TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
MID-MONTH MEETING
April 28, 2004
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 28, 2004.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Vice-Chair Linda Nave, John Jenkins, Marilyn March and Jon Britt. Also present were Neil Morrison, Duck Town Council Liaison, Suzanne Cotellessa, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator, 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
Sam Taylor was recognized to speak. Mr. Taylor wanted to remind the Board of the memo he submitted several months ago with issues and concerns that he had in reviewing the zoning ordinance. He also wanted to impress upon the Board that real people are affected by the zoning ordinance, so there should be good reasoning behind the establishment of the ordinances so as to provide valid explanation and/or basis for them.
Chairman Forlano explained to Mr. Taylor that the Board had only just begun studying and reviewing the zoning ordinance.
OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
A. Discussion/Recommendation of Draft Sign Regulations (Revised 4/23/04)
Planning Director Cotellessa started the discussion with a review of the changes since the April 16, 2004 meeting. She noted on page 11 under 2. Exemptions (g) that the Residential sign limitation was increased from four (4) square feet to ten (10) square feet. She further noted on page 12 under 3. Permanent Signs that Require a Permit (b) business signs, that the explanation on how allowable signage is to be calculated was further clarified pursuant to discussion at the last meeting. Under this same section, (b)(5)(d) on page 14, Ms. Cotellessa noted that she included a minimum of thirty (30) square feet of sign area for any retail business; this section also provides group developments with the ability to distribute their sign allowance among the tenants based upon their aggregate building frontage.
Under section 4. Temporary and Special Event Signs (a)(5), Ms. Cotellessa noted that she reduced the distance that flagpoles must be located from the property line to ten (10) feet.
Lastly, she noted that she included an amortization of three (3) years for roof signs on page 16.
George Keefe was recognized to speak and had a brief question regarding illustrative sign structures on page 7, item 3. Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that sign structures that are illustrative in nature are not meant to be prohibitive; they just need to be included in the calculation of the sign as a whole.
Mr. Keefe also suggested on page 8, under d. Exemptions (3) that seasonal displays should be permitted for a period of 60 days rather than 45 days. This would provide for an adequate amount of time specifically for the Christmas holidays which typically begin during Thanksgiving and run through the New Year. All members of the Board agreed.
Mr. Keefe also raised a question regarding the limitation of one (1) freestanding sign per lot and how that would affect the two (2) signs at the Waterfront Shops.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that under the amnesty Resolution, if the sign was or would have been permitted under the old ordinance, then a permit will be issued; if however, it would not have been permitted, it then becomes a prohibited sign and must come down. The current ordinance which mimicked Dare County’s sign ordinance only allowed for one ground mounted sign per lot so she was unsure why the Waterfront Shops would have been allowed two (2). The proposed ordinance effectively gives a thirty (30) day window to remove an illegal sign; it does not provide for continuity of signs that were not allowable under the old ordinance.
There was some discussion among the Board regarding the possibility of more than one (1) ground mounted sign per lot; however this notion was not pursued.
Lisa Mann from Beach Essentials questioned whether a concession could be made regarding building mounted banners under 4. Temporary and Special Event Signs (b) to permit longer periods during the off season to allow for close out sa
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested if the Board desired to change the wording to read “..with a minimum of fourteen days between banner displays per business during the tourist season from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Such banners may be consecutive displays during the off season, not to exceed the maximum allowable days per year. The Board agreed to change the language as recommended by Planning Director Cotellessa.
Chairman Forlano clarified that they agreed to changes with regard to seasonal displays and banners.
The Board members had some further discussion regarding the amnesty resolution and how enforcement would be addressed during the interim. Additional discussion ensued regarding signs that are found to be prohibited and/or that are not legal. Some members expressed concern regarding the possibility that there may be a lot of illegal or prohibited signs as a result of this ordinance.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that staff will permit everything that is submitted that was legal under the old ordinance. Staff will gather the information regarding those signs that cannot be permitted and bring them back to the Board after about four (4) months. Ms. Cotellessa explained that those people who believe they may have a problem should be gathering their sign information now so that they can be addressed with the Board and Council before enforcement begins.
Member Nave agreed that staff must be able to identify the problems in order to determine how big a problem the Town may be dealing with.
Member Britt indicated that he has no problem with the sign ordinance other than the amortization period due to the cost to the business owners.
After discussion from all of the Board Members, Vice-Chair Nave made a motion to recommend the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Duck, North Carolina regarding signs to Town Council with the two (2) changes regarding off season banners and seasonal displays. This motion is to be recommended concurrent with the resolution establishing a moratorium on zoning enforcement and amnesty program for sign permitting in Duck; said resolution should also indicate that staff will return to the Board within four (4) months with an update regarding signage issues.
Motion carried 5-0.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that this ordinance would go before Council either mid-May or the first meeting in June because it would need to be advertised.
B. Discussion/Recommendation of Draft Outdoor Storage and Display Regulations (Revised 4/23/2004)
Planning Director Cotellessa noted in Section B that she added another section (6) that addresses limited outdoor display, which raised no questions or concerns from the Board.
Ms. Cotellessa then moved on to the sticky issue of trailers. She noted that the Board had before them three (3) options; Option A provides for temporary trailers (3 days at a time no more than 3 times per year); Option B does not allow trailers at all, and; Option C allows for temporary trailers (not to exceed 90 days per calendar year).
John Kotch of Sunset Grille was recognized to speak and introduced Dave Blaha from Sysco Foods. Ms. Blaha explained to the Board that approximately three (3) years ago they did a study and found that it was necessary to deliver to Sunset three (3) times per day, sometimes 5-6 timer per week, which they found to be a safety issue. Mr. Blaha indicated that now they only need to switch out the trailer two (2) times per week. This also allows Sysco to better service the other vendors in the area.
Chairman Forlano asked the Board for their comments.
Vice-Chair Nave indicated that she was ok with the limited outdoor display language in section B., and noted regarding the trailer issue, that Option C was her suggestion to begin with at the last meeting.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that the operational standards for temporary outdoor storage as detailed in section d., may still prohibit Mr. Kotch’s trailer even if Option C. is chosen.
Member Jenkins commented that aside from the nonconformity of the building and the seating issue (as discussed at the last meeting), and the safety issues, he simply has a problem with the expansion of Mr. Kotch’s building through the use of a trailer.
Member Britt stated that he felt it was unfair to try and implement this standard now as the height of the season approaches. He indicated that he wants to delay enforcement. He does not want to speculate on seat counts. He stated the he must lean to Option C even though he knows it does not solve the problem. He wants to see trailers allowed but the operational standards must be met. Member Britt again reiterated that he wants Option C, but he wants enforcement delayed, at least through the end of this season.
Member March stated she wanted Option B, but also agreed that she did not want to see immediate enforcement.
Chairman Forlano indicated he was in favor of Option B. He commented that eliminating the trailer will not curtail business. He stated that John has realized for a while that he needs refrigerated space and he should have addressed the issue. Mr. Forlano indicated he was against the idea of trailers on any site, regardless of the number of deliveries that are necessitated. He stated that we cannot fall back on precedent; they need to make changes that are equal for everyone and for the good of the Town.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained to the Board that like the prohibited signs, these trailers are not currently permitted under our ordinance. They are not a permitted use now, so by recommending this ordinance, the Board is not instituting something new that prohibits them. This ordinance basically clarifies whether their use is or is not permitted and under what circumstances. She further commented that the Board can recommend a moratorium on enforcement but that is a different issue.
Chairman Forlano indicated that he would go along with a moratorium on the enforcement for a summer.
There was a brief discussion regarding the status of the Commercial Moratorium that is presently in effect.
Member Britt made a motion to recommend the Outdoor Storage and Display Regulations to Council, adopting Option C, and that staff draft a resolution placing a moratorium on enforcement for six (6) months.
Motion denied with Chairman Forlano, Member Jenkins and Member March dissenting.
Member March made a motion to adopt Option B along with a resolution placing a moratorium on enforcement for ninety (90) days.
Motion carried 4-1, with Member Britt dissenting.
C. Discussion/Recommendation of Zoning Text Amendment on Errors in Building Location
D. Discussion/Recommendation of Zoning Text Amendment of Setback Encroachments
Planning Director Cotellessa gave a brief overview explaining that these text amendments (C & D) are primarily housekeeping issues that she has been directed by Council to fast track forward. There are two issues;
Agenda Item C. has to do with reduction of minimum yard requirements based upon an error in building location. There have been several instances where people have installed pools and encroached upon the setback line; they have had to cut their concrete to get a CO (Certificate of Compliance). In the past, Dare County would say that’s close enough and sign off. By doing this they created an illegal situation. It was not nonconforming; it was illegal. If there is a genuine error, this zoning text amendment allows the zoning administrator to allow a reduction of up to 10% the setback. This approval process will make illegal buildings legal. If the error is greater than 10% of the setback, the builder and/or property owner would need to correct the problem or request a variance. If the zoning administrator does not feel that there was a genuine error, he/she can refer the matter to the Board of Zoning Adjustments for their interpretation. This zoning text amendment allows for some administrative determination of a fairly minor change. It is also a standard feature in many ordinances. Ms. Cotellessa pointed out that one of the most important aspects of this text amendment is that it allows for a process that will make these buildings legal.
Chairman Forlano made a motion to Recommend Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Duck, North Carolina Regarding Administrative Approval of Errors in Building, Structure, or Site Feature Location.
Motion carried 5-0.
Agenda Item D. has to do with setback encroachments. This has been a subject of controversy with many of the builders. Planning Director Cotellessa referred the Board to an email received from Kevin Schwartz from the Outer Banks Home Builders Association. She mentioned that traditionally in Dare County eaves were allowed to encroach the side and front setbacks although that is not what their ordinance said, nor is it what the Town’s ordinance says. The ordinance says right now that you can encroach on your front setback with an overhang but not on the sides. Most of the other jurisdictions allow the eaves to encroach the side setbacks. Ms. Cotellessa wanted to clarify the ordinance because of some problems that have started surfacing. It was clarified that this would not allow decks and/or porches to encroach the setback, nor would it allow accessory structures to encroach the setback. Dare County would interpret the building setback line as the setbacks for the front and side, however the definition of building setback line is a line parallel to a street, which would only apply to your front setbac
Member Britt made a motion to recommend Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Duck, North Carolina Regarding Building Features Permitted as Exceptions to Setback or Minimum Yard Requirements.
Motion carried 5-0.
E. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article I. In General – Discussion of Mark-up
F. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article II. District Regulations – Discussion of Mark-up
G. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article III. Mark-up due – discussion/work session 5/26
Chairman Forlano tabled Agenda Items E, F and G. until the May 26, 2004 meeting.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that Board that Article III was due to her today, and she needs their mark-ups by the end of the week at the latest.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article V. Off-Street Parking and Loading – Distribution Only…Mark-ups due back on 5/14/2004
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that this section is due back to her on the 14th. She also noted that this section has some of the issues that Mr. Taylor raised.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. March 24, 2004 (Members present on 3/24 to vote)
Member March made a motion to approve the minutes from March 24, 2004.
Motion carried 4-0.
B. April 16, 2004 (Members present on 4/16 to vote)
Member March made a motion to approve the minutes from April 16, 2004.
Motion carried 3-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
BOARD COMMENTS
Member Britt indicated that he would not be present for the meeting on the 14th of May.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 5-0. The time was 8:40 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Chair