Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The Kitty Hawk Town Council re-heard a matter regarding a proposal on piers at its December meeting, due to procedural issues during their October meeting. Council members also approved a commercial site plan review involving the location of the former Sea Kove motel, and were informed of a recently passed Senate Bill and its impacts on future zoning amendments.

During a public hearing in regard to reclassifying piers as a permitted use and amending their maximum length, public comment was not called upon. One member of the public, John Stone, had spoken during the general meeting’s public comment in support of the proposal. Therefore, the matter was brought before the board again.

Robert Testerman, director of planning and inspections, gave a brief overview of the two-part proposed text amendment. The first part dealt with reclassifying piers as a permitted use as opposed to a special use permit. The difference being that a permitted use is more of an administrative decision, whereas a special use permit requires a judicial fact-based evidentiary hearing. The second part proposed to extend the maximum length permitted by zoning from 100-ft. for a private residential pier or backing facility and 200-ft. for a community or commercial pier to 400-ft. overall.

At the October council meeting, the board moved to approve the proposal, but with a 300-ft. maximum pier length. More discussion was had during the re-hearing. Stone reiterated his support of the proposal during the public comment portion of the hearing: “I ask that you pass this resolution for those of us that live along the sound.”

Councilman David Hines was the first to speak as council entered discussion, addressing his reasoning for moving to amend the maximum pier length to 300-ft. at their October meeting. “We already have a pier that’s 300 feet.” He then posed a question to Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Pruitt: “In your opinion, in Kitty Hawk Bay, do you think 250 feet would be better for commercial fisherman?” Pruitt agreed that 100-ft. was “not enough,” adding that he was worried about commercial and recreational fishing. “There’s a little bit of conflict getting around the ends of the dock.” He also shared that he felt the longer the length, the more commercial fishermen would be pushed out. Hines shared this sentiment and expressed his concern regarding the impacts to commercial fishing.

Pruitt looked to town attorney Casey Varnell for clarification on the application process in the case that an applicant is looking to build or extend the length of a pier, if that length were to vary from the town’s ordinance. Varnell explained that anyone could bring an application before the town, and if the proposal does not meet town code, that applicant can then decide whether to revise their proposal or bring a variance before the local Board of Adjustments. Pruitt voiced that he was concerned that an applicant could bypass town council and move forward with a proposal, like in the case of a pier that extends beyond the length of allowance in the town’s ordinance. Varnell said that is why the Board of Adjustments and town council sit as two different legislative bodies, and the town would still have the ability to appeal a ruling if they think it’s violative of the town ordinance and did not meet the factors of a variance.

Councilwoman Charlotte Walker spoke on the pier that currently exists in Kitty Hawk at 300 feet: “What if you go below 300 feet and you’ve already gotten one that’s 300 feet? That just cuts out another step for Kitty Hawk.” She added that despite what the town ordinance says, the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) could deny the construction or extension of a pier due to unmet qualifications.

“Since the last meeting, I’ve physically taken a tape in waders and gone 200, 250 and 300 and there’s not that much of a difference in the 250 to 300,” Hines said. He again expressed his concern for working waterman their ability to make a living.

Pruitt then made a motion to approve the text amendment, allowing piers up to 250-ft. max in length. The motion carried 4-1, with Walker being the lone member in opposition.

Stone, from the audience, asked the council if the prior motion was rescinded, to which Hines responded, “Correct.” Stone approached the podium to voice his displeasure with the new approval. “Ultimately, CAMA has the say in this. So, it’s two governing bodies on the same matter complicating what the residents have to deal with.” Mayor Craig Garriss advised Stone to bring up the matter with Testerman, as the decision had already been made and the hearing was now over.

Next, the council heard about a commercial site plan review for the location of the former Sea Kove motel. The current owners/applicants had requested to replace the former motel at 4600 N Virginia Dare Trail with a new motel and restaurant. The property is presently zoned General Beach Commercial (BC-1) and is currently vacant. Restaurants are currently permitted by-right in the BC-1 district, but motels are not. However, Section 42-250(h) applies to this scenario, which states that any motel, hotel, inn or cottage court in the BC or BH zones may “rebuild structures containing one or more rental units and/or freestanding structures used for rental purposes …”

Testerman noted that the site plan does not add any additional rental structures from what was currently on site (six), and while the structures are proposed to be larger than what was previously on site, the density (number of potential customers sleeping in said rental units) is not proposing to be increased. The planning director said that staff would need an outdoor lighting plan, copies of septic and stormwater permits, and documentation from engineering verifying that the permeable pavers being used are compliant materials in order to approve the site plan. He also shared that the planning board unanimously recommended approval of the site plan at its November meeting.

Pruitt expressed concerns about parking, bringing up the fact that the town had provided parking for beach-goers and “one-day people” adjacent to the property. In looking at the site plan, Pruitt noted, “The steps from the motel end at the parking lot, why would that be?”

The applicant clarified that the proposed stairs Pruitt was referencing would be coming off of the restaurant, and that they would need to have sufficient parking for those who wanted to access the restaurant. Pruitt said he would like a separation between the parking lot for the motel/restaurant to discourage people from using the short-term parking, “because it’s there for people who want to go to the beach.” After hearing the reasoning behind adding in the steps as an extra layer of precaution for pedestrians, Pruitt was on board.

Pruitt also noted in the site plan that there was a proposed future sidewalk to be constructed by the Town of Kitty Hawk. “Does that not in some way say that we’re going to [construct this]?” The applicant said it was also added as a safety measure for pedestrians.

Hines made a motion to approve the commercial site plan with the conditions laid out by staff and the removal of the town-constructed sidewalk as noted in the site plan. All were in favor.

Lastly, Testerman informed the board of Senate Bill 382 and its anticipated effects on zoning. The bill includes new language regarding “down-zoning,” specifically noting that decreasing density development of land, reducing permitted uses of land and/or creating any type of nonconformity on land not in a residential zoning district would require the written consent of every property owner affected by the change.

“This will greatly impact how localities and towns are able to manage growth and development how they see fit,” Testerman remarked. Pruitt expressed his favor in moving forward with a resolution in opposition of Senate Bill 382. Garriss said it “will be done.”

The next Kitty Hawk Town Council meeting will take place on January 6 at 6 p.m. at the Town Hall.

READ ABOUT MORE NEWS HERE.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE COASTLAND TIMES TODAY!