The Southern Shores Town Council made short work on Tuesday night of a provision in a tree-removal/lot disturbance permit ordinance that the Planning Board had resurrected, after the Town removed it, and sent back to the Town Council for “reexamination.”

So swift was the Town Council’s dismissal of key language supported unanimously by the Planning Board in proposed Zoning Text Amendment 24-05 that we were left wondering if the principals on each board ever speak to each other, much less consult one another.

Thirty seconds after the public hearing on ZTA 24-05 ended, Mayor Pro Tem Matt Neal made a motion to approve the zoning amendment as written except “omitting the text change on page three, line 1200.”

Mr. Neal did not even speak aloud the words that the Planning Board had inserted and overwhelmingly recommended for approval at its Nov. 18 meeting. He used a citation, instead!

When Mayor Elizabeth Morey summarized the Mayor Pro Tem’s motion, she, too, skipped over the Planning Board’s recommended change, referring to it only as omitted text.

ZTA 24-05 ESTABLISHES EXCEPTIONS FOR GETTING PERMIT TO REMOVE TREES IN SETBACKS ON VACANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

The Beacon explained ZTA 24-05 in detail on 11/17/24, and we will be brief here in reminding you what it is about.

In April, the Town Council adopted ZTA 24-02, which was a predecessor bill to ZTA 24-05. That legislation established that an owner of unimproved commercial property must obtain a lot disturbance/stormwater management (“LDSM”) permit before removing trees that are greater than 6 inches in diameter, measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, from within the front, side, and rear yard setbacks on any lot.

ZTA 24-02 amended Town Code section 36-171, which pertains to lot disturbance and stormwater management and sets forth the requirements for an LDSM permit—the obtaining of which is an early step in the building process.

Neither ZTA 24-02 nor ZTA 24-05 was a tree-preservation ordinance: Both dealt with vegetative buffers in lot setback areas, and both only required an LDSM permit before removing large-growth trees; neither prohibited their removal.

The Planning Board sought to extend this permit requirement to owners of undeveloped property in all zoning districts in Southern Shores, even though the Town Council passed ZTA 24-02 because it applied only to the general commercial district. Those three words, all zoning districts, were the “omitted text” that the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem would not say.

ZTA 24-05 also included exceptions to the LDSM permit requirement for proposed tree removal in setback areas of commercial property when an “emergency” exists.

Again, we refer you to our earlier explanation on 11/17/14 and to the meeting preview we published on 11/30/24. Mr. Neal came up with the idea of legislating exceptions to the permit requirement.

See the text of ZTA 24-05 at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/11196.

The Town Council did exactly what The Beacon expected it to do with ZTA 24-05, albeit more furtively and summarily than we think a municipal government should act, so why did the Planning Board expect a different result? Or did it? Was this just a power play? Or was something else afoot? A lack of communication? Of understanding?

The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem both said that in striking the words that they would not speak– “all zoning districts”—from the ZTA, they were restoring what “we originally intended,” which had to do with vegetative buffer requirements in the commercial district.

Mr. Neal’s motion passed, 4-0—Councilman Robert Neilsen was absent—within a minute after it was made and seconded. The emergency exceptions to the permit requirement were in; the extension of the permit requirement to all zoning districts was out.

Give-and-Take Between the Town Council and Planning Board

There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark between the Town Council and the Town Planning Board, which spent considerable time at its Nov. 18 meeting deliberating over the new provisions of ZTA 24-05—an effort that was not recognized by the Council on Tuesday. We note that this is not the first time the Town Council has ignored the Planning Board’s judgment, without offering an on-the-record explanation.

It used to be customary for the Planning Board chairperson to attend Town Council meetings and to explain the Board’s decision-making on Zoning Text Amendments. Longtime Chairperson Sam Williams was a fixture at Town Council meetings, and his successor, Glenn Wyder, was carrying on in Williams’s tradition before he died suddenly in November 2018.

The custom of having the Planning Board Chairperson attend and participate in Town Council meetings ended when now-Mayor Elizabeth Morey assumed the position. Current Chairperson Andy Ward, who succeeded Ms. Morey, has appeared occasionally, but not on a regular basis.

