TOWN OF DUCK

PLANNING BOARD

REGULAR MEETING

September 10, 2004

 

 

The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, September 10, 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. 

 

Kevin Schwartz representing the Outer Banks Home Builders Association and a representative from BD&A was also present for the meeting.

 

Chairman Forlano called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

None.

 

OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

 

A. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article VI. Miscellaneous Regulations – Discussion and Recommendation (Draft revised 9/3/2004)

 

Planning Director Cotellessa began the discussion noting that the latest revisions were marked in orange.   On page 2, under Standards for Residential Construction Based on Lot Size, Ms. Cotellessa pointed out that she removed “non-wetland soils as verified by the United States Army Corps of Engineers” from numbers 1 through 5.    She also noted that she left the eight (8) bedroom maximum as it was.

 

The members of the Board made no objection to the non-wetland soil change or the eight (8) bedroom issue.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa moved the discussion on to Recordation Standards.  She indicated to the Board that what she has added to this section is simply an articulation of what has been a long standing administrative policy to require building permits or land disturbance permits to be supported by surveys that have been taken within six (6) months of the application.  The lot as shown on that survey is what staff would use to determine lot coverage calculations and the number of bedrooms permitted.  

 

Section (d) on page 3 was deleted because it was an expired subsection. 

 

The next set of changes occurred on page 16 dealing with lighting.  Ms. Cotellessa noted under section (c) (2) that an additional clause was added “or that interfere with driver’s vision” as discussed at the last meeting. 

 

Additional language was also added to structural highlighting pursuant to discussions at the last meeting.  A time frame relative to the winter holiday seasons was included to allow for structural highlighting; more specifically “…temporary holiday lighting is permitted to outline buildings for a total of no more than sixty (60) days between November 15 and January 15, provided that individual lamps are 10 watts or less.”   Ms. Cotellessa indicated that based upon her research, the international lighting society recommends 10 watts or less, and most Christmas bulbs are 7 watts, which helps to make it clear that you are talking about decorative lighting versus flood/spot lighting.

 

Councilor Morrison questioned whether Sunset was an example of structural highlighting. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa indicated she would consider Sunset to be structurally highlighted. 

 

Chairman Forlano inquired as to the difference between structural highlighting and illuminating a structure with ground flood lights.  What is the difference between the two?

 

Planning Director Cotellessa directed the Board to page 17 which speaks to Architectural and Interior Lighting (b) “Floodlights may be utilized to up light opaque wall surfaces from the ground.”    She suggested that perhaps “outlining” is a better choice of words rather than highlighting.    She then directed the Board to the definition of Structural Highlighting.  Ms. Cotellessa indicated that the Board can change the definition to Structural Outlining. 

 

Member March suggested the definition be changed to Structural Highlighting/Outlining. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa suggested keeping it simple and since they use outlining in the definition, they may want to change the definition to Structural Outlining. 

 

Councilor Morrison questioned whether the prohibited lighting would be an interpretation by zoning staff?

 

Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that you can make it subject to a determination by the zoning staff which can then be appealed to the Board of Adjustments. 

 

Member Britt had a question with regard to the General Provisions section (7) which required conditional use permits to submit lighting plans.  He suggested that a lighting plan be required for all commercial uses because all commercial uses do not necessarily require conditional use permits.    

 

Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that this section also requires submission of a lighting plan for any project featuring 10 or more exterior light fixtures which should help to address those commercial properties that do not require a conditional use permit.

 

There was further discussion among the Board members suggesting that the lighting problems are more a result of residential lighting versus the commercial lighting. 

 

Chairman Forlano summarized that two (2) changes were being made to the draft this evening; structural highlighting would be changed to structural outlining and lights or signs that interfere with driver’s vision would be changed to include “subject to the zoning administrator’s determination”.

 

Member Jenkins made a motion that the Planning Board recommend that the Town Council adopt an ordinance to amend Article VI. of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Duck as proposed in the draft revisions of 9/3/2004 and as further amended this evening.

 

Motion carried 5-0.

 

 B. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article VII. Administration and Enforcement – Discussion and Recommendation (Draft  9/3/2004)

 

Under the Zoning Administrator, Section 49.  legal action can be pursued “with the approval of the Town Council” was added with this revision and under Building Permits, Section 50, approved by the Zoning Administrator, “if applicable” was included.

 

Moving on to page 2, Ms. Cotellessa pointed out under Conditional Uses Permits, Section 54.(a) the Town Council may approve after review and “recommendation” rather than approval by the Planning Board.  She revised this wording because Town Council may approve a Conditional Use Permit even if the Planning Board recommends against it. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa moved the discussion on to page 3, Temporary Uses, Section 55.  She noted that she deleted section (d) design and appearance requirements of the Town Council are met, and included this wording within the primary clause for this section of Temporary Uses.

 

This big issue in this section stems from section (a) temporary real estate sales offices.  There was much discussion regarding whether such temporary uses are to be permitted, and if so what standard does the Board want.  Presently, the ordinance allows for temporary real estate sales offices until 80% of the subdivision lots are sold. 

 

Member Jenkins noted that much of this section speaks to such things as trailers and temporary structures.  That is not however the case today.  Member Jenkins suggested that this entire section is outdated and should be completely redone.   With regard to the model home at Duck Ridge Village Court, he commented that it can have a positive aspect that will benefit all.   He noted that BD&A’s house will be in the Parade of Homes in October and will bring a lot of activity to the Town of Duck.    He suggested that the temporary use be permitted until 80% of the lots have been built upon. 

 

Gian Hasbrock, resident of Duck, introduced himself as the principal broker for BD&A in charge of the Duck office.  He indicated that he agreed with Member Jenkins comments’.  Mr. Hasbrock also suggested that perhaps the intent of this section should be modified to embrace more adequately what now exists rather than those classically temporary structures like sales and construction trailers.   He stated also that it is not uncommon in a subdivision like Duck Ridge Village to see 80% of the lots sell before the model is completed.    It is also not uncommon for someone to purchase a property and not build immediately.    In this particular case at Duck Ridge Village, Mr. Hasbrock pointed out that it is not being staged as a real estate office where one would typically find file cabinets and copiers, but rather it is being staged as a model home. He questioned whether the definition of temporary sales office should be looked at to conform to the North Carolina Real Estate Commission rules about what constitutes an office.  He wanted to thank the Board and Mr. Jenkins for their work in this matter.

 

Chairman Forlano clarified that Mr. Hasbrock would like to see the Duck Ridge Village Court house exist as a model home until 80% of the lots are completely built upon.  At that point, the model home disappears. 

Mr. Hasbrock indicated that was correct.

 

It was clarified that BD&A no longer owns all of the lots in the subdivision and the model home is zoned Residential.

 

Member Darnall commented that while this house is being used as a model for the Duck Ridge Village Subdivision, it is most probably being used for all BD&A homes on the Outer Banks.  She further commented that she does not agree with Member Jenkins.  She is concerned that a residential house is being used for a commercial use.  Ms. Darnall commented that if BD&A has an office across the street, then why do they need this open house?

 

Planning Director Cotellessa commented that she did not feel at the time, and still does not feel that this particular BD&A house fits into this definition of a temporary real estate office.  It is not trying to sell that development, it is not servicing that development; it is servicing a larger area which is for people who may be interested in  buying BD&A homes in Corolla or Avon or anywhere else.    We need to decide what the purpose of a temporary real estate office is and what the purpose of a model home is.  She stated that she did not think that it was a good idea to try and make the BD&A home meet the definition of a temporary real estate office.  It simply does not work.  Ms. Cotellessa indicated that if the Board wants to provide for a Conditional Use Permit for a model home that serves as an example of construction techniques, that can be open to the public, etc. then the Board can provide for that in the code in a separate area. 

 

Several suggestions were thrown out; only on Duck Road, after approval from Town Council, etc. 

 

Chairman Forlano questioned whether you could also restrict certain conditions such as parking, lighting, signage, etc.   He indicated that he has concerns about parking during the Parade of Homes. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa suggested adding a new section (d) model homes and builder showcases.  That with a conditional use permit, we could make it a conditional use permit and Town Council could place appropriate conditions. 

 

Kevin Schwartz was recognized to speak and indicated that the Association of Realtors supports Mr. Hasbrock and Member Jenkins’ position.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa noted that we are dealing with a Temporary Use, not a perennial showcase. 

 

Member Darnall had no objections to allowing model homes with a conditional use; this would allow for public comments before both the Planning Board and the Town Council.

 

Mr. Hasbrock indicated that BD&A would  be responsible for any breaches in good citizenship, and he too agreed that a conditional use was a good idea. 

 

Chairman Forlano suggested that Planning Director Cotellessa draft a section allowing for a conditional use permit that has to be reviewed by the Planning Board and approved by Town Council and which addresses all of the issues that were discussed here today; i.e. time limits, parking issues, lighting, hours of operation, public hearing.   

 

Mr. Hasbrock suggested perhaps injecting the definition of an office and prohibiting that definition in the context of the North Carolina Real Estate Commission. 

 

Member Britt indicated that he thinks model homes are good; he thinks they should be allowed, they are valuable, but they also need to be recognized for what they are.  They will potentially have business impacts in residential neighborhoods. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa suggested section (d) under Temporary Uses be added and read Model Homes and Builder Showcases with appropriate conditions to address impacts and issues including but not limited to location, lighting, parking, hours of operation, signage, and time limit.  

 

Chairman Forlano commented that this was a reasonable compromise.   The majority of the Board members were in agreement, Councilor Morrison deferred comment and Member March indicated that she would like to see it limited to a period of no more that one year.  Member Darnall stated she thought it should be left open which would allow more flexibility. 

 

Chairman Forlano indicated that he wanted this Article brought back at the next meeting so the Board can review the new language and then make a recommendation to Council.

 

NEW BUSINESS

Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that they will need to make a determination and recommendation on the draft ordinance on Sexually Oriented Businesses.   A moratorium was put in place last fall and  the Board consequently reviewed extensive background material regarding sexually oriented businesses. 

 

Chairman Forlano asked Planning Director Cotellessa whether she thought this could be a big issue.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa indicated she did not, but the Town does need to address the issue.  She commented that the approach she laid out in the draft before the Board is similar to what Southern Shores has in place, and that seems to be working well.

 

Member Jenkins commented that it could become a big issue if we do not address it. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa also advised the Board that they will be looking at issues with respect to fill and storm water regulations most likely at the next meeting depending on the outcome of the Mid Month Council meeting. 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

A. August 11, 2004

 

Member Darnall made a motion to approve the minutes of August 11, 2004.

 

Motion carried 4-0.

 

OTHER BUSINESS

 

None.

 

STAFF COMMENTS

 

None.

 

BOARD COMMENTS

 

Member Darnall had a question regarding pools.  Specifically, when she went to the beach at the end of Sea Hawk there was a swimming pool on the Oceanside of a house under construction that had water in it, but no barrier of any sort.   She was curious whether anything can be done. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that a pool barrier is required prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy/Completion; however the problem occurs as a result of the lag time that occurs between the time the pool is put in the ground and the time it takes to construct the fence/barrier.   Ms. Cotellessa further indicated that there is a liability issue for the contractor and the property owner during this period of time.  

 

Member Darnall questioned whether this is also a safety issue for the Town of Duck? 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that in discussions with builders the Town staff has recommended that they put up some type of barrier while construction is ongoing, however if a child wants to get through the temporary barrier, they will find a way.   Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she agreed with Member Darnall in that a temporary barrier should be put in place as soon as the pool goes in the ground however there is no building code requirement for same.   The Town could augment its own ordinance with regard to building regulations, however by doing so staff is then put in a position where they must inspect that a temporary barrier has been put in place, and the temporary barrier may or may not prevent someone from getting through, so what would we be accomplishing. 

 

Kevin Schwartz commented that by putting in place a temporary barrier, you only increase your liability risk because you have put in place a barrier that can be penetrated.   

 

Chairman Forlano commented that there other safety issues present with the typical construction of a house.

 

Member March brought up the pool on Mallard Drive, commenting that there were renters in the house before the pool barrier was complete. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that notices of violation have been sent out on numerous properties that have renters without proper certificates of occupancy, however until Article VII is amended, staff has no real citation ability. 

 

Member Britt asked Planning Director Cotellessa about the new subdivision that she is expecting.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that there is a subdivision being prepared of the large property adjacent to the Ships Watch laundry facility on the sound side of NC12. 

 

Member Jenkins indicated that he spoke to the owner who indicated that the property is being divided to settle an estate, which raises questions as to how the property is being subdivided.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the surveyor working on this subdivision has been in to see her several times and each of the lots will conform to the current regulations and will come before the Planning Board.   There are expected to be five (5) lots. 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Chairman Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.

 

Motion carried 5-0.  The time was 3:20 p.m.

 

Approved: ______________________________________________

                        /s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman