extending from the rear line of the required front yard to the rear yard.” The width of a required side yard, the ordinance says, “shall be measured in such a manner that the yard established is a strip of the minimum width required by district regulations with its inner edge parallel with the side lot line.”

Does this language conflict with the new method of defining lot width? It suggests to us that the lot width must be 100 feet, in the RS-1 district, throughout the lot. Are we missing something?

At the very least, there is confusion.

NEXT: NEW COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS

We will leave ZTA 24-03’s proposed changes to off-street parking requirements,” (Code sec. 36-163), for a report after the Planning Board has tackled it. According to the preamble of the ZTA, the amendments bring the Town Code in conformance with the N.C. General Statutes.

The proposed commercial design standards in the zoning measure grew out of discussions by the Planning Board that date back to November 2022. The Board initially considered commercial design standards already adopted by Duck, Kill Devil Hills, and Nags Head.

The nine standards set forth in ZTA 24-03 for “new construction and substantial improvements” in the general commercial district are, and we quote:

1. Paint colors shall be of low reflectance, subtle, neutral and earth tone colors;
2. Mechanical equipment shall be screened and shall not be visible from any right-of-way;
3. Fences shall be constructed of wood, or match the materials used for the building;
4. No commercial building front shall remain unbroken (unpierced) by a window, architectural element, entrance or functional general access doorway for more than 50 feet;
5. Windows shall comprise no less than 10% and not more than 40% of each building’s vertical wall area;
6. No awning on any building which encroaches on a sidewalk or pedestrian walkway shall extend out from the building more than 2/3 the width of the sidewalk nor shall it at any point be less than 8 feet above the sidewalk;
7. Wall articulations (or breaks in the façade or roofline) shall be designed not less than every 50 feet along the building façade;
8. Architectural embellishments that add visual interest to a façade or roof such as dormers, chimneys, cupolas, watch and clock towers, shutters and other similar elements are encouraged;
9. Roofs shall be constructed with one or more of the following roofs: hip, gable or mansard.

These standards constitute section (b) of a new ordinance, titled “Commercial design standards,” and numbered section 36-179 in the Town Code. Proposed section (a) applies to “sketch plan review” of plans showing the proposed development of “new construction or substantial improvements,” other than one- and two-family dwelling units, in the general commercial district.

ZTA 24-03 also adds the term, “substantial improvement,” and its definition, to Town Code sec. 36-57. It means “any combination of repairs, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, taking place during any one-year period for which the cost equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the start of construction of the improvement.” (See the ZTA itself for further stipulations.)

We regret that scheduling conflicts prevent us from attending or live-streaming the Planning Board’s meeting Monday and the Town Council’s FY 2024-25 budget workshop meeting Tuesday at 9 a.m. in the Pitts Center. We do not know when, or if, we will be able to cover either of these meetings, but we definitely plan to report on any developments that come out of them.

Town Manager Cliff Ogburn previously announced that he will present his recommended FY 2024-25 budget to the Town Council at its May 7 meeting.  

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 4/12/24    

The Dare County Board of Commissioners unanimously voted yesterday to “halt” its efforts to build affordable housing in the county and to return the $35 million loan that the State of North Carolina gave it for this purpose.

The Board’s surprising decision came after the seven commissioners listened to nearly 2 ½ hours of public comment, some of which was critical of chosen developer, Coastal Affordable Housing LLC, and to County Manager/Attorney Bobby L. Outten elaborate in detail upon all of the actions taken by Dare County during the past 4 ½ years to make affordable housing a reality.  

By the time all of the commissioners had an opportunity to speak, it was clear that a majority of them had become frustrated and exhausted with one major hurdle preventing Dare from going forward with an affordable housing project: the “NIMBY” attitude of homeowners in the vicinity of the sites where such projects have been proposed.

“Not in My Back Yard,” some of the commissioners said, defeated the County’s sincere efforts to bring affordable housing to an essential workforce that is increasingly forced to live outside of Dare County because housing rents and prices here are too high.

For our money, the commissioners gave up too soon. No one ever said it was going to be easy. Worthwhile objectives rarely are.  

HOW DID WE GET HERE?     

In explaining “How did we get here?” Mr. Outten went back to Dare’s early efforts to network with housing authorities in Raleigh and to work with the non-profit Development Finance Initiative at the UNC School of Government that was poised to help it by identifying developers willing to participate in a public-private partnership to build the housing that Dare County needs.

During its consultancy with the DFI, the County created a $12 million fund for an affordable housing project. It did not move ahead with DFI, however, because it “got word” in 2021, Mr. Outten said, that the State had budgeted $35 million to Dare County to develop such housing. The State money, he said, came out of an American Rescue Plan (ARP) stimulus fund established by the U.S. government during the COVID-19 pandemic.   

This money, which was set up as a forgivable loan, was not sought by Dare County and came as a surprise to the Board of Commissioners and Mr. Outten.

