TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
December 13, 2006
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 13, 2006.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Vice Chair Jon Britt, John Jenkins, Anne Darnall and Joe Blakaitis.
Also present were Director of Community Development Suzanne Cotellessa and Zoning Technician Sandy Cady.
Council Liaison Denver Lindley, Jr. was absent.
Others Present: Jim Conners of Laughing Gull Landscape Design, John Summers, David Tanis, and Sam Taylor.
Chairman Forlano called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for December 13, 2006 at 6:32 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Sam Taylor of 111 Skimmer Way was recognized to speak. Mr. Taylor stated he wanted to talk about trees. He stated that no matter how great the proposed ordinance will be, the Planning Board cannot make a flawed strategy work. He stated that attempting to regulate trees in Town is a flawed strategy. He stated he has spent a considerable amount of money in the past year to have his trees trimmed on his property to keep his driveway from being blocked. He stated that as a result of the micro-climate that has been created, there are plenty of trees and more trees will continue to grow. He stated that he saw no reason for the Town to regulate how people trim their trees. He felt the Town has better things to do than to try to regulate tree trimming. He felt it was a waste of time and would do nothing but create ill will from homeowners. He urged the Board not to waste their time.
John Summers of 123 Sea Hawk Drive West was recognized to speak. Mr. Summers agreed with Mr. Taylor’s comments. He complimented the Planning Board with addressing the issue. He stated he is favor of an ordinance that deals with new development. He stated that he has a problem with the ordinance applying to existing homes. He urged the Planning Board to leave homeowners alone and deal with the developers by applying the ordinance to only the developers. He pointed out that there is very little maritime forest or undeveloped land with trees left in Duck. He stated that he hoped that regulations would be in place to limit the amount of trees cut down in the maritime forests. He felt that the Town did not need to regulate existing homeowners as he didn’t see a problem. He stated that he knows when a tree on his property would need to be cut down and doesn’t need the Town to issue him a permit for it. He felt the ordinance was stepping over the line.
David Tanis of 136 Cook Drive was recognized to speak. Mr. Tanis stated he has lived next to Mr. Summers in Bayberry Bluffs since 1973. He stated that when he built his home, there wasn’t anything to stop the wind or anything to the north of his home between Bayberry Bluffs and Caffey’s Inlet. He stated that homes and not vegetation served as wind breaks. He felt the tree ordinance was a way to control the homeowners. He pointed out that the ordinance was well written from a legal perspective only. He stated that he felt oppressed by the format, consideration and structure of the ordinance. He stated when he first moved to Town, Duck was mostly a maritime forest with very few homes, but is now a village full of stores. He wondered if the Town could protect what’s left by either a tree ordinance or a judicious use of permits. He felt the drainage off of the roads was more important than the tree ordinance. He stated that most year-round homeowners are on fixed incomes and cannot afford to pay for permits if they want to take a tree down.
Mr. Tanis pointed out that septic systems and trees do not mix. He stated that a homeowner cannot plant a tree over a septic system. He stated that septic systems cover nearly 1/3 of the remaining lot size. He stated that sand will not support the larger trees but would support the black pines or live oaks. He asked what the reason was for the existence of Duck and felt it was because it’s a vacation area. He said there was a variety of soils. He asked at what point a community is taxed so much that no one wants to go there. He stated that it gets to a point where the taxes are too much. He stated that the Board does not have to pass ordinances or control things to be a good Planning Board. He stated that when a town establishes an ordinance such as this one, corruption could ensue. He wondered what the purpose of the tree ordinance was. He wondered if it was from an aesthetic viewpoint. He stated that the Board had several items to consider, such as the hardship that will come from the ordinance for homeowners, the purpose of the ordinance, the quality of life and the potential violations.
Chairman Forlano interrupted and pointed out that the Planning Board holds very informal meetings. He asked Mr. Tanis to conclude his comments as the Board knew what his point was and other people may wish to speak.
Mr. Tanis hoped that some of the points he made hit home with the Board. Chairman Forlano stated that when the Board discusses an issue, he gives everyone an opportunity to express different points as they go along. He stated that he usually tells the audience to hold off on comments about a particular issue until the topic is discussed.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Forlano closed the time for public comments.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Consideration/Recommendation of Tree/Vegetation Preservation Ordinance
Director Suzanne Cotellessa was recognized to speak. Director Cotellessa stated that the Town Council had directed the Planning Board to look at the issue of a tree ordinance and whether or not a tree ordinance would be something that was reasonable given the direction of the CAMA Land Use Plan. She stated that the draft ordinance is the third (3rd) revision and is a more simplified version with increased flexibility as per the Board’s direction. She went on to review the changes to the ordinance with the Board and the audience. She pointed out that the Board had additional input in front of them from residents as well as the comments from the members of the audience that had spoken during Public Comments. She pointed out that the ordinance was not meant to reforest an area but to deal with a situation such as new development and trying to stop clear cutting of lots.
Member Jenkins asked if the ordinance would apply to new construction or replacement construction. Director Cotellessa stated that the direction from the Planning Board was that it would apply to new development and substantial redevelopment. Member Jenkins asked if the value of a structure was market value or construction value. Director Cotellessa stated it could be defined however the Board wishes but usually the assessed value is used.
Member Darnall stated she was confused. She stated that it would apply to new development or substantial redevelopment, but when reading the requirement (“…no person shall remove or destroy any tree which is six (6) inches or great in diameter…”), it tells her that anyone cannot do what they wanted. She wondered if the Board intended that. Director Cotellessa clarified that if a homeowner has a house that has trees on the lot and a tree of a certain size is taken out, a permit would be needed. Member Darnall asked if another tree would have to be planted in its place. Director Cotellessa stated she was correct. She stated that her understanding was that the Board wanted to establish a threshold so lots would not be clear cut.
Member Jenkins asked if a current survey would be required to show the location of trees in addition to the permit fee. Director Cotellessa stated there wouldn’t be. She stated that she would like to have a plan that would identify what the location of the trees would be.
David Tanis stated that he had taken down a dead tree in his yard. He stated that there is nothing in the ordinance that differentiates that. Member Blakaitis thought there was. Member Darnall stated that she could not find it in the ordinance. She asked about the health of the trees that are not of the emergency type. She stated that she had topped a tree that was dead so it wouldn’t fall on her house. She stated it wasn’t an emergency situation but she wanted to get to it. She stated that she topped it so it would grow back.
John Summers thought that the Board was proceeding from an assumption that everyone will clear cut their lots. He stated that people do want trees. He stated that if the Board proceeded from an assumption, they would end up with a complex regulation. He suggested that the Board proceed from the assumption the people want trees on their lots.
Chairman Forlano clarified that it sounded like Mr. Taylor, Mr. Summers and Mr. Tanis agreed that control is needed on the developers or the people who are rebuilding a home and putting up a larger home. And to do that, they would have to clear cut the lot. John Summers agreed. Chairman Forlano asked the three (3) gentlemen if they thought that the Planning Board needed to come up with an ordinance to control the developers but leave the homeowners alone. Mr. Taylor, Mr. Summers and Mr. Tanis all agreed.
John Summers pointed out that everyone wants trees. Most of the Board Members disagreed. Member Blakaitis stated that if the assumption is made that the Town needs to control the developers, he thought the reason the ordinance came from the Council was out of a fear of clear cutting by developers. He stated that there must be an agreement that control is needed. Mr. Summers suggested that there not be regulations that make those that follow the rules have to apply for a permit to cut down a tree. Member Blakaitis asked how Mr. Summers would regulate it. Mr. Summers stated he would not do anything. He stated that if one homeowner wanted to cut down all their trees, they should be allowed to do so. Member Jenkins disagreed. He felt it would affect the neighbors by allowing one homeowner to do that. He felt that the neighbors should be protected or considered to some extent. Mr. Summers felt that permits were not the way to go.
Jim Conners of 83 Duck Woods Drive in Southern Shores was recognized to speak. Mr. Conners stated he was a previous resident of Duck and is now a resident of Southern Shores as well as a member of their Planning Board. He stated that approximately six (6) years ago the Town of Southern Shores had a petition to address the clear cutting of lots by developers. He stated that he is now the chairman of the Town’s vegetation committee and they are moving towards adopting an ordinance to address the clear cutting as well as storm drainage impacts. He stated that they are looking at three (3) different approaches – tree for tree; establish a density unit for a lot and permitting for removal of trees. He stated that when permits come into play, homeowners get upset as they feel that it infringes on their property rights. He thought the issue was important enough to address but the challenge would be how.
David Tanis stated that there were other considerations such as the County ordinances for septic, CAMA considerations, height requirements and wells. He stated that they all have to be considered. He wondered why the Board felt there was even a need for the ordinance, except for the clear cutting issue. Member Blakaitis stated that Mr. Tanis was bringing up a point that started the discussion regarding the tree ordinance.
John Summers stated he did not like regulations placed on thousands of homeowners because of what one (1) person has done. He stated it didn’t make any sense to him. He thought that there would be enough trees left to meet the canopy requirements for new lots. But there could be lots with only a few trees. He couldn’t see having a requirement to replace the trees as they will grow naturally. He stated that cutting trees wasn’t a bad thing in terms of the overall objective. He stated that if someone meets the canopy requirements and has a lot of trees, he didn’t see a problem with it. He stated he could not see making homeowners plant trees. He asked the Board to forget about the requirement.
Chairman Forlano stated that if the Town leaves out that requirement, palm trees will crop up. He stated that palm trees do not help with water absorption or shade. Vice Chair Britt pointed out that homeowners may sod their yards instead so there will not be anything to allow trees to grow. Chairman Forlano stated that if there is not a requirement for canopy type trees, then the Town will start to see palm trees and sod. Mr. Summers suggested putting a ban on palm trees since they are not native to the area.
David Tanis asked about consideration of the different type of soils. John Summers stated that the discussion was regarding new homes and undeveloped lots. Chairman Forlano stated he was also getting that. Member Darnall stated that the Board was talking about the whole ordinance. She asked the audience to let the Board discuss the issue.
Member Jenkins stated that the issue of the ordinance started with Duck Ridge Village as it was a beautifully forested parcel. He stated that the site plan was reviewed and approved on the basis that trees would be retained but it didn’t happen. He stated that the requirement was not spelled out right. He stated that that was what made him start to think about retaining maximum coverage in a forested area. He stated that he also has trouble with percentage and formula for calculations. He thought that those homes that are closer to the beach without trees could do landscaping with shrubs and floral arrangements. He stated he did not like sod as it creates water runoff. He stated that mature trees are needed to help with runoff problems in Town. He stated he is troubled with the complexity of how things are computed and that it affects lots without any trees on them.
David Tanis stated that the two (2) areas in Duck that have flooding could be dealt with by using catch basins. He stated that the area by Stan White could have a catch basin dug in the marshy area. Member Jenkins stated he didn’t think the marshy area could be dug into to create a catch basin as they are wetlands and the right-of-way of the road is maintained by the State.
Chairman Forlano clarified that the audience members want the ordinance written to specifically pertain to new development whether it be construction of a brand new home or major reconstruction over fifty percent (50%) of the assessed value and not have a permitting process for existing residents except for those that will re-do their homes by more than fifty percent (50%). He asked how the Board felt about it. Member Jenkins stated he was amenable to the ordinance being written that way. Vice Chair Britt and Member Blakaitis agreed as well. Member Blakaitis stated he did not like the permit regulation but felt it serves a purpose. He thought a tree vegetation plan would be necessary for contractors who build homes. He stated that if contractors could be stopped from arbitrarily clear cutting lots via a vegetation plan, it would be a good first step to preserving what the Town has.
Member Darnall agreed with the previous comments. She stated that she doesn’t like the permit issue. She stated that if larger landscaping was required, some of the structures could look better. She thought the ordinance was a slam dunk to go through for all new construction and major reconstruction. She questioned what other options were out there. She stated that she did not want the Board to be pushed by the public comments. She suggested putting it back on the table and looking for other options.
David Tanis suggested considering a plan where developers would leave a percentage of indigenous vegetation and banning clear cutting.
Vice Chair Britt felt the ordinance stated that clear cutting was allowed as long as it could be planted back. Member Darnall agreed and added that the homeowner should have the right to develop their land. She stated she doesn’t like telling people what they can and cannot do. Vice Chair Britt stated that there should be something in the ordinance to address and make it advantageous to protect indigenous trees. He stated that it is a homeowner’s right to clear cut but that the Town should do everything they can to prevent it.
