SOUTHE  TOWN OF SOUTHERN SHORES  PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING 5375 N. Virginia Dare Trail, Southern Shores, NC 27949 Phone 2.65.294/39.235096 w.outnermaoresncgow PITTS CENTER Monday, March 18, 2024 at 5:00PM MINUTES  CAROLINA  1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Pledge of Allegiance 3 4 Present 5 Chairperson Ward 6 Vice Chairperson Tony DiBernardo 7 Planning Board Member Lawler 8 Planning Board Member McClendon  9 Planning Board Member (alternate #1) Michael Zehner 10 Planning Board Member (alternatel#2) Charlie Reis  11  12 Approval of Agenda  13 Motion made by Vice Chairperson DiBernardo to approve the agenda as presented, Seconded by 14 Chairperson' Ward. The motion passed unanimously. The motion passed unanimously.  15  16 Approval of Minutes - December 18, 2023 18 DiBernardo. The motion passed unanimously.  17 Motion made by Chairperson Ward to approve the minutes as amended, Seconded by Vice Chairperson  19 20 Public Comment 21 None 22 23 Old Business  24 ZTA-23-05, Zoning Text Amendment application submitted by the Town of Southern Shores to amend 25 Town Code Sections 36-57, 36-202(d)(2), 36-203(d)(2), 36-204(d)(2), 36-205(d)(2), and 36-206(d)(2) to 26 amend the Town's current lot width requirements by amending the definitions of building setback line 29 Planning Director Haskett presented the staff's latest draft of ZTA-23-05 for consideration. He stated, 30 Town staff is now proposing to amend the Town's minimum lot width requirements in all of the 31 residential zoning districts by amending the definition of "building setback line" in Section 36-57 by 32 defining the building setback line as al line parallel to or concentric with thet front lot linei instead oft the 33 street right-of-way: and by removing' "minimum". The proposed amendments also include another new 34 definition of "lot width" in Section 36-57 which is the width ofal lot at the required building setback line 35 measured at right angles tot the rear lot line. Lastly, the proposed amendments include amendments to 36 Sections 36-202(d)(2), 36-203(d)(2), 36-204(d)(2), 36-205(d)(2), and 36-206(d)(2) that reestablish the 37 building setback line as the measuring point forl lot width and establishes that the building setback linei is  27 and lot width and by establishing new measuring points for lot width  28  Southern Shores Planning Board-March 18, 2024lpg.1    38 measured 25 feet from thet front lot line, ort the point where the loti is 100 feet wide, whichever distance 41 Planning Director Haskett walked the board through the language as it pertained to an example ofa cul 42 des sac lot, showing where the lot becomes 1001 ft wide that would be the building set back line. 44 Planning Board Member McClendon asked a question from page 2, line 27 "for all other Lots the building 45 setback line shall be established: 25 fti fromi the front line", does that mean that all houses have to be 46 built based on 251 ft from the front line. Planning Director Haskett explained that the yard setback 47 requirement is a minimum distance 251 ft, this is saying that the building setback line where it has to be 48 100 feet wide shall be at 100 but the house can be anywhere within the building window of 25 on the 51 Chairperson' Ward read a portion of his correspondence letter to Planning Director Haskett which read 52 as, Ibelieve when we started this process as directed by Town Council the objective was and still should 53 be how to minimize reconfiguration of non-conforming adjacent lots to other Lots under the same 54 ownership pers section 36 132(2)(a-e) that could possibly result in flag Lots or other irregular non- 55 conforming Lots. Our focus should be on this situation rather than existing Standalone lots that are 56 legalynon-conforming but are absolutely entitled to be developed. He further: stated that the cul de sac 59 Planning Director Haskett stated the staff's main purpose was to make this ordinance or lot width 62 Planning Board Member McClendon asked if it is the intention of preventing lots from being developed 63 as flag lots. Chairperson Ward stated he did not know ifi it was the board's intention or not. 65 Planning Board Member felt al lot size of 20,000: square feet should be sufficient and he is comfortable 66 with the language as it was before this was brought to the board. He stated, there are very few lots that 67 are left that could ber re-subdivided and still meet the criteria that we're talking about. This is reactive 70 Chairperson Ward stated that we are trying to eliminate the development ofs smaller lots under same 71 ownership. All that non-conforming language was put into place, which is solid language. The question is 74 Planning Director Haskett stated there is some confusion between setback line and yard setback and he 75 is open to changing the term building setback line to something else. Calli it what it is, lot width line or 76 something to that effect. It also has multiple definitions which add to the confusion, one definition in 79 Planning Director Haskett asked the board ift they would be agreeable to creating a new term with 82 Planning Board Member Zehner asked what the minimum frontage requirement is. Planning Director  39 is closer to thei front lot line.  40 43  49 front and rear and 15 on the sides.  50  57 loti is a prime example of as standalone lot. 60 requirement less ambiguous.  58 61 64  68 and not necessarily better.  69  72 what do we want to do as far as lot width goes?  73  77 subdivision ordinance and the other ini the zoning ordinance.  78 81 84  80 respect to lot width.  83 Haskett answered the minimum. standard is 30ft.  Southern Shores Planning Board-March 18, 2024lpg. 2    85 Planning Board Member Zehner recommended usinge either setback or yard for structures, not both. He 86 stated the only reason you would usually have the yard provisioni is for exemptions for what can bei in 87 they yard, but you could easily just sayt that these are exempt or not subject to a setback or subject toa 88 lesser setback. Just define what al building setback is, front and side and rear building setbacks and how 91 Planning Board Member Lawler asked how you define thet front lot line. Planning Director Haskett stated 92 the zoning ordinance defines it as the line separating said loti from that street whichi is designated as the 93 front street on the building permit certificate of occupancy or Subdivision plat that is the front lot line. 95 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo asked why we would change the terminology that is being used in the 96 surveys that are being submitted with applications. Why not match the same terminology that is being 99 Chairperson' Ward felt the building setback line in both the subdivision section and general zoning 100 section needed to be the: same definition. He further stated that he still maintains the board is talking 101 about how we treat lots that have the potential to be recombined and or subdivided. 103 Planning Board Member McClendon agreed with Vice Chairperson DiBernardo in keeping the same 104 terminology. Ift the term building setback line is used, then its should bei identified with thet term MBSL 107 Planning Director Haskett asked the board what they thought about using the term Lot Width Line, 110 Planning Board Member Zehner stated the minimum building setback linet front is 25 feet or where the 111 lot meets the minimum lot width required (100f ft). The minimum building setback line of the front 112 would be reset to whatever the distance the lot meets the minimum lot width. 114 Chairperson Ward asked ifa al lot didn't come to 1001 feet until nearly the rear oft the parcel, where would 115 that fall ini this ordinance. Planning Director Haskett stated ifi it was a proposed lot, it wouldn't be able to 118 Chairperson Ward stated het felt the main purpose of the discussion is trying to limit what you can do at 119 the subdivision and recombination: situations and was not concerned with thel lots that are non- 122 Planning Board Member Zehner asked what the objective is. Chairperson Ward: stated it was to minimize 125 Planning Board Member Zehner stated the ordinance already does that by stating the minimum lot size. 127 Planning Board Member McClendon felt that if a property owner wanted to subdivide their lot and each 128 divided parcel was ar minimum of 20,000 sq. feet then the property owner should be allowed. 130 Planning Board Members McClendon and Zehner both were not concerned with flag lots ift the minimum  89 the lot width relates tot those is different but is simplified.  90  94  97 submitted. 98  102  105 utilized by surveyors. 108 rather than Setback Line.  106 109  113  116 be approved andi ifi it was an existing lot, it would be non-conforming.  117  120 conforming legally. 121 123 small lots. 124 126 129 132  131 lot size was met.  Southern Shores Planning Board-March 18, 2024lpg. 3    133 Planning Board Member McClendon stated Ifap parcel meets the minimum width requirement, the 30ft. 134 access requirement along with the minimum 20,000 sq. foot lot size, then they should be allowed to 135 develop it. Hes stated in his mind the 20,000 minimum square foot size is low density. 137 Chairperson Ward stated he would think many residents would not agree with McClendon's low-density 138 explanation and would like to see bigger lots. Planning Board Member McClendon stated people may 139 prefer that, but the truthi is several smaller lots were platted in Southern! Shores and it just happens they 142 Chairperson' Ward felt the Land Use spirit is that of homes on large lots. The town has made a real 143 concerted effort to goi ini that direction and that is why the non-conforming lot language was put 144 together and an ordinance created. Ift there is some subdivision as al byproduct of recombination, then 147 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo requested the board focus on today's agenda item and move forward. The 150 Chairperson Wardr recommended building setback line definition mirror each other in both the zoning 153 Planning Director Haskett stated to make it clearer, building setback line or minimum building setback 156 Planning Director Haskett stated he appreciated the conversation and the feedback received tot this 157 point and could askt the board ift they are in favor of not inf favor off flag lots, ori no minimum lot width, 158 but really would like to get as sense of whether the board would recommend approval or disapproval of 159 what is ini front of them. Also, would the board like to: see something different that would allow any lot if 162 Chairperson Ward did not feel comfortable recommending the ZTAi in this current form to go to Town 165 Planning Board Member McClendon's opinion was to keep the 30 feet wide requirement at thes street, 166 20,000 square foot lot, but the rest ofiti including lot widths he did not have a strong opinion about. 168 Planning Board Member Zehner asked who initiated the text amendment and what is the goal. Planning 169 Director Haskett stated staffi initiated the text amendment with the goal ofr making it clearer. Whati is 172 Chairperson' Ward would like to have more time to work with the; ZTA and: stated not having the 100ft 175 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo stated MBSL should be added under the definition to make it consistent. 177 Chairperson Ward recommended at a minimum that the ordinance says a lot has got to be 1001 feet at 178 some point on a newlys subdivided lot and by the way it's got tol be 20,000 square feet minimum. Vice  136  140 have: same ownership, what ift they weren't owned by the same owner.  141  145 that thel lot might not be al rectangle.  146 149 152 155  148 board is focusing too much on some rare: situations.  151 and subdivision sections.  154 line should bet fors structures and add another term for width of lots.  160 you had 20,000: sq. feet?  161 163 Council. 164 167  170 current is clear but very strict.  171 174 176  173 wide requirement runs against the grain.  179 Chairperson DiBernardo agreed for a newly subdivided lot.  180  Southern Shores Planning Board-March 18, 2024lpg. 4    181 Planning Board Member Zehner stated that most municipalities have a minimum lot width requirement 182 inc order to create some regularity on the dimensions of lots so that you have this rectangular grid layout 183 where all oft the houses are: set back almost equidistant and where they're set back the lots are 186 Chairperson Ward: stated for simplicity you've got to hit the 1001 feet at some point., without it you 189 Planning Director Haskett stated that we have recommended previously and what we have right now is 190 thati it would have to maintain 1001 feet after it gets to that point, without this there could be some very 193 Planning Board Member McClendon stated you are going to have irregular shaped lots with: subdividing. 194 Over the years different sections of Southern! Shores was platted by different people and at different 195 times and there are lots of irregular funny shaped lots. He: stated the 20,000 square feet keeps Southern  184 approximately consistent. 187 cannot subdivide.  185 188  191 irregular shaped lots.  192  196 Shores in the low-density business.  197 199  198 Chairperson Ward added the 100f ft which has always been there should be maintained.  200 Planning Board Director Haskett polled the board, we agree that we want the same definition of building 201 set back line or something similar whatever that term may bey yeah as long as they're consistent in 204 Planning Director Haskett asked, should we create a newt term for lot width and not use building set 205 back line. Planning Board Member Zehner disagreed as hef felt there was some relationship between the 208 Planning Director Haskett asked if the lot needed to be 100ft. wide at some point. Planning Board 209 Members McClendon and Zehner, and Vice Chairperson DiBernardo opposed. Planning Board Member 212 Chairperson Ward asked Planning Board Member McClendon if he was comfortable with the lot being 213 less than 1001 ft as long as the lot size was 20,000. Planning Board Member McClendon answered yes in 214 the case ofas subdivision. Both Zehner and DiBernardo stated they need to know the goal behind the 217 Chairperson Ward stated he would like tol keep the 100f ft. lot width requirement for subdivisions, 220 Planning Director Haskett stated at this point staff will amend the ZTA: so that building setback line is 221 changed to lot width line ini this proposed definition, everything else: stays the same int that section. 222 Section 36-22 would be amended to eliminate for lots that front a cul de sact the building setback line 223 shall be established 251 ft from thet front lot line or the point where the lot is 1001 ft whichever distance is 224 closer tot thet front lot line and get rid off for all other Lots the building setback line should be established  202 zoning and subdivision. The board members agreed.  203 206 two. 207  210 Zehners stated the point the goal needs to be defined.  211  215 100 ft. and were not comfortable agreeing toi it without knowing the goal.  216 219  218 regardless of where on the parcel it reaches the 100ft.  225 25 feet from thet front lot line. Thel board was not in consensus.  226  Southern Shores Planning Board-March 18, 2024/pg.5 5    227 MOTION: Hearing the need for further discussions and consideration, Chairperson Ward moved to 228 not approve ZTA-23-05 this evening, Seconded by Vice Chairperson DiBernardo. The motion passed 231 After the motion Planning Board Member McClendon added that singling out cul-de-sac is pretty 232 arbitraryi in his mind because there are many streets that have very sharp curves on them and they 233 create ay verys similar pie-shaped lot, obviously narrow on the outside of the curve and very wide on the 234 inside of the curve, and to make this irregular thing specific to cul de sacs doesn't seem appropriate.  229 unanimously. 230  235 236 237 238 239 New Business  Chairperson Ward called for at five-minute recess 6:21 pm  meeting recessed at 6:25 pm  240 ZTA-24-02, a Zoning Text Amendment application: submitted by the Town of Southern Shores to amend 241 Town Code! Section 36-171 to amend the Town's lot dsturbance/stomwater management permit 242 requirements by establishing that a lot disturbance/stormwater management permit is required to 243 remove trees greater than 61 inches in diameter, measured at 4.51 feet above the ground, within at front, 244 side or rear yard (setback) on any unimproved loti in the general commercial zoning district and the 245 penalty for not obtaining al lot disturbance/stommwater management permit to remove trees greater 246 than 6i inches in diameter, measured at 4.51 feet above the ground, within at front, side or rear yard 249 The: staff report read as, at the February 6, 2024, Town Council meeting, the Town Council directed 250 Town Staff to draft Town Code amendments to modernize the Town Code. At the March 12, 2024, Town 251 Council meeting, the Town Council adopted ZTA-24-01 (with revisions) which included amendments to 252 Chapter 24, Planning and several sections in Chapter 36, Zoning. Thei initial draft of ZTA-24-01 included 253 amendments to! Section 36-171, Lot Disturbance and Stormwater Management which were withdrawn 254 by Town Staff prior to February 21, 2024, Planning Board meeting. Town Staff is now proposing similar 255 amendments to Section 36-171, Lot Disturbance and Stormwater Management which if approved, 258 - Establish that a Lot Dsturbance/Siormwater Management Permit is required to remove trees greater 259 than 6i inches in diameter, measured: at 4.5f feet above the ground, within ai front, side or rear yard 262 Establish the penalty for not obtaining al Lot Dsturbance/Siormwater Management Permit to remove 263 trees greater than 6i inches in diameter, measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, within at front, side or 264 reary yard (setback) on any unimproved lot in the general commercial: zoning district.  247 (setback) on any unimproved loti in the general commercial zoning district  248  256 would do the following:  257  260 (setback) on any unimproved loti in the general commercial zoning district.  261  265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273  Olty would be an offense for any person to remove: at tree greater than 6i inches in diameter, measured at 4.5f feet above the ground within ai front, side ori reary yard (setback) on any unimproved lot within the general commercial zoning district without first obtainingal Lot Olty would be an offense for a property owner to employ, authorize or direct any third person or entity to remove at tree greater than 6i inches in diameter, measured at 4.5 feet above the ground within at front, side or rear' yard (setback) on any unimproved lot within the general  Disturbance/Stormwater Management Permit.  Southern Shores Planning Board-March 18, 2024/pg. 6    274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 291 proposed ZTA: 292  commercial zoning district without first obtaining al Lot Dsturoance/Stommwate, Management OAseparate offense shall be deemed to have been committed fore each tree greater than 6 inches in diameter, measured at 4.51 feet above the ground within at front, side or rear yard (setback) on any unimproved lot within the general commercial zoning district that is removed without first obtaining al Lot Dsturbance/ptormwater Management Permit. O When at tree greater than 6i inches in diameter, measured at 4.5f feet above the ground within af front, side or reary yard (setback) on any unimproved lot within the general commercial zoning district is removed without first obtaining al Lot Disturbance/stomwater Management Permit, a warning citation would bei issued tot the offender allowing 30 days to abate the violation. A replacement tree similar ins size would be required to abate the violation. Ift the violation is not abated within 30 days, the offender would be subject to a civil penalty in accordance with Town  Permit.  Code Section 1-6(d).  290 The Town's currently adopted Land Use Plan contains the following Policyt that is applicable to the 293 - Policy 2: The community values and the Town will continue to comply with thet founder's original 294 vision for Southern Shores: al low-density residential community comprised of single-family dwellings on 295 largel lots (served by a small commercial district for convenience shopping and services located at the 296 southern end oft the Town. This blueprint for land use naturally protects environmental resources and  297 fragile areas by limiting development and growth.  298 300 301 302 303  299 - Policy 26: Promote open space, tree protection, and natural vegetation diversity.  OAction Item 26-b Encourage lot preparation methods that preserve natural vegetation and  minimize clear cutting.  304 RECOMMENDATION  305 Town Staff has determined that the proposed amendments are consistent with the Town's currently 306 adopted Land Usel Plan and Town Staff recommends that the Planning Board recommend approval of 309 Planning Board Member Lawler asked what size is proposed to be replanted if cut. Planning Director 310 Haskett stated similar in size to what was cut or similar in size to the potential growth size. 312 Planning Board Member McClendon asked for confirmation ift they pertained to an existing commercial 313 property owneri if they want to have at treet taken down. Planning Director Haskett answered it applies if 314 the lot is vacant and if the tree is in a side, front or rear setback. Ifthe loti is not vacant then they are not 317 Planning Board Member Zehner: stated that the replanting requirement may not accomplish anything if 318 the tree is removed before it goes through site plan review. Hei inquired ift the town could require the 319 applicant to replant if they werei found in violation ofr not obtaining a permit during the site plan review. 320 Planning Director Haskett stated he felt the applicant could bet forced to replant trees ift the applicant  307 the application to the Town Council.  308 311  315 required to get al lot disturbance permit and they may remove the tree.  316  321 removed thet trees during the site plan review.  Southern Shores Planning Board-March 18, 2024lpg.7    322  323 Planning Board Member Zehner recommended asking the town attorney whether or not there's any 324 ability to put a provision in there that says violation shall bet taken into account or tree removal taken 325 into account during site plan review. He stated with the planting requirement you're not going to get 326 them to plant the same size tree and you don't necessarily want them to either, and anything overs six 329 Chairperson Ward inquired what the offence was for removing at tree. Planning Director Haskett 330 answered a warning citation with 30 days to abate the violation and ifit'sr not abated then the fine could 333 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo stated when a similar ordinance was brought before a previous Planning 334 Board, they approved the language with, ift the property owner cut down al large tree you must replace it 335 ona1:1 ratio with at tree at least 41 feet high or a replacement at a smaller height with a 2:1 ratio. He 338 Chairperson Ward stated there have been three versions of the ordinance and the current version does 339 not include residential, and he would like tol know why only a draft pertaining to commercial only is 340 being considered. He stated he understands why one portion was being pulled out, the portion where a 341 survey would require showing every tree 6 inches in diameter but is questioning why thei first provision 342 is being pulled out. Planning Director Haskett answered staff agreed it was quite al burden to have 343 someone hire a surveyor and show all trees greater than sixi inches in diameter, measuring four and a 344 half feet above the ground and had that removed, with respect toj just applying it to commercial 345 districts in light of a recent special use permit application the town went through it became apparent to 346 staff that there are concerns with buffers with respect to vacant lots and adjoining property and this isa 347 way to encourage retention of trees inside and rear setback areas, that's why it is commercial only. 349 Chairperson' Ward: stated all districts could be lefti in. Planning Director Haskett stated the same answer 352 Chairperson Ward read section 36-171 from the original ZTA (not the version on the agenda) starting  327 inches is goingt to be challenging from as survivability standpoint.  328  331 be upt to $500 each day it continues to exist.  332  336 recommended having some regulations in place ahead oft time.  337  348 351 353 with line 6. 354 355 356 357 358 359  350 applies and the board can recommend residential use.  subject to the requirements of GS 16d ifapplicable in alll Town. zoning districts no grading. filling topography alteration or removal of any tree greater than 61 inches in diameter measured at 4.5 feet above the ground on any unimproved. lot or demolition and clearing ofi improved property  nor any man-made change...  360 Chairperson Ward felt the ZTA: should certainly have some allowance to restrict cutting trees down in 361 residential area without getting al lot disturbance permit and that this stated language would be the 362 proper language to bei included. He recommended adding residential to the ZTA. He stated he was trying 363 to avoid having residential lots clear cut and then not being developed on for a number ofy years. 364 Planning Board Member Zehner stated this would not stop someone from clear cutting a lot. Planning 365 Director Haskett stated that is correct, the property owner would need] just need to obtain a permit first. 367 Planning Board Member Zehner recommended for commercial it be expanded to any tree removal,  366 369  368 regardless of size.  Southern Shores Planning Board-March 18, 2024lpg.8    370 Planning Director Haskett stated with this version one of the reasons for commercial is because buffers 371 arei in some cases required and buffers can retain existing vegetation, so this is a was a way tot tryt to 372 encourage retaining existing vegetation. In residential when you have single family dwelling there's no 375 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo agreed with adding residential as he has been advocating fori it since 2007 376 and recommends maintaining the trees to lessen the water runoff. He also recommended as a 379 Chairperson Ward was adamant about including residential, as written ini the original and second 382 Planning Board Member Lawler: stated thaty you have tot take into consideration that trees are not just an 383 aesthetic you see but there is a storm water function that they are providing, and the town should not 386 Chairperson Ward questioned how you regulate taking trees down when: some people just do not want  373 buffer required. 374  377 compromise to at least add residential areas that buffer commercial.  378 380 version. 381  384 allow that infrastructure to go without being evaluated.  385 388 390 393 396 399  387 them, and it is their property rights.  389 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo stated we are talking about undeveloped lots. 392 for undeveloped lots but felt all trees should be considered for commercial.  391 Planning Board Member Zehner was fine having residential regulations according to as six-inch diameter 394 Chairperson Ward was amenable to having residential and commercial broken out separate but wantsa 397 Planning Board Member McClendon stated he can see having to remove trees from the permittable 400 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo asked Planning Director Haskett what would be more efficient, to go with 401 combining the residential and commercial or separate the two. Planning Director Haskett stated 402 whatever the board recommends. Ift the board would like both then the reference to the general 403 commercial zoning district would need to be removed (page 3, line 300fZTA24-02) 405 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo stated in earlier versions the tree was always 10 or 12 inches in diameter 408 Chairperson Ward stated all applications for a lot disturbance. and storm water management permit shall 409 be accompanied by a survey and preliminary: site plan prepared by a state licensed professional surveyor 410 for all districts and asked what prevents an owner from cutting trees and then not developing the 411 property fors several years. Planning Director Haskett answered nothing changes about what they have to 412 submit for al lot disturbance in storm water management permit including they don't have to show any 413 trees ons said: survey. Also, nothing will prevent someone from obtaining al lot disturbance storm water 416 Chairperson Ward asked what the criteria is fora al lot disturbance permit. Planning Director Haskett 417 answered: a survey that shows spot elevations in reference to mean sea level throughout the lot.  395 regulation which covers all districts.  398 building area but not touch the setback areas.  404 407  406 and there may be pushback with the lower circumference.  414 management permit and removing the trees and not developing it for 10 years.  415  Southern Shores Planning Board-March 18, 2024lpg.9    418  419 Chairperson' Ward suggested also requiring a preliminary: site plan be submitted with the lot disturbance 420 permit, this would show the property owner is more serious about developing the lot and not just 421 removing vegetation and havingi it undeveloped fory years. He would even like to tie at time limit with the  422 lot disturbance and building permit requirement. 424 Planning Board Member Zehner stated that this is challenging.  423 425 428 431 434  426 Planning Board Member Charlie Reis stated presumably what's going on is that people are clearing the 429 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo suggested regulating it sO nothing can be removed in the setbacks, perhaps 432 Chairperson' Ward would like preliminary: site plan required too. Hes stated there needs to be a way to 435 Planning Board Member Zehner: stated if Chairperson Wards recommendations cannot be achieved 436 within this ZTA then maybe the board should move this ZTA along as stipulated subject to commercial  427 lot to increase they value oft the unbuilt lot.  430 until construction starts.  433 move people towards not cutting trees until they are ready to build.  437 only and he made that motion.  438 440 443 446  439 Planning Board Member Zehner stated he thinks this is serving a purpose.  441 Planning Board Member McClendon stated he would like to add there is al high interest in residential and 444 Chairperson Ward would like to see both residential and commercial approved together as he felt 447 Planning Board Member Zehner stated his rationale is the agenda for tonight's meeting where ZTA: 24-02 448 is described for the public's benefit speaks about commercial only, it doesn't talk about this being 449 something for other districts and he believes it would be appropriate to only address what has been 452 Chairperson Ward thought it should be readvertised for both residential and commercial and brought 455 Vice Chairperson Ward asked what properties would primarily be affected by this. Planning Director 457 MOTION: Planning Board Member Zehner moved to recommend approval of ZTA 24 as presented with 458 the only change is to correct at typo on page twol line 30 an underlined "or", Seconded by Planning 459 Board Member McClendon. The motion passed 4-1; opposed by Chairperson Ward 461 By consensus, the Planning Board recommended that these requirements should apply to the  442 he doesn't think the board is ready fori it tonight. 445 residential would get pushed tot the: side.  450 advertised. Planning Board Member McClendon agreed.  451 453 back. 454  456 Haskett stated properties owned by the Stone Family and Saga.  460 462 residential district. 463 464 Public Comment 465 None  Southern Shores Planning Board- March 18, 2024lpg. 10    466  467 Planning Board Member Comments  468 Planning Board Member Zehner stated Dare Countyi is holding Affordable Task Force Meetings and 469 requested to add talks tot the Planning Board's May agenda; talk about how we asat town intend to 470 address housing and housing affordability within Town relative to that Initiative. 472 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo recommended adding the commercial design standards to at future agenda. 474 Chairperson Ward would also like to add PUD's and regulating accessory dwelling unit language. 476 Planning Board Member McClendon announced the Coastal Studies Institute will be holding an Open  471 473 475 477 House on Saturday, April 20th. 478 479 Announcements 481 482 Adjourn  480 Planning Director Haskett announced the next meeting will be April 15, 2024.  483 Motion to adjourn the meeting by Vice Chairperson DiBernardo, Seconded by Chairperson Ward. The  484 time was 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.  485 486 ATTEST: 487  Respectulysubmttes, Chpe  ou SEAL Vr  488 Codell 489 Andy Ward, Chairperson  Southern Shores Planning Board-March 18, 2024lpg. 11