TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
September 13, 2006
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 13, 2006.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Vice Chair Jon Britt, John Jenkins and Joe Blakaitis.
Also present were Council Liaison Denver Lindley, Jr.; Director of Community Development Suzanne Cotellessa and Zoning Technician Sandy Cady.
Member Anne Darnall was not present for the meeting.
Others Present: Olin Finch, Nick Vercauteren, Willo Kelly of the Outer Banks Homebuilders Association and Bill Marsh.
Chairman Forlano called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for September 13, 2006 at 6:33 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Continued Discussion/Recommendation 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 (re by TC 3/15/06)
Director Suzanne Cotellessa was recognized to speak. Director Cotellessa stated that this item has been under discussion for approximately six (6) months. She stated that originally it was sent by the Board to Town Council to include all parking that was required in lot coverage. She stated that Council remanded it to the Board for further consideration to look at ways to make it easier to put parking in if it will be included in lot coverage. She stated there have been a series of discussions and the draft ordinance in the Board’s packets reflected the direction from the discussions. She stated the most recent change was from the August 9, 2006 meeting. She stated that the direction was to look at providing a set-aside area for parking equal to the number of square feet that would be required by a parking space, but not to specify that all parking needs to be independently accessible. She stated that the consensus would be that the Planning Board move forward with the issue by making a couple of changes.
Chairman Forlano pointed out that the Planning Board meetings are informal, entertaining comments from the audience whenever possible. He encouraged the audience’s participation in the discussions.
Nick Vercauteren of 124 Dune Road was recognized to speak. Mr. Vercauteren stated that he was opposed to the proposed amendments. He stated that if all parking is considered in lot coverage, more concrete would be found on properties. He stated that concrete is the preferred material for driveways. He stated that since there is no incentive to use a permeable surface, no one will use it, leading to runoff issues. He wondered how half a car could be parked and how the Town will implement parking half a car. He stated that the new regulations will stop the construction of any remodels in Duck and will make expansion impossible. He stated the driveway width restriction will be damaging to the prospect of remodeling a home. He went on to read to the Board and audience a letter he had written on how the new restrictions would impact homes in Duck.
Mr. Vercauteren stated that rental homes are required to accommodate the rush of people for the summer. He stated the rules for parking have relaxed over the years, but with today’s regulations, he would have close to 2000 square feet of parking. He wondered if he needed that much on his property. He stated that other homes on his street have less parking and seem to function well. He stated that the new regulations would make most homes noncompliant. He stated that the idea of grandfathering really does not offer a solution for any problem. He stated he had reviewed minutes of the past meeting and felt that the new regulations were not really about parking but about limiting the growth of larger homes. He felt using parking as a tool to limit lot coverage was a mistake. He urged the Board that if they wanted to limit the size of the house, they should just do it instead of creating unintended consequences. He felt the new regulations would stifle growth in Town and hurt tourism. He stated he understood the Board had a difficult task in front of them, but didn’t understand why the Board was choosing parking to deal with instead of limiting the size of homes.
Chairman Forlano stated that back in June 2006, he and Director Cotellessa attended a two-day seminar given by the Watershed Academy. He stated he came away from the meeting with a lot of information and attended the meeting because of his interest in permeable surfaces for parking. He stated that there are many ways to take care of water runoff. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Vercauteren in one respect – if the Town allows more concrete, all it will do will be exacerbate the water runoff problem. He read a portion of a report on permeable surfaces from the North Carolina State University to the Board and audience. He stated he had asked a question at the seminar that if the lot is not maintained, would there still be permeability to the substance. He stated that the answer was yes and that it would be approximately 50-60%. He thought that a properly constructed driveway and parking lot, with the right amount of stone underneath, would work. He stated he was against the way the ordinance was written regarding any composition counted as lot coverage. He stated he had spoken to an engineer and septic professional earlier in the day and asked what would happen if a peat pod didn’t work and was told that the peat pod would need to be cleaned out and replaced. He thought the peat septic repair area counted as lot coverage was not a fair and justified thing to do. He reiterated his opposition of the ordinance to the Board and audience. He stated that the Town was not controlling the size of a house. He thought that if the Town wished to control the size, the Board needs to state that the size of a house in Duck will be no bigger than what will be determined.
Member Jenkins agreed with Chairman Forlano’s comments regarding the size of the house. He stated they could limit the gross square footage of the house based on the size of the lot. He stated that the lot coverages proposed for most different size lots ran 19% to 21% of the lot area. He stated it was on a sliding scale. He had thought that would be the answer to the dilemma. He stated that as far as lot coverage is concerned with regard to concrete and asphalt, the proposed ordinance could state that lot coverage shall be determined by the structure of the house, stack, overhang, driveways, walkways, swimming pools, etc. He stated he shared Mr. Vercauteren’s concerns and agreed with limiting hard surfaces. He stated he was going to make a motion to delete asphalt and concrete from Section 39(c) of the proposed ordinance as there is a lot in Town already. He felt the Board should work to reduce concrete and stop runoff.
Chairman Forlano felt that this ordinance would perpetuate runoff in Town. He thought that if the Board was looking at an ordinance to control the size of homes then this wasn’t the direction the Board should be taking.
Member Blakaitis asked if Member Jenkins wished to change the zoning text amendment to eliminate asphalt and concrete. Member Jenkins stated he was correct. Member Blakaitis stated he was concerned about Mr. Vercauteren’s comments regarding concrete versus gravel. He stated that he had been thinking about including everything in lot coverage. He wondered if the photograph from the last meeting was the result of the discussion. He wondered if the house was moved far enough forward, the parking put in front and the remainder going into the actual house was a possibility. Director Cotellessa stated that the purpose of the photograph was to show what would happen if head in parking was there and all the parking being independently accessible; it would end up with the parking across the front of the property. She stated that in the most recent iteration, it was discussed that a home could only have X amount of driveway but the parking could be done any way possible.
Member Jenkins felt that a forty (40) foot allowance for the driveway was generous. He asked if some homes were built close to the twenty-five (25) foot setback. Director Cotellessa stated they were. He thought that maybe issues like that should not be allowed. She stated that it was the minimum building line behind which a house could be built. She stated that the requirement of accessory structures being in the building setbacks have forced homes towards the front of the lots.
Nick Vercauteren stated that he was under the impression that the Town had a maximum curb cut allowed on each street. Director Cotellessa stated that there is nothing in the Town’s ordinances regarding maximum curb cuts. Member Jenkins noted that when the curb cut is cut thirty (30) feet wide, the right-of-way of the road is encroached.
Member Blakaitis stated that at the last meeting, the Board discussed giving a credit to homeowners by way of parking. He asked why Director Cotellessa had stricken language on giving credit for parking. Director Cotellessa stated that a homeowner has to have a twelve (12) foot driveway that leads to the home. In addition, the number of occupants are divided by two (2) and you would add that much times two hundred (200) square feet of space. She stated that if a homeowner has a five (5) bedroom house sleeping ten (10), they would need five (5) parking spaces. She stated that it would mean that approximately one thousand (1000) square feet would have to be set aside for parking. Under the new ordinance, if the homeowner had 1000 square feet, two hundred (200) square feet could be deducted at the end of the driveway and if there is any parking under the house, another two hundred (200) square feet could be deducted. Member Blakaitis asked if only 1 two hundred (200) square foot space could be deducted. Director Cotellessa stated that one at the end of the drive aisle and any spaces that are under the house could be deducted. She stated that it provides an incentive for homeowners to maximize the square footage and footprint of their home.
Olin Finch of 116 Sandy Ridge Road was recognized to speak. Mr. Finch stated that if a homeowner has parking under the house, then they would not be able to meet the maximum bedrooms allowable. He stated that the average lot size is closer to 15,000 square feet. He stated that six (6) parking spaces cannot fit with a house on 15,000 square feet as well as a swimming pool if everything is counted. He stated that the real question that the Board is dealing with is if they want to discourage swimming pools.
Chairman Forlano pointed out that Dare County does not count the water area of a swimming pool in lot coverage. Director Cotellessa stated that the County hadn’t in the past, but wasn’t sure if that has changed. Member Jenkins stated that some of the local towns do not count the water area either, such as the Town of Nags Head.
Olin Finch stated that the Board needs to encourage people to have open decks and covered porches. He stated by taking things away, homeowners would not be able to build what they want. He stated that the people should be encouraged not to use a lot of concrete for parking. He stated that the real issue is drainage in Town.
Chairman Forlano clarified that the decking around a pool does not have to be concrete. Olin Finch stated he was correct.
Chairman Forlano stated that the mentality is that the house should be smaller and have the swimming pool eliminated. He questioned why that is the mentality. He wondered why the pools would need to be removed. Olin Finch stated that some pools are right up to the property line and are the exception to the Town’s lot issue as they are on large lots and on the waterfront. He felt the Board had limited vision as to the impacts and would not receive the results they were looking for.
Chairman Forlano stated that the Town demands a lot of parking but when the businesses aren’t busy, parking is not an issue. Member Jenkins stated that parking was a major concern at the time of the Town’s incorporation. Olin Finch suggested that maximum parking requirements be enforced based upon the available parking, especially with rental homes. Member Jenkins asked who would enforce the parking at rental homes. Mr. Finch stated that the rental companies could enforce it. Nick Vercauteren disagreed. He stated that rental companies typically do not want to bother the tenants unless there is a serious issue.
Chairman Forlano asked if there has been a problem of people parking in the streets since the Town incorporated. Director Cotellessa stated that there are problems with contractors parking in the streets. She stated the tenant parking problem is very rare nowadays.
Vice Chair Britt stated that Mr. Vercauteren had asked how to park half a car. He felt it was a great point. He stated that without a parking plan, if the Town tells a homeowner to put 1,200 square feet somewhere on their property, they will do it but it may not work. He stated that he did not like what the Board was doing. He stated that they were talking about parking but wondered if they were trying to control outside. He felt they were going about things backwards. He stated that if the Board wished for the Town to have smaller homes, it should be stated as such. He stated they should stop playing around with parking and coverage. He stated that if the Board keeps going in the direction it is headed, homeowners will end up with smaller footprints, no decks, smaller rooms and less attractive options for owners.
Bill Marsh of ReMax Ocean Realty was recognized to speak. Mr. Marsh asked why the Board wouldn’t limit the size of a house. He felt they should deal with the issue. Vice Chair Britt stated the Board tries to do things by the rules, but homeowners will find a way around things. He stated that before he comes out with a recommendation to shrink house size in Duck, he would want the issue to go back to Council for further direction. He pointed out that the Board was directed by Council to look at parking, but wondered what Council wanted the end result to be.
Council Liaison Lindley asked if the Board wanted some clearer direction. Vice Chair Britt stated that by recommending the ordinance, the Board would be working against what they have already accomplished.
Chairman Forlano noted that the agenda item was a continued discussion and recommendation of revisions regarding parking and driveways in lot coverage calculation. He stated that Council had sent those issues to the Board. He stated that there was nothing in there regarding the size of a home.
Member Jenkins stated he would like to enter for consideration an ordinance that could be used and/or modeled to limit house size.
Director Cotellessa stated that if there is a desire to limit house size for the aesthetic and community aspects of what house sizes are in Duck, then yes, the Council can say they want the Board to limit house size. She stated that part of the reason that parking and lot coverage were sent down was because the Board and Council tries to encourage more and more impervious surface uses out of lot coverage. She stated that the result of that was bigger houses, bigger pool decks and bigger accessory structures, which were taking up the lot coverage that was freed up by allowing the driveways and parking areas not to be included in lot coverage. She stated that it was not meant to guess at how big a house could be but had to do with the overall development of a lot and the amount of the lot that is covered. She stated that the reason part of the focus on the discussion was driveways and lot coverage was to get at that part of the lot that is covered and no longer available. She thought that the Board should not be focusing on house size, but also the pools and accessory structures as well as the house size getting bigger. She stated that decks on houses were not part of the discussion. She stated that the Board stated several weeks ago that decks were not included in anything because they wanted to encourage it then. She stated that most of the other jurisdictions include decks as well as driveways.
Chairman Forlano clarified that as far as decks, if it has a roof or is covered, it would be counted in lot coverage. Director Cotellessa stated he was correct. Chairman Forlano stated that the old Nags Head style homes have covered porches and are very attractive. Director Cotellessa stated that many of them this year were turned into living space because they are under a roof and included in lot coverage.
Olin Finch wondered what features of a house the Board would want to allow. He suggested taking the average square footage that is deemed reasonable for what would be allowed and add it up to see what type of house could be allowed. He stated that this is in effect what the Board would be deciding. He stated there is a very cut and dried list for what is wanted in rental homes. He felt the Board should be approaching the issue more scientifically. He stated that he still has not seen a problem other than the fact that big homes are bad.
Chairman Forlano thought there were many features into the vision of what a big house is. He stated that trees in front of a home can diminish the size of the perspective of the house. Olin Finch suggested that the Board think about requiring vegetation of some sort with homes. Chairman Forlano stated that item will be part of the Board’s discussion later on in the meeting.
Nick Vercauteren suggested giving a percentage size to accessory structures relative to the size of the home to keep everything in scale. Director Cotellessa stated that she had brought that forward previously. Chairman Forlano stated that the Board never got their teeth into it. Vice Chair Britt agreed. Chairman Forlano felt that the combination of percentage of the size of the house to the lot and another percentage would be the accessory structures related to the house would be a lot to deal with. Director Cotellessa stated there are forms to deal with it. She asked if there was a value stated and an aesthetic consideration that the Board would want to limit the size of the house relative to the size of the lot, keep it in scale and keep the accessory structures in scale. She stated that part of the reason the Board discussed the lot coverage issue was that a four (4) bedroom home with four (4) large bedrooms may be preferable to a six (6) bedroom home with small bedrooms.
Nick Vercauteren suggested allowing twenty percent (20%) lot coverage and not include the driveway and parking.
Willo Kelly of the Outer Banks Homebuilders Association was recognized to speak. Ms. Kelly stated that everyone is looking at the issue of lot coverage and driveways. She thought maybe the Town could consider developing a community pool to discourage people from building pools. She suggested that the Town may want to development incentives for low impact developments.
Bill Marsh pointed out that different subdivisions have different regulations in place. He stated that the Town is including everything from the Southern Shores line to Pine Island. He stated that some of these subdivisions regulate beyond what the Town does. He didn’t think it was fair for the Board to consider restricting everyone to include those that restrict themselves. He didn’t think the Town should be involved at all with the subdivisions that have regulations but rather the ones that do not have any in place.
Director Cotellessa stated that you build to the strictest of the standards. She stated that the Town establishes a minimum standard that is throughout the Town. She stated that any active homeowner association can have stricter standards. She stated that the Board is establishing the minimum standard, which is not necessarily a goal. Chairman Forlano pointed out that if there is a rule or standard, it has to be across the board for everyone and not just certain people. Mr. Marsh stated he understood, but felt that the Board should take things into consideration. Chairman Forlano stated that the Board is coming up with the minimum. If a subdivision wants to go above that minimum, it’s up to the subdivision.
Member Jenkins stated that some subdivisions have covenants that have no governance by a homeowner association. He stated that he admires the Sanderling subdivision and thought it was an ideal one because they have more severely limited lot size coverage requirements, do not allow pools, required gravel driveways and generally smaller homes. He stated they have not been hurt as far as restrictions in lot coverage and number of bedrooms in a home. He stated he gets concerned when he sees homes on Buffelhead Road that are normally seen in the Pine Island subdivision. He thought there has to be some aesthetic concerns involved. He stated that there needs to be an ordinance of some kind since there are some homeowner associations with no teeth in their by-laws.
Member Blakaitis suggested the Board move in the direction of coming up with something reasonable with regard to square footage and see how things go.
Chairman Forlano thought the issue was important and wanted to table the discussion to see how it ties in with other issues. It was consensus of the Board to table the discussion.
B. Continued Discussion of Tree/Vegetation Preservation Ordinance
Director Cotellessa stated that the issue was discussed at the last Board meeting and a few changes were made based on the discussion. She reviewed the changes and additions with the Board and audience. She stated that the Board had in their packets some new items of examples of other areas where they have tree canopy calculations. She proposed taking a list of native plantings, divide them up into canopy coverages of 200 and 400 square feet and take it to the local arborists to get feedback to bring back to the Board. She stated that the ordinance would effectively require on an individual lot, that there will be fifteen percent (15%) tree canopy at ten (10) year maturity. She stated that some of the new items in the proposed ordinance deal with encouraging professional assistance and specifying that in order for a homeowner to be eligible for a tree credit, the area around the canopy would have to remain clear. She stated that a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) would not be granted to a homeowner until trees are in place. She stated that a homeowner can obtain a temporary CO if the weather conditions are not right for tree planting by putting up a cash bond for what it would cost to plant the trees.
Chairman Forlano asked if Director Cotellessa was advocating the cash bond as being used for verification that planting will occur. Director Cotellessa stated it was in case a homeowner could not plant trees. Chairman Forlano asked how the ordinance could be protected if a homeowner plants a tree and then it dies. Director Cotellessa stated that specific provisions could be made but didn’t think it was in the proposed ordinance. Vice Chair Britt stated that the ordinance stated that the cash bond is placed to make sure a homeowner plants the trees. Chairman Forlano asked what would happen if the tree dies. Vice Chair Britt thought that once the trees are planted, the cash bond would be released. Director Cotellessa wondered if the Town should do something two or three (2 or 3) years down the road.
Member Blakaitis pointed out that there were provisions in the proposed ordinance for pre and post development phases. He asked if a tree emergency exception would be called if a homeowner has a dead tree. Director Cotellessa stated that a dead tree would require a permit to be removed but would not always be considered an emergency situation.
Member Jenkins stated that he was amazed at the number of tree species on the list. He asked if the Town should encourage salt tolerant trees. Director Cotellessa stated that it should be encouraged. She stated that there are zones throughout the state where certain trees can handle certain weather conditions. She stated that the list will include trees that are known to be tolerant on the Outer Banks.
Member Blakaitis noted that Southern Bayberries were not on the list. He stated that they do not have much of a canopy but are very tolerant in the area. Director Cotellessa stated that at an earlier meeting, a list of native plants were handed out which included the Southern Bayberry. She stated that they are not canopy trees, but will be part of the list of native plants for the ordinance.
Chairman Forlano clarified Director Cotellessa’s new title. He asked if there would be other people that would help handle building permits and such. Director Cotellessa stated that a site survey is normally prepared by a surveyor. She stated that the process for a tree survey would require the homeowner to show what is on the site. She stated that a list would be available of six (6) inch or larger caliper trees that could be on the site. She stated a canopy determination would need to be on the survey of what credit could be given for any trees to remain as well as which ones would need to be removed. She stated that she would be reading the survey and looking at the tree canopy submission along with the Building Inspector. She stated that if there is an issue or question regarding condition of the tree or if the type of tree is not on the list, she would require the applicant to submit something from a professional arborist to give her the information needed to review it.
Member Jenkins stated that Dare County has aerial photos of every lot in the county. He asked if the Town could use those. Director Cotellessa stated that the problem with aerial photos was that a person cannot tell what condition the lot is in. She stated that aerial photos are standardly run during a time when the foliage is very sparse. She stated that if you are on the ground, the trees that are six (6) inches in diameter could be identified and flagged so the surveyor can locate them and see where they are with respect to what is being proposed to be built on the site. Member Jenkins asked if the list included shrub varieties. Director Cotellessa stated that bayberries would be encouraged. She stated the list would be mostly canopy trees. She stated that shrubs should be planted on lots as well.
Member Blakaitis pointed out an error in the amount of the tree diameter in the proposed ordinance. He asked if a homeowner wishes to take some trees off his property, what would need to take place. Director Cotellessa stated that if there was a dead tree on the corner of a lot, she would come out to the property and confirm that the tree is dead or else the homeowner would need to provide visual backup to the permit.
Director Cotellessa pointed out to the Board that topping is a prohibitive activity in the proposed ordinance. Member Jenkins asked if a tree was interfering with his satellite dish, could it be topped. Director Cotellessa stated it couldn’t. She also stated that a tree could not be removed without obtaining a permit. Member Jenkins asked how much the permit would cost. Director Cotellessa stated that it would have to be determined.
Member Blakaitis asked if a homeowner would have permission to trim a tree if it was too close to a home. Director Cotellessa stated they would if it encroaches over a deck. She stated that trimming is listed as a limited activity in the ordinance. Member Blakaitis stated that he did not want the ordinance to be overly restrictive to homeowners.
Bill Marsh stated that everyone that buys a house wants one with a view. He felt that with the tree ordinance, existing homeowners would be in peril of losing their view if new homeowners started planting trees. He asked if the Board would be taking adjacent property owners into consideration with regard to the ordinance and how they may lose their viewshed. Director Cotellessa stated that there are issues everywhere, which may or may not be controlled by a homeowner association. She stated that some of the heights of trees at maturity are between twenty to thirty (20 – 30) feet, which are not much different than an adjacent home. She stated that trees need to be carefully placed on the lot. Mr. Marsh asked if Director Cotellessa would make sure that trees are carefully placed on the lot. Director Cotellessa felt it should be up to the homeowner where the trees would be placed on their lot, except that it should not be placed in an area where it would die by putting it there. She stated that with the tree ordinance as well as development on lots, there will be sight issues. Mr. Marsh stated he was all for the trees but that he was also for viewsheds. Director Cotellessa stated that it would be very hard to do both on each property.
Member Jenkins asked about trees on lot lines with overhangs. Director Cotellessa stated that one of the things discussed was putting a tree on a lot line. She stated that a neighbor can, by law, trim the edge of the tree on their property. Chairman Forlano inquired about the earlier discussion where Director Cotellessa stated that trimming was not allowed. Director Cotellessa stated that it cannot be done on a tree on a lot but there are rules that if your tree is encroaching on a neighbor’s lot, it could be trimmed. She stated that siting of trees will be as important as other things on a lot and will not be easy to do.
Chairman Forlano thought the Board should come up with a tree ordinance but didn’t want to push it through too fast. He felt the Board should study it. Director Cotellessa stated she would come up with appropriate tree appendices, poll arborists and come back to the Board with suggestions.
Olin Finch asked if the value of foliage such as bayberry would be counted as greenery as it does not have canopy coverage. He asked if it would also be used for borders. He felt shrubbery should be counted. Director Cotellessa felt he had valid points and would have the Board look at it again. Member Blakaitis thought there should be a balance between shrubs and the canopy. Director Cotellessa stated she would work up a balance.
Chairman Forlano asked if any other jurisdiction had tree ordinances in effect. Director Cotellessa stated that Roanoke Island in Manteo has a limited one. Willo Kelly stated that the Town of Nags Head is getting ready to discuss the issue.
Nick Vercauteren asked if there were any certain irrigation requirements. Director Cotellessa stated there wasn’t. She stated that if the homeowner is using the groundwater and recirculating it, that would be fine, however if Dare County water service is being used, the homeowner is adding to the groundwater problem. She pointed out that the Four Seasons subdivision has a requirement for sod on all the properties, but that they also require use of community wells for irrigation.
Member Jenkins asked for Director Cotellessa’s opinion on sod. Director Cotellessa stated that sod does not do as efficient a job as trees in taking up water, transpiring it and dealing with stormwater. Member Jenkins stated that he had heard that in some states, depending on how the sod is installed, it creates runoff issues. He asked if it was true. Director Cotellessa stated it was as layers of topsoil are put under the sod, which acts as an impervious surface. Member Jenkins stated he has seen ordinances that limit the amount of sod on a lot.
Member Blakaitis stated he would like the Town to be proactive with the use of County water for the sprinkler systems. He felt the issue was getting worse with the sprinkler systems. He wondered why the Town could not require a rain sensor for homeowners that want to use sprinkler systems so they would not be running during times when it rains. He thought that maybe there could also be a cutoff date for sprinkler systems. Director Cotellessa stated that it would be a great point to bring forward to Council if the Board wished to.
Chairman Forlano clarified that Director Cotellessa would draft something that would include shrubbery and fine tune some of the other thoughts the Board had. Director Cotellessa stated that she would as well as including salt tolerant species and more language on maintaining trees after they are first planted.
Zoning Technician Sandy Cady was recognized to speak. She thought that if the Board wanted trees to be preserved, it would need to be stated as such in the ordinance. Chairman Forlano agreed.
C. Continued Discussion of Regulations to Promote Retention of Native Businesses in Lieu of Franchise or Formula Businesses
Director Cotellessa stated that the Board had discussed at its last meeting about regulating formula businesses. She handed out a discussion paper to the Board and went on to review it with them. She stated that some towns only regulate retail or restaurants. She stated that Council directed the Board not to just regulate one type of business. She wondered if real estate offices, banks and religious organizations were considered formula businesses. She stated that some ordinances state that only a certain amount of franchises can run in a town. She stated that many describe a formula business as one that is required by contract or other arrangement, such as menus, signage or merchandise. She suggested the Board include retail and restaurants and list out what is a standardized formula business. She asked the Board for their input on what a formula business was.
Member Blakaitis felt that all of the items on the list should be considered as formula businesses. Chairman Forlano and Vice Chair Britt agreed.
Director Cotellessa wondered what the concern was regarding formula businesses – was it the way it looks, the way it acts or the economic diversity and vitality of local businesses? She stated that that some members of Council have stated that some do not look like other businesses. Others have said the franchise businesses are displacing local family-owned shops.
Director Cotellessa asked the Board if they wanted to look at limiting the formula businesses Town-wide or only in the Village Commercial District. She asked if they wished to limit the size as well. She stated that all of these items were reasons to discuss the proposed ordinance.
Chairman Forlano asked if the fact that there is already one (1) franchise business in Town has established a precedence. He asked if there were any legal teeth that more businesses could not come to Town. Director Cotellessa stated it couldn’t. She stated that Burger King and Wings would fall under the terms of a franchise business as well as the gas stations. Chairman Forlano clarified that there would not be any further businesses. Director Cotellessa stated he was correct.
Member Blakaitis felt the Town should support local businesses whether they succeed or not. He stated that the Town does not need franchise businesses as there are already enough locally.
Member Jenkins stated that the original village commercial ordinance stated that the opening paragraphs spoke of providing needed and required services for the citizens of Town. He asked what would be wrong in stating that the Town does not need a franchise business, such as Wal-Mart. Member Blakaitis pointed out that the Town could not have a Wal-Mart built. Director Cotellessa stated that the Town limits the size of buildings.
Director Cotellessa stated that the last page of the discussion paper asked if the franchise businesses should be banned entirely or controlled. She stated that the Town Attorney is reviewing for Duck as well as the Town of Nags Head, whether or not an outright ban could be challenged. She stated that it has been challenged in various jurisdictions but not in North Carolina, but is generally upheld if it is carefully crafted. She stated that most jurisdictions tightly control their locations as opposed to banning them. She stated that if the business was to locate in a town, it would be a conditional use. She stated that for the Town, Council and the Planning Board would have to make a whole series of findings that would not alter the district but would compliment the existing businesses for approval. Council Liaison Lindley stated that in the northern states, franchise businesses could not be ruled out but could be controlled.
Chairman Forlano asked if the safe approach would be to control the businesses. Director Cotellessa recommended writing something and bringing it back to the next meeting. Chairman Forlano agreed.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Planning Board Meeting August 9, 2006
Member Blakaitis moved to approve the minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of August 9, 2006 as presented.
Minutes for the Planning Board Meeting on August 9, 2006 were approved 3-0. Vice Chair Britt was not at the previous meeting and could not vote on this approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
BOARD COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Forlano adjourned the meeting.
The time was 8:41 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman