Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'd like to call to order the April 21st planning board meeting. Um, uh, meat is out, so please be gentle as we go through this this meeting today. Um, I will I will try to do the same. But as well, um, as I'm green at this, help me as I can as you can as well. Um, first, uh, I've got an agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? Agenda with one possible modification. So, move.

Um, well, there's a possible modification. Um can there's been a some recommend a recommendation um that maybe we should move the second action item to number one and look at that in that first. So would anybody like to make a motion? I'll make a motion that we approve the agenda with the change that we take action item number two and move it to number one. I second. We have the motion to second and I have a vote for against I I

I hear I hear all in favor. So um we will do that make that modification. Um all right now uh after the approval agenda with that modification I have open for public comment. I do see some familiar faces in the room. Mr. Mhler. Thank you. is yours. And he's brought hands handouts. Oh, yeah. I have some copies of something that's close to what I'm here to say.

Pass those down. Basic questions are in there. Uh, hi, my name is Bob Mueller. I live at 124 West Old Cove Road. Uh, thank you for your for your service. I want to speak to you about the two ordinances that you're going to consider today. But before I do, I want to speak to you a little bit about your uh deliberations. At your last county board meeting, members of your board discussed an ordinance in terms of the applicant about how good the applicant was and that they would make this project work. That is a huge mistake. There are professionals paid to find the flaws and loopholes in what you do. Engineers, lawyers, even sometimes architects. Uh, think like them. Try and find the holes and plug them so that you will get the ordinance that you want. When you think of it in terms of a good uh applicant, you're doing yourself a disservice because the ordinance is not limited to that good applicant. In fact, the ordinance will be used by less than scrupulous players. Uh, if you hear one of your board members talking in terms of the applicant, stop them and tell them that that's not how you make deliberations. That you make deliberations independent of who's applying for the application. Another problem you have when I was on the board working with ordinances, we had the ability to repeal and make changes to ordinances if we saw a problem with the ordinance. Unfortunately, you have lo legislature has taken much of that ability away from you. So, you need to use extra care as you approve ordinances because the errors will pile up and the town is not and will pile up until the town is allowed to downsize and address nonconformities again.

So, on to the two ordinances. I'm going to speak first about the restaurant waiting lounge ordinance. You have a definition dilemma. Second ordinance you'll consider says a bar tavern or drinking establishment is an establishment where the primary activity on the premises is the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages including beer, wine and distilled spirits and where food is served in limited or incidental amount uh is incident of the operation characteristics. This may include not be limited to the absence of a full service kitchen and minimal food. I ask you to consider what's going to happen at the waiting lounge. People will come into that lounge. They will drink. They will have limited food and they will leave. The waiting lounge is a bar by your own de by your own definition. You don't allow bars. Townly for some reason doesn't want a bar. I'll tell you in the end about my experience with bars as David notes a little bit about. Um people there's no way to stop this. restaurant. The your ordinance 73136 says a restaurant waiting lounge shall serve patrons at the associated principal restaurant only and shall not be open to the general public independent of dining uh dining waiter reservation at the principal restaurant and not operate as a standalone establishment. But how can this requirement be enforced? This is something the board asked. People can come in, they can park, they can have a drink or two and they can leave. They come in for they can go in and say, "I'm gonna get a table." If there's an hour wait, they can wait for 45 minutes, say, "I'm tired. I'm going to get up and leave." There's no absolutely no way to enforce it. There's no way to um to make sure that this operates the way it is conceived. It will create a bar because it meets your definition of one. And to comply with this, you cannot you cannot prohibit you cannot prohibit and allow

the same the same thing at the same time. staff will tell you that they the enforcement will be complaint driven. Who's going to complain? The guy who's coming in having a drink, the restaurant owner who's selling him that drink? No. Um there's a problem with there's a definition problem here that that you have. There's another issue that revolves around definitions, the 15% rule. Uh accessory uses to restaurants are generally allowed at 15% and yet there's no mention of this in the ordinance. indoor customer service area. Restaurant waiting lounge shall not exceed 50% of the indoor customer service area of the principal restaurant. There's no reference to 73123. Not more than 15% of to this is this is from restaurant sitown. Not more than 15% of the total building square footage shall be deemed accessory restaurant accessory to restaurant uses including but not limited to dance floor, bar stages, disc jockey areas, live performance areas. This means that the bar and associated restaurant in the waiting area can be as big as it wants to be. Not 15% of anything. Why is it 15% the restaurant and yet unlimited in the wait in the waiting area? Um I submit that this does not make sense. Some other fundamental qu not some sort of technical more technical questions about the uh about the ordinance. Can additional parking if a site that's brought to you has additional parking. For example, the Blue Moon waiting area site that you saw in a site plan has I believe 12 additional parking spaces beyond what would be required at the 55 one parking space within 55 ft of customer service area. Can those parking spaces then be assigned to the restaurant and used to expand restaurant service area? suggest to you that they should not be because if that waiting lounge is later sold and it is a standalone lot, it can

be just can be sold independently, then you've just created a non-conforming restaurant. Um, site access is an is a separate curb cut on Highway 158 allowed for restaurant waiting areas. General town policy would say we want to discourage curb cuts and if it's an accessory building I would argue that it should they should access to the largest extent possible through the same drive as the restaurant that it is accessory to. It's an accessory use. Can the area be used for wedding receptions for incidental events as is the case of its prior use? Note that if parking is if you do allow that extra parking to be taken away, the standards are different between indoor public entertainment and restaurant use. So if it's allow if you got parking at 55 square feet, then it's not going to be compliant with the indoor public use and signage. Does this accessory building get a freestanding sign? If so, what other accessory buildings get freestanding signs? Um, the use gets as much signage as any other independent business. Why is this allowed if it's truly an accessory use? Okay. The memo states that ABC licensing u for the structure is is as concept is is different from the building's existing indoor public assembly use. This raises a series of questions. How is it different? um what specific regulatory requirements are needed to license the new ABC for for the new use? What operational changes are necessary for the license uh from the catered from for the new use as opposed to catered events? And does the shift in licensing impact the building's ability to host again the types of events that it was hosting in the past? uh regarding indoor entertainment. Section 7 uh 13331

131 of the draft ordinance says indoor entertainment is permitted but is proposed to be low intensity in nature and does not include dance floors, DJs or nightclub style operation and does not function as the primary attraction or regularly scheduled entertainment as a regular scheduled entertainment venue. What's low inensity entertainment? Is it a one piece? The two-piece band? Is it a three-piece band? Why no DJs? Okay, DJs can provide uh just as soft, quiet music as as anybody else. Uh this is a very subjective standard and it's absolutely impossible to enforce. Absolutely impossible. You have a noise ordinance that speaks to noise levels outside the bar. If the concern here is uh If the concern here is noise, then uh use the noise ordinance to limit noise. If the concern here is that it's going to become a separate attraction, then think about whether you want to allow entertainment at all because it because you're going to be creating, you know, if you allow it, you're going to be creating you're going to be creating an an attraction. Uh the ordinance says it cannot function as a primary attraction or regularly scheduled entertainment venue. Does this mean that the the entertainment has to be random? somebody walks in on a random Tuesday and plays every every other day. Uh does it mean that they can't tell people who's going to be there? U if I call and say, "Hey, is Bounce and Bob playing?" Um what can they what can what can they say? Boys like Bass Nights do have regularly scheduled entertainment. This section is completely unclear about exactly how entertainment can work and I think it needs a lot of work. Uh that's just a really really bad standard. Um finally regarding the outdoor activities that are specified here outdoor activity outdoor customer service area shall not

exceed 500 square f feet or 25% of the indoor customer service area whichever is less. Again if your concern is noise outdoor areas are incess are inherently noisy. If you don't want noise don't allow outside don't allow outside areas. don't create a problem that you cannot easily fix. Additionally, there are inconsistencies in the hours. 7:31 310 restaurant waiting lounge shall not be open after 11 p.m. and no late and shall close no later than 1 hour prior to the closing time for the restaurant. Section 312, restaurant waiting hours shall operate only during the hours associated with the principal restaurant with it's open for business. It's a simple fix. pick one of those, but the other one doesn't doesn't need to doesn't need to go. Moving briefly to the second ordinance you're going to consider. Um, the ordinance provide three separate definitions which all describe the same activity. The beer the the bar is a place where you drink alcohol, beer, wine, and or uh what are we what are we

spirits?

Beer, wine, and all and and or liquor. A wine bar is just beer and wine. And a tap room is just beer. But by definition, a tap room is a place where you sell booze. It's a place to place where you sell beer, which is what the same definition as a bar. The same thing is true for the wine bar. Um my initial thought was to tell you suggest that you delete the definition of bar but I'm told that you that you can know that it was a time when if a use was not was not permitted in the ordinance. It was not allowed. That has changed. So you may need to keep it. You may I would encourage you to simplify these to specify a bar sells liquor, wine bar sells beer and wine or a tap room sells beer and wine. These definition uh as I said they they um they overlap in a way that could be interpreted to prohibit and a bit and allow the same the same thing at the same time. Further in your bar definition, you speak of extended evening or late night hours as a bar characteristic without without a specific time. Late night in New York is after 4:00 a.m. While Virginia Beach, it might be 2:00 a.m. What time is late night in Nagad, beach access is closed at at midnight. You speak of 11:00 in your restaurant ordinance. Suggest that if you are going to have some time limits on things that you make them specific, that you don't make them subjective. So, what do I really think? The wedding ordinance is designed to prevent the youth from becoming a bar. You can tell that because it tries really, really, really hard not to be a bar. So, we can pretty much guess that they're worried that it's going to be a bar. I don't have a problem with bars. To be really clear, I spent a lot of time in bars, both as a customer and as an entertainer. I like bars. I don't have I don't have a problem with them. I do have a problem with your permitting

something that you say you don't want. I was the one who suggested that you consider the wine bar and tap room first. I believe that if you find if you find a use out wine bar and tap room that is a freestanding business that allows uh the sale of alcohol, then you may have a structure that you can use to do something similar in the waiting room in the wedding lounge with restrictions on who the customer is without getting into the trap of I'm permitting a bar, but I don't want to have bars. Uh I'm going to stick around. Uh, if you have questions about what I've said, I'll be happy to answer them. Uh, good luck.

Thank you for your comments. Thank you for your time. All right. So, that was quite a a synopsis of our situation that we've received. Um, that being said, any more public comment up for up for bat? I don't see it. Um, next thing is the approval uh after the approval of agenda and public comment is the approval of minutes. Um, I move we approve as submitted. Have a motion. Second. Votes in favor.

Okay, moving forward action items. Um, so we're we're number two is number one and um, Kelly, you're on deck. Is it really fair to put me up next? Well, it's a tough act to follow. Um, okay. I think you're up to the task.

Um, so I know Mr. Muller passed out his questions. Um, so I perhaps some of them will be addressed as we talk, but if I miss something, please as we go through this, I don't have answers for all of them. Um, I was ferociously writing notes over here. I don't have answers for all of them, but perhaps it's just something that we can discuss. Um, and I don't want to forget the things that you mentioned. So, um, going ahead and looking at that second item first, I put the proposed ordinance up on the screen. I'll try to navigate that as I move through the conversation about the request. Um but so essentially uh this item is board initiated. Uh this came to staff following their discussion at their April 15th midmon meeting um where there um was a lot of really good conversation, really good discussion about the proposed amendment at the time um how it could operate as a standalone bar. the town does have a long-standing desire to prohibit bars. Um, so during that conversation, uh, there also seemed to be conversation about types of alcohol and wine and beer, maybe perhaps lower intensity than liquor, distilled spirits. Um, that was just a conversation. But what was asked is that staff go

ahead and start the process of drafting an ordinance that would allow wine bars and tap rooms as permissible uses within the town. there appeared to be um less reservation about those uses as opposed to how the restaurant waiting lounge text amendment was originally proposed. Um so what I have done is tried um tried to pull that together as best I can and we can talk through it. Um but the first thing is that it establishes um two new defined use categories, wine bar and tap room. Um and pairs those with some supplemental standards that are specifically designed to control how those operate. Um at the same time, the amendment reinforces the town's existing approach um to prohibiting bars, um taverns, drinking establishments as its own standalone principal use, which has been the town's long-standing position. Um as it has been stated, I will I will kind of diverge from this a little bit and I apologize because it's heavy on my mind and I think relevant as we go through this and I want to take some ownership. Um, I understand the town's long-standing value to prohibit bars, but where I think I have fallen short in the process is not asking this board and the board of commissioners, what do you consider to be a bar? because um standalone bars I realize we've had some in the past, but I think most recent and

what I hear the most about, I've been here for 20 years and what consistently comes up is um we really want to discourage the situation where you have a a restaurant operating during the day with a bar and at point in the evening, food service starts to decline. The kitchen slows down. Um, you're moving away from your full menu. Maybe there's a limited menu or maybe there's no no menu. Um, and it transitions to um little to no food and bar service. Um, you start having drinks offered, all types of alcohol, wine, beer, and distilled spirits. The band comes up, whether it's a band or a DJ. The dance floor becomes available. People get out on the dance floor, standing room. Um, predominantly there's not a lot of seated service happening in that capacity. Um, and impacts of that noise obviously inside the building, but admittedly late night being a little bit ambiguous. I think historically these types of things um tend to kind of ramp up around 11 and 12 and go until two. But um yeah, maybe we do need to put some time limits there, but at point that noise when you have alcohol service, limited food, that noise kind of can go outside as well.

Um, you get maybe our police department gets disturbance. Maybe we get noise concerns. Um, maybe we have issues arising that public safety is having to go to and that is not something that we want to continue to encourage. So when when I came before you last month, my thought was, you know, planning is going to look at the characteristics of a use and what are those characteristics that we like or don't like? What are the undesirable impacts that may come from it? And then what do we put in place to help mitigate those? undesirable impacts. And um at first glance with myself and the applicant um Lim Moon who Jay is here again this month. Um we tried to address that. Um hours of operation. Um late night it was ambiguous. Um but limiting the hours of operation. Um limiting to some degree the types of entertainment. U maybe some ambiguity in the indoor entertainment area. Um but a hard stop on outdoor entertainment. um characterizing it with uh you know things that uh uses that would have bands, DJs, uh I think we even mentioned like uh dance floors or something of that

nature. So my thought there was to identify the negative impacts and try to mitigate those. And I think From the getgo, Blue Moon understood that the town didn't want a bar. And so I with them tried to corral that and I tried to address that as best I could while still threading the needle with the applicant's desire um to keep this accessory um not necessarily accessory use, but it's a standalone use that function functioned accessory in the sense of the unified development plan, the cohesive unified development plan um which was required. So that's I think perhaps that's on me because I I didn't ask everybody what their thought of a bar is and what it was we were trying to prohibit. I think I assumed that I knew what we were trying to prohibit and and so I didn't take into consideration some of the things that came up

at our BOC meeting.

Can can I throw something out there right away? Um, one of the reasons that one of the things that gave me pause and I I I really didn't I'm using a bad word here, distill it down to this, but the fact that um that if this were to happen on a property line and the lots were going to be recombined, that would be one case. But the fact that there's a road, there's something, there's a property um impediment to this process is creating all of this. And I think that that that needs to be acknowledged so that um really what we're doing is we're allowing a business to conduct business on both sides of a road and how is that going to go? So if we're going to do that, are we not just saying these are two these are two businesses with one ownership and are we should we allow both those businesses to work? How should we construct the definitions of this process so that we build this very clever situation that is not honorous to the applicant? Not that we should even consider who they are, but who it would pass down to.

And I feel like that's what we're that's where we're getting into. And I I feel that there there there is I I do agree with the with uh with Mayor Mueller that we were giving perhaps too much difference to this owner. Um while you know that might be the case, businesses do transfer and um we need to make appreciation to that so that we don't build ourselves a shipwreck instead of a ship, right? Yeah, absolutely. I agree. And so I know Yes.

Was there any consideration of just calling it a waiting area? Why does it have to be a lounge? You know what I'm saying? I mean, I think there's lots of lots of cons. to having the lounge. Um, but you know, you go someplace else, you have a waiting area. I mean, people can just walk. I mean, they're looking for a place just to sit and wait in the air conditioning, not go outside in the heat for their table to be ready. I mean, they could always I mean, I don't know if you can make an allowance for them, get a drink before they go and just take it away and that's one drink. I don't know the necessity of serving alcohol, beer, wine, whatever, right? You know, I guess it's just the the word lounge kind of.

Well, I at some point to that end, if we define lounge as a thing, then it does become that thing, right? So, yeah. And I know all of this comes in our second conversation. Oh, sorry. No, no, no, no, no. It's all it's a little confusing. there's overlap and I appreciate all the conversation, but I did think that, you know,

there was aspects of this that I wanted to at least um acknowledge given the deficiencies identified. And so I wanted to do that. Um that in mind, um moving forward with this request, um the intent would be to establish these two new uses, wine bar, tap room, and still maintain um some regulation restriction to ensure that that does not function as a bar. So, we're still we're still to the place of needing to think about what characterizes a bar.

And and one of the one of the words that comes to my mind um and just did some research is distillates. You know, all of there's two different ways that alcohol is arrived at and it's through fermentation and through distillation. Fermentation is low temperature, distillation is at high temperature. And that that's very scientificminded but it does perhaps build a wheelhouse where this can live. Yeah, I was going to say alcohol percentage a certain percentage is allowable

and you know and from ABC there is you know fortified beverages is something that is that is termed there and that is where you recombine distillates and ferment fermented things to become from you know so if something has you know sale of distillates would be the definition or inclusion of distillates would be the definition of a cocktail and cocktail is something that I looked up I did as well. Thank you AI. So yes, that's that's really good information,

you know. So in in that so it would be you know perhaps maybe what we're looking at is creating something where maybe this lounge has we we don't necess we need to perhaps include tap room and bar or tap room and wine. Um sales as part of the use in the definition, not in the title. Perhaps perhaps we we just don't use the word lounge. Okay, perfect. Yeah, that's I think that throws people off. Okay, perfect. It can. Okay.

Um, so I did provide uh definitions here. The definition for bar, tavern and drinking establishment in the context of um wine bar and tap room is different than that was than the one that was proposed for um restaurant waiting lounge. But for this purpose, an establishment where the primary activity is the on premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages including uh beer, wine and or distilled spirits where food service is limited or incidental. Characteristics of the use but are not limited to the absence of a full service kitchen um or minimal food offerings, the service of distilled spirits as a principal component of the business, extended evening or late night hours of operation, indoor outdoor entertainment as a prominent activity, including live music, DJs, dance areas, and a layout or atmosphere oriented towards bar service rather than seated dining. There is a lot of ambiguity there. I own it. Um And so perhaps if we move this forward, that's what we can discuss. Um, uh, reigning in wine bar means an establishment primarily engaged in the on- premises sale and consumption of wine or beer, where the sale of distilled spirits is prohibited, and where wine offerings are limited to traditional table wines and similar products and do not include fortified wines or other high alcohol products. Typically used in the preparation of mixed alcoholic beverages. Food service may be provided but is not required and may be limited in scope such as small plates, shakuderie or small or similar light fair. The establishment shall not operate in a manner consistent with a bar, tavern or drinking establishment as it as defined herein and shall be designed and operated primarily for

seated patron service within an enclosed indoor space. So that definition kind of touches on the fortified unfortified doesn't actually say a percentage just as high percentage of alcohol.

Tap room means an establishment primarily engaged in the on- premises sell and consumption of beer and may include wine offerings limited to same as above traditional table wines that do not include fortified wine or other high alcohol products typically used in the preparation of mixed alcoholic beverages. A tap room the accessory to a micro brewery or operate independently. So here's where we already allow micro breweries. So I wanted to create the connection there. Um food service may be provided but it's not required and it may be limited in scope such as small plate shudery similar like bear. The establishment shall not operate in a manner consistent with a bar, tavern or drinking establishment as defined herein and shall be designed and operated primarily for seated patron service with an enclosed indoor space. So, as you can see, I tried to keep consistency between the two definitions um as much as possible. Um section 6.5, classification and review of unlisted uses. So, this area currently states that we expressly prohibit nightclubs. It does not expressly prohibit standalone principal use bars. I think this is important no matter where we land on this. Um, and I will just say I think that's important where it lands with 382 and down zoning. Maybe somebody else can look into that. I do think this is important. Um

section 6.6 your table table of uses and activities. Um this is where we wanted to propose permitting um wine bars and tap rooms. We propose that it aligns with the same zoning designations where we currently permit micro breweries. So they would be allowed in the C1, uh the C2, C4, and C5 districts. Um we proposed to keep this out of the CR. The CR is predominantly the oceanfront commercial residential a sensitive uh area and I just for the time being all things considered um perhaps not going there immediately. Um as you can see micro breweries are SR meaning special use with supplemental regulations. This has been proposed wine bar and tap room as a permitted use with supple supplemental regulations because if you look at micro breweries um they are a little different a lot different actually than what we're proposing here just the intensity of a micro brewery would be more than what a um tap room or wine bar would be. So, we are proposing um that that these new uses be permitted with supplemental regulations. And your supplemental regulations um come in under 7.31A wine bar and tap room. Um the crux of this amendment was really about as we've

discussed the operational framework. Uh from a land use perspective, we're talking about the impacts of a use. Um the supplemental standards were structured to keep these uses lower in intensity and to make sure they are differentiated from a bar or a nightclub. Um I will run through these quickly. Um the first supplemental standard sale service consumption of distilled spirits prohibited not allowed. Um limited to the sale of beer wine as we discussed in the definition. Um such sales uh should be limited to products. So, there is a component of retail. Um, I think when you go into one of these tap rooms or wine bars, sometimes you can go ahead and purchase. If you have something there that you really enjoyed, you can purchase it. So, we wanted to account for that. um that there's um some limited retail sales allowed uh subordinate to the primary where you can pick up wine, you can pick up um beer that you've had at these locations. Uh the second condition, food service may be provided but not required. Again, just like we talked about in the definition, small plates, shuderie, light fair, you don't have to have a kitchen. Um and we include food service if if provided may be prepared on site or offsite. However, food trucks and outdoor food service vendors shall not be permitted unless otherwise um authorized by the UDO. Right now, we have some pretty specific

standards for food trucks. And I know I've seen a lot of really cool scenarios where you've got a wine bar or a tap room and they bring a different food truck in every week. And um but the town of Nagad does have some regulations on food trucks. Uh they're only permitted in conjunction with an existing brickandmortar restaurant. Um or they can be utilized as part of a larger crowd gathering permit. So I just wanted to make sure that it was understood that if we move forward with tap room wine bar for the time being bringing in food trucks intermittently has not been considered. It wouldn't be allowed and if it's something that we want to consider later um we can we can talk more about that then but for now that wouldn't be allowed. Um, wine bars and tap rooms shall operate in a manner consistent with a shall not operate in a manner consistent with a bar, tavern or nightclub. Um, we know we have to tighten that up and the youth shall be designed and operated primarily for seated patron service and shall not function as standing room or bar oriented establishment. Wine bars and tap rooms shall not be open to the public between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7 a.m. All services including the sale and consumption of food and beverages shall cease by 11:00 p.m. and the premises shall be closed to patrons at that time. Uh we wanted to trying to think out are we going to close at 11 but still let people be there um midnight and on. So no this would say that we want um we would like for people out of there by 11. Entertainment shall be incidental um to the primary use. Indoor entertainment is permitted provided is low inensity in

nature and does not include dance floors, DJs, nightclub style operations and does not function as a primary attraction, regularly scheduled entertainment venue. Um I agree with what Mr. Mueller had stated. This is vague and um perhaps we do need to incorporate some more language in here. Um the idea here was just that um lowkey acoustic

atmospheric I mean you're trying to set an atmosphere with this and the question as I amplified is a word but it is also possibly an object that could use some investigation use of amplifiers which is it's a it's a kettle of fish. It is and you know there's also we can always go back to as was mentioned we do have a noise ordinance perhaps we don't try to navigate indoor entertainment. We just let our noise ordinance

um address any negative impacts that that come from that. Um but that's something that we do need to talk about. Outdoor entertainment would be prohibited entirely, including both amplified and unamplified um performances. So, we just wanted to make um that clear that outdoor entertainment um would be prohibited. If there's a different recommendation from this board or consensus on something, we can certainly look at that as well. Um outdoor customer service areas may be permitted as an accessory use subject to the following. Um, no outdoor bar service shall be permitted. Outdoor area shall be limited to seated customer service and patron use. Outdoor customer service and patron areas shall remain clearly subordinate and accessory to the enclosed indoor use. Um total customer service and patron area shall not exceed 500 square feet or 25% of the indoor customer service area whichever is less. Outdoor areas shall be clearly defined and physically delineated by fencing, landscaping or other screening features. Such features shall be designed to provide visual screening and a reasonable degree of privacy from adjacent properties, particularly residential uses and in minimizing noise and activity impacts and then all applicable lighting and noise standards of the ordinance shall be met. So um what we were trying to address in this scenario is I think some of the things that we see occurring in other places now where you have outdoor areas that are very

probably intended to be waiting only. But to make that wait a little bit better, we started putting bands out there. We started putting cornhole out there. We started um offering uh service out there. And so it really became at some point a place where um the draw was to just be outside and enjoy the outside activities. That's where some of the noise comes from. So we wanted to at least have a way to capture that. Um there can be seated outdoor service. I think everybody would love to be able to take a bottle of of a glass of wine or a bottle of beer out, sit outside, enjoy the sunshine, but have that seated service and it not necessarily become an area where people are congregated, you're gathering for recreation and other things that are causing impacts to your adjoining properties. Um, so that's what that was trying to get at. Where a tap room is established as an accessory used to a micro brew brewery, the tap room shall comply with the requirements of this section unless otherwise expressly modified by the micro brewery standards. That was put in there because we just wanted to make sure that we we had this uh cross reference with micro breweries. They have their own standards. Now, we could potentially have these standards and we want to make sure um that they're aligned and um that we're not giving flexibility in one area where we wouldn't in another. Um the last thing we have, wine bars and tap rooms shall comply with all other applicable provisions of the town code, including but not limited to parking, lighting, landscaping, landscaping, buffering, and noise regulations. So that's the catch all.

Um, what are the noise regulations for these areas in the proposed area as far as time limit? When do when does that kick in? Is it 11? It's 11. Okay. So that's and I think it fluctuates between 57 dB and 52 dB taking into account ambient noise.

Um, and I will say we just got a new noise meter. I think I think the one we had been using might have been the one that the town had when you were here. The little foam fluff ball on top had disintegrated. So, we got a new one, so we should be good. Um, required parking by use. um keeping this uh based upon customer service area and keeping it consistent with micro brewery and restaurant at one space per 55 square feet of customer service area. Um that is it in terms of the ordinance. Just looking back at the staff report, reiterating that from our uh planning standpoint, we look at the impacts in terms of how a use operates, hours of operation, noise, activity levels, outdoor intensity um more so than the specific type of alcohol being served. But this does give us a mechanism um to address any concerns that we do have about the types of alcohol. Um I will say micro brewery, one thing that I did want to highlight is a micro brewery is considered a high impact use. And because it's high impact, if you're looking to do that adjacent to any residentially zoned property or residentially developed property, you're looking at that um 25 foot wide uh commercial transitional protective buffer yard. 20 ft in width, three rows of plantings. That's for a micro brewery. this the wine bar and tap room not as intense. We did not include that

as a high impact use for those reasons. But would note that any new construction of a wine bar or tap room or any upgrade of an existing structure to a wine bar or tap room. The ordinance already has language in there that states where a commercial use of a residential use, you've got to have a 10 foot wide buffer with two rows of paintings. So, that's already in there. Um, to address that, see if I have any other points that I want to make with this one. Um, we've talked about parking. That's that's all I have for the wine bar and tap room. I've gone through this and I realize that Mr. Mueller's questions were primarily dealing with the restaurant waiting lounge, but some probably do bleed into this as well. Um, I've acknowledged there's some areas that we can probably tighten down, but open for questions, conversation.

Yeah, let me jump in here. Um, the board of commissioners met on this on Wednesday the 15th. Yes. You sent this agenda out on Friday the 17th. Yes. Staff deserves a sincere commendation on an amazing detailed presentation that you put together literally in a day and a half. Right. Thank you. U, is it perfect? No. But it wouldn't be perfect in a day and a half, right? So, but we are exponentially further down the road to answering this than we were at the middle of last week. So, thank you for that.

I appreciate that. And now we can move forward with conversation. Kelly, I got a couple of big picture questions if if we may. So, there's already a bar, tavern, and drinking establishment rag on on file or in place um in the current ordinance. No. No, there's not. Okay. There as far as being prohibited. Yeah.

Is that what you're saying? No, there is not. So our ordinance for a very long time had stated that if a use wasn't expressly allowed then it was prohibited. So the town kind of hang their hat on that. We didn't allow bars um other than in the context of a restaurant where it had that 15% cap and it was regulated like that. Um and then I forget what year but it was probably probably 2017 2018 around that time we had some new legislation we had to do an overhaul. It was about the same time as the UDO came into play where the um the new rule was that um if something was going to be expressly prohibited, you had to list it. and we were just unable to think of anything and everything that we would expressly prohibit. So if now it goes on to say that if somebody requests a use that is not mentioned that the UDO administrator would analyze that use in the context of other uses that are permitted or allowed and then make um the interpretation or assertion that this proposed use would follow that same path. what already existed. So that the ordinance the UDO currently expressly prohibits nightclubs.

It does not expressly prohibit standalone bars. And what I don't what I feel like I need to say, but I don't necessarily want to say is now expressly prohibiting some may consider downzoning. However, I would contend that it is not downzoning. We've always prohibited standalone bars. Um, this is just more clarification.

Was there ever a situation where there we were in a grandfathered situation, you know, from something left over from the bad old 80s, um, where, you know, things were different. Um, I'm thinking of, you know, um, other locations that are no longer in business. Is that part of the reason that it was written that they were you it was grandfathered in, but you couldn't ask for a new one? Correct. Okay.

So, if I may back to a couple other questions. So, we're we're defining bar, tavern, or drinking establishment here for the record, so we know what not to do or allow going forward. Yes, sir. Um, where where did the anti-distilled spirits come from? Was that a board comment?

So, um, it appears through the conversation. I won't say that it was anti-distilled spirits, but there was, you know, opening this up as a principal use in any capacity. It's like, what are you comfortable with? Camel's nose under the tent. quences. All of those things come to mind. And so, um, there was, I won't say anti, but there was just more comfort from the board of commissioners

there. Yeah. I think there was more comfort with leaning towards beer and wine for the time being. It it it als there also seemed to be some level of um if people walk into this place that are not you know that that are not directed at the dining room that's going to be make it slightly more difficult and and that point if if distillates were cons were being served it would be more to that would be in that direction leaning more towards the the bar. Yeah, that was that was kind of a little bit of what I saw in the in in what I observed. I did pay I did my homework. Yeah. Yeah.

I I did not I didn't watch the the the meeting online or or attend in person. So, I was just curious because y'all probably remember the old public service campaign, one ounce of liquor is the same as 4 ounces of wine is the same as 12 ounces of beer. So, I was just curious where that that spin came from. I think they're referring to the old saying, beer and wine is fine. liquor. Yeah, this quick and wine bar and and tap room also just out of curiosity where how did we get there versus a waiting lounge.

Um, so this similar I feel like well and Mr. Mueller can talk but I feel like I I feel like I understand your question. So there was a concern with restaurant waiting lounge that as crafted it could become a standalone bar. Okay. And it is our desire to pro to prohibit bars and there was some concern about enforcement mechanism

um with what happens there. And I'm the first to say I cannot regulate an individual person's behavior. Of course. Um so I I think that played a part in it as well. Okay. Thank you. It seems like there's also a reference in other adjacent communities there is that is a use that is I believe that's in there. Um tap room is is something that that is a permitted use and some I I see handing back. Yeah, if I may. the way I'm sorry the microphone may not capture you. I feel like No, I can

the waiting lounge ordinance prohibited wine could have any kind of independent alcohol sales. There are are very attractive uses in other towns particularly wine bar new lines comes to mind. Um, but I think members of the board may have thought why we why would we not want to have a new box and now we're saying we can't do that. I think that may be where the discussion where that discussion came from because the waiting lounge ordinance was so the prohibition was so broad that it kicked down categories well beyond I think was intended when it was to to keep the lounge. As I said, to keep the wedding lounge from being a bar, you threw out a whole lot of babies with that with that batboard. Two of them being tackled with one.

Thanks. I will I will again I want to own by walking into this for me it was never the type of alcohol, it was the characteristics. And so um the restaurant waiting lounge I I knew that that could not be a bar

and I knew what they wanted from that space and we talked about it many many times. Um so special use unified development plan um keeping keeping that use specific to um accessory to an to a principal restaurant all played into what we had drafted for the restaurant waiting lounge. Um, I would say coming into it, a bar is a bar. A bar is based upon the characteristics that make it a bar. I am unaware of what percentage of beer, wine, distilled is the tipping point for bar. So when I came into it for restaurant waiting lounge, I didn't want I I my thought was we're not going to allow any of it. We're not going to allow anything to function whether it's beer, wine, distilled spirits with characteristics that we don't want that could produce impacts that we don't want. So to that knowing that having the conversation at the board level, it opened up it it did open up this opportunity to recognize maybe what it is that we do think is okay and what's not okay and to move forward incrementally and slowly into what we are comfortable with. So um I think came from a place of it it opened the door to have the conversation.

It seems like it's a conversation that came to a several realizations at many levels. Yeah. I see the applicant would like to make a comment be represented.

Good morning. My name is Jay Overton with Al Marlin Associates and I don't envy what y'all are struggling with right now. Um I guess to me it goes back on this particular one of these definitions. I don't understand like Bob pointed out how we have any difference in definition between these three activities. So when we're looking at the discussion of we don't want to have bars, what is the genesis of we don't want to have bars? Is it that we don't want to have people partaking in alcoholic drinks or the activities that in our youth we all enjoyed when we were down here? And if it's those activities that we all enjoyed in our youth, then why are we not speaking to that directly? And I think from the standpoint of how this all started goes back to the restaurant and the definitions that are in the restaurant, we set a 15% on the bar area as a maximum, 20% minimum for the food prep, and then we've got an area that 75% of the seating has to be um full service. We did not allow in that areas that could be specifically for waiting but not for entertainment, not for the other things that we wanted to preclude. So when we left out that ability for restaurant tours to look at their facility, we removed the opportunity for them to have that additional area set aside for seating. And I think if you go through and you canvas a lot of the restaurant owners within Nag's Head, they speak to the having the same issues. Bob at the meeting last week

talked about what they run into at Quagmires that they don't have adequate area for people to wait. So that's how we've gotten to where we are now with regard to the text amendment for the waiting area was that that parking was a problem and there was not area for people to be able to sit and wait without hanging out in the hot sun, if you will. So when we're looking at this ordinance and we're also relating it to the other coordinates, why are we creating this dividing line that wine and beer is okay and distilled spirits is not as opposed to all of this is okay or all of it's not when you're looking at a bar. And I guess that's that's where I'm having difficulty trying to figure out what path we're really trying to to deal with here. Is it the alcohol part or is it the thing the byproducts of people congregating? When people go somewhere, they want to be able to socialize. They want to be able to have an opportunity to interact with those that are around them. Everybody here, I'm sure that we all would agree that we love to listen to music. Some of us still like to dance. Even at my age or Bob's age, we still like to. And those are some of the things that I think we're we're not talking about. But that's really what we're after. And I think that's where our discussion is lacking. The other thing is we've got and there's nothing we can do about this because we live in an environment where we have residential property and we have commercial property and we've allowed residents to be built in our commercial property

and then we penalize the commercial businesses and we're not letting the commercial businesses operate as commercial businesses. So I we have to be sensitive to it, but I think we also have to get out on the table all the things that we've allowed to happen over the last 50 years, which have brought us to the dilemma we are now. Because we have in a lot of ways, not just Nag, a lot of our towns, we have decided what we don't want as opposed to what we do want. And we create ordinances as Kelly was talking about. We don't want this. We don't want this. Well, people like myself, that's what we get paid to do is to find ways to make something happen. And I would love our ordinances to be more directed towards what we do want. What do we want in this particular situation? Do we want bars? And if we want bars, a bar is a bar. It doesn't really have anything to do with what you're drinking. I've seen people get just as intoxicated off of wine as I have off of distilled spirits. And so so I'm I'm I'm rambling a little bit, but I'm trying to bring a little bit more context to what we're talking about because we're focusing on this text, but I don't think

so. But all of this is in the context that this will be an area that is um subservient to the larger restaurant and working as an area where they are waiting and waiting in I I do understand but that was the original intent of the this conversation. Yeah, that's how it all started. Now we're off to with regard to this ordinance creating new activities

which I'm trying to digest how we got to new activities but yet something that was subservient to a restaurant is an issue and now we're talking about new issues. Uh, I mean, when you start talking about again the bars and all, I don't see why on restaurants, why don't we talk about a restaurant and a restaurant that serves hot dogs is okay, but a restaurant that serves steak is not because that's what we're talking about here with alcohol. We're trying to define a restaurant or a bar based upon what they're serving, whether it's good or not, and what our actual conditions are going to be. I I don't I don't have all the answers to all the questions that have been asked and I think that's why we're all having such trepidation with this, but we do have with regard to the other ordinance that we're going to talk, we do have an issue there that we're trying to overcome and find a workaround that is amanable to everybody. I'm not sure where the text that we're dealing with at this point helps on that or takes us to an area that for years we've not wanted to have bars, but now we're talking about two different types of bars.

I would say that this is the the concept here is so multiaceted. Yes. and there are so many sides at play. U how would an establishment, a bar, how would it affect what would it bring to the town? How would it enhance the town? How would it hurt the town? How would it enhance the neighborhood? How would it hurt the neighborhood?

What issues would the operator face? How would the operator benefit from the things that we can offer and legislate? How what would be uh make it more difficult for them to succeed? We have to keep people's feelings about alcohol in general. We have to think about that. um public safety wise, noisewise, uh the uh aesthetics. I mean there's so many issues here which we are not going to solve all today.

Uh but I will say this, society changes, time changes, everything changes,

right? and uh and and and and we will ultimately we I mean Nag's Head is not the same town it was 50 years ago. Some people bemoone that fact and not you uh mayor, but some do bemoone that fact. Some wish the Outer Banks was what it was in 1950. Um that ship sailed that ship sailed in 1951. Um and this is something that we defin definitely have to look at. Uh we have to make it feasible for an operator if we want to go down that road, but we also have to keep you know the general public in mind at the same time.

I agree with you on all that. I think as we make these ordinances, the more we can be specific but yet general because every time we add another condition and another condition and another condition, it puts more responsibility on staff because when you start compounding all the different things that are going on, we we've created a monster that we're trying to wrangle in at times versus if we have a general understanding of what's going on. If you have noise that's above a certain level, then it doesn't make any difference whether it came from a DJ or it came from a band or it came from someone with just a guitar, it's still it exceeded that point. So I think sometimes we get wrapped up in all these other added things and then what happens is once you cross over and you add all these additional conditions then it becomes more apparent well if you didn't say this then you didn't mean it was prohibited because the general statute would have allowed you to just use the noise ordinance. because you now have got 15 different things that you put in there and you left the 16th out. Well, that must not apply to the 16th. And that's again, if we understand what we're trying to accomplish with this, I think it will help us get there with a whole lot more clarity. And the only other thing I'll add at this point is there are plenty of restaurants on this beach that have regular almost daily patrons who don't consider it a restaurant. Oh,

it's their watering hole. As a matter of fact, they go home to eat dinner. I understand. Um, so and I and I don't that's the type of thing that I think all those restaurants that experience that the owner of the restaurant realizes that and they keep an eye on it because they don't want their restaurant business to be negatively in impacted by those who may be doing that. So, it's more of a self-p policing thing if it's a restaurant that wants to truly be a restaurant. Yes, sir.

Um, as you were making these um different delineations, did you use other towns as an example of how they kind of had spec had specified what a bar, tap room, and wine bar

somewhat? Um, I looked at some areas, Raleigh, Durham, Kerry, Apex. So they had definitions of certain uses um like wine bar, tap room, but in how they regulated them, it was based upon um I think one of them had like if alcohol sales is 70% or more then that's a bar. Um it it was it wasn't based upon distinguishing types of alcohol per se, but it was about the characteristics and percentages of alcohol. Um I was I did look at Kill Devil Hills, all transparency, I realized there's a new bar they have on each road where 106 is. Um, and so I'm like, "Okay, they allow what we would consider a bar bar, so let me make sure." And they do. They do allow bars, and there's really no restriction on there. You know, it doesn't go into all of the regulations, per se. So, um, breaking hours out into wine, beer, and predominant sales of wine, beer. Um, I didn't necessarily see that in other ordinances. But I think at any rate, no, no matter what, if that's the will of this board in this town, then

that's acceptable and that's what I presented. Yeah, I like I mean I think it in in a lot of ways makes sense to break it down and see what we are comfortable with because not everybody will be comfortable with distilled spirits, right? I mean it is a different category. So I do like how it's kind of taken baby steps but it also

instead of being so sight spite sightsp specific it does incorporate the whole town. I feel like before it was we were just it was basically gonna we were only talking about one case and this I feel like it's better because it's broad more broad and and once we can get that established then go into this the site like how we've done. So I like this how we're progressing. Part of my I guess um thinking is it's supposed to be a waiting area. I mean I don't know that we you know if you go into Blue Moon and they say it's an hour wait for your table. Okay. Um you go in and say it's two hour wait. Well you may get some people that will just No. And some people may go to the lounge area. I guess part of me is I don't I don't want it to become a place where you people say okay two hours. in two hours they're over there drinking and you know and then they've got to come across the street and you know who knows by the time they get to Blue Moon they may be you know snoffered um I think there has to be some very specific um if we pass this and it may go case by pa case but like I think Blue Moon or any restaurant or any establishment would have to put in very specific um criteria okay we're going to monitor how are you going to honored. How am I going to get Joe Blow from coming off the street to this is Mr. Mrs. Smith who won a table for 10? Do you say I think there's just there's just too much ambiguity, I guess.

So, I think that that will come into play in our next conversation. Okay. I do have a question though. Has Blue Moon did Blue Moon ever um look at using any of their upstairs area as a waiting area? But it's not always used. Okay. Yep. So for now, if we can talk about this amendment for wine for wine bar tap room because all of that's really good, but it would be in our next conversation. And and as well, this would this would function as a standalone. Correct. These could be standalone principal uses.

A standalone use. And and maybe the only I'm a little bit sensitive to is maybe if we look at um behavior music um you know not amplified maybe we should go to could if if I'm very loud vocally am I v violating a noise ordinance? Yes, perhaps. Um if if a violin is very loud, is it violating a noise ordinance? Um that's a different case. So I I I'm kind of wondering if maybe maybe we're being a bit obstreporous in very narrow narrowly defining the the outdoor activity. if there's any other um input from the rest of the board. You know, if somebody had a string quartet outdoors and they were playing outdoors, um would that be could that violate a Nors ordinance?

So, under the proposal with this, just so we we're all aware, under this proposal for wine bar tap room, there would be no outdoor entertainment. You could have indoor entertainment. That was a lot of ambiguity and that's where we can talk about is it too ambiguous? Do we need more do we need more detail there or are we comfortable to just say let our existing noise regulations regulate that that way we're not talking about is the violin too loud right

if the violin meets the noise it does I think break that out yeah So if we recommend approval of this, that would be something that we would tighten up um in the definition and in the regulations is to just say outdoor entertainment prohibited, indoor entertainment allowed. Um and must be I would still recommend that we keep the subordinate and incidental.

We don't want entertainment becoming the primary. But we worry less about trying to characterize it into something that we think is low-key and just let air noise ordinance regulated. I was just tossing I was I was tossing that out there as an idea. You know, if somebody wanted to play an acoustic guitar in their front yard, that's fine. No, it's not. We just said it's prohibited.

No, no, I'm residential. Residential. If I wanted to do that presently, that would be that would be absolutely fine. If I wanted to have a wedding on my property, that would also be fine. So, um, in a case like that, would there be a special use permit that could be allowed by a business such as this where they could get permission to do something like that on on an oddcase item?

So, if if shock us, we're talking about blue moon so much. If Shakas wanted to Okay, never mind. So, we're talking about wine bar and tap room. A wine tap room that hasn't that has a lot of outdoor space. Suddenly, somebody wanted to have a songwriting festival in the area. New wine bar open happened last week. What about the Isn't there a micro brew on on the causeway? Yeah, there is. So,

can they do it? Um I guess to any of these issues whether it's wine bar tap room um right now the noise ordinance would prevail. But if we say for wine bar and tap room that no outdoor entertainment is allowed there's a mechanism through the crowd gathering permit. So, if they came to us and said, "We're applying for this crowd gathering permit. We're submitting it 60 days out, 90 days out, whatever the new rule is with their new standards." And um you know, we meet all the criteria. We want to have a band. There's a process through a crowd gathering permit, which is a one-time event permit. It does not negate the regulations otherwise. So if there was a special scenario for something like they wanted to do something like that

that crowd gathering would be the proper there's a a separate process to address that. Yeah. And if you have a wedding in your backyard your neighbors can still complain. Yes. They can I expect them to about the wedding first not the music. Yes. But any any other discussion? Any other questions? Any questions for Kelly? Of course, does is there in the future plans to revisit this and see where maybe the distilled spirits could come into play?

I think that's a really great question and I think this is maybe what everybody's thought was the proper path. So yes, I think if this is if we adopt this and we actually see these things within the town um and we look at how we've regulated them and you know is this giving us um what we envisioned, what we intended um can it be expanded upon?

We can always come back and do that. Yes. with regard to this and I I don't know how much of this we can do on the fly but I do recognize you know taking care of this noise situation was one piece that you had mentioned um trying to see if there's anything else that was mentioned for do we have the hours of operations straight.

So for wine bar and tap room, it is just an 11 flat. It's got to be no can't be open between 11:00 p.m. and 7 a.m. period. The um what Mr. Muller mentioned about the two scenarios, that's in our next one. That's in our restaurant waiting lounge. I would on the hours, just to throw this out there, I would go 11:11

don't operate between 11:00 p.m. and 11:00 a.m. because that's when most restaurants, other than breakfast places, most restaurants are opening in the 11 to 11:30 hour during the daytime. a wine bar or a liquor bar or a tap room doesn't need to be open at 8 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. or anything else. If that's local opinions may vary the occasional bloody in the morning, that's a whole another issue. Um that if that's the consensus, we'll do that. Does anybody else have any any any concernation with changing 11 to 11? I like it. I like it, too.

I like it. I'd say seven's fine. I don't think they'll open at seven, but I don't see why to put the restriction in. I can go either way, but that's fine. If you want to do 11. Okay. So, all right. So, consensus consensus at 11. 11 to 11. There is Um and and this is this is all we're building this for everybody not for the specific

this is not sight specific this is going to be anywhere within C1 C2 C4C5 not CR or institution area Um, are we comfortable with limited to traditional table wines and similar products and do not include fortified wines or other alcoholic products typically used in the preparation of mixed alcoholic drinks. What did you have in mind specifically when you were talking about the other

I feel like there's some So fortified wine would be I'm just kind of um yeah I I asked this um port is a fortified wine so it's augmented um higher higher level of alcohol. Um so fort fortified wine that's that is a legal definition. Well, I wouldn't speak so much fortified wine as the next,

but then I mean I kind of high alcohol might also lead to, you know, maybe that's where we add in distillates um as a process because that that's an ABC definition. High alcohol is a little bit more um subjective. Yeah. What's an example of that of of something that would be used to make a cocktail that's high alcohol other than liquor itself?

Heat heat. So if you heat something up, so um I understand distillation, rice wine. Okay. Yeah. You you would you would you would take it full fermentation and then you would heat it up to get boost up that last bit. Yeah. concentrate that. Oh, coming to the floor. If I may, in the bar definition, it says beer, wine, and or liquor.

Take out the or take out the take out take out the ore. Define a bar as beer, wine, and liquor. That way you're not defining you get into the trap that I said before where the wine bar and the tap room are just bars. This that they meet the definition of the bar. Take the and out. If they can't sell that, then the bar is specific and separate from the wine bar. That's a good point. Good point. Good point. Point taken.

Yep. right there. So we can maybe distilled spirits in in in this in wine bar. Um have that be instead of high alcohol column distilled spirits be the because then that just rolls over. Okay. Right. Any other

I guess I I would like to see where whatever there be some kind of minimal food offered. You know, I just because this is not required may include but not limited to um I just think anytime you're serving any kind of alcohol, wine, beer, you know, liquor, I think it would be good to have some at least some minimal food offered. I'm not sure we can legislate a menu. I think most places do, but here's if they even if they offer it, we can't require them to eat it. So therefore, it's kind of, you know,

I think most places will, you know, pretzels and nuts. They're going to

make you want to drink more. If you go over to Sanctuary Vineyards, um, and you're inside the tasting room, not at one of the outdoor events, but inside the tasting room, like many wine tasting rooms, they have found over time, that to offer something, some crackers and cheese or whatever, uh, that it was something that the their clientele pretty much demanded over time and then they made the concession to offer a couple of very simple things but I would let the need uh drive that plus

I agree and I think the need will drive it well there I I would I would take it so far so far as to say there's an opportunity from a sale portion for that as well so that that that that will I think it will it will that will be an extension because of the market that it'll And the entertainment portion that will be where we're going to augment that as well. Yes. So um the ambiguity there this thing about live music DJs that would come out and we'll just rely on noise ordinance. Cool.

Can you list the the changes the summarize the changes? Kelly I will certainly try to this is yoga. then we might have something we can vote on.

So for our definition of bar tavern drinking establishment, an establishment where the primary activity is the on premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages including beer, wine, and distilled spirits. So we're going to get rid of um or and where food service is limited or incidental to the operation. Characteristics of this use may include, but are not limited to, the absence of a full service kitchen or only minimal food offerings, the service of distilled spirits as a principal component of the business, extended evening or late night hours of operation. Um, we can cap that. If we're saying 11, we can say beyond 11. I I I think there's a that's that might be something we want to discuss, but does anybody the that's very general and maybe we do need to be specific with that. Um does anybody have any suggestions on extended evening or late night evening hours? Late night hours of operation. Um is there the noise ordinance is 11 o'clock?

It is. So, you know, we're saying 11 as the cap for wine and beer. Our noise ordinance reference is 11. No. And I but I think the first sentence of bar tavern drinking establishment makes it pretty clear. You don't need to go beyond that with all the hours of operation and all that stuff. Okay.

So, we don't even need that. Um, and then we'll just specify for that next sentence. Um, well, we already have in our supplemental regulations that the noise ordinance applies. So, okay, I like that better just to back it up against something else that's already boilerplate instead of having a a sec separate category all together.

Okay. And so for wine bar, we are going to move away from saying um high alcohol products and just say distilled spirits.

And then I think everything else in that was the same. We'll need that same amendment for tap room because we reference it there as well. Um, keeping bar tavern drinking establishment as a principal use as is. No changes to section 6.6. Um, we'll need to change lower intensity food beverage focused on onremise consumption of beer and or wine. Okay, so that's okay. There it's distinguished from beer tavern nightclub. Absence of distant spirits, limited entertainment, earlier hours of operation. I still think that's fine as long as we're going, you know, we're saying 11 and intended to to be compatible with surrounding uses. Number one seems okay. Number two seems okay based upon what we've discussed. Three seems okay. Here's where we're going to make an amendment to the times.

So 7 a.m. will become 11 a.m. Okay. So I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna looking at you. If would you want a wine bar and tap room to be open at 10 o'clock in the morning? I I I don't think that you should take away that option for

That's kind of where I am. I'm I'm kind of reeling myself back. um nor you know so what I wanted open at 7 a.m. you know, that's here and there. I'm not sure what kind of problems we're really stepping over by eliminating the early hours of operation, but do we want to curtail it at all? I'm It's a question to the rest of the board. You know, what are we getting by eliminating early hours of operation? I I mean, the the proposal was seven. I think from a staff perspective, that's

it. Do do you protest to that? you know, because we really our recalcitrant behaviorists aren't going to be they're not morning operators. They're more night operators. So I I I kind of like that just because it's more standardized for a business if we are creating this for a standalone business. We are not creating this for what we will be looking at next. Correct. This is standalone principle, not subordinate to anything else. Yes. Okay. Okay. So, I'm okay with seven. That's going to be self-regulating, too. Exactly. And who's gonna open at that time of day? They might do it on St. Patrick's Day parade. You know,

you just created that. You made that into fruition. Well, they could sell t-shirts that, you know, if they if they needed to open it. So, it's just to me as a business person, you know, the more red tape there is, the more Well, as well kind of going down that way. If you're going to open the doors for you to clean the business, why not open the doors for business, right? So, that's that that's kind of where I was going with that. Yeah. I just don't think people are going to come in there and start drinking and stuff. But,

and then for the fifth um supplemental standard, indoor entertainment is permitted provided it is compliant with our noise ordinance. I'll say it better, but yeah, that that's great.

Um, keeping outdoor entertainment prohibited. Um, customer service. Um, no outdoor bar service shall be permitted. Um that doesn't discourage someone from providing a small area for seated customer service for wine and beer meeting that 500 or 25%. Um again to that we just wanted to make sure that it was clearly incidental to the indoor. I think we have some locations where the outdoor areas are probably larger than the indoor areas and this isn't where we want to see that happen.

Um, just to clarify, no outdoor bar service. That means there's not a bar outside. Correct. Yeah, you could bring your beer, wine out. You go in, yes, buy a beer or whatever sit outside and go sit outside, but there is not a freestanding bar outside. So, exterior I could could could we clean up by saying exterior sales are prohibited? Would that would that get us would that get I think that's a little neater. Um you know as it is as it is here if you had no outdoor bar service or outdoor sales.

Yeah. Outdoor no outdoor sales. I think that that that that gets it that cleans it up a little bit especially for it when compared to other businesses that have It differentiates outdoor bar as compared to what this would be for this. Okay. For your approval consensus. Yeah, that's fine. It's tricky because there are some businesses that their bar is outdoor.

Yeah, that's kind and that's kind of where I was going. If I had a cooler sitting next to me and it had something in it, am I is that a bar? Then that so by saying outdoor sales are prohibited then that's a different kettle of fish all together. That's kind of where I was. Yes it is. I agree. Okay. Okay. Um designating your area providing fencing and screening. I feel pretty strongly about that. I wouldn't want to change that unless people on here would like to revisit that. Um, and then ABC regulations probably require some of that.

They will require fencing. Yeah, for sure.

Um, so yeah, that will be an ABC requirement. Um, but just making sure that we do have that defined and delineated area. And then just reiterating, you have to meet lighting and you have to meet our noise standards. Um, that seventh regulation there is just to make sure we're consistent with micro brewery. We're not creating any conflicts there. And then eight is just one more opportunity to make We've got everything encompassed. You still have to comply with all of the other regulations of the town code. Um, no changes to how we're parking this. So those I think those are those are air changes um that I'll put in as planning board recommended changes and then show those maybe in a highlight delineate those somehow so that the board of commissioners sees what was presented versus

um what it looks like after the planning board's recommendation. Showing our homework as it is. Yes. Show your homework. Um, so do we need to move this forward with a with a vote? Yes,

I think we're ready. So, as as was so aptly outlined by Kelly, what we have thrown forward as the new improved improved standard for this. Can I Does anybody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the amended amendment of the untitled develop ordinance uh appendix A section A4 definitions. A second. I second that. We have motion and a second.

The vote. Can I ask for a vote for or against? I the eyes carry it. And now we're now this what what is first shall be second. What is second shall be first. So Kelly, you're on it again. Yes.

This I imagine this is going to go a little quicker because we we've outlined many of the we've had a lot of really great conversations. already.

Um I I can also say that the commissioners meeting did create a lot of context. You know, they created the context for this to happen obviously because this was tabled at their level requesting our input on this. Um I think it's it's reasonably obvious especially because of what we just spoke about. Okay. So along the same lines, I will try to scroll through the ordinance as we talk through it. Um background, you know why this is here. Um the board of commissioners um reviewed this was concerned um that it could lend itself to be operate as its own standalone um independent bar. So um I guess looking at this the first thing that I would acknowledge is you know we may need to tighten up this definition of restaurant waiting lounge as well. Um but in context of what we're looking at in terms of the request um right now an indoor detached fully enclosed permanent structure accessory to a principal restaurant sit down. So it's not going to apply to drive-ins, drive-throughs, takeouts. The restaurant waiting lounge shall be located on a site occupied by a single principal restaurant sitdown use and may be located on the same parcel as the

principal restaurant or on a parcel that is contiguous to or separated only by a public street or rideway from the principal restaurant. provided that the parcels are under common ownership or operational control and are developed pursuant to an approved unified development plan. Um, what's further down in the amendment, but you need to understand and I'm sure you remember is this is proposed to be a special use permit. It would not be permitted by right. It is going to come before this board um once it becomes a sightsp specific um request. It would come before this board and not only would you be looking at it through the lens of a special use permit but you also have to consider how this functions under a unified development plan. So um a restaurant waiting lounge shall operate solely in conjunction with the principal restaurant sitdown and shall not operate as an independent establishment. That's key because it's it has to operate in the context of the unified development plan. It cannot operate as its own independent establishment. Outdoor seating areas, patios, pergas, gazeos, stages, bars, or other unenceds gathering areas contiguous to and associated with a restaurant shall not be considered a restaurant waiting lounge and shall instead be regulated as part of the principal

restaurant sitdown use. That's a lot

and it can be confusing. So what was trying to be accomplished there is um as as we've mentioned the existing definition for restaurant sdown says that you can only have 15% of your indoor area dedicated to entertainment. Um So this is so in context of what we we see out there. Um any outdoor bars that we have in town, there's one at Shakas, they have a little outdoor that's counted towards their 15%. That that is not a restaurant waiting lounge. That's part of their principle. Um your patios, gazeos, stages, all of that is part of your principle. That would not be part of your restaurant waiting lounge. Um, your restaurant waiting lounge is um defined as something different and acknowledging that the 15% did not carry over to that. But that's more in the regulations and less in the definition. Um, bar, tavern, drinking establishment. Um, probably just make this the same. If if this moves forward and we need to, we would need to make this consistent with our definition from our previous conversation. again. Um, same as the previous

amendment, want to go ahead and list bar, tavern, drinking establishment as a principal use, as a um, expressly prohibited use. as a principal use and restaurant waiting lounge accessory to restaurant sit down, not as its own principal use. That's been proposed to be permitted via special use with supplemental regulations anywhere that you can currently have a um restaurant down. So, wanted to keep that consistent. The supplemental regulations is where we get into the biggest part of this. Um, as an accessory use, a restaurant waiting lounge may be permitted in any district where restaurant sitdown is permitted upon issuance of a special use permit by the board of commissioners subject to the following conditions. Restaurant waiting lounge shall be accessory and subordinate to the principal restaurant sit down use and shall be located on the same parcel as the principal or on a parcel that is contiguous to or separated only by a public street or rideway from the principal restaurant provided the parcels are under common ownership or operational control and are developed pursuant to an approved unified development plan. We speak to this further down, but um with a unified development plan, the ex the the restaurant waiting lounge

could never be sold separately from the restaurant. These are they're a pair now. They're a pair through the special use permit. They're a pair through through the unified development plan. They have to be under common ownership. Their approval binds them through that approval principle and waiting lounge. So, um, the concern that this just gets sold and operated independently, that is a violation of the definition, the supplemental regulations, the special use permit. And while there may be some concern about how we enforce who goes and drinks and doesn't eat, violating something like that, violating your use is something um that would be enforceable. Um, the restaurant waiting lounge shall be located on a site occupied by a single principal restaurant sit down use and shall not be located within a multi-tenant commercial development or shopping center. So, um, this was me trying to thread a needle and I'm not sure what design I was trying to come out with. Well, and this this kind of goes into a little bit of what you were talking about the 106 area up there. I believe there's common ownership of the two properties or at least that was part of an earlier iteration of that and I know that um there have been comment to that in that instance by the owner when he was originally thinking about that

that and I'm not and so yeah so that's that is that is good to know. Um, so to understand my thinking on this, it was um, we actually I I tried to make a list of all of our restaurants and we have a lot of them when you start to think about those that are tucked in shopping centers. Um, uh, Tropical Smoothie, um, Grits Grill, Bros Brothers, Fresh Fit, you I mean, in every shopping center, you've got

a restaurant tucked in there. And admittedly, this is not sight specific, but I do remember where when Blue Moon was in Surfside Plaza and they were growing, the spot next to them was vacant and they were able to lease that vacant unit and provide more waiting area there. So, their area grew and perhaps their entertainment area grew um but it still remained consistent with that 15%. Um the way this is written now, I don't know that that could happen where if a existing restaurant in a shopping center needed or wanted to acquire the space beside them. The way this is written, that might not be expressly allowed. My behind this was um if use Surfside Plaza as an example, if Dune Street restaurant, they don't have a unit beside them to grow into, but the lot behind them that used to have the three structures where all of their lifeguards stay,

that's now vacant. I did not think that an appropriate use of this would be that Dune Street could purchase that lot and have some accessory principle waiting situation happening in that context. The vision was that um whether narrowsighted or not it was you know principal principal restaurant sit down waiting lounge and it wasn't really contemplated to be um for restaurants within multi-tenant shopping centers to be able to purchase another property and pull it in. Um admittedly, I don't think I see anything wrong with somebody being able to move into the space beside them. That's happened before. Um So, if this moves forward, that might be one of the areas that we need to talk about that might need to be word smith a little different.

Which number are you looking at here, Kelly? Um, it's 7.31.3.2. Okay, thank you.

Yes, I want to make a note of that um for me as well. where the restaurant waiting lounge is located on a parcel that is contiguous to or separated from the principal restaurant use only by public student rightway. A clear and visible pedestrian connection shall be provided between the two uses. The pedestrian connection shall identify and reinforce the most direct and safest walking route for patrons traveling between the waiting lounge and the principal restaurant. That is language that was crafted after the planning board's LA last meeting where we talked about um needing to create that visual connectivity for patrons to know where is the proper place um to go between sites. Uh the pedestrian connection can be achieved through visual or physical means including but not limited to pavement marking, surface treatments, signage, similar design elements, and shall be subject to town approval. This requirement is intended to provide clear wayfinding and pedestrian guidance and shall not in itself require the installation of a formal or regulated crosswalk unless determined by the town. That's something that comes up when this becomes sight specific. That's something that comes up then when you're looking at that special use permit. Um, section four, the restaurant waiting lounge shall be approved as part of a unified development plan for the associated restaurant by the board of commissioners and shall not be established independently of the principal restaurant use. The board of commissioners may impose additional conditions necessary to ensure that the

waiting lounge remains clearly subordinate and incidental to the principal restaurant. Already touched on this. There isn't an opportunity for these uh businesses, these structures to be operated independently. They've got to be tied together. And that's part of the proposed new use category that we're talking about. Um, the approval of a restaurant waiting lounge shall run with the unified development plan for the associated restaurant and shall not be assoc and shall not be separated from the principal restaurant sitdown use through subdivision, cell, lease, or other conveyance that would allow the restaurant waiting lounge to function independently of the restaurant. The restaurant waiting lounge shall serve patrons of the associated principal restaurant only and shall not be open to the general public independent of a dining weight or reservation at the principal restaurant nor operate as a standalone establishment. Very candid. I said this at the board of commissioners and I will say it now. We're not going to be able to regulate an individual person's behavior. Um, we're not going to enforcability. Um, from our perspective, um, is it doable? Yes. Is it practical? That word came up. Perhaps not. Um, we can intermittently monitor to make sure that the person going to the restaurant waiting lounge is indeed at some point moving over to the the principal. Um,

but we're not going to do that all the time. Um, so acknowledged enforcability of this is problematic. Perhaps if this moves forward, it's incumbent upon the applicant to show how that happens. I know I think Mr. Overton or I don't want to put words in his mouth. I I feel like at some point somebody had said ideally the person goes to the principal first, gets on the wait list. And I know things work differently now, but I remember like when you got a little thing that vibrated or buzzed, you know.

Um I don't know there would have to be communication and connection between these two establish some kind of a rubric that could be followed even broadly so that there is infrastructure in place at the establishment to follow this corre and is that for staff to enforce I would say no I'd say that's the perhaps it's on

made a good point earlier and a couple of restaurant owners actually spoke to me since our last meeting. It seems to be an everinccreasing number of people that will walk in the door and be told, "Okay, it's an hour wait." And they'll say, "Great, put my name on the list." And 35 minutes later, they've bolted. And then the restaurant, I understand there was a table for 10 and nobody took and there's they're not there.

So it it it would be almost impossible to regulate Um, the indoor customer service area of the restaurant waiting lounge shall not exceed 50% of the indoor customer service area of the principal restaurant sitdown. So in my mind, the 15% that's equated to your principal restaurant, this is different. This is going to be something separate. It's not tied to the 15% and it wasn't intended to be to be honest. Um, so in this what we're capturing is we need to make sure that it is accessory. We need to make sure that it's subordinate. Um a criticism that we have received in other applications is that we say accessory, we say subordinate, we say incidental, but we don't provide a number. Um that's happened with a recent application that we heard. So in this case, we're proposing a number. We're proposing 50%. So, if you have a thousand square feet of customer service over here, you're only going to be able to have 499 square ft of customer service over here. And I would just say anecdotally for the existing restaurants that are out there who could potentially take advantage of this and construct something ground up today. I don't know that anybody would see creating a restaurant waiting lounge that is 50% only that that's the highest and best

use of their property. I think they would probably just add it to their restaurant if they could do it. They would just they would just add that to their principle. That's a lot to create when you know that you can only have 50% or less over here. Were you going to mention? Yeah, because if you add it to your restaurant, then it's part of that 15% and you're only allowed to have 15%. So if you add 50% of

So in this case, if we're talking about um If we're talking about a restaurant being able to purchase either they already own the the adjoining property or they can purchase the adjoining property and expand then yes the then the 15% applies. Then this is no longer a restaurant waiting lounge because in our definition we say a restaurant waiting lounge is a detached

enclosed structure seem fair then because you would have to buy you would have to build a whole another building in order to get extra entertainment space. Does that make sense? Well, I think that speaks to why this would not be widely used. I think that speaks to but it only be used if somebody had like a lot of extra money that they could build a bigger another building as opposed to just adding on to their restaurant. Correct. Because you get that extra entertainment space

by doing by building another building, but you don't get it if you just add on to your building. Is that does that make sense what I'm saying? Well, you get a waiting. You you don't get additional entertainment. You get a space for waiting with alcohol service,

which seems valuable in this case, which seems this is it seems like that's really what this is all about. because thatif it's a way to get around that the 15%. Why why don't we just make it be like 30% or something and then they could still do this but everybody could do it no matter if you wanted to have a separate building or if you wanted to add on to your existing building.

So I will that's that is not a I guess to put it bluntly that's not a staff question. That's a more of a political and philosophical question as to how much more entertainment area the board would like to see because I I I'll tell you from a staff perspective and I think everybody in this room knows this and I've said it to Jay. I have heartburn with the entertainment areas that are out there now um

because they're exceeding that 15% or they're right up on it. No, because we are at a place where the more entertainment area provided or that they have accessible to them, the more you're creating a space that wasn't intended for for waiting. It was it's it's not for the person who's out there waiting with just some minimal complimentary things to enjoy while they wait. They're becoming spaces for people to go with no intention of ever going inside the restaurant and sit to the picnic table, have as many beers as they want,

listen to the band, play cornhole. They're coming just for that. Our ordinance, our ordinance only parks for the restaurant.

When we look at our parking standard, it's one per 55 of square feet customer service area for your seating area. We don't park for people who want to f to to come to the principal as a restaurant and then park above and beyond for people who want to participate in these other things happening. So the the way Nag's head has structured their ordinances is sure you can certainly have an outdoor waiting space and you can certainly do some minimal things to complement that weight. Um, but we don't want it becoming its own function, its own use.

So, why doesn't it apply to this building then to the waiting lounge? Why?

So, it so it can't become its own use, which we've noted multiple times. And again philosophically if people think that that's that our structure is not enough to hold that then then that's fine. But what's being proposed is a waiting area that is subordinate to but clearly connected and tied to your principle.

So what's happening in this fully enclosed. So, we're not allowing any outdoor entertainment. Um, what's happening in this enclosed detached space is waiting area as a function of the principle. It's not its own use. It's not its own, it's not an independent use. It's not its own principal use. Um,

and you know, if this structure doesn't hold that and I think that's a lot of people's concerns, then then that's what, you know, then that's what we need to say. Um, moving forward, alcoholic beverages may be served and consumed within the restaurant waiting lounge only to patrons um of the associated principal restaurant sitown. However, the facility shall not operate as a bar, tavern, nightclub as defined by the ordinance,

which means no liquor. Correct. Well, if we move this forward, um, that's that isn't that is not what the applicant requested. So, that's not how this is written. But we just said in the bar, tavern, and drinking establishment, that means you're serving liquor.

Correct. So, the definition for restaurant, the definition of restaurant, waiting, lounge, those two things would need to be amended. We would have to staff would have to tweak those two things because as the applicant has requested for the restaurant waiting lounge um the ability to serve distilled spirits liquor they would want that. So, um, it's likely that we would need to leave the definition the same because we don't want to create two definitions, but create a structure within the use itself. Perhaps we're not calling perhaps we're not citing perhaps we're not calling it a bar in the restaurant waiting lounge scenario. But going back to what Bob said earlier,

if you're serving liquor, wine, and beer, sure sounds like a bar, right? And our bar tavern drinking establishment that we just went through specifically says you serve beer, wine, and liquor. Yeah. So I had just said maybe we don't refer to it as a bar. So where we say um

and I don't have any problem as a tavern nightclub. Maybe that's the language if this moves forward that we are that would need to be amended. Maybe maybe you know obviously we don't want to reference this back to something that's that conflicts. Right. That's what I was getting at. We just got to make sure there's no Yeah. No conflict like you said. I think so. Maybe maybe construct it so instead of not it will operate as would that work if we flipped it or is that too okay I'm sorry

we would have to get um working with the applicant we would have to get creative with that

um and I'll say this now based upon this conversation I feel like if we move if we're inclined to move this forward, we may need another month to sort this out with the applicant and what it looks like, unless we're all willing to sort this out here today. But, um, alcoholic beverages may not be served for consumption off premise. That's largely going to be controlled by your ABC permitting. Um, but we wanted to include that as well. The restaurant waiting lounge shall not operate later than 11 p.m. and shall close no later than one hour prior to the closing time of the principal, whichever occurs um first. And then so that's section 10. And then we talked about how section 12 was conflicting. The restaurant waiting lounge shall operate only during the hours the associated principal restaurant is open for business and shall not maintain separate business operations including but not limited to separate hours of operation separate kitchen or separate management. Um for these two things what we were I think the first thing we were trying to capture is a dependency. One cannot operate any later than the other.

But if you want to close earlier and you need to close earlier you can. So one was a independence a dependency. One can't operate without the other. But what I was trying to say is that you you can't operate when the other is not operating because then clearly you're not a unified cohesive plan subordinate and accessory but to also give opportunity that if you need to close earlier to get those people out by 11 then you need to close earlier. So perhaps these two need to be revisited. with some revised language.

I think you could combine them somehow. And just as an example, the 010, what you're saying is if the restaurant closes at 8, then the waiting lounge would close no later than an hour before the seven. Yeah. Right. Yeah. I think we can make that happen. Um, but it is confusing the way it's written. It's

I saw it in my head. It just didn't come out in the words. So, we can fix that. Um, the Restaurant waiting lounge shall not operate independently or be separately advertised. All marketing, branding and representation of the restaurant waiting lounge shall be integrated with and subordinate to the associated principle. Again this was to get at um the fact that this is accessory. They are connected. They are operating as one. They should speak the same language. Um, and again, if you are not advertising or marketing or branding your restaurant waiting lounge, then that's one more mechanism or path where we know that it's accessory. We know that it's part of your unified development plan. And hopefully it's clear to others that these two things work in conjunction with each other. It's not being advertised as its own separate entity. Um I think one of the questions that Mr. Muller brought up about signage um it was a really good question. Typically, when you think about a principal commercial use that has an accessory structure, they don't get double signage for that. So, that is a that's a valid concern for sure that we need to think about. Um, in the case it's not size specific, but when you

think about anywhere who's doing this where there's an existing building, where they've purchased an existing building, there's already some signage allocated to that. Um, are they allowed to continue to use that signage? Maybe yes, maybe not. That's the conversation for this board. Does it apply to freestanding signage or does it apply to wall signage as well? Um, we need to think about that. Um, entertainment shall be incidental to the primary use. Indoor entertainment is permitted. Here I have all my fluffy stuff.

Uh, low intensity in nature does not include dance floors, DJs. club style operations. Um, in all honesty, based upon what I've heard, maybe you don't allow entertainment at all. Here's the thing about independent entertainment in a waiting room setting. It will encourage people who are not going to eat at the restaurant to come in and stay,

right? So, I mean, one, that's that that's something to think about as far as indoor entertainment goes. That gets to something that Mr. Kerry mentioned. Um, that gets to a lot of the concerns that I've heard over the past couple weeks. Um, perhaps you I don't think that's what the applicant wanted and that's not what they requested. Um, but the board for our consideration. Maybe that's something that we think about. Um and then again, outdoor entertainment prohibited as well. Same as for wine bars and tap rooms. Outdoor customer service and patron areas may be permitted as an accessory use to be approved. Enclosed restaurant waiting lounge subject to the following. Outdoor areas clearly subordinate and accessory to the enclosed um use outdoor areas limited to seated customer service. Um same language as tap room and bar 500 square feet or 25% and um that physical delineation of fencing and in addition if you need landscaping or something else to help mitigate noise impacts. Um So this is very similar to what we decided would be adequate for wine bar and tap room. Um then lastly, exterior signage for a restaurant waiting lounge shall incorporate the name of the associated

restaurant and shall not present the lounge as a separate or independent establishment. Signage must comply with all standards of the UDO. And again, we already we've already recognized that we need to talk about signage. Um, parking standard kept it that same. One space per 55 square feet of indoor customer service area. Square footage of any restaurant waiting lounge shall be included in the calculation of indoor customer service area for the associated um principal restaurant use. To Mr. Mueller's question about What if if you have an existing site and you're backing into this and you have additional parking, um, can you then use that parking to increase your customer service area? It's not explicitly written in here, but I do think if we were to move this forward, um, you know, when you when you come to the planning board and the board of commissioners, you're giving them a plan that says this is my customer service area here and this is my customer service area here. So you're you're locked in to that customer service area and we need we need to explicitly write that because admittedly restaurants have come added customer service area because they added more parking and that was handled administratively. But in this scenario, that's not what we want to do. We don't want an additional or overflow excess parking to be able to equate to an increase in customer service area. So, um, you know, by virtue of your special use permit, this

is the customer service area that you are approved for. You don't increase that customer service area without coming back to amend your special use permit. That could be one way to tackle that. And that's it. I thought this was going to be easy. Okay. When this came up that last month, it struck a cord of familiarity with me. And then it dawned on me why. Years ago, across the street from NOFK General Hospital, there were two bars. One was the waiting room and one was the recovery room. Now I know exactly what you're talking about. Yes.

So, um, I'm happy to answer any questions. I know that I've probably forgotten some that you had concerns with.

There's one question that I'll bring up right off the bat is, and this is something that we spoke a little bit about. It's in here, some curb cuts, etc. for the walkway. Um, I think that that shouldn't be that difficult to to do because it seems that you should scrape it together. What it would mean perhaps might be the entry into this area seems like it would need to be modified a little bit. Safety is kind of a weird concern because people are going to be blazing off the bypass if it moves forward as it is. It's not not specific. Yeah. You know, okay. In Hypothetically, yes,

it could they could. So that we just want to create a create an avenue for safe pedestrian conveyance, but as well not to um increase the number of curb cuts, etc. that would be required. And if we could unify those together and make them adjacent, that would that would I would think I would think would be one stone with two birds. And um the ordinance does still say, you know, we want to limit curb cuts. So

this if this were coming to us in a new form and not trying to back it into an existing situation, um that would not be an issue. I think it would be a no-brainer that, you know, one driveway, one cut, access to both. Um, but this was applicant driven. This was requested from a specific um group who obviously, you know, wanted to make it work for them and and staff tried to do that as well. So,

what what items do we need to talk more about? One was the signage. signage, entertainment, entertainment, signage, entertainment, and then the the multi-unit the multi-unit piece. I

I think multi-unit to signage might be let's let's say at a multi-unit facility like this where there's more than one condo setup that's available and but there is a a separation the the next door unit is occupied and they want the next door to the next door unit. Um, that would be an odd situation. Um, so if it if it would be if it's a multi-unit and they're going to do this and they can knock a hole in the wall, that seems to make sense.

Then you're keeping your 15, then you're keeping it all. But if it is separated by that then maybe we treat that as similar to this the this scenario of where there is a roadway or if there is a a physical obstruction where um there would not be share there the ownership would not be continuous make sense it's much more difficult in this scenario which to be honest it's why it just made more sense to

to prohibit without assuming anything and not asking anyone to divulge any confidential information. Assuming that the amendments are the amendment to the first amendment that we voted on for bar tavern and drinking establishment assuming that is ultimately approved by the board. Is there a need to go forward with the waiting room discussion because they can sell liquor? So, so

and entertainment. My concern about the multi-unit, just to get back to that as an idea. Let's say that a a food court all under one shared ownership type setup where where you could go to many different types of places or you know um where you would have different types of food and people would it would be shared ownership. You would have one waiting area. That is not something that's we don't currently allow that concept. We wouldn't you wouldn't you wouldn't allow that but you could have that. You could

if this were were not if you were not allowed to do it at the multi-unit. Do you see what I'm saying? You could have a unified waiting room and maybe that does maybe that is something that we want to keep in there. I'm leaving it in front of the board. So let's say that you know a very friendly group decides to have 18 different flavors of food in a facility where there are 19 units and the 19th unit is a is a unified waiting area. Um is that anything that would be I I feel like that's almost another whole bridge it

to cross and let's not maybe we wait for that bridge to come. I want to be careful with the bridge because of 382. I am Yeah, Senate Bill 382. I've like was mentioned earlier. Um, so it's easier to undo it than it is to do it. Correct. We We won't be able to undo it once we release it. We are unable to undo it. Jamie's out of the box. So, more discussion needed on signs, entertainment, how to allow waiting lounges to serve liquor. Is that correct?

Without Yes. Without um conflicting with our definition. And what else? Were we still noodling? Let's see here. Signs. Signage. I need to get with me about this. This is a tough one. And you know, maybe Yeah, I'm I'm glad I'm I'm glad to be here, but wow, it's a long road to hell. It's not just going to socials and just cutting ribbons.

Cutting ribbons. Cutting ribbons. So, the signage is is one thing. The conflict in saying that you can't be a are knowing that the applicant wants right

to sell distilled spirits. Um the concern of excess parking being kind of used to increase customer service. Um I think we can make revisions to the language that says that in order what you present and what you have approved as your special use permit approval is what you're allowed to do. Any change to that would have to come back before the board

in in this lending to the point of outdoor space making a destination. Um the destination, a determination in this that would make it clear that the destination is subservance to the restaurant and the following behaviors are are limited because of that and entertainment exterior entertainment perhaps being one but an idea being this is I'm looking at the road separ the the an object separating the ownership creating problems for it being standalone because it really is a standalone operation irrespective of the idea that it isn't. You It's kind of like if you want and walk up to it, it's a standalone until you find out it isn't a standalone. That's kind of a That's a little This is a very odd situation.

Yeah. You're saying that it's different from the restaurant, but at the same time, you're saying that it's not. Well, no. I the the the applicant is trying to get us to say that this is one facility but because of the physical obstruction in in in the hypothetical physical obstruction obstructionction it cannot be one entity and so that I think creates a lot of the lines that we want to observe and not Agreed. Um

the question is how in and if if can we can we use that to the distillates bar? I'm getting into that now is where I'm going. You cannot have a standalone bar. Yeah. Why would it be fair for them to have a bar that is just because it's detached?

Whereas another restaurant can't have that entertainment a lotment to sell alcohol just because they can't afford to buy another whole lot or building. Is that like if it was the same? If it was all if you just put the two floor plans together and then divvied it up, you know, to where they have the 15% entertainment and it it's if that building is 15% of Blue Moon and all of Blue Moon is just seating and then that's all your waiting area, then that kind of makes sense in my mind. I think that's where we are today with how we currently operate the principal restaurant sit down.

Yeah. Right. Um we're trying to deviate from that. But in my mind, it's not fair to the rest of the restaurants that don't have an adjacent lot. you know, if they're having problems with waiting. I mean, I'm sure Blue Moon's not the only restaurant that has problems with waiting, but not every restaurant has the ability to buy a lot next to it and build a building to consider it. They may, if we, if we pass this, they may all want to do that, but they may not be able to. It

I guess I have a question there. Is it as a planner I typically don't take someone's fi financial situation into consideration. I am trying to navigate the request in terms of the use the characteristics. What do we want? What do we not want? Let's devils advocate this. H how how can we make sure this doesn't get unwieldy? Taking in someone's financial status as to whether they can or cannot participate. We haven't really done that in any of our planning.

Um our codes just don't tend to do that. Right. Yeah, I understand what you're saying, Brad, but I'm I'm with Kelly on this one. You know, we're we're putting something out there for people who can take advantage of it. Great. For others, well, maybe maybe down the road. Well, that that may be the case that then um so it seems like then that what we should allow is a greater percentage of entertainment space. So other places could also expand and have a big have a a bar that serves liquor, but it's entertainment space. It's a waiting lounge. It's a waiting lounge that just

And we're probably going to say no entertainment. So they'll be play the radio and that'll be about it. Yeah. But they can still have a bar, right? So it's liquor. And I think that that's the biggest draw here is that they that if if if that's not the case, then they can do this exact thing and just have wine and beer right now. If if if the first discussion that we had goes through commissioners, correct?

So, I guess one thing to keep in mind, and it hasn't been said yet, and I feel certain if Jay were here, he would want to say it is um Yes. Blue Moon could come back and if this is approved,

if wine bar tap room is approved, Blue Moon, as an example, can come back the the next day and apply for a wine bar at this location. and they can operate it independently. They don't need to meet any of this criteria. It's its own principal use. We're not worried about reservations. We're not worried about who's going in there. We are not worried about people running, you know, between one building and another. And So none of that applies. This becomes its own use with its own parking and it generates its own parking demand. So you have people coming to this wine bar

which is the same aotment as the restaurant. So it's 55 square feet. So that's the same that wouldn't change anything,

right? But understandably, the applicant came to us with this and I think their number one goal was to help their parking situation. So Blue Moon very successful. They do not have enough parking to accommodate the seasonal peak time. So, two years ago, my phone was blowing up and I was hearing from police about parking along Dove Street, parking on adjacent lots, parking on vacant lots. Um, it was a point of discussion. So the applicant who made this request originally coordinated with the then owner of Keepers Galley so when they were not having scheduled events there they could use that as their overflow. They had the opportunity to purchase that property and since they've done that parking has not been an issue. We are no longer getting those calls because that overflow that was tending to park on Dove or to park in the Sandy vacant lot, they're now parking at Keeper Galley, what whatever it's called now.

So, the parking concern went away. The applicant's thought was great, we've solved this parking concern. Um but we have a building that we can't use and how can we use it? Hence a waiting space. Mhm.

So as part of the consideration for this text amendment on behalf of the applicant, this has grown. This has grown beyond what the applicant I think wanted. But in respect to them, um, if they open a wine bar there, they've done nothing to solve their parking problem. And I would be pretty confident in saying they've actually exacerbated the parking problem because now you're going to have two very successful uses that are generating their own parking demand and there's nothing connecting the two. There's no requirement that they be subordinate accessory connected. So, um,

well, it's going to be a wine bar if it's a waiting lounge, but it's going to be even more than that. I I guess the the question is how can we disinvent it dis disinvent it incentivize it being a destination that that is

you know you know and I do understand in this situation the applicant is looking at using the parking spaces but not not but but using all of using the rest of it as well enhancing the enhancing their other property by adding this property to it. it what makes it very very difficult is the the separation of property line. So the question is you know how can we what what are we what are we interested in removing from what would normally be done with a standalone to keep them tied and what are we allowing them to include in order to keep them tied

but we're getting into the sight specific stuff again right we need to think about this at the town level that that was a good history Kelly appreciate all that.

Well, I and you know, but I'm even thinking let's say another, you know, another there's a a physical obstruction between a business going business and a separate property and they have they they have a standalone problem where moving through is an issue and they want to have an adjoining property and and and put amenities there. what amenities make it a destination and what amenities support the primary concern. That's that I think that's a little bit of where we're getting to. But the question is what what boxes do we are we comfortable with keeping included?

Well, if there's a physical obstruction, that's the that's the business's problem, right? So, I don't think we need to worry about that. And we're already listing or saying what you can and cannot do in a restaurant waiting area lounge. Well, there are a few there are a few items that are still up in the air. Signage is is one of them. This is um this is a staff has tagged a lot of stuff onto this, but it it does come from the origin of a applicant submitted. Okay.

So, if you're open to it, the representative for that applicant is here if you want to provide an opportunity to speak. He looks like he wants to talk.

