Sunset Beach planning board forwards UDO changes to council after final edits, flags premature hearing notice

The Town of Sunset Beach Planning Board voted unanimously April 23 to recommend that Town Council adopt a revised text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance that clarifies powers, duties and composition for the planning board and the board of adjustment.

The motion, approved 4-0, forwards a draft that incorporates three categories of changes: two specific edits proposed by the board of adjustment, wording and organizational fixes throughout article 2, and a set of clarifications on when council direction is required. The board requested that the final version be distributed to members before it is posted for the council hearing.

Ron Sadderfield, staff who briefed the board, said the Board of Adjustment reviewed section 2.4 and approved two edits to be incorporated: (1) adding a sentence that ETJ (extraterritorial jurisdiction) members have equal rights and privileges when acting on ETJ matters "and all areas within the corporate limits of the town," and (2) modifying the oath/subpoena language so the chairperson or the clerk of the Board of Adjustment is expressly authorized to administer oaths. Staff presented a consolidated "blue" copy that merged prior redlines and the board-of-adjustment language for the planning board to review.

Board members spent extensive time reconciling three different documents in circulation—the original amendment from council, the redlined staff draft previously discussed by the planning board, and the document produced by the Board of Adjustment. Several members said they could not vote until staff produced a single, final text. The board recessed briefly so staff could prepare and print a corrected draft for expedited review; when they reconvened they walked through punctuation, numbering and several accidental deletions before making a recommendation.

A recurring substantive issue was how to describe the planning board's authority: the approved language keeps a core list of duties in the UDO while inserting a clarifier that "town council's request" refers to a formal action confirmed by a majority vote in open session. Members debated whether that phrasing would unintentionally limit the board's ability to raise or initiate amendments; staff pointed to the UDO and state statute provisions that allow "any interested party" to propose changes.

The board also confirmed that final plats and certain quasi‑judicial actions remain administrative responsibilities (handled by the UDO administrator or other staff) and would not be transferred to the planning board. Members restored consistency between planning-board and board-of-adjustment provisions on removal for cause, attendance defaults, and ETJ parity.

Several members objected that Town Council had already advertised a May 4 public hearing based on the original council-submitted language, before the planning board had finalized or published the revised recommendation. Staff told the board the agenda materials currently available to the public reflect the council’s original submission, and that the planning board's recommendation, the staff report and alternate ordinance language would be posted once the board's final text was delivered to staff for the council packet.

Resident Candace Seban of 611 Lakeshore Drive offered public comment at the end of the meeting, thanking the board for preserving transparency and the board's deliberative process. The planning board then adjourned.

What happens next: staff will publish the planning board's recommendation and the related materials for Town Council's May 4 agenda; Council may proceed, defer or take other action at that hearing.