Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Controversy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nags Head denies proposal for 'restaurant waiting facility,' citing concern it could become de facto bars
Summary
After extended debate about enforcement and town‑wide implications, the Board of Commissioners denied a text amendment that would have allowed detached 'restaurant waiting facilities' as accessory uses, concluding the change risked enabling standalone bar‑type activity.
The Nags Head Board of Commissioners voted May 6 to deny a proposed UDO text amendment that would have created a new accessory use category—originally described as a "restaurant waiting lounge," later revised to "restaurant waiting facility"—that applicants argued would let busy restaurants provide enclosed, climate‑controlled waiting areas.
Planning Director Kelly Wyatt explained staff revisions intended to keep the use accessory and subordinate to a principal restaurant: common ownership, unified development plan and special‑use permitting, closure by 11 p.m. or when the restaurant closes, inclusion of the waiting facility’s area in parking calculations, and prohibition on freestanding signage. Jay Overton of Albemarle and Associates, representing the applicant, said the proposal was meant to "solve a problem" for a specific restaurant by enabling controlled, accessory space rather than creating a new independent use.
Several commissioners voiced strong reservations about town‑wide consequences and enforceability. "I've looked at this from every angle I can possibly think of… I want to support the applicant… but the more I look at this, there's just some things in this ordinance that I'm just not comfortable with," Commissioner Harrison said. Other commissioners warned the accessory structure could be used as a workaround to create a bar‑type use that would not adhere to existing 15% accessory‑area limits and could be difficult to enforce across the town.
After discussion, the board voted to deny the amendment; a motion to deny was made, seconded and carried by voice vote. Staff noted applicants may still pursue site‑specific relief through other established permitting processes but the town will not adopt the proposed town‑wide text change.
