Planning Board - Regular Meeting

You did just under the wire. Good morning everybody and welcome to the Nags Head Planning Board meeting for Tuesday, April 15th, beautiful spring morning, tax day. Welcome everyone. Um our first order of business will be to approve our agenda for the day. I'll make a motion to approve it. We have a motion. Second and a second. Couple of seconds. Great. All in favor? I. The agenda looks good. Moving on to public comment. Audience response. Did you want to speak with us this morning? Well, thank you. Welcome. We're glad you're here. I'll close public comment then and move on to the approval of our minutes from March 18th. Can I make a motion to approve them? Absolutely. You want to approve the minutes as submitted? Do I have a second? Second. All right. Couple of seconds again. Great. All in favor? I. Moving on then to our action items. Um, and our first item is consideration of a map amendment to reszone the southernmost portion of Nags Head Municipal Complex from R3 to SPDC Institutional. Good morning, Kelly. Good morning. I think that's me. Good morning to any board members. It might be me. I don't know if it's me or you, but can you hear me now? Yes. Now? Yes. Um, okay. Well, I know we talked a lot about this at your last meeting. We pretty much went through the entire request. Um, so for today, I'm just going to put the proposed resoning map up on the screen and briefly run through what we talked about previously. Um the town staff and board of commissioners recently approved a town hall complex master plan that involved um kind of analyzing the facilities we

currently have, their lifespan, things of that nature. Um this particular request came out of realizing that the fitness center that's just right across the way here um is in uh needs to be replaced essentially needs to be demoed and reconstructed. And we're looking at generally the same area right over here um where you've got the fitness center, the storage uh for public services, putting it back in that same location. But when we did our site plan work for that, we realized there was uh not only split zoning between the parcel, this side which has our town hall that's village institutional already. where we are over here is actually R3 residential. So, this request would essentially be uh extending that village institutional zoning over to this southern portion of the municipal complex site. Um, and that's one going to just make it more cohesive for planning purposes, for site plan review, things of that nature, but it will also encompass the municipal uses that are already here, which is um the storage area, the fitness facility, this building, the boardroom. Um, and we do have the telecom the telecommunication um facility right over here that used to be the water tower. So, um, that's why it all made sense as part of the municipal complex. So, um, happy to answer any questions that you have. The map that we have up on the screen shows it as well. There were some other ones in your packet, but, um, the request is to seek your recommendation for reszoning the southern portion of this

property to Village Institutional. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Kelly, yes. in the southern portion here on the map. There's the the big green section and there's that small rectangular area up to the right. What's what's that about? What's going on there? This area here. Uh yes. So, that is just um the map itself had so many colors uh with a legend on it. This was just an inset with no um this has no zoning designations on it. It's just so you could see the the full aerial of what's here. Uh you've got your municipal building here. Um fitness storage, telecommunication, boardroom, and then the beach access parking here. So that's just to show you what was underlying in this general area. Okay. Thank you. Sure, Kelly. My understanding um where we are now at the R3 residential it's only 33% lot coverage. Correct. This would increase it by reszoning to 70% lot coverage. It does. So my question then would be what what else are we anticipating to build that's not there already? Um, so as part of the master plan, there's really nothing else that's not already here that we wouldn't maintain. Um, we're getting ready to move into a if if you recommend adoption of this, we're going to also discuss a text amendment which would ensure that all the accessory uses that are over here on this southern side are are included in that village institutional designation as well. Um, like I said previously, the master plan included this facility as

well as um the police department, fire department, and public services. Although that's um that is coming to an end. Uh they're wrapping up the public services um renovation. So that's exciting. Thank you. Sure. Absolutely. Anyone else questions for Kelly? Will this have to go to the board of commissioners? It does. So, when it leaves, um, the planning board, it will then go to the board of commissioners consent agenda where they'll place it for public hearing. And at that time, um, we'll put some signage out for people to be aware that there's a reasonzoning. We'll send letters to all the adjoining property owners. Um, and then it will be advertised in the newspaper for two consecutive weeks. Right. So, I know the public hearing is down the road, but is there been any kind of questions or possible push back so far on this? There hasn't. Um, I did reach out to um, forget her name, Macy White with Seaside Management of the Village to let her know about the request um, and to confirm and I know we did have a conversation about architectural compliance. So, trying to spark a conversation with Macy about whether or not the fitness facility would have to meet the architectural design. Um, and that email was sent a couple of days ago, so I haven't heard back yet, but there's been no other uh communications other than us just initiating the conversation with the village management. So, a zoning change here, as we're talking about, would pretty much be transparent to the public and anybody else, right? Because it's all here on the town complex. Sure, it would be.

Like I said, there there will be signage placed. It will be in the paper. Um, and this is really just to create more consistency with the with the uses that are already here. Anyone else questions? Okay. What do we want to do? Let's talk about it. We just did kind of talk about it. I'm good with it. I don't see a problem. I don't see a problem with it either. It's just kind of weird that it's over here un, you know, undone already. frankly. So, and I Well, I I guess there's there's one the one kind of wafer that's added on to the parcel is this this parking lot extension over here. It seems to be a different parcel and and it's a it that parking is the beach access as I is is beach access parking as I see it. Yeah. So, just Yeah. It's just a little different. My parking. Okay. my I do have question just for clarification purposes the the in the village the SPDC they have the architectural control committee as everybody knows and they pretty much have a hand in what the design and look and required material does the institutional uh component of zoning. Does that is that subject to the ACC or is that outside the ACC's jurisdiction? That's a really good question. So, um, this I don't know if you remember, but we're thinking this is going to be similar to what happened with the Epstein beach access which was outside

the ACC. Correct. Correct. It was. So the funny thing is town hall has been village institutional for as long as the village has existed. But town hall has never had a vote on the village board. We've never paid dues and we weren't required to go through the comp the ACC compliance. Um, so even though the town hall, the municipal building that's already there, we're in the village institutional district, we've never been part of the village proper in terms of participating with the POA and the ACC in that regard. So, um, looking back, it seems to be and we're also not on the sewer system. We have our own conventional system here. So, we're not connected. So, you're pretty much the waste water. Right. So, we're not part of that initial parcel that was designated SPDC. So, town hall was an add-on. This would essentially be an be an extension just as Epstein tract was. And similarly, how village hotel encumbered Lakeside. It's they're not part of the original village tract. they're not privy to connection to the wastewater system and they don't participate with the POA and and ACC. So the logical understanding would be the institutional component of the SPDC would be outside the purview of the ACC which deals mostly with residential and commercial. Correct. So the fire station is also in the village institutional and I think that was part of the original village parcel. So we do send there any updates that they have.

We do take that through the ACC just for their awareness. But over here we have not. Now the BB&T building that they're going to demolish and that's going to be EMT. Yeah. The EMS station. Yeah. And that's town. Yes, but that's in the institutional. That is actually part of the C2. That's what I thought. And it does require village ACC approval. Okay. And I understand they're in the process of doing that right now. So, thank So technically like the town hall we're talking about participating in the village you know paying dues and being involved in the association but so town hall wouldn't technically comply if you will right I mean anything in the at the time right you know so I assume that would be consistent hopefully and I think it should be clarified both to the board and everybody but the institution really should be outside the purview of the ACC in my opinion that's essentially my my conversation with um Macy when I connected with her is to just explain where we were coming from and to make sure they were in agreement moving forward. I think that's very wise. Let's get it straight. I do want to get it straight now and maybe a little blurb to the board. I'm not on the board, but something along those lines would make sense. So that that takes care of that issue going forward. Sure, we can put that in our staff analysis. A way to make it official. Absolutely. Moving forward so that future boards don't have to have these discussions. Not that I mind having the discussion, but you know what I'm saying. Let's let's get it right. Right. Totally agree. Okay. Anybody else questions or comments? I'll I'll make this motion if

everybody thinks they're ready. I don't want it, you know, to um uh reszone the southernmost portion of the Nags Head Municipal Complex from R3 to SPDC Institutional. Second. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion, questions, comments? All in favor? Anyone opposed? Okay, great. Moving on to consideration of a text amendment um to clarify and expand the list of allowable accessory uses associated with the municipal building use within the village institutional zoning classification. Okay. So kind of touched on this previously but it is connected what with what we just spoke about. Um so contingent upon your recommendation and of course the board of commissioners adoption of the proposed resoning um to resolve the split zoning staff has proposed this um text amendment to the village table of uses and activities. Um it is up on the screen for you to review but essentially we already allow municipal buildings including fire stations, police station, administration um administrative offices rather and the county EMS station. This would take it one step further to say that municipal complexes may include accessory uses um including meeting rooms. So for this boardroom um employee fitness facilities and telecommunication facility. So what this does, it doesn't open these uses up as principal uses anywhere within the village. It makes it specific that it is just an accessory to the municipal complex here. So there's no there's no um opportunity for a telecoma a telecommunication tower to pop up

anywhere else within the village. It's specifically as an accessory to this municipal complex. Um, so I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about that. Um, but this would just go ahead and encompass the uses that are already existing um, in terms of the text. Thank you. Sure. Questions for Kelly? Okay. Comments, discussion. How do we feel about this? Seems pretty straightforward to me. Makes sense. Makes perfect sense. Absolutely. No reason. No. No concerns or Okay. I'll make a motion to to make the amendments as as written. Okay. I'll second. Expand the list of allowable accessory uses. And we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. Anyone opposed? Okay. Moving on to the report of board of commissioners actions from April 2nd, please. Miss White, sure. You're going to get tired standing up there. I think this is me and then I get to hand it off to um not a whole lot additional to add. So, we did I did include this um proclamation for dark sky week. The board adopted the proclamation declaring April 21st to the 28th dark sky week. Um, and we got to plug our dark skies, bright stars initiative, which, um, there's just a lot of really cool things going on with that right now. So, it was nice to see that on there. Um, had the public hearing, um, which was submitted by NX Head 87 LLC for um, increasing the number of fueling dis dispensers as well as the size of convenience stores

associated with fueling stations. Um the board voted unanimously to deny that amendment as it was requested. Um the board voted unanimously to approve the Starbucks restaurant located down at the outlet Snags Head. Um they did add a faux window and some sconces on that eastern elevation. And um when asked um by the board uh they did say that they would certainly cooperate and communicate with staff with regard to any parking um issues if they arise. So that was great. Um the board approved the living shoreline project design scope of services for the sound site event site and the Harvey site um as part of their capital project ordinance amendment. Um just highlighted that because we do talk a lot about the Estran shoreline management plan and what's going on. So, I wanted you to be aware. Um, and then the board also approved design services agreement for the fitness center which we just talked about in terms of the reasonzoning and the text amendment. Um the next item here, due to the uncertainty of the North Carolina legislature regarding various zoning laws, um it was the consensus of the board to wait and schedule the ADU workshop with the planning board when we know more about what's happening. And there's a separate item on your agenda this morning about some legislative tracking. So you can see there's a lot of things out there that have the potential to greatly impact what we do here. And that's it. Great. Thank you. Anybody have questions from regarding board of commissioners meeting from April

2nd? Okay, let's move on then and let Miss Wyatt sit. Joe, good morning. Hello. Good morning, planning board. Good morning. Um, so last month I gave a presentation on commercial outdoor recreation district. It's an overlay district that we have in town. Um, it was originally established to basically com uh consolidate those outdoor recreation uses and um potentially keep them from um sort of incompatible type adjacent uses like residential um one of the examples given in those um original initiation discussions was like a go-kart track next to a residential home and um the sort of why are we talking about this? It was um included as an item on our strategic plan which basically guides how um the the staff our staff is is looking to um basically our operations and um things to um tackle over the year. So, we're looking to um there are multiple items. It's in the staff report where we're looking to identify and correct areas of land use decent compatibility between um the allowable uses within the cord and um was was one of those. So we prepared a report which basically looks at the cord holistically looks at basically the district's location, the background, the the original purpose, um existing development patterns, and then provides some recommendations on some zoning

changes to correct those examples of incompatibility between what's allowed right now and potentially um what should be allowed and and um some of the things are um suggestions that we basically exclude in in the future uses and and some are uses that we potentially make as accessory to basically support existing commercial outdoor businesses better um and achieve the goals that are stated in the comprehensive plan and the development um the what what we have in our comprehensive plan is as acceptable or desirable uses and in development. And so if you look at your staff report, we put together a couple discussion items. I think the plan today was, you know, just to sort of ask these questions to the planning board and get your feedback. Um if you have any specific questions on the report, be happy to answer. Um but hopefully that report gives you sort of a basis for understanding all the different plans that have sort of been in place or from different agencies or or over time what's been considered there been sort of on the ground what what's actually here and then looking at our zoning and looking at our sort of pedestrian infrastructure and our transportation infrastructure sort of in whole in totality and um just really thinking about this district sort of you know more than just the individual uses but actually as a place and and what we um want to be there. Um so the first discussion item we've included here is do you think the current uses in the

core reflect the original intent of the district? Should we consider refining the allowable uses to encourage more of the desired development or less of those uses that are deemed undesirable? That's a question to you. I feel like there was some things on the list that would be undesirable that are allowed there that just happened to not be there right now from what I recall from the list before. pull that I actually have a question kind of a general question regarding the the background because there's a section in the background where they talk about the land use plan um from 2000 and 2010 and it ends with a with a sentence about not enlarging the overlay district and shall consider reducing the district in size or amending ing the uses when conflicts develop. So, and I'm not saying we have a conflict and I'm not saying that I'm in favor of reducing it. I just think it was an interesting it was kind of just at the tail end of a paragraph about the background. So, can you say it says and it's on it's on the background section like on page two of our thing. just says the town shall not enlarge the overlay district and shall consider reducing the district in size or amending the uses when conflicts develop and there's no period there's what there's no so I mean I'm just so putting you on the spot h how do we interpret that I wouldn't say we have conflicts right now we're kind of doing all this to avoid conflicts right or to to you know look more carefully at the at the chord But if a conflict were to develop in the future, right? Does this say that we

should I'm just kind I'm just kind of curious about that sentence. It jumped out at me. Yeah, it was um you know, a part of the Yeah. Um when I was sort of looking back at the staff reports and um when the district was created, that was included as a part of the right sort of the um staff notes and and sort of official um adoption of the overlay district. just kind of interesting as far as, you know, why they sort of thought it shouldn't be enlarged, right? I I don't know. Maybe there were specific concerns at that time. Um I didn't see anything like reading back through like public comment or anything that would speak to that specifically. Um but as far as looking at the incomp you know the compatibility of uses I think you know it was sort of reviewed in 2014 2015 and then also pretty much on a 10-year cycle it's kind of come up to to the planning board and and been discussed and there was some um sort of community outreach done in the mid 2014 2015 with the boardwalk and then sort of similar type presentation on basically, you know, the sort of the boardwalk coming up from the pedestrian plan and then looking at the commercial outdoor uses. And there's been various text amendments that have kind of come before the planning board over time. One was about basically having like a hitting, you know, a baseball range that, you know, was that compatible or not with the commercial outdoor recreation district and um a few other items like that. So, I do think um you know

that that's sort of been what's what's occurred is is about every 10 years we've looked at the commercial outdoor recreation district. We've looked at the uses. We've looked at existing development. We've looked at developmental trends and sort of said, "Is this still working? What do we want out of this district?" To the best of your knowledge, nobody's ever recommended reducing the size of it. Okay. Um, and I mean you just made the comment that the sentence also includes words about, you know, um, allowing you to amend the uses or, you know, say, right? Yeah. And of course, I guess this would tie into because we've, you know, recently looked at the hotel overlay district and, you know, originally this the background is that this would be a great place for hotels and outdoor recreational stuff. So, I mean, there's a conflict right there, right? I think so. And I know, you know, that was included in the background as what was considered 30 years ago, but I guess I would say what's more relevant is the board of commissioners um included in our strategic plan. Um basically wanted to look at this. Yeah. Wanting to look at this area specifically and look at the incompatibility of uses and basically try to align our comprehensive plan our zoning. And I do think the hotel overlay district, you know, has a similar boundary. And so we've recommended removing that. It's sort of on hold because of because of SP382. SP382. Um and so some of what's been recommended here would also similarly be on hold. But I think it makes sense. We're looking at, you know, this area of town and saying, you know, we're good on hotels. planning board sort of recommended that we um remove the hotel overlay district and you know that doesn't necessarily match what we've said is desired development in this area

either um so just another good reason to look at it correct and so I think um staff in looking at it has said you know we generally like this these commercial outdoor uses um we feel like that's a good use we like our outlets and we like the um you know basically the development that's occurred for the most part. So, what can we do to support that and and keep these businesses viable? Maybe increase the pedestrian connectivity and um make it more of a walkable um connected development area. Um but not necessarily, you know, see it all go away. And and I think it also has the potential for um redevelopment. And so I think staff, you know, wants to get ahead of that as well, right? Yeah, that's as should we get ahead try to get ahead of it. You know, right, for redevelopment. Yeah, it absolutely is. And so and I I think you you know the idea of trying to do things to support the existing businesses and maybe bring similar businesses outdoor recreational type businesses to the area. There haven't been a lot of new ones of those in a while. the climbing. Um so it seems like focusing on supporting the existing ones, you know, maybe changing things so that they that we could um that they could prosper with some of the um I mean this is just my thoughts. Yeah, I definitely want to the whole the whole thing I got out of this was to make it so that pedestrians, bikers, it

make it very attractive and walkable and safe and and interesting and and allows compatible recreational activities and and family interesting family fun and and we we're building in that direction and I like this. I really like what you're doing here and I like the fact that you leave the door open, that caveat that says we can revisit if something is not working or not contributing to the to the intent here with courts. Yeah, I I am concerned about that bring point you bring forward about you know is while it doesn't seem that there's any desire to cave away at this a little bit it does you know is there if the accord has in the documents you can take land away from it that's a bit weird yeah I mean I don't think it's a it just was an interesting sentence it doesn't seem like it's a a goal or something but um okay so I'm sorry we we're wandering you're you have some questions for which should help us to focus the the first question was just you know should we consider and you guys sort of answered it or spoke to it should we consider refining the allowable uses to encourage more of the desired development and less of those that are deemed undesirable and I did hear that we should try to consider changing the uses to at least support the existing businesses but I think you know we can generally have a conversation too and and it doesn't have to be so you know All right. Well, that's fine. No, that the discussion questions are helpful for focus

and um I I'll just throw out there that I am always concerned about and there and there's a lot of language in here different places about you know creating a wall of development that blocks the sound and the views of the sound and all those things to me are important if we can. I I'd like to prioritize trying to keep that in the forefront. Um, I know we, you know, we can't just do whatever we want, but well, in the list of what's allowed recommendations for zoning, um, large dwelling residential is highlighted in red. Um, there's a few other things highlighted in red and there's some in yellow. What's the what's the code there? Yeah. Um so red highlighted were things that basically recommended to remove um as allowable. Um and and again, you know, just sort of I guess to reiterate, the commercial outdoor recreation district allows uses that are specific uses that aren't allowed anywhere else in town in that district. Um but all of those properties have an underlying C2 zoning. So you can do basically anything that you can do in C2 you can do in that area but you can also do these commercial outdoor recreation uses. But if someone wanted to do you know theoretically you could buy a mini golf and build a large residential home and keep it privately and you know sort of mess up the connectivity and the integration of the district. and it runs counter to what we've sort of said we want to see there in our comprehensive plan. And so, um, you know, there's a lot of uses in the C2. I tried to not remove too many uses, um, understanding that, you know, these are private property owners who probably want the um,

capability and and to maintain the ability to to do what they want with their property. So, really touching on sort of the worst offenders, so to speak, So, so a gas station would be allowed in there or a firearm sales or Yeah. Yes. Um and you know, of course the market I think hopefully would control hopefully would control some some some of the uses that are you know you might see in the C2, but um I think all of those type of uses are open for debate. And I I sort of took a you know again sort of the maybe the he the worst offenders I thought you know would would would really um be bad. But but in in removing some of those uses, I thought, you know, or we thought because you know, Kelly obviously had a reviewed this um you know, the yellow is basically what would be accessory to a commercial outdoor. So, you know, I think that's important to to sort of say, you know, we're removing these uses or proposing to remove some of these uses that, you know, we feel would really damage the corridor as a whole and sort of run counter to our comprehensive plan and and hurt these businesses. But then, you know, maybe accessory residential such as a duplex or um even our small multif family ordinance that we recently worked on could be accessory to a commercial outdoor recreation business. So, you could have staff that live there or you could live there and run that and maybe that would help support that business. Um, and then also looking at sort of our group development, which would basically allow you to have multiple buildings on site that are doing different things or multiple principal uses. So, for instance, you could have, you know, a restaurant and then maybe that

restaurant could purchase the neighboring um mini golf course and you could have two principal uses on one site. So, sort of that carrot and stick approach of Yeah. So, we're looking at the recommendations in the in the report itself, right? The zoning recommendations. That's correct. And red means it's there now but would go away from Yeah. potentially. I mean, that's how it's lining up. What is on residential group bed and breakfast and the use is SWW. Yeah. on page 19 right there on the right top right I I don't understand that one that was just an error you're not supposed to understand we don't we don't know what those are we don't make those that's just supposed to be an okay is not supposed I just I just thought I was missing something I'm Sorry, I don't know how to Okay, great. Yeah, we don't want to miss anything. You know, if if large residential dwellings are counter to then wouldn't bad memory large multif family counterord I'm sorry, what you saying? I'm saying if large multif family and if large residential dwellings are are kind of counter to the concept, then it seems like multif family large would also be counter concept. Um yeah, but of course underlying all this is the basic fact that we can't really do anything right now because of 382, right? I mean we could we certainly want to look at it and make recommendations but we it's a wish list at the moment. Yes. Yes. So how can we support I guess like yeah since we don't really we can't pick

and choose what we want there. Can we how can we support businesses that are there? How can we make it more walkable and friendly and a place that people want to go and in the same character. Does it change the situation in any way if we, you know, like the yellow ones you're talking about, if we just make it so they have to be accessory or whatever, does that somehow give us a loophole to eliminate it as a primary use? Um, I don't believe so, but I um Right. I'm just, you know, if we were to downzone, I you know, we couldn't do that, but theoretically we could. you know, make more uses accessory in the chord or um you know, allow chord type uses to be part of a group development and that would even under SB382 be allowed. Yeah, but um you know I'm glad you know Molly and me sort of both mentioned it and that's kind of what I was seeing is well what can we do and you know we have a lot of pedestrian plans, we have these transportation plans and that's why I thought it would be beneficial to present it to the board in that way to sort of show it's sort of a bigger idea. It's not just sort of pulling these uses and all, you know, adding these uses. Um it's there's other things that potentially could be done to to support it b you know as a place and as a um from the towns um and that we don't we're not limited um currently to do whether that's um you know advocate for crosswalks or you know do street trees or benches or make it more walkable and more accessible and make those um businesses may be more connected. Yeah. Right. And that's directly from the comprehensive plan. You know, that's that's really what the comprehensive plan sort of restates for that activity node. So, focus on things we can do, positive

things we can do to maybe foster the situation and encourage the the tourist bureau or visitors bureau plan for the for the event site. Like, would that include like spaces that the public could use when there's not an event going on like shady areas or or benches or anything like that. Do we know? I mean, they have the pickle ball courts coming in and I, you know, I do think it's open to the public. I don't know. You know, I think there's sort of hours that are expected with that. Basically, day hours, correct me if I'm wrong on that? No, I mean, it is open to the public and I'm not I'm not sure what their plans are moving forward, what they're going to be doing there. Um, but beyond the board, they haven't proposed any new amenities just for public, but that doesn't mean that Yeah. It needs some like features to make it more welcoming. Yeah. Yeah. Like the Harvey Access building or um pavilion pavilion is so nice. Like I don't think people enough people know about that little spot. Yeah. You know, and there was more attractive at the visitors site or the event site than I feel like that would I mean I know there's gonna be a boardwalk that would be really attractive down that road what are the ordinances on on on parking at the Harvey site and at the Der County site you know or are you allowed to have overnight or or is it just I don't think so yeah because that's something that becomes an issue here and there but Um, you know, I'm wondering if there's a conflict between I actually say it this way. Is there a difference between the parking ordinance at the town access as compared to county property with the

event site and the restaurants? Yeah. Yeah. I'm not I'm not familiar with how the county addresses overnight visitors property figure out certainly for any town access there is okay and I see outdoor stands on the you know in the yellow I think that would be another thing Molly that would you know maybe kind of connect things and draw people or food trucks um but that's a whole another issue I you know, but it's going to change. We're going to see how it unfolds as the boardwalk gets done, too, you know, and that would be nice. Yeah. But that doesn't mean we don't want to try to sort of get ahead of it or, you know, but we we don't know how it's, you know, how it's going to play out really. Um, anyway, you were getting ready to say something. Yeah, I was just gonna I thought it was a good moment to sort of seem like the conversation was going this way anyway to the next discussion question. In in what ways does the current mix of uses contribute to or detract from the character of the activity node and the goals in the comprehensive plan just you know if you guys can picture you know that area and what's there um we have sort of retail there's some single family residential along the causeway we have a good amount of water sports businesses bait and tackle there's mini There's a go-karts. I guess just what is the planning board's thought to it? Does it work, you know, cohesively as as an activity node as described in the comprehensive plan or what's lacking or or do you guys think

it's good? I feel like it would be a really good spot for people to bike over if it was easy to get there via bicycle and encouraged via bicycle and there was like bike racks that were ob Um, it could be a Yeah, it could be a cooler spot if it felt like locals and visitors both felt like they could get there safely on their bikes and then like, you know, walk to dinner, go on the boardwalk, watch the sunset, go ride the go-karts. I don't feel like it just doesn't feel like be great if there was bike rentals right there. Yeah. It just doesn't feel it doesn't have the feel even though it is connected and the boardwalk is going to bring a lot more people, but it just doesn't have the feel right now of like I don't know. Just being somewhere you could just park your car and walk. Yeah. Highway commercial. Yeah. Instead of Yeah. I don't think that it doesn't, you know, if you don't know all what we know, you wouldn't think, oh, look at this cool like overall area, you know, and so connectivity. Public art would some some kind of I know it's on here, but it's not my idea, but like the installation that somebody brought up last time just something to draw people Would it what it kind of kind of down that road? Um is is there a town plan or a a tile on the town plan that talks about accessibility generally within the town? So if you wanted to, you know, maybe have a do a run loop, you knew how far it was. If you wanted to connect there on a bike, you knew how far it was, where the crosswalks were. So you could plan that kind of a thing just generally. So, this is infrastructure the town really doesn't have to use, but if it highlighted it as a use, it could start to maybe not only work in itself as as a piece, but you could start to also understand the extensions where it could tie into all of these uses like the

trail map. People, right? People come over to play pickle ball and they see the walking trail and you know how they do, right? you know, um if walkable nags head, bikable nags head. Um then also, and this is this is this is your favorite, right? This is, you know, added on to it is, you know, what are the ordinances on ebikes and propelled vehicles and you know, can you use it on the walking trail or the biking trail or the beach road trail um so that people can understand how they do it. you know, I I kind of see a tribe of people on one wheels going across the bypass um now and then, and I wonder, okay, that happened. Is it okay? Um is it And it's also going to illuminate where we might want to look at asking for infrastructure improvement or addition. Yeah. This kind this discussion is kind of leading I'm sorry kind of leading to your next question which is the purpose of the district still relevant or do we want to you know so it's kind of like we're rec you know we have I would say we want to reflect broader goals right I mean it isn't just for jet skis or you know commercial outdoor but um more of a like you said a place to go and um If we get our stoplight at Lakeside with a crosswalk, then you've got two ways in. Um, and then like signage, art, you know, maps, trail, you know, maps of like what's this way, you know, right? Then it feels more like a place to go, actually, a destination, a destination, right? I love the conversation you guys are having right now because yeah, I think you know when you look at the uses and you look at the original intent of the district, it was just to allow these

uses and kind of keep them away from residential development and allow them to happen and they've happened. We have this pretty unique really popular area with the retail with the southside event center and these outdoor rec uses the causeway sort of is separate from that soundside activity node. But then well what's lacking? you kind of can't go, you know, yes, we have the multi-use trail, but it somehow, you know, you just feel exposed. You know, people don't play golf and then walk to the outside activity. I know people park at the outlets and then walk over the event center and walk back just due to lack of parking, right? But if it was more cohesive and a place and you know you had more signage and more information on how these things connect and allow people to plan it, I think that supports all of these businesses. It supports the goals of the comprehensive plan. I bet Arts and Culture could come up with a way to to draw people down there on purpose once in a great while. I don't want to, you know, they do such a great job at Dowy and other places around town, you know, and then of course you got Whale Bone Park, too. So, and Janette's right there. So, it could really be a They do connect. Yeah. And you could think of a more fun name for it than commercial res. Yeah. Branding is a part of it. But the cord like what? Um I think well obviously all of us live in Nagad and we live in Nagad for a reason. Nagad in our estimation is the pearl of Derek County. We love Nagad. Um and it's it may not be a current statistic but I think it's still pretty close. While we have 70% repeat visitors to the Outer Banks on vacation, what's the percentage? 70.

30% does not. And the a not the a common refrain that you hear from that 30% is well there's nothing else to do. There's nothing to do. You go to the beach, you go back to your cottage, you eat dinner. Well, this in the greatest town in Dair County will offer and draw not only people to stay in Nags Head, but properly done, it will draw people from all over the Outer Banks who are down here on vacation. We got to go to Nag's Head for the day because they've got this and we can get the ebikes and we can do jet skis and you know they've got the art over here and then we can stop at this restaurant and watch this restaurant for dinner. We can watch the sunset, we can go jet skiing, etc., etc., etc. And it's all in a relatively easy to u engage, easy to maneuver, not overly large district and properly done. This would then make the cover of Southern Living as opposed to that small town at the northern end of Derek County. Park once and play all that. Used to be called the Cord District and they used to be called the Cord District. We'll have to we'll be if we can come up with a nice name sidewalk extended park once in play. You like that people even more the cord district. We're just laughing about the name. Yeah, Molly. Absolutely. And we're gonna have to come up with something better than that. Connect the mall and mall. You're in a pickle now. You're in a pickle. Yeah. And what you said walkable. I think we're moving into uh sort of that last point. What walkability improvements, past connections, crosswalks, public art would make the area more attractive or better connected to nearby destinations

like Janette's Pier or Wellbone Junction? Um on before I get you into that just to what what's been shown is you know I I took if you look at the report what's existing in our plan and you know colored that I think yellow and green um is what basically I'm just showing as new connections proposed. Um, so I sort of tried it, but you know, I'd love you. You all live in Nagad or are here a lot, right? Raise your hand if you live in Nagad, everyone. I do have I do have an addin and maybe this fits and and I know use isn't you know fueling isn't a use but I'm wondering if a charging station might be something that might be a use that might be you know a park and leave situation because the vehicles don't charge themselves very quickly and but it would also lend right into go ahead and park your car here while it charges you can do all of this myriad of things and it might be another little bit of a focal point. I know it's kicking it's throwing a door open here. Um but I think it's a that's a door I don't mind looking at right now. Um is a charging station a use that is permitted? Um as an accessory use in the cord or just generally I mean accessory in the C2. So it would certainly Right. Right. Okay. You're parking for and you're going to be there for a couple hours. Yeah. that that's what you need. Well, then you can park there. But Janette Pier has got got some charging stations that are not operational, right? That's one one thought. So, um you know, just just knowing the area, I don't you know, I've included on the map basically connections that we're

planning on doing which includes the connection to Lakeside along that multi-use path. That's excuse me. Yeah. from basically along the village that one section of multi-use path that's not there and then um it's also in our pedestrian plan to go basically to Sugar Creek. It's at the very bottom of the pedestrian plan so it will be a long time off. Um but you know if you look at the Beach Road plan and some other plans there's been at least consideration to like some sort of circulation there between that whale bone activity node and the soundside activity node. And you know, everything goes up and down on on the beach with the beach road and 158. Um, but there's a lot of uses packed in and it's really a very walkable distance and and sort of to to both what David and Molly and and I heard me saying um just about sort of what it could be and sort of that bigger picture, that bigger idea of being a place. And I think that that connection is pretty key to that park and be there all day. And you have Janette's Pier, you could park there and, you know, walk the kids over to Whale Bone and then, you know, mom wants to do some shopping and let's stop and eat here. And that all can be combined. Um, is there a specific connection or or spot that potentially that's not that I didn't consider or isn't in our pedestrian plan that would really help make that work. I've sort of shown, you know, this isn't in our pedestrian plan, but just we have that new pavilion there in Whale Bone. If you could kind of walk around and through and up, I know there's some gray challenges and it's there's drainage there. But if you could walk straight up

and not deal with the 64 bridge and just get to that existing crosswalk right there across from the outlets, I think that would circulation. You could park at the outlets and then kind of walk across and go to the park or you could walk that would help a lot. Uh because they're really very close and you know, I'm not proposing a pedestrian bridge or anything like that, but other places find ways to get across highways. would be great though, you know. Well, that was my main question here. This all sounds really good, but I'm looking at the map now and there's a ton of, you know, properties on the east side of the bypass there. Probably mostly rentals and the kind of people we would want coming over and taking advantage of this and how are they going to get there safely? I know we can build a good crosswalk, but it needs to be a priority for for bikes and pedestrians. I agree. the cross. What? But I mean a a better than what's there now. Why can't we do a pedestrian bridge? I mean, or tunnel. Let's dig. Yeah. I mean, there's other beach towns and cities that find ways to get people highway to the other. Um, superior. They're not always cross-artane highway. And if you look at our US 158 access management concept that's on the back end of the secondary improvement plan um which seems unlikely to be funded and maybe it'll be funded someday but then it'll be a long time to be constructed. They do propose sort of this vegetated median. There's a bike lane on one side and then it would be access control. So instead of that suicide lane where everyone's going to, you know, use it as an acceleration lane, de acceleration lane, turning lane, you know, whatever. and some pedestrian, you know, as a pedestrian's sort of midway point because you can't get across more. Yeah. Sort of an everything lane. It would be a little bit more defined, less conflict points,

better controls. So, I think one thing the town can do and we are doing is saying we do want this NC dot um and advocating for that in the long term, but is there some specific improvement we could do to make those connections and you know the Beach Road plan kind of considers the circulation with the boardwalk. Um, and that was, you know, 20 years ago basically. And then having that crosswalk connect, they have a couple more lights proposed and and and crosswalks in that beach design plan. So, I sort of tried to show a simplified version of that where it just has the boardwalk extended a little bit just to provide that circulation. And um I know Duck has a boardwalk, but um so does Columbia, so does Wilmington, so does Virginia Beach, so does, you know, a lot of places that um have water frontage because it's people like being on the water and it whether it's sort of a nature bent or if it's more of a, you know, boutique shopping experience, I think, you know, it still is a draw. As far as the crosswalk goes, uh I mean obviously there are a number of ways to make a crosswalk safer and make people more aware of a crosswalk. Um, one thing that I know it exists in Kittyhawk and it exists in two or three places if you go over on the mainland, but there is that yellow light I don't know 200 500 yards prior to the stop light to stop that starts to flash when if you're driving the speed limit, you're not going to make the red light. And so that immediately makes you aware, okay, now it's time to start slowing down. Uh it's not a you better floor it if you want to make it light. It's a

okay go ahead and start to slow down light. Uh that would also help there. But I mean I think a crosswalk can be made much much safer. And also when they took the speed limit to 45 on the causeway and now they've taken that all the way over to the intersection one mano intersection uh they could extend the 45 mph zone a little bit further. really needs to do that. Yeah. I mean, there's just enough traffic that it it would make sense. And particularly as as more interesting things happen over on the west side where we're talking about, as you increase those activities, people are going to be drawn from the east side, all that residential area. It's it's really going to be not only more of an issue, safety issue, but the other thing I was thinking of too is and I don't don't want to get off the subject here, but but when you're traveling overseas and you're particularly in an area where they don't speak English, it's really a relief to find an information booth. Yeah, absolutely. And is there something something like that that we could bring in where where people that are walking families whatever. Um where would we find if we want to go parasailing or where what where do we find information about you know wave runners or dolphin watching or whatever or where you know a good a good hiking trail for kids. that information. Again, I haven't gone online looking for, but a lot of times people that are out and about walking, they're not online. They're they're looking for information so that they find a place to park, a place to eat,

whatever. Kios Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. QR codes everywhere. Well, or Yeah. But apps work, too. A lot of people more and more people are leaning towards those because you can go on your phone. It down this road similarly. You know, one of the things that I'm really good I'm really happy to hear about good information getting out and having good access to it, the information is going to change. And if we create a situation where we create make signs that are deadended and you know we're printing up pamphlets that are you know that are useless in a year, that's a thing. But if we could make it so that it's driven more to a phone or to a pad where people can get the information and it is visually inviting to get the information but is not polluted with signs and and stuff. One of the things that I really love is I love when sign is signage is directive signage is on the ground when you're on a bike because you're looking to the ground all the time when you're walking anyway. No smoking. Um walk this way. Don't park here. you're not going to want to stand here because you're in a right away. Those kind of things are really really good. But as a as an as an area, this area, we don't really do that very much. We don't mark stuff on the ground, especially when it's walkable, bikable, and that would be I feel like that's a good use of space, but it also doesn't clog the signage, doesn't the viewscape is is is not reduced by that. It is actually enhanced by it. to that point also because it is very walkable and thinking of our full-time residents. Uh if you go out and walk for exercise have it also painted on the sidewalks or multi-use paths, you know, 13, 13 and a half, 14. So you actually know how far you've walked. The single best question I've ever been asked and

I'm asked it every other year or so is this. How far between mus? How far between mus? Yes, exactly. And and it's it's a silly it is a really really silly question, but it does state, you know, if you if you start to do this kind of stuff, how far are you from the beach access? Is that really the ocean? I thought it would be bigger. You know, those those are questions I've I've I've had, you know, so a directive that's the sound, that's the ocean, you know, that kind of stuff. There's a lot of opportunity especially with interactive signage in Virginia Beach on their boardwalk and they do not have milep posts in Virginia Beach. Uh but they do mark uh the intervals whether it's half mile or quarter mile or whatever on the boardwalk so that those people who are walking for exercise will know how far they've gone. Well and as well every one of us knows where the mileposts are. Sure. But when was the last time you saw a mile post there? Right. a lot of the that signage it's it's this it's a if it was printed on the ground it's not going to get stolen or hit by a car right yeah I'm hearing better wayf finding and and from David to thinking critically about you know the driver experience and and I think that's a big thing to to it's a lowcost opportunity that you know can really enhance safety and and make the corridor better but I guess to to me this is framed in a bigger conversation which sort of you know when I read the comp plan and you know just looking at what it says and the intensity of uses and the activity nodes and how walkable you know we said our vision is for this area and you compare that to I guess something you know where we're going down is is you know Nagad's sort of been a rural single family residential we don't want all this signage so to speak

we want it to be sort of a um you know a more relaxed feel and and not sort of an overly signed or an overly developed right area. And so what is that balance? And um you know in my reading of the comp plan, you know what we've said is we have these activity nodes and that's where we want to see it and then we're protecting everywhere else and we're saying we want it here and we want to integrate these areas and develop these areas. But I guess that's you know again a question for for the planning board because I'm a lot of this are sort of urban type changes and urban type problems of of wayfinding of you know visitors don't know where to go of of sort of better pedestrian infrastructure but um you know what is the cost that the benefit is you know safety and walkability and connections but maybe the cost is you know, oh, it doesn't feel like Nag's head anymore. And and so I just I guess I just want to reflect on that and and generally get you all's take on Well, I I think that the area we're looking at is already pretty well commercially developed. Anyway, I don't think a few signs and and a kiosk and stuff like that is going to make a big difference at all. And I look at it from the standpoint of this would if this were successful and developed more, it would protect the rest of Nags Head for staying more Nags Head. Um, speaking for somebody who lives in a neighborhood that's overrun with people who are trying to get to the sound, you know, I mean, truly. So, you know, do you that wasn't that the original idea to have a an area where this stuff went on so that we could, you know, protect, preserve, whatever you want to say about the rest of town? I think that's correct. I just wanted to float that

well style. While some of these solutions may seem urban in nature, remember our visitor base probably is urban in nature and they understand these things a whole lot better. Right. And with that said, Nags Head still has a different feel from all the other towns u in Dair County. Now, does it feel the same it felt 50 years ago? No. Change is going to continue to occur. Right. So, how do we take advantage of that change and how are we proactive in drawing more people to visit Nags Head in the future? That's one of the things we have to think about. One thing too like if we do if we do like a district or a destination then the visitors would obviously be marking it as well. So if they have our name as a district then they're going to market that district. So it can only help to have the visitors bureau there is what I'm saying. Yeah. So and I have one other question. Um do we limit the number of like jet skis that are allowed at these places? We do. Okay. There would only be um each outdoor recation location boundaries there. And that that's that last thing that Kelly said is that's the the safety. The jet ski rental companies themselves are actually pretty good on their safety. It's when you get volunteer skis that are private that come in and want to play with the skis. Um that's where there's negative interactions. Now, there have been some pretty bad accidents. um over the years where two skis were hit. And the issue exists here. One skis is going at another and you want to stop and turn at the same time. You can't do two things

at once on a jet ski. It's one or the other. Yeah. So, um those kind of things are um I I did think of something else. So, if you have a golf cart and you're in this section of the of the beach, can you get over there? As it is now, I don't see you can because by law, you can't you can't be on a road that the speed limit is 30 over 35 with the golf. You're allowed to cross. You can cross at a stoplight. You can yeah you can cross the road now but but that's and but it's one of those things and so it's kind of a dead letter office. is a dead end street to the area and signage in in some advisory language if you have a golf cart in Nag said here are your rights and responsibilities because as I also understand it you can't it's unless the golf cart pulls over you can't pass it on the road and that's I see that stuff all the time and golf carts are it's not that they're a problem it's that they're legally allowed and we we need to start to think about you know controlling the rights and and asking people to be responsible on both sides. Um, so if people do park over there, that's great. But then if they get on a a biking trail, that's no. If you are on an ebike, which is over 750 watts, you can't be on a biking trail. But if you are on an ebike that is under 750 watts, can you be on a biking trail? So it starts to where we what we're with the vehicle use that we have right now. There's a lot of hair splitting going on. Um and these and and and I don't have a problem with any of it, but it is it does people get a little feral when they're left to their own means and and then we have and then

then it's clean up. And we what we're talking about I think what you're talking about here is creating a situation where the uses are are concurrent and continuous and inclusive. So that's all good. Um it just I I kind of wonder to consider these other transportation modes. Yeah. Sort of like a missing middle of you know golf carts, ebikes. I hope we have to consider them. I hope there's enough people trying to go and use it that it's an issue, you know, but it's a good point because I think we they will come. If you build it, they will come. They're already here. I think we've talked about all the questions that I've put forward or and Kelly Kelly put forward um except for would you support allowing more flexibility in development like multiple principal uses or accessory residential units to encourage reinvestment while preserving the outdoor recreation character? Yes. Okay. I would it I mean you know especially especially if the uses happen in let's say a more compacted area so that the green space is enhanced by that use. Correct. Or Yeah. I mean because they're asking you know to encourage reinvestment but preserving the outdoor recreation character. So, you know, not whatever it takes, but I think we have to is is it possible to create I think it's good for us to be flexible and to think ahead. Absolutely. And to see what we can do to support, you know, the preservation and development of this area and and what we what we're talking about here is is kind of a little bit of a recreation node and, you know, kind of concentrating the uses within that node with accessibility and use as the goal. um to bring them there, you know, the lightning rod, if you will. It's still going to be tricky, isn't it,

to I guess these conversations are, you know, cuz if you get to the sort of, you know, we're reszoning or changing it, it can get bogged down. But I I think, you know, planning generally works better when you have a vision and and the comprehensive plan is a really good vision. and a lot of the uses you see mirrored there. I think the connections and the accessibility is a big piece of of really helping everything else move forward. um as well as you know making some of these uses accessory that could maybe help support them in the long term so they're not redeveloped into something you don't want to see potentially and then you sort of lost this really cohesive corridor that we we have now with the Southside Event Center and these outdoor uses and our outlet mall which people do come from near and far to to shop there. More carrots than sticks. Well, and if you you know if you If you put all the pieces that are in this area together, it's this corridor is enhanced by the neighbors. It's enhanced by the visitors group, by the tanger, you know, and and you know, so it's just establishing that and highlighting it. Yeah, that's great. This is very good. Yeah. Thank you all. You have more than you need probably, right? Yeah. But thank you. I mean, it's a great it's a great report. is really helpful to try to you know and it's a big job. So thank you both. Yeah, very thoughtful comments. Thank you all. Yeah, thanks for the questions. Yeah. Okay, so let's move on to uh the legislative bill tracking report. Oh, that's disturbing. I agree. And I'm sure that's not all of it. No,

we're looking forward to this. Kelly, can't you? Well, I don't really have that much to say. I know about it other than I think it just goes to show we have a lot that we need to be keeping our eye on. [Music] Um, yeah. So, Andy, obviously, you know, we have the lobbyists that we recently retained. They have been wonderful. Each week, they provide a list, a legislative tracking report. Um, NCAA also something similar out. But we have an opportunity to speak with our lobbyists, find out which ones of these have traction, which ones have sponsors that are legitimate and they think will gain momentum, which have sponsors that they don't think are, you know, reliable or will gain momentum and where we really need to be focusing our attention. So, this list, there's a lot on here. Um, but the first one, H765, is kind of the biggie. If you're going to click one link and look at it, I would say do that one. Um, because there's really a lot in there. Um, and pieces and parts of what's in H765 are in other areas as well. So there's a lot of overlap in some of these, but um as we said, it it has potential to drastically affect how we do things in the planning department and drastically impact what the town begins to look and feel like. So this great conversation and and now, you know, talking about how we may not have the ability to address and regulate some of these things. So um I will say that late Last week, myself,

um the mayor and and Andy um did a Zoom meeting with the lobbyists about these bills. And at this point, um their plan is to draft letters addressing each of these. Um I I believe Andy and the mayor are working on that now. um they'll discuss it at tomorrow's midmon meeting of the board of commissioners. Um but those letters will then go to our lobbyists who will give them a look and make sure they're ready to go and then our lobbyists will take them to the sponsors or co-sponsors um of these bills that they have identified. So there's there's action, there's momentum here. Um but there is a process as well. So tomorrow I think Andy's going to give an update to the to the board of commissioners. Um like I said, he and Ben have been working on a communication. So there's there's definitely going to be um we're going to be expressing our concerns with most if not all of these bills, but H765 is kind of the biggie. So much um regulation about parking or eliminating all regulation about parking. It keeps coming up. Yeah. So lot coverage. That's kind of a tricky thing is from our perspective when we hear that we can't, you know, we might not be able to regulate minimums for commercial uses or minimums for these large oceanfront rental homes. It's, you know, it's hard to process. On the other hand, you have people who wrote this bill who are getting a lot of uh buy in from environmental

organizations who are seeing it as yeah, you know, why provide all this parking? It's it is lock coverage. It is storm water. It does have an environmental impact. So, there's, you know, there's always two sides. There's always it's it's finding a happy medium, I guess. But um being unable to require minimum parking for some of these uses, even residential, that would obviously be very um devastating for us. There's some things in here that would increase density. There's bills in here that essentially say on a on any lot that you could put a single family dwelling, you can now put a duplex, a triplex, or even a quadriplex. Um So that is no parking right reflective of a major increase um in density but you can't regulate the parking right as so you build a multiplex and then and then where you going to park as it's been proposed one idea that Andy did bring up and I'm sure they'll go into more detail tomorrow is especially for H765 Um, you know, I believe what the lobbyists said was the sponsors of this bill are reputable and they it is likely to gain traction. Um, and so our ability to just, you know, not have any aspect of this bill get approved is maybe unlikely, but perhaps we can create some change. One thing that Andy thought of, which I was um pretty unique and might go a long way is to essentially maybe there's a willingness

to write in an exemption for municipalities, towns, counties, whatever that aren't on a municipal treatment facility that are solely on-site septic because idea and you know as well there's you know there's kind of a little bit of a hardship that's been created by prior amend amendments to septic and health policy with the elimination of repairarian area. Mhm. Um that if you scrape these two things together then you suddenly do have you know density really moving to a place and and you know I have to think that on-site waste water wasn't considered when they drafted right here's another another question you know down this road is um as we're getting into situations where um storm water is more and more of a problem with developed space. You know, the um you know, I don't see anything here um that specifically talks about storm water water policy, but what all the storm water policy issues that I've heard since I've been sitting in these chairs for a long period of time are tethered onto state documents about storm events that we surpass regularly, yet we're still looking at them. Um you know, a possibility adopting a standard that is separate from that or um simply because of the hardships that are created and exposures that are created by our specific environmental location. Right. Well, and 713 S713 would specifically say that we cannot have any environmental regulation above and beyond the state requirement. So I mean

that alone would affect I mean does that to affect our CRS program and our flight? Yeah. Right. I mean would that include that? It would has assuming that everything is the same. Right. You know we're unique. Well I I I I think we're every every local in the state is unique. The the thing that I'm seeing here as well is is there been a thought about establishing a level of transparency through the media through a media partnership talking about exactly this stuff because you know we're I'm a I'm a I'm a board member on that is a resident of a community that is frightened by a lot of what I see in this and I don't think my situation is unique at all. I just have a I have I have a screen in front of me right now and I think it's it's difficult for the average resident or property owner in Nagsad to understand the pervasiveness of this even if they were to see the screen. But with the appreciation of um staff or other business comment on this, I think it's it's spooky. And kind of related to that, is is the town out on an island by ourselves or the other towns doing the same thing or cities and localities throughout the state? Do we know? They have lobbyists. Um Der County does. I do not think any I don't believe any other town does. Um but no, I mean obviously anything we do we would we would want KDH Kitty Hawk. I mean we would include them. we would speak with with their town managers, etc., and try to get them on board as well. But, um, I do feel like Mags Head does have a bit of an advantage with the lobbyists at this point. And so, we do we are trying to be more proactive now that we have this as opposed to

waiting until it's right done. Until it's done, trying to, you know, send a resolution saying we don't like it. This is just unbelievable. And this is pri this is items that have been prioritized by our lobbyist um or by us I should say. I mean I'm sure they're not out on their own but correct. These are all and and these aren't in any necessary order but these are all that are of great concern to us and we spoke about each of these with the lobbyists. Um so they are aware that that the town has concern with all of these um the short-term rentals ADUs historic flood events. Right. So if you have a structure you don't just build it right back in the flood plane. So I my my gut says that's probably from the mountains. Right. Right. And I and I can understand where they're coming from right now. But when you look at it from the perspective of here and you make all this progress to try to improve things and then yeah I think that bill probably originated as a result of Yeah. Me too. So this is all going to be discussed at the meeting tomorrow. Um they're going to discuss their the process of communication. So I think then um the mayor and Andy Garmin will be discussing with them this in particular and their communications with the sponsors of these bills. It was my understanding that that Andy and the mayor were going to work on that. Um, and then make sure the board, you know, all the board members were aware and then let the lobbyists take a look at it because they kind of have an idea where to take it and who to take it

to. What does 587 look like as far as Which one's so sponsoring that? Um, let's see. Oh, non-conforming uses. Yeah. And that's kind of a response to 382 basically, isn't it? Isn't it sort of just a It is. And it would be just as bad, right? If it created a nonconformity, that's what right is going to do away with 382. Anyway, well, thank you for sharing with us, Kelly. Yeah, I can try to pull us just I mean, forget it. It's a lot to just be aware of and keep an eye on. Yeah. I mean, definitely glad we're on the front end of this. Yeah, it also it's one of these things where at this point, you know, this is all about phones ringing or remaining silent. And um while this is all really really good, I think I think the fact that we're all excited about it is is excellent. Also, a little bit of a scoreboard. Where is the bill? Is it moving? Is it in committee, out of committee? Something like that moving forward later on. That'd be great to know what the progress is. Um because a lot of this stuff you can kind of see once you look at that that it is starting to move into a position where it's not going to move or it is definitely going to move forward. And you kind of highlighted that by who is the co-signer of it. Are they motivated individuals? Yeah. As well the sponsors where their location is because you can kind of see where the where the chicken's going to come from if you know where the eggs are coming from. you know, the existing, you know, building

in the existing flight plane and how that might conflict with FEMA, right? Oh, boy. Well, there may not be FEMA. Yeah. Well, and also, you know, how much what our local ordinances would, you know, I look at you can't have any parking ordinances at all. How many of our ordinances would run a foul of this? Or would there be any hope or or chance of any grandfathering of anything? Yeah. Right. That that and that might be a scrape. We don't we we we have a problem with it unless you grandfather all of our stuff. Yeah. Thank you for your report. Sorry. We appreciate it. You're fine. We're not going to shoot the messengers. Um, let's move on to your report though, Kelly. Is there anything you wanted to tell us about that we haven't covered either somewhere else along the way? My guess is we've covered most of it, but I will pull it up just to make sure. for as far as septic health goes, I would just note that we do have a advisory committee meeting coming up on April 30th. Um, this board previously had a member that was appointed to the septic health advisory committee. If you're not ready to do that today, you certainly don't have to. Uh, we can put it on our next agenda if that if that works well with

you, but something to think about. Um, okay. We will put it on our next agenda. everybody to be thinking about unless there anybody who chomping at the bit right now to serve on that committee, we can get it done. Okay. All right. We'll put it on your next agenda. But um we did have wells drilled for our four new water quality monitors. Um and we're in the process of getting those put put in now and calibrated. Um shoreline management plan, there's movement there, but is slow going. So, we'll continue to just give updates with that. Um, sand relocation, the bright stars initiative. Uh, we've done a pre-application for hard street CAMA access grant. Um, we had our last farmers market this past Saturday and so now we're just getting ready for the summer. Um, and we do have a new part-time seasonal temporary helper for page. Good. Cool. Um, Emma Ortega, her dad, her family has Ortas in and she's in college, so she's got a lot of energy and good ideas. It's a great choice. I I have a question about renourishment, and this is way off base. Um I I noticed um that the town is looking at amending where the taper happens on in in the park area kind of bordering the park area. Um is I'm imagining that this is going to you're going to have to get another whole permit permitting thing set up. Is there going to be any difference in um the reourishment plan for the north end of

the town? I do not have the answer to that. Okay. Because you know exists just just for you know I'm myopically observant about this. There's always been a little bit of a node of um where reourishment hasn't taken place on the north end of the town. So typically we don't we don't do nourishment north of Bonnet. Yeah. And I do not believe we're intending to nourish north of Bonnet this upcoming time either. But I will verify that. Okay. because when this if there's the possibility this happening, you know, I'm I know that I'm not going to be able to get in the room, but if you ever want another head in the room, one of the things that that I notice because I'm looking at renourished beaches a lot is it is the goal of the engineers to create a straight line on the beach and right after that straight line is created, um the weather comes in into it. And uh if there was a little bit of not topography, but a change in that straight line, it might slow down the current a little bit and make it a little bit less unsafe for our visitors until everything starts to become a little bit more shore normal with a little bit of back and forth in that high water line as compared to a straight line with whistling current. Um, and there's a there's always a transition period before um things become a little bit more um normal to what we consider to be um an average beach on the Outer Banks. I apologize. I don't have the most information on that, but I can connect it. It's it's super dense. The language is very dense. Um, and I I the reason I I'm a little bit into this is because of the history of the other job. Um, but there's there's a lot

of if this became a point of interest, there's a lot of research that into safe beaches where they've been looking for an example to do a test and this would create exactly that. So I'm not sure that there wouldn't be a study opportunity on on it, but there might also be some level of interest from a government governatorial ang government angle in perhaps even reaching into the partnership pocket so that they could look at engineering safer beaches. Interesting. Okay. Anybody else have anything they'd like to discuss? Members agenda? I have nothing on my agenda today. So, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion. All right. We are adjourned. Thank you.