TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
November 14, 2003
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, November 14, 2003.
Present were Ron Forlano, Chair, Linda Nave, Vice Chair, John Jenkins, Marilyn March and Jon Britt. Also present were Suzanne Cotellessa, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator, Neil Morrison, Duck Town Council, and Sandy Cady, Administrative Assistant.
Chairman Forlano called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. and introduced the members of the Board and Suzanne Cotellessa to the public. Chairman Forlano explained to the public that the duty of the Planning Board is to iron out some of the issues when something comes before the Board and Council. He explained that they make a decision and pass it up to the Town Council who makes the final decision. The Board serves as an advisory board to The Council. He further explained the Planning Board meetings are very informal, and feedback is welcomed if you simply raise your hand and wait for acknowledgement.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Forlano opened the meeting for public comments.
Bill Hollan from Turnpike Properties in Winston-Salem was acknowledged.
Turnpike Properties own and operate the Sanderling Inn. Mr. Hollan indicated that they were the developers of the Sanderling community and they were very proud to be a part of the Town of Duck. Mr. Hollan expressed his hope for the betterment of Sanderling and the community, and introduced the general manager for the Sanderling Inn, Scott Brewton. Mr. Brewton has been with the Sanderling Inn for about a year now. Mr. Hollan expressed their pleasure in working with Sue Cotellessa, Planning Director, and Chris Layton, Town manager. Mr. Hollan stated that Ms. Cotellessa and Mr. Layton were very helpful in guiding them towards an understanding of the issues, and how Sanderling needs to deal with the Town.
OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
DISCUSSION OF ZONING TEXT REGARDING NONCONFORMING PROPERTIES:
Planning Director Cotellessa, opened the discussion by refreshing the Board on the topics discussed at the last meeting where they touched on the various approaches to re-working the zoning text with respect to nonconforming properties, while addressing the concerns of the community with regard to the nonconformities that have been created by the passing of the Large Structures Ordinance. Planning Director Cotellessa explained that staff is in the middle of preparing an amendment, probably to bring forward at the next meeting. She further explained that in order to break that down, she needs to develop some language that will be acceptable both to the Planning Board and the Town Council. Planning director Cotellessa pointed out the attachment she included with the agenda which detailed a series of discussion points from which she wants to get Board members’ thoughts and input. She explained that the Board’s input will end up directing her as to how she should craft the language to regulate nonconformities.
Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out that the italics paragraph (of the attachment) is a general discussion of what a nonconforming situation/property/use/building might be, and how it comes about. The attachment listed the purposes and features of non-conforming regulations and stated that those purposes and features exist in most jurisdictions’ regulations.
She explained that the first purpose is to limit the number and extent of non-conforming situations. She further explained that when we write zoning ordinances, we expect that’s how the Town should look and should develop, so you want to limit the number of things that don’t comply; otherwise there is very little meaning to your ordinance. One way to obtain this goal is to restrict the ability to enlarge, to re-establish and to alter after destruction. She clarified that this doesn’t necessarily always prohibit but generally restricts, otherwise there would be no meaning to your new regulation.
The first two or three items fall together, so Ms. Cotellessa stated that she would go through those and then break for suggestions.
Planning Director Cotellessa followed the agenda attachment and pointed out that it is important to make sure that we do protect the rights of legally existing nonconforming lots/structures/buildings. These nonconformities were all built, people have investments, and people have rights with them. Even still, Ms. Cotellessa emphasizes that one expects that all of those nonconformities will be encouraged at some point in the future to conform, or convert to a use that conforms with current regulations. She explained that there are two goals behind this reasoning; one is to preserve the character of the Town, as the Town has established it should be in the code, and also to preserve the integrity of the code. If everything is an exception to the rule, the rule makes no sense.
Thirdly, Ms. Cotellessa reminded the Board that the goal is to eventually, long term, eliminate nonconforming uses and structures, or somehow alter them so that they conform with the code. These are the three basics tenets of nonconforming regulations in any jurisdiction. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she needed to know the Board’s feelings, whether they be positive or negative, regarding the basic tenants. When dealing with these issues, she explained the question always arises, why did we change the code. We changed the code because what’s out there is not how we, the community, want the Town to look. Ms. Cotellessa inquired as to whether anyone has any questions at this point. No questions were asked by the Board.
The fourth premise, as explained by Ms. Cotellessa, is to allow some type of structural improvements and minor additions. She explained that some communities say nothing. If you have a nonconforming property, you don’t touch it. You can’t add on to it, you don’t modify it, it is only allowed to remain as it was antecedent to the code. Our regulations, and to some extent in many of the other jurisdictions, allow you to do things that will make sure that you don’t have blight, and that people will affirmatively maintain their property. Again, the goal is to make sure that any new changes that are made to properties are consistent with the code, that they don’t go outside the boundaries of the code, and that you are not increasing the nonconformity. Some communities, Currituck and some others on the Outer Banks, say in any given year you cannot improve a property by more than 10% of the value. The Town of Duck’s current code does not say that. It says you can alter a building so long as you do not increase the degree of nonconformity. Staff would propose to design an ordinance that maintains as much flexibility as possible for people with nonconforming buildings to make improvements, but within the bounds of what is now required. This would allow property owners to make improvements but prevent them from extending the nonconformity.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that limiting nonconformity improvements to a percentage or dollar amount creates an enforcement headache and there have been arguments made regarding equitable fairness when percentages and dollar amounts are used as the basis for determining the extent of improvements permitted. Staff believes that the regulations should be drafted to say that you don’t extend the degree of nonconformity, and staff would recommend this language for the Board’s consideration.
The Town’s ordinance is unique in that is contains a whole section regarding lots prior to 1975. There are different setbacks and different lot coverage calculations which Ms. Cotellessa proposed the Town continue.
Planning Director Cotellessa continued and further explained that the big issue is whether or not to allow for some kind of controlled limited reconstruction of existing nonconforming residential uses that are involuntarily damaged in residential zones. This would reference damages caused by acts of god, lightning, fire, etc. The Town of Duck’s present regulations say that if a property is damaged 50% or less, you can fix it, if it’s 50% or more, you have to start all over and meet all of the current regulations. Ms. Cotellessa explained to the Board that she can craft whatever regulations they suggest. She provided them with some background regarding the nonconformity regulations that Nags Head adopted. When Nags Head passed their large structures ordinance, they said if you’re nonconforming with respect to the items that they passed, if your property is 100% destroyed, you now have to build to the current regulations, but if your property is damaged to any extent less than 100%, you are permitted to rebuild what you had. Ms. Cotellessa explained to the Board that they can go anywhere between 50%, 100% or no reconstruction. She further suggested that the Board look at the items that the Town just passed, i.e. the bedrooms, and the parking and make more leeway for them. Then she explained that the Board needs to decide whether they want to apply these regulations to accessory structures. Ms. Cotellessa reminded the Board that they have talked previously about swimming pools being 5 feet from the setback lines, and provided them with a hypothetical situation to consider. Hypothetically, what happens when a house is burned down, and the pool is still sitting there 5 feet from the setback line. Do we allow the house to be rebuilt leaving the pool where it is? What happens if the pool is half destroyed but the house is fine? The Board needs to decide how they are going to treat these accessory structures.
Ms. Cotellessa changed gears slightly to discuss condominiums. She indicated that there are several condominiums in Town in zoning districts where the Town no longer permits condominiums. If these structures are damaged more than 50%, they cannot be rebuilt under current regulations. There was some discussion at the last meeting that talked about insurance and mortgages and so forth. Ms. Cotellessa advised the Board that she researched the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae guidelines for mortgage loans for these sorts of properties. Her findings revealed that there seems to be no real problems with single family homes that are nonconforming. On the other hand, condominiums that are nonconforming do appear to be an issue. The two largest mortgage vehicles, i.e. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, will not accept mortgages on condominium properties in districts where these structures are not allowed to rebuild in the case of damage. The Board needs to look at this issue from the perspective of the Town’s zoning ordinance. Do we want to allow rebuilding of condominium units? Ms. Cotellessa stated that it has been suggested by one of the Town’s property owners, the Sea Colony Home Owners Association, she believed, that we follow the example of several codes that say if a nonconforming use such as a condominium is destroyed in anyway, that it can be rebuilt, but in order to do so, they must obtain a building permit within a specified period of time, and that the building must be completed within a specified period of time as well. This guideline would prevent the ability to rebuild in perpetuity. Ms. Cotellessa confirmed that one to two years is a reasonable amount of time to allow for rebuild.
Ms. Cotellessa reiterated her concerns from last meeting about allowing property owners to put back nonconforming uses as they were before they were damaged. She explained that in many cases, the Town simply does not know what was there pre-storm. If a property owner has a plat, they can show an “as-built” survey, but from experiences dealing with property owners requesting permits for remodels and additions thus far, most people do not have “as-built” surveys. Ms. Cotellessa believed it would be safe to say that more than half of the owners and/or contractors that come in for building permits, do not have “as-built” surveys of the property. Ms. Cotellessa raised the question, how are they going to be able to show what was there before? And will it be rebuilt within the same footprint? With the exact same setbacks? What happens when they want to modify their houses? How do we determine what they had and what they can do?
Ms. Cotellessa addressed the last item on the discussion of nonconformities which dealt with conformance with other regulations. This was also discussed at the last Board meeting. If a house is in a flood zone, and is damaged more than 50%, it has to be rebuilt in accordance with floodplain regulations. Ms. Cotellessa emphasized that it is critical for the Town to support state and federal regulations, and create language that allows nonconformities to be rebuilt only in accordance with those state and federal regulations as well as the Town’s.
Ms. Cotellessa turned the discussion over to the Board and requested their feelings with respect to rebuilding of houses, on what basis should we allow rebuilds, how we should look at accessory structures, and how we should look at uses vs. setbacks.
Member Jenkins inquired as to whether or not we can utilize Dare County’s GIS system to determine “as built” information. He questioned whether there was enough dimensional and pictorial information to determine what was there.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that GIS does have lot dimensions, flood zones, it has a picture of the building in some cases, but it does not have a layout. Many of the files from Dare County have proposed layouts, but there is nothing to say where the house, accessory, etc were actually built. In many cases, where the house was actually built is very often not even remotely related to where it was proposed to be built. Even with a proposed plat, Ms. Cotellessa suggests that we can’t assume that this is what actually existed. She explained that the Town is now requiring an “as built” survey before we issue any certificate of occupancy. This is the case for any type of remodel/addition as well as new houses. Trying to determine what was there is a logistical difficulty.
Member Britt inquired as to whether the Town has obtained any public input relative to nonconformities.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated she received some input at the homeowner association meetings she attended. There was some input at a couple of the Board sessions discussing percentages and what other communities were doing, and there has been some input from others regarding parking spaces, but for the most part she suggested that without having something on the table to discuss, it’s difficult to get input.
Member Britt further inquired as to whether or not the Town knows how many residential nonconformities have been created as a result of the zoning ordinance.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated she did not know. She further indicated that probably the majority of the houses that have pools may have nonconformities with respect to pool setbacks, and to some extent with parking. She explained that previously existing nonconformities are not being required to bring their parking requirements up to speed, unless they are adding a bedroom. Ms. Cotellessa reiterated the need to be as flexible as possible.
Member Jenkins questioned whether we have considered FEMA Flood and velocity areas, as far as enclosing ground floors.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that lower enclosures must meet floodplain requirements; i.e. breakaway walls, v-zone certification, elevations certificates, etc. Ms. Cotellessa briefly touched on detached structures like decks and steps.
Chairman Forlano wanted to know whether we could analyze the properties in Duck to determine the extent of nonconformities.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that it is possible to determine, however it would be a large undertaking. She explained that some communities allow you to come in and apply for a certificate of zoning compliance. Property owners would have to provide an “as built” survey for recordation, and then the Town would determine whether they are conforming. This would then be in their records. There would need to be a fee, and it would take some time to compile the information.
Chairman Forlano suggests that every property owner would want to know if they are conforming. He thinks it would be important to know that.
Chairman Forlano further inquired as to why the Board was not discussing commercial properties and nonconforming properties?
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that she was getting there, but wanted to work through the residential issues first. She explained that there are a lot more questions and concerns with respect to residential versus commercial.
Member March inquired as to how often the properties are reassessed.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that she believed assessments were done every eight (8) years, however the assessments do not have an exact layout. Assessments would have information on the number of bedrooms but not setbacks, and parking. Ms. Cotellessa speculated that the Town does not have accurate up to date information for more than half of the properties.
Member Britt stated that he is of the opinion that if it’s been built, then you should be allowed to rebuild back in the same footprint. He further commented that if they come out of the previous footprint, then they need to meet the current codes. He expressed his concern about the number of houses that are nonconforming and the logistical difficulties involved.
Chairman Forlano asked that Member Britt clarify whether he was speaking of the principal structure.
Member Britt clarified that if you want to protect that right, you’ll need to be able to produce an “as built”. He stated that he was unsure what should be done about accessory structures.
Chairman Forlano commented that he believed that is where the problems arise, because how do you know what was there?
Planning Director Cotellessa offers the Board another hypothetical situation to consider. What if someone is building a new house, will we allow a footprint in the same location, or the same footprint in a little different location. Or are you requiring them to comply to the extent possible???
Member Britt stated that he does not want to see someone who built an eight (8) bedroom house two years ago, prevented from being able to rebuild.
Planning Director Cotellessa offered another scenario. Perhaps you have an eight bedroom house on a 15,000 square foot lot, with a pool and inadequate parking under current regulations. Now suppose we allow them to rebuild, allowing them to build in the same footprint, decreasing the size to seven bedrooms to meet compliance, will we allow them to rebuild without the required parking so they can fit the pool, or do you not put the pool in so you can get your parking. This, Ms. Cotellessa explains is what is meant by complying to the extent possible. Or do we allow these property owners to rebuild everything that they had??
Member March notes that we are forgetting about what we had talked about with regard to accessory structures. She reminded the Board that they have previously suggested that if it’s not compliant now, you should not be allowed to put it back.
Member Britt questions why you should penalize someone that built a house 2 years ago, and did it by the rules. He explained that when they wrote these rules, they were thinking only about new construction. He commented that we didn’t turn around and look at what we affected.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa stated that this was also an issue that Nags Head struggled with. That is why the crafted their ordinance as they did. We, just as Nags Head did, need to determine what threshold we want to use. The Town’s current rules state that 100% destruction requires rebuild to be 100% compliant with current regulations.
Chairman Forlano commented that natural catastrophes cause enough heartache without the Town telling the property owners that they can’t rebuild. He suggested that if the property owner voluntarily chooses to make changes, then we should hold them to the current regulations.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa reminded the Board that the one of the basic goals here is to eventually eliminate nonconformities, and emphasizes that the Town will not get there if they allow all nonconformities to continue.
Member Britt explained that is why he wanted to know the percentage of affected property owners. If nonconformities are going to affect 35-40% of the homes, he stated that they were just not going to do that. He further stated that the Town of Duck is 2 years old and the community is 25 years old.
Member Nave stated that pools are a relatively new thing in Duck. The house may be 25 years old but the pool is not. She further expressed that at some point the property owner needs to make a decision. One of the Town’s biggest problems is parking. If we allow them to build back the same as it was, we are only compiling the problem that we have always said we had. The owners have got to make a decision whether it is about parking or pools, etc. Member Nave suggested that we don’t ever resolve the problem if we allow it to continue and let them put back everything that was there.
Chairman Forlano, reminded the board, that they can pick and choose what they allow to be rebuilt.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa clarified this statement.
Chairman Forlano suggested for instance, that the pool doesn’t go back if it’s over the setback line, and we need to be reasonable about parking. Mr. Forlano agreed with Mr. Britt that the house should be allowed to go back in the same footprint.
Councilor Morrison commented that it was much more important to allow a property owner to rebuild the house as it was, but parking requirements should be met due to the Town’s parking problem, and the pool should be the last item on the list of importance. Houses do not need to have pools.
Member Nave stated that they are giving the property owners that choice. If you want your eight bedrooms, you can have it, but you have to meet the parking requirements and if that means no pool then so be it.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa reiterates her interpretation of the Board’s suggestions thus far:
a) allow the same footprint be rebuilt, although it does not necessarily need to be in the same place;
b) you may actually have to move the location to accommodate parking to bring the property in compliance to the extent possible.
c) voluntary changes must meet current regulations;
Member Jenkins suggested that at least one year should be allowed for construction to begin. Beyond that he suggested a reasonable construction period of 120-180 days.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa agreed with the time limitations.
Chairman Forlano requested an example of an alteration and restoration.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that in some communities, you cannot do anything, you can maintain it, but you cannot alter it, you cannot add on to it, you cannot change the interior, exterior, etc. The Town of Duck’s code provides that you can only make changes to the nonconformity so long as you do not increase the extent of the nonconformity. This is a broad standard which Ms. Cotellessa indicated she is presently interpreting broadly. She further suggested that the Board maintain flexibility with regard to alterations and restoration of nonconformities.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa emphasized that the issues are the same issues which led to the ordinances that were passed last summer, with regard to parking, and accessory structures meeting the setback requirements. She further explained that the Board can make provisions for the main structure, and corresponding provisions with regard to accessory structures and parking to bring nonconformities closer to compliance.
Member Britt and Chairman Forlano both agreed that condominiums should be allowed to rebuild within a specified amount of time.
Member Nave inquired as to the time frame that was suggested for the condominiums to be rebuilt.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa reiterated that the suggested time frame from Sea Colony was two (2) years.
Nave expressed that two years should be enough time.
Chairman Forlano requested a summation from Planning Director Sue Cotellessa
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa stated that she was looking at a hierarchy of things that are most critical, the house, the parking associated with the house, the pool if possible. The idea is to come as close to compliance but still retain the basic value of the house.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether there were any other structures they needed to be worried about.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that decks and sheds did not appear to be a large issue.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa changed gears to discuss nonconforming signage and commercial uses. She explained that many zoning ordinances treat commercial different than single family residential. Planning Director Sue Cotellessa indicated that her input is that if it is a commercial property and it is burned to the ground, it needs to meet current requirements when rebuilt. She suggested discussion on how to treat this. She also advised that she had spoke with the town attorney regarding amortization. Amortization due to refinancing and other issues tends to perpetuate the use. Ms. Cotellessa stated that she believed the Town needed to bring its commercial properties into compliance as quickly as possible, and the town attorney suggested avoiding the amortization scenario in dealing with commercial nonconformities.
Chairman Forlano suggested to Planning Director Cotellessa that she knew how he felt about the commercial areas. He stated that he was going to be the long term champion of the commercial as long as he was alive, for obvious reasons. Mr. Forlano advised that he too did some research on nonconforming issues. Tennessee, for instance takes the commercial element completely out the scenario due to its valuable nature to the community. Mr. Forlano suggested that close to 100% of the town is nonconforming in the commercial areas, and he further suggested that the Board would wipe out all of Duck with nonconformity regulations such as parking and lot coverage. Mr. Forlano asked anyone to give him a property that conforms on every issue of the present ordinance.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa expressed concern in how one can support a code that allows for exceptions to the rules, and questions what is wrong with bringing a business up to code in the event that it is destroyed?
Councilor Morrison indicated that we need to be careful that we don’t find ourselves legislating a change to the whole town’s character, only to lose what people liked about Duck.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether we want to wipe out Duck??
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that supposedly the regulations are to maintain the positive aspects and the character of Duck, and to eliminate the negative aspects, whatever the issue may be. She questioned what the point is to look at the character of the Town, and establish guidelines, if when you have the opportunity to build, under any circumstance, you do not meet the guidelines. She stated you defeat the point of even establishing the guidelines.
Member March stated that she did not think you can give all commercial properties carte blanche.
Chairman Forlano again asked for someone to show him a property that conforms.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that there were avenues for nonconforming properties to address the regulations, through variances to be presented before a Board.
Member Britt expressed his difficulty in making decisions with regard to the nonconformity regulations in light of the pending development of the commercial and architectural guidelines. He further stated that the fact the Town is under a commercial moratorium makes it difficult. He said it makes it difficult, because he does not know what kind of changes are going to be put on the books six months from now. From the surveys received so far, he commented that people like things the way they are. Member Britt further stated that we need to protect the businesses, but if the owner exceeds or extends the nonconformity, then we need to stop that.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that we do know some of the regulations, but what we don’t know are the architectural requirements. We do know that we will have buffer requirements, setback requirements, parking requirements, and those sorts of things. If your guidelines say you need to have a particular roof pitch, and you have a flat top building that is an old town institution, this becomes a problem. The Town is going to allow the property owner to maintain the building, but what happens if it is destroyed?
If the regulations from the past and the architectural controls are good and valid to preserve the character of the town, then everyone should have to follow them.
Chairman Forlano stated that the architectural aspect is one issue, but the basic nonconforming issues are forever present, with parking being the main problem, and most of the properties do not have enough parking to satisfy our ordinance, and that means that property does not exist anymore if it burns down. The only way to get around that is to go for a variance??
Member Nave commented that she did not think the Board was going to solve this today.
Member Jenkins commented on the fact that this problem has evolved over the course of 30 years, and it’s why we decided to incorporate. He further commented that the Town did not like what was coming to them, and we knew we would need to face these issues. The question now is whether we stand up to it.
Planning Director Cotellessa comments regarding the evolution of things and states that if you let nonconformities continue to exist in perpetuity, you face a natural evolution. The idea or goal is that if something new needs to go up in place of the old, that it meets what we are trying to accomplish now. Do you perpetuate it by allowing it to continue as it is now forever?
Member Jenkins stated that he did not feel that things should run in perpetuity, but there may be certain extenuating circumstances and a little mercy should be applied, but it needs to be done over the long term perhaps without a deadline. Reason should be applied as an interim approach.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that she put together some language for the December meeting dealing with residential and commercial. She clarified that she is gathering that the Board wants language that deals with existing business structures in a way that allows some diversity to continue but that respects what has been done in regard to the new ordinances thus far.
NEW BUSINESS
Chairman Forlano thanked Bill Hollan and Scott Brewton for being patient. He further requested that Planning Director Cotellessa fill the Board in on the circumstances of this CUP.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the Sanderling Inn was interested in making some modification to what is currently a health club facility; however they have found that the needs of their guests require more of a spa atmosphere, and as a result of this, they feel that they need to make some minor interior and exterior changes.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that they are going to move the health club facility to the Pine Island Racquet Club, and they are going to expand the spa facility, but the spa facility will also be open to the general public. The use is presently permitted but it is not parked for general public use.
Planning Director Cotellessa complimented Mr. Hollan and his associates for their argument and accompanying package detailing the shared use parking. She explained that they are proposing to change their existing CUP to accommodate the expansion of the spa facility to allow outside use with the existing parking mix. Ms. Cotellessa further commented that staff has reviewed the proposal and generally accepts the parking issue. She explained there was a draft of a CUP amendment for the Board’s review with the final decision to be made by the Town Council. The conditions were detailed on page 2 of the Amendment.
Planning Director Cotellessa further explained that there is in existence a commercial structure moratorium, that the Council extended beyond the original expiration date in December. Council clarified that interior changes were not subject to moratorium, and external changes in the C1 and C2 districts, provided they were minor, would be accepted during the moratorium. She explained that if the Board recommended acceptance of this CUP amendment, Town Council should approve the request at the December Council meeting.
Member Jenkins inquired as to when the Town received the paperwork for this CUP, and whether the application complied with all of the requirements for timing.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that posting and notification requirements have been met.
Member Jenkins inquired as to the square footage of the building.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that they were not changing the footprint. She further explained that she attached the previous CUPs to show the history. She further confirmed that the only changes to the site on the entire site plan that laid before the Members were the Juliet balconies. Everything else was pre-existing under the CUPs through Dare County.
Chairman Forlano asked the Members if they had any further questions which they did not, and he turned the floor over to Mr. Hollan and Mr. Brewton.
Mr. Hollan offered his thanks for the staff’s recommendations, and went on to explain how the needs of the resort communities are continually changing, their guest needs are changing and so they too need to change accordingly which is what they were doing in this situation. He further indicated that the Sanderling had additional plans that they would be addressing in the future.
Bill Hollan gave some details regarding some items on their agenda in terms of proposals and changes at the Sanderling to accommodate additional functions involving the pavilion, the banquet hall and the tents. He explained that they have excess capacity in every area almost 1/2 of the time.
He further expressed his sympathy with regard to the nonconforming issues that the Board is dealing with and equated their work with the cohesion that is necessary to accommodate the needs of guests and community at Sanderling. He explained, that with the shared use theory, they alleviate the need for additional parking which they believe would only destroy some of the character and create additional environmental issues. He further indicated that they would however put in additional parking as required to meet the needs of their guests. He explained that it was difficult to quantify under the code how parking works in a shared use facility.
Mr. Hollan expressed his apologies for not realizing that they were in violation of their existing CUP, and indicated that they did not intend to be violators. He stated they only want to do what is permitted.
Mr. Forlano asked Mr. Brewton if he had any comments.
Mr. Brewton explained that the parking flows very well, with the different uses, and complements the ability of people to use the spa when the restaurant which is next door is not in use. It works well.
Mr. Forlano asked the members of the Board for comments before they take a motion.
Member Britt indicated that he sat through several of the CUPs on the County level, and further indicated that he felt that the violation Mr. Hollan spoke of was simply a communication error from Dare County to Duck. He stated that he knew the health club was public. Mr. Britt expressed he was ready for a motion.
Member Nave indicated no objections.
Chairman Forlano stated that the Sanderling has always been a credit to the community, and only raised one question regarding the “wedding tent”. Mr. Forlano inquired as to how many people the tent would accommodate for a wedding.
Mr. Brewton advised you could probably accommodate 100 people on the padded area, and possibly another 50 if you were to utilize the grassy area around it.
Mr. Forlano inquired about the convention center numbers.
Mr. Brewton indicated they could book less in the convention center, more in the neighborhood of 100-110.
Mr. Jenkins inquired to whether they were still using the tent on the Oceanside.
Mr. Brewton explained that they do not have a permanent tent at the conference center. Roger Smith handles the tent for temporary structures and obtains permits for same.
Mr. Forlano inquired as to whether they have ever booked two weddings at the same time.
Mr. Brewton explained that they have had more than one wedding on a given day, but they were not simultaneous.
Mr. Forlano indicated that he spoke with the police department and they indicated that there has never been a problem with parking on NC 12 at the Sanderling.
Mr. Brewton further advised the Board that as a standard, there are security personnel that the clients hire for weddings to insure safety in crossing the road.
Mr. Forlano asked for other comments from the Board.
Councilor Morrison digressed from the subject and asked Mr. Hollan and Mr. Brewton of their thoughts regarding the 45 mph speed limit through Sanderling.
Mr. Hollan stated that they have mixed feelings in that they understand that traffic can be bad, but on the other hand the sight lines are not good and their guests need to cross the road, so it is an issue for them. He further commented that the state, at their request, did install a marked crosswalk which is somewhat helpful. Mr. Hollan indicated from his point of view, slower is better; however they would not want to be responsible for an increase in traffic.
Mr. Brewton advised that he drives it everyday from nine miles north and he does not have an issue with driving 35 mph at anytime of the year. When asked by Councilor Morrison whether he preferred the speed limit to remain 35 mph year round, Mr. Brewton indicated he would.
Member Britt motioned that the Board recommend approval of the CUP for Sanderling
Member Jenkins seconds the motion.
Motion granted 5-0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Linda Nave moved the Board approve the minutes of September 12, 2003
Motion granted 5-0.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa explained the minutes from the joint town council meeting were approved by the council.
Chairman Forlano asked how the Board felt about the meeting.
Mr. Jenkins expressed disappointment in the presentation.
Mr. Forlano indicated he did not think there was enough “meat” there.
Mr. Britt indicated that there wasn’t any,.
Mr. Jenkins pointed out that they (the consulting firm) were asking us when we hired them to tell us.
Mr. Forlano asked for an update on the status of the report from the consultants.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa explained the consultants were working on drafting guidelines specific to commercial construction/additions, signage, and landscaping, and they were slanting more towards village commercial in comparison to the other commercial districts. She expected they would be bringing something before Council in January.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Zoning Text Amendment for Signage
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa explained that we presently have a two (2) page sign ordinance that is not specific with a lot of different items, and that is outdated. Dare County realized this and revised their ordinance a couple months ago, which has been provided for the Board’s review.
Planning Director Cotellessa commented that Dare County made some good changes, but missed some items that should have been addressed. Ms. Cotellessa explained that her goal for the next meeting was a beginning draft of signage changes. She stated that she had discussed with members of the real estate community regarding sign issues, and she is outreaching to the business community. Presently, she explained that we don’t have any provisions for temporary signage, and we are slowly gathering information; what signs are out there, what signs have permits, do they have the correct amount of signage, and how is the signage, particularly in the VC district, blending in and/or enhancing the experience of being in the village. She further explained that in some cases, we may relax what appears to be a community standard, and in others, we may want to be more specific.
Member Jenkins inquired about the community feeling regarding the interior lighted signs which are rather bright.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa explained this is one of the issues that will be addressed more specifically.
Chairman Forlano inquired as to how staff feels about windsocks, faded kayaks and jet skis, bicycles and hammocks effectively being used as signage. He inquired as to whether the town will be looking at eliminating these types of signage.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa explained that the staff will look at the extent to which outdoor storage is used as a form of advertisement vs. a place of storage, and how close it is to the road.
Member Britt inquired as to how Planning Director Cotellessa will address the business community with this issue.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa advised that she is pounding the pavement. She indicated that the Town has sent letters but has not received a great deal of response. She explained we have received more response from handing out flyers and speaking with people.
Member Britt expressed his feeling that the businesses will be ok with change provided no one has an advantage over someone else.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa explained that education and outreach is very important in addressing the sign ordinance.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa explained how the allowable signage in our ordinance is calculated.
Mr. Forlano indicated that he believed the present allowable amount is too much, and Planning Director Sue Cotellessa agreed.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
BOARD COMMENTS
March inquired about the boom at Wings that was straight up in the air with 35 mph winds.
Planning Director Sue Cotellessa advised she would have the building inspector check into in.
Member Nave questioned next months’ meeting. The meeting is scheduled for the first day of the first flight centennial.
The Board decided to change the date to Wednesday, December 10, 2003.
Councilor Morrison mentioned the Wings construction and the fact that their building is only 6300-6400 square feet, and the Town presently allows 10,000 square feet. He suggested that this was something the Town needs to think about.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 5-0. The time was 4:10 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/Chair
Last updated December 11, 2003
Further information from
webmaster@townofduck.com