Yvonne Sternberg of Hickory Trail made an observation about pedestrian crosswalks during public comments at the Town Council’s Feb. 5 meeting that struck The Beacon as worthy of followup. At last, here is the followup.

After thanking the Council for the “nice” new sidewalk on East Dogwood Trail, Ms. Sternberg observed that pedestrian crosswalks now exist on East Dogwood at its intersections with Wax Myrtle and Sea Oats trails and Hillcrest Drive, where the road is divided, but not at its intersections with Woodland Drive and Hickory Trail. (See above photo.)

“I was just wondering,” Ms. Sternberg said, “why these two streets were not connected to the sidewalks as the others have been.”

Ms. Sternberg did not receive a response from any Town Council members, who generally do not interact with the public during the comment period. But no one returned to her inquiry later in the meeting, either, when response would have been appropriate.

The Beacon believes Ms. Sternberg raises an excellent point insofar as the Hickory Trail-East Dogwood Trail intersection is concerned, less so with the Woodland Drive-East Dogwood Trail intersection, which is controlled by a single stop sign on Woodland.

Further, The Beacon believes the same point, which has to do with public safety, could be made about the intersection of East Dogwood Trail with North and South Dogwood trails (hereinafter referred to as the “Dogwoods intersection”).

(Full disclosure: I live on Hickory Trail near the street’s intersection with East Dogwood Trail and often talk with Ms. Sternberg when we are both walking our dogs.)

Like the Dogwoods intersection, the intersection of Hickory Trail with East Dogwood Trail is controlled by a three-way stop. During summer weekends, these intersections teem with vehicles cutting through Southern Shores en route to the northern beaches.

Drivers turning left (going north) onto Hickory from East Dogwood Trail often run the stop sign there, as do drivers turning right (going east) from South Dogwood Trail to East Dogwood Trail. In fact, it’s the rare driver who comes to a full stop at either location.

The Beacon has not read any residential-street data that assess the comparative safety of pedestrian-crosswalk-controlled intersections versus intersections without crosswalks, but it stands to reason that crosswalks and signs indicating them would alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians and slow them down. They also would enhance the safety of walkers and joggers seeking to cross the streets.

So why aren’t there crosswalks at the two major cut-through intersections with East Dogwood Trail? It surely can’t be because the cost of “installing” them is prohibitive. If the answer is “it’s an oversight,” then the Town needs to correct it. If there’s another answer, then residents deserve to hear it.

YESTERDAY’S CIIP COMMITTEE MEETING: PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT SOUTH DOGWOOD TRAIL AND DRIVING ON OUR ROADS

I attended two hours of yesterday afternoon’s Capital Infrastructure Improvement Planning (CIIP) Committee meeting, which focused on the future “improvement” of South Dogwood Trail. Because of a family commitment, I had to leave before its conclusion. The Beacon’s correspondent, who has engineering experience, will be filing a report on the meeting soon, and I will augment it. Today, I’d just like to make a few personal observations.

I have a strong emotional attachment to South Dogwood Trail. I fell in love with South Dogwood Trail and the grand and glorious maritime forest of Southern Shores when I was an adolescent in 1968-69 and saw both for the first time. As corny or as sappy as it may sound, I told my family later when I was in high school, “I’m going to live in the Southern Shores woods when I grow up.”

I didn’t say I would live in the Outer Banks or in Southern Shores. I specifically wanted to live in the woods, whose beauty and allure captivated me 50 years ago. That was my goal, and I made my future in Southern Shores happen.

You would not believe how lush, full, and beguiling the “uninterrupted” moss-laden forest once was. It truly spoke to me, and it still does, in spite of the unabated clear-cutting of lots that the Town has allowed to occur and what I would characterize as the suburban sensibilities of some homeowners, many of whom have primary homes elsewhere.

The canopy was especially fabulous. Today when I use that word, many residents don’t even know what I’m talking about.

The tree cover of the roads—which has been destroyed in too many areas of South Dogwood Trail—is the canopy

You don’t see ugly utility poles in the maritime forest. The utilities were installed underground to preserve the trees and protect the canopy they create over the quaint residential roads. The developers showed vision.

To hear Town Engineer Joe Anlauf of Deel Engineering PLLC speak at yesterday’s CIIP Committee meeting of the Southern Shores woods as if they existed in any ole “subdivision” and of historic South Dogwood Trail as just another “collector street” is to hear the voice of someone who is unappreciative of, and estranged from, Southern Shores.

Every time he talks about the number of trees that he envisions destroying, I see many more becoming casualties, and Mr. Anlauf doesn’t deny that his numbers are minimum numbers.

Yes, I know he’s an engineer. Yes, I know he has a bottom-line interest. No, it’s not his job to preserve what’s left of the Southern Shores maritime forest. But he’s been driving the discussion about South Dogwood Trail—with the Town Manager’s and the CIIP Committee’s complicity—and that has to stop.

Carlos Gomez, who was appointed to the committee by Councilman Gary McDonald, is also an engineer, and he had no difficulty yesterday in advocating for preservation of the maritime forest and protecting what he called the “human resources.”

“The maritime forest is a treasure,” he said. It is our treasure. The human element should not be a mere afterthought in infrastructure planning for Southern Shores.

“We’re missing the community,” Mr. Gomez said, urging that landscape architecture be part of the planning for South Dogwood Trail and other residential streets and that guidelines for preservation be developed.

I thank Mr. Gomez, who is a civil and structural engineer, as well as a land surveyor, for his many contributions yesterday, and I join him in urging the Town Council to think first of preservation before it decides upon “improvements.” If elected officials are not stewards for nature, there soon will be no nature to protect.

*****

Having evoked my past, I now state unequivocally that I do not live in the past. I live in the now, and I feel a responsibility for the future. The future to which I refer is the future of this place we call home, not only for the benefit of my family, who will be here long after I’m gone, but for the benefit of the thousands of people I will never meet.

As for the now, I am going to do something that I have never done before in print—because I’ve always thought it was pompous to do so—and that is criticize other people’s driving. I promise you I won’t name names.

I am astonished by how selfishly some people drive on Southern Shores’ residential streets, especially on South Dogwood Trail.

The section of South Dogwood Trail that Mr. Anlauf and the CIIP Committee talked about yesterday consists of 1.4 miles.

One-point-four miles. One-point-four measly miles.

To drive it slowly, carefully, and alertly, stopping at all of the stop signs, and giving walkers, joggers, and bicyclists, a wide berth, takes how many minutes out of someone’s day? Ten minutes, maximum?

Last week I discussed with two acquaintances, whom I do not know well, the possibility of South Dogwood Trail being widened. One of them, a thoughtful lawyer, immediately suggested lowering the speed limit to 20 miles per hour, which was a suggestion that I made yesterday to the CIIP Committee.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that a lower speed limit, if observed and enforced, would enhance public safety.

The other acquaintance groaned. He dislikes the current 25-mile-per-hour limit and complained that the Southern Shores police have stopped him for speeding.

Just how fast does he need to drive to get to the Duck Woods Country Club? And why does he think his convenience should be part of any discussion about “improving” South Dogwood Trail?

Good drivers—here you may think me “pompous”—don’t speed or run stop signs, and they don’t crowd walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and anyone else on the side of the road. They slow down. They stop, if they have to. They wait for an oncoming car to pass before they go around pedestrians, giving them a full 10-foot cushion.

How hard are any of the above to do?

It has been my experience as a dog walker that most local drivers are courteous. I always wave and say thank you to the drivers who give me ample space, and I try to keep my dog off of the road and in the grass.

