Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, good morning everyone. Welcome to the May 15, 2025 uh regular meeting of the planning board. Seeing we have a quorum call to order and we can stand for the 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. Okay. First order of business is conflict of interest. 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? No, I do not. Yep. No, I do not. I do not. I do not. I do not. Okay. Here. No conflicts. Uh, next item is to approve or amend the published agenda. Any any changes or somebody want to move for approval? Um, could we get an update on the budget process on the land use plan? probably take two seconds. Yeah, I'm asking to add that to the Yeah. Well, that could be brought up during administrative comments. Okay. Okay. All right. Fine. So, I think it's covered in seven already, even though Lisa didn't want to speak, but motion to approve. I so move. Second. All in favor? I agenda is approved. Uh we got some minutes from our previous meetings to go over and approve. First of all, from the meeting of March the 20th, I I have only one and it's just a little confusing.

Um, in on page three at the bottom of the discussion and the vote on the political signs, it I think it's a little confusing. Uh, we approve the emotion to you're talking about the word defeated in there, but yeah, same thing. I I marked that as an issue. I think it's just the amendment wasn't approved, but the motion carried. So, I agree. I think that either that defeated word should just leave or just replace with the word carried because the motion was to deny. It's just cleaning up the procedural thing. So, the motion to deny carried, but the amendment didn't go through. Did that make that's what happened? Yeah, I think I I I highlighted the same thing because it sounds if you read that last word, it see sounds like the motion to deny was defeated, but the motion deny carried. And you say that in your last sentence, I think here the motion to recommend denial of the proposed text amendment carried. So either strike that word defeated or just put carried carried in there or whatever, whatever proper. Thanks. Yeah, the motion carried. The motion was not defeated. But I know the thinking about the the amendment was denied till it was turned. I know what the thought process sort of but just it does either strike it or Yeah, I think if you just strike it. Yeah, you could strike it or I said if you need to repair something there because it's required to put something there, you could use Right. Okay. Other than that, I don't have anything either on this thing. Yeah, me too. Um, one quick comment just because you covered

it in all the other spots where we had p public comments and nobody spoke. Um, you always put none or no no one spoke or something. Could we add none or like the number six? Yeah. To number six, page two. None. Just to clarify that You know, we had the public hearing and nobody nobody spoke. And what do we do on the other one? Same thing or we just Yeah. She usually put none, I think. Yeah. Yeah. So, just none. Yeah. Public comments. None. Yeah. Yeah. So, we don't feel it doesn't appear like we passed missed somebody. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Okay. So, I want want to make a motion to approve these minutes with the two minor changes striking the word defeated on page three and adding the word none on page two. I so move. Second. All in favor? I approve of the changes. Uh moving on to the minutes of April 17th. Anyone have anything or a motion to approve as written? I so move. I second that. All in favor? I minutes are approved with no changes. And the last one was our May 1st, 2025 special meeting that Wes was in attendance on. Now we talked about can the the presentation is attached that someone can open it

right we talked about the presentation's attach will be attached to the minute so that yeah oh I didn't look online so if because on the top where you say it's attached they can go online and they can click on it and open up Yeah, the seat right the SB loop meeting. I guess that's land use plan. Yeah, the loop. Yeah. So, if you click on that, you can see the West Mloud uh presentation. Any changes or motion to approve? I I just I just want to say and and commend this was a very nuanced discussion and sometimes it's difficult in minutes to reflect that and I think the summary here really does reflect the nuances and some of the areas of discussion that we went into. So I I I have I approve this. Just wanted to I share my thoughts. I second that because it was very thorough and very detailed and did a great job and yes, good job and certainly obviously add add this and your and a presentation to your books. Uh so once we get the official kickoff we'll have a good clean record of what everybody's thinking was. So all in favor I I minutes are approved. Thank you to the staff. Uh, any public comments? None. None. Seeing there's no one here. Okay. Item 66 6.1. Not surprising. This eventually came up, I guess. Uh, nonconforming lots in MR3, residential r uh residential

mainland residential three zoning district. So, Ron two, why don't you bring everyone up to date of what we're discussing here? This is Yes. The other run. Round two. Hello. Good. Okay. All right. Um, this is for discussion item discussion only. You do not have anything before you to vote on. Um however, at the end of the discussion after um we hoping for some direction from you uh as a board to direct staff on how to move forward if you choose to move forward with addressing this issue. So I'm going to go what I'm the paper that Kimberly had handed out just before the meeting waiting for you is what I'm going to call was an issue paper more informative than what you got in your package and I understand you guys have not had a chance to read it. So I'm gonna go through that I hope fairly thoroughly um so bear with me. So, but back in 2021, uh the town approved, um an amendment to the side setbacks for the MR3 zoning district, and that went from uh but they also increased the minimum lot size. The lot size went from 5,000 square feet or excuse me, 7,500 feet to 10,000 ft. But the side setback went from 5T to 10% of the the average lot width. So, in the MR3, there was a 5ft setback. And in 2021, it was changed to 10% of the lot width. And as part of the adoption of the current UDO back in 2023, the minimum required setback was changed again from that 10% of the average lot width to 7.5 ft. And and that's 7.5 ft from the wall or from the eaves from the eaves. Okay.

as we the town code is roof overhangs, stairway, you know, stairs, etc. have to comply with the setback. Okay. Requirement. Um, it's a little different than some other jurisdictions. Yeah. All right. So, these most recent changes in staff opinion, well, have created some non-conforming lots and non-conforming structures in the MR3 district. Uh, particularly any home that was built as close as 5T. So when they pulled permits they were able to construct as 5 ft and um if they want to extend or enlarge their home is creating some concerns some issues. The three neighborhoods that I've been able to pinpoint and I think they were discussed back in 2021 as well uh would be San Piper Bay and Jaguars Lair and then lots within Seat Trail. So, in that issue paper that I passed out, I'm going to give you an example of 887 San Piper Bay Drive. And this actually went to the zoning board of adjustment in February, and it was denied by the board of adjustment ultimately. So, the owner of this property wanted to construct an open and roof porch in the back of the house. And on the illustration that you have there in your in that um paper that was handed out today, you'll see that illustrated in red. um when their home was constructed in 2004, the pro the property was not part of the town of Sunset Beach, so it was part of the unincorporated area of Brunswick County. It was a 5-ft setback. Um property was annexed in 20 in 2007 by the town and at the time there was a 5-ft setback. The owner desired to construct the roof and porch that would be even and run down, you'll see in this illustration, run down the side of the home. Um, so just imagine their wall of their home and the and the overhang kind of being same exact location just extending further. Um, and way the code is currently set up, they would have to

comply with that 7 and 1/2t setback for that extension. Um, so which would which would obviously leave about a 2.5 foot overhang or offset. Um, that would would in this case would have been a window exposed, etc. Uh the lot size for this particular home or for this particular lot was about 8276 square ft which is less than the 10,000 square ft that the current than the code currently requires. So this is a non-conforming lot and a non-conforming structure. Yes sir. And the lot has only 60 foot of frontage along San Piper Bay. And a lot of the lots and I certainly can't say give you a percentage at this time. time and trying to figure out the best way to do this, but a lot of the lots, particularly in the vicinity of this particular home on San Piper Bay, are 60 feet or even fewer. There were some across the street that was like 57 foot wide. Then there is one right where the road starts to curve a little bit because of the, you know, the the the arc, if you will, the curve, you know, they're like 100 ft. But majority of lots, at least in the vicinity, this particular one, are fewer than the 75 foot. Let's just put it that way. I do not have a percentage and a lot breakdown and that kind of thing. You know, there's, you know, 60% or 50%. I will have that breakdown. I may can provide that information if we move forward with anything at your next meeting. But at this point, I'm just just kind of keep I'm kind of just framing the issue. Um, so, you know, this particular property owner and others in the community, if they want to do something similar, enlarge their home, add a porch, um, etc., they would have to go through the board of adjustment and try to prove a hardship. Um, in this particular case, the board of adjustment denied the request because they could construct a porch that was offset. May not, it's not a hardship. It's just right may not meet the desires of the owner and so forth, but in this case, they could construct a porch, but it would just have to meet the offset, you

know, have that 7 and 1/2 ft. So, we've been asked to um this this is elevated to council. I think the um someone had emailed the council and council has asked us to look into potentially considering changes to the code that would address these non-conforming situations. So on page two of the handout I gave you today or your handed today, we have the definition of non-conforming building and then definition non-conforming lot and then I also gave you the standards for a non-conforming structure. um should be right out of cut it right out right out of your code. So it should be consistent what's in your code and then the standards for non-conforming lots. And if you look at what we say 3.42B3 and it says number six non-conforming structures I'm not sure why it says six. check that numbering may not be extended expanded extended or altered any way that would increase nonconformity um etc. So that's where we come in play there. So at the end of the day if we choose to move forward with something um the last page there I've provided a few solutions tried to narrow down some that I felt like were palatable. Um we certainly there probably are other potential solutions as well. The first one is to revert the minimum setback in the MR3 back to 5 ft. Um the second one would be to create provisions that would allow an existing non-conforming single family home to be enlarged if the enlargement does not create new non-conformities or increase the extent of the side setback informity. to make it clear that if town council openly is okay with it, they

want to extend down the side of their home but not get further than 5T. In this case, this example where they were 5T and way, you know, they couldn't get closer than 5T. That's what number two is trying to say. We would work on language. I'm not saying this language is perfect, but if it's the direction of the board, we'll work on language to bring to you next time. Um, number two could be or and then the third option would be similar to number two but limit to existing non-conforming single home family homes only in the MR3 district and we could get a specific as even those that are zoned MR3 with less than 75t of width. So it's not a you know if we if we change the 5T MR3 is every lot that is zoned MR3 would have a 5ft setback per seven and a half. If we do number two, then any existing single family detached home that is then regardless of zoning if they were det and then it would apply. And then number three is making it even a little bit more specific if you will. So I just gave you three options. You know, I could probably have thought of seven or eight others, but I felt like I was trying to find three that were palatable uh for consideration and then open up the floor for discussion. try to go through this as thorough as possible without throwing a lot at you but and but make sure you understand I wanted to frame the issue and then provide you some data and then um potential solutions if you will. So I guess since I was been here through the whole saga this two-step saga uh where I'm at right now I guess is your I'm not right now keen on your first uh possible option. Yeah, I'm not saying it was a perfect solution, but it is a solution. Changing it permanently to back to five considering that we enlarged the lots. I would say in my mind I would need to be convinced that there's a good reason for that. But your

second dot bullet point or your third or some combination thereof. I'm certainly open to I don't think this person or any person there should have to notch their addition. So I guess the way I was looking at it and I don't know how to write this. I'm not sure it should be a additional note under the table. Like if you look on page 338, Mhm. we do have some an like an MR33 note in there already. Should we be adding a note there or adding an additional provision in 342 to nonconformities? Maybe that's the better place to put it in saying that any nonconforming structure on a nonconforming lot in MR3 that is less than 10,000 square foot uh allowing an addition to the principal structure to follow the same side setbacks. So, like as long as they're doing an attached addition or maybe even a modification less than 50%. And they're less than the 10,000 square feet in MR3, they can continue the side setback. Of course, they still would be responsible for the front and back setback and certainly would not apply to any detached accessory structure or accessory dwelling unit. Right. that would it would make it clear that it's a spot to the enlargement of the home in this case. Right. Right. So I don't know if that's added to the note at the bottom of the table where we specify the 7 and 12 site as a note 4 or we put this all in 342 as a just a separate thing.

you know, lots in nonconforming structures on nonconforming lots in MR3 less than 10,000 ft. Oh, could we have a Is there a We have a nonconforming structure on a informing lot. Can you Yes, you can have a Yeah, there are standards where where a lot would be and this just kind of stretch this example. say, you could have a non-conforming structure because it's at the 5 foot setback, but the lot's over 10,000. Yes. Yeah. That that may even exist. So, we just got to say a non-conforming structure in MR3. Yeah. I have less sympathy for the person that's got a 10,000 square foot lot. I mean, I I mean, I live in sugar sands. My lot's nonconforming. So, but for someone that has adhered to the most stringent MR3 standards with a 10,000 square foot lot, so they're a conforming lot. I don't I don't see the relief that's being given to then say to them, well, now you can create a non-conforming structure. That make sense? trying to follow. Um, and I'm just I'm gonna use San Piper Bay as an example. Now, maybe not this particular lot, but the reason why I use this lot reason why I use this lot was because it was something that I've experienced here while working with the town. I feel like it would I had illustrations of things to provide you. Well, I'm very open to the idea of offering someone whose lot where the rules changed on. So they had an 8,000 ft lot. We changed the MR3s to 10,000 square ft. They had a lot. They weren't part of the town. Now they're part of the town. Right. So plus you got to realize we changed this twice on them. Yeah. They went from a 5ft setback to a 10% of their lot width to now less than

seven. So, but there there are situations where, and I think Steuart brought it up, where you may have a 10,000 square foot or greater lot, and the home was built at 5T, and they want to do an expansion, they want to do a porch, right? Why does their lot size have anything to do with that? And so what I'm thinking about too is that you get into culde-sacs where they've got, you know, every other lot is 8,000 square feet, but you get in a culde-sac with oddshaped lots and then somebody's got a 10,000 square foot lot. Their neighbor was allowed to do a porch extension, but he can't because he's got a pies-shaped lot with more. So So essentially, we could be able to limit this just to setbacks because I get your point. That's what it would be. It would that that would be my thought is limited to the setback. Just side set back. Yeah. Just a side setback only. And my I guess where I'm at is it has to be attached to the principal structure that's not conforming. You can't throw up a an accessory dwelling unit or accessory structure at 5 foot, right? It's not attached. You need to put it at the seven and a half. Right. So I guess how and where to write this I'm open to the Let me brainstorm that a little But I think I guess I would agree in principle that I want but but it have to be a non-conforming structure too. I I think the principle is we can't have a conforming. In other words, if they built their house at 7 and 1/2t just by fluke. Yeah. I don't want them to be able to put their porch over to 5 foot. Right. Right. Okay. Right. You know what I mean? Yeah. That's that that's clear and and that's that's consistent with my thinking as well. And we don't want the reverse to be true. We give more leniency to somebody, right? In other words, if they built their happened to have a big lot. Yeah. And they put 10 foot, right? And now I want to build an outside porch like this guy. Well, I I could go 5 foot closer to the lot line.

No, they can only go up to where their principal structure is. And that's why I don't agree with the first option that Ron put up here. Changing the No, we don't want I don't think we I don't think anyone wants to try go back to five and bring and regrite. Yeah. And I'm not suggesting you guys would think that you got to throw you had to throw out there for an option. I understand that. Just like no change is an option. I think I think the other option is not change anything. Yeah. The guiding principle here is we want to give relief to people who in good faith built a home according to the rules when the rules were this and then the rules got changed. So now they're in a situation where you know I think they do deserve some relief. Now, how do you you know the challenge is how do you narrow that relief so it doesn't open the door to that's what the my challenge I've gotten direction from the conversation and we can make that if you want but I've got my challenge is once you've given me the direction is they try to go craft the so I guess to give them direction first of all do we want to as I said we want to limit the things attached to the principal structure that's non-conforming that's I think that's fair and certainly 5 foot right but equal to what it was now is there a situation that you want to apply to MR3 only MR3 only yeah non-comp now there isn't a situation where the 10% rule gets in the way here I don't think it would well the no I don't think it would either um and going back to if you just reverted it back to the 10% rule as an example because I've this you may have a lot with 110 foot of frontage, right? Then now you're telling them have to be, you know, 11 foot. Well, 11 foot on each side. Never mind. Now, the only thing I can't What about a and I wrote in my notes to these additions? I said, you know, less than 50%. I mean, somebody decides to throw a

big addition on their house if it's going to be we kind of have that as our general rule. If you're under a 50% modification, you get these kind of exceptions, but when you go over that, not so much. Is that re limited to that, too? In other words, we're just looking here. Looks like someone's doing a little porch or patio or something, which clearly, but someone decides to put a twotory addition on the back of her house and put it 5 ft off the line. Yeah. I mean, do we count that think that's the same here? Even though it might be still attached and and certainly the front and back setbacks can't change. Look, I can think that through. I I'll think it through and we can further discuss it when you have language in front of you connect. Now, do we do we get in trouble here with any of the downzoning issues that I don't think so because you're this is sort of upon it's really allowing something that's not allowed now. Okay, that's what I thought. So, the question is the staff have enough direction though? I think so. So what my here just the notes that I've taken would be to limit to the side setback apply only to an existing non-conforming structure apply only the MR3 and make it clear it applies to an existing to an extension or enlargement of an existing home and then potentially think about limiting the addition to less than 50% of the home or and larger has to then comply with the full standards and we have to say it has to be attached. Yes. And do we need the exception line saying does not apply to any accessory structures or accessory dwelling units? We can let me let me think that over. Okay. Yeah. Now, is there is there do a way to amend the board of adjustments guidelines on this? It's not. They're part of the state statutes. Okay. And they mean they asked good questions. So then one of the questions they asked was

can you comply? And the answer obviously the owner had to say yes but here if I do comply here are some of the ramifications of me app of complying with the regulations on bullet number three where you yes sir basically limited to a lot width I just assume not have that that's fine I will use the notes we've talked about today as my guidance versus that I just wanted to throw that out there so one and three are out and work on number two with the discussion we've right talked about today. Sounds good. Agree. I guess I got that. I think that's clear clear direction for me. If not, I can always go back and look at the date. Yeah. And I don't know where you think about you. You can decide where to put it. A note on that table or a note on the table referring to the non-conforming section, whatever. Yeah, my thoughts are probably in the non-conforming section, but um I'll think about that as well. Okay. So, uh I guess uh supposedly ready in the next meeting or that's my goal is to get you something um to vote on at your next meeting so we can get it to council um July August for public hearing no later than August for the public hearing. So any is this the only one open permit request? Um I mean I've turned down a couple of requests in I can think of one in seat trail where the neighbors build at 5T and they So this person is just going to have to wait in a lot. This person will have to wait for the council to act. Yes. Okay. Good. Yeah. And the decision is if the rules change that this person can then apply under the new rules. Right. Okay. So I think that's what you were getting at.

But at least I have some hope, right? Okay. So staff will work on that. Bring that back to us next meeting. Yes. Uh next item for Ron, which is not much for Ron. More for me, I guess. 6.2. Uh I brought up at the last meeting that we should think about our current article 3.32 minimum parking requirements on page 353 of the UDO. So Ron just said tossed it back to us. What do we think? So, as I said last time, my my thought looking at this is flip it basically from a minimum requirement of parking to basically a maximum requirement of parking. I mean, we could get rid of the whole thing all together. And first of all, this is only nonresidential. I'm not at all looking at the resident. So, this is nonresidential commercial items, which if you look at the table, uh it's if you look at the table on page 355, you got some residential stuff on the top and then on the third blue bar there, it starts all the non-residential and there's language before it. So my thought was to well I could be convinced to get rid is to basically flip it from a minimum to a maximum and then make any adjustments in the table that we think is possible because we our thinking now I think is to be less vehicle centric than we used to be countrywide and then to look at the allowances we give in section D there on page

354 we do give them uh 20% over the table and on D3 right D3 a site will not be the number of spaces see 20% of the minimum so I'm kind of okay with that so if we come up with this is a m well I don't know if we come up this is a that's a lot it could be down 10% but I think first of all conceptually anyone agree on well we could all we could choose to just leave this alone but my point is we haven't seen a lot of uh especially in our overlay district a lot of commercial development and then when we years ago when we worked on this the first time when I was a newbie might have been my first year or so we loosened up the minimum part we reduced them to encourage more commercial development, especially in our overlay district. And now to that was probably five years ago. I don't remember the date we looked at it. Not much has happened. So I refresh my memory. The overlay district is what I call 9004 up to Old Georgetown Road and Sunset Boulevard. Sunset Boulevard, right? And it goes a little further right to that corner. Yeah. Around the corner a little bit. Yeah. But essentially the only right now right here. I mean where we and what we have well we've got a couple dental mental uh medical offices that probably were built and we got the store at the end and a Dollar General. That's all that's kind of happened. That has happened. Right. Right. And in the store it might have been before we changed the parking and that I don't remember the coastal outfitters whatever that I don't remember if that actually they had so

much room it didn't make a difference. So I think we don't want we don't just deleting it completely I'm a little worried about because that gives them unlimited headroom to pave as much as they want. Right. And I'm not comfortable with that because I don't think we want as much as we don't want unlimited amount of asphalt. So, we want to kind of cap the asphalt if we can within reasonable limits. But if a business wants to put only three parking spots in and they think that's good enough for the business, so be it. If they lose business because they ain't got enough parking, that was their choice. That part of their business plan. Why do we have to set minimums? Make them make parking that they don't think they might need and they end up paving over permeable ground and lose landscaping and lose trees maybe uh because we force them into these minimums and are we turning away business development because I want to put a little shop here and I think I only need four spots but you're telling me I need eight. I got to make my lot bigger and my building smaller to accommodate your parking. So, that's where I'm at is flip flip the men's to a max. I don't know if we need a minimum minimum of like saying two spots, one being handicapped or something. You know, a a minimum there's probably some federal rigs. I don't know. I don't know if we need like a floor a complete floor that no matter what you got to have two spots, one being a handicap accessible or but basically take everything else away and then give them a maximum with a little allowance where their allowance is 5% 10% maybe less on the island, a little more on the mainland. That's a fine detail. But I like to hear everybody now has had a I'm sure you all sat in your homes and thought about this over the last month. So hear what your thoughts are. Well, God help me. I actually did. I'll stop for sure. But I I think this

is, you know, one of the things we're going to be struggling with over the next year or two is how to guide commercial development. I think we're kind of played out on the residential side, but I think this is kind of a key issue in terms of when we look at the goals in that we want we want commercial infrastructure to be more walkable, less trafficbased. So this in my mind is kind of the tactical end of that strategic idea. So I kind of support it in that you know we don't you know in my view anything that we can do to promote commercial develop in the mud district okay which would have limited parking because we're going to create multiple commercial interactions in a limited space. You park once you have four commercial interactions you don't have to get back in your car. So that has an impact on how much parking you need and you know in that hope we have less commercial along uh the thorough affairs that we preserve the kind of small office unit profile. So I and I think by doing the parking uh flipping the script on that kind of achieves that goal. So, you know, in terms of the actual numbers of the language, I'm not sure how you codify that, but I think it's the right idea. Go ahead. No, no comment right now. Okay. Um, so I was kind of against this initially, but I started doing a bunch of research and found out that, you know, every lots of different towns across the country are doing this and um, read a a paper that I found online

from the American Planning Association and it was pretty good. And so I think for me, I'm with you on the commercial side and I don't want to take out the minimums for residential. And just from my perspective, just so y'all know, um, having worked with residential developers over the years, they are a minimum crowd, right? So they're not because they want to build more houses. Yeah. So if we take away parking minimums for them, they'll provide one space for three units and say tough, right? So because they're gone by the time the resident, right? So the difference there is in a residential developer, you're working with a guy who's producing a product for sale to somebody else. When we're working with commercial people, generally you're working for the end user, right? and they're wanting to do their own the best for themselves. So, um, but I think I'm for it. Um, and I'm kind of like you. I think we just turn the men's into maxes and and maybe we need to tweak it a little bit here and there. Um, the one thing I would say though, um, and I couldn't get I got stuck on the handicap thing because, um, handicap parking rules require so like if you have one to 25 spaces, you're required one handicap. If you have, you know, it goes in graduated things and then after a certain number, it's a percentage, right? Which is the way it used to be. Always used to be a percentage. That's what I was saying. Do we need do we still need a minimum that's really minimal? Like you must have two spaces and at least one from my understanding is handicap accessible.

That's going to be required I think through the permitting process anyway. And then they'll be required one handicap space, right? So we need sort of a dimminimous minimum, right? That's a floor no matter what. But I think through the permitting process, even through building inspections and so forth, they're going to it's going to be required show a handicap space, right? And as far as how many as I understand the rules and and Stuart just want to kind of touch I think in agreement what you're saying. If a developer chooses to have 100 spaces and is still within the maximum, I mean that that's going to determine how many handicap spaces they have. The town doesn't need to say x amount of handicap spaces, right? Federal guidelines. Right. Now, if we require 100 spaces and now we take away the the the minimum and he decides, well, I only want to put in 50. Well, that determines how many handicap spaces he puts in, right? And 50 spaces is less infrastructure to construct. It's less storm water to construct, right? It's, you know, should help the environment. um opportunities for more trees or more green space. I'm not saying it will result in that, but it provides opportunities particular on your drop tracks. Rich saying pass sidewalks and wider sidewalks and right. So I mean and just just laying a lot of asphalt down and as we tal and most businesses they almost never utilize their parking lot very sel I mean only there most business have kind of a peak time a restaurant okay their parking lot's full or close to full at 700 p.m. or whatever, right? But during the rest of the day and after that, it's not. And the grocery store, I mean, the food line, which is fairly busy, that thing's never more than 50% full. Well, Saturday. Well, Saturday. And I guess the other thing I guess the caveat is, you have to realize we're a tourist town and tourists come here with vehicles

because it's the only way to get here, right? So, let's I don't I want to make sure we don't make this the maximum too tight knowing that our visitors even though I'm sure they would like as you say be able to park the car and maybe walk to a couple different places and then come back to the car and leave would be fine with them that they they can't go anywhere because there's no place. So, we can't go too crazy on too low on the on the maximums. But if we also if we need to be careful at least way the rules are currently written, the statutes are currently written. We're not doing anything to generate a down zone. So if we were to lower the whatever we do, we want to make sure they can at least do the same amount of maximums they could do now, I guess, is what I'm getting at. Oh. Oh yeah. Because so we can't just change the minimums to maximums. Yeah. Because we allow them 20% over what's in here now. So, if we were to change the the just for discussion purposes, if that's the direction the board wants to go is to eliminate minimums and just regulate maximums, we'd have to change the equation to include that 20%. Somehow, yeah. So, either either add it to the strike the line and just add it to the table. Yeah. Somehow I got I just have to make sure the math table and leave the line. I just have to make sure the math comes out right. Yeah. Right. But just that's what this, you know, just throwing that out there. Whatever we do, we got to be aware of mindful of that downzoning definition as long as it's I mean I think we think it's going to change at some point and to allow local governments to downzone. But though I would think but right now I would think no non-residential developer would think this is a downzoning. No, wait a minute. Right. And we wouldn't be right. But we have to be careful that we apply it to the law of course. Correct. Yeah. We would have we won't finish this maybe until that changes anyway. So maybe Jerry kind of agree. Little less is more

in this situation. I think giving a opportunity or put the onus on the entrepreneur to decide if that's the right way to go. So I I think it's a great idea. And two more points I want. Yeah. Um one was the You were done, right D? Yes. Okay. Please. um if we're going to change, you know, a minimum parking requirement, I went through the code and looked at our shading requirements and if we're going to have less parking spaces, can we get something in return, which would be maybe more trees? Uh, again, we'll have to look at the down zoning piece of it because that may qual I'm not saying it does, but if they have to do more buffering or more landscaping, that may, as currently written, be interpreted as a down zoning. Not saying we can't, but we just need to look at it. If not, we should leave the space for it. Right. If we take some lines, a good idea, leave the leave the paragraph open for future use. I understand what you're saying. If we're going to give if we're going to give them something, can we get something like get more trees and more landscape? bigger sidewalk, you know, something more useful to community and beautifies the community other than asphalt with yellow stripes on it or a bio retention place in the middle of a parking lot or something, you know, that's more attractive. It's handling some storm water. It's breaking up the monotony of a parking lot. It's, you know, Yeah. Now, we can look at things like that. We just have to be mindful of unless that definition changes how the state defines town zone. Um the only other thing was overflow or temporary parking. You know if do those papers are they if they're a specific use that they have a you know a big peak at some at one point in time. Can they reach an

agreement with somebody else for overflow or temporary parking or something like that that would take that onus off of them to have this, you know, an extra 50 spots for this one event per week or something like that. I'm just trying to think we talked about around for the mud district that all their parking should be shared parking, right? Yes. And that's something at a minimum if we don't do anything else. I want make sure that's clarified. in this order because to me it's not clear. And my one caveat to not messing with res residential would be the mud district and say I'd just say in the mud district we just don't have any parking minimums and let them you know work it out. Y because it's the same developer for the whole thing. So he's not going to hurt himself. You know that kind of thing. And that kind of ties into this paper that I read. They had kind of a conclusion statement and they said, "If there's a lesson for how smaller communities can avoid or lessen such fears of parking minimums reform, it's by providing flexibility in the new policy. That is, we don't necessarily apply the reduced parking standards to all types of properties or all parts of town be targeted in the approach. So again, I think we could go in and look at the mud district having no minimums and right see how that works to MB1 and MB2 and we might have slightly differences for BB1. Right. Yeah. I mean and and and to that point Stuart, some towns required even in the downtown business districts to have minimum parking standards. And that was a way that's an idea they could the smaller towns say, "Okay, we're not going to regulate parking in our central business district." Which I know we don't necessarily have a central business district, right? mud is close

to that. Yeah. Um, but you mentioned it'll be nice to actually attach our central our overlay district to the mud district by the way the buildings and sidewalks and right paths get built would be in the end the nicest thing is that they're sort of attached even though there's essentially going to be a road in between them but uh would be the way to do you park there and walk across street and visit a few places walk you know or or bike through Right. There's a there's a guy named Charles Marone. He's founding president of Strong Towns and you guys he's he's written a book called The Confessions of a Recovering Engineer. I have that book. I have not I haven't reached that point yet. I was given that book when uh my director but it's but his mindset is um he has something called like on black Thursday or black Friday he's go he asked people go around and take pictures of the busy retail centers where you know people claim there's no parking and all you know the vast amount of parking that's available. So you go to you know your big malls or whatever and only 30% of the malls even on a black Friday were right being you know were really being I mean I lived in a highly populated area with a few big huge malls around them and even in Black Friday you could still get a spot. Now you're walking further but you needed it actually uh but uh you could still you know went to Woodfield Mall which was huge. I mean there was still parking available even on Black Friday and but it was a sea of cars of course but you know but the purchasing trends have changed so much right. Yeah. You know people online and even you have like the the quick the door dashes and things for restaurants and so forth. So maybe less so on a in a tourist community.

Yeah. You have to keep that aware because people have to drive here. So yeah. Well, I mean, there's also putting a train in, a high-speed train or something. Yeah. There's also a social element to this. As someone that spent 30 years in a small town that dealt with these issues, as you increase walkability, as you encourage ride sharing, you'll find that the parking requirements shrink. And uh 100% agree with you. Okay, moving along. So, oh, can I make one last thing? What do you got there? Big drawing there. So, I was trying to get up um a big map and I was going to do a sketch of the parking lot up there where the Family Dollar, Sarah's Kitchen, Hardies is because I was thinking about um that's kind of my perfect example of over parking. Yes. Um because there's that one area in the middle and I'll kind of shoot this around, but there's that one area in there that nobody ever parks in. You know, that's all seagull parking. And so what I was thinking is you take that area that's in the Hardies and if you cut that same area out of this spot, this developer could almost do another out parcel or two. Or two. Yeah. Or two. and have their own parking like the Hardies has their own parking. You could have another out parcel with their own parking and then you've got all this shared parking for that for that development. So, in a way, we're creating more developable areas. Yes. But if we agreed to something like that, I would say, you know, we'd want something in return, which would be, you know, more trees and

sidewalks, water, crosswalks, you know, that kind of thing. And maybe eliminate, he's got an extra entrance in there. Maybe eliminate that. But again, I don't know something we I don't know the history of that parcel with all those. Was some of that laid out as outlots and stuff originally? I I can share anecdotally the Family Dollar dollar store has closed and is going to consolidate and they were offering sales where everything in that store was 75% off. Okay. That store was packed. All right. That parking lot was onethird full. Right. It used to be a grocery store. Yeah. It was the original food line when I started telling me it was the food line till I built the new one across the road. Right. Uh okay. Well, I guess I guess in principle we're in agreement. And in principle, we're in agreement. It's just now how to get there. So, we'll look for obviously we're not going to get any text for next month, but at least a directional plan and what we all need to do because I think this can be or in integrated into the land use plan kind of as a guiding principle sort of. Yeah. But so uh I don't know Ron Lisa what do you think of the how how we proceed? I think we agree we're agreeing concept of where we want to go. How do you get there? Uhhuh. Now what's the right step by-step path to get there? Just give you guys enough time to write text and review or basically. Yes. Okay. And we we can report back something next month. um kind of where we stand. I'm going to let you know I'm going to be out of um commission for about 10 days beginning to end of like May 31st through June 9th. Me too. And so I'm not going to be I'm going to not be able to work on a lot during that time frame. Nothing to

be honest with you during that time frame. I will definitely focus on the MR3 discussion. Let's get that. Well, let's pencil this in maybe for the July meeting. But I can definitely, you know, provide you an update on kind of where we what our thinking is on this, but nothing to have in front of you to vote on at your next meeting on this. Sounds good. And I won't be at the next meeting. And I was going to mention that that you may want to consider um since Stuart's not going to be here and Ron's going to be away for an extended period of time, and it sounds like you are as well, that you may want to look at cancelling your June meeting and moving everything to your July. Yeah, I'd rather leave it there for now. Yeah, I'll be back for the June meeting. It's just as Ron's saying, the space in between the preparation period. So, if we only Well, we can see if we only if we have nothing on there, but if we do get the MR3 text, I'm I'm okay coming in and June 19th right now. Yeah. And you'll have Stuart won't be here for that June meeting. Everybody else would be. Yes. Yeah. So, and I won't and I will not be here for the August meeting. So, so we can I' I'd leave it on the calendar for now and see if we if nothing else get the one item done because we are sort of holding up Well, I can't We're holding up. We're not holding anything up, but it's could could help resolve an issue. Resolve that issue, get it to the council, etc. So, if we can maybe just get that one done. ended up being a short meeting, you know, and uh and then move everything else to July and August or September or whatever. So, yeah, I'm not aware of anything else for June this time. So, okay. All right. Very good. We'll move forward on that. Targeting this item for the July

meeting. Uh any administrative comments, administration? Lisa, can we get an update on the land use plan budgeting? The land use budgeting as consistent as it was last month, it is still in the budget. Um Wes and I did talk about as we get into the process. If you would like to expand the scope of work to include um urban design by comped path planning um we could go back to the town council and ask for additional funding to bring those type of consultants to the table. Um but I wouldn't do that at this juncture. I would wait until you get into the process with Wes and review the plans that we do have in place already um before moving forward and going to council and asking for additional money. Uh rough rough estimate uh to bring some more consultants on board would increase your budget by about 50,000 additional funds. Okay. So that would put us a little over 100,000 for that planning process. In theory, we next budget cycle maybe we could hit them up for another. We can always go uh for a budget amendment, you know, anytime after July when they adopt the the new budget. Okay. And this the current budget does include the survey that we discussed. No, the current budget includes the funds that um for the west to do the land use plan update. Okay. But we discussed including surveying public but there is public input meetings and processes that are included in that scope of work that Wes outlined already. Okay. I'm confused. In the 2017 land use plan, there is a public survey that we got

some very interesting data off of. Is that public survey calling people up on the phone who live here or taxpayers and asking them questions? Do you want a restaurant or whatever? Is that included in this budget at this time? Public printed out. Yeah. Uh options were with that included surveying the public. It could be one. I thought it was in there, but without I don't have the paper in front of me to say and it would be up to the board to decide what options you use for the public input portion. Like I said, it could be a survey. It could be several community meetings. It could be community meetings set up at offsite at the park, at the beach, at Food Lion. Um, you know, it'll be up to you to to drive the bus as to how you want to receive the public input. So, basically, we've been granted $50,000 to do this, but we don't have any clear instructions on what exactly it is how we would spend that money. I think it's 67. Do you remember? I 67, right? How much? 67,000 is what's budgeted right now. Do we have any information on how much that cost in 2017? Just the public survey, just the phone polling. Do we have any insight onto that? The actual land use planning process started about 13, right? And was completed in 15 and then it took KMA two years to approve it. Right. But the I don't recall the 2013 figures. So we don't I mean somebody had to hire I mean I the company that did we have a consultant that did that one so that did kind of the whole thing right? Yeah. The way I was told I didn't I wasn't here then. Okay. So it wasn't a specific line

item. It was just one of the functions of the consulting team that was okay. All right. Okay. Any other administrations? Good. I I would I would just like to share uh my concern uh learned yesterday of the resignation of Pete Larkin and I didn't know that. Yes. Pete resigned from the town council for personal and health reasons. Um and um Ron and Jerry and I worked closely with Pete for two years to rewrite the UDO and he made an invaluable contribution with the current North Carolina laws limiting what incorporated towns can do. We are very fortunate that we had the foresight and direction that Pete afforded us and I just want to wish him well in whatever is next for him. All right. Okay. Open public comments. None seen. Anyone move for adjournment? I so move. Any second? Mutment. Second. All in favor? I. Thanks everybody.