Nags Head commissioners table proposal to allow “restaurant waiting lounges” after enforcement, fairness concerns

The Nags Head Board of Commissioners on April 15 heard a public hearing on a proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) change that would create a new accessory use category called a "restaurant waiting lounge," then voted to table the proposal to the board's May 6 meeting and schedule a May 6 public hearing on related ordinance options.

Planning and development director Kelly White told the board the change, requested on behalf of Blue Moon Restaurant by Albemarle & Associates, is intended to provide an indoor, permanent, accessory space where patrons can wait to be seated. White said the use would be allowed only through a special‑use permit and a unified development plan so the board retains case‑by‑case discretion. "This amendment creates a very narrowly defined accessory use, that must be indoor and within a permanent structure," White said, adding the lounge must remain subordinate to the principal restaurant and that any additional waiting‑area square footage would be counted in the restaurant's customer service area for parking calculations.

Jay Overton of Albemarle & Associates, representing owners Scott and Melissa Shields, described long wait times at Blue Moon and said the owners purchased a nearby event building to provide overflow parking and seating. "Utilizing the existing building as an extension of the waiting area would seem to be a good way to overcome this," Overton said, explaining the proposal was prompted by operational pressures and by a desire not to add a separate principal business at the site.

Multiple commissioners pressed staff and the applicant about how the waiting lounge would differ from a bar and how the town would enforce limits. Commissioners noted the town's existing 15% cap on bar and entertainment space in sit‑down restaurants and worried the new accessory category could function as a workaround if a restaurant owner acquired contiguous land. "Calling it a restaurant waiting lounge doesn't change how it operates in practice," one commissioner said, adding the proposed accessory structure could effectively allow much larger areas dedicated to bar seating than the current supplemental regulations permit.

White and others said the governing test would be whether the lounge operates "solely in conjunction with the principal restaurant use" or as an independent establishment; enforcement would be complaint‑driven and could include notices of violation and revocation of the special‑use permit if the lounge predominately served as an independent drinking establishment. White acknowledged there is no numeric sales threshold in current local ordinances and said staff could explore additional conditions such as hours or signage.

Rather than vote on the ordinance as drafted, the board voted to table the request until the May 6 meeting and directed staff to return with additional information and alternatives, including possible separate ordinances to define lounges, taprooms or beer‑and‑wine uses and tailored supplemental standards. The board also scheduled a May 6 public hearing to consider the proposed amendment and any related ordinance options.

The item remains under review; staff said it will return with proposed language and options for enforcement and definition at the May meeting.