TOWN OF DUCK

PLANNING BOARD

REGULAR MEETING

November 12, 2004

 

 

The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, November 12, 2004.

 

Present were Vice-Chair Jon Britt, Marilyn March, and John Jenkins.  Also present were Town Manager Christopher Layton, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Suzanne Cotellessa and Administrative Assistant Sandy Cady.  Town Council Liaison Neil Morrison arrived to the meeting at 2:12 p.m.

 

Others present were Councilors Alan Beres and Monica Thibodeau, and business owners Tom Holian, George Keefe, and Rick Herron.  Business owner Mark Copeland arrived to the meeting at 3:00 p.m.

 

Chairman Ron Forlano and Member Anne Darnall were not present.

 

Vice-Chairman Britt called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

Tom Holian, resident and business owner of Duck, was recognized to speak.  Mr. Holian wanted to comment regarding the Commercial Development Guidelines as they were being presented to the Board.  He indicated he had much concern regarding the parking; he felt that restricting parking to the rear would cause both physical and economical problems.  He expressed other concerns with the landscaping restrictions, the requirement for transparent glass, especially on the southern and western facing windows, and the language requiring wood and natural colors and wood facades.  He indicated that this is too restrictive; wood is archaic and more expensive.  There are now many wood-like products that are more durable and cost effective.   Mr. Holian stated that he did not want to see the vitsa that is Duck, destroyed.    Mr. Holian did not stay for the remainder of the meeting following his comments.

 

George Keefe, business owner and president of the Duck Community Business Alliance was recognized to speak.  Mr. Keefe commended the Board for the work they have been doing and especially with regard to the Village Commercial Development Option and how the commercial design standards are intended to blend with the Development Option.   He explained he too initially misinterpreted the guidelines and believes it might be appropriate to have some kind of preamble that helps to explain how these standards might blend in with other things; and he also believes that there should be some consideration given to provide for rebuilding things that exist if they blend in with some overall principle.  Lastly, Mr. Keefe indicated that overall the DCBA was pleased with the principles.

 

OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

 

None.

 

NEW BUSINESS

A. Zoning Text Amendment: Draft Ordinance 04-25 amending Article VI of the zoning ordinance to add Sec. 42.2 Commercial Design and Development Standards

 

Planning Director Cotellessa began the discussion noting that the Town has been under a commercial moratorium for the last eighteen (18) months.  The purpose of that moratorium was to enable us time to look at the issues associated with commercial architecture and how we can assure that new construction and renovations continue to maintain the sense of what Duck is.  This information has come from the Town’s consultants study, the commercial development questionnaire, and community meetings.  She noted that everyone is familiar with the discontent resulting from the construction of Wings.  The draft before the Board is a first look at a minimum design and development standards – first for a checklist for by right development, conditional use permits and village commercial development options and secondly to establish a set of procedures and requirements for site plans. 

 

Ms. Cotellessa advised that Board that prior to this meeting she received some input from several of the Council members, Vice-Chair Britt and Mr. Keefe which she will bring up as they go through the draft. 

 

With regard to the purpose and applicability, it was suggested by Chairman Forlano that we should add something to address when this kicks in.  When do these standards apply?   Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she would add something about when this applies. 

 

Under Design Standards (A), Planning Director Cotellessa explained that this section deals with arcades, awnings and canopies.  This essentially says that these are the kinds of features that we want to encourage in Duck.  It’s what makes Duck, Duck.  Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she received as suggestion that the use of shutters should also be encouraged because they are serve a similar purpose and are quite standard. 

 

It was questioned whether awnings with business names would be allowed, and Ms. Cotellessa indicated that under these standards, they would be allowed, but the business name would be considered a sign, and as such would fall under the sign regulations. 

 

With regard to section (A) the members present had no further comments.

 

The discussion moved on to section (B) Building Orientation and presentation. 

 

Vice-Chair Britt indicated that he saw 1 and 2 in this section as somewhat conflicting with each other; one says shall be and the other says should be.   He hesitates using the word shall.

 

Ms. Cotellessa pointed out that there is a difference between the sound side and non-sound side when addressing parking.  She commented that yes you want to have a vista as you come through town, but you do not always want that whole vista to be cars. 

 

Member Jenkins expressed some concern with the language “substantially parallel to the front property line”.

 

Vice-Chair Britt commented that he did not want to buildings right up on the road, but reminded the Board that these are a minimum set of standards for development that can be used as a checklist for those that want to come in and build by right like Wings. 

 

Councilor Thibodeau was recognized to speak and suggested encouraging under building parking like Scarborough Lane. 

 

Member March also suggested encouraging under building parking.

 

Vice-Chair Britt commented that building orientation seems to keep tying itself to parking.   He suggested perhaps increased landscaping type standards for parking in front as opposed to behind because it is visible. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that perhaps she should re-write some of this language to focus on preserving views to the maximum extent possible or to incorporate those views in the design of the building including pedestrian areas and access ways along the sound front. 

 

Member Jenkins inquired why (2) of this section only applied to the Village Commercial District.  Why did it not apply to C-1 and C-2?

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that with the idea of a sound front walk through the Village Commercial area, she thought it might be best to differentiate between the different districts, however preserving views is important in all of the districts. 

 

Member Jenkins noted that throughout the draft, there were only 5-6 items the applied solely to the Village Commercial District; he believes that they should be applied to all commercial zones.  You could simplify this draft by eliminated the three columns.

 

Vice-Chair Britt indicated that Member Darnall mentioned the same thing to him.    He did note however that the Village Commercial Development Option only applies to the village commercial district, and suggested that maybe down the road, they may want to revisit whether the Commercial Development Option should apply across the commercial districts. 

 

Member Jenkins thought it should also apply to the CPR zone, or the corp. of engineers property.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that CPR is not a commercial zone; it is a conservation and public recreation and does not allow any commercial or residential development.

 

Vice-Chair Britt commented that at a quick glance, he did not see any problem with eliminating the three columns, and suggested that the same standard be applied for all three districts.    Member Jenkins agreed. 

 

Vice-Chair Britt went on to comment that he does not want to see concrete jungles but he also doesn’t want to take away from the wide vista type views that are currently in place. 

 

Vice-Chair Britt suggested moving on to (C) Exterior Materials.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa noted that the two main issues with exterior materials are the materials and the color.  Do we want to limit the main colors to earth tones, and what is an earth tone?

 

Member Jenkins stated he did not know how to do that.

 

Ms. Cotellessa explained that there are colors that are neon.  A comment from Mr. Jenkins referred to a key lime house in Duck.  Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she would not consider that an earth tone color.   She further clarified however that these regulations do not apply to residential construction.   

 

In further clarification, Ms. Cotellessa explained that the owner/contractor would be required to provide a paint chip.   The color approval would be subject to an administrative determination and as such would be contestable before a Board.  This would allow for balance between the community and the town. 

 

Vice-Chair Britt indicated that he initially intended to recommend elimination of the color standards, however after further review he suggested leaving the language as is because there is an alternative if someone wants an orange building.   He suggested leaving the bulk of the building a neutral color.

 

Member March agreed with Vice-Chair Britt on (4).   She did however disagree with (1).  Specifically “wood is preferable”.  She suggested that there are other better options that are more durable and require less maintenance.   Ms. March indicated that you can purchase vinyl shingles today that look like cedar shake and slate,

 

Councilor Morrison also agreed with leaving (4) as is; he too agreed that it was worded well and that there is a viable alternative

 

Vice-Chair Britt agreed with Member March on (1). 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that is was the desire of the Board to remove the second sentence in (1), and remove the word vinyl in (2) and leave (3), (4) and (5) as is.

 

Member March opposed the use of metal or aluminum siding, as did Vice-Chair Britt.   They did not oppose the use of metal for accent pieces. 

 

The discussion moved on to (D) Facades, windows and roofs. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that shutters might fit better in this section.  Vice-Chair  Britt suggested they be noted in (10). 

 

Vice-Chair Britt had some concerns regarding (6).

 

Planning Director Cotellessa commented that this is again one of those balancing cases.  She suggested for additional clarification adding “or be modified to appropriately address current commercial design standards.”

 

Vice-Chair Britt and Member March indicated that was acceptable language.

 

There was some discussion regarding display windows and the comments that Mr. Holian had brought up.    Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would try to add some language to (8) to help address those high sun areas that need added protection; some balance between the transparent views and sun protection.

 

E. Size, scale and compatibility of design.  Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she did not have any comments with regard to this section.  She did note that this is a minimum standard.

 

The Board members present all agreed that this section was fine the way it currently read and would apply to all commercial districts. 

 

The discussion moved on to Parking, Paving and Access Design Standard for lots.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that section A. deals with access.  One of the main issues is shared driveways which she indicated should be strongly encouraged.   Again, Ms. Cotellessa explained that this establishes a minimum standard.

 

Vice-Chair Britt inquired whether exceptions to setbacks will be considered when shared driveways are utilized.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that they should be. 

 

Councilor Beres commented that the reduction of future curb cuts will only help with the already congested flow of traffic. 

 

Mark Copeland, owner of Roadside, expressed concern with the concept of shared driveways and how they could potentially adversely affect his already limited parking situation. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that there are pros and cons to the concept of shared driveways/parking, and there are options and ways to address Mr. Copeland’s concerns.

 

Councilor Thibodeau noted that this draft strongly encourages shared accesses but what is the incentive and how is that defined.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that in most of these cases, the applicant is going through a conditional use permit, and in that respect, a shared access will rank high in standing towards obtaining that permit.  That would then play into a reduced requirement for perhaps the number of trees, or a turn around, or a setback, etc.  There are a lot of ways to incentivize with development.  Ms. Cotellessa also brought up the incentive grant program that they will be discussing. 

 

Vice-Chair Britt commented that not everything in these guidelines were standards; some were suggestions that if done, would help towards the final goal of the applicant/business owner.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that if you wanted to quantify the incentive you could add language to say “if a shared access is provided between properties on a shared property line, the required access setback from the side property lines shall be waived administratively as part of the site plan review process”.  That would take out the question of setback requirements for driveways.  

 

Vice-Chair Britt suggested adding that language. 

 

Councilor Morrison inquired whether Ms. Cotellessa would have the authority to waive setback requirements, and she advised not without something giving her authority to do so; adding this language would allow for same.

 

Councilor Morrison clarified that if Ms. Cotellessa were to deny the setback waiver in a shared access situation, then the applicant would still be able to appeal her decision.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa brought forth a recommendation from Mr. Keefe regarding sound front developments as discussed in (5) of section A. Access.   She suggested adding language to the end of (5) to read “or from a pedestrian way designed to facilitate access in group developments or to provide a sound front pedestrian amenity and building access”.    Vice-Chair Britt clarified Ms. Cotellessa would make this addition.

 

The discussion moved on (B) Parking and Loading/Unloading Areas. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa indicated she had a recommendation from Vice-Chair Britt that the word “shall” be changed to “should” in (1).   She further noted that this section speaks to Mr. Holian’s concerns regarding parking and its required location relative to the sound.   She noted that (1) clarifies that the parking requirements do not apply to sound front properties. 

 

Ms. Cotellessa explained that by changing the wording to should, you are then making it a guideline rather than a requirement.    She pointed out to the Board that (3) speaks to situations such as Wee Winks Market and Duck Deli.  Under these regulations, they would not be permitted; you would not be permitted to pull directly off of NC12 into a parking space. 

 

There were no objections to (3). 

 

It was suggested that a section (4) be included to read as “parking areas under buildings are strongly encouraged, providing adequate provisions for pedestrian access to buildings from the street and all parking spaces. 

 

Rick Herron was recognized to speak and inquired whether there would be any leeway with regard to the 35’ height requirement.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that height is a feature that can be addressed with the Village Commercial Development Option.  She indicated that she would also look further at the height issue.

 

Under (C) Paving.  Ms. Cotellessa advised that she had recommendations to remove the word brick in (1) and (2).   It was further suggested that “paved” be changed to “improved” in (1) and (2) and “maintained” changed to “improved” in (3).

 

Under (D) Aisles. Planning Director Cotellessa indicated one recommendation she had was not to get in the way of upgrading existing areas and to differentiate between new.  She indicated that these are standards.

 

Ms. Cotellessa explained that if your property is currently nonconforming, that does not put you in violation; it simply makes you nonconforming.  New construction would have to meet the new standards though to the extent possible. 

 

Vice-Chair Britt indicated he was fine with the language as it currently reads. 

 

The discussion moved on to E. Spaces and loading/unloading areas.  There were not comments offered.

 

Design Standards for Services and Utilities.  This section speaks to mechanical equipment, utilities, trash, etc.   Member Jenkins suggested deleting “on the parking lot side”  under (A) Mechanical equipment (1).   This change was agreed.

 

Councilor Thibodeau inquired as to how we know where the mechanicals are located.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that staff will look at the location; if it appears that it will be visible, they will recommend additional screening.   There was additional discussion regarding alternative ways to screen mechanicals. 

 

Mr. Copeland commented regarding (C) Trash, garbage, and recycling. Suggesting the trash men will not get out of their trucks to open gates.  Mr. Herron and Vice-Chair Britt both agreed that would be a problem.  

 

Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would contact Waste Management and find out definitively whether or not they would open gates in commercial districts.   She indicated however that you can still provide screening on three sides.  It was suggested that the language be revised to read that storage areas shall be located “and substantially” screened from public view. 

 

The discussion moved on to D. Drive-thru windows and similar accessories.  Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the Town Code now prohibits drive-thru’s in the village commercial district.  This section discourages drive-thru’s but also sets standards for them. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa gave a brief overview regarding E. Engineered storm water control facilities.

 

She then moved the discussion on to Design Standards for Natural Areas and Features and indicated that most of these standards are open ended; the idea however is to identify and isolate the good things to the extent possible.   With no further comments from the Board, the discussion continued on to Design Standards for Landscaping and Open Space.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained to the public and reminded the Board that they had indicated as they did their zoning ordinance review that a 10 foot vegetative buffer shall be provided.  The question at that time revolved around what that buffer is.  This section establishes a standard for those buffers.  Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she did not receive any specific comments or objections regarding this section. 

 

Vice-Chair Britt questioned whether this was going to be too much for staff to handle?

 

Member Jenkins indicated he did not see any problems; he believes the intent is to plant and maintain greenery as much as possible.  The idea is to prevent the flagrant lot clearing as they have seen with lot clearing in Duck. 

 

Vice-Chair commented that he did not see anything that was overly restrictive.

 

There was some discussion regarding the definition of a canopy tree and acceptable types of canopy trees.   Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that acceptable canopy trees might be red maple or hickory; she has a list of what does well in this area from the North Carolina extension service. 

 

There was a numbering error noted under D. Landscape Buffers which was to be corrected.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the next section dealing with Site Plan requirements articulates what will be required based on a 3 tier level.  Site Plan requirements apply to new structures, expansions to existing structures, changes that are significant or substantial to landscaping a buffer area.  This provides a visual depiction of what is present.   Ms. Cotellessa explained that in developing these requirements she looked at other jurisdictions in North Carolina and on the Outer Banks; she looked at the whole list and tried to reach the lowest common denominator of each to develop a basic requirement.  

 

Then there is also a minor and major waiver to the requirements and standards of this section; both for site plans and commercial design guidelines.   When you can get a minor waiver and when you can obtain a major waiver is spelled out.   The idea of tiering the levels of site plan requirements speaks to the level of construction/development that is proposed.   At the lowest level of requirement Ms. Cotellessa recommended what she referred to as plan of development; this would address very minor site changes and similar actions/activities that do not have an impact.  Plan of development projects would be administratively approved, and she suggested including a section for them if the Board so desired.  It would make the small projects as easy as possible.

 

Vice-Chair Britt was in favor of plan of development site plan requirements.

 

It was also clarified that minor waivers would also be handled administratively, however major waivers would need to be reviewed by Council.    Vice-Chair Britt indicated he would like Council’s input as to whether they want Planning Board to make a recommendation on major waivers before they go to Council.

 

Member Jenkins indicated that with regard to major waivers he believed that Council should act on the recommendation of the Planning Board but he would like to think about this issue over the weekend.

 

Vice-Chair Britt indicated that he would like to recess the meeting and reconvene next week when Chairman Forlano and Member Darnall would both be available.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would work on the changes today and have them prepared for additional review and delivered to the Board on Monday, November 11, 2004. 

 

Member March made a motion to recess the meeting and reconvene on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 6:00 p.m.

 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

Meeting recessed at 4:22 p.m.

 

The Planning Board for the Town of Duck reconvened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 16, 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. 

 

Angela Beckman from the Duck Community Business Alliance was also present. 

 

Chairman Forlano called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa began by recapping the changes discussed on Friday, November 12, 2004 and that were identified in red in the new draft before the Board.   She also provided a quick explanation that this is a basic set of standards and guidelines. 

 

Chairman Forlano confirmed that with regard to the shared driveways, that documentation verifying an easement would be required.

 

Councilor Morrison noted under the parking standards, B. Parking and loading/Unloading Areas (4) needed a verb and should read provided that adequate provisions “are made” for pedestrian access..

 

Planning Director Cotellessa informed the Board that staff had spoken with Waste Management regarding commercial dumpster pick-up and the use of gates.  Staff was informed that gates are not a problem; they do it all of the time in other jurisdictions.   Ms. Cotellessa pointed out however that screening on 4 sides is not required in the draft ordinance.  The section dealing with trash, garbage and recycling simply requires that trash and receptacles be located and substantially screened from public view.

 

Chairman Forlano had some questions regarding drive-thru’s and gas stations. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that this is a basic set of standards that looks to encourage pedestrian traffic and requires that the drive-thru features be located accordingly. 

 

Member Darnall asked who makes the determination to the extent practical when dealing with design standards for natural areas and features.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that in a by-right situation, it would be something looked at in an administrative checklist. 

 

Member Darnall was concerned that these standards were not enough; that it did not go far enough in protecting and preserving the trees.  She suggested considering a tree ordinance for both commercial and residential districts. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the Town could write provisions based upon size and age of a tree in an attempt to protect them, but this is meant to be a minimum standard for new and redevelopment. 

 

No Board members spoke in support of Member Darnall’s suggestions.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that a builder brought up some of old issues of creating nonconforming properties with all of these regulations.  Practically speaking most of the commercial structures in Duck are already nonconforming in some respect.  These standards are getting at the negative push that Council and staff has heard about Wings; this serves as a minimum set of standards for new development and for redevelopment. 

 

Chairman Forlano had some questions regarding canopy trees and buffer zones. 

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that (8) detailed in A. Landscaping – General. simply helps to define what is acceptable.  There was some discussion regarding a buffer versus screening.  This provides for a mix that looks to vary the landscaping.    Ms. Cotellessa advised Chairman Forlano that the extension agent for the area has provided her with a list of trees that do well, that are native, near native and that thrive in this area.   She indicated that you don’t want to take out too much individuality.

 

Councilor Morrison asked Ms. Cotellessa for some canopy trees that would do well.

 

She indicated hickory, live oak, red maple, holly and Leland cypress all do well locally.  She further noted that dogwoods and crepe myrtles fall more in the classification of an ornamental tree. 

 

The discussion moved on to site plan requirements, minor and major waivers and plan of development requirements.  Planning Director Cotellessa noted that there was previous discussion as to whether the Planning Board and Town Council who would see all site plans.  She further explained that the first sections detail how development review will occur and at what level.  The second deals with the required information which is pretty standard for most site plans.   Ms. Cotellessa directed the Board to page 13, Section 42.2.8.4, which articulates what you can submit minor site plans for. 

 

She clarified that (a) deals with paving areas, section (b) deals with buildings.    She then went over some of the items that would be allowable under a plan of development, Section 42.2.8.5.  It was noted that there was a lettering error in this section that would be corrected.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa moved on to Section 42.2.8.10 which establishes a time limit on applicability. 

 

Member Jenkins questioned why Ms. Cotellessa had set the deadline at 2 years.  She explained that due to the time and the processes involved in many commercial cases that require conditional use permits, 2 years is a reasonable standard. 

 

Ms. Cotellessa explained under Section 42.2.8.11 Procedure identifies a plan approving agent which is determined by the Town manager; that will probably be the zoning administrator in Duck, at least for the foreseeable future, however this provides flexibility to the Town manager. 

 

Vice-Chair Britt suggested that a time line deadline be put in place for administrative responses and/or determinations.  He recommended sixty (60) days.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa agreed that is a good idea from the time that the application is complete.   She recommended that this language be added to (g), and further suggested putting a deadline on the appeal process to Town Council here as well. 

 

Moving on to Major and Minor waivers, Ms. Cotellessa noted that she had added language under the major waivers that the Town council would have the benefit of the Planning Board’s recommendation.   She then asked the Board for their recommendation as to how they wish to proceed.

 

There was brief discussion regarding Council comments since Friday’s meeting and other concerns that were raised at the meeting on Friday.

 

Angela Beckman on behalf of the DCBC indicated that they were pleased with the draft; it sets parameters without closing any doors, particularly for the village improvement program.   She has had no adverse comments.

 

The Board had no further comments.

 

Vice-Chair Britt made a motion that the Planning Board recommend that the Town Council adopt a zoning text amendment: Draft Ordinance 04-25 amending Article VI of the zoning ordinance to add Sec. 42.2 Commercial Design and Development Standards as

proposed in the draft revisions of 11/15/2004 and as further amended this day.

 

Member March seconded the motion.

 

Motion carried 5-0.

 

Planning Director Cotellessa explained that Council would discuss this draft tomorrow at their work session meeting and then hold a public hearing on December 1, 2004.

 

Councilor Morrison thanked the Board for a job well done.   Council did not want to extend the moratorium any further.

 

Continuing with new business, Planning Director Cotellessa gave the Board an overview of the two incentive programs she would recommend; one is the Village Improvement Program and the second is a Community Appearance Award.   With regard to the community appearance award, she was looking at the potential for a bi-annual program where a community appearance committee would come in and identify really good commercial and residential projects; nominations would be accepted and recommendations for approval would be made to Town Council.  This would get at the carrot approach the Town has previously spoken of to promote pride and incentive.    She noted that the Village Improvement Program was a grant program that would most likely be instituted next fiscal year; it is a matching program designed to encourage improvements and lend a helping hand to the businesses.   These programs are a good outreach to the business community which says the Town is willing to support both its businesses and residences.

 

Chairman Forlano confirmed that Council would be appointing a committee to deal with these programs and awards.

 

There was some discussion as to how the community appearance award would affect individual business owners versus the property owners in the commercial district. 

 

It was recommended that the 5 year lease commitment requirement on page 3 of the Village Improvement Program be removed.   It was also agreed that the requirement above the 5 year commitment would be changed to read properties must comply “or come into compliance’ with state and local code requirements; this will avoid any ambiguity. 

 

The members of the Board were all pleased with both the Village Improvement Program and the Community appearance award, and recommended they go forward to Council. 

 

There was some discussion regarding the lighting ordinance and sign ordinance.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

A. October 8, 2004

 

Member March made a motion to approve the minutes.

 

Member Darnall seconded the motion.

 

Minutes for October 8, 2004 were approved 5-0.

 

OTHER BUSINESS

 

None.

 

STAFF COMMENTS

 

None.

 

BOARD COMMENTS

 

Vice-Chair Britt indicated he would not be able to attend the December or January Planning Board meetings.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Chairman Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.

 

Motion carried 5-0.  The time was 7:30 p.m.

 

Approved: ______________________________________________

                        /s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman