Sandy Cross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lori Kopec
Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:05 PM
Chris Layton; Andy Garman
Fwd: NO! on raising the bldg. height
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Nancy and Matt Cross <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2014 at 4:44:05 PM EST
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: NO! on raising the bldg. height
Pls do not allow this in Duck! Will make it look like Nags Head and Kill Devil
Hills!!! NO!!
Thanks for sending the information.
Nancy and Matt Cross
Carolina Dunes
Whistling Swan
1
Sandy Cross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lori Kopec
Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:49 PM
Chris Layton; Andy Garman
FW: Proposed Maximum Building Height Increase
From: Corrie Bovier [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:25 PM
To: Info Account
Cc: Liz Askew; Mike (home) Myers; Mike (home) Myers; Susan Bruno; [email protected]; Corrie Bovier
Subject: Proposed Maximum Building Height Increase
To:
The Town of Duck
Re:
Proposed Maximum Building Height Increase
Public Hearing
The Duck Blind Villas Homeowners Association strongly objects to any increase in the town
of Duck's maximum building height. We believe a change would negatively affect the
character of Duck. The current non commercial, family oriented atmosphere of Duck should
be maintained. It is a major reason why owners and guests enjoy visiting Duck. Raising
the maximum building height in Duck would set a precedent and encourage further
commercialization. This would be inconsistent with Duck's previous decision to limit the
size of homes (i.e number of bedrooms).
We respectfully ask that you disallow the proposal to change maximum building height.
Thank you,
Duck Blind Villas Homeowners Association
Corrine G Bovier, President
Michael Myers, Vice President
Susan Bruno, Secretary
1
Sandy Cross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tim Hilton <[email protected]>
Monday, February 24, 2014 6:31 AM
Andy Garman; Lori Kopec
Chris Layton; Sandy Cross
RE: Town Council - zoning
Andy, Thanks for your response. My only comment on that is that once an exception is made for one it is extremely difficult to keep it from happening again. I know this from experience. Tim Hilton From: Andy Garman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:17 AM
To: Lori Kopec; [email protected]
Cc: Chris Layton; Sandy Cross
Subject: RE: Town Council - zoning
Mr. Hilton, Thank you for your comments. We will make sure they are received by the Planning Board and Duck Town Council as they discuss this issue. A link to the staff report on this item is below for your reference. So you know, the height amendment would apply only to the Sanderling Inn property and nowhere else in town. Please contact me if you have further questions about this application. http://www.townofduck.com/planningboardagendas/2014/PB_agenda2014‐02‐12item4c.pdf Andy Garman Director of Community Development Town of Duck 252‐255‐1234 From: Tim Hilton < > Date: February 17, 2014 at 3:01:35 PM EST To: <[email protected]> Subject: Town Council ‐ zoning Dear Town Council: Please keep Duck like it is, or should be, and reject the zoning request to increase the height of commercial buildings for hotels from 35 to 52 feet, ZTA 14‐001 Section 156.034 (D)(6). Duck has done a fairly good job of keeping what makes Duck so attractive and desirable; please don’t open the gates and allow a change that will alter what is special about our community. I don’t know the background about the Wings building but it is an eye sore to our community and everything should be done to prevent any further deterioration . The quality and looks of our Town Hall is a great example of what the potential of our community is and should be. Thank you for listening. Thomas B. Hilton 1
17 Diane Street Northpoint 2
Sandy Cross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Walter Lischick <[email protected]>
Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:09 PM
Andy Garman
Re: Zoning changes
Thanks for your reply. I just think it does not fit into Duck's image. Thanks Walt Lischick
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 18, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Andy Garman <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Lischick,
Thank you for your comments. We will make sure they are received by the Planning Board and
Duck Town Council as they discuss this issue. A link to the staff report on this item is below for
your reference. So you know, the height amendment would apply only to the Sanderling Inn
property and nowhere else in town. Please contact me if you have further questions about this
application.
http://www.townofduck.com/planningboardagendas/2014/PB_agenda2014-02-12item4c.pdf
Andy Garman
Director of Community Development
Town of Duck
252-255-1234
From: Walter Lischick <[email protected]>
Date: February 17, 2014 at 4:03:45 PM EST
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Zoning changes
I am opposed to the zoning changes brought to City Council. The height
restriction should be maintained to keep the look of Duck. I own three properties
in Duck. Thanks Walt Lischick
Sent from my iPhone
1
Sandy Cross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lori Kopec
Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:36 AM
Chris Layton; Andy Garman
Fwd: News from the Town of Duck - Saltaire HOA eMail Bulletin
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Linda Richards <[email protected]>
Date: February 19, 2014 at 9:34:50 AM EST
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Nancy Johnson
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: News from the Town of Duck - Saltaire HOA eMail Bulletin
To Whom It May Concern:
This writing is to express our opposition to the first‐listed application (i.e., ZTA 14‐001) in the e‐mail (below).
It is imperative to keep in mind that one of the most appealing features of Duck is its quaintness and its lack of high‐rise buildings! Visitors and property owners, alike, retreat to Duck because it offers a comparative tranquil environment. To permit the construction of such tall hotels/buildings will undoubtedly undermine, and ultimately destroy, not only the natural beauty of the area, but also that for which Duck is so greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Property owners/137 Marlene Drive, Duck
Walter and Linda Richards
James and Nancy Johnson
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:57 AM To: [email protected]; Linda Richards Subject: Fwd: News from the Town of Duck ‐ Saltaire HOA eMail Bulletin
----------Original Message---------From: "Zaniah Conley"
Date: Feb 17, 2014 2:59:42 PM
Subject: News from the Town of Duck - Saltaire HOA eMail Bulletin
To: "Linda Richards" <[email protected]>
1
News from the Town of Duck
Date: 2/17/2014
Town Council to Hold Public Hearings on Wednesday, March 5, 2014 at 7:00
p.m.
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 at 7:00 p.m., the Town Council of the Town of Duck will
conduct public hearings to consider the following applications:
ZTA 14-001 – Application for a zoning text amendment by Mr. Michael Strader, P.E. of Quible
& Associates, P.C., on behalf of FMC/NV Sanderling SPE, LLC, to amend the zoning ordinance
of the Town of Duck, North Carolina pertaining to maximum building height in the C-2 General
Commercial zoning district – Town Code Section 156.034 (D)(6). The proposed amendment
would increase the maximum building height in the district from 35 feet to 52 feet for hotel
buildings with roof pitches 6:12 or greater.
ZMA 14-001 – Application for a zoning map amendment by Mr. E. Paul Breaux Jr., property
owner, to rezone the property at 1316 Duck Road, PIN [995015620749] from C-1 Neighborhood
Commercial to VC Village Commercial.
SE 14-001 – Application for a special exception permit by Mr. and Mrs. Thomas and Diane
Duggan, property owners of 159 Four Seasons Lane, PIN 986913133054, to allow a 8’ side yard
setback where a 10’ side yard setback is normally required in order to permit the encroachment
of an accessory structure. This application request will be considered using the standards
contained under Town Code Section 156.054 –Special Exceptions for Specified Improvements to
Single-Family Dwellings in Existence on July 1, 2003.
Any person may appear or be represented by an agent to present comments on these items.
Written comments may be submitted to the Town Council, Town of Duck, P.O. Box 8369, 1200
Duck Road, Duck, North Carolina 27949 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Staff reports
will be available approximately five days in advance of the meeting. To receive the staff report
you can contact the Town Clerk at the mailing address above or at 252-255-1234. You can also
download the meeting agenda and staff report at www.townofduck.com/towncouncil/.
Town Council
DATE: Wednesday, March 5, 2014
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Town of Duck Offices
1200 Duck Road
Duck, NC 27949
Please click HERE to visit the Saltaire HOA web site.
2
Sandy Cross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Skladany Jr., Barney <[email protected]>
Monday, February 24, 2014 9:29 AM
Andy Garman
Roof height proposal
February 24, 2014 Dear Chairman Blakaitis and members of the Town of Duck Council Members and Planning Board— We in the four‐townhouse Salthouse Homeowners Association endeavor to be as good a neighbor as possible to our friends at the Sanderling Resort. We believe that the resort personnel and ownership would acknowledge that we have been extremely cooperative with regard to all of their previous requests. It is therefore with great reluctance that we have concluded we must oppose the proposed roof height change. We believe we are the property most directly negatively impacted by the Sanderling Resort’s proposed roof height change. The Salthouses are the property directly adjacent to the resort on its north boundary next door to the North Building for which the proposed change is being put forward. The North Building is just fifty to sixty feet away from the balconies of our four homes. We are extremely concerned that our sight lines, already hampered by previous structures having recently been built, enlarged or having had a second floor added , will be further impacted in an adverse manner.
In addition to our concern about our sight lines, we believe that damage that would be done to the ambience of the entire Duck community. The unmatchable charm of all of Duck and especially the area near the resort are due in large measure to the low sight lines which allow residents and guests to be witnesses to the magnificent sunsets and glorious night skies. Structures can be managed, the skies cannot. We share in the pride of all of Duck that our sunsets are considered, and have indeed been voted, the most beautiful on the East Coast. Why should the view of just a few on a single new floor come at the price of changing the view for countless others? We have already witnessed a number of changes‐‐ a taller structure for the soundside restaurant (originally The Left Bank and now Kimball’s Kitchen), a gym club on the sound with a second floor and finally, a second floor that was just added to the resort’s new maintenance building which itself was just constructed in the summer of 2013. The first two of these actions impinged upon our southward view of the sound and the third, affected our southward view of the ocean. We respectfully request as an absolute last resort ONLY that if some change is judged by the council to be necessary and appropriate, that the new floor of rooms be added to the resort’s South Building rather than to the North Building which as noted earlier, is just feet from our homes. Applying any change to the South Building would at least leave that change occurring where its most direct impact is upon the resort’s own properties, i.e. its single homes on the south end of the resort’s property. We know that the South Building is already three stories high but if the proposed change to the North Building would make it the tallest structure on the resort’s property, then we feel a fourth floor should instead be added to the South Building. We are also very concerned with any possible changes that might need to be made to accommodate the additional guests that would result form the addition of new rooms. 1
If, despite our strong objections, the change or some version of it is judged to be appropriate for approval, we request that the following, in addition to the request that the new rooms be added as a fourth floor on the resort’s South Building as discussed above, also be considered‐‐ ‐‐that like the council’s staff, we believe the pitched roof and cupolas are critical to the ambience and that any height change must therefore incorporate into the maximum height that might be agreed to, the necessary footage needed to preserve the pitch and cupolas ‐‐that the height change apply only to the North Building as it PRESENTLY exists and not to any future expansion of the North Building or any other structure which might subsequently be built by the resort on the north end of its property between the resort and our homes ‐‐that the roof height change not apply to the resort’s existing maintenance shed or to any of the resort‐controlled structures on the sound side, i.e. restaurant, pavilion, etc. ‐‐that the resort repair all damage to its landscaping that might be done as part of construction of a new floor on the North Building; that landscaping was part of an agreement filed with the county between the resort and our association in a December, 2012 ‐‐that this proposed change in no way bring in any new lighting from the north that does not comply with the current requirements to preserve the dark sky. Sincerely, Barney J. Skladany President, Salthouse Homeowners Association (on behalf of Patricia and Edward Giles, Larry and Ramona Atkins and Linda Skladany) 1475 Duck Road Duck, North Carolina (703) 548 9420 _______________________________________________
IRS Circular 230 Notice Requirement: This communication is not given in the form of a covered
opinion, within the meaning of Circular 230 issued by the United States Secretary of the Treasury.
Thus, we are required to inform you that you cannot rely upon any tax advice contained in this
communication for the purpose of avoiding United States federal tax penalties. In addition, any tax
advice contained in this communication may not be used to promote, market or recommend a
transaction to another party.
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential
use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
2
Sandy Cross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Joseph C. Blakaitis <[email protected]>
Friday, March 07, 2014 1:42 PM
Andy Garman
Fw: Proposed Height Amendment/Sanderling Inn
Andy, I trust you have seen this comment for planning Board, if time to get in packet put it in. I hope you got Steve Alterman's comment also because they were very good. Joe Blakaitis ‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐ From: "Joseph C. Blakaitis" <[email protected]> To: "Marcia A. Wilson" <[email protected]> Cc: "Chris Layton" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 1:32 PM Subject: Re: Proposed Height Amendment/Sanderling Inn > Marcia, > Thank you for your input on this subject. We will include these comments > in our deliberations next week. > > Joe Blakaitis > Chairman, Planning Board > > > ‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐ > From: "Marcia A. Wilson" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: "Chris Layton" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 1:04 PM > Subject: Proposed Height Amendment/Sanderling Inn > > > To: Joe Blakitis, Planning Board, Town of Duck, NC > > Joe: We are writing to voice our opinion and concerns regarding the > proposed amendment to building height which has been submitted by > representatives of the Sanderling Inn. > > We understand that the building height amendment has no impact on > residential building height, but is being requested for buildings zoned > C‐2 of which the Sanderling Inn is the only property in Duck that this > amendment will impact at this time. However, we understand that if > passed, this amendment will apply to any new structures zoned C‐2 in the > Town of Duck in the future. > We have been part time residents and homeowners in Sanderling Community > for the past 14 years. Our home (not a rental) is located about 5 doors 1
> south of the Sanderling Inn on Station Bay Drive. We strongly object to > the amendment that is being proposed by the Sanderling Inn for several > reasons: > > First, if this amendment is approved, it will significantly impact the > architectural look, density and views around the Sanderling Inn; and if > applied to other structures in Duck in the future, it could adversely > impact and destroy the beautiful views, existing site lines and “village” > character of the Town of Duck. > > Second, we assume the intention of this amendment is to allow the > Sanderling Inn to add an additional floor to its’ existing two story > buildings, thus increasing their occupancy and revenue stream. Beyond the > architectural considerations that the increased mass of these structures > would create, our major concerns are what comes with the increased > occupancy including the added traffic (which is already out of control and > dangerous in season), the parking limitations on the existing site, and > the environmental and waste disposal issues that come with the increased > density. Traffic concerns not only include the increased traffic that > impacts the surrounding area, but the number of cars attempting to enter > and exit the Inn parking lot. It is already a dangerous situation, > compounded by the number of Inn residents on foot frequently crossing RT > 12 to access the Inn facilities on the sound side. > > Third, the added seasonal and special event population generated by the > Inn does have an impact on our neighborhood, especially Station Bay Drive, > and it has only gotten worse over time and with the new management. Their > ongoing use of Station Bay Drive (a private neighborhood road) for their > construction equipment, maintenance trucks, septic trucks and delivery > trucks (very often tractor trailers entering and exiting at a high rate of > speed) is beyond dangerous. Because of our proximity to the beach walkway > and the entrance to Station Bay Drive, we witness a lot of this activity. > The Inn management has been asked to put a stop to this use of our > neighborhood road, but considering the poorly designed and undersized > delivery area off Rt 12 behind the Life Saving Station Restaurant, truck > drivers would rather illegally use our residential road to complete their > deliveries. It appears that the Inn would rather endanger and > inconvenience residents on our street than have the trucks pull up in > front of their Inn and inconvenience their guests. In season, when there > are numerous walkers, bikers and children running back and forth to the > beach, the Inn’s ongoing use of our street for their commercial deliveries > is an accident waiting to happen. If their structures expand, we can only > assume this activity will only get worse. > > If the Inn is seeking this amendment to increase its’ occupancy and expand > its’ bottom line, they are a business and that’s understandable, but not > if the cost is to the future character of the Town of Duck and the safety > and the right to quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. > > Thank you for your consideration of our concerns as your debate this > amendment. > 2
> Joel and Marcia Wilson > 104 Station Bay Drive= 3
Sandy Cross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lori Kopec
Monday, February 17, 2014 9:37 AM
Chris Layton; Andy Garman
Fwd: ZTA 14-001
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Paul V Zehfuss <[email protected]>
Date: February 17, 2014 at 9:15:48 AM EST
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Subject: ZTA 14-001
Dear Monica Thibodeau (Mayor Pro Tempore), Don Kingston (Mayor),
Nancy Caviness, Chuck Burdick and Jon Britt
While as property owners but not permanent residents of Duck, we realize that our input into your decision
making process is limited we would like to express our opposition to the Application for a zoning text
amendment by Mr. Michael Strader, P.E.
We firmly believe that the current building restriction preserves the town atmosphere and increasing it to
the 52' as proposed will permit the construction of hotels and other buildings that will block access and
views from private residences throughout Duck and Sanderling.
Additionally, once such an amendment or even variance is granted in one case it is only a matter of time
until the 52' building height will become standard changing forever, in a negative manner, the small town
that we already seen undergo many changes, some good, some bad, over the last 58 years.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul V.
and Sitta M.
Zehfuss
, 1322 Duck Road, Duck NC
1