Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agenda Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sunset Beach board debates removing 'planning board comments' while pressing for clearer public-hearing rules
Summary
Board members discussed a request to remove the recurring "planning board comments" agenda item, agreed the item should be limited to UDO-related matters under Chair Steph's management, and asked staff to clarify public-hearing and advertising procedures to improve transparency and early public participation.
During its June 18 meeting, the Sunset Beach Planning Board debated whether to remove a recurring "planning board comments" agenda item following a letter, attributed in the meeting record to the mayor, asking that the item be struck from future agendas.
Chair Steph said he supported keeping a planning-board comment period but limiting it to items directly related to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and managing the item so it does not become an unfocused discussion. "My management of comments would be such that I'm open to any comments and discussion," Steph said, adding he would direct the item toward matters that lead to a path for UDO changes and would require members to demonstrate the specific sections of the UDO implicated by a proposed topic.
Ron, the planning director, relayed the letter proposing removal and said the change was driven in part by concerns about staff time and the planning contract. He also noted that council has authority over adoption of rules for boards and suggested council review rules and procedures. Michael and Ron supported Steph's approach of keeping the item but narrowing its scope while Steph is chair.
Board members also discussed improving transparency for early-stage development and public participation. Michael requested that staff craft code language clarifying when planning-board or council public hearings are required, how hearings are advertised, and whether the planning board should vote to hold a hearing or may decline. Ron said the town currently posts agendas on its website and places notices in the Brunswick Beacon but acknowledged the UDO contains language that reads "may" rather than a firm procedure in some places, creating ambiguity about when a public hearing is required.
Other administrative updates: Ron said recruitment for an Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) planning-board member produced at least one application that later withdrew and that no applicants remain pending; he encouraged outreach to generate interest. Ron also said Anchor Point Planning provided raw survey data for the land-use plan and that the consultant will appear before the Town Council on July 13 to discuss the plan and next steps.
No members of the public spoke during the public-comment period, and the board adjourned after recording the day's actions.