Can I say something real quick? Um, I appreciate Mayor Mueller's reminder and lesson this morning about getting bogged down in sight specific details when you actually have to look at the bigger picture. So, in the case of this, I think we have to ignore the fact that there's a street between these buildings and just talk about a detached restaurant waiting room. That's it. I agree. That's

Thank you for those comments because that's where I was headed

because I mean it it clearly defines And uh I've looked at so much stuff. Let me get back here. Um where it talks about under uh 73133 restaurant waiting lounge is located on a parcel that is contiguous to or separated from the principal restaurant use only by a public rightway. A clear visible Oh no, I'm sorry. Strong one. Um but anyway, it talks about that. Uh, excuse me. Here it is right here. That restaurant waiting lounge shall be located on a site occupied by a single principal restaurant set down use. It may be located on the same parcel as the principal restaurant use or on a parcel that is contiguous to or separated only by public. So all those ores are there because it's trying to establish when there's an issue there is a potential way to uh look to solve that and with looking at this particular piece of property or excuse me not looking at this particular piece of property but looking at any property. I think the town has tried as much as possible to allow for creativity but yet stay within the bounds of what the initial principle was. And with this we're looking at as Kelly was just going back through, parking can become a problem. And in this particular case, parking has been a problem. Uh, it would be nice if every restaurant owner who had a parking problem had the ability to go acquire an adjacent property or some property within the contiguous vicinity. Some of the other properties may

actually have buildings on them as well. I mean, that's there's going to be very few properties that are restaurants that have vacant land. So this same situation may occur other places and may be occurring other places right now. So being open-minded as to what they could do to utilize what's there is that was the genesis of what was was happening here. Um when we start looking at the actual use of that property, parking was the issue. But then also, if I've got a parking problem, that means I've got a waiting problem. And during the hot summer months, that waiting problem has is one that is creating issues with conditioned space. There's no more conditioned space for people to wait that hour, that two hours. So, if you have an existing building or even if you don't have an existing building and you wanted to build an an additional building to provide for that weighted space. It may be in addition to the 15% and I still contend that that may be something that we need to be looking further at on our restaurant standards that the 15% that was set as a maximum was based upon entertainment space. But that was also being doubling as waiting space in those hours from 4 to 9 and then it doubled as something. Why did we not consider putting a restriction that those areas could not be used for late night entertainment as opposed to just reducing them in totality. So you know there's some things as we go

back and we critique what we may have done in the past. we are where we are. So again looking at this building if people are there and there's the opportunity for them to sit and wait that hour that two hours so that they don't come into the area and then leave that that is a very disheartening thing when you've got because I've got family members that are restaurant owners and if you've set aside a space for a 10 top or a 12top and you call for them 45 minutes later because they got tired of sitting out in the heat that just disrupts ed your whole flow and what's going on there. So, we're trying to look at this in a way that is across the town and giving ample opportunity for creativity in how we handle all aspects of a restaurant business. So in looking at this um it talked about in the standards um under the uh 731 38 where it was talking about alcoholic beverages may be served and consumed within the restaurant waiting lounge only to patrons of the associated principal restaurant sit down. And there was concern about the next part of it where it was talking about it becoming a bar. Well, if the intent of this ordinance and then the text is that it's not going to be a bar, then why would we not say, however, the facility shall not operate as an independent bar tavern? I mean, that's the definition that we have in there. We've talked about the independence of this particular building that it would be a accessory use to the restaurant and not an independent bar. I think that takes

care of clarifying that that's where the intent is with this. What I'm going to say here is maybe I'm borrowing something Kelly said. It's very difficult to legislate individual behavior.

Oh, there's no question about that. And I mean and so the law of unforeseen if you build if you build this you're going to build the wreck of this as well. The question is how how can we tailor this and then you know when when we do create the language that we can agree to how will that move through and be I'm thinking about what I heard on the board of commissioners meeting and um this this seems to be a hangup and and the question is whether we want to we want to accommodate that hang up or whether we want to just say we're fine with the hangup. What's the hang up?

Distillates. It seems that that that is at least a bit of it. Just we need to understand how we're going to define it. And is I'm sorry. I think I think the distilled spirits is a hangup. I also think very very candidly and pointedly I feel like no one genuinely thinks that we can enforce a unified development plan. I feel like there's no because if you genuinely feel like that is a mechanism that we have the ability to do um then this isn't a this isn't really a question because like Jay said this is it's not its own principal standalone

it's not its own independent it's part of but you only get it to be part of when you say that it's a unified development plan that was my that was my If we're not if we don't think that that's something that we can swallow right now, then I think that's our hurdle. Yeah, that's that's that's and that's I I was very awkwardly trying to put it before. If the destination is the restaurant going for so long, I should say.

Yeah. No, no, that's fine. So, and you know, so I'm I'm gonna I'm sorry. Well, I was I was going to add to that the way that this text has been written, we in the context of what we're discussing now, we're trying not to talk about sight specific, although we keep ending up there.

But in this ordinance, if it is passed in a format similar to what we're discussing, it doesn't end there. Each and every facility that desires to have this component would come back to the planning board and subsequently to the board of commissioners where you can have those specific discussions about does this site meet the intent that we have when we put this ordinance into play. And there's not many of the ordinances that y'all talk about, you discuss, you debate that you have the ability to come back to you and then look at such a narrow vein of it. I mean, most time we were looking at site plans and things of that nature, they're pretty broad, but this is a very specific thing that would come back to you that would be added to. And I think that's another safeguard that you have that I don't know how you answer all the questions. without us being able to talk about the specifics. So, what we're doing here is we're being general. We're laying out the guidelines. If you don't meet the guidelines, then you don't get the special use permit. If you do meet the guidelines and your own personal evaluation, then you're back before this board and the board of commissioners in order for that to be validated. So that's I think one of the strengths that we have in this and as far as the distilled spirits and people hanging out and all thinking about what you were talking about is financially people having financial means to go and purchase a lot when they come back for the second phase of this. They're not gonna want to just have people sitting there occupying the space in this building that they either built or

purchased for their restaurant patrons not to be sitting out in a a nonclimatec controlled environment. They're going to want those people not to be there. If you're not here waiting to get your table, then you don't need to be here because you're taking up space. I've got people sitting outside in the heat because you're occupying a space drinking a beer and you're not going to go spend 50 bucks on a dinner. I need that person that's going to spend the $50 on the dinner to be able to come in here because that's why I developed this space. So, the restaurant owner and his staff are going to have the desire, if not a stronger word, to get people out of there that are going to be uh unassociated with the primary goals of the facility, and that is to turntables to have people there eating meals. So I think we're even at the board of commissioners meeting it's my belief that we got off on a onetenth of 1% issue that's a probability that there's nothing that we ever debate in this chamber here that is an absolute and we've focused on that onetenth of 1% that may be a negative and I I don't disagree that it's a negative but we're we're not focusing on the benefit we're not focusing on how we've taken care of parking how we've taken care of patrons while they're waiting. And that's what we're really here to to try to strive to achieve that positive for everybody. So, with that, I know we've been here a long time, but I mean, I I feel like we as a group did very very well to come up with a text that we all approved. We've already talked about this before. We approved it. We sent it to the board of

commissioners. They've come back with some questions, but I think we're still very close if we all agree on the premise.

Okay. I So, okay. I I So, I this is I I feel like we're in discussion now, an ongoing discussion. Um let's talk about do you think that does the does this board think that this is something that the town can administer that they can oversee a facility of this sort? Is this something that leave out the rest of the issues. Is this something that the town can basically keep in in concordance with whatever law, whatever rubric of laws that we come up with? I say they can as much as any other ordinance out there. I do too. Maybe not 100% compliance.

No, this is this is going to be and we are we are complaint driven compliance issues. So right there will always be complaints but um is does anybody else have any other any other concernation where they don't think that this can be handled? I just think it's it's not it's not independent but yet they're trying to make it be independent. I mean they're it's the other way around. Sorry. Yeah. Um yeah. So I don't know

it it it I it this is going to this is going to require a great deal of maintenance from the facility whatever facility owners to maintain the market and keep the focal point to be the primary business and and and and so in the and and and I I extracted let's say we have a an outdoor amusement organization that needed a a waiting area. I could see exactly the same kind of thing coming to the four and fitting. The question is what it would be where it would be and so I can see that kind of thing. It would be an analog if it's an outdoor you maybe you don't want distillates in that you know if they're going to be operating. So I can see some some other constraints with it. But if we're creating this, I I don't see any reason we can't do it, that the town can't administer. If if the board of commissioners feels differently, that's fine. That's up to them. But I I feel there's at least some concordance here that this is something that may be undertaken. It will require considerable effort of

Can we just do a hand? Who thinks the town can handle this? Yeah. I'm not sure what we're Do do does do does this do you believe the town can try to keep this on course if we can work out some of the other issues with it? Let's leave those other issues aside. Is this something that can be done? Oh, is it I mean it's a waiting lounge. It's a waiting lounge.

I I will say if if people are not comfortable with this right now and I'm I'm sorry, Mr. Overton. I know it's not what you want, but I think there's questions about not only can staff do it versus what is the political will to actually do it, what is our political will going to be to to revoke this special use, right? Well, that's and that that is the question. What would it take if you're going to turn this switch on? What does it take to turn it off? And I don't I don't know that that's that's for me to answer.

I can tell you that I feel like I'm I am comfortable with my staff and being able to keep a good enough idea of what is occurring in this space to know whether it is blatantly a violation. Are we going to know every single person? No. Are we going to know if this is transitioning to something that is a violation? We absolutely will. If it is the intent of the owner to sidestep the ordinance that we would write, that would be blatant blatantly in violation. The question is, you know, can you can you through a complaint driven setup come up with that? I kind of believe yes. And that's the question I ask you. If can do you believe that staff could administer this if we can come up with we we can resolve the other language.

I just don't think that it's addressing the real problem that I mean it does address the parking. Yes. Um, and maybe um I mean it's not going to be it's not going to be a problem to any I don't think it's going to be a problem with like visitors and with I think the only problem will be maybe with other restaurant owners. That's where I see the problem being that they're that they're feeling like, you know, they're getting cut out or they they need to find a way to take advantage of this themselves, you know. Okay. And then and then does it become okay we love Blue Moon and they're you know so great for the community but Joe over here this other you know restaurant owner you know he he's not presenting it as well you know he doesn't present himself as well and so he's going to be cut out of this. Well, so

you know it's more like a buddy system than there's there's the opportunity cost of this is the opportunity cost. It is you know if you can get the space and you need the space. Yeah, I know. So it should be allowed even if you don't have an adjacent lot. So because it is the same. They're saying this is part of the restaurant but not really because it has these special conditions. Okay. You know, so do you think the t So what I'm trying to I'm trying to get us to the point where we go ahead. I don't want to go off on another tangent. Okay.

But keep in mind none of this addresses lot coverage, storm water management, etc. So I don't I am just guessing that a lot of our restaurants are maximizing or principal restaurants sit now are maximizing lot coverage as is to accommodate their customer service area, their parking. I'm imagining they have engineered storm water management plans that take up a lot of room. Some of that dedicated to their septic and repair areas which they may or may not some recreation stuff happening on those places that if we if you were to say that you're you're not comfortable with it being on its own separate lot that would meet lot coverage and all of that, but you would be more comfortable if it was something that was more equitably allowed for every restaurant, then that's another conversation. But that restaurant has to be able to be able to create the space to accommodate that which is going to be in addition

which is going to be lot coverage, continuation of architectural design, increased storm water management. It's if you could accommodate it on site, I think they would. I think they're going to have issues with that because maybe they've already maximized because of the 15%. No, because of lot coverage. Okay. Well, right.

And that's different from what we're talking about. I guess right now we do allow principal restaurants to have you could have a principal restaurant use. And if you can accommodate it from lot coverage and parking and storm water and septic, you can have another principal restaurant use that can either be take out sit down, drive in, which is how Sugar Creek operates the way that it does now. So, you can have two structures on the same site.

Could you have a principal restaurant and a waiting lounge? I do not think our current ordinance allows that. Why not? If they're allowed to do it because then that waiting lounge can That's not what they're requesting. I know. But that's sight specific. Okay. But that's not what they're requesting. If someone were able to increase their restaurant floor space, their restaurant area, there's nothing that would preclude that as long as they met all the requirements,

right? Except that it couldn't just be a bar waiting area. It would have to have this is not I think this is another hurdle because we're continuing to say that this is an independent bar and I understand that the the primary concern is that this is an independent bar. And well, I'm not saying that

we've talked about the ways that this is not independent and we've talked about the ways that this is not a bar, but at the end of the day, if the consensus is this is this is an independent bar, there's nothing that I'm going to be able to stand here and tell you or put into text that's going to change the concern of an independent bar. Not to oversimplify, but at this point I'd love to oversimplify. Please oversimplify.

Um, many restaurants when you walk up to the host stand, you know, Thompson party of four or whatever. Great. It's going to be 45 minutes. It's going to be an hour. Go to our bar. Go to our lounge. Have a drink. And we'll call you when your table's ready. What we are legislating here is no different than that except that it's not attached to the building. It's detached. It's detached, not a tax. That's all we're legislating here. It's not 15%. All right. That's a huge difference. Yeah.

I'm sorry for not speaking to But it's not the same. If it were the same thing, it'd be 15%. It's not And that's what And that's that's what I'm trying to say. Now, let me speak to that. What Kelly had referred to earlier was 50% of the seating area. The 15% is 15. Huh?

The size is the size is the max size of the weight. Now 15% of the gross floor area of the entire building is where your 15% comes.

The 50% that is in this is that this particular um waiting lounge can be it has to be subordinate to the dining area not the total square footage. So when you look at the dining area, the dining area is not 100%. So it can't be 50% of 100% if this isn't 100%. If I've got um let's say I've got,000 square feet and the you got to have 20% minimum. So you got 25% is your restaurant I mean is your prep area and then you've got a maximum of 15% for your waiting area. So if you utilize that you're already at 40%. Then you've got your aisle widths. You've got uh most of them have a little retail area in it. So at most you end up with about 45% of your total building in your seating. So then when you look at this over here. I've got the plans.

So So when you you look at this area over here, it's saying that this waiting area for as Kelly talked about it said sub uh subordinate. She wanted to make sure that when we said it's subordinate to she said we need to make sure that it's 50% because she's got caught in a situation where there hadn't been numbers in the past. So now it's 50% of that. So then you're looking at that area is less than 50% of the seating area. This building over here is well the small it's a smaller building. It's probably 30% of the size. So it's not doing exactly what you said. It's not getting 50%. And when you look at this particular site, the combined is right at that 15%. But for the text amendment, get off and I haven't taken want that to stick in your mind just because it says 50% going from going from 15%.

So what's our way out of the wilderness here? Bob Bob has a question. Want to bring something up? Just my only is that there is no limit on in this ordinance. There is no limit on how much barn entertainment space can be in that waiting area. how much bar can be in that way. So it's not it's not 15%. It's the whole thing. Yeah. I I guess I guess

I guess the question is you know you know you to do you this level is is there enough definition in this to differentiate between the two of those and pick a side where are we on on the 50% the 15% Um, I mean, staff recommended approval of this the first time. Staff continues to recommend approval. Um, because again, I understand the 15%.

I understand the 50 and I am I understand everyone's concerns. This is a this was proposed as a separate use that is not just an accessory use. It's not like accessory storage. It's accessory in the sense that it's subordinate to a principle that it is connected through through a unified development plan. Um, if if there's more comfort in I this is I don't want to speak on behalf of the applicant. We worked we collaborated to create this. Um, this is ultimately his request. So he wants this to work for his clients. Do I go back and speak with him and his client about is there any addition? Is there any other amendment? Is there any other criteria or regulation that we put on this to make it more palatable? I'm happy to do that. The 15% and I love Huddle Hub, but it means that I can't dract and go do something over here without it being projected for everybody. But

I want to go look at the definition of the supplemental regulations again. Is it 15% of gross four area? Is it 75% of gross four area? Because if it is, it's not sight specific, but it is his applicant and it is applicant specific. So, do we take the gross floor area of the principal restaurant, the gross floor area of the proposed restaurant waiting area? combine those numbers and then make sure that it's 15% 75% 20%. No more than 15% of the total building square footage devoted to accessory entertainment uses, including but not limited to dance floors, lounges, bars, stages, live performance, and disc jockey areas. Accessory entertainment uses as referenced in this section shall be permitted in a restaurant established provided these uses are clearly subordinate and area extend hours of operation and purpose to the designated food and beverage preparation and consumption areas. So food preparation area that is at least 20% of the gross building area at least 75% of all customer seats designated for full service and 15% entertainment. It's an exercise that I can't do right here today and I would want to do separately with Jay.

But and I don't I don't know that it eases anybody's concerns, right? That's that's But if you if you take the two uses, take the two buildings, would the food preparation area be at least 20% of the gross building area? I don't know. Blue Moon has a large kitchen. This other

building, it was predominantly made for catering. I think it has a small But it's not a large kitchen. When you when you combine those numbers, are we at 20%. I don't know. 75% of all customer seats designated full service, full menu. Well, that's going to have to be 75% of what's in Blue Moon

because nothing in the waiting area is going to be full service, full dining. That would be for us to figure out. And 15% of the total building area dedicated to accessory entertainment. We You would need to look at what's the area of the principal now. What area is dedicated to the bar? They don't have dance floors in there. They don't have lounges. They don't have a st I mean they don't have that in blue moon now anyway. So take the area of the bar. Yeah. Take the area of the bar.

But they don't have dance floors or any of this other stuff and look at what they're proposing in restaurant waiting and If that's 20, if it's 15%. I don't know if it is. That's what I think you need to do to make it be fair for everyone on the beach personally. And thank you for doing that. That That's my biggest concern. Can I say one more thing? I don't know where you want to go. But I think where we're at as far as the text amendment,

um, if we could move this forward, if there was there's some question about enforcement, I think that's a a question that's the number one thing I was trying to get to. I I was trying to knock that out. Do we think that, let's say we can come up with some something that we all agree to, do you think the town could enforce it? And that that was I was sticking with you. Do you think it's enforceable? Yes. All it is. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I I believe so as well because we have special use permits, conditional use permits. They wouldn't be on the books if they weren't enforced.

So I I I think I don't think we have to defend that one any longer. I think feel that we can if we can agree to the rest of the terminology. That is the that there's a few more pieces that we need to maybe talk about. Um but carry on. And so what we're talking about as far as the percentages and apologize you uh but what we were talking about I mean that's something that from a staff level when it comes to the special use permit I mean that's that's just a numbers thing and that's just a part of the process that could be taken care of but really doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about in the text amendment right now. would be the second phase when you get to the special use permit.

If that's the direction we're going, I do think that would be a supplement. Okay. Well, I mean, I'm just But that's my but I'm trying to move on as well. I'd like to see this move on back to the board of commission versus um well, there they I believe that they have it. It's tabled until the next meeting. Is that correct? Correct. Um, and so is there anything else that we need to clarify, demystify, disentangle? Um,

I think if there's a comfort level with, well, let's talk about signage. I feel confident that I can do this cross reference from bar to a conflicting bar. I feel like I can navigate that, but I I do need your input on signage. Um, should the restaurant waiting lounge be allowed? It's own signage or if it's accessory, should it be treated like other accessories where we typically not allow additional signage?

My personal opinion is not allow the extra signage. I mean, if it's an accessory, then let it be an accessory because I think once you put it out there, people are going to, you know, see, I'm still hung up on the word lounge. I don't like that at all. I think that's I mean, you could say waiting area, waiting room, but lounge just gives you a whole another connotation, but I'm really against um them having separate signage because I think you put that up there and that becomes an advertising point and I just don't think that's good. Can we Can we vote on that? Well, on on the other hand,

you know, if I'm driving down the road as a tourist and I say, "Wow, Blue Moon sure is crowded. I've heard that's a good place." Oh, look, they've got a waiting lounge, so I can I can go there and wait. That that brings them business. They might have lost. And all the restaurants, too. I would I I would say that no signage. Okay. I would say that they could have signage. I mean because they they bought the property um and you get a certain aotment per building and it's a separate building because it is a separate building.

Here's the thing. U in in the world we live in today when people are driving to the Outer Banks for vacation whether it be a weekend or a week generally there's more than one person in the car. There could be two people in the car. There could be six people in the car. Whoever's not driving is on this

and they're looking at everything there is to look at about what they're going to do while they're here and where they're going to eat and, you know, all these things. They're already going to know if a particular restaurant has what they have. They're going to know what the menu is. They're going to know if there's a waiting area. They're going to know the whole thing. So, they're not going to need a sign. Believe me, they're going to know. Locals, they're going to know. Yeah. So, I I don't think signage one is necessary, and I think two, it just takes a little heartburn off of it.

Is there a ver is there a version of signage? I'm not saying that I'm for a either party right now, but is there a way to delineate a signage that makes it clear that this is associated with that? Um, instead of having the signage on the roadside at the road with full square footage that could be offered. I mean, so signage is you're allowed multiple types of signage. You have your freestanding, you have your wall. Those are wall signage predominantly.

Do you allow wall signage as some minor identification but no freestanding signage? I mean, we've already we've already said that if you're going to allow it and they have to be connected. We're not sight specific, but we've already heard that it would be Blue Moon and Blue Moon social blue moon, right? Connected. And anybody else coming forward would have to do that as well. So that's in the supplemental reds. There would have to be a connection there. But if but if you take the hard stance that an accessory use in any other capacity would not have signage, its own allocated signage

that and that's that's kind of exactly the direction. If if this is an analog to an accessory use to like other accessory uses in the town, would it be allowed signage? No. Okay, then I'm I'm I'm that's I'm comfortable with that and you know, so that's my that's we're three to two and you know that's that. But does that assuage anything? I do like the idea that this lines up with other proforma within the town. It's an accessory use subservient to the primary use. And that does help scrape it aside for me. They use it like that when it when it helps and then then they don't when it doesn't. Well, but you know, so the silage thing,

if they're misusing it, they're misusing it. Um, in in in the real whether they want to misuse it, then then they're out of compliance. And then that is something for the planning department to let them know they're out of compliance. So, I'm I'm I'm comfortable without signage and we would still allow identification for emergency services, things like that. Perfect. Something like that. in maybe you know my my question is not on the road perhaps may there's a so there's a way that we could come up with something that makes this identifiable amongst the two but not identifiable separately wall signage

consistent wall signage I'm I'm leaving that to you know this is this well you have to tell me well well you know to to come up with something I I I do like the idea have wall signage um as a as a you want a sign or not? Well, to identify to somebody so if they say, you know, I'm at the waiting room, we're going to call this a waiting room for for this segment that that it becomes it so they can be they're clear what the waiting room is. If you want to put a sign on it the same size as a cottage would have with the name of the cottage,

I mean, that's to me would be okay. So the way the wall signage works is it's 20% of the area of the wall. So the wall facing 158, it would be 20% of that facade could be dedicated to wall signage. So that's going to be more than a cottage

and and it what since for an accessory use analog within the town there's no signage at all even for recommendation for emergency vehicles to for delineate. So for the accessories that we currently have to commercial, they're storage at the moment.

Um, and so the the principal address would suffice would be inclusive of the on-site storage. This text amendment inherently gives you an opportunity to have a detached building. That's So, you know, I think addressing signage for emergency services and addressing would be very very important to have. Um, beyond that, like the consideration could be um just wall signage. That sounds like a good compromise.

Okay. Um, are we uh pulling the board? Are we comfortable with wall signage? Yes. Okay. Moving on. I'm sorry. Um I think we're all getting we're all there. Um the question is where is there? Yeah, I think there is we don't have to really do updates. We can shift the remainder of this agenda to next week.

Okay. Um is there anything else that remains to be scraped on or off? So, we're going to finish this at the next meeting. Is that what we're saying? Well, at this point, at this point, this has been tabled by the board BOC. There is tenatively, I believe, a public hearing associated with this. Is that correct?

There is. You have made your recommendation previously. I can bring back an updated or revised recommendation. You've technically met the requirement of the code. You've provided a recommendation. So So all we're doing is giving them a little bit more context because of our analyst discuss discussion today hopefully to clarify a few points. We can frame it as that. Okay. We can go through this discussion and yeah we can um The requirement is that that the planning board does provide a recommendation. Technically, you have already done that.

You are not required to provide another recommendation. I think in your staff report I had said, do you continue to support? I can craft some language that said after, you know, discussion of these items. You know, generally there is still um support. However, these are the these remain the concerns. You put lengthy discussion the applicant is that's fine. That's fine. That's why you're here and that's we're here for you as well. There was only one other thing that I saw under 731 um 310 where we talk about the hours of operation being cut off at 11:00. There there's no issue with that.

Oh, the the the the bringing the together 10 and 12. Is it I just need to make I I feel like you could almost take off um the last part of the last sentence or the last sentence in total in in 12 and it might make them work. You could maybe um if you page down a teeny bit if you um maybe at and or at including as if you just kind of crop that off and then put smash the two together. Yeah. So they can't operate beyond 11

but the the waiting area can close earlier. Yeah, my question was um it can close earlier if they desire, but the way I read it, this would state that they would have to close an hour. And what I need to fix that would be that they would close at the waiting area would close at the same time as the restaurant, but it would be at a maximum of 11:00. So you don't end up with operation when you're trying to juggle two different closing times, right? And with regard uh to the comment about the lounge, I don't think we have any issue with being called an area.

That would make me so much happier. I don't know what that does for you. This is this is the time to make changes if that's what we want. It's just the con. It's just the connotation. I guess it's me, but all right. Um, so Kelly, you have do you have a do you have enough background to come up with something? Understanding that we've already agreed to some version of this that you can get this and I'm sure there's a lot to look at online now for us. We are now all recorded. So yes. Um, yeah, I I have what I need.

Okay. Um All right. So that that's that's the end of our discussion items. Town updates. Do you want to VOC actions? Um, let's see. Did Did Was it boring? Okay. Um, we did a proclamation for Dark Sky Week. That was last week. Our planner, Chris Trimbley, had a great event at Town Park on um, Saturday the 18th.

We had a stargazing um, event out there with the local astronomy club. It was It was really great. Um, also did a proclamation for tickborn awareness. Uh, we have a lot of employees working in the field to just be cognizant of tickborn diseases. Lily had two ticks this morning. Oh. Oh, no. Only only until I Did you get them off immediately? Um, my my dog my dog Lily. Oh, her dog. She votes for me every day, so that's concerning. Yeah. Carry on. Okay. How would you do this?

We had our consent agenda item um which will be going to the board which is the hospital um parking reduction for their um upgraded HBAC.

And uh we did give an update on our division of water infrastructure septic health grant and zero interest loan program. We thought that um Basil's familiar with this, but we thought that um when you have a slow meeting, maybe next month, maybe not, um we'll dedicate uh 20 30 minutes to a thorough update, but it's an opportunity that we've been given to provide um money for vulnerable properties to have their septic systems repaired or replaced. Right now you can do that, but it's a low interest loan. We have an opportunity to have a zero interest. Oh, that's great. Um,

we're very interested in no interest. Yes. So, that'll be we'll give you an up a more thorough update on that. Um, and then I'm not sure why those actions don't want to load. However, it's literally everything we just talked about from the midmon. Okay.

And director's report. You're already familiar with what you've been doing. There was no board of adjustment. Um septic health advisory committee. They're going to meet the 27th. We're going to update on the division of water infrastructure loan. Um and hopefully everybody in here gets a mailer that we've created. the program um in the next week or two should be exciting. Hopefully that'll get us more participation. That goes to all property owners.

It does, including commercial um because even though they may not have a conventional tank, it's still good information for them to have. Um Estrin shoreline management plan, we are just moving along with this. Um and there was a very good update in there. sand relocation. We're nearing the end of when we're able to do sand relocation. Um when we updated this for the board of commissioners, um our number of applications had jumped dramatically. They're continuing to come in. Well, the applications can't come in. Um they're done. And I did not get the final numbers for you. I'll have that at our next

We're on We're on the edge of our seat for next month. I know you are. But the great thing is is that they allocated $400,000 for this opportunity and Lily can confirm, but we've probably allocated most of that already.

So, people are taking advantage. Art and culture. Um, Paige Griffin has our summer fully planned out with farmers markets, concerts, fitness, yoga, um, kids activities, all of that. Um, good stuff. We uh met with all of our farmers market vendors last week to go over some new rules for the market vendors. Uh that went really well. Uh we do have some new art masks that I will There's the new flyer that we hope you guys receive.

And then this was the dark skies event that we had. Um but then here are our new art masks that we received. artist Noah Snider um did this. This is two sided. And this is hanging at June Street Beach Access.

And then this was done by uh Red Dawn. And yeah, um this was a sort of tribute to Carrie Oaksmith Sanders, uh Bob Sanders wife, who recently passed. And we had we had asked um on like you don't want it obvious like if you know you know kind of thing. Um and if you zoom in it's kind of honoring the old dowy park with the old and if you zoom in um and this is the best part.

Yeah. Look at the look at the people at the made me think of that before I even knew that. Yep. So, um, this is actually at Ber right across from Tortugas. We have one of Car's art pieces, the lifeguards already hanging at Bonn. Um, so knowing that veterans right across from Tortuga, this is where that's hanging. So, that's all I have. Okay. Um, any board members agenda? Having heard them, um, I will say, Kelly, thank you for your patience and guiding us through this today. especially today.

I have to say selfishly, I hope I didn't lead us astray by being by being, you know, the freshman here. I appreciate I appreciate this board. That was a lot to It was a long road to hoe. I feel like we got through it in the end. The hardest part was trying to figure out when we were actually not agreeing and when we were agreeing and saying it differently. That was the hardest part of it all. Um and that and to some degree that was happening between you and I. Yeah. I I thought we were in agreement, but I wasn't sure that we both were agreeing that we were in agreement. The same thing. The next item is an update on the strategic plan. Do you want that or do you want to bump that to next month? It is not timesensitive. B next month. Next month. Okay. Yeah. Good with that.

And and you can let me know that I did that to him if it's if that comes to pass. Yeah. Thank you so much. Um Yeah. Are we journ Oh. Yeah. Motion to adjourn. I move. Okay. No, I think we need to talk some more. It was like we were already out the door. I think all of us checked our phones enough to realize that we didn't want to be here.