OUTHERN  TOWN OF SOUTHERN SHORES  PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING 5375 N. Virginia Dare Trail, Southern Shores, NC 27949 Phone 252-261-2394/Fax: 252-255-0876 www.southernshores-nc.gov PITTS CENTER Monday, December 18, 2023 at 5:00PM MINUTES  CAROLINA  1 Call Meeting to Order 2 Pledge of Allegiance 3 4 Present 5 Chairperson. Andy Ward 6 Vice Chairperson Tony DiBernardo 7 Planning Board Member Collins 8 Planning Board Member Lawler 11 Approval of Agenda  9 Planning Board Member (alternate) Michael Zehner  10  12 Motion made by' Vice Chairperson DiBernardo to approve the agenda of December 18, 2023, as 13 presented, Seconded by Planning Board Member Lawler. The motion passed unanimously. 16 Motion made by Vice Chairperson DiBernardo to approve the minutes of October 16, 2023, as 17 presented, Seconded by Chairperson' Ward. The motion passed unanimously.  14  15 Approval of Minutes - October 16, 2023  18 19 Public Comment 20 None 21 22 Old Business 23 None 24 25 New Business  26 VA-23-02, Variance application submitted by Gerald Soucy to seek relief from Town Code Section 36- 27 202(d)(4), Minimum Side Yard (Setback) for the property located at 17 Ninth Ave. (performing the duties 30 Chairperson Ward stated the board willl be performing the duties oft the Board of Adjustment and 33 There were no aggrieved parties in attendance. The Town Clerk swore in all other parties wishing to give  28 of the Southern Shores Board of Adiustment). 31 reviewed the procedures for a quasi-judicial hearing.  29 32 35 37 38 39  34 testimony (Applicant Gerald Soucy and Planning Director Wes Haskett). 36 Chairperson Ward polled the board on thet following recusal questions:  Has any board member communicated with other board members, the applicant, or town staff Does any board member have a fixed opinion that is not susceptible to change?  about this application?  Southern Shores Planning Board-December 18, 2023/pg. 1    40 41 42 43 45 47  Does any board member have a close familial business or associational relationship with the Does any board member have ai financial interest in the outcome oft this matter?  applicant?  44 AlI board members responded "no" to all recusal questions. 46 Chairperson Ward opened the hearing and called on the applicant.  48 The applicant, Gerald Soucy presented his testimony which was as summary of the timeline. He 49 purchased a shed in February without obtaining a permit, based on advice from the company. In. June, 50 during a meeting with the Town Building Inspector Kevin Clark to review a permit fora an enlarged deck 51 and building a Crow's Nest, it was discovered that a permit was required for the shed. The shed was 52 then included in the permit fori the deck expansion. However, when the permit was submitted and the 53 shed was drawn on the plat, it was found that part of the shed was encroaching into the setback. The 54 shed had to be moved to a new location on the side of the house. Asurvey was conducted, which 55 revealed that the shed was now approximately 70% int the setback. It was later discovered that previous 56 surveys had not accurately locatedi the back pins of the lot, resulting in the shed being placed in the 57 setback. The individual then consulted with Planning Director' Wes Haskett, who advised that a variance  58 was needed. 59 61 63 64 65 67 68 69 71 72 73 74 76 77 79 80 81 82 84 85 86 87 89  60 The Board of Adjustment Members asked Mr. Soucy thet following questions: 62 Planning Board Member Lawler asked, whoi is the surveyor?  Mr. Soucy answered Midgett and Associate.  66 Chairperson Ward asked where did the two prior surveys come from?  Mr. Soucy answered the two prior surveys came from the same office.  70 Chairperson Ward asked when was the 2005 survey done and who ordered it?  Mr. Soucy answered that the 2005 survey was ordered by the Boyer family, who the property  was purchased from.  75 Chairperson Ward asked ift the coordinates were the same in both surveys? 78 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo asked the cost to have the: shed moved?  o Mr. Soucy confirmed they were the same.  Mr. Soucy answered the cost of moving the shed at that time was $450, and when he purchased the shed the delivery charge was approximately the same amount.  83 Chairperson Ward asked where was the shed located on the survey' when it was set in March?  Mr. Soucy answered the shed was located ini the corner adjacent to the rounded deck, against the side oft the house and against the deck. It fit perfectly in that corner.  88 Chairperson Ward asked, was the shed in the rear setback even at that point?  Southern Shores Planning Board-December 18, 2023/pg. 2    90 91 92 93 96 97 98 99 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 111 112 113 115 116 117 119 120 121 122 123 125 126 127 128 129 131 shed? 132 133 134 135 137  o Mr.Soucy answered yes, according to the survey, about one foot of the front corner of the shed wasi in the setback but when you look at the new: survey it would have been much  further in the setback with the proper survey.  94 Chairperson Ward: stated there is a setback line that is off on an angle from where the new decki is and  95 asked ift that was where it was located.  Mr. Soucy answered, there is a setback line that is off on an angle from where the new deck isl located andi it was located right where the 25 ft angle is listed on the survey.  100 Chairperson Ward asked the owner if he built the fence on the property?  Mr. Soucy answered, he built the fence on the property and now knows that itis encroaching on other property. When hei installed the fence, he went by the cleared property lines. There was no fence there prior, but thel lines were clear, and hej just put the fence where the clearing was. He did not have a plat at that time and the property backs up to Hillcrest, which is owned byt the civic association. He stated right, wrong, or indifferent,  the fence is not hurting anyone being there.  109 Chairperson Ward asked Mr. Soucyi if he had come to town hall for any purpose before starting the  110 construction of the new deck?  o Mr.S Soucyanswered he did not.  114 Chairperson Ward asked Mr. Soucy who was the contractor for the deck?  o Mr. Soucy answered the contractor for the deck was Gary Ellard, who goes by Paragon.  118 Chairperson Ward asked if the contractor had any knowledge of setback problems?  Mr. Soucy answered the contractor did not have any knowledge ofs setback problems until the old plat was brought to the town planning office for a permit and it was indicated that  the shed was encroaching on the setback.  124 Chairperson Ward asked ifs staff recommended al location to move the shed?  Mr. Soucy answered the suggestion given by Planning Director Wes Haskett regarding the property line was that the best bet for the shed's location was to put it where it currentlyi is.  130 Planning Board Member Collins asked is it routine for someone to not ask about a survey' when moving a  Chairperson Ward stated Planning Director Haskett can answer that after Mr. Soucy's  testimony.  136 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo asked if the neighbor at #15: said anything about the fence or shed?  Southern Shores Planning Board-December 18, 2023/pg. 3    138 139 140 141 143 144 145 146 147 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 160 162 shed? 163 164 165 166 168 169 170 171 172 174 175 176 178 properties. 179 180 181 183 184 185 186  Mr. Soucy stated the neighbora at #15 is a new resident and has not said anything about the fence or shed, he didn'teven know there was a shed. The neighbor agreed the current location is good because it cannot be seen from the front oft the house.  142 Chairperson Ward asked how did the: shed get into its current location?  Mr. Soucy answered the: shed was initially brought in through the: side yard, and it took three hours to move it using al heavy-duty forklift. When it was moved to its current location, an  even better machine was used.  148 Chairperson' Ward asked how is thes shed anchored?  Mr. Soucy answered the shed is anchored according to code, with four corner anchors that go down two feet into the ground. He stated Building Inspector Kevin Clark reported the  shed is installed according to code.  Mr. Soucy added that the outmost corner of the shed is about 351 feet from the neighbor's fence, and it is about 50 feet from the closest part oft the neighbor's house. It meets the  spirit of the setbacks by distance.  159 Chairperson Ward asked the board ift they had any questions for Planning Director Haskett. 161 Planning Board Member Collins asked is it routine fors someone to not ask about a survey when movinga  Planning Director Haskett stated iti is not uncommon and: staff are there to help the homeowner. Most files contain all the historical surveys and elevation certificates for each property.  167 Planning Board Member Lawler asked what survey' was ini thet file for 17 Ninth Avenue.  Planning Director Haskett stated the 2005 survey' was in the file. Mr. Soucy obtained, pera condition int the zoning permit, an as-built survey once the shed and the deck were done to verify that lock coverage and setbacks had been met. it was done after the fact.  173 Chairperson Ward asked if staff has ever seen a survey this far off.  Planning Director Haskett stated: staff has not seen a survey this inaccurate.  177 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo asked if Planning Director Haskett looked at the surveys of adjoining  o Planning Director Haskett stated he did not.  182 Planning Board Member Zehner asked if there is as subdivision plan for this that covers this property.  Planning Director Haskett stated not in the town files but perhaps one is filed with the register of  deeds.  Southern Shores Planning Board-December 18, 20231pg. 4    187 Planning Board Member Lawler asked ifs staff knew how many other surveys have been done by Midgett  188 & Associates. 189 190 191 192 195 196 197 198 199 200 203 204 205 206 208 Wes Haskett. 209 211 212 213 214 215 216 219 220 221 222  Planning Director Haskett stated he does not know how many others there are, but this is the  first he has seen from Benjamon Hardin with Midgett and Associates.  193 Planning Board Member Zehner inquired if the structure was less than 100 square feet, they wouldn't 194 need a building permit, but they would: still need to comply with setback requirements.  Planning Director Haskett stated since hel has been employed by the town, staff has not required ab building permit for as shed ifi it's less than 12x12 (144 square feet) but a zoning permit is still required regardless of the dimensions or size sot that it meets setback requirements and lock  coverage. He stated inquiries about a shed are very common.  201 Planning Board Member Zehner asked ift there was any provision about detached accessory: structures,  202 any reduced setback.  Planning Director Haskett stated thati is a common question and the town does not have that  provision.  207 Chairperson Ward asked Mr. Soucy if he had any questions he would like to ask the Planning Director 210 Mr. Soucy asked Planning Director Haskett if he felt the shed location meets the spirit oft the setback.  Planning Director Haskett stated he can't answer as to whether it meets the spirit, but he does believe that it was Mr. Soucy's intent to meet all applicable requirements by removing the: shed from the previous location and moving it to the current location. He stated hel believes it was in  good faith and an attempt to do the right thing.  217 Planning Board Member Zehner asked Mr. Soucy when he purchased the property and if he received a  218 survey as part oft the closing documents.  o Mr. Soucy stated he purchased the propertyi in August of 2020 and there was no survey required  as part oft the closing documents.  223 Chairperson Ward asked Planning Director Haskett if he had any evidence that staff would like presented 224 that has not already been done SO. Planning Director Haskett had no further evidence other than what 225 has already been presented int the board's packet. He would like to note and make the changes wherever 226 there is a reference east side of existing single-family dwelling should be changed to west side. 228 Chairperson Ward called on the board for any further questions from Planning Director Haskett. 230 Planning Board Member Zehner asked ifal homeowner came in and got a zoning permit for a shed but  227 229 232 233 234 235 236  231 not al building permit what is the closeout procedure.  Planning Director Haskett answered if what al homeowner is proposing is close to the setback requirements or if lot coverage is at 29% or 28%, staff will require a new as-built survey, it doesn't matter what the size of the shed is. If the shedi is not near thes setback distances and or close to the maximum 30% lot coverage requirement, an as- built survey is  Southern Shores Planning Board-December 18, 2023/pg. 5    237 238 239 240 243  not required and a building permit isn't required. The building inspector goes out and iti is usually verified in the field. Ifab building permit is not issued there is no CO, justa a copy ofthe  zoning permit.  241 Chairperson' Ward stated anything under 144 square feet will only have the zoning permit and there's no 242 sign off ont that and that is everything required unless an as-built survey is required as a condition. 244 Planning Director Haskett added that in this case, because of the deck they needed ai final inspection 245 under the building permit and the shed was part oft the permit. The building inspector inspects the deck  246 and the shed in this case before a CO is issued.  247 249 250 251 252 255 257 259 260 261 263 266 267 268 269 271 provided. 272 273 274 277 279 281  248 DELIBERATIONS. AND VOTE  1. Does a strict application of the ordinance result in an unnecessary hardship for the applicant? All  members voted yes, VOTE: YES5-0  253 Planning Board Member Collins stated this is an unusual and unique situation and the applicant tried to 254 do the right thingi in good faith. Moving the shed to thet front would not be a good look. 256 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo felt it would cause an unnecessary hardship.  258 Planning Board Member Zehner stated the cost is not significant, but it is unnecessary: and al hardship.  2. Does the hardship result from conditions that are peculiar to the property?' VOTE:YES,5-0  262 Both Chairperson Ward and' Vice Chairperson DiBernardo stated the survey is peculiar to the property. 264 Planning Board Member Zehner stated ift the variance is approved, hes suggested that the variance be  265 granted based on our recognition oft the record.  3. Does the hardship result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner? VOTE: NO,  5-0  270 Chairperson' Ward stated that the applicant's actions were taken in good faith with what the Town  4. Isthe requested variance consistent with the spirit, purpose, andi intent of the ordinance? VOTE:  YES,5-0  275 Chairperson Ward: stated the applicant made alle efforts to comply and they variance would be consistent 278 Chairperson Ward stated he would like to discuss approval with some minor conditions. 280 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo suggested approval of the variance but for this shed only.  276 with the spirit, forcing a hardship would be worse. VOTE YES, 5-0  282 Chairperson Ward suggested using the wording "not future alterations to thet footprint without a permit". 283 He also recommended a condition moving fence offt the civic association property, need to have ont filea  284 certified letter to adjacent property owners' encroachment acknowledgment.  285  Southern! Shores Planning Board-December 18, 2023/pg.6    286 Planning Director Haskett stated adjourning property owners have been notified and their response is on 289 Planning Board Member Zehner: stated he did not think thet fence encroaching on civic property and the 290 neighbors concern about the fence should have bearing or be made a condition oft the variance. The 291 variance should be based on the application that is submitted and that they are allowed a variance for 294 Vice Chairperson DiBernardo stated he has worked with the civic association on an encroachment issue 295 in the past and iti is upt tot the civic association to allow it or not. Planning Board Member Zehner added 298 Planning Board Member Lawler felt that approving the variance does not make the encroaching fence 301 Planning Board Collins asked if the variance goes only with the current owner or with the property.  287 file. 288  292 the shed as installed.  293  296 we cannot dictate what private parties will do. 299 okay, but it is up to the civic association to dictate that.  297 300 303 305  302 Planning Board Member Zehner replied it goes with the property. 304 By a vote of5-01 the Board of Adjustment approved the variance as presented.  306 ZTA-23-05, Zoning Text Amendment application submitted byt the Town of Southern Shores to amend 307 Town Code Sections 3657.36202012.36 203(d)(2), 162040121.36205012- and 36-206(d)2)to 310 ZTA-23-05 staff report read as, On. June 6, 2023, the Town Council adopted ZTA-23-03 (3-2 vote), a Zoning 311 Text Amendment application submitted by the Town that amended the Town's minimum lot width 312 requirements in all residential zoning districts to make them less ambiguous, as recommended by the 313 Planning Board. The amendments included a new definition of "lot width" in Section 36-57 whichi is the 314 minimum horizontal distance between the side lot lines ofal lot measured from the front lot line at right 315 angles to the rear lot line. The amendments alsoi included amendments to Sections 36-202(d)(2), 36- 316 203(d)(2), 36-204(d)(2), 36-205(d)(2), and 36-206(d)(2) that establishes that the minimum lot widthi is 317 measured from the front lot line at right angles to the rear lot line instead of from the building setback 318 line. Town Staffi is now proposing to amend the Town's minimum lot width requirements in all oft the 319 residential zoning districts by amending the definition of "building setback line" in Section 36-57 by 320 removing "minimum". The proposed amendments also include another new definition of "lot width" in 321 Section 36-57 which is the width ofa lot at the required building setback line measured at right angles to 322 the rear lot line. Lastly, the proposed amendments include amendments to Sections 36-202(d)(2), 36- 323 20350/2,362040)2, 36-205(d)(2), and 36-206(d)(2) that reestablish the building setback line as the 324 measuring point for lot width and establishes a new lot width requirement for lots on cul-de-sacs. 327 Planning Director Haskett reported the council adopted ZTA-23-03, however at thei time that ZTA was 328 made the towns lot width requirements stricter, and that was because we were removing the 329 ambiguity. At thet timei there was discussion about where we would revisit it so that we could address cul 330 de sacl lots andi irregular shape lots. This is another round of proposed amendments in this ZTA which 331 includes an amendment to building setback line definition, removes the word minimum so that it says a 332 line parallel to or concentric with the street right of way establishing the allowable distance, not the 333 minimum allowable distance. It also amends the lot width definition by stating that it means the width of 334 al lot at the required building set back line measured at right angles to the rear! lot line. The way it's 335 worded now as adopted it is measured the lot width is measured at thet front property line. So now, we  308 amend the Town's current lot width requirements.  309  325 326  Southern: Shores Planning Board-December 18, 2023/pg. 7    336 are going! back to the building set back line. The minimum lot width is 100f feet at the building setback 337 line and again there's no ambiguity as to minimum, it is at the building setback line. That is 100f ft. wide 338 at the building setback line. There is also a deviation from the 1001 ft setback line being provided for cul 339 de sac lots or lots that front a cul de sac by saying that the building setback line may be established up to 340 801 feet from thet front lot line for all other Lots the building setback line shall be established 251 ft from 341 the lot line. Planning Director Haskett added ift the board has issue with the 801 feet he suggested thati it 342 reads something to the effect of, this is for lots that front a cul de sac, thel building setback line shall be 343 established at the point where the lot is 100 feet wide up to 80 feet whichever is less. 345 Chairperson Ward reviewed an example of a typical cul de sacl lot and the measurements suggested in 348 Planning Board Member Zehner stated part of the challenge for him is that there are now multiple terms 349 in there that define as similar thing, it becomes confusing. The minimum lot width requirement is really 350 more concerned with the creation ofal lot, not necessarily the location of a structure. 352 Chairperson Ward: stated he has always had al hard time with the building setback line, how it is defined 353 and: still is defined. There are several: setback lines on a parcel and building setback line is being defined 356 Chairperson' Ward suggested defining the setback lines individually. Planning Board Member: Zehner 357 stated there are definitions for yard for all of those, setback and yard work in concert of one another. 359 Planning Board Member Zehner stated what the ZTA is proposing to doi is create a different yard setback 360 requirement forl lots on a cul des sac, which he stated he didn't know if that was the goal or is the goal to 361 make sure that the regulations don't preclude the creation ofal lot on a cul de sac, because they 362 currently do. Planning Director Haskett answered the intent is to not render existing cul de sac lots non- 363 conforming and that when lot are created, whether it's through subdivision or recombination, that it is 364 not ambiguous and that is clear that the loti is 100 feet wide at some point. Based on the measurements 365 using GIS, 801 feet is a start, but that number may need to go out andi it could be added in there wording 366 "up to a point not to exceed or whichever is less or wherever 1001 feet wide is achieved and not beyond 369 Planning Direct Haskett reviewed how it was regulated before the change was made, "minimum lot 370 width 1001 ft measured. at the building set back line" and then building set back line was the same 373 Planning Board Member Zehner asked how the old version was regulated on a cul de sac. Planning 374 Director Haskett stated existing houses were built back where the lot reached 100 feet wide. 376 Planning Board Member Zehner recommended not providing a dimension, just the wording where the 377 loti is 100 feet wide. Vice Chairperson DiBernardo agreed, it iss simpler and very clear. 379 Planning Board Member Zehner also stated maintaining that depth at least through the depth of the of 382 Chairperson Ward stated he does not believe the amendment is to preclude building on cul de sac lots, 383 what we are trying to doi is preclude from creating lots that should have been recombined and getting  344 346 the ZTA. 347  351  354 as front line which is misleading.  355 358  367 that point." 368  371 definition that's int the ZTAI but it had the word minimum in it.  372 375 378 381  380 the structure could be a requirement as well.  384 more lots out of recombination.  385  Southern Shores Planning Board-December 18, 2023/pg. 8    386 Planning Director Haskett stated he appreciated the board's feedback and staff can go back and take the 389 Chairperson Ward stated lot line and yard all are defined separately, front, sides, and back. He suggested 390 doing the same with: setbacks, three separate definitions (front, side, back). Planning Board Member 391 Zehner stated the wayi it's currently written iti is applicable only to determining! lot width, that the 392 regulatory requirement the dimensional standardi is not building setback its yard. We do not have a 395 Chairperson Ward felt strongly thati iti is still as setback regardless of what you calli it and recommended 396 providing a definition for each, front, side, and rear. Thei issue is the front building setback line, but we 397 might as well go a step further and define the building setback linei inj parentheses. 399 Planning Board Member Collins asked what the goali is, and the purpose of regulating the font setback. 400 Chairperson Ward: stated he always felt the goal was to limit lots under same ownership that are large 403 Planning Board Member Zehner stated that the purpose of setbacks is to create some uniformity 404 standard forl lots. There is an argument to be made that as long as you have the requisite area then it 405 doesn't matter, you're still netting the same amount of density. Chairperson Ward disagreed. and felt the 408 Chairperson Ward asked ift the town attorneys were involved in the language of this ZTA. Planning 409 Director Haskett stated the town attorney was okay with eliminating the ambiguity. 411 Chairperson Ward felt the ZTA needed more work and Planning Director Haskett stated staff can bringi it 414 Chairperson Ward: stated the measurements for each district are not reflected correctly. Planning Board  387 feedback into consideration.  388  393 minimum required building setback; we have a minimum required yard.  394  398  401 enough to possibly recombine and then divided into several lots.  402  406 large lots in Southern Shores were not intended to be split into flags lots.  407 410 413 416 417 Public Comment 418 None 419  412 back to the Planning Board.  415 Member Zehner suggested creating at table to: simplify things.  420 Planning Board Member Comments  421 Chairperson Ward reminded the Planning Board members oft the rules of procedure, being removed  422 from the board, and the criteria expected of members, especially absences.  423  424 Announcements  425 Planning Director Haskett stated the next regular meeting will be! held. January 17th and distributed 426 copies of the 2024 Planning Board meeting schedule. He noticed that SUP-23-01 will be considered at  427 the Town Council. January gth meeting.  428 429 Adjourn  430 Motion to adjourn the meeting by Planning Board Member Collins, Seconded by' Vice Chairperson  431 DiBernardo. The time was 6:46 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.  432 433  Southern Shores Planning Board-December 18, 2023/pg. 9    434 ATTEST: 435 436 ImlyWa 437 Andy Ward, Chairperson  THER  Respectfulysubmitted,  SEAL)   NC  Southern Shores Planning Board-December 18, 2023/pg. 10