Chairman Forlano disagreed with clear cutting. He didn’t think a homeowner had the right to clear cut a property no matter whose it is. Member Blakaitis stated that the Sanderling subdivision has regulations for a tree plan for new construction.
Jim Conners stated he would like to send Director Cotellessa an approach the Town of Southern Shores is working on regarding an economic incentive to retain if clear cutting is done.
John Summers stated he is against clear cutting. He felt the homeowner would not replace any trees that are clear cut. He asked that the Board not allow clear cutting. Member Darnall asked how to address that. She stated that the time to address it would be when a subdivision plan is drawn up. She stated that if a homeowner wants to put his home in a specific location that does not interfere with setbacks, it is his right to put the house up where he wants and cut trees down to do so. Mr. Summers stated that he did not have a problem with that. He stated he had a problem with individuals clear cutting a lot and replacing it with trees. Member Darnall pointed out that some people do not like trees. Mr. Summers felt that those that do not like trees should not move to Duck. Member Darnall pointed out that Mr. Summers was arguing in circles in that he wants trees but he doesn’t want anyone to tell him what trees to cut down on his lot. She felt that it wasn’t ok. She felt the ordinance was necessary. She suggested that the Board discuss keeping any part of the ordinance that talks about the size of the tree. She felt six (6) inches was too small but had no problem with larger trees.
Chairman Forlano asked if there was a problem with tree pruning by individuals and a permit request prior to that. Member Darnall stated she did not have a problem with it as long as it was a very large tree. Chairman Forlano clarified that there should be some process. Member Darnall stated that if the tree is large, it would be a process. She stated she did not want people to have to obtain a permit to prune smaller trees. She stated she would like to see some protection for larger trees in the ordinance.
Member Blakaitis asked if there was a way to let an individual lot owner do what he wants as long as he doesn’t reduce his canopy below a certain amount. He asked if it was possible and made sense without obtaining a permit. He stated that most lots west of the beach have tremendous tree canopies.
John Summers reiterated again that he did not want clear cutting allowed in Town. He stated that he did not want any requirements for individual homeowners. Member Blakaitis stated he understood. He asked if it was possible or feasible and should the Board consider it. He stated that something has to be done about clear cutting. He stated it should include an individual that wishes to clear cut his property. He felt it should not be allowed.
Director Cotellessa stated that the ordinance states that a homeowner can only be permitted to go below a certain percentage if they want to clear cut their lots. She stated that she was hearing from the Board that the primary purpose of the ordinance should be to deal with new development or major reconstruction. She clarified that the Board wished to have a tree vegetation plan from homeowners where they will plan for the location of vegetation on the lot in addition to the house. She stated that for existing residents, she clarified that there should not be a permitting process. She stated that the Board was looking to leave an individual property owner with a good canopy out of the process for a permit. She stated that the fairness issue needs to be addressed.
Member Darnall asked if it could be written that a certain level of vegetation would need to be maintained. She suggested putting in that a permit is not needed but if someone complains a fine could be instituted. Director Cotellessa thought that no one was interested in fining. Member Darnall agreed but thought it would be a way to stop the person from doing the work. Director Cotellessa stated that what the Board really wants to do is make sure that the trees do not get cut down so that fining would not be necessary. Member Darnall stated that if someone starts cutting down a lot of trees and someone complains, the Town would have a way of stopping that person. Director Cotellessa stated that the ordinance could state that it could have a certain minimum planting requirement and homeowners will have to meet them.
Member Blakaitis pointed out that the Sanderling subdivision does not have any teeth in their rules with regard to trees. He stated that they have found that it works well to tell people the rules with regards to trees.
Director Cotellessa stated that the Board had discussed lowering the threshold. She stated that if they were to take that section where a permit is required to cut down a tree and raise it to a twenty-four (24) inch caliper tree, it could be something that would apply to existing lots as they are considered mature trees. Chairman Forlano asked why it would have to be in there. Director Cotellessa stated that it did not but if the Board wanted a way to get at someone that comes in and cuts down the trees, it could be done via the ordinance. She stated that another option would be the preservation of special trees, which Town Council can designate.
Member Darnall thought that six (6) inch diameter trees are too small. John Summers suggested drafting a preamble, which would be issued at the same time the ordinance is passed, stating that the Town is against clear cutting of lots. Chairman Forlano stated that it is in the beginning of the ordinance where it discusses the purpose. He stated that there are presently eleven (11) purposes for the ordinance. Mr. Summers thought the preamble would be more like a scare tactic to people who clear cut lots.
Member Darnall stated she was not really in favor of sod. She asked if the ordinance could discourage sod. She pointed out that the Four Seasons subdivision requires sod. Chairman Forlano stated he did not agree that sod needs to be discouraged. He stated that with regard to irrigation systems, it should be addressed and there should no more use of public water for irrigation. He thought if the Board could come up with something in the ordinance to prohibit the irrigation with public water, it may discourage things. David Tanis stated that he is not a fan of sod but thought it was going too far into an owner’s property rights.
Chairman Forlano asked how the Board wished to massage the ordinance. He stated that the ordinance would definitely not be passed to Council yet. He asked the Board how they wanted Director Cotellessa to rewrite the ordinance and take the homeowners out of the mix. Member Blakaitis felt it should be more simplified. Director Cotellessa clarified that the Board wanted to remove any permitting requirements for removal of any vegetation on an existing lot other than in conjunction with reconstruction. Chairman Forlano stated she was correct.
Member Jenkins asked if new construction or significant reconstruction would require a permit from the builder and developer. Director Cotellessa stated he was correct as well as having a tree management plan. He felt there shouldn’t be a caliper for tree removal.
David Tanis felt that the ordinance should require a permit for cutting down trees that are much larger than six (6) inches in diameter. He asked if sick or dying trees would be addressed in the ordinance. Chairman Forlano stated that there is something in the ordinance for them. Director Cotellessa clarified that the Board wished to have no caliper requirement for tree removal. The Board disagreed. Member Jenkins stated that something needs to be in place.
Chairman Forlano clarified that Director Cotellessa was clear on development and redevelopment. He asked if her next question would be how to handle the individual homeowner that wishes to clear cut his lot. He stated that the Board needs to come up with something to prevent clear cutting. He asked if the ordinance could state that clear cutting is not allowed. Member Darnall and Member Jenkins stated it could be put in the ordinance as such.
Member Darnall asked if a homeowner is under the canopy requirements, how the Town encourages more vegetation on those particular lots. She stated that if the Board wants a requirement, it should be in the ordinance. Chairman Forlano thought that most people put a lot of shrubbery in on their properties. Director Cotellessa stated that she has experience with requirements for developers to put in a certain amount of trees, plants and a landscape plan on a lot. She asked if the Board would want to require a minimum threshold of some type of vegetation to take up water, transpire and provide wildlife habitat or not. Member Darnall thought it could be put in there but thought the Board had decided against having it in the ordinance. Chairman Forlano asked if it could be put back in the mix. Member Darnall stated it could not since no one liked the permit with regard to six (6) inch caliper trees. Director Cotellessa suggested putting in a placeholder that would make homeowners required to maintain a certain level of vegetation on their lot, not required to obtain a permit to cut out other things unless it’s twenty-four (24) inches or greater. Chairman Forlano was fine with the suggestion.
Member Darnall thought there should be some type of value on larger trees in the ordinance no matter where they are on a lot.
John Summers asked if the Board was discussing individual homeowners or new construction. Member Blakaitis stated they were discussing new construction and then individual homeowners. Mr. Summers stated that when a new construction becomes an individual homeowner, they will want to be left alone. He again suggested putting in a provision in the ordinance stating that clear cutting is not allowed. He thanked the Board for allowing him time to give his input on the issue. Chairman Forlano thanked him as well.
Chairman Forlano called for a five (5) minute recess. The time was 8:20 p.m.
B. Consideration/Recommendation of Formula Business Ordinance (TC Ref. 3/15/06)
Chairman Forlano reconvened the meeting.
Director Cotellessa stated that the Board discussed the issue at the last meeting. She stated that she had redone the ordinance to prohibit the location of formula businesses in Duck. She stated that she had received an opinion letter from the Town attorney to help the Board with their recommendation. Member Darnall and Vice Chair Britt stated that the opinion letter was helpful to them.
Member Blakaitis stated that the Board should move forward no matter what. Vice Chair Britt asked what could be done and felt the Town should be as tough as possible. Member Blakaitis pointed out that a legal opinion is just that – an opinion. He stated that he is more inclined to take a bigger step with regard to the ordinance.
Member Darnall felt it would be good to take a stance even if Council sends the issue back to the Board. Member Blakaitis stated that the next formula business would have to come before Council to do the pushing.
Member Darnall stated she did not have a problem with any locally owned chain businesses, but had an issue with other businesses that have stores in other states such as Wings. Director Cotellessa pointed out that Wings is locally owned, so the Board needs to be careful. Member Blakaitis asked if the ordinance could state that national businesses were not allowed. Director Cotellessa stated that if national is put in the ordinance, then stores such as Wings would be fine. Member Blakaitis stated he did not want any national chain allowed. Director Cotellessa stated that she understood but that the genesis of the ordinance was not to allow cookie cutter type businesses, such as Wings, Starbucks or Applebees.
Vice Chair Britt pointed out that every Kitty Hawk Kites and Gray’s store are different. Chairman Forlano stated that other jurisdictions have come up with an ordinance as rigid as the proposed one in front to the Board and won every case.
Director Cotellessa reminded the Board that both North Carolina and Virginia are Dillon Rule states. She stated that the rules state that Boards are not allowed to make rules to suit themselves. She stated that they are only allowed to write laws that the State legislature said Boards are allowed to write. She stated there is legislation for sexually oriented businesses but not for formula businesses.
Vice Chair Britt thought that the only thing that could be used was the Land Use Plan to justify banning formula businesses. Member Darnall stated the Town does not have any authority. Vice Chair Britt asked if the Town has the authority to regulate through the Land Use Plan. Director Cotellessa stated that as long as it is allowed by State law.
Member Darnall asked what Council does when they read Town Attorney McRee’s correspondence. Director Cotellessa thought that Council will turn to Town Attorney McRee and ask him if something can or cannot be done.
Director Cotellessa stated that the big concern for the Board was whether the formula businesses should be banned or controlled with a conditional use permit and how will they narrowly define them. She stated that Town Attorney McRee felt that the conditional use permit would be the better of the two options. Vice Chair Britt stated that Town Attorney McRee will suggest that Council not recommend either option.
Member Jenkins clarified that the Board needs to recommend approval by Council. Member Blakaitis stated there were only three (3) choices: approve it as it, have conditional use permits or “kick it out the window”. He asked if the Board would look silly by sending it to Council. Vice Chair Britt stated he wanted to send it up to Council to see what they want to do with it. He felt the community does not want formula businesses. Chairman Forlano felt the Board would not be doing their job if they just send it to Council.
Director Cotellessa suggested that the Board make a recommendation to Council. She suggested that the Board send a statement to Council that they believe it in the best interest of the community to prohibit formula businesses in Town, however given the input that the Board has received from the Town attorney, the Board would strongly recommend Council pass an ordinance that would control them by conditional use permit. She stated that she would take out all of the strike-throughs and send it to Council the way it was. Chairman Forlano asked if it should be sent as an ordinance. Member Darnall clarified that the Board would make the statement and then send the CUP version forward. Director Cotellessa stated that she was correct. Member Blakaitis asked if it would come back to the Board as a CUP version. Chairman Forlano stated that once the Board sends the CUP version to Council, they would vote for or against it. Vice Chair Britt suggested that the Board look at the CUP before sending it to Council.
Director Cotellessa suggested bringing the CUP back in January in draft statement as well as the ordinance reverting back to CUP status so the Board could make a decision to adopt it as a resolution. Chairman Forlano asked if it could be adopted as a resolution instead of an ordinance. Director Cotellessa felt they should send it as an ordinance. Chairman Forlano asked if it could be sent as both a resolution and an ordinance. Director Cotellessa stated that Council wants the Board’s recommendation.
Vice Chair Britt felt that the Board could send a resolution stating that they believe that formula businesses do not fit within the character of the Village Commercial District. He suggested that the Board’s position be that they do not want formula businesses at all. Chairman Forlano agreed. He stated that the Board would look at the issue again in January before sending it to Council.
NEW BUSINESS
Consideration/Recommendation of RZ-06-01 Municipal Property 1202 Duck Road (TC Ref. 11/1/06)
Director Cotellessa stated that this would be the completion of the rezoning of the Town property to Conservation-Public Recreation. She stated that the surrounding parcels are already zoned C-PR and the Town’s Land Use Plan calls for this property to be C-PR as well. She stated that once it is rezoned, the properties will be combined into a single property.
Chairman Forlano clarified that whether the property is rezoned or not, it will still go through as Municipal Property to be used as a Town Hall. He asked why the property needs to be rezoned. Director Cotellessa stated that the future Land Use Plan recommends that it be zoned as C-PR and the Town generally tries to follow the Land Use Plan. She stated that now that the Town owns the property, the appropriate read was to blend all of the properties into one. She stated that by combining it all into one property, it meets the goal of the future Land Use Plan.
Member Jenkins asked if C-PR allows certain types of residential, multi-family dwellings. Director Cotellessa stated that C-PR provides for public recreational facilities, governmental facilities, etc. She stated that major C-PR properties in Town are the Corps of Engineer and Town properties. She stated that it does not allow residential dwellings. She stated it is specifically designed for park land and institutional uses. Member Blakaitis asked if residential was in C-PR at one time. Director Cotellessa stated it wasn’t a C-PR district until the Town created it.
Chairman Forlano stated that the only issue he had was that the commercial percentage of land is minimal. He stated that in 2005, Council changed 10+ acres of the Town property from Commercial to C-PR. He stated that three (3) lots were changed in Duck Ridge Village from Commercial to Residential to satisfy a housekeeping matter. He stated that now another half acre of property will be changed. He stated that there are no ad valorem taxes on the C-PR properties. He stated that when Herron’s Family Restaurant was open, it brought in $70,000 in revenue for the Town. He stated that the Town is taking over the commercial property and not paying a cent on it. He felt the park should stay as a park but that the Town should have an expanded commercial area. He stated that the Town has a fiduciary responsibility to look at the future.
Member Darnall stated that there is a trade off in that residential properties cannot be built on commercial properties. She agreed with Chairman Forlano’s comments and felt the commercial area should be expanded as well. She thought there should be pockets of commercial uses all throughout the Town.
Director Cotellessa pointed out that occupancy taxes makes up the loss of income.
Vice Chair Britt clarified that the Town should listen to someone who comes in with a piece of property in the residential area that may fit in the commercial area and not tell them that they can’t use the property for commercial use only. Chairman Forlano agreed. Member Darnall stated that people who own the houses on the street will come out in force. Director Cotellessa stated that the proper approach is in the Land Use Plan. Chairman Forlano stated that every time a commercial entity is presented, everyone gets up in arms.
Member Blakaitis clarified that giving property away was not the concern as once it becomes a municipal building, it will stay that way. Chairman Forlano agreed.
Chairman Forlano asked for a motion. Director Cotellessa asked if the Board would be recommending that the Town Council adopt the ordinance including its findings and recommendations so that the Town property would be rezoned to C-PR. Chairman Forlano stated she was correct.
Member Blakaitis moved to recommend that the Town Council adopt the ordinance including its findings and recommendations so that the Town property would be rezoned from VC to C-PR to make it consistent with the Land Use Plan.
Motion carried 4-1 with Chairman Forlano dissenting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Planning Board Meeting October 11, 2006
Vice Chair Britt moved to approve the minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of October 11, 2006 as presented.
Minutes for the Planning Board Meeting on October 11, 2006 were approved 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
Director Cotellessa stated that the Town Council Retreat has been set for January 24 – 25, 2007. She stated that no agenda has been established yet but would let the Board know when one has been completed. She stated that the Town of Southern Shores passed a driveway ordinance to include all driveways, required driveways and parking areas in lot coverage. She stated that for the next meeting, there would be three (3) primary items for discussion – trees, formula businesses and the driveway lot coverage discussion.
Member Blakaitis asked what would be done with the driveway lot coverage issue. Director Cotellessa stated that she would like advanced input from the Board. Member Darnall felt the Board should start from scratch. Vice Chair Britt agreed. Director Cotellessa suggested bringing in an easel and board for a group discussion. The Board agreed.
BOARD COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Forlano adjourned the meeting.
The time was 9:03 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman