Board of Adjustment upholds town's ruling on West Main parking reconfiguration

The Town of Sunset Beach Board of Adjustment on Aug. 13 unanimously denied an appeal by Fairlane Investors LLC challenging a zoning administrator's determination that a town-installed parking reconfiguration did not require Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) site-plan review.

The appeal centered on a town-owned parcel identified in the record as Brunswick County parcel 263HA001, at the west end of West Main Street near 40th Street. Fairlane's attorney, Jeffrey Rother, argued the town's March reconfiguration ' which added perpendicular spaces, parking blocks and signage and converted parallel on-street spaces ' amounted to "development" under UDO section 7.3 and therefore should have been subject to the same site-plan and parking standards required of private property owners. Rother pointed to the UDO's definition of "development," which includes "any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate," and told the board it should require the town to submit the plan for review.

"The central question today is whether the town is subject to its own rules with regard to this parking work," Rother said. He urged the board to reverse the administrator's interpretation and require the town to review the plan against parking standards intended to prevent vehicles from backing into the right of way.

Town staff and counsel countered that the UDO's development definition is bounded by "land-disturbing activity" that adds or changes impervious surface or decreases infiltration, and that the improvements here did not add impervious cover. Town attorney Grady Richardson and town administrator Lisa Anglin testified that the area had been used for parking for decades and that resurfacing, new striping and blocks did not increase impervious area.

Nancy MacFarlane, a member of Fairlane Investors LLC and an owner of a nearby property, testified that since the reconfiguration the area had experienced congestion, blocked driveway access, missed mail deliveries and difficulty for service vehicles. She and the appellant submitted a binder of photographs, surveys and a timeline that the board admitted into evidence.

After hearing evidence and legal argument, board members discussed whether the town's actions changed the site's footprint or impervious coverage. Several members said they viewed the work as a reconfiguration of on-street parking rather than a development requiring site-plan review. The board voted 5-0 to deny the appeal, thereby affirming the zoning administrator's determination.

The board's decision was procedural: it addressed the scope of the UDO definition of development and whether the town's activity fit that definition under the ordinance and relevant statutory guidance. The record shows the board relied on the staff report, evidence submitted by the appellant (Exhibit 3), the UDO (Exhibit 2) and testimony from town staff and the applicant.

The board did not adopt enforcement actions in the hearing record about parking operations, such as towing or ticketing; town counsel noted those are enforcement matters separate from the appeal. The appeal record (including the town's staff report and the applicant's exhibits) will remain part of the public record for the case.

The board's vote closes this appeal; the applicant retains any external legal remedies permitted by law (for example, judicial review) but no further action was taken by the board at this meeting.