TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
June 14, 2006
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 14, 2006.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Members Anne Darnall, John Jenkins and Joe Blakaitis.
Also present were Council Liaison Denver Lindley, Jr., Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Suzanne Cotellessa and Deputy Town Clerk Lori Kopec.
Vice Chair Jon Britt and Administrative Assistant Sandy Cady were not present for the meeting.
Others Present: Robert and Tanya Hovey, Olin Finch of Finch and Company, Stephanie Gadd of Coastal Engineering, John Light of Sun Realty and Bill Hogan of Twiddy & Company Realty.
Chairman Forlano called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for June 14, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. Member Jenkins stated that he had invited John Light of Sun Realty to the Planning Board meeting as he is involved in a transaction in Osprey which could be cause for concern of a financial penalty. He stated that Mr. Light and Bill Hogan may have some comments later in the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
Chairman Forlano asked for the Board’s permission to address the Conflict of Interest discussion first in the meeting due to Town Attorney Donald I. McRee, Jr., being unable to attend the meeting. It was consensus of the Board to move the item up on the agenda.
A. Presentation by Town Attorney on Conflict of Interest Regulations and Related NC State Statutes
Planning Director Suzanne Cotellessa was recognized to speak. Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out that each Board member had at their places a memorandum from Town Attorney McRee to the Planning Board as well as copies of some overhead slides the attorney prepared and presented to the Board of Adjustments at their last meeting. She stated that the handouts discuss conflicts of interest and regulations that were tweaked by the State in 2005. She stated that each Member will want to review the materials and determine in each instance when something is being considered by the Board, if a conflict of interest exists – whether it be financial, bias or fixed opinion or even family ties. She stated that as property owners in Town, the Board has an interest in what happens with respect to Land Use in the general sense.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that what Town Attorney McRee was trying to describe in his memorandum was what rises to a conflict of interest – one that is beyond a remote or speculative interest versus one that has a direct financial interest. She stated that the Board will have the opportunity when a conflict of interest arises, to recuse him/herself. She stated that the Board has the opportunity if a Member does not recuse him/herself and raises an objection to a Member’s participation, the Board could then, by majority vote, recuse that person. She stated that it is a common sense look at when a Member should or should not be participating in the discussion. Town Attorney McRee has recommended that when a conflict has been determined, a Member may not vote on the matter as well as having the Member leave the room during the discussion. She stated that Town Attorney McRee will attend a future Planning Board meeting to elaborate more on the subject.
Chairman Forlano asked if the Planning Board is a quasi-judicial board. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that if the Board is acting on a quasi-judicial manner, it is, such as a hearing on a Conditional Use Permit.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Continued Discussion of Policy Recommendation to Town Council regarding Event Houses (ref. by TC 3/1/06)
Chairman Forlano stated that since he has an interest in event houses, he would recuse himself from the Board. He pointed out that when a Member recuses themselves, it is proper to leave the room. He felt that the Planning Board Members should do the same. He stated that since Vice Chair Jon Britt was not present, he would turn the meeting over to Member Anne Darnall.
Member Darnall asked for public comments on the event houses. Member John Jenkins asked if there were no public comments, could the topic be opened for general discussion. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that she would give an overview.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the Planning Board has been discussing the issue at the request of Council for the past few meetings, with input from the Outer Banks Wedding Association and Willo Kelly from the Outer Banks Realtors Association. She stated that the Board asked her to bring back a special registration policy and a special event registration form to review how the Town could get a handle on issues related to parking and noise at special events. She stated that the policy would allow the Town to have access to one (1) designated person at the event that could be contacted if there is a problem. She stated that it could be asked up front from the person planning the event to properly prepare and plan for parking, restroom facilities if needed, and to register a large event (50 or more people) with the Town. The registration form would be distributed to the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief, the neighborhood association where the event will take place, the property owner and property manager. She stated that the Planning Board directed that this discussion go in that direction rather than going straight to a regulation of the houses. She stated that staff was asked to provide information on complaints and passed around noise and parking complaints that have come in to the police department in the past three (3) years to the Board. She stated that the complaints were not from wedding houses but from event houses. She stated that it had been discussed both by Council and the Planning Board (the issue of parking along NC 12), but there were not a lot of complaints to the police about it.
Planning Director Cotellessa thought that the Board wanted to take a low-key approach to the issue. She stated that there was discussion about events that are repetitive at a house and had complaints, that the Town should limit the number of events that could take place at the house. She stated that the first step was where to register them and everyone was on board with doing that. She stated that the changes in italics broaden it from a private home to any property, whether commercial or residential. She stated that if the Planning Board wants to recommend moving forward with it, it would just be recommending that the Council adopt a special events registration policy and special events registration.
Member Joe Blakaitis was recognized to speak. Member Blakaitis asked if someone was planning a party for more than fifty (50) people, they would have to register. Planning Director Cotellessa stated he was correct. He asked if a homeowner association wanted to have a picnic, would they have to register. Planning Director Cotellessa stated they would.
Member Jenkins stated that he was impressed with earlier presentations. He pointed out that there were two thousand (2,000) events last year, which is good business. He complimented Twiddy and Company on what he thought was a realistic approach to reducing the number of homes that they will allow to hold events. He thought that there were costs involved by the Town and it should be a permitted event with a fee. He stated that he is on board with getting any activities at event houses recorded and kept under control.
Member Blakaitis asked how someone would arrange for transportation for those that cannot park near an event house. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that at an earlier discussion with the Outer Banks Wedding Association, they stated that a lot of people will rent shuttle busses or vans which will park off-site in areas such as Kitty Hawk Elementary School. He asked if there was anywhere in Duck they could park. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that there are very few places in Duck where there is room for excess parking. He asked if it imposes an additional hardship on the event planner. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that it could but that it would be part of the planning for the event. Member Blakaitis felt that parking would be the biggest concern for event houses. He asked how parking is affected with homeowner associations that do not allow the police to patrol their streets. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that if the association does not want parking on the street, they will come to the Town and ask, by ordinance, for the police to patrol the streets. If the association on a private street is willing to have tenants and owners use the streets to park for an event, it is entirely up to them. She stated that in this case, the Town is saying by getting the registration and sending it to the homeowners’ association that there will be a party for so many people on a specific date. She stated that some associations do not allow events at all. She stated it is to give the association a heads up.
Member Darnall asked what would happen if a person does not register. She asked if there was a penalty if someone didn’t register. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that at this time there is no penalty. Member Darnall wondered what would happen if someone was having a party at their personal house and additional people showed up. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that in the past there have been weddings where people parked in the right-of-way. She stated that the Town didn’t want to knock on the door of the house and disrupt the party. She stated that the registration would avoid that in that the police would only have to make a phone call to the designated contact. She stated that if the people do not register and there is a problem, the police will knock on the door. She stated that the police would be able to monitor things and know of potential traffic issues if the party is registered.
Member Blakaitis asked how the Town proposes to publicize the policy. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the Outer Banks Wedding Association would put it on their website; the Town would put it on its website, put it in the Town’s newsletter and sent to the Subscriber List as well as the realtors. Member Blakaitis asked if the Town is not proposing using the policy as an instrument to refuse an event. Planning Director Cotellessa stated it was not and that was why it was called a registration versus a permit. Member Blakaitis asked who would be in charge of receiving the registrations. Planning Director Cotellessa stated she would be in charge of them. Member Blakaitis asked if she foresaw anything that would cause her to refuse an event. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that there may be times she would question the registration, such as if the party was for two hundred (200) people and no parking is proposed. She stated that the process is an education and awareness to make people realize that they have to plan for parking.
John Light of Sun Realty was recognized to speak. Mr. Light asked if the registration would apply to the new park property. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that it would.
Olin Finch of 116 Sandy Ridge Road was recognized to speak. Mr. Finch asked if the Town would give permission for people to park illegally on the side of the road. Planning Director Cotellessa stated she would not. Mr. Finch asked if an event cannot show how to utilize the parking, would the permit be denied. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that there will always be people parking where they shouldn’t. She stated that the idea was to have a telephone number and contact to call in case there is a problem. She stated that the registration would not handle everything.
Olin Finch asked how parking is dealt with regarding homes that do not meet current standards for the Town. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that if a home has a party with fifty (50) people, it is already known that there won’t be enough parking at any site in Duck. She stated that all the Town can hope for is that they will give their plan for how people will park.
Council Liaison Denver Lindley pointed out that an ordinance would not be passed, but it is an awareness. He stated that not everyone is going to be aware of every single item. Olin Finch felt it was the same as an ordinance – either it can be done or it can’t. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that it would be a policy. Member Darnall asked if it could be called an ordinance Planning Director Cotellessa stated it couldn’t. She stated that the people would not be getting a permit; they would just be registering their event. Mr. Finch asked what would happen if a person doesn’t want to register. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that if there is a problem – noise or cars – the police will knock on the door and interrupt the event. She stated that the Town is just trying to deal with the issue without being draconian. Mr. Finch asked if it would be proposed that it would be required and if a person doesn’t register, they couldn’t have the event. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that that wasn’t proposed at all. She reiterated that it is not a law, but a policy and a plan.
Tanya Hovey of 103 Osprey Ridge Court was recognized to speak. Ms. Hovey asked if the registration would be only for residential or would it include commercial businesses. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that it would apply to both residential and commercial properties. Olin Finch asked if it was a courtesy – either a person registers or they don’t. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the incentive is that if there is a problem, the police would not show up at their door. She stated that there is the potential for someone disrupting the event. Mr. Finch asked if that is already happening. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the Town doesn’t want to do that. Mr. Finch felt that the registration would not add any incentive. Council Liaison Lindley stated it would make people aware that they should plan ahead if they are having an event. He stated that if he had a party, he may not count heads, but the form does make you aware of what needs to be done.
Tanya Hovey asked if there was a fee for the registration form. Council Liaison Lindley stated there was. Ms. Hovey asked if it a Conditional Use Permit would be involved. Council Liaison Lindley stated it would be up the Planning Board. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that fees are not proposed. Member Blakaitis clarified that a fee would not be imposed. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that he was correct.
Member Darnall stated that she did not like that this was part of the definition of special events. She stated she was not comfortable with it. She felt that if someone wants to have a party, they should be able to without having to fill out a form. She agreed with Mr. Finch that it would not be an incentive to the Town since there is no fee involved. She stated that if she were to have a Christmas party, she would not want to fill out the form. She stated that she did not like regulations like this one. She pointed out that there have been noise complaints registered in Town, but none with regard to event houses. Olin Finch stated that the police probably receive more complaints about fireworks than anything. He stated that a new case could be made for those that would want to shoot fireworks. They could just come and register with the Town. Member Jenkins pointed out that fireworks are not permitted by ordinance.
Tanya Hovey asked if people could park in the public accesses for the sound. Member Darnall pointed out that there aren’t any public accesses in Town. Ms. Hovey stated that Duck Landing is a public access. Bob Hovey stated that the neighborhood of Duck Landing does not have a public access. Ms. Hovey stated that the access next to the water tower is public. Member Blakaitis stated that it may be public, but it’s not easy to get through.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that when discussions on the issue started, the Outer Banks Wedding Association attended the meetings and gave input. She stated that the big discussion was if the Town should do anything with event houses and if so, there should be a threshold. She stated that a party with fifty (50) people was a good starting point.
Member Darnall stated that she still does not see any evidence of a problem. Member Jenkins stated that the last event he went to was on Baum Trail and cars were parked up and down the street. He stated that it would have been impossible to get an emergency vehicle on the street if something had happened. He stated that this should be a concern for the Town with events. He stated that the registration would be a beginning and he would be in favor of doing something. He thought it should a permitted process. He thought there should also be a vendor fee for the vendors that cater the events.
Council Liaison Lindley stated that Council has received many complaints regarding large parties at adjacent properties. Olin Finch felt it would be all the more reason not to have the policy. He stated that the regulation implies permission. He stated that the registration may be construed as being allowed to make a lot of noise. Council Liaison Lindley disagreed. He stated that if someone is making a lot of noise, one can call the police. Mr. Finch agreed but said a call to the police could be done with or without the registration form.
Member Darnall thought that maybe the solution was to define what an event house is. She stated that once it’s defined, there would be no more to discuss. She stated that it sounded to her that the people that complained were complaining about specific properties that are used over and over again for events. She stated that if the house is defined, it may give the realty companies more incentive to go in that direction. She thought that if the event houses could be defined, it takes care of ninety percent (90%) of the complaints. She stated that if Duck does not want to have wedding houses, then that may be a better way of getting at the issue. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that a lot of jurisdictions require people to register an event with the Town. She stated that this would be for a dual purpose. Member Darnall stated that she doesn’t like the first sentence in the policy. She asked why the average person in Duck that wants to have a party has to register. She didn’t think people would complain about a person having a party once. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the early discussion was if the Town is concerned about the impact of the house – noise and parking – those same impacts could be someone having a Christmas party. She stated that what should be addressed are the impacts of the event and not just the specific houses. Member Darnall stated she understood but would not vote for the policy as she did not like this type of regulation.
Olin Finch stated that when people have a wedding, they know they are parking on the side of the road, they know they are making noise and they know that someone could very well knock on the door. He stated that the first step they would want would be for someone to regulate it so no one can complain. He stated by passing the policy it would allow people to park where they want and make noise. He stated that now the police can put a stop to any consistent nuisance that is complained about. Council Liaison Lindley asked where in the policy it states that people can do what they want. Mr. Finch stated it doesn’t but the list could be thought of that way. Council Liaison Lindley pointed out it was to make people aware. Mr. Finch asked if it could be done without having a registration. Council Liaison Lindley asked how it could be done while making everyone aware. Mr. Finch stated that it could be done by making people aware the same way they would be made aware if the registration form passes. Planning Director Cotellessa read the end of the registration form to the Planning Board and the audience. She stated that it asks for the people to be considerate of others. Olin Finch agreed but still felt it could be done without a registration form.
Member Blakaitis agreed with Member Darnall’s comments. He thought the form could do some good but had serious doubts that if teeth aren’t put into it, it will become useless. He stated that he didn’t see the point of having the form if it couldn’t be enforced.
Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out that the Board could move to take no action on the issue. Member Blakaitis stated he liked it but could see both sides of the issue. Member Darnall stated that someone could make a motion to table the issue or to send it back to staff.
Member Jenkins moved to approve Attachment A regarding registration of larger events and also approve Attachment C which is the draft registration form with the Planning Board’s approval for the Council to consider.
Member Blakaitis asked if the motion isn’t approved, would it be a dead issue. Member Darnall stated he was correct. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that another motion could be made.
Member Darnall asked if a second was needed. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that Council does not second their votes.
Motion failed 1-2 with Member Darnall and Member Blakaitis dissenting.
Council Liaison Lindley pointed out that the issue may very well come back to the Planning Board. Member Blakaitis stated he would like to see the issue come back.
Member Darnall moved to have the item placed on the agenda for the next regular Planning Board meeting under Old Business to discuss further.
Motion carried 2-1 with Member Jenkins dissenting.
B. Continued Discussion of ZTA Revisions regarding Parking and Driveways in Lot Coverage Calculation (ref. by TC 4/19/06) and regarding Maximum Driveway Widths and Number of Curb Cuts (ref. by TC 3/15/06)
Chairman Forlano was called back to the meeting. He thanked Member Darnall for running the meeting earlier.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the issues were sent to the Board by Council, the first part regarding parking and driveways was remanded to the Board after the Planning Board passed a recommendation that the Council adopt regulations which would include all types of driveways in the definition of lot coverage. That recommendation of the Board was part of an ordinance that was split by Council. She stated that as part of remanding the issue to the Board, Council recommended the Board look at additional stacked parking or some way to fit the parking in on some sites. She stated that the ordinance also deals with the issue of multiple curb cuts, multiple driveways, driveway widths and borders of driveways. She stated that the draft ordinance was discussed at the last Planning Board meeting and is now on the agenda for further discussion.
Member Jenkins stated he had invited John Light from Sun Realty to the meeting as he had become involved in a discussion regarding a lot in the Osprey subdivision. He stated that approximately ten (10) years ago a building permit was issued for the lot; the builder did not build immediately but put in for a pool permit. He stated that the County Health Department gave their approval, the owner was given a total square footage of thirty-three percent (33%) for coverage in the lot, but it was not calculated in the Certificate of Occupancy when it was issued. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the County issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the house without an as-built survey showing what the lot coverage was.
Member Jenkins felt it was an omission by a former government authority. He stated that the applicant put in for a building permit to enclose a room on the lower floor, by which they needed to provide an up to date survey. The survey showed thirty-three percent (33%) lot coverage, a violation of the Town’s lot coverage ordinance. He stated that there may be a temporary Certificate of Occupancy offered if some of the concrete is removed and replaced with an alternative type of material. He stated that if the applicant and owner are agreeable to it, he is concerned with the ultimate effect. He asked if the Town has put an undue expense on the applicant only to find out that if the ordinance if adopted, he would be in violation of the ordinance again. He thought that the owner did nothing wrong, but is now caught in a dilemma with regard to lot coverage and would have to spend money on something that wasn’t his fault. He felt that the Town could do something to make things right and not cause an undue hardship on the applicant. He further pointed out that the sale is for $960,000, with the land transfer tax being $9,600 – significant revenue for the Town. He felt that the ordinance should be amended as proposed to protect owners and applicants from errors of omissions and oversights from former government authorities.
John Light of Sun Realty was recognized to speak. Mr. Light gave a handout of the property to the Board and gave a short overview of the property in question, including an unsigned Certificate of Occupancy from Dare County. He pointed out that the survey from 1996 is identical to the survey done in 2006. He stated that there has been no increase in lot coverage and the pool is shown in all surveys. He stated that if the Board states that gravel counts as lot coverage, there will be no solution to the problem on this lot.
Chairman Forlano asked if the Town issues a separate occupancy permit for a pool. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that if a building permit was applied to build a house and a pool, one (1) occupancy permit would be issued. If a building permit was applied for and issued and later a separate pool permit was issued, there would be two (2) occupancy permits. Member Darnall clarified that Dare County never issued a signed Certificate of Occupancy. Planning Director Cotellessa agreed and pointed out that it was not indicated that there were any inspections of the pool.
John Light stated that the pool has been inspected and is deemed safe. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the pool had not been inspected, as noted in the record, there are lots of issues with Dare County. She stated that the point of the whole problem that is relevant to the Board’s discussion is the driveway.
Chairman Forlano pointed out the Board of Adjustments recently heard a case where a person wanted to put an addition underneath their house, but were over lot coverage. He stated that the decision the Board came up with was that the person would have to cut off five (5) feet of his driveway and replace it with stone to satisfy the lot coverage. He stated that if the Board recommends the stone be lot coverage, the Town would be back at square one.
Member Blakaitis asked if there would be grandfathering in the interim. Chairman Forlano stated there would be grandfathering but it wouldn’t have to be torn out. Member Blakaitis asked what that would mean to the homeowner. Member Jenkins stated that it would mean the property would be nonconforming.
Member Darnall asked if the ordinance gets finalized, would it create problems. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the big difference is between having a situation that is nonconforming and what is legal. She stated that when a house is nonconforming, it is legal but does not meet the current regulations. She stated that if it was built and did not meet the regulations and still doesn’t meet current regulations, it would be considered illegal. John Light stated that he knew the house in Osprey to be nonconforming but not illegal. He felt that Dare County may have been sloppy with their paperwork. Member Darnall stated that there are problems with the property. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that she has seen a few cases where a subject has bought a property, did not know it is over lot coverage when they bought it and ended up buying a property that has a problem. She stated that if there is a problem it needs to be repaired, which is the hard part. Member Jenkins felt the Town could do something and should.
Member Blakaitis asked how large the house in Osprey was. Bill Hogan of Twiddy Realty was recognized to speak. Mr. Hogan guessed it was 2,400 square feet.
Member Darnall asked what the Board was trying to control and get at with the ordinance. She asked if the Board was trying to get smaller houses. She stated that this issue keeps coming back to the Planning Board. She stated that she understood Mr. Light’s problem but counting or not counting concrete would get at the issue that Council remanded to the Planning Board. She stated that she was not going to decide if a certain case should pass through certain things to fix the problem. She sympathized with Mr. Light’s problem, but the agenda item was to decide on a lot of other issues besides fixing someone’s particular problem. Member Jenkins pointed out that they do have a problem and if the ordinance is adopted, it makes for a bigger problem. Member Darnall stated that she understood. Member Jenkins didn’t think it was right. Member Darnall stated that she was not going to vote on the issue as she did not know why the issue of parking was brought up again.
Olin Finch was recognized to speak. Mr. Finch pointed out that the house in Osprey is not that large but on a pretty big lot. He stated that whatever the Board decides, it will affect all houses no matter what their size. Chairman Forlano agreed and stated that it is like a shotgun effect. He stated that even small homes will be affected by the ordinance. He asked what a small home is. Olin Finch referenced the Town’s Land Use Plan. He stated that the description of a home in the Land Use Plan is fine but it’s not 1970. He stated that what was built in 1970 is not a good model for how today’s homes are built. Council Liaison Lindley asked what should be referenced in regard to a good model for homes. Mr. Finch stated that he would he would point to a specific issue, such as cars parked everywhere. Council Liaison Lindley understood but asked what specific type of house would be a good model and wondered if Mr. Finch liked Pine Island. Mr. Finch stated he did not like the Pine Island homes.
John Light pointed out that Osprey is a nice subdivision with large lots and nice sized homes. Mr. Light stated that by today’s standards, the home with the issue could have been built as a six (6) bedroom house. Chairman Forlano stated that the house in Osprey is not an issue before the Planning Board. He asked why the Board was wasting time on it. Member Jenkins stated it was a good example of what the Board is considering.
Member Darnall stated that the Board should go back to the ordinance. She stated that the Board needs to look at a zoning text amendment to look at parking, driveways and lot coverage. She stated that there are changes to parking which references stacking of vehicles. She stated that she understood Mr. Light’s problem and thought there were more houses in Duck just like it, but it would not be it to make things count. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the Planning Board, on its own initiative, sent forward to Council a recommendation that all driveways with required parking be included in lot coverage. She stated that Council was concerned about some issues related to it and asked the Board to take another look at it. Member Darnall stated that she did not understand the Board’s overall goal.
Olin Finch felt that Council Liaison Lindley’s question to him was a valid point. He stated that the Planning Board’s goal as a group should be to find examples of what a good building is and what they should be. Then it should be examined and determined where they fit in so the ordinances could be modeled after that. Council Liaison Lindley understood but didn’t feel the Town should have a cookie cutter approach to how homes should look.
Member Blakaitis asked if there was a goal to the amendment to reduce the size of a home. Council Liaison Lindley stated that it would be an attempt to avoid the excesses of homes in Duck. Member Darnall felt it would be easy to get at as it could be determined how large a house could be. She stated that she was not sure what the Board is trying to do with the amendment.
Chairman Forlano asked when a subdivision is being planned, wouldn’t a minimum size house have to be listed. Olin Finch stated that it is always done. Chairman Forlano clarified that the maximum size is never listed. Mr. Finch agreed and stated that all subdivisions have a minimum size house. Chairman Forlano asked if a town could put a minimum and maximum size home in the town. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that a town could, but limiting the size of a house does not get at an individual’s choice such as a larger pool with a smaller house. Chairman Forlano asked if the whole main reason the Board was discussing the issue was to try to limit the size of a house. John Light stated that he thought that was what the Board was trying to do. Olin Finch felt that there should be a footprint size for a house. Chairman Forlano pointed out that the negativity the Town receives about houses is that they are too large. There are never comments that the pool, driveway or the decks are too big. He stated that if the Board is allowed to, a consensus should be made with regard to what a maximum size of a house that is wanted in Town. Member Darnall thought it may solve the issue but that parking would still need to be looked at.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested taking the package of everything that has been built in Town, take photographs and bring it back to the Board as well as showing the lot coverage. Chairman Forlano asked if the footprint could be shown. Planning Director Cotellessa stated it could. Member Darnall stated that most houses have between thirty-five and forty-five percent (35%-45%) coverage if the driveway is included. Planning Director Cotellessa offered to take photographs for the next meeting and asked the Board to feed into her via email of other houses they would like to discuss.
Member Jenkins asked if a variance could be issued for the homeowner in the Osprey subdivision. Planning Director Cotellessa stated a variance could be applied for and heard by the Board of Adjustments. Member Jenkins pointed out that the house has a delayed closing because of the issue and hoped the sale wouldn’t be lost.
It was consensus of the Board to table the issue for discussion at the next Planning Board meeting.
C. Consideration and Recommendation on Conditional Use Permit under the Village Commercial Development Option for Duck Village Outfitters at 1207 Duck Road
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the applicants met with the Planning Board and Council at a joint work session to discuss their project. The applicants brought forward a plan with Council and the Planning Board giving them direction with respect to amending the plan to meet the technical issues and some additional pedestrian access issues. She stated they were asked to come back before the Planning Board for recommendation. She stated that there will no longer be any joint work sessions with Council for Conditional Use Permits as they have been removed from the process for the Village Commercial Development Option. She stated that the Board had in their packets a memorandum from the Town engineer stating that he believed the resubmission has addressed his original technical comments. She stated that the applicant has provided samples of the materials to be used for the siding, roofing and trim. She stated that the proposed materials are consistent with the Commercial Development standards for the Village Commercial District. She stated that on the revised site plan, the applicant has moved the building back to accommodate a sidewalk in front of the property and also added an additional concrete area in the rear to take the half pipe out of the loading area. She stated that there are proposed lighting and signage elements from the applicants as well. She stated that staff believes the proposed sign is too large for the property and should be reduced. She stated that the applicant has proposed lighting which has been proposed on other sites that are consistent with the Dark Sky Ordinance, however staff is concerned about the proposed pole lighting on the site as they are either off the site or too close to the parking areas. She stated that staff is recommending building mounted lights. She went on to pass out the building, roofing and trim materials to the Planning Board. She stated that staff recommends the Planning Board recommend to the Town Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the findings, removing Condition 6 and renumbering Conditions 7 and 8 as 6 and 7 as a condition was duplicated.
Chairman Forlano asked how the thirty-six (36) feet on the sign was measured. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that signage is measured in a rectilinear fashion. She stated the proposed sign is too large and would need to be reduced. Chairman Forlano asked the Hoveys for their comments.
Bob Hovey was recognized to speak. Mr. Hovey stated that the proposed sign is quite smaller than the existing one. He asked the Board to take the oval cut out away from the measurement and not count it. He stated that he had other issues he wished to address.
Tanya Hovey was recognized to speak. Ms. Hovey pointed out that Olin Finch had designed the proposed sign. Olin Finch stated that the sign is not exactly to scale. Ms. Hovey asked how signs are measured. Chairman Forlano stated that a square is made and if the oval cut out is in the square, it would be counted in the measurement. Ms. Hovey stated that it was hard for her to measure it. Chairman Forlano stated that the Town’s ordinance states signs have to be measured as a square. Bob Hovey asked the Board to take into consideration that minimal signage is proposed. Tanya Hovey stated that they are increasing the size of the parking lot and the footprint of the actual building. She felt the proposed sign would be more adequate as it is proposed. She stated that Olin Finch’s daughter did a really good job on the proposed sign.
Bob Hovey stated that with regard to Condition 7 – he asked if a survey would be required or would they be able to put up a fence around the dumpster area. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that when it is a minor operation such as putting in a dumpster surround, the Town has in its ordinance for a Plan of Development that does not have the same requirements as a site plan. She stated that the Hoveys would have to bring in a survey that shows the site and where they will be putting the dumpster pad as well as what the surround will look like so it is consistent with the Town’s regulations. Mr. Hovey asked if the adjacent property would need to be surveyed for the dumpster surround. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that she would need a plan showing the property.
Bob Hovey asked if they could have a light above the bicycle rack. Tanya Hovey pointed out that they have had bicycles stolen from their store. Chairman Forlano asked if there was enough overflow lighting from the gas station next store. Mr. Hovey stated that it was on the other side of the building. Olin Finch asked if the lighting could be modified to include a pole light by the bicycle rack. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that she is concerned that there is really no space for a pole light. She recommended looking at putting two (2) bollard-type lights on either end of the bicycle rack or on the end of the decking. Mr. Finch asked if the lights could be put on the middle of the bicycle rack. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the problem is that the bicycle rack is on top of a deck which is covering a stormwater facility. Mr. Finch felt that a pole would not cause any problems. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that she has never seen a pole in the middle of a stormwater retention bowl.
Member Darnall suggested writing a condition in the CUP regarding the lighting. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that there may be trouble with the language. Member Darnall stated that the Planning Board would be concerned if the pole was in violation of the zoning ordinance. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that with a Village Commercial Development Option, the Planning Board and Town Council will look at lighting. Member Darnall asked if something could be worked out. Olin Finch stated that the Hoveys would be working with the Planning Board’s approval. Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that the Planning Board recommend approval with site lighting to provide illumination only for the bicycle rack area and ask the applicants to come up with a plan to take to Council to get the final approval. Chairman Forlano stated that the applicants definitely need security lighting. Planning Director Cotellessa suggested language for Council to state that the applicant will install site lighting in the parking lot to provide security for bicycles stored there.
Member Jenkins asked if wood cedar shake siding would be used. Olin Finch stated he was correct. Member Jenkins asked if a cedar wood roof would be used. Mr. Finch stated he was correct. Member Jenkins stated he had drove by a house recently that was made from these materials that had caught fire. He stated that he was concerned that the materials used next to the gas station would be dangerous. Tanya Hovey pointed out that the gas station has the same roofing materials. Mr. Finch stated that the materials were proposed to give the appearance of the traditional look of Duck. He stated that he didn’t think the applicants would mind if the Board preferred asphalt shingles on the roof as it would be cheaper. Chairman Forlano and Member Darnall both agreed that they liked the materials proposed.
Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out to the Board the applicant’s proposed lighting on the eaves of the building. She stated that the Town does not allow neon outlining or Christmas-type lighting, but the proposed lights are under the eaves and will accent the features of the building.
Bob Hovey stated that he wanted to restore the original building and had several people interested in making a bath or pool house for it. He stated that they had offered the building to the Town for the park as a lot of people have told them they would like to see the building in the park. He asked if the building was restored, could they keep the building open while constructing the new building so they could clear out their existing merchandise. Olin Finch stated that it wasn’t Town policy to allow something like that. Mr. Hovey asked what the Town policy was. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that construction activities on the site are subject to site plan review and approval by the Planning Board. She stated that it doesn’t include two (2) buildings, she would recommend against it, even during construction. She stated that it would be a construction site and would not be allowed. Tanya Hovey asked if their inventory could be kept in the existing structure during construction and monitored with an alarm. Chairman Forlano clarified that they want to conduct business while construction is happening. Ms. Hovey stated she wasn’t and that she wants to keep her inventory on the site. Member Darnall suggested they rent a storage unit for their inventory. Ms. Hovey stated that she wants to reserve the right to preserve the existing building as it could be an historic building and many people are interested in taking it or buying it. Member Blakaitis asked why they couldn’t give the building away if someone wanted it. Ms. Hovey stated there wasn’t a problem. Mr. Finch asked if it was an issue between Planning Director Cotellessa and Chief Building Inspector Cory Tate. Chairman Forlano thought it was. Ms. Hovey changed her mind on the issue.
Bob Hovey stated that they had discussed putting in a small skateboarding ramp in the back corner lot. He asked if they should have any language pertaining to it or was there a maximum size for it. Member Jenkins pointed out that the ramp would be a half pipe. He stated he was concerned and thought it would take up parking places. Chairman Forlano pointed out that they were not going to use parking spaces. Member Blakaitis stated that at the last meeting, the applicants had stated the ramp would be moveable. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the discussion at the last meeting was that if the applicant was able to secure off-site dumpster storage, they would have the ability to use the back area for the ramp. She stated that if the dumpster was not able to be secured, they would not be allowed to use the area for the ramp. Member Darnall asked the applicants to rethink the ramp as Council may have concerns. She stated that if the applicants add conditions to the CUP, it may end up with more discussion with Council. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that if the language states that the applicant is not able to gain approval, then the dumpster will be constructed as it is shown on the site plan and will not be able to be used it for a skateboard ramp. Member Darnall pointed out that parking spot #8 is shown as employee parking and needs to be used as such. Mr. Hovey stated that he intends to do that.
Chairman Forlano asked the applicants if they were ok with the proposed sign being reduced. Tanya Hovey asked if the Board was not pleased with the proposed sign as is. Chairman Forlano stated they were not. Chairman Forlano asked if the sign could be put on the building. Planning Director Cotellessa stated it would be open for discussion and would be allowed. Ms. Hovey stated that they proposed to put the original sign on the building. Chairman Forlano stated it was a nice sign but too big. He asked if they could put another sign as nice on the building but not as large so they would have two (2) signs. Bob Hovey felt it was a good compromise. Ms. Hovey asked if the Board would compromise on the size of the proposed sign as she had compromised on other issues. Olin Finch stated that the proposed sign is too big. Ms. Hovey reiterated that she would be willing to compromise on the sign. Member Jenkins stated that it was already specified what could be done as a condition of the CUP. He asked if they were now trying to negotiate it. Ms. Hovey stated she wasn’t, but that the proposed sign was nicer for the building. She thought the whole process was to come to an agreement. Chairman Forlano felt that the sign should be coming down. He stated he would rather see two (2) signs on the property as opposed to one (1) big sign. Member Blakaitis agreed. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the Board could allow the applicants to have the full size proposed sign if they wished. Chairman Forlano suggested having the marquee on the building. Tanya Hovey stated that a lot of her merchandise has the sign as their logo. She stated she is trying to keep the same look. Planning Director Cotellessa explained how she decided on the size of the sign to be in proportion to the size of the building. Member Blakaitis suggested the applicants reduce their marquee to one (1) line instead of two (2). Chairman Forlano stated that early on, the Planning Board worked with the Duck Community and Business Alliance and came to an agreement that the signs should be proportionate to the buildings. He felt it was not the time to compromise on the sign. He again suggested having two (2) signs. Member Blakaitis asked if Chairman Forlano would go with staff recommendation. Chairman Forlano stated he would.
Member Darnall moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Duck Village Outfitters to Town Council with the findings, modifications and conditions in the staff prepared draft findings and conditions, as modified by the Planning Board. Member Jenkins seconded.
Motion carried 3-1 with Member Jenkins dissenting.
NEW BUSINESS
B. Introduction of Proposed Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Modifications
Planning Director Cotellessa was recognized to speak. Planning Director Cotellessa gave an overview on the flood ordinance modifications to the Board. She stated that it will be brought back before the Board at their July meeting where she will go over it more in depth with them.
Member Jenkins asked if the italics in the ordinance had already been adopted by another agency. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that italics were from the current model flood ordinance for FEMA. Member Jenkins clarified that there would only be editorial changes. Planning Director Cotellessa stated he was correct. Member Blakaitis asked why a public hearing was required. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the Town is required to adopt the maps so the citizens of Duck can have flood insurance. By adopting new flood maps, she will have to send a first class stamped letter to every citizen in Duck stating that the Town will be adopting the new flood maps. Member Blakaitis asked if it could not be changed. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the Board could decide not to adopt it, but it would cause problems for flood insurance. She stated that the citizens could come to the public hearing and state that they do not want the Town to adopt the new rules.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Planning Board Joint Special Meeting May 24, 2006
Member Jenkins moved to approve the minutes of the Planning Board Joint Special Meeting of May 24, 2006 as presented.
Member Blakaitis seconded the motion.
Minutes for the Planning Board Joint Special Meeting on May 24, 2006 were approved 4-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the issue brought forward by realtors that had spoken earlier in the meeting was one (1) out of approximately four or five (4 or 5) that she is dealing with in regarding lots that have excessive lot coverage on them. She stated that the issues may be taken before the Board of Adjustments for variances. She stated that her interpretation as Zoning Administrator is also subject to appeal and review by the Board of Adjustments. She stated that the Planning Board may have to discuss if this issue is so prevalent in nature throughout Town that it should be addressed or decide it should not be addressed, rather than having a lot of people coming before the Board of Adjustments.
Chairman Forlano stated that he has observed that the Board of Adjustments seemed like they were in favor of helping people, but when Town Attorney Ike McRee cautioned them to the letter of the law on interpretation, their hands were tied and had to vote against the people. Planning Director Cotellessa agreed. She stated that a purchaser buying a property should look at a survey of the property they are considering purchasing.
Member Jenkins stated that when an offer is received on a property, the State Real Estate Commission requires the property owner to fill out a property disclosure statement, which should reveal the problem. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the property owner may not know they have a problem.
Member Darnall left the meeting at this point. The time was 9:13 p.m.
Member Jenkins stated that in the draft presentation, Objective 19 (g), he wanted to propose making a motion for revision to encourage residential development to respect the rights and consider the concerns of adjoining property owners with regard to respect issues with water runoff, lines of site, buffers, etc. He stated he wanted to eliminate or prevent the natural hardships caused by errors or omissions by previous government. Planning Director Cotellessa stated that for this ordinance, it would not be the appropriate place to do that. She didn’t think it was an appropriate Land Use goal and this ordinance will not protect or take care of the issue that John Light had.
BOARD COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Forlano adjourned the meeting.
The time was 9:16 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman