TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
August 11, 2004
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 7:10 p.m. on Wednesday, August 11, 2004.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, 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. Vice-Chair Jon Britt was not present.
There were no members of the public present.
Chairman Forlano called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
A. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article VI. Miscellaneous Regulations – Discussion (Draft revised 8/3/2004)
Planning Director Cotellessa began the discussion noting that the Board would be discussing the last two sections of the zoning ordinance this evening.
She noted that there was a Board comment/question as to who certifies and/or approves community sewerage or water systems. She indicated that whenever Dare County authorizes a sewer or water system that is not operated by a municipality, they require that the system be operated by an engineer who would report to them every so often. Ms. Cotellessa pointed out that this section is not specific because the authorized person is not always the same type of person.
On page 2, Planning Director Cotellessa directed the Board to Section 43.2 Standards for Residential Construction based on lot size. She mentioned that there was one suggestion to revisit the eight (8) bedroom maximum; others have touched on whether wetlands should be included in lot area. Ms. Cotellessa indicated from her perspective, wetlands are open space, and as such they should be included in lot area.
Chairman Forlano suggested striking the non-wetland soils from the language.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested removing this language for the purpose of further discussion at the next meeting. All members agreed with her suggestion.
All members present agreed to leave the eight (8) bedroom maximum, and Councilor Morrison noted that everyone seemed to be happy with that decision when it was originally made.
Ms. Cotellessa moved the discussion on to Recordation Standards. There were two (2) issues; lots that physically change and lots that change as a result of technological advances and/or errors. She pointed out that the language here is what currently exists in the Town’s code and Dare County’s code.
After discussion among the Board members, Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that perhaps under recordation standards, they should say, “for the purposes of submitting a building permit or for the purposes of building, either new construction or additions, a survey dated within six (6) months of the proposed building must be submitted.” She explained that this is staff policy now, but maybe this should be put it in the code, and from this current survey the lot square footage can be determined.
Member Darnall suggested that this would solve a lot of problems, especially if there is a big hurricane.
All members agreed that this seemed reasonable.
Section (d) regarding non-conforming structures was being deleted because it has expired.
Planning Director Cotellessa moved on to Sand Dune Provisions. She explained that right now this section of the ordinance and the provision does not really say anything. This will become a topic of much discussion as the Town begins to look at issues related to fill and storm water management. She noted that fill and storm water management have become a heated discussion in Kitty Hawk and Nags Head, as they are presently working on these issues. The Town of Duck staff is currently gathering information that will be brought back to the Board for further discussion and consideration on these topics.
It was clarified that presently there are no regulations with regard to fill in the Town of Duck. Additionally, it was noted that storm water issues between adjacent property owners is presently a civil matter. There was some discussion between the members about existing storm water
problems as well as developing issues. Both fill and storm water issues will be on the agenda in the upcoming months.
The discussion got back on track and moved to Dish Antennas. Ms. Cotellessa reminded the Board of Mr. Taylor’s comments several months ago regarding the seemingly burdensome regulations with regard to dish antennas. She noted that she revised the ordinance so that only those dishes over one (1) meter in size will be regulated as outlined in the ordinance.
The next topic of discussion was outdoor lighting. Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out the letter that the Board had before them from Ms. Muncy who owns a home adjacent to Colony by the Sea. Ms. Muncy was simply appalled by the lighting at night.
Aside from the overall dark sky issues, one of the major points of concern was noted to be the outlining of buildings with Christmas lights. Ms. Cotellessa noted that there are several issues here; outlining of signs, structural outlining and outlining of piers, gazebos and docks.
Member Darnall suggested that pier lighting may be regulated by CAMA, and she believes that spotlights are not permitted.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that you are not allowed to have spotlights, but further noted that CAMA’s regulations are not very tight.
Member Darnall indicated that her personal feeling, after seeing the outlining that has occurred thus far is to say no all the way around, otherwise it will get out of control. She did indicate that outlining should be permitted at Christmas time, because it serves as holiday lighting then.
There were some questions as to where you draw the line when you are looking at building lighting versus trees lights.
Member Darnall indicated that anything that would light the water, from an environmental perspective, should be prohibited.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether there would be any kind of amortization period for those that presently have outlining.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted the current language under structure highlighting states “exposed or channel neon, argon, krypton or similar gas tube lighting attached to and outlining a structure or building so as to direct attention to same” . She pointed out that none of these types of lights are Christmas lights. She went on though, noting that structure highlighting continues with “any light source that illuminates a translucent two or three dimensional surface, or object, that is not part of a permitted sign and directs attention to a building or structure.” Under this section, you could say that Christmas lighting directs attention to a building or structure, and it is a light source. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that while she thinks the Christmas outlining is covered under this section, she would like to know whether it is the will of the Town to make a point of enforcing this. She further commented that this will be an enforcement problem. She wants clarification that this is the type of thing the Town wants to address.
Member March indicated that she was against any type of outlining, and it should be enforced.
Member Jenkins indicated that it should be enforced; it’s always been there.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she can interpret the code to include this type of Christmas outlining but it is not clearly obvious in the language.
Member Jenkins indicated the he believed that to be the intent.
Planning Director Cotellessa agreed that she too believed that was the intent, but perhaps it should be clarified. She suggested that the Board include a section 3 to read something like “…the use of string lighting at holiday times is permissible, limited to a sixty (60) day duration..”. Ms. Cotellessa then raised the next question, what is holiday time?
Chairman Forlano suggested that these lights are very low intensity.
Member Jenkins stated that collectively they contribute to light pollution. Mr. Jenkins reiterated his support for Dark Skies.
Member Darnall noted that the bigger the structure the greater the light. Ms. Darnall indicated that she can live with the lights in the trees but she does not like structural highlighting.
Member March commented that structural highlighting never gets turned off.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that the highlighting acts as advertising by using the whole structure as a sign effectively when it’s closed. Ms. Cotellessa asked the Board if she should draft a section 3 that allows structural highlighting for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days between November 15 and January 15. The majority of the Board agreed.
Before moving on Member Jenkins noted that there are some lights in the Duck that should be looked at because they do shine and on drivers as they pass by, posing a glare problem.
The members noted that there are several locations in Duck that are a concern at night. The locations specifically noted were Carolina Designs, Brindley & Brindley, and Stan White.
Chairman Forlano noted that there are two at the Duck Deli that are a problem. Mr. Forlano again asked if there was some sort of amortization schedule that would be implemented with any changes that are made.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that when this lighting ordinance was originally passed, there was an amortization schedule requiring that everything that did not conform would have to be down by May, 2006. She explained that much like with the sign ordinance, staff will initiate an education program to notify business owners and subdivisions regarding the lighting ordinance deadline.
On the topic of signs, Member March inquired about Kitty Hawk Kites.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that they have gone through the permit process for their new sign, and will be removing the old sign and kayaks that are presently in the public easement. It was also noted that we expect they will be submitting permits for Carolina Outdoors next.
Ms. Cotellessa directed the Board back to the last page of Article VI where she noted that she had clarified on corner lots that abut N.C. Highway 12, the curb cut must be on the side street.
Chairman Forlano inquired as to how this will affect the corner lot next to Roadside that the Board expects to hear about in the near future?
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that this language reads “…in a platted community in which the lot is a part…”. Since that corner lot is not a part of the community, the Town could not force them to have their curb cut on the side street.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated she would make the changes as discussed this evening and bring this Article back for final discussion and recommendation at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
B. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article VII. Administration and Enforcement – Introduction and Discussion of Markup (Draft 8/3/2004)
Under the Zoning Administrator, Section 49. there were several suggestions that legal action be instituted only after Town Council approval so Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that it was her intention to make that change.
Under the Building Permits, Section 50. there was a question as to whether a minor alternation has to be approved by the Zoning Administrator if a permit is not needed. She explained that in some cases, even if a permit is not needed, zoning review may be necessary, so she would like to leave this section in. She noted that all building permits go through the zoning administrator to determine that the use, design and layout meet the zoning regulations. She suggested leaving this language in and simply adding “…if applicable.”. Ms. Cotellessa briefly explained a few circumstances where a building permit would not be necessary but where zoning approval would be required.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether this was over burdensome for Ms. Cotellessa and her staff.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that everything has been manageable thus far. She briefly explained how staff processes permits when they come in, and what would and would not require a permit. Some examples were provided.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that she had added some language regarding Conditional Use Permits and would suggest the language be changed to reflect Town Council may approve “after review and recommendation by Planning Board”…
It was clarified however that even if Planning Board does not recommend a conditional use permit, Town Council may still approve it.
Ms. Cotellessa noted that she also added language that lays out the ways in which a conditional use permit can be revoked. This will help in addressing those permittees that are not following the regulations and spells out the process that must be followed in order to revoke such a permit.
The discussion moved on to Temporary Uses, Section 55. A recommendation was made to remove the clause indicating “any such temporary use must be terminated no more than thirty days from the date that eighty percent of the lots or residences within that subdivision are sold.” Planning Director Cotellessa noted that this is presently an issue with the house at the corner of Duck Ridge Village Court. Temporary real estate offices were model homes and they were set up so that the developer could go in, subdivide an area, build a model home and try to sell the rest of the development. These temporary real estate offices were intended to end once 80% of the lots were sold. They were not intended to be model homes selling a product that the developers build up and down the coast. The house at Duck Ridge Village was intended to be a showcase for the developer, and not a means to sell the Duck Ridge Village subdivision lots – they are already sold.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained in the instance of the house at Duck Ridge Village, that they did not meet the criteria for a Temporary Use Conditional Permit. She gave the Board a brief overview of the ongoing issues.
Member Jenkins indicated that since he is involved with the Duck Ridge Village house, he must step out of the chair with his comments. He indicated that this house is attracting a lot of visitors and it is helping business income so there is some benefit to Duck. He stated he would like to see building contracts sold on the lots that have already sold – there are two still available. The quality of work being done can really add to the ambiance and atmosphere that is Duck. Mr. Jenkins stated he would like to see some way to accommodate something that is beneficial to the community.
Planning Director Cotellessa commented that while appreciating the benefits, they also need to
keep sight of the of the fact that this is residential construction; it should not be used as a commercial building, otherwise it should have been built to commercial building standards. It is a single family detached home, and it was sold. Ms. Cotellessa commented that we need to make sure that we are not cheapening the ordinance in what we are doing by dancing around it.
There was some debate as to whether this house/lot was located in the residential or village commercial district.
Planning Director Cotellessa questioned whether the Board wanted to allow for temporary uses without prohibiting the continued use after 80% of the development is sold. This would essentially allow for model homes.
Member Jenkins indicated that they should not be giving out samples, and BD&A is not doing that. He then questioned how the temporary real estate office differs from a home occupation.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that this house is much more commercial in nature. Home occupation also means that someone lives there.
Member Jenkins indicated he thought the language should be changed to say any such temporary use must be terminated no more than thirty days from the date that eighty percent of the lots or residences are built on.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that her recommendation would be to retain the current language with no change to the intent of the ordinance.
On page 3 under the same section, Ms. Cotellessa noted that she did not see the need for section (d) as it did not seem to relate to anything and it is not a use, however Member Jenkins argued that is should be included somewhere. Ms. Cotellessa suggested that she work the language into the initial paragraph “…such additional conditions and safeguards, including design and appearance…”.
Chairman Forlano had questions regarding Certificates of Occupancy, Section 56. He asked if a builder could obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy so he could get paint on the walls and stretch the carpet during the winter months?
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that the builder would need to use a generator until a certificate of occupancy is issued. She explained that this has been discussed with the Department of Insurance in Raleigh. There is no provision for a pre-final in North Carolina Code. It says in black and white that no electric is to be turned on until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
There was some discussion regarding properties that are being occupied without certificates of occupancy. Planning Director Cotellessa explained the penalty right now calls for a misdemeanor and court action. Under Violations and penalties, Section 58. Planning Director Cotellessa has added a section that allows for a civil penalty or a criminal penalty or both. The penalty is $500.00 for each violation, and each day any single violation continues shall be a separate violation.
Chairman Forlano asked whether the Town can assess this amount and whether this has been discussed with Ike.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that this amount is currently being assessed by Nags Head so she believes that the Town can do it as well, however she has not directly talked with Ike regarding the matter. She indicated she would do so before the next meeting. There was some further discussion regarding the procedure and mechanics of enforcing the civil and/or criminal penalties.
Member Jenkins inquired as to when the Board would be discussion a vegetation ordinance in light of the recent clearing of the southernmost lot in Duck.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that vegetation and storm water will be the next topics of discussion after SOB’s.
Moving on to Division 3. Changes and Amendments, there was a question as to whether parties in interest refers to property owners. Ms. Cotellessa explained that parties in interest would refer to property owners in Duck, as well as business owners in Duck, as well as resident and absentee property owners. Anyone that has an interest would have an opportunity to be heard.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. July 14, 2004
Member March made a motion to approve the minutes of July 14, 2004.
Motion carried 4-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that she needed all of their social security numbers in order to begin payments.
She further advised the Board that the parking regulations were passed by Town Council on August 4, 2004 and letters are being sent to affected building permit holders.
She additionally noted that there may be a subdivision action coming up in the near future, and the next meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 10, 2004 at 2:00 p.m.
BOARD COMMENTS
Member Jenkins wanted to go back to the issue of Temporary Uses. He requested clarification on the Board’s feelings on this subject.
It was Planning Director Cotellessa’s feeling that with only one Board member wanting the removal of the 80% language that it would not be removed.
Member Jenkins indicated the he felt the 80% reference should be removed. He further suggested that if this language is to be retained, that it be changed to 80% of lots built out, rather than 80% of lots sold.
Member Darnall suggested the current language remain.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that this she would bring this Article back for further discussion at the next meeting.
Chairman Forlano wanted the Board to be aware that the Mayor had commented at the Council meeting on the 4th in regards to Kevin Schwartz’ compliment that this Planning Board was the hardest working planning board on the Outer Banks, and for that Chairman Forlano wanted to thank the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 4-0. The time was 9:10 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman