A recent letter to Chicahauk residents from an attorney representing the Chicahauk Property Owners Assn. (CPOA) informing them that CPOA will be levying stiff fines against owners who use their property for other than “single-family residential purposes” has the social media site Next Door abuzz today with confusion, anger, suspicion, and a lot of concern.    

The March 13 letter, written by attorney Louis J. “John” Hallow, III of Hornthal, Riley, Ellis & Maland—the same law firm that represents the Town of Southern Shores—puts CPOA members on notice that after March 31, CPOA will begin imposing fines of $100 per day for violations of a protective covenant that prohibits the erection or placement of “guest houses and/or suites or ancillary or accessory structures” on a lot in the subdivision, without prior written approval.

The letter, a copy of which The Beacon obtained, quotes from Article III, Section 1, “Residential Use,” of the CPOA’s Amended Declaration and Restatement of Protective Covenants and Conditions, for the restriction that:

“Only one single family residence may be placed on and [sic] lot, and duplexes or multiple family houses are expressly prohibited. No guest house and/or suites ancillary or accessory structures may be leased, rented or sold separately from the main residence.”

So Chicahauk homeowners can neither build guest houses, suites, or accessory structures, nor rent such structures—if they do indeed build them. The current version of these restrictions dates back to 2010, which is the last time the CPOA covenants were revised.

Although in this age of Airbnb rentals, homeowners are increasingly renting out rooms, suites, and other accommodations in their primary residences, the language of the CPOA covenant clearly applies to what are customarily called accessory dwelling units (ADU), not to rental spaces within homes.

ADUs are commonly understood to include guest houses, granny flats, in-law units, cottages, apartments above detached garages, and other secondary dwellings that share the same building lot as a larger, primary home, but not the same structure. They may be attached to a house or garage or stand alone. They may be rented by the homeowner, but they cannot be bought or sold separately.

To put the CPOA covenant into a larger context:

**The Town of Southern Shores does not permit accessory dwelling units, except those that are temporary family health care structures, which, e.g., an elderly parent or his/her caregiver may occupy (See Town Code sec. 36-168(5).)

The Town, however, does allow “accessory structures with living space” in all of the zoning districts except for the RS-10 residential district, Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett confirmed with us today. RS-10 is the high-density residential district, such as where Pelican Watch is located.  

We have always found this distinction between ADUs and “accessory structures with living space” to be confusing.

“From a zoning perspective,” Mr. Haskett explains, “someone can live in an accessory structure with living space, and they can be rented, but it can’t have all of the elements that make up a dwelling unit.”

This has meant in the past that accessory structures in Southern Shores cannot have ovens and other cooking appliances. A hot plate is all right, but we think microwaves are forbidden. (To be verified later.)

**The North Carolina State Legislature may be on the verge of passing a bill that would require all local governments to allow the development of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each single-family detached dwelling. The N.C. House passed the bill, H.B. 409, last year. The Senate equivalent, S.B. 374, passed a first reading in the N.C. Senate in 2023, but it has stalled in committee. (The General Assembly’s sessions last two years; the 2023-24 session ends July 31.)

This pro-builder state legislation has bipartisan sponsorship and is touted politically as a means to provide affordable housing. The Town of Southern Shores Planning Board and Town staff are well aware of H.B. 409/S.B. 374, but Mr. Haskett could not tell us more than we already know.

H.B. 409, which critics claim would undesirably increase real estate density and congestion, has exceptions for HOA restrictive covenants and historic properties.

Southern Shores Town Code section 36-94 provides that only one “principal building” and its “customary accessory building” may be erected on a lot in town, except as otherwise authorized, such as with the temporary family health care structure.

A “customary accessory building,” according to Code section 36-202(b)(2), which applies to the RS-1 single-family residential district where most homeowners live, includes, but is not limited to, swimming pools, tennis courts, and garages, “provided no dwelling unit is located in the accessory structure.”  

Got it? We honestly don’t. How many violations regarding accessory structures do you think exist now—or have occurred—in Southern Shores, outside of Chicahauk? Guest houses, sometimes used as quarters for domestic employees, were once common on the oceanfront lots that front on Ocean Blvd. How many exist today?

LONG-STANDING TENSION AMONG HOMEOWNERS  

The Beacon is aware that there has been tension between individual homeowners, including some CPOA Board of Directors members, about ADU rentals in Chicahauk, as well as Airbnb rentals in people’s homes. We do not know the specifics, but we do know that such tension is not exclusive within the town to just the Chicahauk subdivision.

We have heard the Town Planning Board grapple with how to regulate ADUs, assuming that the N.C. legislature will open the floodgates, and can attest that members generally do not view them favorably.

According to Mr. Hallow’s letter, the CPOA Board of Directors notified Association members last September by letter that it would begin imposing fines for violations of the “Residential Use” covenant. Unaware of this, we wrote on Dec. 11-12 about a CPOA meeting to discuss a review of the covenants and bylaws and the drafting of a membership survey.  

We spoke then to CPOA president, David Stager, who told us that the purpose of the meeting was to “gather” questions for a survey to be sent to CPOA members regarding whether to “change or adjust” Association covenants.

Judging by the comments on Next Door today, we conclude that no such survey was done.

“A board operating from less of a dictatorship, one who genuinely wants to have a FAIR CONVERSATION would benefit us all,” Kiirsten Farr of Chicahauk Trail writes in a lengthy Next Door post that summarizes many of the objections to the new enforcement action taken by the CPOA Board of Directors.

“The drama and unnecessary tension amongst community members this is causing when we’ve had such a dream sense of community for decades,” she continues, “is incomprehensible.”

Writes Dan Lester of Trinitie Trail: “My problem here is that one person had an issue and now it has consumed money and a lot of stress for people. Before making it a legal problem, the process should have been to evaluate whether it was time to make an adjustment to the covenants.”

Judd Snapp of Spindrift Trail acknowledges on Next Door that “our property unfortunately started all of this.” He describes how he and his wife went to “great lengths” to save trees on their lot and to design a house that they believed captures the “Outer Banks look and feel.”

Mr. Snapp’s objection to clear-cutting is not shared by all in Chicahauk, however, as he describes in his Next Door post being told by the “current Chicahauk ARB” (Architectural Review Board head) at a meeting that “he has no right to tell new construction owners that they can’t cut down all the trees on [their] lot.”

In fact, section 9 of Article III of the CPOA’s covenants is designed to do just that. It prohibits property owners from disturbing, removing, or destroying existing “vegetation” during construction without first getting express written consent from the CPOA, which can deny them permission.

CPOA’S PROPOSED FINES ARE EXCESSIVE

But the CPOA Board of Directors is not interested in preventing clear-cutting or in preventing other covenant violations. It is focused on rental ADUs and has brought out the heavy fire.

Per Mr. Hallow’s letter, CPOA will begin enforcing violations of this “Residential Use” covenant  after March 31: The Board of Directors, the attorney writes, “will properly notice and call a special meeting . . . to hold a hearing to determine whether a violation . . . has occurred, and if so, whether a lot owner should be fined or if planned community privileges or services should be suspended.”

Mr. Hallow cites N.C. statute for the Association’s authority to take this punitive action.

The allegedly “violating lot owner,” he explains, will be given notice and an opportunity to present evidence at the hearing, at the conclusion of which the Board will either announce a decision or defer decision-making to a later date.

Per a decision make by the Board on March 7, Mr. Hallow writes, fines will be $100 per day, for each day the violation continues. This penalty is comparable to what the Town of Southern Shores levies for zoning violations. According to the State statute cited by Mr. Hallow, $100 is the most severe fine the CPOA could impose.

N.C. General Statutes sec. 47F-3-107.1, which is part of the N.C. Planned Community Act, actually states that a homeowners association may impose a fine of up to $100 for “each day more than five days after the decision that the violation occurs.” Mr. Hallow does not qualify the potential fine imposed by the CPOA, and, therefore, it exceeds the penalty authorized by the State act.

The CPOA’s declaration of covenants also does not give notice to members that they may be subject to stiff fines and the suspension of community privileges if they are found to have violated a covenant. It also does not prohibit the CPOA from imposing them.

We agree with those homeowners who believe that the CPOA Board of Directors has gone too far. The CPOA should have made an effort to discuss the underlying issues of its enforcement action and to hire a professional mediator, rather than a lawyer, to resolve community conflicts. Cooler heads should have prevailed with reasoned problem-solving. Pitting neighbor against neighbor is never a good approach.  

The most recent version of the CPOA covenants is nearly 15 years old now and reflects rule-making decisions made decades ago. Radical changes in technology, in market value of Outer Banks property, in the U.S. and the local economies, and in contemporary lifestyles and personal needs, to name just a few variables, have occurred since 2010, and homeowners associations’ governing rules have to keep pace. In updating covenants, CPOA leaders must listen to the many voices in the community, not just to the voices that they want to hear.  

Where was the CPOA Board when accessory dwellings were built many years ago? Why has it allowed these dwellings to be built and rented and failed to enforce the covenant?

We also question why one of the Town’s attorneys is involved in this community dispute. The CPOA and the Town are separate entities, with differing interests. If, in fact, Chicahauk homeowners are paying Dare County occupancy taxes on their accessory rentals, the Town of Southern Shores is benefiting.

It is well-established law that local laws supersede homeowners associations’ rules and regulations, but HOA rules may be more restrictive. As noted above, the Town Code allows accessory structures with living space as long as they are not dwelling units. They also may be rented.

We trust the conversation that began on Next Door today will continue and will grow to include the entire community of Southern Shores.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 3/21/24

Residents of Southern Shores Landing spoke in opposition yesterday to a doubling of their monthly sewage costs, as requested by the SAGA Realty & Construction subsidiary that operates their wastewater treatment plant, at a consumers’ hearing held in Manteo before an examiner for the N.C. Utilities Commission (NCUC).

The Outer Banks Voice covered the hearing, which it reports was held at the Dare County Courthouse before NCUC examiner Anne Winstead, identified as a public utilities regulatory analyst on the Commission’s website. We refer you to a news article by Kip Tapp about the hearing in today’s Voice and thank him for his coverage.  

A full hearing on the rate increase requested by subsidiary GWWTP, LLC, whose acronym stands for Ginguite Woods Wastewater Treatment Plant, will be held in Raleigh on May 7, according to The Voice.

A GWWTP representative reportedly testified before Ms. Winstead in a hearing on March 11.

GWWTP, which was appointed in January as the emergency operator of the Ginguite Woods treatment plant, has proposed a rate increase of $90 per month—from $90 to $180 per month—according to an order by the Commission that approves the increase on a provisional basis.

The rate requested is based on a “single family equivalent” (SFE) usage of 360 gallons per day.

In the same order, the NCUC grants a motion by GWWTP to serve as the Ginguite wastewater treatment plant’s emergency operator and discharges Enviro-Tech of N.C., which had been serving that role.

See the order at https://starw1.ncuc.gov/NCUC/ViewFile.aspx?Id=5ae0e5e7-1d9a-4846-a4b0-ad8b6372a1b0

The N.C. Utilities Commission is a state agency that regulates the rates and services of public utilities in North Carolina. The consumer public is represented in rate hearings by a member of the Commission’s Public Staff. Attorney Davia Newell, of the Public Staff, will be representing Southern Shores Landing residents as their public advocate.

Ms. Newell reportedly attended yesterday’s hearing and visited the Ginguite Woods site.

****

JUST ANNOUNCED: The Town of Southern Shores’ springtime large-item collection will be Friday, April 12.

THE BEACON, 3/20/24

The Southern Shores Planning Board will take up a strikingly altered version of a tree-removal ordinance that was proposed, then withdrawn and redrafted, by the Town, and consider the Town’s latest wording about minimum lot-width measurements for all residential districts, at its regular meeting Monday, to be held at 5 p.m. in the Pitts Center.

The meeting will be live-streamed on the Town’s You Tube website.

For the agenda, see https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/meeting/3102/3-18-24_pb_meeting_agenda.pdf.

For the new tree-removal/permit ordinance, which amends the Town’s lot disturbance/stormwater management permit requirements and is proposed in Zoning Text Amendment 24-02, see https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/meeting/3102/3-11-24_zta-24-02_tree_removal.pdf.

For the lot-width measurement changes proposed for all residential districts, as well as the government/institutional district, in Zoning Text Amendment 23-05, see https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/meeting/3102/3-14-24_zta-23-05_lot_width.pdf.

STORMWATER PERMITS/TREE REMOVAL

Originally included in ZTA 24-01, which, according to Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett’s meeting report to the Planning Board, was approved, with revisions, by the Town Council at its March 12 meeting, ZTA 24-02 now applies only to the commercial district and not to any Southern Shores residential districts. It also applies only to trees in setback zones.

(Regretfully, we have not had an opportunity yet to review the March 12 meeting videotape, except for its end, which we checked to learn who was appointed to the Planning Board. See below.)

The now independent and revised ZTA 24-02 proposes amending Town Code sec. 36-171, which concerns lot disturbance and stormwater management (“LDSM”), to require a landowner to obtain an LDSM permit in order to remove trees greater than 6 inches in diameter that are measured at 4.5 feet above the ground and are within a front-, side-, or rear-yard setback “on any unimproved lot in the general commercial zoning district.”

These are significant changes from ZTA 24-01, which required permits for such tree removal on “any” unimproved lot, not just commercial lots, and covered tree removals from any location on a lot.

(See The Beacon, 2/18/24, for our reporting on the original ordinance.)

Question: Who is responsible for watering down a proposed change that we viewed as good stewardship and community protection by the Town?     

Answer: Clearly someone who has authority over the Town staff.

If the point of the newly required permit is to guard against stormwater runoff into adjacent properties and roadways caused by the removal of old-growth trees, then ZTA 24-02 should address all unimproved lots, not just those in the commercial district. We urge the Planning Board to take that position under consideration.

The Beacon would go a step further and impose a permit requirement for such tree removal on all lots, regardless of whether they are improved or not.

Increasingly, we see new homeowners taking down large trees soon after they move in.

Stormwater runoff is a major hazard in Southern Shores, and causing it is not an “individual property right.” The Town owes it to the community to guard against runoff, when it has the means to do so.

ZTA 24-02 provides civil penalties for a commercial property owner’s failure to obtain a permit to remove trees greater than 6 inches in diameter measured at 4.5 feet above ground in a yard- setback space. It proposes that each tree removed in violation be viewed as a separate offense and requires the Town to issue a warning citation to an offender before taking enforcement action.

The offender has 30 days after receiving the warning to “abate” the violation by replacing the removed tree with a tree “similar in size.” If this is not done, the ZTA proposes that the Town may fine the offender, as outlined in Town Code sec. 1-6(d), which imposes a civil penalty of up to $500 for each violation, and establishes that each day that a violation exists is another violation.

LOT WIDTH ZTA

The minimum lot width required by the Town Code varies according to the zoning district. It is 100 feet in the RS-1 single family residential district and the R-1 low-density residential district; 75 feet in the RS-8 multifamily residential district and the RS-10 residential district; and 50 feet in the government and institutional district.

Question: At what point—i.e., where—on a lot is width measured?

The Town staff tried a year ago to make the answer to this question less ambiguous in the Town Code than it was. This turned out to be a difficult task that was not achieved.

On June 6, 2023, the Town Council voted 3-2 to enact a stopgap ordinance on minimum lot width that had the effect of requiring all lots created after June 6 to be rectangular, i.e., uniform in width throughout, while the staff continued to work on a revision. The stopgap meant that a conforming lot on a cul-de-sac could not be created.

The two dissenting Council members were Mayor Pro Team Matt Neal, who wanted to resolve definitional difficulties last year and not delay, and Councilwoman Paula Sherlock, who supported him.

ZTA 23-05 proposes new definitions for “building setback line,” a demarcation that has been used to determine the point at which width is to be measured on a lot, and “lot width,” amending Town Code section 36-57.

The proposed definition in ZTA 23-05 for building setback line is the “line parallel to or concentric with the front lot line establishing the allowable distance between the front lot line and the nearest portion of any building, [etc.].”

In the RS-1 district, where most of us live, for example, the Code provides that the minimum width of all lots is 100 feet “measured at the building setback line.”

For those lots that front on a cul-de-sac, ZTA 23-05 proposes that the building setback line is “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.”

For all other lots, ZTA 23-05 proposes that the building setback line is “25 feet from the front lot line.”

This same language is repeated in the width requirements for the other districts mentioned above.

Is it unambiguous? Is it reasonable?

Does it help to know that the Town Code defines the front lot line as “the line separating said lot from that street which is designated as the front street on the building permit, certificate of occupancy, or subdivision plat”?

We leave it to the Planning Board to sort out the ZTA and decide.

Regretfully, again, we are unable to cover the Planning Board’s deliberations at its Monday meeting. We will try to catch up with zoning issues before the Town Council’s April meeting, which is April 9.

CHARLIE RIES JOINS PLANNING BOARD

The Town Council unanimously approved Charlie Ries’s appointment to the Planning Board as the Board’s Second Alternate.    

Current Second Alternate Michael Zehner will move up to the First Alternate position, from which Dan Fink recently resigned, thereby creating the vacancy.

Mr. Fink’s appointment was set to expire June 30, 2024.  

The Town had two applicants for the alternate position: Mr. Ries and Richard W. Filling.

Before nominating Mr. Ries for the appointment, Mayor Elizabeth Morey, who said she met with both applicants, borrowed a phrase from Planning Board Chairperson Andy Ward in describing them both as “totally over-qualified.”

According to his application, Mr. Ries spent three decades in U.S. diplomatic service, concentrating on economic affairs and Europe. After leaving the State Department, he joined RAND Corporation as a Senior Fellow and went on to serve eight years as Vice President, International, overseeing the non-profit global research organization’s three international offices.

Mr. Ries’s appointment takes effect immediately and runs through June 30, 2027. He lives on South Dogwood Trail.  

Mr. Filling is an engineer who had a 30-year career with Baltimore Gas & Electric, during which he acquired extensive experience in land development and zoning projects, according to his application. He had a second career as a home improvement contractor and finish carpenter. Mr. Filling has been active with Better Beaches, N.E.S.T., and the SSVFD. He lives in Chicahauk.     

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 3/16/24   

Contractor Kimley-Horn will formally present the design for the structure that will replace the Juniper Trinitie Culvert Bridge to the Southern Shores Town Council at its regular meeting next Tuesday, at 5:30 p.m. in the Pitts Center.

Town Manager Cliff Ogburn, who has kept the Town Council up to date on Kimley-Horn’s progress, previously announced at a Council meeting that construction of the bridge replacement will likely start in November.  

Also featured on the Town Council’s meeting agenda are:

• A public hearing on, and the Council’s consideration of, Zoning Text Amendment 24-01, which received unanimous approval from the Planning Board last month, subject to wording changes it suggested (See The Beacon, 2/18/24, 2/23/24);
• The Council’s consideration of a Town resolution to oppose the release of “helium or lighter-than-air balloons into the atmosphere” within the limits of Southern Shores, an environmental concern that has been championed by Chicahauk homeowner Debbie Swick;
• The appointment of one of two highly qualified candidates to fill the vacancy on the Planning Board for a second Alternate, and the reappointment of Wanda Brett-Jordan as an Alternate on the Southern Shores Historic Landmarks Commission;
• An update on the previously approved 101-square-foot addition to the Town Planning and Code Enforcement Dept.’s file room and the possible scanning of documents stored in the file room for digital preservation;
• A planning discussion led by Town Manager Ogburn about the Town’s FY 2024-25 budget;
• February reports by the Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director, the Police Chief, and the Fire Chief; and
• Recognition of Eagle Scout Austin Bellinger for the Town Hall Little Free Library.

As usual, there will be two public-comment periods during the meeting.

For the meeting agenda and background materials, including the revised version of ZTA 24-01, please see https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/soshoresnc-pubu/MEET-Packet-b00f3ea31aa84e24824f65c38507a9fd.pdf.  

You may live-stream the meeting at https://www.youtube.com/@SouthernShores/streams. If you choose to view the meeting on You Tube video, after it is over, be sure to click the “Live” link in the menu at the top of the page.  

The Town has received the approval of the U.S. Coast Guard to lower the culvert bridge on Juniper/Trinitie trail when it is replaced by a cored slab bridge—thus, reducing the opening of the structure—in order to improve the lines of sight of drivers who cross it.

Kimley-Horn has signed two contracts with the Town, one of which covers project tasks that were not dependent on the Coast Guard’s response and the other of which covers tasks that were. The Raleigh-based engineering firm has been working on the pre-Coast Guard tasks. The total cost of the bridge replacement is expected to be about $434,500, according to Mr. Ogburn.

Mr. Ogburn has given a tentative starting date of November for construction of the replacement bridge and a completion date of Summer 2025. He also has said that the bridge potentially could be closed for six months.      

We would like to thank Ms. Swick for her dedicated efforts to rid the coastal environment of contamination by Mylar and latex balloons, which, when deflated, pollute the land and waters and pose a serious hazard to the lives and health of animals, birds, and fish.

Proposed Town Resolution 2024-03-02 states that such balloons “represent the most common form of floating garbage and flotsam within 200 miles of the shore” and that their effect on “marine life is incalculable at the present time,” although research indicates that marine life and animals ingest the balloons when they appear on the surface of waters.

We also would like to thank Ms. Brett-Jordan for serving as an Alternate on the Historic Landmarks Commission for the past three years and for volunteering to serve another three-year term in that position, and Charlie Ries of South Dogwood Trail and Richard W. Filling of Crooked Back Loop for volunteering to serve on the Town Planning Board.

Although the position open on the Planning Board is that of First Alternate, Planning Director Wes Haskett has suggested in a report to the Council that it name the new appointee to be Second Alternate and promote the current Second Alternate, Michael Zehner, to the First Alternate’s position.

The Town Council usually observes seniority in its alternate appointments, such that the promotion of Mr. Zehner should be pro forma.

The Beacon will be unable to cover Tuesday’s meeting. We will watch Kimley-Horn’s presentation as soon as we can and report on those details that we believe would be of most benefit and use to residents, especially those residents who live in Chicahauk.

Don’t forget: Daylight Savings Time starts this weekend. We’re springing forward again.

THE BEACON, 3/8/24

About 25 percent of Dare County’s registered voters cast ballots in yesterday’s primary election, a turnout that, although typical for primaries, resulted in two Republican candidates for the Dare County Board of Commissioners (BOC)—newcomers Carson Creef and Michael Burrus—winning seats on the seven-member board with less than 9 percent of the electorate’s support.

Republican Robert L. Woodard, Sr., the longtime chairperson of the BOC, had a stronger showing in his primary race, garnering about 10 percent of the Dare County electorate in his defeat of newcomer Christian Thomas Hayman. Unlike Mr. Creef and Mr. Burrus, however, Mr. Woodard has a Democratic opponent in the November general election.   

According to unofficial results from the N.C. State Board of Elections (NCSBE), Mr. Creef, a Wanchese commercial fisherman who openly campaigned as “pro Trump,” ousted longtime BOC Vice Chair Wally Overman, who was first elected in 2013, by a vote of 2,924 to 2,294, and Mr. Burrus, a Wanchese businessman, defeated Bea Basnight, who was appointed to the BOC in December to fill the seat of the late Jim Tobin until the November election, by a vote of 2,942 to 2,355.

Both Mr. Creef’s and Mr. Burrus’s vote totals represent about 8.8 percent of the 33,310 registered voters in Dare County, of whom 8,159, or 24.49 percent, voted in the primary, according to the NCSBE.    

Mr. Creef received 56.04 percent of the votes cast in his primary race, to Mr. Overman’s 43.96 percent, to win one of the two District 1 seats representing Roanoke Island and the Dare County mainland. Mr. Burrus received 55.54 percent of the votes cast in his race, to Ms. Basnight’s 44.46 percent, to win the other District 1 seat.  

Mr. Woodard defeated Mr. Hayman by a vote of 3,437 to 1,652, or 67.54 percent to 32.46 percent of the votes cast. He will face Democratic challenger Katie Morgan of Colington in November for his District 2 seat, which represents Nags Head, Colington, and Kill Devil Hills.

Ms. Morgan announced her candidacy last December, and The Beacon has been remiss in not being aware of it. We apologize to readers for this significant oversight. Ms. Morgan was a passionate opponent of both SAGA Realty & Construction and its Ginguite Creek mixed-use development during public-comment periods in the three Special Use Permit application hearings held last fall by the Southern Shores Planning Board.

Also in November, incumbent Commissioner Steve House, a Republican who represents Duck, Southern Shores, and Kitty Hawk, will face Democratic challenger Dennis Zaenger for his District 3 seat, and Democrat Aida Havel and Republican Mary Ellon Ballance will vie for the District 4 seat (Hatteras Island), currently held by Commissioner Danny Couch, who decided not to run for reelection.  

Thanks to Mr. Creef’s and Mr. Burrus’s victories yesterday, and Mr. Couch’s decision not to run, there will be at least three new members of the Dare County Board of Commissioners in December.

All BOC members serve four-year terms, and elections among the seven members are staggered.

To see all of the Dare County election results, or to see all results statewide, go to the N.C. State Board of Elections website at www.ncsbe.gov and click on the link at the top of the home page.

The turnout statewide was 24.02 percent, according to the NCSBE.

THE BEACON, 3/6/24

Voting for Southern Shores residents this Tuesday, Primary Election Day, will be in the Kern Pitts Center from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. The regular first-Tuesday meeting of the Southern Shores Town Council has been rescheduled to March 12, in the Pitts Center, at 5:30 p.m.

The Town has already announced that a public hearing on Zoning Text Amendment 24-01, recently approved by the Planning Board with changes, will be held during the Council meeting. (See The Beacon, 2/23/24.)

Registered Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians will have their own ballots in the “Super Tuesday” primary, while voters who are registered Unaffiliated, the most popular party designation in North Carolina, with 37 percent of all registered voters, will be able to choose the party primary in which they participate.

Voters will be choosing their preference for U.S. presidential nominee, as well as party nominees for N.C. governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and other statewide offices.

Republicans and Unaffiliated voters in the Republican primary will decide two of the three seats on the seven-member Dare County Board of Commissioners that are up for election this year because only one of the candidates has an opponent in the Nov. 5 general election. These candidates are:

Wally Overman vs. Carson Creef for one of the two District 1 seats that represent Roanoke Island and the Dare County mainland on the Board;

Christian Thomas Hayman vs. Robert L. Woodard, District 2, representing Nags Head, Colington, and Kill Devil Hills; and

Bea Basnight vs. Mike Burrus, for the other District 1 seat, to fill the unexpired term of the late Jim Tobin that runs until 2026.

The victor in the Hayman-Woodard primary will face Democratic challenger Katie Morgan of Colington in November.

The Beacon published a rundown of the primary election on 2/14/24, with links to information about candidates.

TICKETS FOR FLAT TOP TOUR ARE NOW FOR SALE ONLINE

Tickets are now for sale online—for the first time ever—for the 2024 Southern Shores Historic Flat Top Tour, which is scheduled Sat., April 27, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

Tickets cost $10 and are available for purchase with a credit card at https://southernshoreshistoricflattops.ticketleap.com. There is a $1.50 fee per ticket transaction.

You also may purchase tickets in person, with cash or a check, on the day of the tour, from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., at the Southern Shores Historic Flat Top Cottages owners’ tent in the Southern Shores Crossing at 1 Ocean Blvd. (The Crossing is the shopping center behind Southern Shores Realty Co.) Tickets will not be for sale at the individual cottages, as has been the case in past tours.

All proceeds will benefit the Flat Top Preservation Fund of the Outer Banks Community Foundation, whose offices formerly occupied the flat top at 13 Skyline Road. 

This year’s self-guided tour features 14 flat top cottages, five of which have been designated historic landmarks by the Town of Southern Shores. They are, traveling from north to south:

218 Ocean Blvd. (Mackey Cottage)

18 East Dogwood Trail (“Oh So Sandy”)

170 Ocean Blvd. (“Pink Perfection,” aka Edith Pipkin Cottage)

169 Ocean Blvd. (“Atlantic Breezes”)

157 Ocean Blvd. (“Sea Breezes”)

23 Porpoise Run (Sokol/Clements Cottage)

156 Wax Myrtle Trail (Clarke/Gudas Cottage)

159 Wax Myrtle Trail (Falconer Cottage)

142 Ocean Blvd. (“Seaquel”)

113 Ocean Blvd. (Knight Cottage)

69 Ocean Blvd. (“Sea Spray” Cottage)

43 Ocean Blvd. (Powell/Harritt Cottage)

78 Skyline Road

13 Skyline Road (owned by the Town of Southern Shores)

You will be able to park off-road near the cottages.

For more information about the tour, see the Facebook page for Southern Shores Historic Flat Top Cottages, at https://www.facebook.com/Southern-Shores-Historic-Flat-Top-Cottages-421136131314749 or its website at https://southernshoreshistoricflattops.com.

THE BEACON, 3/3/24

The Planning Board unanimously approved Wednesday zoning code changes recently proposed by the Town of Southern Shores, with the exception of an ordinance that would regulate tree removal on an unimproved lot—which Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett announced was being withdrawn and redrafted in a separate zoning text amendment that “hopefully” would be considered by the Board at its March meeting. 

The Board suggested some amendments to the Town-proposed Zoning Text Amendment 24-01, in order to make the language more precise, but it essentially accepted the ZTA, as written.

Apart from making changes emanating from the Board’s wide-ranging hearings last fall on SAGA’s Special Use Permit Application for its Ginguite Creek project, ZTA 24-01 updates the Town’s development ordinances to conform with new Chapter 160D of the N.C. General Statutes. Chapter 160D consolidates previous State statutes governing local land use and “modernizes” land use regulation in North Carolina.

See The Beacon, 2/18/24, for details on ZTA 24-01.

The Town Council will hold a public hearing on the final version of ZTA 24-01 before voting on its enactment. The Planning Board serves only as an advisory board to the Council.

VACANCY ON THE PLANNING BOARD

First Alternate Dan Fink has resigned from the Planning Board. If you would like to be considered for an appointment to the Board to serve out Mr. Fink’s term, you must file an application with the Town.

For information about the Planning Board and an application, go to https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_council/page/2485/10-14-16-board-volunteer-application.pdf.

Planning Board members serve for three years; and terms run with the fiscal year calendar.

According to the Town of Southern Shores website, the term for the seat held by Mr. Fink expires on June 30. Whoever is appointed to his seat would likely serve out the current term and serve a three-year term starting on July 1.

All appointments to the Planning Board are made by the Town Council.

THE SOUTHERN SHORES BEACON, 2/23/24  

Primarily to fill zoning regulatory gaps that came to light during the Planning Board’s exceptionally thorough hearings last fall on SAGA’s Special Use Application for its proposed mixed-use development on Ginguite Creek—in particular, to protect residents at Southern Shores Landing from encroachment—the Town of Southern Shores has introduced a sweeping Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA 24-01) that the Planning Board will consider for the first time Wednesday when it meets at 5 p.m. in the Pitts Center.

The proposed ZTA establishes setbacks and vegetative buffers to protect “planned unit developments” (PUDs), such as the Southern Shores Landing, from adjacent commercial and mixed-use development; expands upon permitting requirements for site development, including requiring a lot disturbance/stormwater management permit when large-tree removals are proposed on vacant lots; regulates wastewater treatment plants, and much more. It even prohibits miniature golf courses, warehouses, storage units, and wind farms in town!

ZTA 24-01 was foreshadowed by the Town Council at its Feb. 6 regular meeting when it unanimously passed a motion made by Mayor Elizabeth Morey—without any discussion—to “direct the staff to take some very needed steps to modernize our Town Code and propose changes” to the Town Code in the form of zoning text amendments and Town Code amendments.

This open-ended motion was the only notable business conducted by the Town Council during what proved to be a half-hour-long public meeting, and it was made by the Mayor upon the Council’s return from a closed session with the Town Attorney. We debated whether we should report on it and ask: What does it mean? What sections of the Town Code does the Council seek to “modernize”? What “very needed steps”?

We decided instead to wait and see, and now we know.

You will find the meeting agenda at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/page/3143/2-21-24_pb_meeting_agenda.pdf.

The proposed ZTA, which runs 24 pages, may be accessed at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/page/3143/2-15-24_zta-24-01.pdf.

A staff report prepared by Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett, is available at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_board/page/3143/pb-staffreportzta-24-01.pdf.

Please Note: The Board is meeting on Wednesday, not Monday, because of the Presidents’ Day holiday.

We urge everyone to read Mr. Haskett’s report to familiarize yourselves with the changes being proposed and to attend Wednesday’s meeting, which will have two public-comment periods.

Those who live in the Southern Shores Landing or were otherwise invested in the Planning Board’s decision last November to deny a recommendation of approval of SAGA’s Special Use Application should take some pride in these consequences: The Town is taking swift action to protect Landing residents, as well as the integrity of the Special Use Application process, in part because of their robust participation.  

MOST PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES EMANATE FROM SAGA HEARINGS

Among the many changes proposed in ZTA 24-01 are the following, presented in chronological order as they appear in the Town Code:

**To require property owners to obtain a lot disturbance/stormwater management permit to remove trees greater than 6 inches in diameter, measured at 4.5 feet above the ground on any unimproved lot (amends Town Code sec. 36-171);

(This change recognizes that clear-cutting or the destruction of some, but not all old-growth trees on an undeveloped lot can create stormwater problems. Bravo!)    

**To establish multifamily dwellings as a special use, not a permitted use, in the C general commercial zoning district with a maximum lot coverage of 30 percent (amends sections 36-207(b)(4) and 36-207(c), and reduces the permissible lot coverage of such dwellings from 40 to 30 percent. Another bravo!);

**To establish a 50-foot setback requirement for:

• Restaurants from planned unit developments;
• Drive-through facilities or establishments (small) from residential districts and planned unit developments;
• Mixed-use group developments from planned unit developments and residential districts;
• Commercial buildings and facilities from planned unit developments

(Amends 36-207(c). These setback requirements extend protection to residents of PUDs, the Southern Shores Landing being the only such development in town. The current ordinance only mandates setbacks for residentially zoned property; PUDs are commercial properties, not residential.)

**To establish a 20-foot vegetative buffer requirement where a mixed use group development abuts a residential district or planned unit development, and a 20-foot buffer requirement where a commercial use or zone abuts a residential district or planned unit development (further amends 36-207(c) to provide protective buffers for PUDs);

**To prohibit miniature golf courses, storage units, warehouses, and wind farms in all zoning districts (amends sec. 36-209; we know nothing about the background of this expansion in prohibitions);

**To extend the Town’s time limitations for issuing building and zoning permits after final approval of a site plan (from 180 days to one year), after which site plans expire, and for commencing construction after issuance of a building permit (from 180 days to one year) (amends sec. 36-297);

**To require site plans to show the anticipated final appearances of the front and rear of proposed structures, in addition to the sides and rooflines; to provide a rendering of the anticipated front, sides, and rear appearances of the structure relative to proposed landscaping; and to include the proposed number of bedrooms and/or occupants in a dwelling (amends sec. 36-299; these changes directly emanate from the Planning Board’s SAGA hearings);

**To require that when a site plan is submitted with a permit application, the property owner also provide documented proof from the requisite State agencies that a wastewater treatment facility or connection to a wastewater treatment facility is available and in compliance with all applicable State regulations and permits (amends sec. 36-299; emanates from the SAGA hearings); and

**To require that the written application for a special-use permit be submitted to the Planning and Code Enforcement Department no later than 30 days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which it is to be reviewed, and that it be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale that complies with all other site-plan requirements set forth in Code section 36-299 (amends sec. 36-300; also comes from SAGA hearings).

ZTA 24-01 also substantially rewrites the Town Code sections setting forth the Special Use Application review process (amending sec. 36-300) and the establishment of vested rights by a property owner in a site-specific development plan (36-304). We leave it to the Planning Board to expound upon and assess these changes. Of more interest to us is a proposed revision of the powers and duties of the Planning Board, as set forth in Code sec. 24-27.

RESTATEMENT OF PLANNING BOARD’S POWERS AND DUTIES

The revision of sec. 24-27 by the Town leaves intact the overriding duty of the Planning Board to “prepare plans and to coordinate the plans of the town and those of others so as to bring about a coordinate and harmonious development of the area.” It also preserves the designation of the Planning Board as “the planning agency for the preparation or revision of the zoning ordinances of the town.”   

We would expect Planning Board Chairperson Andy Ward to have been involved in the preparation of ZTA 24-01.

ZTA 24-01, however, rewrites what the Planning Board is “authorized” specifically to do, enumerating its duties with language provided in a N.C. statute, as follows:

• To prepare, review, maintain, monitor, and periodically update and recommend to the town council a comprehensive plan, and such other plans as deemed appropriate, and conduct ongoing related research, data collection, mapping, and analysis;
• To facilitate and coordinate citizen engagement and participation in the planning process;
• To develop and recommend policies, ordinances, development regulations, administrative procedures, and other means for carrying out plans in a coordinated and efficient manner;
• To advise the town council concerning the implementation of plans, including, but not limited to, review and comment on all zoning text and map amendments as required by N.C. General Statutes 160D-604;
• To exercise any functions in the administration and enforcement of various means for carrying out plans that the town council may direct;
• To provide a preliminary forum for review of quasi-judicial decisions, provided that no part of the forum or recommendation may be used as a basis for the deciding board;
• To perform any other related duties that the governing board may direct.

The new language is consistent with N.C. General Statutes 160(D)-301(b), a statute about local planning boards. It’s tighter, clearer, and more empowering and relevant than the language that the Southern Shores Town Code currently has. We hope it will encourage the Planning Board to continue to be assertive and preemptive in developing and recommending “policies, ordinances, development regulations, administrative procedures, and other means” to protect the Town of Southern Shores and its residents.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 2/18/24

Early voting for the March 5 “Super Tuesday” primary election, in which voters statewide will select nomination preferences for the U.S. presidency and N.C. governorship and Dare County voters who vote in the Republican primary will determine two of three seats up for election on the Dare County Board of Commissioners, will begin tomorrow and run until Sat., March 2.  

The voting will take place at Kill Devil Hills Town Hall, the Dare County Board of Elections Office in Manteo, and the Fessenden Annex in Buxton, during the following hours:

Weekdays from Thursday, Feb. 15, through Friday, March 1, from 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Sat., March 2, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., in Manteo and Kill Devil Hills, and March 2, from 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., in Buxton.

There will be no early voting over the weekends of Feb. 17-18 and Feb. 24-25.

Voting on March 5, Primary Election Day, will be in the Kern Pitts Center for Southern Shores residents, from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Registered Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians will have their own ballots in the primary, while voters registered Unaffiliated, the most popular party designation in North Carolina, with 37 percent of all registered voters, will be able to choose the party primary in which they participate.

Although the two-year terms of all members of the N.C. House of Representatives and the U.S House of Representatives are expiring, none of the political parties has a primary in Dare County for an N.C. or U.S. district office.

Incumbent N.C. House Representative Edward C. Goodwin (R), who represents Dare County in House District 1, will oppose Susan A. Sawin (D) in November.

Congressman Gregory Murphy, who represents Dare in U.S. Congressional District 3, faces opposition from Libertarian Gheorghe Cormos in November, but does not have a Democratic opponent.

Republicans and Unaffiliated voters in the Republican primary, however, will vote on three seats on the seven-member Dare County Board of Commissioners, only one of which will be contested in the Nov. 5 general election. These candidates are:

Wally Overman vs. Carson Creef for one of the two District 1 seats that represent Roanoke Island and the Dare County mainland on the Board;

Christian Thomas Hayman vs. Robert L. Woodard, District 2, representing Nags Head, Colington, and Kill Devil Hills; and

Bea Basnight vs. Mike Burrus, for the other District 1 seat, to fill the unexpired term of the late Jim Tobin that runs until 2026.

Ms. Basnight, a retired teacher and former member of the Dare County Board of Education for 12 years, was appointed in December to fill Mr. Tobin’s seat until the November election. Mr. Burrus, a businessman in Wanchese, ran unsuccessfully in 2022 for the at-large seat now held by Ervin Bateman on the Dare Board of Commissioners.

The victor in the Hayman-Woodard primary race will face Democratic challenger Katie Morgan of Colington in November.

Other highlights on the ballots include nominations for:

U.S. PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE

On the Republican ballot, the nominees are (in the order that they appear):

• Ron DeSantis
• Nikki Haley
• Asa Hutchinson
• Vivek Ramaswamy
• Donald J. Trump
• Ryan Binkley
• Chris Christie
• No Preference

On the Democratic ballot, the nominees are:

• Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
• No Preference

The Libertarian Party ballot has 10 nominees for U.S. president, in addition to the “No Preference” choice.

N.C. GOVERNOR

On the Republican ballot, the nominees are (in the order that they appear):

• Dale R. Folwell, the incumbent state treasurer
• Bill Graham, an attorney from Salisbury
• Mark Robinson, the incumbent lieutenant governor

On the Democratic ballot, the nominees are:

• Gary Foxx, a law enforcement veteran from Edgecombe County
• Michael R. (Mike) Morgan, a retired N.C. Supreme Court justice
• Josh Stein, the incumbent attorney general
• Marcus W. Williams, an attorney from Lumberton
• Chrelle Booker, a realtor and mayor pro tem of the Tryon Board of Commissioners

The Libertarian Party has two nominees vying for the Governor’s office: Mike Ross and Shannon W. Bray.

The Green Party is running candidates for U.S. president and N.C. governor in November, but is not holding a primary election.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Eleven people are vying for the Republican Party nomination for N.C. lieutenant governor, while Democrats have a choice of three nominees. We refer you to “Your Guide to the Latest Candidates in North Carolina’s Statewide 2024 Elections” by CityView staff, 12/8/24, for a list of the candidates with short biographies on each. The link is posted below.

Democrats will be choosing their party’s nominee for N.C. Attorney General from among three people in the primary: Satana Deberry, incumbent district attorney in Durham County; Tim Dunn an attorney in Fayetteville; and U.S. Representative Jeff Jackson, an attorney who represents parts of Mecklenburg and Gatson counties.

The Republican candidate for N.C. Attorney General in November will be U.S. Representative Dan Bishop, an attorney who represents Anson, Davidson, Montgomery, Rowan, Stanley, and Union counties, and parts of Cabarrus and Richmond counties.

OTHER STATEWIDE OFFICES

Voters in the Republican primary in Dare County have choices for the following offices:

• N.C. Auditor
• N.C. Commissioner of Agriculture
• N.C. Commissioner of Insurance (incumbent Mike Causey is running for reelection)
• N.C. Commissioner of Labor
• N.C. Secretary of State
• N.C. Superintendent of Public Instruction
• N.C. Treasurer
• N.C. Court of Appeals Judge (Seat 15)

Voters in the Democratic primary have far fewer choices, but the Democratic Party does have a candidate running in each of the above statewide offices in the November election. In the primary, Democrats and Unaffiliateds voting Democratic will decide the party nominees for the following offices:

• N.C. Commissioner of Insurance
• N.C. Superintendent of Public Instruction
• N.C. Treasurer
• N.C. Supreme Court Associate Justice (Seat 6)

For more information about N.C. primary candidates, see:

The League of Women Voters’ voters’ guide at https://www.vote411.org/ballot

The Raleigh News & Observer voters’ guide at https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics- government/election/voter-guide/ (available without a subscription)

“Your Guide to the Latest Candidates in North Carolina’s Statewide 2024 Elections” by CityView staff, 12/8/24: https://www.cityviewnc.com/stories/your-guide-to-the-latest-candidates-in-north-carolinas-statewide-2024-elections,66922

For information about judicial candidates, see the N.C. State Board of Elections at : https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/upcoming-election/judicial-voter-guide-2024-primary-election.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 2/14/24

As expected, N.C. Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey rejected on Tuesday a proposal by insurance companies to increase homeowners’ insurance rates by an average of 42.2 percent statewide, saying the increases were “excessive and unfairly discriminatory.”

The Commissioner set a hearing with the N.C. Rate Bureau, which represents the companies that write insurance policies in the state and requested the rate increases, for Oct. 7 at 10 a.m. in Raleigh. He will have 45 days after the hearing to issue an order settling the rates.

In a rate filing that it submitted in early January to the Commissioner in which it requested rate increases statewide, the NCRB asked for increases of 45.1 percent in the “beach areas” of Dare and Currituck counties and 33.9 percent in the two counties’ “coastal areas.”

Calling these proposed increases “astronomical,” the Southern Shores Town Council encouraged residents in a Jan. 19 “Take Action” email to oppose the NCRB’s proposal during the legally mandated public-comment period. All written comments had to be received by Commissioner Causey’s office by Feb. 2.

See The Beacon, 1/20/24.  

The NCRB’s highest proposed rate increases were concentrated in the southern coastal area of North Carolina, where it asked for increases of 99.4 percent in the beach areas of Brunswick, Carteret, New Hanover, Onslow, and Pender counties and 71.4 percent in the “eastern coastal areas” of these counties.

The lowest rate increase the Bureau requested was 4.3 percent in some of the mountain counties.

“I haven’t seen the evidence to justify such a drastic rate increase on North Carolina consumers,” Commissioner Causey said in a press release announcing his decision to reject the Bureau’s rate filing.

“The Department of Insurance has received more than 24,000 emailed comments on [the NCRB’s] proposal, with hundreds more policyholders commenting by mail. Scores more consumers spoke during a public comment forum. North Carolina consumers deserve a thorough review of this proposal. I intend to make sure they get that review,” he continued.

The Commissioner professed to being “shocked” by the high increase amounts requested by the NCRB for insurance companies, who, it claimed, are losing money on paying claims.

The last time the NCRB requested a rate increase was November 2020, when it submitted a homeowners insurance rate filing with Commissioner Causey, requesting an average statewide increase of 24.5 percent. The Commissioner rejected that proposal and reached a settlement with the NCRB for an overall average rate increase of 7.9 percent.

In light of this history, it was expected that Commissioner Causey, a Republican whose term is expiring this year, would reject the NCRB’s January rate filing.

Mr. Causey has two opponents in the March 5 primary. If he should be elected the Republican nominee, he would face a Democratic challenger in the November general election.

(NOTE: In-personal early voting for Super Tuesday begins next Thursday, Feb. 15.)

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 2/8/24