In a reversal of action taken at its July 10 meeting, the Southern Shores Town Council voted, 3-1, at Tuesday night’s meeting to censure Councilman Gary McDonald for remarks he made to Councilman Chris Nason during a heated debate last month about a proposed zoning text amendment. The Town Council majority voted for the censure after Mayor Tom Bennett first gave Mr. McDonald several opportunities to apologize to Mr. Nason, which Mr. McDonald declined to do.

According to a lengthy resolution that they approved, Mayor Bennett, Mr. Nason, and Councilman Jim Conners censured Mr. McDonald for his “improper behavior” as a Council member. Town Manager Peter Rascoe confirmed that he had prepared the resolution at the Mayor’s request. The document sets forth in detail why the three Council members thought it was necessary to invoke an “official expression of pronounced condemnation and disapproval” of Mr. McDonald.

It became clear during early remarks Tuesday that the Mayor and Councilmen Nason and Conners had conferred with each other, legal counsel, and Mr. Rascoe, about the censure before the meeting, deliberately excluding Councilman Newberry from their discussions and raising the question of whether they had violated the North Carolina’s open-meetings law. (I discuss the open-meeting question below.)

In my opinion, Mayor Bennett, who bears ultimate responsibility for the censure, has no excuse for intentionally excluding Councilman Newberry from the behind-the-scenes maneuverings, and the other two Council members showed a lack of good conscience in going along. I don’t believe Mr. McDonald should have been blindsided, either, but not conferring with him can be justified.

The Mayor has dealt a major blow to public trust.

Of that point, I am certain. Otherwise, I have struggled with how to report upon what occurred. I decided not to write a blog yesterday because I wanted to give myself time to process events, to think, and to consult with the Beacon editorial board, only a few of whom actually attended the meeting.

I am not a detached observer. I know and empathize with both Mr. Nason and Mr. McDonald and have been vocal about my opinions, including in public comments on Tuesday. (In fact, I am quoted in a meeting-excerpt transcript attached to the resolution, calling out from the audience, for which I apologize. I should show more restraint.)

Not only was I shocked that Mayor Bennett and Councilmen Nason and Conners felt compelled to take such an extreme and divisive action—a “do-over,” essentially, of the failed motion in July—but their action has left me with despair over our Town’s well-being and its leadership.

How does this censure possibly serve the Town of Southern Shores?

In the month since Mr. McDonald asked Mr. Nason, a local architect, during an argument about proposed changes in lot-coverage computation, “How much money do you need to make?”, neither mediation nor reconciliation occurred. Instead, it would appear that anger and hurt feelings festered and escalated. Having been a mediator in legal disputes, I know how important an apology is to an aggrieved party, but I also know that an apology cannot be coerced from someone. Demanding an apology from someone in a public forum, at the risk of censure, is likely to make a person more intransigent, not contrite.

I wish that the Mayor had consulted a counselor/mediator, rather than the Town attorney, in deciding how to move forward with what the resolution calls Mr. McDonald’s “breach of decorum.” Instead, the resolution inflates Mr. McDonald’s remarks, exaggerating their significance and, in my opinion, distorting their meaning—at least, the meaning that many of us who attended the July meeting inferred—although Mr. Nason is certainly entitled to his feelings.

The censure resolution does not end the conflicts among the Town Council members. It only inflames them.

There also now are the added questions of what effect, if any, the defeated July motion to censure had or should have had—who’s minding the rules?— and the propriety of the activities engaged in by the three elected officials who invoked censure.

SURPRISE ATTACK

The censure motion was not on the Aug. 7 meeting agenda posted on the Town website, so the public had no notice. It was a surprise “attack,” if you will. Mayor Bennett opened the business portion of the meeting by announcing that he was going to move to amend the agenda to add the censure item, unless Mr. McDonald apologized to Mr. Nason for his comments. After Mr. McDonald declined to apologize, the Town Council voted, 3-2, to amend the agenda, with Mr. Newberry and Mr. McDonald dissenting.

The open-meetings law, which is codified at N.C. General Statutes sec. 143-318.10, provides that when a majority of a governing board’s members meet or gather to discuss public business, the public must be given notice and access to the meeting or informal gathering. The meeting need not take place in person. Any simultaneous communication by electronic means or by telephone by a majority of the board constitutes an official meeting that must be open.

The three Council members, who constitute a majority and a quorum, denied that simultaneous conferencing occurred. I am nonetheless troubled by the fact that they clearly conspired together, in secret, to pull off what Beacon editorial board member Geri Sullivan called in public comments a “coup.”

Even if the three Council members did not technically violate law, they certainly violated its spirit. The open-meeting laws, also known as sunshine laws, are designed to foster public trust and confidence in government and to ensure transparency in local government decision-making. In my opinion, their secretive behavior rises to the level of an “appearance of impropriety,” which a Council member is ethically bound to avoid.

Every Southern Shores Town Council member must acknowledge in writing a Town Code of Ethics that governs them. Here is a copy of Mr. McDonald’s acknowledgment: https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/McDonald.pdf. The Code of Ethics does not address “improper” conduct, per se. It speaks about avoiding impropriety.  A lack of civility or rudeness is not what is customarily meant by impropriety, which is more on the order of wrongfulness, dishonesty, or an ethical breach. A “breach of decorum” generally does not rise to the level of impropriety.

Robert Hobbs Jr., a partner in the local law firm of Hornthal, Riley, Ellis & Maland, substituted for Town Attorney Ben Gallop at Tuesday’s meeting. He read into the record another N.C. statute, 160A-75, pertaining to voting by municipal government officials and when an official should be excused. This statute served as the basis for a motion by Councilman Conners to excuse Councilman McDonald from voting on the censure motion because it was a matter “involving the consideration of . . . [his] official conduct.”

Seconded by Mr. Nason, the motion to excuse Mr. McDonald passed, 3-2, with Councilmen Newberry and McDonald dissenting.

Frankly, I don’t understand why Councilman McDonald’s excusal was subject to motion and vote. The statute clearly states that a municipal board member “shall” be excused when matters of a certain nature, which constitute a conflict of interest for the member, are being voted upon. It seems to me that Mr. Hobbs (or the Mayor) should have excused Mr. McDonald without a motion.

I believe the same is true of the motion to censure Mr. McDonald that was made and defeated, 3-2, at the July 10 meeting. Mr. Gallop should have excused Mr. McDonald from voting. If he had, the vote presumably would have been 2-2, with the Mayor and Councilman Newberry voting not to censure, and Councilmen Conners and Nason voting for censure. Mr. Bennett showed good judgment then.

If the vote had been 2-2, would the motion have been defeated? What is the rule? There are no rules of procedure for Town Council meetings in the Town Code. Do Robert’s Rules of Order apply? If so, then the motion failed. Is it proper to ignore the July vote because the Town Attorney erred and to allow a “do-over”? It certainly doesn’t seem right to me.

MEANING OF THE WORDS

I also believe that Mr. McDonald’s remarks to Mr. Nason on July 10, albeit rude and inappropriate, have been distorted and overblown. If I were he, I would have apologized for speaking thoughtlessly and rashly. In my opinion, however, his words did not constitute an accusation that Mr. Nason was promoting the changes in lot-coverage calculation in order to directly benefit financially.

At the July meeting, Mr. McDonald was clearly frustrated by the fact that the lot-coverage ZTA, which had been defeated in September 2017, was again before the Town Council, in a slightly modified form, as the result of a motion by Mr. Nason, which the Mayor and Mr. Conners supported. After listening to Mr. Nason explain, at length, why the ZTA should be adopted, Mr. McDonald said, according to the transcript:

“[A] majority of our community is against this. I don’t know why it came back up . . . well, I . . . [turning toward and addressing Councilman Nason directly] How much money do you need to make?”

My interpretation of this remark was not that Mr. McDonald was accusing Mr. Nason of acting in furtherance of his own direct financial interests, but rather that, as an architect who works with Southern Shores builders, he would benefit, as all professionals involved in the construction industry would, if the ZTA passed. Many property owners, including myself, believe the proposed lot-coverage changes would allow larger houses to be built and would stimulate remodeling projects. (The Beacon has extensively covered ZTA 18-03. The Planning Board will take it up again at its Aug. 20 meeting.)

After refusing to retract what he said or to apologize, Mr. McDonald then said: “The truth sometimes hurts.”

I honestly don’t know what that means. What truth? That as an architect, Mr. Nason stands to gain from more construction work in Southern Shores? That’s how I interpreted what Mr. McDonald said, in the heat of a passionate argument.

Somehow these two statements became, in the language of the censure motion, “unsubstantiated statements.” Of what, exactly? Mr. McDonald never accused Mr. Nason of dishonesty or any other unethical behavior. And yet, the resolution states:

“NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, based on Councilman McDonald’s unsubstantiated statements made publicly and personally to Councilman Nason, and his refusal to publicly retract them and publicly apologize to Councilman Nason and the citizens of the Town of Southern Shores, the Southern Shores Town Council does hereby CENSURE Councilman McDonald for his improper and unsubstantiated statements made to Councilman Nason, thereby constituting improper behavior as a member of the Town Council.” (Made personally? How are alleged personal comments relevant?)

It seems to me that Mr. McDonald is being censured for what Mayor Bennett, Mr. Nason, and Mr. Conners believe he was insinuating.

CONTENTIOUSNESS

Before the censure vote was taken, Councilman Newberry asked Mr. Hobbs what censure is, legally, and what constitutes misconduct. The lawyer replied that there is “no precise definition” of censure and characterized it as a “statement of displeasure,” of disapproval. It has no legal effect, but, in my opinion, it does have a shaming effect. In this case, it also may have a chilling effect on what Town Council members say to each other—to the detriment of the public’s interest.

In explaining his about-face on the censure motion, Mayor Bennett characterized Mr. McDonald’s comments as having “jeopardized” Mr. Nason’s livelihood, which was something he could not permit. Stressing that an apology could have ended the matter, he said he approached Mr. Nason and asked him: “What do you want to do, Chris?”

After Tuesday’s meeting, I spoke at length with Mr. Nason, who was visibly upset. He told me about how distressing the past month has been for him with the media coverage about Mr. McDonald’s remarks and the inquiries he has received. As I said before, I empathize with him. I’ve been in the fish bowl, too, and it’s no fun. You don’t want press; you just want your privacy.

Nonetheless, I think Mr. Nason, Mayor Bennett, and Mr. Conners came up with a poor solution that has set a poor precedent.

On the one hand, Councilman Conners argued Tuesday that the three were not “ganging up” on Mr. McDonald—although they clearly kept Mr. Newberry, who often sides with Mr. McDonald on Council matters, out of their confidences.

“We’re ganging up on that kind of [improper] behavior,” he said. On a lack of civility.

On the other hand, Mr. McDonald argued, “I didn’t know I didn’t have the right to free speech,” and pointed out that “Transparency is still an issue” in Southern Shores.

After a rift like this one, where does the Town Council go from here?

I’ll be back soon with news about potholes, recycling cans, the draft fire services contract, and other routine Town business. In the meantime, I welcome your comments.

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 8/9/18

 

The revision of the proposed zoning text amendment on nonconforming lots was made public earlier this week when staff posted on the Town of Southern Shores website the meeting packet for the Town Council’s meeting next Tuesday. Current ZTA 18-07 has been reduced to one paragraph in the new version, styled as ZTA 18-07A. You may find it in its entirety, with its application form, preamble, etc., on pages 15-18 of the packet:

https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/wp-content/uploads/minutes-agendas-newsletters/Meeting-Packet_2018-08-07.pdf

The Beacon chooses to refrain from comment now about the substantially truncated ZTA, preferring to hear first from Town Attorney Ben Gallop, Town Planning Director Wes Haskett, and the Town Planning Board. The Planning Board will be taking up ZTA 18-07A, as well as ZTA 18-03, about lot coverage, at its Aug. 20 meeting.

The proposed ZTA would amend current Town Code sec. 36-132(a), which deals with nonconforming lots, by replacing it. The replacement language consists of two paragraphs, numbered (1) and (2), as follows:

Section (1) states, in pertinent part, that a single-family dwelling and customary accessory building may be erected on any single lot that “met all legal requirements at the time of its creation and recording in the Dare County public registry.” This means that any lot with a width of less than the current required minimum width of 100 feet, or the current required minimum area of 20,000 square feet, is permitted—provided it met all legal requirements in effect when it was first created.

Section (1) also states that if such a lot has a width of 50 feet or less, it may be developed with a side-yard setback of 12 feet, which is three feet less than the Town Code-mandated minimum requirement of 15 feet.

Section (1) is straightforward enough. Section (2) is the rub. It states as follows:

“Prior to the demolition of an existing principal building, redevelopment exceeding 50% of an existing principal building’s value, or construction of a new principal building when such existing or proposed principal building is located or proposed to be located on two or more lots any of which are non-conforming, all lots underlying the existing or proposed principal building shall be recombined into a single lot.”

Got it? It’s proposing three scenarios when recombination would be triggered if two or more lots “any of which are non-conforming” are involved.

It further states:

“A plat prepared by a North Carolina licensed surveyor showing the recombination shall be shall be [sic/redundancy] recorded in the Dare County public registry, and a copy of the recorded plat shall be provided to the Town prior to the issuance of a zoning or building permit for the demolition, redevelopment or development upon the newly created lot. The lot created by a recombination required by this section shall be deemed to equal or exceed the standards of the Town under Chapter 30, and are [sic/verb should be “is”] exempt from the subdivision process under Chapter 30. The unlawful demolition of a principal building in violation of this section shall preclude the application of section (1) for the underlying lots unless and until a recombination occurs under this section as if the principal building had not been demolished.”

That’s it.

Fire Services Contract; Historic Landmark Designation

About 50 percent of the meeting packet prepared for the Town Council’s meeting consists of a draft fire services contract and related materials. The Town’s contract with the SSVFD expires at the end of this fiscal year. Negotiation of the next contract will likely be an ongoing dialogue. The Aug. 7 meeting marks the first public presentation and discussion of the draft contract.

Materials related to the historic landmark designation of the oceanfront house at 116 Ocean Blvd., which was built in 1954 by chemist Dr. Lyndon F. Small and his wife Marianne C. Small, constitute most of the remainder of the meeting packet.

Now called “Small World,” the cottage at 116 Ocean Blvd., described by the current Small family owners as “a frame structure and gable roof built upon a poured concrete slab,” could have used some TLC over the years. I don’t think architect Harry Lawrence or builder Curtis Gray—part of Southern Shores founder Frank Stick’s team—would have minded. According to the family, Lyndon and Marianne Small knew Mr. Stick and were lured to Southern Shores by him.

The house at 116 Ocean Blvd. is well-worn, to say the least. But I am so glad that the Small family is seeking to preserve it, rather than to demolish it. It is a testament to a special time in Southern Shores, when the land was wide-open and the spirits of those who built houses and vacationed here were adventurous and free. The developers made money, but they also sought to protect the natural environment. The house coexisted with the beach; it didn’t overwhelm it, or obscure other people’s views, and Southern Shores was a secluded getaway for vacationers who opened their windows to feel sea breezes and hear the ocean’s roar.

At one time, it was a Small world, after all.

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, Aug. 2, 2018

The agenda for the Southern Shores Town Council’s Aug. 7 meeting, which was posted on the Town website yesterday, shows that a revised version of the nonconforming lots ZTA 18-07 has been prepared and will be subject to a hearing before the Planning Board at its Aug. 20 meeting, if the Town Council does not adopt the current zoning text amendment next week.

Also noteworthy on the agenda are two new business items: consideration of a draft fire services contract, which would be effective July 1, 2019, a day after the current SSVFD contract expires; and concern raised by Councilman Fred Newberry about trash and recycling cans lining NC Hwy. 12, which includes Ocean Boulevard and Duck Road.

Both the Town Council and the Planning Board meetings are scheduled for 5:30 p.m. in the Pitts Center.

Designated ZTA 18-07A, the new nonconforming lots draft was prepared at the direction of the Town Council, which unanimously tabled ZTA 18-07 at its July 10 meeting and specifically directed Town staff to revise the amendment’s text so as to limit its scope.

If adopted, either ZTA would amend Town Code sec. 36-132, which has gaps in its application, such that property owners have been able to divide conforming lots, which have been typically 100-feet wide, into nonconforming lots, typically two 50-footers—despite restrictive covenants that do not permit the smaller lots. Constructing two houses on a land parcel where once only one house stood clearly does not comport with the Southern Shores vision of low-density development and open space.

As of this writing (noon, July 31), ZTA 18-07A had not been posted on the Town website.

You may see the Town Council meeting agenda at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/wp-content/uploads/minutes-agendas-newsletters/Agendas_2018-08-07.pdf. A packet for the meeting, which will contain a draft of ZTA 18-07A and other materials, will be posted later this week. The Beacon will advise you about the new zoning text amendment as soon as we can.

I would like to add a personal note to Councilman Newberry’s concern about refuse cans on the beach road. I knew as soon as the recycling date was changed to Wednesday that rental property companies and rental house owners, like myself, would have a problem. It’s asking too much for renters to put out their recycling or the recycling left by the previous renters in the middle of the week. It’s enough to get them to put out their recycling and trash on the day that they depart, which is typically Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. As a hands-on owner who manages her own repairs and maintenance, I can tell you that many do not.

My experience of the past 30 years is that too often, trash and recycling cans—usually filled to the point of overflowing—line the beach road for days, generating litter and creating an unsightly scene. The photo above is one that I took on June 16 from across the street of my family’s cottage in what is known as the low-traffic area. I often pick up trash and recycling scattered around cans, especially when they blow over. The trash and recycling collectors do not get out of their trucks to right overturned cans.

(For background on the decision to change the recycling pickup day, see The Beacon’s post on June 16.)

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, July 31, 2018

 

Yesterday while returning from errands, I noticed how many sections of South Dogwood Trail were flooded with stormwater. There were pools of standing water in the usual places near the driveways into the country club, but also along the road at Wood Duck Court, 92 S. Dogwood, 138 S. Dogwood . . .

And then I wondered what the road will look like after a storm when there is a bike path/walkway along the length of it, as Mayor Tom Bennett has been advocating for years and the South and East Dogwoods Task Force recommended. (See the Task Force’s final report at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/170117-FINAL-REPORT-DWTF.pdf.)

If you remove a sizeable number of trees, which act as a barrier during storms, and cover up the ground with a 5-foot-wide concrete path—not the Task Force’s preference, but a possibility—what will happen to South Dogwood Trail and travel along it?

My thought after that was that, if the East Dogwood Trail bike path goes ahead as planned, I will not have to wonder about South Dogwood Trail. I’ll get to see a preview on East Dogwood of what a bike path on South Dogwood Trail might look like.

Town Manager Peter Rascoe reported at the July 10 Town Council meeting that the East Dogwood Trail project is out for bidding this month. According to Mr. Rascoe, property owners on the south side of East Dogwood Trail have been advised about the sidewalk that is to be built in front of their homes and are not opposed to it.

The proposed East Dogwood bike/walking path will be made of concrete, not a pervious material, which would allow rain to pass through it and be absorbed by the ground. Stormwater mitigation should be a factor in the design process, but concrete is definitely what engineers and planners refer to as impervious.

Coincidentally, I took a car for inspection this morning to Outer Banks Automotive on Woods Road, just across U.S. Hwy. 158, and got an earful about flooding from owner Kevin Bradshaw, whom I’ve known since we were teenagers and his father owned the repair business. Ever since the Town of Kitty Hawk built an impervious bicycle path on the west side of Woods Road, Mr. Bradshaw has had flooding in front of his mechanic’s shop—flooding that threatens the vehicles he has parked on his property.

Mr. Bradshaw said he spent four hours yesterday pumping stormwater that had pooled in his driveway to the other side of the road, using his own generator-powered pump. He said he has repeatedly called the Town of Kitty Hawk to complain and has asked why the bike path wasn’t built on the east side, where there is no commercial development. The answer: “We don’t know.”

LAND COVERAGE, TREE REMOVAL

With this latest storm system, Southern Shores property owners have been given a potential preview of our future if our elected officials allow more land coverage to occur—through changes in the calculation of the 30-percent lot coverage requirement (proposed Zoning Text Amendment 18-04); through the construction of impervious bike path/walkways; and through a failure to prevent the development of nonconforming lots, in particular, 50-foot-wide lots, to which one town councilman—architect Chris Nason—has publicly said he has no objection.

You have only to look to the south and north of us to see what happens during storms, such as the one we’ve been weathering the past few days, in densely developed areas.

According to The Outer Banks Voice, the Town of Kitty Hawk has started pumping standing water from roads between the highways into the ocean, thus necessitating the posting of signs to warn people of possible health risks. The water removed from the streets may be contaminated with disease-causing microbes. Certainly, there is an increased chance of contamination, and swimming is not advisable at discharge locations. (Update 7/27: I understand State environmental quality-experts are recommending against swimming in the ocean anywhere because of polluted stormwater runoff. The waters will have to be tested.)

The Voice also has posted a video that shows a deluge of water across N.C. Hwy. 12 in Duck and motorists driving through it. Duck is a charming village, but it’s also one big impervious surface. (It’s never a good idea to drive into flood waters, but the road is open, and, therefore, presumed to be passable.)

In less-dense Southern Shores, clear-cutting of residential lots contributes to standing water in the roads. There currently is no Town Code ordinance to prevent clear-cutting, and the Southern Shores Civic Assn. Architectural Review Board (ARB) only encourages homeowners not to do it. According to its written guidelines, it urges “restraint.”

There was a time when the ARB looked at individual trees on a lot and told the property owners which ones had to remain, but those days are over. I would like to see a more assertive approach taken by the Town.

A perfect example of how the wholesale removal of trees on a lot, in preparation for home construction, creates a flooding hazard exists at 259 North Dogwood Trail, which is close to my mother’s residence. Ever since the property owners clear-cut the lot at this address in order to build their dream house in 2010-2011, stormwater has run off of the sloping front yard into the road, flooding the width of it, i.e., going north and south.

I became acquainted with one of the homeowners and asked him several years ago why he had taken down so many trees. He said he didn’t have a choice, or so he believed, but he clearly did. I think he was misled.

You don’t have to “hug” trees to know that trees contribute to stormwater management. Tree leaves and branches intercept rain, slowing it down as it falls, and rainwater evaporates on trees’ surface areas and their leafy canopies. Further, tree roots contribute to soil stabilization and make the soil more porous and, thus, more water-absorptive. Trees also use rainwater to grow: The bigger the tree, the bigger the thirst.

Recently, someone purchased the vacant lot adjacent to 259 N. Dogwood Trail and clear-cut it, before starting construction of another dream house on another hill. No sooner had construction begun than a “for sale” sign went up at 259. I know that the personal circumstances of the homeowner at 259 have changed since he built his house, but I suspect the encroachment of the new house at 257 also figured into his decision to sell.

These two luxurious soundfront homes—259 N. Dogwood sold in June for $1.6 million—are on top of each other, separated by the mandatory 30 feet of side setbacks and a dividing strand of bushes and trees, and every time it rains, the road in front of them floods.

SWIMMING POOLS

I use the term dream house deliberately because that is the description that I often hear whenever people discuss (argue about) land restrictions. Such a discussion usually evolves into one about individual freedoms, specifically, the right of a property owner to do what he or she would like to do on his or her property without intrusion from the town government.

I think this is unfortunate. It encourages NIMBY thinking—NIMBY meaning “Not in my back yard”—and pits property owners against each other, to the detriment of the community in which all live.

You may have noticed that the SSCA has enhanced the recreational opportunities at Sea Oats Park and more people are using it. Judging from comments made at its July 5 meeting, the SSCA Board has a gazebo in mind for the site and possibly musical events.  Could there be in the works a clubhouse, an indoor pool, and other amenities . . . as long as it’s “not in my back yard”?

I like to think that your back (or front) yard is also mine. If I had a home on Hillcrest Drive or Sea Oats Trail across from, or near, the Sea Oats Park, how would I feel about what the SSCA has done and proposes to do? At what point do the recreational plans of others infringe too much on my quiet enjoyment?

Swimming pools can be a major point of contention between adjacent homeowners and certainly are a source of contention over ZTA 18-04.

If it were enacted as it now is written, ZTA 18-04 would exempt from the maximum allowable 30-percent lot coverage, as set forth in Town Code sec. 36-202(d)(6), 500 square feet of the water area of a swimming pool. (The Beacon has extensively covered this ZTA in both the Planning Board and the Town Council. See July 11 for an update.)

Obviously, if you eliminate 500 square feet of a pool from a calculation of the coverage total, then 500 square feet would be available to a homeowner to cover elsewhere. This would affect stormwater absorption. So, too, would the other exemptions proposed by the ZTA:

*50 percent of pervious materials and turfstone/pavers for driveways and parking areas.

*Gravel walkways

*The outermost 4 feet of eaves

*Open-slatted decks that allow water to penetrate through to pervious material, not exceeding a total of 25 percent of the total footprint area

There’s no getting around the fact that if you subtract for an exemption, you add to the total that may cover the lot elsewhere, in the form of a garage or a wider or deeper house or a larger swimming pool with a gazebo or other structure. A property owner still would be limited by the 30-percent cap and by setbacks, but these restrictions would not prevent expansion of the buildable area, which, in turn, would affect stormwater absorption.

I am encouraged that the newly constituted Town Planning Board, chaired by Glenn Wyder, is sensitive to stormwater concerns and other lot-coverage issues. The Board is currently scheduled to reconsider ZTA 18-04 at its Aug. 20 meeting.

“A pool should not be used as a catch-basin,” Mr. Wyder said during the Planning Board’s earlier deliberation on ZTA 18-04, noting that his swimming pool overflows after a heavy rain.

During the Town Council’s July 10 consideration of the zoning text amendment, Mr. Nason, who is the chief proponent of the lot-coverage change, noted that homeowners can drain their pools of some water before storms.

I wonder if Mr. Nason has any idea how many rental houses in Southern Shores have swimming pools and how unrealistic a suggestion that is.

I am all for dream houses and dream swimming pools, but not at the expense of other homeowners and the community at large. There must be compromise.

PRESERVATION

The common denominator that most of us share in Southern Shores is a desire to maintain the character and appeal of the town, and that means maintaining low-density development, protective trees, and open space.

I have heard from residents throughout Southern Shores this week about flooded roads and flooded yards: on Duck Woods Drive, on Poteskeet Trail in front of the park, before the Juniper Trail bridge, on Ocean Boulevard in the low-traffic area, on Sea Oats Trail, at intersections on N.C. Hwy. 12, north of 4^th Avenue, and so it goes.

Each flood merits its own analysis about cause, but I think it’s safe to say that development plays a key role.

We can’t remove the roads. We also can’t control the rain or the saturation capacity of ground that has not been altered by development. But we can exercise some control over lot coverage and the removal of trees.

It is my hope that the new Planning Board will take a long view when it reconsiders ZTA 18-04 and that it will not stop there. The preservation of Southern Shores depends on public servants who rise above NIMBY thinking and political and financial pressures to objectively evaluate the causes of problems such as flooding and to take practical steps to prevent them.

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, 7/25/18

 

Last night’s Town Council meeting was wild. It included two happenings that I’ve never witnessed before: a 45-minute break while the Mayor and Town Council met in closed session with Town Attorney Ben Gallop, and a motion by one Council member to censure another. In bottom-line action:

The Town Council voted unanimously to send ZTA 18-07, about the 50-foot-wide nonconforming lots, back to town staff to rewrite it in light of Council’s instructions about what it specifically seeks to prevent. There currently is a nonconforming lots ordinance in the Town Code. ZTA 18-07 was an attempt to improve on it. I haven’t mentioned this fact since the Planning Board approved ZTA 18-07, because I didn’t expect the Town Council to tackle its difficult-to- understand legalistic language, which I opposed. To its credit, the Council is doing so–but it should have been prepared to do this a month ago. (That latter statement is my opinion.)

In a similar vein, the Town Council voted unanimously to send ZTA 18-04, about changing how the maxmimum 30 percent lot coverage is calculated, back to the Planning Board for reconsideration. This suggestion was first made by builder Andy Ward in his comments during the public hearing for the zoning text amendment. Mr. Ward was appointed to a voting seat on the Planning Board shortly before he spoke, so he will be involved in the reconsideration. I supported this move as a compromise position.

In addition to Mr. Ward, builder David Neal was appointed to another three-year term on the Planning Board. Former Councilman Leo Holland and Kitty Hawk firefighter Michael Basilone, who lives in Southern Shores, were appointed alternates.

Police Chief David Kole presented his report on the no-left-turn weekend. No official Town Council action related to the control of cut-through traffic and the NLT weekend occurred. At the SSCA general membership meeting Monday night, Mayor Bennett indicated that he was following up with NC DOT. In a Facebook post yesterday, I reported that the Mayor said he was talking with DOT about the signage and lights and looking into how to contain costs for a left-turn ban, which he showed support for considering. Specifically, the Mayor told SSCA membership that he was considering a turn prohibition on summer weekends starting in late June and continuing until early August.

ZTA 18-04, PROPOSED CHANGE IN LOT-COVERAGE CALCULATION

Starting with the July fireworks first, the motion to censure came during a passionate discussion about ZTA 18-04, after a public hearing in which all five speakers argued against its passage, in its current form. Councilman Chris Nason made the motion in regard to Councilman Gary McDonald. Here’s the story:

Upon conclusion of the hearing, Councilman McDonald moved to reject ZTA 18-04, which is a restyled version of ZTA 17-03, defeated by the Town Council, 3-2, on Sept. 5, 2017. Councilman Fred Newberry, who seconded Mr. McDonald’s motion, joined with former Councilman Leo Holland and Mr. McDonald last September to defeat ZTA 17-03. I wrote just two days ago about this “second bite of the apple” occasioned by Councilman Jim Conners’s election. (Such political decisions “happen everywhere” in the nation, all of the time, Mr. Conners defended last night.)

Before a vote was taken on the motion, Councilman Chris Nason, an architect who owns Beacon Architecture & Design in Kitty Hawk, said he wanted to discuss it.

It became clear from Mr. Nason’s lengthy remarks that he was the driving force behind the resurrection of the defeated ZTA, which both Councilman Conners and the Mayor supported.

Saying that he respectfully disagreed with the five speakers, including longtime builder Andy Ward, who collectively argued that the changes to the lot-coverage calculation would aggravate stormwater runoff and retention; increase house size; reduce open space; and otherwise hurt the environment and aesthetics of Southern Shores, Mr. Nason explained that the ZTA is designed “to encourage people to do low-impact projects.”

“Everything in [the ZTA] is a compromise,” he asserted. “It won’t change the character and aesthetics of Southern Shores.”

Councilman Newberry interjected: “You’re not going to convince me that four feet of eaves is aesthetically pleasing.” Mr. Nason agreed, saying that two feet would be better.

The Beacon did not time Mr. Nason’s remarks, nor have I viewed the videotape, but I would estimate that he spoke uninterruptedly for 10 to 15 minutes about the various exemptions from the 30-percent lot coverage calculation that ZTA 18-04 would add—including gravel walkways, four feet of eaves, 500 square feet of a swimming pool’s water area, and 50 percent of pervious materials for driveways and parking areas; relevant State standards and lot-coverage calculations in other towns on the Outer Banks; the recommendations from Codewright in the Town Code “update”; and other considerations.

Also while Mr. McDonald’s motion was pending, the Mayor stated the Council’s options on ZTA 18-04 as three: 1) defeat it; 2) pass it; or 3) send it to the Planning Board for further consideration, a measure he appeared to favor.

After Mr. Nason stopped speaking, Mr. McDonald pointed out that all of the speakers in the public hearing were “intelligent” and didn’t need a “lesson” from Mr. Nason. He reiterated the public’s support for leaving the lot-coverage calculation as it is and cited Codewright’s public survey, which showed that 68 percent of those who responded did not want the lot-coverage ordinance to change. (At some point during the discussion, Councilman Conners characterized the consultant’s survey as “poorly written.”)

It was during his rebuttal that Mr. McDonald turned to Mr. Nason and asked: “How  much money do you need to make?”

Ka-boom! Fireworks went off! Cannons roared! Mr. Nason called Mr. McDonald’s inflammatory remark “uncalled for,” and Mr. Conners angrily jumped into the fray. Mr. Nason made a motion to censure Mr. McDonald, and Mr. Conners quickly seconded it.

I may have the sequence of events slightly out of order—everything happened so quickly—but suffice it to say that the Mayor restored order in a commendable show of leadership. The motion to censure was defeated 3-2, with the Mayor and Councilmen McDonald and Newberry voting against it.

In the last public-comment period of the night, Glenn Wyder, who is president of the Chicahauk Property Owners Assn. and a member of the Town Planning Board, called Mr. McDonald’s question “out of line” and said his behavior was worse than any misconduct he has seen on the many boards he has served. Mr. Wyder complimented the Mayor for his management of the breach and urged Town Council members to “put your personal differences aside so we can all work as a team for the good of Southern Shores.”

The Beacon believes that both Mr. McDonald’s hot-button question, asked in obvious frustration, and Mr. Nason’s and Mr. Conners’s reactions to it were rash and ill-advised, but not unexpected in a political forum about a divisive issue that came up just last September. (The Beacon wrote about the politics of ZTA 18-04 in its April 20 report after the Planning Board’s April 16 hearing on the amendment. It has become a veritable litmus test for who has more influence in town: the building industry or the public. That’s why Mr. Ward’s comments were so critical.)

As for Mr. McDonald’s motion to defeat ZTA 18-04, it failed 2-3, with Mr. Newberry voting with Mr. McDonald. The five Council members then united to unanimously pass the Mayor’s motion to send the amendment back to the Planning Board for more consideration.

After the meeting, I asked Mr. Gallop what, if any, legal effect a censure would have had, and he said none. Apparently, it would simply have been an official expression of disapproval.

In his comments at the end of the meeting, Mr. Newberry returned to the subject of public opinion and the town’s land-use plan and poignantly said: “We are elected by the people to represent them whether we agree with them or not.”

ZTA 18-07, NONCONFORMING LOTS 

Inasmuch as I have greatly detailed the fracas over the lot-coverage ZTA, I will be more concise in my coverage of other agenda items.

I believe the Town Council showed great practical wisdom in suspending the meeting after the first public-comment period to have a closed session with Mr. Gallop about ZTA 18-07. The motion to do so was made by Mr. McDonald and seconded by Mr. Newberry.

The purpose of ZTA 18-07 was to replace the language of current Town Code sec. 36-132, which addresses nonconforming lots, with language that is more comprehensive and less ambiguous. I believe that Town Attorney Ben Gallop achieved this objective, accounting for as many “what-ifs” as he could imagine in his effort to prevent (re)development on 50-foot-wide nonconforming lots.

Unfortunately, the language of ZTA 18-07 is very legalistic and not easy to understand for someone who is not a lawyer. Before the Town Council’s hearing last night, 2015-18 Planning Board member David Neal, who has been especially concerned about the issue and whom the Council subsequently reappointed to the Board, said to me, “People are confused.” I agree.

During the Town Planning Board’s May 21 consideration of the measure, Board member Elizabeth Morey asked Mr. Gallop: “Are you pretty confident that what you have put together is comprehensive enough to stop what we want to stop?”

Mr. Gallop replied that he thought it was. But the Planning Board obviously struggled with his language and approach. (See The Beacon’s coverage on May 16 and May 23 for background.)

By its action last night, the Town Council suggests that it believes Mr. Gallop has been too comprehensive.

After Council members returned from their 45-minute closed session with the Town Attorney, Mr. Conners made a motion to send the ZTA back to town staff for revision so that it achieves the limited purpose of preventing a property owner who has a single structure (house) on a double lot (two 50-foot-wide lots) from 1) razing that structure and building two structures on his/her property; or 2) selling his property to other people who would rebuild on the smaller lots. At least, this is the meaning that I took away from Mr. Conners’s motion and from Mayor Bennett’s explanation to me after the meeting.

THE POLICE REPORT ON NLT WEEKEND AND BIAS (This is an editorial based on news reporting.)

During his report on the no-left-turn weekend, Police Chief David Kole said he was only reporting the facts, i.e., the vehicle counts on the four monitored roads: NC 12 at Skyline Road; 286 Sea Oats Trail; 182 S. Dogwood Trail and South Dogwood Trail at Wood Duck Court; and Trinitie Trail in Chicahauk. He was not reaching any conclusions about whether the weekend was a success or a failure.

But he did make a point of informing the Town Council and the assembled audience about how short-handed the assignment of two officers to the NLT enforcement left his force—apparently, only three officers are on duty during these peak hours when the transient population swells—and sharing the content of some of the anonymous complaints he received. One voicemail left by an unidentified person, the Chief advised, “said the traffic was bumper-to-bumper” on a residential street. But he didn’t name the street or specify the day or the time or the length of the backup.

The Chief also entertained the Town Council with his account of how two irate out-of-towners called him to complain that the traffic citations they received for illegally turning left at South Dogwood Trail during the June 23-24 restriction were “illegal” because their GPS had directed them to take the turn. The Virginian-Pilot’s article, you may recall, had out-of-towners “fussing” at officers about being stopped for left turns that their GPS allegedly suggested they take.

In reporting that only 17 fewer cars traveled on South Dogwood Trail on June 23 than had traveled on June 16, the Chief said, “I was dumbfounded.” I was immediately sorry that I had traversed South Dogwood Trail at least five times that day, monitoring the traffic; without my travel, the Chief could have reported 22 fewer cars.

Gee, I wonder if I went door to door and polled property owners on how many times they traveled north on South Dogwood Trail on June 23–because, for a change, it was wide open–if I could add some more numbers to the 17 total. Perhaps we should install cameras so we know exactly how many cars with OBX or other local license plates travel north on South Dogwood Trail, and then we can subtract them from future vehicle counts. Ditto with Sea Oats Trail and Trinitie.

During the Town Council’s discussion on the NLT weekend, Councilman Chris Nason made the following calculation: After learning that the traffic ban cost the Town $6800 to $7000 to implement, he divided this total by 17 to arrive at what the Town spent per fewer car on South Dogwood Trail, roughly $400.

How do you argue with such illogical thinking? I am dumbfounded. I wonder if Mr. Nason traveled on South Dogwood Trail on either day of the NLT weekend and observed firsthand its conditions.

There’s no way to know who was traveling on South Dogwood Trail and why and which direction they came from on either NLT trial day. Nor do we know if the traffic counter at 182 S. Dogwood Trail was operating properly on June 23, June 16, last year during the comparable June weekend, or any other time. The Chief actually admitted that the devices “don’t always work.” He also said that the devices will not count vehicles that are traveling at less than 3.5 miles per hour. How many cars moving bumper-to-bumper June 16 on South Dogwood didn’t register for the count? Who knows? And what about swift-moving bicycles? Were they part of the count on June 23?

At no time during his presentation did Chief Kole ever mention the positive experience that so many of us had during the NLT weekend. Not once. If he lives in Southern Shores and talks to residents, then he has to know. Either he’s withholding information, and, therefore presenting a biased picture, or he’s not talking to many of the people he serves.

The Chief reiterated that now familiar line about how “the traffic has to go somewhere” and added to it that he knew when he moved to Southern Shores that traffic was a problem, the implication being that when you move to a nuisance, you shouldn’t complain about the nuisance.

Let’s just suppose that there wasn’t a nuisance when some of us moved here and that we know how to get rid of the nuisance–to the betterment of the tourists who drive through our town en route to the northern beaches, as well as ourselves. Are we all supposed to just grin and bear it?

After the Chief concluded his negative assessment, Mr. Conners took yet another thinly veiled shot at me, branding as “despicable” bloggers and other social media people who called the Chief and his report biased. By that point, dear readers, I’d had enough. I didn’t go to law school just to sit quietly by while one public official presents a skewed and incomplete picture of a community event and another public official unjustly criticizes and seeks to intimidate me. I scrapped what I had planned to say in public comments and spoke about bias.

One example: assumptions about vehicle counts that serve an individual’s interests, but are not factually supported. The Chief doesn’t know why people traveling north on NC 12–at least at Skyline Road–on Fri., June 22, were on the road, nor does he know their destinations.

During my remarks, I mentioned that Mayor Bennett had said in his report to the SSCA Monday night that people told him they loved the NLT weekend. My point was that the Mayor had told that truth, whereas the Police Chief would not. The Mayor quibbled with me about omitting the rest of what he told the SSCA, but I wasn’t informing people about all that the Mayor said. I was only reporting that the Mayor had said people loved it.

I will tell you now, as I reported on The Beacon’s Facebook page on Tuesday, that the Mayor reported “mixed results”: People either loved it, he said, or they complained about the cost to the taxpayers for blocking the turn. After the Council meeting, he told me: “I was honest.”

(So much for being concise!)

AND FINALLY . . .

The Town Council unanimously approved the Capital Infrastructure Improvement Plan for fiscal year 2018-19, as presented (See The Beacon on July 2), and approved with a change in one setback, ZTA 18-03, an amendment submitted by the Southern Shores Volunteer Fire Dept. to amend several Town Code sections in order to establish the necessary parking, signage, and setback requirements for the anticipated new fire station.

According to Town Planner and Deputy Town Manager Wes Haskett, the new station “site plan is still a work in progress.”

The vote on Planning Board applicants was as follows:

For seat 3, full voting Board member: David Neal, 5-0.

For seat 4, full voting Board member: Andy Ward, 3-2; Leo Holland, 2-3.

For alternate one: Leo Holland, 5-0.

For alternate two: Michael Basilone, 4-1.

The next regularly scheduled Town Council meeting is Aug. 7. The Council may meet before then to take up the revised ZTA on nonconforming lots. I’ll let you know.

The next Planning Board meeting is Mon., July 16. The Board members will select a chairperson for the next fiscal year. I’ll give you a meeting agenda preview soon.

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, July 11, 2018

 

 

 

Proposed ZTA 18-04, which alters the calculation of the Town’s 30-percent lot coverage requirement, is déjà vu  for the Southern Shores Town Council.

It is also partially nouveau vu, to coin a new phrase.

The zoning text amendment, which will be the subject of a public hearing and a first reading by the Town Council at its meeting tomorrow night (Tuesday), was defeated, 3-2, in a slightly different form last September.

For the amendment to be adopted upon its first reading, a 4/5 majority vote is required.

Former Councilman Leo Holland joined with Councilmen Fred Newberry and Gary McDonald at the Council’s Sept. 5, 2017 meeting to defeat what was then ZTA 17-03.

Five months later, newly elected Councilman Jim Conners joined with Mayor Tom Bennett and Councilman Chris Nason to resurrect the measure, with insubstantial minor changes, as ZTA 18-04.

The Beacon believes the Mayor and Councilmen Conners and Nason were playing politics, at the expense of the public, when they revised the defeated ZTA 17-03 during the Feb. 6 Town Council meeting–just three months after Mr. Conners’s election

OPINION: They should not have been allowed this second attempt to influence house sizes in town. Maneuvering like this undermines the integrity of the lawmaking process and trust in government.

Thanks to the Town Planning Board, which held a hearing on the lot-coverage ZTA on April 16, the amendment now has “nouveau” elements.

ZTA 18-04 would amend Southern Shores Town Code sec. 36-202(d)(6), which defines “maximum allowable lot coverage,” by adding language about exemptions.

Currently, this section contains no exemptions. It defines maximum allowable lot coverage in the low-density single-family residential district as 30 percent, except for town-owned facilities and fire stations, which are permitted 85 percent coverage.

As written now, ZTA 18-04 would eliminate from the building footprint, and, therefore, from the lot-coverage calculation the following:

*Gravel walkways

*The outermost 4 feet of [roof] eaves

*Up to 500 square feet of the water area of a swimming pool

*Open-slatted decks that allow water to penetrate through to previous material (not to exceed a total of 25 percent of the total footprint area)

ZTA 18-04 also would exempt from lot-coverage calculation 50 percent of the area consumed by pervious materials and turfstone/pavers for driveways and parking areas.

Lot coverage is the ratio of the total footprint area of all structures on a lot to the net lot area. The footprint typically includes principal (your house) and accessory structures, such as garages, carports, covered patios and roofed porches, decks, swimming pools, driveways, and parking pads.

The chief objectives of lot-coverage laws are 1) to ensure stormwater retention in the ground, so that runoff into streets and adjacent lots doesn’t occur; and 2) to protect open space, which is a critical element of Southern Shores’ land-use plan.

In its April 16 consideration of ZTA 18-04, the Town Planning Board largely focused on the stormwater issue. The Planning Board voted, 3-1, to remove an exemption for gravel and grass driveways with a pervious base and unanimously voted to qualify the open-slatted decks exemption, as italicized above.

Although Board members unanimously voted to approve ZTA 18-04, as they amended it, they split, 2-2, on eliminating the swimming-pool exemption.

Town Planner Wes Haskett advised that his report to the Town Council would include mention of the tie vote on this critical provision. (See The Beacon’s report of April 20.)

Unfortunately, both regular member Joe McGraw and alternate member Carlos Gomez were absent for the vote, and the Town Council did not appoint someone to the alternate’s seat that Glenn Wyder vacated when he was appointed to the full Board.

Chairman Sam Williams and Board Member Elizabeth Morey favored exempting up to 500 square feet of the water area of swimming pools from lot coverage; Mr. Wyder and Board Member David Neal did not.

“A pool should not be used as a catch-basin,” Mr. Wyder said, noting that his swimming pool overflows after a heavy rain.

The Beacon agrees with Mr. Wyder and Mr. Neal. There should be no exemption for swimming pools.

We also object to any exemption for driveways, parking areas, and walkways and are apprehensive about the effect the other exemptions might have on total lot coverage. If the eaves provision leads to increased roof size, roof stormwater runoff will be increased, too.

LARGER HOUSES

In their comments April 16, three Planning Board members left little doubt that they recognized that the proposed changes in lot-coverage calculation would lead to larger homes being built. The Beacon opposes such a result.

Ms. Morey actually stated: “They [the Town Council] want bigger houses.” Mr. Neal, who is a builder, said he wished he could “visualize the potential,” voicing concern that this amendment “is not going in the direction that we want to go in.”

Ms. Morey later cast a dissenting vote, indicating that she did not believe the proposed lot-coverage changes were consistent with the town’s land-use plan.

ZTA-18-04 differs from ZTA-17-03 in two only minor respects:

It adds 1) the provision about open-slatted decks, which The Beacon believes is a de minimis change, and 2) a provision stating that only those building/zoning permit applicants (for a single-family home or adjacent swimming pool) who present “a survey with all applicable requirements, including plan certification, for a Lot Disturbance and Stormwater Management Permit” may avail themselves of the swimming-pool and open-slatted deck exemptions to lot coverage.

The “survey with all applicable requirements” proviso strikes The Beacon as business as usual, certainly not a substantive change.

At the Feb. 6 meeting, Councilman McDonald objected to the proposed amendment’s reconsideration as a violation of the Council’s rules of procedure. According to meeting minutes, Town Attorney Ben Gallop apparently said reconsideration was permissible because of the new language.

OPINION: More should be required for the reconsideration of a defeated zoning text amendment than mere “tweaking,” as occurred in this instance. Southern Shores property owners should be able to rely upon the outcome of the notice-and-hearing period for a proposed ZTA and the Council’s final vote to pass or defeat it.

The Beacon is also concerned about the Planning Board’s decision last year to send ZTA 17-03 to the Town Council ahead of a report to the public about the Board’s review of the Town Code update and rewrite.

In an Aug. 11, 2017 memorandum from Chairman Sam Williams to Mayor Bennett, Mr. Williams advised that the Planning Board, which had been painstakingly reviewing the proposed Town Code rewrite submitted by paid consultant, Codewright, would be making recommendations to the Council for possible Code changes on a piecemeal basis, before its full review was finished.

Mr. Williams zeroed in on two zoning changes that the Board decided to take up: 1) the manner in which building height is calculated; and 2) the manner in which lot coverage is calculated. These zoning restrictions are of great importance to Southern Shores property owners.

Three property owners spoke in opposition to ZTA-17-03 during the Sept. 5 hearing, including former Town Council candidate Geri Sullivan, who noted that 62 percent of those who completed the survey conducted by Codewright said they did not want to change lot coverage.

Does the Town Council care about Codewright’s public survey? Or public opinion, at large? Does the Planning Board?

To give elected officials who individually favor the lot-coverage exemptions proposed by ZTA 18-04 two bites at the same apple is unseemly. Such second chances erode public confidence in the decision-making process and in the decision-makers themselves.

ENDORSEMENT OF NEAL AND BASILONE TO PLANNING BOARD

Town Manager Peter Rascoe will recommend at tomorrow’s meeting the following four applicants for appointment to the Planning Board: 2015-18 Planning Board member David Neal, firefighter Michael Basilone, former Councilman Leo Holland, and builder Andy Ward.

There are two vacancies for regular-voting, seated members, and two vacancies for alternate members, who do not vote unless called upon in the absence of a voting member.

While all applicants possess the necessary qualifications, the Beacon endorses Southern Shores builder David Neal for another three-year term on the Planning Board and Kitty Hawk firefighter Michael Basilone, who lives on Sea Oats Trail in Southern Shores, to the seat held until recently by Board Chairman Williams, who decided not to seek reappointment for another three years.

During his first term on the Planning Board, Mr. Neal consistently displayed thoughtfulness, intelligence, open-mindedness, and preparedness. In his application for the Board, Mr. Neal writes:

“As a residential home builder for 34 years I have watched the Outer Banks grow and change. I would like to help with not only preserving the quality, space, and individuality of our beloved Southern Shores, but also to try and accommodate the inevitable continued growth with an appreciation for quality construction, preservation of space [and] trees, natural growth where possible, and respect for the individuality of those who now live here and those to come.”

Town residents and property owners cannot ask for more than this, but Mr. Neal also brings three years of Planning Board and Board of Adjustment experience/history with him. He represents continuity.

With Mr. Neal’s reappointment, the five-member Planning Board will have two builders on it. The Beacon strongly believes that a non-builder should be appointed to the seat that Mr. Williams held, and, in Mr. Basilone, the Town Council has a stellar applicant. His four-page volunteer application, which can be found in tomorrow’s meeting packet, jumps off the page. It attests to a strong commitment to public service and a facility with both community and human relations.

Besides being a fire captain in the Kitty Hawk Fire Dept. since 2010, a position that has wide-ranging responsibilities, Mr. Basilone worked for five years in Virginia Beach as an environmental scientist and did part-time residential and commercial construction work during his high-school and college years. He earned a BS degree in geography, with a minor in environmental science and oceanography, from Old Dominion University in 2001 and is currently working on a master’s degree in public administration, with a focus on emergency-services management.

Mr. Basilone would bring a wealth of relevant knowledge and experience to the Planning Board and would complement the backgrounds of Mr. Neal, Mr. McGraw, and Ms. Morey. I encourage you to read his impressive application in the meeting packet, which can be accessed at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/wp-content/uploads/minutes-agendas-newsletters/Meeting-Packet_2018-07-10.pdf.

Ann G. Sjoerdsma, July 9, 2018