On the agenda: Nags Head Planning Board — Automated License Plate (Nov 17)

AGENDA
TOWN OF NAGS HEAD PLANNING BOARD
NAGS HEAD MUNICIPAL COMPLEX – BOARD ROOM
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2026; 9:00 AM
REGULAR SESSION
A.

CALL TO ORDER

B.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

C.

PUBLIC COMMENT/AUDIENCE RESPONSE

D.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.

E.

F.

October 20th, 2026

ACTION ITEMS
1.

Consideration of proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendments submitted by John
Delucia of Albemarle & Associates, Ltd., on behalf of the Rogallo Foundation. The amendments would
establish a new use category, “Nonprofit Aviation Museum and Education Center,” and adopt
supplemental regulations, including provisions for limited alternatives to the commercial design
standards for the aviation museum building.

2.

Request for initiation of consideration of UDO text amendments to address the provisions of Session
Law 2026-51 concerning the new “No Impact Home-Based Business” category.

REPORT ON BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTIONS
1.

November 4th, 2026

G.

TOWN UPDATES - AS REQUESTED

H.

DISCUSSION ITEMS
1.

Continued discussion of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

2.

Continued discussion of potential UDO amendments related to tree preservation.

3.

Planning & Development Directors Report – November 4th, 2026

I.

PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS’ AGENDA

J.

PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN’S AGENDA

K.

ADJOURNMENT

Page 1 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes

-DRAFTTown of Nags Head
Planning Board
October 20, 2026

October 2026

The Planning Board of the Town of Nags Head met on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, in the Board Room
at the Nags Head Municipal Complex.
Planning Chair Meade Gwinn called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. as a quorum was present.

Members Present
Meade Gwinn, David Elder, Beverly Head, David Thompson, Valerie Netsch

Members Absent
Brad Carey, Basil Belsches

Others Present
Kelly Wyatt, Joe Costello, Chris Trembly

Approval of Agenda
Chair Gwinn called for approval of the agenda. Beverly Head moved to approve the agenda as
presented. David Elder seconded, and the motion passed by unanimous vote.

Public Comment/Audience Response
None

Approval of Minutes
Chair Gwinn asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the September 15th, 2026, meeting. David
Elder moved to approve the minutes as presented; Valerie Netsch seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously.

Action Items
Consideration of a UDO text amendment submitted by Anastasia Forlano to allow cosmetic tattooing
as an accessory use to permitted beauty salon uses within the town.
Ms. Wyatt noted that the applicant was running late and asked if the Board would be amenable to
hear the presentation by John DeLucia (Discussion Item 1) ahead of the action item. The Board
agreed and the agenda was amended.

Discussion Items
Presentation by John DeLucia of Albemarle & Associates, Ltd. and representatives of the Rogallo
Foundation regarding the Foundation’s mission and plans for a proposed aviation center and
museum.

1
Page 2 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes

-DRAFT-

October 2026

John DeLucia of Albemarle & Associates explained that the presentation was to prepare the Board for
a text amendment to be submitted next month. The Rogallo Foundation has purchased property near
Jockey's Ridge on which it hopes to build an aviation museum. Mr. DeLucia said the foundation
wanted to stay close to Jockey's Ridge because most of the history originated there. He said staff and
the applicant each had proposed language and would work it out over the coming month, aiming for
an amendment "similar to what we did with the YMCA."
Billy Vaughn, historian for the foundation, presented the history of Francis and Gertrude Rogallo and
their invention of the flexible wing. He covered its development at NACA/NASA Langley and its use in
military and space-program research. He described its role in the origin of hang gliding, paragliding,
stunt and traction kites, and kiteboarding. He also described the Rogallos' ties to Jockey's Ridge, the
first national hang-gliding meet held there, and their community involvement and advocacy for
preserving the ridge. He expressed interest in tying the museum to local middle-school programming.
Chair Gwinn asked whether the museum would take anything away from the nearby Wright Brothers
Memorial or add to the overall first-flight experience. Mr. Vaughn replied that it was "absolutely part
of the same story." He said the Wrights learned to fly with gliders, and that Jockey's Ridge would
have been their natural laboratory had it been closer to Kitty Hawk. Ms. Head, noted she was a
former middle school teacher, thanked the presenters and expressed support for the educational aims
of the project.
John Harris, President of the Rogallo Foundation, said the museum would convey the history of lowspeed flight, including Lilienthal, the Wright brothers, and the Rogallos. It would also offer fee-based
one-day to one-week STEM camps, which would be the main revenue source for operations. He said
the project would include an accessory classroom building and the Rogallo Hall of Fame and would
host aviation events and symposiums. Chair Gwinn asked where the site was located. Mr. Harris
answered that it was directly across from the Hollowell Street entrance to Jockey's Ridge State Park.
He invited the Board to the foundation's tenth annual Brewtag fundraiser on Saturday, which raised
$70,000 last year.
Mr. Elder asked for a projected timeline. Mr. DeLucia and Mr. Harris explained that the sequence
would likely be:
 the text amendment, to come to the Board at its next meeting, then to the Board of
Commissioners;
 site plan approval and subdivision of the property;
 a fundraising campaign.
They stated that the smaller classroom and workshop building would likely be built first as they
figure out funding for the museum building.

Action Items (Contd.)
Consideration of a UDO text amendment submitted by Anastasia Forlano to allow cosmetic tattooing
as an Accessory use to Permitted beauty salon uses within the town.
Planning Director Kelly Wyatt explained that the request would allow a limited set of cosmetic
tattooing services as an accessory use to a beauty salon in the C-2 district and would not allow
traditional tattoo establishments. The applicant plans to lease a unit in a local shopping center. Staff
found that Section 6.6 does not authorize cosmetic tattooing, and "Tattoo and Body Piercing" is

2
Page 3 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes
-DRAFTOctober 2026
currently allowed only in the small C-3 district, which Ms. Wyatt said is in the northern part of town
and contains service and light industrial uses.

Ms. Wyatt stated that the amendment would apply to any qualifying business, not only the applicant.
It is a zoning classification only and does not alter health department requirements. Key provisions of
the draft ordinance include:









Authorized procedures: eyebrow, eyeliner/eyelash, lip, and cheek pigmentation, with
touch-ups and color corrections. Decorative body art, lettering, freckle or beauty-mark
tattooing, scalp micropigmentation, reconstructive tattooing, tattoo removal, and body
piercing were excluded.
Accessory status: The tattooing area is limited to 25 percent of the salon's gross floor area.
It must be within the same enclosed unit and operate only so long as the principal beauty
salon operation continues.
Approval: Zoning approval is required, along with health department and septic approval.
Practitioners must hold the tattooing permit required by N.C.G.S. 130A-283.
Table of uses: The table lists only "hair salon," so staff replaced it with "beauty salon"
(permitted in C-1, C-2, C-4, and C-5). Beauty salon with accessory cosmetic tattooing would
be permitted by right in C-2 only, with supplemental regulations.
Related changes: Staff added definitions for beauty salon, spa, cosmetic tattooing, and
tattoo/body piercing establishment. Parking requirements were unchanged, and personal
services were added to the commercial mixed use list in Section 7.32.

Mr. Thompson asked for confirmation that the use would only be permitted in C-2. Ms. Wyatt
confirmed it, adding that a standard beauty salon remains allowed in all four districts. Ms. Netsch
asked why only C-2. Ms. Wyatt said C-2 is the general commercial district where most the widest
variety of commercial uses are allowed, and likely where the majority of salons are located and where
the applicant intends to operate. She said the use is new to the Town and that Nags Head has
historically not leaned into traditional tattooing. She said she was open to extending it to other
districts if the Board wished but would be more hesitant for C-4 and C-5 as these are the arts and
culture, and historic commercial districts, and because of state law (S.B. 382): "we would not be able
to rein it back in" if the use did not operate as envisioned.
Chair Gwinn asked what would happen if a salon in C-4 or C-5 wanted to offer the service. Ms. Wyatt
answered that it would have to go through the same UDO amendment process. The Chair also asked
what would happen if the applicant sold the business. Ms. Wyatt replied that the new owner would
not need to repeat the process but would need the required cosmetic tattooing certifications.
Anastasiia Forlano, owner of Beach Brow Bar, addressed and thanked the Board. She stated she has
lived on the Outer Banks for 14 years and worked in the beauty industry since 2017. She
acknowledged that permanent makeup is technically tattooing and said she respected the health and
safety regulations. She described it as "first and foremost a beauty service," and said she is
committed to meeting all health department standards.
Chair Gwinn asked whether any adjacent towns had such salons. Ms. Wyatt said she had found none.
Ms. Head said, "It's not traditional tattooing. It's a way to bring more beauty, whether it's inward or
outward." Mr. Thompson commended staff for a thorough and detailed job in wording everything. Mr.
Elder appreciated the careful, general language, which he said would help with unforeseen conflicts.
Ms. Netsch said she viewed the use as an extension of services offered at a beauty salon and asked
why other districts should be excluded. Mr. Elder asked whether adding other districts later would be
difficult. Ms. Wyatt answered that it would go through the Board and the Board of Commissioners,

3
Page 4 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes
-DRAFTOctober 2026
but that the lack of recourse once adopted made her prefer starting in C-2. The Chair agreed that
taking small steps here in something new was prudent and that other districts could be considered
later.

David Elder moved to recommend approval as presented, Beverly Head seconded and the motion
passed unanimously

Report on Board of Commissioners Actions – October 7th, 2026
Ms. Wyatt reported that at its October 7th meeting the Board of Commissioners held the public
hearing on Eddie Goodrich's request for a smaller alternative cottage court option (one story,
maximum 1,000 square feet, with a loft or mezzanine allowed), which was adopted. Deputy Planning
Director Joe Costello gave an update on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Board of
Commissioners appointed Commissioner Harrison to the project team and directed staff to solicit
applications for four at-large members of the Parks and Recreation Steering Committee. Staff also
requested that a Planning Board liaison be put forward for the committee, with the Board of
Commissioners to choose at its November meeting.
Mr. Elder said he had served on a similar committee and volunteered, and Ms. Netsch also
volunteered. The Chair said Board Member Brad Carey had asked that his name be put forward. Mr.
Elder asked whether people involved in commercial recreation would be included, given Brad's
occupation. Ms. Wyatt and Mr. Costello explained that the project team is mostly staff, the steering
committee will be appointed citizens, and several thematic focus groups, including a business owner
group, will provide stakeholder input. The three names (Elder, Netsch, and Carey) will be forwarded
to the Board of Commissioners for consideration.

Town Updates
None

Discussion Items (Cont’d)
Continued discussion of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). No ordinance amendments or specific
regulatory changes are proposed for consideration at this meeting.
Ms. Wyatt led the Board through a Power Point presentation which included a discussion on density.
She distinguished residential density (dwelling units per acre), population density, building scale and
lot coverage, and activity and site demands such as vehicles, parking, and wastewater. She used
illustrative scenarios to show that an ADU increases dwelling unit density without necessarily
increasing the number of occupants, and that perceived density can reflect change from familiar
conditions even where septic capacity is adequate. She compared interior conversions, attached
additions, and new detached structures. She said a detached unit adds lot coverage, stormwater
management, driveway, and privacy implications.
She also reviewed partial home short-term rentals, which allow guest rooms in a resident-occupied
home to be rented for fewer than 30 days but does not authorize a second independent dwelling for
long-term occupancy. Where two independent dwelling units exist, the property would be treated as a
duplex. That requires the district to allow duplexes, a minimum lot area of 22,500 square feet, and
fire separation under the building code.

4
Page 5 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes
-DRAFTOctober 2026
Ms. Wyatt reviewed the temporary health care structure ("granny pod") provisions of state law and
the UDO. These structures are limited to 300 gross square feet, to one per lot, and to a caregiver
who is a first- or second-degree relative or guardian. They must be transportable, not on a
permanent foundation, and removed within 60 days after the need ends. She asked what an ADU
ordinance should accomplish (year-round housing, family and caregiving, use of existing homes, or
short-term guest use). She offered for consideration an initial review limited to ADUs created entirely
within an existing principal building, with no expansion of footprint or lot coverage.

The Chair asked whether a family member could live in a granny pod while a relative lives in the main
house. Ms. Wyatt said that under the current definition the answer appeared to be no, and she would
research it. The Chair also asked for copies of the presentation. Ms. Netsch asked whether a granny
pod could be an RV or trailer. Mr. Elder noted that "transportable" is not defined and that nearly any
building is transportable, and Mr. Thompson suggested a premanufactured home. Ms. Wyatt said the
requirement to meet the state building code would likely preclude an RV, and that staff would
examine the issue.
Mr. Elder asked how much of the approach would help bring currently noncompliant properties into
compliance. The Chair said the Board should "pick the low hanging fruit first": allowing homeowners
who currently rent a room or ground-floor space short term to rent it long term without being
classified as a duplex requiring 22,500 square feet. Ms. Netsch asked whether that was currently
prohibited. Ms. Wyatt confirmed that a long-term tenant with separate living, sleeping, eating,
cooking, and sanitation facilities makes it a two-family dwelling under the zoning definition. Ms.
Netsch observed that such a unit does not physically resemble a duplex.
Mr. Thompson described houses with separate ground-floor units and no interior access, rented both
short and long term, and asked whether they qualified as duplexes. Ms. Wyatt answered that they
would be for zoning purposes. Mr. Elder asked whether interior conveyance is the dividing line, and
Ms. Wyatt said it is one consideration but difficult to enforce, since a door could be closed off without
staff's knowledge. She said bringing existing partial-home rentals into compliance under the current
definitions would be difficult.
Mr. Thompson said detached ADUs could be put on the back burner because of lot coverage limits
and the cost of construction. Mr. Elder asked for a straw poll and suggested workshopping attached
units first and applying the lessons to detached units. The Chair proposed three phases: inside the
home, then attached, then detached. Ms. Head agreed that learning from each step made sense. The
Chair recalled that the concerns raised in 2019 and again in 2024–25 were neighborhood character,
density, parking, traffic, septic capacity, stormwater, and conversion to short-term rental. She asked
why a homeowner should be penalized for moving between short-term and long-term use of the
same space. Mr. Elder said the earlier effort tried to resolve too many inconsistencies in policy and
definitions at once, and that short-term rentals "do not equal employee housing."
Mr. Thompson noted that household life events can change vehicle counts and occupancy
dramatically. Mr. Elder responded that such changes reflect "capability, need, want" rather than
density. Ms. Netsch, new to the Board, asked whether the Board could recommend altering the
definition of duplex. Ms. Wyatt said it could be explored but would affect other provisions, such as
minimum lot size, and could create nonconformities.
Duke Gheraty from the Home Builders Association offered comments, stating that there is no perfect
ordinance, that ADUs are one tool for addressing the housing crisis, and that nearby towns have had
ADU ordinances for years and revised them several times. He urged the Board to do what is right for

5
Page 6 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes
-DRAFTOctober 2026
Nags Head. Ms. Wyatt concluded that she had sufficient consensus to focus first on units within the
existing home and to continue studying the duplex definition.

Discussion of the Commercial Outdoor Recreation Overlay District (CORD) in relation to the
Comprehensive Plan Character Areas and potential amendments to the UDO.
Deputy Planning Director Joe Costello presented commercial mixed uses in the CORD, which follows
the Comprehensive Plan's vision for the sound-side activity node. He reviewed the definitions of
multiple principal uses, mixed use development, group development, and shopping center. He
explained that the underlying zoning throughout the CORD is C-2, and that Section 8.5.2.4 currently
limits non-recreational uses combined with an outdoor recreation use to accessory and subordinate
status. As a result, a property owner wanting a group or mixed-use development must choose
between keeping an outdoor recreation use and using the broader C-2 uses.
Mr. Costello proposed amending that language to require a special use permit with the supplemental
regulations of Section 7.32, so that outdoor recreation uses could be combined with commercial
mixed uses. He identified three uses in the Comprehensive Plan's vision that are missing from the
Section 7.32 list: land-based recreational uses, bed and breakfast, and boutique hotels. The Town has
no definition of boutique hotel. He recommended keeping concession, amusement arcades, and
single family dwelling as accessory uses, but removing restaurant and retail from the accessory list.
Each use would still need to meet parking, wastewater, building code, lot coverage, and other
standards, with existing shared-facility provisions available.
Chair Gwinn asked whether any single-family lots exist within the CORD. Mr. Costello said none are
built there, but single-family dwellings are allowed in C-2, and S.B. 382 prevents removing that
allowance. The Chair also asked whether the Town should create a separate CORD section. Mr.
Costello said pointing to Section 7.32 was easier and that an overly prescriptive CORD section would
not help owners, who could otherwise point to the C-2 uses. The Chair preferred flexibility: "I would
rather somebody say, can I do this in there?" Mr. Elder agreed and recalled a proposal for a remotecontrol vehicle sandbox at the go-kart track that nobody had anticipated.
Mr. Thompson asked whether limiting the list of uses would be a down-zoning. Mr. Costello said the
proposal would be an up-zoning, since it would add uses and relax the accessory requirement. Ms.
Netsch asked whether the CORD lies entirely within C-2, and Mr. Costello confirmed it does. Mr.
Thompson read a general definition of boutique hotel, and Ms. Head cited Manteo examples. Mr.
Costello said he would bring draft text amendment language to the start of the next meeting and
proceed in stages. There was consensus to proceed.

Continued discussion of potential UDO amendments related to tree preservation.
Town Planner Chris Trembly distributed a packet containing Appendix C (the preservation guide),
Table A (tree replacement for violations), a UDO reference spreadsheet of tree, vegetation, and land
disturbance provisions and inconsistencies, and related definitions. He reviewed recent cases:
 A Coastal Villas lot where permitted "cleanup" of dead vegetation turned into grubbing and
grading, resulting in a stop work order.
 A lot where an owner planned to "mow" with a rotary brush hog, which he treated as clearing.
 A driveway project where vegetation on an adjacent property was removed.
 Stumps measured after removal that exceeded 6 inches in diameter, leading to disputes over
measurement height.

6
Page 7 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes
-DRAFTOctober 2026
Mr. Trembly proposed several changes:
 updating Appendix C with definitions such as clearing and brush hogging;
 setting clear tree and vegetation removal limits on vacant lots without an approved permit;
 allowing the Town to require hot staking of property boundaries;
 making diameter at breast height (DBH) and caliper references consistent;
 extending the five-foot driveway perimeter exception from the SPD-20 to the SED-80;
 adding code language for violations that measures stumps on the ground by averaging two
perpendicular diameters and applies Table A town-wide.

Mr. Elder asked whether the Town bears liability when a permitted contractor removes a neighbor's
tree. Mr. Trembly said his permits state that the owner is responsible for staying within property
boundaries, and that such disputes become civil matters. Mr. Elder said hot staking would make the
Town's due diligence more defensible and suggested giving staff discretion to require it above a
certain level of work. Ms. Netsch asked whether the requirement would apply to routine trimming. Mr.
Trembly clarified that his focus was vacant lots and that discretion, rather than a fixed area threshold,
would work best. Mr. Elder also asked whether landscaping that reverses earlier remediation efforts
comes before staff, and whether violations can be reversed. Mr. Trembly said he had not seen the
former recently and that the latter is very difficult. Mr. Trembly said the next step would be to bring
proposed code language to the Board.

Planning & Development Director's Report – October 7th, 2026
Ms. Wyatt reported that there were no Board of Adjustment matters and that a meeting on septic
health was scheduled for October 26th. Staff continue to receive inquiries from septic health
outreach, and intern Jocelyn Billings of UNC Chapel Hill is working with staff on GIS and marketing
and is expected to present to the Board of Commissioners in November. Ms. Wyatt noted ongoing
work on the Estuarine Shoreline Management Plan and the Parks and Recreation Plan. Dowdy Park
holiday markets are scheduled for November 14, November 28, and December 12, and the tree
lighting is November 28. The pollinator garden planting day is being rescheduled, and the fish print
painting event is being relocated to the Epstein Street beach access area. The Committee for Art and
Culture is also preparing for Dowdy Park's 10th anniversary next year and the 150th anniversary of
the USS Huron shipwreck.

Planning Board Members' Agenda
None

Planning Board Chairman’s Agenda
Chair Gwinn stated that he had an item related to tattoos but, given the time, asked to defer it to a
later meeting. No objection was recorded.

Adjournment
A motion to adjourn was made by David Elder. The time was 12:38 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Lily Campos Nieberding

7
Page 8 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes

-DRAFTTown of Nags Head
Planning Board
October 20, 2026

October 2026

The Planning Board of the Town of Nags Head met on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, in the Board Room
at the Nags Head Municipal Complex.
Planning Chair Meade Gwinn called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. as a quorum was present.

Members Present
Meade Gwinn, David Elder, Beverly Head, David Thompson, Valerie Netsch

Members Absent
Brad Carey, Basil Belsches

Others Present
Kelly Wyatt, Joe Costello, Chris Trembly

Approval of Agenda
Chair Gwinn called for approval of the agenda. Beverly Head moved to approve the agenda as
presented. David Elder seconded, and the motion passed by unanimous vote.

Public Comment/Audience Response
None

Approval of Minutes
Chair Gwinn asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the September 15th, 2026, meeting. David
Elder moved to approve the minutes as presented; Valerie Netsch seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously.

Action Items
Consideration of a UDO text amendment submitted by Anastasia Forlano to allow cosmetic tattooing
as an accessory use to permitted beauty salon uses within the town.
Ms. Wyatt noted that the applicant was running late and asked if the Board would be amenable to
hear the presentation by John DeLucia (Discussion Item 1) ahead of the action item. The Board
agreed and the agenda was amended.

Discussion Items
Presentation by John DeLucia of Albemarle & Associates, Ltd. and representatives of the Rogallo
Foundation regarding the Foundation’s mission and plans for a proposed aviation center and
museum.

1
Page 9 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes

-DRAFT-

October 2026

John DeLucia of Albemarle & Associates explained that the presentation was to prepare the Board for
a text amendment to be submitted next month. The Rogallo Foundation has purchased property near
Jockey's Ridge on which it hopes to build an aviation museum. Mr. DeLucia said the foundation
wanted to stay close to Jockey's Ridge because most of the history originated there. He said staff and
the applicant each had proposed language and would work it out over the coming month, aiming for
an amendment "similar to what we did with the YMCA."
Billy Vaughn, historian for the foundation, presented the history of Francis and Gertrude Rogallo and
their invention of the flexible wing. He covered its development at NACA/NASA Langley and its use in
military and space-program research. He described its role in the origin of hang gliding, paragliding,
stunt and traction kites, and kiteboarding. He also described the Rogallos' ties to Jockey's Ridge, the
first national hang-gliding meet held there, and their community involvement and advocacy for
preserving the ridge. He expressed interest in tying the museum to local middle-school programming.
Chair Gwinn asked whether the museum would take anything away from the nearby Wright Brothers
Memorial or add to the overall first-flight experience. Mr. Vaughn replied that it was "absolutely part
of the same story." He said the Wrights learned to fly with gliders, and that Jockey's Ridge would
have been their natural laboratory had it been closer to Kitty Hawk. Ms. Head, noted she was a
former middle school teacher, thanked the presenters and expressed support for the educational aims
of the project.
John Harris, President of the Rogallo Foundation, said the museum would convey the history of lowspeed flight, including Lilienthal, the Wright brothers, and the Rogallos. It would also offer fee-based
one-day to one-week STEM camps, which would be the main revenue source for operations. He said
the project would include an accessory classroom building and the Rogallo Hall of Fame and would
host aviation events and symposiums. Chair Gwinn asked where the site was located. Mr. Harris
answered that it was directly across from the Hollowell Street entrance to Jockey's Ridge State Park.
He invited the Board to the foundation's tenth annual Brewtag fundraiser on Saturday, which raised
$70,000 last year.
Mr. Elder asked for a projected timeline. Mr. DeLucia and Mr. Harris explained that the sequence
would likely be:
 the text amendment, to come to the Board at its next meeting, then to the Board of
Commissioners;
 site plan approval and subdivision of the property;
 a fundraising campaign.
They stated that the smaller classroom and workshop building would likely be built first as they
figure out funding for the museum building.

Action Items (Contd.)
Consideration of a UDO text amendment submitted by Anastasia Forlano to allow cosmetic tattooing
as an Accessory use to Permitted beauty salon uses within the town.
Planning Director Kelly Wyatt explained that the request would allow a limited set of cosmetic
tattooing services as an accessory use to a beauty salon in the C-2 district and would not allow
traditional tattoo establishments. The applicant plans to lease a unit in a local shopping center. Staff
found that Section 6.6 does not authorize cosmetic tattooing, and "Tattoo and Body Piercing" is

2
Page 10 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes
-DRAFTOctober 2026
currently allowed only in the small C-3 district, which Ms. Wyatt said is in the northern part of town
and contains service and light industrial uses.

Ms. Wyatt stated that the amendment would apply to any qualifying business, not only the applicant.
It is a zoning classification only and does not alter health department requirements. Key provisions of
the draft ordinance include:









Authorized procedures: eyebrow, eyeliner/eyelash, lip, and cheek pigmentation, with
touch-ups and color corrections. Decorative body art, lettering, freckle or beauty-mark
tattooing, scalp micropigmentation, reconstructive tattooing, tattoo removal, and body
piercing were excluded.
Accessory status: The tattooing area is limited to 25 percent of the salon's gross floor area.
It must be within the same enclosed unit and operate only so long as the principal beauty
salon operation continues.
Approval: Zoning approval is required, along with health department and septic approval.
Practitioners must hold the tattooing permit required by N.C.G.S. 130A-283.
Table of uses: The table lists only "hair salon," so staff replaced it with "beauty salon"
(permitted in C-1, C-2, C-4, and C-5). Beauty salon with accessory cosmetic tattooing would
be permitted by right in C-2 only, with supplemental regulations.
Related changes: Staff added definitions for beauty salon, spa, cosmetic tattooing, and
tattoo/body piercing establishment. Parking requirements were unchanged, and personal
services were added to the commercial mixed use list in Section 7.32.

Mr. Thompson asked for confirmation that the use would only be permitted in C-2. Ms. Wyatt
confirmed it, adding that a standard beauty salon remains allowed in all four districts. Ms. Netsch
asked why only C-2. Ms. Wyatt said C-2 is the general commercial district where most the widest
variety of commercial uses are allowed, and likely where the majority of salons are located and where
the applicant intends to operate. She said the use is new to the Town and that Nags Head has
historically not leaned into traditional tattooing. She said she was open to extending it to other
districts if the Board wished but would be more hesitant for C-4 and C-5 as these are the arts and
culture, and historic commercial districts, and because of state law (S.B. 382): "we would not be able
to rein it back in" if the use did not operate as envisioned.
Chair Gwinn asked what would happen if a salon in C-4 or C-5 wanted to offer the service. Ms. Wyatt
answered that it would have to go through the same UDO amendment process. The Chair also asked
what would happen if the applicant sold the business. Ms. Wyatt replied that the new owner would
not need to repeat the process but would need the required cosmetic tattooing certifications.
Anastasiia Forlano, owner of Beach Brow Bar, addressed and thanked the Board. She stated she has
lived on the Outer Banks for 14 years and worked in the beauty industry since 2017. She
acknowledged that permanent makeup is technically tattooing and said she respected the health and
safety regulations. She described it as "first and foremost a beauty service," and said she is
committed to meeting all health department standards.
Chair Gwinn asked whether any adjacent towns had such salons. Ms. Wyatt said she had found none.
Ms. Head said, "It's not traditional tattooing. It's a way to bring more beauty, whether it's inward or
outward." Mr. Thompson commended staff for a thorough and detailed job in wording everything. Mr.
Elder appreciated the careful, general language, which he said would help with unforeseen conflicts.
Ms. Netsch said she viewed the use as an extension of services offered at a beauty salon and asked
why other districts should be excluded. Mr. Elder asked whether adding other districts later would be
difficult. Ms. Wyatt answered that it would go through the Board and the Board of Commissioners,

3
Page 11 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes
-DRAFTOctober 2026
but that the lack of recourse once adopted made her prefer starting in C-2. The Chair agreed that
taking small steps here in something new was prudent and that other districts could be considered
later.

David Elder moved to recommend approval as presented, Beverly Head seconded and the motion
passed unanimously

Report on Board of Commissioners Actions – October 7th, 2026
Ms. Wyatt reported that at its October 7th meeting the Board of Commissioners held the public
hearing on Eddie Goodrich's request for a smaller alternative cottage court option (one story,
maximum 1,000 square feet, with a loft or mezzanine allowed), which was adopted. Deputy Planning
Director Joe Costello gave an update on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Board of
Commissioners appointed Commissioner Harrison to the project team and directed staff to solicit
applications for four at-large members of the Parks and Recreation Steering Committee. Staff also
requested that a Planning Board liaison be put forward for the committee, with the Board of
Commissioners to choose at its November meeting.
Mr. Elder said he had served on a similar committee and volunteered, and Ms. Netsch also
volunteered. The Chair said Board Member Brad Carey had asked that his name be put forward. Mr.
Elder asked whether people involved in commercial recreation would be included, given Brad's
occupation. Ms. Wyatt and Mr. Costello explained that the project team is mostly staff, the steering
committee will be appointed citizens, and several thematic focus groups, including a business owner
group, will provide stakeholder input. The three names (Elder, Netsch, and Carey) will be forwarded
to the Board of Commissioners for consideration.

Town Updates
None

Discussion Items (Cont’d)
Continued discussion of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). No ordinance amendments or specific
regulatory changes are proposed for consideration at this meeting.
Ms. Wyatt led the Board through a Power Point presentation which included a discussion on density.
She distinguished residential density (dwelling units per acre), population density, building scale and
lot coverage, and activity and site demands such as vehicles, parking, and wastewater. She used
illustrative scenarios to show that an ADU increases dwelling unit density without necessarily
increasing the number of occupants, and that perceived density can reflect change from familiar
conditions even where septic capacity is adequate. She compared interior conversions, attached
additions, and new detached structures. She said a detached unit adds lot coverage, stormwater
management, driveway, and privacy implications.
She also reviewed partial home short-term rentals, which allow guest rooms in a resident-occupied
home to be rented for fewer than 30 days but does not authorize a second independent dwelling for
long-term occupancy. Where two independent dwelling units exist, the property would be treated as a
duplex. That requires the district to allow duplexes, a minimum lot area of 22,500 square feet, and
fire separation under the building code.

4
Page 12 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes
-DRAFTOctober 2026
Ms. Wyatt reviewed the temporary health care structure ("granny pod") provisions of state law and
the UDO. These structures are limited to 300 gross square feet, to one per lot, and to a caregiver
who is a first- or second-degree relative or guardian. They must be transportable, not on a
permanent foundation, and removed within 60 days after the need ends. She asked what an ADU
ordinance should accomplish (year-round housing, family and caregiving, use of existing homes, or
short-term guest use). She offered for consideration an initial review limited to ADUs created entirely
within an existing principal building, with no expansion of footprint or lot coverage.

The Chair asked whether a family member could live in a granny pod while a relative lives in the main
house. Ms. Wyatt said that under the current definition the answer appeared to be no, and she would
research it. The Chair also asked for copies of the presentation. Ms. Netsch asked whether a granny
pod could be an RV or trailer. Mr. Elder noted that "transportable" is not defined and that nearly any
building is transportable, and Mr. Thompson suggested a premanufactured home. Ms. Wyatt said the
requirement to meet the state building code would likely preclude an RV, and that staff would
examine the issue.
Mr. Elder asked how much of the approach would help bring currently noncompliant properties into
compliance. The Chair said the Board should "pick the low hanging fruit first": allowing homeowners
who currently rent a room or ground-floor space short term to rent it long term without being
classified as a duplex requiring 22,500 square feet. Ms. Netsch asked whether that was currently
prohibited. Ms. Wyatt confirmed that a long-term tenant with separate living, sleeping, eating,
cooking, and sanitation facilities makes it a two-family dwelling under the zoning definition. Ms.
Netsch observed that such a unit does not physically resemble a duplex.
Mr. Thompson described houses with separate ground-floor units and no interior access, rented both
short and long term, and asked whether they qualified as duplexes. Ms. Wyatt answered that they
would be for zoning purposes. Mr. Elder asked whether interior conveyance is the dividing line, and
Ms. Wyatt said it is one consideration but difficult to enforce, since a door could be closed off without
staff's knowledge. She said bringing existing partial-home rentals into compliance under the current
definitions would be difficult.
Mr. Thompson said detached ADUs could be put on the back burner because of lot coverage limits
and the cost of construction. Mr. Elder asked for a straw poll and suggested workshopping attached
units first and applying the lessons to detached units. The Chair proposed three phases: inside the
home, then attached, then detached. Ms. Head agreed that learning from each step made sense. The
Chair recalled that the concerns raised in 2019 and again in 2024–25 were neighborhood character,
density, parking, traffic, septic capacity, stormwater, and conversion to short-term rental. She asked
why a homeowner should be penalized for moving between short-term and long-term use of the
same space. Mr. Elder said the earlier effort tried to resolve too many inconsistencies in policy and
definitions at once, and that short-term rentals "do not equal employee housing."
Mr. Thompson noted that household life events can change vehicle counts and occupancy
dramatically. Mr. Elder responded that such changes reflect "capability, need, want" rather than
density. Ms. Netsch, new to the Board, asked whether the Board could recommend altering the
definition of duplex. Ms. Wyatt said it could be explored but would affect other provisions, such as
minimum lot size, and could create nonconformities.
Duke Gheraty from the Home Builders Association offered comments, stating that there is no perfect
ordinance, that ADUs are one tool for addressing the housing crisis, and that nearby towns have had
ADU ordinances for years and revised them several times. He urged the Board to do what is right for

5
Page 13 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes
-DRAFTOctober 2026
Nags Head. Ms. Wyatt concluded that she had sufficient consensus to focus first on units within the
existing home and to continue studying the duplex definition.

Discussion of the Commercial Outdoor Recreation Overlay District (CORD) in relation to the
Comprehensive Plan Character Areas and potential amendments to the UDO.
Deputy Planning Director Joe Costello presented commercial mixed uses in the CORD, which follows
the Comprehensive Plan's vision for the sound-side activity node. He reviewed the definitions of
multiple principal uses, mixed use development, group development, and shopping center. He
explained that the underlying zoning throughout the CORD is C-2, and that Section 8.5.2.4 currently
limits non-recreational uses combined with an outdoor recreation use to accessory and subordinate
status. As a result, a property owner wanting a group or mixed-use development must choose
between keeping an outdoor recreation use and using the broader C-2 uses.
Mr. Costello proposed amending that language to require a special use permit with the supplemental
regulations of Section 7.32, so that outdoor recreation uses could be combined with commercial
mixed uses. He identified three uses in the Comprehensive Plan's vision that are missing from the
Section 7.32 list: land-based recreational uses, bed and breakfast, and boutique hotels. The Town has
no definition of boutique hotel. He recommended keeping concession, amusement arcades, and
single family dwelling as accessory uses, but removing restaurant and retail from the accessory list.
Each use would still need to meet parking, wastewater, building code, lot coverage, and other
standards, with existing shared-facility provisions available.
Chair Gwinn asked whether any single-family lots exist within the CORD. Mr. Costello said none are
built there, but single-family dwellings are allowed in C-2, and S.B. 382 prevents removing that
allowance. The Chair also asked whether the Town should create a separate CORD section. Mr.
Costello said pointing to Section 7.32 was easier and that an overly prescriptive CORD section would
not help owners, who could otherwise point to the C-2 uses. The Chair preferred flexibility: "I would
rather somebody say, can I do this in there?" Mr. Elder agreed and recalled a proposal for a remotecontrol vehicle sandbox at the go-kart track that nobody had anticipated.
Mr. Thompson asked whether limiting the list of uses would be a down-zoning. Mr. Costello said the
proposal would be an up-zoning, since it would add uses and relax the accessory requirement. Ms.
Netsch asked whether the CORD lies entirely within C-2, and Mr. Costello confirmed it does. Mr.
Thompson read a general definition of boutique hotel, and Ms. Head cited Manteo examples. Mr.
Costello said he would bring draft text amendment language to the start of the next meeting and
proceed in stages. There was consensus to proceed.

Continued discussion of potential UDO amendments related to tree preservation.
Town Planner Chris Trembly distributed a packet containing Appendix C (the preservation guide),
Table A (tree replacement for violations), a UDO reference spreadsheet of tree, vegetation, and land
disturbance provisions and inconsistencies, and related definitions. He reviewed recent cases:
 A Coastal Villas lot where permitted "cleanup" of dead vegetation turned into grubbing and
grading, resulting in a stop work order.
 A lot where an owner planned to "mow" with a rotary brush hog, which he treated as clearing.
 A driveway project where vegetation on an adjacent property was removed.
 Stumps measured after removal that exceeded 6 inches in diameter, leading to disputes over
measurement height.

6
Page 14 of 60

Town of Nags Head
Planning Board Minutes
-DRAFTOctober 2026
Mr. Trembly proposed several changes:
 updating Appendix C with definitions such as clearing and brush hogging;
 setting clear tree and vegetation removal limits on vacant lots without an approved permit;
 allowing the Town to require hot staking of property boundaries;
 making diameter at breast height (DBH) and caliper references consistent;
 extending the five-foot driveway perimeter exception from the SPD-20 to the SED-80;
 adding code language for violations that measures stumps on the ground by averaging two
perpendicular diameters and applies Table A town-wide.

Mr. Elder asked whether the Town bears liability when a permitted contractor removes a neighbor's
tree. Mr. Trembly said his permits state that the owner is responsible for staying within property
boundaries, and that such disputes become civil matters. Mr. Elder said hot staking would make the
Town's due diligence more defensible and suggested giving staff discretion to require it above a
certain level of work. Ms. Netsch asked whether the requirement would apply to routine trimming. Mr.
Trembly clarified that his focus was vacant lots and that discretion, rather than a fixed area threshold,
would work best. Mr. Elder also asked whether landscaping that reverses earlier remediation efforts
comes before staff, and whether violations can be reversed. Mr. Trembly said he had not seen the
former recently and that the latter is very difficult. Mr. Trembly said the next step would be to bring
proposed code language to the Board.

Planning & Development Director's Report – October 7th, 2026
Ms. Wyatt reported that there were no Board of Adjustment matters and that a meeting on septic
health was scheduled for October 26th. Staff continue to receive inquiries from septic health
outreach, and intern Jocelyn Billings of UNC Chapel Hill is working with staff on GIS and marketing
and is expected to present to the Board of Commissioners in November. Ms. Wyatt noted ongoing
work on the Estuarine Shoreline Management Plan and the Parks and Recreation Plan. Dowdy Park
holiday markets are scheduled for November 14, November 28, and December 12, and the tree
lighting is November 28. The pollinator garden planting day is being rescheduled, and the fish print
painting event is being relocated to the Epstein Street beach access area. The Committee for Art and
Culture is also preparing for Dowdy Park's 10th anniversary next year and the 150th anniversary of
the USS Huron shipwreck.

Planning Board Members' Agenda
None

Planning Board Chairman’s Agenda
Chair Gwinn stated that he had an item related to tattoos but, given the time, asked to defer it to a
later meeting. No objection was recorded.

Adjournment
A motion to adjourn was made by David Elder. The time was 12:38 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Lily Campos Nieberding

7
Page 15 of 60

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Town of Nags Head Planning Board
REGULAR SESSION: November 17, 2026

AGENDA ITEM E.1.
Consideration of proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendments submitted by John Delucia of
Albemarle & Associates, Ltd., on behalf of the Rogallo Foundation. The amendments would establish a new use
category, “Nonprofit Aviation Museum and Education Center,” and adopt supplemental regulations, including
provisions for limited alternatives to the commercial design standards for the aviation museum building.

Prepared by
Kelly Wyatt, Planning Director

Reviewed by
Kelly Wyatt

Staff Comments/Recommendation
Several provisions still need Board direction, particularly the proposed building size and setback, the size of the
education building, and the scope of private events. Staff recommends that the Board discuss these issues, give
staff direction, and continue consideration to December 15, 2026, when staff will bring back a revised draft for the
Board’s review and recommendation.
Specific Action Requested
Discussion of the proposed text amendment along with policy choices.
Summary
Albemarle & Associates, Ltd. and the Rogallo Foundation have requested amendments to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) to establish a "Nonprofit Aviation Museum and Education Center" use in the C-5 Historic Character
Commercial District.
The applicants' October 15, 2026, application describes a publicly accessible museum that would tell the story of
regional aviation and the development of low-speed flight, including the work of Francis Rogallo and other aviation
pioneers. The applicant also envisions a separate building with classrooms, workshop space, and artifact storage to
support STEAM programming and day camps.
While text amendments are not site specific, the proposed standards for the UDO text amendments were drafted
with this concept in mind. The design details do help explain where the applicant is seeking flexibility and what that
flexibility could mean in practice. The eligibility criteria are narrow and may apply to very few properties. Any
qualifying development would still need to go through the required Special Use Permit process, where the specific
design, site layout, and operations would be reviewed by both the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners.
The text amendment application proposes language in light of an aviation museum with an enclosed footprint of up
to 10,000 square feet, up to 18,000 square feet of conditioned interior area, and a height of up to 42 feet. The
applicant is seeking flexibility in building form, roof design, glazing, and materials to support the proposed exhibits
and unique architectural appearance. In discussions with staff, the applicant supported the half-mile proximity
standard outlined in the draft and indicated a preference for a 50 percent floor-area allowance for the smaller
buildings. The applicant also requested a 15-foot setback along US 158 and flexibility to host meetings and catered
events, including weddings, to help support museum operations.
Page 1 of 4

PO Box 99, Nags Head, NC | (252) 441-5508 | nagsheadnc.gov
Page 16 of 60

The revised ordinance would define the new use in Appendix A, add it to the Section 6.6 use table for the C-5
district, and establish supplemental standards in Section 7.39.A. It would also add a museum building-area
exception in Section 8.3.2 and make related changes to the commercial design and high-impact use provisions in
Sections 10.82 and 10.93.3.3.
Under the revised draft, the entire development would be located in the C-5 district, and the entire footprint of the
museum building would have to be within one-half mile of the legally established boundary of Jockey’s Ridge State
Park. The museum and education center would operate as one institutional use under a single special use permit
and under the control of the same qualifying 501(c)(3) organization. Once open, the museum would maintain
permanent aviation exhibits and a published schedule for public admission.
The draft allows the education center to open first as part of the same institutional use. If the project proceeds in
phases, the special use permit would identify the improvements needed for each phase, establish milestones for the
museum, and set a deadline for opening it to the public. The operator could request an extension based on
documented progress. If the museum has not opened by the applicable deadline, early education operations would
pause until the museum opens or a revised schedule is approved by the Board of Commissioners.
A separate education building would have to be smaller than the museum in both footprint and enclosed gross floor
area. The draft also asks the Board to consider whether the combined enclosed floor area of the separate education
building and detached accessory buildings should be limited to 25 or 50 percent of the total enclosed gross floor
area of the completed development. Staff is comfortable with the applicant’s preferred 50 percent figure as a basis
for discussion. It would be helpful to hear from the applicant about how much space each building is expected to
need before settling on a percentage.
Once the museum opens, accessory gift sales and limited food service could serve museum visitors and participants
in approved programs or events. An independently operated restaurant within the aviation museum would not be
permitted.
The draft would allow the main museum building to reach 42 feet without meeting the 8:12 roof pitch requirement.
Space above 35 feet would be limited to the volume needed for exhibits, the associated roof and structure, and
maintenance access. Separate educational and accessory buildings would continue to meet the otherwise applicable
architectural and commercial design standards.
The draft is intended to give the museum room to accommodate exhibits that may need a different building form.
For each requested architectural alternative, the applicant would explain which standard is affected and how the
proposed design serves a specific exhibit or interpretive function. The special use permit findings would address the
extent of the departure and how the design protects the character of Historic Cottage Row and surrounding
properties.
The draft classifies the use as high impact and requires a 25-foot planted protective yard along shared property
lines with residential uses or districts. It also requires a parking and circulation plan for each phase that accounts
for activities occurring at the same time. The lighting plan would address both exterior fixtures and light transmitted
through windows and other glazing.
On lots fronting US 158, the C-5 district limits commercial buildings to 10,000 square feet of habitable building area.
The commercial design standards separately establish a 15-foot setback for buildings below 10,000 square feet in
area and a 75-foot setback for buildings above that threshold.
The applicant’s preliminary drawings have helped shape this amendment request. While nothing has been
presented, preliminary renderings appears to be a one-story museum with an interior ramp and mezzanine. The
footprint is estimated at less than 10,000 square feet, while the applicant preliminarily estimates about 18,000
square feet of habitable area. The applicant seeks to use the 15-foot setback based on the footprint to maintain
Page 2 of 4

PO Box 99, Nags Head, NC | (252) 441-5508 | nagsheadnc.gov
Page 17 of 60

visibility from US 158 and provide more separation from the adjoining R-3 residential development. Depending on
the site layout, a 75-foot setback could shift the building closer to homes to the east.
Proposed Section 8.3.2.1.2.1 would allow one principal museum building on a lot fronting US 158, with no NC 12
frontage, to exceed 10,000 square feet under a special use permit. The draft would cap both habitable building area
and enclosed gross floor area at 18,000 square feet. Staff asks the Board to consider the building-area exception
and the setback separately. If the Board supports using the footprint to determine the setback, staff will clarify how
the footprint is measured, specify which tier applies at exactly 10,000 square feet, and correct the related crossreferences.
The draft allows aviation programming indoors and outdoors in approved areas. It prohibits outdoor amplified music
and entertainment and allows amplified speech for museum-related educational demonstrations under specified
conditions.
The applicant has requested longer hours for outdoor activities and more flexibility for outdoor amplification. The
applicant also asked to host general private gatherings, such as weddings and receptions, in addition to aviationrelated events, and indicated that rental revenue would help support museum operations.
Staff has provided a separate attachment with five alternatives for private events. Staff recommends Option 1,
which would allow only qualifying aviation-related private events, either indoors or in approved outdoor areas. For
example, a gala whose primary purpose is to recognize aviation achievement could qualify. If the Board is
comfortable allowing weddings, graduation celebrations, and other general private gatherings, staff recommends
holding them entirely indoors given the potential for outdoor noise to affect nearby homes east of the anticipated
site and across Hollowell Street.
Private events could begin after the museum opens and continue while it maintains regular public admission. The
nonprofit operator would oversee bookings and operations, and comply with occupancy, wastewater, and parking
requirements. The current draft sets a 10 p.m. closing time. Staff would appreciate the Board’s direction on whether
indoor and outdoor private events should have different closing times and whether any outdoor amplification should
be allowed for those events.
With regard to qualifications as a non-profit, the draft calls for notice to the Town within 30 days if the operator
loses its qualifying nonprofit status, museum operations cease, or the operator changes. A qualifying successor
could continue the approved museum use once the Town verifies its eligibility. A different principal use would
require a separate compliance review, and accessory commercial and event activities would cease if museum
operations cease. Staff welcomes the Board’s input on whether 30 days is an appropriate notice period.
The 2022 Comprehensive and CAMA Land Use Plan calls for neighborhood-scale development in the Historic
Character Area and compatible development near Historic Cottage Row. A publicly accessible museum would
provide a place to share the region’s aviation history. The Board’s direction on building size, setbacks, design, and
events will help staff assess how the final standards would support the museum while protecting the character of
the surrounding area.
At this meeting, staff is asking the Board to work through and discuss the remaining issues, provide staff direction,
and continue consideration to December 15, 2026. Staff will return with a revised amendment and plan-consistency
analysis for the Board’s review and vote on its recommendation.

Attachments
1.
Aviation Museum Ordinance DRAFT
2.
Aviation Museum Discussion Items
Page 3 of 4

PO Box 99, Nags Head, NC | (252) 441-5508 | nagsheadnc.gov
Page 18 of 60

3.

Aviation Museum Text Application

Page 4 of 4

PO Box 99, Nags Head, NC | (252) 441-5508 | nagsheadnc.gov
Page 19 of 60

(DRAFT)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN
OF NAGS HEAD, NORTH CAROLINA AS IT PERTAINS TO CREATING A NEW USE
CATEGORY FOR “NONPROFIT AVIATION MUSEUM AND EDUCATION CENTER” AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS.
ARTICLE I. Purpose(s) and Authority.
WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160D-701, the Town of Nags Head (the “Town”) may enact
and amend ordinances regulating the zoning and development of land within its jurisdiction and
specifically the location and use of buildings, structures and land; pursuant to this authority and
the additional authority granted by N.C.G.S. Chap. 160D-702, the Town has adopted
comprehensive zoning regulations and has codified the same within the Unified Development
Ordinance, Part II of the Town Code, adopted pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160D-103, which allows
the Town to combine certain land development ordinances into a unified ordinance;
WHEREAS, Section 2.4.4.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance provides that the powers
and duties of the Planning Board include developing and recommending policies, ordinances,
development regulations, administrative procedures, and other means for carrying out plans in a
coordinated and efficient manner;
WHEREAS, Section 3.5.1. of the Town Code makes clear that a zoning ordinance text
amendment may be initiated by motion of the Board of Commissioners, by motion of the
Planning Board, or by application by any person within the zoning jurisdiction of the Town;
WHEREAS, Albemarle & Associates, Ltd. has requested consideration of a UDO text
amendment to establish a new use category, “Nonprofit Aviation Museum and Education
Center” along with supplemental standards, particularly related to architectural alternatives.
ARTICLE II. Construction.
For purposes of this ordinance amendment, underlined words (underline) shall be considered as
additions to existing Town Code language and strikethrough words (strikethrough) shall be
considered deletions to existing language. Any portions of the adopted Town Code which are not
repeated herein but are instead replaced by an ellipsis (“...”) shall remain as they currently exist
within the Town Code.
ARTICLE III. Amendment of the Unified Development Ordinance.
PART I. That Appendix A – Definitions shall be amended as follows, to add a new definition
for “Nonprofit Aviation Center and Museum”.
Nonprofit Aviation Museum and Education Center. A single institutional use
consisting of a publicly accessible aviation museum and an aviation education
component, both operated under the control of the same organization recognized as
tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The museum
collects, preserves, exhibits, and interprets aviation artifacts and history, with an
emphasis on regional aviation heritage and the development of low-speed flight. The

Page 20 of 60

education component provides aviation-related instruction and programming. The use
may include accessory activities expressly authorized under Section 7.39.A.
PART II. That Section 6.6, Table of Uses and Activities shall be amended as follows:
Commercial Districts
Use
Use Type
Category/Class
Institutional
Museum
Institutional

CR

C-1

C-2

P

P

Nonprofit Aviation Museum
and Education Center

C3

Supplemental
Regulations

C-4

C-5

P

P
SR

Section 7.39. A

PART III. That Section 7.39.A, Supplemental Regulations for Nonprofit Aviation Museum
and Educational Center be created as follows:
Section 7.39.A – Nonprofit Aviation Museum and Educational Center.
The following supplemental regulations shall apply to all Non-profit Aviation Museums
and Education Centers.
7.39.A.1. Purpose and Approval. The purpose of this section is to accommodate a
publicly accessible aviation museum and its aviation education component while
protecting the scale, landscape, residential surroundings, and historic character of the
C-5, Historic Character Commercial District. The museums exhibits and interpretive
functions may require building form different from conventional commercial
architecture. This section provides limited architectural flexibility for the museum
building to accommodate those functions. A Nonprofit Aviation Museum and
Education Center is permitted only in the C-5 Historic Character Commercial District in
accordance with Section 6.6 and upon issuance of a special use permit pursuant to
Section 3.8. Compliance with this section does not substitute for any other required
local, State, or federal approval.

7.39.A.2. Location and Qualifying Operation.
7.39.A.2.1. The development shall be located entirely within the C-5, Historic
Character Commercial District. Every point of the principal museum building’s
footprint shall be within one-half mile of the nearest point on the legally
established boundary of Jockey’s Ridge State Park. The application survey or
georeferenced site plan shall document compliance using straight-line horizontal
measurements.
The museum and aviation education components shall be approved as one
institutional use under a single special use permit and shall operate under the
control of the same qualifying nonprofit organization. The permit shall identify one

Page 21 of 60

principal museum building and show where the aviation education component
will operate, including any separate aviation education building. The permit may
authorize phased construction and operation, including opening the aviation
education component before the museum, in accordance with Section
7.39.A.2.6. Aviation exhibition, artifact collection and preservation, interpretation,
and aviation education shall remain the principal activities of the approved use.
7.39.A.2.2. The applicant shall identify the aviation museum and education
center development boundary and each parcel included in it. A separate
restaurant or other principal use on an adjoining parcel shall not be included
within the qualifying nonprofit aviation museum and education center
development solely because of common ownership, nonprofit ownership, use of
shared facilities, or financial support of the museum.
7.39.A.2.3. The qualifying nonprofit organization shall operate and control the
museum and aviation education components as owner or under a written lease
authorizing the proposed use. The application shall include evidence of current
qualifying status, control of the museum premises, and the consent of all owners
whose property is included in the permit or relied upon for shared facilities.
7.39.A.2.4. Once the aviation museum opens, it shall maintain permanent
aviation exhibits and a regularly published schedule of public admission. The
operator may charge admission. A facility available only for private
appointments, private membership, or private events shall not qualify as a
publicly accessible museum under this section. The aviation education
component may begin operating before the museum opens as provided in
Section 7.39.A.2.5.
7.39.A.2.5. The aviation education component may be located in the principal
museum building or in a separate building within the approved development. It
may offer aviation-related classes, workshops, day camps, and demonstrations,
including programs delivered with educational partners under the qualifying
nonprofit’s operational control.
7.39.A.2.6. The special use permit shall identify the buildings, activities, and
improvements approved for each phase. The aviation education component may
be constructed and may open before the museum, provided it is authorized for
that phase and all approvals and improvements required to serve it are in place
before occupancy. If the aviation education component is authorized to open
before the museum, the special use permit shall include a phasing schedule
identifying milestones for the museum’s permitting and construction and a
deadline for opening the museum to the public. Before that deadline, the operator
may request an extension under Section 3.8.8 by documenting progress toward
the museum phase, explaining the delay, and submitting a revised schedule for
completion and opening.

Page 22 of 60

Education operations may continue through the opening deadline established in
the approved phasing schedule, as it may be extended under Section 3.8.8. If the
museum has not opened by the applicable deadline, education operations under
the early-phase authorization shall pause until the museum lawfully opens or a
revised schedule is approved. For purposes of Section 3.8.4.3, missing this
deadline affects only the early-operation authorization. The remaining approvals
are subject to their own terms and applicable deadlines.
7.39.A.2.7. A separate aviation education building shall be smaller in both
footprint and enclosed gross floor area than the museum building shown on the
plans approved with the special use permit. The combined enclosed gross floor
area of any separate aviation education building and all detached accessory
buildings shall not exceed [25 or 50] percent of the total enclosed gross floor
area of all buildings approved for the completed development. The museumspecific building-area, setback, height, and architectural exceptions apply only to
the museum building.
7.39.A.2.8. Before each phase is occupied, required parking and circulation
improvements shall be in place. Minimum parking shall be calculated under
Table 10-2 using the combined gross floor area of that phase and any earlier
phases that will remain in operation.
The special use permit application shall include a parking and circulation plan for
each phase demonstrating that the proposed parking can accommodate peak
combined demand from concurrent museum operations, education programs,
and any authorized private events. The permit shall specify any scheduling,
attendance, or overlap limits needed to keep demand within the approved
parking supply.
7.39.A.3. Accessory Uses.
7.39.A.3.1. Museum meeting rooms, artifact restoration workshops, museum
offices, collection storage, a museum gift shop, and limited visitor food service
may be approved as accessory uses. Each shall directly support the approved
institutional use and remain under the qualifying nonprofit operator’s control.
Accessory uses shall not be separately advertised, leased, or operated as
independent principal uses. The nonprofit operator may contract for gift shop or
food service operations while retaining control over the scope and operation of
those services.
7.39.A.3.2. Each accessory building shall be smaller in both footprint and
enclosed gross floor area than the principal museum building. Detached
accessory buildings shall also comply with the combined floor-area limit in
Section 7.39.A.2.7. The application shall include a schedule showing the
footprint, enclosed gross floor area, and UDO habitable building area for each
building, with floor area identified by level and use.

Page 23 of 60

7.39.A.3.3. Except as authorized under Section 7.39.A.7, accessory meeting
rooms and workshops may be used for museum administration, aviation
education, exhibit preparation, artifact preservation, and museum-sponsored
interpretive programming. The nonprofit operator may also make approved
meeting rooms available for business meetings of civic, nonprofit, or community
organizations during the museum’s regular public admission hours, provided
those meetings do not displace museum or education programming.
7.39.A.3.4. Accessory food service and gift-shop sales shall be limited to
museum visitors during public admission hours and to participants in approved
programs or events during those activities. A restaurant serving the general
public independently of museum admission, approved programs, or approved
events is a separate principal use and requires separate approval where
permitted under this Ordinance.
7.39.A.3.5. Accessory uses authorized under this subsection may begin only
after the museum lawfully opens to the public and shall cease if museum
operations cease.
7.39.A.4. Height
7.39.A.4.1. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Section 8.6.4.1.
The principal museum building may exceed 35 feet in height, up to a maximum of
42 feet, without meeting the 8:12 roof pitch requirement, subject to Section
7.39.A.4.2. All other buildings and structures, including any separate aviation
education building and any accessory building or structure, shall comply with the
otherwise applicable height requirements of this UDO.
7.39.A.4.2. Portions of the principal museum building above the 35-foot plane,
measured from the same reference elevation used to determine building height
under Section 8.6.4.1, shall be limited to the upper exhibit volume necessary to
display aviation artifacts that extend into or are suspended within that volume,
the roof assembly and structural supports enclosing or supporting that volume,
and access solely for building or exhibit maintenance. The area above that plane
shall not contain occupied floors, mezzanines, meeting rooms, offices, dining or
event space, observation platforms, or occupied roof decks. Access solely for
building or exhibit maintenance is permitted.
7.39.A.5. Limited Architectural Alternatives
7.39.A.5.1. As part of special use permit approval, the Board of Commissioners
may approve alternatives to the building design standards of Article 10, Part VI,
for the aviation museum building only. Alternatives may address building form
and massing, exterior wall height, roof configuration and pitch, façade glazing,
exterior materials, and architectural detailing. All other applicable UDO
requirements shall apply, including site design, setbacks, buffers, building

Page 24 of 60

separation, maximum building size, and the height and upper exhibit volume
standards of Section 7.39.A.4.
7.39.A.5.2. For each requested alternative, the applicant shall identify the specific
UDO subsection and its requirement, describe and/or depict the proposed
alternative on the applicable plans or elevations, and identify the aviation exhibit
or interpretive function that requires the departure. The applicant shall explain the
extent of the departure and how the proposed design addresses the purpose of
the affected standard. Aesthetic preference, cost savings, nonprofit status, or
general public benefit, alone or in combination, shall be insufficient to establish
eligibility.
7.39.A.5.3. In addition to all applicable special use permit findings, the Board of
Commissioners shall find, based on the evidence presented, that each
alternative: (1) directly serves a documented aviation exhibition or interpretive
function; (2) is limited to what that function requires; (3) addresses the purpose of
the affected architectural standard; and (4) protects the architectural character of
surrounding properties and the Historic Cottage Row area.
7.39.A.5.4. Any separate aviation education building and all accessory buildings
shall comply with the otherwise applicable architectural standards. A connection
walkway, canopy, common roof, or similar feature shall not extend an approved
alternative to a functionally separate building or use.
7.39.A.6. Residential Transition and Buffering
7.39.A.5.6.1. The use shall be classified as a High Impact Use under Section
10.93.3.3. A continuous commercial transitional protective yard at least 25 feet
wide shall be provided and maintained along the full length of each common
property line with a residential use or residential zoning district, including a
residential use located within a commercial zoning district. The yard shall contain
three rows of plant material and comply with the applicable planting, screening,
and maintenance requirements of this UDO. Commercial transitional protective
yard requirements under Section 10.93.3.2 that apply to other property lines shall
also be met. Outdoor exhibits, assembly or demonstration areas, loading areas,
refuse facilities and wastewater facilities are prohibited within required protective
yards.
7.39.A.7. Programming and Events
7.39.A.7.1. Outdoor aviation exhibits and museum and aviation education
programs shall occur only in areas identified on the approved site plan. Outdoor
programs shall take place between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Outdoor amplified music and entertainment are prohibited. Amplified speech may
be used for educational demonstrations during those hours, with speakers
directed away from residential properties and in compliance with Chapter 16,

Page 25 of 60

Article III of the Town Code. Emergency announcements are permitted at any
time.
7.39.A.7.2. Private-event authorization. (Insert one alternative from the drafting
appendix.attached)
7.39.A.7.3. The following standards apply to any private event authorized under
Section 7.39.A.7.2. Aviation classes and workshops conducted as part of the
approved aviation education programming under Section 7.39.A.2.2 are
governed by that subsection.
7.39.A.7.3.1. Private events may be held only after the museum has
lawfully opened to the public and while it maintains regular public
admission. Section 7.39.A.7.3.2 governs the hours of individual events.
Private events shall be held indoors in spaces identified for event use in
the special use permit and regularly used for museum exhibitions,
aviation education, or other museum programming. Dedicated event
space is prohibited. Outdoor event activities, including ceremonies,
receptions, and gatherings under tents, are prohibited. Guests may use
outdoor areas for ordinary arrival, departure, and parking.
7.39.A..7.3.2. Private events shall take place outside the museum’s

regular public admission hours unless daytime use of a designated
room is expressly authorized in the special use permit. Daytime
authorization shall require a showing that the event can occur
without interfering with public admission or access to exhibits and
that approved parking and circulation can accommodate concurrent
activities, including event setup and guest arrivals. Private events
shall end by 10:00 p.m. and shall not displace or shorten the
museum’s published public admission hours. Event lighting shall
comply with Section 7.39.A.8.
7.39.A.7.3.3. Private events shall comply with applicable occupant-load
limits, approved wastewater capacity, and the parking and circulation
requirements of this section.
7.39.A.7.3.4. The nonprofit operator shall control event bookings and
operations and maintain a log of each private event’s date, start and end
times, and actual attendance. The log shall be made available to the UDO
Administrator upon request.
7.39.A.7.4. Activities authorized under this section shall comply with all other
applicable Town Code requirements, including any crowd gathering activity
permit required under Chapter 4.

Page 26 of 60

7.39.A.8. Exterior and Interior Light Spill
7.39.A.8.1. All exterior lighting shall comply with Article 10, Part IV, and Section
10.94. The application shall include a photometric plan addressing exterior
lighting and light transmitted through windows, curtain walls, glazed roofs, and
other transparent building surfaces during the highest proposed nighttime lighting
condition.
7.39.A.8.2. Artificial illumination attributable to the museum development,
including interior light transmitted outdoors, shall not exceed 1.5 footcandles at a
boundary adjoining a residential use or residential zoning district. Compliance
shall be demonstrated for both horizontal illumination and vertical illumination at
five feet above grade. The Town’s applicable measurement procedures shall be
used, with readings taken at the property boundary for this standard.
7.39.A.8.3. Residential-facing glazing shall incorporate architectural shielding,
interior shades, or equivalent permanent light-control measures where necessary
to meet the boundary limit. Required shades shall be closed after sunset
whenever the affected rooms are illuminated. The approved plans shall identify
these measures and operating controls.
7.39.A.8.4. Decorative exterior lighting and nonessential interior illumination
visible outdoors shall be extinguished within [30 minutes] after the last approved
public activity. Only required safety, security, and emergency illumination may
remain, and shall comply with the boundary limit. Exterior floodlighting,
uplighting, and facade illumination are not authorized as architectural
alternatives.
7.39.A.9. Continued Qualification and Changes of Use
7.39.A.9.1 Museum-specific building area, setback, height, and architectural
exceptions apply only to the qualifying use as authorized by a valid special use
permit. A change in ownership or operator does not by itself terminate the special
use permit. A qualifying successor operator may continue the same approved
use after the UDO Administrator verifies the operator’s eligibility and that the
proposed operations are consistent with the approved permit, plans, and
conditions. Any required permit modification shall be obtained under Section
3.8.8 before the modified activity begins.
7.39.A.9.2. The property owner and operator shall notify the Planning and
Development Department within [30 days] of loss of qualifying nonprofit status,
cessation of the principal museum use, or a change in museum operator.
Another qualifying nonprofit operator may continue the approved museum use
upon verification of eligibility and compliance.
Upon loss of qualifying nonprofit status or cessation of the principal museum use,
accessory commercial activities and private events authorized under this section
shall cease. The aviation education component shall cease upon cessation of the

Page 27 of 60

museum use and may resume when the qualifying museum lawfully reopens.
Aviation education may continue independently only if separately approved as a
use allowed under this UDO. Operation of the aviation education component
before the museum first opens shall be governed by Section 7.39.A.2 and the
approved special use permit.
7.39.A.9.3. No new principal use shall occupy the premises until the Town has
approved its use classification, required permits, and a compliance plan
addressing the building and site. To the extent the existing building depends on
museum-specific height, area, or architectural exceptions, the proposed
successor use shall demonstrate compliance with the standards otherwise
applicable to that use or obtain separate lawful relief through an available UDO
procedure. The museum exceptions shall not transfer automatically to the
successor use.
7.39.A.9.4. Cessation of museum operation does not, by itself, require removal of
a lawfully constructed building or automatically revoke the special use permit.
The premises may remain vacant and maintained, subject to applicable law. No
accessory commercial or event activity may continue independently during
cessation. Any question of discontinuance, vested rights, or nonconforming
status shall be addressed under Article 5 and applicable law; approval of this
section shall not be construed to determine those questions in advance.
7.39.A.10. Preservation of Other Requirements
Except for the principal museum buildings expressly approved architectural
alternatives and the height and building-area exceptions expressly enacted for
this use, all otherwise applicable UDO requirements remain in effect. These
include setbacks, lot area and width, lot coverage, vegetation preservation,
buffering, parking, loading, access, stormwater, wastewater, signs, exterior
lighting, environmental requirements, and applicable building and fire codes. No
architectural alternative shall authorize relief from these requirements. Where this
section establishes an additional or more restrictive protection, that protection
shall apply.

PART IV. That Section 8.3.2, Development Standards within the C-5, Historic
Character Commercial District, be amended as follows:

8.3.2.1. Where the requirements listed below conflict with other requirements of
the Unified Development Ordinance, this Section shall supersede.
8.3.2.1.1. Commercial structures on lots fronting NC 12 shall not exceed
4,200 square feet of habitable building area.

Page 28 of 60

8.3.2.1.2. Commercial structures on lots fronting US Highway 158 shall
not exceed 10,000 square feet of habitable building area.
8.3.2.1.2.1 Notwithstanding Section 8.3.2.1.2, one principal museum
building on a lot in the C-5, Historic Character Commercial Zoning district,
fronting US Highway 158 and having no frontage on NC 12 may exceed
10,000 square feet of habitable building area under a special use permit
approved pursuant to Sections 3.8 and 7.39.A. Neither habitable building
area nor enclosed gross floor area shall exceed 18,000 square feet. Floor
area approved above 10,000 square feet of habitable building area shall
support museum functions in the principal museum building. The Board
shall find that the additional area serves the museum’s aviation exhibits,
collections, preservation, interpretation, or education. Demand for private
events shall not justify additional floor area. This exception applies only to
the principal museum building. The US Highway 158 setback shall be
determined under Section 7.39.A.8.
8.3.2.1.3. Commercial structures developed on lots having frontage on
both NC 12 and US Highway 158 shall not exceed 4,200 square feet of
habitable building area, however, if the entirety of the structure is located
75 feet or greater from the NC 12 right-of-way, the structure size may be
increased up to 10,000 square feet of habitable building area.
8.3.2.2 In addition to achieving compliance with the commercial design
standards of Article 10, Part VI of the Unified Development Ordinance, when
reviewing a Special Use Permit request, the Board of Commissioners must also
make a finding that the proposed building design reflects the heritage of "Old
Nags Head" and does not diminish the unique architectural character of the Nags
Head Beach Cottage Row Historic District or the surrounding properties. For a
principal Nonprofit Aviation Museum building receiving architectural alternatives
under Section 7.39.A.5, the Board shall apply the findings of that section to each
expressly authorized departure. All remaining requirements of this subsection
continue to apply. Architectural alternatives do not authorize a departure from the
protection of the character of Historic Cottage Row or surrounding properties.

PART V. That Section 10.82, Commercial Design Standards, Applicability, be
amended as follows:
The principal building of a Nonprofit Aviation Museum may utilize only those
architectural alternatives expressly approved in accordance with Section 7.39.
A.5. The approved Special Use Permit shall identify each affected subsection. All
other commercial design and site standards remain applicable. Accessory
buildings and separate principal uses shall comply with the otherwise applicable
standards.

Page 29 of 60

PART VI. That Section 10.93.3.3, Commercial Site Design, High Impact Uses, be
amended as follows:
10.93.3.3. High Impact Uses. High impact uses are particular uses of land, which
considered as a whole because of their peculiar or operational and physical
characteristics are expected to have an adverse effect on adjoining or adjacent
properties. High impact uses include, but are not limited to:
10.93.3.3.28. Nonprofit Aviation Museum and Education Center.

PART VII. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby
repealed. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the ___ day
of ____ 2026.
Benjamin Cahoon, Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Date adopted:
Motion to adopt by Commissioner
Motion seconded by Commissioner
Vote:

AYES

NAYS

Page 30 of 60

Planning Board Discussion for Non-Profit Aviation Museum and
Education Center
Proposed Use and Phased Development
Sections 7.39.A.2.4 and 7.39.A.2.6 - Use and phasing. The proposal treats the aviation
museum and education center as components of one development. The education center
is part of the principal institutional use and may be built before or concurrently with the
museum. Neither component may operate primarily as a public assembly or event venue.
If the components are built in phases, the special use permit should establish a schedule
for initiating the remaining phase and address how any extension would be considered.
Section 7.39.A.2.7 - Relative building size. The museum would remain the largest building,
and the education component would support the museum’s aviation mission. The Board
should consider whether the combined area of the separate education building and other
buildings covered by this provision should be capped at 25 percent or 50 percent of the
area of the museum building. The applicant prefers 50 percent, and staff is comfortable
with that alternative.
Sections 7.39.A.3.1, 7.39.A.3.4, and 7.39.A.3.5 - Accessory activities. Gift sales and food
service would be accessory to the museum and intended for the convenience of museum
patrons. The draft would require the museum to obtain its certificate of occupancy and
open to the public before gift sales, food service, or any approved private events could
begin.
Programming and Private Events
Section 7.39.A.7.1 - Outdoor museum programming. The draft provides for outdoor
aviation exhibits, demonstrations, and educational activities between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m.
Outdoor private events are addressed separately through the alternatives below. The
Board may wish to consider an earlier start if the applicant anticipates morning day camps.
If the applicant seeks a later closing time, staff requests information about the activities
that would occur after 8 p.m. and how often they would be scheduled.
Section 7.39.A.7.2 - Private event alternatives. Staff’s initial recommendation was to limit
private events to aviation-related programs. The proposed development standards provide
flexibility based on the museum’s function as a nonprofit aviation and education
institution. Staff is concerned that recurring evening rentals for weddings, parties, and

Page 31 of 60

similar gatherings could function as a separate event venue and affect nearby residences,
including those east of the anticipated site and across Hollowell Street to the north.

The applicant has indicated that private rentals would help generate revenue to support
museum operations. The Board should discuss which private events to allow, whether to
establish an annual limit on general private gatherings, and whether any private events
should be allowed outdoors.
The alternatives below address those choices. Authorized private events would be subject
to the applicable location, hours, attendance, noise, and operator control standards in
Section 7.39.A.7.3. Ordinary public admission and regularly scheduled public museum
programs would continue to be governed by the museum’s approved operating conditions.

Discussion Following the Private Event Alternatives
Section 7.39.A.7.3.2 - Private event closing time. After identifying a preferred alternative,
the Board should consider when private events must end. The draft uses 9 p.m. as a
discussion figure. The Board may wish to consider a 10 p.m. closing time for indoor events
and, if outdoor private events are permitted, whether they should end earlier.
Section 7.39.A.9 - Change in nonprofit status. The draft would require the operator to notify
the Town within 30 days of losing its nonprofit status so the Town can review whether the
use continues to qualify and determine the next steps. The Board should consider whether
30 days is an appropriate notice period.
Section 8.3.2.1.2.1 - Building area and US 158 setback. The proposed museum raises two
separate questions for the Planning Board. The first is how much habitable area a museum
building may contain in the C-5 district. The second is how far a building of that size must
be set back from US 158.
The C-5 district standards prohibit buildings with more than 10,000 square feet of
habitable area. The commercial design standards separately require a 75-foot setback for
structures fronting US 158 with more than 10,000 square feet of habitable area. Structures
with less than 10,000 square feet of habitable area may use a 15-foot setback.
The applicant proposes a single-story museum with an interior ramp and mezzanine. The
building footprint is estimated at less than 10,000 square feet, while the applicant
preliminarily estimates approximately 18,000 square feet of habitable area. The applicant
is seeking flexibility to exceed the C-5 habitable-area limit and use the 15-foot setback

Page 32 of 60

based on the building’s footprint. Under the existing standards described above, habitable
area governs both requirements.
The applicant has indicated that the 15-foot setback would help maintain visibility from US
158. Requiring the 75-foot setback could shift the building farther east and closer to nearby
residences, depending on the final site layout. Staff recommends that the Board consider
the building-size and setback requests separately. While text amendments are not site
specific, it may be helpful to review dimensioned floor plans and/or a site plan showing
both setback scenarios. The floor plans should distinguish the building footprint from the
habitable area and show how the ramp and mezzanine are counted.
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the requested flexibility.
Options for Allowance of General Private Events

7.39.A.7.2. Private events.
Provisions applicable to all five options
The special use permit may authorize aviation-related private events indoors, in outdoor
event areas identified on the approved site plan, or both. The primary purpose of an
aviation-related private event shall be to advance or recognize aviation education, history,
interpretation, or achievement. Qualifying events may include museum programs,
banquets, galas, awards ceremonies, and fundraisers hosted by the museum or an
aviation organization. Museum sponsorship, payment of proceeds to the museum, or
inclusion of an aviation presentation, by itself, is insufficient to establish an aviationrelated primary purpose.
General private events include private meetings, wedding ceremonies, receptions,
graduation celebrations, parties, and similar gatherings whose primary purpose falls
outside the aviation-related purposes described above.
All authorized private events shall comply with Section 7.39.A.7.3. The museum and
education components shall remain the principal institutional use. A separately operated
event venue is prohibited.
Option 1 — Aviation-Related Private Events Only
General private events are prohibited.
Option 2 — Limited General Private Events Indoors

Page 33 of 60

The special use permit may also authorize general private events held entirely indoors on
no more than 12 calendar days per calendar year, counted collectively across the museum
development. Each calendar date on which one or more general private events occurs
counts as one day toward the limit. Qualifying aviation-related private events are exempt
from the limit.
Option 3 - Limited General Private Events Indoors or Outdoors
The special use permit may also authorize general private events indoors, in outdoor event
areas identified on the approved site plan, or both, on no more than 12 calendar days per
calendar year, counted collectively across the museum development. Each calendar date
on which one or more general private events occurs counts as one day toward the limit.
Qualifying aviation-related private events are exempt from the limit.
Option 4 - General Private Events Indoors Without an Annual Cap
The special use permit may also authorize general private events held entirely indoors. No
annual limit applies to general private events authorized under this option.
Option 5 - General Private Events Indoors or Outdoors Without an Annual Cap
The special use permit may also authorize general private events indoors, in outdoor event
areas identified on the approved site plan, or both. No annual limit applies to general
private events authorized under this option.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends allowing only aviation-related events. These events may take place
indoors or in outdoor event areas identified on the approved site plan. To qualify, the
event’s primary purpose must be to advance or recognize aviation education, history,
interpretation, or achievement. Qualifying events may include museum programs,
banquets, galas, awards ceremonies, and fundraisers.

If the Boards choose to allow general private gatherings, staff recommends requiring those
gatherings, including weddings, receptions, graduation celebrations, and parties, to take
place entirely indoors. A wedding with an aviation theme or a brief museum presentation
would still be a general private gathering.

Page 34 of 60

Page 35 of 60

Page 36 of 60

Page 37 of 60

Page 38 of 60

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Town of Nags Head Planning Board
REGULAR SESSION: November 17, 2026

AGENDA ITEM E.2.
Request for initiation of consideration of UDO text amendments to address the provisions of Session Law 2026-51
concerning the new “No Impact Home-Based Business” category.

Prepared by
Kelly Wyatt, Planning Director

Reviewed by
Kelly Wyatt

Staff Comments/Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Board initiate the proposed UDO text amendment.
Specific Action Requested
Staff requests that the Planning Board initiate consideration of the attached draft text amendment and direct staff
to move forward with a formal ordinance amendment for Planning Board review and recommendation.
Summary
Session Law 2026-51 took effect July 7, 2026, and enacted N.C.G.S. 160A-205.8 (attached). The law requires
municipalities to allow qualifying no-impact home-based businesses without an application, registration, permit,
license, variance, or other municipal approval. To qualify, a business must be owned and operated by the owner or
occupant of the dwelling and meet criteria related to on-site employees and clients, lawful goods and services,
parking and traffic, where the activity occurs, visibility from the street, and storage outside the premises.
The Town may still apply reasonable regulations that are “narrowly tailored” to a purpose authorized by the statute,
such as protecting public health and safety or maintaining compatibility with residential uses. The UNC School of
Government advises municipalities to update both their ordinances and permitting practices and identifies public
education and enforcement as ways to administer the standards without an upfront approval process. A UNC
School of Government Coates' Canons Blog about this new session law is provided for review.
To bring the Unified Development Ordinance into alignment with state law, the draft amendment adds a definition
to Appendix A, lists the use in the Section 6.6 use table, and establishes supplemental standards in Section 7.7.5.
Home-based businesses that fall outside the statute’s protections may continue to be considered under the existing
Class 1, 2, or 3 home occupation provisions where allowed.
At this time, staff is asking the Planning Board only to initiate consideration of the amendment. Staff will return with
the proposed amendment for the Board’s review and recommendation at its December 15, 2026, meeting.

Attachments
1.
No Impact Home Based Business Attachments
Page 1 of 1

PO Box 99, Nags Head, NC | (252) 441-5508 | nagsheadnc.gov
Page 39 of 60

(DRAFT)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN
OF NAGS HEAD, NORTH CAROLINA AS IT PERTAINS TO ALIGNING EXISTING CODES
WITH N.C.G.S 160A-205.8 AS IT PERTAINS TO NO-IMPACT HOME BASED BUSINESSES.
ARTICLE I. Purpose(s) and Authority.
WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160D-701, the Town of Nags Head (the “Town”) may enact
and amend ordinances regulating the zoning and development of land within its jurisdiction and
specifically the location and use of buildings, structures and land; pursuant to this authority and
the additional authority granted by N.C.G.S. Chap. 160D-702, the Town has adopted
comprehensive zoning regulations and has codified the same within the Unified Development
Ordinance, Part II of the Town Code, adopted pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 160D-103, which allows
the Town to combine certain land development ordinances into a unified ordinance;
WHEREAS, Section 2.4.4.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance provides that the powers
and duties of the Planning Board include developing and recommending policies, ordinances,
development regulations, administrative procedures, and other means for carrying out plans in a
coordinated and efficient manner;
WHEREAS, Section 3.5.1. of the Town Code makes clear that a zoning ordinance text
amendment may be initiated by motion of the Board of Commissioners, by motion of the
Planning Board, or by application by any person within the zoning jurisdiction of the Town;
WHEREAS, N.C.G.S. 160-205.8 sets forth criteria related to “No-Impact Home-Based
Businesses” and how we regulate them. Necessary UDO amendments to ensure alignment
and compliance are provided below.
ARTICLE II. Construction.
For purposes of this ordinance amendment, underlined words (underline) shall be considered as
additions to existing Town Code language and strikethrough words (strikethrough) shall be
considered deletions to existing language. Any portions of the adopted Town Code which are not
repeated herein but are instead replaced by an ellipsis (“...”) shall remain as they currently exist
within the Town Code.
ARTICLE III. Amendment of the Unified Development Ordinance.
PART I. That Appendix A – Definitions shall be amended as follows, to add a new definition
for “No-Impact Home Based Business”.
No-Impact Home-Based Business means a business owned and operated by the
owner or occupant of a residential dwelling that manufactures, provides, or sells goods
or services and meets the eligibility criteria in Section 7.7.5. (NCGS 160A-205.8(d))

PART II. That Section 6.6, Table of Uses and Activities shall be amended as follows:

Page 40 of 60

Use Type
No-Impact
Home-Based
Business

Residential
Districts
R1 R2 R3

Commercial Districts

PR

PR

PR

PR

CR C1

C2

C3

Special Districts
C4

C5

SPD- SED- SPD- Supplemental
20
80
C
Regulations

PR PR PR PR PR PR

PR

Section 7.7

PART III. That Section 7.7, Home Occupations, be revised as follows:
Section 7.7.5. Supplemental Standards for No-Impact Home Based Businesses.
Section 7.7.5.1. Eligibility Criteria. A home-based business qualifies as a “No-Impact
Home Based Business” under N.C.G.S. 160A-205.8(d) when it meets all the following
criteria:
Section 7.7.5.1.1. The combined number of on-site employees and clients is
within Dare County’s applicable occupancy limit for the residential property.
Section 7.7.5.1.2. Business activities are limited to the sale of lawful goods and
services.
Section 7.7.5.1.3. Business activities generate neither on-street parking nor a
substantial increase in traffic through residential areas.
Section 7.7.5.1.4. Business activities occur within the residential dwelling or in its
yard.
Section 7.7.5.1.5. Business activities are not visible from the street.
Section 7.7.5.1.6. The business stores no goods outside of the premises. For
purposes of this section, goods include merchandise, equipment, products,
supplies, and materials.
Section 7.7.5.2. Permitted Use and Approved Exemption. A qualifying “No-Impact
Home Based Business” is permitted at a residential dwelling within the Town’s
jurisdictional limits, subject to N.C.G.S. 160A-205.8. The Town shall require no
application, registration, permit, license, variance, or other Town approval to operate
the business. This exemption applies to any home occupation approval otherwise
required by this Ordinance.
As a condition of operating the business, the Town shall require neither a petition to
rezone the property for commercial use nor the installation of fire sprinklers in any
building or structure subject to the North Carolina Residential Building Code.

Page 41 of 60

Section 7.7.5.3. Applicable Regulations. The Town may apply reasonable regulations
to “No-Impact Home-Based Businesses” only to the extent those regulations are
narrowly tailored to a purpose authorized by N.C.G.S. 160A-205.8(a).
Section 7.7.5.4. Private Restrictions. In accordance with N.C.G.S. 160A-205.8(c), the
protections of that statute and this section do not apply where operation of the
business is prohibited by a deed, covenant, or agreement restricting the use of the
land, or by a master deed, bylaws, or other documents applicable to a homeowner’s
association.
Section 7.7.5.4. A No-Impact Home-Based Business protected by N.C.G.S. 160A208.8 is exempt from the general class-specific home occupation standards of this
section. A home based business outside the protections of N.C.G.S. 160A-205.8 may
operate as a Class1, 2, or 3 home occupation where allowed by Section 6.6 and
subject to the applicable requirements of this section.

PART VII. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby
repealed. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the ___ day
of ____ 2026.
Benjamin Cahoon, Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Date adopted:
Motion to adopt by Commissioner
Motion seconded by Commissioner
Vote:

AYES

NAYS

Page 42 of 60

§ 160A-205.8. No-impact home-based businesses.
(a) A city shall not adopt an ordinance or other regulation prohibiting no-impact home-based businesses
within its jurisdictional limits or require a person to apply, register, or obtain any permit, license, variance, or
other type of approval to operate a no-impact home-based business within its jurisdictional limit. A city may
impose reasonable regulations on no-impact home-based businesses if the regulations are narrowly tailored for
any of the following purposes:
(1) Ensuring the protection of public health and safety, as allowed by law.
(2) Ensuring that the business activity meets all of the following:
a. Is compatible with the residential use of the property and surrounding residential use.
b. Is secondary to the use of the property as a residential dwelling.
c. Complies with State and federal law, including the payment of applicable taxes.
(3) Prohibiting or limiting the use of no-impact home-based businesses for the purpose of selling
illegal drugs, liquor, operating or maintaining a structured sober living home, pornography,
obscenity, or nude or topless dancing or other adult-oriented businesses.
(b) A city shall not require as a condition of operating a no-impact home-based business that the owner or
occupant of the property do the following:
(1) Submit a petition for rezoning the property for commercial use.
(2) Install or equip fire sprinklers in any building or structure subject to the North Carolina
Residential Code.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply if the operation of a no-impact home-based business is
prohibited by the terms of:
(1) Any deed, covenant, or agreement restricting the use of the land.
(2) Any master deed, bylaws, or other documents applicable to a homeowners association.
(d) The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Goods. - Any merchandise, equipment, products, supplies, or materials.
(2) Home-based business. - Any business owned and operated by the owner or occupant of the
residential dwelling that manufactures, provides, or sells goods or services.
(3) No-impact home-based business. - A no-impact home-based business for which all of the
following apply:
a. The total number of on-site employees and clients do not exceed the city's occupancy limit
for the residential property.
b. The business activities are characterized by all of the following:
1. Are limited to the sale of lawful goods and services.
2. Do not generate on-street parking or a substantial increase in traffic through the
residential area.
3. Occur inside or in the yard of the residential dwelling.
4. Are not visible from the street.
5. Do not store merchandise, equipment, products, supplies, or materials outside of the
premises. (2026-51, s. 1.)

Page 43 of 60

Coates' Canons

NORTH CAROLINA LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW BLOG
September 23, 2026

State Rules to Allow No-Impact Home-Based
Businesses in Municipalities

Adam Lovelady
In North Carolina, local zoning ordinances typically have rules about what
commercial accessory uses are permitted in residential zoning districts. They set
standards for home occupations like the accountant running a small accounting
firm out of their home, the artist or designer with a commercial studio in their
home, and the computer repair technician working from their garage. In the past,
regulations about home occupations were a local policy decision, and different
communities might make different decisions.
State law now limits municipal authority to regulate certain “no-impact homebased businesses.” Municipalities must align their local regulations and
permitting processes in this area to comply with this state preemption.
This blog explores the meaning of the new law and the impact on municipal
ordinances.

Scope of the Law
Session Law 2026-51 (HB 372) added a new statutory section, G.S.160A-205.8,
requiring that municipalities must allow certain qualifying home-based
businesses. Any municipal regulations for qualifying businesses must be narrowly
tailored for specific purposes, and the municipality may not require permits or
approvals for the qualifying no-impact home-based businesses.
It is prudent to highlight a few details about the scope of this law. First, the law
went into effect on July 7, 2026, the day it was signed by the Governor. Second, the
law is specific to municipal authority; it does not impact county ordinances. Third,
it is codified in Chapter 160A (the laws generally applicable to municipalities), but
Page 44 of 60

it also impacts municipal zoning authority under Chapter 160D of the General
Statutes. Finally, the new statute does not affect private covenants, deed
restrictions, or other property owner agreements.

Definition of “No-Impact Home-Based Business”
The new rules apply to no-impact home-based businesses, as defined at G.S. 160A205.8(d). There are a couple of layers to this definition. First, the law defines homebased business as “[a]ny business owned and operated by the owner or occupant
of the residential dwelling that manufactures, provides, or sells goods or services.”
Then, no-impact home-based business is further defined as one that meets all of
the following conditions:
a. The total number of on-site employees and clients do not exceed the
city's occupancy limit for the residential property.
b. The business activities are characterized by all of the following:
1. Are limited to the sale of lawful goods and services.
2. Do not generate on-street parking or a substantial increase in
traffic through the residential area.
3. Occur inside or in the yard of the residential dwelling.
4. Are not visible from the street.
5. Do not store merchandise, equipment, products, supplies, or
materials outside of the premises.
The statute also defines goods as “[a]ny merchandise, equipment, products,
supplies, or materials.” The statute does not define services, but the scope of that
term will be essential for determining the scope of this law.

No Municipal Permits or Approvals
Under the new law a municipality may not prohibit “no-impact home-based
businesses” and may not “require a person to apply, register, or obtain any permit,
license, variance, or other type of approval to operate” the business. Additionally,
under this new 160A-205.8(b), municipal regulations may not require the owner or
Page 45 of 60

occupant to seek a rezoning to commercial zoning as a condition of operating a
no-impact home-based business.
Municipalities may still regulate no-impact home-based businesses, as discussed
below, but those regulations must be narrowly tailored to accomplish specific,
public purposes. Because no-impact home-based businesses will not require
upfront permitting or approval, municipalities may want to spread the word about
local regulations through public outreach and education, and municipalities may
need to be proactive with enforcement.

Limits on Municipal Regulations
The state law does allow municipalities to impose some regulations on no-impact
home-based businesses. Notably, though, the regulations must be “narrowly
tailored” for specific purposes. Narrowly tailored is an important legal phrase.
When courts apply their highest level of review—strict scrutiny—in cases involving
fundamental rights like free speech, religious liberty, and equal protection, the
government must demonstrate that its actions or regulations are narrowly
tailored to further a compelling government interest. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert,
576 U.S. 155 (2015), for example, the court demands that the government
regulation of noncommercial signs must be narrowly tailored to further a
compelling government interest.
To be sure, these home occupation regulations are not necessarily subject to strict
scrutiny in court, but the General Assembly’s choice of the phrase “narrowly
tailored” is noteworthy. It sets a heightened standard for the fit between the
regulation and its purpose. Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) defines
“narrowly tailored” as “being only as broad as is reasonably necessary to promote a
substantial governmental interest that would be achieved less effectively without
the restriction; no broader than absolutely necessary” (emphasis added).
So then, what purposes would justify the regulations? The new law directs that
municipal regulations for no-impact home-based businesses must be narrowly
tailored to serve one or more of the following purposes:
1. Ensuring the protection of public health and safety, as allowed by law.
2. Ensuring that the business activity meets all of the following:
Is compatible with the residential use of the property and
surrounding residential use.
Page 46 of 60

Is secondary to the use of the property as a residential dwelling.
Complies with State and federal law, including the payment of
applicable taxes.
3. Prohibiting or limiting the use of no-impact home-based businesses for
the purpose of selling illegal drugs, liquor, operating or maintaining a
structured sober living home, pornography, obscenity, or nude or
topless dancing or other adult-oriented businesses.
With regard to public health and safety, the state law prohibits municipal
regulations from requiring the owner or occupant to install fire sprinklers in any
building subject to the Residential Code.

What businesses are protected, and which are
not?
There is no simple, universal answer to these questions. The answer will depend
on the specifics of the business and the specifics of the property. Some common
home occupations will likely qualify as no-impact home-based businesses under
the state law— an accountant running the business out of their home, an artist
working out of a home studio, and a computer repairman working out of a
garage. But, even those will need to meet the requirements (comply with
occupancy limits, no substantial traffic, no on-street parking, comply with
narrowly tailored local regulations, etc.).
The rules for no-impact home-based businesses are aimed at businesses, not
necessarily individual working from home. Work-from-home employees—working
a computer-based job for an employer elsewhere—probably are not addressed by
the state rules. But also, such work-from-home activities typically are not subject
to local regulation if there is no traffic and no external impacts.
Beyond the work-from-home employee, a wide range of businesses may qualify as
no-impact home-based businesses if they meet the criteria. A small salon in the
basement? Baseball and softball hitting lessons in the garage? A catering
business in the kitchen? These could potentially meet the law’s criteria, as could
many other businesses. The following section draws together the questions
municipalities must consider.

Page 47 of 60

Questions to Determine Applicability
Putting all of the law’s provisions together, here is a checklist of questions to
determine if an activity is permitted as a no-impact home-based business:
Is the business based at a residential dwelling?
Is the business owned and operated by the owner or occupant of the
residential dwelling?
Is the business manufacturing, providing, or selling goods? Or, is the
business providing or selling services?
Are the business activities limited to the sale of lawful goods or services?
Do the total number of on-site employees and clients fall within the city's
occupancy limit for the residential property?
Do the business activities avoid generating on-street parking or a
substantial increase in traffic through the residential area?
Do the business activities occur inside the residential dwelling or in the
yard?
Are the business activities not visible from the street?
Do the business activities avoid storing merchandise, equipment, products,
supplies, or materials outside of the premises?
Do the business activities meet municipal regulations narrowly tailored to
ensure public health and safety?
Do the business activities meet municipal regulations narrowly tailored to
ensure the activities are compatible with residential use of the property and
surrounding residential use?
Do the business activities meet municipal regulations narrowly tailored to
ensure the activities are secondary to the use of the property as a residential
property?

Page 48 of 60

Do the business activities meet municipal regulations narrowly tailored to
ensure the activities meet applicable State and federal law, including taxes?
Do the business activities meet municipal regulations narrowly tailored to
prohibit selling drugs or alcohol, operating a sober living home, or adult
businesses?
Under the state law, if a business meets these criteria for a no-impact home-based
business, the municipality must allow it and may not require permitting or
approval for it, and any regulations applicable to no-impact home-based
businesses must be no more restrictive than necessary to achieve limited public
purposes.

Page 49 of 60

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTIONS
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2026
1.

Call to order - Mayor Cahoon called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. A moment of silence was followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance. He then recognized former Mayor Bob Muller in attendance and thanked
Mayor Pro Tem Lambert for filling in at the October 7th meeting.

2.

Agenda – The board adopted the November 4th agenda as presented.

3.

Nags Head Woods - Steward Aaron McCall presented a PowerPoint presentation of the Nags Head
Woods Annual Report. His presentation was well received by the board.

4.

Recognition –
FIVE YEARS – Police Chief Perry Hale introduced Master Police Officer/K9 Kana Hashigami, who was
recognized by the board for five years of service.
FIVE YEARS – Deputy Town Manager/Finance Officer Amy Miller introduced Human Resources Director
Jan Mielke, who was recognized by the board for five years of service.

5.

Earl Murray Jr Employee of the Year - Nominees were presented by Dept Heads:
- Human Resources Assistant Abigail Larsen was introduced by Amy Miller.
- Permit Technician Kim Thompson was introduced by Kelly Wyatt.
- Facilities Maintenance Technician John Stewart was introduced by Steven Saunders.
- Police Officer First Class Dilyana “Dee Dee” Gnafakis was introduced by Perry Hale.
- Fire Captain Matthew Swain was introduced by Randy Wells.
At 9:51 a.m., the board recessed for photographs and then to enter Closed Session to consider the
honorarium. The board re-entered Open Session at 10:04 a.m. and on behalf of the board, Mayor
Cahoon announced Fire Captain Matthew Swain as the Earl Murray Jr Employee of the Year for 2026. He
noted it was a very difficult decision to make as all nominees were deserving.

6.

Public Comment –
Bob Muller – Nags Head resident – acknowledged the difficulty of selecting an Employee of the Year
from the town’s many outstanding employees. He urged the board to establish an objective service level
for the Stormwater Master Plan, prioritize projects by public safety, flooding impacts and costeffectiveness, and continue maintaining existing drainage systems. He shared these suggestions in a
handout. He also recommended focusing on projects with broad community benefits and redirecting
funding from the Jockey’s Ridge sidewalk project to drainage improvements.
Randy Cartwright – Nags Head resident – questioned the additional public safety benefits of the Flock
camera system and expressed concerns about recording, storing and sharing individuals’ movements,
emphasizing that individual rights should take precedence over government efficiency. Citing Dare
County’s decision to remove its cameras and similar actions by other communities, he urged the board

Page 50 of 60

BOC Actions
November 4, 2026

to end Nags Head’s participation and remove the cameras.
7.

Consent Agenda – The Consent Agenda was approved as presented and consisted of the following:
- Consideration of Budget Amendment #5 to FY 26/27 Budget
- Consideration of Tax Adjustment Report
- Approval of Minutes
- Consideration of Updates and/or Deletion of Obsolete Board of Commissioners Policies
- Request for Public Hearing to consider a UDO text amendment submitted by Anastasiia Forlano to allow
Cosmetic Tattooing as an Accessory Use to permitted Beauty Salon uses within the town

8.

RECESS/RECONVENE – The board took a brief recess at 10:18 a.m. and reconvened at 10:25 a.m.

9.

Planning Director – Planning Director Kelly Wyatt summarized her monthly report and was thanked by
the board for her efforts.

10.

Parks and Rec. Master Plan Steering Committee – The following people were appointed by the board to
the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Steering Committee:
Planning Board member – Bradley Carey
Committee for Arts and Culture member – Ginny Flowers
Friends of Jockey’s Ridge representative – Nags Head resident TBD by Friends of Jockey’s Ridge Board
YMCA representative – Jamie Koch
At-large members – Sara Patton, Kelly Divita, Christin Brown, Sara Ahrendt

11.

Committee Reports
Comr. Harrison – reported that the Government Access Channel Committee had resolved a funding
concern with the state and that they are still looking for a channel manager.
Mayor Pro Tem Lambert – commended Planning Director Wyatt for her report on the Septic Health
Advisory Committee and expressed excitement about the first 0% interest loan currently in progress,
noting it was a significant step forward.
Comr. Vaughan – reported on the Dare County Tourism Board’s October 15th meeting, with much of the
discussion focused on the Soundside Event Site, including potential policy changes, future uses and a
phased approach to improvements. A request for funding to hire a consultant to develop an interim use
plan was declined. She also reported that occupancy and meals tax collections remained relatively flat
compared to the prior year, with Nags Head continuing to contribute approximately 25% of both.
Comr. Sanders – No updates for Estuarine Shoreline Management Advisory Committee or Dare Housing
Foundation currently.
Mayor Cahoon – advised that the Jennette’s Pier Advisory committee will meet later this month, and he
will provide an update at the December meeting.

12.

Personnel Policy – The board unanimously approved the updates to the Personnel Policy.

2

Page 51 of 60

BOC Actions
November 4, 2026

13.

Motorola Contract – The board unanimously authorized Manager Garman to execute a new five-year
contract with Motorola for In-Car and Body-Worn Cameras and associated systems.

14.

Axon Taser Contract – The board unanimously authorized Manager Garman to execute a new multi-year
Axon Taser contract and adopted budget amendment 5.2 in compliance with GASB 87 for lease
accounting.

15.

Stormwater Master Plan – Cameron James and Graham Scherle from McAdams presented the final draft
of the Stormwater Master Plan. Following discussion regarding project prioritization, water quality
benefits and the coordination of stormwater improvements with other town projects, the board reached
consensus to defer adoption until December to allow additional time for review, evaluate incorporating
water quality into the project scoring methodology and add an implementation section to the plan.

16.

Automated License Plate Readers – It was board consensus to direct Police Chief Hale to develop a
recommendation for more geographically restricted access, including the potential benefits and
drawbacks, for consideration at the December meeting. Manager Garman noted the recommendation
will likely be presented as a Draft Board of Commissioners policy. The board welcomed additional public
input.

17.

Financial Update – Deputy Town Manager/Finance Officer Amy Miller presented a financial update to the
board, including fund balances, capital reserves, water fund performance and revenue trends.

18.

Mayor Pro Tem Lambert – wished Town of Nags Head staff a Happy Thanksgiving.

19.

Mayor Cahoon – shared that the Outer Banks Family YMCA would be celebrating its 25th anniversary at
an open house coinciding with the board’s next meeting. The board agreed by consensus to have staff
prepare a resolution recognizing the YMCA’s 25 years of service to the community, its benefits to Nags
Head residents and its partnership with the town for consideration at the December meeting.

20.

Closed Session – The board entered Closed Session to consult with the town attorney regarding matters
protected by the attorney/client privilege and to preserve that privilege, to include litigation involving the
Town of Nags Head and property owners in Pelican Park pursuant to GS 143-318.11(a)(3). The time
was 12:28 p.m.

21.

Open Session - The board re-entered Open Session at 12:54 p.m. Attorney Leidy reported that the
board consulted with the town attorney regarding pending litigation matters involving the Pelican Park
HOA and the town’s involvement and that no other action was taken.

22.

Adjournment – The board adjourned at 12:55 p.m.

3

Page 52 of 60

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Town of Nags Head Planning Board
REGULAR SESSION: November 17, 2026

AGENDA ITEM H.1.
Continued discussion of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Prepared by
Lily Nieberding, Permitting Coordinator

Reviewed by
Lily Nieberding
Lily Nieberding

Staff Comments/Recommendation

Specific Action Requested

Summary

Attachments
None

Page 1 of 1

PO Box 99, Nags Head, NC | (252) 441-5508 | nagsheadnc.gov
Page 53 of 60

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Town of Nags Head Planning Board
REGULAR SESSION: November 17, 2026

AGENDA ITEM H.2.
Continued discussion of potential UDO amendments related to tree preservation.

Prepared by
Lily Nieberding, Permitting Coordinator

Reviewed by
Lily Nieberding
Lily Nieberding

Staff Comments/Recommendation

Specific Action Requested

Summary

Attachments
None

Page 1 of 1

PO Box 99, Nags Head, NC | (252) 441-5508 | nagsheadnc.gov
Page 54 of 60

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Town of Nags Head Planning Board
REGULAR SESSION: November 17, 2026

AGENDA ITEM H.3.
Planning & Development Directors Report – November 4th, 2026

Prepared by
Lily Nieberding, Permitting Coordinator

Reviewed by
Lily Nieberding
Lily Nieberding

Staff Comments/Recommendation
Please find attached a monthly update from Planning Director Kelly Wyatt that includes permitting and code
enforcement data through September 2026.
Specific Action Requested
This item is provided for board information and update.
Summary
This memo provides an overview of selected Planning and Development Department activities, projects, and
initiatives. If requested, staff will be prepared to discuss any of this information in detail at the Board of
Commissioners meeting on Wednesday, November 4, 2026.
Monthly Activity Report
In addition to permitting, inspections, code enforcement, and Todd D. Krafft Septic Health Initiative activities, staff
were involved in the following meetings or activities of note during the month of October:
• Tuesday, October 6th — Technical Review Committee Meeting
• Wednesday, October 7th — Board of Commissioners Meeting
• Thursday, October 8th — Board of Adjustment Meeting (no hearings)
• Thursday, October 8th — Parks and Recreation Kick-Off Meeting
• Wednesday, October 14th — Arts and Culture Committee Meeting
• Wednesday, October 14th — Holiday Market Application opened at 8 am.
• Tuesday, October 20th — Planning Board Meeting
• Wednesday, October 21st — Board of Commissioners Mid-Month (not needed)
• Wednesday, October 21st — Fish Printing with the Strategic Angler at Whalebone Park (moved to Epstein
Bath House)
• Fridays, October 9th and 23rd — Movie Nights at Dowdy Park (canceled due to weather)
• Monday, October 26th — Septic Health Advisory Committee (SHAC) Meeting
Planning Board — Pending Applications and Discussions
At its October 20, 2026 meeting, the Planning Board unanimously recommended adoption of a UDO text
amendment submitted by Anastasiia Forlano to distinguish cosmetic tattooing/permanent makeup from traditional
tattoo establishments and allow it as an accessory service within an otherwise permitted beauty salon. The
recommendation included the supplemental regulations as presented. The board also continued its review of
Page 1 of 4

PO Box 99, Nags Head, NC | (252) 441-5508 | nagsheadnc.gov
Page 55 of 60

historical information regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs), discussed the Commercial Outdoor Recreation
Overlay District (CORD), and received a presentation on upcoming UDO amendments related to tree and vegetation
preservation.
The Planning Board’s next meeting is scheduled for November 17, 2026. The anticipated agenda includes:
• Consideration of a UDO text amendment to address Session Law 2026-51 and its limitations on local
regulation of “no-impact home-based businesses.”
• Continued discussion of ADUs, Vegetation Preservation revisions, and the Commercial Outdoor Recreation
Overlay District (CORD).
Board of Adjustment – Recent and Pending Applications — There were no items for the Board of
Adjustment's consideration in October 2026.
Additional Updates
• DWMP/Septic Health Advisory Committee — The SHAC met October 26, 2026, to review monitoring efforts,
program participation, and opportunities to strengthen outreach. Highlights included:
o Water quality monitoring: Boris Dessimond of ECU demonstrated the university’s wireless logger system
and online dashboard. The committee supported continued collaboration to evaluate the system
alongside the town’s OTT equipment. Staff also provided an update on replacement of malfunctioning
OTT loggers and efforts to integrate septic system records and monitoring results into a centralized GIS
map.
o Marketing and outreach: UNC-Chapel Hill intern Jocelyn Billings presented recommendations to improve
program materials, highlight financial incentives, simplify online information, and expand outreach
through local partnerships. Staff also reported on the recent Babson College visit and potential
collaboration on community participation and outreach that could complement Water Watch/Sound
Waters efforts.
o Program participation: Since July, the Septic Health Initiative has completed 60 inspections, issued 47
pumping credits, and provided two loans, with another zero-interest loan application in progress.
As a next step, staff will resend the targeted letter promoting the DWI-funded zero-interest loan program to
encourage additional participation and review the response with the committee at its next meeting.
• Estuarine Shoreline Management Plan — Staff continue to advance shoreline resiliency projects and evaluate
nature-based stabilization options. Of note, the technical assistance grant program has generated three site
visits and three applications from Soundside Road property owners.
o Harvey/Soundside Event Site Living Shoreline Project: Staff and consultants are evaluating oyster tables
and other shoreline treatments as potential components of the project. A visit to an installation in
Rodanthe and discussion with a company representative are being coordinated to help inform design
considerations for both the Harvey and Catfish Farm sites.
o Villa Dunes Drive: Staff and Environmental Professionals, Inc. continue working with property owners to
evaluate shoreline stabilization alternatives consistent with ESMP goals. Additional treatment options will
be presented to the group for consideration.
o Soundside Road: A follow-up stakeholder meeting is scheduled for November 4, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. at
4201 13th Street. Revised draft easements have been shared with property owners in advance, and
initial marsh bench concepts will be presented for discussion.
o Catfish Farm/Causeway: Staff continue evaluating living shoreline options and coordinating the property
interests needed to advance the project. Recent fieldwork helped distinguish potential submerged
aquatic vegetation from mudflats, while summer and fall water quality testing has consistently indicated
Page 2 of 4

PO Box 99, Nags Head, NC | (252) 441-5508 | nagsheadnc.gov
Page 56 of 60

salinity conditions favorable for oyster growth. A site visit with a potential installer is anticipated on
November 10th, 2026 to help develop a preliminary scope and cost estimate.
• Parks and Recreation Plan Update — Staff continue working with Destination by Design (DbD) on the Parks
and Recreation Plan update, branded “The Next Wave.” Coordination is underway with Polco on a
statistically valid survey to support the planning process and future PARTF grant eligibility.
The project team has identified potential participants and filming locations for a promotional video, along
with community, government, nonprofit, and business stakeholders for consultant interviews. Joe Costello
has also prepared an asset inventory to support DbD’s field review during its December 2026 site visit. DbD
is developing project graphics and a dedicated website, which will be linked to the town’s website.
The Board of Commissioners will consider appointments to the Parks and Recreation Steering Committee as
a separate action at the board's November 4th, 2026 meeting. The next staff check-in with DbD is
scheduled for November 13th, 2026.
• Dowdy Park Events/Farmers Market/Holiday Markets/Art & Culture — Fall programming included a children’s
fish-printing workshop with Merv Rubiano of Strategic Angler, relocated from Whalebone Park to the Epstein
Street bathhouse. Participants explored Gyotaku, the traditional Japanese art of fish printing. Staff also
partnered with the NC Aquarium to enhance Dowdy Park’s pollinator garden with native plants funded
through a SAFE Monarch Habitat grant. The town plans to register the garden as a SAFE Monarch Habitat
Garden and add educational signage.
Preparations are underway for the Dowdy Park Holiday Markets on November 14, November 28, and
December 12, from 9 a.m. to noon. Vendors have been selected and notified. The Annual Tree Lighting is
scheduled for November 28, with Santa, Sprinkles, and the Manteo High School chamber choir participating.
Public Services staff, particularly Bruce Erickson, are putting considerable time and effort into installing the
park’s holiday lights, with Police and Fire also supporting the event.
The Veterans Day ceremony will be held November 11 at 11 a.m. in front of Town Hall, with the Board
Room serving as the inclement-weather location. Retired NC Army National Guard Colonel J. Emery
Midyette, Jr. will deliver the remarks.
At its October meeting, the Committee for Arts & Culture reviewed seasonal programming and supported
Ginny Flowers serving as its representative on the Parks and Recreation Steering Committee. Members are
gathering ideas and exploring partnerships for a year-long celebration of Dowdy Park’s 10th anniversary in
2027. Public Services is also constructing a wind phone for the Harvey Tract, with additional details to follow
upon completion.
Upcoming Meetings and Other Dates
• Tuesday, November 3rd — Technical Review Committee Meeting
• Wednesday, November 4th — Board of Commissioners Meeting
• Wednesday, November 11th — Arts and Culture Committee Meeting (no meeting)
• Wednesday, November 11th — Veterans Day Ceremony
• Thursday, November 12th — Board of Adjustment Meeting (no hearings)
• Friday, November 13th — Parks and Recreation Plan Meeting
• Tuesday, November 17th — Planning Board Meeting
• Wednesday, November 18th — Board of Commissioners Mid-Month (if needed)
• Saturdays, November 14th and 28th — Dowdy Park Holiday Markets
• Saturday, November 28th — Dowdy Park Tree Lighting
Page 3 of 4

PO Box 99, Nags Head, NC | (252) 441-5508 | nagsheadnc.gov
Page 57 of 60

Attachments
1.
11 F1 Planning Monthly Report

Page 4 of 4

PO Box 99, Nags Head, NC | (252) 441-5508 | nagsheadnc.gov
Page 58 of 60

Page 59 of 60

Page 60 of 60