[laughter]
Good morning everyone and welcome. Uh this the regular July 1 meeting of the
Nag Board of Commissioners is hereby call to order. If you will please first
join me in a few moments of silence.
And now if uh as you're able, if you'll please stand and join me in the pledge
of allegiance.
to the republic for which it stands. [clears throat] One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [cough]
[clears throat]
» Before we begin our work this morning, I want to recognize [clears throat] in the
audience our former mayor Bob Mueller is with us this morning and former
commissioner Webb Fuller is also with us this morning.
» And Susie >> and Su I'm sorry. [laughter]
and former commissioner since you snuck in on me. Former commissioner Susie
Walters is also here. Welcome to all of you. Always glad to have you at our
meetings. Um the next item on our agenda is the
adoption of the agenda and we have a [clears throat] modification which will
be to move the 25-year recognition for Robera Thuman to the August 5 meeting.
So a motion to approve the amended agenda would be in order.
» So move. >> Second. I have a motion and a second.
All in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Thank you.
» Uh that brings us to recognitions and we'll begin with our annual introduction
of lifeguards and Chad. >> Hey, good morning everybody. Uh it's my
privilege to be here again this summer. Uh it's my 26th year working for uh Max
Ocean Rescue Lifeguard on the beaches here. Uh have our staff here. Uh we went
through two training sessions, one in May and one in June to be uh fully
upstaffed by June 20th. And so uh without further ado, we'll bring these
guys up to the microphone and introduce themselves here uh one at a time. And
yeah, thank you for your time and thank you for your support of the
organization. Thank you.
» Hello everybody. Uh my name is Ryar Gilbertson.
Hey Mr. Garmin. [laughter] This is my year four dags head and
[clears throat] uh originally I'm from Arizona. Great state.
[clears throat] >> Hey y'all. Uh my name is Jacob Gilbo.
I'm from Montreal, Canada, and this is my sixth summer with Nags Head.
» Hello, I am Michael. Uh this is my sixth year. I'm from Maryland. [laughter]
Hi, my name is Jacob Baitman. I come from Plymouth, North Carolina, and this
is my first year.
» Hello, my name is Anthony Ftado. I'm from South Florida, and this is my first
year.
» Hello, I'm uh Christopher Kelly. I'm originally from Northern Virginia, but
this is also my first year. [clears throat]
I'm uh Lachlan Kerr from Australia and this is my first year.
» Cool.
» Hi. Uh I'm Bryce Luncher. Uh I'm from Arlington, Virginia and this is my first
year.
» Good morning. Mitchell Jackson, first year from Florida.
» Good morning. My name is Vinnie. This is my first year lifeguarding and I'm from
Kittyok, North Carolina.
» Hello, my name is Caleb Hooper from Wies. This is my fourth year with NASA
Ocean Rescue.
[laughter] >> Hello, my name is Scendel Castle. I'm
from Raleigh, North Carolina, and this is my third summer here.
» Hello, my name is Sophie Vancesy. I'm from Mano, North Carolina and this is my
fourth year here. [clears throat]
» Hi, I'm Rosie. I'm from Montreal, Canada, and this is going to be my
fourth summer working for Naget Ocean.
» Good morning. My name is Evan Hayes. I'm from Murphy'sboro, Tennessee. And this
is my first year with Nag. >> Hi, I'm Justine. I'm from Montreal,
Canada, and this is my first year with Nag Ocean Rescue.
» Good morning. My name is Mila. I'm from Quebec as well and this is my
[clears throat] first year with Naged Ocean Rescue.
» Good morning. I'm from uh Quebec, Canada. My name is Victor and this is
going to be my second year with Naget Ocean Rescue.
» Morning. My name is Mason Linds. I'm from Kuruck, North Carolina, and this is
my fourth year with Naget Ocean Rescue. >> Good morning. Uh my name is Ronnie. It's
my second year with Nagit Ocean Rescue and I'm from Montreal, Canada.
» Hi, my name is No Vanam from Richmond, Virginia. This is my third season with
Nagide Ocean Rescue.
» Hi, my name is Ta Neel Patterson. I'm also from Quebec, Canada, and this is my
first year.
» Hi, I'm Luke Leage. I'm from Kittyhawk, North Carolina. And this is my fourth
year with Knack Ocean Rescue.
» Hi, I'm Justine. I'm from Montreal and this is my second year with Naga Ocean
Rescue. >> Hi, I'm Arian and this is my second year
working with Naga Ocean Rescue and I'm from Canada as well.
» Hi, my name is Florence. I'm from Quebec and it's my first year working for Nag.
Hi, my name is Rosali. I'm from Kick and this is my first year working as an
ocean. [clears throat]
» Hello, my name is Drew Baitman and this is my first year working for Nags at
Ocean Rescue. I'm from Plymouth, North Carolina.
» Hey y'all, my name is Jesse Baitman. I'm from Plymouth, North Carolina and this
is my first year at NXT Ocean Rescue.
» Hey, my name is Corbin Alt. I'm from Wesville, North Carolina. This is my
first year as well. [clears throat]
» Hello, I'm Jesse Hall. Uh, this is my second year with Nexo Ocean Rescue. I'm
from Murphy, North Carolina.
» Good morning. I'm Kenneth Little and I'm from San Diego, California. And this is
my first year ocean rescue.
» My name is Coleman Flynn. I've worked for the town for nine years.
Hey there, I'm Andy Simmerson. Uh, this is my 10th year with Nagad Ocean Rescue
and I live up in KDH. >> Good morning. My name is Sean Kenny. I
was born and raised in Nagad. Uh, this is my 16th year.
» Good. Awesome.
[applause]
» Thank you guys again. appreciate the town and your commitment to the
organization and your support. >> Good. Well, welcome and be be in venue
to uh all of all of you, the first years, those who are returning from near
and far away. We appreciate what you do uh out there. You're the face of the
public on the beach for the town for the summer. Um and your job is challenging
and we appreciate that and uh we wish you a safe uh healthy happy summer.
Thank you. Thanks.
» Add a little [applause]
» add a little plug. We have our uh local competition series, our final uh final
event tonight is in KDH and we got a tight race competition. So, anybody in
the public wants to come out and see what these guys do. Um we're doing all
the rescue race events there tonight and it should be a fun uh a good show
tonight. So, seven o'clock Ocean Bay and KDH for for that tonight,
» right? >> Um, I'm gonna get all you guys. Start
with Sean. You'll file out the door and if I can get everybody to meet out front
on the ramp, we'll do a little staff photo out front with everybody before we
head out. Okay. All right. Thank you guys again.
» Thank you.
» Hi. Thanks for coming.
» Not 15. Something stronger than 15.
» Please. >> Yeah. They get younger.
[laughter]
» Bye. >> Been here for seven years. Get younger
every year. >> Mr.
Mr.
[clears throat] >> Great. So, uh we will continue uh with
introduction of a new employee and Nancy.
» Good morning, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. I'd like to introduce
Matt Hennessik. Matt comes from us with comes to us with over 10 years of
experience in water and wastewater. He worked in the water distribution for
Kildo. He worked in water distribution for
Curry Tuck County and with Dare County at the Sky Co water plant.
[clears throat] He later transferred to Dare County's water and wastewater
plants in Stumpy Point. Matt lives in Man's Harbor with his wife Morgan. They
have two children, Ethan, 20, and Abigail, 13. He enjoys golfing, bowling,
and fishing in his spare time. And we're glad to have him.
» Thank you. >> Thank you.
» [applause]
» Welcome aboard.
[clears throat]
That brings us now to public comment and I'll turn this over to Mr. Lighty.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. At this time, the board of commissioners welcomes members
of the public to provide comment on matters of interest or concern to the
public. This is not an opportunity for dialogue and the board rarely responds
to uh public comment. But for anyone who wishes to address the board, this is
your chance to do so. if you'll please uh go to the podium and start by telling
us your name and where you live. Um and then I will let you know when your five
minutes is just about up.
» Good morning, mayor and commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
to you today. I would like to My name is Susie Walters said 415 Race View Court.
Um, I would like to thank the town manager, Andy Garmin, and staff and the
board for working with the community to support our first amendment rights to
freedom of speech and assembly. The ordinance [clears throat]
proposed today addresses these rights and responsibilities of all parties with
regard to safety and mutual respect. As always, communication is the key between
those gathering and those protecting our community. I commend everyone involved.
I have one comment regarding the definition of spontaneous demonstration
in section 4.51. It states, "Spontaneous demonstration
means a demonstration that arises in immediate response to a recent
[clears throat] unforeseen event that was not planned or organized in advance
of the event and that was not promoted or publicly advertised prior to the
occurrence of the demonstration. I find the last part of this definition
to be ambiguous and problematic. The deaths of Renee Good and Alex Prey
were unforeseen and shocked the nation. There was no local organized event.
However, several gathered regarding the issue largely because people communicate
via social media. Um, attempting to regulate speech on social media is not
possible by any one person or entity. I hope you'll look at this definition and
consider uh placing a period at the end of the word event to avoid subjectivity
potent and potential conflicts. Thank you for your uh dedication to preserve
our citizens rights while also serving and [clears throat] protecting our
community. >> Thank you, Miss Walters.
Good morning everyone. Uh my name is Skip Saunders. Um I live in Kittyhawk
for whatever worth that has in this room. Um I moved here uh in 1975 to
Nag's Head uh explicitly to surf and so here I am. I'm still here. [laughter]
Um, what I have to say to the board and to everyone in this room, you do not
need me to know this. And we all know what's going on in our
country right now. The very reason that you're visiting your ordinances
regarding public demonstration has to do with something else. [snorts]
[clears throat] And I I don't want anyone to forget
that. Um when I was about 11 or 12 years old, um I asked my father who was a
career naval officer, there were a lot of things going on,
civil rights protest and all kinds of upheaval, social upheaval at that time.
And he was a a career naval officer. I asked him, "How do you how do you
support the president or why do you or why not do you are you not supporting
the president?" He was being quiet and he said, "Well, Skip, as an officer, the
officer corps in the military in the US takes an oath to support the office of
the president. We do not take an oath to support a person."
And that's [clears throat] that was the moment that I actually started to
understand the nuance in politics and the things that were based on our
constitution. And so I'm here
to to do one thing and that's to remind all of us that we need to defend the
Constitution. I've served on public boards in Dare
County, on board of elections, on and and on the uh board of education. I've
taken the same oath that you've taken four times.
That oath meant something to me. I have direct line of ancestors who
lifted musketss and fought British, the battle of Camden, the battle of Guilford
Courthouse, and a 14-year-old fourth greatgrandfather
who served from age 14 to 18 in the Western Montgomery County Militia in
Maryland. And I'm not going to let those people down.
So, I'm here to remind you that you took an oath
to our Constitution and the rights that it affords us both in law and our
natural rights and how important those are because no matter what government
would come in the future in this country, we're going to have to invent
something that's going to be just like it. And so I'm really concerned pe
people in our community are fearful of their government.
They're fe fearful to express their opinions.
And I've never seen anything like this in my life in the US.
And local government is where everything starts. I'm a deep believer in that. And
I love our community. That includes Nags Head, all the towns in our county. I
love living here. I have many friends in this room right now. And I hope that you
all when you have your moment that you'll remember the Constitution
and you'll stand up for it because there's a lot of fear out there
that people are folding up and we can't do that. We have to take a
stand. So that's basically all I have to say and I hope you understand
why I wanted to come out and say something like this. These ordinance
that you're discussing, the things that you're discussing and that you're
revisiting continues the enlightened tradition in Dare County and in our
towns of looking over what we're actually doing and trying so hard to
make it fair and safe for everybody involved.
And I applaud that. you all are doing a great job and I think it's I think it's
a credit to the streak of fairness and everything that runs
through our county that we all are trying to do the best we can. We try to
look at what people's concerns are and we try to answer them. So, I just want
you to remember the reason that you're revisiting those ordinances.
And we wouldn't be dithering over ordinances right now if we had a
different person in the White House and we had a different government in the
White House and we had less people who would accept this.
But I don't want anybody to be confused that I will continue to stand up
and I'm not going to back down and I hope many of you are with us. Okay.
Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.
» Thank you, Mr. Saunders.
[clears throat]
» Good morning, mayor, commissioners, Mr. Garmin, Mr. lighting and members of the
town staff. My name is Randy Cartwright. I've been a resident of Nags Head for 19
years and a resident of the Outer Banks for 52 years.
I first came before this board in February because I believe the town
could better balance the protection of public safety with the First Amendment
rights of peaceful demonstrators. Over the past months, I've had the
opportunity to work with Mr. Garmin through many emails, proposed revisions,
and discussions. I want to thank him, Mr. Lighty, the town staff, and the
board for the respect and consideration shown throughout that process.
The process itself has been a success. One of the most significant improvements
in that demonstrations are now recognized as fundamentally different
from ordinary crowd gatherings. Rather than being regulated under the
town's crowd gathering permit provisions, demonstrations now have
their own permitting and notification system designed specifically for First
Amendment activities. Other important improvements include
explicit recognition of spontaneous demonstrations,
recognition of good faith attendance estimates,
stronger emphasis on First Amendment protections, and many clarifications
that should make the ordinance easier for both citizens and law enforcement to
understand and apply. My personal preference has always been
for an ordinance more like Chapel Hills because I believe simplicity promotes
both understanding and voluntary compliance.
While this ordinance remains more detailed than I would have preferred, I
believe the work over the past five months has reflected a sincere effort to
balance public safety with the constitutional rights provided by the
First Amendment. I continue to have several concerns with
several provisions, including participant liability and the 10-foot
setback where no sidewalk exists. But I will not spend time on those this
morning. Instead, I want to mention two substantive revisions that were added to
the ordinance yesterday afternoon and that I have not had an adequate
opportunity to discuss. The first removes a proposed language
providing that an organizer would not be deemed in violation solely because
actual attendance exceeded a good faith attendance estimate.
Throughout this process, we have recognized that attendance estimates are
just that, good faith estimates. I respectfully ask the board to consider
whether that protection should remain in the ordinance.
The second narrows the spontaneous demonstration provision by requiring
that a spontaneous demonstration arise without advanced coordination or notice
to potential participants. I am concerned that this language may
unintentionally limit the very type of spontaneous demonstration the ordinance
is intended to protect. because people ordinarily learn about
spontaneous demonstrations through communication with one another.
I appreciate Susie Walter's comments and I agree with her proposed revisions
wholly.
The freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly are among our nation's oldest
and most cherished constitutional traditions.
They deserve ordinances that protect public safety while respecting those
constitutional rights. I hope the collaborative process we have
experienced over the past five months will serve as a model for other
communities facing the same challenge. Finally,
this process has demonstrated something that is every bit as important as the
ordinance itself. It has shown that citizens and local government can work
together respectfully, listen to one another, and produce better public
policy than either could have produced alone. I think that is something
everyone involved can be proud of. I appreciate the opportunity to comment
this morning and I look forward to listening to the board's discussion
later today. Thank you. [clears throat] >> Thank you, Mr. Cartright.
» Anybody else? Mr. Muller.
» All right. Well, at this time, we will conclude the public comment session.
[clears throat] >> Thank you very much. Thank you to all of
our speakers this morning. Uh the next item on our agenda is the consent agenda
which you have before you with 12 items and a motion would be in order.
» So move. >> I have a motion to approve. Is there a
second? >> Have a motion and a second. All in favor
signify by saying I. >> I opposed. Thank [clears throat] you.
» Uh that brings us to reports and recommendations from the planning board
and the planning director and Kelly. [snorts]
» [clears throat]
» Good morning, mayor and commissioners. Um, thank you so much. I will, um, run
through this report pretty quickly and as always, if you have any questions,
just let me know. Um the planning board met on June 16th and unanimously
recommended approval of a proposed text amendment related to um water dependent
recreational uses being allowed within commercial mixeduse developments. Um
there was some conversation regarding concerns such as parking um
traffic circulation, equipment storage, fueling um and compatibility with a
shopping center in general. But um it was agreed that that would all be better
addressed through the special use permit process and not as part of the text
amendment process. Um looking ahead to the July planning board meeting, um the
planning board is expected to um discuss a proposed amendment related to um
cottage court requirements. And I don't know if you recall, but we
um the last time we talked about cottage courts, we created a graduated scale for
the size of the cottage court, um stories, architectural design, etc. So,
it would be um not a change to that, but some flexibility in that. So, um that's
what they will hear at their upcoming meeting. As far as the board of
adjustment goes, um we did not have a meeting in June, but we do have one
coming up on July 9th and uh that's going to be an appeal from an
administrative decision um that I made regarding a property on Pelican Street.
Um and so that will be going out to our board of adjustment members on Friday in
advance of our Thursday meeting. Um for the decentralized wastewater
management plan and the septic health advisory committee. Um staff continues
to make progress um with all of our initiatives that we have going on. Uh we
have updated some educational materials as you know the flyer. Uh we've also
redesigned an older septic magnet that we had which hopefully we'll have ready
for you at our next meeting. Um and we continue outreach through the Dowy Park
Farmers Market. Um and that has been really beneficial thus far. Um we just
received our funding offer for the 0% interest DWI loan. So those targeted
letters will um start going out probably early next week.
Estran shoreline management plan. Um, we have our deputy planning director, Joe
Costello, giving a more detailed update on that um, following this conversation.
So, I won't go um, into that. Um, Dowy Park and our art and culture committee
um, summer programming at Dowy Park has exceeded expectations tremendously.
Paige continues to report that our um, May and June numbers have been like
July. So, a lot of participation. Um, fitness classes continue to draw
tremendous participation. Uh, family fun programs have all been well attended.
The farmers market um remains very strong and our summer concert series has
gotten off to a great start. We have a concert tonight which is Soul One. Um,
and that's going to be at Dowy Park. Um I did I've mentioned this previously but
I wanted to kind of highlight and um give thanks to a couple of community
members. So Kate Jones um connected us with a grant opportunity with the um
safe monarch program to help native pollinators be planted within the town.
Um Kate pointed that out to us and then we collaborated with Rachel Vil with
North Carolina Aquariums. Um she helped us get the grant. It's a $2,000 grant.
Um they're currently growing those native plants over in Mano now. Um and
come fall we will have an event where we plant those. And um this time next year
we should have a thriving pollinator garden out at Dowy Park. So wanted to
recognize those people and mention that. Um, and that's all I have unless you
have questions for me. >> Questions?
» No questions. >> Thank you.
» Thanks, Kelly. >> Thanks, Kelly.
» That brings us now to an update on the estine shoreline management plan. And
Joe
One moment.
Okay.
Hello. Good morning, mayor and commissioners. Um going to give a brief
update on the estuary and shoreline management plan progress. I'm going to
start south to north. I'm going to skip the Harvey site because I'm going to
talk more about that. Um the southern um most point that we're doing a project or
looking to start is the catfish farms um living shoreline. Uh water quality
testing and SAV mapping has has begun. So we're beginning that preliminary data
collection process. Um [clears throat] and then skipping Harvey for now up to
Soundside Road. We have an initial um stakeholder meeting scheduled for
Tuesday, July 7th. um property owners have been notified and look forward to
that. And then at the Villa Dunes Drive site um that's not um grant funded
anymore, but just Monday night there was a initial stakeholder meeting um to get
preliminary feedback on a new path forward.
So now to sort of delve more into the Harvey site, [snorts] um I thought it
would be helpful to sort of look at where we had begun with the design and
that is for you. This was sort of the initial design before we had any sort of
real engagement with with the public or with the um user groups. And you can see
there's sort of a series of offshore breakwaters and um you know sort of
north of the gazebo and then they're in between the Harvey Sound access and the
gazebo. That was what was presented and
proposed. But once we talked with the users, they really said, you know, that
little those two sort of skinny accesses that you kind of see drawn in the um
sort of um trivial pursuit piece shape and then that rectangle shape wasn't
really um you know advantageous for users and and they requested that those
offshore breakaters between the two um were removed. um especially for people
who are learning to to um do water sports, you know, those were real
hazards. And so, you know, this is a markup that basically shows that input
um maybe extending that marill tighter to the shoreline.
Um a further which which here is, you know, now a more concrete [snorts]
drawing. Um and and this is actually where we landed. So you can kind of see
that sill was even further reduced um based on more feedback. And so what you
have here is is a at the Harvey site the the most southern portion is a
renourished beach. Um camel won't let you do that unless you've historically
had a sandy beach there. And so the the Google imagery um suggests that there
was um going back. So we'll see if they allow us to do that. But um proposing
that new um sort of u um access that was built as part of the boardwalk process
to the Harvey access would be a renourished sandy beach. Then there
would be some marsh sills um that are about 9 ft wide and two feet tall there
um that kind of wrap behind the gazebo. And then there's some offshore when I
say offshore they're at right at about the twoft contour. So they're really um
in a place that you know most I would say boers wouldn't want to be unless
you're in like a skip or something. Um so we tried to be conscientious about
how people are using the site and to design um to um provide protection to
the SAV and the shoreline but also support public use.
And here is um sort of the side profile of the offshore breakaters as well as
the sill. And I don't know if you can see, but if you look I zoom in, but it
might get worse. Um, you see that MHW mean high water line. So most of this
will be underwater. This whole structure won't sort of be sticking out, you know,
if if if this kind of goes across. It'll look more, you know, just sort of like
the top. Um, and then the sills were are even um
thinner. And so Whoops. And this is kind of the
um artistic graphic showing that um hopefully how how the site functions
where we've sort of respected the um public access area that we're promoting
people to use and get to the sound and not trample through the marsh in and
around the boardwalk and you know provide a soft entry and some sandy
beach there. Then you know some interior sills that protect further erosion back
behind the boardwalk of that marsh land. and then the larger offshore again
offshore at the twoft um contour there protecting the SAV and the marsh behind
it. So I just thought that would be helpful to go over and then um where
we're at with this project right now. We've received back and forth comments
from DCM. We've had you know submitted our permit application. They needed um
additional um wetlands surveying. So, we resubmitted that. Um, now they've
requested a couple sort of additional changes to the plan set. So, we are
going back and forth with them. Um, and then we are looking to get a um
conservation easement recorded um in working with NCLWF. That's our grant
source. They require a conservation easement um of a 50- foot buffer from
that mean high waterland inward um to you know just to ensure that that marsh
is protected. That's sort of what they're investing in and um you know the
the town has been sort of working with the tourism board and um NCLWF to make
sure that the tourism board's interests are captured in that easement. So that
process is ongoing and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
» Questions?
Andy, do you want to add anything to that?
» Yeah, I'd like to talk a little bit about the easement process. Um, you
know, obviously this is something that we we've been working on um with the
tourism board. um you know they've got some pretty specific interests in in
wanting to maintain certain rights to use the property and there was some
concern about what the easement would do. Um you know going back to the the
initial beginning of this project
[clears throat] um we had communicated with uh Lee
Nettles and Diane Bognich about the easement. we got a letter of support
from them um recognizing that we would need a conservation easement to be able
to use the land and water fund grant funds and so that was sort of
acknowledged them in the beginning of the process. Um and so uh the easement
is a requirement of the land and water fund. You know, it's not not something
the town is doing, you know, outside of that. We're we're not we don't have an
interest in doing that other than meeting the grant requirement. Um
so uh in good faith I think Joe and and Amy started working with the staff of
the land and water fund to explore you know how to get the easement process
completed and they engaged Robert Hobbs with Hornthal Riley Allison Mail John's
partner uh he has a lot of experience drafting easement especially with land
and water fund they they were working uh towards getting a draft document um that
they could then present to the tourism board for their approval. Obviously, uh
any easement that is recorded on this property would have to be approved by
the owners of the property being the tourism board and the town of Nags Head.
And so, um you know, at some point I think uh communication got a little
crossed up. You know, I think that they thought perhaps we were further along
than we were. Um I think they became concerned about um what we were doing.
Um since then we've communicated on um how we going we're going about trying to
settle the easement document itself. Um we've asked their attorney Jay Wheelis
to sort of take over the process of engaging land and water fund staff on
determining what language both parties would accept. Um they have much more
specific uh things they want to see in the easement than I'd say the town does.
And so that that's where it stands now. I think I think Jay Wheelis has
communicated with uh the land and water fund staff several times as I think
Megan Bond has reported out and maybe you could speak to that.
» Um but um what I've heard is that there's optimism that they're going to
be able to get something that everyone will accept and then the project can
move forward. And so all these things are are happening simultaneously.
design, the permit application, the easement, all in in advance of hoping to
get this thing out to bid and underway sometime this off season. So, that's our
goal. You know, this is something that was part of our shoreline plan from the
beginning. This was a pilot site and, you know, we wanted to work together
with the tourism board to come up with a way to protect this valuable asset in
Naget. It's public property. it's co-owned and it would be a perfect
demonstration project for the public to see and hopefully with it would
accomplish the goal of protecting the assets that they've invested there uh
and also providing an educational tool for the public. So, um, we're hopeful
that we can we can work together to get all this done. And, um, you know, I
don't know if John could maybe weigh in a little bit on on what the process is
to, um, actually record an easement and then also some of the communications
that you're aware of between perhaps Robert and J.
» Uh, yes, Mr. um, Mr. Garmin, the um you know, one of the conditions of receiving
the grant will be placing the affected property under a conservation easement
on terms that are satisfactory to the land and water fund. And I know that um
staff and Robert Hobbes have been working on a version of that. I think um
I'm looking at an email that um Robert had written earlier in which he said
that um he's reviewed the initial proposal and he he believes having
worked with the land and water fund and its predecessor uh for a long time he
knows it's if you vary too far from their template without adequate
justification it's probably not going to be approved and so he's tried to stick
to their form as much as possible and he's tried to develop something along
those lines. I think he was working on something at the same time that Mr.
Wheelers was working on some a similar document for the tourism authority. Um,
and I don't know that either of those two lawyers were aware that the other
was working on something at the same time. Um, and um, but Robert has done a
comparison of the two and um, I don't know that there's anything that's
insurmountable, but I believe the idea is to come up with a a conservation
easement that is likely to be approved so that the grant can be provided. But
no easement is going to be effective unless it's signed by all the property
owners or the owners of the properties that are going to be affected by the
conservation easement. So I think that's still something that's in proh process.
I don't know I can't give you any estimate as to when that will be
completed. Um there's just a lot of moving parts to getting that completed.
But um that's basically what I I know about it.
Before I call on Commissioner Vaughn um and her role as the designated U member
of the visitors bureau, I I do have a question because we're talking about
primarily about the easement that the visitors bureau would sign. There are
two there's one project and two pieces of property. Will there be two
potentially different easements or >> I would expect the easements to be the
same? I would expect that there there to be I I can't say there'll be one
easement on two properties, but that's a possibility. But there could be one
easement in identical terms on each property. Okay.
» As well. >> All right. Thank you for clearing that
up. Commissioner Ball, do you want >> uh I can report from the last um meeting
of the visitors bureau that it it does seem I think you use the term
optimistic. U Mr. Willis reported that um he was in contact several times with
the um land and water fund and that they were making progress. They had several
very specific um concerns. Um perpetuity was one of
them and I think they felt really positive about being able to figure that
out. It's not going to go away, but they can they can do what they want moving
forward. But there was four or five other uses that they were specifically
interested in that are not part of the template. This is my understanding of it
anyway. But Mr. Wheelis did report um in June that they were making good progress
and that he had taken over the discussions regarding the easement. So
they should, you know, they're they're working on it and should be able to come
up with something that everybody can >> Okay.
» you know, be satisfied with. >> Very good.
» All right. So now, um board members, any questions of any of the parties? Um to
Joe, to the attorney, any questions? Commissioner,
» the the renourishment of the sand on this side was is that new in this
project or have I just missed that? >> Um that's that's been a pretty constant
it's um shifted a little bit in that um based on the new wetlands survey I want
to say instead of 280 linear feet it's like 250. So there's been small
adjustments but um the idea has has been consistent. Um I think from the
consultant's perspective there's you know just concern on whether or not it
will will get through camera permitting but um it does sort of meet that initial
criteria of was there historically a sandy beach there and the Google imagery
um and historical imagery does back that up.
» Okay. >> Could I just say a few more things? I'm
sorry. Sure. [laughter] Well, so we have been contacted recently
by several users of the site with concerns about the uh design and what it
does to recreational use. And um as Joe mentioned, we had some engagement with
those folks a few months ago and talked through some iterations of the design
and came up with the design that Joe showed earlier. So, um, we've scheduled
a meeting with some of those folks tomorrow,
» okay? >> And we plan to show them the design
changes that we made and hopefully get some additional input if they're still
concerned. We're not quite sure that they're they're aware of the final
design changes. >> Yes, I don't think so.
» And so, what we're hoping is that that once they see this, you know, they'll
have more comfort with it, but obviously our goal is not to impede recreational
use of the site. And so, um, Once we have that meeting, you know, I'll sort
of report back on what we find out and see what we need to do. But we continue
to be engaged with folks and want to come up with something that's useful for
protecting the shoreline, but also preserving what people are trying to do
out there. So, >> thank you.
» Thank you. I think um I sure hope it all works out because I
know there's been a lot of work on both sides that you know trying to get this
thing done. But I think you know I want to thank staff for working so hard with
the public once again because I think the new design is really nice and I
think it it'll really work out for everybody. It looks a lot more
recreational friendly than it did when it first started. So yeah, I appreciate
all the work on that. Thank you. >> Yes,
» Commissioner Labor. Um, just echo what Commissioner Sanders said. I appreciate
all the staff's hard work. Um, definitely a lot of work has gone into
us, but after hearing from town manager Garmin and Commissioner Vaughn and our
town attorney, it sounds like that we are on the way to seeing this come to
pass. So, I appreciate all the work. >> Great. All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Joe, Andy, John. Yes, sir.
» [clears throat] >> Uh that brings us next to item G, old
business, uh tabled from previous meetings. And this will be a discussion
of the um crowd gathering activities and group demonstrations. And um I believe
the manager and the um attorney are going to frame this discussion for us
before we begin. >> Do our best.
» [laughter] >> Um well, so you heard it public comment
from several folks about the process we've been through and [clears throat] I
just want to say I do appreciate the input that we've received and sort of
the back and forth. I think it's it's really been collaborative and respectful
and certainly insightful. you know, you've got folks that are sort of the
users of of the ordinance and when you have that, they have a different
perspective on things and they can sort of drill down on on the little things
that we may not have thought about and that that's been evident in the process
and so I've appreciated a lot of the comments. It sort of helped me think
about it and so I do think it's been valuable and I just wanted to say that.
Um but you know really what we're looking at today what we've got here are
are two um sort of parallel efforts. You know one would be looking at our group
demonstrations ordinance and those are the conversations I've I've been having
primarily with with Randy Cartwright and um we've got some changes there. We've
also been discussing our crowd gathering ordinance with the staff and members of
the Dair County Tourism Board. And in May, uh, Mayor Cahoun, Commissioner
Vaughn, myself met with Lee Nettles and Diane Bognich, and also the chairman of
the tourism board, Dennis Robinson, and sort of went over some concerns about
the crowd gathering permit process and the ordinance that sort of resulted out
of the Roden Custom Festival permit process. And so one of the things that
uh we suggested in that meeting is that they provide us with some suggested
changes to the ordinance that they would like to see to hopefully
resolve some of their concerns. And so they did provide some comments to us and
I've put those in the packet. And so that's a separate piece that involves
[clears throat] the crowd gathering ordinance. It's really separate from the
group demonstrations ordinance. So, um, I'll just, uh, quickly talk about the
group demonstrations ordinance, and a lot of this is in your packet, but
as Mr. Cartright stated, you know, a a lot of this, we were looking at um,
trying to define what a spontaneous demonstration was and accounting for
that uh, in our ordinance. And, you know, we it's a very difficult thing to
manage. Like, I mean, the, you know, the idea that you're going to have public
want to come out and speak and exercise their first amendment rights and how
we're going to react to these situations. It's creates a lot of
anxiety, >> you know, and and how how you're going
to you can you can write an ordinance, but how you're going to deal with these
situations effectively is extremely complicated. And and so, you know, we we
need to think about this ordinance carefully. We need we need to come up
with language that we feel like is going to sort of, I would say, on the rights
of speech but still provide the things the town needs to protect public safety.
And so, you know, I feel like we've come up with a good balance here. Um, but the
spontaneous demonstration, you know, that that is something we're trying to
acknowledge with the ordinance. You know, it's really difficult to define
what is a spontaneous demonstration in my opinion. you know, and I think
what one of the comments we received in the beginning in in public comment was
about, you know, the publicly advertised or promoted piece. That's sort of what
staff had had come up with to state what is sort of the line between what's a
spontaneous and not a spontaneous demonstration.
And um I think that the comment we received was
that we wouldn't keep that piece in there. Um, but I I'm I'm not sure of
another way to to make that distinction. And um, you know, that's that's one
thing I'll point out initially. Um, but beyond that, you know, we we're trying
to acknowledge that there there will be potentially u the need to have a
spontaneous demonstration due to unforeseen events. We've written
something into the ordinance that deals with that. We we've stated in the
ordinance that we're going to try to be mindful of that that line and be
[clears throat] accommodating. Um I think in most situations, you know, when
when there is a demonstration, the last thing we want to do is, you know, revoke
a permit or, you know, tell people to disperse. That's a very difficult
situation to be in. So I think having something in the ordinance that
acknowledges spontaneous demonstration helps us deal with that.
Um the other big piece that we've come up with is previously
um for groups of 30 or less that weren't required to get any permits from the
town for a demonstration. Um and then if 30 or more had to get a permit, we've
come up with an interim tier that says between 30 and 100, we would ask for a
notification 48 hours. But you wouldn't have to provide or be wouldn't have to
receive a permit from the town. We just want the notification and we feel like
that would cover a lot of um what we see in recent months where folks are
gathering and and protesting, but it's not really large groups. And so it
provides another layer of u protection for the town to get some sort
of notification and to get the ability to react and have staff potentially
available to monitor the situation, but it's not as comprehensive or l lengthy
as a permit. So, I feel like that is sort of a good middle ground, provides
another layer of um protecting speech, but also giving us what we need. Um
beyond that, there's some other nuance things we've put into this ordinance. Um
as we've as was acknowledged in the beginning,
you know, there's a about the um good faith estimates. That's something I
think we need to talk a little bit more about. I'll ask John to weigh in on that
in a minute. We we've come up with some different criteria for how far folks can
be from the right of way from the edge of pavement and we went back and forth
on this quite a bit. Um but I think what we settled on, at least from a staff
standpoint, is sort of mirroring some of the rules we've been dealing with with
DOT. When you're I go back to construct a sidewalk. Typically on on 158, you
know, they're asking us to set back the sidewalk 10 feet from the edge of
pavement when there's no curb. And that's to provide an adequate clear
space. And then if there's a curb, it's typically had to be four feet. I know
Dave's looking at me right now. It's [laughter] had to be four feet from the
edge of pavement if there's a curb. And so, you know, using sort of that
standard, you know, that's sort of how they define what's a safe separation
from the roadway for pedestrians on the sidewalk. And so, we've tried to mirror
that in this ordinance when we're talking about 158 or 64 being on more of
a high-speed roadway. And then for the other town streets that are posted at 35
or less, you know, having a smaller separation of four feet. And one of the
concerns brought up was, you know, we didn't want the requirement to push
people onto private property and effectively, you know, eliminate the
ability to have a demonstration. And given the rightway widths, you know, of
our higher speed roadways, which are pretty significant, we feel like this
this is a good compromise that, you know, addresses that concern.
Um, let's see. You know, we we had a
provision in here about separation from commercial establishments and financial
institutions. It was a 100 foot separation requirement. We've talked
about reducing that to 50 ft and also putting an exception in that if you're
on a public sidewalk, which is I guess considered a traditional public forum,
that you would always be allowed to demonstrate in those areas as long as
you didn't block access to a driveway or entrance. So, Another piece we added to
the ordinance, um there is a a section that we added on
the permit itself. Um previously for a large event, you had to get a crowd
gathering permit and under the the section dealing with crowd gathering
permits. As the board knows, you know, some some of the language in there
requires a lot more information. And in this situation, what we've done
is we've created a separate permit for the group demonstration that that really
only requires the information necessary to deal with with that particular
activity. And I think it's it's more streamlined and more clear for someone
who's trying to read the ordinance to understand what the requirements are. So
that's another change that's part of this. Um, finally, there's a new section
that we included regarding the revocation and appeal of permits. Um I
think actually Mr. Cartwright had suggested some language which we largely
adopted into this draft although I think John
has some comments on this particular piece as well. And so um that's
essentially an overview of of what we've done to the ordinance. Um,
as as mentioned, John provided us with some additional comments um late last
week and then provided a draft to me and I think I forwarded that to the
commissioners or at least whenever with the board and I also forwarded it Mr.
Cartright so he could see it and um I can bring that up on the screen real
quick if if John you'd like to go over some of that.
Just one second. [snorts]
So I guess the first piece that John had noted was about the good faith
attendance estimates and on the screen here are some of the suggestions. So
maybe you could go over that now. Yeah, if I may, uh, Mr. Mayor, uh,
commissioners, Mr. Garmin, uh, the, you know, just as some background, we talked
about this, uh, when we embarked on this process of revising the town's
ordinances to allow for, um, a more clear uh, and cohesive group
demonstrations type of ordinance. the [clears throat]
town's not required to have such an ordinance, but without an ordinance, you
have no ability to provide any advanced controls or regulations, and you're left
with having to deal with public assemblies um and any public safety uh
or disruptive effects from those that might occur after the toothpaste is out
of the tube. And so the idea here is to try to um impose some regulations and
controls uh that would allow the town to be, you know, um more confident in its
ability to properly manage and address what might happen in a demonstration um
or a large gathering of of folks. Um the you know I'll also say this it's it's a
bit unusual for uh the town to uh get an opportunity to collaborate in developing
this kind of ordinance with folks who are going to be uh engaged in activities
that will be subject to that ordinance. That's a great thing. It's great to have
that kind of collaboration and partnership. But you have to develop the
ordinance with the idea in mind that some people you you you'll need to have
controls and regulations in place for groups that don't want to collaborate
with the town and don't want to collaborate or cooperate with law
enforcement. Uh and so, you know, taking that sort of pessimistic worst case
scenario approach is how we uh try to uh develop these kinds of ordinances. With
that in mind, I think what the what the town has um uh gotten to uh at this
point is is a very workable ordinance that is contains less controls and less
uh restrictions than would be permissible under the first amendment
and first amendment juristp prudence from our courts. Um one thing I think
that's very important to keep in mind and and that is you know we're guided in
in in large part by the case law that uh has been developed in this area. There's
a case from the from our our circuit court of appeals for the federal circuit
involving the city of Charleston in which there was a small group exception
of 75 people that was upheld in that case. And I think in drafting this and
in thinking about the kinds of things that have been upheld, I think it's
important to keep in mind that Nags Head is not Charleston. You know, we don't
have the same kind of law enforcement department. We don't have the same size.
We don't have the same kind of population. We don't have the same kinds
of locations where these kinds of demonstrations can be held. Essentially,
most of these demonstrations would be held in an area adjacent to the bypass,
it seems to me. And that creates its own public safety concerns, I believe. Um,
you know, you have that, you know, you have a town with a year-round population
that's very small and that mushrooms in in the tourist season. I think those
factors all are worth thinking about as we think about the types of provisions
we have in the ordinance. So with all that in mind, um the the things that
I've uh provided to sort of tweak the latest version of the ordinance, um
first dealing with the good faith estimates, I think that's I think it is
important to um to provide that the applicant will provide an estimate that
must be provided in good faith. We know that they can't always give you the
exact number. That's going to be very difficult. But I think it's also
incumbent on the organizer to act in good faith and to provide that estimate
in good faith. And I don't think we should create a presumption that any
estimate that's given is provided in good faith because some folks may not be
acting in good faith. And so um not saying that about anybody who's been
operating uh or engaging in assemblies under this ordinance or under the recent
ordinance this past year, but we have to be prepared for what might happen down
the road. So that's why we revised paragraph C as reflected there. Um
spontaneous demonstrations again um the uh I I know that there's been a lot of
discussion about this provision. Our position is you don't have to have a
spontaneous demonstration provision explicitly contained in the ordinance,
but you have to allow for a small group exception um and something that may
arise without advanced notification. But here it's it's actually codified in the
ordinance which I think is fine. But we've simply you know clarified the
definition of what is a spontaneous demonstration. And I think again you
know Miss Commissioner Walters had a very good point. You know that the kinds
of things we're talking about are those things that I think arise without anyone
anticipating them happening in advance. I can absolutely foresee a situation
where there's a number of people who all at the same time are uh interested in
and um um motivated by a recent event to go and assemble without any advanced
coordination any advanced planning and that needs to be permitted you know in
some fashion u but at the same time I think you know if if if we don't make it
clear that it has to be something that's done without any advanced organization
or planning it's pretty easy to provide some simple advanced planning and
organization without giving the town notice of an assembly that might fall
within the notice provisions and so or even into the uh one the the the the
large crowd gathering. So I just think that tightening that definition is is
important. Um and I think I had one other or maybe two other provisions.
Yeah, the um oh the appeal process. So, um it is important that since the town
has a permitting process for what I'm going to call large groups, uh groups of
100 people or more. Um it's important that you have an appeal process so that
if someone applies for a permit and they're denied, they have the ability to
challenge that. And I think there's an internal appeals process that can be
managed. But at the same time, uh as currently written, the ordinance would
allow for the event to go forward during the pendency of the appeal. And my view
is if you allow that, the appeal becomes moot. you know, you you you really need
to not allow the matter to go forward pending the appeal. Um otherwise,
there's no point in the appeal. Um and and but similarly, where a permit has
been um has been revoked during an ongoing demonstration, I think it is
important that um you know that law enforcement be allowed to and expected
to take um necessary steps to preserve public safety and welfare. uh that may
but may not always uh allow them to um allow expressive activity to continue to
the greatest extent possible. So I don't think it's it's it's it's a good policy
to guarantee that in the ordinances. So that's why I've stricken that last uh
phrase there um just above at the very end of section 4-57.
One of the things that John and I talked about with with this section is that,
you know, unlike the um crowd gathering ordinance where the appeal comes to the
board of commissioners, this refers to the appeal being handled by staff and
and it only applies to a permit and the permit is for groups of 100 or more and
that that requires a 15-day uh notice. So John's point is that because it's an
appeal to staff, it's most likely that we we would have the time to adjudicate
that matter, you know, before the date of the event,
» you know, and so I think that's should should help with that concern is that,
you know, we would we would make every effort to have the appeal and and render
a decision before the actual date of the event.
Thank you. That's I agree with that. And those are my my comments. I'll be glad
to answer any questions though or to elaborate on anything you would like.
» And I did I did want to I didn't go over the crowd gathering piece yet. And so
whether the board wants me to cover that now or wait is up to up to you. Um I
think it seems to me it would be productive to have this conversation in
two parts. Um and so why don't we rather than introduce that part at this point,
let's deal with this uh the spontaneous demonstration part first.
» Very good. >> And um and then go from there. Um,
so commissioners, I'll start. Um, I started this end. I'll start here.
Commissioner Vaughn, do you have any thoughts about the language?
» Well, I have a question and it's, you know, following up on um John's comments
recently about the and about comments made um by the public.
Um while I understand the changes regarding um
the um hang on a second I want to get my
thoughts um the spontaneous demonstration and the
need to def I think we have a there's a difference between this section where
where you just made a change regarding you know how they're handled and then
the definition itself and I think you made the comment that Somebody was
asking to delete the definition or to change the definition, but I think I'm
thinking that the the gray area here is the idea of how much promotion has been
done. You know, that last sentence. I think Miss Walters recommended that we
just stop before that. And I guess maybe I think that would be worth us talking
about. I'm not advocating either way, but that does get into a pretty
subjective situation in in the definition that if we say it's not
spontaneous, if somebody went on Facebook and said, "I'm out here,
» you know, protesting or whatever exercising my right to free speech," is
that does that make it sp, you know, no longer a spontaneous demonstration?
So I sort of have that question comment >> and I and I pulled the definition up on
the screen and that that is that that's separate from the change that John had
suggested. The definition is is up further in the ordinance. But you know I
think what Miss Walters said was she asked that a period be added after the
word event. And so deleting that section about that was not promoted or publicly
advertised prior to the occurrence of the demonstration. And Then I guess we
just have to figure out like how would we how would we draw the line between
what's a spontaneous demonstration and what's not.
» It's worthy of talking about but you know that's kind of what we had come up
with to be able to do that. Um so >> yeah. Oh I understand. Can anybody weigh
in on what we're thinking about like timewise? You know, there's a difference
between obviously taking out ads and promoting something for a long period of
time and again a group text message or you know social media goes off. I don't
know if there was >> I mean
» what anybody was thinking with regards to that.
» Yeah. I mean, how do you see it? I mean, they they have to have some they're
going to put something out with at least 24 to 48 hours and nobody's going to be
there. So, I mean, it's I don't know.
» Or maybe even less. I mean the way the definition is now any
» um public advertising or >> especially for a demonstration because I
I would assume that not every single person there knows everyone's phone
number. So they might be using Facebook or social media to communicate because
they're not >> right.
» So I mean I also understand that if somebody's, you know, going at this for
days or weeks in advance, it's no longer a spontaneous demonstration.
So I don't I don't know how to parse that but
» well in my mind
it's arising an in immediate response to an event
is something in my mind that happens the same day. If it happens the next day
after an event, that's not a spontaneous event. that a spontaneous event is one
that that activates people to get up from their seats and essentially
charge to the public plaza. Um, and which in our case means also getting in
your car and driving somewhere, but but because we don't we're not configured
because we're not configured that way. But it it is an immediate sort of
visceral response to something that happened. And um and if it if it's any
longer than that then you know it would suggest that there's some planning to
it. Uh and um you know I would not in this
definition in that context of something that
happened immediately where people are on the move and begin to chatter among
themselves about where they're going and what they're doing. I would not I would
not rate that as public advertising or planning um or or uh promotion. I would
not rate that that chatter as promotion or advertising. Um you are in the course
of the event at at that point. Um and I don't know if there's a way to clarify
that. I mean, I I'm not I'm not a lawyer, but I was sitting here thinking
that um you know, if if you said immediate
response to a recent or unforeseen event, semicolon, and everything after
that goes together. It wasn't planned or organized in advance, was not proed,
promoted, or advertised. All of that is one phrase. It's one, you
know, it wasn't promoted, wasn't I mean, none, however you want to say that it
wasn't planned, promoted, advertised in advance, that's one phrase together that
sort of defines what is spontaneous. Kind of helps define spontaneous.
Commissioner Lambert, I'm sorry. You want to know the only like in listening
to that that makes sense to me on its face, but then like well,
[clears throat] when I think about any of the demonstrations, I don't think
there's one that happened the same day probably. I mean, Mr. Cartrite might be
able to speak to that, but >> I I just can't believe that any of those
did them the same day. So then that would mean by definition none of them
can be spontaneous or would be considered spontaneous. And
I worry I mean a day's planning. If something happens today and if they're
not marching out there today, it's not spontaneous. That feels a little
» curb. Like what if they want to go out two days later? I'd still consider that.
» But that's times they give you time to notify the tanks.
the thing. >> That's true.
» I mean, you know, >> well, if it's going to be a
demonstration, you're going to have to have some time to
» get everybody together or you're going to be out there with two or three
people. It's not really going to be a demonstration.
» If I may, Mr. >> Yeah, it's hardly.
» These are all great points. And to and to to follow up on what the mayor was
saying, I think you can parse this provision into several components.
The definition is a demonstration that arises in immediate response
to a recent or unforeseen event. Okay, those are all those are all three
different criteria. Um that uh it must not have been planned or organized in
advance of the event and it was not promoted or publicly advertised prior to
the occurrence of the demonstration. So you have all those criteria that must be
met in order to fall within this exception to the notice requirement,
right? So this is not an exception to the permitting requirement. It's an
exception to the notice requirement unless there's going to be more than 100
people reasonably anticipated to be present. So you know I I see
I see um the possibility for for a number of things to fall within this.
One of which is you have an individual or a small group of individuals, three
people gathered somewhere who are um who are, you know, by themselves
demonstrating something they have. I mean, they just went out or something
happens to them and people see it on social media and people decide to go and
protest what's just happened right then and there. That's spontaneous. I mean,
in my view, even they have to get in the car and drive out there, it's still
spontaneous because it wasn't it was it was in response to a recent or infre
event. It wasn't planned or organized and it wasn't promoted. It just happens
organically, you know. So that is the kind of thing that I think falls within
that as well as the idea that I'm sitting at home and I'm watching
something on the news and I see something that happens that was not
necessarily that day but it was recent and um it was unforeseen and I decide I
want to go out and I want to make my voice heard about that particular matter
and I show up and there's several other people doing the same thing. Again,
that's a spontaneous um demonstration of my view. So you have
and those aren't the only things but I think there's a variety of things that
fall within this. So, I don't think this is too restrictive. I think it's just
more about defining what is going to be exempted from any advanced notice
requirement or permanent requirement. That's that's why I think this this
works well the way it's drafted now.
» Can we define immediate as the day of? >> Well,
it's a tough one.
say less than 48 hours. So it's under I mean it's there's a window we're trying
to fill here that's before they have to actually do the
» but all it is is a notification requirement even still. Yeah. It's not a
per >> I think that's what I'm understanding
John to say. So it's not as if it's kicking in some big heavy duty
requirement just like give us a heads up if you think you're going to have
» if you have time to post it on Facebook. give us a call
» or send us email >> because that process is pretty simple
now, right? >> It's designed to be 48 hours and just I
mean I don't know if we would create a form or accept an email but it's just
location number of people. >> It does solve the I mean not solve but
there's the safety concern is making sure that our police are aware that this
is going on and it's to keep the demonstrators safe. So,
» right. >> And also, it's only we're only talking
about more if it's less than 30 people who come out of their house
spontaneously, >> then it doesn't even apply to them
because they can come anyway. It's like you don't have to have you don't have to
give notice for less 30 or less. >> You can just go out of your home
» for notice or permit, >> right? So it's really only if it was
more than 30 people who spontaneously came out of their homes [laughter] in
response to >> and I think that's you have to provide
for that because I do think that's conceivable but I think it's not going
to be the common event but I think it's conceivable
» but I mean so then at that point it's more than 30 less than 100 you have to
notify us 48 hours ahead of time time place location who's the organizer um
you know I Guess if something happens and you don't have 48 hours, you know,
something happens, you want to go out tomorrow and do it. I would imagine best
practice would be to just provide the same notice that you would have provided
if you had 48 hours. >> We'll do our best. Yeah. I mean, I think
that's kind of what it says. >> Yeah. Okay. I mean, I think our staff
definitely needs notice, >> but I mean, you know, it's like, you
know, what what you're trying to I guess
control is somebody wants to plan a big event and you know it's going to bring a
lot of people it's going to require a lot of resources and then they don't
apply for a permit and then they try to use the spontaneous you know definition
a way to say they didn't need to do anything right
» that's what we're trying to make sure it doesn't happen
» yeah and we think this prevents that >> yes okay
» I think so to the our ability. >> Yeah.
» And and again to to John's point, you know,
» people like Randy and others are going to do their best.
» They're they're going to make their best effort. I mean, they're they're not
going out there to make themselves and their friends and put themselves in an
unsafe situation or do any of these other things that are unreasonable. The
thing is that that's not everybody and we don't we don't
um you know we just don't know. I mean it's all laws are for unreasonable
people. I mean the only reason we have laws is because some people will not
apply their common sense. >> That's true. and and um
and so that's why we have to have this and it and it you really I think you I
think John's point is well taken that you have to be thinking about the
unreasonable people as you read this think about what they may do.
They they still have free speech rights even if they're unreasonable. But again,
we have to have the opportunity to make that a safe situation.
It's our responsibility to make it >> to make it a safe situation. I think the
fact that we reference um response to a recent and unforeseen event is pretty
clear, too. So, you just can't go out there and decide. You know, everybody
knew this was coming. Now, we're going to say this was spontaneous. Right.
» Um, >> you know, so that's pretty specific
» and I think we would assume that >> everybody would use good judgment on
deciding whether this is, you know, if it was yesterday something happened and
people went out today, we're going to say, okay, that's immediate.
» That's why I think 24 hours or something that tight is probably difficult. But
you're you're going to have somebody who is going to be out there protesting an
event
later than the standard and they're going to reference something within the
time frame. They're going to say, "I'm not out here. I'm not out here
protesting that event. I'm out here protesting what this commentator said
six hours ago >> about that event. that that's why I'm
here. You know, it just you can't foresee
» right every circumstance.
» So, so what is the >> and up on the screen? So, we talked
about the definition of spontaneous demonstration and then this is the
section um that sort of defines the rules and these are the changes that
John made. Now, if you look at the first change,
John has added without advanced coordination or notice of potential
participants. I think that really just aligns with the definition because the
definition currently has that kind of language. And then the only other change
John suggested is remove this last sentence. I think what it implies in the
sentences before that is that, you know, you shall make a good faith effort to
notify us as soon as practicable. What that implies is that we're going to
be accommodating. And so, do we need to say it in the next
sentence that we're going to be accommodating?
And so, I think that was John's point is that while the town I'm sure the town
will try to be accommodating, that it's a matter of removing too much our
authority to deal with the situations that we may not want.
» Yeah. And I think on that point, I mean, I believe the town has a legal
obligation to not violate the rights of folks who engage in a demonstration, a
spontaneous demonstration pursuant to this ordinance. There are there are some
things that that law enforcement can do if matters get out of hand. But absent
that, there's very little that can be done. And so I don't I think all that
sentence that sentence I think imposes a duty that goes beyond the town's legal
duty. But the town has a legal duty as it is to essentially um allow this kind
of thing subject to controls necessary for public safety if public safety gets
implement uh gets implicated by the activity.
Just just to circle back, I mean, you know, from a broader view of where we
started, I mean, last year we had an ordinance that required a permit for any
any number of people, and it said 72 hours, and it was a
permit that you had to receive. Now, we have an ordinance that says 30 or less,
no permit, up to 100, just notification, 48 hours, and then a permit above 100. a
lot of the standards have been modified and so I feel like we have tried to come
up with something that recognizes all those things and then the spontaneous
demonstration piece is brand new. I mean the the process has has demonstrated
reasonleness. If you put that in there if you put a
reasonable effort an unreasonable person is going to come in and argue
» that your determination was not reasonable. It it g it gives you
something to argue about in terms of a measurement. [laughter]
» And if you you leave it out, >> right?
» You know, it's being reasonable >> as does good faith. But
» yeah, [laughter] that's another >> right.
» Okay. >> So, what is the board's pleasure on
these uh revisions? It sounds like we're basically leaving it as the markup.
Um well, one person I don't know who commented about the the line about
the organizer shall not be deemed in violation of this article solely because
actual attendance exceeds estimated attendance, but I don't know if that was
Randy or Susie who brought that up. >> Um
» it was Randy. Yeah. Are we going to um
what what the violation if some if the attendance is more than we plan or than
the organizer planned? Are we holding that one person in
violation and what does that violation entail?
» I think the the the violation is if they if they provide an estimate that's not
provided in good faith. That's where the violation occurs. So, as long as the um
uh where an estimate is required, as long as the applicant um provides an
estimate that they provide in good faith based on information reasonably
available to them at the time the notice or application is submitted, they're
going to be fine. You know, it's only it's only when the town and I think it's
incumbent on the town if it's going to take some kind of enforcement action to
demonstrate that the estimate was not provided in good faith. But the way this
um last sentence reads, I just I feel like that imposes a further restriction
than the town should uh should should impose on itself.
» I think it's true. Just because the estimate exceeds or the number of
attendees exceeds the estimate doesn't mean it wasn't provided in good faith.
So long as the estimate was provided in good faith based upon information
reasonably available to the organizer at the time
» and the burden would be on the town. >> That's correct.
» Yeah. >> I mean I get I'm assuming this is sort
of an extreme situation where someone tells us there's going to be 50 people
and then they do all this promotion and there's 500 people.
» Okay. You see 500 comments from >> as opposed to, you know, someone who
organizes an event and says there's going to be 40 and there's 60,
» right? Yeah, my my biggest concern is the first sentence here where I think
that could be construed to mean whatever estimate is provided by the um organizer
is deemed to be in good faith and I don't think we should have that
presumption incorporated into the into the ordinance.
» Right.
» Okay. So, the violation would just be to shut the event down because there's too
many people that there were more. It could be, but that wouldn't I I
imagine the chief is going to say that they wouldn't necessarily shut something
down just because they feel that they were not told the right number. I think
they would first look to see if they had trouble managing the situation um before
they took that action. And I think I'm going to ask the chief a
question if I may. >> Sure. [laughter]
» But so the consequence you're saying would just be careful examination of the
next permit. >> Could be could also be, you know, some
[snorts] some Well, I think it's going to depend on what happens when there are
more people that show up than were estimated to be there. And again, in
some ways, I imagine the chief's law enforcement's position may be as long as
it's not creating a problem, we're not going to do anything about it. It's only
when a problem is created. That was my question. You have
» You just answered. >> What what what I mean talk talk to us a
little bit about the process that you'll have to go through when you when you
find a demonstration either that you weren't anticipating or that you were
aware of, but it seems it seems to be different than you anticipated.
» I try to prepare for everything that goes on. Um public safety is my number
one concern. Um beside the fact of spontaneous and
stuff, um we've seen where people advertise
months, weeks in advance. Um and then if somebody
is advertising and there's where you only have to have a notification between
30 and 100. If they are expecting in good faith 75 people,
no problems. If they're expecting 75 and 50 show up. I'm not going out there to
just start shutting it down because more people could start showing up just
riding by and seeing the event and want to see what's going on.
» Um, but if that same person is advertising and there's 6,000 comments
that we're coming, what can we bring? That's a whole different ballgame. Now,
does that mean I'm still going to go out there and just shut it down right then
and there? Absolutely not. I've got to figure out how much staff I have on
hand. Can I do it? Is it going to cause more of an issue if we try to shut it
down than if we deal with it after the fact? Anything can be dealt with after
the fact that they've been in a violation. Um, we could still issue a a
citation or they'll get a warrant or anything if something has been violated
criminally after the fact instead of causing a more of a disturbance scene
right then and there on the side of the road. The First Amendment is very thin
line. We can make national news in a a split second with the First Amendment.
And also what people have to understand with the first amendment is just because
somebody has a different view from you doesn't mean that their rights get
violated when somebody comes out there as long as they're not doing anything
insightful creating retaliation or so forth. Um because they've got the
right to be there just as much as the the original people, especially in a
public place. Um so by no means would we just go shut something down because they
have 102 people. I'm not counting them. I've got better things to do than sit
there and count 102 people to see if they went over. Now, if they're
expecting there's 2,000 out there, we're going to probably reach out to the
organizer, just see what's going on, monitor it. Anytime that we know of an
event, I mean, we have two people that that hold protests regularly. They meet
with us. They fill out the permits. We sit down with them for afteractions.
They ask if we have any suggestions. Um, we give them suggestions. We talk it
out. we have a a very good working relationship with this group.
» Um so they're always looking to see what can be done better. Um any suggestions,
you know, parking becomes a big issue with everything, but that doesn't mean
we're going out there because when people park on other lots, that's not
for us to tow. That will be up to the business owner or the property owner
there to tow. Now, what we have done in the past is go out there and let the
protesters know that, hey, they don't want you parking here. They might tow
your vehicle. Now, they don't have choice. kind words for us during these
incidents because they think it's us, but we're there as a matter of the
property owner, etc. We're not looking for any conflict, confrontation, or
anything. I'm just trying to make sure that the people that are protesting are
are safe, the motoring public is safe, and then there's going to be no other
incidents going on that's going to create problems for the for the
department. >> Right.
» Hopefully that answered your question. >> Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
And if I may just very briefly I I appreciate you know the fact that we
have a a chief who thinks this way but >> it's also
you are you are framing what you do in the context of one responding to the
constitutional rights that the people have and two public [snorts] safety
which is your responsibility. any chief would be responsible for those
two things. I mean whether whether it's you as a very reasonable person or
whether it's anybody else, those responsibilities reside in the chief of
police. So okay,
» so you would not be make you would would not be on the spot ever making a
decision about what was done in good faith or not. I mean I hear you to say
that too. Like these things could be addressed after the event.
» That's my intention. I mean, you're not going to go out there and say
» if we had counterprotesters show up and and everybody is just have different
views, and we've had this recently. >> We can't make those people leave.
» No. >> Um because they're in a public space as
well. Um just because they have that different view doesn't mean that you
can't be here. Um, so if I don't want to do anything right then
and there, if they're there in each other trying to grab signs, that's
that's a violation. That can entice or incite violence. If you're sitting there
using vulgar language specifically addressed at someone, that could incite
violence. And then we have a disorderly conduct um violation that we could
remove that person. um if a large group shows up, we would monitor to see if we
would try to separate them. Now, our ordinance has an in place that if two
people apply, you know, at the same time, um then it gives the chief of
police the authority to regulate time and place equally to each each group. I
hope we don't ever get into that because that will be hard, you know, that will
be basically a nightmare. But if if other people come up and we see that
it's going to get to a point that we could have issues, I'm going to ask the
other people, can we separate, y'all? Go to the other side of the street. But as
far as doing something right then and there, it's going to have to be some
sort of I mean, pretty good violation to to go on where somebody's getting ready
to to fight or you can tell that people I mean,
» you can tell you can read people and and know when something's getting ready to
happen. So, but we also have to be very >> very cautious when we're dealing with
the First Amendment. >> I don't want to be on the news.
» Don't. Thank you. >> Very good. And I'll just add to that the
um you know, the town has experienced and has seen situations where groups
come and they try to provoke action that's unlawful. And that's their their
mission. That's their raise on dete. and we have to be prepared through this kind
of an ordinance to address those kinds of things. That's why I think these
regulations are important. Um, but I think it's all about it's all about
regulation on the front end and good sense and good judgment in regulation
and um enforcing the ordinance on the other.
» Thank you.
I think this gives us a pretty good framework for that.
» It does. >> You know,
um, let me ask the board because this is not a public hearing and I'll ask John.
Um, I see that Randy would like to add something. Is the board amanable to
that? >> Okay, Randy.
» Thank you for that. But I recognize the privilege. Okay. Um, as you know, I'm
usually up here prepared remarks. I'm not very good on my feet, but I have to
be right now. So, excuse me if I say some wrong things, but
this whole process has been a complete process. And we've looked and it's like
the spontaneous demonstration section was a safety valve
for small demonstrations. We're not having any notice for 30 of others from
30 to to 100. We're having notification which is wonderful. You know, in one of
our earlier conversation, I said this is the model that I want. I want us to be
able to call up and say we're going to do this, you know, and um and then for
in our exper now, this is also specific to a town the size of Max's head. These
regulations wouldn't work in Charleston because 30 or 75 would be nothing. But
for our town, it works. And once we get to 100
um then the process that's been going on has been fine. You know they're
generally larger demonstrations that are organized in advance a lot of times in
connection with national demonstrations and there's plenty of time for the
organ. In fact I think we're going 15 days and you make a decision in 72
hours. Well most of the time I think they're talking to you six weeks in
advance. And so the only thing that left was when we had a situation like when
ICE killed two people within two weeks and people said we have to do something
and we can't wait for two weeks. That was where the spontaneous demonstration.
It's a safety valve that fits in with all of this.
And um I feel I I'm afraid that the combination of the restrictions on both
the um um
the good faith estimates combined with the um extra language on the spontaneous
de demonstration might unintentionally prevent these
spontaneous demonstrations that we're trying to protect
um the back to Suz's um and I think there's
one other issue. It's like what is spontaneous? I don't think spontaneous
is the same day. I think spontaneous I mean if you think about the way things
work I mean we're talking three or four days at least from the time something
happens to things really get rolling. Um, and I don't think you can just say
it's got to be that day or the next day because if it happens that afternoon,
you got to have time to get people together and want to do something about
it. And that brings me to the point about notification. I'm afraid that this
is overly broad. It's like in the definition, I think the
problem is spontaneous demonstration means a
demonstration that arises in immediate response to a recent or unforeseen event
that was not planned or organized in advance of the event.
And Susie said that's where we should put the period. And I think for a
definition that's perfect because the rest of it is what
makes it not work. that was not promoted or publicly advertised prior to the
occurrence of it doesn't say the event, it says a demonstration. So that means
between the time we have an event happen and a demonstration, we can't promote
that we're going to be out there demonstrating. I don't think that works
when we're not going to just spontaneously have a hundred people show
up here. People receive notice from talking to people, Facebook or whatever
it is. I I think that I think that that makes the definition clearer if you do
what she recommended and put the period there and then deal with the results of
it in the rest of it. Um, as far as the good faith estimates,
uh, it was mentioned that people like me, you're not going to have problems
with people like me follow rules. I'm a rule breaker if you want to know
the truth about it for other people I'm associated with and um these people look
at these rules and it just really puts a restriction on them when you say oh I
might get in trouble because I went over this estimate
and that's my feeling why they have to be
guaranteed that if it's a good faith estimate
they won't they won't have anything to worry about and then
you know as As far as trying to decide what spontaneous is, um I mean it's
difficult, but my main the period of time between an event and
the demonstration, I just don't see how you can restrict promotion of the
demonstration because if it's truly a spontaneous event, we don't have 15 days
to wait and try to get a permit.
So Randy, you're saying that you you need time to gather people together
for a spontaneous event. >> Yes. It's going to take I mean if if
something happens today, it's probably not going to happen for a couple of
days, tomorrow at the earliest. And somehow, you know, there there are
groups out there that we let people know what we're doing. And people that feel
the same way, but they don't know where to go.
And that's part of our freedom is the freedom to assemble.
» And the communication to get that freedom to assemble is also
guaranteed. >> So, but you would also have time to
notify if you're if you have time to notify
people to come together, then you would have time to notify the police. Just the
notification of what you're doing. >> Is isn't that still in the spontaneous
demonstration that we would notify? um
it that shall make good faith effort to notify the police chief or the designate
as soon as possible. >> So yeah, so that that short such cuts
the 48 hour for small groups or the 15-day application for a large group but
it gives a notification. >> Is it just the numbers that you're
because it it's under a hundred it would just a notification is fine for under
100. Are you saying that you want spontaneous to be more than 100? An
exception for more than 100? >> Well, in the um 30 to 100, we as it's
proposed, we would have to [clears throat] give 48 hour notice.
Well, with the spontaneous exception, we just would ignore notify you as soon as
pos. We may want to be out there the next day.
» Okay. >> And we we you know, if it happened
today, we want to be out there tomorrow. We don't and it may be a big enough deal
that's going to be more than 30 people. And it may be a big enough event that
we're going to have more than 100. >> Spontaneously.
» Yes.
And spontaneously meaning in three to four days possibly.
But my biggest
um I just don't like the idea that between
the time of the event and a demonstration there is language in there
says it can't be promoted that that makes it not spontaneous.
You know, it's like if it's if if somebody has planned an event and and an
event happens, another event happens. Yes, that's a
pre-planned event. Doesn't have anything to do with that. But in a situation when
it's a truly spontaneous event, we need a safety valve and we don't need to be
restricting whether people can promote it
with other people. And that's my difficulty with the language that was
added
» because like you say, you have to tell them a place to go and a time to be
there. >> Yeah.
» So you have to give them some sort of notification.
» That language is so broad that it sounds like if I get on Facebook and say, "Are
you mad about this happening? Show up at Dowy Park." Then that's not a
spontaneous event. >> What if we said less than seven days?
spontaneous. >> Well, then you have time to get a 48
hour permit. >> I know.
» Yeah. >> I mean, what it's almost like what I'm
hearing is that there are no spontaneous events
» that that all the events that the events are being planned
» to some degree >> to some degree. They're being planned,
» which means there's the opportunity for notification.
» Right. >> So, Mr. rate. Do you if you say
something happens and you want to have a spontaneous event, but it's going to
take you 3 days to plan and you know it could go over 100, do you have a
problem? Is it do you not want to have to do a permit then and you'd prefer to
be able to do it under the notice?
I'm trying to figure out what the Well, it seems like
» I I think the two the two areas that the spontaneous exception cover are when you
want to be out there with a crowd greater than 30 people, less than 100,
but you don't have 48 hours.
» That That's the first one. And the second one is when you've got a really
big crowd over a hundred that would normally take you a 15-day in advance
permit. You can't do that.
» So the concern is twofold is you might want to have a semi-spontaneous
demonstration that could be over a hundred and it's just not possible
» with the 15day permit. >> Is that say it again? The concern is if
you do want to have over a hundred, the 15 day is also restricting.
» Yes. >> Yeah.
» Yes. >> Okay. That's separate.
» But our our concern has to be the response.
» You know, what kind of >> for safety,
» right? Safety response. We're able to, you know,
» right? Obviously, I think we all hope it in a way we hope it doesn't happen, but
we in a town this size, as you were saying, we have to we have to be poised
to respond to something that large and doing so with no information would be
really difficult, right, Chief? [laughter]
» Yeah. I mean, I just think >> I look at spontaneous.
» Spontaneous is an impulse. If the power went out today and Dominion Power cut
the power out to the whole outer base and everybody gets mad and wants to go
out there and yell on the side of the street and they start Facebooking
everybody, that's spontaneous. If Nagad had a soccer team and we won
the World Cup, everybody goes out there to celebrate. That's spontaneous. But
when I get out there, I can be like, "Man, we're out here celebrating
» or we're out here protesting that Dominion cut the power off. Come join
us." That's still spontaneous because I'm right then and there. Mhm.
» When I advertise to meet me in three or four days, that's not spontaneous.
» That's not a spontaneous event, >> right?
» I'm afraid that it would negate our ordinance if we said you had three or
four days. I mean, who people could say [clears throat] that event was
spontaneous when it was planned? >> Planned.
But I want to allow for spontaneous events because I I do that.
» I mean, ever since we've started working this, we've never restricted spontaneous
» demonstrations, protests, whatever you want to call them. Um, now we've never
had them like we have them today, but to me spontaneous being an impulse is if
I decide to go out there right now and start doing it and I start texting my
friends I'm out here, that's spontaneous.
If I tell you, you know, Sunday, let's go out there at Audi Park and stand on
side road with signs, that's not spontaneous. If I've got time to get
some people together, I've got time to send an email or make a phone call to
let somebody know what's going on because public safety is my number one,
» right? >> I mean, if something is going on, I've
always looked at any event in town that we don't pull from our duty crew.
So if something is going on and there are 200 people out there that did not
want to let us know and say they have counterprotesters, they have something
else, an issue to come up and I've got my duty crew working rerecks, working
laries, working domestics, guess what they're doing? They're going to have to
sit there and deal with themselves until we clear up. With these events, I
personally am out there. I bring two or three extra officers out
and when I have to tell them the day before, I might not have nobody out
there. But when we know in advance, the group
that we meet with, they put 700 people on their demonstration permit. They had
70. But because of they were expecting it, I knew in advance and we sat down
and met with them over this. I had three officers come out there along with
myself. So we're we're not sitting in the middle of them. We're sitting in
parking lots watching to make sure nobody's riding by throwing bottles at
them to make sure that nobody's doing anything. And if we see violations, we
deal with it. I can't have my duty crew taken away from the rest of the town
» to go sit and monitor an event. >> If we know of a smaller one and they
call up and say, "Hey, we might have 30 people out there. We might have 15
people." Now, will I tell my duty crew to monitor it if something happens? You
know, call me and let me know. That's something that they can ride by on
normal patrols. But when you start getting into large numbers, that's what
I worry with that it doesn't take but an instant for somebody to change their air
conditioner radio to look down and then they I mean people can't drive down here
anyway and then they run off the road. Um so we have to look at it as a whole.
And if we have a large crowd on the side of the the the bypass, that's going to
cause a distraction no matter what view you have because you're going to want
human natures to look to see what's going on.
» Even with things at the event site where we're down there, you know, directing
traffic, people look to see what's going on.
» So, I try to be prepared for everything. >> Thank you.
» Okay. Thank Are there any immediate questions for the chief or anybody else
here? I I want to make a suggestion if I may and that [snorts] would be um that
we take a fivem minute recess >> uh that we then come back and talk about
the other part of the ordinance that we need to deal with. Let our subconscious
minds chew on this a little bit and then circle back to this and maybe uh be
prepared to >> Thank you. uh make a motion um at that
point or to to do whatever it is to is the is the board's pleasure. Um so I'm
going to uh call for the board to be in a 5 to 10 minute recess.
» Okay.
Right. The board's returned from its break. Um, are we still of a mind to uh
go to the other part of the language we need to deal with and then circle back?
» Okay, then. Um, Andy, remind us of what what we're looking at in this other uh
little piece of the language. This is section
413, I think we were going to talk about.
» Well, let me um let me go through this real quick. And so as I mentioned in the
beginning of the presentation, we did have a meeting with the tourism board
representatives talk about the crowd gathering permit process and u we asked
them to send us some suggestions for alleviating their concerns regarding uh
the ordinance. And so they sent those to us and essentially what is reflected in
what you received in your packet is what they provided. And in in the first
section, section 4-2, uh as you can see, their biggest concern
was um the fact that the ordinance says nobody can advertise an event until a
permit is received or issued. And so, um in a practical sense, that never
happens. you know, most of their events are large and they're planned a year
ahead of time and most of the permits aren't issued until, you know, 30 days
ahead of the event or something like that. So, it's really never been
enforced to be honest with you. Um, and I'm not sure the the legality or the
practicality of being able to enforce that. And so, we don't necessarily have
an issue with removing that language. Um in the second piece section 4-7
um they talk about it talks about review of the application and they were sort of
concerned about um it said that um any deviation from the terms and conditions
of the permit um or misstatement of fact uh
shall be grounds for immediate re revocation at any time by the town
manager. And I think that that just gave them a little bit of heartburn that it
forced us to revoke the permit and removed our our discretion there to make
a decision um based on the circumstances. So we don't have a
problem with this language where they just change shall to may and then remove
the word at any time. Seems to make sense. Mhm.
» Um the biggest piece that they provided to us was the idea that we would create
a new step in the process. Essentially a conditional approval for events at the
event site. And right now we have a crowd gathering permit we issue and it's
based on tiers. And the really large events they have to apply for the permit
90 days in advance of the event. But the ordinance says they can apply for the
permit up to a year in advance of an event. And so, you know, we would say,
well, why do the conditional approval when you can apply for a permit up to a
year in advance of an event? And I think the counter point they would make is,
well, they don't necessarily have all the detailed information at that time, a
year in advance. And some some people organizing event an event don't want to
go through the trouble of organizing the entire event, not knowing whether they
they could even receive a permit. So the conditional approval gives them some
reassurance that they're sort of on the right track and I think that's that's
the the notion for suggesting this step in the process. Um so they provided us
language essentially is an A and B and and and
um C. We added the section in D which basically says that you know this
conditional approval is not your permit and it doesn't give you anything really.
I mean it gives you something that okay well you're you're on the right track
but you still have to apply for a permit still have to go through the whole
process. There's no guarantees. You don't doesn't vest you with anything.
And so essentially you're acknowledging that it's not your permit
» and they would have to sign a disclaimer. I mean, I think there's
still some concern that this sort of sets this up a little bit, right?
» You know, that giving them a conditional approval gives them a false sense of
security >> and is that the right way to go with
this? And so, um, you know, that's uh I think that's what's going to be
discussed today. And I think there's some other ways to deal with this, you
know, and we can talk about that, but I'll just pause there right now and let
the board talk about it. >> So, if the concern is about the amount
of work that they have to do before they know whether they can do the
event, they still have to provide a lot of information under this conditional
framework. So, I guess I would circle back and say, why not just do the permit
application and everybody acknowledge what's not complete yet and that has to
be provided by a certain date rather than create a separate process.
» Well, you essentially just said what I was going to say.
» Okay. [laughter] I mean, I think I was looking at the
ordinance again this morning and there's some things in there, you know, that
people may not have but may not be necessary, you know, to submit
completely, you know, a year ahead of time. Like for instance, the detailed
site plan. So if you're at the event site and you have to provide a detailed
site plan, which typically is somebody hand sketches a drawing that shows tents
and vendor locations and you know traffic flow and all that. Well, do we
really need to have that much detailed information? I mean, in most cases,
they're going to be able to provide a site plan that meets a requirement
because there's not a whole lot of specific requirements on how they lay
out their site. And the other big thing would be like
parking and transportation. You know, if we know it's a certain size
event, [clears throat] we know we kind of have a sense of how much parking is
going to be needed off site and and we can tell them, you know, you're going to
need to provide x [snorts] number of off-site spaces or or shuttle system or
transportation. So, you know, could we give them some more time to submit that
information, you know, after they submit their
application? most likely. And so maybe a step we could take is to go back to
tourism board staff and just say maybe we can work with you on some of these
things and modify some of these provisions. So it it makes it less
cumbersome to submit the application and give them more detail later. And and um
and I think that [snorts] that's something we could easily do if the
board agrees. And the other thing we sort of that's come up in some of these
conversations is, you know, the board went through a process uh during the
appeal to put conditions on the permit. Um and we felt like those conditions
were warranted based on the circumstances.
Um you know, the ordinance speaks to providing conditions on a permit. Um,
but it doesn't provide much detail about that, you know. So, from a staff
standpoint, I guess there's some question about how far we can go with
putting conditions on a permit from an administrative standpoint. And maybe
that would be an additional tool that would be useful to staff if we could
provide conditions on a permit um to to ensure a better outcome.
I mean, possibly might [snorts] result in, you know, not having to deny a
permit if you can >> give give more conditions that give you
more security. And so, I think we could go back and look at adding some language
in there about, you know, putting conditions on permits, how you can do
that, under what circumstances, and and be somewhat [cough] specific. And that's
where I think I need John's help here. But, you know, I think it can't be
totally arbitrary. I mean, we can't just do anything we want. So, the ordinance
is going to have to define that a little bit. Mhm.
» concerns about safety and or whatever we deem would need
» like if we were if we were um you know dealing with an event that we felt like
it needed to have some additional police presence
» and similar to the condition the board put on the rod and custom festival. You
know, could we put something in the ordinance that gives us the ability to
do that instead of, you know, having what happened? And so us being staff in
other words. >> Yes. Staff, right? Like from an
administrative standpoint instead of having
» having it go to another. >> If I may, I think the manager hit sort
of the key point there, which is that tool would allow administration to
approve something with conditions as opposed to just denying it and then and
then coming to the board would who would then provide those conditions. So I
think that helps streamline the process and would probably help avoid a lot of
frustration from applicants too. >> I think I would think.
» Yes. Yes, agreed. >> Commissioner Pal as the real quickly as
our representatives. Uh do you have comments on this?
» I I think of course as long as I agree with John that it would help the
applicants as well. We'd want to make sure we have a timeline so that [snorts]
we're not hearing about how all this was so last minute and it certainly is never
arbitrary. I've never noticed to do anything arbitrarily. [clears throat] So
I think if we can find a way to work it into our ordinance so that there's a
mechanism because right now there's no mechanism except denial and then you
know the the appeal process >> to add conditions. So I would think
it would be helpful. Commissioner Lambert, you
» I do want to touch on this a little bit and it's kind of been a recurring theme
this morning where we've talked a lot, safety comes up constantly and one thing
that's kind of been bugging me a little bit lately and I want to make sure with
all the discussions we've had about public events recently and then during
the quasi judicial hearing that we had for the custom um car rod show um there
was lots of sentiment and comments about being concerned not being more concerned
about the business that these events ing to our town and I think that those are
really important. But as a member of the Nags Head board and our town, our role
is to view these events, the events that are being hosted through the lens of the
town's respect responsibility to protect the safety and the welfare of our
residents and our visitors. Um, I recently listened to a tourism board
meeting from their main meeting and there was a comment that said that we
care about public that we care about public safety and our citizens or
whatever. And when I heard that, that really stuck with me because in many
ways it's true and it should be. That's one of our primary responsibilities. And
I don't think that we can have a sliding scale for public safety based on what
economic impact these events have because these events bring money to
Nagad, but they also bring money to Kittyhawk. They bring money to Kildville
Hills. They bring money throughout Dair County as we heard at the quasi judicial
hearing from representatives from all over the county. Um, and as a business
owner, I certainly appreciate that and I absolutely recognize how important these
events are to our local economy. But we also have to be good stewards to our
taxpayers and their dollars. And these events, if they incur extra costs with
our police to keep them safe, >> we need to look at what we can do with
those. And I don't think it should be at the burden of our taxpayers. And that's
how we keep the balance of having these events safely
» and repeatedly. And I think that we need to really look at that public safety
planning process not as obstacles but actually as ways to ensure that these
events can continue to go on because they are so important to Dare County.
» That's a very good point. >> But for the town, the safety has to be
of the utmost importance. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you.
Appreciate that. >> Um while I'm down, Commissioner
Harrison, >> um I I believe that we should table
this. Um I agree with what Commissioner Lambert said. Um, and I I think I'm
hearing Andy pretty clearly that we have some a little bit more work to do that
we could do to make this process easier for the applicant as well as the town.
» Okay. >> Thank you, Bob.
» So, so I just wanted to clarify like um >> 4-13
is the section we're talking about potentially, right?
» Yes. Just this section right here. or or not tableabling
» removing >> to remove approving without that
section. >> Okay.
» Is [clears throat] a possibility. I mean yes tableabling the whole thing
» well >> is one possibility but also approving
the ordinance without that section and letting staff work on the conditional
part >> and cleaning up that process.
» Yes. Tableing this section or removing it for now and putting it back in.
» Yes. >> Okay. Yes. Could we also ask staff to
look into what and and I'm sure they probably already would be planning this,
but looking at what other municipalities do. I know that Kittyhawk killed a
holes, they don't have large event sites, but other municipalities that do
have large event sites and how then how they've been able to partner and work
together so that they can have successful safe events and how they
handle the fees and stuff like that for extra police and whatnot because I'd be
curious what they do. fees
» like fees adding conditions, sorry, like for a police fee or whatnot, like how
other towns handle that when they have an event. Who pays for the police? Is it
the event organizer? Is it the town, the taxpayers? How does that work and what
other towns do with it? >> Because it definitely is my
understanding that they want to continue to host as many events as possible.
Sure. >> And that's, as you said, a great thing.
» Yeah. But we need to be looking forward and considering the impact the overall
impact on our town and our citizens. >> And that is their concern.
» Yeah. >> Anything else that is their or their
criteria or their criteria, but [cough and clears throat] ours is
health, safety, and welfare. >> Full stop.
» Um, okay. So, let's go back then. if we're
talking about potentially um adopting the ordinance
minus section 4-13. Let's go back to the language discussion that we've had. Um
what is the board's pleasure in terms of um either either um moving forward the
markup or making language changes at this point?
» Entire ordinance. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. >> Okay.
I can work this way. >> Well, from what I've heard today, I do
believe that the spontaneous definition still allows
for groups to communicate amongst themselves about any spontaneous
event they're going to have. So, we're not precluding them from texting each
other or calling each other or talking to their neighbors. I feel like that is
a spontaneous way to gather in the street. when it becomes not spontaneous
is when it's promoted on Facebook or promoted advertised.
» I mean maybe even Facebook if it's a small group is not is still contained
and that's not advertised but if it's if it's very public advertising
I think we're still allowing for people to communicate and have a spontaneous
demonstration. So I would I would like to leave the definition
as we have it here now. Still recognizing that that allows people to
gather spontaneously and communicating amongst themselves.
Okay, >> I'm comfortable with that. And then as
far as taking out the language about you may have to come hang on one second
about um not holding the person accountable
who who gave the good faith estimate. Um I think taking that language out is fine
because we're not adding in the language that we are going to hold them
accountable. We're just taking it out. And our our police chief has already
said he's very lenient about holding people accountable. So, I feel like
taking that language out is not going to really be harmful to any organizer who
in good faith provided an estimate of people and then more people showed up. I
don't think anybody is going to go to jail for that or anything
or or not be able to gather again as long as the we can assume that the
estimate was in good faith.
» Those are my comments. Love to hear your feedback. Commissioner Labor, [laughter]
» I agree with Commissioner Harrison. Um, I think this is a really hard one
because >> you [snorts] want to make sure
everyone's happy, especially when we're talking about free speech. Um,
but I agree. I I think that it's going to be hard to get it perfect. Um, but I
do agree with your comments and I think that I would support this without 413.
» Okay. >> Right. Thank you, Mr. Sanders.
can support it as well. I don't know about the good faith part. I think the
attorney made a good point about leaving that in. Um,
and I mean, you do have the 48 hours if it's promoted.
That one's a tough one for me. I'm not sure about that one.
But >> are you Which one are you talking about?
» Um, the definition and the part that said it's not promoted or publicly
advertised. I mean, I could leave out publicly advertised, but I think you
have to do some sort of promotion. I think you have to at least tell people
where you're what time and where you're meeting.
» Seems like our two challenges are defining spontaneous because that leaves
a lot of room and promotion >> because it's communication. [cough]
» I kind of have a little bit of trouble with that definition as well. I mean,
you do have the 48 hours. I mean, and you're not like, from what I understand
from the town manager and from the chief, it's not going to be like a
strict enforcement. So, there is a little bit of gray area there. So,
yeah, that's kind of where I'm at. >> Okay.
I mean I could go and
it's publicly advertised is one thing but I think it has to be promoted to
some point. So >> which we are allowing for
interpersonal promotion with this definition. I feel like
» commission. >> Um I think that we that this ordinance
minus 14, you know, which we've already I think pretty much concur on strikes a
really good balance. It's not going to be perfect, but I do think it allows for
spontaneous demonstrations. Um, and I I think we all understand that
there's going to be some communication, but if somebody's got time to to really,
you know, really start networking for several days at a time, then there's
time to give notification as well to us. >> And, um, I I really appreciate Ry's
comments and all the people that have been involved in staff working so hard
to to try to come up with something. John said, we don't even have to have
this type of ordinance. I'm proud that we do and I definitely think as Andy
said that we, you know, are airing on the side of um freedom of speech
whenever possible, but again, we've got to consider being prepared for what
might come along and and looking after folks and um our officers being ready
and all the rest. So, >> I'm I'm in favor of of the markups.
» Okay. So, as I understand it, then the likely
motion is to adopt the ordinance as presented with the modifications
minus 413. >> Yes.
» Okay. Then if somebody will make that motion.
» I'll make that motion. >> Okay. And do I have a second?
» Second. >> Have a motion. A second. Is there any
further discussion? been a lot of discussion and there will probably be
some more um at some point but uh I I also uh commend the public um the the
folks who got involved um there's been a lot of discussion about collaboration
this morning u both in this ordinance and in the design of the um the
shoreline and um that's something that I'm [clears throat] very proud that
Nagad does Um uh we're we're not as you say arbitrary. Um we we do things um uh
uh in good order and uh I really appreciate that. So hearing no having a
motion and a second and no further discussion. All those in favor signify
by saying I >> I opposed. Thank you.
» All right. Um that brings us to new business. Um, and that would be
committee reports. And I'm going to start down here with um, Commissioner
Harrison. And I know you're going to have something for us a little bit later
on the agenda. >> Yes. Um, so that's not under my
committee report. Okay. Committee report. We are um with Current TV just
we are not meeting until a week or so from now, but um, I know that Roberta
has some things in the works and one of them is a beach nourishment video kind
of recapping our project. So, that's our next video coming out.
» Yeah. Very good. Thank you, Commissioner Lambert.
» Um, Miss Wyatt gave an excellent septic health update. Uh, we do have our next
meeting, I think July 27th, she said. And I'm really excited to hear about our
zero interest loans starting to roll out, getting [clears throat] that going.
It's >> a lot of work.
» All right. >> Um, Janette's peer advisory committee,
we did meet. Um, Commissioner Harrison and Commissioner Lambert were both there
in attendance. Um, we got a nice tour of the of the facility. Um, all of the
improvements there. Um, and it was actually it was pretty cool experience.
It was pretty neat. Um, and there was some um there was some additional
discussion about um education and and some other opportunities um and some
networking opportunities and and that's great. That's the that's the benefit of
being engaged in that kind of thing. Um, so it looks good and if you haven't been
there to see the new decking and everything, I encourage you to to go
take a look. Commissioner Sanders, the >> ambient lighting out there looks
amazing, too. If anybody seen that, >> it's really cool.
» Yeah, it's really nice. um the DAR Housing Fan Foundation. Um they're still
seeking opportunities for year-round workforce housing and they're also doing
some community outreach and uh fundraising events such as castles for a
cause which you can find on their website which is a summer castle
building contest and they have a new contest each week and so that's raising
a little bit of money as well. So >> cool. Very good.
» Commissioner B. Uh well, we covered probably the highlight for us regarding
the um visitors bureau, which was the discussion about the easement and all
that. We're making good progress on that and um nothing else big to report from
them. >> Thank you.
Uh that brings us to the town attorney, Mr. Lighty. Anything that's not already
in the um close session? >> I I think I've already uh provided my my
my >> We got our money's worth today, did we?
Did we not? [laughter] He'll have nothing else at this time.
» All right. Great. Thank Thank you very much. Uh and the town manager. Um so we
will have a 2026 beach nourishment update. David,
while he's setting up, I will note that um several board members did visit the
uh cutterhead dredge uh last week, and that was a a really great um experience
to see how that how that works. Um, and it it was really it was really nice
because it it uh I think it gives you a sense of the scale of the operation, not
just the boat itself, but all of the staff um the logistics, everything that
goes into that is uh is pretty remarkable and it was it was neat to
see. [clears throat] >> Yeah, I was surfing yesterday and
surfing by the little dredge, but looking at the big one, it definitely
put in perspective because you can see it way out there. It doesn't look like
much, but when you're on it, it does. Like so much going on out there.
» Yeah. >> And on the beach, too.
» David, >> uh good morning, mayor and
commissioners. Um you're going to have to bear with me here. Uh my computer
just decided that it was going to reset. >> So, of course, it did have to rely on
Katie to go ahead and come come with a backup here.
» Okay. But um as uh as the mayor had mentioned,
you know, a project of this scale is really a collaborative effort between
the consulting engineer, the contractor and and town staff. And um especially
over the past several weeks, we've had a lot of communication taking place as a
result of some of the critical areas that they've been working on in this
project. um especially down in uh South Nags Head um finishing up that stretch
and then here in the main uh part of town uh just because of the impact and
the time of year um that we have uh that it's uh it's been a real challenge um
but it's been it's been a pleasure um working collectively as a group to be
able to go ahead and resolve a lot of these issues.
So, uh, currently we've there's been a lot of progress that has been made over
the, um, past month, uh, when we gave our last update, uh, in the northern
section of town. Um, where we start at Bonnet Street Bath House, uh, we have
completed all the way down to about Forb Street. Um, and the the hopper dredge is
working that section of town. And they've got about another thousand feet
or so to go ahead and complete that section before they pull off and they
start working south of there at Harrove Street, which is the next subline um
connection that um they will be working off of. Um, as the mayor had mentioned,
the board members made a site visit last week to the dredge and you got a
firsthand look at all the moving parts that go into it. Um, unfortunately um
some of those issues were realized this past weekend when um the RS weeks, the
hydraulic dredge or the cutterhead dredge lost power. And so they were
working just south of the Outer Banks Pier and they had it took them about 18
to 24 hours to be able to restore power. They still had sand in that subline. So
they had to purge that and they've made a decision to go ahead and pull that
dredge off and demobilize that part of the operation. So they've been able to
go ahead and adapt and uh the hopper dredge the RB weeks will then move
southward and they will go ahead and continue for the remainder of the
project. Uh even with all that occurring um we're still looking at maintaining
the schedule. The last schedule that was given was completion on or around July
19th. So that's actually moved up a little bit um from from our last update
and you know that will vary um based upon mechanical issues or weather
related issues or whether they have to go refuel. So uh it is a very fluid and
dynamic process. Uh but um they've they've been making some very good
progress with the hopper dredge. They're um on a daily basis. It's anywhere
between 700 to 1,000 ft of beach that they are nourishing on a daily basis.
And uh if they maintain that schedule, we anticipate that uh you know they'll
be able to go ahead and finish up mid July. Um when they do move down to the
next subline, which is at Hard Grove Street, they will first go in a
southerntherly direction. So, they will go ahead and finish off and tie into
where the cutterhead dredge left off um at the Islington Street Beach access and
then they will go ahead and flip and work northward. Um that will lessen the
impact especially around Janette's Pier during the Fourth of July holiday by
going ahead and maintaining that sequence. So that was a discussion that
we had with the contractor that they were able to go ahead and adapt and be
able to go ahead and work with us. Uh just noting um some of the issues that
uh we've seen in the past especially working around a lot of the peers. Um
with that I'll I'll answer any questions that you have.
» Anyone? So, it doesn't sound like we're going to
lose any time because we're losing a dredge. Like, we're still maintaining a
pretty good schedule. >> No, because the original goal was to
work up to the Outer Banks Pier with the cutterhead dredge
» and they fell just shy of that. >> Okay.
» So, so the
» the hopper dredge was going to go ahead and finish off that work. Now, they've
just got a little extra length to have to go through the pier to be able to tie
that in. >> Okay. Pretty
good. All right. Thank you, David. >> All right. Thank you.
» Glad they lose power while we were out there.
» Just a saying. I'm glad they didn't lose power when we were there. [laughter]
» Yeah. Uh David, you're going to stay there and give us a update on the
multi-use path. >> Okay. Um, if I can ask if I can put this
off until next month because I've got some exhibits that I want to show and
with my computer in the current status that uh I won't be able to go ahead and
show that. >> Absolutely. No problem.
» All right. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, David.
» Thank you, David. >> All right. And Andy, um you're gonna
give us an update on the um funding offer from DEEQ.
» Sure. And Amy's going to get up and and go over this and um Kelly mentioned this
during her presentation, but we did receive the funding offer finally for
the 0% interest loan program for our septic health program. And uh Amy's been
working on this and we need the board to approve something. So let her just go
over that briefly.
I was worried my Oh, my computer did the same thing as his did. Okay.
» So, I g I sent it to um Katie, so we're good. Um
sorry about that. Sometimes when I move my computer, it does this.
There you go. Um, yes. So, this was not published and I apologize because I just
got this on Monday like at 3 o'clock. And this is just kind of the last piece
that we need to formalize this septic health, the 0% septic health residential
loan program, the $500,000 we received from DEEQ.
um they just need uh a resolution
from the board to accept the the loan. Um and again, this is the last piece of
being able to start moving forward forward with offering the loan. So what
they need is um the resolution adopted by the board and within that resolution
it authorizes both Andy and myself to execute any contractual documents
um for the town. So you're giving us that authority to do that in this
resolution. But um yeah, we we didn't think we would want to wait another
month to get moving on this >> right
» because it's it's been a while in the making. So, um, apologies for it not
being published, but we think it's a good thing and and, um, getting this
moving a little bit faster. >> All right. Thank you, Amy. And we do
appreciate being able to to move ahead with this.
» Um, so, commissioners, any questions of Amy
first before we >> proceed? All right. Um, in that case, a
motion to adopt the resolution would be in order. I'll make that motion.
» Okay. Is there a second? I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying I. I.
» I. Opposed. Right. >> Great. Thank you very much.
» Very excited about that. >> Uh that brings us to the board of
commissioners agenda and commissioner Harrison.
» Okay. Okay. So, with Current TV, this is a a video that was made um it's it's not
one of our regularly scheduled videos. They are always looking for new ideas.
Um and they're willing to the current TV staff is willing to um make videos
basically, you know, as part of our contribution about anything in the town
that is interesting and they it will air on current TV. And so, Roberta knew that
these researchers were coming to town to look at our shipwreck that's right out
here in the yard. And so she alerted them and Chad came and Casey came and
made this video about our shipwreck. So we can I just thought it would be fun if
we could watch these videos from time to time to know what the that's happening
with the government access channel. >> Sure.
» So roll it Katie. [laughter]
Mom over there.
While she's trying to figure that out, I will say that um we are always looking
for ideas. So, if if you come across anything that you think that the
community would like to know about wi within maged. Um I know she's working on
one now about beach accesses and kind of the life of a beach access. I working on
one about beach nourishment. I think the mayor was interviewed for that one. Is
that right? So, if you know any ideas that people are willing to share, we'd
love to hear them and could possibly get it made into a little video.
» Actually, I was interviewed for the beach access.
» You were? Oh, okay. You were for that one as well.
» Yeah. Okay. So, >> I'm excited to see
» I don't know when those are coming out. I know he was working on production of
the beach nourishment one. >> Okay.
» Just this week. Okay. >> Yeah. Good.
» Yeah.
This was 1978. Before that,
197
and they're going to record within particular narrative in relation
to which the US service report
a number of years ago we had a student do an assignment on this and we can look
at the different
canlate
insurance
500 to 900
back in 2016. We
and you're walking around.
The purpose of it is
that
we have a drill that
shows us how well
this a whole series of benefits. I mean, how do you get to
North Carolina?
By the way,
looking at it now
making it really difficult. talking about
curious
experiment. to come up with
you have
United States
of Virginia.
» Yeah. >> Not a funding request. [laughter]
» Yeah. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. Very good. Thank you. Anything else?
» Not for me. >> Okay, Commissioner Lambert.
» Oh, I'm so sorry. I am happy 4th of July to everyone this weekend, especially our
EMS and public works, police, fire, you guys are all working, so a lot of people
can be off. So, thank you so much. >> Yeah, absolutely.
» Absolutely. Commissioner Sanders. >> Yeah, it's great.
» Nothing else. >> Okay, great.
Uh, that brings us to the mayor's agenda. Um, and there was nothing listed
in the published agenda, but I did want to um to say a couple of things. Um, one
I want to u add to, uh, Commissioner Lambert's wish for a safe and happy
fourth on everyone's part. Um, so, um, I want to give a legislative
update. Um we've reported several times on activities of the legislature um and
the town's efforts to um have some policy impact on a couple of
things. Um as well as some appropriations requests that the town
had. Um you're probably aware if you read the news that the state finally um
has presented a budget uh a final budget. Um and uh I understand that they
hope to vote on that today. Um and so uh the town had several appropriations
request um in um one of those is in the budget which is $400,000 for um uh our
um public safety command center. Um and uh so that's that's good news. Um
assuming that budget gets passed and and um
there is the opportunity uh for additional appropriations uh going
forward. Uh the understanding from our consultants in Raleigh that um possibly
even in August they may come and um and uh adopt some riders to the budget. And
so there's still hope for our waterline replacement and some other things. Um
but nonetheless, um $400,000 is a is a significant win for the for the town. Um
we also had a a couple of policy uh wins. Um [clears throat] one that I'll
site um and that was House Bill 162, which um was also uh voted on by the
Senate and is going to the governor for signature. Um that was the one that was
the bill that would have stripped away our um ability to set parking standards
uh in the town. Um we uh this was a focus of one of our visits to the
legislature. Um we talked to the bill sponsors. Uh we talked to our senator
Bobby Hannig um about this and ultimately with a lot of back and forth
between our consultants and the board and the staff um there was an amendment
to that bill which exempted the KA counties. Um I guess on the basis that
the KA counties are where the resort communities are which are very much like
ours and have the issues that we describe to them. Uh, nonetheless,
regardless of how they decided uh uh on that uh we are exempted from that those
those um that and we will maintain our parking standards which is which is
good. Um there was another bill um that we worked on that would have mandated a
number of things um like um accessory dwelling units and others. um that bill
was modified and we worked on that um with a population threshold that we
would be exempted from. I'm not sure the status of that bill. I don't I'm not
sure that that one has been voted on uh yet. Um but assuming that our amendment
uh stays in place, then we would also um so um I uh yesterday um Whitney
Christensen, her her lobbyist, uh called me. she was running between meetings and
she said she'd be sending the email later, which she did. Um, but she wanted
to let us know that she'd seen the budget uh yesterday morning and that her
$400,000 was in there and she was very excited about that. And so so in a brief
call, but um uh she was very complimentary of the
town of Nags Head and our board and our staff. Um you know, she said that all of
their clients get the same issues flagged for them. Um but Nagad rolls up
its sleeves and goes to work and believes that the town can have an
impact. Um and it does. And so um to the extent that Nagsad has success, it is
due in part to uh the work that they do but also the work that we do. Um and
this board has been very engaged in this. And so that's and that's that's
great. Um and it paid off. So I just wanted to I just wanted to pass that on.
Um that brings us to uh close sessions and um I I think we uh need to amend
this. U we were going to talk about a piece of property John as well. I
believe in in this. So if you will give us the right reference um for that
» that one is um this is it's subsection A5.
» Okay. So, I make a motion that the board enter into close session um to um
discuss close session minutes and their deposition pursuant to general statute
143-318.11a1
and um to discuss a piece of property which I don't have the address for
um but it's it's adjacent to our parking lot across from the Epstein beach access
and um in accordance with general statute 143-318.11a5.
Um so I make that motion. Is there a second?
» Second. >> Have a motion and a second. All in favor
signify by saying I. >> I opposed. All right. Board will be in
close session.
Okay. The board has returned to open session. Mr. Lighty, will you please
report on the close session? >> Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, the board did
approve close session minutes and took action to open certain ones and to keep
others sealed in accordance with the disposition schedule, but no other
actions were taken. >> Okay, very good. Uh, is there any other
business to come before the board?
Uh, in that case, a and we do not need a midmon meeting. So, a motion to adjurnn
would be in order. >> So, moved. I
» have a motion and a is there a second? >> Second.
» I have a motion and a second. All in favor say I.
» I opposed. Thank you.