Agenda Town of Duck Council Paul F. Keller Meeting Hall ... · 11/2/2016 · minimal additional...

Agenda

Town of Duck Council Paul F. Keller Meeting Hall

November 2, 2016 7:00 p.m.

Regular Meeting __________

1. Call to Order

A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Moment of Silence 2. Public Comments 3. Consent Agenda

A. Minutes from the October 5, 2016, Regular Meeting

4. Public Hearings

A. Public Hearing/Discussion/Consideration of SE 2016-001, a Special Exception Application to install concrete parking spaces on the property at 152 Marlin Drive where Section 156.096 of the Duck Town Code requires the use of loose stone surface (gravel), porous pavers, or other semi-permeable materials for residential parking spaces

B. Public Hearing/Discussion/Consideration of Ordinance 16-07, an

Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Duck, North Carolina, amending the Town’s Zoning Ordinance by establishing standards for the development of accessory dwelling units as a permitted use in all residential zoning districts subject to proposed conditions including limitations on the number, size, height, setbacks, parking, and access for accessory dwelling units

C. Public Hearing/Discussion/Consideration of Ordinance 16-08, an

Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Duck, North Carolina, amending the Town’s Zoning Ordinance by clarifying that the rental of single-family residences on a daily basis is permitted in the Town of Duck and including provisions allowing a property owner to rent up to two rooms within a residence on a daily basis in nearly all zoning districts, subject to a variety of conditions.

5. Old Business/Items Deferred from Previous Meetings

No items at this time

November 2, 2016 Regular Meeting (continued) ____________________

6. New Business

A. Discussion/Consideration of Resolution 16-09, a Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Duck, North Carolina, Requesting Summer Traffic Control from the NC Highway Patrol

7. Items Referred to and Presentations from the Town Attorney 8. Items Referred to and Presentations from the Town Manager

A. Update on Departmental Activities

B. Update on the Town of Duck Beach Nourishment Project

C. Update on Hurricane Matthew

D. Financial Statements for October FY 2017

9. Mayor’s Agenda 10. Council Members’ Agenda 11. Other Business

A. Additional Public Comments 12. Adjournment

AGENDA: November 2, 2016 Regular Meeting

ITEM #1: Call to Order

A. Pledge of Allegiance

B. Moment of Silence

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Call the Town Council to order Conduct the Pledge of Allegiance Hold a Moment of Silence

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Mayor will call the Council to order and the Council will lead the audience in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and will hold a Moment of Silence.

ATTACHMENTS:

None


ITEM #2: Public Comments

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None required.

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Council shall receive comments from the public.

ATTACHMENTS:

None


ITEM #3:

Consent Agenda

A. Minutes from the October 5, 2016, Regular Meeting

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the Consent Agenda (As a reminder, the Consent Agenda is intended to be voted on and approved as one motion. If discussion is required on individual items, a motion must be made to remove that item from the Consent Agenda and add it to the Regular Agenda.)

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Consent Agenda includes minutes from the October 5, 2016, Regular Meeting. The Council is requested to approve the minutes.

ATTACHMENTS: October 5, 2016, Regular Meeting Minutes

1

TOWN OF DUCK TOWN COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2016

The Town Council for the Town of Duck convened at the Paul F. Keller Meeting Hall at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 5, 2016. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Don Kingston; Councilor Nancy Caviness; Councilor Chuck Burdick; and Councilor Jon Britt. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tempore Monica Thibodeau. OTHERS PRESENT: Town Manager Christopher Layton; Police Chief John Cueto; Fire Chief Donna Black; Director of Community Development Joseph Heard; Town Attorney Robert Hobbs; Director of Public Information Denise Walsh; Public Relations Assistant Betsy Trimble; and Town Clerk Lori Ackerman. OTHERS ABSENT: None. Mayor Kingston called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. He asked Town Manager Chris Layton to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Kingston led the moment of silence. Mayor Kingston noted that Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau was excused from the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Kingston opened the floor for public comments. He asked that any comments regarding the public hearings be held off. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Kingston closed the time for public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes from the September 7, 2016, Regular Meeting; Budget Amendment Councilor Caviness moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing/Discussion/Consideration of Ordinance 16-06, Application for a Zoning Map Amendment by Larry M. Herron, et al, Property Owners, to Rezone the Property at 1165 Duck Road from Single Family Residential to Village Commercial

2

Mayor Kingston turned the meeting over to Town Attorney Hobbs. Town Attorney Robert Hobbs was recognized to speak. Town Attorney Hobbs stated that the public hearing was open. He asked Director of Community Development Joe Heard to give a presentation. Director Heard stated that the applicants were requesting approval of a zoning map amendment from the Single-Family Residential District to Village Commercial District at 1165 Duck Road. He noted that the property owners planned to market the property for sale and did not have a specific development proposal associated with the zoning map amendment at this time. He added that the Planning Board had voted unanimously at their August 10, 2016 meeting to recommend approval and staff was also recommending approval. Town Attorney Hobbs asked the applicants or their representative to make a presentation. Woody West of Ships Watch Realty was recognized to speak. Mr. West stated that he was present as a spokesman for the Herron family. He noted that Larry Herron was also present. He explained that 1165 Duck Road was zoned Single-Family Residential and the Future Land Use Map for the Town of Duck and the CAMA Land Use Plan designated the subject property as being included in the Village Commercial District. He pointed out that lots north of 1165 Duck Road were already zoned as Village Commercial. He stated that through an oversight, 1165 Duck Road was zoned RS-1 instead of Village Commercial and the Herron family was requesting the change. Town Attorney Hobbs asked if members of the Planning Board wished to make a presentation. There were none. Town Attorney Hobbs asked if any members of the public wished to speak on the application. There were none. There being no one else wishing to speak, Town Attorney Hobbs closed the public hearing and turned the meeting back over to Mayor Kingston. He reminded Council that when considering a text amendment, at least four votes would be needed to approve the ordinance on a first read. Councilor Burdick moved to adopt Ordinance 16-06 as presented. Motion carried 4-0. Public Hearing/Discussion/Consideration of Ordinance 16-05, a Proposal to Amend the Town’s Zoning Ordinance by Eliminating Section 156.181, Protests, removing a Provision for the Submittal of Protest Petitions Consistent with the Recently Adopted NC State Law 2015-160

3

Mayor Kingston turned the meeting over to Town Attorney Hobbs. Town Attorney Robert Hobbs stated that the public hearing was open. He asked Director Heard to give a presentation. Director Heard stated that in 2015, the NC State Legislature voted to pass NC State Law 2015-160, which eliminates the use of protest petitions in North Carolina. He explained that the proposed text amendment would eliminate the protest petition provision in the Zoning Ordinance, bringing the Town’s ordinance into compliance with State law. He noted that the Planning Board recommended approval of Ordinance 16-05 and staff was recommending approval as well. Town Attorney Hobbs asked if members of the Planning Board wished to make a presentation. There were none. Town Attorney Hobbs asked if any members of the public wished to address the proposal. There were none. There being no one else wishing to speak, Town Attorney Hobbs closed the public hearing and turned the meeting back over to Mayor Kingston. He reminded Council that at least four votes would be needed to approve the ordinance on a first read. Councilor Britt moved to adopt Ordinance 16-05 as presented. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS Discussion/Consideration of Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute a Contract with Finch and Company for the Construction of a Shed/Garage to Service the Town Hall and Town Park Town Manager Christopher Layton was recognized to speak. Town Manager Layton stated that as part of the budget process, funding was set aside in the CIP for the construction of a shed/garage which would be located on the Town Park property near the dumpster site, servicing the Town Hall and Town Park. He stated that the original design called for a 12x16 structure with eight-foot plywood walls and a pitched roof. He added that it was determined that the location of the structure adjacent to the dumpster area in the north parking lot of the Town Park could accommodate a larger structure with minimal additional clearing of the area. He explained that plans were changed to a 16x24 structure on a concrete slab with nine foot walls with treated studs and plywood with the exterior covered in red cedar siding to match the other structures in the park. Town Manager Layton stated that the changes to the original plans added to the estimated cost of the project of $15,000. He stated that the following bids came in: Finch and Company at $25,812; Todd Coyle Construction at $28,500 and C&T Contracting at

4

$29,788. He recommended contracting with Finch and Company for the construction. He noted that if the contract was approved, a budget amendment would be prepared for Council’s November 2, 2016 meeting. Councilor Burdick moved to authorize the Town Manager to execute a contract with Finch and Company as presented. Motion carried 4-0. Discussion/Consideration of Authorizing a Public Hearing on Items Referred from the Planning Board: Ordinance 16-07, an Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Duck, North Carolina, Establishing Provisions for the Development of Accessory Dwelling Units in Residential Zoning Districts Director Heard stated that, at the request of the Council, the Planning Board has recommended allowances and standards for the development of accessory dwelling units in the Town. He stated that proposed conditions included limitations on the number, size, height, setbacks, parking and access for accessory dwelling units. Director Heard stated that at its September 14, 2016 meeting, the Planning Board voted 3-1 to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment, which would establish allowances for accessory dwelling units in residential zoning districts. He added that the members voting in favor of the ordinance expressed hopes that creating these allowances for accessory dwelling units would result in achieving benefits. He stated that comments opposing the ordinance included concerns that the addition of accessory dwelling units will change the character of neighborhoods and that it was unlikely to result in the provision of workforce housing in the community or the achievement of other benefits that were being sought. Councilor Burdick thought the Planning Board did a nice job in coming up with a proposal that went in the direction that Council had asked. He added that he liked what they did. He noted that the 700 square foot for an accessory dwelling that was separate from the existing dwelling was an extraneous restriction since the Town has restrictions on lot coverage and occupancy. He felt it was an unneeded restriction and should be managed within the confines of the existing restrictions. He also noted that a separate driveway was not permitted. He added that there may be houses that already have two driveways. He wondered how the Town would handle it. He thought it was an extra, unneeded restriction. He stated that, beyond the two issues, he was in favor of the draft ordinance and proposed having those two items considered as changes in the ordinance. Mayor Kingston asked for an explanation/rationale on the 700 square foot rule. Director Heard stated that the thought behind the limitation on size was twofold. He stated that the Planning Board had discussed the fact that the unit was supposed to be subordinate to the primary unit and was one of the reasons for the size limitation. He stated that the

5

other reason was that it was more consistent with regard to the intent of the ordinance was because a lot of the discussion revolved around providing more affordable workforce housing for people that work in Duck. He added that while the Town can limit the number of bedrooms as per state law, it can also limit the size in order to ensure that the units are small and affordable. He explained that there were plenty of houses in Duck that were four-bedroom houses and if there was a situation where the property was large enough that an owner could max out the bedrooms, a property owner could build a four-bedroom accessory dwelling, making it a duplex. He stated that without the restriction, it may not achieve the intent of the goal. Councilor Burdick stated that he had a problem with the ordinance in that the Town already allows accessory buildings with no limitations. He added that someone could come in and convert part of an existing accessory building into an accessory dwelling. He stated that if they were within the existing building, there was no limit on it. Director Heard stated that there would be a limitation under the new ordinance. He explained that if there was a separate building, the homeowner could only convert 700 square feet of it. Councilor Britt pointed out that if there was a separate accessory building, only 700 square feet could be the accessory dwelling unit. Councilor Burdick stated that he found the restriction unnecessary. Director Heard stated that, with regard to the access, the way it would work would be that if there were two existing driveways, it would be grandfathered, making it a legal, non-conforming use. Councilor Britt stated that the point was to prevent the addition of another driveway. He felt it should be left in the ordinance. Director Heard noted that it would not prevent anyone from establishing an accessory dwelling unit, it would just be a non-conforming situation. Councilor Burdick thought the two restrictions were unnecessary, given the ordinances that were already in place. He added that creating a non-conformity did not make sense if two driveways were already permitted at the convenience of the property owner as long as they met the lot coverage restrictions. He stated that adding the new restriction made no sense, was inconsistent and unnecessary. Mayor Kingston asked if the Town would see a lot of instances where people will want to convert their existing structure to add an accessory within the existing structure. Director Heard stated that if the flood zones were changed to what was being proposed, it may bring a lot of properties in Town into a circumstance where the homes would be raised to meet the flood elevation, with a lot of properties going from an AE zone to an X zone and they could do whatever they want. He thought there would be a substantial opportunity for people to create something under and existing raised residence. Mayor Kingston asked what ordinances in other municipalities have with regard to the 700 square foot limitation. Director Heard stated that it was very common in communities to have the square footage limitation. He added that most have some restriction ranging from 500 square feet to 1,200 square feet.

