TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
December 10, 2003
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 10, 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, Sandy Cady, Administrative Assistant, and several members of the community.
Mr. Forlano called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. and began by addressing the public attendees and explaining to them that the Planning Board operates in a very informal manner. He explained that comments are permissible during Public Comments, but the Board will also entertain comments and questions throughout the meeting provided they do not get out of hand.
Chairman Forlano further explained that the purpose of the Planning Board, with the expertise of Planning Director Cotellessa, is to assist the Town Council in addressing concerns and issues within the Town of Duck. He advised the public that the Board would be discussing nonconformities (which has been the topic of discussion for numerous Board meetings) and signage which would be discussed for the first time on December 10, 2003.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Forlano opened the meeting for public comments.
Mark Copeland was recognized to speak indicating that he had several issues in the village of Duck. He explained that he no longer resides in Duck, and now lives in Southern Shores. He is the owner of Roadside Bar and Grill. Mr. Copeland stated that he feels the Town needs to notify all businesses and all of the community people who live in Duck about these meetings. He explained that he had no idea that these meetings were taking place, and suggested that the Town go door to door or mail notices regarding the meetings. He stated that he wants to record the meetings and wants to be present at every meeting. Mr. Copeland further indicated that the Town needs to get to know the people in Town and get their opinions.
Mr. Copeland continued and spoke of his business, and the signage issue. He indicated that his signs were approved by Dare County and it was his opinion that he should be allowed to keep them. He stated that he and many others should be grandfathered with regard to signs, the building, etc. Mr. Copeland commented that they (the business people) should have a say in what goes on in Duck, not just the Planning Board and the Town Council. He indicated that he contacted the General Assembly and the Board of Elections and they recommended that he propose an amendment that allows businesses to vote on certain issues that concern them, with the exception of the election of public officials.
Kevin Schwartz was recognized to speak. Mr. Schwartz complimented Planning Director Cotellessa on her recommendations with regard to residential nonconforming structures. He indicated it was fair and reasonably reflects the input from the Planning Board’s many meetings. He indicated that he had a few specific questions, but he would wait until the discussion regarding nonconformities was completed.
Barry Brown was recognized to speak. Mr. Brown indicated he was present on behalf of Kelloggs from a management standpoint. Mr. Brown indicated that he was in agreement with Mr. Copeland, in that there needs to be some kind of communication between the Town and the business owners. He further indicated that he did not know anything about the meeting, and that he only heard about it through the grapevine. He stated that he requested copies of the past minutes.
OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
DISCUSSION OF ZONING TEXT REGARDING NONCONFORMING PROPERTIES:
Chairman Forlano requested that Planning Director Cotellessa open the discussion with a brief history as to nonconformities.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she was delighted that business owners were present and wanted to weigh in. Any input from the business community is welcomed. She indicated that with Chairman Forlano’s approval, she would like to discuss a time table with respect to obtaining additional input from the community since it is her opinion that public input is the most critical aspect of everything they do because if you don’t have their support, then it makes it difficult for the town to move forward with it.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that there has been some input with regard to the first topic of discussion, nonconforming regulations. She explained that the Town passed some regulations last July dealing with large structures, which in effect made many of the residential properties nonconforming; especially those with pools outside the setback lines, those with more than eight (8) bedrooms and those with inadequate parking. She explained that there are two (2) different issues; residential properties and commercial properties. She explained that copies of the packages regarding nonconforming village commercial properties, and signs were also copied for the public if they wanted them.
Planning Director Cotellessa began by addressing the village commercial development option. She explained that Duck has a lot of properties that have already been built that do not meet the current regulations. The regulations that are in place now have good reason: to buffer adjacent residential uses, to limit the impact of commercial properties on nearby residential, to make sure commercial properties provide adequate parking and pedestrian pathways, etc. Planning Director Cotellessa offered the question, how do we meet the current requirements and maintain the character of Duck in the instance of a catastrophe? Ms. Cotellessa stated that if you allow a wholesale approach that allows the business owner to maintain the property, but if the property burns down, it can’t be replaced, then you stand to lose someone’s business. On the opposite side of the spectrum, if you allow the nonconformity to continue, allowing it to be maintained and rebuilt, then you lose the ability to control the things that you need to control in terms of parking, safety, and symmetry with other adjacent properties.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the plan she has presented to the Board provides for another option of development, for new properties, for adding on to existing properties that have not had that option before, for redeveloping properties and for replacing properties in the event of a catastrophe. This option, Village Commercial Development, would be handled as a conditional use permit with specific parameters. This would allow a property owner/business owner to come before a joint meeting of the Planning Board, an Architectural Committee, and Town Council in a work session format. The business owner/property owner would lay out their proposal. You would not be working with a set of guidelines as you would in a “by right” scenario. This method allows the Council to look at options it did not have before. In the past and presently, you would apply for a variance if you wanted to do something different, and in that case you must prove hardship which is a difficult threshold to prove. What this option proposes is to develop something within a whole context. The context here is the village of Duck. The Village of Duck is not Nags Head, and it’s not Kitty Hawk. Ms. Cotellessa stated that Duck has an advantage in the fact that it is small and able to design for individual sites under the redevelopment scenario. For instance, if a building burns down, the property/business owner would have the option to rebuild “by right”, meeting all of the regulations OR by proposing a plan before a committee of Planning, Architectural and Council members. This proposal provides a great deal of flexibility for both the business community and for the community at large.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that what she provided to the Board was a set of procedures wherein the first stage would be an informal work session with the three (3) boards, and from there the applicant would go before the Council for a formal hearing on the subject. She indicated that this plan would provide an option for all of the nonconforming businesses in Town.
Planning Director Cotellessa requested the Board’s feedback.
Chairman Forlano asked the Board for comments.
Member Jenkins expressed his concern that this plan would only create another heavy administrative burden. He also expressed his appreciation to the public, and inquired as to whether any of the attendees did not have a PC with internet access. None replied. He advised the public that the web site, http://www.townofduck.com/, has all of the ordinances, has all of the meeting schedules and is a good source of information.
Mr. Jenkins indicated that he still believes in the basic approach that if someone loses their property in the case of a natural catastrophe, they should be able to replace it, as it existed. Mr. Jenkins indicated that he also believes that if you choose to voluntarily change your property or use, then you should be required to meet all of the ordinances in effect at that time, meeting all of the requirements, including setbacks. Mr. Jenkins stated he wanted to think a bit more about the Village Commercial Development Option. He indicated he was not sure he could support it.
Member Britt indicated that he supports the idea a great deal. He thought the option was reflective of the way a small town should handle planning and zoning. Mr. Britt indicated there were a few nuts and bolts that needed to be hammered out, but conceptually, it’s an advantage for nonconforming uses. This option provides the opportunity to work with the business owners and developers to come up with something that’s good for everyone. Mr. Britt stated this was a great first step and looks forward to working with it more.
Member March indicated her agreement with Member Britt. She stated that the option was very well written and she believed it was a good first step.
Member Nave stated that she too felt it was a good idea.
Councilor Morrison questioned Planning Director Cotellessa as to whether this option gives the architectural review board, and the Council the ability to ignore the regulations in the zoning ordinance if they so choose to do so, with regard to setbacks, lot coverage and so forth.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that this option offers a chance to do a planned development on a small piece of property and create unique setbacks, layout limitations, parking requirements for that individual piece of property. You still have the “by right” option to build under the current regulations, but the Village Development Option is a conditional use, which allows more flexibility and review by the Council.
Councilor Morrison indicated that he felt it was a fascinating proposal.
Town Manager Chris Layton clarified that this option would only be available in the village commercial area.
Mark Copeland was recognized and inquired as to whether there was some type of contract that would allow them to be grandfathered, thereby allowing him to rebuild his restaurant if it were burned down.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that is not what the Village Commercial Development Plan does. This plan replaces that kind of contract. It allows you to come before the Board, with a proposal, but it does not guarantee you the right to put back exactly what was there. It does, however give you a right that you do not have now. It offers the option to change in ways that would suit you, and that would fit the Town as well. It does not necessarily give you the wholesale right to put it back exactly as it was.
Planning Director Cotellessa further explained that the whole idea of nonconforming uses is that they may not in many ways meet current regulations. In some cases the nonconformity creates charm, but is some cases it creates issues. The point of nonconforming is that you don’t put it back the way it was if it’s creating a certain set of problems. It does make sense on some of these parcels to do some giving if we can improve it a little bit.
Town Manager Layton clarified that this option provides a mechanism for properties that cannot presently expand under the current regulations to possibly do so with this option.
Mark Copeland raised the question that if his restaurant, Roadside, burns down and he wants to put it back exactly the way it was, but the Board says he cannot have his patio, then what does he do?
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that if Mr. Copland’s restaurant burned down right now, he could not put it back. That is what the Town’s regulations say now, and that is what they have always said. She further explained that they were not changing the present rules, but rather they were looking at dealing with the nonconforming commercial properties in the village commercial district as a conditional use permit would. This plan allows for the Town to look at the whole issue again. The reason these things have conditional uses is because they have impacts; they have impacts on adjacent properties, and on the community as a whole.
Mr. Copeland commented that he put a whole new drain field in with health department approval to accommodate his patio, and the drain field cost him a lot of money.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that as long as Mr. Copeland’s conditional use permit (CUP) from Dare County was granted, he is grandfathered, but if his restaurant burned down, he cannot rebuild, except in conformance with the regulations. Ms. Cotellessa explained that Mr. Copeland’s present CUP would dictate how many seats he was permitted. She further advised that this was another issue that she would be looking at. Many of the restaurants in Duck have many more seats than they are allowed to have, and they are in violation of their CUP for that. Ms. Cotellessa explained that as Town employees, there is a need to be fair, and that everyone is treated the same way. She stated that hopefully, we can develop a set of rules that we can all live by. Again, she clarified that the Town was not making new rules, but rather they were trying to loosen the existing rules a little to the point that we can all live with them.
Chairman Forlano clarified that as he understands this new option, no one is saying necessarily that the three (3) bodies in their informal work session are going to say that Mr. Copeland’s patio has to go. This option uses the “carrot and the stick” idea, where there may be other violations or nonconforming problems with a particular property. The three (3) bodies may allow for some concessions in exchange for resolving another issue that may exist.
Planning Director Cotellessa confirmed that Chairman Forlano’s interpretation of the plan was a large part of the option, and that another large part of the option is parking. Most of the sites in town have parking issues, and restaurants use a large amount of parking. Ms. Cotellessa mentioned the shared parking theory which Mr. Copeland indicated he already had in place. Ms. Cotellessa advised that under current regulations, the theory of shared parking is not legal. Ms. Cotellessa explained that the more we manage to build things that share parking, and that have pedestrian access ways between them, hopefully the more that type of development will occur. This option allows the Council and other boards to review each individual situation.
Town Manager Layton stated that the Town staff hopes this option will spark some innovation to maintain the character of Duck in the Village Commercial area.
Member Britt stated that he feels that it is a unique opportunity because Duck is really the only town small enough and unique enough to do this. This option does not force the Town to take a blanket set of rules and apply them to everyone. It allows for some common sense.
Charlie Pratt was recognized to speak, and he stated that he did not believe that Chairman Forlano had commented on the subject yet.
Chairman Forlano indicated that he felt this was a great idea. He felt that the Board has come one hundred and eighty degrees, since the first of many meetings regarding this subject where the operative word was “NO” and you were not going to rebuild anything. Mr. Forlano went on to state that this option provides for a great deal of latitude to rebuild. He indicated that he did have some questions for Sue regarding enlarging, but he sees a cooperative type of response in achieving the goal of keeping Duck’s small village type atmosphere. Chairman Forlano questioned Planning Director Cotellessa about enlarging. Using the Roadside as an example, Chairman Forlano asked Ms. Cotellessa whether Mr. Copeland could add another level.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated there are several options as detailed in the Village Commercial Development Option. This option will apply to every site in Town whether it is developed or undeveloped. This option will allow for a tear down and rebuild, an addition on an existing building, partial teardown, etc. It can apply to anything. The idea is to maintain maximum flexibility in the village commercial district, and to look at all of the options. This plan provides the Town with the ability to be more proactive in maintaining the character of the Town.
Town Manager Layton stated that it also allows for some of the safety issues to be addressed without the draconian measures of nonconformity. It seems fair to allow the property/business owners to show the Town how their plan is an improvement and how it will work, especially in comparison to not being able to do anything.
Chairman Forlano stated that he likes the whole concept. He then questioned whether it would be possible to require as a prerequisite an “as built” site plan within a given amount of time.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that they look at this in two ways. With regard to residential, we are saying they need to have an “as built” so the property owner can establish what was there. For commercial, they are coming in with a clean slate. They are coming in with conceptual development plan that may include features of the “as built” site, but that might include all different features. They would need an “as built” site plan if they were choosing to rebuild exactly what was there, however that is unlikely in this scenario.
Member Britt clarified that we are saying stay within the regulations or meet with us and get out of the box.
Tanya Hovey was recognized to speak. She is currently building a fence at her store, Duck Village Outfitters. She explained that she has been there since 1998. She has met all of the codes from Dare County, and explained that her store is an old house. So old, that she cannot even determine when it was built. She questioned that if her store burned down, was the Board saying that she cannot rebuild it?
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that was correct under the current code, you cannot rebuild.
Member Britt stated that what the Board was proposing would allow her to come back and propose an option to make something work there, but not build it back as it was.
Ms. Hovey stated with that option, she would not have much at all left, if she needed to meet current setback requirements.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that there were copies of the option available, and it does not require that you meet current setbacks. It does require that you bring in a plan and show the Council, and the Planning Board, and an architectural review board how your proposal meets the criteria detailed in the option, or you can build to the guidelines that are in place. You can’t automatically put back whatever you had that violated the existing code. You would have to come before a committee or meet current regulations.
Ms. Hovey stated that her building has been there forever, and it’s been grandfathered in.
Planning Director Cotellessa acknowledged Ms. Hovey’s statement, and indicated that her property was allowed to remain as it is now.
Chairman Forlano explained that the village commercial development option gives you the chance of rebuilding. The present ordinance says you cannot rebuild, however the option that is presented says come before three (3) Boards and tell them why you should be allowed to rebuild, whether it be exactly the same or different. It would be up to this group of people to say you can rebuild. Under the current regulations, you do not have the option to rebuild.
Planning Director Cotellessa also stated that with regard to some of the nonconforming properties that burn down, there is some historic value to some of the older properties, but if it burns down it becomes a lot. The building is gone, and you cannot rebuild a historic property because you are building new. You have to meet current building regulations among other things, so it will never look exactly as it did. You also have to meet current floodplain regulations no matter what you do.
Rick Herron was recognized to speak. Mr. Herron questioned Chairman Forlano as to how much property is left undeveloped? He stated we have a lot of growth left.
Town Manager Layton stated that the Town has approximately three hundred (300) residential lots left and only four or five commercial.
Chairman Forlano indicated that some people could come in and buy two or three adjacent lots, and build something much bigger.
Mr. Copeland inquired whether this has happened recently.
Mr. Herron stated that by putting nonconforming on a property, you decrease the property value, and then who would want to buy it.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the Town is not putting nonconforming on these properties. These properties are already nonconforming and they have been for years. In commercial transactions, conformity with various zoning regulations and various other building codes, is a standard feature of review as people are looking to buy a piece of property. It’s not unusual to have nonconformities, and the Town is not trying to change that, the Town is trying to provide a safety net, a fail-safe for existing businesses to be able to maintain the character that Duck is, and that safety net is not there now.
Chairman Forlano stated that this option allows for all these small properties to reappear in case something happens to them. Under Dare County, we did not have that protection, and five (5) months ago the Board was looking at reinstituting that ordinance.
Barry Brown was recognized to speak. Mr. Brown inquired whether the Planning Board has any say in terms of what type of establishment you can open up in Town?
Member Jenkins indicated in response to Mr. Brown question, that it was in the village commercial code. The Code states the types of businesses that you can operate.
Member Britt clarified that this option has to do with parking and setbacks and not uses.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the uses were established in the zoning ordinance, and that was passed by Town Council. Dare County has no say about the uses in the Town of Duck.
Chairman Forlano and Member Britt both stated that the Town adopted what Dare County had in place.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that there have been some changes though. One of the changes in particular has to do with the size of buildings, not necessarily the uses. It is not likely that the Town can say what type of retail may or may not be permitted, but the Town can say what size buildings, what the building has to look like, the layout of the property, the parking, all of the parameters that deal with the impacts of those uses.
Mr. Brown stated that by going off the earlier definition of the quaintness of Duck, and putting the decision as to who can and cannot operate in this Town will only lead to take away that quaintness.
Member Britt stated that the Town was currently under a moratorium so that they can look at all of the issues in developing commercial so they can protect some of it. Mr. Britt indicated the he believed the Board would be receiving an update in January from the consultants regarding the commercial development.
Mark Copeland inquired at to whether the Town can stop chain stores.
Town Manager Layton stated that the Town can categorize broad uses. The Town cannot say a retail use is allowed, but Wings is not allowed.
Charlie Pratt was recognized to speak. He is a resident of Duck with no business interest. Mr. Pratt stated that some of the attendees may not be aware that there is a citizen questionnaire that the Town of Duck has been trying to get residents, property owners and business owners to complete. He indicated that the first question asks “what do you like most about Duck”. Almost invariably, the answers speak of the bike/walking trail, clean uncrowded beaches and the small town village feel. The trail and the beaches are great, but the jewel of Duck is the small town village feel. Mr. Pratt commented that everyone from Town Council down is very much aware of this. He felt that if a small business owner went before this proposed committee, they would be looked at very favorably. Mr. Pratt also mentioned that the only other option as Ms. Cotellessa had pointed out was a variance which requires that you prove hardship.
Nick Vercauteren was recognized to speak. Mr. Vercauteren is a recent transplant to Duck and he indicated that he has been through the CUP process a couple of times in other areas. He stated that it was not the rosy picture that was being presented. He stated that it is a difficult process and you usually have to have a very good reason why you want to stray from the regulations. He stated that he agreed that there should be some flexibility in the rules however in doing that, there comes a certain amount of arbitrariness to the process that isn’t necessarily fair. You may allow the Roadside to do something different, but not allow Duck Deli to do the same thing. There is also the potential for the Board to become politicized, and not always for the common good. Mr. Vercauteren indicated that he agreed with Member Jenkins in that it needs to be fair and if it does burn down, you should be able to rebuild but there should be a common standard for everyone.
Chairman Forlano inquired as to where Mr. Vercauteren had dealt with the CUP process.
Mr. Vercauteren indicated that they were in Oakland, California and Norfolk, Virginia.
Member March reiterated that the committee would consist of not only this Board and the Town Council but also a group of peers. She believes that there would certainly be fairness with the combination of the different boards.
Chairman Forlano indicated that in a large city or large town you do need to be pretty rigid, but it’s different in Duck. There are only approximately 300 registered voters; it’s a small town and people treat each other like a small town.
Town Manager Layton made another point reiterating what Ms. Cotellessa had mentioned earlier in that we do have rules and regulations and we strive to be fair and consistent in administering those regulations. This option takes the decision making out of the hands of the staff, and puts it in the hands of the political body that have that responsibility.
Member Britt stated that he was in total agreement with the option, but the arbitrariness can get played into the decision making process and he indicated that we need to take as much arbitrary politics out of the picture as we can.
Chairman Forlano asked that Planning Director Cotellessa address the residential nonconforming subject.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that one of the reasons we have so many nonconformities in the residential areas has to do with setbacks, parking and number of bedrooms. The Planning Board was looking at maintaining the investment of the residential property owner while still maintaining the integrity, to the extent possible, of nonconforming regulations. She indicated that there is also a use issue involving condominiums, which are now no longer able to be built as condominiums because they are not allowed in that zoning district. She explained that before the Board was proposed language, that notwithstanding all of the regulations regarding nonconforming properties, that a single residential house that has a catastrophe can be repaired or replaced in kind with a similar structure so long as it does not extend the degree of nonconformity, and to the extent possible, will meet the parking requirements. The property will also still need to meet floodplain and building code regulations. With these parameters, the property owner would be able to replace the house. When addressing the parking issue, the accessory structures such as the pool will not be allowed to stand in the way of meeting the necessary setback and parking requirements. This regulation would also be contingent on the property owner being able to produce an “as built” of their property. Dare County did not require “as built” plans at the completion a permit, and quite frequently the only thing establishing what existed on a given lot is a proposed site plan, that is also quite frequently inconsistent with the final product. To take advantage of being able to rebuild, the property owners will have to be able to provide an “as built”.
Member Jenkins inquired as to whether staff was aware of how many pools in Duck violate the sideline requirement?
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that she was not.
Member Jenkins stated that he did not believe that Dare County even counted pools as lot coverage.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that was correct. They did not include the surface of the pool as lot coverage. It was her belief that pools are not pervious and as such, they need to be counted as lot coverage.
Chairman Forlano inquired again as to whether we can insist as to an element of time for property owners to effectively take advantage of this proposal by submitting an “as built” and a septic permit to determine the number of bedrooms.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that would be required for a rebuild if the parameters do not meet the code. If the house burned down and someone wanted to come back and build to the current regulations, they would not need an “as built”. The idea is not to make everyone go out and do an “as built”. The idea is that if someone has a property that they believe may be nonconforming and they want to be able to rebuild in the future, to protect themselves, they can go get one. The Town does not need an “as built” unless the property owner has a problem and wants to do something with it.
Member Britt clarified that if someone’s house did burn down and they were nonconforming, we would need an “as built” to prove what was there.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that an old plan from Dare County proposing what was there would not be good enough, because it may not have been built that way. Ms. Cotellessa further stated that lot coverage was another issue. Dare County approved many site plans with gravel parking at 29.8% lot coverage, and then after settlement the property owners went back and cemented the driveways. In those instances, rebuilding as it was would not be allowed because it was not approved to begin with. With the submission of the “as built” Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she would still be looking at the proposed set of plans from Dare County to determine whether the “as built” did in fact reflect what Dare County originally approved. It will be a two step process. The only other option is to provide for a percentage of destruction to determine whether you can rebuild as it was or whether you will be required to meet current regulations.
Planning Director reiterated that within a certain set of parameters, we are allowing for the rebuild with the principal structure first, appropriate parking to the extent possible second, and then if you can fit it, any accessory structures.
Member Britt clarified that Ms. Cotellessa was saying that accessory structures would have to meet current setbacks.
Planning Director Cotellessa confirmed that was correct.
Member Britt stated that we would be allowing everything except for accessory uses.
Planning Director Cotellessa confirmed. She further indicated that the second page merely states that if a condominium burns down, then it can be rebuilt according to the original site plan within a specified amount of time, and only in the case of a casualty. Voluntary destruction of the existing condominiums would not be permitted to be rebuilt. This is only a casualty loss issue.
Planning Director Cotellessa proposed taking the original package with all of the excerpts and incorporating them in as changes. She would propose removing all of the nonconforming language as it currently exists and replacing it with this language.
Member Jenkins had another question regarding mobile homes.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that if a mobile home is destroyed, it will not be permitted to be rebuilt, because it is now no longer a use permitted in that district. We are separating out structures that are nonconforming from uses that are nonconforming.
Chairman Forlano asked whether there was any comment on the residential aspect of this nonconforming issue.
Kevin Schwartz was recognized to speak. Mr. Schwartz addressed Planning Director Cotellessa. In the section of structures encroaching on planned right of ways, he questioned whether she would detail on the actual draft ordinance what the exact nature of those plans would have to be at what stage? On the repair or reconstruction will commence within one year, Mr. Schwartz questioned whether there could be language to reflect diligent performance on the part of an owner who may or may not be able to obtain insurance proceeds within a year’s time. Mr. Schwartz indicated that he would get back to Ms. Cotellessa regarding the pool issue. The question as to how far a pool needs to be from a setback line to keep it from being a nuisance is subject that he believes needs further discussion.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that it was important to separate out the discussion of appropriate setbacks for pools from replacement of nonconforming uses.
Chairman Forlano asked whether there was anymore discussion regarding nonconforming properties.
Member Britt indicated that he agreed with more flexible wording with respect to the one year time limitation.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested an administrative extension.
Member Jenkins mentioned that there are a few properties that have had partial construction started, but are not finished, and debris has been left on the property for 2 and 3 years. Mr. Jenkins believes that should not be allowed. Mr. Jenkins stated that if however, they have trouble with insurance, then we can grant them an extension.
Planning Director Cotellessa proposed putting this issue in ordinance form. She also suggested to the members of the audience that plan to attend the January meeting to sign up so she can notify them. She suggested that the Board discuss the final draft at the January meeting and then take it before Council during their two day work session. Ms. Cotellessa also indicated that she would like to, in February, host a round robin, sit down work session with the business community on architectural guidelines, on the village commercial development option, on signs, on outdoor storage regulations and on all of the things that the Board is looking at. She stated that we want to put it all on the table and get as much feedback as possible from the business community. The idea is to go back before Council in March with a substantial amount of input.
Mr. Copeland offered his help in getting a hold of the business owners.
Town Manager Layton advised that the work session with the business owners would be scheduled for some time in February.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would work with Mr. Copeland on an appropriate date for a business forum in February. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she was looking to talk about all of these issues, and there would be several town staff present to address other issues that may be brought up. In the meantime, the Planning Board will look at these issues again at the next meeting which is January 9, 2003 and then bring them to Town Council at the work session in January.
Member Britt inquired as to whether the business forum would occur before the Planning Board’s February meeting so they can get reactions from that meeting.
Town Manager Layton and Planning Director Cotellessa both addressed the timing for the forum indicating that if need be, they would push back the final presentation to Council until April.
Member Britt also inquired at to whether the architectural review would be involved in the March meeting as well.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that it would.
Chairman Forlano suggested to the members of the audience that the business community should have a representative there to get some feedback.
Town Manager Layton advised the audience that the work session was scheduled for January 21st and 22nd, and the commercial structures guideline would be presented on the 22nd, but there would be items discussed on the 21st as well.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Sign Regulations
Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that the reason they were looking at sign regulations was because the Town currently has an inadequate set of regulations that were carried over from Dare County. The current ordinance is silent on many issues that need to be discussed. She further advised that Dare County recently amended their sign ordinance, which she has reviewed along with several other jurisdictions up and down the coast, and other areas nationally. She explained that she tried to put together an ordinance that balances the interest of the business community with the interests of the residential community and our visitors, so that you have signs that identify businesses, that lead you in proper direction, both pedestrian and vehicles, and that keep up property values and that are consistent with the nature of the Town. There are a series of “whereas” statements that detail what we are trying to do with the sign ordinance, a series of definitions and then the purpose and locational issues.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that over the last few years, there were signs that Dare County had attempted to begin enforcement in Duck with regard to sandwich board signs and temporary signs. The Town presently has regulations that limit a business to one ground mounted sign. Nowhere in our present ordinance does it say that you can have a banner. Over time and due to neglect from Dare County, businesses have done what comes naturally which is to put out as much signage as they think they need to attract attention. On the other hand, businesses do have sales and they need to be able to say to the community that they are open or that they have a special sale. This ordinance has the effect of doing several things. It provides for temporary signage in an appropriate way to make sure it goes up, and that it doesn’t stay up any longer than x number of days at a time.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that staff has started with enforcement of signage, dealing primarily with the sandwich boards and the secondary ground mounted signs because we know they are illegal. Step by step, staff will go through each individual site and shopping center, looking at the signage to see if there are permits for existing signage and if the signage falls within the allowable signage for the site. This is however, a longer term process.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that the Board should get feedback from the business owners on this issue, and some of the key items to keep in mind when looking at this ordinance should be:
a. visibility;
b. limiting distracting signs and signs that create confusion;
c. lighting, minimizing light glare on residential properties;
d. maintenance requirements
e. how to measure signs;
f. exempt signs
i. signs posted by the Town or state;
ii. seasonal displays
g. prohibited signs
i. signs on utility poles;
ii. signs on trees;
iii. signs in the right of way
iiii. signs with flashing lights or rotating beams
h. flags and banners;
i. signs on vehicles;
j. roof signs;
k. real estate signs
Our current regulations limit cottage rental signs to no more than 6 inches by 24 inches, however very few realtors have rental signs that size. The Town would propose to look at what makes sense in the context of what is already out there. Most of the rental signs meet a three (3) square foot requirement. Some communities have more stringent restrictions which the rental companies would still need to abide by.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that the Town staff would propose to loosen the regulations with regard to beach rental signs and banner regulations to allow for temporary banners, charitable benefits, etc. She further explained that staff would suggest reducing the total amount of signage permitted in comparison to the present regulation.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted the amortization table in the rear of the attachment which she has not done before. She pointed out that this is different than what we have been dealing with in terms of nonconforming residential and commercial structures. Ms. Cotellessa also suggested that the business community look over these regulations very carefully.
Chairman Forlano questioned Ms. Cotellessa for clarification as to whether she intended to eliminate all roof signs, and she indicated that was correct. Mr. Forlano inquired and confirmed that this draft is on the website for anyone to see.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that was correct.
Administrative Assistant, Sandy Cady, indicated that she would keep it up on the web site until the next meeting while it is in draft form.
Chairman Forlano clarified under the definition of a sign, a stuffed fish, a totem pole, etc would be characterized as a sign?
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that was correct.
Member Jenkins commented that page 8 refers to product dispensers.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that although it may be a sign, it would be exempt because it is a product dispenser (such as a coke machine).
Member Britt stated that he would reserve further comments until the Council members’ retreat.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the purpose of this new ordinance is to clarify and help insure consistent enforcement of the regulations.
Chairman Forlano inquired as to how Ms. Cotellessa defined the word “temporary”?
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that in the draft it is defined as, up for a certain number of days, a certain period of the year.
Mr. Herron asked the Board, what happened to our quaintness? He stated he thought we were all proud of our Town and that’s why we want to keep it this way. Now all of a sudden, you can’t keep it this way? He reminds the Board of what the survey suggested that people like about Duck; the way it feels.
Chairman Forlano indicated that there has been a great deal of proliferation of signs over the eighteen (18) years that he has been in Duck. He further commented that this proliferation of signage does not add to the quaintness of Duck, it adds to the clutter. He questioned, where do you draw the line between quaint and clutter?
Member Jenkins stated that he feels the same way about banners and flags.
Mr. Copeland informed the Board of the signs that he was permitted to have by Dare County.
Chairman Forlano stated that a certain amount of eclectic look adds to the quaintness. He indicated that he tends to disagree with the elimination of flags, because he believes it adds color to the Town in a festive way. He stated that he did not have a problem with colorful flags, or a fish mounted on a bait & tackle shop, or a totem pole, but you have to draw a line somewhere.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that everyone should feed into this draft. She stated that we need to keep in mind that if there is something out there that seems to distract motorists or seems to add to clutter, that we deal with it in a fair and consistent manner.
Ms. Cotellessa further commented on the twenty (20) foot height limit for signs that presently exists is our ordinance, which is inconsistent with the Town’s idea that we are pedestrian oriented. She noted that in her draft she put a height limit of twelve (12) feet rather than the current twenty foot limit, which she sees as a compromise from a truly low ground mounted sign and a twenty foot sign.
Chairman Forlano made a comment to the audience noting that this was only day one of the Board’s study of a sign ordinance and outdoor display storage and tent sales.
B. Discussion of Outdoor Display/Storage Regulations
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that we have some regulations in place with regard to where you can and cannot put structures such as tents. You can’t take up required parking spaces and you need to obtain a permit for certain sized tents. She noted that there are numerous businesses that regularly put things outdoors for display and that can add to the quaintness and character of the town. The problem is determining what should be allowed and what should not; i.e. a single kayak display versus 50 kayaks. When do the displays become a storage of inventories or even a sign? Is it appropriate to have things that are in the outdoors, like kayaks or hammocks? Is it also appropriate to have out on the lawn cocktail dresses, things that are not normally outdoors? The point of this ordinance is to provide for occasional outdoor sales because that does add to the ambience, but with certain parameters. If you are regularly storing items outdoors, there should be some kind of operational standard so that those items are not falling all over the place. She indicated that she has broken down the different operational standards and would like to get the Board’s feedback.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that these standards basically set parameters to allow for tent sales and outdoor sales. For instance, Bar-eee station had a tent sale during the thanksgiving holiday which occurred during a time when many of the shops were closed at the Waterfront shops, including the Town offices, whereby the use of the parking spaces for the sale were offset. She further commented that there was a larger issue when Bob’s Bait and Tackle had their outdoor sale and used a large portion of the parking at the Soundside Shops, forcing patrons to park at Scarborough Faire, and cars to park on what appeared to be drainfield areas.
Member Jenkins inquired as to which category the farm produce stands would fall.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that produce stands would be under item C which refers to operational standards for temporary outdoor display, storage and sale of produce goods and holiday goods. She explained that this draft is designed more for temporary, short term items. The produce stands here in Duck (Green Acres and Grandy’s) were both approved under Conditional Use Permits for a group development. They have parking requirements associated with them, they were shown on a site plan layout and approved by Dare County. The stands in Duck are permanent in nature so they would not fall under the outdoor storage ordinance.
There was a group discussion regarding the Art Show that was formally held in Duck, but which is now held in Corolla due to the time of the year.
Chairman Forlano asked whether there was any Board discussion regarding the outdoor display, and there was none.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Britt moved to approve the minutes from November 14 , 2003.
Motion carried 5-0
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
Planning Director Cotellessa wished the members of the Board a happy holiday.
BOARD COMMENTS
Councilor Morrison commented that he was glad to see so many representatives of the business community at the meeting. Speaking on behalf of the current Council, Councilor Morrison offered his assurance that the Council wants to see the businesses in Duck to succeed, they want to see the residents happy and they want visitors to have a great experience. He further commented that the Town welcomes input. He suggested the public keep up to date with the website which has an events calendar that indicates when all of the meetings are being held, and all of the meetings are open to the public.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 5-0. The time was 4:10 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Chair
Last updated January 12, 2004
Further information from
webmaster@townofduck.com