APPRGVED  TOWN OF DUCK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING August 9, 2023  The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Paul F. Keller Meeting Hall on Present: Chair Marc Murray, Joe Blakaitas, Brenda Chasen, James Cofield and Council Liaison Also present: Director of Community Development Joe Heard, Senior Planner Sandy Cross,  Wednesday, August 9,2023. Sandy Whitman.  Community Planner. Jim Gould and Deputy Town Clerk Melissa Felthousen.  Not present: Vice-Chair Bob Wetzel.  Chair Murray called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for  6:30 p.m.  August 9, 2023 at  PUBLIC COMMENTS  None. NEW: BUSINESS  ORD23-12: Text Amendment to the Residential Parking Standards, found in Section Zoning Ordinance to Clarify that Crush & Run and, Similar Materials are. Impervious 156.092 Materials ofthe Community Development Director Joe Heard stated the Town Council ORD 23-12 by staff and the Planning Board. He indicated that  approved the review of on several recent occasions staff  encountered instances involving materials arej impervious surfaces the requirement for  underlayment in single-family contractors using crush and run, an impervious material, as amendment to ORD 23-12 Subsection residential parking areas. Heard explained the proposed  156.092(C) is to clarify that crush and run and similar and cannot be used as a; surface or subsurface material to:  semi-permeable parking for single-family  satisfy  that available research seems to support the consideration of residential crush surface. Heard clarified that the reason that the Town has itdecreases the amount oflot coverage and  properties. He added and run as an impervious  gravel parking surface requirements is  improves stormwater runoff.  Chair Murray asked the Planning Board members for questions or comments. Member Cofield stated the amendment was straightforward and he supports same but ifi industry standards for which decisions can be based were available. Heard stated questioned the construction industry would probably support a stronger subbase. support He vehicle, therefore  subbase that is impervious is going tol help the function of] parking to intent is not to provide the strongest possible subbase, but to stormwater can infiltrate into the surrounding ground.  a  having a  explained the Town's  provide impervious areas where    Cofield rephrased his question and asked if there are any standards that would suggest it is pervious. Senior Planner Sandy Cross stated that the Town's engineer, as well as other engineers, consider crush and run to be impervious material. Heard referenced the staffi report section noting a. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources comprehensive study which determined Murray questioned Staff's foreseeable process for handling potentially twenty years' worth of driveways because crush and run was not identified in the ordinance and how that will impact applicants with surveys containing gravel driveways. Heard stated that before, the assumption was that a gravel driveway meant it was pervious and nothing was underneath that was impervious. Cross added that former planning directors would check and ask surveyors to note the driveway as impermeable or not. She described recent instances where applicants wanted to complete a project and were unable to do sO because crush and run was the subbase and was included in lot coverage calculations. Cross stated that staffa assists applicants to resolve issues and will not search out properties and demand replacement. She noted the potential new language of the ordinance Murray questioned ift the addition ofa date for when crush and run became unacceptable would be included as part of the amendment to the ordinance. Cross reminded that from staff perspective and policy, crush and run has never been accepted as permeable. Murray argued that this policy isn not common knowledge because staffadmits uncompliant driveways are out there because staff has had to ask it to be removed. Cross stated that situations have occurred where the driveway proposed on a site plan is gravel and when the final as built is completed, the conclusion is the driveway was constructed over crush and run therefore counting as coverage. Murray questioned the number of driveways out there and stated that it can't really be evaluated. He questioned if permits that require no change in footprint and have a gravel driveway would be subject to lot coverage inquiry. Cross stated that staffwill assume the requirements have been met until proven. Murray questioned the definition of crush and run. Heard noted the use ofthe additional language which states "or similar impervious materials" which better defines the intent of the ordinance. Heard stated that custom mixes ofi materials would need to be certified by an engineer. Chasen questioned what steps can be taken to check the box notating if the surface is permeable ornot. Cross stated when surfaces are noted as gravel driveways, staff can request surveyors to specify the composition of the base material. Heard described tools available that can be used to punch through gravel and get a sense of what is underneath to help determine the subbase composition. Murray stated his discomfort with this process. Heard explained this] process to only be used if the project is already complete and a way to inspect and identify if no information is Murray asked about the permeability of the surface as a test. Cross stated that per engineers Mikc Robinson and Dave Klebitz and state standards, crush and run is not permeable. Murray commented that the Town does not subscribe to state standards. He explained that Dare County and Duck are the only two local governments that do not count gravel parking as lot coverage. He  those surfaces to be impervious and unacceptable.  will mitigate future occurrences ofnoncompliant driveways moving forward.  otherwise and will implement an inspection requirement.  being provided by the contractor or owner.    explained the argument is not whether crush and run is permeable, it is the fact that it was explicitly prohibited in our ordinance prior to today, Murray added that the ordinance old and there is a lot of crush and run out there. He mentioned that purchased houses they didn't build and have driveways that do not count many as property lot owners have questioned ifMurray's suggestion ist to set a date in the ordinance with "as ofthis date moving forward existing driveways would be know ift that's the best thing to do but wants the board to discuss exempt". further and Murray be stated he doesn't to codify that to prevent future problems and protect had gravel over it and subsequently wanted to add to the counted as pervious, if they didn'ttouch what standards. Cofield stated he was comfortable with the above. bring Murray raised concern that in every other part of the zoning ordinance a expect that these surfaces that no one is arguing about, are impervious and He added that now this is a surface that staffi is saying some: pointed out that just saying we don't accept this officially is surveyors not from prior to today that we don't know if we. have to clean ask the surveyor, whereas last month would  not is 20 years coverage. Cross potential language reading careful about how as a subsurface,  who people  were. not subject to this.  Cofield questioned how it would be handled if someone had the material down  parking area. He asked ifit would be  was changing the  is there now. Heard stated if the property owner  parking layout, they would be required to  it into  compliance with current  survey that shows their lot coverage consisting of concrete parking and a house, property owner has a  it's reasonable to count as lot coverage. count and some don't. He enough, because there is a mess that under the new ordinance, staffwould not. Murray added that before it was left up to  what: surveyor was used. Cofield stated he would assume up or we don't because it depends on  the surveyor.  you  Chasen questioned ifay property owner would bej prohibited from ifthe driveway that had previously not been considered lot which would increase lot coverage. He added that if owners would not be allowed to complete the Town approved prior. He questioned how tol handle the  making changes to the dwelling as Iot coveragei ifchanges were made unpermitted work is discovered, property  crush and run as a subbase. Heard stated it would be counted coverage is now determined to have compliance and all factors must be considered in the new work without bringing the property into was unfair to equate a shed without a permit to a driveway calculation that oflot coverage. Murray stated it questioned how to substantiate the survey's varying descriptions of the driveways. Murray  did not count as lot coverage the conversation with the homeowner related  to the discrepancies surrounding migrated into the sand with can't find crush and  description ten years down the road once the gravel has grass growing in it. Cross stated ifi it's migrated into sand and  run, it should be gravel. Murray described various  you  might look like crush and run and are going to be an issue. Chasen questioned ifa date of enactment would solve the issue. coverage and that is intentional to make sure we leave that crush and run is under the gravel, it is not permeable  issues ofbroken stone that  ist the amount oflot coverage this would allow. Cross stated the Town Murray replied that the concern the goal is to help mitigate flooding. She noted by engineer and State standards. Cross stated inspections and that good intentions cannot be the importance of being more particular during  does not count gravel as lot area permeable. She added that if  assumed.    Murray noted the ordinance does not state permeable, it: states semi-permeable. and that reasonable minds could have thought there wasn'taj problem. He added it is his opinion that the ordinance is being presented as clear, but what is being done to ordinance is not clear. Blakaitis questioned Murray stated he doesn't believe that gravel over: sand is as suitable driving surface. He added that if we want permeable gravel driving surfaces, the use of geo-matting must be instituted or something similar to hold that gravel in place. Murray pointed out that many of the geo-matting products call for a two-inch layer of ABC compacted underneath, which is crush and run, and are permeable products specified by the manufacturer. He added that allowing gravel parking as Cross stated that staffo can leave ordinance as is andj just do inspections. Murray stated the language related to crush and run is necessary in the ordinance, but he would like to know what will happen and anticipates many property owners will have to rip out driveways. Chasen pointed out the probable intent is to get properties into compliance. Heard stated there is a section ofthe ordinance that deals with nonconforming situations and staff would treat these situations accordingly. Cofield suggested that the amendment is going in a good direction. He added that difficulties can arise when regulations change along the way and there is no easy solution. Cofield expressed his desire for more clarity. Murray agreed with Cofield but reiterated his concern with how it's being characterized as not just a clarification of the ordinance, but rather a change of the ordinance. He Cofield motioned to approve Ordinance 23-12, a text amendment to Subsection 156.092(C). Murray asked for clarification for applicants installing required gravel parking and ifi it would count as lot coverage. Cross stated that outside the 20-foot-wide maximum concrete drive aisle, the Town Code states stated that permeable parking is required. She described the current protocol that allows a drive aislet to be: fanned out to the width oft thel house but must bej permeable in nature. Murray asked if same would apply to all parking outside of the 20-foot drive aisle. Heard  him about how to word the amendment.  permeable is risky.  emphasized his desire to continue discussions on this topic in the future. Chasen seconded. Motion carried 3-1, with Murray dissenting.  confirmed that it would.  ORD 23-13: Text. Amendment to Chapter 31 ofthe Town Code Amending Slandards for Scheduling Heard noted ORD 23-13 does not involve amendments to any development standards under the purview oft the Planning Board and the Board members are not required to take any formal action. He explained that because the proposed amendments address the procedure for appointing Board members, staff are making the Planning Board aware of this proposal and will pass along any  Council Meetings, Electing Officers and. Appointing Board Members  comments from the Board. He: reiterated no action is needed by the Board.  Planning Board members had no comments.    DISCUSSION  Paint Colors for Commercial Buildings  Heard stated the review of this potential text amendment proposal was authorized by Town Council. He explained that the purpose surrounding the discussion concerning commercial paint colors stemmed from an application to the Board of Adjustment appealing a decision by Community Development staff that the recent repainting of the building at 1242 Duck Road was inconsistent with Town Code Subsection 156.111(c). He noted the ordinance currently requires staff toi interpret whethera certain color adheres tot the commercial design guidelines or not. Heard informed the board that staff doesn't have an answer and changes aren't required but discussion is needed to determine if there are ways to make the ordinance less subjective as it relates to commercial paint colors. Heard requested comments and opinions from Planning Board members as to this issue. Member Blakaitis questioned if other paint colors have been a problem. Heard described the recent issue as the appellant not consulting with staff prior to painting. Heard outlined the typical process as working with applicants prior to work commencing. He referenced Super Wings desire toj paint their Duck location the same bright yellow as other locations, which staff denied. He described the compromise as a more toned down color than their other locations. Blakaitis questioned ifa color chart is available. Cross stated there is not a chart and the ordinance is presently very subjective. Cofield stated he was unaware that this issue had gone before the Board of Adjustment and questioned the outcome. Heard stated the decision was split but upheld staff's decision to repaint a more subtle shade. Cofield noted the difficulty of the issue. Chasen referenced the wording low reflectance how white is a low reflectance color and is super bright, which can be an issue. She suggested the Town provide a base palette. She suggested allowing applicants to add an approved color to the palette moving forward. Heard state there are communities that utilize a similar and this could be an option. He stated a lot of detail can limit the flexibility of owners, but policy, it also clarifies what is acceptable. Cross added there is a variety and range of different palettes, for historic or pastel, that could be included but there is currently no requirement for this. She noted example intent is to make commercial property owners aware ofs standards before they paint. Murray suggested requiring a permit for painting with a fee included. He noted that commercial developers typically don't really care what color, they. just don't want to do it twice. Chasen that approval is key. Blakaitis described his role within his homeowners association and indicated agreed property owners can't do anything unless it's reviewed and approved, which has been successful. Cross questioned if the solution should be permit requirement rather than a Heard stated a new permit or fee schedule change would require Town Council change approval. the Murray noted the importance ofnotifying commercial property owners of the required Heard described the bi-annual educational letter sent by staff to the business community paint various topics and explained the paint permit requirement could be included in that covering form of  Blakaitis suggested coming up with a chart.  described  and  the  to ordinance.  permit.  communication.  Murray asked if consensus ofthe Board was to require aj paint permit, all agreed.    PLANNING TOPIC  Article In Defense ofl Local Zoning  Heard gave an overview oft the article "In Defense ofLocal Zoning" tol highlight the history, purpose, relevance and recent controversary surrounding zoning. He described our community as a tourist driven economy which doesn't have the same needs as other communities, but pointed out that iti is Cross noted that this discussion is timely as. Jim Gould had informed her North Carolina is celebrating Chasen questioned ifa all of] Dare County allows accessory dwellings. Heard responded that he knows Manteo, Nags Head, Kill Devil Hills and Kitty Hawk permit accessory dwelling but was uncertain about Southern Shores. Chasen noted it would help with affordable housing, assuming it was not used as short-term rentals. Heard agreed accessory dwellings have the potential to help with that although some subdivisions prohibit them. He reiterated that most communities in Dare County presently have Community Planner Jim Gould stated he found the section in the article related to the reduction of minimum parking requirements or elimination of that in some areas interesting. Heard noted many cities have on-street parking and garages which are subsidized. Murray questioned! ifTown is looking at parking. Heard pointed out that Council requested staff to look at opportunities to increase public Gould informed the Board of the survey he is developing to gain understanding as to how people get around our community. Cross noted the: survey will tiei into commercial standards, which we will plan  still important to define areas where certain activities are appropriate or not. its 100"anniversary ofthe North Carolina Zoning Enabling Act.  allowances for accessory dwellings.  parking and restrooms.  to revisit in the future.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes from the July 12,2023. Meeting  Cofield motioned to approve the minutes from July 12, 2023 as presented. Murray seconded with  the addition of Council Liaison Sandy Whitman absence. Motion carried 4-0.  STAFF COMMENTS  Summary of August 2, 2023 Regular Town Council Meeting Heard gave a short summary oft the recent Town Council meeting.  Project Updates  Cross gave a short overview of various projects going on in the Town.    BOARD COMMENTS  None.  ADJOURNMENT consensus Approved:  Blakaitis moved to adjourn the meeting. Cofield seconded. The meeting was adjourned  oft the Board Members at' 7:38p.m. AE  by  Chairman