OAK ISLAND — The battle to limit house size continues in the Town of Oak Island, but one player has been removed from the field.
READ MORE: OKI planning board leans toward opposing stricter house size limits, asks for more time
Planning board member Melanie Morgan submitted her resignation in early August after two of her colleagues filed code of ethics complaints against her.
The complaints, cataloged by council members Terri Cartner and Bob Ciullo, involve Morgan’s speech made at a planning meeting where she expressed opposition to limiting house sizes on the island.
In June, council member Bob Ciullo proposed two options for limiting square footage of single family homes. One would be to lower square footage on homes constructed to 3,500 square feet and eliminate residents’ ability to apply for special-use permits to exceed that amount. The second approach would be to limit home size as proportionate to lot size.
Council directed the planning board to analyze the benefits and drawbacks of both at their July 18 meeting. There, Morgan launched into a several minute speech against both of council’s proposals and advocated against villainizing large groups of vacations, noting most of them are demure and mindful families.
Morgan also makes reference to council member Cartner’s post about steering committees and stakeholder groups on the Oak Island Civic Alliance page. The following comment was made by Gwen Moore:
“Islanders we must get the UDO plan immediately to prevent these 10 bedroom 10 bathroom mini hotels being put on the point and wetlands or wherever these foreign investors can put them to ruin our island.”
In her speech, Morgan decries this comment as “racist” and condemns Cartner for not removing nor denouncing the comment. Ciullo also liked the comment.
The day after the meeting, Ciullo emails Morgan saying her comment was uncalled for. He and Cartner filed their ethics complaints a few days later.
This is the chief incident raised in the complaints, though there are others, including other accusations Morgan has made and her perceived proclivity toward talking about how planning board decisions could affect her and her business.
The council members claim Morgan violated the code of ethics by demonstrating a lack of integrity and respect, fair and impartial determinations, and restraint in one’s duties on the board. They also claim some of her comments were slanderous and libelous, noting an investigation would occur should Morgan not resign.
Despite her resignation, Morgan filed an ethics complaint of her own, but only against Ciullo, claiming he is making false statements.
She also hired legal representation. Attorney Kimberly Moore of Johnson & Moore Law Firm sent a formal notice to Ciullo on Aug. 2 requesting he cease and desist his inaccurate portrayal of Morgan.
In her complaint, filed Aug. 5, Morgan stood by her words, stating she has a duty to fight against discrimination.
Morgan uses her ethics complaint to refute much of Ciullo’s claims she was misleading or untruthful in her statements on July 18.
Ciullo and Cartner call out Morgan’s statement that “14-bedroom and 15-bedroom homes is just rhetoric”; Cartner said this was misleading. The council members also took issue with Morgan stating she doesn’t support any changes to the current rules on house size. Cartner claims this is a “clear and open defiance” of council’s direct request.
Morgan also defends herself over a quasi-judicial hearing she mentioned in remarks. A citizen, unnamed in the complaint, filed for a special use permit for a 5,000-square-foot home and was denied. Ciullo wrote in his complaint that Morgan said “she does not appreciate the disdain which Councilman Ciullo used with the SUP applicant for a 5,000 square foot home” at the July 18 meeting.
This is a misquote. Morgan says she does not appreciate Ciullo’s disdain for “these homes,” referring to large homes often used as vacation rentals.
Morgan acknowledges she did say the following in an email exchange with Ciullo: “The comment on her post is one thing, but the belligerence with which you both speak to a person of color in a quasi judicial hearing where you sit in a position of power representing a town of almost 100% white citizens.”
In her complaint, Morgan accuses Ciullo and Cartner of asking this applicant irrelevant questions, like whether he will rent the property and his retirement plans, which they don’t ask of everyone. She claims this runs afoul of federal fair housing laws.
Morgan allegedly did not demonstrate integrity or the ability to make impartial decisions by discussing the applicant at all, as quasi-judicial hearings are outside the hearing. Additionally, the council members claim Morgan discusses her personal home and business too often on the dais.
Port City Daily tried to reach Morgan but received no response by press. The Oak Island Town Council has yet to fill Morgan’s vacant seat.
The planning board did meet to discuss house sizes again on Thursday where the board rejected council’s two solutions to further cap house square footage.
The current land use plan stipulates homes should be no more than 4,000 square feet, but owners can request a special use permit to exceed it. It is among the only coastal towns in North Carolina to cap house sizes, though the council directed the planning board to analyze its two options — not provide a recommendation.
Both options include eliminating the special use permit allowance, a move favorable to most of the planning board. The first would limit square footage to 3,500 square feet. The second approach would be to limit home size as proportionate to lot size.
As in the board’s July meeting, the majority were not convinced either option would accomplish the council’s true aims of limiting high occupancy of homes and the problems — trash, parking, noise — that often accompany it.
“My issue with this whole exercise is I feel like we’re taking one element of the big issue, the strategic issue that we have in front of us, and we’re making it the scapegoat for everything,” planning board member Durral Gilbert said on Thursday.
Vice chairman Kerri McCullough was the only one to push back, positing if the town didn’t limit house size how else would it control occupancy?
Gilbert and other board members pointed out that it wouldn’t fix the problem, as developers and rental companies would squeeze the same amount of sleeping space into a smaller area. Also, with as much square footage possible dedicated to living space, Gilbert said the island would be faced with “flat-roofed” homes with less pleasing architectural aesthetics.
The planning board may have limited authority to propose other options for addressing the hordes of vacationers flocking to its beaches, as it does not have the power to enforce or propose ordinance changes outside the land code, such as noise restrictions or parking space caps that would need police power. It also cannot interfere with homeowner’s design plans nor utility controls and safety requirements controlled by the state.
Still, Gilbert urged the town to keep thinking creatively about a solution.
As for council’s directive, the 3,500-square-foot option was voted unfavorably unanimously. As for the ratioed option, McCullough and Mark Spicer were in favor, though outnumbered. The board will still deliver its analysis of pros and cons for each option for council review at its Sept. 10 meeting.
Reach journalist Brenna Flanagan at brenna@localdailymedia.com.
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
