TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
May 10, 2006
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 10, 2006.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Vice-Chairman Jon Britt, Members Anne Darnall and John Jenkins.
Also present were Council Liaison Denver Lindley, Jr., Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Suzanne Cotellessa and Administrative Assistant Sandy Cady.
Others Present: Mayor Pro-Tempore Monica Thibodeau, Willo Kelly, government liaison for the Outer Banks Home Builders Association and Association of Realtors, representative from the Outer Banks Wedding Association and resident Olin Finch.
Chairman Forlano called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for May 10, 2006 at 6:30 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Town Council-referred Zoning Text Amendment regarding Event Houses (ref. by TC 3/1/06)
Chairman Forlano stated that since he has an interest in the event houses, he must recuse himself from the Board and turned the meeting over to Vice-Chair Britt.
Planning Director Suzanne Cotellessa was recognized to speak. Planning Director Cotellessa reminded the Board that they began discussions of this matter at their last meeting. They talked about several different ways of dealing with the event houses. The sense she got was to see if they could deal with them in some limited way to try and get a handle on the issues that were a concern without a burdensome permit process. She indicated that she prepared a simple special events registration policy that provides a threshold at which something approaches an event whether it be a party, a wedding, reunion, etc. That threshold is based upon gatherings of 50 or more people. They had discussed transportation issues; trash collection; noise and an emergency point of contact. The registration form would be completed by the applicant. The registration form would be distributed to police, fire, property owners, property management companies and neighborhood associations for information and coordination.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated that subsequently she has had some discussions with the fire chief and building inspector regarding safety issues. They discussed the idea of preparing a temporary template that could be posted at event houses detailing such things as the house layout, exits, extinguishers, and maximum occupancy for decks.
Through the registration process, they would hopefully begin to see patterns of use with the event houses, which would then allow for them to see whether there is further need for regulation.
It was clarified that they were not designating event houses but rather setting a threshold at which point a house should register for an event.
Member Jenkins inquired how staff would enforce.
Ms. Cotellessa explained that the idea is to make sure the applicant thinks about the issues like parking, traffic, etc. and to provide a point of contact for enforcement.
Ms. Cotellessa also indicated that in her meeting with the fire chief and building inspector, they discussed preparing an information sheet for large houses with recommendations to, for instance, install dry sprinkler systems and reinforce decks. They would be suggestions only; these are not requirements for single family homes.
Member Darnall inquired where people park when there is a wedding in Duck. Ms. Cotellessa explained that this was one of the issues which caused this matter to be brought forward for discussion – parking varies from shuttling in guests, to guests that walk to guests that park illegally. The registration process will hopefully give people cause to deal with the issues resulting from event houses.
Member Darnall inquired what the fee would be.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated the intent is to keep this as simple as possible and she would anticipate a nominal fee to deal with the procedural administration.
Member Darnall inquired how they would deal with houses that are not event houses but those that consistently have more than 50 people in them for parties.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated that ideally they can look at this from a policy perspective with a voluntary registration procedure. If they find that there are problems, then they can always revisit the issue and address the problem with regulations.
Nanette Jernigan, representing the Outer Banks Wedding Association indicated that they feel this is a generous step and they do not believe that the brides will be upset or offended by this procedure. It will help with many of the problems that have developed and it is reasonable.
Member Darnall noted that this policy procedure is designed to deal with more than just weddings.
Ms. Cotellessa concurred.
Member Jenkins indicated that he has been a resident of Duck for many years. In 2005 his property taxes increased 50%. He is not opposed to the policy but he is not on board with a couple of things. Mr. Jenkins would recommend the use of rent-a-cops. He thinks the Town should administer these and lease patrols. He is also looking for other revenue sources. He believes an event house should be registered; there should be a required permit with a fee and Town approval and fines for not registering.
Vice-Chair Britt indicated that they were given direction to look at this based upon the negative impacts and the safety issues. His nightmare is a deck collapsing. He is afraid that they will end up where Member Jenkins sees this going, and suggested that it is tough to partially regulate something. He likes the registration process although he is not sure that will be enough. He wonders how they will get the word out.
Ms. Jernigan indicated that if you target the rental companies and OBWA immediately, that would be a great first line.
Member Jenkins asked Ms. Jernigan whether OBWA would endorse the Town’s registration and permitting process with the property management companies?
Ms. Jernigan indicated that she thinks the registration is great. With regard to permits, although she was unable to speak on behalf of everyone, she stated she felt that if the fee was reasonable, and the requirements involved with the permit were not over burdensome she would not be opposed.
Vice-Chair Britt remarked regarding houses that have events every weekend. They impact the neighboring houses and he suggested limiting the number of events at one location.
Member Darnall agreed with Vice-Chair Britt.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that they could accomplish a limit on events through the zoning ordinance. She noted however that based upon input from previous meetings, there were suggestions that the number of event houses was decreasing due to the natural impacts on the houses from these events. If you start with a registration process, you can begin to get a handle on the houses, the issues and the complaints and go from there.
Chairman Forlano indicated that natural attrition is occurring. He commented that he only has 3 weddings for the 2006 season, and his contract for 2007 has no weddings. The wear and tear is tremendous. He does see that this is a situation that should be addressed on a temporary basis with registration forms but he does not see this as something that will be a real problem in the future.
Ms. Jernigan noted that most wedding events are in the spring and fall shoulder season.
There was some discussion regarding houses that hold up to 12 events in a year. Ms. Jernigan suggested that was a large number and very unusual. Member Darnall commented that those types of houses are bordering on commercial uses and there are safety issues involved when you move to that level.
There was some discussion whether the threshold of 50 people was too high or low. Ms. Cotellessa suggested that 50 starts to reach that level of assembly where some precautions need to be taken into consideration.
Member Darnall inquired how many events there are annually.
Ms. Jernigan indicated that there are about 2000 events annually in combined Dare, Currituck and Ocracoke. Based upon a survey of OBWA members, the average event hosts 73 people.
Member Jenkins commented that this is a major industry that is still developing and the Town should be ahead of the curve.
Willo Kelly was recognized to speak and introduced herself. She indicated that she represents the Outer Banks Realtors Association and the Home Builders Association, and she is not specifically representing property managers. She indicated that what she has heard is that there is a problem with education. She stated that there has been no hard data presenting the number of complaints resulting from event houses. She further stated that parking is regulated and noise is regulated. They all agree that there is a problem with the property management companies on the front line. These companies need to be aware of covenants and restrictions, parking regulations, and safety issues so they can disseminate that information to those that are booking homes for weddings. Ms. Kelly noted that one of the major concerns with event houses was overloading septic systems. The health department has confirmed that events are not detrimental to the septic system. She is worried that OBWA is going to regulate themselves out of business. She stated that she understands the impacts and believes everyone understands the impacts but she thought from the last task force meeting and from the last Planning Board meeting that they were leaning towards an education program, so as to make this a welcoming experience not a regulatory program.
Ms. Kelly also commented that the references to commercial recommendations for houses scares her. She indicated that would mean entering that gray area of defining residential houses commercially, which would lend itself to different levels of financing and other issues.
Vice-Chair Britt indicated he would like to see what kind of complaints were received last year. He sees both sides but would like to keep this friendly with a registration process to start.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that this registration process and the temporary templates for the houses are designed to assist in the education process. She would recommend the Board review the registration form and she will put together a template for the next meeting along with a list of the complaints received.
There was some further discussion regarding the lack of data regarding complaints in the Town of Duck.
Vice- Chair Britt indicated he wants to see a proposed template, he wants to see some data and he wants the Board members to review the registration forms and think about how best to distribute this information.
Planning Director Cotellessa commented that they want to try and pre-empt the draconian reaction.
Ms. Jernigan asked if she could get a copy of the initial form that was prepared.
Vice-Chair Britt indicated that the templates will just be to make sure exits are marked and decks are marked for maximum capacity.
Olin Finch was recognized to speak and suggested that if the Town is going to prepare templates with maximum load capacities they are opening themselves up to liability issues.
Vice-Chair Britt agreed that the registration process is good but again noted that this is an attempt to partially regulate something. He also questioned whether you can regulate a commercial event in a residential setting? Are they opening a box? And are they trying to pass rules that don’t fit?
Ms. Cotellessa re-emphasized again that they were trying to avoid a draconian hand in dealing with event houses.
Vice-Chair Britt indicated he agreed that this is an education mission and if they get further into regulating, it will be tough.
Ms. Cotellessa went over some of the items on the registration form. She noted that the form is mostly about education rather than a set of rules.
Ms. Jernigan commented that whatever happens here in Duck will set a trend for the rest of the towns.
Councilor Lindley noted that they all need to be aware that there are two sides to the impacts here, and everyone needs to be aware of the basic vision for Duck.
B. ZTA/Code Changes to Comply with State Mandates (ref. by TC 3/15/06)
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that the Board had before them a proposed ordinance to bring the Town’s regulations in line with the mandatory state legislation for providing a written report to the Town Council on all rezoning and CUP actions, regulations for zoning map amendments, and how notices must be made. She noted that the Town has already been doing what the state is now requiring so this is basically a housekeeping matter to include these requirements in the Town code. Ms. Cotellessa indicated this ordinance affects the first 18 of some 40 items that came from the last state legislature. She will be bringing more forward at future meetings. This draft is very straight forward with nothing that is even debatable; these are required by state code.
There was some discussion regarding notifications.
Member Darnall made a motion that the draft Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Duck, North Carolina to conform with North Carolina State Statutes regarding Planning and Development as presented is consistent with the Town’s adopted CAMA Core Land use Plan and should be recommended for approval to the Town Council.
Member Jenkins seconded the motion 2-0.
Motion carried 4-0.
C. ZTA revisions regarding parking and driveways in lot coverage calucation (ref by TC 4/19/06) and re maximum driveway widths and number of curb cuts (ref. by TC 3/15/06)
Planning Director Cotellessa gave a historical overview. This ordinance originally had two pieces; the first dealing with oceanfront properties and the first line of stable natural vegetation (FLSNV), the second dealt with driveways and parking in lot coverage. The Council severed the two issues at its last meeting and did adopt the FLSNV at its meeting.
Council sent back the parking and driveway issue to Planning Board for further discussion. She noted that included in their package were some examples of situations where gravel parking was not included in lot coverage and how a change in that direction would impact these houses. She believes that Town Council wants the Planning Board to look at providing some flexibility with parking without taking away stormwater areas and providing open space for trees and vegetation.
Ms. Cotellessa referenced page 3 of the draft before the Board and noted this is the code as it exists. On Page 4 she noted some changes in section (d) which clarifies setbacks with regard to roadway right of ways and shared driveways. Section (e) deals with parking and stacking. Ms. Cotellessa suggested they could consider stacking 3 cars in the driveway, which seems reasonable from a safety, emergency and fire standpoint, based upon the research she has done. On page 5 there is new language which is a conglomeration of regulations that are prevalent in other beach communities. This language tries to get at multiple driveway cuts and width of driveways which has been the topic of discussion at previous meetings and at the Council level. She indicated that she used a fairly liberal placeholder, in comparison to other jurisdictions, of 75% of the total width of a lot not to exceed 40 feet whichever is less. She also included language to limit the number or driveway cuts to no more than one per street frontage, exempting circular driveways and/or when the street frontage is greater than 80 feet. Some safety and maintenance language was also included in section (j) and a requirement that loose stone surfaces be bordered with concrete or treated timbers was included in section (k). This would help to address some safety and maintenance issues. The last part of section (k) prohibits loose stone surfaces in public rights of way and provides that driveway aprons in private rights of way shall be as specified by the private right of way owner.
Ms. Cotellessa noted that in section (i) she had discussed safety issues with the fire chief and a turn around should be required in situations where there is a very long driveway.
Vice-Chair Britt suggested that a turn around would simply be parked in if the house was full of people.
Member Darnall commented that the original complaint when Planning Board first discussed this several years ago was that there was not enough parking so they tied the parking to the number of bedrooms and the size of the house. She noted that since the parking requirements were relaxed and from the surveys in her package, it was clear that the parking areas have gone into the size of the house. She was not opposed to additional stacking or cutting the number of parking spaces required.
Olin Finch was recognized and suggested changing the restriction on the width of the driveway. He also suggested allowing people to park all the way across the front of the property.
Ms. Cotellessa explained that they can do that now.
Mr. Finch suggested they could eliminate the 5 foot setback for parking which would allow for another parking space. No cars would be stacked if all of the parking was across the front of the property and it would be easier to get in and out.
Vice-Chair Britt commented that you would still want to have some kind of landscaped area between the parking and the house.
Mr. Finch suggested that they need to encourage people to park in the most efficient way possible.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated that the composition of the driveway needs to be considered for both aesthetic and stormwater control. These are two of the reasons for not allowing driveways to span the entire length of a lot.
Vice-Chair Britt mentioned that the hydrology study specifically reported that pervious breaks in long concrete driveways were recommended for stormwater control.
Ms. Cotellessa noted that she provided an example of such a recommendation in their package. Generally, the entire driveway is included in lot coverage even in instances where pervious breaks are used. If you do not count the pervious area, it will find its way to the pool deck. The use of pervious breaks does get at stormwater concerns though.
Mr. Finch commented that Ocean Sands allows up to 60% lot coverage and they do not count driveways and parking. He further stated that stormwater is not an overwhelming issue there. He suggested that they do have stormwater issues but they are not the result of lot coverage.
Member Darnall indicated that she is not sure what direction they need to go with the parking issue.
Chairman Forlano suggested that aesthetics is basically the red herring that was mentioned earlier and they are trying to control the size of the home with lot coverage and parking. If you look at the examples that Ms. Cotellessa provided, and you count all of the parking and driveways, you will make an impact.
Member Darnall noted that based upon the examples provided, they would all be nonconforming if all of the parking and driveways were included in coverage.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether they were trying to control house size or aesthetics.
Councilor Liaison Lindley suggested that they need to consider both.
There was some discussion about the number of parking spaces required previously and currently.
Member Darnall indicated she is having difficulty dealing with all of the issues; stormwater, trees, low scale development versus higher density development; greenspace. This is all about how much built environment to allow and she is struggling trying to determine what Duck should be.
Ms. Cotellessa stated that the whole issue with lot coverage is how much of the lot is going to be covered and unavailable for open space and vegetation. When they allowed driveways to be gravel, they did not open up any more areas for open space or vegetation – it ended up resulting in more coverage from pool decks. When the Planning Board recommended to Town Council that the driveway and parking areas be included in lot coverage, the language basically said that in no case are you going to cover more than 30% of your lot with built environment of any sort. Now the issue is whether there is a way to allow for a little more flexibility.
Member Darnall indicated that someone had suggested to her that everything should count and concrete should count 1 ½ times. She does believe that driveways and parking should absolutely count in coverage because of the enforcement issues, but noted that looking at the surveys in her package some of these houses would have 44% lot coverage if everything was counted which creates nonconformities.
Willo Kelly was recognized to speak and commented that most of the other towns include everything, however their lot coverage allowance is a little larger.
Member Darnall stated that Duck is different and comparing Duck with the other towns does not go over well. She said it is useful to know what the other towns are doing but Duck is a different place than KDH. They are not comparable.
Willo Kelly agreed and suggested what they want to push is low impact development. She suggested that Nancy White come speak to the Planning Board to discuss initiatives that are taking place not only in North Carolina but across the country.
Member Darnall stated that based upon the Land Use Plan and what has come to them from Town Council, a lower scale of development to maintain the appearance of Duck with trees and green space is what is desired. She again stated that she feels all driveway and parking should be included in coverage and she would need to think about how she feels about parking all the way across the front of the property. She wants to drive around before she comments on that suggestion.
With redevelopment, Member Darnall noted that one of the first things to go is vegetation.
Councilor Lindley commented that what’s done is done. We are now talking about the future.
There was some discussion and explanation regarding nonconformities.
Member Darnall indicated that she thinks additional stacking should be allowed but wants to think more about reducing the number of parking spots.
Councilor Thibodeau was recognized and commented that the Planning Board came to the Council with what she saw as 2 separate issues. She suggested that by counting gravel and concrete the same, a homeowner would be unable to build a 6 bedroom house on a 15,000 square foot lot if additional stacking was not afforded. This would be a constraint on something that is a norm in her opinion.
Chairman Forlano agreed with Councilor Thibodeau in that the lots that would be mostly affected would be the 15,000-16,000 square foot lots. He suggested that with ¾ acre lots, you cannot attain the vision of Duck nor can you prevent large houses.
Member Darnall commented that there must be a balance.
Councilor Liaison Lindley stated that if you go up and down the eastern seaboard and look at resorts that have held their value; they are not Asbury Park or the big resort areas. He suggested that we are letting the industry sell a picture that is not the only picture. He stated that if you care about Duck, and you use constraint and control the long term value will be retained.
Ms. Kelly commented that if the community is exclusive enough, you will get as much rent for those 5 bedroom houses as you would an 8 bedroom.
Councilor Liaison Lindley stated that was exactly his point.
Chairman Forlano asked Councilor Thibodeau whether renters were gravitating more to Sanderling or Four Seasons.
Councilor Thibodeau commented that her response is probably skewed because her company represents a good number of large homes, but the demand is clearly for bigger homes with pools and year round amenities.
Mr. Finch indicated that right now there is a choice but with further regulation you will eliminate that choice.
Member Darnall indicated that she would like to see some data on lot sizes as they relate to the number of bedrooms so she can evaluate the different scales of development.
There was some discussion that the size of the house is not necessarily indicative of the number of bedrooms. Media rooms and other amenities impact the size of these houses also.
Member Darnall stated she is simply trying to figure out what they are trying to control.
Vice-Chair Britt also questioned what they are trying to control.
Mr. Finch indicated that the Board can simply keep things as they are.
Councilor Liaison Lindley suggested that a community that is built uniformly up the last inch will be the Town’s downfall.
Member Darnall suggested that the vision of the residents of Duck is not necessarily the vision of the majority of property owners who come from uniform suburban communities.
There was some discussion regarding the ways Duck is marketed and the type of community that is being created.
Vice Chair Britt suggested that we cannot market certain types of people but we can create a community that attracts them.
Member Darnall requested the comments from the Land Use Plan.
Chairman Forlano indicated that he believes there is already diversity in Duck, and he does not think Duck will end up like Pine Island with 50-60% lot coverage.
Councilor Liaison Lindley suggested that future redevelopment should be restrained in the interest of quality of life.
Councilor Thibodeau questioned how big is too big. She suggested that economics has driven a lot of the development thus far.
Member Jenkins offered a personal example of his concerns. With the development next to him, he is now looking at a 35 foot vertical wall next to his house. He has lost hours of direct sunlight and 60% of blue skies cut out. He asked whether this was what we want or do we want to consider our neighbors. Mr. Jenkins indicated that we need to consider aesthetic or intrinsic values. Mr. Jenkins spoke of architectural guidelines as well.
Vice-Chair Britt commented that architectural guidelines will only last as long as the property owner associations protect them.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would bring back some data detailing lot sizes in Duck, the number of bedrooms and public comments synthesized from the Land Use Plan.
Vice-Chair Britt made a recommendation that they go through and make a list of specific questions and then call for a joint meeting, with the Planning Board dictating the meeting and posing questions to Council.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that Council referred this to the Planning Board for some recommendations so the Board should try to identify all of the issues a provide a laundry list for Council to comment on.
NEW BUSINESS
Introduction of ZTA to revise Village Commercial Development Option application and review procedures (ref. by TC 3/15/06)
Planning Director Cotellessa gave the Planning Board a brief overview and history of prior discussions regarding this matter. She indicated that the draft Zoning Text Amendment before them removes the requirement for a joint special meeting.
Ms. Cotellessa explained that they would still have one more joint special meeting on the Duck Village Outfitters application.
Member Darnall made a motion to recommend to Town Council adoption of the Zoning Text Amendment regarding procedures for review of application pursuant to the Village Commercial Development Option finding that it is consistent with the Town’s adopted CAMA Core Land Use Plan.
Chairman Forlano seconded the motion.
Motion carried 4-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Planning Board Regular Meeting April 12, 2006
Member Jenkins made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Board Regular Meeting of April 12, 2006.
Vice-Chair Britt seconded the motion.
Minutes for the Planning Board Regular Meeting on April 12, 2006 were approved 3-0. Member Darnall was not present for the April 12, 2006 meeting and did not vote on the approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
Planning Director Cotellessa mentioned that she put in their package, but not part of the agenda, an article regarding Nantucket’s anti-chain regulations and their ban on formula businesses. She felt this was a good article that the Board would be interested in.
Ms. Cotellessa commented that the Town’s Land Use Plan speaks of being unique; but if you have Staples and Outback and Applebee’s, how unique are you? There was some discussion that followed.
BOARD COMMENTS
Vice-Chair Britt inquired about the status of the PRK project and the Cravings sign.
Ms. Cotellessa explained that PRK’s site plan has been approved, the building permit has been approved and we were waiting for the applicant to make payment and pick up the permit. She indicated she was working with BD&A with regard to the removal of Cravings sign.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chair Britt adjourned the meeting.
The time was 8:55 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman