APPDED  PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING May 8, 2024  The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Paul F. Keller Meeting Hall on Present: Chair Marc Murray, Vice Chair Bob Wetzel, Joe Blakaitis, James Cofield, Bob Webb,  Wednesday, May 8, 2024.  and Council Liaison Sandy Whitman.  Absent: None  Also present: Director of Community Development Joe Heard, Senior Planner Sandy Cross,  Planner. Jim Gould and Deputy Town Clerk Melissa Felthousen.  CALLTOORDER  Chair Murray called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for May 8, 2024 at 5:30  p.m.  PUBLIC COMMENTS  None.  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  Member Blakaitis nominated James Cofield for election as Chair. Vice Chair Wetzel nominated Marc Murray for reelection as Chair. Marc Murray was reelected Planning Board Chair 3-2. Member Cofield nominated Joe Blakaitis for election as Vice-Chair. Chair Murray nominated Bob Wetzel for reelection as Vice-Chair. Bob Wetzel was reelected Planning Board Vice Chair  3-2.  Both Murray and Wetzel resumed their respective roles immediately.  DISCUSSION  Lot Coverage Calculations, for Pervious/Permeable Parking  Director of Community Development Joe Heard stated that Town engineering consultant Mike Robinson was not in attendance at the meeting due to a conflict but advised that if the Board had questions for Mr. Robinson, they would be relayed. Heard referenced ORD 23-01 which was adopted on April 5, 2023, that amended the definition of Lot Coverage by allowing completely pervious groundcover materials to be entirely exempt from lot coverage calculations. He added that in the last year Staff had worked with the amended provisions and noted several instances where the amendment was unclear, leaving Stafft to seek guidance from the Planning Board tol help  1    clarify when each allowance should apply to pemmeablekemipemeable surfaces in the future. Heard instructed that number 5 and 6 of Section 156.002 of the Town Code listed the items Staff  was asking the Board to review. He asked several key questions:  1. Ist there a benefit tol having two separate standards for lot coverage allowances? 2. What needs to be clarified to make any distinctions clearer to the general public? 3. Are any allowances broad enough to accommodate new groundcover products in the  future?  Chair Murray asked the Board for comments. Member Webb stated that he finds it difficult that material that must be cleaned or maintained in some way should count as 100% pervious or permeable. Cross asked Webb for clarification thati tifap product requires maintenance, that it should bec counted at some percentage ofl lot coverage. Webb responded that products should notl be 100% exempt from the coverage calculation if the product requires maintenance. He added that such materials must be monitored by someone, and he cannot envision the surfaces being maintained properly. He inquired about the Town's current permeable parking lot surfaces and how they compare. Cross responded that some Town improvements had not been maintained initially, and therefore did not work as effectively as areas as more: recently maintained. She stated that there is ac clause in the stormwater management section that requires property owners to sign a statement of certification that the product had been installed and will be maintained per manufacturer specifications. She added that this certification must be recorded at the Register of Deeds. Cross noted that locating the specifications for maintenance for products can be difficult. Web added that Member Cofield opined that if surfaces must be maintained over time, then those surfaces should not have the same type of stature as those systems that do not have to be maintained. Member Blakaitis mentioned the difficulty with enforcement for products that require maintenance. Member Wetzel questioned if the terms permeable, pervious and porous are synonymous. He added that ift the monitoring protocol poses a challenge to the Town, then he would be hesitant to grant a 100% credit to anything that has to be maintained. He questioned the origin of the 60% number. Cross replied that it originated years ago, during review of low-impact development standards. She added that things have evolved, products have changed and there are much better permeable products available to date, which makes the distinction between products complex. Cross identified the action(s) to certify and record alternative ground cover agreements under section 5 and 6 of the Town Code. She highlighted the difficulty in enforcing products that require Murray opined that it may be sensible to strike number 5 or limit specific products such as permeable concrete, turf stone or the equivalent and expressed that the code may need more teeth to manage the maintenance portion. He asserted that putting a deed agreement on a property is significant andi not something that other municipalities require. Murray mentioned that the Register of Deeds views it as the Town pawning off enforcement responsibility. Murray noted that permeable products are vastly more expensive than conventional ones. Cross replied that although products are vastly more expensive, they are improved over what was available 10-15 years ago. Murray mentioned that Currituck County provides courtesy inspections during installation and it  the more one: investigates online, the less one knows.  maintenance and noted the lack of Staff to monitor and assist with same.  2    might be useful to add that type of requirement explicitly to the Town's ordinance. Cross Blakaitis questioned if the allowances pertain only to new houses. Cross replied that it can be for new single-family dwellings, additions, significant renovations, or site improvements. Murray questioned ifit would make sense to limit number 5 as for porous concrete getting 100%. Cross replied that porous concrete is infrequently used because it is expensive, noisy, and Murray questioned the impact on Staff if number 5 was eliminated. Cross expressed her concern that by opening another 60% of coverage on aj property that may already be maxed out will impact things from a density perspective. She recalled Mike] Robinson examining coverage from a density perspective by limiting or allowing coverage. Heard emphasized that individuals will come to the realization that they can use the provisions under number 6. Cross added that Staff did not envision number 6 applying to parking areas. Murray questioned if there was a benefit to having two separate standards. Heard reminded that it's the Board's decision. Murray stated that initially he felt like number 5 was ancillary and questioned Staff if the goal was to clean up both standards. Webb questioned what would stop someone from covering their entire property. He opined that no matter what product is used, it needs to count some way toward lot coverage. Murray replied that he felt full lot coverage would be very unlikely. Blakaitis proposed a hypothetical situation. Cross responded that each development would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Murray questioned how long number 61 had been inj place. Heard responded one  responded that the Town completes courtesy inspections as well.  maintenance intensive.  Cross responded yes.  Planner Jim  Gould explained that two properties have utilized the 100% provision since the year. ordinance was amended in April 2024. Cross stated that amending the ordinance would not create al large number Murray asked for clarification as to the Board's role as it relates to Staff needs. Heard stated that Staff hopes to develop a proposal based on the Board's input. Murray asked the Board for clarification on wording revisions. Webb reiterated that 100% was not favorable. He opined that itmay! be easiest tol have all count as 60% coverage. Cross replied that priort to the recent ordinance amendment, turf was being used frequently and there was no standard in place. Webb how much area was covered using the 100% allowance based on the example provided questioned the agenda packet. Gould responded that one area given the 100% credit was for al bocce by ball Staffin which was approximately 30: feet by 801 feet. Murray opined that such installations add stormwater court, storage and are more high performing than sand with grass. He noted that the incentive the ordinance provides is helpful and cost precludes abuse. Webb stated that products in the packet arei not providing that level lofdrainage. Murray noted that each product has aj published percolation rate and putting same in the ordinance makes sense. Murray suggested Staff confer with Mike Robinsonn for more information, clarification, and review of common high-performing products. He suggested that such information could help define a clearer target for developers. Heard stated the Board has an option to put overall cap on what percentage is allowed if documentation of specifications and properinstallation. are provided, which may alleviate Webb'sconcern regarding  of non-conformities because the amendment is SO recent.  3    products not being properly maintained and losing permeability over time. He added that input from Mike Robinson's would be sought, and his presence would be requested for the next Board Wetzel asked for clarification if the suggestion was to establish standards for permeability such that products that meet a technical specification and are properly installed, the manufacturer percentage would be given. Murray clarified that the manufactured specified percent is viable if the infiltration rate specified in the ordinance is met. Webb opined that this change might be simple. Cross noted that number 6 also states that an engineer can certify the product as an alternative. Murray stated that if engineering certification made sense to the Staff and Board it could be added as another layer of enforcement. Cross added that if having aj minimum technical standard requirement and an engineer certification, the likelihood of failure would be the result of the product and not because of maintenance. Cofield favored the idea of establishing standards related to filtration rate or permeability regardless of the product. He added that it would be an easy standard to specify and measure. He asserted that he did not like any product where it only stays at that standard with maintenance on day one. Cofield noted the lack of Staff to enforce maintenance and his preference for a flat standard that was not conditioned on maintenance for both the 60% and 100%. Heard instructed that there are no products that require zero: maintenance and even the best products become less permeable over time. Cofield replied that establishing a Webb voiced his concern was people will use an item to expand parking with high occupancy of homes and minimal parking spaces. He noted that products could be installed and noti intended for parking, but visitors will use it for same. Webb reiterated that he does not think that any product Murray questioned ifthe Board should enumerate the products or make them a class. Webb replied that he does not think the Town can go with the percentage the manufacturer provides. Murray questioned if the goal was to come back with a draft ordinance or continued conversation. Heard Murray opined that he felt hamstrung for not having the infiltration rates for some example products tos guide the development ofa draft ordinance. Hei reflected that Wetzel and Cofield would like to see. limitations based on maintenance requirement, therefore he proposed that Staff provide example maintenance specifications for products and infiltration rates in comparison to native soil Heard stated that Mike Robinson could provide the requested information and attend a future meeting. Cofield suggested establishing a standard regardless of material. Chair Murray requested Staff to confer with Mike Robinson regarding the differences between interstitial storage and filter cloth and gravel or gator base products compared with subsurface stormwater systems, whether the capillary effect ofi fill raises the water table, and the review of some common high performing  meeting.  standard with that ini mind would be preferable.  should completely bypass lot coverage.  replied that either suggestion would suffice.  toj provide the detail desired by the Board.  products as they relate to native soils and their infiltration rates.  4    Stormwater Management on Single-Family Residential. Properties  Heard stated that during a recent public hearing, the Duck Town Council received a public comment concerning stormwater management during consideration of a special use permit application foraresidential property. He stated that aj member oft the public commented that raising an nearby lot 3 feet with fill had the potential to negatively impact her property by potentially increasing the stormwater: flow of water into low points on the property. Heard noted that Council approved the special use permit but the general concept of requiring stormwater management on single-family residential properties was raised. He explained that Council wanted the Planning Board and Stafft to review issues related to stormwater management in general as al basic standard for single-family residential properties unrelated to applicants seeking special provisions. He added that most communities throughout the State of North Carolina do not have stormwater management requirements for the development ofi individual single-family residential properties, but that the Town of Southern Shores and another coastal community, Town of Ocean Isle Beach, have standards that he included in the staff report. Heard raised the issue that 95% of residential properties in the Town of Duck are already developed without any requirements for stormwater management. He opined that it may be unfair to burden remaining properties with standards. However, the converse argument is that it would provide some improvement. He outlined several 1. Should the Town of Duck require stormwater management for the standard development 2. Should these standards only apply to new construction or also include other types of 3. What are the mosti important elements toi include int the stormwater: management standards?  key questions:  ofs single-family residential properties? redevelopment activities or other improvements?  4. What criteria should the stormwater management improvements meet? Cofield questioned if engineering certifications had been previously required.  that if properties want greater than 30% lot coverage, then stormwater certifications Cross responded She stated that ideally one retains their own stormwater onsite, but that is not are required.  Cross added that the citizen was concerned about the new her property even though the development was below 30% development lot  always the case. shedding stormwater onto coverage. She indicated that this required for all Murray pointed management plan, but  scenario led Council to begin discussion development. She asked if a stormwater  as to whether stormwater plans should be  development  management plan should be required for all new  regardless of coverage allowance, and if so, should it be for new  dwellings, additions, and/or have a criterion of 50% like floodplain requirements. single-family  out that Currituck County does not require everyone to have a stormwater  properties located in the beach area and some planned to the discussion. Cross referenced the scenario which elevation, which changed the topography.  stormwater a situation where the  developments on the mainland require a brought topic to the Board which was  management plan ift the developer is importing fill. He suggested same could  this  be added  property was at an elevation of 7.5 feet and filled to to the 10-foot  get that Cross  Murray suggested the Board discuss the Town's limit of 3 feet of fill. He requirements and setbacks could be met despite same shrinking the building  should be allowed to fill enough to meet the regulatory flood protection opined elevation developers if ift this was allowed, where do you stop that limit. Murray opined that the flood pad. plain regulation questioned of  slope  5    10-foot is arbitrary and could be modified or allow people to fill to the RFPE as iti is higher than other communities' regulations. Heard replied that the 10-foot limit was not chosen arbitrarily, and a lot oft thought was put into it that standard. Murray stated that if the elevation requirement stays the same, the Town should allow people to fill tot the RFPE, especially since the existing ordinance Muray proposed the key question, should the Town of Duck require stormwater management for the standard development of single-family residential properties? Webb, Cofield, Murray and Blakaitis stated no. Wetzel responded that it is al known fact that the water table is rising, and some neighborhoods are more prone to flooding than they were 10-30 years ago. He added that while the Town may be 95% developed currently, tear downs are becoming more prevalent. He stated that the situation is different today and the argument could be made that there should be stormwater management system inj place for houses. Wetzel referenced a vacant lot in his neighborhood at the top of a dune and stated that higher lots might not need a plan. Cross recalled the neighborhood stormwater study's determination that flooding situations typically start at higher elevations and mitigation should start upstream. She noted that flooding typically occurs at the bottom. Murray questioned: ift thes study specified whetheri it was groundwater ors stormwater flooding. Cross replied that it was not groundwater, but groundwater will play aj part. Murray raised the concern that even with retention ponds at higher elevations, flooding is only being delayed by 24-48 hours since water percolates through the soil and goes to the groundwater. Cross replied that 24-48 hours may allow the lower end toj perk and as per the engineer, solutions must start upstream. Murray opined that groundwater has no solution except toi move or fill. Wetzel decided against the' Town requiring stormwater management for the standard development of single-family residential properties in Murray posed the question. should the Town require stormwater management for development that includes fill for single-family development? Webb stated that all building effects stormwater, and ai new requirement may unfairly burden the remaining 5% and hold them to another standard. He added that part of their stormwater issue is going to be related to stormwater coming off their neighbor's property. Murray clarified that it would not be the Town's standard and that the requirement for the stormwater management plan would be calculated by an engineer. He noted that the stormwater: runoff plan would be for the individual's roof and driveway and stored on site, therefore not adding to the problem. Murray noted it interesting that Currituck County beach area and some development on the mainland requires elevations and stormwater management plans evaluating impacts 35 feeti into the neighboring property. Cofield stated he does not have a strong view on this issue. Wetzel explained that there are allegations of draining issues impacting properties that change as a result from adding fill in his own neighborhood. Murray stated he does not feel that a stormwater plan should be required if fill is imported. He remarked that the Town already limits fill and does not think the Town should limit fill it in any way. He stated that fill provides one of the only opportunities property owners have in a coastal town with al low elevation to] pay for what eventually will be a gigantic problem for the Town. He added that the' Town cannot afford to fix it, therefore allowing property owners to fill seems to be the only reasonable solution. Council Liaison Sandy Whitman mentioned that the special use permit would not have been  ist then shrinking the property's building pad.  response to the key question.  Murray noted that the Town cannot manage its way out ofar rising water table. needed if the new construction had been built in the correct location originally.  6    Murray asked the Board if they were inclined to discuss allowing fill to the regulatory flood protection elevation. Cofield opined that while allowing fill works toward the long-range problem, Heard stated that Staff would draft a report of the Board's discussion and decision not to take Murray requested Staff to ask Mike Robinson for information regarding the capillary effect and rising water table for surrounding lots. He stated that his guess ist that the mass ofs sand would need  italsocreatess short term problems for neighbors.  action for Council to review.  tol be significantly more than a residential project but would like Mike'si input.  KAININEBDUCATION  Trend Report) for. Planners: The Futures oft the (Home) Office  Heard noted the purpose of this section of the Trend Report for Planners was to educate the Board and generate discussion regarding the increased use of home offices and people home. He outlined the Town's current provisions for home occupations.  from  working  APPROVALOFI MINUTES  Minutes from the March 13, 2024, Meeting  Blakaitis motioned to approve the minutes from March 13, 2024 as presented. Cofield seconded.  Motioncarried: 5-0. STAFF COMMENTS  Heard gave a summary of the May 1, 2024 Town Council meeting. Cross provided a briefoverview of various projects going on in the Town.  BOARD COMMENTS  None.  ADJOURMMENT  Wetzel moved to adjourn the meeting.  The meeting was adjourned by consensus of the Board members at 7:15 p.m.  Approved:  Chairman 7  26