Because of its source, federal rules attached some “strings,” the County Manager said, one of which was the requirement that Dare County issue an RFQ—Request for Quotation—to solicit developers. It was through the RFQ process that the County identified developers Woda Cooper Cos. and Coastal Affordable Housing and elected to work with both.

Woda Cooper already owned land in Nags Head that was zoned for multifamily housing and planned to develop it, according to Mr. Outten. The County decided to apply its $12 million housing fund to this project, which, unfortunately, fell through after many people in the Nags Head community objected to it, and the Town of Nags Head rezoned the property to prevent it.  

Coastal Affordable Housing offered to invest $65 million of its own money to bring a total of $100 million to what was originally envisioned as a single project of about 400 affordable housing units. The County adjusted this design, however, to include a project of multiple sites, rather than one housing site, because of community opposition to large projects proposed by Coastal on the beach and Roanoke Island.

(We believe four projects, including the one in Nags Head, were defeated. Mr. Outten did not specify the number.)   

During the past year, Coastal Affordable Housing has been unable to locate a suitable property site or multiple sites to buy and develop, Mr. Outten said, but the County Manager concluded his briefing with the indication that the County was “waiting” for the right situation to emerge.

We would have liked to have heard Mr. Outten’s recommendation about how to proceed. We believe he would have advised the Board to stay the course.    

‘UNWINDING’ THE PROJECT, RETURNING MONEY

Commissioner Steve House, who lives in Southern Shores and represents Duck, Southern Shores, and Kitty Hawk, made the motion that led to Dare’s “bailout.”

He prefaced it by saying: “Everyone understands that there’s a need for essential housing, however, they do not want it in their backyards, and there are no backyards left.”

Mr. House then made a vague and awkwardly worded motion that other commissioners sought to clarify.

“I make a motion,” he said, “to halt this project and give the County Manager the authority to take the appropriate steps to unwind it.”  

After Commissioner Bea Basnight seconded the motion, Commissioner Rob Ross (Nags Head, Colington, Kill Devil Hills) pointedly asked: “By unwinding the project, we are saying the money will be returned to the General Assembly, yes or no?”

Mr. House softly replied, “Yes,” then more loudly said, “That’s the only way it can go.”

Mr. Outten then clarified that, besides “stopping [County] efforts on affordable housing,” he would have “to go to the Office of Management and Budget and get instructions on what we have to do.”

(We assume because the money comes from an ARP, Mr. Outten is dealing with the U.S. OMB, not with the North Carolina equivalent, which is the Office of State Budget and Management. Mr. Outten certainly should know that.)

When Mr. Outten reiterated that he would have to go to the “OMB and find out what to do with the money,” Chairman Woodard quickly added, “And how to return it.”

Before Mr. House made his motion, each Commissioner responded to—and, in some instances, pushed back against—the public comments he or she heard and talked about the substantial efforts that the County has made to learn about, contract for, and develop affordable housing.

To truly appreciate the hurdles, the complications, and the commitment and delays of time, we strongly urge you to listen to Mr. Outten’s talk, which begins at two hours, 19 minutes into the meeting videotape, and ends around two hours, 45 minutes. His talk is dense, so you may have to listen a few times to glean all of the details.  

The Commissioners’ frustration with the public—with misinformation and lack of information, with misguided ideas of what the County can and cannot do legally—came through in their remarks, but it wasn’t until Ervin Bateman (At Large), the fifth Board member to speak, that the word, “NIMBY,” was uttered.

Mr. Bateman opened the door, with some regret. Chairman Woodward had no difficulty saying, in his rebuke of the status quo, “It is clearly a NIMBY situation, and I don’t know how we overcome it.”

The plainspoken Commissioner Ross admonished members of the public for their false assumptions and erroneous conclusions and expressed disappointment and sadness about the way things have progressed, while Mr. House wondered if “the citizens of Dare County actually want” affordable housing.

Mr. Bateman, a restaurant owner who provides rental housing for his employees, recalled the euphoria he felt when he learned from a friend in the Governor’s office about the $35 million loan.

“It was a gift from God,” he exhorted. “It just dropped out of nowhere, and all of a sudden $35 million just landed in our laps. . . .”

Mr. Bateman and his fellow commissioners “were excited as the dickens,” he continued. “We were high-fiving each other” as they went into “housing summits.”

“We can make a difference in Dare County!” he said. “We can make things happen here!”

We believe you still can, but not if you quit when the going gets rough. Thirty-five million dollars is a big price to pay when it costs nothing to let things ride for a while.

TASK FORCE MEETING: The Dare County Housing Task Force has not disbanded and will meet next Tuesday, at 9 a.m., in Room 168 of the Dare County Administration Bldg. in Manteo. The task force should feel free to do the creative brainstorming that the Board of Commissioners apparently does not wish to do.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 4/10/24