Agenda

Town of Duck Council Paul F. Keller Meeting Hall

November 1, 2017 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 4, 2017, Regular Meeting

B. Budget Amendments

4. Old Business/Items Deferred from Previous Meetings

A. Discussion/Consideration of Authorizing a Public Hearing on Ordinance

17-13, an Ordinance to Amend Subsection 156.058 of the Zoning Ordinance by Clarifying the Approval Process for Stealth Antennas and Updating Standards for Small Wireless Facilities

B. Update on Dare County Flood Maps 5. New Business

A. Discussion/Consideration of Ordinance #17-14, an Ordinance of the Town

Council of the Town of Duck, North Carolina, Amending Chapter 72: Parking Schedules of the Town of Duck Code of Ordinances by Adding the Tuckahoe Subdivision

B. Discussion/Consideration of a Request to Authorize Community Development Staff to Work with the Planning Board on Amendments to the Duck Town Code Intended to Bring Town Regulations into Compliance with Recently Adopted State Legislation

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

A. Update on Departmental Activities

B. Update on Beach Nourishment Project

November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting (continued)

____________________

7. Items Referred to and Presentations from the Town Manager (continued) C. Update on Phase I of the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan

D. Update on Director of Public Information, Events and Marketing Position

E. Financial Statements for October FY 2018

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

A. Additional Public Comments 11. Adjournment

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 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

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #2: Public Comments

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None required.

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

ATTACHMENTS:

None

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #3:

Consent Agenda

A. Minutes from the October 4, 2017, Regular Meeting B. Budget Amendments

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 4, 2017, Regular Meeting and budget amendments. The budget amendment appropriates $22,500 in grant funds from the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources for design and planning related to an erosion control project in the Town Park and also appropriates $20,000 from the Beach Nourishment Capital Reserve Fund for additional sand fencing in the beach nourishment project area. Council is asked to approve the minutes and budget amendments as presented.

ATTACHMENTS: October 4, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes Budget Amendment Sheet

1

TOWN OF DUCK TOWN COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING October 4, 2017

The Town Council for the Town of Duck convened at the Paul F. Keller Meeting Hall at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 4, 2017. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Don Kingston; Mayor Pro Tempore Monica Thibodeau; Councilor Nancy Caviness; Council Chuck Burdick; and Councilor Jon Britt. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None. 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 7:06 p.m. He asked Master Police Officer Joe Knight to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Kingston led the moment of silence. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Kingston opened the floor for public comments. He asked that any comments regarding the public hearings be held off. Lisa Mann of 1216 Duck Road was recognized to speak. Ms. Mann stated that she was present to address the issue of public restrooms. She stated that the Town has provided a great resource with the boardwalk and beautiful public restrooms at Town Hall. She noted that her store – Beach Treasures – provides public restrooms as well. She stated that she has seen with the influx of people using the boardwalk, that there weren’t enough public restrooms in Town. She noted that most of the stores do not make their restrooms available to the general public. She stated that she did not have a solution to the problem other than providing more public restrooms. She added that she wasn’t sure if it was possible for there to be any type of regulation stating that there has to be adequate restroom facilities in each store and shopping center. She stated that the most effective sign that she has is a very small “Welcome, Public Restrooms Inside”. She stated that there have been incidents where people cannot make it to the restroom when they cannot find an available restroom in a store. She thought there could be a solution achieved somehow, but wasn’t sure how. Lou Ann Jewell of 109 East Tuckahoe Drive was recognized to speak. Ms. Jewell stated that Currituck County was looking at adopting an ordinance regarding beach holes. She stated that she would like to see Duck adopt the same ordinance. She explained that the

2

beach holes were very big over the summer and were dangerous. She stated that even though the Town’s website states that holes need to be filled in, people do not always do so. She reiterated that she would like to see the Town adopt an ordinance regarding beach holes. Henry Blaha of 121 Ocean Bay Boulevard was recognized to speak. Mr. Blaha stated that he was on the original Land Use Committee in Duck where the committee met for a year and laid out what should and should not be allowed in Duck. He stated that he had an issue with the trash collection. He noted that he didn’t have an issue with the trash collection being inefficient, it was that during the summer there was too much traffic due to the trash trucks in Town. He suggested that Council do what the Town of Nags Head does in the summer and have the trash trucks service the Town around 4:00-5:00 a.m. in order to avoid so much traffic on the road. He noted that while it was a minor request, it would save some aggravation for the citizens. He thought it would be an answer to improve things which would show that Council was doing something to improve things in Duck. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Kingston closed the time for public comments. Police Chief John Cueto was recognized to speak. Police Chief Cueto recognized First Sergeant Jeffrey Ackerman. He read a short biography on First Sergeant Ackerman to Council and the audience. Police Chief Cueto recognized Town Clerk Lori Ackerman. Town Clerk Ackerman swore in First Sergeant Ackerman as the Town of Duck Police Department’s newest Lieutenant. Town Clerk Ackerman then proceeded to pin Lieutenant Ackerman’s badge on his uniform. Mayor Kingston congratulated Lieutenant Ackerman. Police Chief Cueto introduced Police Officer John Gilreath as the newest officer for the Town of Duck to Council and the audience. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes from the September 6, 2017, Regular Meeting Councilor Caviness moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion carried 5-0. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Employee Service Recognition Program Recipient Mayor Kingston stated that in December, 2011, Council had adopted an employee service recognition program that would acknowledge the service of employees of the Town at

3

five year intervals by providing them with a certificate of recognition as well as a gift certificate in the amount of $50 at a Duck business of their choosing. Mayor Kingston, Town Manager Layton and Police Chief Cueto went on to present a certificate to Master Police Officer Joe Knight. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing/Discussion/Consideration of Ordinance 17-10, an Ordinance to Amend Subsection 156.124(C)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance with Standards Allowing Post and Rail and Post and Rope Improvements for Dune Walkovers within the Beach Nourishment Project Area 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 Heard to give a presentation. Director of Community Development Joe Heard was recognized to speak. Director Heard stated that at Council’s July 5, 2017 meeting, there was discussion about the challenges of accessing the beach for people with physical handicaps or limited mobility. He noted that Council requested that the Community Development Department work with the Planning Board to evaluate options for providing greater accessibility for people with limited mobility. Director Heard stated that at Council’s July 5, 2017 meeting, Council discussed several different alternatives, such as allowing post and rope barriers, railings, or wooden walkways down the eastern side of the dune, but decided to adopt the gentler approach recommended by the Planning Board, which was beach access matting, as the initial step; however, Council requested that the Community Development Department work with the Planning Board to evaluate options for providing better access for people with limited mobility. Director Heard stated that at its meeting on July 12, 2017, the Planning Board discussed a variety of issues and options relating to providing more convenient beach access for people with limited mobility. He pointed out that the following specific issues were discussed and addressed:

1. Due to the height of the dunes, narrow width of the beach accesses, and maximum slope standards for handicap ramps, it is unlikely that any community beach access will be able to accommodate complete ADA handicap access. So, the Planning Board focused on standards to improve access for people with lesser mobility limitations.

4

2. It was noted that beach access matting and planting vegetation will help guide people to stay on the beach access pathway while not disturbing other parts of the dune.

3. While helpful for keeping people on the pathway, sand fencing and post and rope structures will not provide physical support for individuals with mobility limitations.

4. The consensus of the Planning Board was that an allowance for a single railing adjoining the beach access pathway will provide physical support for individuals with mobility limitations, while minimizing impacts on the dune system.

5. This allowance will apply to community and individual beach accesses.

6. These standards will apply only in the beach nourishment area; however, it is understood that similar improvements area already permitted elsewhere along the oceanfront.

7. The concept of allowing special exception applications to consider additional access solutions on individual lots was discussed, but not recommended by the Planning Board at this time.

Director Heard stated that at its August 9, 2017 meeting, the Planning Board considered a draft ordinance allowing a single post and rope structure to be constructed on the east face of the primary dune to provide support for people accessing the beach. He added that after expressing their agreement with this concept, the Planning Board members discussed details for the design of such structures. He noted that the following specifications were added to the proposal:

1. To keep the structure simple and prevent obstructions for floodwater and blowing sand, the design should only include embedded posts and a top rail. Other support or decoration elements should not be added to the posts.

2. To provide proper support, each post should be embedded at least four feet

into the ground. 3. For structural integrity, the span of each rail between the posts should not

exceed 10 feet. 4. To provide support down the majority of the dune, but limit potential

exposure of the posts due to erosion, the post and rail structure should stop 15 feet above the toe of the dune.

5. If erosion, migration of the dune, or other forces cause any portion of the post

and rail structure to extend eastward of the toe of the dune or expose the

5

supporting posts, that section of the post and rail structure must be removed by the property owner.

Director Heard noted that after listening to the discussion, Councilor Burdick expressed a concern that these types of dune walkover structures were already permitted to be installed to serve oceanfront properties in other areas of the beach as well. He noted that Councilor Burdick pointed out a proliferation of such structures over the dunes could potentially decrease the stability of the dune system. He stated that while Councilor Burdick expressed his support for the proposed text amendment as a positive solution in the beach nourishment area, he also expressed interest in having the Town Council consider the larger issue in the future. Director Heard stated that at their September 6, 2017 meeting, Council reviewed the Planning Board’s recommendations and considered additional alternatives for dune access improvements. He explained that after much discussion, Council requested the Community Development staff to incorporate draft standards allowing post and rope structures to guide people in established beach accesses and limiting activity on the remaining areas of the dune as it stabilizes. He added that Council also asked staff to provide notice on the proposal to all neighborhood associations and oceanfront property owners within the beach nourishment project area. Director Heard stated that at the Planning Board’s request, the Community Development Department undertook an effort to identify other means of beach access for people with physical handicaps or limited mobility. He added that after searching improvements over many dozens of coastal communities throughout the country, the solutions identified were fairly consistent throughout the country. He stated that the improvements and initiatives used in other communities generally fall into the following categories:

Beach Access Matting – the most common approach for providing a physical surface for people with handicaps or physical limitations.

ADA Ramp Access – this approach works in areas with dunes of a low or

minimal height or areas with a wide area for public beach access.

ADA Ramps/Pathways into the Sea – this approach will not work in an area as volatile as the ocean beach as the ramp/matting would be undermined or covered.

Beach Wheelchairs – available in many varieties of push or motorized

wheelchairs, this option appears to be the most widely used among beach communities. Some offer special wheelchairs with floatation features to allow access into the ocean on calmer days.

Director Heard stated that it its meeting on August 9, 2017, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment permitting the installation of a single railing down the eastern side of the primary dune to provide

6

greater support for people accessing the beach. He added that at its meeting on September 6, 2017, Council requested that the ordinance be considered during the public hearing to additionally include an allowance for standards for the installation of post and rope structures guiding access down the east side of the dune. He noted that staff was also recommending approval. Town Attorney Hobbs asked Council if they had any questions for Director Heard. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau stated that Director Heard gave Council the definitions of adding post and rails and clarified single post and rail structures as well as talking about the post and rope structure. She noted that post and rope could be on both sides while post and rail would be only on one side. She stated that she read through both definitions and felt comfortable reading them. She wondered if the definitions had been viewed by Town Attorney Hobbs and if there was anything more that could be done to describe them. She noted that the post and rope, by definition, could go on both sides. Mayor Kingston asked what discussion Director Heard had regarding having the post and rail on only one side versus both sides. He asked what the Planning Board concluded or discussion that they had. Director Heard stated that the thought of post and rail was that it was purely a structure. He added that the issue that the Planning Board was tasked with was identifying ways to help people with limited mobility. He stated that that was what they were focusing their recommendation on. He explained that it didn’t serve a great purpose to have two rails when a person could use one or the other. He reminded Council that the Planning Board’s original thought process was to do as little as possible until staff can see how things stabilize. He added that the Planning Board wanted to minimize that and that was why they opted for a single rail as opposed to two. He explained that they were not considering the issue of channeling people in a certain way. Mayor Kingston clarified that it would be an advantage to channel people between the rails to keep them off the dunes. Director Heard stated that it would serve that purpose if there were two rails. Mayor Kingston stated that people could come up the channel instead of coming across the dune where the rail was located. He thought it would be the opposite by being an advantage. Director Heard agreed, adding that it could serve a dual purpose. Councilor Burdick stated that he read through all of the comments from the last meeting and it was a wide-ranging discussion. He thought that what Council had in front of them was a very simple approach to try to assist people by keeping them from roaming all over the dunes and help people to more easily get up and down the dunes. He thought the description achieved that. He stated that it seemed that the Town should have the same structure description in terms of all of the posts embedded so that there was the same structural stability and distance down to the toe. He thought that if the Town decided to use the post and rail system, it would really be used as a dual option, and it should be allowed to go down to the toe of the dune.

7

Town Attorney Hobbs asked if members of the Planning Board wished to make a presentation. Joe Blakaitis of 115 Sandpiper Cove was recognized to speak. Mr. Blakaitis pointed out that when the Planning Board first started to consider the issue, they were very concerned, as was Council and staff, that the new dune not be disturbed and minimize the disturbance of the new dune. He added that that was the reason for the single rail system. He stated that there was no need for two rails, so the Board decided to put in the minimum number of posts and make it one rail as that was all that was needed. He stated that the other reason for the toe, was that the toe would get altered and one of the requirements in the Town’s ordinance that was proposed was that the owner must repair or reduce the length of it if it becomes damaged at the toe. He noted that work was being created for an owner or homeowner association. He thought 10 or 15 feet would not really matter as when someone gets down to that level, they tend to keep going straight. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau thought Joe Blakaitis made some great points. Town Attorney Hobbs asked if any members of the public wished to address the proposal. Henry Blaha of 121 Ocean Bay Boulevard was recognized to speak. Mr. Blaha suggested that Council allow two rails as well as a single rail and walk up each one while carrying beach items and decide which one was the easiest to use. Laura Holleman of 132 South Snow Geese Drive was recognized to speak. Ms. Holleman stated that she was very happy about the project. She noted that the before and after photographs of the sand hills were impressive. She added that people will be deterred from wandering all over the dunes by using structures that will benefit sand collection on the dunes. Town Attorney Hobbs asked if Council had final questions. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau asked if the sand fencing on the dune of the nourished beach was permitted if it was installed laterally and properly. Director Heard stated she was correct. He noted that it was not permitted to be used as a channel all the way down the dune in the proposal, but the use would be encouraged in order for them to continue to do what it was made to do in capturing the sand. Councilor Britt clarified that it could go all the way down the slope. Director Heard stated he was correct. Councilor Burdick pointed out that before the beach nourishment project was done, the Town was allowing sand fencing all the way down to the toe of the dune to try to preserve what little dune there was. He noted that it was not a change from what was done before. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau agreed.

