TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
June 11, 2004
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 2:05 p.m. on Friday, June 11, 2004.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Vice-Chair Jon Britt, Marilyn March, John Jenkins and Anne Darnall. Also present were Town Council Liaison Neil Morrison, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Suzanne Cotellessa and Administrative Assistant Sandy Cady.
There was no one from the public present.
Chairman Forlano called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
A. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article I. In General – Discussion and Recommendation of Markup (Draft revised 6/4/2004)
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that changes since last meeting were shown in plum, and it was her intent to simply go over those changes.
She noted that there was clarification on where a B&B home can be located, and she added a definition for B&B Inn.
Bedroom equivalent was changed to reflect “as determined by the Dare County Department of Environmental Health…Bedroom equivalents so determined shall count as bedrooms for the purposes of establishing the parking requirements for a residential unit”.
Building Height was clarified and now reads to the “highest point of the structure including railings, shingles, solar panels and similar features”. She noted that cupolas and similar architectural features were removed because they are provided for in a separate section. Ms. Cotellessa also clarified that basements are defined as the lowest story of a building located “completely” below the natural ground level.
Member March, Member Darnall and Member Britt all indicated they were fine with how basement was defined in this context.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted to the Board that much of the alphabetical issues arose because descriptors were uses as the lead word with regard to the child care homes, so she reworded them to work more uniformly.
The definition of family was modified to read “one or more persons operating as a housekeeping unit” for the purposes of this zoning ordinance. All of the Board members agreed this new definition was acceptable.
Ms. Cotellessa moved the conversation on to lot coverage and noted that she added “asphalt or similar” following concrete and she also added “paving blocks, pavers and similar materials installed on a sand base shall be considered 60% impervious for the purposes of lot coverage calculation”. She based this figure on the research information that she provided at the last meeting, and this is also how Nags Head handles pavers. She also noted that she added overhangs to the exclusions from lot coverage. Lastly, she indicated that she did not put this in her draft but she wanted to get the Board’s feelings on peat systems which are becoming more prevalent and which are impermeable. Ms. Cotellessa proposed that the Board include these systems in the list of items included in lot coverage.
It was her recommendation that property owners who have conventional systems with a peat repair system would not be permitted to pre-empt themselves from meeting their lot coverage maximums if it became necessary for the peat system to be activated. If however they have an active peat system and a peat repair, then they would simply be exchanging the two.
Chairman Forlano and Member Jenkins both agreed that peat systems are impervious and should be included in lot coverage, and they further suggested that we need to be specific in the language.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested language such as “proposed peat repair areas shall be counted as lot coverage if they back up a conventional septic system.”
Changes to the zoning ordinance and their effect on existing permits were briefly discussed. Planning Director Cotellessa explained that anyone with an ongoing permit will be allowed to build exactly as they proposed and were approved to build, however they can at anytime alter that to meet current rules. You will always be permitted to meet current rules.
Councilor Morrison noted in the definition of lot coverage that the excluded items should read “shall be excluded” rather than may be.
Planning Director Cotellessa moved the conversation on to page 10 and Non-Conforming Use. She noted that she clarified that “the term non-conforming use shall not be deemed to apply to renovation or expansion of a single family residence where the number of bedrooms permitted in relation to lot size is not increased.” She explained that this clarification gets at the loophole and ambiguity that was addressed at the Board of Adjustment hearing in March.
On pages 11, 12, 13 and 14, she added the sign definitions. Ms. Cotellessa advised the Board that Council was scheduled to review the sign ordinance at their mid-month work session meeting with the expectation of a public hearing at their July regular meeting.
Planning Director Cotellessa directed the Board to page 19, Section 12. Yard Requirements. She indicated that she added “and heating/air conditioning units” may be located within the side yard but no closer than 5 feet from any property line.
B. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article II. District Regulations – Discussion and Recommendation of Markup (Draft revised 6/4/2004)
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that the first new changes appear on page 4, Section 17, where she has revised the intent to include “that promotes orderly” neighborhoods…and “limited” impact of development on the natural environment. She also added short-term rental homes, generally seasonal in nature and staff housing.
Under conditional uses, Ms. Cotellessa noted that she changed the vegetated buffer strip to read ten feet in “width with a minimum ten foot high opaque fence…” Several members of the Board were opposed to the ten foot high fence, and felt comfortable leaving the language to read ten feet in “width”, leaving out the fence detail. Chairman Forlano suggested designating acceptable types of vegetation. Ms. Cotellessa indicated the Board can do that, and she is presently in the process of writing a vegetation/tree ordinance. She suggested that once the vegetative ordinance is complete then the Board can come back and define which types of buffers are appropriate in certain circumstances.
Continuing under conditional uses, (4) Yard and area lighting was revised to “pole-mounted” yard and area lighting and exempts low voltage ground mounted lights less than 24” in height from requiring a conditional use permit.
Moving on to Section 18 – RS-2, she has added the same intent language, permitted uses, conditional uses and yard and area lighting changes as RS-1. She will rework the minimum vegetated buffer strip in this section as well. She noted that she did not change the intent section under R-2, however did include the same language for permitted uses, and conditional uses, again noting that she would revise the vegetated buffer strip language.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted in Section 20. C-1 that she condensed the uses, and added accessory apartments to commercial buildings. She eliminated child care homes with the idea of eliminating residential structures in commercial districts, however she left minor and major home occupations for those that may already exist. The accessory apartments are limited to 40% in space relative to the floor area of the commercial structure to show that they are in fact an accessory structure.
Councilor Morrison suggested increasing the accessory apartment to 50% of the floor area of the commercial structure.
There was some discussion as to what “general” offices and “personal service establishments” refer to. Ms. Cotellessa explained that general could refer to real estate offices, architects, etc. and she has a definition of personal service establishments which she would include in the next draft.
There was some discussion regarding the Land Use Plan and the transitional areas as detailed in the plan. It was explained that the Land Use Plan is a vision and a guide but does not dictate zoning. Quite often a zoning map will be much different than a land use map.
Building size was discussed. Planning Director Cotellessa explained that in the C-1, C-2 and VC districts, she has put in a “by right” number for the size of a building, and then a conditional use number for buildings greater than 5,000 s.f. but less than x s.f., that can be considered by Council through a CUP. In the C-1 and VC district the less than number is 10,000 s.f., and 15,000 s.f. in the C-2 district. She further noted in the C-1 district, that a group development building cannot exceed 10,000 s.f.; however that is based on a conditional use approval as previously detailed. She removed all of the reference to Single Family Dwelling in the C-1 districts as discussed at the last meeting.
In the C-2 district, Ms. Cotellessa noted that she had put professional and medical offices, however to be consistent she would change that to read general and medical offices; she removed all of the specialized permitted uses. She also noted that she put hotels and motels under conditional uses, and allowed for larger buildings, up to 15,000 s.f., pending conditional approval.
It was suggested by Councilor Morrison that swimming pools and tennis courts be included somewhere.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she could add a conditional use for private recreational facilities, such as swimming pools and tennis courts. It was further clarified that this use should be included in the C-1 district.
No changes to S-1 except to the very last section regarding building height, where she simplified the height to be 35 feet, however it was suggested that the height be increased to 52 feet to be consistent with the adjacent RS-2 district.
Under the VC district, Ms. Cotellessa noted that she included churches in the conditional uses rather than by right, and she added B&B Inn to the conditional uses.
C. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article III. Exceptions and Modifications Generally – Discussion of Markup (Draft revised 6/4/2004)
Walls and fences were clarified as discussed last meeting to read, “… no wall other than a retaining wall or bulkhead…”
Under Section 25. Variances as to height limits, (a) and (b) were combined into one. Then the new section (b) was revised to read that the building height limit shall not apply to “chimneys, solar panels, or similar appurtenances which may extend no more than five feet above the district height limit. Further the building height limit shall not apply to” those architectural features known as cupolas… She noted that while flag poles are not specifically indicated, she would treat them the same as a chimney or solar panel, etc.
Additionally, (c) was added indicating that all other variances to height will be heard by Town Council only. Ms. Cotellessa explained that many jurisdictions will leave the height issues to Town Council. Member Britt agreed with leaving the height issues to Council.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that small child care homes should be heard by Town Council also, rather than the Board of Zoning Adjustment, because special exceptions are typically heard by Council. Additionally Board of Adjustment hearings require a minimum of four votes rather than a simple majority as is the case with Council.
Ms. Cotellessa noted that she brought forward the chart/table under the Wireless Telecommunication Systems, and made some minor housekeeping changes with regard to numbering.
Basically, there were only very minor changes up until you get to page 15 under Section 29, where C-1 was added to the zoning districts where group developments would be allowed.
D. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article V. Off-street Parking and Loading – Discussion of Markup (Draft revised 6/4/2004)
Planning Director Cotellessa began on page 2; Section 39 where she noted that any changes to parking and driveways after a Certificate of Occupancy have been issued would be subject to Town review and a land disturbance permit.
Chairman Forlano backtracked to page 1 and reiterated his feelings from the last meeting where he expressed that he did not feel that accessory buildings should have an impact on parking requirements for commercial structures.
Member Britt again agreed with Chairman Forlano.
Member Darnall explained that if the Duck Deli was originally permitted based upon so many square feet, and then they decide to create a storage building to house their paper products; the area that was previously designated for paper products can now be used for seating, thus the basis for counting accessory structures in the equation.
Planning Director Cotellessa gave several different examples and explained that by taking accessory structures out of the parking equation, you will be encouraging accessory buildings on a lot as opposed to building the necessary storage space.
Member Britt questioned what the parking requirement for storage were and suggested that perhaps accessory buildings should impact parking more like storage areas would.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would look at this issue and see if she can come up with a reasonable standard. Before moving on, Ms. Cotellessa also pointed out on page one that fractions of a space would round to the “nearest” whole number.
On page 3, Ms. Cotellessa revised the wording for parking spaces to reflect that they need to be “improved” rather than paved. The following page specifies that drive aisles shall be improved rather than constructed of an impervious surface. She also added that the drive aisle shall be provided to facilitate emergency vehicle access...from the street to the front of the dwelling unit, “unless access to the driveway is provided from the house by a similarly improved walkway.”
Several of the Board members and Councilor Morrison were pleased with this language.
Further down, Ms. Cotellessa noted that “under-house parking spaces may be stacked and blocked in by no more than one parking space located at the end of the drive aisle closest to the structure.” The idea here is that emergency vehicles can still get to the house. All other parking spaces must allow unimpeded access; they cannot be stacked and must be independently accessible.
Councilor Morrison expressed concern that some under house driveways/garages may only be 18 feet.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that if you are going to allow some substandard parking, then why not allow all. She suggested if a contractor or owner has an odd situation and they cannot provide parking elsewhere, then they can always apply for a variance. As a general rule, she suggests keeping one size for the parking spaces, but it is the Board’s decision.
She moved on to Page 5 which deals primarily with commercial parking lots. She noted that the parking spaces were not defined here because they are defined in the general section. She noted that surfacing was revised to include “improved with asphalt, concrete, pavers, porous pavement or similar” dust proof surface. She noted that she did not include gravel because gravel kicks up dust.
Chairman Forlano questioned how Swan Cove’s unimproved parking would be affected.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated that Swan Cove would be nonconforming; however they may be grandfathered if they got approval for their parking.
On page 7, Ms. Cotellessa added a clause that would allow for parking across NC12 provided there is a pedestrian crosswalk and the parking is within 350 feet of the main entrance.
The discussion moved on to residential parking requirements. Planning Director Cotellessa spelled out the equation for the number of required spaces, which basically equates to N, except in the case where Dare County Health approves septic for 5 bedrooms, sleeping 14; in this circumstance, then the number of parking spaces would be 7 rather than 5. This, simplified, means the number of occupants divided by two equals the number of required parking spaces.
Member Britt and Member Darnall asked if the formula could be simplified to read the authorized septic capacity divided by 2 equals the number of required parking spaces.
Member Jenkins questioned whether this parking requirement applied to rental homes only and Ms. Cotellessa explained that this applies to all homes; however there is a parking deferral for non-rental homes. You still need to be able to show the parking but you are not required to install all of the parking if the property is not a rental.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained to the Board that Town Council and the public are extremely interested in this particular section of the ordinance, and she would like to propose that this Article go for formal Planning Board recommendation at the July meeting so it can then go on to Town Council. She thinks that when she brings it forward in its final form at the next meeting, that the Board should be ready to vote on it.
There was no other discussion.
Chairman Forlano clarified that this Article V would be brought forward at the July meeting for a final recommendation.
E. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article VI. Miscellaneous Regulations – Introduction of Markup (to be distributed at meeting)
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that this section was provided to the Board at their place today, and she only intends to introduce this Article. She noted that she only has one markup and possibly one other along with her notes on this article.
She noted that she made some housekeeping changes with regard to numbering. Then she moved onto Section 42.2 Standards for Residential Construction based on Lot Size, and noted that there was a comment that wetlands should be included in this calculation provided all of the necessary requirements are met, but you still cannot build in the wetlands. This would deal primarily with sound front property.
Member Jenkins brought up oceanfront lots and how they are calculated.
Ms. Cotellessa explained that there has always been a question as to whether the property line is calculated from the mean high water mark or the first line of stable vegetation. This is an interpretation question and there is no reference to it in our ordinance. State law says that everything forward of the mean high water mark is public, everything behind is private, so she has been taking the mean high water mark as the lot line. CAMA, she believes, measures back from the first line of stable vegetation. She has not had any issues with setbacks on oceanfront lots because CAMA’s setbacks are pretty substantial, so our 25 foot rear setback is mostly irrelevant.
Chairman Forlano asked for some clarification on wetlands, and how most of the west side of the commercial district was able to be built on wetlands. Both Member Darnall and Planning Director Cotellessa explained that to build on wetlands both Corps of Engineers and CAMA must have approved. Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that CAMA has told her repeatedly that their mission is NOT environmental protection or to stop any form of development. Their mission is to facilitate development as long as it is in accordance with the regulations.
The discussion moved on to Recordation Standards. Planning Director Cotellessa gave the Board some background on a situation that just recently arose where she received a current survey which shows a smaller lot size that what was originally recorded 20 years ago by the same surveyor. The property owner has been paying taxes on what he thought was a 10,001 s.f. lot when in actuality his lot is only ~ 9990 s.f. Now he wants to put a 5 bedroom house on his lot, but now his survey shows that he does not have a big enough lot to do that.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she agreed that lot s.f. should be based upon current surveys due to erosion on ocean and sound front properties, but the Town attorney recommendation in the situation she just mentioned was to go with the lot of record. Ms. Cotellessa suggested possibly making a distinction.
Member Britt expressed concern in changing this section due to the potential tax base loss and stated this is how it has always been.
Councilor Morrison indicated that it made sense to him to use a current survey but if Ike said not to, then he must have good reason.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would speak with Ike some more and come back with some recommendation at the next meeting.
The discussion moved on and Ms. Cotellessa noted the old sign ordinance has been deleted and the new draft ordinance has been inserted. The next section of discussion was Section 45. Dish Antenna. Planning Director Cotellessa noted that she made some changes to get at the issue that Mr. Taylor had raised with respect to the installation of dish antennas and the size requirements that would pre-empt the need for a building permit.
Under Section 46 with respect to lighting, Planning Director Cotellessa explained she has not really made any changes but she did want to find out how the Board wants to deal with building outlining. Do they want to prevent or prohibit? She thinks the Board needs to be specific here. Under the current ordinance as it reads, she does not see building outlining as allowed or permitted.
Member Britt suggested that it needs to be low level with no chasing or flashing features.
Ms. Cotellessa asked about rope lighting?
Member Britt expressed concern that we are opening a door that we don’t want to open.
Member Jenkins indicated he was opposed to building outlining. He wants to see dark sky and questions where you draw the line?
Member March indicated that she personally does not like the building outlining.
Planning Director Cotellessa asked the Board to think about this and she indicated she would bring back some information on lighting for the Board. She stated that she has two really good documents on lighting.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article VII. Administration and Enforcement Division 1. Generally – Distribution Only…Markups due back on 7/9/2004
B. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article VII. Board of Adjustment Division 2. Generally – Distribution Only…Markups due back on 7/9/2004
C. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article VII. Changes and Amendments Division 3. Generally – Distribution Only…Markups due back on 7/9/2004
Article VII, Division 1, 2 and 3 are due back with markups by July 9, 2004.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. April 28, 2004
Member March made a motion to approve the minutes of April 28, 2004.
Motion carried 4-0.
B. May 14, 2004
Member March made a motion to approve the minutes of May 14, 2004.
Motion carried 4-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested canceling the Mid-Month work session meetings for June, July and August due to vacation schedules, traffic, parking, etc.
She would also suggest that at the July meeting that she bring forward Articles I, II, III and V for final review and recommendation to Town Council. Then at the August meeting, she would recommend bringing forward Article VI and VII for review and potential recommendation.
Several members of the Board felt that evening meetings during the summer months might prove more worthwhile and hopefully draw some of the community to attend. Additionally several members indicated conflicts with the regularly scheduled meetings in July and August.
It was decided that the Mid-Month work sessions for June, July and August would be canceled and the regularly scheduled meetings for July and August would be rescheduled and held on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 and Wednesday, August 11, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., respectively. The cancellations and changes would be sent to the sunshine list and advertised in the newspaper and on the website, with regularly scheduled meetings resuming on September 10, 2004. Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would send reminders to the Board as well.
She noted that once the Ordinance Review is complete, there will be some other things coming forward; the commercial development guidelines will be percolating over the next few months which may require a joint meeting between the Planning Board and Town Council. Some other things that may be coming up would be the tree and vegetation ordinance and the storm water management ordinance.
BOARD COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 4-0. The time was 4:15 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman