Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nags Head denies text amendment for ‘restaurant waiting facility’ after commissioners warn it could create a bar loophole
Summary
The board voted to deny a proposal to add a standalone, detached "restaurant waiting facility" accessory use to the UDO after split testimony and lengthy commissioner debate about whether the change would let restaurants circumvent existing limits and effectively create standalone bar uses.
The Nags Head Board of Commissioners voted to deny a proposed UDO text amendment on May 6 that would have created a new accessory category called a "restaurant waiting facility," which an applicant said was intended to address parking and waiting problems at a busy downtown restaurant.
Planning Director Kelly Wyatt explained that the proposal — submitted on behalf of Blue Moon Beach Grill — would allow a detached, enclosed accessory waiting facility on a qualifying site via a special-use-permit and unified development plan, subject to common ownership, hours tied to the principal restaurant, and limits on signage and entertainment. Applicant representative Jay Overton said the amendment was intended "not to create something new" but to solve a space-and-parking problem for an existing business.
Several commissioners opposed adopting a townwide text amendment for a use that could, in some circumstances, allow a separate structure where people could be served drinks without the restraints that currently apply to restaurants. Commissioner Harrison and others argued the change could be a policy workaround that would give a de facto bar in a detached building and erode consistency with existing land-use rules. Supporters argued the special-use-permit process and required unified development plan would allow the board to impose site-specific conditions and that the amendment would solve operational problems for legitimate applicants.
After extended deliberations and public testimony from the applicant, the board voted to deny the amendment. Commissioners who opposed the amendment cited enforcement concerns, the possibility that the waiting facility could function as an unregulated bar, and the need for broader public engagement before enabling the new use townwide.
Next steps: staff said the applicant would still be able to pursue site-specific solutions via existing processes, and the board left open the possibility of a different approach with broader public input and clearer guardrails if the town later chooses to revisit the issue.
