Nags Head board tables proposed UDO 'restaurant waiting lounge' after enforcement and fairness concerns

NAGS HEAD, N.C. — The Nags Head Board of Commissioners voted April 15 to table a proposed amendment to the town’s Unified Development Ordinance that would create a new accessory use called a “restaurant waiting lounge,” giving staff time to address enforcement and fairness concerns and scheduling further hearings for May 6.

Planning staff presented the amendment as a tool to help restaurants manage overflow at peak times. The proposal, filed by Albamar and Associates on behalf of Blue Moon Restaurant, would add a narrowly defined accessory use allowed only by special‑use permit. Staff said the draft ordinance requires the lounge to be indoors, under common ownership or control, located on the same or a contiguous parcel (separated only by a town‑maintained street), and subordinate to the principal restaurant. Parking would be calculated by including lounge square footage in the restaurant’s customer service area at one parking space per 55 square feet, staff said. The draft also states the lounge “shall serve patrons of the associated restaurant and shall not operate as a standalone establishment.”

Why the board paused: Commissioners raised three recurring concerns. Several members said the language could create a de facto loophole around the town’s existing limit on bar and entertainment space (the so‑called 15% rule), allowing a restaurant to operate an effectively bar‑like space on a contiguous parcel and thereby gain more alcohol‑focused seating than other businesses. Members also noted potential enforcement difficulties — detecting whether a lounge is operating independently and proving a special‑use violation could be complaint‑driven and resource‑intensive — and worried the change would advantage businesses that can acquire adjacent property, creating an uneven playing field.

Applicant response: Jay Overton of Albamar, representing the Shields (owners of Blue Moon), said the proposal grew from a practical problem: long waits, parking spillover and summer heat. Overton said the owners bought an adjacent event building to relieve parking and want to use that existing structure as an overflow waiting area tied to the restaurant rather than as a separate event business. “We’re trying to put forth ways to solve the issue,” he said, arguing the change would help a successful local business without adding net dining capacity in the restaurant.

Board action and next steps: After extended questioning about outdoor seating, the 15% entertainment standard, parking calculations and enforcement mechanisms, a motion to table the ordinance was made, amended to return to the board on May 6, and carried. The board also voted to schedule a May 6 public hearing to consider the current ordinance language and alternative ordinance language that would separately define uses such as lounges, taprooms and wine bars. The Blue Moon special‑use site plan was also tabled to May 6.

What remains unresolved: Staff did not provide a parcel‑level inventory during the hearing of other sites that could take advantage of the amendment; commissioners asked staff to report back on how many current restaurants could use the rule and what enforcement options (including possible sales‑percentage reporting, monitoring, or clearer numeric thresholds) the town might lawfully require. The ordinance as drafted leaves those matters to special‑use review and potential conditions, but several commissioners said they want clearer, more practical standards before allowing a new use townwide.

The board’s tabling vote did not include a detailed roll‑call in the transcript; the clerk recorded the motion’s adoption and at least one recorded opposition. The item is scheduled for further consideration at the May 6 meeting, when staff will return with additional analysis and potential alternate ordinance text.