TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
MID-MONTH MEETING
February 25, 2004
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 25, 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 6:30 p.m. and opened the meeting for public comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments were offered.
OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
A. Discussion of Nonconforming Properties:
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that pursuant to the minor changes discussed at the last meeting, the Board had before them a final draft of the nonconforming regulations. If the Board approved these regulations, they would be sent to Council for discussion at the March meeting, and then a public hearing would be held at the April meeting.
Ms. Cotellessa further indicated that she received a call from Kevin Schwartz representing the Outer Banks Home Builders Association and the Outer Banks Association of Realtors. He stated that he was unable to attend the meeting this evening; however he indicated that he was comfortable with the language as it presently exists, and his organizations would support a recommendation to Council for approval.
Don Dillon was recognized to speak and had a brief question regarding Section 33(e)2 dealing with potential relocations of nonconforming structure in order to meet parking requirements to the extent possible.
It was clarified by both Planning Director Cotellessa and Member Britt that this section deals with the “reconstruction” of a nonconforming property, and not necessarily the repair of that structure.
Member Nave made a motion to recommend the nonconforming regulations as drafted on February 20, 2004 to Town Council.
Member March seconded the motion.
Motion approved 5-0.
B. Discussion of Draft Sign Regulations
Chairman Forlano opened the discussion noting that this was only the second time discussing sign regulations. He noted from looking at the ordinance schedule for the Board, that this topic would be discussed again at the meetings in March with the hope of sending a draft to Council in April.
Member Jenkins noted that the draft minutes incorrectly indicated that he suggested limiting the amount of roof sign coverage to 25%, when in fact he suggested limiting the amount of coverage to x% of the roof area. He stated that he did not place a percentage on the amount because he wanted to hear some input on some numbers.
Planning Director Cotellessa recapped the discussion of the Board from their February 13, 2004 meeting. The major points from the last meeting included the following:
1) It was decided at the last meeting that a clearer definition of a roof sign needed to be made as expressed by both the Board and the public;
2) Amortization was discussed; allowing a time limit for people to deal with their nonconforming signs, and for un-permitted signs;
3) The economic value of signs were discussed, and their depreciation and amortization over time;
4) Lighting was discussed as a major concern;
5) Public safety and sightlines were discussed as a major concern;
6) Issues resulting from the installation of the Duck Trail, that were not fault of the sign owners, should be addressed;
7) Wind wheels, flags and items displayed outdoors and how they should be treated were discussed;
8) There was a discussion of what percentage of a roof should be covered with signage, and about the various features of a roof line;
9) Pedestrian versus auto oriented features of signage were discussed;
10) Window signage, window displays and stickers were discussed;
11) Lighting in relation to residential districts was discussed; the Board consensus was to focus on the type of lighting and not on preventing lighting completely;
12) Abandoned signs were discussed and it was agreed that they should be removed in 30 days versus 60 days as noted in the draft;
13) Under exemptions it was discussed that signs posted under the direction of an official should include handicap signs;
14) Indoor signs other than window signs were discussed;
15) Under prohibited signs, (#1) signs shall not protrude into a public right of way was to be clarified as a vehicular passageway;
16) Signs on Vehicles were discussed and it was discussed that the Planning Director would provide the Board with more detail regarding Nags Head’s experience;
17) The types of roof signs that would be prohibited were discussed;
18) Pennants were discussed;
19) Sign re-facing was discussed briefly.
Chairman Forlano suggested completing the remaining pages of the ordinance, beginning with Section f. 1. Sign permit and Building permit.
Member Britt questioned whether this would be the place to allow for those business owners without permits to get permits?
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that Council can allow for that through a policy statement. She suggested that you would not necessarily incorporate that into an ordinance. She indicated that she can draft some kind of proposed policy.
Chairman Forlano clarified that re-facing does not include repainting a sign.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that it does not mean repainting it as it presently exists to maintain it; however if you are changing it in any way, then you would need a permit.
2. Exemptions from Permits.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that under section (p) as a resident hosting a party, you are allowed to fly balloons from your mailbox, but a real estate agent would not be allowed to fly balloons or flags from their “for sale” or “open house” sign.
Joe Southern from Ocean Atlantic Rentals was recognized to speak. He suggested that perhaps the Board might consider provisions for more than one sign for the rental properties that sit off the street in wooded areas to help make them more identifiable, particularly with regard to house numbers.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that Mr. Southern’s comment was a critical issue, and the Town and the Fire Department are already looking into to uniform addressing plans.
No further discussion was offered regarding signs exempt from permits.
3. Permanent Signs that Require a Permit.
Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out that she misspoke at the last meeting regarding the amount of signage permitted under the current code. She noted that she corrected this in the minutes but wanted to bring it to the attention of the Board that the current code only allows for three (3) square feet of lineal frontage, not six (6) as she previously indicated. Therefore, the draft proposes going from three (3) square feet to two (2) square feet per lineal foot of frontage. She indicated that staff plans to survey 3-4 sites in order to provide the Board with some idea as to what kind of signage exists.
Lisa Mann was recognized and spoke to the neon sign regulations. She noted that Fishbones Restaurant has a neon sign in every window; however it’s not flashing, it’s not obnoxious, etc. Ms. Mann questioned whether there was a particular reason for limiting neon to one (1) per occupancy?
Member Jenkins was opposed to too much neon but was unsure how to control it.
Joe Southern indicated that his business needs the neon lights. His business sits far off the road and his neon lights are a major form of advertising. While he believes that there needs to be regulation, he thinks that there should be a happy medium.
Chairman Forlano suggested including the neon signs as a part of the wall surface total.
Ed Brooks was recognized to speak, and indicated he previously owned Tommy’s Market. As a previous business owner in Duck, he too felt that the neon signs are an important advertising tool to let people know what you do and/or have at your business. Mr. Brooks however, when questioned by Chairman Forlano, also indicated that he felt regulation was necessary.
Chairman Forlano suggested that Planning Director Cotellessa work on the wording to see if we can accommodate something more than a blanket statement of one per occupancy.
Member March mentioned perhaps turning the neon lights off when the store is closed, which Member Britt argued went back to the discussion from last meeting regarding the rental company and subdivision signs. Member Britt also noted that trying to enforce time restrictions would impossible.
Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out that Mr. Southern’s neon lights, as he indicated, take up approximately 40% of his window, which would exceed the 25% maximum window coverage under this draft. Ms. Cotellessa brought up calculating the maximum coverage based upon your aggregate window amount, rather than each individual window.
Ms. Mann offered her support for calculating your maximum window coverage based upon the total amount of windows rather than individual windows.
Member Jenkins indicated that limiting the lighting based upon hours of operation is appealing to him due to the increasing light pollution and loss of dark skies. There is a fair amount of light glare at night.
Chairman Forlano suggested shutting the neon lights off when businesses close.
Joe Southern suggested that there is a fairness issue if you require businesses to shut off their lights when they close, because not all businesses close at the same time.
Chairman Forlano indicated that he agreed that a lot of advertising is done in the night hours with lit signs; however the Board needs to look at the issue of light pollution.
Ms. Mann suggested that the neon lights are not the cause of the majority of light pollution. She further commented that after the backlit signs are removed and replaced with down lit and shielded lighting that you will eliminate a large amount of the night glare.
Chairman Forlano commented that Ms. Mann had a point.
Member Jenkins indicated that he was speaking of sky glare, and not necessarily neon lights particularly.
Mr. Southern commented that the types of lighting play a large part in the light pollution and glare. Specifically, he noted several of the shops’ parking lot lights in Duck.
Member Britt stated that lighting was being addressed with the commercial development guidelines.
4. Temporary and Special Event Signs, Section a. Flags
Chairman Forlano began the discussion regarding flags, specifically referencing #3, Sails, sailboards, kites, etc.
Member Jenkins asked about kayaks that are mounted to the sides of buildings with lights in them.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that they would be considered signs. She indicated that this section regarding flags is similar to Dare County’s new regulations regarding flags.
Member Britt indicated that he felt that kayaks and bikes should be allowed but they need to be in racks, not leaning against a building or screwed to a tree. Member Britt also stated that he was pro-flag, and that the present draft ordinance is too restrictive, however one of the problems with flags is that they get too tattered, and that needs to be controlled.
Member March asked for clarification regarding the prohibition of roof top flags, such as those at Sunset Grill.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that flags do need to meet height and setback restrictions.
Ms. Mann commented that the way the ordinance is presently worded, anything that moves in the wind is considered a flag. Limiting businesses to only 6 flags per 100 square feet is extremely restrictive. She further noted that she sells windsocks, and windsocks do not sell unless they are blowing in the wind.
Chairman Forlano confirmed with Member Britt that he was in favor of flags, and Member Britt concurred.
Member Jenkins indicated that he did not have any problems with flags, but he did not care for flags that look more like sails in the wind.
Member March indicated that she does not have a problem with flags, but she does have a problem with them when they are not maintained. She stated there is a lot of that in Duck. She also indicated that she was not fond of huge flying objects, such at a pig at the top of a flagpole. She felt that there should be language regarding the maintenance and size of flags.
Member Nave stated that she did not have a problem with flags either, and she was unsure how you control the tattered looking flags.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that the question remains whether you limit the amount of flags or can there be thirty (30) flags.
Member Britt suggested that the issue really stems from the flags along the immediate roadside. He stated that the flags and windsocks on the existing buildings and decks is too restrictive and suggested separating the two.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested looking at a certain number of ground mounted flags/flagpoles/sails, etc on the road frontage, and then eliminating the whirly gig/windsock type of items that are non-descriptive that are attached to the building, if that building itself is set back a sufficient distance from the road.
Chairman Forlano noted that many of the flags and banners disappear in the off season.
Chairman Forlano suggested that Planning Director Cotellessa work on flags to see if they can accommodate allowing flags and twirling windsocks.
Member Britt suggested allowing one (1) per so many feet.
Section b. Building-mounted banners
Chairman Forlano noted that the way this section reads, it allows for temporary banners all summer which is too much.
Planning Director Cotellessa agreed with Chairman Forlano and suggested that they add a period of down time to differentiate between events.
Chairman Forlano indicated that he felt the down period should be substantial.
Lisa Mann commented that the majority of events that are going to occur happen between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
There was some discussion regarding the maximum size of the temporary sign.
Planning Director Cotellessa commented that under the present ordinance, business owners are not permitted to have temporary signs at all. We are trying to give the business owners something extra that would allow events for a certain duration with some down time in between.
Several members of the public offered suggestions as to the amount of time that the Board should consider allowing for the temporary permits.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested changing the ordinance to 10 days for temporary signs with a minimum of fourteen days between events, and allowing 6 events per year.
George Keefe of North Beach Outfitters was recognized to speak, and indicated he would even be comfortable with something as limited as seven (7) days, due to the typical transitory period.
Ms. Mann stated that she felt ten (10) days or two (2) weeks should be enough.
Planning Director Cotellessa mentioned that procedure would require the business owner list the dates on which the banner would be displayed in order to obtain their permit. The town would also require a deposit in the event the banner is not removed, and this would be cumulative so that we can track the number of events a business owner has had. She further noted that the fee would be nominal.
Section c. Political Signs
Councilor Morrison questioned why it was decided that there would be a permit requirement for political signage.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that most jurisdictions require a permit for political signs with a nominal fee. Most jurisdictions require a deposit to guarantee the signs will be removed once the event is over. She further commented that this is a very standard way of controlling the quantity, the timing and mostly the removal of the signs.
Councilor Morrison stated that he did not have any objections.
5. Nonconforming Signs
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that the amortization table was taken from Dare County’s regulations. She noted that the free –standing signs were allowed a longer amount of time due to their perceived value being typically greater than wall signs.
Chairman Forlano inquired where signs in the right of way or those that pose safety issues would fall.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that signs within the line of sight are illegal and need to be moved back, and that would remain the case with this language.
There were no further comments regarding the remaining sign ordinance and Chairman Forlano suggested a short break.
C. Discussion of Draft Outdoor Storage and Display Regulations
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that this draft ordinance regulates the ability to display outdoors, store outdoors and sell outdoors various types of goods. It deals with sidewalk and tents sales; it deals with storage; and it provides operational standards for doing each of these things. This addresses retail stores that have some kind of outdoor equipment; i.e. kayaks, bikes, things that you would normally find outdoors anyway.
Terry Ziegler from La Rive Boutique was recognized to speak. He noted that all of the sections of this ordinance make reference that “.. proposed display, storage, and/or sale area shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic.”. Mr. Ziegler questioned who is going to define impede, under what standard and then how will you enforce it.
Planning Director Cotellessa answered Mr. Ziegler in two parts. First she noted that most of the items impeding pedestrian traffic at his store location are not what she would consider to be “outdoor display” and would not be permitted under the operational standards of section a. They are indoor items that would only be allowed on a temporary basis. Second, as to whether the items are impeding pedestrian traffic, the Americans with Disabilities Act is a valid gage, but she indicated that she did not think that needed to be specified in the language.
She further commented that it was not her intent to make this a permitting process. That was the idea behind detailing “operational standards”, and not setting a time limit on outdoor storage.
George Keefe questioned, in reference to section a. and parking spaces, whether Ms. Cotellessa implied that if there are excess parking spaces your event would be permitted, but if there were no excess parking then it would not be allowed.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that if you have a location with excess parking available a tent sale may be permissible.
Mr. Keefe clarified that under these circumstances, he would only be allowed to have tent sales on Saturday, Sunday or a federal holiday.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated or when there is excess parking available.
Mr. Keefe indicated that he would find that objectionable. He further noted that his staff typically parks behind Tommie’s Market during the summer time, but even then parking is inadequate during the peak summer months, and this is especially noticeable when they have their tent sales.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that his tent sales would not be permitted if he was using necessary parking spaces that could not be displaced elsewhere.
Mr. Keefe commented that the fact that they have been doing this for ten (10) years has no effect.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that these are regulations that the Town is considering right now. Tent sales have not been permitted in the past, and we are trying to make provisions for them, provided details like parking are attended to.
Chairman Forlano agreed that when there are tent sales, there is simply not enough parking. Mr. Forlano questioned whether the Board wants let it continue as it has been or do they want to eliminate them.
Mr. Ziegler indicated that there has to be some regulation, even for those events that are “tradition”, and especially if they adversely affect other businesses.
Chairman Forlano again questioned whether we want to eliminate tent sales across the board? It‘s part of Duck.
Lisa Mann commented that Wee Winks has an agreement with the Church, since they have no parking, allowing their parishioners to park at Wee Winks. She suggested that this may work for Mr. Keefe.
Member Britt agreed with Ms. Mann, stating that if you can provide an option to replace parking spaces, then the event should be allowed. He indicated that he is sympathetic to Mr. Keefe’s situation, but also noted that Dare County wanted to shut it down seven (7) years ago.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that there are ways to deal with the parking issue, there is a synergy of uses that lends itself to some creativity.
Chairman Forlano suggested that the business community needs to get together and coordinate sidewalk sales and/or tent sales.
Member Britt indicated that the parking issue with tent sales is a problem. He further stated he would not feel comfortable grandfathering the tent sales.
Mr. Keefe indicated that he also has a problem with section b. limiting the sale to 4 times a year as he presently has his sale 6-7 times a year.
Chairman Forlano suggested that Mr. Keefe’s use of the outdoor space for tent sales has, in essence, created another auxiliary business location.
Mr. Ziegler commented that people are using tent sales in the parking lots, in essence expanding the size of their store or creating another location. He stated that we need to bring the merchandising and selling of product back into the approved store location. When you start to have a special event outside the boundaries of your store, 6, 8, 10 times a year, you have created a new location without the regulation.
Member Britt indicated that he likes the way the ordinance is presently worded with regard to tent sales.
Chairman Forlano suggested revisiting this topic.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that section c. deals with fruit stands, pumpkins stands, etc.; where they can be, what their limitations are with respect to the structures, the kind of goods they sell, how long they can be there and their limitations with regard to parking. She further indicated that there are very few places in town that can accommodate these types of stands.
There was some clarification regarding the difference between the sale of produce goods and holiday goods versus peddler permits.
Member Britt stated that he does not want to see outside merchants coming in to make a quick buck so he thinks this section needs to be very restrictive.
Chairman Forlano moved the discussion on to section d. referencing standards for the temporary outdoor storage of crates, trailers and similar storage units.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated a prime example of this would be the rear end of the 18 wheeler that sat in front of Sunset Grille all season. It was refrigerated and stored their extra refrigerated items in their loading dock.
Member Britt stated that we have to be consistent. He stated that allowing a back up trailer to store food is allowing a restaurant to be bigger, and that is wrong. Chairman Forlano agreed with Member Britt.
Chairman Forlano stated that he felt temporary should be very limited, for perhaps a two (2) day period. Mr. Forlano noted that Tommie’s Market saw it being done, so they had one put in the loading area, and he thought that Jerry Davis had one also.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that she was sensing a zoning text amendment as well as enforcement activity.
Chairman Forlano commented that the big issue with outdoor storage and display appears to be the tent sales.
Member Jenkins stated that, as he recalled the discussion, tent sales were expanding the business location which was not acceptable.
Chairman Forlano indicated that was what he said originally, but he thinks that they really need to put some thought into that tent sale without hurting anyone.
Member Britt indicated that he felt the ordinance was written well with regard to tent sales. He feels that we need to be strict, but feels the ordinance is written with enough flexibility to allow for tent sales if there is enough parking.
Chairman Forlano stated that he had mixed emotions on it and would like to think about it further.
Chairman Forlano asked that Planning Director Cotellessa address the storage issue.
D. Discussion of Village Commercial Development Option Regulations
Chairman Forlano tabled this discussion due to time constraints.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Draft Planning Board Rules and Procedures
Member Britt made a motion to adopt in draft form the Town of Duck Planning Board Bylaws subject to approval of the Town Council.
Motion carried 5-0.
B. Zoning Ordinance Review Schedule (Revised 2/20/2004)
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested this would be a guide to help keep the Board on track as they go through the ordinances.
C. Commercial Development Checklist
Planning Director Cotellessa noted Council has this form as well. She is looking for the Planning Board’s comments back to her before the next meeting.
D. Discussion of Possible Date Change for regular April meeting
Due to a conflict with the previously scheduled meeting date of April 12, 2004 (which replaced the regularly scheduled meeting for April 9th ), the Board agreed to hold their regularly scheduled meeting date in April on the following Friday, April 16, 2004 at 2:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes were approved pending correction of Mr. Jenkins statement on page 11 to reflect that he suggested limiting the amount of coverage to x% of the roof area, rather than 25% and stated in the draft minutes.
Member Britt moved to approve the minutes from February 13 , 2004.
Motion carried 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Land Use Plan Review
Planning Director indicated that the Board has copies of the Draft Land Use Plan and she would like to have the Board’s comments by the end of March, because it will be presented to the community in early April.
B. Planning Board Compensation Survey
The Board was in agreement that they would like to be considered for compensation in the Town Council’s review process.
Councilor Morrison indicated that the Council has formed a two (2) person committee consisting of him and Monica Thibodeau to study the compensation issue. He indicated that they would incorporate the Planning Board and the Board of Adjustments in their deliberations.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
BOARD COMMENTS
Chairman Forlano noted that he read in the Bylaws that the Planning Board has the option of forming a committee, and he was thinking that maybe a committee of business people to study their issues as they relate to the Board may be helpful
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that the Bylaws refer to a sub-committee of the actual Board. But she further indicated that there is nothing to prevent the Board from asking a committee to feed directly into them and work with them in a work session.
Member Britt indicated that he will probably not be available for the March 12, 2004 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 5-0. The time was 9:20 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Chair
Last updated March 19, 2004
Further information from
webmaster@townofduck.com