Southern Shores board denies variance request after contested hearing over 75 East Dogwood Trail

The Southern Shores Planning Board, acting as the Board of Adjustment, denied a variance requested by Anthony S. Mina that would have allowed subdivision of 75 East Dogwood Trail, the board said at a meeting on Oct. 21, 2024.

Mina had asked the board to grant relief from town code section 30‑96(f) (that all lots front on a public road) and section 36‑202(d) (a 100‑foot minimum lot width for lots created after June 6, 2023) so he could split a roughly 47,000‑square‑foot parcel. He also filed a motion to preclude the hearing, alleging in writing and in testimony that town staff had withheld or misrepresented zoning notices and that those actions harmed his ability to pursue a subdivision. The board voted to deny the motion to preclude before hearing the full variance case.

Town staff presented a staff report, read into the record by Planning & Code Enforcement staffer Wes Haskett, explaining the town had received two subdivision applications from Mina on July 3, 2024 and had issued denial letters on July 16, 2024. Haskett told the board the denials were based on the applications’ failure to meet subdivision and zoning standards — specifically that proposed lots did not front on a public road and did not satisfy the 100‑foot lot width requirement for lots created after June 6, 2023. "All applicable notification requirements established in North Carolina General Statute 160D and in the town zoning ordinance were satisfied prior to adoption," Haskett said in his staff presentation.

Mina disputed the town’s account. He testified he had repeatedly asked town staff about the property’s subdivisability in May 2023 and said an email chain he obtained in a public records request showed staff had told him by June 1, 2023 that subdivision looked possible — but that a June 6, 2023 text amendment later clarified a 100‑foot requirement and effectively precluded subdivision. "The zoning code was hidden from me," Mina said during testimony, arguing the timing left him with financial loss he quantified in testimony at roughly $75,000 and created an "unnecessary hardship" for his family and business plans.

The hearing included a long exchange over the admissibility of documents and the scope of testimony. Town counsel and the board objected several times to allegations that went beyond the statutory variance criteria, and the chair sustained several relevancy objections. Several applicant exhibits were admitted after the board reviewed and redacted handwritten commentary, while others were excluded as hearsay for the purposes of the applicant’s primary evidentiary showing but may be used on cross‑examination.

After a round of board and town questioning, and after hearing closing arguments, the board voted separately on each of the four statutory variance factors required under North Carolina law. The board found, by recorded roll‑call, that the applicant had not demonstrated: that strict application of the ordinance would cause an unnecessary hardship; nor that any hardship was peculiar to the property rather than shared by other lots; and that the hardship had not primarily resulted from actions taken by the applicant. The board further found the requested variance would be inconsistent with the ordinance’s stated spirit and purpose to preserve low‑density residential character. Chair and members recorded no votes in favor on the critical criteria, and the board voted to deny the variance. A motion to deny the variance was made and carried unanimously.

What the board decided

- Application: VA‑24‑01 (Anthony S. Mina) — request to vary town code sections 30‑96(f) and 36‑202(d) to permit subdivision of 75 East Dogwood Trail. - Town position: Staff recommended denial, citing denials of two subdivision plats and the adoption of code language requiring 100‑foot lot widths for lots created after 06/06/2023. - Applicant position: Mina argued he relied on town staff communications and marketing materials indicating the lot was "potentially" subdividable; he alleged town staff failed to provide required notice and that later code changes prevented the subdivision he expected. - Board outcome: Motion to preclude denied; variance denied (board voted that applicant failed to meet the required statutory criteria). The denial followed separate roll‑call votes on each of the four statutory factors, and the board adopted findings consistent with the staff report.

What’s next

The board concluded its duties as the Board of Adjustment for this case and returned to regular planning board business. The meeting record shows Mina’s application and the admitted exhibits will be part of the administrative record, which Mina may use in any appeal he chooses to pursue in the judicial system. The planning board announced its next regular meeting for Nov. 18 and adjourned.

Reporting notes

The transcript and the board’s staff report show the central legal questions hinged on the subdivision ordinance provisions and on the timing and content of the town’s 2021 and 2023 text amendments. Mina’s allegation that the town failed to meet certain posting or notice obligations was raised repeatedly but the board limited testimony on broader accusations as outside the variance criteria; staff maintained the statutory notice process for text amendments had been satisfied. The board’s final vote was based on the variance criteria in state statute and the town code, as reflected in the staff report admitted into evidence.