TOWN OF
DUCK
PLANNING
BOARD
REGULAR
MEETING
January 9,
2004
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, January 9, 2004.
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, and Neil Morrison, Duck Town Council, and several members of the community.
Mr. Forlano called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. and opened the meeting for public comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Sam Taylor of 111 Skimmer Way was recognized to speak by Chairman Forlano. Mr. Taylor commented that as a result of some recent unfortunate events, he had reason to go back and read thoroughly through the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Taylor indicated that as a result of reading the ordinance he had several reactions, and he felt it would be helpful to provide the Board with his reactions. Mr. Taylor began by complimenting the Board on what they were doing and commented as to the complexity of the issues that they were dealing with. Mr. Taylor further provided the Board Members with a typed list of his concerns and reactions to the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Taylor addressed his list of zoning ordinance questions by beginning with Article I, Section 2, Definitions – Family. Mr. Taylor questioned the definition of family as defined in the Duck Zoning Ordinance by offering several different scenarios which would presumably not be considered family under Duck’s Zoning Ordinance. He suggested that the Supreme Court is not ready to try to and define a family so why would the Town of Duck try to define it, in writing, no less. Mr. Taylor suggested the Town was only lending itself to the potential for lawsuits.
Mr. Taylor moved on to Bedroom Equivalents. He indicated that he understood the goal of this definition, however further stated that what the Town had done with this definition was to simply define the type of furniture that he and his wife can buy. He further suggested that if the Town was going to outlaw sleeper sofas, air mattresses, etc, then he believed this definition had great potential to be unenforceable.
Mr. Taylor noted that there were several terms that were not defined. He specifically noted his next door neighbor who does not rent his property, but rather uses his property simply as a second home. His neighbor, however, is not treated the same way as a resident. He stated that this is a category of stakeholders that is fairly important to the Town, and they deserve some recognition. Mr. Taylor specifically referred to the non-rental parking deferral that these non-renters are not entitled to because they are not year round residents.
Mr. Taylor noted that rental property and rental season were not defined either.
Mr. Taylor continued on and noted that the topic which really brought him to investigate the zoning ordinance was the parking lot requirements, Section 39. He referred to his neighborhood where he roughly estimated that 60% of 300 lots had pea gravel driveways rather than impervious surfaces, and he saw no reason why an impervious surface was being required. He suggested that if people are going to be required to pave their driveways, they will pave everything. Unless there is some compelling safety concern for which we should pave our driveways, he indicated that he could not see any reason why the Town would take away the aesthetic and ecological choice of individual homeowners to use pea gravel.
Mr. Taylor moved on to Section 45- Dish Antenna. He questioned why people would need to go through a building permit request to put up or take down a dish. He indicated that it seemed to him to be significant over-regulation.
Chairman Forlano thanked Mr. Taylor for his comments and expressed his desire for more people to come forward and voice their concerns in such an orderly fashion. Mr. Forlano asked for Planning Director Cotellessa’s input on how best to address the issues presented by Mr. Taylor.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that in the Town ordinance that establishes the Planning Board, one of the duties and powers of the Planning Board is to prepare and recommend ordinances, including the zoning ordinance and amendments thereto. The Planning Board can therefore take on a program to look at the zoning ordinance or proposed changes of this nature and others, and make recommendations to the Town Council. Ms. Cotellessa suggested that this should be done in a fairly orderly fashion, looking at the ordinance section by section. She also noted appreciation for Mr. Taylor’s input and indicated that she too has highlighted probably a dozen or more different changes that need to be made to the zoning ordinance. She indicated that some changes are mere typographical issues, while others are reference issues, conflicts with other sections, etc. She stated that a methodical look at the ordinance as part of the Planning Board’s program would be a positive thing.
Chairman Forlano asked what the steps or procedures would be to get things moving.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that there are a couple of ways to proceed. The Planning Board may, on its own volition given input from the public, recommend to Council changes to the zoning ordinance. Additionally, if someone speaks directly to the Town Council and Council is interested in having the Planning Board address certain ordinances, Council can direct the Board to do so. These are the two avenues and it can go either way.
Member Nave commented that as she recalled, the Board was aware that there were things in the ordinance that were perhaps simpler than they needed to be or overlooked, but the Board needed to get something in place and fairly quickly. She further commented that it was originally the intention of the Board to go back and review the ordinances at a later date, and after some public input.
Mr. Taylor indicated that he assumed Member Nave’s statement may have been the Board’s intention.
Member Jenkins indicated that he felt some of Mr. Taylor’s reaction could be responded to directly, i.e. twelve (12) foot drive aisles, and impervious surfaces. Mr. Jenkins stated that the purpose of the twelve (12) foot paved drive aisle was to accommodate the EMS vehicles in the interest of public safety, and that was derived after a discussion with the County Fire Marshall. Member Jenkins questioned whether the Board wants to go back and redo all of this?
Chairman Forlano indicated that another reason, rather a subtle, non-spoken reason for making those impervious driveways, was to control the lot coverage.
Member Jenkins questioned whether or not pervious parking spaces were counted against lot coverage?
Chairman Forlano stated that pervious parking spaces were not counted against lot coverage, and asked for clarification from Planning Director Cotellessa.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that Duck does not count pea gravel over sand as an impervious surface, and therefore it is not counted against lot coverage. She advised that the present ordinance allows all of the parking spaces outside of the twelve (12) foot driveway to be in pea gravel, whereas Dare County only allowed 50% of the parking to be pea gravel. She stated that the Town was trying to look at the ecological concerns when addressing this issue. Ms. Cotellessa again stated that if the Board addressed the zoning ordinance section by section, they can discuss why something was done the way it was; they can try to address typos and answer questions, and if someone wants to revisit a subject, it can be done. This way everything is on the table. Ms. Cotellessa commented that in some respects, Duck is more lenient than Dare County was. For instance, decks are considered pervious if they are slatted and open above grass or sand whereas Dare County counted those as part of the lot coverage. Duck is counting pea gravel parking spaces as pervious, however Duck is not counting swimming pools as pervious surfaces. Going back to the paved drive aisle, Ms. Cotellessa stated that the whole objective as she understood it was for safety and to accommodate the weight of the EMS vehicle so they don’t get mired down in sand as they come in.
Member Britt thanked Mr. Taylor for his input. He was glad to see that someone was looking at and reviewing what was in place and offering their reactions. He stated that he would like to see more of the community involved.
Member March commented on Mr. Taylor’s typed questions and specifically referred to his statement “perhaps the objective was to make Duck look more like Virginia Beach or the Jersey Shore?”. She stated emphatically that was the one thing that the Board did not want to happen, and they are trying very hard to see that it does not happen.
Mr. Taylor rebutted by stating that by requiring paved driveways you are taking a step in that direction.
Member March indicated that was why the Town did not require all parking spaces be paved.
Chairman Forlano commented that there are materials that he and Planning Director Cotellessa have been discussing that are considered pervious. Pavers for instance that are considered a pervious topping will take the weight of a 16 or 18 wheeler. If it will take that, it will take a fire engine. There is also permeable concrete which can be utilized if runoff is a concern. Mr. Forlano further commented that a lot can be done aesthetically and ecologically to deal with the weight of the fire engine for the drive aisle.
Mr. Taylor questioned why the weight of the fire engines has suddenly become a compelling safety reason now. Mr. Taylor stated that he was not buying the theory of compelling safety reason as the basis for the 12 foot drive aisle. And if it is in fact a compelling safety reason, then everyone should be made to change. If it is not compelling, then there is not much of an argument to support its reasoning.
Chairman Forlano suggested that perhaps this is one, of the many issues Mr. Taylor suggested, that needs to be studied. Mr. Forlano indicated that he did not believe that today’s meeting was the time to begin that study. Mr. Forlano further stated that he wanted Planning Director Cotellessa to look at Mr. Taylor’s questions/comments and come back to the Board perhaps at the next meeting with a few items for debate.
Mr. Taylor thanked Chairman Forlano for the opportunity to voice his reactions.
Kevin Schwartz was recognized to speak and explained that he represents the Outer Banks Association of Realtors and Rental Managers who are interested in this for no other reason than they represent the non-resident property owners of Duck and any property owners in Duck who may sell their nonconforming property. He commented the Board has been extremely reasonable through all of these processes, but there is one issue that has a major impact and that is pools. Mr. Schwartz stated that the issue of pools could potentially be a great hardship to a lot of property owners whose pools are nonconforming. A pool is an accessory structure but it is much different than a shed that can be moved. If property owners experience damage to their homes, they may not be able to repair their homes or try to come in compliance unless they fill in or move a pool and that is a great load to ask from a homeowner. Mr. Schwartz proposed that the Board look at some options such as vegetative buffers or additional privacy fencing. He stated that the Board never quantified the difference between a pool that is 5 feet away from a property line and a pool that is 20 feet away from the property line. Mr. Schwartz further suggested that a pool is a significant part of someone’s house; it’s as significant as a bedroom or a recreation room. He again suggested the Board look at some options to regulate the impact from pools that would possibly be more adequate than asking someone to move their pool.
OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
A. Discussion of Nonconforming Properties:
Chairman Forlano stated that this discussion had to do with residential structures.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that the ordinance covers all nonconforming properties but most of the changes deal with residential structures.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether Planning Director Cotellessa had any comments.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that what the Board had before them was a strike through and underlined list of changes to the nonconforming ordinance that is currently in the zoning code. The changes before the Board attempt to capture the direction of the Board at the last meeting to allow some relief for property owners in allowing them to rebuild if their property is nonconforming. The entire section deals with commercial and residential, however the relief detailed here with regard to rebuilds has to do specifically with the residential properties.
Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out input received from one of the citizens of Duck, Mr. Frederick Elrod, which would be incorporated in the record by reference. Mr. Elrod provided a letter to the Board which basically summarized his support for the ordinance. He made several suggestions with respect to wording, and another suggestion with respect to the length of time in which someone would be permitted to rebuild. Mr. Elrod suggested that we change wording from “encourage survival” to “promote unlimited expansion” or enlargement. Ms. Cotellessa indicated she did not have any issue with this suggestion, but rather indicated that Mr. Elrod had suggested positive wording. On the second page he referenced Section 33E which is a whole new section on replacement of nonconforming houses, which Mr. Elrod suggested would make section B unnecessary. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that Section B would still refer to commercial properties, or all other properties, other than single family residential structures or those that are otherwise exempted from the 50% rule. The other substantive issue that Mr. Elrod addressed had to do with adding the words “if possible” on the subject of completing within two years. That touched on a subject that the Planning Board had in fact asked be put in the ordinance. Ms. Cotellessa acknowledged this was an oversight on her part. She further commented that “if possible” in her opinion was not good wording, but upon further review she suggested wording such that - “the Planning Director may grant an extension of the commencement or the completion period not to exceed one year in either case, if the applicant can demonstrate a reasonable need.”
Ms. Cotellessa noted that the draft before the Board is up on the town’s website and she was glad to see some input. With the exception of the items that Mr. Schwartz discussed, having to do with pools, she felt the ordinance covered the concern of the property owners. With respect to the pools, she felt the Board’s first goal was to allow for the replacement of the principal residence, and at the same time accomplish bringing the property into conformance as much as possible with our current parking requirements. She stated that she looks as pools being installed everyday in Duck, where septic systems are being picked up and moved, or new systems are being installed to accommodate the pool. The quantification of whether or not a pool on the setback line causes significant nuisance to adjacent properties is not the issue, the issue is if there is one that doesn’t meet the current regulations, should it have to meet them upon rebuild.
Chairman Forlano questioned that if all of the prerequisites are covered with lot coverage, parking and bedrooms, and the pool is in the wrong location, and that is the only issue, are we saying you have to move that pool?
Planning Director Cotellessa confirmed that yes, you would need to bring the pool into compliance. She further clarified that in many cases, where the pool would be is where parking now needs to go to conform to the extent possible. You may be dealing with an eight bedroom rebuild on a lot that would only allow six bedrooms, which would require, to the extent possible, nine parking spaces. If you pre-empt some of that by leaving a pool in place whether or not it’s in the setback area, then you pre-empt the ability perhaps to come up to speed as much as possible. You can put back a nonconforming structure which is not something you generally want to support in an ordinance, but we are saying that we recognize the importance of this as a residential structure, and we are drawing a line where nonconforming structures that are accessories to the main use may not be put back. She further stated that it was her sense that this is what the Board wanted.
Chairman Forlano questioned again if the pool isn’t damaged in the first place, the house burns down, and everything is rebuilt to meet setbacks and parking but the pool does not meet the setbacks, the pool would need to be moved?
Planning Director Cotellessa confirmed that to be correct.
Member Jenkins questions whether there is any way to determine how many pools are nonconforming? He suggested that it may not be that many.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated the only way to determine that would be to survey them, and a lot of the pools installed in the past several years are very close to the property line.
Member Jenkins clarified that this has not occurred since Duck has been issuing permits?
Planning Director Cotellessa confirmed that to be correct.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether there was anything that could be done to improve the situation wherein a pool may be too close to the setback?
Planning director Cotellessa indicated something could be worked into the ordinance with specific mitigating factors, or it could be brought before the Board of Adjustments.
Planning director Cotellessa asked the Board for direction on how they would like the zoning text before them changed.
Chairman Forlano referred to page 3, and questioned whether there should be anything in the text for lots exceeding 14,999 square feet?
Planning director Cotellessa advised that this section, which has been in the ordinance for a long time, provides relief on substandard lots, and since the Town has standards for lots larger than 15,000 square feet and up, it is not necessary to detail.
Chairman Forlano questioned how we interpret section E2 on page four, “to the extent possible”? He recalled that Jon Britt brought this up at the last meeting, indicating that this terminology is ambiguous.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that a determination would be made by the zoning administrator.
Member Britt indicated he did not recall mentioning anything about ambiguity but that he might have. He further stated that he felt this section reads fairly clear.
Planning Director Cotellessa offered some scenario’s where the “extent possible” would come into play. For example, an eight (8) bedroom rebuild in Four Seasons with inadequate parking now, may need to be moved back to the rear setback line so as to accommodate perhaps seven (7) parking spaces. Then they would be permitted to rebuild the house. If, however they have a small lot with a pool behind the house and the house burns down, and to rebuild the house where it existed only allowed for 2 parking spaces, they would need to remove the pool to accommodate additional parking to bring the property into conformance “to the extent possible”.
Member Britt commented that he agreed with this concept but would still like to see a way for the pools to be allowed back with the rebuild if possible, and he was unsure how to word it. His stated his issue lies with the fairness of it all.
Member Britt further questioned whether this was going to be discussed at the retreat also or whether the Board would be making a motion on it today?
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that it was the Planning Board’s decision as to whether a motion would be made, but it was her expectation that it would be discussed at the retreat and the Board would come back at the next meeting to make recommendations.
Member Nave stated that if the property owners are building their house back, and they can get the parking and the pool, then fine, but if they have to give something up, it would have to be the pool.
Mr. Schwartz questioned, even for an existing pool with no damage?
Member Nave stated if they can meet all of the requirements, but they have to meet the requirements and the setbacks are a hard thing. She then suggested that perhaps you do, in fact, do something to cut the noise.
Chairman Forlano indicated that currently he is dealing with a similar situation. He has a house on a large lot, 21,000 square feet. He is rebuilding the house, and he is putting in the proper amount of parking, he has the proper amount of lot coverage, but yet looking at the site plan, there was pool that was erected a few years ago that was installed within five (5) feet of the side property line. He indicated he has met all of the requirements but that $30,000 pool is five (5) feet too close to the side line. Mr. Forlano questioned what he was supposed to do? Should he pull up the pool? Should he cut off the deck of the pool? Does he need to spend another $30,000 to move the pool?
Planning Director Cotellessa offered language to the Board such that “provided the pool is not damaged to an extent greater than 50% of its value, and provided all other aspects of parking, and site requirements can be met for this property, that subject to installation of an appropriate visual buffer to the adjacent property..”, and suggested that if this is what the Board wanted, she could certainly craft the appropriate language. She indicated she would look at the potential for some kind of relief, but first the property owner would have to meet everything, not to the extent possible. They would have to meet everything, and then she would try to come up with some language on mitigation measures, if that was the Board’s desire.
Member Britt indicated he liked this idea, but also agreed that all requirements would have to be met.
Member Nave suggested the Board look at that language that Sue drafts.
Mr. Schwartz questioned whether the property owner would need to lose a bedroom to meet all of the requirements and keep the nonconforming pool?
Planning director Cotellessa clarified that if the property is nonconforming with regard to the number of bedrooms, they can put it back. They can already do that, but if that pool is going to stay on the lot line, the pool has to be undamaged, they can put back the number of bedrooms they had, but they have to fully meet the parking for the number of bedrooms and they have to meet all other setbacks. She indicated she would try to draft something and have it ready at the retreat.
Councilor Morrison had no comments.
Member March questioned whether adjacent property owners would be notified of the rebuild of nonconformities and would they be allowed to object?
Planning director Cotellessa clarified that the ability to rebuild, as per the way this ordinance was being written in the event of a casualty loss, would be a “by right use”. Adjacent property owners would not be notified.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether Member March lived next door to a pool that is too close to the property line?
Member March stated that there were three (3) pools in her neighborhood that were too close to the property line.
Chairman Forlano questioned the Board members, as a neighbor to a pool, what kind of mitigation factors would they suggest?
Member Nave, suggested a noise and light buffer of some sort.
Mr. Schwartz questioned if the pool next to Member Nave were fifteen feet back, whether it would make any difference?
Member Nave stated that yes, they could have located the pool in a better spot, but they did not want to move their septic system.
Member March stated that in her neighborhood, there are three pools that were installed within the setbacks, but then they concreted around them, and now the concrete is outside the setbacks.
Chairman Forlano recapped and confirmed the nuisance issues to be light and noise pollution. He then questioned whether they can legislate the times of use?
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that policing that restriction would be terrible, but there are nuisance laws and there are noise laws that are already on the books.
B. Discussion of Sign Regulations
C. Discussion of Outdoor Display/Storage Regulations
D. Discussion of Village Commercial Development Option
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested, in the interest of moving the meeting along, that the next three (3) ordinances, Sign Regulations, Outdoor Display/Storage Regulation and Village Commercial Development Option are similar to the attachments that were in the Board’s packages for the last meeting. She indicated that they have been codified in one case and renumbered in another so they better fit with the Town’s current ordinances, but the main text of them has not been altered. She suggested that the Planning Board may want to get the benefit of hearing from the business community and getting input on these issues before they really get into more depth and discussion. The drafts are a great target for comments and input and she would suggest that the Board continue these three items as a whole until after the Business Outreach Event. Ms. Cotellessa invited each of the members to attend and indicated that she would also provide a synopsis of the event.
Member Nave clarified the date of the event – February 5, 2004 from 2 – 5 pm.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated it would be an open house event, which is presently scheduled to be held at the Town office.
Member Nave stated she thought deferment of these issues was a great idea. She indicated that she did not know what business owners go through to get their signage. She further stated that it was important for the Board to listen to the business owners, to find out what their problems and/or concerns are.
Planning Director Cotellessa commented that from a zoning enforcement perspective, the last thing we want to do is be in a totally adversarial position with the business community.
Chairman Forlano asked the Board members if they were in agreement to continue the three (3) items until the next meet, after the Business Outreach Event.
All members were in agreement.
Chairman Forlano then asked if anyone wanted to throw anything out, food for thought, on any of the issues?
Member Britt raised one issue regarding the Village Commercial Development Option. Mr. Britt stated that with regard to the three (3) boards meeting for review, Town Council, Planning Board and the architectural review board. Mr. Britt stated he would like to see Council left out of the mix. He suggested that they, the Board, and the architectural review board would make a recommendation and then send it to Council. This allows for a second opportunity for another independent, objective group to look at the issue.
Member Jenkins agreed with member Britt’s suggestion.
Planning Director Cotellessa commented that this is a fairly standard practice as Member Britt has suggested. She indicated that she has heard that sometimes a two step process is cumbersome, and having the deciding body in on the preliminary stages has some advantage for the applicant. Ms. Cotellessa further stated that you can set it up either way, but the Board should look at both ways when debating this option.
Member Britt suggested discussing it at the retreat.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested finding out what the business community thinks. How do they want to go through the process?
Member Nave commented that Council may not even want to be part of the preliminary stages.
Councilor Morrison stated that he would not have a problem reviewing the conditional use before it went before the Council for hearing, and he wandered if the person trying to sell his plan would feel his chances were better with a larger group.
John Powers indicated that one of the reasons he came to the meeting was to see if a motion would be passed on the sign ordinance. He indicated that he was glad the Board was not making any decision because of the February 5th meeting. The DCBA is getting ready to send a letter reminding everyone in their membership about these meetings and these two issues, nonconforming structures and the signs, and the event on the 5th. He indicated that they were not trying to make any judgments at this point or raise any alarms, but the DCBA members may want to take a stand on these subjects. He commented that the roof signs were a big issue, and equally important are the display areas which are treated as signs. He also indicated that he felt that more space would be necessary to house the event.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she was planning to put together an agenda that will have the basic topics that are being discussed now as well as some others that have been raised by various business owners. She invited input regarding the agenda as well. She indicated that she was hoping to keep structured presentations, and formal questions and answers to a minimum. She would like to see an open house aspect. She would like to see several different stations with different issues being addressed. She suggested possibly a brief introduction to explain what we were doing and how we expected the input process to occur, and then break into a less formal setting. She would like to see one on one communication.
Mr. Powers indicated that the open house format certainly decreases the likelihood of confrontation, and while there are lots of things to talk about, the majority of the people want to talk about the signs.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that it might be useful for her to put together some photographic examples to point to for discussion purposes. She further stated that there will be hard political decisions that will have to be made, but those decisions should be made with as much information and input as possible, and that is the goal of this event.
Member Nave and Member Britt both commented on the idea of community involvement being a key element in the decisions they make.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that the goal of the event is be constructive and productive, and to the extent that DCBA can try and summarize points of importance, we can try to focus the issues somewhat.
Mr. Schwartz questioned whether it would be necessary to be present for the entire event from 2-5.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that following an open house format should allow for people to come and go as it fits their schedule. Additionally, she suggested that if someone cannot make the event, they can download these ordinances off of the website and send in suggestions and/or comments.
Mr. Powers advised that the DCBA’s next scheduled meeting is set for February 6th so they will be able to discuss the event at their meeting and offer a summary of their findings.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that this will be a staff run meeting, but the Board members should be there and staff will look for input from them as well.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Business Outreach Event
Chairman Forlano indicated the Business Outreach Event has been discussed in conjunction with the deferment of old business items.
B. Land Use Plan Update
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the Land Use Plan Committee has been very active. They now have a good draft Land Use Plan document to work with. The draft Plan will be distributed to the Town Council at the retreat and copies will be made available at the same time for the Planning Board members. The Land Use Plan Committee has done a lot of work to develop the Town goals and policies, and it’s from these goals and policies that the ordinances discussed today were derived.
Once the Council formally adopts the Plan (probably in late May), it will be forwarded to the State Board for certification, and that should occur over the summer.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Britt moved to approve the minutes from December 10, 2003.
Motion carried 5-0
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Election of Officers
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that the Board needs to put in place a set of rules and procedures for the Planning Board. She recommended that the Board plan to schedule the election of officers for the May meeting as opposed to doing so immediately. Most of the terms and original appointments occurred in May so delaying the election would keep things on a schedule. She further commented that she was planning on developing a set of rules that falls somewhere between the two page and the thirty page examples that she presented to the Board, more along the lines of five pages.
Chairman Forlano confirmed that Planning Director Cotellessa would draft something for the Board’s review between now and May, and then they will have an election of officers and develop a set of by-laws.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
BOARD COMMENTS
Member Britt inquired about the agenda for the retreat and was informed it would be up on the website.
The remaining Board Members had no comments.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 5-0. The time was 3:37 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Chair
Return to Planning Board Meetings Page
Return to Town of Duck HOME PAGE
Last updated March 3, 2004
Further information from
webmaster@townofduck.com