8

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 thanked the public for both their oral and written comments. He stated that he read a lot of comments about people traversing along the top of the dunes and agreed with one of the comments – finish the sand fencing across the top and the planting that will be done. He thought the problem would take care of itself. He found that when people go down the slope, it will change; Council knew it would change and were told it would change. He added that by walking down the slope, it would be easier to walk down at an angle than to go straight down for some people. He stated that the issue was with single homes which would not present that much traffic. He added that when the issue was first discussed, Council wanted to do something for the community accesses, which has come up. He stated that he did not like the idea of every single home being able to have post and rails or post and ropes down to the toe of the dune. He stated that if one person does it, then it would proliferate and the re-nourished beach will not look good. He stated that he did not think it solved the purpose that the Town set out to solve, and thought with the way sand moves, a rail could be installed and after one sand storm, it would be at a different height. He pointed out that due to the sand, the height of the rails would constantly move and have to be adjusted. He thought the Town should look at doing it at community accesses, where there will be much more foot traffic with a much more dramatic effect on the dune. He added that the public could be guided using beach matting, which he did not have an issue with since it could be removed. He noted that the Town has not given the beach nourishment project six months yet. He reiterated that he was not a fan of putting posts down the slope of the dune. Councilor Burdick stated that Councilor Britt made some good points. He thought it was valid that the Town needs to permit something that limited the flow of people across the face of the dune at community accesses. He added that he witnessed the impact at his beach access over the summer and it was minimal. He thought the traffic across the dune would not do much damage. He could see that the homeowners that were adjacent to it would like to limit people traversing across the front of the dune. He thought the Town needed to do something to help the semi-handicapped people to get up and down the dune. He agreed with Councilor Britt that Council did not want to go all the way to the toe of the dune because it would add maintenance and problems in the future. He liked the idea of initially restricting posts to the community accesses and limiting where they would be erected on the dune as well as limiting it to one post and rail or one post and rope system per access way. He thought it would help the Town accomplish 95% of what it was trying to do as well as seeing how the dunes will shift over the next six months. He reiterated that something should be done, but only the minimum. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau agreed with Councilors Britt and Burdick regarding keeping things to a minimum, recognizing that things will change but also allowing some type of assistance for people who may feel the need to grab onto something to move around a little easier. She agreed with keeping things minimized and felt that the Town should concentrate on community accesses and not allowing anything additional for

9

private accesses at this point. She stated that she would like to see what nature will do to the nourished dune and would support a post and rail system on community accesses with the limitation that the Planning Board considered and eliminate the idea of a post and rope system and if anyone wanted to help guide people, they could use the sand fencing. She added that the rail will serve a purpose, which she could get behind, but was trying to keep it as minimal as possible. Mayor Kingston asked if Council was being fair to the oceanfront owners that paid for 40% of the project by not allowing them a similar type of access to the beach as the community accesses. He added that it would be for the same reasons – to keep people off the dunes and channel them as well as allowing renters and owners that may be handicapped or disabled to get onto the beach. He didn’t think it was fair to ask them if they did not have the capability to come out of their homes and go down a community access. He asked how many community accesses versus individual homes were in Town. He understood Councilor Britt’s concern regarding aesthetics, but as one traverses the beach in the non-nourished area, just about every home and community access has stairs and ramps, and it didn’t detract in those areas. He thought part of the protection of the new dune was keeping people channeled. He thought Council needed to look at those homeowners and ask if it was fair to them by restricting their access to the beach. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau thought Mayor Kingston was bringing up two points – channeling and access for people that may have difficulty. She thought they were two separate issues and thought channeling could be handled with sand fencing. She pointed out that with regard to access, the Town went through a summer with the access as it was and didn’t hear a tremendous backlash. She thought the Town was doing the community in general a service by letting things settle longer and perhaps revisiting the issue if it became one. She pointed out that people were getting down the beach as there were products available as well as the Town’s public safety officials helping people get to the beach. She reiterated that she would like to keep things minimal with the idea of possibly changing it in the future. She felt that creating a set of regulations on shifting sands was premature. Councilor Caviness appreciated all of the comments that were made that it was a dynamic situation and that it seemed somewhat premature for Council to make a hard and fast rule at this point. She noted that the Town spent an extraordinary amount of resources in doing the beach nourishment project with professionals saying that the more structures that are put on the dunes, the faster they would become destroyed. She stated that she would like to see the Town take some time in the nourishment area before it enacts anything and if anything needs to be done immediately to help with access, it should be restricted to community access points and then revisit the entire issue after some settling occurs. She stated that she had a strong opinion on the post and rail system versus the post and rope system. She explained that if the structures were being used as “access” or “assistance to mobility”, she did not see how a rope would be helpful in any way, shape or form to help someone maneuver down the beach. She added that if someone truly needed assistance for leaning, the rail will be the only thing that will help, not the rope. She stated that she liked the look of the rope over the rail, but it would be more of a guide

10

than an assistance. She stated that if something was to be done for access or mobility, then something minimal should be done, shortened up from the toe, at the community access points. She thought it was prudent to wait. Mayor Kingston agreed with Councilor Caviness’ comments as to why anything should be done right now. He pointed out that the majority of people will not be going to the beach right now. He agreed with waiting six months and readdressing the issue in the spring in order to see what happens over the next six months with the dune. Councilor Burdick stated that if Council tables the issue, people will be free to do what they want. Mayor Kingston, Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau and Councilor Caviness disagreed. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau pointed out that it was limited in July. Councilor Britt noted that people could install sand fencing. Councilor Burdick clarified that only sand fencing could be installed. Councilor Britt stated that beach matting could also be installed. Councilor Caviness stated that if sand fencing and planting was proposed and planned for, and matting had the least impacts to the dune, she felt confident that it was the most prudent step to take while the Town waits for the dune to settle. She added that if the Town was still having issues, then it could be taken up again. She noted that a lot of due diligence was done up to this point to make a decision. Town Manger Layton stated that he and Permit Coordinator Sandy Cross had discussed the issue earlier in the day and because the sand fence that the Town installed on top of the dune has been successful and due to concerns that once it becomes covered with sand, it may be worth considering installing one more set of sand fencing further down the dune. He noted that it would not be installed on the toe, but in the middle of the dune, which would help the sand coming up and would serve to help with the traversing of the dune. He noted that the catch would be an additional $30,000. He added that if that was something Council wished to consider, staff could explore it more. Councilor Caviness clarified that Town Manager Layton was talking about a planned approach to fence on the oceanside. Town Manager Layton explained that it would be installing another set of sand fencing in a different location. He stated that funds would be transferred from the beach nourishment project to fund it and have the Town install it. He thought it would help with the sand as well as help maintain some of the channeling and build up the dune. Councilor Caviness asked if it would help with future planting. Town Manager Layton stated that the planting would happen around it. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau thought it was a great idea. She thought the Town needed to think about investing more than $30,000 for sand fencing. She thought the Town put millions of dollars into the project and sand fencing would anchor it more than anything. She stated that as much as she’s concerned and appreciated the people needing access, the Town has been working around the issue. She stated that the Town should be investing more in preserving what it has and doing more sand fencing. She reiterated that she was in favor of spending more than $30,000 for sand fencing with a bigger plan to keep the fencing going.

11

Town Manager Layton thought if the Town approached it incrementally, the sand fencing could be installed and in the meantime the fall beach grass would be planted. He added that Council could continue look at it and if they felt that more sand fencing was needed, it could be installed. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau agreed. She added that it could be a Retreat item to study what has happened and what some of the experts were saying. Town Manager Layton stated that because the Town didn’t know exactly how it will respond to another set of sand fencing, he would hate to put it in. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau agreed, adding that she wasn’t saying to do it right away, but Council should be thinking that that was where Town resources should be channeled. Councilor Burdick thought it was important that Council make a short-term decision on the issue because it was now the season of northeast winds, which blows the sand away. He thought Town Manager Layton’s suggestion was excellent. He added that Spencer Rodgers could be consulted and it could be explained to him what the Town was trying to do to see what comments he may have to optimize it. Mayor Kingston asked if a motion to defer the ordinance was needed. Town Attorney Hobbs stated that it was not needed since it would die for lack of a motion. He explained that if Council wanted to revisit the issue, it would go through the entire process, including being sent to the Planning Board, with another public hearing. It was consensus of Council to let the ordinance die. Councilor Britt stated that he would like a uniform approach with more sand fencing. Councilor Burdick agreed, adding that Town Manager Layton had a good plan and everyone needed to see what happens. Mayor Kingston asked Town Manager Layton if he wanted to come back with a proposal to Council. Town Manager Layton stated that he would rebid the sand fencing in order to check the availability and come back at the November 1, 2017 with a budget amendment and proposal. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau thought it was worth noting that it was not for lack of being concerned about access for people that cannot access the beach. She thought it was something that Council was concerned about and can address in the future. Councilor Burdick noted that the Town was coming out of the peak season and the real issue was how to keep the dune stable over the winter. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau pointed out that people like to use the beach all year long. Councilor Burdick agreed, adding that the access issue of helping people tended to be first among the residents. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau stated that that was the reason the issue started. Councilor Burdick stated that if Council walked away from the issue, it would be doing nothing. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau stated that Council was not walking away from it, it was being deferred.

12

Councilor Britt thought the community access point could be an item on the agenda for the Retreat. He stated that Council could look at the community accesses and if it was decided that they would like to do something, it would give them time to do something before the season starts. He added that he wouldn’t want to do anything now with the community accesses. Mayor Kingston thought it was a good idea for the Retreat but thought all accesses should be included. Councilor Burdick pointed out that the people that live in Duck year-round were having problems now and it did nothing for them. Councilor Caviness thought discussing community access points was a timely topic since a lot of them were built before many of the neighborhoods were built out and were completely insufficient. Mayor Kingston stated that Council would take no action on Ordinance 17-10 and Town Manager Layton would come back with a proposal at the November 1, 2017 meeting to look at additional sand fencing. He added that Council will look at a Retreat agenda item for access to the beach. Public Hearing/Discussion/Consideration of Ordinance 17-11, an Ordinance to Amend the Definition of “Lot Coverage” in Section 156.002 of the Zoning Ordinance by Exempting Public Sidewalks and Similar Public Improvements from Lot Coverage Calculations Mayor Kingston turned the meeting over to Town Attorney Hobbs. Town Attorney Hobbs stated that the public hearing was open. He asked Director Heard to give a presentation. Director Heard stated that at Council’s August 2, 2017 meeting, Council authorized the Planning Board and Community Development staff to develop a text amendment creating an exemption for public sidewalks on private properties from lot coverage calculations. Director Heard explained that the Town planned to begin construction of public sidewalks along the east side of Duck Road in the Fall of 2017. He noted that in several instances, the sidewalk will meander onto private property, usually to avoid existing utility infrastructure. He added that the Town was seeking easements from those property owners. He stated that in order for those properties not to be penalized for allowing public sidewalks, the Planning Board was proposing to add an exemption for public sidewalks and similar public improvements to not count as lot coverage. Director Heard stated that at the Planning Board’s meeting on August 9, 2017, the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment creating an exemption from lot coverage calculations for public sidewalks and similar public improvements extending onto private properties. He added that staff was also recommending approval. Town Attorney Hobbs asked Council if they had any questions for Director Heard. There were none.

13

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. Town Attorney Hobbs asked if Council had final questions. There were none. There being no one 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 Caviness moved to adopt Ordinance 17-11 as presented. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS Discussion/Consideration of Authorizing the Town Manager to Enter into a Contract with Barnhill Contracting Company, Inc. for Asphalt Path Maintenance and Repairs to the Duck Trail, the Entrance to the Army Corps of Engineers Field Research Facility and the Beach Nourishment Staging Area on the Field Research Facility Property Town Manager Layton stated that on August 11, 2017, the Town issued an Invitation to Bid for asphalt path maintenance and repairs to the Duck Trail, the entrance to the Army Corps of Engineers Field Research Facility and the beach nourishment staging area on the Field Research Facility property. He noted that the asphalt repairs and maintenance were for the area of the Duck Trail from Ships Watch Drive to Nor’Banks Drive. He stated that bids were open on September 7, 2017, and bids were received from Barnhill Contracting Company, Inc. for $84,520 and RPC Contracting, Inc. for $87,640. He recommended that Council authorize him to enter into a contract with Barnhill Contracting Company, Inc. for the work. Town Manager Layton noted that the bids also included unit costs for asphalt repairs and maintenance. He added that it was the intent of staff to utilize any remaining funds for additional work on the Duck Trail based on these unit costs. Mayor Kingston asked if there would be some minimal reimbursement from Great Lakes Dredge and Dock. Town Manager Layton stated that there would. He stated that there was still some negotiating going on, but he expected that Great Lakes would be paying for the repairs at the staging area only. Councilor Burdick asked if the money for the Corps area was coming from the project. Town Manager Layton stated that it was coming from project funds. Councilor Burdick

14

clarified that the $120,000 was budgeted from the General Fund. Town Manager Layton stated that it was a combination because the Town estimated what the costs would be and in terms of how the budget was set up, approximately $25,000 was being transferred from the Reserve Fund to the General Fund to pay for this project. Councilor Burdick clarified that it was $25,000 out of $120,000. Town Manager Layton stated he was correct. He added that the total line item was $120,000 but $25,000 was coming from the Capital Reserve Fund. Councilor Caviness asked what the timeframe for the project would be. Town Manager Layton stated that he hoped to be under contract in the next couple of days and Barnhill wanted to be aggressive with the project and he believed it would be 75 days from the date of the contract. He added that they would move very quickly. Councilor Britt clarified that Barnhill wanted to complete the work before the weather gets cold. Town Manager Layton agreed, adding that if weather posed a problem, they’re per-unit cost was very low. He stated that they would keep workers on site to keep them busy so the Town will benefit from that. He didn’t expect the second phase of the project to be done in that timeframe was it will be an amendment to the contract. He expected the initial contract to be completed rapidly. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau asked if it would be happening in real time in that Barnhill would be out there doing the initial project that they bid on and while out there, the Town could see how far the rest of the dollars could go. Town Manager Layton stated she was correct. Councilor Burdick moved to authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract with Barnhill Contracting Company, Inc. as presented. Councilor Caviness stated that she was in favor of the project, but noted that there will be a substantial amount of pedestrian area destroyed for a while. She added that it will not be safe for people who use the Duck Trail. Town Manager Layton stated that he will make sure that topper cones will be out to guide people in that area. Motion carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS Discussion/Consideration of Authorizing the Town Staff to Develop an Ordinance related to the Regulation of Golf Carts Town Manager Layton stated that over the last few months, the Duck Police Department increasingly had to deal with the issue of golf carts being used inappropriately and in some cases, illegally, in Town, particularly on the Duck Trail. He explained that the issue was a safety issue where there have been a variety of incidents and found that one of the biggest issues was the fact that individuals using golf carts seem to believe that the Duck Trail and the shoulders on NC 12 in the Village area were designed specifically for golf

15

carts. He stated that there has been an incompatible combination of uses with pedestrians, bicyclists and golf carts that staff was now hoping to address somehow. Police Chief Cueto gave a short presentation on the regulation of golf carts to Council and the audience. He stated that the Police Department would like Council to consider the adoption of a model ordinance regulating golf carts, both street legal and golf carts that were not street legal. He explained that while the Town was limited in how it can regulate golf carts on private roads and subdivisions, the Town could require a registration or permitting program that would assist in the dissemination of information on the proper use of golf carts within the Town. Police Chief Cueto stated that the Police Department has taken considerable steps to control the usage of golf carts throughout the Town. He stated that it has been explained that this issue would require a multi-faceted approach to include appropriate signage, informational materials, and progressive law enforcement initiatives. He noted that the Police Department has installed “no golf carts” signs along the multi-use path, provided the appropriate materials to the property management agencies, the golf cart rental companies and homeowner associations. He added that officers have enforced the traffic laws when issuing verbal warnings, written warnings, citations and non-custodial arrest, when necessary. He explained that while the Police Department continues to engage in these certain aspects, it has become evident that existing Ordinance 11-05 was insufficient and that the Town should adopt an ordinance that provides specific guidelines to ensure the safe operation of golf carts in Duck. Police Chief Cueto stated that the problem was not unique to the Town of Duck as many similar towns in North Carolina have wrestled with making their communities fun, but safe. He explained that in this regard, NCDOT has established a model golf cart ordinance and made it available to all towns and municipalities. He added that the model policy established definitions, rules and regulations, registrations, inspections, enforcements and exceptions. He noted that most recently, the Town of Carolina Beach adopted the model ordinance, as well as the Town of Beaufort and the Town of Trent Woods. He stated that in each instance, the NC model policy was adopted and modified to meet the needs and address issues specific to the community involved. He stated that the concept of this proposal set forth the adoption of the NC model policy to be amended to capture the character to the Town of Duck. Police Chief Cueto stated that North Carolina General Statute Section 160A-300.6 was the statute that gives towns and municipalities the authority to regulate golf carts. He explained that the statute provides the authority to regulate golf carts on public roads only. He added that it would provide control of street legal golf carts, on public roads, and not extending it to unregistered golf carts on private streets. He noted that with this legislation enacted, NCDOT then provided the model policy that has been presented for consideration. He stated that elements of this proposal would begin with the adoption of the North Carolina model policy establishing a golf cart ordinance for the Town. He recommended that the policy be amended to require that street legal golf carts be registered and permitted by the Town. He added that since the Town had no official

16

capacity to regulate non-registered golf carts, the hope was to encourage registration of these vehicles with the Town, just the same as street legal golf carts. He stated that by installing a program that encourages community input, it would provide a mechanism for clear communication and adherence to state laws and Town ordinances. Police Chief Cueto pointed out that North Carolina General Statue Section 160A-300.6 provides the authority to regulate golf carts on public streets and roads only. He added that it did not authorize any ability to regulate the use of a golf cart on a private road, such as an HOA or gated community. He noted that the matter becomes complicated since 30% of the side streets in Duck were state maintained, making them public roads. He stated that the Town would then have the authority to regulate golf carts in the HOA’s having state maintained roads and require that they must be street legal. Mayor Kingston asked Police Chief Cueto if he had visited out of town rental companies. Police Chief Cueto stated that he had not. He added that he knew it was a matter of discussion because there were six companies including those in Currituck County. He noted that if the Town required a registration, only vehicles that were registered with the Town would be permitted to be operated on Town streets. He stated that there were other towns that, if they rented a golf cart to an individual, they would have to have a permit to do so. Mayor Kingston asked if someone purchased a golf cart, would there be any kind of tracking by the State with respect to property taxes. Town Manager Layton stated that it would apply only if it was street legal, otherwise it would be tracked through sales tax. Councilor Burdick stated that he looked at the registration as a means to an end rather than it being the end. He stated that it would be the Town’s opportunity to ensure that the rental companies would be required to give an adequate amount of safety training to whomever was renting the golf cart. He added that it gave the Town the opportunity to get to the people that would be driving the golf carts; more so than just passing out brochures. He thought the safety training could be included in the ordinance that would be required by the lessor to the lessee, which would entail better operation of the vehicles. Police Chief Cueto agreed. He added that when one rents a street legal golf cart, it should be legally and safely operated on NC 12 and any other road in Duck. He stated that if someone rented or operated a non-street legal golf cart and did not have the safety equipment on it, individuals should be made aware that they cannot operate them on NC 12 or any state maintained roads. He stated that the other side of the issue was the transparency that would be provided in that they would know what would need to be done to operate the golf cart. Councilor Britt clarified that if someone in Duck wanted to rent a street legal golf cart, they would have to register it with the Town or have a permit. Police Chief Cueto stated that there were two types of golf carts – one was street legal with all of the safety mechanisms, which the registration and permitting should be required with the Town so it can be insured that they have the information needed. He added that there would be some sort of sticker or placard that would say that the street legal golf cart could be operated on NC 12 within the Town. Councilor Britt asked if someone rented a golf cart from a company outside of Duck, and bring it to Duck without knowing about the

17

registration and permitting, a warning would be issued to let them know. Police Chief Cueto thought there were a few ways to deal with it, in that the rental company would have to have a signed document to the renter that stays with the vehicle. He added that it could be a placard or some sort of sticker that explains things. He stated that the alternative with the privately-owned golf cart would have the same understanding that they could not operate the vehicle on NC 12. Town Manager Layton stated that staff did not want to spend a lot time coming up with a full-blown plan until they knew that there was some comfort and direction from Council. He added that staff wanted to propose the idea of what was being considered and receive input from Council, and if approved, staff would flush out the details and bring it back at a future meeting. He stated that if Council was not interested, then staff could move on to something else. He asked Council if they wished to move forward and were comfortable with staff exploring the registration and permitting option. He noted that staff had some legal questions that would have to be discussed with Town Attorney Hobbs about what would be allowed on private streets. He stated that street legal versus non-street legal was pretty straight forward. He stated that staff believed that street legal or non-street legal could be required to be registered to operate within the Town. He thought it was ideally what staff would like to do in that having the golf carts registered would ensure that staff got the safety information out to the public. He stated that the questions staff had to work on was with the rental companies. He explained that if the golf cart is rented from a company in Currituck County, staff would want the vehicle to be registered whether it was street legal or not. He stated that the question would be how to do that. He reiterated that the idea would be that anything that was operated in Duck, there would be documentation that whomever was operating the golf cart, was aware of the safety issues surrounding the use of the vehicle. Councilor Burdick asked if it was clear what the State statutes were with regard to how the Town could regulate golf carts. Town Attorney Hobbs stated that it was clear that the State was allowing municipalities to regulate golf carts. He stated that he wanted to look at the exact language with regard to what was being proposed in order to state if it was okay or not. He added that other towns, including Dare County, already have ordinances in place related to golf carts, so this would not be a novel idea. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau stated that she liked the idea of education as well as a forced education with regard to the registration. She thought there was a lot of administration involved with it, which concerned her and made her think of what was done for weddings in Town with regard to the registration form. She stated that it would be interesting to see what the volume would be. She stated that she was in favor of pursuing the idea and seeing where the Town could go with it. She thought there could be some kind of identifier to identify golf carts as street legal versus non-street legal. Town Manager Layton stated that street legal golf carts have license plates affixed to them. Councilor Burdick wondered how much of an administrative disaster would be had with this or if there was a simplified approach to make it workable and reasonable. He stated

18

that the idea of pursuing it was good but it should be pursued in a way that it could be managed. Mayor Kingston suggested giving staff a chance to develop it and look at it at a future meeting. Councilor Burdick agreed. Councilor Caviness thought one of the biggest challenges would be that many of the golf carts were attached to a rental home as an amenity. She stated that a homeowner would know the rules, but the issue was conveying the correct information every week during the summer to renters. She stated that the homeowner could register the golf cart, but it didn’t mean that the renters would be compliant. She thought the solutions with clings, signs and magnets would help people understand the issue and be easier to facilitate. Town Manager Layton thought the Town was flirting with disaster as there was no perfect solution at this time. He added that with regard to the clings and magnets, staff would want to do that, but have them on the golf carts so that there would be some basic level of understanding. He pointed out that the use of golf carts has accelerated to the point where they are on the Duck Trail on an almost daily basis. He added that a street legal cart was not designed to be driven on the trail. He thought that because of the confusion surrounding the use of the vehicles, staff was trying to prevent an issue of an accident with a golf cart. Councilor Burdick pointed out that the Carolina Dunes subdivision seems to have a lot of teenagers driving golf carts all over the subdivision. He added that it was a real safety issue. Town Manager Layton agreed, adding that it was a sticky situation. He stated that the goal was not to prevent people from using the golf cart to get to the beach access, it was to prevent accidents. He stated that if Council were to adopt the model ordinance, one of the pieces in the ordinance was that if it wasn’t a street legal golf cart, then it could not be operated on a State maintained road and staff would either have to turn a blind eye or people would be forced to get a street legal golf cart. He added that there needed to be further discussion on how to handle that. Mayor Kingston moved to authorize Town staff to develop an ordinance related to the regulation of golf carts. Town Manager Layton stated that the timeline would be by the annual Retreat. Police Chief Cueto noted that, as Chief of Police, if he was subpoenaed, he could testify that he took every responsible step to ensure the safe operation of golf carts in Town. Councilor Britt agreed that something needed to be done, but wasn’t sure how it would be accomplished. Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau stated that as staff was thinking things through, they should feel free to have conversations with Council, community members and property managers. She thought it needed to be flushed out. Motion carried 5-0.

19

ITEMS REFERRED TO AND PRESENTATIONS FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY Town Attorney Robert Hobbs introduced his colleague, Will Barone, to Council and the audience. 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 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 Marketing and Events Denise Walsh was recognized to speak. Director Walsh gave a brief overview of the upcoming Jazz Festival activities to Council and the audience. Update on the Beach Nourishment Project Town Manager Layton stated that the dune construction project held up very well during the recent storms. He added that a video was completed after Tropical Storm Jose passed by to answer any concerns about escarpments. He stated that the engineers have indicated that the project was doing what it was supposed to do and equilibration was still in effect and will be for a while. Update on the Phase I of the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan Town Manager Layton stated that there would be a meeting held in the next few weeks to get everything in place and he hoped to have a contract finalized and have the preliminary work started well before the next meeting. NCBIWA Annual Conference November 13-14, 2017 Town Manager Layton stated that the North Carolina Beach, Inlet and Waterway Association meeting will be held on November 13-14, 2017 in Wrightsville Beach. He added that if any Council member wished to attend, to let him or Town Clerk Ackerman know. Financial Statements for September FY 2018

20

Town Manager Layton reviewed the financial statements, beach activities and beach nourishment reports with Council and the audience. MAYOR’S AGENDA Mayor Kingston thanked Town Manager Layton for representing him at the control group meeting while he was away the week before. He stated that he has his mayors meeting on October 17, 2017. He stated that he attended the North Carolina League of Municipalities annual meeting in Greenville back in September and found it a very worthwhile experience. He encouraged other members of Council to attend in future years. He added that it was a good 3.5 days with a lot of information and content. He reminded Council that he was nominated by the Nominating Committee to serve on the Board of Directors, replacing Roland Vaughan, who was the mayor of Edenton. He added that he was elected and sworn in, serving a two-year term for District 1, which was all of the cities and towns as well as the 12 counties in northeast North Carolina. He thought it will be an interesting experience, adding that the first board meeting will be later in the month. Mayor Kingston stated that he recently joined the North Carolina Mayors Association, which was an organization within the League of Municipalities. He added that they did a tour around the regions to speak to the mayors in order to see if there was interest in doing it and organized a Mayor’s Association with the first meeting held on the first day of the conference. He stated that the chairman of the first board was the mayor of Durham. He added that here were approximately 100 mayors in attendance at the first meeting. He thought it was a good thing for current and future mayors to be associated with it as well as one where other mayors could be contacted to discuss issues. Mayor Kingston stated that he was looking forward to the jazz festival. He reminded the audience to get out and vote on November 7, 2017. COUNCIL MEMBERS’ AGENDA Mayor Pro Tempore Thibodeau welcomed Mayor Kingston back from his vacation and was glad he didn’t have to miss any big weather events. She stated that she has received great feedback from citizens regarding the recent newsletter that was mailed out and thanked staff for all of their hard work on it. She stated that she was excited about the upcoming jazz festival. She noted that the parade of homes was coming up over the weekend. She stated that the winter lights will be held at the Elizabethan Gardens in November through January. Councilor Caviness stated she had nothing to report. Councilor Britt stated that he would be out of town for the jazz festival. He thought Henry Blaha brought up a good point about the trash pickup in the summer. He felt it should be looked at.

21

Councilor Burdick stated that he had nice vacation and was looking forward to the jazz festival. He thanked Council for approving the letter to the State regarding the 35mph speed limit on the north side of town. He thought it was an important safety item. OTHER BUSINESS Additional Public Comments Mayor Kingston opened the floor for public comments. Henry Blaha was recognized to speak. Mr. Blaha recommended that Council go to the Sanderling subdivision to see the sand fencing and how a secondary sand dune was forming. He thought Council could think about using the Sound Sea subdivision beach access to place some of the sand fencing and see where the sand builds up since it will make it easier for people to traverse the dunes. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Kingston closed the time for public comments. Mayor Kingston noted that the next meeting will be the Regular meeting on Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Councilor Burdick moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The time was 9:56 p.m. ____________________________ Lori A. Ackerman, Town Clerk Approved: ______________________ _______________________________ Don Kingston, Mayor

Town of Duck, North Carolina

FY 2018

Budget Amendment/Transfer Form

Supplement X Transfer

Department: Beach Protection, Parks Date: 11/1/2017

Budget Amendment

Revenues Fund Dept. Code Acct. Code Obj. Code Requested Amount

State Grants 100 3300 3315 36 $22,500

BN Capital Reserve $20,000

TOTAL: $42,500

Expenditures Fund Dept. Code Acct. Code Obj. Code Requested Amount

Beach Protection:

Repairs and 100 4730 730 350 $20,000

Parks: Miscellaneous -

Professional Services 100 6130 130 190 $22,500

TOTAL: $42,500

Reason for Amendment: This budget amendment appropriates $22,500 in grant funds from the

NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources for design and planning related to an

erosion control project in the Town Park and also appropriates $20,000 from the Beach

Nourishment Capital Reserve Fund for additional sand fencing in the beach nourishment project

area.

Budget Transfer

Transfer From Fund Dept. Code Acct. Code Obj. Code Requested Amount

Transfer To Fund Dept. Code Acct. Code Obj. Code Requested Amount

Reason for Transfer:

Approved: Denied:

Date:

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #4:

Old Business/Items Deferred from Previous Meetings

A. Discussion/Consideration of Authorizing a Public Hearing on Ordinance 17-13, an Ordinance to Amend Subsection 156.058 of the Zoning Ordinance by Clarifying the Approval Process for Stealth Antennas and Updating Standards for Small Wireless Facilities

B. Update on Dare County Flood Maps

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

See Attachments

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:

See Attachments

ATTACHMENTS:

See Attachments

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #4A:

Old Business/Items Deferred from Previous Meetings

A. Discussion/Consideration of Authorizing a Public Hearing on Ordinance 17-13, an Ordinance to Amend Subsection 156.058 of the Zoning Ordinance by Clarifying the Approval Process for Stealth Antennas and Updating Standards for Small Wireless Facilities

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Review the Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Consider Authorizing a Public Hearing for the 12/6 Town Council

Meeting

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At its public meeting on October 11, 2017, the Duck Planning Board voted (4-1) to recommend approval of a proposed text amendment to clarify use of an administrative approval process for stealth antennas. At the same meeting, the Duck Planning Board voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend approval of a proposed text amendment adding development criteria and an approval process for small wireless facilities. A draft ordinance reflecting both the Planning Board’s recommendations has been attached for the Town Council’s consideration.

ATTACHMENTS:

Staff Report Letter of Transmittal to Town Council Draft Ordinance 17-13, Section 156.058, Wireless

Telecommunications Systems N.C. Session Law 2017-159 Small Cell Wireless FAQs – Verizon Stealth Antenna Photographs (PowerPoint)

Town of Duck, North Carolina

Department of Community Development Text Amendment: Small Wireless Facilities

Agenda Item 4A

1

TO: Mayor Kingston and Members of the Duck Town Council

FROM: Joe Heard, AICP, Director of Community Development

DATE: November 1, 2017

RE: Text Amendment: Stealth Antennas and Small Wireless Facilities Proposal The proposed text amendment recommends changes to Section 156.058 of the Zoning Ordinance to address two different issues:

(1) At its meeting on August 2, 2017, the Duck Town Council authorized the Planning Board and Community Development staff to develop a text amendment to address conflicting standards for the review process for the installation of stealth wireless telecommunication antennas. The Planning Board has recommended that stealth antennas be reviewed under an administrative process.

(2) While considering the stealth antenna criteria, the Town of Duck was informed that N.C. State Legislature had passed a related law mandating certain standards and an administrative approval process for small and micro wireless facilities. The Planning Board has recommended ordinance changes consistent with the new State law.

Background Information Over the past decade, the wireless communications industry has shifted away from reliance on tall towers and identified other, less obtrusive (and less expensive) options for providing a necessary level of service in many situations. Although taller towers are still necessary to expand coverage to certain areas, smaller wireless facilities can be used to supplement the towers by increasing data capacity in high traffic areas. Small wireless facilities generally consist of a radio, antenna, and relatively small equipment box served by electric power and fiber optic cable. They generally have a coverage area ranging from a few hundred to 1,000 feet. On July 21, 2017, the N.C. State Legislature adopted Session Law 2017-159, an Act to Reform Collocation of Small Wireless Communications Infrastructure to Aid in Deployment of New Technologies. Essentially, the law mandates certain standards and an administrative approval process for small wireless facilities and exempts micro wireless facilities from regulation with few exceptions. The law sets the following standards for small and micro wireless facilities: Small wireless facilities must meet the following criteria:

1. Each antenna must have a volume of less than 6 cubic feet.

2. Associated equipment must have a volume less than 28 cubic feet. 3. New or replacement utility poles cannot exceed 50 feet in height. 4. Antennas and wireless facilities cannot extend more than 10 feet above the pole to which

they are attached. Micro wireless facilities must meet the following criteria:

1. No greater than 24 inches in length. 2. No greater than 15 inches in width. 3. No greater than 12 inches in height. 4. Exterior antenna no longer than 11 inches.

Although not directly related to the proposed text amendments, Verizon Wireless will be seeking to install a system of small wireless facilities in the southern portion of Duck (4 potential locations) and northern area of Southern Shores to increase service capacity in those areas. Staff Analysis Stealth Antennas The Town of Duck’s current ordinance contains conflicting standards for the approval of stealth antennas. The table in Section 156.058(B) lists stealth antennas as conditional uses. However, the subsequent Subsection 156.058(C)(3) lists stealth antennas as a use requiring an administrative review process. A decision needs to be made on which review process is preferred and the appropriate change made in the ordinance. The Town Code defines a Stealth Antenna as “wireless telecommunications antenna and related equipment designed to blend into surrounding environment or integrated into the physical structure to which it is attached”. In practical terms, these types of antennas are typically smaller antennas with limited equipment that can be hidden or affixed to existing structures in a manner that has minimal visual impact to the community. Examples include antennas discretely attached to a utility pole, screened rooftop antennas, antennas hidden within a structure, or antennas disguised as other features. Due to their relatively minimal visual impact (as compared to a new telecommunication tower), stealth antennas are generally the preferred alternative for local communities. In staff’s experience, the simplest way to get the community’s preferred option is to make it easier for telecommunication companies to “do the right thing”. The Planning Board’s recommendation of an administrative approval process for stealth antennas is consistent with this approach. Small Wireless Facilities N.C. Session Law 2017-159 mandates certain standards and an administrative approval process for small wireless facilities and exempts micro wireless facilities from regulation with few exceptions. This law became effective upon its adoption in July and communities throughout North Carolina are now in the process of updating their standards for wireless telecommunications to comply with the new law.

Town of Duck, North Carolina

Department of Community Development Text Amendment: Small Wireless Facilities

Agenda Item 4A

3

To accommodate new trends in the wireless communications industry, the State law accomplishes several things:

Adds several new definitions, including definitions for “Micro Wireless Facilities” and “Small Wireless Facilities”.

Sets a specific administrative approval process for small wireless facilities in a public right-of-way or property that is not zoned single-family residential. (NOTE: The Planning Board has recommended a conditional use permit process for small wireless facilities in single-family residential zoning districts)

Exempts micro wireless facilities from permitting. Allows up to 25 locations to be submitted in a single application. Limits fees for review. Limits criteria under which a permit application can be denied.

The ordinance recommended by the Planning Board addresses all the new State standards for small and micro wireless facilities. The Board members also recommended that small wireless facilities be considered as conditional uses in single-family residential district (RS-1, RS-2). Duck CAMA Land Use Plan The Town of Duck’s adopted CAMA Land Use Plan contains the following goals, policies, and objectives relating to this text amendment proposal: GOAL #5: Remain aesthetically pleasing while maintaining coastal village image. POLICY #5a: Duck will adopt and enforce ordinances and procedures to regulate land use, development, redevelopment, and community appearance and explore incentive programs such as grants, group purchases, and recognition programs to enhance community appearance. POLICY #10a: Duck is committed to the provision of public systems and services at levels adequate to meet the needs of resident and visitors. Although it doesn’t directly reference telecommunication towers and antennas, the Land Use Plan makes recommendations in several sections to minimize the visual impacts of utilities, such as its support for placing utility lines underground. While the proposed amendments place limitations on local government regulation of small wireless facilities, these types of facilities often substitute for larger towers and seem to be generally consistent with the goals and vision of the Town of Duck. In addition, the use of stealth antennas to minimize the visual impacts of wireless telecommunication facilities is also consistent with the goals and vision of the Town of Duck. As part of its recommendation, the Planning Board determined that the proposed text amendments are consistent with the Town’s adopted CAMA Land Use Plan.

Planning Board Meeting – 10/11 Meeting The Duck Planning Board separately discussed and considered the proposal to clarify the approval process for stealth antennas and the proposal to adopt standards for small wireless facilities at its meeting on October 11, 2017. During the discussion of the stealth antenna review process, Vice-Chair Marc Murray expressed a concern that the Town’s definition of “stealth antenna” is vague and would potentially allow larger towers disguised as something else with administrative review. Other Board members countered that larger towers fall into a different category that is already regulated and limited to certain commercial districts. A majority of the Board voted to recommend the administrative approval process. In addition to the staff report, representatives from Verizon Wireless were present to provide additional information about the small wireless technology. The Planning Board understood that the recommended changes are required by State law. The Board members recognized that small wireless facilities may be needed to improve service in certain residential areas, but great care needs to be taken with the design of such facilities. So, they chose to recommend small wireless facilities as conditional uses in residential zoning districts. Planning Board Recommendation At its public meeting on October 11, 2017, the Duck Planning Board voted (4-1, Vice-Chair Murray opposed) to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed text amendment to clarify use of an administrative approval process for stealth antennas. At the same meeting, the Duck Planning Board voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed text amendment adding development criteria and an approval process for small wireless facilities. For the Town Council’s reference, a draft ordinance reflecting both the Planning Board’s recommendations has been included in the packet as Attachment B. Fee Schedule Consistent with the limitations of N.C. Session Law 2017-159, Community Development staff is also requesting Town Council’s approval to update the Town’s Fee Schedule with the following fees for small wireless facilities: “$100.00 per facility for the first five (5) facilities, plus $50.00 per facility for each of the next twenty (20) facilities in each application.” ATTACHMENTS

A. Letter of Transmittal to Town Council B. Draft Ordinance 17-13, Section 156.058, Wireless Telecommunications Systems C. N.C. Session Law 2017-159 D. Small Cell Wireless FAQs – Verizon E. Stealth Antenna Photographs (PowerPoint)

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

October 24, 2017 RE: Text Amendment Setting Standards for Stealth Antennas and Small Wireless Facilities Dear Mayor Kingston and Duck Town Council Members: At its public meeting on October 11, 2017, the Duck Planning Board considered two related text amendments regarding wireless telecommunication facilities. The Board first considered the proper review process for stealth antennas. During this discussion, Vice-Chair Marc Murray expressed a concern that the Town’s definition of “stealth antenna” is vague and would potentially allow larger towers disguised as something else with administrative review. Other Board members countered that larger towers fall into a different category that is already regulated and limited to certain commercial districts. After consideration, the Duck Planning Board voted (4-1, Vice-Chair Murray opposed) to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment to establish an administrative approval process for stealth antennas. The second text amendment involved amendments to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with recently adopted State law regarding small and micro wireless facilities. Representatives from Verizon Wireless were present to provide the Board with information about small wireless technology. The Board members recognized that small wireless facilities may be needed to improve service in certain residential areas, but a higher level of review needs to be taken with the design of such facilities. So, the Board has recommended that small wireless facilities may only be permitted as conditional uses in single-family residential zoning districts. The Duck Planning Board voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment adding development criteria and an approval process for small and micro wireless facilities. As they both involve revisions to Section 156.058, it is my understanding that these two items have been combined into a single text amendment ordinance for consideration by the Town Council. 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

1  

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

FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES

Ordinance No. 17-13

WHEREAS, the Town of Duck has an interest in setting fair and reasonable standards for the location of wireless telecommunication facilities by encouraging the development of new communication technology that minimizes the visual impacts to the community; and

WHEREAS, the Town seeks compliance with Session Law 2017-159, an Act to Reform Collocation of Small Wireless Communications Infrastructure to Aid in Deployment of New Technologies, adopted by the N.C. State Legislature on July 21, 2017, a law that requires local governments to apply special approval procedures for small and micro wireless facilities; and

WHEREAS, the Duck Town Council and Planning Board have found that the proposed amendments also benefit property owners, contractors, and citizens of the Town of Duck by clarifying the approval process for stealth wireless telecommunication antennas; and

WHEREAS, the Duck Town Council and Planning Board have found that these standards are consistent with the recommendations of the Town’s adopted CAMA Core Land Use Plan.

