TOWN OF DUCK
March 12, 2008
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 12, 2008.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Joe Blakaitis, John Fricker and Claiborne Yarbrough.
Absent: Vice Chair Jon Britt.
Also present were Director of Community Development Andy Garman, Council Liaison Dave Wessel and Permit Coordinator Sandy Cady.
Others Present: Ace Marshall of The Fudgery, Walter Story of Scarborough Faire Shoppes and Olin Finch.
Chairman Forlano called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for March 12, 2008 at 6:31 p.m.
A. Discussion/Review of Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments
Director Andy Garman was recognized to speak. Director Garman stated that staff was going to look at porch signs again by doing an evaluation of the existing signs that would fall under the new category and bring back to the Board some specifications on how they were designed to help the Board come to a conclusion on the standards. He stated that the porch signs discussion mostly referred to the matrix that Permit Coordinator Sandy Cady had included in the Board’s packets as well as some photographs. He stated that if the Board came up with a new definition for porch signs – unless “porch signs” were specifically added to the amortization schedule – existing signs that could not meet the new standards would be treated as nonconforming. He stated that if the staff went through amortizing signs, they wouldn’t ask people to take down porch signs unless the Board specifically decided to add it to the amortization schedule. He added that it may affect the kind of standards the Board would create.
Member Fricker asked if the discussion should start by seeing if the Board members could come to a consensus as to how it would be handled in general and then go over the specifics or would the Board start with the specifics and end up with general information. Director Garman thought the first step would be for the Board to agree on whether they liked the new classification of porch signs. He felt if they could agree on that, they could then decide whether they should be added to the amortization schedule in addition to wall and roof signs, or whether they would be left out. He added that if they were left out, they would be subject to the typical nonconforming provisions.
Member Fricker thought the Board should define porch signs. Chairman Forlano agreed. He suggested refining the definition of a porch sign. Director Garman stated that the Board had a suggestion as well as a sheet he handed out that Member Fricker had given him prior to the meeting. He thought the sheet reflected what the Board originally suggested with a few changes and was comfortable with Member Fricker’s suggestions.
Chairman Forlano stated he found the difference between “fascia” and “sign porch” confusing. He stated that they seemed to be redundant. Director Garman stated that “fascia” was not previously defined in the ordinance. He stated that fascia was used in the porch sign definition. He stated that staff wanted to make it clear what a fascia was.
Member Yarbrough asked why “arcade signs” was highlighted. Director Garman thought it referred to other items that the Board could address.
Member Blakaitis clarified that there was no reference to a fascia sign in the ordinance. Member Fricker stated he was correct. Director Garman stated that he wanted to define in the ordinance what specific architectural feature a porch sign refers to.
Chairman Forlano thought Member Fricker’s word-smithing on the definitions were fine. Member Fricker stated that he was trying to come up with an accurate description of a porch sign. He stated that he had added “…in whole or in part…” to the definition. He noted that in the definition of a building mounted sign; the word “projecting” was not defined in the ordinance. He suggested an additional definition if signs were projected. Director Garman stated that he noticed things in the ordinance that were not defined.
Chairman Forlano asked if there was a definition of a roof sign in the ordinance. Member Fricker and Director Garman stated there was. Chairman Forlano pointed out that it was a sticking point for the Board. Member Fricker stated that the definition was listed in the definition section. He went on to read the definition of a roof sign. Chairman Forlano asked if there should be a clarification on the definition of roof signs as to whether it was on the plane of the roof and not exposed from another view. Member Fricker stated that a definition was used so someone would know what the term meant.
Member Yarbrough thought Member Fricker’s definitions looked good. Member Blakaitis agreed. He asked why “roof sign” was not listed. Director Garman thought they were just new terms being suggested. Member Blakaitis clarified that “roof sign” was already in the ordinance. Director Garman stated he was correct. Member Blakaitis clarified that roof signs were not defined in the complete ordinance. Director Garman stated that fascia; porch and porch sign were not defined and would be added. He stated that he was suggesting amending the definition of arcade sign and building mounted signs.
Chairman Forlano suggested adding the new definitions. Director Garman asked the Board if they wanted the porch signs included in the amortization schedule. Member Yarbrough suggested handling porch signs the same way the Board discussed handling roof signs at the last meeting, i.e., grandfathering the existing signs as long as they met the regulations until they made changes or changed ownership. Member Blakaitis asked if the Board would allow all signs to be grandfathered. Director Garman stated that at the last meeting, the Board discussed grandfathering roof signs and not wall signs. Chairman Forlano thought the Board was going towards all signs, making them nonconforming at this point but letting them exist. He added that when there was a change of ownership, the ordinance would be instituted. Director Garman noted that the Board did not discuss wall signs or free-standing signs at their last meeting. He thought the Board could discuss whether they wanted porch signs to be amortized or treat them as nonconforming.
Member Fricker stated that porch signs were never contemplated. He added that roof signs have been contemplated. He thought the Board needed to be either more or less aggressive in terms of handling roof signs as it has always been on the books. Director Garman stated that porch signs have been permitted as something different. He thought they were treated as either wall or roof signs.
Member Blakaitis clarified that the Town Code states that a wall mounted sign could not be more than twenty-five percent (25%) of a wall surface. Director Garman stated it was twenty percent (20%). He stated that the signs in the Board’s packets were considered new porch signs. He stated that the intent was to try to give enough information to determine a standard; either a ratio to the amount of store frontage or the distance above and below the fascia that the sign extended. Member Blakaitis clarified that wall area was calculated differently from building frontage. Director Garman stated he was correct.
Member Fricker agreed that if a business had a porch sign, it should bear some relationship to the size of the fascia that exists. He thought there was no sign uniformity, which was an aesthetic issue of what Duck should look like. He didn’t know if it was something the Board wanted to get into, but thought if they wanted to propose an ordinance that was prospective, the look should be prospective. Member Yarbrough thought Member Fricker made a good point. She stated that the uniformity in size was the thing to stick with as it allowed flexibility.
Chairman Forlano stated he did not have any heartburn over narrow signs, but thought when he looked at a large, square sign it got his attention. Council Liaison Wessel asked if the ratio between height and length was unpleasing. Chairman Forlano thought it was to him. Director Garman added that it disrupted the rhythm of a building. Chairman Forlano suggested coming up with a vertical width and then a horizontal width. He thought that as long as the sign was as long as the fascia of a building, it wouldn’t look bad. Member Blakaitis thought that the ordinance should have language that stated: “…a sign’s height shall not be more than twenty percent (20%) of its length…”
Member Yarbrough asked if it was possible to state in the ordinance that a sign could not exceed twenty-four (24) inches in height rather than having a calculation. She wondered if it was too simplistic. Member Blakaitis asked about the horizontal length. Member Yarbrough thought it would have to be part of a calculation based on the linear frontage. Chairman Forlano suggested limiting it by stating that a sign could be twenty-four (24) inches in vertical height and no more than two to one (2:1) ratio or three to one (3:1) ratio. He stated it would limit the length of the sign. Member Blakaitis stated he liked the suggestion as the sign would be governed by the frontage. Member Yarbrough thought it made sense. Member Fricker suggested: “…twenty-four (24) inches high and the height shall not be greater than twenty percent (20%) of the length of the sign…” He thought there needed to be proportionality. Member Blakaitis stated that if the Board wanted proportionality, there needed to be a percentage put in. Member Fricker asked what staff’s suggestions were. Permit Coordinator Cady suggested no more than twenty-four (24) inches high and no more than thirty-six (36) inches long. Director Garman asked if the Board wanted to do a ratio or fixed number. He thought a ratio of five to one (5:1) would be better. Member Fricker agreed. He suggested, “…no less then eighteen (18) inches and no more than twenty-four (24) inches high with a corresponding ratio to the length. The bottom of the sign shall not extend below the lowest edge of the fascia…” Director Garman noted that all signs in Duck extended below the fascia.
Walter Story was recognized to speak. Mr. Story stated that retailers spend a lot of money to show their logos. He thought this amendment would be prohibitive to retailers. Member Blakaitis asked how it would prohibit the logo. Mr. Story stated that if it was short logo but with some height, it would not work. Member Blakaitis clarified that retailers would have to adjust the sign to fit the logo to fit the Town’s criteria. Mr. Story stated he was correct. Council Liaison Wessel pointed out that the Sun Realty sign had a logo on it. Member Yarbrough pointed out that Atlantic Realty had one as well.
Director Garman thought the Board suggested signs no taller than twenty-four (24) inches and no less than four to one (4:1) and no more than five to one (5:1). He thought they were standards that could work. He suggested no less than three to one (3:1) as some signs were twenty-four by eighty-four (24 x 84). Member Yarbrough thought the Board would be asking for longer, skinnier signs over time. Director Garman clarified that the Board wanted four to one (4:1) and five to one (5:1) maximum. Member Fricker thought in the long run, the Town would want to get away from the very personalized signs, but from the street it would want to see something that was more subdued, understated and uniform. Member Yarbrough thought the Plum Crazy sign was the perfect sign as it was within the guidelines the Board was looking at. She added that the Board was not asking that all the signs look the same, but if they wanted uniformity, the Board needed to make a recommendation.
Chairman Forlano suggested looking at adopting the new standard. Director Garman clarified that the Board wanted signs no greater than twenty-four (24) inches tall, no less than four to one (4:1) and no more than five to one (5:1) as a ratio. He added that the largest sign would be twenty-four by one hundred twenty (24 x 120) maximum. He noted that the area would be limited.
Chairman Forlano asked how the Board could address the signs that do not currently fit into those ratios. Director Garman wondered if the Board wanted the signs to be amortized or treated as nonconforming. Member Fricker stated he wasn’t clear on the direction Council gave the Board. He stated that it was a policy matter on how to enforce regulations. He didn’t think it was the Board’s job. He thought the Council was more interested in finding out what could be done to avoid issues, enforcement problems and confrontation. Director Garman thought Council wanted the Board to come up with a standard or language that changed the regulations to make the signs conforming or change the regulations so that they were not subject to amortization. He thought the direction he heard was that none of the signs were so egregious that staff was going to tell people right away to take them down. Member Yarbrough asked what would happen to the signs that weren’t permitted. Director Garman stated that it would be an administrative issue that staff could take care of.
Member Yarbrough thought the feeling from the last meeting was that the Board wanted to make the roof signs nonconforming. Chairman Forlano stated she was correct. Member Yarbrough clarified that the permitting issues would be dealt with as an administrative situation, mainly because of the economic impact. Chairman Forlano thought the same action should be taken for all of the signs. Member Yarbrough agreed. Director Garman stated that what would be left in the amortization would be wall, roof and free-standing or ground mounted signs. He stated that Council pointed out that a lot of the retailers have gone to great lengths to come into compliance, so there was a fairness issue.
Chairman Forlano thought historically, many of the businesses may not be in Duck in the future. He stated that five (5) years from today, the sign could come down and staff will have on paper what would be needed for the next sign. He thought the Board should bite the bullet for a period of time for some of the nonconforming signs. Director Garman stated it would be different if there were billboards and electronically illuminated signs. He thought it was a judgment call. Chairman Forlano agreed and felt it wasn’t bad yet.
Council Liaison Wessel stated that the value he took from the Council discussions was that before staff began enforcement, they wanted the owners to know what standards the owners would need to change in allowing the sign ordinance to be modified and recognizing that some owners have made changes but at the same time, tried to make is so that staff didn’t have to make too many people change their signs. Member Yarbrough stated she was comfortable with what the Board had discussed.
Member Fricker stated he wanted to discuss whether the Town wanted to specify where the sign gets affixed on a vertical plane. Director Garman stated that Member Fricker did not want them to extend below the bottom of the fascia. Member Fricker stated it was his suggestion. Member Blakaitis thought it made for a cleaner looking sign. Member Fricker agreed. Director Garman stated that if that was the only problem with a sign, the owner could reattach the sign higher on the fascia. Member Blakaitis suggested making it to the bottom of the fascia.
Walter Story asked if a sign changed from one merchant to another, would it have to be re-permitted even if it was the same size sign. Director Garman clarified that the sign would be refaced and not changed. Chairman Forlano stated that if the sign was to be refaced, a permit would not be needed.
Member Fricker asked if a new tenant wanted to repaint an existing sign that was nonconforming, why a permit wouldn’t be needed. Director Garman stated that it could be a separate issue. He thought a permit would be required for sign re-facing to determine what was nonconforming. Member Blakaitis stated that if the sign was nonconforming to begin with but met the Town’s requirements with regard to size, then the owner would be required to make the sign conforming. Director Garman thought it would be a good middle ground.
Director Garman clarified that if change of copy was taken out of the ordinance, it would apply to all signs including free-standing. Member Blakaitis saw no reason why the signs should not be brought into conformity as it was a simple change. Member Fricker clarified that if there was a change in tenancy, all signs must become compliant. Director Garman stated that it would only apply if they planned to change the signs. Member Fricker stated he was trying to get away from the perpetuation of signs through various tenancies. He stated that if there was a repeat of tenancy, he didn’t see why it wouldn’t be an event that would call for sign compliance.
Walter Story asked if painted ducks would still be considered signs. Chairman Forlano felt that they should not be. Director Garman pointed out that the ordinance considered painted ducks signs. Member Blakaitis thought it should be stricken from the ordinance. Director Garman stated that the ordinance stated that ducks on the side of a building would be counted as signage. He stated that he couldn’t see how ducks that were part of the directory signage would not be counted. He stated that it had to go one way or another. Member Yarbrough thought that ducks on a directional sign would be part of the sign. Permit Coordinator Cady stated they would be.
Walter Story asked if banners were not allowed anywhere on a site or only if they were not visible from a public right-of-way. Member Fricker didn’t think banners were on the agenda. He stated that banners were discussed at a previous meeting. He suggested contacting staff about the banners and if they felt there was an issue, it could be brought before the Board for a future discussion. Mr. Story stated he would do that.
Chairman Forlano suggested the Board let Director Garman know what they have settled upon with regard to fascia sign dimensional requirements. Director Garman stated that he understood that the height would be no more than twenty-four (24) inches; the length would be no less than four to one (4:1) and no more than five to one (5:1); the sign could not extend below the bottom of the fascia; porch signs would not be added to the amortization schedule; change the nonconforming section to state that the change of copy with regard to re-facing of signs would require compliance; and would incorporate Member Fricker’s suggested definitions. Member Yarbrough stated that it sounded great. Chairman Forlano instructed Director Garman to make the changes and bring them back to the next Board meeting.
Director Garman stated that the Board discussed roof signs at their last meeting and not having roof signs subject to amortization. He stated that illegal signs were discussed both at the Board level and Council level and how compliance would be required. He stated that the Board came to certain conclusions at the meetings, which caused him to do some research on the issue of Sunset Grill’s sign. He stated that he had found a permit for several signs, with one being the roof sign and placards and another for a free-standing and awning sign. Chairman Forlano asked where the permit was from. Director Garman stated it was a permit issued to Paul Shaver for the Quackers Restaurant in 1999. Chairman Forlano stated it was a Dare County permit and that the Town wasn’t incorporated back then. Director Garman agreed but thought the Board discussed that if they agreed to change the ordinance so that roof signs were not subject to amortization anymore, anything that was permitted in the past could remain as long as a retailer didn’t do anything to it. He stated that because Sunset Grill has the Dare County permit, the question was whether the sign could continue to exist. Member Blakaitis asked if the sign was changed or kept the same. Chairman Forlano thought it was kept the same. Director Garman stated it was questionable. He added that the burden of proof would be on Sunset Grill to prove they didn’t do anything to the sign to make it lose its nonconforming status.
Member Fricker asked if the sign was affixed to the roof in proportion to the roof or bigger. Director Garman stated he wasn’t sure. He stated that a ten by twenty-two (10 x 22) foot sign was permitted. He stated that back then a sign of that size would have been allowed due to prescriptive standards for how big it could be in relation to the roof it sat on. Chairman Forlano stated that because it happened in 1999, nothing could be done about it now. Director Garman stated that if the Town decides that roof signs are subject to amortization, compliance could be enforced. Chairman Forlano asked if only certain types of signs could be subject to amortization. Member Yarbrough asked if a particular size of roof sign could be subject to amortization. Director Garman stated that language could be used that addressed signs of a certain size. Chairman Forlano asked if it would be singling out one (1) individual or business. Member Yarbrough thought it would. Director Garman didn’t think it would. Member Fricker thought it would; based on the minutes from the meetings.
Member Fricker stated he would like greater specificity regarding the issue with Sunset Grill’s sign before the Board makes any decisions or drafting an ordinance. Member Yarbrough thought with the permit, she didn’t see it being worth the Board’s time with regard to Sunset Grill’s sign. She did not think the Board should change their original way of thinking with regard to roof signs. Director Garman stated that if the Board continued in the same direction, there may still be ways to address the signage.
Director Garman stated that the Board concluded at the last meeting that the reader board standard would remain as is. Chairman Forlano agreed. Director Garman stated that he was directed to come back with a draft of the entire ordinance with all of the changes that were discussed to date. He stated that there were four (4) remaining issues that would need to be discussed. Chairman Forlano suggested they be discussed at the next meeting.
B. Consideration and Recommendation of Driveway/Parking Regulations Pertaining to Circular/Multiple Curb Cut Driveways
Director Garman stated that at the last meeting, the Board discussed multiple curb cuts for circular driveways and thought they had agreed on language that would be included. He stated that he came up with a draft ordinance based on the Board’s recommendations. He stated that on Page 2 Section E, the first sentence was struck from Section G and addressed in Section E. He stated that one (1) driveway could be between twelve (12) and twenty (20) feet wide. He added that circular and multiple curb cut driveways shall be limited to a combined total width of twenty-four (24) feet. He stated that the Board had asked him to look at a standard for separation of driveways. He noted that there was presently a standard in the commercial section of the ordinance for separation between one-way driveways, which was twenty-five (25) feet. He thought it was a good standard to use.
Member Yarbrough clarified that twenty-five (25) feet was from the inside edges. Director Garman stated she was correct. Member Yarbrough asked what the current lot width was in Duck. Director Garman stated that lots are at least seventy (70) to seventy-five (75) feet wide.
Council Liaison Wessel asked why twenty-five (25) feet was needed. He stated he could see it needed on Duck Road, but did not see why a separation was needed for residential. Member Blakaitis thought it was defined because in past meetings, the Board was trying to prevent the look of the entire front of the house being a driveway. Chairman Forlano added that a lot of it came from a field tour the Board had taken of many properties in Duck and ascertained that some driveway entrances were not attractive. Member Yarbrough stated that she liked the fact that there was consistency.
Member Yarbrough moved to amend Ordinance 08-02 and forward it to the Town Council for adoption. Member Fricker seconded.
Motion carried 4-0.
A. Application by Mr. Ace Marshall representing The Fudgery, to Approve Conditional Use Permit 08-004 , to Permit a Formula Business in Suite A-2 at the Scarborough Lane Shoppes Located at 1171 Duck Road. This Conditional Use Permit is Required by Town Code Section 156.061 related to Formula Businesses
Director Garman stated that Section 156.061 of the ordinance establishes a Conditional Use Permit requirement for formula businesses. He stated that formula businesses were defined as a franchise with eight (8) or more locations anywhere and would be required to have standard merchandise, services, logos or trademarks. He stated that staff researched it and determined that The Fudgery met the criteria to be a formula business. He stated that Ace Marshall wished to take over an existing location in the Scarborough Lane Shoppes that was currently occupied by Exotic Cargo. He stated that the findings and criteria for approval were primarily to limit the proliferation of chain businesses.
Director Garman stated that The Fudgery easily met the findings, however Item 3 of the findings he was hung up on, which was that the Planning Board and Council must find that there was no over-concentration of formula businesses in the general vicinity or in the Town as a whole. He pointed out that there was a Fudgery located at Scarborough Faire. He stated that he also listed other businesses in Town that would meet the formula business criteria. He stated that none were located in the Scarborough Lane Shoppes, however there was one (1) at Scarborough Faire; several free-standing businesses such as Wings and Kitty Hawk Kites; and Burger King at the Crown Gas Station; as well as Lily Pulitzer at the Waterfront Shops.
Director Garman stated that he would like some discussion on the findings and how the Board would define over-concentration or concentration of formula businesses relative to the application as well as the impacts of this situation. He stated he discussed the issue with the Town attorney and he stated that people always look to applications that have been approved in the past. He stated that there was no reason why the Board could not make findings that would be unique to the case.
Chairman Forlano asked if McDonalds wanted to locate in the interior of the Scarborough Fair Shops, they could be allowed. Director Garman stated that the ordinance talked of impacts beyond appearance. He thought the Board would have to go a little further, as the ordinance talked of diversity and variety as well as the appropriate blend of businesses to preserve the sea coast Town ambiance. He stated that it talked of businesses that would be mutually beneficial to and enhance the surrounding uses in the district and contributing to appropriate balance of business sizes in the community. He stated that the way the ordinance was written, it addressed a lot of broad topics. He asked for direction and discussion from the Board on how they would define some of the concepts with their findings.
Member Fricker noted that two (2) of the four (4) members of the Board present were not on the Planning Board when the ordinance passed. He stated that he had trouble distinguishing what was written with regard to the criteria under Required Findings for Approval. He stated that he did not see a distinction between a formula business being mutually beneficial and how it would contribute to the appropriate balance. He noted that two (2) spoke about diversity. He stated that on one hand they seemed clear, but on the other they were vague. Member Blakaitis stated that the Board discussed the genesis of the ordinance with the Town attorney. He noted that a slightly watered down version of the ordinance was passed.
Member Fricker stated that this was not a situation where a competitor of The Fudgery was moving next door to them. He thought that would be a situation that would promote competition, would create diversity, and be less in conflict with one (1) or more of the criteria, than to have the same business virtually next door. He wondered if it was permitted, what it would say to a McDonalds that would want to open a store in Scarborough Faire as well as one in Scarborough Lane the following year. Member Blakaitis thought that when the ordinance was written, it was not anticipated that two (2) of the same formula businesses would come to Town. He thought the chances would not be that great.
Member Fricker asked how many stores Grays had. Director Garman stated that Grays had five (5) or six (6) on the entire Outer Banks. He added that since they did not have eight (8) locations, they did not meet the definition criteria. Member Fricker stated he would feel more comfortable if the second Fudgery was not so close in proximity. He thought the second store would be in the immediate vicinity of the first one.
Chairman Forlano clarified that The Fudgery was in Scarborough Faire and wanted to open a second store at Scarborough Lane. Ace Marshall stated he was correct. Director Garman asked how many other stores were on the Outer Banks. Mr. Marshall stated he had three (3) other stores. Chairman Forlano stated he did not have a problem with the store opening a second location in Duck. Member Yarbrough agreed.
Ace Marshall pointed out that his store was not a franchise. Director Garman stated that a franchise had to be substantially the same and have eight (8) or more establishments, regardless of ownership or location. He agreed it was not a franchise.
Member Fricker stated he had two (2) concerns. He thought the business would result in an over concentration of formula businesses in the immediate vicinity. He stated that he had a problem with it as there would be two (2) shops next door to one another. He stated that the proposed intensity was his other concern. He asked if there was any data or traffic detail on the store at Scarborough Faire. Ace Marshall didn’t think it would be any different than what Exotic Cargo had at Scarborough Lane. He thought he would be replacing the same traffic.
Director Garman pointed out that if The Fudgery did not meet the standard for formula business, it would not have come before the Planning Board. He stated it would have just been a change of tenant as the parking standard would have remained the same.
Member Blakaitis stated he was sympathetic to Member Fricker’s concerns, but thought everything would be okay. Member Yarbrough thought that type of business going in would make her more comfortable with allowing the Conditional Use Permit.
Member Blakaitis moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit application referencing the required findings as found relative to formula businesses. Member Fricker seconded.
Motion carried 4-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Planning Board Meeting February 27, 2008
Chairman Forlano directed the Board to review the minutes from the February 27, 2008 meeting. Member Fricker had one change to Page 11. Member Fricker moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Motion carried 4-0.
Director Garman stated that a lot of the homeowner associations in Town have private property or easements for their beach access walkovers. He stated that the ordinance was silent on what standards would apply to them. He stated that he had spoken to Sue Cotellessa and her feeling was that they were similar to a public sidewalk, so zoning standards did not apply to them. He stated that he wanted to address them in the future. Member Blakaitis asked what issue would need to be addressed. Director Garman stated it would be to establish a clear standard. Member Fricker asked what the standard would be applicable to. Member Yarbrough asked if it was a safety issue. Director Garman stated that it was a housekeeping issue. He stated he was bringing it up because other towns have public beach accesses with the town having a fifty (50) foot wide right-of-way. He stated that permits were issued and ordinances addressed them. Member Blakaitis pointed out that the beach accesses in Duck were all private. Director Garman agreed but pointed out that they should still be subject to the ordinance.
Chairman Forlano adjourned the meeting.
The time was 9:02 p.m.
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman