OAK ISLAND — After four months and three meetings debating house size limits in a Brunswick County beach town, the town council has come to a solution.
READ MORE: OKI planning board member resigns amid house-size kerfuffle, members reject council proposals
ALSO: OKI planning board leans toward opposing stricter house size limits, asks for more time
At its Tuesday meeting, the Oak Island Town Council voted 4-1 to cap new home construction at 4,000 square feet, with no loopholes. The current rule allows for lot sizes to be capped at 4,000 square feet, but developers and homeowners could bypass this limit with a special use permit, allowing them to build up to 5,000 square feet per CAMA guidelines.
Under the new text amendments, the special use permits will no longer be allowed.
“I don’t care if you have 0.21 acres, I don’t care if you have half an acre, I don’t care if you bought Middleton Park — 4,000 square feet maximum,” council member Bill Craft said during discussion.
Tuesday, Planning Director Matthew Kirkland presented council with three recommendations:
- The chosen option, which removed the special use permit;
- Another proposed a maximum home size of 3,500 square feet;
- And a third introduced a “floor-to-area” (FAR) ratio of 0.45, meaning the home could occupy no more than 45% of the lot’s square footage.
Council asked the planning board to review the three suggestions over the summer. The board delivered pros and cons for each option but were ultimately not in favor of any of them. The issue even led to the resignation of one planning board member, Melanie Morgan, after two council members filed complaints against her conduct during discussion of the house size limits.
Tuesday’s decision wasn’t made without a few heated moments as well. Council member Mark Martin was the only one who dissented on the amendment change and reprimanded the audience for talking while he was speaking.
During council discussion, Martin also was snippy upon asking Kirkland for clarification on repercussions the amendment could have on homeowners who already live in 4,000-square-feet homes. A council member attempted to respond.
“If I’m asking staff a question, I want staff to answer it,” Martin retorted, “and I don’t want council to blurt out the answer in advance — I want to hear from staff.”
Even Mayor Elizabeth White used her gavel to restore order at one point during the meeting.
The amendment change comes after area officials responded to resident concerns regarding nuisances observed of tourists staying in large homes that were turned into vacation rentals. Residents cited issues with trash, parking, and noise frequently accompanying some of the properties.
Council member John Bach remarked the council should have addressed this issue in 2022 due to the overwhelming and persistent public demand.
“In over seven years serving our town, there has rarely been such a pervasive concern and request, such a persistent one, such a passionate one. That tells me something as a public servant,” he said.
Five residents voiced opinions Tuesday during the public hearing.
“If we do nothing, we face the risk of irreversible change,” Glenn Baker, who lives on the island, warned.
He said undeveloped beach lots could be overtaken by massive rental homes, disregarding lot size and the character of nearby properties. He also feared developers might buy and demolish charming bungalows to make way for larger structures.
“We can take a stand to preserve Oak Island as a place where families can thrive, where homes are more than just investments, and where the character of our neighborhoods is respected and protected,” he added.
Resident Helen Hunt said the larger houses made the island look “hodgepodge and mismatched.”
“A giant three-story, mini motel house next to a cute beach cottage,” she said. “We are on the path of becoming just another resort island.”
Early into the meeting, before a motion was even made, Martin proposed tabling all discussions about the new ordinance until the council’s October meeting. This led to debate among the members — a “doom loop,” Bach called it.
Martin believed council should not decide on any motion regarding the text amendments without first conducting a fiscal impact statement. Limitations on house size, he said, would affect the budget and potentially taxes.
“It’s only fair for the public to know that this decision is going to increase property taxes,” he said, adding it would reduce the city’s potential revenue.
Council member Terri Cartner called the notion a “scare tactic,” noting tax indications are unknown.
At last month’s meeting, council voted to update its financial management policy by agreeing: “Fiscal Impact Statements should be included with all Council agenda items that have financial implications, both positive and negative, with reasonable estimates for the future.”
Bach brought it up again Tuesday, questioning when such a statement is needed. He said if every policy change required one, it would be a timely and lengthy process.
“I think we will endeavor to do it on everything where possible,” Kathryn Adams, the recently appointed town manager, responded. “We’re not gonna have crystal balls and be able to articulate that specifically, but we certainly can make comparative statements about whether this is negative or positive overall.”
Council decided to complete a preliminary fiscal impact statement on the amendments, despite them already being voted on.
Martin also complained the council was not considering the impact the amendment changes could have on current property owners. He noted some property owners’ homes that are larger than 4,000 square feet would now be considered non-conforming to the town’s ordinances. He said they might face challenges in obtaining insurance or securing mortgage loans due to their properties’ non-conforming status.
He later motioned to grandfather in 20 to 25 homes already in the developmental process that are planned to exceed 4,000 square feet. However, his request was denied by council member Bob Ciullo, who made the original motion to remove the special use permit.
Port City Daily asked the town what will happen to these plans now that the amendment has passed; an answer was not received by press.
Cartner advocated for adopting the third option — floor-to-area ratio. She presented data that over the past five years, 44 homes built within the approved 3,500-to-4,000-square-foot range have been constructed. Notably, 23 of the homes feature more than nine bedrooms and nine bathrooms, with some reaching up to 14 or more of each. Additionally, 17 of these properties are owned by LLCs, and 11 of those LLCs are not registered in Oak Island.
“Will a 4,000-square-foot maximum support our residential community ideals — which our citizens have asked for — or will it continue moving us closer to being a commodity of non-residential properties?” she questioned.
However, this motion was denied by council. Martin said council shouldn’t assume an LLC means a corporation owns the home.
“I think we are using information in an inappropriate manner to try and make significant decisions that impact proprietary owners and their rights to own their land and develop their land,” Martin said
Craft, unfamiliar with the “floor-area ratio” term, thought it complicated the objective unnecessarily.
Other approved amendments passed in a 3-2 vote, with Cartner and Ciullo opposing. They revolved around height limitation expectations and included additional language: “spires, belfries, cupolas, antennas, water tanks, ventilators, chimneys, or other appurtenances” are required to be placed above roof level and cannot be occupied by humans.
Reach journalist Brenna Flanagan at jalyn@localdailymedia.com
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
