Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Agenda
Town of Duck Planning Board – Regular Meeting Duck Municipal Office Board Room
Wednesday, November 10, 2010 6:30 p.m.
_______________ 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments 3. Old Business
4. New Business
- Oceanfront development/beach policy discussion – TC Ref. – 09/01/10
5. Approval of Minutes
- Planning Board Meeting October 13, 2010
6. Other Business
7. Staff Comments 8. Board Comments 9. Adjournment
BoA Board of Adjustment CUP Conditional Use Permit LUP Land Use Plan PB Planning Board RZ Rezoning
SE Special Exception TC Town Council V Variance ZTA Zoning Text Amendment
Memorandum To: Chairman Britt and Members of the Planning Board
From: Andy Garman, Director of Community Development
Date: 11/5/2010
Re: Review of Town Ordinances and Policies related to Oceanfront Development and Erosion - TC Ref. – 09/01/10
During their September 1, 2010 regular meeting, the Town Council referred an item for Planning Board review pertaining to the Town’s policies on oceanfront development. Several issues were discussed with the Town Council:
1. Current zoning requirements and their impact on the ability to properly site new oceanfront development or relocate erosion threatened structures.
a) Parking (number and dimensions of spaces, setback requirements)
b) Principal structure setback requirements
c) Bedroom limitations related to lot size
d) Height (ability to meet V-zone and free and clear of obstruction requirements when modifying from a slab to an elevated floor system)
2. Town policies pertaining to private shoreline stabilization efforts
a) Sandbags
b) Beach pushing
c) Beach fill
d) Structures in the public trust (pools, stairs, principal structures)
For this month’s discussion, staff has prepared information focusing on the topics in item #1 listed above. To start this discussion, staff will review several previous special exception and variance cases which were approved to allow for the relocation of oceanfront homes threatened by erosion.
2
Case #1 – 165B Buffell Head Road (See Attachment A)
This eight-bedroom single-family dwelling was built in 1999; a 60-foot CAMA setback was in effect at the time of construction.
In July, 2008 the property began permitting efforts to relocate the house due to erosion.
The house was relocated 51 feet to the west but could not meet the current CAMA setback due to a change in the First Line of Stable Natural Vegetation.
The applicant was required to provide eight conforming parking spaces (10’x20’), each five feet from the adjacent property line. A 25’ front yard setback was required for the principal structure. Due to the shape of the lot and the area required for the septic system, the applicant could not meet all required standards for parking and applied for a special exception to allow a reduction in the required setback for parking and drive aisles.
The applicant also applied for a height variance to allow the home to be relocated from a slab foundation to an elevated floor system.
The Planning Board approved a special exception request to allow the requested reduction in parking setbacks utilizing the configuration shown in Attachment A.
The Town Council approved a height variance to allow the additional one foot of height required to account for the floor system of the house.
Case #2 – 161 Buffell Head (See Attachment B)
In 2007, an existing oceanfront single-family dwelling was relocated to the west on the same lot. The house was originally constructed on a slab foundation at 35’ tall and was raised using an elevated floor system to meet V-zone and free and clear of obstruction requirements. The applicant asked for a three-foot height variance to account for the two-foot free and clear requirement as well as the additional 1-foot required for the floor system. The variance request was granted by the Town Council. Since that time, the Town Code has been modified to account for the two-foot free and clear requirement (this is not counted against height) but no provisions exist to allow for the 1-foot transition from a slab to an elevated wood floor system.
In the above two cases, height variance requests have been granted for the same circumstance. The Planning Board should consider providing an exception in the Town Code that would apply to these situations. It is Staff’s opinion that, in cases where variance requests are granted to address situations that are not unique to a particular circumstance but represent more widespread or common problems experienced by multiple property owners, a code amendment should be considered. In Town Code section 156.167 Variances, the Board of Adjustment is required to make a finding “That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and
3
which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same districts.” Staff believes that this finding would be difficult to make if this situation were presented again.
In many cases, single-family dwellings are located as far east as possible on oceanfront lots. This often results in a home that abuts the CAMA setback on the east side of the house with a pool in the setback. The Planning Board is aware that the erosion rate used in some areas of Town to calculate the CAMA setback does not reflect, at least in recent history, the actual erosion that has been occurring. This is evidenced by the case at 165B Buffell Head. This house had to be relocated nine years after initial construction, even though the setback is designed to provide 30 years worth of protection. This property owner was not aware of this condition when the house was purchased. A review of aerial photography suggests that the last 15 years was a time of accelerated erosion in this area of the Town.
In many areas of Town oceanfront lots are deep and can accommodate the desired development outside of the CAMA setback. Staff would ask the Planning Board to consider whether the ordinance should encourage or even require development to be located further landward where possible to mitigate future problems of development that may encroach on the public beach or cause the current or future owner to incur additional expense to protect, repair or relocate these structures.
Attachment C includes a series of pre- and post-project surveys where existing homes were demolished and new larger homes were reconstructed. In each case the new home was located further east than the home that was demolished. Although a number of factors are contributing to the location of these new homes, including parking and wastewater requirements, staff is concerned that the proper siting of homes to mitigate future erosion problems is not afforded enough attention during the planning stage of many projects.
Staff has compiled excerpts from other North Carolina oceanfront communities regarding oceanfront setback regulations (Attachment D). It appears several communities have a reduced front yard setback for oceanfront homes to allow for structures to be located further away from the ocean and to assist in meeting the required CAMA setback. Two communities, Emerald Isle and Oak Island, have a 20-foot front yard setback for oceanfront homes where a 25 or 30 foot front yard setback is required in non-oceanfront areas. Nags Head has a procedure which allows a reduction in the front yard setback when a house is being relocated due to erosion. This allows the structure to be relocated up to within 15 feet of the front property line. Holden Beach has an ordinance that limits construction of buildings within a certain distance of the frontal dune to the extent feasible. This has the effect of increasing the oceanfront setback for some properties.
4
For the purposes of this discussion, the Planning Board may want to discuss the merits of the following policy changes which are presented as optional considerations designed to address the cases and situations presented above:
- Adjustment to the measurement of building height to account for the 1-foot height increase required for a elevated floor system when a house is relocated from a slab in the VE Flood Zone.
- Exemptions to parking standards, such as setbacks, when houses are relocated due to erosion.
- An adjustment to the front yard setback in order to meet the CAMA setback when a house is being relocated.
- An adjustment to the front yard setback in oceanfront districts to aid in the proper siting of homes to mitigate future storm and erosion damage.
- Where feasible, other policy and ordinance adjustments that may provide incentives or requirements to locate structures further west than may be required by CAMA regulations.
Staff will provide a detailed presentation of this information presented in this staff report at the upcoming meeting.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA PROHIBITING THE USE AND
PLACEMENT OF SANDBAGS ALONG THE OCEAN SHORELINE
Ordinance No. 10-14
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Duck may enact ordinances to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens under the North Carolina General Statutes § 160A-174; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Duck may enact and amend ordinances regulating the zoning and development of land within its jurisdiction and specifically the location and use of buildings, structures and land; and
WHEREAS, the Town finds that the use and placement of sandbags, while intended to be a temporary erosion control measure, has persisted in other North Carolina communities for periods of greater than 20 years and the ability to enforce the removal of these structures has proven unsuccessful; and
WHEREAS, the Town finds that sandbags function as “hardened” structures and will have impacts similar to seawalls, including but not limited to, reducing the width of the beach directly seaward of their location, deflecting wave energy and accelerating erosion to adjacent property owners commonly referred to as the “flanking” effect, and disrupting the natural ability of the beach to recover from acute erosion; and
WHEREAS, the Town finds that the use and placement of sandbags can prolong the length of time structures may occupy the public trust beach area; and
WHEREAS, the Town finds that the presence of sandbags and other man-made structures on the ocean beach or within the public trust area represents an undesirable condition that will negatively impact the aesthetic, natural, and recreational value of the Town’s most important asset; and
WHEREAS, the Town encourages oceanfront property owners to proactively take steps to protect their structures in a manner that does not impact the public enjoyment of the ocean shoreline, including but not limited to, planning for the landward relocation or removal of structures threatened by erosion, conducting responsible beach maintenance activities such as sand fencing, dune planting, beach fill and dune enhancement projects, and properly siting and constructing oceanfront structures in a manner that mitigates future impacts to the public beach; and,
WHEREAS, the Town’s CAMA Land Use Plan states that the Town’s primary goal is to “Preserve, protect, and enhance the Atlantic Ocean Shoreline and ensure future generations are
able to enjoy its beauty and bounty and can continue to use the beach and water for active and passive recreation and leisure activities;” and
WHEREAS, this goal is further supported by the following CAMA Land Use Plan goals, objectives and policies:
POLICY#1a: Duck supports the continued management of oceanfront shoreline development to protect and preserve the natural and recreational resources along the oceanfront. POLICY #1b: Duck will use its police powers to adopt and enforce ordinances and procedures to regulate land use, development, and redevelopment and supports applicable State and Federal laws and regulations regarding building, land uses, and development in areas of environmental concern. Duck reserves the right to review, comment, advocate, or oppose any proposed regulations or programs that may affect the regulation of ocean shoreline areas of environmental concern. POLICY #1c: Duck will: provide clear direction to assist decision making and consistency findings for zoning, divisions of land, and public and private projects; encourage efforts and programs to keep beaches clean and free from refuse; and, support programs and initiatives to annually assess shoreline changes (erosion and accretion). OBJECTIVE #1c: Adopt and apply development policies that balance protection of natural resources and fragile areas with residential and economic development. OBJECTIVE #1d: Develop policies that minimize threats to life, property, and natural resources resulting from development located in or adjacent to hazard areas, such as those subject to erosion, high winds, storm surge, flooding, or sea level rise. GOAL #13: Conserve and maintain barrier dunes, beaches, wetlands, and other coastal features for their natural storm protection functions and their natural resources giving recognition to public health, safety, and welfare issues. POLICY #13a: Duck will prevent the disruption of natural hazard areas by adopting and enforcing ordinances and procedures to regulate land use, development, and redevelopment and supports applicable State and Federal laws and regulations regarding land uses and development in areas of environmental concern. POLICY #13j: Regulate uses and activities in and on the Atlantic Ocean and Currituck Sound through adoption of overlay districts to address the impacts of development and redevelopment and uses on natural features to avoid introduction of hazards to these sensitive environmental resources.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council for the Town of Duck, North Carolina that the Zoning Ordinance shall be amended as follows:
PART I. Amend Town Code Section 156.037 Ocean and Sound Overlay District, as follows:
§ 156.037 OCEAN AND SOUND OVERLAY DISTRICT.
(A) Definition. The Ocean and Sound Overlay District shall consist of all waters abutting the town on the Atlantic Ocean and Currituck Sound that are within 1,000 feet of the town's shoreline, plus the adjacent CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern.
(B) Intent. The Ocean and Sound Overlay District is established to provide for the appropriate use of the ocean and sound waters that adjoin the town, including any island areas therein, as well as the Areas of Environmental Concern as established by the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) appurtenant thereto, to ensure the continued aesthetic, environmental, and recreational value that these waters provide to the town, its residents, visitors and the surrounding area. The Ocean and Sound Overlay District regulations are in addition to all other town ordinances that regulate, for example, the use of personal watercraft and driving on the beach, and that prohibit specified commercial activities in public trust areas. Nothing contained within this section shall be deemed, however, to prohibit or regulate commercial fishing and navigation.
(C) Permitted uses.
(1) Swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, hunting, wading, crabbing, clamming, and other active and passive noncommercial recreational activities.
(2) Water-dependent commercial recreation activities, provided that the base of the activity is located in a zoning district that permits such activity or such base is located outside the zoning jurisdiction of the town and further provided that such activity meets all other relevant town ordinances.
(3) On all land abutting the ocean and sound waters, uses permitted shall be those established in the underlying zoning district, subject to all other relevant town ordinances as well as CAMA and other relevant state and federal agency permitting requirements.
(4) Piers and docks, provided such facilities are permitted by CAMA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or U.S. Coast Guard, whichever is applicable, and provided further that the activity associated with the pier or dock is also permitted by the zoning district where the pier or dock is anchored.
(5) Future recreational activities or uses (those not introduced on the waters of the town as of May 1, 2002) may be allowed as a conditional use, subject to procedures described in Town Code Section 156.145, Conditional Use Permits. The purpose of the
conditional use permit is to provide for appropriate review of new activities prior to their introduction and allow for conditions to ensure activities that are compatible with the character of the district.
(D) Prohibited activities.
(1) No real estate sign on property abutting a public trust area shall be directed toward any public trust area as defined by CAMA.
(2) Noncommercial signs shall not be permitted in the Ocean and Sound Overlay District.
(3) Signs supported in whole or in part by water, air or gas are prohibited.
(4) No permitted beach push or dune restoration activity may take place in the public trust area on weekends or holidays.
(5) No filling of wetland areas shall occur within the Ocean and Sound Overlay District.
(6) No parasail landing and takeoff or seaplane landing and takeoff or similar activities may take place within the Ocean and Sound Overlay District.
(7) No water skiing or tubing and similar recreational towing activities may take place within the Ocean and Sound Overlay District.
(8) The use or placement of sandbags for the purpose of temporary erosion control as outlined in the North Carolina Administrative Code (15A NCAC 07H .0308) and the North Carolina General Statutes (§ 113A-115.1).
(8)(9) All other uses not expressly permitted are hereby prohibited.
PART II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption.
______________________ Dave Wessel, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lori Kopec, Town Clerk Date adopted: ________________ Motion to adopt by: ___________________ Vote: AYES NAYS
5
Attachment D
Holden Beach
157.028 LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF OCEAN BOULEVARD.
No building shall be located on that part of any lot lying within 100 feet of the toe of the frontal dune or anywhere within the dune complex where such lot has sufficient area to locate a building north of such 100-foot setback line or dune complex, provided, that the Building Inspector is authorized to approve a setback of less than 100 feet, but not less than the current CAMA setback, equal to the average setback of buildings located within 150 feet of the proposed new building providing such location is outside the dune complex. If there is not a sufficient area, this requirement may be modified as necessary to allow construction of a building located as close as permitted to Ocean Boulevard. No lot shall be created hereafter which would prohibit locating a building in compliance herewith.
Emerald Isle 12. All properties in the Eastern End Oceanfront Overlay District have a front yard setback of twenty (20) feet. All other setbacks and dimensional requirements are as per the underlying R2 Zoning District. Nags Head Reduction of required front yard setback requirements for structures threatened by erosion.
(a) Intent. The intent of this section is to facilitate the relocation on the same lot of existing single-family and duplex structures on lots abutting the Atlantic Ocean or Roanoke Sound, in cases where such structures are determined to be in imminent danger of collapse as defined by CAMA as a result of erosion by wind and water. These provisions are made available despite the fact that such relocation is a shortterm solution, and the property owner is encouraged to move any endangered structure to an area that is not threatened by erosion. The provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of multiple structures located on a single site, or in cases where the footprint of the structure proposed for relocation is to be enlarged or additional living area is proposed.
6
(b) Conditions for granting reduction.
(1) In order for a reduction in the required front yard setback for an existing residence to be granted, it must be demonstrated that:
a. The structure is in imminent danger of collapse as a result of erosion. A structure shall be considered to be in imminent danger when the top of the erosion scarp is within 20 feet of the structure. b. The structure cannot be relocated on the same lot in a location which will meet required CAMA and zoning setbacks. c. The structure will be relocated on the same lot such that all enclosed portions of the structure will be located more than 20 feet landward of the top of the erosion scarp. d. The separation between any part of the structure and the front property line will be not less than 15 feet.
(2) In cases where the applicant can comply with the minimum setback required by the Coastal Area Management Act for new structures, without needing the full 15 feet reduction, the town shall grant only the minimum reduction necessary to allow compliance with the CAMA setback. (c) Procedures for granting reduction.
(1) Application shall be made in writing to the director of the planning and development department. Such application shall be accompanied by a current survey of the subject property showing existing and proposed locations of the structure and septic systems, a valid the county septic permit for the structure proposed for relocation, and other information as may be required by the planning and development department to ensure compliance with this section and all applicable federal, state and local regulations.
(2) Upon receipt of the application, the planning and development director, the local CAMA permit officer, the building inspector and zoning administrator shall review the application to determine if the conditions enumerated in subsection (b) of this section exist.
(3) Upon certification by the planning and development director that the conditions on the subject property and the applicant's proposed plan for relocation meet all requirements set out in this section, a building permit authorizing the relocation of the structure shall be issued. (d) Application of this section. The reduced setback for structures relocated in accordance with this section shall not be used in applying section 48-82 to reduce setbacks for any neighboring structure. Relocated structures shall be considered as having the minimum required setback for purposes of section 48-82.
7
Sec. 48-84. - Reduction of parking and lot coverage requirements for structures having lost street access due to storm damage.
(a) Intent. The intent of this section is to facilitate the reestablishment of vehicular access and parking for single-family and duplex dwellings in cases where a town approved street or access easement has been damaged. The provisions of this section shall establish the conditions by which a property will be eligible for permitted reductions of parking standards and/or lot coverage requirements to establish alternative access. The vehicular access provided for herein is not intended to offer or provide or accommodate a full range of municipal services. (b) Conditions for granting reductions. Compliance with all the following conditions shall be required for the granting of reductions in parking space dimensional requirements, setback requirements, and surfacing requirements as set forth in section 48-162 of this chapter, and the granting of any parking related lot coverage increases above the maximum allowed pursuant to the dimensional requirements of the zoning district in which the property is located:
(1) The lot(s) in need of the reduction listed above must have frontage on the Atlantic Ocean, directly abut a lot(s) with frontage on the Atlantic Ocean, abut a previously accessible town street adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean which has been damaged as a result of erosion, or is a lot which provides access to such lots.
(2) Only lot(s) with existing single-family or duplex structures shall be eligible for the reductions listed above. These reductions are not applicable to new development on any lot.
(3) Before any zoning permit can be approved, all required permits including, but not limited to CAMA and a septic improvement permit must be issued. (c) Standards for granting reductions. The following standards shall be applied in the consideration of reduction requests:
(1) In cases where the applicant can meet part or all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance, they shall be met in terms of setbacks, lot coverage and the number and dimensions of required parking spaces. All permitted reductions as may be afforded by this section shall be the minimum deemed necessary by the zoning administrator to provide access and parking to the subject property.
(2) The maximum number of parking spaces shall be the minimum number required by the zoning ordinance.
(3) Any alternative access way and parking surfaces shall be approved by CAMA.
(4) There shall be no expansion to the existing dwelling which would result in an increase in the number of required parking spaces or lot coverage.
(5) The access way shall not exceed ten feet in width.
8
(6) For lots of record which front on town approved access easements, yard and lot depth measurements shall be made from the lot line and not from the access easement provided for in section 48-7 (Definitions of specific words and terms: Yard). (d) The property owner, by acceptance of the issued zoning permit and performance of the work authorized by said permit, acknowledges and accepts that the granting of the reductions allowed by this section may result in the creation or increase of nonconformities on the property. Oak Island (e) The front yard setback for oceanfront properties in zoning districts R-9, R-7, R-6A, and R-6MF shall be 20 feet.
- 1 -
TOWN OF DUCK PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING October 13, 2010
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices on Wednesday, October 13, 2010. Present were Chairman Jon Britt, Vice Chair Joe Blakaitis, Ron Forlano, and John Fricker. Absent: Member Randy Gilbreath. Also present were Director of Community Development Andy Garman, Council Liaison Chuck Burdick and Permit Coordinator Sandy Cady. Others Present: Richard McAuliffe and Don Haggerty of the Sanderling Resort and Spa. Absent: None. Chairman Britt called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for October 13, 2010 at 6:33 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. OLD BUSINESS Request for Revisions to Ordinance #10-10, an Ordinance to Regulate Solar Energy Systems Director Garman stated that Ordinance #10-10 was brought before the Town Council to request a public hearing; which they reviewed and sent back to the Planning Board for a minor revision – to address height restrictions for flat roof buildings. He stated that there was a limitation placed in the ordinance that solar panels mounted to a roof should not be more three feet above the surface of the roof. He added that there were some concerns that this would be too limiting for flat roof structures, so Council wanted the Board to address it. He stated that he modified the ordinance to try and deal with the issue and provide some flexibility. He stated that two (2) categories were created for lower slope and flat roof structures so they would have the ability to tilt the solar panels to gain the maximum efficiency. He went on to review the ordinance with the Board and audience. Council Liaison Burdick thought Director Garman did great research in trying to make the changes to the ordinance fair so that the Town would not be caught with exceptions for the owners with lower pitched roofs. He did suggest rounding the height limit to five feet to avoid the need for any exception requests.
- 2 -
Member Forlano thought the ordinance was great the way it was written. He stated that he did not have any issues with it. Vice Chair Blakaitis clarified that solar panels were removed from the additional five foot exception that most roofs were allowed. He asked if it was now being put back into the draft ordinance. Director Garman stated that it wasn’t as it was above the roof and not the district height limit. Vice Chair Blakaitis stated that he liked it and thought it was a good solution. Member Fricker stated that he was fine with the ordinance as drafted. Chairman Britt stated that he was fine with the ordinance. Vice Chair Blakaitis moved to revise Ordinance #10-10 to include Section B, which allows solar panels mounted on a roof with a pitch of less than 4:12 to be not more than five foot above the plane of the finished roof surface. Member Fricker seconded. Motion carried 4-0. Discussion/Consideration of Town Ordinances related to Variances/Exceptions to Height Regulations Director Garman stated that there were only a few major changes that the Board wanted to see with regard to the ordinance. He stated that he changed the section that referred to variances as to height limit to building features and structures permitted as exceptions to district height regulations. He noted that they would be permitted exceptions that would be approved administratively. Director Garman reviewed the revised draft ordinance with the Planning Board. Vice Chair Blakaitis suggested keeping Section C the way it was written and adding the following language: “…except anything to do with C-PR zone…” He added that it would avoid the sense of impropriety regarding the Town Council hearing its own request for a variance in the Town. Member Forlano thought the exception idea was the best one. Member Fricker suggested that it be done across the board; not only for Town Council actions but also for other height variance requests. He felt that the Board of Adjustment should be the body that reviews height if it was going to be in the form of a variance. Vice Chair Blakaitis stated that he didn’t necessarily agree with Member Fricker’s comments. He stated that he was a little concerned with the Board of Adjustment hearing the requests. Member Fricker noted that the Planning Board had spent a lot of time trying to help the Board of Adjustment by developing sets of criteria so they could find facts. Chairman Britt agreed with Member Fricker’s comments. He stated that many gray areas with regard to height have been clarified since 2004. He added that he was leaning towards all height decisions being handled by the Board of Adjustment. He stated that if Council wanted to change the Planning Board’s recommendation and keep it in their pervue, they could make that call.
- 3 -
Member Fricker stated that the Board had tried for many years not to be bound by the whims of what had happened in the past, but tried to look forward to create something that was manageable, easy to understand, uniform and with clear guidelines. He stated that while height was a big issue in 2004, something else could be an issue in the future and just because it may be a sensitive issue, Council would handle it. He noted that there were other mechanisms and bodies in place that were better equipped to deal with the issues. Vice Chair Blakaitis agreed with Member Fricker’s comments. He added that height was as big an issue as it was in 2004 because it has been well clarified in the ordinances. He stated that he did not see anyone pushing the issue except the Town Council with regard to the Town Park. Chairman Britt stated that the Board needed to decide which way they wanted to recommend with regard to exceptions. He asked if it was the Board’s desire that the Board of Adjustment make all height variance decisions or just ones in the Conservation-Public Recreation district. Director Garman stated that he could take the ordinance to Council with the two options. Chairman Britt disagreed and thought the Board should make a recommendation and then let the Council decide from there. Member Fricker stated that he would change Paragraph C in the draft ordinance to read: “…all variances to height regulations shall be considered only by the Board of Adjustment…” Member Fricker moved that the proposed modification to Section 156.056 of the Code be recommended to the Town Council with the change in Section C to be heard by the Board of Adjustment rather than the Town Council. Director Garman asked if church spires should be left as is in the ordinance. Member Fricker amended his motion to have Section A3 concerning church spires be placed in Section B. Director Garman suggested adding a new section and exempting church spires from the height regulations. Vice Chair Blakaitis noted that they were already exempt. He asked why they should be put in a new section in the ordinance. Director Garman stated that spires were not exempt and with the way the draft ordinance was written, they could only be five feet above the district height limit. It was consensus of the Board to add Section C to the ordinance to exclude church spires from the district height regulations. Member Fricker withdrew his motion. Member Fricker moved to recommend to Town Council that they approve the modification to Section 156.056 of the Code as now drafted to include a new Section C and modification to Section D placing consideration of variances for height limits before the Board of Adjustment rather than the Town Council. Vice Chair Blakaitis seconded. Motion carried 4-0. NEW BUSINESS
- 4 -
Discussion/Consideration of SE 10-003, a Special Exception Application Submitted by Mr. Richard McAuliffe on Behalf of the SI Villas, LLC, Located at 1461 Duck Road, Duck North Carolina to Modify Provisions for Signage for the Sanderling Resort and Spa Director Garman stated that Dick McAuliffe and Don Haggerty of the Sanderling Resort and Spa had requested a special exception for signage based on the Town’s sign amortization program. He stated that the applicants had come to staff looking for a recommendation on how to handle the signs on their property with staff suggesting a special exception given some of the unique circumstances at the Sanderling relative to the other commercial properties in Town. He went on to give an overview of the property and their signage with the Board, noting that the applicant was well under the allowable signage due to their building frontage. He added that they have submitted proposals to modify their signs, but have also requested the ability to keep the additional free standing signs given the unique quality of the property. Dick McAuliffe was recognized to speak. Mr. McAuliffe stated that they have already removed the “restaurant and swan bar” signs from both sides of the property. Director Garman stated that the applicant would like to keep both of the freestanding signs as is but will change the lighting so they would be down lit. They would also like to keep the Life Saving Station sign which is interior to the development but which is also freestanding. He added that staff felt these were reasonable requests given the unique nature of the property. He stated that the only other signs of issue were the entrance signs as they currently exceed the maximum size limitation for directional signs. He stated that these signs were a substantial departure from three square feet to 16 square feet and could not be supported by staff. He stated that staff believed that they could support 5.5 square feet in lieu of the increased speed limits in this location. Member Fricker asked if the applicants were agreeable to the changes with regard to the free standing signs. Dick McAuliffe stated that they weren’t as the changes to the entrance signs were never brought up in their discussions with staff. Director Garman stated that the staff report was sent to them via email. Mr. McAuliffe stated that he never received the email, but added that they would like to keep the signs. Director Garman apologized for the email issue. Director Garman stated that the entrance signs were relatively innocuous and met the Town’s commercial design standards. He added that it was definitely a discretionary decision. Chairman Britt asked the Board if they were comfortable with signs A, B and C. It was consensus of the Board that they were comfortable with the three signs. Chairman Britt asked the Board for their thoughts on the entrance signs. Member Fricker stated that he was willing to accept, recommend and approve the application subject to the modification of the reduction in sizes, but since the applicant was unaware of staff’s recommendation, the signs may need to go back to the drawing board for resolution. Director Garman stated that he did not have with him a calculation of the total allowable signage on the Sanderling’s property relative to the business signage they currently have, but he did know that they have substantially less than what would be permissible. Given the unique nature of the property and the amount of signage actually utilized, staff felt that the Board could make findings to allow the entrance signs to remain as proposed. Chairman Britt stated that he did not
- 5 -
have any issues with the entrance signs as they existed. Vice Chair Blakaitis and Member Forlano agreed. Member Fricker moved that the Planning Board recommend to the Town Council that it approve Special Exception 10-003 and in so doing, adopt the findings contained in Code Section 156.137(F)(7) and in Section 156-45E. Director Garman noted that the sections of the Code did not have to be referenced in the motion. Vice Chair Blakaitis seconded. Motion carried 4-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Board Meeting September 8, 2010 Chairman Britt directed the Board to review the minutes from the September 8, 2010 meeting. Member Forlano moved to approve the minutes as presented. Member Fricker seconded. Motion carried 4-0. OTHER BUSINESS None. STAFF COMMENTS None. BOARD COMMENTS Member Fricker thought that the Jazz Festival was great. Chairman Britt and Vice Chair Blakaitis agreed. Member Forlano complimented Coinjock Farms on the fantastic job with the pansies that have been planted along the Duck Trail. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Britt moved to adjourn the meeting. There was no second. Motion carried 4-0. The time was 7:42 p.m. Approved: ______________________________________________ Jon Britt, Chairman