6

Councilor Britt understood and agreed with Councilor Burdick’s point but felt that the 700 square foot limitation should stay in the draft ordinance. Mayor Kingston moved to authorize a public hearing for Ordinance 16-07 for the November 2, 2016 Town Council meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Ordinance 16-08, an Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Duck, North Carolina, Establishing Standards for the Short Term Rental of Rooms within Dwelling Units Director Heard stated that the Planning Board has recommended amendments to clarify that the rental of single-family residences on a daily basis is permitted in the Town. He added that the Board also proposed provisions allowing a property owner to rent up to two rooms within a residence on a daily basis, subject to certain conditions. Director Heard stated that the Planning Board voted unanimously at their September 14, 2016 meeting to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment clarifying that residences could be rented on a daily basis and establishing provisions for rooming houses allowing the rental of up to two rooms within a residence. Mayor Kingston asked what the downside was regarding the situation. He asked if there was a lot of it going on presently that the Town did not know about and if the Town was losing occupancy taxes because of houses renting out rooms. Director Heard stated that Airbnb pays occupancy taxes in North Carolina. He added that staff received personal knowledge about it from some of the Planning Board members. He stated that this ordinance dealt more with individual room rentals that Airbnb or similar services would be doing. He noted that it was possible that there was some lost revenue for owners that may be doing it outside of Airbnb. He stated that there was something that was being done on a longer term basis, such as a roommate situation. He stated that when he scanned the Airbnb website, he identified approximately 24 properties in Duck that were renting and some were renting rooms while others were renting a non-conforming separate unit. Director Heard noted that as part of the Planning Board process, the Board invited all rental realty companies to attend their meeting. He added that four attended the meeting and two provided written comments. He stated that staff solicited comments from lodging properties, such as local bed and breakfasts and the Sanderling Inn and received comments as well. He stated that these type of uses were competing more with the bed and breakfast inns and hotels as opposed to the rental realty companies. He stated that there was a conversation at the Planning Board meeting about the unfair practices with regard to one being considered a commercial use and the standards that have to be met. He stated that concerns were expressed by one of the rental realty companies as well as by Willo Kelly on behalf of the Outer Banks Realtors Association.

7

Mayor Kingston asked about a business owner owning a piece of property and renting out rooms to employees during the summer. He asked how it would fit in. Director Heard stated that it did not necessarily fit in. He added that those situations were more of a long-term rental and was not what the Board was looking at with this proposal. He noted that they would be permitted as long as they functioned as a single-housing unit and were similar to a roommate situation. Mayor Kingston asked how the Town would regulate and control it. Director Heard stated that if people were seeking to do it by the day, the ordinance would require the homeowner to come before the Town to obtain a permit. He noted that the recommendation from the Planning Board was for it to be an administrative permit to make it simpler and less time consuming. He explained that if the homeowner obtains an administrative permit or not, the Town would have a record of it and staff could pursue compliance or cite them with a violation that would be subject to penalties. Mayor Kingston asked if the homeowner doesn’t come before staff to obtain an administrative permit, how compliance would be achieved. Director Heard stated that it was not unlike any other violation as staff would have to get a report on it. He added that if Council wished for staff to pursue it more intensively, staff could be out and actively looking for violations. He noted that the City of Raleigh recently hired two staff members that do nothing but go out looking for violations. He stated that the way Duck currently works, it was a complaint driven process. Councilor Burdick stated that the real question was if the Town wanted to attempt to put some degree of control around it that would make it easier for staff to keep control of things. He thought the real issue was if the Town wanted to try to set some kind of standard that the Town can use to police it. He thought that was the thinking behind it and by getting a definition first and then having some standards to go by, it put the Town in a better position to police it and get it done right. He added that if Council could get people to administer it creatively by having the rule that a permit was needed, it would allow Council to know where it was going on. Councilor Britt thought one of the issues of having the permit issued administratively was that a lot of the people would not be the ones that come in and ask and would be doing it without telling Town staff. He thought the enforcement of it would be extremely complicated, to the point of stressing Town staff out. He stated that he was not a fan of the ordinance and thought that two rooms were too many, adding that two rooms could be 50% of a four-bedroom house. He stated that it struck him as too much. He felt that it would be an enforcement and legal nightmare for the Town. He stated that he would be more in favor of something that was more restrictive, such as one room. He pointed out that the businesses that showed up at the Planning Board meeting were not a fan of the ordinance. He reiterated that he was not in favor of daily rentals. Councilor Caviness stated that she had submitted comments to the Planning Board as an owner of a bed and breakfast. She wondered if the two rooms required two dedicated parking spaces and what the current occupancy limits would be on the lot. She agreed

8

with Councilor Britt that two rooms could be a sizeable percentage of rooms in a home. She pointed out that #3 in the staff report noted that the standard was intended to preserve the single-family residential character of neighborhoods. She thought if a percentage of houses on a street were doing rentals on a nightly basis, even with parameters in place, it was not in keeping with a single-family residence. She thought allowing room rentals in a dwelling would change the character of a neighborhood. She stated that she will be interested to hear comments about it at the public hearing. She noted that every city and town was grappling with Airbnbs and it has created a lot of headaches. She added that Duck was lucky that it was only happening in houses, because it was also happening in abandoned apartment buildings, abandoned commercial structures, hospitals and old hotels elsewhere. Councilor Britt asked if #6 in the staff report that read: “Do not permit rental rooms in an accessory dwelling unit.” was something that the Town could do legally. Town Attorney Hobbs stated that the Town could. Councilor Caviness pointed out that the daily rental of rooms was a different type of land use. She asked if Council was discussing changing the Land Use Plan. Director Heard stated that the Land Use Plan would not be changed, it was simply adding a new use to the zoning code. Councilor Caviness thought that one benefit the ordinance offered was that with the model the Town was in with respect to houses, this type of rental was one that people could get for one night that would allow them to come to the Outer Banks and ease their travel for checking in on a weekly rental. Councilor Burdick stated that he looked online and there weren’t many one-night rentals, as most of them were three to four nights at a minimum. He stated that Council was not dealing with 50% or 75% of a request coming through, but a relatively small portion. He thought Mayor Kingston raised a good question on whether or not the Town wanted to regulate short-term rentals. He wondered if the Town was better off having some kind of ordinance on the books instead of nothing at all. He thought the Town was better off to have something in place. Councilor Caviness thought Council had the responsibility to hear from people in single-family neighborhoods that could be negatively impacted. She added that if Council was going to look at regulations, the biggest, problematic ones were occupancy tax collections, the health and safety inspections and the liability issues. Councilor Britt stated that he still had an issue with allowing a commercial use in a residential area. He thought there were enforcement and safety issues. He stated that he had an issue with the two-bedroom rule and wasn’t sure if the ordinance was ready for a public hearing. Councilor Burdick pointed out that the public hearing would be a good opportunity to obtain input from the residential neighborhoods that was needed. He added that the public hearing could be held, but Council didn’t have to adopt anything. Mayor Kingston agreed. Councilor Britt questioned if Council was ready to have it go to a public hearing.

9

Mayor Kingston stated that the ordinance could go to a public hearing to see what reaction Council gets. He added that if there wasn’t a reaction, and Council still wasn’t satisfied, it could go back to the Planning Board. Councilor Britt moved to authorize a public hearing for Ordinance 16-08 for the November 2, 2016 Town Council meeting. Councilor Burdick suggested that a concerted effort be made to obtain public input on the ordinance either prior to or at the November 2, 2016 meeting. Councilor Britt suggested that staff invite the same groups that attended the Planning Board meeting to attend the public hearing. Councilor Caviness asked if there was an urgency that the public hearing be held at the November 2, 2016 meeting or if it could be held off until the Council Retreat. Councilor Britt thought the November 2, 2016 meeting would be fine. Mayor Kingston agreed. Motion carried 4-0. NEW BUSINESS Discussion/Consideration of Resolution 16-08, a Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Duck, North Carolina, Amending Article V. Recruitment and Employment, Section 1. Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity Policy by Adding a Statement on Veterans Preference Town Manager Layton stated that staff was approached earlier this year by Jack Leonard, who is the Vice Chairman of the Dare County Veterans Advisory Council, with a request that the Town consider a veterans preference as it related to employment with the Town. He noted that similar requests were made to other towns within Dare County as well as Dare County. He explained that a veterans preference policy would require the Town to consider the status of a veteran when making employment decisions. He stated that Resolution 16-08 would require that an applicable veteran as defined in §128-15 of the North Carolina General Statutes receive preference when equally qualified as other applicants for a position within the Town. He noted that Dare County and the Towns of Southern Shores and Nags Head have recently adopted similar policies. Mayor Kingston moved to approve Resolution 16-08 as presented. Motion carried 4-0. ITEMS REFERRED TO AND PRESENTATIONS FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY Town Attorney Hobbs stated he had nothing to report.

10

ITEMS REFERRED TO AND PRESENTATIONS FROM THE TOWN MANAGER Update on Departmental Activities Fire Chief Donna Black was recognized to speak. Fire Chief Black gave a brief overview of the past month’s fire activities to Council and the audience. Police Chief John Cueto was recognized to speak. Police Chief Cueto gave a brief overview of the past month’s police activities to Council and the audience. Director Heard gave a brief overview of the past month’s permit activities to Council and the audience. Director of Public Information Denise Walsh was recognized to speak. Director Walsh gave a brief overview of the past month’s activities to Council and the audience. Update on the Town of Duck Beach Nourishment Project Town Manager Layton stated that he has had contact with the real estate office of the Corps of Engineers and hoped to have something from them in terms of an access agreement later in the month. Update on the Upcoming Visioning Retreat Town Manager Layton reminded Council of the upcoming Visioning Retreat on October 18 and 19, 2016. He added that Council and staff would be reviewing the goals and objectives that were established in 2012. He noted that the dates for the Retreat were both half-day sessions. He further reminded Council of their interviews with A. Tyler St. Clair on October 17, 2016. Financial Statement for September FY 2017 Town Manager Layton reviewed the financial statement, beach activities and beach nourishment reports with Council and the audience. MAYOR’S AGENDA Mayor Kingston stated that the Dare County Control Group had held a meeting regarding Hurricane Matthew and the track has changed significantly. He added that at the meeting held earlier in the day, it was shown that there was still uncertainty with regard to the track of the hurricane, which was unfortunate. He stated that he would be meeting again on October 3, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. and if the Control Group does meet, it would mean an evacuation for the Outer Banks. He stated Town Manager Layton’s annual evaluation was coming up and Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau would be coordinating it again. He stated that the mayor’s meeting was rescheduled for later in October. He stated that he

11

was looking forward to the Jazz Festival, the Public Safety night and the Visioning Retreat. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ AGENDA Councilor Burdick stated that he was happy to be back from vacation and was looking forward to the Jazz Festival. Councilor Caviness had nothing to report. Councilor Britt had nothing to report. OTHER BUSINESS Additional Public Comments Mayor Kingston opened the floor for public comments. There being no one wishing to speak, he closed the time for public comments. Mayor Kingston noted that the next meeting will be the Regular Meeting on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Councilor Caviness moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. The time was 9:45 p.m. ____________________________ Lori A. Ackerman, Town Clerk Approved: ______________________ _______________________________ Don Kingston, Mayor


ITEM #4: Public Hearings

A. Public Hearing/Discussion/Consideration of SE 2016-001, a Special Exception Application to Install Concrete Parking Spaces on the Property at 152 Marlin Drive where Section 156.096 of the Duck Town Code Requires the use of Loose Stone Surface (Gravel), Porous Pavers, or other Semi-permeable Materials for Residential Parking Spaces

B. Public Hearing/Discussion/Consideration of Ordinance 16-07, an

Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Duck, North Carolina, amending the Town’s Zoning Ordinance by Establishing Standards for the Development of Accessory Dwelling Units as a Permitted Use in all Residential Zoning Districts Subject to Proposed Conditions including Limitations on the Number, Size, Height, Setbacks, Parking, and Access for Accessory Dwelling Units

C. Public Hearing/Discussion/Consideration of Ordinance 16-08, an

Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Duck, North Carolina, amending the Town’s Zoning Ordinance by Clarifying that the Rental of Single-family Residences on a Daily Basis is Permitted in the Town of Duck and Including Provisions Allowing a Property Owner to Rent up to Two Rooms within a Residence on a Daily Basis in Nearly all Zoning Districts, Subject to a Variety of Conditions

RECOMMENDED ACTION: See Attachments

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:

See Attachments

ATTACHMENTS:

See Attachments


ITEM #4A:

Public Hearings

A. Public Hearing/Discussion/Consideration of SE 2016-001, a Special Exception Application to install concrete parking spaces on the property at 152 Marlin Drive where Section 156.096 of the Duck Town Code requires the use of loose stone surface (gravel), porous pavers, or other semi-permeable materials for residential parking spaces.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Conduct the Public Hearing Discuss & Consider Approval of the Special Exception Application

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Section 156.092(C) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that parking spaces be improved with loose stone surface (gravel), porous pavers, or other similar semi-permeable materials. The applicant is seeking a special exception permit to allow a concrete parking surface for five (5) parking spaces associated with the construction of a new single-family residence at 152 Marlin Drive. At its public meeting on October 12, 2016, the Duck Planning Board voted (3-1) to recommend DENIAL of this proposed special exception application.

ATTACHMENTS:

Staff Report Letter of Transmittal to Town Council Location Map and Property Information Special Exception Application Site Plan (approved 9/2/15) Building Permit (issued 9/4/15) Final As-Built Survey (dated 7/12/16) Photographs of the Subject Property (taken 10/3/16) Email Comments from Two Neighboring Property Owners

Town of Duck, North Carolina

Department of Community Development SE 16-001, 152 Marlin Drive

Agenda Item 4A

1

To: Mayor Kingston and Members of the Duck Town Council

From: Joe Heard, Director of Community Development

Date: November 2, 2016

Re: Staff Report for SE 16-001, 152 Marlin Drive Application Information Application #: SE 16-001 Project Location: 152 Marlin Drive Dare County PIN: 985912967365 Existing Use: Single-Family Residence Zoning: Single-Family Residential (RS-1) Proposed Request: Exception to Residential Parking Surface Standards Property Owner: North Beach Development, LLC Applicant/Contact: Jimbo Ward & Matt Shealey, Beach Realty & Construction

Public Notice Public Hearing Advertised: October 23 & 30, 2016 (Coastland Times) October 26, 2016 (OBX Sentinel) Public Hearing Notices Sent: October 19, 2016 Public Hearing Sign Posted: October 4, 2016 Public Hearing Town Website: October 19, 2016 Public Hearing Town Hall Posted: October 19, 2016 Application Summary As outlined in the application materials (Attachment C), the applicant is seeking a special exception permit to allow a concrete parking surface for five (5) parking spaces associated with the construction of a new single-family residence at 152 Marlin Drive. Section 156.092(C) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that parking spaces be improved with loose stone surface (gravel), porous pavers, or other similar semi-permeable materials. If approved, the applicant will be able to use the five (5) concrete parking spaces to meet the Town’s parking standards.



Agenda Item 4A

2

Property Information The property at 152 Marlin Drive contains a recently constructed, 6 bedroom/5.5 bathroom single-family residence 3,142 square feet in size. The subject property is 15,001 square feet (0.34 acre) in size and zoned Single-Family Residential (RS-1). The property is surrounded on all sides by other single-family residences also zoned RS-1. The adjoining properties to the east, south, and west are located along Marlin Drive in the Saltaire neighborhood. The abutting properties to the rear (north) are located in the Bayberry Bluff neighborhood and front on Bayberry Drive. Background Information On September 4, 2015, contractor Beach Realty & Construction obtained a building permit to demolish the existing residence and construct a new, six-bedroom single-family residence at 152 Marlin Drive. To accommodate the maximum occupancy of 12 people on the Health Department septic permit, the project included the installation of six (6) parking spaces. One of the parking spaces is located partially underneath the house. The other five (5) parking spaces are located to the right (east) of the driveway leading to the house. When the project was completed in July 2016, staff conducted a final inspection of the property and noted that four (4) of the five (5) parking spaces to the right (east) of the driveway are constructed of concrete rather than gravel or an accepted semi-permeable parking surface. The attached as-built survey (Attachment F) documents the nonconforming layout/surface of the parking spaces. The Director of Community Development reviewed the situation to consider if the concrete surface could be approved for topographic conditions. However, the location of the parking spaces is essentially flat and does not warrant administrative relief to address topographical challenges in staff’s opinion. After discussing the issue with the contractor, Beach Realty & Construction, it became apparent that the contractor had based the driveway and parking layout on the site plan (Attachment D), which shows the entire area being concrete, rather than the conditions on the building permit (Attachment E), which specifically note that all parking outside of the drive aisle must consist of “…gravel or semi-permeable material…”. As there is a greater expense to remove the concrete and install gravel or another semi-permeable surface, the applicant has opted to ask the Planning Board and Town Council to consider granting a special exception before making the required corrections. As all other aspects of the construction project are complete and have passed inspection for compliance with Town codes, Community Development staff issued a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy on July 25, 2016 to allow the property owner full use of the residence while this special exception application is being considered.



Agenda Item 4A

3

A final Certificate of Occupancy can be issued following either approval of this special exception application or replacement of the concrete parking spaces with gravel or other semi-permeable material consistent with the Town’s standards if the special exception application is denied. Applicable Ordinance References Section 156.096 of the Duck Town Code contains the following standards for granting a special exception for parking space requirements:

(A) The Town Council may, by special exception permit, modify the requirements contained in this subchapter in accordance with the procedures and limitations established for conditional use and special exception permits set forth in Section 156.145.

(B) Special exception permits shall be subject to conditions deemed necessary by Town

Council to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses and conditions.

(C) In addition to the requirements of Section 156.145, no modification or waiver of parking or loading requirements shall be granted until the applicant has clearly demonstrated that the request:

(1) Will not result in increased traffic congestion or otherwise negatively impact existing

traffic flow or pedestrian and vehicular safety;

(2) Will not be contrary to the objectives specified in the CAMA land use plan; (3) Is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the subject property; and

(4) Will not adversely impact adjacent property or the surrounding area.

The focus of this special exception application is on the standards of Section 156.092(C) of the Town Code, which state the following requirements for parking spaces for single-family residences: “Required parking spaces shall be graded and improved with loose stone surface (gravel), porous pavers, or other similar semi-permeable materials. Loose stone surface shall be bordered in a manner which retains the stone in the parking area. Parking spaces may be improved with asphalt or concrete, subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development, if there is a topographic condition that warrants such improvement.”



Agenda Item 4A

4

Special Exception Criteria/Staff Analysis Sections 156.096(C) of the Town Code states that Town Council may grant a special exception only after determining that the application meets the following criteria. Staff comments regarding each finding are provided in red below. 1. Granting the requested special exception will not result in increased traffic congestion or

otherwise negatively impact existing traffic flow or pedestrian and vehicular safety.

The subject property is required to provide six (6) parking spaces to accommodate the approved maximum occupancy of twelve (12) people and six (6) bedrooms in the residence. The requested special exception to allow a different parking surface material will not change the required amount of parking or otherwise impact the traffic flow or safety in and out of the site.

2. Granting the requested special exception will not be contrary to the objectives specified

in the CAMA land use plan.

Duck’s adopted CAMA Land Use Plan contains the following policies and objectives that relate to the issues outlined in the special exception application:

Land Use Compatibility Objective 12e states, “Establish mitigation criteria and concepts that may include but are not limited to cluster subdivision design, enacting local buffers, impervious surface limits, and effective innovative storm water management alternatives.” Natural Hazard Areas Policy 13c states, “Encourage the use of pervious materials and new technologies that provide for safe and efficient driveway and parking areas and that appropriately address storm water runoff areas.” Residential Development Policy 19c states, “Duck will continue to regulate building intensity and oversized structures by enforcing, and amending as necessary, the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance regulates building intensity factors such as building height, lot coverage, and building setback(s) for commercial and residential building development. The ordinance also specifies maximum and minimum building sizes for commercial buildings.”

Objective 19d states, “Establish mitigation criteria and concepts that may include but are not limited to cluster subdivision design, enacting local buffers, impervious surface limits, and effective innovative storm water management alternatives.”



Agenda Item 4A

5

These stated policies and objectives reflect the Town of Duck’s clear intention to mitigate the impacts of stormwater and flooding by establishing standards for maximum lot coverage and minimizing impervious surfaces on residential properties. The requirement for gravel or other semi-permeable parking spaces in Section 156.092(C) of the Zoning Ordinance is one standard adopted by the Town to implement these policies and objectives.

Increasing the amount of concrete parking, as requested in this special exception application, is inconsistent with parking material standard and the policies/objectives of the Land Use Plan. However, a counter-argument can be made that the applicant’s proposal is consistent with the adopted maximum lot coverage standard of 30%, thus compliant with the Town standard limiting lot coverage.

3. Granting the requested special exception is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the subject property.

The applicant has recently constructed a six (6) bedroom house on the subject property. The type of parking material will not have any effect on the use of this residence and property in the future. So, the same reasonable use of the property is permitted with or without the requested special exception. Other than the expense of removing the concrete parking spaces and replacing them with gravel or other semi-permeable parking spaces, there is no hardship or difficulty for the applicant to bring the site into compliance with Town standards.

4. Granting the requested special exception will not adversely impact adjacent property or

the surrounding area. As constructed, the concrete driveway and parking spaces cover approximately 1,750 square feet (over one-third of the front yard) with impervious surface. If the concrete parking spaces are replaced with gravel or another semi-permeable material, the amount of impervious surface will be reduced to approximately 720 square feet. Reducing the impervious coverage will allow greater infiltration and lessen potential stormwater issues on the subject property and surrounding properties. However, it is important to note that even with the existing concrete parking area, the subject property is fully compliant with the Town’s standards for lot coverage (maximum 30%), with a total of 29.95% coverage. So, the applicant is not exceeding the allowances provided to him and the neighboring properties.



Agenda Item 4A

6

Planning Board Recommendation At its public meeting on October 12, 2016, a majority of the Planning Board members agreed with staff comments and determined that this special exception application at 152 Marlin Drive meets Finding #1, but does not meet Findings #2, #3, #4.

1. The proposed special exception will not negatively impact the traffic flow or safety. 2. The proposed special exception does not comply the Land Use Plan’s stated intent to

minimize impervious surfaces and lot coverage. 3. The proposed special exception is not necessary to allow the reasonable, or even maximum,

use of the subject property. 4. The greater amount of concrete will lead to less stormwater infiltration and greater

stormwater runoff, potentially having a negative impact on surrounding properties. Determining that the request does not comply with all of the necessary findings, the Duck Planning Board voted (3-1) to recommend DENIAL of this special exception application to allow a concrete parking surface for five (5) parking spaces associated with the construction of a new single-family residence at 152 Marlin Drive. For the Town Council’s reference, a draft order approving the special exception request with the appropriate findings and conditions has been included in the packet as Attachment I. This order reflects the Planning Board’s findings and recommendation. The Town Council members may make different findings or cite additional findings and/or justification as necessary. Public Input Following posting of the property and distribution of the notice for the public hearing with Town Council on this matter, the Town of Duck has received two emails from neighboring property owners (see Attachment H). Allen and Jo-Anna Holden at 154 Marlin Drive (adjoining the subject property to the east) expressed concerns about stormwater and flooding. They noted their support for ordinances that limit impervious surface coverage and asked Town Council to deny the requested special exception as it will increase the amount of lot coverage on the subject property. Jim and Caryl Brackenridge at 156 Marlin Drive (two lots east of the subject property) expressed concerns about stormwater runoff and requested Town Council to deny any variance or special exemption that will increase the amount of impervious ground cover.



Agenda Item 4A

7

ATTACHMENTS

A. Letter of Transmittal to Town Council B. Location Map and Property Information C. Special Exception Application D. Site Plan (approved 9/2/15) E. Building Permit (issued 9/4/15) F. Final As-Built Survey (dated 7/12/16) G. Photographs of the Subject Property (taken 10/3/16) H. Emails from Neighboring Property Owners I. Draft Order Denying the Special Exception

P. O. Box 8369 ● Duck, North Carolina 27949 252-255-1234 ● 252-255-1236 (fax) ● www.townofduck.com

October 26, 2016 Mayor Don Kingston Members of the Duck Town Council P. O. Box 8369 Duck, NC 27949 RE: SE 2016-001, Special Exception Permit for 152 Marlin Drive Dear Mayor Kingston and Town Council Members: The Town of Duck Planning Board has completed its review of SE 16-001, a request by North Beach Development, LLC to approve a concrete parking surface for five (5) parking spaces in the Single-Family Residential (RS-1) zoning district associated with the construction of a new single-family residence at 152 Marlin Drive. If approved, the applicant will be able to use the five (5) concrete parking spaces to meet the Town’s parking standards. The Planning Board discussed SE 16-001 at its October 12, 2016 regular meeting and voted (3-1) to recommend that the special exception request for the concrete parking be denied. The Planning Board found that the applicant does not have any type of hardship that prevents compliance with the parking material standards or justifies granting the special exception. When considering the criteria for granting a special exception, the Board members determined that the application meets Finding #1, but does not meet Findings #2, #3, #4. Accordingly, the Board is recommending denial of the special exception application.

1. The proposed special exception will not negatively impact the traffic flow or safety. 2. The proposed special exception does not comply the Land Use Plan’s stated intent to minimize

impervious surfaces and lot coverage. 3. The proposed special exception is not necessary to allow the reasonable, or even maximum, use of

the subject property. 4. The greater amount of concrete will lead to less stormwater infiltration and greater stormwater

runoff, potentially having a negative impact on surrounding properties. Sincerely, Joe Blakaitis, Chair Town of Duck Planning Board

MARL

IN DR

137

152

148

154

150

139

135

145

143

146

141

141

128

139

156

137

158

130

135126

147

133

Town of Duck,North Carolina

Property Location:152 Marlin Drive

Prepared by the Town of DuckLast Updated October 6, 2016

²

Parcel Number: 012272000 Print Date: 9/15/2016

County of Dare, North Carolina*Owner and Parcel information is based on current data on file and was last updated on 9/9/2016

Owner Information:NORTH BEACH DEVELOPMENT LLC4826 N CROATAN HWY KITTY HAWK NC 27949

Parcel Information:Parcel: 012272000 PIN: 985912967365District: 21 DUCKSubdivision: SALTAIRE LOTS 131LotBlkSect: LOT: 28 BLK: SEC:Multiple Lots: PlatCabSlide: PL: 7 SL: 27 Units: 0Deed Date: 05/05/2015 BkPg: 2018/0733

Property Use: VACANT LAND (PRIVATE) 152 MARLIN DR

BUILDING USE and FEATURES Building Value: $0

Building Use: Exterior Walls: Actual Year Built: Full Baths: Half Baths: Bedrooms: HeatFuel: HeatType: Finished sqft for building 1:Air Conditioning: Total Finished SqFt for all bldgs: 0

MISCELLANEOUS USE Misc Value: $0

LAND USE Land Value: $319,000

Land Description : 21Ocean Influence C

TOTAL LAND AREA: 15000 square feet

Total Value: $319,000

*Values shown are Next Year Values on file as of 9/9/2016

of 4

Return to: Town of Duck Document Prepared by: Town of Duck P.O. Box 8369 P.O. Box 8369 Duck, NC 27949 Duck, NC 27949

TOWN OF DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA

ORDER DENYING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION

The Town Council for the Town of Duck, having held a public hearing on _November 2, 2016 to consider

application number SE 16-001 submitted by property owner North Beach Development, LLC, a request

for a special exception to use the property located at 152 Marlin Drive, also known as Lot 28, Saltaire

Subdivision, in Duck, North Carolina, in a manner prescribed under Sec. 156.096 of the Zoning

Ordinance, and having heard all of the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, makes the

following FINDINGS and draws the following CONCLUSIONS:

1. It is the Town Council’s CONCLUSION that granting the special exception will not result in

increased traffic congestion or otherwise negatively impact existing traffic flow or pedestrian and

vehicular safety. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF FACT:

a) The requested special exception to allow a different parking surface material will not

change the required amount of parking or otherwise impact the traffic flow or safety in

and out of the site.

of 4

2. It is the Town Council’s CONCLUSION that granting the special exception would be contrary to the

objectives specified in the CAMA land use plan. This conclusion is based on the following

FINDINGS OF FACT:

a) Objective 12e of Duck’s adopted CAMA Land Use Plan states, “Establish mitigation

criteria and concepts that may include but are not limited to cluster subdivision design,

enacting local buffers, impervious surface limits, and effective innovative storm water

management alternatives.”

b) Policy 13c of Duck’s adopted CAMA Land Use Plan states, “Encourage the use of

pervious materials and new technologies that provide for safe and efficient driveway and

parking areas and that appropriately address storm water runoff areas.”

c) Policy 19c of Duck’s adopted CAMA Land Use Plan states, “Duck will continue to

regulate building intensity and oversized structures by enforcing, and amending as

necessary, the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance regulates building intensity

factors such as building height, lot coverage, and building setback(s) for commercial and

residential building development. The ordinance also specifies maximum and minimum

building sizes for commercial buildings.”

d) Objective 19d of Duck’s adopted CAMA Land Use Plan states, “Establish mitigation

criteria and concepts that may include but are not limited to cluster subdivision design,

enacting local buffers, impervious surface limits, and effective innovative storm water

management alternatives.”

e) These stated policies and objectives reflect the Town of Duck’s clear intention to mitigate

the impacts of stormwater and flooding by establishing standards for maximum lot

coverage and minimizing impervious surfaces on residential properties.

f) The requirement for gravel or other semi-permeable parking spaces in Section

156.092(C) of the Zoning Ordinance is one standard adopted by the Town to implement

these policies and objectives.

of 4

g) Increasing the amount of concrete parking, as requested in this special exception

application, is inconsistent with parking material standard and the policies/objectives of

the Land Use Plan.

3. It is the Town Council’s CONCLUSION that the special exception is not necessary to permit the

reasonable use of the subject property. This conclusion is based on the following FINDINGS OF

FACT:

a) The applicant has recently constructed a six (6) bedroom house on the subject property.

The type of parking material will not have any effect on the use of this residence and

property in the future. So, the same reasonable use of the property is permitted with or

without the requested special exception.

b) Other than the expense of removing the concrete parking spaces and replacing them with

gravel or other semi-permeable parking spaces, there is no hardship or difficulty for the

applicant to bring the site into compliance with Town standards.

4. It is the Town Council’s CONCLUSION that the granting the special exception would

potentially have adverse impacts on adjacent property or the surrounding area. This

conclusion is based on all of the FINDINGS OF FACT:

a) As constructed, the concrete driveway and parking spaces cover approximately 1,750

square feet (over one-third of the front yard) with impervious surface. If the concrete

parking spaces are replaced with gravel or another semi-permeable material, the amount

of impervious surface will be reduced to approximately 720 square feet.

b) Reducing the impervious coverage will allow greater infiltration and lessen potential

stormwater issues on the subject property and surrounding properties.

THEREFORE, on the basis of all the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the application for a SPECIAL

EXCEPTION be DENIED.

ORDERED this _2nd__ day of _November, 2016__

SEAL:

of 4

ATTEST: TOWN OF DUCK By: ___________________________ By: ___________________________ Lori A. Kopec, Town Clerk Don Kingston, Mayor I, ______________________, a Notary Public of ________ County and State of ______________, certify that _____________________________________________ personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument. Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, this _____ day of _________________, 20__. My Commission Expires: __________ ______________________________Notary Public

STATE OF __________________

COUNTY OF ____________________


ITEM #4B:

Public Hearings

B. Public Hearing/Discussion/Consideration of Ordinance 16-07, an Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Duck, North Carolina, amending the Town’s Zoning Ordinance by establishing standards for the development of accessory dwelling units as a permitted use in all residential zoning districts subject to proposed conditions including limitations on the number, size, height, setbacks, parking, and access for accessory dwelling units.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Conduct the Public Hearing Discuss & Consider Approval of the Text Amendment

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the request of Duck Town Council, the Planning Board has recommended allowances and standards for the development of accessory dwelling units in the Town of Duck. Proposed conditions include limitations on the number, size, height, setbacks, parking, and access for accessory dwelling units. At its public meeting on September 14, 2016, the Duck Planning Board voted (3-1) to recommend APPROVAL of this proposed text amendment.

ATTACHMENTS:

Staff Report Letter of Transmittal to Town Council Draft Text Amendment Ordinance

Town of Duck, North Carolina Department of Community Development Text Amendment: Accessory Dwelling Units

Agenda Item 4B

1

TO: Mayor Kingston and Members of the Duck Town Council

FROM: Joe Heard, AICP, Director of Community Development

DATE: November 2, 2016

RE: Text Amendment: Accessory Dwelling Units Public Notice Public Hearing Advertised: October 16 & 30, 2016 (Coastland Times) October 19 & 26, 2016 (OBX Sentinel) Public Hearing Town Website: October 19, 2016 Public Hearing Town Hall Posted: October 19, 2016 Notice to Neighborhood Associations: October 18, 2016 Notice to Local Rental Realty Companies: October 18, 2016 Notice to Local Lodging Properties: October 18, 2016 Proposal The Duck Planning Board has proposed allowances and standards for the development of accessory dwelling units in all residential zoning districts. Proposed conditions include limitations on the number, size, height, setbacks, parking, and access for accessory dwelling units. Background Information on the Review Process At its meeting on April 6, 2016, the Duck Town Council requested that the Planning Board and Community Development staff consider and address a list of concerns about land uses identified by the Council members. One Council member’s comments included that the Town may want to look at expanding provisions for accessory apartments, duplexes, and townhouses. At its meeting on April 13, 2016, the Planning Board seemed generally amenable to considering the concept of accessory dwelling units, but not larger multi-family residential uses. Understanding that there are a variety of options for allowing accessory dwelling units, the Board members asked Community Development staff to provide background information about these alternatives for further consideration by the Board. After months of research and consideration, the Planning Board initially presented the Town Council with a memorandum recommending against further consideration of accessory dwelling units at the Council meeting on August 3, 2016. After reviewing the Board’s recommendation and asking questions of Director of Community Development Joe Heard and Planning Board Chairman


Agenda Item 4B

2

Joe Blakaitis, the Town Council members asked the Planning Board to give further consideration to provisions allowing accessory dwelling units. Background Information In efforts to provide more affordable housing or maintain a traditional pattern of development, many hundreds of communities throughout the country have adopted ordinances that permit and establish standards for the development of accessory dwelling units. An accessory dwelling unit is generally defined as a smaller, separate dwelling unit that is secondary to the primary residential use on the property. As a separate dwelling unit, it has its own entrance, bathroom, kitchen, and sleeping area. Accessory dwelling units can take many forms – (1) an apartment within the walls of an existing residence; (2) an addition to an existing residence; (3) finished rooms over a garage; or (4) a detached cottage. Allowing the use of accessory dwelling units can offer many benefits to a community. Potential Benefits:

1. Promote affordable housing at a small scale 2. Provide more affordable housing at no expense to the public 3. Establish conveniently located rental housing for the local work force 4. Offer opportunities for extended families to live together (older and younger) 5. Companionship and assistance for older/less mobile citizens 6. Provide additional income for property owners 7. Offer modest increases in property, sales, and occupancy tax revenues for the community 8. Create the potential for more year-round residents, increasing the vitality of the town and

improving public safety by having more eyes in neighborhoods However, when considering accessory dwelling units, it is also important to recognize the variety of issues that can occur. Potential Issues:

1. Create a modest increase in residential density 2. Lead to a small increase in traffic 3. Increase the intensity of use on a property 4. Additional lot coverage will reduce stormwater infiltration 5. Alter the single-family residential atmosphere of a neighborhood 6. If not designed and located properly, the appearance can be out of character with the

neighborhood


Agenda Item 4B

3

Standards from ADU Ordinances by Other Communities When evaluating how accessory dwellings might best fit into their communities, municipalities have adopted a variety of standards to address their particular needs and interests. The following types of standards and conditions can be found in ordinances from other communities:

1. How permitted – use of right or conditional use 2. Where permitted – which zoning districts 3. Only allowed on an owner-occupied property 4. Form of accessory dwelling – within existing structure/footprint, addition to primary

dwelling, or separate structure (cottage, garage apartment, etc.) 5. Limit to one accessory dwelling on a property 6. Minimum lot size standards – only permitted on conforming lots or lots of a certain size 7. Maximum occupancy or density standards – creating additional allowances or exceptions 8. Minimum/Maximum size of accessory dwelling unit – square footage or percentage of

primary dwelling 9. Minimum structure setback standards - comply with current standards or make allowances 10. Maximum height standards – use current standards or reduced height for accessory uses 11. Design standards – similar architecture to primary dwelling 12. Location of the accessory dwelling – front or rear 13. Location of accessory dwelling entrance 14. Parking standards – additional parking space or exempt from standards 15. Access – allow separate driveway 16. Sufficient septic capacity – get health department permit 17. Combining an accessory residential use with a home occupation 18. Compliance with building code standards 19. Registration/inspection of existing, nonconforming accessory dwelling units – how to

identify and bring existing units into compliance Staff Analysis Staff has provided comments (in red) describing the rationale for many of the standards proposed in the draft ordinance: 1. Permit accessory dwelling units in RS-1, RS-2, and R-2 zoning districts.

Commercial zoning districts already have provisions for accessory apartments. Accessory dwellings are unlikely to be used in the Town’s other zoning districts (C-PR, OSO).

2. Allow accessory dwelling units as a permitted use (administrative approval). Making the approval process simpler (less costly and time-consuming) through administrative approval will encourage property owners seeking to establish ADUs.

3. Permitting only one accessory dwelling unit per lot. Allowing multiple ADUs on a single property can lead to greater impacts on surrounding properties and significant changes to the character of a residential property.


Agenda Item 4B

4

4. Compliance with maximum density requirements for the property. After consulting with the UNC School of Government, the Town cannot set limits on the number of bedrooms in an accessory dwelling unit. However, the Town can enforce an overall cap on the density (number of occupants) of the property.

5. Maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit. The maximum size limitation of 700 square feet for detached ADUs is intended to permit a reasonably sized one-two bedroom accessory dwelling unit. Keeping ADUs small helps make them more affordable, achieving one of the main objectives of the ordinance. The provision permitting larger ADUs within the footprint of the existing house still maintains the character of the property, but can allow significantly larger accessory units that may not meet the affordability objectives.

6. Maximum height of an accessory dwelling unit. Height standards ensure that an ADU will be secondary in nature to the primary dwelling unit and minimize the impact to surrounding properties.

7. Full compliance with minimum building setback standards. As a detached or attached ADU can be a substantial structure, the impact on adjoining properties can still be significant and building setbacks should still apply.

8. Requiring unobstructed access for parking. As the ADU may be subject to occupancy by someone unrelated to the principal dwelling unit, this standard is intended to limit conflicts between the two units.

9. Requiring a common driveway for the principal and accessory dwelling units. This standard is intended to maintain a single-family residential appearance and function for the property.

Duck CAMA Land Use Plan GOAL #4: Ensure continued development of small, specialty-type shops and the vitality of existing businesses. The development of more affordable accessory dwelling units may provide convenient living opportunities for our local workforce, which can help sustain and support our local business community. GOAL #5: Remain aesthetically pleasing while maintaining a coastal village image. If properly designed, standards for accessory dwelling units can preserve and enhance the coastal village image and character of Duck. POLICY #12c: Maintain the pattern of current development specifically low density residential (0-4 dwelling units per acre) and small scale commercial development (by right 5,000 square foot maximum or less buildings on minimum 20,000 square foot lots with provisions for discretionary review of large scale commercial development (5,000 – 15,000 square foot). OBJECTIVE #12c: Enforce, and amend as necessary, the Town zoning ordinance which includes designation(s) of permitted and conditional uses intensity and density criteria.


Agenda Item 4B

5

The addition of accessory dwelling units will result in more dwelling units and slightly greater number of bedrooms on these properties. However, under the standards of the proposed ordinance, these increases cannot exceed the maximum density currently allowed on these properties. GOAL #19: Continue established single family residential development patterns. POLICY #19a: Detached residential structures are the preferred type of residential land use in Duck. Permitted as an accessory use, the addition of accessory dwelling units will not change the primary use of properties for single-family residential use. If designed and located properly, such units can maintain and enhance the character of single-family residential neighborhoods. OBJECTIVE #19h: Evaluate development and redevelopment proposals to provide low-cost and moderate-cost housing alternatives in appropriate zoning districts according to Town goals, objectives, and policies and the land suitability analysis and future land use map developed as a part of the land use plan. Permitting accessory dwelling units on individual properties is an ideal way of providing more affordable, workforce housing on a small scale, while maintaining the character of the community and minimizing significant impacts on any particular area of Town. As part of its recommendation, the Planning Board made a determination that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Town’s adopted CAMA Land Use Plan. Town of Duck 2022 Vision The Town of Duck 2022 Vision offers a couple of statements that support consideration of allowing accessory dwelling units:

“We are an inclusive community that welcomes and embraces the diversity, talents, and expertise of all of our stakeholders.” The provision of accessory dwelling units will diversify the housing stock in the Town and potentially provide housing for a greater number of residents with a variety of backgrounds and roles in our community.

“Our quality of life is enhanced through innovative solutions that protect and preserve the Village’s unique character and environment.” If properly designed, standards for accessory dwelling units can preserve and enhance the appearance, character, and vitality of our community.

Planning Board Recommendation At its public meeting on September 14, 2016, the Duck Planning Board voted (3-1, Member Cofield dissenting) to recommend APPROVAL of this proposed text amendment establishing allowances for accessory dwelling units in residential zoning districts. The members voting in favor of the ordinance expressed hopes that creating these allowances for accessory dwelling units


Agenda Item 4B

6

will result in achieving some of the potential benefits outlined earlier in the staff report. Comments opposing the ordinance included concerns that the addition of accessory dwelling units will change the character of neighborhoods and that it is unlikely to result in the provision of workforce housing in the community or achieve the other benefits being sought. For the Town Council’s reference, a draft ordinance reflecting the Planning Board’s recommendation has been included in the packet as Attachment B. ATTACHMENTS

A. Letter of Transmittal to Town Council B. Draft Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance


September 30, 2016 RE: Text Amendment Establishing Allowances for Accessory Dwelling Units Dear Mayor Kingston and Duck Town Council Members: After four months of thorough review and consideration, the Duck Planning Board voted (3-1) to recommend approval of the attached text amendment at its regular meeting on September 14, 2016. The proposed amendment creates allowances for the establishment of accessory dwelling units in all residential zoning districts. To better meet the intent of the new standards, minimize the potential impacts, and maintain community character, the Board’s proposal includes limitations on the number, size, height, setbacks, parking, and access for accessory dwelling units. As part of its recommendation, the Planning Board made affirmative findings that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Town of Duck CAMA Land Use Plan. Sincerely, Joe Blakaitis, Chair Town of Duck Planning Board

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA BY ESTABLISHING

ALLOWANCES AND STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Ordinance No. 16-07

WHEREAS, the Town Council and Planning Board have found that establishing provisions for the development of accessory dwelling units is reasonable and consistent with the recommendations of the Town’s adopted CAMA Core Land Use Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council and Planning Board have determined that establishing provisions for the development of accessory dwelling units is consistent with the Town of Duck’s 2022 Vision; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that establishing provisions for the development of accessory dwelling units will have the following potential benefits for the Town of Duck:

1. Promote affordable housing at a small scale 2. Provide more affordable housing at no expense to the public 3. Establish conveniently located rental housing for the local work force 4. Offer opportunities for extended families to live together (older and younger) 5. Companionship and assistance for older/less mobile citizens 6. Provide additional income for property owners 7. Offer modest increases in property, sales, and occupancy tax revenues for the

community 8. Create the potential for more year-round residents, increasing the vitality of the

town and improving public safety by having more eyes in neighborhoods 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 Section 156.002 with the addition of the following definition (to be added in alphabetical order): “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. A secondary dwelling unit established in conjunction with and clearly subordinate to a principal dwelling unit, whether part of the same structure as the principal dwelling unit, or as a detached structure on the same lot.” ********************************************************************** Add accessory dwelling units as a permitted use in the Single-Family Residential (RS-1) district, Single-Family Residential (RS-2) district, and Medium Density Residential (R-2) district with the following wording. Add Subsection 156.030(B)(8), “Accessory dwelling units, subject to the provisions of Section 156.140”.

2

Add Subsection 156.031(B)(8), “Accessory dwelling units, subject to the provisions of Section 156.140”. Add Subsection 156.032(B)(10), “Accessory dwelling units, subject to the provisions of Section 156.140”. ********************************************************************** List “Accessory Dwelling Units” under the Residential, Household Living section of the Permitted and Prohibited Use Table in Section 156.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. Designate the use as permitted (P) in the RS-1, RS-2, R-2, and S-1 columns and prohibited (X) in other columns. Cite “156.140” in the Additional Development Standards column. ********************************************************************** Add Section 156.140 with the following wording: 156.140 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.

(A) Purpose. The purpose of these provisions for all accessory dwelling units is to allow the efficient use of existing housing stock, parcels of land, and community infrastructure, and to increase the number and variety of residential units while respecting the scale and character of existing neighborhoods.

(B) General provisions. Accessory dwelling units are allowed as permitted uses in the Single-Family Residential (RS-1), Single-Family Residential (RS-2), and Medium Density Residential (R-2) zoning districts, subject to the following standards.

(1) An accessory dwelling unit can only be located on a property containing one single-family detached residence. The property may contain other accessory structures and uses as permitted in this ordinance.

(2) Only one accessory dwelling unit is permitted on a lot.

(3) Building code. An accessory dwelling unit must be properly permitted, inspected, and comply with all applicable standards of the N.C. Building Code.

(4) Septic. The owner must obtain a permit from the Dare County Environmental Health Department that the existing septic system can accommodate or be improved to accommodate the establishment of an accessory dwelling unit.

(C) Development standards.

(1) Density. An accessory dwelling unit will count toward the maximum occupancy permitted for a property. The overall density of a property cannot

3

exceed the maximum density standards outlined in Section 156.126, Standards for Residential Construction Based on Lot Size.

(2) Size. The size of an accessory dwelling unit must comply with all of the

applicable following standards. (a) A detached accessory dwelling unit or addition to the principal dwelling

accommodating an accessory dwelling unit cannot be larger than 700 square feet of heated space.

(b) An attached accessory dwelling unit cannot be larger than the square

footage of the principal dwelling footprint.

(3) Height. A detached accessory dwelling unit cannot exceed twenty-seven feet (27’) in height or the height of the principal dwelling on the property, whichever is lower. An attached accessory dwelling unit cannot exceed the height of the principal dwelling on the property.

(4) Setbacks. An accessory dwelling unit must comply with all applicable minimum building setback requirements.

(5) Parking. An accessory dwelling unit must comply with the following parking requirements.

(a) If the establishment of an accessory dwelling unit increases the

maximum occupancy permitted on the wastewater permit issued by the Dare County Health Department, then necessary improvements must be completed for the property to maintain compliance with minimum parking standards. (b) Parking space(s) serving the accessory dwelling unit must have access unobstructed by parking spaces for principal dwelling unit.

(6) Access. Access and parking for an accessory dwelling unit must occur via the same driveway as the principal dwelling unit. A separate driveway is not permitted. ********************************************************************** Renumber the Section entitled “General Administration and Enforcement” from 156.140 through 156.149 to 156.150 through 156.159. PART II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption.

4

______________________ Don Kingston, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lori Ackerman, Town Clerk Date adopted: ___________________ Motion to adopt by: ____________________ Vote: AYES NAYS


ITEM #4C:

Public Hearings

C. Public Hearing/Discussion/Consideration of Ordinance 16-08, an Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Duck, North Carolina, Establishing Standards for the Short Term Rental of Rooms Within Dwelling Units.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Conduct the Public Hearing Discuss & Consider Approval of the Text Amendment

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Planning Board has recommended amendments to clarify that the rental of single-family residences on a daily basis accessory is permitted in the Town of Duck. The Board has also proposed provisions allowing a property owner to rent up to two rooms within a residence on a daily basis, subject to certain conditions. At its public meeting on September 14, 2016, the Duck Planning Board voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend APPROVAL of this proposed text amendment.

ATTACHMENTS:

Staff Report Letter of Transmittal to Town Council Draft Text Amendment Ordinance

Town of Duck, North Carolina Department of Community Development

Text Amendment: Short Term Rentals Agenda Item 4C

1

TO: Mayor Kingston and Members of the Duck Town Council

FROM: Joe Heard, AICP, Director of Community Development

DATE: November 2, 2016

RE: Text Amendment: Short Term Rentals Public Notice Public Hearing Advertised: October 16 & 30, 2016 (Coastland Times) October 19 & 26, 2016 (OBX Sentinel) Public Hearing Town Website: October 19, 2016 Public Hearing Town Hall Posted: October 19, 2016 Notice to Neighborhood Associations: October 18, 2016 Notice to Local Rental Realty Companies: October 18, 2016 Notice to Local Lodging Properties: October 18, 2016 Proposal At its meeting on April 6, 2016, the Duck Town Council requested that the Planning Board and Community Development staff consider and address a list of concerns about land uses identified by the Council members. Questions and concerns were expressed by Council members about the growing number of properties being rented on a daily basis and individual rooms being rented within a residence. The Planning Board’s recommended text amendments contain two main elements:

(1) Clarify that the rental of single-family residences on a daily basis accessory is permitted in the Town of Duck.

(2) Allow a property owner to rent up to two rooms within a residence on a daily basis, subject to certain conditions.

Town Council Request for Additional Notice At its public meeting on October 5, 2016, the Duck Town Council discussed the proposed text amendments and expressed questions and concerns about several aspects of the proposed ordinance. The Council members requested staff to notify neighborhood associations and local rental realty and lodging companies about the public hearing in an attempt to obtain more input from affected businesses in the community. These interested parties were notified via email on October 18, 2016.



2

Background Information It is a national trend that more property owners are renting rooms or houses on a nightly basis directly through Airbnb, VRBO, and/or other online sources. While it is difficult to determine an exact number, it appears that there are well over a thousand properties in Duck advertising daily house rentals through VRBO and a couple dozen properties in Duck advertising through Airbnb. At least several of these properties appear to be renting individual rooms. Several others appear to be renting separate units, effectively dividing a residence into a nonconforming duplex. While completing a comprehensive review of the zoning ordinance in 2004, the Duck Planning Board and Town Council developed allowances and standards for bed and breakfast inns, bed and breakfast homes, and short term rental properties. Although the term is not defined in the zoning ordinance, “Short Term Rental Homes” were added as permitted uses in all residential districts (RS-1, RS-2, and R-2). In the past, the Town of Duck has interpreted short term rentals to be homes rented on a weekly basis (consistent with common rental realty practices at the time). However, this interpretation may be somewhat dated as the rental market is changing. Rental realty companies are reporting that a greater number of customers are seeking shorter rental periods (3-4 days) rather than the traditional week-long rental, particularly during the shoulder and off-seasons. Renting individual rooms on a nightly basis can result in reclassifying a single-family residence to a lodging property or rooming house. In response to complaints in the past, Community Development staff has followed up with enforcement action in cases where properties were being used for something other than their permitted single-family residential use (such as daily room rentals, duplexes, etc.). Town Attorney Comments Town Attorney Robert Hobbs advised the Planning Board that the Town of Duck has the authority to regulate land uses, but not ownership or occupancy. Therefore, a single-family residence is still a single-family residence, whether it is being rented on an annual, monthly, weekly, or daily basis. To clarify this point, the draft ordinance proposes to remove the term “Short Term Rental Homes” from the Permitted-Prohibited Use Table and list of permitted uses in the RS-1, RS-2, and R-2 zoning districts and permit all such uses as single-family residences. Town Attorney Hobbs informed the Planning Board that they can consider the daily rental of individual rooms in a single-family residence to be a different, distinct type of land use, in the same way that many communities have adopted standards for rooming houses, boarding houses, and bed and breakfast inns. After considering alternatives that balance the interests of the broader community and individual property owners, the Planning Board prepared an ordinance that establishes a definition and standards for “rooming houses”.



3

Staff Analysis The attached draft ordinance contains provisions intended to limit potential impacts and ensure that rooming houses don’t significantly alter the character of a neighborhood or the broader community. The definition of ‘rooming houses” was provided by Town Attorney Hobbs. Staff has provided comments (in red) describing the rationale for many of the changes and standards proposed in the draft ordinance: 1. Remove all references to the term “Short Term Rental Homes”.

Per the information provided by Town Attorney Robert Hobbs, single-family residences being rented on a daily or weekly basis are still single-family residences if rented as a single dwelling unit. Therefore, there is no need to differentiate between short term rental homes and other single-family residential homes.

2. Permit rooming houses in all residential and commercial zoning districts. As residential uses are located in all residential and commercial zoning districts, it seems fair and reasonable to allow accessory rooming houses in these districts as well.

3. Allow a rooming house only as an accessory use to a single-family residence. This standard is intended to preserve the single-family residential character of neighborhoods and ensure that the rooming house is secondary to the primary use of the property as a single-family residence.

4. Allow rooming houses as a permitted use (administrative approval). Making the approval process simpler (less costly and time-consuming) through administrative approval will encourage property owners seeking to establish rooming houses.

5. Limit the size of a rooming house to two (2) rental rooms. This standard is intended to create a reasonable allowance for room rentals while maintaining the primary single-family residential use of the property.

6. Do not permit rental rooms in an accessory dwelling unit. This standard is intended to encourage accessory dwelling units to be used for long-term rental purposes (potentially providing workforce housing), rather than vacation rental units.

7. Requiring unobstructed access for parking. As the rental rooms will likely be occupied by someone unrelated to the principal dwelling unit, this standard is intended to limit conflicts between the renter(s) and residents.

8. No signs in residential zoning districts. This standard is intended to preserve the residential character of the neighborhoods in which rooming houses are located.

Duck CAMA Land Use Plan GOAL #19: Continue established single family residential development patterns. POLICY #19a: Detached residential structures are the preferred type of residential land use in Duck.



4

Regulating the rental of individual rooms is intended to ensure that the intensity of use and single-family residential character are maintained throughout residential neighborhoods in the Town of Duck. As part of its recommendation concerning any of these uses, the Planning Board made a determination that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Town’s adopted CAMA Land Use Plan. Planning Board Recommendation At its public meeting on September 14, 2016, the Duck Planning Board voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend APPROVAL of this proposed text amendment clarifying that residences can be rented on a daily basis and establishing provisions for rooming houses allowing the rental of up to two rooms within a residence. For the Town Council’s reference, a draft ordinance reflecting the Planning Board’s recommendation has been included in the packet as Attachment B. ATTACHMENTS

A. Letter of Transmittal to Town Council B. Draft Short Term Rental Ordinance


September 30, 2016 RE: Text Amendment Clarifying and Establishing Allowances for Short Term Rental Properties Dear Mayor Kingston and Duck Town Council Members: After four months of thorough review and consideration, the Duck Planning Board voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval of the attached text amendment at its regular meeting on September 14, 2016. The proposed amendment clarifies that the rental of single-family residences on a daily basis accessory is permitted in the Town of Duck. The proposed amendment also establishes provisions allowing a property owner to rent up to two rooms within a single-family residence on a daily basis, subject to conditions on parking, signage, and other issues. As part of its recommendation, the Planning Board made affirmative findings that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Town of Duck CAMA Land Use Plan. Sincerely, Joe Blakaitis, Chair Town of Duck Planning Board

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA BY ESTABLISHING

ALLOWANCES AND STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Ordinance No. 16-08

WHEREAS, the Town Council and Planning Board have found that establishing provisions for the regulation of short term rentals is reasonable and consistent with the recommendations of the Town’s adopted CAMA Core Land Use Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council and Planning Board have determined that establishing provisions for short term rentals is consistent with the Town of Duck’s 2022 Vision; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that addressing short term rentals will benefit the Town of Duck by clarifying what type of short term rental activities are permitted and establishing standards for such activities. 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 Section 156.002 with the addition of the following definition (to be added in alphabetical order): “ROOMING HOUSE. Any size dwelling, not herein designated as a Bed and Breakfast Inn or Home, in which any number of individual rooms, which do not themselves constitute separate dwelling units, are rented to one or more persons who are not part of the family that resides in the dwelling.” ********************************************************************** Eliminate separate provisions for ‘Short Term Rental Homes” by removing the following subsections of the Zoning Ordinance. Remove Subsection 156.030(B)(5) and renumber all subsequent subsections accordingly. Remove Subsection 156.031(B)(5) and renumber all subsequent subsections accordingly. Remove Subsection 156.032(B)(7) and renumber all subsequent subsections accordingly. ********************************************************************** Add rooming houses as a permitted use in the Single-Family Residential (RS-1), Single-Family Residential (RS-2), Medium Density Residential (R-2), Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), General Commercial (C-2), and Village Commercial (V-C) zoning districts with the following wording.

2

Add Subsection 156.030(B)(9), “Rooming houses, subject to the provisions of Section 156.141”. Add Subsection 156.031(B)(9), “Rooming houses, subject to the provisions of Section 156.141”. Add Subsection 156.032(B)(11), “Rooming houses, subject to the provisions of Section 156.141”. Add Subsection 156.033(B)(14), “Rooming houses, subject to the provisions of Section 156.141”. Add Subsection 156.034(B)(13), “Rooming houses, subject to the provisions of Section 156.141”. Add Subsection 156.036(B)(11), “Rooming houses, subject to the provisions of Section 156.141”. ********************************************************************** Remove the entire row entitled “Short Term Rental Homes” from under the Residential, Household Living section of the Permitted and Prohibited Use Table in Section 156.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. List “Rooming Houses” under the Residential, Group Living section of the Permitted and Prohibited Use Table in Section 156.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. Designate the use as permitted (P) in the RS-1, RS-2, R-2, C-1, C-2, S-1, and V-C columns and prohibited (X) in the C-PR and OSO columns. Cite “156.141” in the Additional Development Standards column. ********************************************************************** Add Section 156.141 with the following wording: 156.141 ROOMING HOUSES. Rooming houses are allowed as permitted uses in the Single-Family Residential (RS-1), Single-Family Residential (RS-2), Medium Density Residential (R-2), Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), General Commercial (C-2), Special (S-1), and Village Commercial (V-C) zoning districts, subject to the following standards.

(A) A rooming house can be permitted as an accessory use to the primary single- family residential use of a property. The property may contain other accessory structures and uses as permitted in this ordinance.

3

(B) The owner of a single-family residence must obtain an administrative permit from the Community Development Department in order to establish a rooming house.

(C) The owner of a single-family residence can rent up to two (2) bedrooms as a

rooming house.

(D) Individual rental rooms cannot be located in an accessory dwelling unit.

(E) Every parking space serving the rooming house guest(s) must have access unobstructed by parking spaces for the other residents of the dwelling.

(F) Signs for a rooming house are not permitted in residential (RS-1, RS-2, and R-2)

zoning districts. Signs can be permitted in commercial (C-1, C-2, S-1, and V-C) zoning districts in compliance with the sign standards for the applicable zoning district. PART II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption. ______________________ Don Kingston, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lori Ackerman, Town Clerk Date adopted: ___________________ Motion to adopt by: ____________________ Vote: AYES NAYS


ITEM #5:

Old Business There is no Old Business to discuss.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None


None

ATTACHMENTS:

None


ITEM #6:

New Business


RECOMMENDED ACTION:

See attachments


See attachments

ATTACHMENTS:

See attachments


ITEM #6A:

New Business


RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Per Discussion

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Last year, the Towns of Kitty Hawk, Southern Shores and Duck, along with the Dare County Sherrif’s Office, provided patrol officers to monitor the intersection of US 158 and NC 12 on weekend days during the summer. The purpose of this measure was to assist in the flow of traffic during this time. Recently, a request was made to the Outer Banks Tourism Bureau for funding in the amount of $25,000 to assist in the cost of stationing patrol officers in this area. The Tourism Bureau has not yet acted upon this request. Concurrent with the request to the Tourism Bureau, the Dare County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution asking the State Police to position troopers at the intersection, in lieu of the patrol officers. In previous meetings with the State Police, they have declined to participate in the efforts due to lack of staffing. From a Duck specific perspective, the costs of placing Duck patrol officers at the intersection is minimal; however, there are issues related to staffing with doing so. The Council is being asked to discuss the issue and take actions that it feels is appropriate.

ATTACHMENTS:

Resolution 16-09 Dare County Resolution 16-10-30

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA, REQUESTING SUMMER TRAFFIC CONTROL FROM THE NC HIGHWAY PATROL

Resolution #16-09

WHEREAS, an important part of the tourism dollars that are generated for the State of North

Carolina derive from visitation to the Outer Banks that occurs on weekends from Memorial Day to Labor Day; and

WHEREAS, weekend visitation during the summer season creates congestion and traffic problems that cause gridlock conditions at the intersection of Highway 158 and NC 12 in front of the Aycock Brown Welcome Center in Kitty Hawk; and

WHEREAS, the conditions that exist during summer weekends pose a serious threat to public safety not only at the Welcome Center intersection, but extend for miles in each direction, which results in backups and gridlock that stretch out through much of Currituck County on Highway 158 and to Corolla on NC 12; and

WHEREAS, the weekend gridlock that occurs at the Highway 158 and NC 12 intersection not

only causes extreme backups and delays for motorists in both Dare and Currituck counties, it impedes emergency access for ambulances and other public safety vehicles; and

WHEREAS, during the summer of 2016, law enforcement agencies collaborated to assist with

traffic control at the intersection of Highway 158 and NC 12 which included the North Carolina Highway Patrol on two weekends. This joint effort resulted in dramatically improved conditions and reduced gridlock that has endangered the visitor experience and jeopardized public safety; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Duck believes that the presence of law

enforcement at the intersection of Highway 158 and NC 12 during summer weekends has proven to be successful and should be continued; and

WHEREAS, Dare County and its municipalities are not able to continually provide the total law

enforcement resources that are required to provide weekend traffic control during summer weekends at the Welcome Center intersection without seriously jeopardizing our ability to respond to other emergencies that occur in our communities during the peak visitation season.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF DUCK, NORTH CAROLINA, THIS 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016, respectfully requests that the North Carolina Highway Patrol provide traffic control assistance during summer weekends at the intersection of Highway 158 and NC 12 and use its professional and highly trained personnel to assist the many motorists traveling to the Outer Banks of North Carolina as a matter of public safety and help preserve the tourism revenue stream that is in the best economic interest in North Carolina. Adopted this 2nd Day of November, 2016.

Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk


ITEM #7:

Items Referred To and Presentations from the Town Attorney

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Per discussion


None

ATTACHMENTS:

None


ITEM #8: Items Referred to and Presentations from the Town Manager




D. Dare County Resolution Requesting Summer Traffic Control from

the NC Highway Patrol

E. Financial Statements for October FY 2017

RECOMMENDED ACTION: See attachments


See attachments

ATTACHMENTS:

See attachments


ITEM #8A: Items Referred To and Presentations from the Town Manager


RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None required

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Town Council will receive an update on departmental activities

ATTACHMENTS:

Will be provided at the meeting


ITEM #8B: Items Referred To and Presentations from the Town Manager


RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None required

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Town Manager will provide an update for the Council on the Town of Duck Beach Nourishment Project.

ATTACHMENTS:

None


ITEM #8C: Items Referred To and Presentations from the Town Manager


RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None Required

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Town Manager will update Council regarding Hurricane Matthew.

ATTACHMENTS:

None


ITEM #8D: Items Referred To and Presentations from the Town Manager

D. Financial Statement for October FY 2017

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None required

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Town Manager will provide the Council with an overview of the October FY 2017 financial reports.

ATTACHMENTS:

October FY 2017 Financial Statement October FY 2017 Beach Activities Report October FY 2017 Beach Nourishment Capital Project Report

FY 2016 FY 2017 % FY 2016 FY 2017 % FY 2016 FY 2017 %REVENUE Actual Budgeted Change October October Change YTD YTD Change

Ad Valorem $3346.4 $3307.8 -1% $275.1 $271.7 -1% $1032.0 $1012.0 -2%MSDA $632.1 $632.2 0% $55.6 $66.2 19% $175.7 $199.7 14%MSDB $346.0 $341.3 -1% $39.5 $38.3 -3% $117.9 $106.6 -10%

Sub-Tot Advalorem Taxes: $4324.4 $4281.3 -1% $370.1 $376.2 2% $1325.7 $1318.3 -1%Sales Tax $1025.6 $1133.5 11% $143.1 $185.1 29% $357.9 $449.2 25%

Transfer Tax $270.3 $293.0 8% $64.8 $77.2 19% $64.8 $77.2 19%Occupancy Tax $1083.0 $1239.4 14% $111.4 $0.0 -100% $672.8 $697.6 4%

Sub-Total Other Taxes: $2378.9 $2665.9 12% $319.3 $262.3 -18% $1095.5 $1223.9 12%Beer and Wine $1.7 $1.5 -12% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

Utility Franchise Tax $375.8 $290.0 -23% $0.0 $0.0 0% $89.1 $80.7 -9%Sub-Total Unrest Intergov: $377.5 $291.5 -23% $0.0 $0.0 0% $89.1 $80.7 -9%

Visitors' Bureau Grant $6.0 $6.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0% $3.0 $0.0 -100%DENR Public Access Grant $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

State Grants $10.3 $33.1 -100% $0.0 $8.6 100% $0.0 $8.6 100%Shoreline Grant $503.3 $24.0 -95% $0.0 $0.0 0% $24.0 $0.0 -100%

PARTF Grant $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%Cable Channel Grant $10.0 $0.0 -100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

Federal Grants $1.0 $0.0 -100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0% Substance Excise Tax $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

FEMA Grants $0.0 $0.0 -100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%Sub-Tot Rest Intergov: $530.7 $63.1 -88% $0.0 $8.6 100% $27.0 $8.6 -68%

Building Permits $110.9 $95.2 -14% $11.4 $16.0 40% $37.1 $31.0 -16%Inspection Fees $41.9 $30.0 -28% $1.8 $1.9 11% $9.6 $12.1 26%

Other Permits $17.7 $15.0 -15% $0.3 $0.6 77% $2.8 $5.3 90%Sub-Total Permits & Fees: $170.5 $140.2 -18% $13.5 $18.6 27% $49.5 $48.4 -2%

Mixed Beverage Tax $38.0 $36.0 -5% $12.4 $12.3 -1% $12.4 $12.3 -1%ABC Distribution $21.2 $15.0 -29% $8.9 $6.3 -29% $8.9 $6.3 -29%

Other $114.6 $79.0 -31% $10.5 $7.7 -26% $32.6 $33.1 2%Sub-Total Miscellaneous: $173.8 $130.0 -25% $31.7 $26.3 -17% $53.8 $51.6 -4%

Interfund Transfers $0.0 $118.0 100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%Fund Balance $265.0 $0.0 100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

Debt Proceeds $204.5 $0.0 100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%Sub-Tot Non-Rev Receipts: $469.5 $118.0 100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

Tot General Fund Rev: $8425.3 $7690.0 -9% $734.6 $691.9 -6% $2640.5 $2731.5 3%

FY 2016 FY 2017 % FY 2016 FY 2017 % FY 2016 FY 2017 %EXPENDITURES YTD Budgeted Change October October Change YTD YTD Change

Governing Body $150.8 $206.3 37% $4.1 $2.4 -42% $86.9 $119.3 37%Administration $410.4 $459.3 12% $27.2 $34.2 26% $127.0 $147.5 16%

Finance $65.4 $73.0 12% $5.6 $5.7 2% $20.1 $19.9 -1%Legal $61.5 $65.0 6% $0.0 $0.0 0% $15.5 $15.8 2%

Public Buildings $416.2 $391.7 -6% $8.0 $6.2 -23% $29.5 $30.8 4%Information Technology $108.1 $117.1 8% $12.4 $5.8 -54% $32.1 $31.2 -3%Sub-Total Gen Gov: $1212.3 $1312.4 8% $57.3 $54.2 -5% $311.1 $364.5 17%

Police $1110.4 $1065.6 -4% $62.1 $72.6 17% $302.9 $418.7 38%Fire $987.9 $999.8 1% $86.8 $52.2 -40% $323.1 $333.9 3%

Inspections $183.0 $172.0 -6% $10.5 $12.1 15% $46.9 $66.0 41%Ocean Rescue $323.0 $343.5 6% $40.0 $40.0 -100% $240.0 $240.0 0%

Sub-Total Public Safety: $2604.3 $2581.0 -1% $199.4 $177.0 -11% $912.9 $1058.6 16%Streets and Highways $473.6 $262.2 -45% $0.0 $5.8 100% $143.7 $55.2 -62%

Sub-Total Transportation: $473.6 $262.2 -45% $0.0 $5.8 100% $143.7 $55.2 -62%Sanitation $937.8 $940.0 0% $79.2 $87.6 11% $251.2 $257.2 2%

Beach Management $69.7 $193.0 177% $21.7 $0.0 -100% $29.9 $0.0 -100%Sub-Total Envmntal Prot: $1007.5 $1133.0 12% $100.9 $87.6 -13% $281.1 $257.2 -9%Community Development $203.1 $218.1 7% $21.6 $16.5 -23% $72.3 $70.9 -2%

Sub-Tot Econ & Phys Dev.: $203.1 $218.1 7% $21.6 $16.5 -23% $72.3 $70.9 -2%Parks $538.9 $542.7 1% $13.1 $18.6 42% $123.4 $128.7 4%

Sub-Tot Cult & Recreat: $538.9 $542.7 1% $13.1 $18.6 42% $123.4 $128.7 4%Capital Outlays $71.2 $0.0 -100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $24.6 $0.0 -100%

Sub-Total Capital Outlays: $71.2 $0.0 -100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $24.6 $0.0 0%Transfers $1221.4 $1221.4 0% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

Contingency $0.0 $39.5 100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%Fund Balance $0.0 $379.9 100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

Sub-Tot Budgetary Acc: $1221.4 $1640.7 100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

Tot General Fd Expend: $7332.4 $7690.0 5% $392.3 $359.7 -8% $1869.2 $1935.1 4%

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Ad‐Valorem Taxes

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Other Taxes ‐ Shared Revenues

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Permits and Fees

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000

$2,000,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Total Revenues

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Key Indicators

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

General Government

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

Public Safety

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

Sanitation

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

Total Expenditures

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Town of Duck General Fund

FY 2017(in thousands)

Occupancy Tax not received as of the date of this report

These NC Arts Council Grant funds will have to be returned due to the cancellation of the Jazz Festival

Expenditure Report

Beach Management Activities

Through October 2016

Beach Nourishment

Previous Years Expenditures Task

$40,000.00 Beach Profile Surveys ‐ ACOE

$40,956.94 Erosion Study ‐ CP&E

$67,537.03 Erosion Study ‐ CP&E

$148,493.97 sub‐total previous years

FY 2014 Budget Expenditures Task

$212,410 $212,410.19 Permitting, Engineering ‐ CP&E

$16,984 $16,984.39 Sand Search/Borrow Area

$30,860 $30,859.50 initial sand search

$25,150 $6,207.50 Legal

$285,404 $266,461.58 sub‐total FY 2014



$309,639 $309,629.61 Sand Search/Borrow Area

$0 $20,228.25 Additional Topo Survey

$30,000 $0.00 Carter & Associates

$40,000 $50,161.45 Legal

$500,683 $498,203.98 sub‐total FY 2015



$34,554.50 Sand Search/Borrow Area

$16,084.00 Beach Profile Surveys

$12,500 $12,500.00 LGC Fee

$10,000 $16,170.99 Legal

$82,500 $82,654.03 sub‐total FY 2016

$111,666 $111,331.24 Pre‐Construction Services

Funded Directly by Dare County

Total B.N. Costs to Date: $1,107,144.80

Funding Provided By Dare Couny $55,867.92 FY 2012

$242,962.29 FY 2014

$479,316.00 FY 2016

$111,331.24 Directly Funded by D.C.

Total Funding from Dare County: $889,477.45

$217,667.35 Town Funded

See Attached Beach Nourishment Capital Project Report for Current Project Breakdown

Beach Planting


$71,200 $71,172.00 beach grass/sea oats planting

FY 2017 Budget

$75,000.00 $0.00 beach grass/sea oats planting

Expenditure Report

Beach Nourishment Capital Project

Through October 2016

Beach Nourishment Capital Project

Revenues Oct‐16 Total to Date

$6,963,000 $1,416.62 $6,968,367.88 Bond Proceeds

$7,094,929 $0.00 $111,331.24 County Funding

$14,057,929 $1,416.62 $7,079,699.12

Expenditures Oct‐16 Total to Date

$12,927,069 $0.00 $0.00 Construction

$157,471 $0.00 $0.00 Construction Management

$26,473 $0.00 $0.00 Turtle Monitoring

$861,666 $0.00 $111,331.24 Preconstruction Costs

$85,250 $0.00 $72,703.39 Professional Services ‐ Other

$14,057,929 $0.00 $184,034.63

balance $6,895,664.49


ITEM #9:

Mayor’s Agenda

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None


None

ATTACHMENTS:

None


ITEM #10:

Council Members’ Agenda

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None


None

ATTACHMENTS:

None


ITEM #11:

Other Business

A. Additional Public Comments

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None required


Council will take additional comments from the public.

ATTACHMENTS:

None


ITEM #12:

Adjournment

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Per discussion

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The next meeting will be the Mid-Month Meeting on Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 1:00 p.m.

ATTACHMENTS:

None

Agenda Town of Duck Council Paul F. Keller Meeting Hall ... · 11/2/2016 · minimal additional...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda Town of Duck Council Paul F. Keller Meeting Hall ... · 11/2/2016 · minimal additional...