PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
July 14, 2004
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 7:05 p.m. on Wednesday, July 14, 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.
Members of the public included Kevin Schwartz from the Outer Banks Home Builders Association, Angela Beckman, secretary for the Duck Community Business Alliance and George Keefe, owner of North Beach Outfitters.
Chairman Forlano called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Angela Beckman was recognized to speak and identified herself as the secretary of the DCBA. She explained that the DCBA recently went around to 121 businesses in Duck in an effort to update their mailing list. At the same time they were performing a survey, and asked the businesses what they would like to see the DCBA looking out for. She stated the DCBA did not specifically solicit anything. They received 41 comments which she presented to the Board.
Member Britt indicated he was unaware of any survey and he was not solicited.
Ms. Beckman explained that they either spoke with the business owner or the manager of the business, and she pointed out that one of the overwhelming issues appeared to be regulation.
OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
A. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article I. In General – Discussion and Recommendation (Draft revised 7/9/2004)
Planning Director Cotellessa reminded the Board that Agenda items A-D were final drafts with the hopes of sending recommendations to Town Council for approval. She further explained that Article V, if recommended will be heard at the August meeting of the Town Council as they have requested that this section be fast-tracked.
Ms. Cotellessa noted that the new revisions were shown in red.
The first change occurred on page 2, which removed solar panels from the definition of building height; this was done because they are included later in Article III as part of the five foot rule for architectural features, cupola’s, watch towers, etc.
Member Darnall backtracked slightly to the Bed and Breakfast Inn definition and suggested that the definition be changed to read “...where the bed and breakfast operation is conducted by persons who own and reside on the property...” rather than “within the dwelling unit”. Other members of the Board had no objections.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would make notes regarding the changes as they go through, so that the Board can, if they choose, make a motion to recommend as amended.
Ms. Cotellessa moved on to page 5. The definition of Lot Area was clarified to reflect that for ocean front properties and for the purposes of determining lot coverage, number of bedrooms and building size, the lot area would be calculated from the mean high water mark.
The discussion moved on to Lot Coverage on the same page. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she added peat systems and peat repair areas that back up conventional septic systems to be included in lot coverage as discussed at the last meeting.
Chairman Forlano raised his concern regarding pavers over sand base. He indicated that all of his research indicates that pavers over a sand base will not work. He explained that there are several different levels/bases for pavers and sand is usually the lowest base, but sand alone is not the proper media if you want to properly install the pavers. Chairman Forlano suggested allowing for a stone base as an alternative, or perhaps rephrasing the wording to “pavers and similar materials installed over a pervious base.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that the wording be clarified even further to reflect “installed over a pervious base, not to include clay...”. The Board agreed to these changes.
Ms. Cotellessa noted that the next change occurred on page 10 where she inserted a definition for “personal service establishment”. She explained this is the common definition and with the use of this definition you eliminate the need for “professional”.
On page 15, Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out a few changes under the definition of yard. Specifically, she noted that parking spaces and mechanical units have been added to the items that can encroach the setbacks, but they must be at least 5 feet from the front and side property lines in the case of parking spaces, and 5 feet from the side or rear setbacks in the case of mechanical units.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether walkways would be allowed in the setback. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she would allow walkways in the setback but they can be no closer than 5 feet from the lot line.
The last item in Article I was on page 18. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she removed the parking reference in Section 12. Yard requirements because it was just dealt with.
Chairman Forlano asked the Board and the public whether they had any comments before the moved on.
Kevin Schwartz was recognized to speak. He indicated that while he agrees that peat systems do have impervious aspects, the entire system is not impervious. He would like to see consideration for those pervious areas, and would suggest that only those impervious aspects of the system; i.e. the pods, be counted against lot coverage.
The Board members agreed that only the impervious areas of the peat systems should be counted against lot coverage.
Mr. Schwartz also commented that if the Board was not counting overhangs against lot coverage, then perhaps cantilevers should not be counted either.
The Board members were in agreement that cantilevers are typically usable, livable and quite often heated space, and as such should continue to be included in lot coverage.
With no further comments, Chairman Forlano asked for a motion.
Member Jenkins made a motion that the Planning Board recommend that the Town Council adopt an ordinance to amend Article I. of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Duck as proposed in the draft revisions of 7/9/2004 and as further amended this evening.
Member Britt seconded the motion.
Motion carried 5-0.
B. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article II. District Regulations – Discussion and Recommendation (Draft revised 7/9/2004)
Planning Director Cotellessa noted again that the revisions here were shown in red.
Ms. Cotellessa noted that the first set of changes occur in relation to the vegetated buffer strip where she eliminated the requirement for a ten foot high opaque fence as the Board had previously requested. This change was noted to occur on pages 9, 12, 15 and 22.
Chairman Forlano noted that the ordinance indicates that the vegetated strip must be ten feet in width, but does not specify what that vegetative strip can consist of. It could be simply grass.
Ms. Cotellessa explained that presently, vegetative is not described. As she develops the landscaping/tree ordinance, the Board can come back with several different scenarios to define a vegetative buffer strip. She inquired whether the Board wanted to define the buffer to some extent now with such language as “including plantings at least six feet in height” or something that is fairly generic.
Kevin Schwartz commented that Nags Head requires their buffer strips to be a certain horticultural phenomenon that reaches a certain height within x amount of time.
Planning Director Cotellessa offered additional language such as “vegetative buffer and screening strip.
Vice-Chair Britt and Member March both liked the addition of a screening strip.
Additional wording was clarified to read “…vegetative buffer strip that provides year round screening to adjacent properties.” Ms. Cotellessa further noted that at the present, since there is no vegetative ordinance, this would be fairly subjective and would be left to the discretion of staff until a vegetative ordinance is completed. She indicated that the Board should plan to revisit this particular section of the zoning ordinance once the landscaping ordinance is completed.
Ms. Cotellessa noted on page 13 and 19 that she has changed professional offices to general offices.
On page 15 and 20 she noted that she increased the allowable space for accessory apartments to 50% as opposed to 40% and as requested at the last meeting.
Under Conditional Uses in C-2, she included private commercial recreational facilities such as swimming pools and tennis courts.
In the S-1 district, on page 17, Ms. Cotellessa noted that she simplified the height limitation to 52 feet which corresponds with the abutting RS-2 district.
In conclusion to this section, Planning Director Cotellessa explained that this particular Article is a strong section in term of shaping the future development of the town. She noted the three most important changes have to do with the removal of single family dwelling from the uses permitted in the commercial districts, allowing for the accessory apartments which were not previously allowed and simply tidying up the uses.
Vice-Chair Britt inquired regarding the effects these changes would have on the existing residential properties in the commercial districts if they were to burn down.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that the non-conforming regulations provide for those circumstances.
Chairman Forlano asked how the minimum lot area of 20,000 would impact existing lots that are smaller than 20,000 square feet.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that lots that are less than 20,000 square feet are still buildable if they are already exist; they would simply be nonconforming lots. You would not however be able to create a new lot that is less than 20,000 square feet. There was some discussion regarding the Village Commercial Development Option and its effect in these instances.
Councilor Morrison brought the Board’s attention to page 12 (d)(7) regarding the C-1 District and the maximum size of the buildings permitted under group development. It presently reads “..Group developments shall have a maximum area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet..”.
It was noted that group developments require Conditional Use Permits, and anything over 5,000 must go before Town Council and cannot exceed 10,000 square feet, so the sentence detailed on page 12 (d)(7) was not necessary at all. It was agreed that the second sentence would be deleted on page 12 and again on page 16 (d)(8).
Vice-Chair Britt made a motion that the Planning Board recommend that the Town Council adopt an ordinance to amend Article II. of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Duck as proposed in the draft revisions of 7/9/2004 and as further amended this evening.
Member March seconded the motion.
Motion carried 4-1. Member Jenkins opposed.
C. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article III. Exceptions and Modifications Generally – Discussion and Recommendation (Draft revised 7/9/2004)
As Ms. Beckman was leaving the meeting, Chairman Forlano explained to her that he has specifically kept the Planning Board meetings informal in nature so as to attract and allow the business owners to voice their opinions and comments. Many business members have been attending these meetings and their voice has been heard, and Chairman Forlano requested that Ms. Beckman convey his position to the business community.
Ms. Beckman indicated that she would be following up with the business owners who made these comments to remind them that they can come to these meetings and Council meetings.
Chairman Forlano turned the discussion over to Planning Director Cotellessa.
Ms. Cotellessa began by pointing out on page 1, Section 25.(b) that chimneys, solar panels and similar appurtenances are addressed. She asked at this time whether Chairman Forlano wanted to discuss capital cresting.
Chairman Forlano explained that he presently has under construction a Victorian house which has a flat roof. On the top of the roof, he explained that he is planning to put this architectural feature called capital cresting which is similar to a little iron fence. Chairman Forlano further explained that he would like to see this feature considered as an architectural feature that should not be included in the height regulation.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that her interpretation would be that this type of roof feature would be an architectural feature or similar appurtenance that may extend as much as 5 feet above the height limit for the district, but it cannot go beyond that.
Member Jenkins indicated that he was opposed to capital cresting as an architectural feature. Member Jenkins stated that he sees an architectural feature as something that adds to the strength of the structure itself, and it has to be built according to code. No other members made any objections.
Planning Director noted on page 3 that she removed the reference to a four-fifths (4/5) vote since the matter would not be handled by Town Council.
Member March made a motion that the Planning Board recommend that the Town Council adopt an ordinance to amend Article III. of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Duck as proposed in the draft revisions of 7/9/2004.
Member Darnall seconded the motion.
Motion carried 5-0.
Chairman Forlano adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. for a short break.
D. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article V. Off-street Parking and Loading – Discussion and Recommendation (Draft revised 7/9/2004)
The meeting re-commenced at 8:10 p.m.
Planning Director Cotellessa began with changes on page 2, Section 39 where an increase in septic capacity is noted and would trigger parking requirements. She also noted on the same page that the reference to pavers would be changed to reflect “…open-face paving block over a pervious surface, not to include clay…”.
Chairman Forlano and Vice-Chair Britt both commented on the issue of accessory structures noted on page 1. Neither felt that accessory buildings should affect parking requirements.
Members Darnall, March and Jenkins all indicated that they were fine with the parking requirements for accessory buildings and did not see the need to change any of the wording.
Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out that if you have a special situation where you have an accessory building that does not appear to be affecting the parking, you have the ability under this new code to request an exception before Council.
Member Jenkins stated that he was pleased with the new simpler formula for parking requirements.
Kevin Schwartz commented that the Outer Banks Homebuilders Association was pleased with the changes that the Board has made and plans to recommend approval.
Member Darnall made a motion that the Planning Board recommend that the Town Council adopt an ordinance to amend Article V. of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Duck as proposed in the draft revisions of 7/9/2004 and as further amended this evening.
Member Jenkins seconded the motion.
Motion carried 3-2. Chairman Forlano and Vice-Chair Britt opposed.
E. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article VI. Miscellaneous Regulations – Discussion of Markup (Draft revised 7/12/2004)
Planning Director Cotellessa commented that the correct revision date is shown as 7/12/2004, in comparison to 7/9/2004 as reflected on the agenda. She hoped that the lighting documents she included with the Board packages were helpful.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted a comment on page 1, Section 42.1 (b)(2) connection to community sewerage or water systems operated by a responsible person other than a governmental agency, questioning approval by whom? She indicated that she was looking into this and hopes to have additional information for the Board at the next meeting.
Then she moved onto Section 42.2 Standards for Residential Construction based on Lot Size, and noted that there were some additional comments received regarding wetlands, what should be included in calculating lot size; i.e. mhw marks, CAMA setbacks, etc. There was also a suggestion to limit the number of bedrooms to seven.
Ms. Cotellessa commented that aside from the wetlands on the site, she is not sure that you would really want to limit the size further, other than in the case of oceanfront property that is already measured from the mean high water mark.
She further noted that she has only received comments from two of the Board members so she might suggest simply reviewing this section again with the expectation that the remaining members will be submitting their comments for further discussion at the next meeting.
The discussion moved on to page 3 and recordation standards. Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she has spoke with the Town attorney but she has not yet received an answer regarding his recommendation as to the position the Town should take on this issue. She explained that she has specifically asked the Town attorney whether we can differentiate between lot recordation standards; i.e. soundfront and oceanfront lots and changing sizes due to environmental features versus changes in original lot sizes due to technological advances. Ms. Cotellessa further explained that the determination here would simply affect the number of bedrooms that you can have.
Under the dune provisions there was some discussion about bulkheads, and it was questioned how Wings was allowed to build a bulkhead. Planning Director Cotellessa explained first that Wings obtained a CAMA permit. She also explained that under the sand dune provisions the idea is to maintain a 4 to 1 vertical slope unless it is intended to provide an elevation consistent with adjacent properties. In the case of Wings, the adjacent Osprey Landing center has a much higher elevation and they were also trying to save the big oak tree, which is why CAMA permitted their bulkhead.
There was some discussion regarding the intent of the sand dune provisions and Planning Director Cotellessa seemed to indicate that the intent was lacking in part because the Town does not yet have a storm water management ordinance which would in some respects go hand in hand with the dune provisions.
In Section 44, Ms. Cotellessa eliminated the old sign ordinance and inserted the new ordinance which was just adopted by Council on July 7, 2004.
In Section 45. Dish Antenna, Planning Director Cotellessa noted that she made provisions limiting the requirements for a building permit to satellite dishes that are greater than one meter.
Pages 18 and 19 deal with the lighting standards. Ms. Cotellessa reminded the Board that they had briefly discussed building and outline lighting at the last meeting. Some aspects are festive and charming, but where do you draw the line? She asked that the Board think about this for the next meeting.
On page 22, Section 48. Access to N.C. Highway 12, Ms. Cotellessa simply noted that she had clarified that if your property abuts N.C. 12 and any other public right of way, the property will be accessed on the other public right of way rather than N.C. 12.
Planning Director Cotellessa reminded the Board that Article VII is also due back from the Board with their markups.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. May 26, 2004
Member Darnall made a motion to approve the minutes of May 26, 2004.
Motion carried 5-0.
B. June 11, 2004
Member Jenkins made a motion to approve the minutes of June 11, 2004.
Motion carried 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that with the adoption of the Sign Ordinance and Outdoor Display and Storage staff was working on a brochure highlighting some of the new changes and plans to have an outreach event this fall. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she looks forward to speaking with Angela Beckman to get their updated information so that we can be sure to reach the business community.
She also advised that staff was presently planning another Contractor Q&A meeting to go over the inspection process as well as some problems that seem to be occurring with pools and pool barriers/fences, as well as height regulations. Staff also intends to discuss some of the changes that directly affect them with these zoning changes.
BOARD COMMENTS
Member March advised the Board that she sent an email to both Council and the Planning Board expressing her disappointment with comments made at the most recent Council meeting regarding the Sign Ordinance and the uplighting issue.
Chairman Forlano commented that he was quite upset by the comments from the business community that DCBA provided today. Mr. Forlano noted that most of the comments are negative, and stated that we are obviously not reaching the business community.
Kevin Schwartz commented that the Town of Duck is reaching the business community. He stated that the Town of Duck is doing it better than many of the other local municipalities.
Member Darnall commented that the business owners in Duck have never been regulated and now they are, and they are mad. She indicated it all started with the fire inspections. Then it was the signs. The business owners all feel like they are being hit in their pocketbook and they are simply scared.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that the fire inspections are required by state regulation.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 5-0. The time was 9:00 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman