TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
February 13, 2004
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, February 13, 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, 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 opened by commenting that the agenda was extensive and it was unlikely the Board would get through it all.
Mr. Forlano opened the meeting for public comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Donald Ramsay was recognized to speak by Chairman Forlano. Mr. Ramsay wanted to clarify that as he understands it, and from Mr. Layton’s response to his letter, the Town of Duck adopted their standards from Dare County. Mr. Ramsay wanted to know whether that was required by a law or was that a judgment made by Town Council? He further questioned how the town could have adopted a standard that makes 90% or more of the properties nonconforming.
Chairman Forlano clarified that Mr. Ramsey was referring to any items that may make a property nonconforming, i.e.; bedrooms, parking, lot coverage, etc.
Mr. Ramsay went on to state that he did not like the standard, stating that the standard was not logical.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether Mr. Layton answered Mr. Ramsey’s remaining concerns?
Mr. Ramsay indicated that Mr. Layton did answer his questions, however commented that “good planning practices” as referred to by Mr. Layton, is a very generic way of answering the question. He questioned what “good practices” from where are applicable in this Town, where they make 90% or more of the properties nonconforming.
Mark Martin of Sandmark Construction was recognized to speak by Chairman Forlano. Mr. Martin indicated that he too was there regarding the nonconforming regulations. He indicated that he has had a few instances where staff has been very helpful in trying to resolve the issues, however that may not be possible with current regulations. He further explained that in one instance, he is dealing with installing an elevator, and sliding the bedroom over to do so. They are simply trying to add a hallway and elevator through an existing bedroom. Mr. Martin stated that he has some concerns, as he did before the Town’s ordinances were passed, as to how they would affect year round residents. The intent as he understood it was mostly to contain the large structures, but there are some items in the ordinances that need to be “tweaked”
OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
A. Discussion of Nonconforming Properties:
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that what the Board had before them was a draft ordinance dealing with nonconforming regulations. Changes that have been made are shown in red, based upon the Board’s discussion at the last meeting. She noted that the section regarding accessory structures was noted in blue, Section 33(f). This ordinance provides, within limits and bringing them as close to conformity as possible with our current regulations, for the reconstruction of the single family properties that are nonconforming, given a casualty loss.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether Mr. Ramsay has looked as this last draft of the Nonconforming regulations.
Mr. Ramsay had a draft from the Business Outreach Event, which was not the most current draft.
Chairman Forlano suggested that the Board go through the ordinance one page at a time.
Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out to the Board that later in the meeting they would be discussing scheduling. She noted that the nonconforming ordinance, the sign ordinance, outdoor storage and display, are slated for additional discussion at a work session in a couple of weeks. Therefore, there is another opportunity beyond today’s meeting for public input.
Mr. Forlano began with page 1, and asked for comments from the Board.
Member Jenkins questioned whether the strikethrough of the S-1 Special District meant that there were no nonconformities in that district?
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that was not the case. The strikethrough of Section 22. – S-1 District takes out the special references with amortization dates and different treatments of nonconformities in different districts and removes them. It puts the treatment of all nonconformities within the same context.
Member Britt indicated that he felt the first page was pretty clear, but did suggest perhaps some consistency with the usage of words such as controlled and/or limited.
Member Jenkins questioned the meaning of “involuntarily damaged” as referenced in #5.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that “involuntarily damaged” referenced casualty losses, such as fire, hurricane, flood. Voluntary destruction and/or demolition of a nonconformity would not apply in this instance.
Chairman Forlano questioned #3, and whether this statement was meant to imply that only general maintenance is permitted if your property is nonconforming.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that #3 is only one of the whereas statements, and general maintenance is one of the six (6) items being allowed under this ordinance. The next statement allows for continued development of substandard lots, and another allows for controlled reconstruction of existing nonconforming properties. The whereas statements encompass all of the items that are being addressed with this ordinance.
Chairman Forlano confirmed that this ordinance does allow for nonconforming properties to be changed, so long as they don’t increase the extent of the nonconformity. Chairman Forlano questioned whether #6 was for all properties.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that #6 is also one of the Town’s desires in the whereas statements which is to allow for some kind of reconstruction, expansion, development, and changes in the village commercial in addition to residential houses.
Chairman Forlano asked the public if they had any questions.
Mark Martin questioned #3, and requested clarification regarding structural improvements and minor additions to nonconforming structures. He stated he was unsure what is considered minor or major in this context.
Member Britt attempted to clarify that interior changes should not affect any nonconforming property provided you are not adding additional bedrooms. He further indicated that he thought that adding on to existing rooms should be encouraged.
Planning Director Cotellessa concurred that if you are not extending the degree of nonconformity by adding on to the house, then that is permitted under this ordinance.
Councilor Morrison questioned whether Mr. Martin’s permit, involving the installation of the elevator, was denied because the sliding of the bedroom would increase the nonconformity of his house?
Planning Director Cotellessa confirmed that to be the case.
The Planning Board briefly discussed the context of Mr. Martin’s case(s) which are slated to be reviewed before the Board of Adjustments in mid-March.
Mr. Martin stated that he wanted to bring these topics up because he knew the Board was presently looking at nonconforming regulations.
Councilor Morrison commented that as the population of Duck ages, and elevators become more and more popular, perhaps some consideration should be given for some leeway with regard to the installation of same.
Member Jenkins concurred, especially in the case of disability.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that in the event that an elevator extended the degree of nonconformity, in the case of disability, that would certainly be a situation where a variance would be applicable.
Member Britt suggested that he would like to see things cleared up from a zoning perspective at the Planning Board level, rather than using the Board of Adjustments as a safety net.
Chairman Forlano suggested the Board move on to page 2.
Member Britt questioned whether last sentence of Section 30 was necessary?
Planning Director Cotellessa agreed that the last sentence did not appear to be necessary.
It was agreed that the last sentence of Section 30 would be strikethroughed, and the Board moved on to page 3. Chairman Forlano questioned whether the Town really had any nonconforming uses of land as detailed in Section 32.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that there was very little, if any, but suggested leaving Section 32, just in case.
Member Britt indicated that he thought that one of the issues with bedrooms and nonconformities is more bedrooms means more parking. He further indicated that he did not think that taking an existing nonconformity and making an existing bedroom in the home a little bigger was a problem, provided they were not increasing the footprint. He indicated that the Board’s initial concern was the parking problem which would not be the case in such a situation.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that they need to make a distinction. Right now, if property owners are rearranging bedrooms within the existing house, that is being permitted. The distinction occurs when you take that bedroom and expand it beyond the existing walls of the house.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether Member Britt was suggesting that enlargement of existing bedrooms in a nonconforming situation beyond the limits of the wall should be allowed?
Member Britt indicated that he was reacting to what was discussed earlier regarding the denial of Mr. Martin’s permit due to the expansion of a bedroom. He indicated that he did not realize that it went outside of the footprint. He further stated emphatically that you cannot go outside of the footprint or cross 30% lot coverage.
Planning Director Cotellessa commented that in the case discussed earlier, going out beyond the existing wall of the bedroom does not go beyond the 30% lot coverage, but it does extend the degree of nonconformity with respect to the house in terms of bedrooms.
Member Britt indicated that if you are still within your lot coverage, then he did not see the problem. He suggested that he would like to see it made easy to remodel. He wants the interpretation to be easier for Sue, the process to be easier to people to renovate their houses, and that is what he is trying to get at.
Planning Director Cotellessa questioned whether you allow maximization of lot coverage by expanding the footprint of a house to expand a bedroom without bringing parking up to speed?
Member Britt indicated he had not thought about it from that perspective.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that with any building permits that may affect a nonconforming parking situation, while they may not be adding a bedroom which would trigger the need to bring the parking up to speed, she is requiring the contractors to show that they are not precluding the ability to bring the parking up to speed with the permit they are requesting. In any instance where existing nonconforming parking is being altered, Planning Director Cotellessa is requiring that the parking be brought up to speed. She cautioned about watering down the regulations to the point that they have no meaning.
Member Britt stated that the regulations were written for new construction.
Planning Director Cotellessa again cautioned that if you have a vacant lot, and you allow an existing house next door to expand under these nonconforming regulations to a point where someone coming in to build new would not have the same opportunities. There is a fairness issue.
Member March reminded the Board that there is the Board of Adjustments for those circumstances that are not clear cut.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that for those items that are recurring in nature, they can be dealt with through the code, but as Member March indicated, in those unusual circumstances, there is the Board of Adjustments.
Kevin Schwartz was recognized to speak, and suggested the Board look at a standard of adverse impact. If you allow a nonconformity to expand, what is the adverse impact?
Mr. Martin spoke and indicated that he too sees both sides.
Mr. Ramsey was recognized to speak and questioned the year round residential parking deferral and how it affected people like him who do not rent.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that the parking deferral was for non-rental property that are also occupied by year round residents. She further indicated that this was one of the items that they would be looking at as the Board goes through the zoning ordinance review process, because this issue has come up several times. Ms. Cotellessa stated that she has made notes as issues have come up with regard to many ordinances so that as the Board reviews them they will be aware of the issues and/or problems.
Chairman Forlano moved on to page 4 of the ordinance.
Member Jenkins clarified that under section (d) Corp of Engineers and/or CAMA setback must be met also.
Planning Director Cotellessa confirmed same.
Member Britt commented regarding section (e)8. and noted the importance of stressing to the property owners the need to obtain an “as-built” survey.
Mrs. Ramsay suggested that under section (e) line two that principle be spelled principal.
Page 4A, Section 33(f) addresses the pools and/or accessory structures.
Kevin Schwartz questioned if everything on his property meets code, except for his pool which encroaches on the setback line, can he get a permit to do anything to his house?
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that if what you are planning to do does not increase the nonconformity of the house, then you can. She referred Mr. Schwartz and Member Britt to Section (e)1. which states “the enlargement or replacement does not create new nonconformities or increase the extent of existing nonconformities…”.
Mr. Schwartz indicated that he felt it was unclear as to the linkage between the principal structure and the accessory structure.
Chairman Forlano indicated the Section 33(f) addressed his concerns with regard to accessory structures, and moved on to Section 34.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted the important part of this section was section (g) which deals with time frames for reconstruction of condominiums.
All Members were in agreement that this page met their approval, and the Board moved on to page 6, Section 35, Repairs and Maintenance.
Member Jenkins asked for some clarification on the meaning of section (a). Specifically, he inquired as to whether the 10% was limited to a period of twelve (12) months.
Planning Director Cotellessa confirmed that to be correct. She indicated that notwithstanding anything else in this code, you can do certain things to residential structures. This section therefore has the effect of applying principally to commercial structures. The cost of what you plan to do cannot exceed 10% of the value of the building within a twelve month period. Under the present ordinance, commercial properties cannot make major changes; however the Village Commercial Development Option does try to address that issue.
Member Jenkins questioned the rationale behind saying 10% versus 15%.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated this presently exists in the code, and this is not something that the Town has added or changed. The figure is used to establish a level of minor repair and maintenance as opposed to wholesale change of a nonconforming property. The figure itself varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but 10% was a common number.
Member Britt questioned whether this would potentially cause any hardships on redeveloping homes since they are writing one code for everything? He suggested clarification that this section deals with commercial properties.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that this would not affect the residential redevelopment because we have said in Section (e) “notwithstanding any other regulations with respect to nonconforming structures or lots, any principal structure used for single family purposes..”.
Mr. Martin inquired as to how the value would be determined?
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that for commercial properties, they would be based upon current replacement costs, which the property would have to show in an analysis.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that with regard to Section 46. Outdoor Lighting, she mentioned this to numerous people at the outreach event. If current lighting fixtures do not meet our code, they need to be replaced by May 7, 2006. She pointed out that Wings usually has 30 feet tall lights, however their light will only be 18 feet in Duck. She further commented that when the Board looks at the lighting ordinance again, she may even suggest that lighting be lowered even further.
Lisa Mann from Beach Essentials commented regarding noise at a local Wings, and suggested more restrictions with regard to noise.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that the Town has a noise ordinance; however it is one of the hardest things to enforce.
Chairman Forlano asked if there were any other comments on nonconforming structures.
Mrs. Ramsay questioned on page 1, item 5, whether that included actual removal of a house, and then building a new structure.
Member Britt advised Mrs. Ramsay if they voluntarily remove a house to build a new, then they need to meet the current code, just as if it were new construction.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether the Board was comfortable with the ordinance?
Member Britt indicated that the changes made today were minor to the point that he would not have a problem making a motion on it, pending the changes that were discussed today. He then asked Ms. Cotellessa if she was happy with the ordinance as it stands.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she was comfortable with the language in that it adequately reflects the direction of the Board.
Chairman Forlano also commented the he felt the Board addressed the concerns of the public.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that she felt the regulations as they are now, are very generous with respect to nonconforming properties. She thinks they go beyond in many respects what most jurisdictions would do with nonconforming properties.
It was decided that Planning Director Cotellessa would bring a final draft of the nonconforming regulations for the Board to review at their mid-month meeting.
B. Input from Business Community on Sign Regulations, Outdoor Storage and Display, and Village Commercial Development Option Regulations.
Planning Director Cotellessa recapped the success of the outreach event. There were a large number of business owners and the majority of the questioning revolved around signage and visibility. She pointed out to the Board that their package included emails from several members of the business community. Their concerns touched on several issues, including neon signs, sandwich boards, roof signs, flags and banners.
Ms. Cotellessa suggested that the Board take a methodical look at the draft regulations. She indicated that the Town’s current sign ordinance is approximately a page and a half. It is very limited and does not allow for, or provide for things, like sale banners and some other things that the community might like to have available in a controlled manner. The draft before the Board is aimed at better defining what the Town wants to achieve, and how we propose to achieve it. Ms. Cotellessa reminded the Board that this was in essence their first real look at the sign ordinance, because they wanted to get some input from the public.
Member March inquired as to how many people were present at the outreach event.
Administrative Assistant, Sandy Cady, indicated that there were over eighty (80) people present.
Chairman Forlano suggested going through the ordinance page by page much like they did with the nonconforming regulations, with public input welcome. Mr. Forlano asked for comments regarding the “whereas” section which details what the Town is attempting to achieve.
Lisa Mann from Beach Essentials commented regarding item (7) which states “protect property values..”. She indicated that from a commercial point of view, the more signage they have, the more value they have. Signage is the most direct form of advertising that they, as business owner, have. She suggested that Duck is a walking and driving town and if they cannot attract those people, they do not come in. She indicated that she is fortunate with her location which is fairly visible but the majority of shops in Duck do not have that visibility.
Member Britt commented that a drastic reduction in signage is not something that he thinks that Town wants. He indicated that to think the Town is a pedestrian community is foolish. He further stated that he knows that signage was allowed to go basically uncontrolled for quite some time, but he does not want to see the Town turn around and penalize the business owners. He would like to see business owners who may have a sign without a permit, be allowed to apply for a permit and not cost that business owner a penny, provided they apply within a specified period of time. It is not their fault that they were basically ignored by the County. Duck has a lot of small business owners, and from the meeting Mr. Britt gathered the business community is concerned that the expense is going to affect them, and he believes the Town needs to be real careful about over-regulating. He further commented that he did think that the Town needs to look more closely at the lighting issue and aim for a long term plan for a dark sky ordinance, and those signs that affect public safety and sight lines should be addressed immediately. If the Duck Trail caused some of the existing safety and sight line issues, Mr. Britt stated that the Town should be stepping up to help resolve the problem, but he again emphasized that he does not want to get overly restrictive with regard to signs.
Chairman Forlano questioned item (6). He stated that if you make a sign too small, someone will go flying past the sign and slam on the brakes, thus causing an accident because the sign is too small. Mr. Forlano suggested that if there is not enough clarity on the road, then we will only be increasing the traffic hazards.
Member Nave commented that there are several spots in Duck that you literally cannot see because of signs. They are not necessarily overly large, they are quite simply in the way. Member Nave specifically noted the Crown Station and the sign next to Schooner Ridge, which is also on a curve. She too suggested that if it was because of the Trail that these signs are now a safety hazard, then maybe the Town does offer some incentive to move them back.
Chairman Forlano agreed that any sign that is a safety issue needs to be removed.
Member Nave reiterated that she thought there should be some incentive.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that when it comes to small frontage shops, you need to be careful because the more signs you have whether its flags, banners or permanent signs, then not only do you have clutter, but these signs begin obstructing the other signs on site.
Chairman Forlano indicated the he did not think the Town should have clutter, but he did think that the main sign needs to be large enough to house all of the individual signs so that the individual signs are large enough for people to read.
Member March commented that she thought the point of item (7) had more to do with the brightness, size and height of a sign, not infringing on someone else’s visibility.
Planning Director Cotellessa agreed with Member March. She indicated that as a property owner, you want to make sure that the person on either side of you is not taking away your visibility but by the same token, it is difficult to have your behavior regulated. The zoning ordinance here is attempting to create a balance so that everyone has enough visibility without infringing on the rights of others, or creating a hazard or clutter. It was also her goal to create a balance between the interest of the business community with the interest of the residential community and our visitors.
Chairman Forlano moved the discussion on to Part I. Definitions.
Member March indicated she felt the definitions were pretty self-explanatory.
Lisa Mann was recognized and inquired regarding the definition of wind device on page 4. She indicated that the definition makes anything that moves in the wind a flag, and flags are later restricted in the ordinance.
Chairman Forlano indicated that he understood the definition but a decision had not been made as to whether or not flags would be restricted or prohibited.
Ms. Mann stated she would like to see that definition changed.
Terry Ziegler from La Rive was recognized to speak and asked the Board to look at page 3, and the definition for sign, roof. Mr. Ziegler suggested possibly expanding the definition with some sub-categories.
Johanna Stein from Kitty Hawk Kites/Carolina Outdoors was recognized to speak. She commented that at both of their stores, it is necessary for them to display some of their products which under the current definition of flags would be unacceptable. They are not commercially labeled, but they are products displayed to attract customers and to add charm and an element of excitement to their location. She also commented regarding the roof signage, stating that there are different kinds of roof signage.
Chairman Forlano moved the discussion onto purpose and application. No comments were offered, so he moved onto the general provisions.
Lisa Mann questioned Item 1, under the general provision, section (d) which she took to mean no roof signs. She stated that she would like to see a change made to this section if possible.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she was hearing people make a differentiation between something that is attached at the eave part of the roof and something that sticks up above the roof line.
There was some discussion of the roof line versus the peak.
Member March indicated that her interpretation of section (d) was in reference to the peak.
Mr. Zeigler suggested then that the ordinance reflect same.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that roof lines, and peaks were a few of the features being evaluated as a part of the commercial architectural guidelines. When you start to put signs on these features, and in some cases, obstruct the very features that you are trying to enhance, you are getting away from what you are trying to accomplish. Ms. Cotellessa questioned how we want to deal with this.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether we can specify that a roof sign has to be at the lowest part of the roof, the eave line?
Member Britt stated that there should be a correlation between the size of the sign and the amount of visible roof. If the sign is dominating the roof, that is what we are trying to avoid.
Member Jenkins suggested limiting the amount of coverage to x% of the roof area and not allowing the sign to protrude above the roof peak, or extend over the edge.
Chairman Forlano also suggested that the sign not be allowed to cover architectural features.
Member Britt offered his approval of Chairman Forlano and Member Jenkins’ suggestions.
It was agreed that Planning Director Cotellessa would craft some kind of language with regard to roof signage.
Chairman Forlano questioned section (e) regarding projecting signs. He inquired whether this meant a sign perpendicular to the building.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that was correct and it cannot stick out more than four (4) feet.
Chairman Forlano and Member Jenkins both felt four (4) feet was too much.
Member Britt questioned interior signs, and whether they are counted in the gross amount of signage.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated they are not, and they never have been. The only thing that is counted is window signage. Interior signage is not.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether section (d) and (e) contradict each other?
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that section (d) references perimeter limits.
Member Britt indicated that he did not see how they contradict, but rather suggested that they cover each other.
Chairman Forlano brought up section (g) which addresses ground-mounted signs. He questioned how many properties have 100 feet of road front.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated she was unsure. This section prevents the smaller lots from having ground mounted signs side by side, which in turn create clutter, and obstruct each other and visibility.
Councilor Morrison felt it would be interesting to know how many properties have ground-mounted signs that would be required to take them down because they do not have enough lot frontage.
Member Britt indicated he would like to know this as well. He does not want to make people start taking their signs down.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that we don’t necessarily have to amortize the nonconforming signs. You can grandfather. If you have it now, you can keep it. You can do that with permanent signage and set a different standard for temporary signs. There are numerous different ways to deal with nonconforming signs.
Member Britt asked Planning Director Cotellessa if she was aware how many signs were within the right of way.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that there were a few, but she did not have an exact number.
Councilor Morrison indicated that it is important to find out how many signs are within the right of way as well.
Member Britt suggested that some of the signs within the right of way may have been caused by the Trail expansion.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the Trail should have not caused a problem because Duck has always had a sixty (60) foot right of way, and you were required to put your sign at least thirty (30) feet from the center of the road. The Duck Trail was put within that right of way, so if a sign was properly placed in the first place, it should not be within the right of way now.
Lisa Mann suggested allowing nonconforming signs through their depreciable lifetime, provided they do not pose a danger.
Chairman Forlano moved the discussion on to Item 2. Lighting, and began with section (b) illuminated signs. Mr. Forlano suggested that there are quite a few illuminated signs within 100 feet of a residential district.
Member Britt indicated this would force him to take down his own business sign. It will force a lot of real estate companies that have lit signs like ResortQuest and some of the ones further north from keeping their signs lit, and they need to be lit for the tourists coming in at night to check in.
Chairman Forlano and Mr. Ramsay both questioned whether Item 2, Section (b) would also apply to community signs.
Planning Director Cotellessa asked whether the Board felt there was any rationale for limiting the lighting of signage on commercial properties within a certain distance from residential properties in the overnight hours. Should they be on all night?
The Board consensus seemed to focus more on the type of lighting versus setting time limitations on the lighting, and it was decided to eliminate section (b) completely.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that section (a) and (c) both address types of lighting. She also mentioned that with the development of the commercial guidelines, there may be additional incentives for signage based upon different features of your sign, whether it be lighting, size, or location.
Member Britt stated he did not think any amount of incentive would work with regard to the back lit signs, and suggested the Board develop a way to phase them out over a period of time.
Chairman Forlano stated that he feels that all of the up lights or flood lights cause light pollution, regardless of whether they are shielded.
Ms. Mann asked whether there would be period of time for the change?
Member Britt indicated that we need to allow a good amount of time for these changes to occur.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested she craft some language that addresses types of signage and down lighting versus not lighting at all. She indicated that the Board will need to address the issue of the backlit signs and the materials; i.e. plastic versus wood, either here or in the commercial development guidelines.
Chairman Forlano moved the discussion on to Item 3. Sign Structures.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that if your structure is illustrative in nature, then it will be included in the total signage calculations.
Johanna Stein raised some questions about signage as it pertains to Kayak displays and flags and banners that are generic in nature with no product label, and whether they would be exempted under the regulations.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that those items will be discussed under the outdoor display and storage regulations.
Chairman Forlano indicated that Item 4. Anchoring and Construction Specification and Item 5. Maintenance and Removal seemed to be pretty straight forward and no other Members had any comments.
The discussion moved on to Item 6. Abandoned signs. Several members felt sixty (60) days was too generous for the removal of the sign, and it was agreed to change this section to reflect thirty (30) days.
Section 7. Sign measurements.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that signs are measured in a rectilinear fashion. It can have an irregular edge to it, and you simply draw the tightest rectangle to it and that’s how you measure it. She also indicated that a two sided sign, that is identical on each side, is only counted as one.
The discussion moved on to section (d) Exemptions.
Ms. Mann and Ms. Stein each asked for some clarification regarding signs under one square foot.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that stickers would be exempt from all of the regulations except for the location regulations. She further indicated that you cannot fill a whole window with stickers, because you would still be limited in scope to not filling more than 25% of your window with signage.
Ms. Mann commented that you are calling merchandise that we sell signage so if she has a rack full of clothing in front of her window, is that considered signage.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that it would not be considered part of her signage. It would be considered a window display. However, if you have a kayak in front of your window with lighting, then it would be considered signage.
Ms. Mann questioned, to an extent, what difference does it make how much of their window is filled? Regardless of whether you put a sign or merchandise in your window, you are still showing what you have, and if it is not lit, what difference does it make? She questioned why they were regulating something that really has no effect on the Town of Duck whatsoever.
Member March mentioned that there is a security issue.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that window signage is, as a standard, regulated because buildings are designed with a certain degree of architectural features. When you obstruct that architectural feature, you are destroying the architectural feature of the building and you are not allowing its use as a window to look into the activity inside, not just for security purposes but for a retail presence.
Ms. Mann offered the example of stores in downtown New York City as an example of standard retail practice everywhere, where they block in their entire window for displays.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that display can be differentiated from signage as well.
Chairman Forlano asked Ms. Mann if she would be more comfortable with a choice of either a window sign or a window display.
Ms. Mann stressed that she did not see the difference. If the window is blocked, the window is blocked whether it is blocked with a sign versus merchandise. As a retailer she emphasized that she needs the ability to change her windows.
Member Britt stated that if you put written signs in the window, it essentially becomes a wall sign. He further commented while he understands the need for change as a retailer, but he also sees the need for some regulation.
Member March stated that there should be some type of regulation with regard to windows.
Planning Director Cotellessa raised the question do you want to put a limit on a given window, which is an architectural feature, whether it’s 25%, 50% or 100% of the window can be used at the desire of the tenant, to be covered or not. Do you want to do an aggregate of all windows, which may allow you to cover one of four windows completely, and then is it to be considered a wall sign? Or do you calculate each window individually?
Member Britt indicated that he has concerns about telling people what they can and cannot do within the confines of their store. He does think that a written sign should not cover an entire window, but he would not go much farther in terms of regulation.
Ms. Stein mentioned the surf shop which has most all of its windows covered in a display of stickers which she sees as creative.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that was a perfect example of what they are trying to determine as being acceptable or not.
Ms. Mann stated that if there has to be regulation, she would like to see as much flexibility is possible, and suggested an aggregate approach to dealing with the window signage calculations, versus dealing with each window individually.
Chairman Forlano suggested revisiting this subject.
Member Britt suggested perhaps different standards based upon your store’s location.
Chairman Forlano noted that he did not see anything for handicap signs, but it was determined they would fall under item 1 under section (d).
The Board moved on to Section (e) Prohibited Signs.
Chairman Forlano questioned number 1’s applicability in, for instance, a shop such as the Waterfront Shops.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated she intended this in term of vehicular passageways, and would clarify that.
Johanna Stein stated in reference to number 5 that she did not think that their wind wheels, wind socks, etc should be prohibited because they are not in the right of way. They are not damaging any kind of vehicular movement. She indicated that even in Corolla where the sign ordinances are more stringent, they are allowed to have them in front of their store.
Chairman Forlano mentioned real estate open house banners.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that this ordinance specifically provides for a certain number of flags and wind devices. There are also provisions for banners which are not presently permitted. Under number 5, you would not be able to put a real estate out, and attach balloons to it. You would not be able to take a regular sign and attach hot air streamers and balloons to it. Those are devices that are meant to attract motorists, and in many codes that Ms. Cotellessa has studied, that is found to be distracting and hazardous.
Lisa Mann asked to discuss number 7, Signs on Vehicles. She asked for more clarification or language that would make this section less subjective.
Member Britt stated that he felt the primary purpose here was to prevent the old car from being on the side of the road. He suggested we have a little faith in our enforcement official making reasonable judgment calls, and did not recommend getting too specific.
Chairman Forlano moved the discussion on to number 9. He clarified that everyone understood that sandwich boards were not going to be allowed any longer. There was no further discussion.
There were no comments made with regard to number 10.
With regard to number 11, roof signs, it was decided that Planning Director Cotellessa would work on some language to allow for roof signs.
Number 12, Pennants. There was discussion regarding what is considered a pennant.
Number 13. Tourist-oriented directional sign. Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that this was eliminated by ordinance by Council recently when NCDOT decided to sell signage within the right of way for NCDOT roads. There was no further discussion regarding Number 13.
The Board moved on to section (f) Administration and Permits.
Chairman Forlano questioned the reference to re-facing a sign. He asked if he were to simply repaint his sign, would he need a permit?
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated yes, and that has always been the case. This has always been on the books. This allows the locality the opportunity to see what you are doing and to confirm that what you are re-facing is a permitted sign. This allows the Town to maintain a current record of what is out there in signage.
Member Britt inquired as to how many signs in Duck actually have permits.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that she did not have the answer to that. She indicated that staff has started a survey of the signage but she did not know exactly.
Member Britt indicated that he would like for the Town to find out who doesn’t so that they can allow them a certain amount of grace period to get in and apply for a permit.
Item 2. Exemption from Permits.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that this deals with real estate signs.
No comments or modifications were suggested with regard to exemptions.
Item 3. Permanent Signs that Require a Permit.
Under section (a) Planning Director Cotellessa noted that presently subdivisions are not required to obtain permits but under this ordinance they would be required with a two sign per entrance maximum. The reasoning behind permitting them is to check the line of sight.
Under section (b) Planning Director Cotellessa noted that under our current ordinance, the Town allows six (6) square feet per foot of frontage which is probably the highest standard that she has seen. [Correction: Code currently allows three (3) square feet of signage to a maximum of 600 square feet] She indicated that one and one and a half are standard, so she went a little higher with two (2).
Member Britt questioned why they were reducing signage when there doesn’t seem to be a problem with the amount. He indicated that he hears more about types, location, lighting and number of signs. Member Britt indicated that he felt this was a bit overboard.
Ms. Stein suggested that the majority of the business owners are going to feel the same.
Ms. Mann suggested perhaps putting some thought into incentives for those signs that are voluntarily farther off the road.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that there are two standards, one is related to the size of the building and the other is a cap. Do you totally limit the maximum amount of a sign square footage allowed? Signs are traditionally related to the frontage on a public right of way.
But everything is signage, suggested Ms. Mann. Based upon this verbage, none of the shops in Scarborough Faire would be permitted to have signs.
Member Britt said every situation is not the same and cannot be compared as such.
Chairman Forlano suggested that comparing Wings to Scarborough Faire is not possible.
Member March questioned, then how do you calculate Sunset Grille with their big canopy, and the huge sign on the side, along with all of their flags and lights everywhere. How do you regulate something like that?
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that was certainly something to look at.
Member Britt suggested there are other ways to deal with signs like Sunset Grille.
Ms. Mann commented as to perhaps prohibiting billboard style signs. Scarborough Faire on the other hand needs 600 square feet.
Member Britt stated that by putting a limit, you could potentially hurt stores that need it.
Chairman Forlano suggested the Board table the sign discussions so that they can get through some of the remaining agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Planning Board Rules and Procedures
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that there was a draft before the Board, which basically establishes how meetings are conducted and how officers are elected.
Member Jenkins requested that a cut off time be established for submittal of agenda items, and that the Board receive them and the agenda a minimum of five (5) days ahead.
Additionally Chairman Forlano suggested with the Board meeting two times a month that perhaps compensation should be in order much like Council.
Town Manager, Christopher Layton, indicated that the Town was just beginning Budget discussions so he would suggest the Board have staff research what other towns are offering as compensation.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that interestingly their charter allows for compensation if Council so elects for the Board of Adjustments but not for the Planning Board.
Mr. Layton indicated that would require a charter change, which would require that it be made a part of the referendum which could be included at the same time Council pursues the issue.
Councilor Morrison concurred that he too felt that the Planning Board should be compensated for their time.
Member March commented that she is fortunate that Home Depot lets her off for these meetings, but she does lose pay as a result of that time off, and she is not so sure Home Depot will agree to a second day a month.
Chairman Forlano tabled Planning Board Rules and procedures until the next meeting.
B. Zoning Ordinance Review Schedule
Last updated March 3, 2004
Further information from
webmaster@townofduck.com