Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nags Head planning board denies townwide request to cut building separation from 20 to 10 feet
Summary
The Planning Board voted July 15 to deny a townwide text amendment by TW's Outdoor Outfitters that would have reduced the Unified Development Ordinance—s minimum building separation from 20 feet to 10 feet, citing design, safety and town-character concerns.
On July 15 the Nags Head Planning Board voted to deny a text amendment request from Chris Greening of TW's Outdoor Outfitters that would have reduced the townwide minimum separation between commercial structures from 20 feet to 10 feet when an accessory building is adjacent to a principal commercial use. The motion to deny carried on a voice vote after a staff presentation and board discussion.
Kelly, a planning staff member, told the board the request concerns UDO section 10.86 (commercial design standards) and the town's long-standing 3:1 length-to-width and 20-foot separation guidelines. "After doing this research, staff would not support the proposed text amendment to reduce the required building separation from 20 feet to 10 feet," Kelly said, saying the standard preserves pedestrian scale, visual breaks between buildings and helps with stormwater, light and emergency access.
Kelly reviewed the ordinance history, noting the separation rule dates back to 1977 and the 3:1 ratio was added in 1983. She also cited examples of local developments that do and do not meet the current standards and said staff reached out to the building inspector and deputy fire chief, who indicated they could not fully evaluate a townwide text amendment without a site plan but warned that reduced separation could trigger additional fire-safety measures under evolving fire-code requirements.
Board members raised questions about emergency access, parking constraints and whether a property owner could instead rezone back to a more intensive C3 classification if the amendment were denied. One board member noted the potential for "unintended consequences" if the change were applied townwide and said the visual and safety trade-offs merited caution.
Committee member S1 moved to deny the amendment; Committee member S8 seconded. The motion passed by voice vote. Following the vote the board moved on to other agenda items.
The denial applies to a townwide change in the Unified Development Ordinance; it does not preclude future site-specific proposals or amendments that present different facts or mitigation. Officials did not set a follow-up date for a revised proposal from the applicant.
