Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good morning everyone. Let me call to order the June 19th, 2025 regular planning board meeting. Uh begin with our pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. First order of business, of course, is our conflict of interest statement. Does any member have a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with regard to any item on the agenda? And if so, please state so at this time. Richard, I do not. I do not. I do not as well. Uh item three, amend approved agenda today. As as you can see, we have a quorum but a the bare minimum. So my suggestion is we do approve the amend agenda as is. I second it. Uh I I do have one issue I do. We did receive kind of an informal document about the land use plan. Uh I'd like to spend a few minutes discussing that document. Well, I guess I'd rather not at this time until until we get what's the question? I I kind of reviewed it, but I don't remember. No, I have there's a couple of issues and we can put it into administrative comments if you want. this uh it it was the uh West Mloud in the in the agenda packet we received it was the PDF of the presentation PowerPoint document concerning the land you can put that in number seven we'll talk about that uh I guess we want to call it the COG presentation is that what it was yes PowerPoint which I don't even have

with me I guess okay uh so a motion make Make a motion to approve the agenda with the one additional administrative comments on that presentation. I got some move. I second. All in favor? I. Okay. The first order of business is the minutes from our meeting of May the 15th. I I just I would just like to comment again that I I think the depth and precision of these minutes is to be highly commended and uh I I move to adopt them as I didn't see anything that I wanted to change. Jerry No, I I concur with Richard. That was very excellent job. So I agree no changes. So anyone want to make a motion to adopt? I move to adopt. I second. All in favor? Okay. So, the minutes are approved as drafted. Uh any public comments? Seeing no public comments uh on the agenda and we'll move on to our new business item of the day, which is a zoning text amendment concerning non-conforming structures on non-conforming lots in MR3. I'll turn it over to Ron too to give the staff report and the whole background on this. Do you want me to go through the whole background? Uh yeah, I guess that's what we're going to come to vote today. Yes. So much for a short meeting. Yeah. Okay. So, we we had conversation and pretty detailed conversation last month at your meeting and I think we inter in introduced the item at the at your meeting before that. So, um, in May of 21, town council approved an amendment to the MR3 zoning district standards. Uh, that amendment increased the minimum

lot size from 7,500 square ft to 10,000 square feet for the, uh, MR3 districts. It also increased the side setback from 5T to 10% of the average lot width. Then in as part of the adoption of the current UDO in September 23, uh the minimum required setback for for lot zone MR3 was changed from that 10% of the lot width to 7.5 ft. And as a result, we've have um created several situations, non-conforming situations in some of our subdivisions including Sand Piper Bay, Jaguars Lair and Sea Trail. So at your last meeting, we talked we had three options. Uh we talked about um we had several options we talked about and following discussion you guys kind of directed me to or directed staff to prepare amendment that would apply this non-conforming situation to existing single family homes not accessory structures. Limit the enlargements to the side setback. Um and then limit the addition expansion of development to no more than 50% of the existing home. Um I did provide you an example of a board of adjustment case that we had at San Piper Bay in your case summary. Um and in that case the board of adjustment did deny the request. They wanted to um basically build a covered porch onto the back of their home and come basically just come down the side of their house. same the house was five feet off the side set back was in that particular situation the house had been there since um sorry I thought I had my notes here you're right 200 2004 the home was constructed 2004 but the subdivision was approved when it was under Brunswick County then it was annexed into the town and even when it was annexed the 5 foot was a setback

so that said um we have language on page four of your case summary page four um page nine of your packet at the top proposed language uh to remedy the situation based on the conversation and direction you guys we had last month. So to read that, it said in the MR3 zoning district, a detached single family home that existed prior to September 23 and the reason that was that's when the land development code or UDO was was um adopted and that is non-conforming regarding to the interior side setback. Um so a detached single family home that existed and that is non-conforming regarding the interior side setback may be expanded or enlarged provided such expansion or enlargement does not create any new nonconformity or increase the extent of the existing nonconformity with regard to the side setback requirement. That expansion cannot exceed 50% of the square footage of the existing single family home. And then uh there's a statement that references accessory structures to comply with the accessory structure non-conforming uh section just below there. Right. So the accessory structure will have to conform to the existing standard. Yes. Letter D. 7 and 1/2 ft. Yes. So if you want to build a pool house or something, it will be 7 and 1/2 ft from the Yeah. New the new pool house example would have to comply. Um I did reference a non-conforming accessory structure section down below. happens to be a non-conforming accessory structure, they would have to comply with the section RD in the code. I I have I have a question because it seems to me there's there's kind of two situations here. There are nonconforming structures that were created by the fact that that

single that lot was in the town's jurisdiction but the town changed the rules. And then there are situations sound like this one might be one where a community existed, homes were built, and then that community was annexed. So now the rules apply. Is there some distinction that we need to make between those two situations? Because right now we're saying they're all the same. Yeah. I mean, in this case, I think both happened in this particular on on the same paper base situation, right? Um although remember this is a townwide text amendment not just applicable to San Piper Bay in this case the the lot is not conforming. Yes. And that was caused by the they were conforming when they were enexed. They were conforming with the subdivision approved under and then they became non-conforming which is the same to anybody else in the town or ETG when we changed the minimum lot size from 75 to 10 and then when we changed the I don't remember what their lot width was 60 I believe it's 60 ft so they were and when we changed it to 10% then they became nonconforming the structure became non-conforming because the setback wasn't six feet correct it was five feet And then they became more non-conforming by another foot and a half because they weren't seven. But all their nonconformance were caused by changes in the UDO. Right. But here's the here's the distinction. There are so in the history of Sunset We've been annexing over the years planned communities. So there's a difference between someone that built their home before this their community was annexed,

okay, who has now come under the jurisdiction of the town. And I have a and and maybe my sympathies are misplaced, but someone who's under been under the jurisdiction of the town, I mean, they can vote us all out if they don't like the rules that we create, but there's some standard that they have to abide by the rules that we create. Whereas someone that wasn't part of the town had no ability to change the town's policy and now comes under our influence. I mean, maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but is there is there some distinction that that needs to be made or do we just throw them all in the same thing and get Well, I think the remedy of the solution, if you guys are agreeable to the solution, would apply to either situation. So, whether they were in the town when the when they're or not because a nonconformity was created in this case, multiple nonconformities were created, right? Yeah. Yeah. Because I you know, I I think so. covers the same thing, right? I think some of the changes that we made in in terms of MR3 was an attempt to influence future development to adhere to a certain standard that reflected our values, right? If they if someone say there is a lot there. Yeah. It's the same 8600 square ft, right? It's a non-conforming lot, right? And if if it's currently unimproved, if they decide to improve or put a structure on, the structure has to conform, right? Which means it' be at 7 and 1/2 ft. They can't say, "Oh, by the way, I by the way, I bought this lot when it was 5T." Yeah. But I mean, the lot is still non-conforming, which is fine, but the structure will have to be conforming with building. So they they don't get a break when we do this. Okay. Yes. Because because I'm very sympathetic to, okay, we we made these

rules in order to shape the destiny of our community. We really don't want to penalize a single I think that's what you're going. So say okay, say there was an 8600t square lot out there that doesn't have a house on it right now. And somebody wants to put a house on it now, they're going to have to be at 7 and 1/2 ft. Exactly. Even if they say, "Well, my neighbor's at 5t." And we say, "Well, he built it in 2004." And I've had that situation, right? I've had that situation. It's now 2025. These are you have to be at 7 and they can go to the board of adjustment if they want. Right. Uh okay. Right. So I think we're fine. The only issue I have with the language and again might be a little is the word existed in the second. Is that specific enough? What does existed mean when I was going in my mind was was permit permitted? What does existed mean? Well, the intent was existed back to that. What does that mean? It got a permit. It got built. It got a CO. It was existing in someone's mind. I mean, if is it a do they have an approved preliminary platform? So, to me, it was like what defines that break point that they in other words, they get they because the thing was our UDO was adopted in September 23. What gets them into the prior UDO? Was it permit at the time? A submission of a permit? Well, no, I don't think so. Right. If somebody say in August of 2023, somebody submits an application for a permit at the 10% and you approved it. Wasn't built yet, but it's permitted under the old UDO. All I'm trying to say I'm not sure existed defines the time cuto off correctly. So you know what I'm saying goes back you know what I'm saying? Yeah. So that would go back to the first Senate first time existed was used as

well where in the MR3 zoning district a detached single family home that existed prior to September 23. Yeah that's the word I'm talking about. Existed in the second sentence. What does so it could I mean existed or permitted because to me it's the permit that causes what UDO you're under. Right. So to me, I mean, it's it's kind of it's a rabbit hole because we could say we're permitted. Well, somebody that permit could have expired. Well, well, I got my permit in August of 23. I never built my home. So now I want to go build it under this. So that's So if they got a permit in August 2023 under the 10%. Correct. Okay. Which would be say in this case six feet and then they didn't build it, that permit expires. The permit expired. nod her back to the daughter at the seven. I just want to make sure we don't get create something that's gray here. But if highly unlikely, but what should the standard be an an issued occupancy permit? No, then we know the home's built. Do you want to add to it? That's all I all I'm saying is that to me that what's existed maybe is a little not specific enough. Yeah, existed was similar language with three. In your mind, you're saying the house is sitting there, right? It's done before. But really, there could be something that sits. It was like I said, the most obvious thing someone permitted it in July or and it wasn't done until December after the December, right? But really, they right so permitted and built or something permitted and completed before. No, it kind of I don't know. I don't that's all I wonder. Do you have something that could straddle that where existing doesn't quite And it may be such an unlikely scenario it doesn't exist. Yeah. I mean, I think

it's going to be unlikely scenario. Um semantics permits only good for a year. Yes. So September 24 any permits that would have been prior to September 23 would be gone. Someone that per in July of 2023 could have submitted a permit application with a 6ft setback. Mhm. But not completed. That house didn't exist in September. It was didn't exist until December. So what does this apply to them or not? In other words, it was permitted in August, didn't exist until December physically. got a co in se in December they're saying but it was existing because the construction had started might not have you could have got your came here and got your permit in August or September just before the UDO change vested yeah we could say home that existed or was vested right that's all I want to say is that yeah the vested now I get your point right It may maybe no house. Well, if I'm if I remember correctly, we had somebody come here with a plat just under the wire, right? Yes, we did. That they submitted their plat. I don't think it went ahead and end up changing to Logan or somebody, but they got it just under the wire for that change. So, those houses were probably all at the 10%. If you remember, right, that was So, but none of them were they were platted but not built. Okay. So that all I'm saying is we make sure we define that cutoff to debt. Why don't we I know in our mind we're thinking of a house that's sitting there. Okay. But you could have someone that got it permitted under the 10%. Didn't even start construction. Didn't even knock the first tree down until October. So nothing existed in September 2023,

whatever the year. Let's add let's add or keep existed but then add or vested something like that. that or vested would mean they've received their permit. The permits did not expire. Right. Okay. So, we say existed andor. And or vested prior to. Yes. So, we're going to go Yeah. I'm going to say or to me andor is irrelevant because andor means either. It's either. So, a home that existed and what? Or vested or. So, we're change it to a detached single family home that existed or was vested or was vested prior to September 2023. Okay, got it. Yes. Perfect. So I guess now Jerry any okay so we need a motion either to adopt action A which would to approve this or action B. We're to approve. So we have a motion for A. Second. Second. Okay. I'll read action A then before we vote. Action A would be the planning board here recommends approval of the pro proposed amendment with the one modification to the unified de development ordinance that finds that it is either neither one consistent nor inconsistent with the town's comprehensive plan 2017 town of Sunset Beach land use plan as there are no specific policies pertaining to non-conforming lots and two that is in the public interest. All in favor? I I Three eyes, no nays. The eyes carry it to action A is approved. Three, four, zero against. Very good. And thank you, Ron.

And certainly we want a code that's not question. We, you know, we want to be able to be clear in our language. So I think or vested or was vested is a good good addition to us. Great. Okay. Okay, that was all the new business uh administrative comments before we get to the COG presentation. Obviously, congratulations to Jerry leaving behind us low lives in the planning board. Moving up to the big to the big council. So, good luck to you. Congratulations. Thank you, Rod. Thank you, Richard. And I'm assuming then staff is planning to advertise for a replacement. Uh, and then being that Jerry was the vice chairman, next meeting we'll have to also pencil in a vote hopefully when the rest of our planning board is back and healthy, a vote for a new vice chairman. I plan to be here in July, so it shouldn't be an issue, but uh, someone to conduct the meetings if I'm not here under the weather such or whatever. So, that has to make sure that has to be added. I guess the only other thing was we were planning on the nonresidential parking discussion at the or not discussion actually hoping to move forward. So whatever work needs to be done between here and then I realize there's a holiday in there I'm open to coming in or reviewing text or whatever in the interim. So okay the other thing would be Richard had some questions on the Tog presentation. I have to admit I don't have it with me. So, you're going to have to be pretty clear on what you're asking so I can try to remember what I read. What was included in my agenda packet was uh basically a PowerPoint which gave some broad guidelines in terms of and I think Wes was attempting to be instructional rather than directional. And I think most of you know what he shared on this is pretty straightforward and adheres

to, you know, what we've discussed. My only concern is sometimes these informal documents have a way of becoming formal documents and there's basically two things on page four. Does anybody else have this? I I do. Okay. Um he sets basically what he calls land use plan components which are pretty straightforward. Uh public engagement, community profile, these are all things that we discussed before. natural systems and environments, community facilities and services. These are all things that should be part of the land use plan, existing conditions and land use patterns, goals and policies, future land use plan. And the only thing I wanted to stress was I think and Stuart and I talked about this is really one of the things we want to accomplish is really a strategic statement of the vision of what we want Sunset Beach to be in 5 years in 10 years. And while these individual components kind of speak to that, I think it's really important that we have that as a goal. So when we have this finally agree on this land use plan, it's very clear what our intent was in terms of how we hope to guide the future of the land use plan. The second thing is um in roles and responsibilities my nowhere in this roles and responsibilities I'm assuming that at the end of the day the land use plan has to be approved by the planning board and that's not mentioned in roles and responsibilities. Uh that's pretty much my two comments on Oh, then there was one other thing and I know he did this really as an example um in terms of what would come, but he talks about the Sunset Boulevard vision plan which reflects the possibility of

string development up and down 179. I want to stress it. Hopefully the goal of the land use plan will be to create a vision for a village style concentric commercial development in the mud district and that's not reflected in the presentation that he shared with us. Well, anything else? Some of that stuff I don't think he could have. I guess I one Let me go backwards. I don't think the planning board uh approves or disapproves it. We just make a recommendation to send it to the council or not. So, I think that language is we don't approve or we don't disapprove. We just make a recommendation to council to adopt or not adopt or we say nothing. Kind of just like the uh uh conditional zoning. Right. So I'm not there's no I don't think that we're just in a that's kind of a whether we call us an advisory committee or a steering committee or something like that basically is to help the cog come up with a product that we think the council should look at and then consider for approval and then it's up to them. Yeah. So I I I guess but I don't I don't view this I guess this is I didn't view the document as being final. If anything I viewed it as more preliminary because I'm assuming and maybe I'm assuming wrong is there's going to be some sort of scope letter and contract with the town and this consultant on what's to be the components in the plan. So and I don't know what input we have on that. We don't get to review the scope letter beforehand and say, "Hey, we like this or that in there." I'm assuming Ron and Lisa are doing that. So, right, you get a scope letter with COG and then you agree to some sort of contract and a price and those are the components in there. It's either going

to be these components either some not in or some addition. That's up to you. Do we or I mean one could one that all could be done already and I don't even know it. So you're sitting there spot. So that's the key. This document was just to me as almost like part of the proposal between KAG and the town. But that was also his presentation from Yes. May 5th. Right. Right. So I don't I view it as just sort of his propo almost part of his proposal or Cog's proposal to the town informing us on what so I don't know what the town and the consultant has agreed on uh for what the actual if the if the town said these are the components and that's what they have a signed contract with the consultant then that's what it is. If they've added to it or subtracted from it then that's what it is. We're not really part of the contract part. If if you want to be, then that's a whole different deal. And I understand Ron where you're coming from. My experiences in these kinds of things as a business development executive is that these preliminary documents, as informal as they may be appear at first blush, have a way of getting codified and solidified. And if you don't raise concerns about how they're shaped at this point, trying to raise it later because they because they come become sometimes inputs in the subsequent document. Exactly. So, but to me point the key point is what's the scope letter and contract look like? Right. Do we have one? Yeah, I think so. Uh lot has changed in 30 days. No wonder. And uh Wes Mloud is no longer with the Kfir Council of Governments. He has gone out on his own and created a company called Anchor Point Planning and Ron um has gone with him and we are under contract right now with Anchor Point Planning.

So what will happen in July probably at your July meeting and we haven't discussed this yet is that you will have a new scope a new presentation of how anchor point planning will guide you through the land use plan and at that point that now when we come to the July meeting will that be contracted already or still a proposal we're already under contract so we have July one we have a scope letter so the scope of the contract is known but that contract and at that point and at that so in July what's anchor point anchor point is going to tell us what the scope is okay okay but that so I guess before do we can you tell us at this point does the existing scope and contract include any items that Richard has addressed or should I be ready for the fact that a partially disappointed planning board on July that some of the scoping that we had talked to hoped to be in there will not be in there. The contract is not uh to that degree. The contract is that anchor point will consult with the planning board to update the land use plan. So general, it's a general and up to you all and Wes and Ronra to frame what that So we we can use this July meeting to more codify the scope and that's okay with the contract and that's okay with the contract. So I'd be say be for the planning board those who are here and those who are comingings uh who are listening to this or it will be in the minutes is then prior to that meeting you need to write down

make sure that these things are written down and or you have suggestions to come in a in a u solid way proposals that when you go through the list or we go through the list that they say they think should be in it and you say well like I'm happy with five out of the six one I would like remove and one that you're every member is prepared to uh chime in chime in specifically what they want and some matter of fact paper if you can right so in advance would be in advance would be nice we can we can presume at this July meeting that anchor point has been hired congratulations um in um the scope and direction of a land use plan will be something that will be based on their recommendation that we will negotiate and formalize. So we'll know what the land use plan is trying to be. The only difference would be if you are adding things that will cost more money than what we have proposed. Okay, or what we are under contract for. Um, at that point that would need to be tabled and taken to the town council to find out if they want to go right to that direction and fund it. And the survey the survey that we keep discussing about now is that part of the anchor point is that included in the anchor point contract or is that separate and would be contracted by the town separately? The land use plan? No, the survey. the land use plan. In 2017, there was a comprehensive survey where over a thousand Sunset Beach residents were pulled and asked specific questions about what they wanted in the survey is a component of of the land use plan rewrite. But is that a component of anchor points agreement? Yes, it is.

Okay. So, that's been funded in terms of their contract. Okay. Right. So because the survey isn't new. The survey is a component of every single land use plan developed across the state which would be covered in this. It's a given originally the old company public engagement results and input. Correct. Kind of a broad sense. Correct. But that's included in the but if we come up so if we come up with pluses and minuses that don't change the contract then we're good to go. Got it. If something changes the contract then right it will have to be kicked back up to our fine town council here jury to settle it just it could be I know what you guys are trying to do there's a budgetary restraint on this is how much money is it 50,000 that's been applied for this or did I read that right do you remember just just keep in mind what we like to do there is a budget and some budget conraints. That's what I'm saying. I mean if we go through this and 67 67 okay so if we go through this and find out you need more we need more or we can say there's always trade-offs how about we trade this off for this then that's the same Stuart had uh talked about it the last meeting about bringing um maybe consultants in that are u specific for bike and ped paths and things of that nature. Um, so that would be a component that would add to and I think those things would go back to the town council or right or part of this land use plan we excuse me we're going to do this as a I don't want to call it a supplement but but the land use plan had

the land use plan said we will do a p and path thing within the next year and then it will have to be funded separately then So if we put that in that way and the council says, "Okay, that seems reasonable." And they vote to approve it, then of course they're going to essentially voting to spend the money in the following year. Mhm. So this could be I kind of consider maybe like a spoken wheel with the the center of the of this thing being the land use plan, but we may have a few spokes that go off that require additional work to add to supplement, round off, whatever you want to call it, that may require some additional thought and expenditure correct but that it be put in here that I next step will be ABC and that within the next year or two whatever seems appropriate. I I have a couple of questions about this change. I mean congratulations to Wes and Ron. Does this change Ron's status as Nope. So basically now you're being contracted through this organization that you formed. Fantastic. Wes is born. Yes. And it won't really won't change Wes's status other than that. Nope. Okay. Good. Just a name change. Okay. And uh second um I mean Jerry, what's your status going to be in July right now? That this will be my last meeting. I am soon as I'll be resigning from the planning. And is is that something that's compelled by ordinance or is this something that is it's state law? Yeah, it's what state law. Okay. Yeah. So, I said we'll advertise or whatever it takes for and we may already be there. Are we there? I didn't look at this. There's something on the website already. Okay. The advertise. So, it's an in town position, so it should be a little easier to fill. We might have some people that already

when Kevin applied, there might have been some other folks that also applied. No, that he was ETJ. Never mind. Never mind. So, in town's usually a little easier, right? And then of course if we get someone for the next meeting then we can vote on a I mean if we don't vote on a vice chair just so that in case town council's meeting uh in July is late. So it could be that they Kimberly finds us that person and they interview and they could appoint the July 14th meeting which would put them right in line with your next meeting. Okay. All righty. Very good. All right. Jerry, thank you for your service. It's been a pleasure to work with you and uh goes both ways, Richard. Thank you and good luck with your Thank you. role on the council and um last item is any further public comments? No public comments. Next item and final we need a motion to adjurnn. So move second. All in favor? I I we're adjourned at 9:30. That's a record. That's a record.