But I have seen two pickup truck drivers, or two SUV drivers, traveling in opposing directions, pass each other when a dog walker is on the side of the road near one, and I have blanched. If that dog were to become spooked for some reason and dart out into the road, the driver who hits him would feel heartsick.

Why push it? Don’t crowd pedestrians and their dogs. Just wait.

Often when I drive South Dogwood Trail and other residential streets in Southern Shores, I think back to my driver’s education days in high school, when I sat at a simulator and had to be on guard for the dog who jumped out in front of me or the rolling ball that surely preceded the playing child. It only takes a split-second for a hazard to appear.

I think about the principles of safe driving that I learned as a teenager:

“Get the big picture.”

“Leave yourself an out.”

The one that I see violated every day in Southern Shores instructed drivers to know what’s ahead of them, and not just five feet ahead of their vehicles, but as far ahead as they can see. A lot of safe driving has to do with anticipation. It’s not just put your foot to the gas and go. You never assume that your path will be free of obstacles.

For example, if you’re going to run the stop sign at East Dogwood Trail and turn left (south) on to South Dogwood Trail—as I observed a woman in an SUV do earlier this week—you have to anticipate that you could run smack into an oncoming vehicle in your lane that is going around two dog walkers on the side of the road.

You’re driving in a residential neighborhood, not on a highway.

By running the stop sign, you have not given the driver of the oncoming vehicle the time she expected to have to clear the dog walkers. Fortunately, she knows to anticipate that you will run the stop sign and be talking on your cell phone, as this woman was, so she stops (I stopped) to wait for you to pass.

The good driver anticipates that hazard. But she still can’t help but wish that you would think first about the hazard that you present down the road when you run the stop sign.

SUMMER IS COMING: It’s not too early to start lobbying the Town Council to take action to prevent the cut-through traffic from ruining our weekends. Mayor Tom Bennett and the rest of the Town Council represent the people of Southern Shores, not Currituck County or the Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce. Our elected officials and Town staff can do far more than they have done in recent years to protect our safety, quiet enjoyment, and quality of life.

PLANNING BOARD MEETS ON FEB. 19, 5:30 P.M.

I conclude with notice that the Town Planning Board will meet Tues., Feb. 19, at 5:30 p.m., in the Pitts Center.

The Beacon thought the Board would be reviewing and approving the high-occupancy/large single-family dwelling zoning text amendments that it has directed Town staff to prepare, but the meeting notice posted Monday on the Town website does not say that. The notice says only that the “Board will continue discussion of ZTA-18-09,” which is the nonconforming lots ZTA, and “may also continue discussion of high occupancy/large single-family dwellings.”

See https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/planning-board-meet-february-19-2019-530-p-m/.

If the notice changes before the meeting, The Beacon will report the changes.

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 2/13/19

Six homeowners spoke to the Town Council last week about coyotes in Southern Shores, expressing fear and discomfort about these predatory canines living in our town.

“I’m fearful, not for myself, but for my pets,” Susan Stroud, who lives on Wax Myrtle Trail, told the Town Council during its public-comment period at Tuesday’s meeting.

“Something has to be done so I can feel comfortable,” said Steve Weeks of Chicahauk, who also spoke of his wife being fearful for her safety.

According to Town Manager Peter Rascoe, Town Hall has received reports of coyote sightings for at least the past three years. He has a “full library of photos,” Mr. Rascoe said, but he has never received a complaint about aggressive coyote behavior or an attack.

If a resident witnesses aggressive, threatening behavior by a coyote, or “foaming at the mouth”—a symptom suggesting rabies, which is rare in coyotes, according to the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission—Mr. Rascoe advised him or her to call 911 and report the animal to the police.

When Europeans first arrived in North America, coyotes were largely confined to the open plains and arid areas of the western part of the continent. These animals, variously known as prairie wolves, barking dogs, and American jackals, have evolved substantially over the centuries, adapting and migrating; they now live throughout the United States, except for Hawaii, and have 19 subspecies.

The first coyote sighting in North Carolina was in 1938, according to the state wildlife commission. By 2005, coyotes inhabited all 100 N.C. counties. Dare County has the distinction of being the last N.C. county to confirm a coyote sighting.

The Town’s response to homeowners’ concerns last week was clear: Residents need to learn how to cohabitate with coyotes, just as they do with other wildlife, in Southern Shores. Coyotes are “here to stay,” Mr. Rascoe said.

“Human interaction cannot be avoided,” Mayor Tom Bennett agreed.

HUNTING OF COYOTES NOT ALLOWED IN DARE COUNTY

The hunting of coyotes is not permitted in Dare County or in nearby Beaufort, Hyde, Tyrell, and Washington counties. This five-county area is the only remaining U.S. habitat and recovery area for the endangered red wolf, which once lived as far north as Pennsylvania, as far south as Florida, and as far west as Texas.

Coyotes are their own species, but they look enough like wolves that hunters may mistake wolves for coyotes and kill precious red wolves. According to the Southern Environmental Law Center, healthy red wolves pose no safety risk to humans, pets, or livestock.

Although they may have similar coloring, wolves are larger than coyotes, which generally top out at 40-45 pounds, and have broader snouts and short, rounded ears. Coyotes have narrow, pointed faces with small nose pads and taller, pointed ears.

Although hunting coyotes is not allowed in Dare County, state-licensed trappers can kill them here by trapping them during the fur-bearing season that runs from Dec. 1 through Feb. 28, Mr. Rascoe said. According to the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, a trapper must obtain a “depredation permit” in order to kill a coyote in this county.

The Town of Nags Head hired trapper Leary Sink during the 2017-18 season to trap coyotes within its limits after receiving numerous resident reports of coyote sightings and complaints of small pets being killed. Mr. Sink reportedly trapped 17 coyotes.

After coyotes are ensnared in leg-hold traps—which can trap other wild and domestic animals, too—they are required to be killed at their trapping sites, Mr. Rascoe said. Usually an animal control officer shoots them.

Unfortunately, wildlife biologists agree that seasonal trappings and other permissible hunting methods will not rid an area of coyotes.

Coyotes, like dogs and wolves, are pack animals. When pack animals are killed, biologists say, the social structure of their packs breaks down. A breakdown leads to females becoming more likely to breed and pups being more likely to survive. Because packs generally protect their territories, a breakdown also results in new animals coming in to replace those that were killed.

TOWN RESOURCES ABOUT COYOTES POSTED ONLINE

The Town of Southern Shores has posted quite a few resources about coyotes on its website, including most recently a copy of a brochure titled “Living With Coyotes,” which a Denver-based wildlife program, Friends of Animals, published. (friendsofanimals.org)

Among the Town’s helpful educational resources is a videotape of the Coyote Conflict Management workshop with N.C. coastal biologist J. Chris Turner that the Town held Dec. 6, 2017. See: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/?s=coyotes.

Here are just two of the other links:

Coyote species profile: https://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Conserving/documents/Profiles/Coyote_Update033017.pdf.

Coexisting with coyotes:

https://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Learning/documents/Profiles/Coexist-Coyotes-v2.pdf.

Mr. Turner, who is employed by the state wildlife commission, also spoke recently to the Kill Devil Hills Town Council. The Beacon refers you to a videotape of his talk and other resources about hunting and coexisting with coyotes on the Outer Banks that KDH has posted online at: https://www.kdhnc.com/651/Coyotes-on-the-Outer-Banks.

Town Councilman Gary McDonald suggested last week that Southern Shores residents may benefit from an encore presentation by Mr. Turner. Mr. Rascoe advised that, if that were done, it would be best done after “the heat of the summer.”

All public officials seemed to concur that the key to successful human cohabitation with coyotes is human awareness: of one’s natural environment and of one’s behaviors and habits that put oneself and one’s pets in harm’s way.

Coyotes do not seek confrontation with human beings. But if you are putting food out for deer, raccoons, or other wildlife—or feeding your pets outside of your home—you are inviting them into your territory. They’re hungry, and they will go where they find food.

Similarly, if you are letting your dog out at night, off of a leash and without your supervision, you are putting your much-loved companion at risk. A big dog may fight off a coyote attack. A Chihuahua or Pomeranian doesn’t stand a chance. Responsible cat owners know that if you want to be sure you don’t lose your cat to a coyote, you have to keep him or her indoors and close the cat door permanently.

The Beacon believes Town Councilman Jim Conners, who seemed to speak for a majority of the Council when he said he does not favor trapping, had the best last word on Southern Shores’ coyote population.

“We came to Southern Shores for the nature,” Mr. Conners said. Now, we have to “learn as humans to adapt to the nature.”

And so do our visitors, who need to made aware, as well.

EXTRA: U.S. CONGRESSMAN WALTER B. JONES JR. DIES

Walter B. Jones, Jr., who has represented the U.S. Congressional district that includes Dare County since 1995, died yesterday on his 76^th birthday. According to an obituary in The Washington Post, Mr. Jones died in hospice care after a fall in which he broke his hip.

Mr. Jones, a Republican, ran unopposed and won reelection to the U.S. House of Representatives last November. He was sworn in as a member of the 116^th U.S. Congress in January from his home in Farmville.

By unanimous consent, the U.S. House granted Mr. Jones a leave of absence in December for the remainder of the previous session for an “unspecified illness,” The Post also reported.

Mr. Jones’s father, Walter B. Jones, Sr., a Democrat, served the first U.S. district in North Carolina, holding office from 1966-92. Mr. Jones Sr. also died in office. Democrat Eva McPherson Clayton, an African American who had served on the Warren County Board of Commissioners, defeated Mr. Jones Jr. in a special election run-off to fill Mr. Jones Sr.’s unexpired term.

Thereafter, Mr. Jones Jr. switched parties, becoming a Republican, and ran in North Carolina’s third congressional district, instead of its first. He became a fixture in that congressional office.

Mr. Jones gained national attention in early 2003 when he suggested renaming French fries “freedom fries,” after France opposed proposed U.S. military action in Iraq. With the deaths of thousands of U.S. service members in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Jones later came to regret his hawkish position on the Iraq invasion, changing his stance on the war, The Post said.

A special election will be held in Mr. Jones’s congressional district to elect his successor. Until this occurs, the third district will have no voting representation in Congress.

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 2/11/19

 

Southern Shores Town Manager Peter Rascoe devoted much of his report to the Town Council Tuesday night (Feb. 5) to explaining the “procedure” by which a road or other infrastructure project recommended by the Capital Infrastructure Improvement Planning (CIIP) Committee becomes a project adopted and funded by the Town Council for the fiscal year.

The Beacon strongly doubts that anyone ever thought the CIIP Committee could usurp the Town Council’s authority and call the shots on road construction. Historically, however, the Town Council has rubberstamped the CIIP Committee’s recommended priority listing of capital projects, which, Mr. Rascoe noted, is made “around April or May.” This CIIP Committee started talking about FY 2019-20 projects last November!

The Beacon would characterize Mr. Rascoe’s belabored explanation about how the CIIP Committee functions as damage control: After word got out among residents that committee members had discussed at their Jan. 30 meeting widening South Dogwood Trail–and even had gone so far as to make a motion to recommend to the Town Council a design for a 24-foot width–the community response was swift and angry.

Were it not to CIIP Committee member Al Ewerling, who convinced the other three committee members present to table the motion, it probably would have passed, 3-1, according to Mr. Ewerling.

But first, a digression.

The CIIP Committee is scheduled to meet Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2 p.m., in the Pitts Center, expressly to brief committee members on the “costs and lateral impacts of a potential walking trail along a portion of the east side of South Dogwood Trail,” not to discuss road widening, per se. See https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/notice-committee-meeting/.

Notice how the Town doesn’t even think it’s the public’s right to know before the meeting which portion will be discussed.

The work on the so-called “northern” end of the proposed sidewalk, running south from the North-South-East Dogwoods intersection to Fairway Drive, Mr. Rascoe said Tuesday, is “about all completed.” That portion has a “fully engineered preliminary design,” which is available on the Town website. The problematic “southern” end, from Fairway Drive to the cemetery, which has irregular terrain and numerous trees, has not been engineered.

Now, back to the damage control.

THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES

There is no doubt that the CIIP Committee discussed widening South Dogwood Trail at its Jan. 3o meeting and that committee Co-Chairperson Jim Conners  made a motion to “transmit to the Council . . . an affirmation of a design for a 24-foot street width,” according to Mr. Rascoe’s minutes of the meeting. Mr. Ewerling confirmed this discussion and Mr. Conners’s motion. (See https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CIIP-Jan-30-2019-Meeting-Minutes.pdf.) 

The minutes also clearly state that Mayor Bennett asked the Town engineers to brief the committee on a design and the estimated costs for a South Dogwood Trail “walking trail”; and on a “potential” design and estimated costs for “capital improvements” to South Dogwood Trail with concurrent walking-trail construction.

There is no factual dispute that Town Engineer Joe Anlauf, of Deel Engineering PLLC, informed the committee about “construction of a 5-ft. walking path along with a proposed 24-ft-wide asphalt rebuilt street,” as Mr. Rascoe wrote in the minutes.

South Dogwood Trail is between 17 and 18 feet in width.

Mr. Anlauf didn’t prepare preliminary design plans and cost estimates for widening South Dogwood Trail simply because he felt like it. CIIP Committee Co-Chairperson, Mayor Tom Bennett, asked for them, according to Mr. Ewerling.

Despite the committee-council role distinctions that Mr. Rascoe sought to make Tuesday, the fact that the two co-chairpersons of the CIIP Committee, Mayor Bennett and Councilman Conners, also represent two-thirds of the voting Town Council strongly suggests that its recommendations will be adopted. The Beacon believes that their presence is potentially coercive, inasmuch as the other members may feel pressure, because of their elected offices, to agree with them.

Although the CIIP committee has seven members, only four attended the January meeting. Besides Mayor Bennett, Mr. Conners, and Mr. Ewerling, who lives on South Dogwood Trail, Jim Kranda, who was appointed by former Councilman Leo Holland, was present. Mr. Kranda seconded Mr. Conners’s motion about “transmitting” the road-widening design plan to the Town Council.

The Beacon sees no reason to continue an appointee by Mr. Holland on the committee. Once Mr. Holland left the Council, Mr. Kranda should have been replaced. The Beacon also strongly urges the Town Council to remove one of the co-chairpersons. Their control of the committee appears highly improper. Certainly, it is undemocratic.

PUBLIC DISSENT AT FEB. 5 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING

The South and East Dogwoods Task Force recommended in its Jan. 17, 2017 final report that the Town “continue its policy of not widening roads unless emergency vehicles cannot gain access to their desired location.” (p. 4) That is a fact. It is also a fact that Mr. Conners served on that task force.

In public comments Tuesday night, Michael Fletcher, who chaired the Dogwoods Task Force, said: “I deeply oppose any . . . expansion” of South Dogwood Trail.

The task force, he said, concluded that widening the road was “impractical and unwise to do so due to the narrowness of the right-of-way and the impacts on adjacent properties.”

Mr. Fletcher also cited the severe “impact” on the trees and other vegetation on the road that “residents rightfully treasure,” referring poetically to the “peaceful overhang and tree canopy.” He also said that the task force reviewed “numerous studies” about the impact of road widening on safety, and they all “uniformly” concluded that expansion “decrease[s] safety by increasing speed and potential traffic volume.”

“Under no condition,” Mr. Fletcher stressed, should the Town Council “consider broadening South Dogwood Trail.”

Echoing Mr. Fletcher, homeowner Tommy Karole, who lives near the Dogwood Trails intersection and has presented studies about road-widening in previous comments to the Town Council, pointedly asked: “Who even brought up, and for what reason would you bring up, widening Dogwood Trail? Where does that come from?”

The answer is: Mayor Bennett. The idea comes from the Mayor. The Mayor, Mr. Ewerling confirmed, brought it up at the CIIP Committee’s Nov. 15, 2018 meeting.

IT’S ALL IN THE COMMITTEE MINUTES, JAN. 30 AND NOV. 15

The Beacon reported on the committee’s road-widening “discussion,” as Mr. Rascoe referred to it, in a 2/1/19 blog headlined: “Town Committee Tries to Fast-Track Widening of South Dogwood Trail by up to 7 Feet in Sections.”

We did not fabricate this story. We wrote it based upon Mr. Rascoe’s minutes of the meeting and upon information provided by Mr. Ewerling, whom The Beacon contacted.

The Mayor was noticeably silent Tuesday night at the Council meeting when the public objected to this discussion. He said nothing to Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Karole, or Joe Van Gieson, a third homeowner who spoke in opposition to widening Dogwood Trail, nor did he comment on Mr. Rascoe’s damage control. His co-chairperson, Councilman Conners, also didn’t comment.

Why do our elected officials not feel that they are obligated to respond? They’re not members of a corporate board. They’re public servants.

Regardless of the preliminary status of Mr. Anlauf’s road-widening plans and cost estimates and who actually “owns” them, they were presented at a public meeting of a governmental committee and should be included with the minutes as part of the meeting record. The public has a right to know what is in these plans, even if, as Mr. Rascoe sought to clarify at the Council meeting, the committee is not “considering anything at this point until it gets more information and more members of the committee” are informed. That’s not the issue.

It is also undisputed that at the Nov. 15, 2018 CIIP Committee meeting, according to the minutes, “Co-Chairman Bennett requested the Town Engineer and Town Manager go over the Priority List of needed capital street improvements already adopted for FY 18-19 as a preamble to planning for recommendations to be made for FY 19-20.”

(Nov. 15, 2018 committee minutes: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/CIIP-Cmttee-Meeting-Minutes-Nov-15-2018.pdf.)

A preamble? In November? So, just five months into the 2018-19 fiscal year, the Mayor is asking Town staff to review the priority list for the next fiscal year. Is this part of the committee’s “procedure”? Mr. Rascoe certainly didn’t mention it.

“Much discussion ensued” after the Mayor brought up the FY 2019-20 priority list, according to the Nov. 15, 2018 minutes, regarding “whether the trail improvement [on South Dogwood Trail] should occur simultaneous [sic] with a corresponding street improvement.”

At Tuesday’s Council meeting, Mr. Rascoe stressed that after the CIIP Committee makes its recommendations for priority projects in April or May, its ranking list is placed on the Town website, transmitted to the Town Council, and “noticed” in the newsletter. The implication was that the public has ample time to comment on it before the Town Council makes its final decision in July.

Mr. Rascoe also said that the priority list is “based on the condition of streets”—in April or July, yes, but not in November.

A ‘MEETING’ HELD AFTER THE COMMITTEE MEETING?

It is also a fact that the Nov. 15, 2018 minutes state that “Based on committee discussion, a new prioritization was developed post-meeting, and is attached to these meeting minutes as an information item . . ..”  [The italics are the Beacon’s.]

The minutes do not explain unambiguously when and how the “new prioritization” occurred “post-meeting.” This strikes The Beacon as highly irregular. Who drafted the new prioritization? Under what circumstances?

The attachment shows that South Dogwood Trail has jumped from 13^th place, in the lowest Group C, on the FY 2018-19 priority list, to sixth and seventh places, at the top of Group B, in FY 2019-20. Is this truly what a majority of the committee members decided?

Described on the FY 2018-19 priority list as “South Dogwood Trail—entire length 12,408 LF (+/-),” the listing for the road in the recommended “targets” for FY 2019-20 reads, according to the attachment:

“6. South Dogwood Trail—Street and Walking Trail Construction from Dogwoods Trails Intersection to Fairway Drive (“Segment North”)—3,540 LF (+/-)

“7. South Dogwood Trail—Street and Walking Trail Construction from Fairway Drive to Southern Shores Cemetery (“Segment South”—3,800 LF (+/-).”

The underlining was inserted by Town staff, who would not have done such editing without authority from the CIIP Committee.

According to The Beacon’s correspondent, who attended the November meeting, Mr. Conners referred to South Dogwood Trail as a “thoroughfare.” All of The Beacon’s sources report that Mayor Bennett promoted widening of the street, along with the walking paths, and that Mr. Conners supported him.

Although Mr. Rascoe said Tuesday that South Dogwood Trail “has been on the [priority] list for several years,” he neglected to mention that 1) its item on the list has either referred simply to “improvements,” which The Beacon always assumed meant repairs, not widening, or has omitted any reference to the nature of the work contemplated; and 2) its item has always been ranked very low in terms of the Town’s priorities.

In response to a question by Councilman Fred Newberry Tuesday, Mr. Rascoe said that the CIIP Committee “did not consider anything but information that the engineer gave the committee with regards to the street itself. . . .

“There was a discussion,” he repeated. “They did not take any action.”

This is a distinction without a difference.

Further, according to the Jan. 30 meeting minutes, the four attending committee members actually reviewed the revised draft priority list of capital improvements that came out of the Nov. 15 meeting and “may now have consensus on a Group A target priority list for FY 19-20 of” . . . drumroll . . . no. 1, at the top of the list, “South Dogwood Trail Walking Trail and Street Rebuild (Intersection to Sassafras Lane).”

Street rebuild? Funny, Mr. Rascoe didn’t say anything about this at the Town Council meeting, nor did either CIIP Committee chairperson report at a Council meeting since Nov. 15 that a draft capital-improvement-project reprioritization had occurred.

(And yes, it’s up to the Town Council to make the final decision.)

THE BEACON’S BOTTOM LINE: FOUL!

The Beacon cries foul! We demand a public accounting from the committee chairpersons as to why they are considering “information” from the engineer about widening South Dogwood Trail—an action that the people of this town told the Dogwood Trails Task Force they do not want—and why they are promoting such “discussions.”

The Beacon also would like to know why neither of them is reporting the business of the CIIP Committee at Town Council meetings.

In addition to advocating for the replacement of Mr. Kranda and the removal of one of the CIIP Committee co-chairpersons, The Beacon demands that someone other than the Town Manager—a neutral scribe with an interest in clarity—take the minutes. Surely, the Town is not paying Mr. Rascoe to be a secretary. If it is, it should get a refund.

I conclude with a personal observation. When I ran for Southern Shores Town Council in 2015, Mr. Conners asked me at the League of Women Voters’ debate in October, whether I would respect the results of the Dogwood Trails Task Force. I objected then, and I still object, to the biased manner in which the Mayor and Town Council selected the members of the task force. But that’s grist for another blog. The people on the task force had nothing to do with the blacklisting that occurred.

I told Mr. Conners more than three years ago, that, if the task force reached conclusions based on what the people of Southern Shores want—if it canvassed the town—I would respect its recommendations. I am satisfied that it did.

Why, I wonder, isn’t Mr. Conners doing the same?

JUNIPER TRAIL REPAIR WILL CLOSE STREET FOR A WEEK

On Jan. 3, a Spectrum cable installer bored under the new Juniper Trail roadway, near 30 Juniper Trail, and hit a Dare County water main. This error resulted in “a complete washout of a section of the new street,” according to Mr. Rascoe, who has been advised by the Town’s engineers that the 20-by-25-foot section of the road that was affected will “settle” and eventually collapse, without proper repair.

The Town Council unanimously approved repairing the damaged roadway so that it is in the condition that it was in before the flooding. This repair will necessitate a full closure of the road for seven days, according to the contractor hired to do the job. The date for the construction work is dependent on the weather and the contractor’s schedule, Mr. Rascoe said. The Town Manager will give the public as much notice as he can, as will The Beacon.

AND FINALLY, THE TOWN COUNCIL WILL MEET TUES., FEB. 26, AT 9 A.M. IN THE PITTS CENTER FOR A PLANNING SESSION . . .

Beach Nourishment: Among the agenda items that will be discussed is the Beach Vulnerability Assessment and Management Plan, which was completed Jan. 3 and is now on the Town website.

Mr. Rascoe reported that the engineering consultant on the beach vulnerability plan will attend the planning meeting, as well as representatives of Doug Carter [&] Associates, who are financial consultants. You’ll want to hear what all of these consultants have to advise our elected officials about “developing their final plans and methods for beach nourishment,” according to the Town Manager.

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 2/8/19

 

The Southern Shores Town Council will hold two important public hearings at its monthly meeting tomorrow, each of which concerns a proposed zoning text amendment (ZTA) or amendments that will affect future real-estate development, principally on and near the oceanfront.

In assessing these zoning text amendments over the past two months, the Town Planning Board has engaged in what appear to be procedural irregularities that The Beacon believes the Town Council will have to sort out before it can reach their merits.

The Council will meet at 5:30 p.m. in the Pitts Center behind Town Hall.

Also scheduled on the Town Council’s agenda are a presentation by Willo Kelly, CEO of the Outer Banks Assn. of Realtors, on a possible increase in homeowner insurance rates, and the introduction of a new police officer, Patrol Officer Zach Eanes.

In new business, Town Manager Peter Rascoe will give an update on Juniper Trail capital improvements and recent damage repair, and Councilman Gary McDonald will talk about coyotes in Southern Shores.

PUBLIC HEARINGS  

The first public hearing will take up zoning text amendment 18-09, which is an effort by the Town Planning Board to create justifiable exceptions to the new nonconforming lots ordinance, Town Code sec. 36-132, that the Town Council enacted last September.

The second hearing will address ZTA 18-10, an amendment that came out of the Town Council’s Nov. 7, 2018 special meeting on large houses. It is an attempt to preserve low-density development in Southern Shores by creating a single-family oceanfront overlay residential district and then regulating development within that district by dimensional and other requirements.

ZTA 18-09 arrives at the Town Council in three different versions, the most recent of which Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett offers—according to his staff report in the Council’s meeting packet—as the Planning Board-recommended final version, even though the Board has not yet seen or approved the ZTA’s actual language.

Mr. Haskett identifies the first draft of ZTA 18-09 as “Original ZTA 18-09.” He has labeled the second version, “Revised ZTA 18-09,” and the third version, “ZTA 18-09PB,” which was filed Jan. 25, after the Planning Board’s last meeting.

The Planning Board took up ZTA 18-09 on Dec. 17, but did not vote on it. Instead, it voted unanimously to amend ZTA 18-09 to allow for a further exception that would benefit Steven Love (and his wife, Katherine Gorman), who own a nonconforming lot at 64 Ocean Blvd. and whose attorney, Starkey Sharp, criticized the Board at the meeting for “exposing the Town to litigation and liability.” (See The Beacon, 12/20/18.)

When the Board took up the Revised ZTA 18-09 on Jan. 22, members did not believe that the ZTA gave Mr. Love the exception that they had sought for him in December. The Board, therefore, voted 4-1, upon motion by member Andy Ward and a second by Chairperson Elizabeth Morey, to approve ZTA 18-09, provided it included a to-be-written amendment that would give Mr. Love his exception.

Board member Joe McGraw, the newly elected vice-chairperson, dissented.

The Planning Board has not yet seen ZTA 18-09PB to know if it reads as requested.

The Planning Board also took up ZTA 18-10, the proposed oceanfront overlay district ordinance, at its Dec. 17 meeting, but it failed to act upon it, taking no vote. The measure, therefore, did not go to the Town Council in a timely fashion for a public hearing at the Council’s January meeting.

No Planning Board member supported ZTA 18-10 in December; and several spoke against it. Ms. Morey, who was elected Board chairperson on Jan. 22, described the overlay-district approach as “regulatory overreach” and said that it “will not necessarily arrive at the resolution that we want.”

The Board acted officially on ZTA 18-10 at its Jan. 22 meeting, recommending by a vote of 4-0 that it be denied. Although new Planning Board member Ed Lawler voted upon the nonconforming lots ZTA, he abstained from voting on ZTA 18-10, saying that he “recused” himself.

The Beacon would be very surprised if the Town Council did not follow the Board’s recommendation and defeat ZTA 18-10. Many options for preserving low-density development in Southern Shores’ residential districts, especially on the oceanfront, have been suggested since Nov. 7, and the Planning Board has made recommendations for preparing ZTAs that include some of them.

The big hearing tomorrow is expected to be about the nonconforming lots ZTA.

NONCONFORMING LOTS: COUNCILMAN NASON’S CONFLICT

On Sept. 5, 2018, the Town Council passed, by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Christopher Nason dissenting, a ZTA (18-07) that replaced the existing ordinance on nonconforming lots, whose language the Town thought did not effectively prevent the sale and development of such lots. The original Code sec. 36-132 was enacted shortly after Southern Shores was incorporated in 1979.

ZTA 18-07 sought to clarify and expand upon the original sec. 36-132, in order to stop the recent trend in town of 100-foot-wide land parcels being divided, sold, and developed as 50-foot-wide lots. (See the development at 155 Ocean Blvd. as an example.) After it passed, the Town Council decided by consensus to return the ZTA to the Planning Board for what Mayor Tom Bennett called “refinements” and Councilman Jim Conners called “tweaking.” (See The Beacon, 9/6/18.)

The Town Council decided that certain property owners were unfairly harmed by ZTA 18-07, and that these “outliers,” as Mr. Conners referred to them, should be protected from its coverage through an exception. (The Beacon extensively covered ZTA 18-07 in multiple blogs in 2018.) One problem the Planning Board has faced since it received that directive is that new “outliers” have come to its attention. The latest ZTA draft by Town Attorney Ben Gallop posits the following exception:

A nonconforming lot (typically, a 50-foot-wide lot) that is located next to land that:

1)      is owned by the same owner;

2)      has an existing single-family dwelling on it, and

3)      is made up of either:

1. i) no more than two nonconforming lots (such as two 50-foot-lots that have not been “combined”) OR
2. ii) “a single conforming lot not adjacent to any other land under the same ownership that was created after January 1, 2015 due to a recombination of two (2) previously nonconforming lots”

does not need to be combined with the adjacent land.

The language I quoted is the Mr. Love exception, as amended with the Mr. Hurd exception (concerning a 90-foot-wide nonconforming lot on Sea Oats Trail), which came to light Jan. 22, after Revised ZTA 18-09 had been prepared. Mr. Gallop acknowledged at that meeting that the Jan. 1, 2015 date was “arbitrary.” It’s a cutoff date. (Planning Board meetings are not videotaped.)

The Beacon believes that, although the Planning Board has been and is well-intentioned, it has not responded very well to the Town Council’s directive about refining the new nonconforming lots ordinance. The sudden loss of its chairperson, Glenn Wyder, in November has left it without clear direction and guidance. At its Jan. 22 meeting, Mr. Ward understandably asked Mr. Haskett to give Board members “prompts” for when they need to take required action.

The Beacon also believes that in the process of “refining” Code sec. 36-132, the Planning Board has allowed its provisions to become more confusing. Rather than responding to individual property owners’ unique situations, and therefore being preferential in their “refinements,” The Beacon believes that Planning Board members should consider the underlying intent of the nonconforming lots ordinance and what is fundamentally fair.

The Beacon’s conclusion is that if, at any time, a property owner owns a vacant nonconforming lot next to vacant property that he or she owns, regardless of whether that adjacent property is conforming or not, all of the vacant property should be combined, as soon as the property owner proposes building on any part of it, so that the whole parcel is conforming.

I opposed the Mr. Love exception at the Jan. 22 Planning Board meeting because this is precisely what happened at Mr. Love’s nonconforming lot at 64 Ocean Blvd.—which he told the Board he purchased from SAGA on Jan. 22, 2016 (the date of the deed) in order to “save” Southern Shores from SAGA’s potential wedding-destination/event house.Never mind that the Town Council approved its maximum-house size restriction the evening of Jan. 22, 2016, by a 3-2 vote.

Mr. Love demolished a flattop at 62 Ocean Blvd., which is his adjacent land to the non-conforming lot, on Feb. 10, 2016. Town records show that his architect, Christopher Nason, of Beacon Architecture & Design, submitted his CAMA site plan for 62 Ocean Blvd. on Feb. 17, 2016. Until such time as builder Allan Hutton broke ground at 62 Ocean Blvd., Mr. Love’s properties were vacant and subject to proposed development.

I argued to the Planning Board that Mr. Love was compelled under the then-existing sec. 36-132 to combine all three of his vacant lots, but Mr. Gallop said I was wrong and declined to talk with me after the meeting about my argument. The Board also ignored my contentions.

I have no quarrel with Mr. Love. But I believe passionately in good government and fundamental fairness and would like to think that the Town Council will ensure both tomorrow night when it considers ZTA 18-09 and the “outliers” the Planning Board sought to protect. Laws are made for the many, not for the few.

It appears from site plans in Town permit files that Mr. Nason has been working on the 64 Ocean Blvd. project since early June 2018. There is no doubt that his building plans for the five-bedroom, 4500-square foot house on the 50-foot-wide lot have been on file for months. (I have not updated these numbers since Dec. 3, when my perusal of the permit files for Mr. Love’s properties led to my being implicated in the vandalism at 62 Ocean Blvd. by a high-level town employee.)

Councilman Nason is clearly Mr. Love’s architect and, as such, he clearly has a financial interest in the final action taken by the Town Council on any version of ZTA 18-09. If he is present at the meeting, he must recuse himself.

When I learned from one of Mr. Nason’s Town Council colleagues last week that Mr. Nason had told him he would not be attending tomorrow’s meeting, I tried to confirm this with Mr. Nason. He refused to answer an email I sent him or a telephone message I left, and when I talked with him at the Town Code public forum on Jan. 31, he said, “I’m not going to comment to the press.”

Pointing out that I was also a town resident, and that he has an ethical obligation to respond promptly to town residents’ concerns, he replied: “You’ll find out when you arrive at the meeting.”

And so we will.

The Beacon reserves for another day a commentary about the public’s right to know and an elected official’s obligation to serve the public interest and respond to the press.

I’ll conclude with The Washington Post’s new slogan, which some of you may have seen for the first time in a Super Bowl ad that the newspaper sponsored: “Democracy dies in darkness.”

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 2/4/19

Town Engineers Joe Anlauf and Andy Deel, of Deel Engineering PLLC, presented Wednesday to the Town Capital Infrastructure Improvement Planning (CIIP) Committee designs and cost estimates for proposed “capital improvements” on South Dogwood Trail that include a widening of the street to 24 feet, according to Town Manager Peter Rascoe’s minutes of the meeting.

The Town Engineers’ briefing numbers suggest a cost estimate for widening the road of up to $3 million. An additional $1 million-plus would be spent to build sidewalks along the road. [PLEASE NOTE: As of this writing, the design plans for the road-widening project are not on the Town of Southern Shores website.]

Mr. Anlauf also conservatively estimated that from 105 and 129 tree would have to be destroyed in order to widen the road. The reality is likely to be far more removals. How many, The Beacon wonders, would be signature dogwoods?

Mr. Anlauf calculated that 12 trees would have to be removed to build a sidewalk from the North-South-East Dogwood Trails intersection south to Fairway Drive, but he did not hazard to guess how many would have to be destroyed from Fairway Drive south to the Southern Shores Cemetery. The terrain from Fairway Drive to the cemetery is hilly, densely populated with trees, and more irregular.

See the minutes at: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CIIP-Jan-30-2019-Meeting-Minutes.pdf.

Currently, according to a CIIP Committee member who asked to remain anonymous, sections of South Dogwood Trail measure from 17 to 19 feet in width. Widening the street to 24 feet, or to 20 feet, which the minutes show was also discussed at the Jan. 30 CIIP committee meeting, means an encroachment in the public right-of-way of up to seven feet.

Although the CIIP Committee has previously discussed construction of a 5-foot-wide sidewalk on the east side of South Dogwood Trail, starting at the North-South-East Dogwood Trails intersection and continuing south to the cemetery, it has not explored widening the street in such detail before. The Town Manager’s minutes show that the engineers presented designs for 1) just the sidewalk, and 2) for the sidewalk and the street widening.

Southern Shores property owners have never supported widening South Dogwood Trail. In even considering such a project, the CIIP Committee disregards the FY 2018-19 Capital Infrastructure Improvement Plan and its priority-ranking of road projects that the Town Council unanimously passed last July. The committee substitutes its own judgment for that of the Town Council, which approved the infrastructure plan and recommended road projects, in the form of Ordinance #2018-07-01, after a public hearing was held.

Enacted by the Town Council July 10, 2018, Ordinance #2018-07-01 adopts by reference a priority list of road projects that the CIIP Committee itself ranked in April 2018 in groups from A to C, with C being the lowest priority.

Since this approval and adoption, however, the CIIP Committee has disregarded most of the Group B priority projects in order to focus on the Dogwood Trails. South Dogwood Trail is ranked no. 13 on the priority list, the first project in Group C.

Some of the projects that the committee ignores in leapfrogging over Group B to Group C include improvements to Clamshell Trail, Ginguite Trail, Sea Oats Trail, Bayberry Trail, West Holly Trail, and Wax Myrtle Trail and other beach and dune roads. You may find the listing, designated “Attachment A,” in the minutes for the July 10, 2018 meeting.

The South and East Dogwood Trails Task Force, a citizen group convened to study the addition of walkways along East and South Dogwood Trails, specifically recommended in its Jan. 27, 2017 final report that the Town “continue its policy of not widening roads unless emergency vehicles cannot gain access to their desired location.” (p. 4)

The Task Force, which was chaired by Michael Fletcher and consisted of a cross-section of resident homeowners and “stakeholders,” including now-Town Councilman and CIIP Committee Co-Chairperson Jim Conners, also recommended that the walkway along South Dogwood Trail should:

*be designed to contain the elements of a greenway;

*be separated from the road by a green space three feet to six feet wide;

*meander among the trees thereby limiting the number of trees to be removed; and

*follow the grade of the land, where feasible. (p. 7)

In elaborating upon the issue of rebuilding roads, the Dogwoods Task Force noted that a majority of the Town residents who responded to its public survey (431 responses were received) “enjoy the character of” the Dogwood Trails, and the “sections . . . that are enjoyed the most are the relatively narrow, winding roads with overhanging trees. It reminds people of a small town setting and not a suburban setting with wider and straighter streets.” (p. 3)

Councilman Conners chairs the CIIP Committee with Mayor Tom Bennett. The Mayor made these appointments, absent a vote by the Town Council.

Despite a lack of public support for widening South Dogwood Trail, as documented by the task force’s survey, and despite Ordinance #2018-07-01, Co-Chairperson Conners made a motion Wednesday to “transmit” to the Town Council “an affirmation” of the engineers’ design for a 24-foot-wide street, according to the minutes.

Fortunately, this motion was tabled for a month in order to allow CIIP Committee members, three of whom were not present, to walk the roadway and evaluate the engineers’ plans.

The month delay also will give Town property owners, especially those who live on South Dogwood Trail, the time they need and deserve to make their own evaluations and to communicate with the CIIP Committee and the Town Council. The CIIP’s next meeting will be Thursday, March 7, at 2 p.m., in the Pitts Center.

The Beacon was unable to cover the Wednesday committee meeting firsthand because its correspondent was called away at the last minute.

The design work for the proposed South Dogwood Trail sidewalk calls for construction in two segments, as referenced above: Segment 1) from the North-South-East Dogwoods intersection south to Fairway Drive, and segment 2) from Fairway Drive south to the cemetery.

PLEASE NOTE: The design plans for the sidewalk construction that are available online do not include widening of South Dogwood Trail. 

You will find the preliminary designs for the first segment, updated just yesterday, here:

https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/south-dogwood-trail-walking-trail-preliminary-plan-design/.

The latest designs for the second segment date to March 28, 2018 and may be accessed here: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/3-28-18-south-dogwood-trail-walking-trail-preliminary-plandesign-segment-1-fairway-dr-cemetery/.

You also may view these plans in hard-copy form in the Town Hall conference room. If the sidewalk construction moves ahead, the committee intends to begin with an initial section from the Dogwoods intersection to Sassafras Lane.

(The Beacon prefers to refer to the proposed walkways as sidewalks, instead of walking trails, the term used by the Town, because they will be made of concrete, not a natural material commonly used for trails. They will look like the sidewalk running along the south side of East Dogwood Trail.

(The Beacon also questions why they must be 5-feet-wide, instead of 3-½ feet-wide, like the much more attractive, earth-tone sidewalks in Chicahauk, which blend in better with the environment.)

Co-Chairpersons Bennett and Conners are joined by five other committee members: Jim Kranda, who was appointed by former Town Councilman Leo Holland; Carlos Gomez, appointed by Councilman Gary McDonald; Al Ewerling, appointed by Councilman Fred Newberry; Andy McConaughy, appointed by Councilman Christopher Nason; and Glenn Riggin, whom the Mayor appointed.

That Mr. Conners, the Council member with the least seniority, is a co-chairperson of this highly important committee, while Councilmen Nason, Newberry, and McDonald have no committee assignments—Mr. Nason serves on the Dare County Tourist Bureau—strikes The Beacon as improper and prejudicial. Inasmuch as Mr. Conners routinely votes with Mayor Bennett on Town Council matters, his selection also limits the diversity of viewpoints expressed in the committee, to the detriment of the public, The Beacon believes.

It also seems improper and biased to The Beacon to permit Mayor Bennett to name a member to the committee—essentially, doubling his vote—and to permit Mr. Holland’s appointment to continue now that Mr. Holland is no longer on the Town Council. A committee of five people is more than sufficient to do the CIIP’s business. The Beacon believes the committee should be revamped.

MUCH AFOOT IN SOUTHERN SHORES: TOWN CODE REWRITE

In addition to this sudden committee move toward widening South Dogwood Trail, The Beacon is tasked with reporting on the draft proposal of the new Town Code of Ordinances, and the agenda for the Feb. 5 Town Council meeting, which includes important public hearings on zoning-text amendments that seek to control high-occupancy dwellings and limit development on nonconforming lots.

Here are links to the agenda and meeting packet for the Feb. 5 meeting:

Agenda: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/wp-content/uploads/minutes-agendas-newsletters/Agendas_2019-02-05.pdf.

Meeting packet: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/wp-content/uploads/minutes-agendas-newsletters/Meeting-Packet_2019-02-05.pdf

The Beacon will brief you soon on the zoning-text amendments, especially the one that seeks to except specific 50-foot-wide lots from the scope of the new nonconforming-lots ordinance, which is codified at Town Code sec. 36-132. (You’ll find an update of the ordinance in the draft Town Code, but not in the Code section that is currently online.)

As for the proposed Town Code, The Beacon is of the mind that the draft needs further review and is seeking citizen volunteers to assist in that effort. If you are interested in being a reader/monitor/editor, please write to The Beacon at ssbeaconeditor@gmail.com.

At the public forum last night, consultant Chad Meadows, of CodeWright Planners LLC., advised that Town Attorney Ben Gallop will review the draft this month and the Town Planning Board will consider it in March and April, with an eye toward recommending those chapters that Mr. Meadows said the Board is required by North Carolina law to recommend. They include chapters 22 (zoning); 26 (subdivisions); 28 (flood damage prevention); and parts of chapters two (administration) and four (definitions).

No members of the Town Planning Board attended the public forum. Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director Wes Haskett was there, however, as were Mr. Rascoe, Mr. Gallop, Mayor Bennett, and all other members of the Town Council.

Mr. Meadows, who is a professional planner, not an attorney, authored the draft. The Beacon was not keen on hearing him refer to the Town Code last night as a “development code,” instead of uniformly as a code of ordinances. Ordinances are regulations, statutes, laws. Mr. Meadows has rewritten many of Southern Shores’ laws.

Perhaps the consultant has improved on them; perhaps he has not. Sections of the ordinances pertaining to lighting, street parking, and noise that were read aloud by property owners at last night’s meeting left little doubt that they needed substantial change. Indeed, Mr. Meadows himself referred to the language of the noise ordinance as “loosey-goosey.”

The Beacon believes it behooves property owners to find out how and where the Town Code has changed, especially for the worse, and to report their findings to the Town Council, whose members are not going to pore through the draft’s 381 pages. This requires an organized effort. If you would like to participate, please contact The Beacon.

AND FINALLY, CIRCLE THE DATE: The Town Council will hold a planning session on Tues., Feb. 26, at 9 a.m., in the Pitts Center.   

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 2/1/19

The Beacon has referred to the structures being built by SAGA Construction & Development at 98 and 134 Ocean Blvd. as “mini-hotels” not just because of the large number of people they can accommodate, but because of their design.

Many design features in these structures, which are substantially similar, are common to hotels: for example, large areas for dozens of people to congregate; bedrooms with private bathrooms, each located next to another one on the sides of the building; and amenities not seen in single-family homes.

The Beacon recently reviewed again the building plans for 98 Ocean Blvd., which are on file in the Town Planning and Code Enforcement Dept. The plans, dated Oct. 20, 2019, were submitted by Community Planning and Architectural Associates (“cpaa”) of Kitty Hawk. Its mailing address is 6445 N. Croatan Hwy., suite A, which is an office building near the entrance to Martin’s Point.

Cpaa not only doesn’t have a website, it has no footprint on the Internet. You can’t find out anything about it. You also can’t find a roadside sign or a firm-name plaque at its office location, if you visit there and pop into the suite, as I did today.

Each of the 12 bedrooms in cpaa’s “mini-hotel” structure has its own private bathroom and is designated on the building plans as a “suite.” The dimensions for each bedroom, exclusive of the bath area, and with only minor variations here and there, are 13-feet-8 ½-inches (length) by 11-feet-5 inches (width). (These are the only dimensions that The Beacon could discern from the plans, but estimates are possible based on known entire-floor square footage.)

The “suites” are located on the first and second floors of the dwelling, configured so that they are located on either the north side or the south side of the floors, suggesting a hotel layout. The Beacon wonders: Will each “suite” have a number on its door, too?

The first floor has seven bedroom suites, three of them on the north side, where a 14-person theater lounge with a 120-inch screen, is also located; and four of them on the south side. Most of the square footage of the first floor is taken up by a large combination games/recreation room and a full-size bar, similar to a bar you would see in a hotel lounge. (The Beacon wonders: Who’s going to be serving the drinks?)

There is also a “lavatory” that can be accessed from the games/recreation room by patrons, similar to a restroom in a hotel.

The remaining five suites are on the second floor, three of them on the north side, and two on the south side. An oversized kitchen is also off to the south side. Similar to the first floor, most of the square footage on this floor is consumed by a very large open area outside of the kitchen that is designated on the building plans according to spaces: They include a “gathering place,” an “ocean room,” with a fireplace and a television above it, and a dining area.

The enclosed area on the second floor is 2,958 square feet. If you do the math with the known square footage of the five bedrooms, you’re looking at roughly 2,000 square feet for the kitchen and the open gathering-place-ocean room-dining area. The first floor has an enclosed area of 2,958 square feet.

The distance of the kitchen to the dining area, as well as the location and size of the kitchen, suggest that meals will be catered. The Beacon doesn’t know many cooks who would want to transport food through the “gathering place” to the dining space.

A covered screen porch off of the second floor, on the east side, offers ocean views. Lest one become desirous of a cocktail, a bar area is conveniently located within the porch. Again, The Beacon wonders, who’s going to be serving at this bar? And who’s supplying the booze?

An elevator on the ground floor of the structure-in-progress at 98 Ocean Blvd. carries people up from the six-vehicle parking garage underneath it and from the 11-vehicle parking lot in the front yard. There is also “recreational” space under the dwelling.

Also suggestive of a hotel are the outdoors amenities, which include a six-seater tiki bar (do bartenders come with the structure?), a hot tub/spa, and two swimming pools, one of which is a kiddie pool. The kiddie pool has a “tanning ledge,” and the adult pool has—you guessed it—a swim-up bar with what appear on the building plans to be four seats.

The pièce de resistance of the 12-bedroom dwelling is the “interior garden” that begins on the ground floor and is “open” to the sky. It is rare to find a single-family home with an atrium. Atria are fairly common in hotels, however.

If you would like to display a sign in your yard that expresses your opposition to mini-hotels such as the ones being constructed at 98 and 134 Ocean Blvd., you may request one through nominihotels.com. The petitioners in the litigation contesting the validity of the CAMA permits issued to SAGA to build on the two Ocean Boulevard sites would welcome your support. Their legal argument, which is scheduled to be heard before an administrative law judge in April, is that the permits are inconsistent with the town’s land-use plan, which was adopted in 2012.

With this litigation pending, SAGA is building “at its own risk,” and has been so warned in writing by the Town. Agents of SAGA for both sites have signed the Town’s warning statements, indicating their acknowledgment.

Every sign posted in a yard is evidence of the community-wide opposition that exists to SAGA’s structures. The litigation is not just about the interests of the two petitioner-homeowners. It’s about preservation of the town’s low-density development and residential-district zoning, which has always been exclusive to single-family houses.

According to Ursula Bateman, one of the yard-sign organizers, every sign posted in the town is there at the request of the property owner.

To contribute financially to the petitioners’ case, see https://www.gofundme.com/no-minihotels-in-southern-shores.

NEVER ON SUNDAY: Southern Shores police officers have officially warned SAGA’s construction crews at both 98 and 134 Ocean Blvd. not to work on Sunday, in violation of the Town’s noise ordinance. Police officers went to the sites recently upon receiving complaints from two different town residents.

The Beacon received notification of the noise-ordinance violations from the homeowners who reported them. Although they gave their names to Dare Central, they would prefer to remain anonymous, and The Beacon sees no public-information value in identifying them.

A Southern Shores police officer who responded to one of the reports told The Beacon that, upon a first report, the police issue a warning to violators of the town noise ordinance. Thereafter, the police will issue a citation for a violation, which carries a penalty of $500.

Sec. 22-3(b)(15) of the Southern Shores Town Code, which is a subsection of the noise ordinance, expressly states that construction work shall occur only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays—no Sundays—unless a public emergency exists and the town permit officer issues a special permit.

Although The Beacon reported to the Town Planning Director in December that SAGA was working on Sunday at 98 Ocean Blvd., this report did not result in SAGA ceasing this practice. For that to happen, apparently, the police had to intervene.

If you observe any construction work occurring on Sunday in Southern Shores, The Beacon advises you to call the Dare Central non-emergency number, (252) 473-3444, and report it to the police.

(I apologize to all followers of this blog who received two notices of today’s post. I ran into technical difficulties and had to delete the first post and re-post it. I regret the inconvenience.)

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 1/29/19

Consultant Chad Meadows, owner of CodeWright Planners, LLC, of Durham, will present his draft of the proposed new Southern Shores Town Code of Ordinances and respond to property owners’ comments, questions, and concerns in a public forum Thursday, Jan. 31, from 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m., in the Pitts Center.

Mr. Meadows’s draft, which runs 381 pages, is the culmination of more than three years of effort, which included stakeholder interviews, a public survey, and painstaking scrutiny by the Town Planning Board. After the public forum, the draft will be finalized and returned to the Planning Board for its “required recommendation,” according to the Town of Southern Shores website. The final proposal then will be sent to the Town Council for its action.

You may access the draft proposed Town Code here:

https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/TOSS-Town-Code-12-31-18.pdf.

The Beacon encourages all property owners to peruse chapter 22 of the draft code, which is the new zoning chapter. The public survey conducted by CodeWright before its preparation of the draft code targeted zoning in residential districts and revealed strong sentiment by property owners on a number of zoning issues.

The Beacon will do a fast study of the draft and try to publish a report/analysis later in the week or at least flag some highlights.

It is unfortunate that this long-delayed draft is coming to the Planning Board and the Town Council for finalization at the same time that members of both bodies are deliberating upon important changes in the town zoning law to prevent high-occupancy houses from being constructed and to fine-tune the nonconforming lots ordinance that was passed last September.

A further delay of the proposed new Town Code of Ordinances, which merits careful review by town officials, would seem to be advisable. At the least, Town Council members should ensure that they have the time they need to give the proposed new code a thorough and thoughtful analysis.

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 1/28/19