TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
November 9, 2005
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 9, 2005.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Vice-Chairman Jon Britt, Members Marilyn March and John Jenkins.
Also present were Council Liaison Neil Morrison, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Suzanne Cotellessa and Administrative Assistant Sandy Cady.
Member Darnall was not present for the meeting.
Members of the public in attendance included Councilor Allan Beres, Town Manager Chris Layton, Residents Denver Lindley, Bart Smith and Olin Finch, Resident and Contractor Bob Evans, Richard Kowalewitch and S.A. Karageorge.
Chairman Forlano called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for November 9, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bob Evans was recognized to speak. He indicated that he does not have the patience to do what the Planning Board does, especially the way thing have gone in the past few years with all of the changes. He stated that he appreciates what the Board is doing and he hopes that they continue to have the energy to continue volunteering their time.
NEW BUSINESS
It was agreed that the Board would begin with new business instead of old business.
A. Introduction of Proposed New Retail Building at 1176 Duck Road (former Scarborough House)—to be scheduled for Joint Work Session with Town Council on December 14, 2005
Chairman Forlano noted that there would be a joint work session with Town Council to discuss this matter formally on December 14, 2005.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that staff invited Mr. Kowalewitch and his team here this evening to speak with the Planning Board in advance of the joint work session which is the formal process for the Village Commercial Development Option. Ms. Cotellessa noted that staff has submitted the applicant’s application to various agencies for comments which will all be included in the staff report that will be provided to the Board and Town Council prior to the joint work session meeting. She explained that it was not her intention to provide any comments this evening on the applicant’s submission. This was simply a chance for the applicants to present their plan informally to the Planning Board.
Bob Evans was recognized to speak and indicated that he would be the contractor on this project. He stated that this project does not have to be this difficult; he and the property owner feel this is a use by right. Mr. Evans suggested that since Ms. Cotellessa would not be commenting that he and his property owner would be pushed back yet another month until the work session which still does not get them to an approval. He further indicated that they were not even sure how many additional steps would be necessary.
Mr. Evans went on to explain why they feel this should be a by right use. He indicated that Ms. Cotellessa does not feel this is a by right use due to the lot size. He and Mr. Kowalewitch disagree; they contend that this is not a valid interpretation.
Mr. Evans detailed some of the plans. He explained that the proposed site plan maintains exactly the same entrance. They have kept everything out of the CAMA setback, as much as possible. Lot coverage has been calculated to be 54% with the use of turf stone. A new bulkhead has been installed, and the site will drain towards the sound.
Mr. Evans stated that one of Ms. Cotellessa’s issues has to do with the drive aisle. He stated that the Town had apparently passed an ordinance requiring a 24 foot wide drive aisle. Their proposed drive aisle is only 23 feet and in one area it is only 22 feet 8 inches. They envision this small area as a sidewalk. Mr. Evans offered a handful of locations in the Village Commercial district that did not have 24 foot wide drive aisles. He suggested that the 24 foot drive aisle requirement was excessive and this was something the Planning Board should look at.
Mr. Evans spoke about the ordinance itself. He noted that the ordinance specifically gives planning staff the ability to grant variances, minor variances. He contended that a 1 foot variance is extremely minor and perhaps at the direction of the Planning Board, this could be considered with a waiver. He indicated that if necessary, they could lop off 8 inches of the building where they drop below 23 feet.
The next issue Mr. Evans addressed was the dumpster requirement. He indicated that they were fully aware that there was a problem with a dumpster being over the required 10 foot vegetative buffer adjacent to a residential use on the south side of Herron’s Waterfront, formerly Swan Cove. He indicated that Mr. Kowalewitch also has his dumpster within a 10 foot setback; however they do not want a dumpster. Additionally, Mr. Evans indicated that he did not see any requirement for a dumpster; it’s a retail site. They do not want the crab juice and garbage that comes from restaurants coming in and out of their parking lot although he did note that they have a concrete parking lot unlike some of the other commercial properties in the village. They would suggest 4-6 rollout carts, although they think they really only need 3 cans. This estimation was based upon Mr. Kowalewitch’s retail shop in Virginia Beach that is similar in size and nature which has been in operation for 23 years and only has trash collection once a week. Mr. Evans indicated that the use of the rollout carts should be an acceptable alternative to the dumpster requirement.
Mr. Evans indicated that another issue that was raised by Ms. Cotellessa was the vegetative buffer requirement. He stated that it was his understanding that a 10 foot vegetative buffer is required where there is a dissimilar use and/or zones. He commented that this requirement, to have a 20 foot vegetative between two commercial uses, is not a valid requirement. He does not believe it is the intent of the ordinance as written, as interpreted or as put in place in the past.
They would also suggest the elimination of the fence along the property line. This would be a good thing creating an open vista. Mr. Evans suggested this was an attractive plan that is well below lot coverage with adequate parking that has been engineered for proper drainage. He further suggested that this plan should be approvable by staff because the only items not meeting by right standards are the vegetative buffer, parking lot width, parking along the property line and the dumpster.
Chairman Forlano asked where the repair area was located.
Mr. Evans explained that this property was platted prior to repair area requirements and therefore it is not required to have one. He further explained that the applicant already has health department approval for his site, as well as engineered building plans. Mr. Evans noted that they are ready to pull the building permit and have been for a very long time. Mr. Evans stated that discussions between Mr. Kowalewitch and Ms. Cotellessa have been ongoing since January of this year, but Mr. Evans claimed that it was not until approximately 45 days ago that anything was provided in writing to Mr. Kowalewitch detailing his issues. Mr. Evans indicated that they were informed at that time that they needed a traffic and parking analysis. When they requested examples of previous reports, they were provided with 2 reports analyzing extremely large developments; they only have 12 parking spots. Mr. Evans stated they have already obtained a driveway/curb permit from DOT, even though DOT said it was not required. They also sought DOT’s assistance with the traffic analysis and were told by DOT that the impact was negligible. Mr. Evans suggested that the requirement for a traffic analysis is oppressive and asked what good was it. He suggested that they can get an engineer to write anything they want, for that matter they can write it for them and have the engineer simply stamp it. Mr. Evans again questioned the necessity for the analysis, and went on to inform the Board that the building had asbestos shingles which were removed and disposed of in accordance with proper practice. Mr. Evans indicated that they have done everything by the book.
There were some questions from the Board regarding the entrance and parking spaces. Mr. Evans showed on the plan and explained the entrance and parking layout.
Mr. Evans explained that the property owners did intend to put in a pier once they were up and running.
Member Jenkins asked what kind of retail business Mr. Kowalewitch intended.
Mr. Kowalewitch was recognized to speak and informed the Board that he owns a surf shop in Virginia Beach that he has been running for 23 years. It will be a retail business; he will rent surfboards and sell clothes. The upstairs apartment is designed for employees. It was confirmed that the septic capacity is designed for a maximum of 4 people in the accessory apartment.
Chairman Forlano had a question as to the area in front of the bulkhead. It was explained that this area is within the CAMA setback and therefore no development is permitted. There was some discussion regarding the sound side area at the current ResortQuest property and the development that has occurred there. That would not be permitted today.
Mr. Evans detailed the conceptual rendering to the Board. He noted that as you drive down Duck Road, you will be looking at the sitting porch. He also explained that the site is set up with two ramp accesses; one from the parking area and one from the bike path.
Mr. Evans asked Ms. Cotellessa whether she could share any of the engineer’s comments with them today. Ms. Cotellessa indicated she had only just received the report today and had not thoroughly reviewed them. Mr. Evans asked if they could obtain copies of any reports or comments that she receives before the joint meeting. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that any reports she receives are public information so he can certainly request copies. She also noted that the applicant will be provided a copy of the staff report at the same time as the Planning Board and Town Council.
Mr. Evans again questioned whether this should be a use by right with a minor waiver by staff; again stating that all of the issues are minor in nature. He asked Mr. Britt for his opinion.
Vice-Chair Britt indicated that he did not disagree that there may only be a few small issues, but there is a process in place that was designed specifically for theses types of circumstances, and that process needed to be adhered to.
Mr. Evans again urged the Board to comment on the option for planning staff to approve minor variances. He again reiterated that they were looking at extraordinarily minor issues.
Chairman Forlano indicated that he agreed with Mr. Evans. He did not see any major problems; the drive aisle and the traffic study were in his opinion minor exceptions. Mr. Forlano did indicate that he did not agree with Mr. Evans’ regarding the dumpster requirement. He believes a dumpster is a necessary evil.
Mr. Kowalewitch explained that at his retail site in Virginia Beach, he has three apartments with only four trash cans that are picked up once a week, and they do not have a problem with trash. They recycle; they have very little trash. Mr. Evans proceeded to explain to the Planning Board the Town requirements for trash, and the evolution of trash in a retail environment; goods come in a box, boxes get folded, goods get sold, bags come in a box, box gets folded, goods go out the door in box – very little trash.
Member March asked what the Town requirements were for commercial properties.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the Town had an ordinance requiring that everyone, residential and commercial, collect trash and keep it in appropriate containers. The Town collects both residential and commercial waste. If the trash on a site is minimal, it is not inconceivable under this Option, that the Planning Board and Town Council could approve the use of cans versus dumpsters.
Mr. Evans suggested that 60% of the commercial sites in Duck, mostly real estate and small retail establishments, do not have dumpsters.
It was clarified that commercial trash is collected three times a week year round, and residential pick-up occurs once a week in the off season and twice a week in season.
Chairman Forlano summarized the issues that Mr. Evans had raised. He noted the drive aisle, the dumpster and the vegetative buffer. Mr. Evans also stated that Ms. Cotellessa had indicated there was a loading zone issue. Mr. Evans asked Ms. Cotellessa if she would share her concerns.
Ms. Cotellessa explained that the concerns she has are those that are laid out in the Village Commercial Development Option and the items for review such as site circulation, site access and proximity of entrances, to name a few. She noted that each requirement would be laid out in a matrix in her staff report. She would also provide comments from the engineer and other agencies in her staff report.
Mr. Evans stated that it was unfair that she could not provide any specifics since this has been going on since February.
Ms. Cotellessa explained that this was a courtesy offering that staff made to the applicant, inviting them to present to the Planning Board their plan that would be coming forward at the joint work session. She noted this meeting was not the work session. At the work session, the Planning Board will have the benefit of the applicant’s presentation in more depth, and the staff report with accompanying information. This application was submitted on October 25, 2005. There have been discussions with the applicant back and forth for some time. The applicant has been working to obtain necessary CAMA approvals and other required approvals. During this period, the applicant has obtained permits to re-establish a bulkhead on the property which has added to the square footage of the site. There have been several things occurring; the applicant was asked to discuss with adjacent properties owners the potential, as noted in the ordinance, for shared entranceways. The application that was submitted in October is essentially the same as the application that was submitted in the spring; however the applicant has since obtained health department and CAMA approval. This complete application, less the requested information on parking and traffic analysis, was only just received a few weeks ago so staff needs time to prepare comments. Ms. Cotellessa explained again that this is simply an information item for this evening’s meeting.
Mr. Evans stated that the plan that was submitted in the spring had the parking lot reversed; it was originally designed with the parking against the building and the drive aisle was on the back side. He stated the applicant had offered to pay the expense of moving the neighbors dumpster and creating a new screening area so they could have a 24 foot entrance. They also tried to work out cross easements between the two properties thereby creating a shared entrance, but one of the majority interest owners at Soundside Shops would not agree.
Mr. Kowalewitch stated that he has been working with Ms. Cotellessa since January. He claimed he has made dozens and dozens and dozens of phone calls, and at least 25 trips back and forth from Virginia to try and make this plan work where he would not have to ask for anything. He wanted to work within the parameters allowed. He then read to the Board members section 42.2.9 of the zoning ordinance regarding Waiver of Commercial Design and Development Standards and Site Plan Requirements. Mr. Kowalewitch claimed that he had only just received this section of the ordinance from town staff a few weeks ago. He quoted the ordinance; “in order to encourage creative design, to avoid undue hardship, and to expedite the zoning approval process for developments within the town, a waiver of any of the design and development or site plan requirements contained within this article may be approved as follows.
(a) Minor waiver. The zoning administrator is authorized to grant a minor waiver from the standards of this article subject to the following:
(1) Any request for a waiver of a standard set forth in the ordinance including, but not necessarily limited to screening or buffer requirements, planting requirements, spacing requirements, landscaping material, building design, and parking lot layout shall be granted only after the applicant has demonstrated that:
a. The deviation was a result of unique conditions of the property, OR…”
Mr. Kowalewitch went on to explain to the Planning Board that the zoning administrator has the ability to grant a minor waiver for less than 10% of any of the requirements relative to this project. He indicated that they were not asking for parking relief or buffer relief; they are only asking for one corner which they were willing to eliminate. Mr. Kowalewitch questioned why they could not get a minor waiver when they have met every single standard. He stated that they have a unique hardship in that they spent a lot of money for the property, they have the season to plan for and they want to build and get going. They feel like they have met the standards yet every time he turns around, there is something else.
Mr. Evans stated that it is not easy dealing in Duck. It is very difficult; it is very difficult to get anything in writing. He suggested that Ms. Cotellessa has a habit of interpreting and sometimes it is very difficult. He further suggested that there are only a few engineers that he knows of that will come to Duck. It is not a happy thing. Mr. Evans further echoed Mr. Kowalewitch’s comments. He then indicated that there was nothing that says you cannot have a parking lot against the property line, or a dumpster against the property line. Mr. Evans reiterated that they have obtained CAMA, DOT and Health Department permits as well as engineered site plans. He indicated that he probably has over 200 hours drawn into this project thus far which would have cost the applicants easily $30,000 to $40,000 if done by an engineer. He went on to state that an engineer would have requested something in writing nine months ago. Mr. Evans directed his attention to Ms. Cotellessa and stated that it is very difficult dealing in Duck and he does not like coming to Duck; everything is negative and no one is helping. He stated this is not the way it is supposed to be and it is a reflection on the good people who volunteer their time.
Member March interjected and directed her comments to Mr. Evans. She indicated that she respects him for what he does, however this is the first time she has seen him at a meeting. There was a lot of work that went into putting together the Town’s zoning ordinance, and all meetings were open to the public from the time the meeting began to the end. She noted this was the largest crowd she has seen at a meeting. She further commented that the Board was glad to have Ms. Cotellessa because there was a time when they did not.
Mr. Evans replied stating that this was not the first time that his comments have been made known in appropriate places. He further informed the Board that he was never happy with the Town’s incorporation but that is a separate issue.
Chairman Forlano interjected and explained to Mr. Evans that this was a courtesy meeting, and with everyone’s cooperation this project will move forward. He guaranteed that it will happen but asked for patience. He explained that there is a system that the Town put in place, and they are asking the applicant to work with them.
Mr. Evans asked the Board, as they look through this applicant’s submission, if this was an appropriate circumstance for a minor administrative waiver.
Mr. Karageorge was recognized to speak. He explained that he was the primary investment source for this project and that he has been doing business in Virginia Beach for forty (40) years. He gave a brief history about how they came to own the property, their initial intention to rehabilitate the building, their loss of a season, the difficulties that they have encountered thus far and how they are now dealing with a time issue. He detailed the lead time necessary for this type of business and indicated that they were simply looking to expedite this process.
Mr. Evans again appealed to the Board for consideration of a minor waiver.
Vice-Chair Britt explained that was not within their authority; that would be a determination for Ms. Cotellessa to make. He further stated that this meeting was a courtesy, and he would stand by Ms. Cotellessa’s interpretation. He indicated that he did not see anything wrong with the plan; he believes it is a workable plan.
Mr. Evans asked that the Board call him as they work through the plans if they had any concerns rather than waiting till the last minute.
Vice-Chair Britt stated that he saw mostly minor issues, but if he saw something major he would most likely speak with Ms. Cotellessa and he would let Mr. Evans know.
Chairman Forlano stated that he reviewed this for a few days and he did not see anything.
Member Jenkins stated he had a concern. He stated that he supported the incorporation of the Town because he did not feel that the County was looking out for Duck. Mr. Jenkins noted that the zoning ordinance requires a 20,000 square foot lot for commercial and this was adopted in 1982. Mr. Jenkins stated that this was the first time he has heard the argument that this is unjust. He further stated that when he looked at this he asked himself whether we were again pushing the limits and if so what does that hold for the future. Mr. Jenkins further stated that he supports Ms. Cotellessa and this needs to be done correctly and according to the ordinance. He believes in low density and sees Mr. Evans pushing for more retail space. Mr. Jenkins also stated that for Mr. Evans to criticize Ms. Cotellessa is unjust and he did not appreciate it.
Mr. Kowalewitch interrupted Mr. Jenkins and explained that he spent a lot of money for this property. He stated that he met with Ms. Cotellessa in January and was advised that the property was zoned Village Commercial. He indicated that he has a list of phones calls and times that he has been here asking what he needs to do. He stated that Ms. Cotellessa told him that he needed to hire some professionals. He argued that he had tried to fit the mold within the standards of the Town and was getting a raw deal. He stated that he had done everything possible; more than anyone has ever done in this area and the plan fits within the minor waiver guidelines. Everything has been done except for a foot in one corner. Mr. Kowalewitch claimed undue hardship stating that in the passed ten (10) months his mortgage rate has gone up a point and a half on a million dollars. He stated that he was told there are no rules; just submit a plan, but then every time he turned around there was another issue. He claimed that finally after twenty (20) trips to Duck, he finally got something in writing. He stated he should have gotten this on day one and that is not fair.
Councilor Morrison stated that Duck is a very small town and the residents are very protective of their town. Council agonized over this ordinance and they intend to follow it to the letter. He further stated that Ms. Cotellessa has the only authority to declare this situation a minor waiver; neither the Town Council nor the Planning Board has the authority to supersede her decision. Mr. Morrison noted that the 14th is the first time the Council is able to meet in a work session and then there will be a public hearing on January 4, 2005.
Mr. Evans commented that the planning staff takes their marching orders from the Planning Board and Council and anything they can do to help would be appreciated. He then thanked the Board for their time and indicated that he did not know that this was an informal work session. He thought it was a Planning Board review.
Chairman Forlano and Vice-Chair Britt both briefly discussed the last joint work session.
Mr. Evans asked if the Waterfront Shops were required to provide a traffic analysis. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that they had.
Mr. Kowalewitch, Mr. Karageorge and Mr. Evans left the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Lot Coverage Issues
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the draft language before the Board includes driveways; however staff is not recommending any changes tonight based upon previous discussions and the Board’s desire to meet with Town Council to discuss direction. Additionally, Southern Shores is having a meeting on November 16, 12005 that the Planning Board may wish to attend. This is simply draft language to include driveways and parking areas in lot coverage.
Vice-Chair Britt stated that there had been some discussion of incentive for the use of pervious surfaces.
Chairman Forlano noted that he had read a newspaper article and Nancy White had stated that despite zoning regulations having been in effect for two generations, we are still dealing with the same problems of water runoff. Mr. Forlano stated that lot coverage has not changed and it hasn’t restricted the size of houses and we still have runoff. He did not see how the current ordinance was addressing these issues.
Ms. Cotellessa went over some of the purposes of lot coverage, and noted that the Town does not count gravel driveways nor do they count open decks, and that typically gets put into the size of the house or the pool. She suggested that if they want to enhance the amount of open space, they have to reduce the amount of coverage and that may mean including driveways and decks.
Vice-Chair Britt stated this is why he wants to meet with Council.
Member Jenkins stated that if you want a smaller house, you should count everything.
Planning Director Cotellessa reminded the Board of discussions when the large house moratorium was in place. She indicated that the number of bedrooms is not limiting the house size. It limits the advertising ability and that is about it. If the concern is house size, then other options needs to be looked at.
Vice-Chair Britt stated that he was initially against limiting house size but with the way development is progressing he thinks they do need to discuss house size.
Member March stated that some consideration needs to be made for permanent residents.
Vice-Chair Britt agreed with Ms. March. Both indicated that they did not know how to do this though.
Chairman Forlano also questioned how that could be handled.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that they do have in place a special exception process which is different than a variance. The Board of Zoning Adjustments can take an individual situation and consider the practicality of the situation as opposed to the hardship. This process takes staff out of the decision making and puts it before a Board.
There was some discussion regarding the as-built matrix that was provided at the September meeting and the average lot coverage percentages. Of the surveys in the matrix, the average coverage was only in the mid twenties. Ms. Cotellessa suggested that the reason the average was not closer to 30% may be because the Town does not include gravel driveways or open decks. If you start including gravel driveways and open decks, the houses at 30% now are over and the ones below will be right at 30%.
Olin Finch was recognized to speak. He suggested that there are two real issues; water and crowds. He suggested that there is no magic behind 30%. Mr. Finch reminded the Board of some of Mr. Hunt’s presentation on October 19, 2005. He offered his views suggesting crowds can be controlled by limiting the number of bedrooms. He suggested fill can be used to help with water runoff, and he disagreed with the use of swales. The 30% lot coverage limitation is not the cause of the water problems. He suggested that you could limit lot coverage to 20% and you would still have the same problems with water. Mr. Finch suggested that a density study should be performed; they need to get back to the number of bedrooms and the number of cars. He indicated that he does not know the right answer but whatever they decide will have a huge economic impact.
Planning Director Cotellessa agreed that density is certainly an issue, but you can still have a 5 bedroom house that is 6,000 square feet. The issue is storm water and density, but it is also the environment and the open space, and plants and vegetation.
Mr. Finch suggested that the use of and requirement of (in some jurisdictions) concrete driveways defies all logic.
Vice-Chair Britt agreed with Mr. Finch.
Mr. Finch indicated that the big issue is how many people can the Town support. What should the density be? He stated that if you make the lot coverage smaller, you will only force people to build substandard housing. They will simply decrease bedroom size. He would rather see a larger house with less bedrooms and more freedom to build a nicer house. You would restrict that only because of the numbers of people.
Mr. Finch also brought up the issue of height elevation commenting that height is overstated, and there is nothing magic about the 35 foot height limit. He stated that grade elevations change daily depending on the wind, and a lot of money and wasted time is being spent on trying to maintain the height requirements. He suggested measuring height by dictating the height of rooms and roof pitch, limiting houses to 3 floors with 9 foot ceilings.
Member Jenkins commented that height is important especially when a house goes up next to yours.
Vice-Chair Britt commented that the concept of measuring height based upon the number of floors was interesting and simple.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that formula effectively equates to a 35 foot height; it just gets at the same result from a different direction.
Mr. Finch argued that meeting the 35 foot height limit with three floors and a 7/12 roof pitch limits the width of the house to 28 feet or you cannot meet the height limit.
Planning Director Cotellessa argued that the town has a height limit as do all of the local jurisdictions, and the problem arises because the designers are designing houses to be 34 feet and 11 ¾ inches tall.
Mr. Finch again questioned where the 35 foot limit came from, and argued that height should be measured either by the number of floors and maximum height of rooms or by designating a specific roof pitch.
Chairman Forlano asked it the Board would be meeting for a joint session with Town Council to discuss lot coverage.
Planning Director Cotellessa reminded that she had been asked to prepare a memorandum on the Board’s behalf to Council requesting same, possibly at the retreat or at a separate meeting.
Vice-Chair Britt stated they need to get direction; is it population density, building density, what are they trying to get at.
Mr. Finch said the Board needs to recognize the truth. The issue is not 30% lot coverage.
Ms. Cotellessa noted that most of the complaints have not been related to density but rather the typical size of the houses, especially in the cases of redevelopment, and on oceanfront properties. Ms. Cotellessa explained that oceanfront properties are measured to the Mean High Water Mark rather than the first line of stable vegetation which makes for a much larger lot.
Denver Lindley was recognized to speak. He commented that his house would be considered a tear down.
Mr. Finch suggested that there is a major difference between the rental homes and the year round homes and there lies a major source of the problem, because the rental homes are viewed as businesses. There is an obvious conflict.
Mr. Lindley suggested that if they allow things to continue as they are, the quality of life in Duck will be destroyed, and that too will impact the revenue from the rentals. He feels that there has to be a mix; some of everything.
Planning Director Cotellessa commented on the variety of homes that exist in Sanderling, both residents and rentals. They exist with lower lot coverage, more trees and no pools as a result of self regulation. She suggested that many of the older communities do not have the covenants like Sanderling and therefore they are developing solely based on Town regulation which is something the Board needs to look at.
There was some discussion regarding property values and rental income.
Mr. Finch noted that there are a lot of people that own property in Duck but the people that live in Duck, although a minority, are the ones controlling the properties of non-resident property owners because they are active and they are making the rules. It is not necessarily fair for a minority to control the majority.
Mr. Lindley commented that the year round residents have a vested interest that the absentee property owners do not have. He indicated this is a community run by the people that live here. It is a very special community because of the people that live here and the community that they have developed, so they should have the right to say this is how it’s going to be. Mr. Lindley referred to the applicants that spoke earlier. He noted that they listed twelve different things that were not part of the ordinance and then reacted as they were the offended party. He commented that they should have asked for help instead of bad mouthing the zoning administrator.
Several comments suggested the applicants presented with poor tactics.
Member Jenkins stated that he does not want to be like Virginia Beach anyway.
It was noted that there was draft language regarding the pool surround that had not been discussed. The matter was deferred.
Chairman Forlano asked if any of the Members would be attending the November 16th meeting. He said he thought it would be helpful. Member March indicated she would be working and Vice-Chair Britt stated he would try to attend.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 28, 2005
Vice-Chair Britt made a motion to approve the minutes of September 28, 2005.
Member March seconded the motion.
Minutes for September 28, 2005 were approved 4-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
Planning Director Cotellessa informed the Board that the Community Improvement Committee had just awarded its first Village Improvement Grant to Farmer’s Daughter for new awnings, new shutters and painting. She also noted that the Committee would be finalizing the first three awards for fall seasonal display this coming week. Holiday display awards would be issued in December.
BOARD COMMENTS
Vice-Chair Britt had a few questions regarding the discussions with Mr. Kowalewitch and Mr. Evans. He asked when they were informed they would need to go through the Village Commercial Development Option. Ms. Cotellessa indicated January or February.
Mr. Britt noted that they seemed to have dragged their feet over the summer.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated that, contrary to Mr. Kowalewitch’s assertion, she had probably spoken with him only a half a dozen times. She indicated that he came to the Town in January or February and said he wanted to have his business open in May. Ms. Cotellessa gave a brief history of what followed. He was advised that he had some things to do. The first thing he did was bring in a crew from Virginia to tear off all of the asbestos siding at the Scarborough house without permits as required by the state; this held him up. Mr. Kowalewitch was informed initially that the Town could not consider his permits until he had CAMA and health department approval. In the meantime, they did obtain a demolition permit for the house several months ago, yet they have not demolished the house yet. They also obtained permits for and finalized the bulkhead. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she sent Mr. Kowalewitch an email detailing the different items he needed to address. She explained there were several issues affecting development on the site and she expected that her staff report would reveal that there are probably 10-15 things that do not meet the code, not just a 24 foot drive aisle. Mr. Kowalewitch was encouraged early on to come in through this process because it is possible to get relief from some of the code requirements, especially when you are dealing with a small lot. She stated that she did not say there are no rules; she explained there was a process whereby the Planning Board and Town Council can look at and approve a conceptual plan that may not meet all of the by-right requirements. She noted that most of the information was finally received on October 25, 2005, and she put them on the quickest schedule possible. They were invited this evening to informally introduce their plan; this was not a work session. This was explained to Mr. Kowalewitch and Mr. Evans prior to the meeting.
Vice-Chair Britt asked whether they had previously challenged that this was simply a minor and she indicated they had. Vice-Chair Britt commented that this was not minor; he would have objected if it had been processed as a minor waiver because there were too many issues. There was no one major issue but there were many small items.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that when this ordinance was passed she assured the Council and Planning Board that she would not substitute her judgment for that of Town Council or the Planning Board unless it was, in fact, minor. This is a site that is changing use from residential to commercial; the impacts will change.
Member March inquired when Mr. Evans became involved with the project. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she had heard in the spring that he would be the contractor, however this morning was the first time she had spoken with Mr. Evans regarding this particular project.
Chairman Forlano stated the he still felt the informal meeting was helpful.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated she would like to offer this for all applicants. She noted that the Hovey’s from Duck Village Outfitters were present earlier and they would be coming forward with a plan in the near future as well.
Vice-Chair Britt also questioned whether they could require the building be built as it was proposed and Ms. Cotellessa indicated that they can condition substantial conformance with the drawing as part of the approval.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Forlano adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman