[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

Planning Board Meeting - 09/01/2026

Transcript