TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
June 8, 2005
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 8, 2005.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Vice-Chairman Jon Britt, Marilyn March, Anne Darnall and John Jenkins.
Also present were Council Liaison Neil Morrison, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Suzanne Cotellessa and Administrative Assistant Sandy Cady.
The only person present from the public was Kevin Schwartz from the Outer Banks Home Builders and Association of Realtors Associations.
Chairman Forlano called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for June 8, 2005 at 6:32 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Planning Board By-Laws Amendment regarding regular meeting day and time
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that the only thing she changed in the By-Laws was the section regarding meeting dates, time and place. She simply changed the date from the second Friday to the second Wednesday of the month. She explained that an ad would be published in the local newspapers once Planning Board and Town Council have approved the By-Laws.
There was some discussion regarding the time and whether this was to be a permanent change. It was agreed that the meeting time would be 6:30 p.m. but the By-Laws would remain without a designated time so as to allow flexibility. It was also decided that this would be a permanent meeting change that could always be amended again if necessary.
Chairman Forlano moved to approve the By-Laws as amended in the draft dated June 1, 2005.
Motion carried 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Zoning Text Amendment regarding lot coverage
Chairman Forlano indicated that this topic would probably require several meetings. He further indicated that they would need to tear this definition apart and make it very specific.
Planning Director Cotellessa reminded the Board that this topic was briefly introduced at their last meeting. She further indicated that the more specific they can be in the language, the easier it is to administer. Several new issues have come up in recent months; i.e. pool house sheds, walls, large HVAC stands, large covered playhouses, large diameter fountains, oyster shell driveways, etc.
Ms. Cotellessa explained that she took the existing language in the zoning ordinance and added more specific wording for their review. Two of the biggest issues are how they deal with gravel, and what gravel is counted as lot coverage. She indicated that she has been interpreting crush and run as impervious like clay, and therefore any gravel over crush and run is considered impervious. Statistics on crush and run indicate that it is 95% impervious, just like clay. The original language read “paving block, pavers and similar materials installed on a pervious base (not to include clay)”. She has been interpreting crush and run the same as clay, because during discussions in previous meetings, crush and run was specifically considered impervious. She noted that the problem arises because crush and run is often seen as a type of gravel which does not count against lot coverage. Ms. Cotellessa wants this Board to look at the types of gravel, turf stone and pavers as well as their sub-base. The easiest solution would be to include everything in lot coverage which is how many of the other jurisdictions handle lot coverage. The State does not provide any special allowances for turf stone in the AEC. The Town of Duck has a chance to be progressive by trying to encourage some other materials however Ms. Cotellessa does not want to do this with a head in the sand attitude. Virginia Beach for instance does not count turf stone against your lot coverage, however the turf stone is being set over crush and run, clay and other impervious bases. On the other hand, many manufacturers recommend installation of turf stone and pavers over these very bases in order to meet manufacturer specifications.
Ms. Cotellessa noted that she had provided the Board with some paving product brochures that she would like them to review and she hopes to have someone come and speak to them about how these products perk.
There was a brief discussion regarding oyster shells and whether their use should be discouraged in light of the decreasing oyster crop and shell shortages. Crushed brick was discussed. Concrete driveway borders were discussed and Ms. Cotellessa suggested that walls that are a foot wide are no different. Granite dust, also known as #10 screening, and its use in landscaping was discussed.
Member March indicated that she has tested the permeability of granite dust and indicated it acts just like concrete.
Planning Director Cotellessa further commented that she has literature to support Ms. March’s findings.
Member Jenkins questioned what other options are available that would not be considered lot coverage.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that pea gravel over sand, sand and mulch are viable options. She explained that she has not been counting individual stepping stones in lot coverage, but when the entire path is made impervious with a granite dust base, where do you draw the line?
Chairman Forlano suggested that without some sort of base, stepping stones will sink over time.
Member Jenkins commented that if it is impervious, it should be counted as lot coverage.
Chairman Forlano stated that the Board discussed lot coverage for many weeks and decided that credits would be allowed for pavers. He then questioned whether the Board now wanted to scratch that decision and count pavers at 100% lot coverage?
Member Jenkins indicated the issue is now what’s pervious and what’s impervious. If it is impervious, it creates runoff and that is a problem.
Member Darnall indicated that they need to come to an agreement on what they are trying to control with lot coverage: runoff, aesthetics, open space?
Kevin Schwartz was recognized to speak and indicated that there are two distinct sets of issues in terms of lot coverage pre- and post-occupancy. The industry which he represents indicated that they did not have any problems with the new language in terms of lot coverage.
Mr. Schwartz suggested that there is no science behind the 30% lot coverage limitation, and he noted that commercial structures are permitted 60% lot coverage because they engineer their storm water controls. Additionally, he indicated that the author of the Outer Banks Hydrology Management report would argue that there are varying degrees of necessity and therefore lot coverage should vary. Mr. Schwartz further suggested that there is little likelihood of an adverse impact from landscaping so why not wait for that adverse impact before trying to enforce upon it.
There was some discussion as to where and why the 30% lot coverage figure came to be.
Kevin Schwartz re-emphasized that enforcing lot coverage limitations resulting from landscaping and post-occupancy are not going to change the density of a building which is the primary purpose of the limitation.
Member Darnall clarified that the purpose of this discussion was to decide what should and should not be counted against lot coverage, not necessarily the amount of lot coverage.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that was correct. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that more frequently property owners are doing wholesale landscaping and they are using products that act very much like concrete in their landscaping. Several of the other jurisdictions count everything in lot coverage, including pea gravel. That way they do not need to worry about post-occupancy enforcement.
Chairman Forlano stated that with very few exceptions, most people landscape to improve the look of their property. Mr. Forlano asked about man made waterfalls; some of them are pretty large.
Member Britt stated that he agreed with Mr. Schwartz. He indicated that they have the building coverage issue which was basically pulled out of the sky to control density.
Chairman Forlano suggested that density can be controlled in other ways.
Member Britt continued, and further agreed with Mr. Schwartz that there are the pre-construction and post-occupancy concerns.
There was some discussion about the Noah’s Ark located on Buffell Head Road.
Chairman Forlano asked the Members what the reason they were discussing lot coverage was. Were they dealing with density, and if so, density in what way; the number of people or is it the size of the house relative to the green space of the property?
Member Darnall indicated that it was density in proportion to the lot and the two main reasons for controlling the density are to help control storm water and to preserve green space.
Kevin Schwartz commented that writing it will not control it though.
Member Britt indicated that he did not think they should write rules that rely on neighbors turning neighbors in; he suggested that landscaping should be separated. He did not want to tell people how to landscape their yards.
Member Darnall stated that they should tell them what’s in and what’s out.
Member Britt indicated that the size of the house is controlled by the lot coverage.
Chairman Forlano offered an example. He indicated that on a 16,000 square foot lot, he just built a 7500 square foot house within the 30% lot coverage limitations. He suggested that was too big and then indicated that the lot coverage limitation did not control the size of the house.
Member Darnall noted that they were not talking about changing the percentage of lot coverage; they were only discussing what makes up that 30%. They do not want to control the size of the house.
Chairman Forlano wanted to know whether they were trying to control the size of the house with lot coverage.
Members Britt, Darnall and Jenkins all indicated no. Member Jenkins indicated they were only trying to control the footprint and Member Darnall indicated they were only trying to control that which is impervious.
Member Britt and Member Darnall both agreed that they wanted
to leave the 30% figure alone; Member Darnall added that she wanted to define
what makes up that 30%.
There was a brief discussion regarding house size in proportion to lot coverage.
Chairman Forlano recapped that they were still agreed that lot coverage should be 30% and they were focusing on storm water concerns and preservation of green space.
There was then some discussion regarding the carrot that was offered, whereby gravel was allowed for driveways and parking. Planning Director Cotellessa explained that she has been requiring that the gravel be of the kind that water will filter through. She explained that many people have been laying crush and run below the gravel and she has been counting that against their lot coverage. She further indicated that she wanted to make sure that was the intent of this Board.
Member Jenkins questioned whether they could exclude crush and run and clay and specify minimum size gravel.
Member Britt asked if Ms. Cotellessa was looking for a specific written definition for approved gravel.
Mr. Schwartz indicated that should come from an engineer.
Ms. Cotellessa agreed and indicated that an engineer could help provide an understanding with regard to turf stone and their different sub-bases. She indicated that she would try to line up an engineer to talk about these issues.
Mr. Schwartz suggested that they need to be discussing the impacts. Less concrete is better.
Member March asked if Ms. Cotellessa would go over the pictures that were provided to the Board so they could get an understanding of how she was interpreting the differing situations.
Planning Director Cotellessa went over the photographs. The first was a brick/cinderblock wall that was approximately 2-4 high, 50 feet long, 10 inches wide and encased by flagstone.
Member Britt and Member Darnall both indicated that this wall should not be included in lot coverage because it was only 10 inches wide.
Ms. Cotellessa referred to a photograph of bulk heading that was used to step down a substantial hill. She indicated that she would not count any of that as lot coverage.
The next photograph depicted a turf stone/paved driveway that had not yet been filled in. Ms. Cotellessa questioned to what degree this was pervious if it was filled with clay or crush and run versus sand. She then asked whether a credit should still be given because it is still more pervious than concrete. She suggested that 60% was too much but maybe there was a medium that better represented the credit that should be given.
She went on to a photograph that depicted a crushed brick driveway with a 12 inch concrete border used to contain the brick.
Member Britt and Member Darnall both suggested that the concrete border should be included in lot coverage. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she has been counting this 12 inch border against lot coverage; she indicated that a surveyor can measure this. She further noted that she has not been counting borders that were less than one foot wide.
The next photograph depicted oyster shells used for landscaping and parking. What is their permeability, Ms. Cotellessa questioned. Over time the shells will crush and powder up and she suggested that the use of them should be discouraged.
Ms. Cotellessa went on to the photograph of the walk path with 4x4 wood stops and paving blocks. She explained that the paving blocks and wood stops were set in #10 granite screening which has almost no permeability. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she was not counting the walk path as coverage, but further noted that at the top of the walk path is a small seating area. She asked the Board when this becomes no different than a concrete patio.
Chairman Forlano then asked where the water run to. Does it run into the right of way or is it causing an adverse impact?
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that is the manner of degree that she is trying to deal with. She moved on to the remaining photographs which detailed 20 inch wide brick walls and columns of varying height and length. She indicated that the birds eye view of the brick walls are no different than the concrete border that she is counting against lot coverage. She explained that walls and fences are not currently counted against lot coverage. She further noted that she had not seen any walls/fences to this extent before, but she expected that there would be more in the future.
There was some discussion regarding covenant restrictions.
Member Britt indicated that walls are not necessarily landscaping. He suggested that perhaps they should be counted once they get to a certain height.
Mr. Schwartz indicated that if you are looking at this from a lot coverage standpoint then you should look at the width. He also suggested that there should be some leeway for an increase in lot coverage resulting from basic landscaping.
Chairman Forlano noted that there are several storm water problems on the Outer Banks with the 30% coverage.
Mr. Schwartz suggested that the storm water issues were not directly related to the 30%, and he referred to the hydrology management report and their recommendations.
Chairman Forlano asked Member Jenkins if he had any thoughts. Member Jenkins indicated he was reflecting on all of the comments made.
Chairman Forlano indicated that the Board would have another meeting on this subject and he asked all of the Members to think about this topic carefully. Chairman Forlano attempted to provide the Board with an actual case in point, related to the construction of his personal property at 100 Marlin Drive, as to why this subject was being discussed. He referred to the use of pavers specifically and referenced his understanding of the ordinance and the 60/40 split for lot coverage if pavers were used over a pervious sub-base. Ms. Cotellessa added, not to include clay. Chairman Forlano clarified that the ordinance specifically states, not to include clay. He went on to explain that he installed a paved parking lot and used stone #57 sub-base which is not crush and run, but it is supposed to be the accepted permeable sub-base. On top of the sub-base, a one inch screening material was used which was a ground up granite substance. After he completed the job, he indicated that Town staff considered this to be 100% lot coverage and not a 60/40 split. This issue was the one inch of granite which staff considered to be roughly equivalent to clay. Chairman Forlano indicated that the definition of lot coverage did not say that screening material was not acceptable, it only referenced clay, and that is why this definition needs to be further detailed for clarity.
Vice-Chair Britt addressed Chairman Forlano and indicated that he did feel it was appropriate to be discussing matters specifically related to the Chairman during the course of this meeting. Vice-Chair Britt suggested Chairman Forlano come up with a different example.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would like to bring some experts in to speak to the Board regarding the technical aspects of pavers and their sub-bases and permeability. Chairman Forlano asked if she could get Bill Hunt from North Carolina State to speak to them. She indicated she would try and she will also have the Town’s engineer speak to them.
Kevin Schwartz indicated Bill Hunt would be a good source since he is a specialist in low impact development.
Chairman Forlano asked if the Town engineer could provide them with some understanding about what the storm water impacts are on the other areas of concern, like the walls, the oyster shells, the crushed brick and the different types of stones. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she had some information regarding the permeability of different size stones which she would try to bring to them at their next meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. May 13, 2005
Vice-Chair Britt made a motion to approve the minutes of May 13, 2005.
Member Darnall seconded the motion.
Minutes for May 13, 2005 were approved 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that before the Planning Board changed their meeting night and time, she had previously made arrangements for August 10, 2005 which she cannot change. She would like to suggest a different meeting date for August, but she would address this further at their next meeting which is scheduled for July 13, 2005.
BOARD COMMENTS
Member Jenkins asked if there was anything significant coming out of the new flood maps and what impacts there may be on the recent fill ordinance that was just passed.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that there was a meeting this past Monday with the State and there would be another next Monday. Public meetings were being scheduled through Dare County to discuss the new maps. At first glance, the major changes in Duck appear to be that all of the oceanfront properties would be fully within the high velocity zones. The most positive change was that there will not longer be any AO zones within Town limits, so a base flood elevation has been established for all of Duck.
Ms. Cotellessa further explained that we are currently in a 90 day technical appeal period, and August 13, 2005 ends that period. From that point, there will be a six month break-in period and she will know more about this break-in period following the next meeting with the State. She will bring back a report at the next meeting along with the new maps for the Board to review.
There was a brief discussion regarding the current status of the Scarborough House and the Deli that is planned in the Waterfront Shoppes.
Vice-Chair Britt asked about the status of the illegal and unsafe signs in Town and asked that enforcement move forward.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chair Britt made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Member Jenkins seconded the motion.
The next scheduled meeting is July 13, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
Motion carried 5-0. The time was 7:55 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman