TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
October 11, 2006
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 11, 2006.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Vice Chair Jon Britt, John Jenkins, Anne Darnall and Joe Blakaitis.
Also present were Council Liaison Denver Lindley, Jr.; Director of Community Development Suzanne Cotellessa and Zoning Technician Sandy Cady.
Others Present: Willo Kelly of the Outer Banks Homebuilders Association.
Chairman Forlano called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for October 11, 2006 at 6:30 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Tree/Vegetation Preservation Ordinance
Director Suzanne Cotellessa was recognized to speak. Director Cotellessa stated that since the last meeting, she had talked to several other jurisdictions that administer tree ordinances to try to get some additional information. She stated that she had learned many things and handed out to the Board some items to think about in regard to the ordinance.
Director Cotellessa stated that everyone has told her that it would do the Town best to keep things simple, so it would be easy to administer the ordinance. She stated that she received the best input from the City of Chesapeake, Virginia. She stated they have a similar climate and issues with respect to septic. She stated they also have a staff arborist as well as heavy tree requirements in the Chesapeake Bay area. She stated that they do it very simply – they go out to a site and count how many trees are present. She stated they identify how many large and small trees are present. She stated that large trees are identified as being six to eight (6-8) feet tall. She stated that for a large tree, canopy credit is given for four hundred (400) square feet of canopy at build out. She stated that if it is a small tree, the homeowner would receive two hundred (200) square feet of credit. She stated that Chesapeake also has a list of approved trees, which she recommended the Board use for the list of native species.
Director Cotellessa stated that at the last meeting it was discussed that the Board wished to provide some flexibility for the homeowners. She stated that a trade out could be done such as two (2) small trees for one (1) large tree. She stated that shrubbery allowances were also discussed. She stated the trade out could be one (1) large tree as the equivalent to ten (10) shrubs. She stated that a root system would need to be ensured. She stated that in the Chesapeake Bay area, it is required that at least 2/3 of the cover be large canopy trees. She stated that the Town could limit the type of trees allowed but also allow for flexibility. She stated that when a homeowner brings in a building permit application to build a house, they need to show the house, how many large and small trees will be put on the lot and how many shrubs will need to be shown. She stated that when the Building Inspector goes out for the final inspection, he will count the trees and shrubs. She stated that the Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until the trees and shrubs are at the property and in place.
Director Cotellessa stated that if the homeowner has concerns or questions about canopy retention, it can be appealed to the Director of Community Development. She noted that the City of Chesapeake has had their ordinance in effect since 1998. She stated that their overall experience has been to keep it simple.
Director Cotellessa stated that she has seen a few ordinances that require at least one (1) large canopy tree between the front of a home and the street. She wondered if the Board wanted to discuss encouraging this. She stated it could be added in the ordinance. She stated that the City of Chesapeake requires a tree removal permit for a homeowner that wants to take a tree down. She pointed out that there are homeowners that do not like trees, so the Board will need to be mindful of individual preferences in regard to the ordinance. She pointed out that a lot of items apply when a homeowner builds a new house. She asked when the requirements should kick in if a homeowner wishes to add on to their existing home and would the Board want them to kick in. She stated that the Board had discussed cash bonds. She asked if the homeowner could not plant the trees due to weather conditions, would the bond be held till a later date and have the owner receive a temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
Director Cotellessa stated that she was specifically interested in the information the agricultural agent gave her on salt tolerant species. She stated that not all trees are salt tolerant. She stated that she would like to amend the ordinance to simplify it a bit. She thought the ordinance should be more basic – plant trees and shrubs. She stated that irrigation would need to be discussed again. She recommended the Board look at and discuss irrigation systems and whether or not they have added to the Town’s stormwater problems.
Vice Chair Britt asked how irrigation systems would fall under the tree ordinance. He guessed when the homeowner comes in with their plans; they would have to reflect what they plan to do regarding irrigation. Director Cotellessa agreed. She stated that it could state in the ordinance that irrigation is not permitted except with well systems in Town.
Member Darnall stated that some of the water used in irrigation systems is not appropriate for watering lawns as it is brackish water, especially with homes close to the Sound. Councilor Lindley asked if the brackish water discolors things. Member Darnall stated he was correct. She stated that her neighbors told her that well water is not good for the grass. Vice Chair Britt stated that he hadn’t heard that but that well water will discolor driveways and homes. Director Cotellessa thought maybe homeowners could plant items that do not require irrigation. She stated the issue was what the appropriate vegetation would be to take up water and not to plant things that require water.
Member Blakaitis felt that the Board should think about having homeowners install rain sensors. He pointed out that native plants do not typically need irrigation. He stated that Duck is the largest user of water in all of Dare County. He thought the Town could be proactive in educating the public.
Vice Chair Britt stated he had no problem with regulating the use of County water for irrigation. He stated that there are ways to irrigate without discoloring a driveway or home. Director Cotellessa stated that the nozzles for an irrigation system can be directed so they are away from a home or driveway. Vice Chair Britt agreed.
Chairman Forlano agreed with Vice Chair Britt’s comments. He stated that he has been using well water for the past twenty (20) years to irrigate his property. He stated that he has a tank that takes the iron out so the grass is not affected.
Director Cotellessa stated that some communities have taken initiatives while others are not the best example. She stated that the Four Seasons subdivision requires sod on their properties. She felt it was a negative thing. But on the positive side, they have three (3) wells in the community and require all irrigation systems to be hooked to those wells.
Director Cotellessa stated that a lot of the communities have little square areas where a dumpster is supposed to be placed that could be a great place for an irrigation well. She thought it could be something the Community Improvement Committee could use for grant opportunities. Vice Chair Britt stated that it would not cost much to do something like that. Chairman Forlano felt that it was a good thing to use shallow wells for irrigation purposes.
Director Cotellessa proposed adding in the ordinance a section on irrigation, and recommending that homeowners have their irrigation systems on timers or sensors. Vice Chair Britt felt the sensors would not be an issue if the homeowner was using well water. Member Darnall stated that if the water is being pulled from the ground, the situation is being helped. Director Cotellessa stated that there are a few homeowners that are hooked up to County water with irrigation systems. She thought it may be useful for those homeowners to do something with sensors. Vice Chair Britt agreed.
Member Blakaitis asked if the ordinance was changed, what would be done with the homes that are on County water. He asked if they would have to change. Director Cotellessa thought they would be allowed to stay with the system they were on. She stated that the Board may want to come up with an incentive program to have homeowners switch. Member Darnall asked what would happen if the homeowner came in for a major remodeling. Vice Chair Britt stated that they could be told they have to have a well. Director Cotellessa stated it was a good question for discussion. Vice Chair Britt noted that the Town has several areas on the Duck Trail that are irrigated. He doubted that they were on wells. Director Cotellessa stated he was correct.
Chairman Forlano asked if there would be anything in the ordinance that would step on property rights. Director Cotellessa stated that anytime zoning regulations are created, there is the potential to infringe on property rights. She stated that it takes away opportunities but gives other opportunities that weren’t available before.
Member Jenkins asked if the City of Chesapeake has a policy on diseased trees. Director Cotellessa stated that there are trees in the area that are susceptible. She stated that if trees are damaged or dying, there is permission to take them out. She stated that the idea is that if one is taken out, it needs to be replaced with a different species. She stated that all that can be done is to make recommendations, have people go to the agricultural agent and try to plant trees that are not susceptible to diseases. She stated that unless there is a replanting program and something that kicks in for new development and some level of redevelopment, the Town will not get back anything. Member Jenkins thought that permits should be issued for free for these types of situations. Director Cotellessa stated that in the ordinance there are provisions for removal of diseased trees. She didn’t think it would be an expensive permit – possibility $25.00 to $30.00.
Member Darnall asked if the requirement would go towards the number of trees and not for the canopy. Director Cotellessa stated that size of the canopy is assigned to the type of tree. Member Darnall asked if a homeowner had a lot of trees and wanted to take one (1) out, they wouldn’t have to replace it. Director Cotellessa stated that it was up for discussion.
Member Blakaitis asked if the biggest tree on the property were taken out, would it have to be replaced. Director Cotellessa stated that the ordinance states that at the time of initial construction, development or substantial redevelopment, a homeowner has to have fifteen percent (15%) tree canopy. She stated that a permit would need to be obtained to show the other trees on the lot. Member Blakaitis didn’t want the ordinance to be overly restrictive to homeowners.
Member Blakaitis felt there should be something in place that wherever a tree is within so many feet of a home, it should be allowed to be removed by the homeowner if they wished to do so. Director Cotellessa suggested that the ordinance state that a tree could be removed within ten (10) feet of the house but it must be replaced if the canopy is not sufficient. Member Blakaitis asked who would decide on the amount of canopy cover. Director Cotellessa stated that the idea is one for one and not what enough canopy coverage is.
Vice Chair Britt asked if a homeowner has a lot of trees on their lot and wanted to add on to their house, would they have to replace a tree if they wished to take one out. Director Cotellessa stated they wouldn’t as the minimum canopy requirement has been met. Member Darnell felt that a homeowner should be allowed to take trees out that are within ten (10) feet of a house no matter what, but if the canopy is insufficient, the homeowner should have to replace it.
Director Cotellessa questioned when the ordinance should kick in on an open lot in terms of requirements for canopy coverage. Vice Chair Britt thought it should happen with a major renovation. Member Darnall agreed.
Member Darnall asked what the trigger would be for the tree ordinance. Vice Chair Britt guessed it would be an expansion of the footprint of a property. Director Cotellessa stated that expansion would be one way but any increase in parking or driveway would be another.
Chairman Forlano asked who would be determining the cash bond. Director Cotellessa stated it would be based upon the estimate of costs/labor to install the plantings. Chairman Forlano asked if the cash bond was actual cash that would be held by the Town. Director Cotellessa stated that a bond by a bond company could be acquired by the homeowner that the Town would benefit from if the homeowner defaults on what they are supposed to do. She stated that it would be like buying insurance. She stated that the only other way to do it would be to have the homeowner deposit with the Town the amount of money for the bond to hold and have it returned at the end of the period. Chairman Forlano stated that he would prefer withholding the cash.
Director Cotellessa stated she would like to leave in the section of the ordinance that states that professional assistance would be encouraged by the Town in the proper planting and caring of trees.
Vice Chair Britt asked about the one (1) tree between the house and the street. Director Cotellessa stated she would like the Board’s input on it. Vice Chair Britt stated that due to the topography, it may look silly in some places or it may be a wind hazard in some subdivisions. Member Darnall suggested that the tree could be off to the side instead of between the house and the street. Director Cotellessa stated the tree could be between the front plain of the house and the street. She stated the tree does not have to be right in front of the house. Vice Chair Britt clarified that the ordinance would give the homeowner the option of putting up a shorter tree if they don’t want to put up a tall one. Director Cotellessa stated that the ordinance states that the homeowner would have to plant at least one (1) large canopy tree. Vice Chair Britt felt that it wouldn’t work in a subdivision such as Sea Ridge. He stated that he agreed with putting vegetation in front a house to break up the look. He thought the Board needed to think about being flexible as to what is on a site based on where the lot is and what makes sense.
Chairman Forlano asked if existing properties that do not have the canopy the Board is looking for would be classified as nonconforming properties. Director Cotellessa stated they would be classified as such. She stated that the regulations are related to development in that if a homeowner wants to develop their property, they would have to come into conformance.
Chairman Forlano asked for additional comments. Member Blakaitis felt the proposed ordinance was a good plan. Director Cotellessa stated she would bring the ordinance forward next time so the Board could move on with it.
Willo Kelly of the Outer Banks Homebuilders Association was recognized to speak. Ms. Kelly stated that she had attended the Dare County Firewise Council meeting. She stated that their goal is to have Dare County become a fire wise community. She stated that at their last meeting they were discussing fire wise landscaping and had a landscaping checklist. She stated that she had encouraged Kelly Van Druten of Fish and Wildlife to bring the issue about to the fire wise community to have them consider leaving a minimum of thirty (30) feet around a house to accommodate fire equipment. She passed out the checklist to the Board. She stated that the group does not want trees planted within thirty (30) feet of a house. Director Cotellessa stated that this goes along with the earlier discussion of the Board regarding allowing homeowners to plant anywhere on their lot.
Chairman Forlano stated that issue will be discussed again at the November meeting.
B. Discussion/Recommendation of Formula Business Ordinance (TC Ref. 3/15/06)
Director Cotellessa stated that at the last meeting, the Board had given her direction on how they wanted the draft ordinance to come about. She stated that some of the specifics were why the Town would be passing the ordinance, what it applies to and instituting a requirement for a conditional use permit for any type of formula business establishment in the Town with a series of required findings. She stated that the findings would be in addition to the standard findings for any conditional use permit in terms of having a negative impact on the environment, but lists specific findings that promotes diversity and variety and does not develop into too many formula businesses; the character of the use does not disrupt the character of other businesses in locations nearby; that it supports the economic health of the community; and that it is consistent with the Town’s unique character. She stated it also has a series of specific criteria such as the size of the business would not exceed three thousand (3,000) square feet of gross space and must be in a building that is shared with one (1) other business that is not a formula business. She stated that the street frontage cannot be more than fifty (50) linear feet. She stated the size and location of signage would be limited as well. She stated that if a formula business wishes to locate in Town, it would have to come before the Board and the Town Council to determine whether it will be compatible with the community and maintain the economic vitality.
Chairman Forlano asked if Burger King would be considered a formula business. Director Cotellessa stated that it would. Chairman Forlano asked if conditional use permits were granted for the formula businesses that are in Town. Director Cotellessa stated that as a restaurant, Burger King would probably have to have a conditional use permit.
Director Cotellessa stated that the conditional use permit would have a different set of findings from the standard CUP as it is specifically related to the identity of formula businesses and would make sure they properly blend in. She noted that Wings would be considered a formula business. Chairman Forlano asked if they were granted a conditional use permit. Director Cotellessa stated they weren’t as they were by right.
Vice Chair Britt stated he did not initially agree with the ordinance. He thought that once you crack the door, the formula businesses would kick it in. He thought the businesses would find a way to work around the CUP. He asked if the point of the ordinance was to keep local-owned and unique businesses in Duck running. He thought the businesses would not have any real hardship with wanting to come to Town. He wondered if the Town wanted to completely stop formula businesses or leave the door open. He stated he was for stopping them from coming in. Director Cotellessa stated that there are some formula businesses that the Town may want to include, such as the UPS Store. She stated that if the Town wanted to allow that business in, if they had the right kind of building and architecture, they would be allowed in. She stated that it could be done on a case by case basis to allow for discretion to see if the business is a benefit to the community. Vice Chair Britt stated that from a legal standpoint, if the ordinance stated as such, he was fine with allowing some formula businesses in. But he stated he can see loopholes for franchise businesses to slip in Town. He stated he was not for that.
Member Blakaitis noted that the Board has been discussing both formula businesses and franchises. He clarified that McDonald’s and Burger King are franchise businesses. Director Cotellessa stated that the Board had discussed formula businesses and chain businesses. Member Blakaitis asked if the Board is now defining a formula business to include all of them. Director Cotellessa stated he was correct. She stated that it would be based on use characteristics and listed features. She stated the ordinance would exclude churches, government facilities and real estate offices. Vice Chair Britt felt that banks should be excluded as well.
Member Darnall asked what the reasoning was for adding the CUP to the ordinance. Director Cotellessa stated that the Town attorney was not sure an outright ban would survive a legal challenge. She stated that the challenge in other areas, when it was mounted, was that they were completely forbidden. She stated that it became easier to very tightly control them with conditional use permits. Chairman Forlano pointed out that all of the challenges lost in court.
Member Darnall pointed out that sexually oriented businesses were successfully banned due to the size of the Town. She wondered if because of the nature of the Village Commercial District, the availability for formula businesses would be better in Southern Shores or Kitty Hawk where there is a six (6) lane highway. She asked if there was a way to mirror the sexually oriented business ordinance. Vice Chair Britt felt it was the same argument that was made for the sexually oriented business ordinance.
Member Jenkins stated he kept going to page 2 of the ordinance regarding required findings. He stated that they were so general that they troubled him. He felt they would be wide open to a challenge. He asked how existing surrounding uses could be defined. Vice Chair Britt agreed with Member Jenkins comments. He thought items one (1) through four (4) read with the best intentions, but did not have any teeth. He stated that the only thing in the conditional use permit that has any teeth is size. Member Jenkins agreed. He asked if a formula business, such as Starbucks, would be considered a required service in Duck. Member Blakaitis asked if there was mention of surrounding businesses and how many there are. Director Cotellessa stated that a conditional use permit is always up to the applicant and the Town Council to demonstrate whether they meet the required criteria or not. She stated that the ultimate decision of whether or not they meet the criteria is up to the Board. She stated that the Town can set specific standards for the conditional use permits.
Director Cotellessa asked if the Board could think of any formula businesses that are needed in Town that are not around presently. Vice Chair Britt asked if the Board could think of ones they did not want in Town. Member Blakaitis stated there were plenty. Member Darnall asked if the Board could think of a single formula business that a locally-owned business couldn’t provide the same services. Member Blakaitis thought the UPS Store would be one. Member Darnall felt the UPS Store would not survive in Duck year-round. She stated that the nature of business in Duck is not driven by the locals; it is mostly tourist driven. Vice Chair Britt felt that if there is money, the formula businesses will find a way to run in Duck. He envisioned a Pizza Hut coming in. Member Darnall disagreed and felt that a Subway or Quiznos would be the next one to come in. Vice Chair Britt stated that the Board was trying to set a theme for the Village, that formula businesses are not wanted. Member Darnall stated that she understood the sensitivities of people who own a franchise business but felt that businesses that need the year round market to survive would not make it in Duck.
Member Darnall felt that formula businesses should be banned completely. Vice Chair Britt agreed with Member Darnall. He stated that something could be written along the lines of the sexually oriented business ordinance. He thought that the ordinance would leave a loophole by using the conditional use permit. He felt it goes against the spirit of what the Board is trying to accomplish – to keep the formula businesses out of Duck and keep the local businesses in.
Council Liaison Lindley stated that the problem he had in Pennsylvania was a constitutional one. He stated that they could not ban a formula business but could control it. He asked if the Town bans the formula businesses and the Town is challenged and loses, what has the Town lost? He felt there wouldn’t be much lost. He felt it would be worth trying to say that the Town does not want formula businesses, wait until it’s challenged in court and then enforce it. Vice Chair Britt agreed with Council Liaison Lindley’s comments.
Director Cotellessa stated that a CUP can be denied, there is a presumption of legislative validity that applies to every CUP that overrides a lot of the constitutional concerns. She stated that she appreciated the arguments but felt the CUP should be part of the ordinance. Council Liaison Lindley asked if the ordinance would be stronger. Director Cotellessa stated it would be in the long run with the appropriate findings. Vice Chair Britt stated he did not see how the appropriate findings would help. Member Darnall stated that if the Town really did not want formula businesses, they should follow what other towns have done.
Chairman Forlano stated that if the Town outlaws formula businesses completely and if the business wants to take the Town to court, then so be it. He stated that businesses do not want to spend a lot of money on legal fees.
Director Cotellessa stated that the Board could go either way with the ordinance. Chairman Forlano stated he was in favor of the whole idea in principle but was fearful of litigation for the Town. Director Cotellessa suggested redrafting the ordinance like the sexually oriented business one. She stated she will gather some data and do some research and will contact Town Attorney McRee to get information from him.
Vice Chair Britt stated that if the Town could find a way to justify banning formula businesses outright, it would be a step in the right direction. Member Darnall agreed.
Chairman Forlano asked if the Board was in favor of an ordinance with more teeth. Member Jenkins stated he was. Member Blakaitis stated he was as well.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Planning Board Meeting September 13, 2006
Member Jenkins had changes to Page 3 and Page 7 of the minutes. He pointed out that the Board had tabled a discussion via consensus. He didn’t think the Board could table an issue with a consensus. Director Cotellessa stated that the question was whether there needs to be a motion to table or not. She stated it was done in the same way that the Board just did with regard to the formula businesses in that everyone agreed on the direction. She stated that the direction was that the word “tabled” was used and everyone agreed and guessed the sense was that there were not any further changes at that time. Because the language was tabled, she did not put it on the agenda. Member Darnall thought that maybe the issue could be back in January. Vice Chair Britt agreed. Chairman Forlano asked Member Jenkins if he wished to continue pursuing the issue. Member Jenkins didn’t think it was a dead issue. Chairman Forlano stated that no one had said it was a dead issue, but that the Board needed to step back and take a breather from it.
Director Cotellessa suggested that a motion could be made to table the discussion until a date certain that it would be brought back up again.
Member Darnall thought the Board should have a joint worksession with the Council to discuss all the issues that the Board is trying to solve. She stated that none of the Board members have really agreed or know what is trying to be solved. Chairman Forlano asked if an informal worksession with Council could be set up. Director Cotellessa stated that the Board could request it, but it would be up to the Mayor and Council. Vice Chair Britt asked that it not be at the annual retreat. He stated it will need to be a stand-alone issue. Member Darnall stated that it should be focused on the current state of development and redevelopment of homes. Director Cotellessa suggested that the Board put together a meeting to lay out the issues with respect to the effects of development on a lot.
Vice Chair Britt asked how many building permits were issued in September for new construction. Director Cotellessa stated there weren’t a lot. She stated that the Board could have a worksession to lay the issues on the table and maybe present them to Council. She stated that Council is looking for input from the Board as to what the options are. Vice Chair Britt stated that in absence of a vision or goal for the Board, it’s hard to do. Member Darnall pointed out the vision and the goal is the Land Use Plan. Vice Chair Britt agreed.
Chairman Forlano clarified that every town on the Outer Banks is dealing with the same issues. Director Cotellessa stated he was correct. Chairman Forlano asked if everyone is at the same point. Director Cotellessa stated that they are all grappling with the issues.
Member Blakaitis asked if any other planning boards were dealing with just square footage. Director Cotellessa stated she has not seen anything on the table regarding that, except the Town of Nags Head, which has a square footage number for single family homes, allowing a bigger number if the homeowner meets a point system.
Chairman Forlano clarified that Member Jenkins had brought up the square footage issue. Member Jenkins stated he had and had passed out a proposed ordinance from another town. Director Cotellessa stated she had one from Arlington, Virginia that was very similar to the one Member Jenkins had presented.
Director Cotellessa stated the process is basically a balloon effect in that if you limit the size of the house, a cabana or accessory structure becomes bigger. Member Blakaitis felt the Board needed to start someplace to start plugging holes. Vice Chair Britt thought that the Board should have a meeting amongst themselves. Member Darnall stated that if there were other small issues to discuss, the Board should do that to get a break from the lot coverage issue. Member Blakaitis agreed and felt the lot coverage issue was not a dead one.
Director Cotellessa suggested that a Board member could make a motion that the issue will be carried forward to have a worksession based on land use goals in the December/January timeframe.
Vice Chair Britt moved to table the issue of coverage to a worksession based on the land use goals for either the December or January Planning Board meeting. Chairman Forlano suggested that the Board have a second meeting in November. Vice Chair Britt and Member Darnall did not want to have a second meeting. Member Blakaitis felt January would be good for the worksession. Director Cotellessa agreed. Chairman Forlano suggested holding it after the annual Council retreat. Director Cotellessa clarified that the meeting would be held on the first Wednesday in January. Member Blakaitis thought it would be held as the second meeting. Director Cotellessa stated she meant the first meeting in January which would be after the Council retreat.
Member Jenkins asked Vice Chair Britt to restate his motion. Vice Chair Britt moved to continue discussion of lot coverage, parking and house size issues at the first meeting in January using the Land Use Plan as a basis of discussion. Chairman Forlano seconded the motion.
Motion carried 4-1 with Member Jenkins dissenting.
Vice Chair Britt moved to approve the minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of September 13, 2006 as amended.
Minutes for the Planning Board Meeting on September 13, 2006 were approved 4-0. Member Darnall was not at the previous meeting and could not vote on this approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
Director Cotellessa stated that she is trying to put together a reception at the Blue Point Bar and Grill. She stated that it would be an informal discussion with the other planning boards as well as having a celebration of World Town Planning Day. She stated that Council adopted a resolution recently naming October as Community Planning Month. She stated that she was hoping to get commitments from the other boards to participate in the reception. She stated it would be held on the next regular Planning Board meeting night – November 8, 2006 for members of the Board and their spouses.
BOARD COMMENTS
Member Blakaitis stated that he was glad that the Board would have a time out period for some of the issues they have been discussing.
Member Darnall apologized for missing the last meeting.
Chairman Forlano asked if the Board was not going to hold a meeting in November, what would happen if something came up. He asked if there was anything imperative in the future that would be coming up. Director Cotellessa stated that if something were to come up, she would already know about it. Right now there is nothing coming up. She stated that if the Board had something that would absolutely have to be heard, she would call the Board and reschedule the November meeting.
Chairman Forlano asked if the entire January meeting would be dedicated to the issue of lot coverage. Director Cotellessa stated she would coordinate the agenda with him.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Forlano adjourned the meeting.
The time was 8:11 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman