Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Udo Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies townwide text amendment to reduce building separation from 20 to 10 feet
Summary
The Nags Head Board of Commissioners voted to deny a townwide text amendment that would have reduced the required building separation in the Unified Development Ordinance from 20 feet to 10 feet for accessory buildings, following staff and planning-board recommendations to retain the existing standard.
The Nags Head Board of Commissioners on Sept. 3 denied a proposed townwide change to the Unified Development Ordinance that would have reduced the required separation between multiple commercial buildings from 20 feet to 10 feet for buildings accessory to a principal commercial use.
Planning and development director Kelly Wyatt told the board the 20-foot separation has existed in the town's regulations since the 1970s and is intended "to prevent the appearance of large strip style buildings," preserve Nags Head's small-scale character and allow landscaping and light between structures. Staff and the planning board both recommended denial. "Reducing this to 10 feet would undermine the objectives and could set a precedent that's inconsistent with our design standards," Wyatt said during the public hearing presentation.
Commissioners questioned whether the standard applies to accessory structures, how the 3:1 length-to-width rule interacts with the separation requirement, and the interplay between zoning and building/fire codes. Wyatt explained the ordinance now applies the commercial-design standards to accessory buildings larger than 500 square feet and said the applicant was not present to clarify a site-specific intent.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to deny the amendment, the motion was seconded and the board voted to approve the denial. The vote was recorded by voice; individual roll-call tallies were not specified in the hearing record. The planning board had unanimously recommended denial at its July meeting.
What happens next: the text of section 10.86.2.4.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance remains unchanged and any applicant seeking a reduction must pursue site-specific relief or return with more detailed justification for a targeted amendment. The board signaled interest in more focused planning-board review rather than a blanket code change.