We do not believe that the Town Council gives Planning Board members, all of whom it has appointed, the deference they are due. The Planning Board does not exist to serve the Town Council. It serves the town and its residents, and its voice should be heard and answered.

We would like to hear from the Planning Board Chairperson or another Board member on every ZTA. A public give-and-take between the two commissions should be restored.

2023-24 BEACH MONITORING REPORT NEEDS A PLAIN-ENGLISH SUMMARY.

Before the Town Council dispatched ZTA 24-05, beach nourishment consultant Ken Willson of Coastal Protection & Engineering of North Carolina, gave another redundant, overly complicated presentation to the Council, this time reporting on CPE’s monitoring of the Southern Shores’ shoreline and beach sand volume between June 2023 and June 2024.

CPE submits annual reports on the state of the beaches.

Unfortunately, because he reviews so much, Mr. Willson has been presenting much of the same material to the Town Council since 2017.

We have heard him speak, and read his abstruse reports, for seven years. You may read his latest report, which he submitted with Tuesday night’s presentation, here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/obzhiqimd6hl4pe5r9hgr/2024- SS-KH-KDH-Monitoring-Report.pdf?rlkey=sjpcikcs939y9n3u615f8sn6f&e=1&st=budjawlp&dl=0.

This report includes shoreline and volume changes measured by monitoring the beaches in Kitty Hawk and Kill Devil Hills, as well as Southern Shores, which makes it even more difficult to read.

With all due respect, Mr. Willson has a knack for stringing together familiar words in sentences that are meaningless to most people—except perhaps Mayor Pro Tem Neal and Town Manager Cliff Ogburn.

After he finished, Mayor Morey thanked Mr. Willson for “making” his “comprehensive” report “so we can understand it.”

We doubt anyone in the Pitts Center who listened to his presentation—other than the aforementioned—understood what he said. Mr. Neal’s questions showed familiarity with Mr. Willson’s report.

The Town Council should ask Mr. Willson to explain in one page what the annual beach monitoring showed. Not an “Executive Summary,” like he includes in his report, but a one-page, plain-English, what-did-the-profiling-show synopsis.

If he were to undertake this task, we believe he could write in about 250 words how well the Southern Shores beaches are doing—because of the 2022-23 nourishment project and because of natural forces. All of the figures and coastal-engineering speak that he employs only obscure the bottom-line assessment.

One detail of Mr. Willson’s presentation that was clearly understood by the Town Council, however, was his assumption that the Town will do a 2027 beach-maintenance project that is estimated to cost at least $6.6 million.

Councilman Batenic, who we recall made comments during his first year in office indicating his lack of awareness of the every-five-years “maintenance” schedule, asked Mr. Willson about this eventuality and its cost. His eyes clearly rolled upward, behind his glasses, with mention of the price tag.

Originally appointed to his seat after Town Council Member Elizabeth Morey was elected mayor, Mr. Batenic has proved to be a thoughtful representative of the public, one who has an independent streak that we would like to see him to exercise more often. (He ran for office in 2023 and earned his elected seat.)

When we pointed out to the Mayor in 2020 that Mr. Batenic was not informed about the five-year maintenance plan, she told us that the plan was not set in stone. The Town might not adhere to that schedule, she said. Mr. Willson certainly acted on Tuesday like it is a done deal.

CHICAHAUK SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE IN EXCHANGE FOR MORE SPACE.

Speaking of deals, the Town Council unanimously approved accepting a revised agreement between the Town and the Chicahauk Property Owners Assn. (CPOA) that calls for the Town to do $79,000 of maintenance on Chicahauk sidewalks in exchange for receiving 12,711 more square feet of easement space.

The additional square footage would be incorporated into an existing easement granted to the Town by the CPOA for the Town’s use of a parking area near the Chicahauk Trail and N.C. 12 intersection. (See The Beacon, 11/30/24, for a full description.)

Exercising his independent streak, Mr. Batenic, who is a Chicahauk resident, pointedly asked Town Manager Ogburn: “Is that all we get?”

“Somehow I feel like we’re being hoodwinked here,” he said.

“We’re being handed sidewalks—and being asked to fix them—that they let deteriorate.”

Quite rightly.

In our pre-meeting report 11/30/24, we expressed concern for residents whose back yards might front on the Town’s expanded easement space. We don’t think 10-foot vegetative buffers do much to blunt noise from parking or any other ingress-and-egress with vehicles. But now we appreciate Councilman Batenic’s perspective.

Why isn’t the CPOA contributing some money to the sidewalk repair?

Mr. Ogburn related that the CPOA had declined to make a financial contribution, and because the sidewalks, which the CPOA owns, are in the Town’s right-of-ways, the Town has responsibility for maintaining their condition.

“It’s the best deal we’re going to get,” Mayor Morey said.

HELP WANTED: LONG-RANGE TOWN PLANNING CONSULTANT.

The Town Council held a closed session Tuesday night after completing its business agenda. When it returned, the Mayor announced that she and her colleagues had authorized the Town Manager to hire a consultant “to help us with long-term town planning.” We wonder what the Town Council has in mind, but, as usual, the Mayor offered no elaboration.

---

AND FINALLY, WE CONGRATULATE POLICE CHIEF DAVID M. KOLE on marking 40 years of service in law enforcement.

Southern Shores Deputy Police Chief Jonathan M. Slegel presented Chief Kole with an award Tuesday in recognition of his milestone achievement. The Chief has served in Southern Shores since early 2007. Before arriving in town, he served 22 ½ years as Chief of Police for the Village of Horseheads, N.Y.

In his earlier staff report to the Town Council, Chief Kole announced that Sergeant Matthew W. Cooke received the Police Department’s 2024 “Top Gun” award for having the highest firearms proficiency, and Officer Tracy M. Mann, who is the School Resource Officer, received the 2024 “Officer of the Year” award, an honor given by her peers.

Congratulations to all.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Beacon, 12/5/24

Closure of the Juniper Trail/Trinitie Trail culvert bridge to all traffic–a move that was expected to occur in November–will take place next Monday, Dec. 9, according to a press release issued today by the Town of Southern Shores.

The bridge, well known for its roller-coaster ride despite repeated repairs, will be replaced with a cored slab bridge, the construction of which is expected to take 210 days, or about seven months, to complete, the Town said.

Earlier this year, Town Manager Cliff Ogburn said that construction of the replacement bridge would start in November and be finished by “summer 2025,” with the bridge being closed for up to six months. (See The Beacon, 3/8/24.) The closure period has since increased.

During the closure, no vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists may cross the bridge, and no boaters may pass under it.

The Southern Shores Town Council voted unanimously on Oct. 10 to accept a construction bid of $1,667,178.70 by Smith-Rowe LLC for what is now being called the Trinitie Trail Bridge Construction Project and to authorize the Town Manager to execute a contract on behalf of the Town with the Mt. Airy, N.C. construction company.

Smith-Rowe’s bid was the lowest bid received among four competing contractors. (See The Beacon, 10/10/24.)

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

The Town has been engaged with engineering/planning/design consultant Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., of Raleigh, on this project for about two years.

The bridge replacement is a public construction project and, as such, is subject to N.C. statutory requirements and supervision by the N.C. Dept. of Transportation.

---

REMEMBER: THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETS TOMORROW AT 5:30 p.m. IN THE PITTS CENTER. The Beacon previewed the meeting highlights on Saturday, 11/30/24.

For the meeting agenda and background materials, see https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/soshoresnc-pubu/MEET-Packet-299dadb35c4146129ab0f7870843770f.pdf.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Beacon

Beach nourishment project manager Ken Willson will report on shoreline and sand volume changes on the Southern Shores beaches during the past year at the Town Council’s last meeting of the year, Tuesday, at 5:30 p.m., in the Pitts Center.

The Council also will consider a revised agreement between the Town and the Chicahauk Property Owners Assn. (CPOA) for sidewalk maintenance that would involve the CPOA expanding an existing easement to give the Town more space for vehicular parking; and it will hold a public hearing on the tree removal regulatory change (ZTA 24-05), upon which The Beacon reported 11/17/24.

To read the Tuesday meeting agenda and background materials, go to https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/soshoresnc-pubu/MEET-Packet-299dadb35c4146129ab0f7870843770f.pdf.

You will find all materials related to Zoning Text Amendment 24-05, which the Planning Board unanimously recommended adopting at its Nov. 18 meeting, and to the CPOA-Town agreement regarding the Town’s maintenance of some of the concrete sidewalks owned by the CPOA in the meeting materials. We elaborate on some details below.

Ken Willson, of Coastal Protection & Engineering of North Carolina, has submitted a report covering beach monitoring from June 2023 to June 2024 in Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills. It is available at https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/obzhiqimd6hl4pe5r9hgr/2024-SS-KH-KDH-Monitoring-Report.pdf?rlkey=sjpcikcs939y9n3u615f8sn6f&e=1&st=budjawlp&dl=0.

CPE’s assessment of the Southern Shores beaches is a positive one, with the Northern Section (north of Fourth Avenue) and Central Section of the 2022-23 beach nourishment project area faring better than the problematic Southern Section (south of Chicahauk Trail), which has long been the case.

Mr. Willson’s recommendation is to continue the annual beach monitoring.

According to the agenda, Town Manager Cliff Ogburn will give updates on the Juniper/Trinitie Trail Bridge Replacement Project, which was to start in November, and the Town Hall Renovation Project, which drew only two bids from contractors, both of which far exceeded envisioned costs.

At its November meeting, the Town Council authorized Mr. Ogburn to “value-engineer” with Sussex Development Corp., the low bidder on the Town Hall remodel, and report his progress at next week’s meeting.

Mr. Ogburn has described the renovations as constructing interior “improvements mainly for safety reasons.” The Beacon detailed these improvements in our 11/17/24 report. They include remodeling the front entrance and front reception area of Town Hall, about which there has not been much public discussion, and expanding the property file room, which has been extensively discussed by the Town Council. Files have already been digitized, and the paper versions are being retained.

ADDITIONAL TOWN SPACE IN EXCHANGE FOR SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE?

The CPOA has asked the Town of Southern Shores to assume responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks on the east side of Trinitie Trail, the north side of Chicahauk Trail, and the west side of Spindrift Trail, according to a staff report in the meeting packet. In exchange, the Town has asked that an additional 12,711 square feet of space be incorporated into an existing easement granted to it by the CPOA for the Town’s use of a parking area near the Chicahauk Trail and N.C. 12 intersection.

The proposed additional space abuts the existing easement area on the south end and appears from an aerial view photo to be between the back yards of 93 Ocean Blvd. and 94 Spindrift Trail. (See photo at top.) The Town would be required to maintain a 10-foot vegetative buffer along the boundary line with each of these properties.

The proposed amendment to the easement, which also is included in the meeting packet, refers to buffers with the (rear) property lines of 94 and 96 Spindrift Trail and does not mention 93 Ocean Blvd.

It does not appear to us from the aerial view that there would be an impact on 96 Spindrift Trail, which already backs up to an area of the existing easement. But, if the aerial view is incorrect, and a section of what is designated on the image as “existing easement” is actually proposed additional space, then there should be a buffer with 95 Ocean Blvd., too.

A survey done 9/25/24, and included in the meeting packet, depicts a section labeled “existing easement” in the aerial view as “new easement area.” This will have to be clarified.

According to the staff report, the cost of the repairs to the designated sidewalks is $72,500, and the work has already been put out for, and received, bids.

The staff report dates the sidewalk maintenance agreement to a September 2019 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Town, which owns the rights-of-way upon which the public streets in the Chicahauk Subdivision have been built, and the CPOA, which owns the concrete sidewalks and associated sidewalk infrastructure. (We find the MOU to be a bit sketchy in stating the parties’ intent.)

David A. Stager signed the MOU as president of the Chicahauk Property Owners Assn.

Clearly, the most significant aspect of this sidewalk maintenance-for-larger easement space agreement is the impact the Town’s use of the additional space would have on the abutting properties, even with 10-foot buffers. We certainly would not want a parking lot or Town storage sheds in our back yard. It also would be possible to amend the easement for new uses, not stated in the proposed amendment.

We have long heard that the Town was going to pay for and handle repairs to Chicahauk sidewalks, but this is the first we’ve heard that it has sought an expanded easement in return for the maintenance. We hope the property owners in Chicahauk are aware of this arrangement. It appears from the meeting materials that it is going to be approved on Tuesday.

TREE REMOVAL ZTA EXTENDS PERMIT MANDATE TO ALL ZONING DISTRICTS

As we previously reported, the Town Council adopted in April a Zoning Text Amendment establishing that an owner of unimproved commercial property must obtain a lot disturbance/stormwater management (“LDSM”) permit before removing trees that are greater than 6 inches in diameter, measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, from within the front, side, and rear yard setbacks on any lot.

This ZTA amended Town Code section 36-171, which pertains to lot disturbance and stormwater management and sets forth the requirements for an LDSM permit.

ZTA 24-05, which will be subject to public hearing on Tuesday, proposes expanding this permit requirement to owners of undeveloped property in all zoning districts in Southern Shores, not just the general commercial district. The Planning Board felt strongly that the requirement should apply throughout Town and requested this ZTA. (See The Beacon, 11/17/24.)

See the text of ZTA 24-05 at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/11196.

ZTA 24-05 also contains a new proposed subsection of 36-171 that spells out exceptions to the permit requirement for tree removal when an “emergency” exists. Under the proposed new regulation, tree emergencies are deemed to exist when:

(a) A tree has become an imminent danger or hazard to persons or property as a result of fire, motor vehicle accident, or natural occurrence such as lightning, windstorm, ice storm, flood or other similar event; or

(b) A tree must be removed in order to perform emergency repair or replacement of public or private water, sewer, electric, gas, or telecommunications utilities.

In the case of a tree emergency, the Zoning Administrator (Planning Director Wes Haskett) would have the authority to issue an LDSM within 72 hours after a tree is removed or to waive the LDSM requirement.

Please note that the permit requirement only applies to the removal of large trees in the setback areas of an undeveloped lot, not to large trees elsewhere on a property.

Also on the Town Council meeting agenda are the proposed reappointments of Regular Members Charlie Andrews and Michael Guarracino to new three-year terms on the Southern Shores Historic Landmarks Commission and the appointment of Alternate Member Wander Brett-Jordan to a three-year term on the Commission to succeed outgoing Regular Member Tony DiBernardo.

---

EXTRA BULLETIN: SETBACK FOR MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE

The Outer Banks Voice reported on Wednesday that the N.C. Turnpike Authority will not be receiving a requested $425 million federal grant to fund the Mid-Currituck Bridge, whose cost is now estimated to be $1.139 billion. The Turnpike Authority will have to identify another source of funds to make up for the shortfall.

Southern Shores Town Manager Ogburn is quoted at the end of the article as being disappointed and describing the “planning and preparation” for the bridge as “a continuous one step forward, two steps back.”

Mentioned in the article are “other proposals to alleviate the traffic woes,” which those of us who have been in town for a while have heard before and rejected. They include a “flyover at the NC12/US158 intersection in Kitty Hawk and improvements to N.C. 12,” according to The Voice.

The only “improvement” we have ever heard discussed is the widening of Highway 12 in Southern Shores.

We refer you to The Outer Banks Voice for more on the subject.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Beacon

The Beacon will preview next Tuesday’s Town Council meeting tomorrow and report on the meeting next week. We did not want to leave Santa Claus out.

Happy Holidays.

The Town Planning Board will revisit an ordinance regulating tree removal on unimproved lots at its regular monthly meeting tomorrow at 5 p.m., and the newly formed Southern Shores Entry Corridor Committee will hold its first meeting at 10 a.m. Wednesday.
Both meetings will be held in the Pitts Center.
No agenda for the Corridor Committee has been posted on the Town website. The Planning Board agenda may be found at https://www.southernshores- nc.gov/media/11201.
If the Planning Board recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 24-05, which will be before it tomorrow, it may find itself in opposition to views held by members of the Town Council, including Mayor Elizabeth Morey.
While property owners often speak of “individual property rights” as if they were absolute, such rights have long been subjugated to reasonable land-use and zoning regulations that are designed to protect and preserve communities.

PLANNING BOARD HAS SHOWN INTEREST IN REGULATING REMOVAL OF TREES IN YARD SETBACKS ON UNIMPROVED LOTS THROUGHOUT TOWN; TOWN COUNCIL HAS LIMITED REGULATION TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

On April 9, the Town Council adopted Zoning Text Amendment 24-02, which established that a property owner must obtain a lot disturbance/stormwater management (“LDSM”) permit before removing trees that are greater than 6 inches in diameter, measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, within the front, side, and rear yard setbacks on any unimproved lot in the general commercial zoning district.
ZTA 24-02 amended Town Code section 36-171, which pertains to lot disturbance and stormwater management and sets forth the requirements for an LDSM permit. (Chapter 36 of the Town Code is the zoning chapter.)
ZTA 24-02 was a much narrower version of an earlier proposed ordinance, known as ZTA 24-01, that also addressed tree removal and LDSM permits.
ZTA 24-01 required property owners in all zoning districts, not just the general commercial district, to obtain a LDSM permit before removing trees of the specified size from anywhere on an unimproved lot, not just those in the setback areas.
Neither ZTA had any relevance to developed lots.
The Planning Board was scheduled to take action on ZTA 24-01 at its Feb. 21 meeting, but Planning Director/Deputy Managing Editor Wes Haskett withdrew the proposed ordinance, informing the Board that ZTA 24-01 would be redrafted into a new ZTA. He did not explain why.
The revised ZTA 24-02 came before the Planning Board at its March 18 meeting, with its application narrowed to the commercial district only and to trees only in the setback areas, not elsewhere on lots. When questioned about the omission of other zoning districts, in particular, residential districts, Mr. Haskett referred to a preference for focusing on buffers between commercial property and adjacent lots and for not burdening residential property owners.
The five-member Board discussed the ZTA thoroughly, unanimously expressing disappointment that the proposed ordinance no longer applied to residential districts, just the commercial district.
The Board viewed the objective of the ZTA as protecting adjacent properties from stormwater runoff, which typically increases when old-growth trees that absorb the water are removed.
Board Chairperson Andy Ward was especially adamant that the tree-removal permit requirement be extended to residential districts.
The Planning Board ultimately decided to recommend approval of ZTA 24-02, as presented—by a 4-1 vote, with Mr. Ward dissenting—while also recommending, by consensus, that the tree-removal permit requirement be applied to property owners in the residential districts.
The Town Council did not mention this request during its discussion on April 9 after the public hearing on ZTA 24-02. It unanimously approved the ordinance. ZTA 24-02 became law.
The Planning Board brought up the issue again at its June 17 meeting and asked Mr. Haskett to draft a new ZTA to apply the tree-removal permit requirement now imposed only on commercial property owners to property owners in all zoning districts.
ZTA 24-05, which the Planning Board will consider at its meeting tomorrow, is the result.
See the text of ZTA 24-05 at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/11196.
ZTA 24-05 also contains a new proposed section spelling out exceptions to the permit requirement for tree removal when an “emergency” exists. Mayor Pro Tem Matt Neal first mentioned carving out emergency exceptions, for commercial property owners, at the April 9 public hearing.
According to ZTA 24-05, tree emergencies are deemed to exist when:
(a) A tree has become an imminent danger or hazard to persons or property as a result of fire, motor vehicle accident, or natural occurrence such as lightning, windstorm, ice storm, flood or other similar event; or
(b) A tree must be removed in order to perform emergency repair or replacement of public or private water, sewer, electric, gas, or telecommunications utilities.
The Town’s current Land Use Plan sets forth two land-use compatibility policies that are pertinent to ZTA 24-05: 1) “to monitor and preserve maritime forests and other tree canopy coverage”; and 2) “to consider reviewing standards for tree preservation in new development and redevelopment to ensure they protect and preserve the existing canopy and forest coverage.”
Mr. Haskett cites these policies in his staff report on ZTA 24-05 and recommends approval of the proposed ordinance.
See his staff report at https://www.southernshores-nc.gov/media/11191.
Assuming the Planning Board recommends approval of ZTA 24-05, the measure will likely be subject to a public hearing before the Town Council in January.

HIGHLIGHTS OF TOWN COUNCIL’S NOV. 12 MEETING

The Town Council’s November meeting lasted just a little over an hour. Some highlights include:

TOWN HALL RENOVATIONS: Town Manager Cliff Ogburn informed the Town Council that he had received only two bids for the Town Hall Renovation Project, which he described as constructing interior “improvements mainly for safety reasons.”
The project was bid twice because the Town did not receive the minimum three bids the first time it advertised. The same two bidders, however, submitted bids both times: They were Sussex Development Corp., which was low bidder at $512,041.23; and AR Chesson Construction, which came in slightly higher at $522,000.
Both of these bids exceed the $380,000 that the Town has budgeted for the Town Hall remodel, and neither includes important security improvements for the Police Department and the Pitts Center. Mr. Ogburn sought the Town Council’s permission to “value-engineer” with Sussex to see if he could redefine the project at a lower cost.
Mr. Ogburn and the Town Council engaged in a prolonged discussion about the scope, cost, and priority of various Town Hall renovations, which have long been envisioned, but heretofore not undertaken. According to the Town Manager, they include:
*Making the front entrance compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act
*Remodeling the front reception area, so that the receptionist faces the entry door
*Installing more secure doors and glass
*Expanding the property file room and the conference room
*Removing the half-wall between the front reception area and the current office of Permit Officer Marcey Baum
Mr. Ogburn also identified the replacement of 13 doors in the Police Department (10), and the Pitts Center (three), as well as three doors in the Town Hall, with a new secure door-access system that employs safety glass and cameras as a top priority.
The Town Council gave him permission to proceed with the 16 doors, which Mr. Ogburn priced at $94,573, only $38,00 of which, he said, was included in Sussex’s bid.
The cost to expand the file room has previously been estimated at $111,000, but it was unclear from the Manager-Council discussion how the cost for other improvements might break down. The Council authorized Mr. Ogburn to value-engineer with Sussex and come back with his results.
LIGHT POLLUTION INITIATIVE: In her Council comments at the end of the meeting, Councilwoman Paula Sherlock said several residents had approached her with questions about Dare County’s initiative to reduce light pollution.
We are aware that the Town of Duck has had a Dark Sky Ordinance since its 2002 incorporation, but we have not heard of a county-wide initiative.
Ms. Sherlock said she would look into what Dare County is doing to reduce artificial lighting and see if Southern Shores can join in any on-going effort.
Light pollution can harm wildlife, detract from the natural environment, and diminish residents’ quality of life. We look forward to hearing what Ms. Sherlock has to say at the December Town Council meeting.
PROTECTION OF JOCKEY’S RIDGE: The Town Council unanimously approved a Town resolution in support of reinstituting the designation of an “Area of Environmental Concern” (AEC) for Jockey’s Ridge State Park. The resolution was included in the Council’s consent agenda and did not receive any discussion.

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Beacon

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

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

The event is free to all members of the public.

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

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

Among the upcoming events are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOCAL DISCOUNTS FOR DARE COUNTY VETERANS WITH ID CARDS

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

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

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

Elsewhere in recognition of Veterans Day:

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

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

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

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

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

AND DON’T FORGET: TUESDAY IS ELECTION DAY.

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TEDIOUS, EXHAUSTIVE HEARING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACCESS TO SUBDIVISION LOTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMUNICATING WITH AGGRIEVED PROPERTY OWNERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOMEOWNERS HAVE ALREADY SUED THE TOWN, 11 OTHERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZONING CHANGE AFTER PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ON HILLCREST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE LOT-WIDTH “QUAGMIRE”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon

Revised, 10/20/24

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

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

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

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

*Mayor Elizabeth Morey

*Mr. Neal himself

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

*Wes Haskett, Deputy Town Manager/Town Planning Director

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

*Jim Gould, Community Planner for the Town of Duck

*Linda Lauby, an independent publisher and writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*The Mayor or another Council member

*The Mayor Pro Tem or another Council member

*Two commercial property owners

*Three at-large members

*The Deputy Town Manager/Planning Director

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

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

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

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

*******

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

*Current Town ordinances

*Enhancements for pedestrians and bicyclists

*Connectivity

*Architectural standards

*Economic vitality

*Potential stressors, such as burdens on adjacent property owners

*A Process for continuous review for compliance and success

*Maintenance of the Town’s identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A WORD ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Ann G. Sjoerdsma, The Southern Shores Beacon