Council - Regular Meeting

to begin our meeting.

Good evening everyone and welcome to the June 1st, 2026 Kitty Hawk town council meeting. We're in the Smith room tonight and welcome. For those of you who are able and will stand and join us in a moment of silence and the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Council, do I have a motion to approve tonight's agenda?

So moved, Madam Mayor. Second.

Thank you. All in favor?

Aye.

Public comment. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up for public comment?

We do.

Thank you.

And Eddie, Eddie, I don't know if you're here to talk about number 10, old business, that zoning text amendment, but we are going to reopen public hearing if council decides to go forward with a hearing tonight and you'd be afforded an opportunity to speak then. If that's what you're going to address.

Okay.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to approve tonight's consent agenda?

So moved.

Thank you. Thank you, Pete. Second. Second. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Do you know of that? Let's see, no items removed. We will need to schedule a public hearing. A special use permit. Do I have a motion to schedule a public hearing on the next meeting, the 6th of July? permit for an apartment on the second story of compatible commercial use?

I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion, Madam Mayor. I move to set a public hearing at the Town Council meeting on July 6, 2026 to consider a special use permit application for an apartment on the second story of a compatible commercial use at 5118 Lindbergh Avenue.

Thank you, Dylan. Do I have a second? Okay, thank you. All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. Do I have a motion to go into public hearing regarding the fiscal year 2026-27 budget? So moved. Second. Thank you, David. All in favor?

Aye.

Council? Aye. Do I have anybody that would like to speak at the public hearing? Has anybody signed up, Lauren? Okay. Does anybody want to speak? All right. Well, and we'll move on and come out of public hearing. Do I have a motion to come out? So moved. Thank you. Second. Thank you. And all in favor? Aye. Thank you. Council, now we need to appoint some board members.

Approve the budget. Hmm? Approve the budget.

Oh, approve the budget.

Okay. Madam Mayor, I make a motion to approve the fiscal year 2026-2027 budget as proposed.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. Very good. Now we go into appointment. Is that what you believe? That's what we, then we go into appointment? Okay. We have had a, a couple of late people of late to come and to decide that they didn't want to be renewed as in their place on their committees. And so on the Recreation Committee, we're gonna just talk about the ones that we are reinstating and then we'll deal with filling those positions at the next meeting. Do I have any nominations for the committee? Which one are we starting on?

Planning board. Planning board. Do we have any?

They're all the same. They're all the same people. There's not any. Everybody wanted to stay on the planning board, and they're all the same.

Okay. Still them all together? I was going to ask Casey, can we clump them all together? Sure. And reappoint. All right. So I'll make a motion. Yep. Casey, just make a regular motion, or is there a certain language I need to use?

No, no, I mean just a motion to reappoint those who are currently serving in regular and alternate member positions.

So I can just make one motion but club them all together? Right.

Okay. All right.

I make a motion to reappoint Brian Parker, Matt Spencer, Blair Meese, David Borden.

That'll work.

In their currently served positions they currently serve. As they currently serve to the planning board with the term of office expiring on June 3rd of 28th. I'll second that.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Now let's do the Board of Adjustments, please.

Before we move on, we need to also appoint a Vice Chair for that.

Okay.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Yeah. Correct.

I'm sorry. I thought that was, y'all want to keep it the same or?

I thought that would be Brian in the same position. Same position. Okay. So just for clarity, David, your motion included the appointment of Brian Parker as vice chair.

As vice chair. June 30th of 2028. Okay.

That'll work.

Thank you.

Is that good, Laura? Yes. For you? Okay.

Um, now we can go on to the, um, sort of adjustments. And these are all the same appointments. We can do the same thing with this one to go ahead and do them all at the same time.

Madam mayor, I make a motion to appoint Blair Meads, Fran Dunn, Bill Yetzer, Jamie Hines, Jr. to the Board of Adjustments with a term of office to expire on June the 30th, 2029 in the positions they currently hold.

Thank you.

For clarity, should we call out Blair as well, like we did for Payne?

Didn't I say Blair?

Yeah, for chair.

And I would think is in the current position they own as chair. To include chairman, yes. And add his vice chair, right?

Abby is, Abby Berkowitz is vice chair.

She's not even on here. She's not. Oh, she's not on there. Okay.

All right. I just knew she was vice chair. Um, all in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Madam Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to appoint to the Recreation Committee Mr. Paul Enriquez, Mr. Dave Klebitz, and Ms. Grace Onloff as a member of the Recreation Committee with a term of office to expire June 30, 2030.

Thank you. Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you. All in favor?

Aye.

and we will take the other, the recreation committee We'll take the other appointments from next meeting.

Do we have a seat to fill still?

So we have, am I allowed to go to comment now? Yeah. So we have two more seats. The Recreation Committee usually has five members. We have some folks that have showed interest in application. We'd like to be able to review those and come back before this council. I would recommend that those two appointments be for two years. And the purpose for two years is that somehow we got off cycle. Instead of the board turning over all at once, we just approved three for four years. Then we'll approve two for two years. And once their term's up, if they want to continue and we approve it, then we'll do it for another four years after that. And that'll allow us to get back on track with a staggered board turnover.

Thank you. So it looks like Abby Burgess was wanting to be on the Recreation Committee. She's already on the Board of Adjustments. Do we still need to?

She felt like she wanted more to do.

So we still want to wait to appoint her to that? Mm-hmm. Okay, gotcha.

Tonight we are responding. to a citizen's request to amend a resolution adopted at our last meeting. The request is to designate 158 as a memorial highway in honor of Daryl Collins instead of renaming the highway. Council, we have an amended resolution before us. Do I have a motion to approve?

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you. All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Can we read the motion out loud?

Sure.

I mean... Yeah, absolutely.

If you want to.

I mean, I would like to... The resolution, you mean? The recommended resolution, the motion for the resolution.

Absolutely.

And the reason was is because... It's not that the road's name, it's just going to be designated. I make a motion to approve the revised resolution supporting designation of a section of the U.S. 158 in honor of Darrell McNary Collins. That was the resolution.

All right.

Thank you, Jeff.

Thank you. There was some issue with thinking that everybody had to change their addresses, so we didn't want to go through that, so we changed the verbiage a little bit. We also have had a request from citizens to lower the speed limit on Highway 158 to 45 miles per hour. My understanding is the town would like to make this a request. We cannot, we can, we contact DOT. We can't do it. We have to do it through DOT. Staff is asking for direction on this request.

I mean, by and large, we don't control speed limits.

We don't, but we can call them and tell them that we've had a request and that it's an issue. And I think the main place that they're worried about is in front of Walmart and the banks. If you've got a big truck coming down there, it's awfully hard at 50 miles an hour for them to stop on.

And everybody merges.

Exactly. So that bears some investigating, I think.

I also agree. We've had multiple this over my time here. This is probably the third. I know two people have came and spoke. I think it's worthwhile to have staff contact and ask the state for a consideration of reducing the speed limit to 45 along the bypass. And I think we have a corridor in here that, where we were talking about. And so, um, like I said, it's a What's happening is they're running through the stoplight trying to beat the stoplight and come to 50, and so they can go 50 and try to beat the stoplight. So it's the whole area from the bridge, I think, all the way up to probably the Welcome Center, I think, basically is what we're talking about.

Is that the request duration, or is it the entire town of Kitty Hawk? I think it was just right here at the Walmart.

I think it was pretty, it didn't clarify. I definitely think we need to adjust the speed limit in front of that congested area, but I'm not sure about any more.

I would suggest somebody call Tess Judge. She's our sitting board member. Start with her.

Can I ask Chief Palcomix, do you notice anything in that area off the bridge? Is that a common problem area with speeding or accidents or anything that would involve?

The school is there as well. The school is there.

I can't say we write a lot of tickets and do that. Yes, there are people that speed. from this amount. They do speed studies and they look at the 85th percentile is what they're looking for on that to determine what is the normal flow. Like when you drive on the road, there's a flow that the road makes you feel like you can drive as well. So that's kind of the science behind it and I'm not that science person to tell you that. But I can just tell you from an enforcement perspective, I can't tell you it's any worse there or anywhere else. We've been doing a lot of red light enforcement lately, and most of our efforts and success has actually been out here in Kitty Hawk Road and Aetna. I have personally sat the other two up there, right at Dogwood and the Woods Road, and I think only one, two violations I have seen there for running red light.

If the speed limit was lowered from a 50 to a 45, do you anticipate that that would reduce the number of incidents happening?

I couldn't predict that, right? Because when they do that, they're also going to change the light cycles. The speed limit also coincides with the amount of yellow you have, the duration through that. I'll tell you right now, the positive thing is with traffic, we're monitoring the intersection on weekends. on Saturday specifically. And the past two weekends, we have not had any real traffic issues at that. Part of that is timing, not the speed. I'm not talking about that, because at that point, you're driving 150 miles an hour when we get to the congestion. But the timing often worked very well.

I mean, that trailer will increase. I mean, it's still early. That's not really possible. That's correct. But in off-season, it's...

We were glad we didn't, which I think there's a lot of initiatives that are playing into that, which is good. I mean, it's taken several years to get to that point.

Do you or any of your officers ever catch yourself saying, boy, I wish that speed limit was lower than it is?

No. OK. No, we really have not discussed it that much. OK. I can just say we do see some high speeds go through there. No question about it.

As you would probably anywhere. OK.

we'd be more happy to put it out there, but it wouldn't be an official like DOT could do. To give you the official counts. It gives us an idea of where we need to be and when we need to be there.

I feel like more of a problem going north than south. You have all that merger right there. When you're coming north to south, it's pretty straight.

Starting at the Welcome Center.

It's crazy right there, that merger going north. If it's 45 across the bridge, it's reasonable to me to keep it 45 coming back off the bridge through, I don't know, maybe Echner?

So if I could make a recommendation, possibly, because we've got two things going here. There was a concern about speed, which, you know, there's data on that, but there's another. The mayor said that, and I personally think that a 50 zone with a turn and a merge and stoplights, that does seem awful fast, and if you're doing the typical five over like most people do, now you're at 55 going through there, and you're still probably not getting a ticket. Point being is I'm not a traffic expert, but I don't know if NC DOT's got the capability to do a study. I do know we're doing the bicycle and pedestrian multimodal study, which we'll look at the pedestrian and bike side of that, and we've already kind of identified that in one of the first meetings as a hotspot, so I'm sure that will be discussed during that study this year. If there's another NC DOT study, I would just recommend, whether it's Test Judge or whoever that would do that, that would be my recommendation. Because I've got my gut, but I'm not an expert, and I think that it's too fast, but I'm not certain of that.

And that is part and parcel. of what the state would be doing. So you guys are making, you'd be making a request that they come investigate. You can put, which means study, you can put an emphasis on a particular corridor. End of the day, the state's going to decide what they want to do, where they want to do it, if anything, right? So, but a study is part, if they If they take the request up, of course, that's step one. But if they do, that's part of what they would do. Which would help determine the justification for such a request.

And that would be a request on behalf of the town to NC DOT. This body would probably be in favor of, I'm guessing, and I don't know if that goes out. That wouldn't be a resolution or anything, but just a request.

Yeah, just a consensus generated.

We had the roads reduced from. Right here coming in Shelby at 1 times 35. Poor Ridge Road is 35, and the town requested that they, and I guess they studied it, and I think it's either Duck or Southern Shores just recently had theirs dropped so that golf carts can't, I think that was their request.

They did a portion of 12, yep.

So, I mean, it's something that most likely I think they will look into, but whether we'll get the request, that's up to the flow rate.

Well, again, that's where Tess comes in. She's our liaison, and she lives here. She's a board member of POT, so she's as high as it gets on the board, right? She's been here a long time, so she's aware of that merger of traffic coming in there. I mean, it's dangerous going north.

We have so many delivery trucks, whether it's beverages or just delivery trucks that come through there, that it would be really hard for them to stop at $50 an hour.

I have no concern with asking the question.

I think we should follow up with asking and going further.

Do you want focus on a particular section or do you want town wide?

I'm not in favor of town wide.

I would just say from the welcome center to the bridge.

As you head to that turn, head northbound, as you head to that real turn at the intersection.

Once you get by the intersection at Walmart and Home Depot and everything you know I would think of that from that stoplight at that corner back to the bridge And now we go into old business and we have a zoning test amendment I

Mayor, do you want me to kind of reset the clock here on this one? So first and foremost, last, when this was scheduled for the public hearing, this was set. Prior to really opening the hearing, you guys heard from me there was a letter in opposition submitted by a lawyer and my advice was let's continue it, revisit it, allow me and Rob to do some research. So what I'd like to do before, if it's okay with council, before we open the public hearing, kind of give you where our research led us on the legality uh particular to down zoning um the potential legal issues with this proposed text amendment to determine whether or not you guys even want to move forward with a public hearing at this time. That way we're not wasting anybody's time and effort to speak if you guys don't choose to move forward. resetting this what the text amendment was designed to do it's it's town initiated meaning rob prepared it and put it forward the what we're amending was citizen proposed just for clarity so we're amending language that was proposed by a citizen that was adopted by the town some wild time some while back there was some dispute and what's being proposed here was intended to clear up the dispute of whether or not the footprint which we've got a 40 000 square foot limit on building area in this particular zoning district the idea and the original analysis by you guys was that building area meant the footprint i'm sorry the total sorry the total square footage of the structure itself that was your understanding when the ordinance was adopted. That got challenged. The Board of Adjustments overturned that interpretation, if you will, and stated that no, building area actually means the building footprint. So it's 40,000 square feet building footprint subject to height limitations set by other things within the within the zoning ordinance that allow restrictions on size but the 40 000 in and of itself square feet was just referring to footprint this text amendment would revert, not revert, it would report a change building area and define it as total square footage. Because right now what we've got is what the Board of Adjustments said, which is that it's the footprint. That that's where it sits, that's how it must be interpreted right now. So Rob and I, well, I did my own research, but also Rob went to the School of Government, which is always, as you guys know by now, a source that is second to none, probably, when it comes to... Legal pitfalls of land use matters. So interestingly enough, the response is, and the reason I'm talking about this as opposed to maybe closed session is I want the town citizens as well to understand that this wasn't something proposed trying to sneak something past. This very well could be legal, but what the school of government said is It's untested, we don't know yet. It could be argued both ways. That's the response we got, meaning the issue being is changing building area to mean the total square footage Of course, that is now setting a maximum square footage of a commercial building, right? So does that amount to downzoning because you're decreasing the density of the development? That's where the issue falls. Does such an ordinance or adopting such an ordinance decrease the density? And if it does, then it's now currently, as of 2025, when this downzoning legislation got adopted, that would be illegal downzoning. Now, as to that issue, the School of Government, along with my line of thinking and Rob's line of thinking, said, You can argue it that, yes, it is a decrease in density because you're changing the intensity of the use itself, meaning the less square footage, the less customers. It goes hand in hand. And if you're increasing, since we're dealing with commercial and not residential where you've got your floor area ratios and all that good stuff, we're dealing with a scenario where a court would end up having to decide whether or not decreasing patronage customers through the decrease in square footage and and losing the intensity of use is actually a decrease in density there's one way to argue the other way to argue it is that well no because you can still build in the same square foot you're not changing the amount of land that can be built upon you're just changing in reality how big the structure could actually be from the ground up. But you're not disturbing what is actually developable on the ground. Thus, you're not decreasing density. Now, I'm saying all this because if we adopt it, Clearly, none of us know what might happen. It may get challenged. And I just wanted you guys to be aware that right now, even the School of Government is saying it could go potentially either way and ultimately will take judicial intervention by somebody. So at some point, it'll get tested. Now, I'm not, in other words, some other town maybe even adopt something similar to this and the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court comes down and tells us what's happening. I would also note, just for your consideration, a lot of bills that are i won't say a lot but there are just as there were several down zoning bills there are bills being circulated right now that are attempting to amend and undo what a lot of people believe to be a far too depending how you look at it far too restrictive or or ordinate or statute on the town or municipality's ability to zone and adopt zoning amendments. Okay, so just as there were proponents, there's a lot of folks out there who are not for this. Those bills are circulating. Of course, we have no timeline on it, but ultimately I think the General Assembly will address the precise uncertainty that I'm discussing with you right now. The other side of that is the What we're talking about, the amendment itself, is of a special use. The many warehouses, if you guys recall that, that's where the building area came into play. So there are also other conditions and requirements within the code that provide council leverage when considering special use permits and manners in which to deal with what perhaps is too big for a certain area or something of that nature. I'm not talking anything site specific. My point being, there are other things built into the ordinance that give certain discretion to the town without even changing what we've currently got on paper. I'm noting all that for your consideration. I'll answer any questions that you want. However, here's what I'm saying, I guess at the end of the day, is if council is of the opinion that the uncertainty of this thing and with other avenues being there, perhaps this isn't the right way to go and that's the way you guys feel as a majority, then we should not even move forward with the public hearing tonight. So that's why I bring that up for consideration prior.

I'm going to go back to the original timelines and all this. I was the lone vote for it, and I still interpret it the same way that the Board of Adjustments overturned it, too. So you're saying that the School of Government is still either way on it because it hadn't really been tested, right? So to me, that would be downzoning.

Well, yeah. We've not asked the School of Government, hey, who got it right, the Board of Adjustments or the town? I understand. Mark, what is up in the air is, to say it as succinct, I guess, as possible, is in a commercial zone is setting a maximum square footage of a commercial structure down zoning through reduction of density. That is what the school of government is saying can be argued both ways right now as a lawyer i want to try to give you something concrete of course but lawyers get paid to argue too and then that's why law is made right so i just filling you guys in on where this legal research took us and for your discussion like you're doing right now from your standards it's perfect because like what side am i on i can argue either way right yeah i mean yeah i'd much rather have something concrete for you though obviously but but yeah i mean it is it subject to scrutiny of course it is that's what the school of government say but i feel like this it's kind of like an hoa right if you want to stop vacation rentals in there you have to have it in the language from the very beginning you can't back into it 10 years later and say you can't rent your house if we want to reduce square footage we should have done it before there was an application well and to be clear application-wise this right now is not well I can't say it's not affecting any application I know one has been submitted I think their towns in the process of responding to them concerning that but it's this really this consideration as opposed to that should be is this something that the town feels strong enough about that they guys want to give it a shot. Knowing that again there may be some legal scrutiny put on it and knowing that the answer from the courts right now is an uncertainty. It's a big philosophical argument at this point. That's all it is.

I just have to look at it like this. You have a footprint and you have a height restriction. Whether it's 10,000 square feet or 100,000 square feet, if it fits the footprint and the height, how can you take that away?

Well, and again, just back to what I was saying earlier, not to get too deep into any special use permit considerations, because I'm not putting anything into anybody's brain here, but you know, you still do have compatibility and harmony with surrounding area. That goes to size. I mean, there's a, again, there are provisions within the ordinance already without this text amendment that aid and assist in providing certain discretion to, to the town. So.

So, Casey, I'm just bringing up a question for discussion. I'm not an attorney, but in terms of zoning, density to me has always been units per acre. Nothing about building square foot per acre. Right. And now we're thinking that it's possible that square foot per acre would... changing that would cause a downzoning in density?

So, I mean, that's a good question. And we're getting into, which, again, of course you know the technical side of things, given your career. And instead of, the way I, you really, We don't have that units per acre ordeal here. Because residential, it's very easy to determine, in my mind. I mean, either you're saying a house is small or not. But with commercial, because of certain things like units per acre. measurements, I guess, if you will, from a land development, the intensity side of things, given they're different, the way the School of Government and the way a lot of the legal scholars out there are currently putting this out is that there is a chance that a judge could say, well, since you don't have the same measuring parameters for density that you do in a, like a subdivision, for example, a residential subdivision, Is it in fact, this would be for a court to decide, but is it in fact decreasing density by saying Now you can't have as big of a structure, which will by default, they look more towards intensity, or scholars are saying the courts could look at intensity of the use as compared to the development, how much area are you taking up, things of that nature.

That's significant, because that impacts other things other than just what we're here to talk about tonight. So that could have bigger ramifications. So I don't know if this is another way of saying what Councilman Tillett just said, but is this statement accurate that the state statute does not define density? And then, but the town's ordinance defines density as the number of dwelling units or hotel units permitted on a parcel. Correct.

Okay. And that, but again, we can't supersede Prime example was the Board of Adjustments hearing in this particular case. They pulled out state statutes. That's what the applicant did. And they used state statutes as their foundation for their interpretation, which the Board of Adjustments agreed with. We can't usurp state power. We can't go and contradict within our ordinance and create our own definition if the state has left something out there that's loose or vulnerable to attack. So in certain cases, I take it back, there may be certain cases you can, but something such as this, no, no. This is a case where regardless of what our ordinance defines this as, I think the School of Government's point is there's still, there could be some judge that says that no intent, and that goes back to the whole point of discussion here. There could be some judge that says this is fine. It can be argued both ways.

So I guess what I'm saying is, and maybe what Councilman Till was saying is, without a state definition of density, we do have a town ordinance right now that does define it. So that's basically all we have to go on. We can guess that a judge might do this or whatever, but the school of government could probably pitch an argument here. But I'm just trying to figure out what we have on the books now and how does that...

But we do have to, I will say, we do have to look beyond our books. We've got to look beyond our ones.

So what is that? What are we missing then? What's out beyond our books?

The world of unknown. The world of... I mean, literally, taking the practical consideration of, all right, if I take a... hotel and I say that I'm gonna now they should be able to build something with you know room for 600 rooms within there but our ordinance is going to make sure that they only have 200 rooms that's kind of what's happened okay it may be taking up the same area on the ground because there's less floors or something of that nature because now they can't meet a square foot requirement But obviously it's going to be far more intense if it's a 600-room hotel than if it's a 200-room hotel. So what is density pursuant to state law? That's where we're at.

Yeah, and so I would say, and I'm just throwing this out there because this is a little tricky, but I would say that the density calculation, let me just say the business commercial size, square footage size, which is BC1, BC2, BC3 for us, may be totally different than a BC1, it won't be BC, of course, but whatever the commercial is in Raleigh.

Mm-hmm.

I could tell you, wherever BC 3 in Raleigh is, it's probably way over 120,000 square feet. Certainly. But in Kitty Hawk, not so much.

And all they're going to do, this is what the court case will look like. What is the language? They don't care what town it is. They're going to say, what does the language currently say? What is the proposed change? And does this decrease density in that particular town's zoning? Not... The way the town defines density. There will be a court definition that results from a case such as this. Which may be, well, I don't think there's any doubt. I think that's why there's so many...

But you see what I'm saying, though? No, I do. And I think that's why they're saying it could be argued both ways. Yeah, somebody determining density in Raleigh is going to totally be different than what we determine density here. And so that, to me, says that even more so we need to kind of look at what our ordinance says and how do we define this ourselves. The state lacks the clarification, so we need to deal with what we have, which is what does the town of Kitty Hawk want as far as their...

density and so i don't disagree with that i don't disagree with that at all and i think i mean it everything that all you guys have said is exactly why the school of government saying it can be argued both ways i mean i could sit here and play devil's advocate i could sit here and say why On either shoulder. I could tell you why I think it's fine. I could tell you where I could see some weaknesses. But that's just me as a lawyer arguing. What's before you is that this might be legal. But it might not be. Literally, that's what's before the town for consideration. And it's not an easy one. But again, why I say just bear in mind what other prongs of, because when you look at it, what really is happening here is you guys want your original intent on it. That's what's going on. But are there other provisions in the code that assist with that intent?

The answer is yes, there are.

So just... That's my two cents on that issue. But what I don't want is y'all looking at me three months from now saying, why don't you tell me to adopt that ordinance? Now we got sued up, something of that. So I just, again, I'm pointing out Chris. I'm also pointing out positives. I mean.

I appreciate that. Well played, well played.

This whole thing started with a cute little Warehouse and all we wanted all this person wanted was to change the verbiage and add many warehouse to a conditional use And it was two stories. We grilled that person. We said no loading docks No, no campers parked in there. No, no trailers parked in there There'll be a receptionist at the front and all that and all of this came down to where we are right now and And it was a lack of definition between square footage and footprint.

Yes.

And here we are.

That's right. I have a question. Do you think that with the Board of Adjustments making the decision they did would have any influence on the outcome either way?

No. No, I mean, that's a... I say moot. That's not really the right... We didn't appeal that for various reasons. And honestly, I... Don't know how that would have went, but we had a closed session about that. But having said that, no, that decision is what it is, and I don't think it is negative or positive. No, I think, again, like I said, it comes down to what the language currently says. and what we're proposing to change. Now, the Board of Justice decision becomes part of that why we're proposing to change it, but I don't see that as being a polar here or negative or positive as far as this particular decision. Because certainly, I just said it a while ago, the idea behind this was never Anything other than trying to rectify what was originally intended in your minds when you adopted this thing, which got overturned by the Board of Adjustments. That's what this was. And there's no secret about that. It came down to definition. Right. And there's no secrets about that. And that's why I don't think that particular Board of Adjustments decision impacts us one way or another.

Okay.

What would you like to do with this?

I mean, I think it's fair to get citizen input on it. I mean, it's a public hearing. Maybe somebody wants to come and talk about it. I'd like to hear what the residents think.

Well, just be careful and mindful, though, if the consensus is already that you don't want to move forward with it, I would advise you not to hold a public hearing on this because... There's no need. It's superfluous at that particular point. At this point, we're talking strictly legal.

Is one of our options tonight to postpone this for another month, just like we did last month? Is that an option, or is the two options we need to do is not move forward? No, I think that's an option.

That's absolutely an option.

I was just asking, next month, what will we accomplish? What information will we gather that would help?

Here's the only thing that I could imagine is that we maybe do... a special meeting that involves closed session with me where I can, I wanted the public to be aware tonight since, of course, we did postpone it last time because of me doing the research. I did want the public to be aware that This isn't a scenario where we're trying to cram anything down anybody's throat or trying to do something the wrong way. We've got mixed opinion from professionals in this industry as to the issue that we're talking about, and I wanted the public to be aware of that. This isn't, again, something that is just vile on its face. If it does get tabled, perhaps maybe a closed session where we can talk a little bit more about the nitty gritty and my own, I guess, personal thoughts on that. I don't want to share those since I'm not required to.

Well, that's fine.

We're not in an open setting. I mean, we need to keep that.

I'm in agreement with doing that. I'm going to say that my opinion is not going to change where I stand on it. Okay. Just for everybody to know where I'm at. I know I'm the lone ranger here, but I'm dug in on where I'm at on it. But I'm willing to do whatever you guys want to do. You want to talk about it in closed session, I'm fine with that.

Maybe I can be changed in my... Just a consensus or a motion?

On that particular issue, yeah, let's just do, in this particular case, let's do a motion to continue the public hearing again until next month's meeting. And then at that point, between now and then, Melanie and I can make sure that we get everybody on board with the closed session meeting to discuss further. And if you just want to adopt what I just said, that'll work.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the motion requested by the town attorney.

Second. All in favor?

Aye. Thank you very much. Thank you, Casey. Thank you. Absolutely.

Let's move to town reports. Town manager, what do you have for us tonight?

Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you. And council, thank you guys for approving the budget. We as staff. Appreciate that. So we've successfully kicked off our ocean rescue season, and by all accounts, things are going well. This week we will also have a multi-agency rescue drill with the Kitty Hawk Fire Rescue and their EMS, so that's always a fun thing to witness. This month we're happy to begin the development of the town's first bike and pedestrian plan. It's called the Multimodal Plan. It's designed to set a vision for Kitty Hawk, to come up with a plan for a connected and safe network for all road users. It also will prioritize projects that improve the town's bike and pedestrian network. And we'll be asking for citizen input, council input, and we will be rolling out a webpage. There will be pop-ups and a community survey and all kinds of things, so stay tuned on the town's social media and the town's website, and we will have more information very shortly. We are also pleased to host the COA staff, College of the Albemarle, on June the 4th and June the 18th here at Town Hall. from 9 to 1 for assistance with digital literacy. Everybody's invited. Any participants can come. They can attend one or both sessions. We already had one previously, and I think it was pretty successful. Bring your own device. If you don't have a device, you can use one of theirs. They're led by a College of the Albemarle instructor and they cover practical technology skills like essential computer skills, essential software skills, and using technology in daily life like social media, websites, and things like that. Also, don't forget that one of the most important Fun events and well-attended events of the year is the fishing event sponsored by the Kitty Hawk Police Department. That's on June 14th at the Kitty Hawk Pier from 8 to 1230. You can visit their Facebook page or their website. Tyler Kouskouris, Sergeant Kouskouris, is coordinating that event. And you can go to the social media and website for more information.

And that's all I have. David, do you have anything else you'd like to tell us tonight? I do not.

I ran out of water, ma'am. I'm dry. I talk too much. Thank you all. No, I have nothing, Mayor and Council.

Okay. Dylan, do you have anything tonight?

Madam Mayor, I have nothing else to add tonight. Thank you.

Okay, Jeff, do you?

I do. I'd just like to thank staff, whoever put the town of Kitty Hawk Emergency Operation Plan together. It's kind of, it was in the consent agenda, but... It outlines what everybody of the town, what they're going to do prior and how many hours ahead of time and a checklist, and it's very well done. Thanks to everybody who put it together.

It's a completely joint effort.

It's very well informative, and it's nice to know that the town is prepared and everybody seems to have a job and a timeline in which to do it, and I thank you very much. That's all I have.

David?

Yes, ma'am. I'd just like to say real quick that the recreation committee is moving forward with its historic trails project, and it's going to be a Cub Scout effort by lulu berryman who's going to take this on this project on so it's very exciting and ms grace on law from the rec committee is going to help mentor her along with alice and the town staff so very exciting project looking forward to that and it'll have a lot of purposes and that takes me the next thing is putting in a plug for Not only the recreation committee, but all the committees. We've got a lot of good folks that are volunteering, but obviously we can always use more. So great opportunity to represent the town and to be a part of one of the committees and boards that helps make the town great.

Thank you. Well, tonight I'd like to thank Paul and Pam Anderson for... donating the PAW emergency kits to the fire department and the police department. That kit is designed to, when an officer has an accident or if there is a fire, then they can contain the pets safely, and it's very useful. Very needed. When the Shalabag Bay had their fire, they got out with just what they had, and they had to hold their pets because they didn't have a collar, they didn't have leaves, they didn't have anything. So all they could do was hold them. and so that would help us if we ever have another emergency like that. And they also wanted us to know that the dog collars and leashes, if somebody uses the kit for that very thing, Then let the owner keep those things, and they will replace them for us to replace that kit.

Oh, that's fantastic. Cool.

So anyway, I thought that was very nice of them to do that. And they are very generous to do that. I am a member of the DARE Housing Foundation, and we have just kicked off our new logo, and... This is our logo. And we are starting a Castles for Cause. And what it is, is they can buy a pass for a week. They can buy a pass for a day or a month or for the season. But children can go out on the, it doesn't even really have to be children, but they can go out on the beach and build a sandcastle. And you take pictures of it. And then you send it in. And every week they'll have a winner for that week. And it will help us because the county was kind enough to give us startup funds, which was great. But we do need to have money back. make money on our own, too. So anyway, if anybody wants any more information about that, we're trying to figure out how to get this into magnet form and on refrigerators in our rental cottages. So we're working on it. And I, like Jeff, I am very impressed with this emergency management operations plan. It's very thorough and I appreciate all the work that went into that. Tomorrow is my anniversary, 25 years, and I appreciate my husband empowering me to take this step at this stage of my life. He has been very supportive, and it has been a rewarding thing for me to do, and I really appreciate it. I've met some very wonderful people that I would not have met otherwise, so thank you.

That's all I have.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

I've got Dylan and Jeff over there. Do y'all want to speak? They already did. Yeah, they already did.

So, so moved.

But thank you. Second. Thank you.

All in favor? Aye. Okay, here we go.

Well, congratulations. Thank you.