Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right. Good morning and welcome to the planning board meeting of January 15th. Seeing now we have a quorum. Call the meeting to order. Let's do our pledge allegiance. Pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Um, does any member of the planning board have a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with regard to any item on the agenda? And if so, please state so at this time. Richard,

I do not. I do not. I do not. All right. And then it's time to amend or approve the agenda. Does anyone have any additions? I do not. None. Ready for Can I have a motion? I move to adopt the agenda as written. I'll second it. All in favor? I

All right. And on to approval of minutes of October 2nd minutes. Does anyone have any comments, changes? Uh, yeah, they look pretty. They look great. No issues. All right. Um, how about the December 18th minutes? Any comments, issues? None on my behalf?

Nope, do not. I had um two things on let's see on the discussion about the land use plan. This is December 18th. December 18th. Can we go ahead and and approve the October 2nd? Okay. So I move to approve the minutes for October 2nd. So second. Is there a second? I'll second it. All in favor? I Okay. So go ahead.

All right. on December 18th on the last page there was um items that I had proposed and Kimberly changed my sex to she. Um in the last both paragraphs I mentioned as a she just changed those simple typos. And that's all I had for those. Anything else?

I move the correction of that one typographical error that we adopt the December 18th minutes. I'll second it. All in favor? I I No, it's the box. Touches the box and it doesn't. Yeah,

that sounds like a great idea. test. Much better. Thank you.

All right. Next up on the agenda are public comments for agenda items only. All right. Seeing none, move on to old business and the major site plan for Luminina Fairways and I'll pass it on to Ron. All right. Thank you, Vice Chair Jones, or chair today, I guess I should say. Um item before you you heard at your last meeting. It is the um Lumina Fairway site plan. As you know, you uh spent what an hour and a half or so at your last meeting going through this document. Um there were but ultimately continued it to this meeting as there was a discussion on building height and hope and asking the applicant to come back to this board with addressing the building height issue. I'm paraphrasing not um we did not receive a site plan. Any updates? applicant is here today though wants to I think discuss and present their information on that and I also have a letter I want to pass out um from to you from them um at your last meeting height was the main issue but they als but you also had some conversation and which believe the applicant agreed to um including um sidewalk design to improving pedestrian access I'm not going through every point that was brought up but just paraphrasing um with some lane dimension information, handicap ramps at specific locations. Uh but again, the main issue discussed during the last meeting was building height. Uh the planning board believe the building height has shown the elevations were in my words not in compliance with the town's GDO did not believe the plan should be conditionally approved as requested by the applicant at that time. So um you voted to continue this case to

this meeting. That's why it's on your agenda. and ask the applicant address the height of the building show compliance and I believe the applicant is prepared here to go through the plan and don't want to put words in your mouth applicant but um would like to present to the board and believe and outline why you believe a plan is consistent and compliant should be is that correct so that's my intro I'm going to pass out the letter that they provided I got late yesterday Um, and basically this letter and I'm sure he'll go through it. They had remember at your last meeting they had there was a letter that was in your packet. They were requesting a condition by this board uh to be considered when you voted. U they are withdrawing that request for that condition. And now I want to present and outline why they believe the site plan is in full compliance. Um that's They'll go through it, but they're saying the elevator hoist way associated equipment and fire suppressing system with roof access requires a minimum requires that rope roof enclosure and therefore they believe the code allows that to uh the building height to extend above the 50 ft. So with that said, that's my intro for today and available for questions or we can open the floor up to the applicant.

So this is not a matter of the gable heights. I'm confused. I believe the app can go through the plan. Um Allan, do you mind putting plan up on screen for us? I can me have that first and I'll I go through it with Matt. If you want to let me see the

I'm going to fast forward to the believe it's on here. Should be on here. Okay. So, I'm look at this crosssection of a building here on the right hand side. Um they're measuring 47 feet and some change to the peak average peak of the roof. So think where the a where the peak of the roof um measured 47 feet and then it goes another six feet and some change to the tip of the roof and they're saying that the elevator shaft that they're the building has is necessitating that additional height above the 50 ft. one, the elevators required, and I don't want to put, you know, I'm just they're saying the revator's required because it is a four-story building. They're also saying the clear distance between the the top of the elevator shaft has requires that pitch of the roof, the 412 pitch roof or 124, whichever it is, and to to get the space necessary. And as a result, the building has to be at 53 feet and some change. And there's some other reasons too I believe this applic. But I'm just trying to address your initial question that they may be able to provide some additional information on.

Okay. Does that make sense though, Mr. Mr. Dinger? Does that help explain a little bit what's going on? Right. So, subject 13, the conditional zoning edict. Building shall not exceed 50 ft. 50 ft. And there is nothing in there about [clears throat] the secondary need for mechanicals or any other. It's like whatever you do, it's got to be 50 ft. And and let me read the specific the specific condition was the height of multif family residential structure shall not exceed 50 ft.

Right? And that's consistent with the MR3 standard that is part and parcel of the vast majority of the zoning classifications within Sunset Beach. Okay. And again, in the MR3, that 50 ft does not include or suggest that it's 50 ft. And oh, by the way, if you need extra footage for mechanicals, it's allowed.

Well, let me read you the definition. Sorry, I just had it up and it went away. a summary. So the previous definition because this was under the old code was listed in appendix A and it says building height is defined as the vertical distance from finished ground level to the highest part of the building and or any structure attached to the building excluding excluding chimneys, flag poles, antennas, church spires and necessary mechanical devices. their position is

now that is that is the old UDO that's the old UDO which they are subject to and our new UDO current UDO use that same definition we're going to have a major issue here because in the conditional zoning negotiations that we spent four days with Riptide they verbally accepted the responsibility even though the new UDO was in process that they would adhere to the new UDO number one number two and and I do want to hear, you know, yeah, I say they [clears throat] definitely need to be they need to be

what what what they're asking of us. Number two, the conditional zoning request is unique and separate from the UDO. I mean, that's the whole point of a conditional zoning request is to allow the developer to create unique and different standards to satisfy the requirements of the you of the developer in terms of their aspirations to build something. And we provided Riptide with 22 conditional zoning requests and then this is one of them. Um, so I want to lay that as the framework, but let's go ahead and hear from the applicant.

If I can say a few things. First of all, MR3 allows up to 50 foot buildings, right? And the my understanding with the approvals and um applicant Matt, please, if you disagree, please say so when you get a minute speak. um was the old code applied but for the landscaping provisions, the tree preservation provisions. So, but regardless but regardless the new the current code defines when it was brought over and approved

require defines building height the same way as the old code, but then last year we amended the building height. Um, I'll read the definition. The vertical distance from finished ground level to the highest part of the building or any structure attached to the building excluding chimneys, flagples, antennas, church spires, and necessary mechanical devices. What was added by the board last year is and screening apparatus not exceeding six feet in height or the height of the mechanical device, whichever is less. And my understanding was that was limited to the mud district. No, the mud district was the mud district definition.

Okay. And we went through and and changed it. So [clears throat]

So I just want to I'm I'm still my issue is the conditional zoning request stands alone. It's independent of any. It's basically saying the rules of the UDO no longer apply in this conditional zoning request because the applicant has asked us to provide certain relief in certain areas so they can build stuff. And the conditional zoning request says 50 ft and there are no exceptions in that conditional zoning request per what you've just shared. and and all I'm going to ask is that the applicant present.

Go ahead. I'm sorry to sorry to preempt please. Go ahead, Matt.

Yeah, appreciate that. Thanks again for having me this morning. Um so again to kind of to the point on my letter um the case made in the site plan that's that's shown um on the screen is is the same site plan that was submitted for the the original submission for that was heard on in the December meeting. Uh there's been no changes. There's been no subsequent documents provided to uh the town for review. um that that cross-section sheet that laid out the justification for the uh ridge vent height on the structure at 53 plus um a few inches is still the same same case that that we're making today. Um I here as the civil engineer record for the for the applicant. Um I by no means am a uh mechanical engineer or a uh architect. Um and the case that has been made and continues to be made is that there is within the conditional zoning uh all conditions uh statement that where and I I don't I don't have in front of me to read it verbatim. I believe it's the last um condition for all sites is that um where there's not enough definition that it would fall back uh to the UDO uh and the UDO in place at the time.

Can we get a confirmation of that reading? I'll read that. I'll read it. So, what is what I'm reading from is on page uh four of your case summary and it's condition 10 under the general conditions that apply to all the subject I believe is what you're referencing. And it says, "Unless otherwise noted or specified on pro on provided plans or conditions, the minimum requirements of the UDO shall be applicable to all development contained herein, right?"

And that's that's that's the condition the applicant is referencing. So, with that reference, that's kind of back to the topic prior to where I began. It um is what what's being utilized to to um enter into the the review of the definition of building height in appendix A of the UDO at the time. And we uh we did read that before. Yeah. Hold on.

Yep. Is this so is what we're suggesting that that final sentence in the conditional zoning subject 13 now brings into the conditional zoning request the conditions of the prior UDO.

What I'm reading there is that the old code applies unless it was specifically stated otherwise and on the plan or one of the conditions. The intent of the time was the old this when this was approved. It was the older code. Planning board and council or planning board particularly was working on the landscaping provisions at that time and the so the tree preservation requirements from the current code were brought into the conditional zoning and the applicant agreed to that. Otherwise, everything else fairly pretty much stayed the same under the previous code. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Sorry. That's how that just I'm trying to simplify it a little bit.

Yep. Yep. So essentially what was made in the site plan and and verbally uh to an extent prior or during the the December meeting was that there there's a lot of um a lot of hours spent during the the review of the conditional zoning between the planning board and then ultimately uh uh town council. Um, and one argument that was that was made was that these are the same buildings, the same structures that were presented at the time. Um, it's the same architecture, the same height in including within this this particular approved conditional zoning plan that that states height of 47 feet and 8 in and 716. Um the the argument made at the time also was that what was unclear during all of the um presentations, the many many hours of the presentations that I was not a part of, but that that the definition of building height was not reviewed and clear. And so the applicant was under the understanding that the the mean roof height which accounted for um the mechan the necessary mechanical equipment was was the actual building height which is the 47 and change. Um but then the necessary mechanical equipment had to be uh protected with the 412 roof pitch. Um, the appendix A definition was not explored at the time, but at a certain point it it had to have been to know that the necessary mechanical equipment statement was in the definition. We're presenting the same thing saying as last time as as in the site plan that the building is the

same building presented during the conditional zoning, there's been no change to to any architectural element of this building. we're bringing forward the same building. It will then be again reviewed at the time of building application um for applicability to to the conditional zoning and and all other building code and essentially that this building meets meets the height of the height definition in the code when when applied to the conditional zoning conditions uh laid out for subject 13 and all all conditions and all sites. So, I'm not here to debate mechanical um elements and the dimensions of the those mechanical elements, but simply that the mean roof height of 47 ft is below the 50 ft. That is the building height definition and and that the pitch roof, the roof pitch that is at 412 to be able to screen a and protect all of the mechanical equipment and and gain access to that mechanical equipment is what's driving then the additional 6 feet to go 3 ft above the the 50 50 foot max height limit uh of a building. Um, so that's what's presented. I I again I'm not here to debate any of those specific components of the building. I I can't do that. But I I just wanted to present that again. The same case prior. We wanted the the December meeting letter request from me on behalf of the applicant was to uh conditionally approve uh the site plan because we didn't want we were hopeful for no delay that this debate could happen at the building application at the at the

construction application for the buildings themselves. um that could still be in play, but but at this point we stand that that the uh what was submitted is is approvable. It meets it meets all uh code in the UDO at the time plus uh the conditions in the subject 13 conditional zoning. um my recollection and I meant to go back and review the videotape of that and I did not. So I I can't say this definitively but that supposition does not to my mind reflect what happened in those discussions. uh MR3 and the multifamily buildings that have been traditionally approved are all three stories mechanicals covered by gables and we've always known that okay there are probably ways to get four stories under 50 ft but I don't believe it was ever the intent of the planning board that Okay, four stories and then whatever you need for mechanicals. If it goes above, that's fine. Um, I understand the issues that you're dealing with in trying to build this. My sense is the way to go about this is to submit a revision of the conditional zoning request for subject 13 that specifically includes what you're suggesting. Because if we just approve this based

on, okay, we missed it, it opens a whole Pandora's box of every conditional zoning request that we granted and everybody that's going to build an MR3 going forward. And I'm not willing to do that. You know, I'm willing to grant exceptions as long and we did this with, you know, the Hampton in,

right? But we and and they came and said, "Hey, we have a problem. Here's what we need you to do to fix it." And it turned out that the text amendment was the best way to do that. I don't think the text amendment is a way to do that here because MR3 is just too big. I do think there is a way to say, "Okay, uh, we understand the issue that you're dealing with. Um, I'm not a huge fan of four stories back in that area." I think it does. You know, all of those condominiums back there are three stories with gables. Um, but for me, the only way to do this is to do a conditional zoning amendment that now has to be presented to the planning board, approved by the town council that satisfies the conditions that you wish to apply to this. But I for one am not going to on the basis of oh we didn't think of it at the time and you know well this UDO and that UDO uh I'm not willing to approve this. I don't know how the other other [clears throat] planning boards and and I don't mean you know I want Riptide to succeed and this is you know uh you know we approved 22 conditional zoning requests. Um, and while they've done a great job, you know, in some of the areas, you know, there's there's still a lot of those conditional zoning requests that are sitting

that I'd love to see. Uh, cuz, you know, the hope was that they're going to convert Sea Trail and I live in Seat Trail. Full disclosure, I have since my family's own property there since 91. Um, you know, I would love to see those, you know, built and developed. You know, there's a driving range that was supposed to be built all sorts of things. So, um I'm not in principle against four-story condominium here, but this isn't the way to do it. I'm done. [clears throat]

I appreciate your insight into this, Richard, because I wasn't here during all that zoning process. Um, Ron, is there any validity to them saying that the sketch they provided during the zoning? [clears throat] I mean, I didn't remember it having a height on it or the plan the plan during the zoning. Right. So, the plan on the screen is what was present represents what was presented to council. in the bottom lefthand corner. You can't really see it too well on that screen, but the bottom lefthand corner, right, are the building elevations

um with some I think a floor layout as well as you'll see kind of like a little orange a yellow box to the right hand side and that orange and that orange box yellow box on the right hand side outlines building height among some other things. Um and I blew it up on my screen I believe so I could read it. What is it? and and while Ron does that just it

the applicant has made statements and again I don't know it's not it's probably not worth debating or or trying to go back and review and try to find it but that there was provided to the to town staff a USB drive with not only what's shown on this but also all of the documents the elevation documents that are shown in the in the site plan and that they're the same documents. Again, to forensically go back and find that that happened. Um,

so I mean I have I found something on the file that has like final approval or something. I forget what it was and it is all the data sheets over there [clears throat] as well as each individual con I almost say concept plan, right? And it's very consistent with that.

So that in that so that elevation shows fourstory building. What you can't see in that elevation um on the screen is exactly is it a 412 pitch roof or 124 whichever it is. You can't really tell what the pitch of the roof is whether it's because the plants that you got in your packet are more looking at it straight versus this one's more of at an angle. I I can't attest to that that that is the same. And my is my issue with that is, you know, maybe there was, but I can tell you flat out that in the conditional zoning process, we were talking about general principles. Nobody said, "Hey, if you do 50 ft, this is the building we're going to build and are you approving that?" That's not what happened. And we spent hours on each of these subjects. And the applicant had plenty of time to enlighten the planning board that 50 ft didn't mean 50 ft. That 50 ft would also require some allowance for mechanicals above and beyond. And

and you know the standard is and has always been this this is the height that we can give you. Okay? If you can get four stories under 50 feet, go for it. and and yeah and if I if I may uh to that point and your previous point um that is what was requested um your previous point was what was requested in December with the with the approval with a condition that this this issue be ironed out in the time from site plan approval which was hopeful to be in December to the to the building application. um that all of that would be ironed out and the plan was at the time to get that conditional site plan approval in December and submit and a conditional zoning modification which has to go through the full process public public meetings um and back to this board and then and to then to uh council and and the justification for that the justification at that time for my first letter in December was that There was some um there was some with all of the hearings and all of the time spent that was not um explored at the time of the conditional zoning

and that frankly is on the applicant. Okay. It's not up to the planning board to do the applicant's job. If they had an issue with 50 ft based upon the need for mechanicals, completely understand. And if they had said, "Hey, 50 feet and we need allowance for mechanicals." I doubt if there had been much resistance to it. Or had they asked for a change in the definition of building height? Yes. At the time of the zoning at the time of the conditional zoning request and they didn't do that. They did not. And I'm sorry. We spent hours on this stuff.

We spent four days, 4hour meetings each day. Okay? So, this wasn't something that was re reviewed quickly. Um, so I I I ag I agree with you. The process to fix this is for the applicant to come with a request for a conditional zoning uh change to just subject 13. go through the conditional reszoning process and if it gets approved if if I may go ahead

also um at the time this was a message delivered to staff in a written letter requesting uh modification to the conditional zoning that yes that is required because furthermore subjects 16 and 17 which also have approved four-story buildings do not list in the conditional zoning that was signed by the mayor and the applicant at max building height and the applicant was willing to define those max building heights for those fourstory buildings in the conditional zoning to your point in that the conditional zonings themselves are specific to those sites that the UDO doesn't matter that it's what's in the conditional zoning. So we were prepared to define that building height in those two other multif family sections. um the in the denial or the and pushing this this topic to to this month, we've decided to go back and say we still meet into in my letter that was provided to you today.

Mhm. We meet um the definition of building height with what's what's provided. We're still willing to come back and and and submit that conditional zoning uh revision to be essentially as well to define building height for subjects 161 17 for the four-story buildings in those in those projects. Um I'd have to go back and review 16 and 17 which I have not done to your point. Um I I don't I get the I'm [clears throat] dominating the discussion here because I think I'm the only one here that was right God help us there during all that stuff. I mean Pete Frankle was here who was the who headed the planning board, right?

Um but can I back up real quick? I don't know that I fully answered your question. You had asked about and I was going to the details in that orange box was one of the things that orange box says the height is 40 was 47 feet 7 and 1/8 inch. What that orange box doesn't do no applicant did not demonstrate or provide any guidance on where that 47 feet was measured. Nor did staff ask where is that 47 feet measured or the planning board or town council etc. So it was so I'm just you know throwing it out there as a fact and not trying to appine either way. So in a way you

at the time the planning board could have interpreted that saying hey look their building height is 47 you know feet we've allowed them 50. So I will says

in in relation to that particular point um believe the plan I did go back and watch portions and segments of those me of that meeting uh when this issue was discussed or there was two meetings at least um there was discussion about the buildings across the way they were threetory so the applicant was asked by planning board at least one member 45 feet they showed that that's when they indicated was 47 feet And so the planning were asked so could we just cut it off at 48 feet and they said well give us a couple more feet to accommodate you know get so get it at 50 to accommodate like I forget the was it chimney or not chimney but a roof roof vent or something I forget exactly what was identified. So, and I think that's consistent with your point that you were just trying to make that kind of gave them a couple feet leeway from what was showing on the plan,

right?

Which which that was we also reviewed um that same meeting at at the time prior to the December meeting. This was actually prior to what was the scheduled November meeting that we were hoping to be on the agenda for. Um that there was no quorum for. And again further in in our minds in that that was the planning board meeting and that nobody has reviewed the council meetings u on the same topic if there was any uh deliberation on on that particular topic and and further defining things. Um but that further kind of justified the request then in December for the conditional approval because yes was it potentially uh neglect of the applicants uh representatives to say give us a few extra feet for um just just in case there's changes or whatever the the the statement was. They clearly believed that the building height they they were they also were not an architect, right? They also were not the ones that that designed the plan. It is still the same plan that was presented at that at that time

that we need some time to clear up that definition. U we're falling back on the UD now the definition.

Sorry. The representatives that did almost all of the negotiation were an attorney and Todd Ratmaker who was their planning. So I don't believe there were any engineers in the room and and what that you know when the planning board is asked to create new rules it's it it's it's we're not saying okay here's the building that you want to build okay and now we're going to make rules so you can build it okay we're being asked to create new rules And we review those rules based on do they reflect the values that are inherent in that particular zoning district because a lot of what was changed were you know MR3 and MR3 is a very important zoning classification because half of Sunset Beach is MR3. So when we start tinkering with MR3 there's a fair amount of diligence. So the suggestion that the planning board was in addition to creating the rules approving that particular building. Uh to me that again that is not my recollection of what was going on. This was almost exclusively a discussion of how we can create the new rule and and and to Riptide's credit, they made some significant concessions and it was a great back and forth. So, you know, I I I I I still feel that the best outcome of this is let's go back, let's do a conditional reasoning

amendment uh and go through that process um to, you know, the community has a right to understand that we are we are changing the rules because we're changing the rules. Okay. None of the none of the condominium developments back there are over 50 feet. None of them are over three stories. And I think the community has a right to weigh in. And we went we went through this with the hotel employee. Okay. And ultimately the planning board and the town council agreed with the developer that the modification was necessary. And I think we need I I I you know I mean I'll shut up after this but I think that's just that's the path.

I want to say one last thing for you. Yeah. Go ahead. Just want to say that I appreciate that and that is where we were at our conditional conditioned approval request in December. We did not want to uh have this board set precedent on a site plan approval with a ridge vent that exceeded 50 ft for a four-story building. We wanted that to progress beyond this board um and bring it back with a conditional zoning uh revision request. So, I'm going to make a motion.

Okay. We ask the applicant to return to us at their earliest convenience with a conditional. Well, we need to have ahead. We need we need to have a motion that relates to what they've applied for to the site plan. Okay. We can't ask them to come back at, you know, unless we've decided on this. Right. If you want to make the motion. Well, Kevin, you haven't said much. How are you feeling about I'm listening well. Okay. Yeah. All right. Do you need to know I mean for the record that one the options are for the planning board or do you guys have that? Well, I think based on their letter I think we only have two options. One is to approve it or one is to deny. Okay.

I agree.

Um and I'm I'm reading this letter. I don't follow the logic of, you know, because they have a mechanical equipment that's going above the height that we need to have the whole roof above that height. I I think there's other options. I think I just I can't get past the fact that the ridge of the building is at 53 and the zoning only allows them to go to 50. And I don't see how we as a board can approve something that's not consistent with the zoning. So, uh, I'm I'm with you there. Okay. So, I guess the first motion is to I move to vote to either approve or deny what the applicant has presented to us at this time.

So, move. I'll second that. Sorry, if I may interject, you're not obligated to vote on this. Just by the way, um you you you're under no obligation to do that. The motion can be to request an amendment, frankly, but you're certainly open to uh make a final decision. Well, I I would I would defer to the applicant on this. The last time we went through this, we were about we were at this point, and then somebody said, "Hey, we can table this." And I'm I'm happy to table it, [laughter] but with the idea that the next step is a conditional zoning I'm not sure what the right word conditional zoning

yeah that would be presented in conjunction with a negotiation between staff and the applicant. So do we want I I I mean I don't want to deny I mean you know in principle I'm not against this building right I'm just for the rules right so if we have to change the rules I'm okay with that okay now the the town may not be okay there's no guarantee that that's right there you put this on on the table that you know the council's going to approve it because now this has to be approved by the court and the council, right?

Uh and if it's denied, we're right back where we started, uh which is 50 ft, right? Okay. Um so is that I know that's not what you came here for. And I I and I do want to say I mean I'm uh um you know it's not well not you know it's not that I'm against this building. It's just that um it creates a lot of problems unless we do this with correct

within a certain process that is well defined wellraveled you know it obvious I mean to be clear there are some risks okay and can be reviewed by the public I mean if we're going to change building height essentially you know I think it needs to be in a public forum oh absolutely Absolutely. There there will have to be a public meeting. Um um so again, sorry at the end. Thank you for the time. That was the plan in December. Um just following the uh uh cancellation of the planning board meeting in November.

Okay. Um, the request for the conditional approval of this site plan was made at the December meeting and the plan was to move forward with that. I understand that this letter now withdraws that conditional approval, but I do believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this board can still

weigh that as an option. Um, even though my letter uh withdraws the request, that was simply a request. I'm withdrawing it but in in writing but I still think it's an action that can be made and and furthermore in addition to the justification in the letter in the site plan in that cross-section is further justification to what's being made. It's not just simply the letter and that site plan was submitted in November to make the November planning board meeting agenda and have this debate and have this conversation. We're now two months after that and further delays will continue to delay. I understand setting precedent at this board changes, but also all of this justification has been made has been made in writing has been made in previous meeting. And um I I just wanted to state that I do think that that uh conditional approval of this site plan is still an action that can be made. But of course, I'm not an attorney or norm. There's a big difference between conditional approval and conditional zoning.

Okay? And we at the planning board cannot be in the business of wink wink conditional approval in this one case. Um the I will say that the planning board's options are prove it, deny it, and conditionally or prove it prove it with conditions. The conditions though have to be consistent with the code. Again, the example I always like to use, if there's a 20 foot buffer requirement, you can't condition it that they put in a 50 foot buffer. This is a, you know, just a simple example. So, I do believe legally you can conditionally approve the plan subject that they comply with the 50 foot requirement. It would give them time to go through the process to potentially to see if they can get it modified or if they can't modify it, then they, you know, because they do take risks as you guys pointed out. Well, well,

they could then resubmit a building plan that shows compliance with the standard. Well, fine. If they want to come back four stories, 50 feet, this is all moot, right? Um, and the other option is, okay, we give up three stories, gables, 50 foot. Um, I was hoping that that's what we would have today,

right? Um the applicant's choice was to make the case that based on some inconsistencies and lack of clarity from meetings that are two years old uh that this should be allowed to go through. Um, I I I in terms of, you know, I well, I've stated it. I think the conditional zoning amendment is the way to go. And the quicker we do this, the quicker we'll be able to either satisfy or inform the applicant that yes, you can go ahead and build a 54 ft or sorry, the town council, the community has stated that no, you got to be 50 ft,

right? And so what happens my concern with the conditional approval um even last month was that if you know if they have to change the building somehow to get building height right maybe the footprint changes and the whole site plan changes right so I didn't feel good without you know a good solution to the building height issue with conditionally approving a site plan that may have to be modified at some point in the future. Agree.

So, I'm back to either approve or deny and I just don't see how we, you know, approve this. And I'm not sure continuing this down the road. I mean, the I think I know where you're going. I think the if we just table this, it kind of leaves the road open, right? And the reasoning thing is going to take months, what months, year maybe, I don't know.

Um, so I don't know that we can keep just continuing this every month. So I I think in light of that I am going to move that we do vote on this application and then whatever we decide on that we then begin a conditional zoning process and you know you know if they want to come back with 13 16 and 17 you know fine. Um, so I'm going to move that we vote either to approve or deny this present application and because before you take the motion the vote because approve or deny, you still don't have a motion,

right? So if you deny it, we you do need to state reasons why you're voting to deny. We need to have for the record also. Okay. While the discussion has been you'd like to see them pursue a modification to the conditional zoning uh to address the height or however they want to do, I want to make sure the board is clear. If you deny, they have the right to appeal this to the zoning board of adjustment should they want to. They can modify the conditional so the the litany of tools available to them to address the situation with So they could take this to the board of adjustment. They could appeal this, appeal your decision.

Sure. Certainly. It does not go to town council. It goes to the board of adjustment and they can or what or whatever they want it, you know, or or whatever tools other that may be available that I'm not aware of. And I'm perfectly happy with that. And they can turn around and resubmit with a revised plan. And, you know, I've talked to Ron.

Let me So, let me amend the motion this way. We are going to vote to accept or deny with the understanding that in every other condition they have met the requirements of subject 13 except the building height requirement. I mean I do want to give them some credit. I mean they've made every cons session. I mean I went through the technical review committee. They've addressed every every concern. So, I don't know if there there's a way to phrase that, but to include that in the motion or no.

I think you're going to have to make a motion. Somebody's going to have to make a motion to approve or deny one or the other. And list, you know, why, you know, and it's really just the building height. Okay. Hold on. I make a motion to approve or deny the applicants. You need to pick one or the other. I I move to deny the applicants based on submission based on building height. Building height alone. I so move. Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second that. All in favor? I I I.

Okay. Now the second motion would be to require staff and the applicant to present a conditional zoning amendment to subject 13 and if they wish subject 16 and 17. I mean there I haven't I' god um I'd have to go back and look at the 22 conditional zoning requests but are those the only ones that concern building heights? I would address this as well but Mr. Mloud

sorry I Richard or Mr. Dyinger I think you're I understand what you're alluding to. You can't compel the applicant to to request a conditional zoning request, but but you could suggest that, you know, it it would be your desire to review an amendment to that. Secondarily, you know, as you stated, you can review the exact same site plan with the slight modification showing the building height at 50. That can be approved, you know, tomorrow. um and and they could proceed on um you know as as they may. Um that would be another option available to to the applicant certainly. Um sorry to to interject there.

Yeah. No, you make a fair point. So I would encourage the applicant to pursue whatever alternate means um to facilitate what they're trying to do and we don't need a motion for that. Right. And that's why I had made that point earlier that they if you did deny, they have several options to be able to pursue. Yeah. All right. Um All right. Moving on to new business and sir, thank you.

Yes. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, so in new business, we've got an amendment to the uh Gateway Overlay District. I'm gonna turn this over to Ron. Sir, thank you.

So, this is not a stranger to you. Um, justice and fairly extensive in the last couple of months. Um, in the last board meeting, uh, you guys voted to direct staff to amend the gateway overlay district requirements consistent with your discussion previously. So, that's what this staff report is is attempting to do. Um, just to get to the the meat of the changes. Um, the first change is to section 3.1 where I believe the planning board believe there was a conflict between 3.1 and 3.3. So, the change is to change the last sentence to say that if the standards governing a zoning district expressly conflict with those governing an overlay zoning area, the standards of the overlay zoning shall apply. That was that's the first proposed change. The second proposed change is to the gateway overlay requirements 3.3 uh B3 and it's eliminating the specific tree schedule chart in the gateway overlay and just referencing the tree c the tree um charts in the UO. That's tables 3.5, 3.6 six and 3.7 found in section 3.34.

So, we're basically just lifting the table from the UDO and plugging it in. We're lifting this table that's specific to the gateway overlay and referencing to the tree standards in the current code, the other part of the code. Okay. And my understanding that standard is somewhat more well defined in well defined and at the time I believe when these trees were identified in the gateway the the tree species that were allowed throughout the town was was more general. Yeah. And the with the UDO um update that was basically brought in native vegetation. Right. And so this is just referencing that.

Great. Um and then the other um change would be for and this applies both to the gateway and the urban stand urban design standards is to expand the uh color palette that is available. Um you should have a sample color palette in your package.

Um and I'm going to so the change would be to say an example of additional acceptable color palette identified as colors of historic Charleston can be found in appendix C. Uh the sample you have is a particular brand. I will not mention um but we cannot hold someone to a brand. We just basically they can take that color number and take that somewhere else and use whatever brand of paint they want to use but provided they can come

close to one of those pallets. So I just want to make sure that was clear. We're not trying to say you have to use a specific brand of paint. just the process for that. So somebody says, "I'm not going to use SW I'm going to use." They go to whatever number paint store. They go to paint store and say, "Hey, here's what the code says I can use. You have one I don't want to use this brand, but can you give me?" So does that then have to be approved by the code enforcement? By class. Okay, great. Approved through the planning process. If it's a major site plan, you'll see that, right? Perfect. So we're adding all all of these colors to the pallet. Yes. Oh, great. Yes. And that was just that was suggested by the chair who's not here, but that is the pallet that he referenced in his materials before. And then the um

so we're going to add these colors to appendix C. Yeah, we'll have an appendix it be added appendix C. Um the issue with with the reason why we put the specific colors of Charleston is they can you can find that fairly easily on the internet. Yeah. Um because and Kimberly and I did we we we sampled this if you will. So she you print that in a word document, it comes out one way. If you save that word document to a PDF, the colors change. Yeah. Yeah. Um and then if you go run that PDF through the printer on one printer, you get, you know, slightly different color. Put them in another printer, you get a different color. So that's what we want to kind of go with a color number, if you will. Yeah.

And then they can, you know, say, "Hey, this is consistent with this number." All right. So, so my understanding is now all of these colors would be approved for the gateway. Yes. Right. My wife approves based on your recommendation of course and ultimate council approval. And then the last change um is I found a typo in the I believe it was the urban design standards. The word principle was misspelled. fascist and the gateway um in gateway the word principle is misspelled instead of PL the P A L principal should be the proper term.

Okay. I I I have a question. I I noticed that you included some of the pertinent elements of the 2017 land use plan. I believe to kind of reinforce I did my best to find something land use plan that would apply. But I mean the these are just general. I mean we're getting ready to redo it. Correct. So, but [clears throat] there's nothing that binds us to this if we approve.

No, it's when you take it when when you as always when you do an amendment to the zoning map or to your UDO, they need to be consistent with the land use plan. Sometimes you can have policies that apply, sometimes not. I'll use the block length example um from last year when we define block length comprehensive plan is not going to go and define you're not going to find relevant policies there. So I did my best to take the current plan and identify some policies that could be potentially considered in your review of this most of them trying to be more economic development friendly and promote business. Well, I I I think you know,

you know, this kind of blanket statement compatible with its existing coastal town and residential character is broad enough. It is that, you know, we may try in the new land use plan to drill down a little bit into that. That's But um All right. Great. Thanks. All right. Well, I was thinking that maybe we'd table this until Ron was back, but I don't see any real discussion. A lot of these are things that Ron suggested. So, right. So, um I don't have any issues with what has been submitted. How are you, how are you guys feeling? I have no issues. I'm good.

Okay. All right. Well, hearing that, I'm going to read the consistency statement. Planning board hereby [clears throat] recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the unified development ordinance. finds that they are consistent with the town's comprehensive plan 2017 town of Sunset Beach land use plan as the amendments to the gateway overlay and urban design standards maintain the current current design requirements and that that it is in the public interest because the amendments may encourage commercial development along the major corridors in accordance with the goals outlined in the 2017 land use plan. So there's the motion. Is there a second?

I'll second. All All in favor? I correctly. Yeah. Thank you. Second.

All right. That is the end of new business and now we're on to our discussion item with the land use plan rewrite and West Mloud. You want to come forward and thank you Mr. Chair and board. Um is there a clicker? Okay. All right. Um, thanks for having me here today. Talk about the land use plan, comprehensive plan, or uh, as we and and you all decided to to sort of brand this project as Sunset Beach 240 charting the course. Um, I will get into this. I know we've sort of um already had a bit of a long meeting, but uh today we're going to go through kind of where we are in the timeline, touch on some uh community demographics that's part of the material or or quote unquote your homework that you'll have. Um we will um go through and talk about where we are on the survey as of today. Um and and then lastly distribute chapter one and two, but you all already have that Keep tight. We'll talk about that when we get to it. Any questions before we get started?

No. No. Look forward to it.

So, just real quick rehash, you know, we talked about this um in December, but goodness, we've had the holidays and everything else and everyone's forgotten about life. So, we're we're back at it. Just quickly on on why to do a comprehensive plan provides an opportunity for communities self-out evaluation and then particularly of you know development regulatory programs uh and ordinances allows for input from various departments staff and elected appointed boards and in the town's short and long-term needs and then helps guide uh also future budgeting processes as things come out that are important um that we hear from from citizens And then lastly, um you know, uh due the enactment of chapter 160D, uh we are now as local governments required to adopt and quote reasonably maintain a comprehensive plan in order to retain our zoning authority. So, uh as part of this process, you guys are checking that box, if you will, uh for uh adopting or or going through this process again about, you know, whatever it is eight 8 n 10 years later. Okay. Um, just rehash on timeline. We are here January 15th. Today, you are being provided the first the the the draft of chapters one and two. We're going to review some demographic uh information, seek some planning board input on where we are as as far as the community survey. Um, and then we'll meet again on the 19th. The goal for that meeting will be to do a do a comprehensive review of that draft material, go through questions, so on and so forth. So, you'll have a full month to review that before we we actually get into it. Um, and then just moving moving through the schedule

there. We're anticipating having our first public engagement session sometime in February or March. Um, and then just moving through the spring with, you know, hopefully, uh, as we get into the, you know, the tail end of the summer, uh, being in a position to potentially make, uh, for this board to recommend approval of this, uh, to town council. So, we got we got a long ways to go, but that just gives you an idea of again of where we are, and we'll we'll talk about the timeline uh, each time we meet. One question. Yes, sir. um that first community engagement

is that u do you know what that's going to look like and do we need to go ahead and get that scheduled? That's a great question. Um can we go back to Sure. Yeah.

So the first um the first public engagement session is the goal that is just to seek broad input. Um there'll be a discussion on what we're about to go through some of the demographic information and then depending on when we meet when that meeting occurs likely some highlights of the prelim preliminary results of of of the survey. Yep. Just to sort of help folks understand the context what what we've heard so far. Um and then the the balance of the meeting really the the goal of that meeting is depending on how many folks we have it'll be a facilitated um discussion um seeking uh input from folks on things that are important uh assets of of of Sunset Beach. We'll get into also which things that are typically folks are easy to call out the issues or problems that that folks see. Uh and then finish up with really trying to get some of those aspirations out of folks. What what are the long-term desires, pie pie in the sky type things that folks want to see uh in Sunset Beach? All that input will be written down. Um we'll either break folks into groups. Um again, you know, I I'm going to have to get with staff and understand exactly if that meeting is going to be here or or another place that would allow for you know,

maybe the community center. That's, you know, what I would anticipate. Um, and so as of now, my guess is that, well, I'll just go ahead and confirm. We're not going to hold that meeting between now and February 19th. Um, but we hope to identify, we'll be able to come forward to you with some potential dates. We meet in February 19th for you know, hey, these are the dates we're anticipating meeting. You guys are not This is for the public meetings. Yes, sir. Yeah. You guys will not um be required to be there. Certainly, we'd love for you to be there, but but it's not like a a strict requirement that that you attend that

maybe the first part of March, something like that would be Yep. Um um that would be likely a good a good idea. Um let me see. And and the other part of that the reason why I think it would be good to be held um you know at some point in in March uh is we'll we're going to get to the community survey when we get there, but we're going to have another full month to to get results of the meeting and we meet in February. you guys may say, "Hey, we're fine to close it out." And if we go to the public engagement session with you know the full preliminary

my my concern is in the 2017 land use plan despite the good efforts of the planning board and the council at the time I keep referring to the summary community participation and I quote was sparse zero in the public input meeting. Yeah. Yeah. In fact, yes. Um I hope that we do not have, you know, a similar um similar result. Um and so I guess we can talk about it now.

Well, the one I mean I think we can talk about how we do the and that's fine. I I would like to see my sense is from living here. Sure. Is that the population changes May, June, there are a lot of people that are taxpayers here. Mhm. That don't really get engaged until season. Sure. So, I'm concerned that public engagement in March, yeah, great. Let's get as many people as we can. But I think it might be helpful to push it

have in public engagement sections in June possibly again. Oh well, you have one in August. Um, which I commented before was seemed kind of late because August 20th we're supposed to be doing planning board approval,

right? And I'm not if it comes down to increasing community engagement delaying approval, that's an easy call for me. I mean, if we don't get to approval process until September, I mean, I don't that's not a huge loss to me. Now, it's difficult. you know, we may find that in February and March, wow, people come out and and I don't know.

Well, if I may, does does the board would you prefer to, you know, move into April for, you know, the first public engagement session or towards later towards March? you know, beach towns typically start picking up, you know, that it starts to get warm, you know, mid-March or so, right? And well, I I'd like to do it in March because if we get early signs that we're not getting people here, then we play

then fine. We need, you know, we we need to figure out alternative means of because what I what what I heard when I would start to, you know, quote the land use plan and the survey from the well, you know, nobody asked me. It's kind of like well okay

and that may happen with I I'll just tell you this as of today we have already have uh 848 responses to the survey so we we are already you know we we've we've got feedback and the the only thing I I I'll say and I'll ask your you guys thoughts on this um I know that those meetings were held in the evening for the land use plan public engagement session and So, I don't know that if if we should bring forth to you guys a couple options for trying to hold a meeting during the day. Um, you know what I mean? Um, it could be or early afternoon. Um, we, you know, that was the direction that was given. We need to hold the meeting at night. We had fewer folks show up. I think that if maybe if it was during the day, we might have had more success. If that if that makes sense. I think I'd agree with that. I think um

you know it gets dark early and there's a big segment of our population that doesn't like to go out at night. I agree. So I think the afternoon when it's warmer Yep. I think we'll still be out and around. Okay. Well, we'll when we meet on the 19th, we will um bring forward to you guys a couple options for dates and times and we'll see about uh availability for uh the community center specifically.

And Kimberly, I'll probably be working with you on that. Uh okay. And I think we should make sure that I mean I've been to some of these, you know, and uh and I I like the idea of the structure of, you know, okay, this isn't, you know, a meeting format, but more informal. The only issue I've had is you walk around, you go, where's NC do you know? Oh, there's nobody here. the consultants are here. All right. Well, it took me like 15 minutes to find the one person from NC DOT that was actually there. So, I think it's important to make sure that planning board members and council members terms of their schedules and attend.

Yeah. And you know, my my other concern is is that you know, we got a new council. Congratulations. Uh there's a lot on their plate. this was something that was an artifact from the previous council. So I want to make sure that we get buy in at that level too. Um promote because I think they've done a good job of increasing the transparency and I think the public has responded well to that. So yeah, I I can tell you my goal is to get as much feedback however we can get it. Um we're good, you know. All right. So yep. and as much time in advance, you know,

if we talk about it at February 19th, probably needs to be middle of March. I would I would agree. Um and and that maybe aligns with maybe we got more folks here and available to participate as the season progresses. And I think there needs to I do think there needs to be a when we have a draft a special meeting for the planning board. Sure. And the only purpose of which would be show up and tell us what you think. Yep. And and that's you know part of the that the intent of court of that

July and August that is more specifically tailored to hey this is what we where we're at. Tell us what's off what's what makes sense etc. That that's the goal of that specifically. Okay. All right. Um, and and just as a point of information, the 2016 survey had over 900 respondents. Yeah. So 800 sounds good, but we need more. Our population has increased by about 30%. So I'm not going to be happy until we get up to about 1500. Now how we do that is not you know survey monkey is

people not the you know I now I understand why people well nobody asks me um so I don't know how we pro promote or encourage participation in this thing. It may need a we'll we'll talk about let's get to the survey and go ahead we'll we'll talk about that.

Great. Um, all right. Before we get to the survey though, I just want to touch on a couple things. You're you're going to have all of this information in in your in your [clears throat] chapters here. Don't don't look at that now. Um, but just some some initial information about demographics of note. that sort of set sets our foundation and context for moving forward and understanding policies, goals, uh, and things as it as it relates um, to the population here in Sunset Beach. Community profile has information on population, population growth and projections, population by age, housing units and growth, economy, and also tourism specifically, you know, given that where we are located geographically, of course. Um, as Mr. Dyinger alluded to um and just in terms of our population trends uh from 1990 to 2024 among all of the coastal beach communities in North Carolina and there's we have data for all of those uh Sunset Beach has had uh the the greatest increase in their permanent population during that time frame. In fact, increasing by 14fold [laughter] since 1990. Um you can see that you know in 1990 the island the the geography of of Sunset Beach was only on the island. Um and over time uh annexations occurred on the mainland which really triggered those substantial population increases. Um, by the time we got to 2010, of course, um, we're local governments no longer had the authority to uh to uh involuntary annexation. And so population growth tempered a bit, but still moving at a fairly uh fairly rapid

pace even post 2010. And you know, as we all know, um, things slowed down fairly substantially uh in the first part of 2010. the population still continue to grow here in Sunset Beach and of course uh in Brunswick County um as well. Um so yeah, as I mentioned, 14fold increase uh since 1990. Um that is a tremendous amount of growth and along with that comes growth growth pains and strains and understanding, hey, we're just this island community. Well, not not anymore. Um that is certainly not the case uh any longer. Uh so we're just as of 2024 um a little around 4,800 uh permanent residents uh today in town of Sunset Beach. This is, you know, I think one of the underlying um underlying statistics that we'll just need to be aware of and and will be part of moving forward with with goals and and policies and actions for for the town. Uh this is a demographic makeup in terms of population by age. Sunset Beach is shown there in the orange. uh orange color. And so as of today, the town has approximately 80% of its population uh comprised of folks that are 55 years and older. You you all know this. You know, these are your colleagues, your your your your friends. Um but you can you can see by this graphic how different that is than, for example, even Brunswick County or the state as a whole. And so there's some absolute positives to having a retiree population here. Uh but there's some other things

that you know long term are important to understand implications. You know what what you know what is our workforce to to support us? Um is it helpful to have a more diverse economy? um things things like that that um long-term um is is really important to understand. Can we go back one slide for this second? Um okay, thanks.

Sure. Um as I mentioned nearly half half the population here of of permanent residents are in this age bracket 55 um to 74. um the you know labor labor force participation rate uh is also requisitely lower of course as part of the plan we also want to understand okay well we know we've got you know 4,800 or f 4,800 uh full-time residents you know that that's a population in January right today well what is what is a population what are our impacts um come July 4th uh it is uh substantially higher. Um I spoke with the chief about this and we've it's an imperfect science to calculate this number your seasonal population your peak population numbers. Um but we would you know based on based on our estimates and data anticipate that on a peak night you've got close to 19,000 folks here in in the corporate limits of Sunset Beach. That's that's July 4th, Memorial Day. You know, in the middle, you know, in in just a random summer week, it's probably closer to 15,000. So, um, and then if you you add in your day trip folks, there's probably another 1500 or so folks that are here. So, on a peak day in summer, you've got a little over 20,000 folks here in and around Sunset Beach. Um that's important for various reasons, not the least of which is the impact on services. Uh but also it's important for um you know any businesses that are looking to locate in Sunset Beach. We want restaurants, cafes. Hey, don't don't look at our permanent population. It says 4,800. This is this is what these are the folks that we have actually here uh during the summer that

that have money that want to that to spend at your businesses. Can I can I ask can I ask one question in terms of this data?

Yes. Is there a way to identify? Because what I can what I see anecdotally is we're beginning to see a shift where the senior population is aging out and the residents of those homes are being replaced with typically a younger demographic. quite often sons, daughters that have now I mean on my block alone I can probably point to six homes where that's happened. So I'm kind of interested in in terms of that demographic of new residents

from 20 to 20 to 2024. What does that look like? We can look at that. I don't I think the median age of permanent residents has continued to tick up. So I'm not sure that it is impactful enough. Um I think there's some of that occurring um you know that postcoid migration um to you know more seasonal destinations and and a little bit of what we've seen is some of that is starting to to revert back and go the other direction. Okay. Um but um I'm going to make a note of that and see if there's anything in the data that that specifically speaks to that.

Yes, sir. Could we talk about um I'm interested in the population numbers maybe on a monthly, you know, trying to project out if we're going to talk to businesses about you know we have 20,000 or 19,000 people here but what is it in March and October? So they could kind of plan ahead for what is that? Seasonal shoulder seasons, right? I I can tell you that um the shoulder seasons have have increased. You guys have probably noticed that. I don't know how long you've lived here. Chief has been here. How long you been here, Chief?

Ninth year. And so I would say nine years ago. you know, it is almost a ghost town until midappril, late May. Now there you're starting to see more folks on the road, more folks visiting mid to late March. I would say we're almost a a month, month and a half sooner than 9 years ago. And similarly on the tail end, a month or month and a half uh more added to the season. That's anecdotally, but we can look at the accommodations revenue specifically. That's not what I was and and that will help uh tell the tale and we do have data for that.

My perspective is anecdotally, I mean back in, you know, mid 90s, late 90s, the majority of businesses here would shut down. Okay. Close for the season. Now you look, not so much. Yeah. Um I I can only think of three or four that have chosen to shutter for a period during the off season. So I think there's enough business off season that can get them to through to their peak times, right? Because there are costs associated with shutting down and restarting. Sure.

Yeah. January and February along our our coastline in south southeastern North Carolina are are now the the requisite kind of dead months. We we really have folks all the way through Christmas and New Year's. Not many, not even close. U but it's it's the January and the February and a little bit of early March that that truly there's, you know, it's just the permanent residents here for the most part, right? Um Okay. Mhm. I've I've made a note of of both those items. Okay. Thanks, Wes. Sure. Um, so we also want to look at,

you know, [clears throat] what what's the balance of of housing units in terms of those that are occupied by our full-time residents and those that are considered seasonal or just vacant. Um, and how that's changed over time. Um and so you know this the data in Sunset Beach you know speaks to the town being more of a mixed uh mixed population town of you know a lot of permanent residents and also still you know more seasonal residents. You can see in 2000 um the number of seasonal vacant units um was more than double our our occupied housing units. Now, that number is has gotten a lot closer together. Certainly, some of that has to do with mainland annexation. Um, but the number of occupied housing units, the growth um is 3x the number of of housing units that have been uh added for seasonal or or or vacant use. Um, so again, you know, I don't

and and it would be interesting to know the demographics that household that converted. You mean from um from a permanent? Yeah. From seasonal to permanent. It's a lot of it is attributed to one annexation, but two, you know, certainly there is only you you can't add more um add more houses on the island, right? Um and so a lot of our new construction has been certainly on the mainland um permanent.

Yeah. And about 50% of those roughly are going to be for permanent residents and 50% are going to be, you know, a non-permanent resident even on the mainland. All right. Well, the annexation issue kind of clouds it does. So, all right. Yes. Thanks.

But it it you know. Okay. Um we also um pulled some data um from uh buildings inspe building inspections. What what is what's our rate that we're um that were uh handing out uh or permitting new construction permits from a residential standpoint? Uh and you can see here very clearly the jump that's occurred postco. Um, you know, it will be interesting to see what happens over the next 5 years, but seems to be a pretty pretty steady relatively steady increase and almost effectively doubling of the number of residential permits that are being issued by the town um since 2019. Uh, there was a dip in 2020. Some of that's that's attributed to if

we're effectively shut down for a couple months. Um, but you know, we're we're moving at a pretty good quick uh click here uh in the town of Sunset Beach. And you know, around the region and the state, there has been a slowdown in the issuance of permits. That doesn't necessarily appear to be the case here in the town of Sunset Beach. Now, just to be clear, Yes, sir. This only registers as a data point when a construction permit is issued. Yes, sir.

So, it does not reflect, for instance, the 1,600. Yep. None of those are in there. None of those are in Yep. Okay. Yeah. So, there's another 2,000, you know, out there, right, that are waiting. Yes. Yep. Okay. And I would point out a significant portion of that is multifamily. It is. Yes sir. Okay.

Um so just you know 2019 the 20 2015 to 2020 we're averaging I don't know 60 to 80. Now we're pretty much double that. I mentioned this earlier. This is a labor force participation rate. You guys are going to have all this in in your material. So, I I apologize. There's a lot on here, but this is a comparison of all of our coastal municipalities in North Carolina and the relative labor labor force participant, right? You can see Sunset Beach um just about one out of three of your neighbors is is still in the labor force. That checks out, I presume, and also aligns with with um with our median age. Um you can see a neighbor uh neighboring jurisdiction, Ocean Isle for example, that number's a bit lower. Ocean does not have uh it has very little mainland um population. And so that that is, you know, a much more full retirement uh based community versus kind of a a semi-mixed here.

Ocean Isle. Yes, sir. Okay.

Yes. Um, and you know, a place like Oak Island, for example, that has uh even more mainland population or a larger island that's not uh fully kind of uh resort oriented, uh, labor force participation rate is is almost up to 50%. So there there's information about this. I just feel like it's helpful painting the picture and understanding the context uh, moving forward. We also wanted to understand all right what what does visitor spending look like? What what are the impacts from tourism from a positive standpoint? Um Brunswick County in fact ranked sixth statewide in terms of visitor spending in 2024. Um trailing uh Guilford and Dair. Um Dair was the number one coastal jurisdiction in terms of visitor spending. um by by fairly good margin. Um but we're not we don't trail that that far behind. And certainly Brunswick County outpaces uh New Hover as well. You'll see Meckllinburgg there with that 6.4 billion. That's a that's a little deceiving because that also counts uh the uh the visitors coming through the airport. So, you know, you can take almost a a billion out of that number, 1.2 two something and it and it moves that D number down a bit. Similarly uh with Wake as well. Um so those are why those Wake County and Meckllinmberg are so high. Um so one more here. Did it get stuck Allen? Did it get stuck?

There we go. We'll have to back into this a bit and go maybe go back to 2015 um to see the difference. Um you you can see here um since 2020 and I know it was a co year but during the summer there was there really wasn't a ton of of necessar there was some limitation but um this is a marketed increase over the last five years in terms of accommodations revenue. Um, and so, you know, you can see the difference in May and August, for example, in terms of, uh, accommodations tax revenue that's that's remitted to the town. And I'm going to go back and see if I can pull some of that data from 2018 to see what what the difference is. Um, moving forward here.

Now, the accommodation tax. Yes, sir. How does that exactly work? So that's a tax placed on rentals. Yes. So hotels. Yep. Every time. So let's say that I I go I I I book a or I have a reservation in Sunset Beach. Um I pay a 6% um tax on that. Um half of that is remitted to the the 3% of that is remitted to the town of Sunset Beach. Uh that's every single person that stays in in a rental uh anywhere here and 3% goes to the county. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Yep.

Uh so, you know, that as a source of revenue has substantially increased um over the years um and has been very beneficial for our local governments. And just to be clear, that number represents the 3% to us. Yes, sir. Okay. Yep.

That I got that right from the finance department. We got that right from the finance department. Okay. All right, just those were a couple quick highlights. Just wanted to share some of that that I that I found to be interesting. There's a more than you want to know in your chapters there. Um and and we'll talk about it in in in more detail once you've had time to read through it. Um moving on to the survey. Any question about that information? Okay. So, as of um yesterday, there was a total of 848 responses to the survey. It from my perspective, I think that's that's pretty good. Uh given that we had the holidays, folks, you know, had other things going on. Um approximately 95% of respondents identifying as full-time residents or property owners. Um so, also, you know, that that's comes as no surprise. That's that that's what I uh anticipated. I think the um we'll go through I'm going to go through just a couple of the preliminary.

So essentially what we're saying here is 800 full-time out of a population of 4500. Yep. Okay. And and that's you know pretty standard. Gosh, I'd love to get, you know, 50%, you know, participation rate on these things, but um it's unfortunate. Well, in terms of statistical validity, that's way over. Yeah. Okay. So, all right. Um but we once we go through this summary, we'll talk a little bit about what what's been done so far and and other options for for outreach. [gasps]

So um just an overarching question and you guys were very helpful in you know refining these questions. Um what do you think this is the overarching question what do you think are the most important growth and development issues facing Sunset Beach? You know the these were wide ranging right? Um, and overwhelmingly the the first one uh or the or the uh response or the the choice getting the most responses was protecting natural resources, shorelines, and sensitive habitats followed by expanding town services and and infrastructure to specifically um support growth. And that both those themes are kind of evident throughout the at least the preliminary results. None of this sort of stands out to me necessarily as a surprise. Um I I'm curious to to hear your thoughts probably.

Well, my my first thought is those two elements are it's somewhat at odds with each other. Okay. Yeah, we want more infrastructure and growth, but we don't want to screw anything up. Sure. So, it's kind of like, well, all right.

Okay. Thanks. That is a very good comment and there's some of that throughout here that that you know that we're going to have to sort through as we move through the plan on how how specifically to address it. Um so if privatelyowned undeveloped land is to be built on what kind of new and this is hypothetical, right? What kind of new development would you most like to see in Sunset Beach? Recreation entertainment nature-based amenities. And then as Richard alluded to, I was going to point out the juxaposition of well actually we want restaurants and cafes too. So we want parks and restaurants in in cafes. Um, interestingly, you know, I I think it probably comes as no surprise that multi multif family development, hotel resort style condos receiving effectively zero uh 0% of the the responses that uh comes as no surprise to me as well. Um, but you know, you've really got a preference here for for some amount of commercial development. You have retail shops and healthc care facilities also uh receiving effectively the same number of responses as as low density single family residential development.

Well, it's pretty much we've screwed the pooch on hotels because in 2016 that number was over 30%. So, all right.

Um, which of the following housing characteristics are most important? And this is housing specific uh again preference there and these are these are almost exactly line protecting natural resources and minimizing environmental impacts and then again ensuring infrastructure uh can support new housing. If we are going to have new housing although we'd prefer to have the infrastructure and protect the environment first then we would like it to be lowdensity single family. um that that checks out aligns with with what I would anticipate uh the results uh to be

and this question had to deal with transportation. There's really three that stood out as receiving the most responses so far. Which of the following transportation concerns and needs are most important to the town of Sunset Beach? The one receiving the most responses uh was congestion during peak tourism seasons. That, you know, I'll be honest, I was I was sort of surprised to to see that um getting the the most number of responses, but you know, that really speaks to, you know, how folks are feeling during the during our peak peak summer season. Um and then maintenance and improvement of local streets and then pedestrian and bicycle safety and connectivity uh was was the these are really kind of similarly got similar number of responses in the past that preference for pedestrian bicycle safety has been higher for example.

Questions on that? No. Okay. Um I will say that and and I believe Mr. Chair or or I don't remember who it was requested to add the alternative transportation methods from mainland to the island that that uh almost 30. Yeah. Yep. Had significant number. A significant number. Yes, sir.

All right. There is as of today I think almost 60 pages total. if you just, you know, print print out the entirety of what we, you know, there's a lot of open-ended responses attached to um each of those questions and then just some of the open-ended responses. I've got a quick overview of kind of the the the general themes of those slow growth and stop overdevelopment. Protect natural resources, trees, and water quality. preserve sunset beaches, small town coastal character. Fix in infrastructure and traffic before allowing more growth. Uh these are just a couple of the quoted straight from the the survey. Brought the rampid growth in homes being built in the area. Growth must be slowed or infrastructure will never keep up. Growth at all cost is bad for everyone. Every piece of land does not need to be built on. And we love that it is calm and quiet, family oriented and and underdeveloped. If overdevelopment is loud, all this will be destroyed. So you obviously folks um over the last couple years and and this is not unique to Sunset Beach have felt that um growth has really outpaced kind of their temperature for it. Um it's important to understand for us, you know, we we can't just put up a gate. uh our our our laws and statutes don't allow it, but we're seeking sentiment of the public without you unbiased, right? And so this is what folks are telling us.

A lot of that applies to Brunswick County in total, not necessarily to our municipal 100%.

Yep. Um, and just from a preliminary standpoint, these are just some of the key themes and and I think you guys sort of pulled these out too and just going through these initial uh responses. Strong preference for protecting natural resources. Broad concern that growth is outpacing infrastructure. Clear support for lowdensity residential patterns. Minimal support for highdensity resort or host hotel hotel style development. And then desire to preserve Sunset Beach's small town uh identity. And then lastly, you know, this aligns with the really the first one, but emphasis on water quality, tree protection, wetlands, dunes, and wildlife, traffic congestion, evacuation safety, and pedestrian bicycle safety are major concerns. Uh there there there is a surprising amount of sort of responses tied to drinking water quality as well. I know that we had this discussion. And this is outside the purview of the town but but still something that that came up uh fairly continuously. Um okay so that is a not final preliminary understanding of where we are today with the survey. So for you all, um I guess what I anticipate or sounds like we want to get more responses um at a minimum. So

and you know more responses is is more to assuage. Well, you know, nobody asked me. Sure. You know, I got two years of graduate level statistics. God help me. I enjoyed it. In terms of a statistical model, we got 20%. that I mean I don't think we're going to see much change if we get to 40. Yep.

Okay. But I do think it's important that people feel like they were asked and now we have something that we can work from. Um, I mean it does, you know, the the the problem and it's not up to Sunset Beach to fix it. The reality is that there's not enough affordable housing and I think it's pretty clear that Brunswick County is going to try and solve that problem. Um, now how Sunset Beach protects itself from I mean act in truth residents in terms of residential development, we're pretty much done. I don't think there's much out there that's going to come down the pike. You know, Logan was really the last big chunk. Um, so what's more interesting to and and frankly the Logan development does to some extent fly in the face of what people want. Um, which I don't have a problem with. Um, but I think, you know, really trying to get a handle on what's next in terms of commercial development, it's what's what's really going to define next five years.

Sure. Uh, and I think we got some guidance here. Yep. Um, so the the town doesn't send out any monthly billing, right? because all the water and sewer goes through the county, right?

So, that was going to be my you you uh you Yeah. So, the next question was um what do we need to do in terms of let let's more folks know or those folks that haven't u taken it yet. I said there's two things. One, when we get to the point when this board is is comfortable, we'll send out a notice that says, "Hey, you have until X date to take the survey." We'll get some folks that have been waiting because now they know that the end is near and if they're going to take it, you need to take it now. Um, we can send out a similar notice. But as far as um water billing or trash billing or anything like that, Kimberly, do we have any mailed notices that we send out um specifically to residents?

Yep, I do. Recycling. Recycling. It's a year. Yeah. Okay. Trying to figure out how we We have a Sunshine list, too. And I don't know that we sent an initial email out to to folks that are on that. Or did we? Yeah, you have. Okay. Okay. All right. Yeah. And it's on the site. um the town's website. I mean, there are probably about five or six social media sites.

Um it might be worth our while. And some of them, so for instance, Sunset Beach taxpayer group, you have to be a taxpayer. So it's a small population, but those folks, some of the others, friends of Sunset Beach, community of Sunset Beach, anybody can sign up. Sure. So, they have much larger participation, but it probably would be worth a shot to kind of go into each of those and say, "Oh, by the way, um here's how you can participate in a survey." Would any of you guys like to to post the survey on that uh on that on those sites? I'll do it. If you want to

if you want to prepare like a message that you feel comfortable with terms of just a link or just a link just yeah you should be able to copy the existing no pressure and I don't want to I don't want to go against any I don't know social media guidelines and everything else that but I've posted it on our Facebook page numerous times. Okay. On our Facebook page. The town of Sunset Beach. Yeah, their Facebook page. So, you are more than welcome to share that to any group pages. That is great idea.

So, that communication is on town of Sunset Beach. So, I could just lift that, put it anywhere. I just did it again today while we were in this meeting. So, you are the best. Okay. Fantastic.

We are, you know, it's not like we're getting a big chunk. we're, you know, there's continued, you know, we're getting, uh, results trickle in. Um, back. So, I think I guess it would be my thought, let's see where we are, February 19th, see, you know, how much the needle moves. Um, and if if at that point in time you guys want to settle on a date to send out to folks, hey, it's going to be open till April 1 or or whatever it is or May one, um, we can do that. And then also February 19th we can just move we can wait another month and see how much how many more results we get if well the one inquiry I am getting is how long will this thing be up?

Yeah. And I've kind of like gone I don't know you got you guys as an advisory group are sort of still got a couple of months I would tell them May 1st. So it's going to be up at least until at least another month at a minimum. you know, we'll come back February 19th and see where we are. Uh have a similar sort of presentation. And if we were to say February 19th, enough is enough. We would shut it down end of month. Sure. Yeah. You could send out a notice and said, "Hey, you got two weeks, three weeks, whatever it is till till April 1 to take the survey." Okay. Great. All right.

I mean, this is great data. I mean, I'm very pleased with what we're getting. Yeah, we've got a lot of feedback and and again once we get towards once we close this out, we'll we'll get you guys the full booklet of of all of the all the responses uh good, bad, and different.

All right, thank you for your time and and going through that. Again, we'll meet February 19th. The goal for that meeting, we'll we'll have an update on the survey, uh but we we'll go through this material page by page. So, if you can between now and then um read through it. I've already got a couple comments um uh to uh to pull some data on. Um and then we'll also have uh some new material also when we meet on the 19th. We'll have some dates identified uh for a our first uh community meeting. Right. I I would go ahead. We have copies for our two missing Yes, sir. They are in their box.

Okay. Oh, thank you. I I guess the other thing I would I would like to see included in this, you know, once we've kind of defined, okay, here's the issues that we're dealing with. Kind of an explanation of we don't control sewage. Sure. If you want to change sewage policy, here are the people you can need to go talk to and and really have um bullet points in terms of all right, road issue, the 904 is under review, 31, here are the people you need to call. So if we can focus some of this energy,

sure, you know, rather than them coming to the planning board saying, why can't you do this? It's kind of like well because we can't. So absolutely all that will be you know detailed and and conveyed you know. Fantastic. Yes sir. Um one last comment. Yes sir. Um, I was just thinking when we do the public engagement, would it be good to have a a map up of like an area map of our port of Brunswick County showing the limits of Sunset Beach town limits because a lot of people I talk to, they don't even know. No.

Yeah. because that may help them understand that we're not in control of all these projects that are going on around us, right?

Yeah, I can absolutely. Um, and so and we we'll talk about that public meeting again on the 19th, but there'll be a sim similar overview to what was just provided. We're not going including what a land use plan is, but I can also absolutely have a map on the as part of that presentation. Hey, this is where our geography lies, what we're responsible for. Yeah, absolutely. And and I think it would be helpful to showcase this is what Brunswick County is doing. you know, they just approved another understand I think 18,000 household plat and in and um that's just a real I mean the difficult thing to convey to people is that in terms of the political pressure going forward for more housing it is overwhelming. Um there was a survey done recently of 25 to 30 year old family members head of family members 80% of them don't think they will ever own a house in their lifetime. That's got to change.

Sure. Well, you you'll see in some of the data um in fact I think you know depending on how you look at it um Sunset Beach has one of the more moderate um median housing values uh in terms of coastal municipalities. But we'll we'll talk about that um right when we get uh you know next month. Wes, this is great stuff. Thank you so much. Well, thank you guys. I appreciate it. Um that's all I have. I appreciate you sitting with me through all that. Any other questions, Mr. Chair? Uh for me? No. Okay, I think we're good. Thank you very much.

All right. Next up is administrative comments. I will not be here February 19th. You will not be here. I will not be here. Okay. Just make sure. My understanding is Mike will be and I'm Ron will be. So I think we'll be okay. I just want to make sure.

Jeie, you got anything? I have a couple of questions for you. Um, so last month we talked about some additional hopefully additional items that we could add to the land use plan. Um, and it's in the minutes, you know, couple items that I wanted to get pricing on. Is that something that, you know, that you need to take care of and get back to Wes or how just trying to keep it moving somehow or another? refresh my memory on what we were getting pricing on.

There were two additional um focus areas that we wanted to add to Wes's contract and one was specific to Sunset Boulevard, one was specific to the island and I had written up specific, you know, items on there. I don't know what the proper procedure is for getting pricing on those because we'll have to get pricing and then you know if if the planning board says yeah this looks good then we have to send it to council for them to to approve that money. Um so I don't know if you want to take those items and send them to Wes or have a conversation with Wes. That's what I'm thinking would probably best to get Wes's input on it and then um do exactly what you what you described. Okay.

Have the planning board take a look at it and then look for approval from council. If it's a budgetary item, depending upon the cost, then it's going to be presented to the to the council in the regular budget process which begins we'll likely start talking about that in February. Yeah, that's why I wanted to keep it moving. Thank you, Mr. Chair. and and there's another vendor that was involved u as as an optional add-on and I will um I will send the requested scope of services to them to see if they can give us a fee and then I'll I'll provide that to you that that would be and for the most part fully handled by them and they would just participate as part of this if that works. Okay,

that'll work. All right. Second thing I had for you chief or do I call you chief or You can call me whatever you want. [laughter] Cheap works. Um, so the council approved a new meeting, guidelines, handbook, whatever at the meeting Monday night. Are we going to get trained? You are. Um, there's a few modifications that have to be made because following the book to the letter, um, there there's some things that they still have to look at. Um, Kimberly is working on a digital format of that for you that will be sent out to you that you're not going to be left in the dark on it.

Okay. So, are we going to get a book or we just going to get You're going to get a digital copy of the book? Okay. And that'll be coming up shortly because we have to implement it by March. Shortly. Yes. Y'all know about that? Uh, no. Kimberly saying it' be on the February meeting. You want to add that to the agenda? Might as well as well. Um, good. So, town council approved adding a UNC handbook of governments or something like that for our meeting format and we're supposed to follow that. Oh, lovely.

Think of it think of like rules and procedures. Yeah. So, anything that sticks out or too soon to tell? Don't know. I haven't. Okay. All right. I just heard about it last week and then watched the meeting Monday night. So, I don't even know what's involved. All right. Anything else? Administrative comments. All right. Um, then we can open the floor for any public comments. All right. Seeing none, can I have a motion to adjurnn? I so move. Second. All in favor? I I. Thanks everybody. Thank you.