Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Multifamily topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nags Head delays multifamily zoning changes after lengthy public hearing
Summary
After hours of public testimony and debate, the Nags Head Board of Commissioners voted to pause and workshop two competing multifamily ordinance drafts, asking staff and the planning board to consolidate language and return in October; the motion passed despite the mayor voting no.
The Nags Head Board of Commissioners on Sept. 4 paused consideration of competing multifamily zoning ordinances after more than two hours of public comment and extended board deliberations.
Town manager Andy Garman presented two draft ordinances — a working-group version and a planning-board recommendation — aimed at allowing multifamily development intended for long-term and workforce housing while excluding short-term rentals. The proposals split projects into "large" and "small" categories, set new floor-area-ratio and unit-size limits, required deed restrictions for workforce occupancy, and proposed special-use review for larger projects.
The issue drew more than a dozen residents and industry representatives to the podium. Developer and Sugar Creek property owner Peter Pinto told the board that the proposed deed restrictions and unit-size limits would make multifamily projects financially unfeasible and said, "If you approve either of these proposed ordinances, there will be no, multifamily housing in NAGS Head." Several commenters asked for protections against overbuilding, clear caps on how many large projects could be approved townwide, and enforceable terms for how long units would remain deed-restricted.
Planning-board members and some commissioners urged more outreach and clearer drafting. Planning-board chair Megan Vaughn and members said the public needed more time to absorb two different sets of standards and that a cap or other controls on large projects should be considered. Bob Mueller, representing a planning-board perspective, urged a public workshop with visual examples so residents could see how scaled projects would fit into neighborhood contexts.
Mayor Cahoon clarified a key point about restrictions: "A deed restriction is perpetual," he said, explaining that deed restrictions recorded at the county remain in force for as long as the unit exists.
Commissioners discussed possible fixes — including raising parking requirements, limiting building footprint size, preserving architectural compatibility, and adding a townwide cap on large projects. After debate, a motion carried to hold a mid‑month, public workshop (the board scheduled a 9 a.m. workshop on Sept. 18) that would include builders and to table the item for action at the October meeting. Mayor Cahoon said he would vote "nay" on the motion to delay but the motion passed by majority vote.
Next steps: staff and the planning board were directed to consolidate the two ordinance drafts, incorporate public and builder feedback from the workshop, clarify deed‑restriction monitoring and reporting responsibilities, and return with a single draft for consideration at the October meeting.
Votes and procedural outcome: The motion to hold the workshop and table the ordinance passed; commissioners set a mid-month workshop and a return to the board in October.
