[0:00] That's it.
>> All right, we'll get started with the
[0:04] town of Seed Point Planning Board
meeting for September 1st. Uh, call to
[0:08] order and roll call. Michael Castellano
>> here. Phil Davis
[0:12] » here.
>> Brad Smith here.
[0:13] » Tony Mitchell here.
>> David Autry here.
[0:15] » Ed Owens here.
>> We are all present. Uh, has everyone had
[0:20] a chance to look at the meeting minutes
from July 7th?
[0:24] Any concerns, problems, changes
suggested?
[0:28] And if not, someone want to make a
motion to approve?
[0:31] » I'll make a motion to approve.
>> Second. Okay. All in favor? Minutes are
[0:37] approved for July 7th. New business.
First is a resoning request RZ206
[0:43] PAC02.
David, want to give us the gist of it?
[0:47] Sir.
>> Uh, this is a request for a
[0:51] reasonzoning. Uh, the current zoning of
the property is R15M.
[0:55] They're requesting a B1
uh zoning. I'll give you a little aerial
[1:01] map here. So, this is Western Park on
the lefth hand side of the screen. So,
[1:05] this is Old Highway 58. Uh the property
um that's being proposed for reszoning
[1:11] is here at 258 Old Highway 58. To the
north is R15M. To the south is B1. This
[1:17] property is um this is an older aerial.
Doesn't show the new Crossley building
[1:23] sits on this track here, 246. So, that's
the adjoining property. Um,
[1:29] so the application is there in the
packet. I'm not going to read it to you.
[1:33] He he put in some responses to the
questions for you. Um, I will say from
[1:38] the town standpoint,
uh, this proposal is completely in line
[1:42] with the town's long-term plan. If we
look at our final, uh, camel
[1:48] comprehensive land use plan,
look at the future land use map here.
[1:53] I'll zoom in. Uh this property is on the
right hand side of old old highway 58 uh
[2:00] which is
uh shown here south of Sherwood Avenue.
[2:05] Actually it's just north of Sherwood
Avenue. So this area right here and as
[2:09] you can see it's all shown in red with
red being uh future use for commercial
[2:14] and office
uh rather than residential use. So his
[2:19] proposal is in keeping line with the
town's intentions. I think if we had the
[2:23] ability to force a reasonzoning um which
I mean we technically could but it's
[2:28] usually not very politically favor you
know favored a little frowned upon um it
[2:34] would all be zoned commercial that would
be the long-term intention would be for
[2:37] that road to be our next commercial
corridor.
[2:40] So, uh, with that, I did go ahead and
provide you a
[2:46] page here, a, uh, consistency statement
that does indicate a favorable, uh,
[2:54] response to approve the reasoning
request because it is consistent with
[2:58] the comprehensive land use plan. Uh,
specifically, the future land use map as
[3:03] all of the east side of old highway 58
including this parcel as shown as
[3:06] commercial and office.
I'm open to any questions that you have
[3:10] on this one.
>> So, uh, what's the, uh, was it the 10,00
[3:17] circle on the intersection of 5824? Do
you have a overview?
[3:21] » Um, I don't have that pulled up. If I
could get you on it is within the
[3:24] central business overlay district, but
>> Okay. And then, wasn't the town weren't
[3:29] we going to build a path all the way to
through that? Don't we have an easement
[3:34] for
to connect the road or a pathway
[3:39] bike path that was going to tie in to uh
to the walking path. Wasn't there
[3:47] something I was going to cut across
here?
[3:49] » So, nothing to cut across in this
particular area. Um, two things you
[3:52] might be thinking of. One, the town's
plan would be to pull put a multi-use
[3:57] path
>> down the side of Old Highway 58.
[4:00] However, that would be on the west side,
so opposite of this property. Uh, and it
[4:05] would be within the existing rideway.
So, that would go all the way down Old
[4:09] Highway 58, come up to BFW Road, and
then have the potential to cross over to
[4:14] Cape Carter's path there. The other
thing you might be thinking of is
[4:20] uh a little south of this
uh I'll pull up um
[4:26] county GIS here.
Yeah, right there
[4:30] » is an extension of Sherwood Avenue.
>> Yes.
[4:33] » Um that would be designed as a road if
DOT would ever allow it.
[4:37] » But that propertyy's sitting right on
top of that, right?
[4:40] » No, this property is up here.
>> Okay.
[4:43] » And that potential road connections
further to the south.
[4:48] » Okay.
>> This one actually shows the cross of the
[4:52] building in place there.
[4:56] So if we go to
B
[5:02] what B
>> B1 is what's being requested which
[5:06] adjoins the neighboring B1
>> does uh B1 allow for multifamily use or
[5:13] no
>> no
[5:15] B1's um one commercial district that
does not allow
[5:21] » which this parcel isn't large enough to
do with multif family
[5:25] » any house barely large enough for single
family residential.
[5:29] » How wide is that at the
old highway 58?
[5:33] » Uh at the 58 side it's looking like 30
ft wide. At the old highway 58 117 ft.
[5:39] » Any uh indicators what may go in there?
>> No.
[5:44] No.
Um, I think one one of the issues that's
[5:48] kind of prompted this is across the
street, this property at 259 has been
[5:55] putting some stuff over there for his
marine contracting business. We've
[5:59] identified to him that that is a
violation of the ordinances and it would
[6:03] continue to be because we don't allow a
contractor's layown yard like that. Um,
[6:08] but by reszoning it to commercial, he
could actually park his trucks over
[6:12] there. At least get that out of his
property at 259.
[6:15] » Is that So the person who owns 259, is
he the one doing 258?
[6:21] » No, he does not. He's his son.
[6:27] Will there be access from Highway 58 um
through those woods to just from? So,
[6:36] we're not even allowed to provide access
uh to Highway 58 through this proposed
[6:43] connection here because that whole
section of Highway 58 is considered um
[6:51] um
>> No, it's a controlled access, fully
[6:56] controlled access on our side of the
road. The Karter side is considered
[7:00] partially controlled because there is
one cut in the fence, but it has the um
[7:05] fence that runs all the way along
through there. You just can't see it
[7:08] because it's behind the woods, but
that's controlled access. They would
[7:12] they said if we ever tried to connect
this road, it would have to go through
[7:16] the board of transportation for the
state and would probably require the
[7:21] payment of money to the state because
they paid to close that years and years
[7:25] ago, like decades at this point.
And then if we reszone it, would they
[7:30] then have to come in compliance with
buffer tree because now you're next to a
[7:35] residential?
>> So, uh, anything that they would do on
[7:40] that north side would have to require
buffer.
[7:43] » What about on the front side?
>> Uh, that would require street yard
[7:47] landscaping.
>> So, before he starts laying down. Oh,
[7:52] he's already using as a lay down, right?
>> He has been, which is in violation.
[7:56] side employ.
>> Okay. So, he'd have to come up. So,
[7:59] » that's why they're asking to resone,
>> but he would come back to us with
[8:03] landscaping plan or
>> would he would he have to if he was just
[8:07] parking trucks there?
>> We we probably wouldn't require as long
[8:10] as parking trucks. If he wanted to put a
structure on there, then he would have
[8:14] to.
[clears throat]
[8:16] » Any complaints from two 274 above it?
that we haven't heard anything from land
[8:25] pretty good pretty fair bit of
vegetation there.
[8:31] » Yeah.
[8:34] Is there anything stopping him from
ripping all that down and not leaving a
[8:38] vegetative butt he chose not to build?
Nothing stop
[8:46] a small house on it.
Well, that would not be the town's
[8:51] preference because our preference would
be that it all be commercial something.
[8:57] » So, is it the guy that owns 259 that
owns 258?
[9:02] » Family?
>> Family.
[9:04] » So, the owner of 258,
his son-in-law owns 259.
[9:14] That was a month or two ago.
Any
[9:20] questions?
Anybody want to make a motion to approve
[9:24] or deny the request in consistency
statements?
[9:33] I'll make a motion to approve the
resoning request 2026-02
[9:39] proposed consistency.
Okay, we have a motion to approve and
[9:44] the uh the resoning request and the
consistency stage. We have a second.
[9:51] All in favor?
Okay, it's unanimous. Approved.
[9:56] » We'll move on to reszoning request
RZ2026
[10:02] TAC03.
[10:05] » All right.
>> Go ahead.
[10:06] » Um if you don't mind, I'll I'll present
both of these together if that's okay.
[10:10] they are joining tracks of land. The
only reason it required two separate
[10:14] applications
>> is because the same owner
[10:18] » owner of the properties uh has them in
two separate LLC's. So the legal owners
[10:23] two separate LLC's but the individual
behind both of them
[10:27] » same we zone two.
>> Do you need the planning board to vote
[10:31] on them separately?
>> We'll vote on them separately but I'll
[10:34] go and present them to you.
>> Okay.
[10:36] » As one because they're they're so
similar. Uh applicant information is uh
[10:41] is there provided to you.
Um it says applicant is same as property
[10:47] owner but it's actually in an LLC just
for clarification.
[10:52] Um [clears throat]
both of these are currently zoned R20
[10:56] PUD which is for planned unit
development. We no longer have language
[11:00] in our ordinances that uh address puds.
Uh however this is uh this has been
[11:06] permitted years and years ago. It's a
fivephaseed plan. He has now done two of
[11:12] those five phases. A resoning would not
cause him to lose his vested rights,
[11:17] what you call it, his rights to continue
developing under that plan. So, he has
[11:22] two buildings there. His plan actually
allows for five. The zoning does not
[11:26] impact that.
>> Um, but the underlying zoning, uh, he's
[11:31] asking to be changed to B3. I'll show
you the the map of this. Uh is everybody
[11:36] familiar with the property where it's
located?
[11:40] » Um you've got two there they're there
two apartment buildings sitting here.
[11:44] ODM is the road that comes in along the
side property line right here to access
[11:49] both of them. Uh I can pull up and show
you the P drawing, but it basically
[11:52] shows two more buildings here and then
what one up here in the middle. Before
[11:56] he could put the one in the middle, he
would have to recombine those two lots.
[11:59] Mhm.
>> Uh [clears throat] which is part of the
[12:01] reason why he would not want to reszone
one and not the other because you have
[12:05] to go through the process later on to
reszone the other one. So that's why
[12:09] he's asking for them combined. Um he has
installed a pier out here on uh 125
[12:19] ODM and um has begun leasing slips, boat
slips out there, which is not uh
[12:26] technically permitted in a residential
zone.
[12:29] Um, however, apartments as these are are
allowed in both a residential 20 zone as
[12:36] well as a B3. So, that part's not an
issue. U, the reasoning can take place
[12:43] and still allow the uh development use
because that is allowed use in that. Um,
[12:48] but what he's actually asking for is to
bring it into compliance uh to allow
[12:53] those slips to be rented out separately
rather than just to the units of this
[12:57] property. Um, and it would allow him to
put a sign out front by it being a
[13:02] commercial property as opposed to
residential.
[13:05] Not going to change the use of it. It
still be apartments, but he can't put a
[13:11] sign advertising the actually he can't
advertise the units other than a small
[13:17] sign. Um he can't put in develop
development sign or uh something about
[13:23] the the boat slip at the back but they'd
be residential. Can you remind us what
[13:29] B3
might entail or gives them option of
[13:33] doing?
>> Sure I can give you some of that just
[13:37] second.
[13:46] So, under your permitted use table, uh
your B3,
[13:52] couple pages here,
ABC stores, antique gift stores,
[13:57] appliance stores, auction house, uh
automobile sales and rental, bakery and
[14:02] delicate testing, banks, barber, beauty
shops, bed and breakfast,
[14:08] business, vocational school, bar wash,
self service, clinic lab, commercial
[14:13] printing, streetyard display, place,
shopping center, convenience, food
[14:18] stores with or with gas,
docks and pierce commercial. Here's the
[14:24] one that being triggered.
>> Uh live, work, dwelling,
[14:30] uh town houses as a special use permit.
Uh,
[14:36] and you got general business, retail
sales, grocery stores, home centers,
[14:41] motel, hotel, labs,
special use for laundry, library,
[14:49] therapists,
[14:52] uh, club facilities, [clears throat]
[14:56] nonprofits, offices, lots of offices,
package treatment, box sewer treatment,
[15:03] some parks,
pet gramming, personal service.
[15:10] That's not a standalone use. The pre
fabricated cargo shipping containers,
[15:14] uh, production, retail, repair
facilities, indoor wreck.
[15:19] We got some restaurants and schools of
special use,
[15:24] signs, manufacturing, assembly, skating
rinks, spa, health club,
[15:30] theaters, [clears throat]
veterary clinic. One thing to know about
[15:34] uh this particular property, his um
not only is does he have the right to
[15:41] continue using it for the apartments
that is probably going to be his highest
[15:46] and best use for that property because
it is in fact in a flood plane as well.
[15:50] » So it would be difficult to develop
commercially other than for the for the
[15:55] smoke slips out of the back.
It being waterfront property, is there
[15:59] any particular reason we did not choose
a B2 property because that's typically
[16:03] for the for the waterfront things,
right?
[16:06] » So, um, with the B2, it does not allow
the residential.
[16:11] » Okay.
[16:15] [clears throat]
[16:18] » Did you say he was planning on building
more apartment units?
[16:20] » Yes.
>> Yeah. He has two buildings now. has the
[16:24] right to do another three on those
combined portions.
[16:29] » So even though B3 um allows those
particular businesses for what you know
[16:36] he's not by long doing those other ones
he's building more residential units.
[16:41] » That's my understanding
>> because yeah it's in a flood zone. He's
[16:44] he's gonna he would have to raise
everything
[16:47] » and those buildings are the residential
raised.
[16:49] » Yeah. But I mean a shop in you wouldn't
be able to put a shop. Well, I guess you
[16:52] could stilts put anything on stilts with
enough money.
[16:57] » You can put anything.
>> You got enough money.
[16:59] » You got enough money.
>> Yeah. They just don't unless you're
[17:03] putting something like a bar or
restaurant that's taking advantage of
[17:05] the water view.
>> It usually doesn't do well to put
[17:09] commercial on. stuff.
>> Uh once he is a
[17:14] business zone
and he builds something on there, he is
[17:19] neighboring residential zones.
>> He then have a vegetative buffer
[17:24] requirement
for
[17:27] » he wouldn't because of he's he has
vested rights under the plan that's
[17:31] already been approved.
So
[17:33] » as long as long as he builds it just
like it's shown on there. Okay.
[17:39] So if he were to choose to build
anything else or something commercial,
[17:44] » he would then need and the dock doesn't
count as a commercial building,
[17:48] » right?
>> Okay.
[17:50] So the property to the west of it, it's
got a pretty robust
[17:55] dock pier. I mean, are they renting that
out, too?
[17:58] » Yes.
>> So they're not
[18:02] the vehicles.
[18:07] » Yeah. So technically that should be
reszoned as well.
[18:12] » So what does the town do if if you're
not
[18:15] conforming?
Are they getting levied fines or what's
[18:19] what's going on?
>> No, because it hadn't crossed my mind
[18:21] until you asked the question.
[18:26] » I don't think anybody's just ever
thought of it. I'd have to go back to
[18:29] see if he's grant I don't know when it
went in. But I mean I don't know if he
[18:32] if he's continued to make use of it.
Certainly that's a newer structure. But
[18:36] I don't know if there was one before
that that was being used for that
[18:38] purpose or not
>> as GIS because GIS right now is 2026 the
[18:43] current uh satellite photos
because you're right. I mean to to
[18:49] Doug's question we got residential on
either side
[18:53] but you don't have to put anymore
either.
[18:57] Is there another uh reszone that would
cover his apartments inside the B3?
[19:04] » Another resone. any other I mean any
right okay residential but
[19:10] » that would cover so it would cover his
apartments.
[19:12] » Yes.
>> He's just trying to get it because of
[19:14] the dock.
>> Yeah. And to allow signage. That's
[19:16] really his that's what he came in about
was he wanted to put signage out front.
[19:21] It's like well signage for what? Well
for my rentals at the back. At that
[19:26] point we didn't know that they were
being rented. We just assumed they were
[19:28] like part of the apartment you know
usage.
[19:32] I'm curious about GIS though.
>> What are what's your G?
[19:38] » Just to see what the overhead photo is
for 2026.
[19:50] » Even added to it from your folder. Yeah.
[19:57] Six.
[20:02] And he built it new and always
residential.
[20:05] Okay.
[20:15] » So, so these question. So, so these are
the property lines.
[20:19] » So, if we go back to the other map,
[20:23] we go down to closer to the street. So
this this it's it's B1 in the front of
[20:29] that property but or 20 in the back.
That looks like that's one property.
[20:34] » It is.
>> It's a split zone property which we
[20:37] don't allow anymore.
>> Yeah, we have I think three of them left
[20:43] and two of them are on this right now.
>> What does a B
[20:48] ret transansition? How does that compare
to our overall land use plan for this
[20:52] area?
So, our land use plan shows it being
[20:56] residential.
Um,
[21:02] not there,
[21:11] but I suspect we or they recommended it
uh be residential or consultants because
[21:16] there's apartment buildings on there,
not thinking that it would ever change
[21:20] to something else.
[21:24] I mean it's
his focus. I mean he he built those
[21:28] docks knowing it was residential.
[21:41] You have a proposed consistency
statement for this should we choose to
[21:45] approve it.
>> Yeah. So um when you look at the consist
[21:50] I'll walk through
some of the things uh with it.
[21:58] So here's our KMA goals uh the CAM goals
and then our Cedar Point goals to recre
[22:03] uh embrace recreational identity to
ensure land use compatibility, improve
[22:07] multimodal transportation, strengthen
community resilience, embrace
[22:11] recreational identity again u resilience
and resilience.
[22:16] Um, so as far as a
uh get to the agenda packet.
[22:24] So if you were to recommend approval of
it, I would recommend um I would use the
[22:31] language that it's consistent with the
comp plan because one of the town's
[22:35] goals therein is to improve and expand
recreational opportunities in the town
[22:39] in including increasing access to the
water. The proposed resoning is to make
[22:43] its waterfront more usable by allowing
commercial use thereof for dock rentals
[22:47] including the advertising thereof.
Um you could also if you wanted to add
[22:53] to that look at it from the standpoint
of if we're providing dock rentals um
[22:59] along the waterfront. Um a small
facility like that creates more of a
[23:04] small town feel as opposed to a large
commercial marina. you could take that
[23:08] approach as well. Um if you're inclined
to deny it um then I would point to the
[23:15] um comprehensive land use plan and say
that even though it looks like the
[23:21] intention would be to keep it primarily
residential
[23:24] um due to the existing um HUD uh by
allowing it to be reszone commercial
[23:32] would allow for other commercial
development.
[23:35] not not um not in keeping with our
future land use plan. So, I think
[23:41] there's options either way you want to
go with it depending on what you want to
[23:44] focus on.
>> Will those boat slips be exclusively
[23:49] only available to the residents of those
buildings or be open to the public?
[23:54] » Open to the public.
>> Whoever wants to rent for rent.
[23:59] » If he only allowed residents of that
property to have the boat slips, would
[24:03] this be an issue? No.
And then when you go to B3, he could put
[24:08] a restaurant on stilts back there and
put parking on the front of the of his
[24:12] of the lot. There's enough room.
>> He can't build in closer.
[24:16] I mean, if he wants to tear those
buildings down,
[24:20] there's not enough room to put it right.
>> The septics are is back there. See that?
[24:23] See all the septic lines?
>> You'd have to re Okay.
[24:29] [clears throat]
[24:32] in the front uh schoolhouse. We get
closer to 24.
[24:40] » Does he have to follow the pled those
three other buildings
[24:44] » if he wants to put three more buildings
in there?
[24:46] » So what happens if I could he scrape
those plans for those three buildings
[24:50] and put something else there?
>> Yeah, he'd lose any rights at that
[24:54] point.
>> Rights meaning he would have to put in
[24:57] vegetative barrier things like that
would be there. So he could put once B3
[25:02] whatever's not in B3 zone he could put
up front if he wanted to as long as it
[25:06] comes up here.
>> Yeah. As long as it meets our zoning
[25:10] ordinance and flood plan ordinance
>> and get the subject.
[25:18] So if I So if I understand this
correctly right now,
[25:23] he can do what he's doing
as long as he only rents those boat
[25:28] slips to the residents of the of
property that are renting on the
[25:33] property.
He wants to change it. if he changes it,
[25:38] he can rent it to anyone and he can put
a sign out front and and and rent those
[25:45] and he preserves his rights to the
pre-existing plan. But if he tries to
[25:49] deviate from that plan to any other
thing like a restaurant, then he would
[25:54] lose all the rights and then it would
just all the regular B3 rules and
[25:58] vegetative barrier would spray and
businesses that would be there.
[26:02] » Yeah. Okay. That's a good summer.
>> And the sign that goes out front, would
[26:07] that be a digital sign that can then
people pay him to advertise? Not just
[26:13] » No, it would not allow for off-site
advertising.
[26:16] » Got it. It would only be for
the
[26:19] » the apartment units and the folks slip
>> it and would not be digital.
[26:25] » It could be digital, but there's some
strict limitations on the size of it,
[26:29] » right?
[26:32] » Yeah. your [clears throat] your sign
requirements for a
[26:39] B3 zone.
[26:51] Just second.
[26:56] Well, the problem is every time we make
ordinance adjustments, I have to go back
[27:00] through
U. All right. So within [clears throat]
[27:03] a B3 zone wall sign, which wouldn't
really be applicable, the only thing
[27:09] he'd really be looking at would be
ground signs. So either a low profile
[27:14] sign, a medium profile sign, or a
tracked ID. An A-frame is just a little
[27:20] temporary sign. So tracked ID, low
profile, medium profile.
[27:25] So we get down there and look at them.
Uh here's your low profile sign, little
[27:32] monument type,
max area of 70 square feet.
[27:38] And if you're looking at a medium, it
depends on if it's sitting on the ground
[27:41] versus in the air. Uh one sitting on the
ground um
[27:46] can be 100 square feet. One in the air
can only be 70 square feet.
[27:54] for uh billboards. The billboards we
have in town, does it matter what zone
[28:00] they're in or not
>> at this point? No, because they're no
[28:03] longer allowed. The billboards we have
in town are considered grandfathered.
[28:07] » Okay.
>> As to their locations,
[28:17] » except I take that back. Unless you're
going to put it in an IW or LIW zone.
[28:23] Those are the two location two zoning
districts which we have
[28:28] » very few light industrial
>> and industrial
[28:37] questions about these two requests.
[28:43] If not, our option is to make a motion
to recommend approval and the proposed
[28:48] consistency statement versus recommend
denial. And the consistency statement
[28:55] would be that it is not in compliance
with the land use plan. We vote
[29:00] » specifically the future land use
>> future future language mapping
[29:04] and then we vote on each of these
individually.
[29:08] If someone would like to make a cons
[29:14] 03
[29:28] make a motion in approving the reszoning
application of RZ-2026-03
[29:36] uh to resume the property located 127
Odin Street
[29:41] and also to
[29:44] adopt or approve the consistency
statement for the town city white car
[29:52] November 1620
second. We have a second. All in favor?
[29:59] It's uh and all post. So we have one,
two, three, four, five in favor, one
[30:04] opposed. It passes. Move on to resoning
application RZ2026
[30:11] tech04.
The applicant had requested that we vote
[30:17] similarly for this one. So we'll open to
a
[30:28] motion. Thank you. like the work.
Appreciate
[30:32] » a motion again to
approve the reszone request RZ-20226-04
[30:39] request to reszone the parcel located at
125 street for R-20
[30:46] to B3 business and to approve the state
of Tennessee
[30:51] plan adopted November 16, 2020.
>> We have a motion. We have a second. All
[30:57] in favor?
45. All post one and five to one.
[31:08] Okay. Next on the agenda is public
comments. In the absence of public
[31:14] comments,
[laughter]
[31:17] we'll turn it over to comments from
board members,
[31:21] concerns, issues, thoughts, critics. Um
so
[31:27] um
just acknowledging the school year
[31:31] started so traffic's picked up in the
morning uh with the lights so you know
[31:36] everybody appreciate everybody being
safe out there and I know uh NC Dots can
[31:42] begin construction of the right only
turn lane from Cedar Point into turning
[31:49] onto Highway 58 going into Emerald Isle.
So that's about a year-long project,
[31:54] right?
>> 18 months and it'll be all four corners
[31:57] will have the right term.
>> Yep. And then one coming from Cape
[32:00] Carter in and I know they're also going
to work on on Taylor Notion. They're
[32:03] going to put a roundabout in there.
Taylor Notion and 24.
[32:08] But uh just uh just ask town just please
continue pushing updates to the
[32:13] residents. They appreciate all the
updates Facebook and uh on that on that
[32:18] construction, but uh looking forward to
cool weather. Yes sir. So I motion that
[32:25] [laughter]
>> got a question for you for law
[32:29] enforcement here. Have we lost that
40hour a week
[32:35] » deputy?
>> Looks here. He he was here today.
[32:39] » Haven't seen him in quite a while. So I
didn't know
[32:43] I know he's getting close to retirement.
So
[32:45] » yeah. Yeah. I know he um he had shoulder
surgery on it or knee knee surgery.
[32:52] » Knee surgery a couple weeks back. So he
was out for a little bit for that. But
[32:58] for my son
[33:04] and for the board's awareness, according
to our policies, this chair position
[33:09] should only be for one year without
choosing someone else or electing
[33:14] renewal. uh think it'd be a great
opportunity for someone else to take
[33:19] over, but we'll probably put that on the
agenda for next month as a vote. So,
[33:28] » next meeting is what I mean next meeting
>> which we'll some volunteerism next
[33:33] meeting
>> which is currently scheduled for October
[33:36] 6th if there is anything for the agenda.
Um,
[33:42] one thing I wanted to let you know there
there will be some proposed text
[33:45] revisions coming from town staff. Um,
there were a number of changes in the
[33:50] state uh legislature this year as far as
things that we can and cannot regulate,
[33:55] things that we have to amend our
ordinances to be in compliance with
[33:58] state law. Uh, one of those that is
going to be up for discussion uh with
[34:04] the board of commissioners is regulating
ebikes.
[34:08] uh that wouldn't be under the land use
plan or it wouldn't be under our UDO.
[34:12] It's in the town's code of ordinances.
So, it's not something that has to come
[34:15] before you all. Um but I'm looking to
put together a package of all the
[34:20] changes at one time. So, once they give
me some direction on the language that
[34:24] they're looking for with that, I can put
that with the other stuff I've been
[34:27] working on. We've got number of changes
both in the UDO and in the town code um
[34:32] kind of taking place right now.
>> So, you mentioned ebikes. What
[34:36] specifically is the state law that's
changed or updated?
[34:40] » So, we haven't had the authority to
regulate ebikes. Um the state beginning
[34:45] uh December 1st is giving us that
authority to regulate them, identifying
[34:49] three separate classes of ebikes and
giving us the the authority to u
[34:57] limit or prohibit their usage on
sidewalks and multi-use paths and to
[35:03] require helmets for a class one or class
two uh for anyone under the age of 18. I
[35:09] think it is. uh class three ebike would
automatically require that so we don't
[35:14] have to regulate that.
>> What is the classes? Is it based on
[35:17] speed?
>> So class one and two is based on 20 m an
[35:21] hour and whether or not it requires
additional pedaling for it to provide
[35:25] boost or if it can just be electrically
operated up to 20 m hour. A class 3
[35:31] would operate um up to 28 miles an hour.
>> What's uh town's position on these
[35:36] bikes?
>> It's a good question. That's why it's up
[35:39] for discussion at [laughter] the next
meeting
[35:41] » because what so in prep for that I'll
let you know a couple of my questions.
[35:45] What uh what ne negative interactions
have we had with residents or out of
[35:50] town residents on ebikes on our
properties? So ARC town hall uh on other
[35:57] people's private property and uh
businesses
[36:02] uh law enforcement uh interactions with
ebikes. So that's going to be some of my
[36:05] questions if in prep for the material.
>> Yeah. So none of that applies to what
[36:10] they're going to be talking about
though.
[36:11] » The the limitation is within uh
rideaways.
[36:15] » Yeah.
>> So I mean we have the ability to
[36:18] regulate town properties.
>> If they can't go on a rideway, they
[36:21] can't get zip down 24. Is that what
you're talking about?
[36:25] » 24.
>> Yeah.
[36:27] » Uh Sherwood Avenue.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So they can't zip in between
[36:30] to get to different location. That'll be
some of my questions. Um just so I saw
[36:35] an ebike going about 35 without a helmet
right down 24 going from Swansboro
[36:41] direction towards Cape Carter.
[36:47] » Hang out a little bit.
>> That was two days. That was a couple
[36:49] days ago.
>> So if it's going 35 miles an hour, it
[36:52] would not be an ebike.
>> That's a moped.
[36:55] » It was an ebike. It was all electric.
Well, an ebike by definition cannot have
[37:00] a boost beyond 28 miles per hour. Now,
it can go faster than that. I mean, they
[37:05] can use the boost up to 28 and be going
downhill and pedal and get it up to 60
[37:08] mph, but the electric boost can only
take it up to 28 miles an hour.
[37:18] » Motion to adjurnn. Motion.
All
[37:22] » in favor? All right, we're journalist
[37:27] for the record.
>> Doug, I got minutes for you.
[37:33] I still
get