Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sunset Beach planning board denies subject 13 site plan over building-height dispute
Summary
The Town of Sunset Beach Planning Board voted to deny the applicant’s site-plan submission for Subject 13, citing noncompliance with the 50-foot building-height limit. The board encouraged the applicant to pursue a conditional-zoning amendment or submit revised plans that meet the UDO.
The Town of Sunset Beach Planning Board on Jan. 15 voted to deny the site-plan submission for Subject 13, a proposed four‑story multifamily project, after members concluded the plan did not comply with the town's 50‑foot height restriction.
Staff introduced the item as a continuation from a prior meeting, saying building height remained the principal unresolved issue and that the applicant had submitted a letter and cross‑section to justify extra rooftop height for elevator equipment and a ridge vent. Ron, town staff, told the board the conditional‑zoning materials include a clause that, unless otherwise specified, minimum UDO requirements apply.
The applicant's civil engineer argued the design meets the UDO's height definition when measured as mean roof height and that mechanical equipment necessitates a 4/12 roof pitch that pushes the ridge to roughly 53 feet. "The mean roof height of 47 feet is below the 50 feet," the engineer said, adding the extra ridge resulted from roof pitch and equipment access rather than a taller occupied floor.
Multiple planning board members disputed that reading of the conditional zoning. One member noted the conditional‑zoning agreement for Subject 13 lists a 50‑foot limit without exceptions and said the board should not effectively change zoning terms through a site‑plan approval. The same member moved to deny the application "based on submission. Building height alone," and the motion, seconded by staff, passed.
The board did not record a roll‑call tally in the meeting transcript; members voted by voice. After the denial, the board directed staff to work with the applicant to prepare a conditional‑zoning amendment for Subject 13 (and, if the applicant chooses, for related sites) or for the applicant to submit revised building plans that clearly comply with the UDO.
The town's staff advised that a denial can be appealed to the zoning board of adjustment, and the applicant retains other administrative paths (revised plans or an amendment) to pursue approval. The planning board also noted that any conditional‑zoning amendment would require public hearings before the planning board and town council.
Next steps: the applicant may revise the site plan to show a 50‑foot maximum or pursue a conditional‑zoning amendment; the planning board will consider any future submittal or amendment per the normal public hearing schedule.