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. The Table found in Subsection 156.058(B) shall be amended by noting that stealth antennas may be approved through an administrative review process. The revised table will read as follows: 156.058 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS (WTS).

(A) Intent.

(1) The purpose of this section is to establish general guidelines for the siting of telecommunications towers and antennas.

(2) The goals of this section are to:

(a) Encourage the location of towers in non-residential/non-historical areas and minimize the total number of towers throughout the community;

(b) Enhance the ability of the providers of telecommunications services to provide those services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently;

(c) Strongly encourage the joint use of new and existing tower sites;

2  

(d) Encourage the location of telecommunications towers and antennas, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the community is minimal;

(e) Encourage the location of telecommunications towers and antennas in configurations that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the towers and antennas;

(f) Whenever possible, prioritize space on towers for public purpose use; and (g) Ensure that the placement, construction, and modification of wireless communications facilities complies with all applicable state and federal laws in such a manner as not to unreasonably discriminate between providers of functionally equivalent personal wireless services or to have the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. (B) WTS development types permitted by zoning district.

Zoning District

Stealth Antenna

Existing Wireless Facility Eligible Facilities Request

Existing Wireless Facility Substantial Modification

Free-standing Telecommunications Tower

Antenna Attached to Building or Structure

Small Wireless Facility

C-PR Admin Admin Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed

Admin

RS-1 Admin Admin Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed

CUP

RS-2 Admin Admin CUP Not Allowed Not Allowed

CUP

R-2 Admin Admin Not Allowed Not Allowed Not Allowed

Admin

C-1 Admin Admin CUP CUP CUP Admin

C-2 Admin Admin CUP CUP CUP Admin

S-1 Admin Admin CUP CUP CUP Admin

V-C Admin Admin CUP CUP CUP Admin

Admin - Requires administrative approval if applicable standards are met. CUP - Conditional use permit application process. Not allowed - Not permitted in the applicable zoning district.

(B) Review and approval. All WTS development shall be subject to the following review and

approval procedures:

(1) Planning Board review/Town Council approval as conditional uses in the applicable zoning district:

3  

(a) Antenna attached to an existing principal building or structure up to 100 feet of

maximum height including height of principal building or structure in the zoning district where permitted;

(b) Freestanding towers designed for co-location up to 200 feet in maximum height in the zoning districts where permitted;

(c) Freestanding towers designed for 1 provider up to 100 feet in maximum height in the zoning districts where permitted; and

(d) Applications for co-location providers on an existing tower where application for co- location would result in tower height over 200 feet.

(e) Small wireless facilities and utility poles installed to support small wireless facilities located outside of public rights-of-way in Single-Family Residential (RS-1 & RS-2) zoning districts;

(2) Board of Adjustment review (requires a 4/5 vote for approval).

(a) Antenna attached to an existing principal building or structure over 100 feet of maximum height including height of principal building or structure in the zoning districts where permitted;

(b) Freestanding towers designed for co-location over 200 feet in maximum height in the zoning districts where permitted; and

(c) Freestanding towers designed for 1 provider over 100 feet in maximum height in the zoning districts where permitted.

(3) Administrative review.

(a) Stealth antennas;

(b) Co-location providers on an existing tower where application for co-location would result in tower height of less than 200 feet of maximum height; and

(c) Addition of antenna to existing utility pole, water tower, WTS tower or similar utility structure; and

(d) Small wireless facilities located within public rights-of-way or other than single-family residential (C-PR, R-2, C-1, C-2, S-1 & V-C) zoning districts, subject to the standards in Subsection 156.058(I).

(4) Exempt activities. The following items are exempt from the provisions of this section:

4  

(a) Routine maintenance of existing wireless support structures and facilities, as defined in this section.

(b) Replacement of a small wireless facility with another small wireless facility that is substantially similar or smaller in size, weight, and height;

(c) Noncommercial, amateur radio station antennae;

(d) A government owned wireless telecommunications system erected or installed for the purpose of providing communications for public health or safety; and

(e) A temporary wireless telecommunications system, upon the declaration of a state of emergency by federal, state, or local government, or a determination of public necessity by the town; except that such system must comply with all federal and state requirements. No such wireless telecommunications system shall be exempt from the provisions of this section beyond the duration of the state of emergency; and

(f) Micro wireless facilities.

(C) Application process. All applications are subject to the review processes in accordance with the table in Subsection 156.058(B), pertaining to permitted uses by zoning district. The following approval process shall apply:

(1) New wireless telecommunication systems, substantial modifications, and antenna element replacements.

(a) Any application submitted pursuant to this section shall be reviewed by town staff for completeness. If any required item fails to be submitted, the application shall be deemed incomplete. Staff shall advise an applicant in writing within 45 calendar days after submittal of an application regarding the completeness of the application. If the application is incomplete, such notice shall set forth the missing items or deficiencies in the application, which the applicant must correct and/or submit in order for the application to be deemed complete.

(b) The town shall issue a written decision to approve or deny an application for new wireless telecommunication system, substantial modifications to an existing system, or antenna replacements within 150 calendar days of such application being deemed complete. Failure to issue a written decision within 150 calendar days shall constitute an approval of the application.

(2) Eligible facilities requests (including co-location).

(a) An eligible facilities request application is deemed complete unless the town provides notice that the application is incomplete in writing to the applicant within 45 days of submission or within some other mutually agreed time frame. Such notice shall identify the deficiencies in the application which, if cured, would make the application complete. An application is deemed complete upon re-submission if the additional materials cure the deficiencies indicated.

5  

(b) The town shall issue a written decision approving an eligible facilities request application within 45 calendar days of such application being deemed complete. Failure to issue a written decision within 45 calendar days shall constitute an approval of the application.

(3) Supplemental review. The town reserves the right to require a supplemental review for any type of wireless telecommunication system, as determined necessary, subject to the following:

(a) Where due to the complexity of the methodology or analysis required to review an application for a wireless communications system, the town may require technical review by a third party expert, the costs of which shall be borne by the applicant, to the extent permitted by G.S. § 160A-400.52(f) and G.S. § 160A-400.53(a)(3), and shall be in addition to other applicable fees.

(b) Based on the results of the expert review, the approving authority may require changes to the applicant's application or submittals.

(c) The supplemental review may address any or all of the following:

1. The accuracy and completeness of the application and accompanying documentation;

2. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies;

3. The validity of conclusions reached;

4. Whether the proposed wireless communications facility complies with the applicable approval criteria set forth in this section; and

5. Other items deemed by the town to be relevant to determining whether a proposed wireless communications system complies with the provisions of these codes.

(D) Application and site plan requirements.

(1) Communication companies are encouraged to locate telecommunication antennae on or in structures other than a tower. These structures may include church steeples, transmission line towers, utility/light poles, water towers and the like hidden in a manner so as to not be readily visible (stealth).

(2) Where these facilities described in division (1) above are not available, co-location of facilities is encouraged.

(3) When a new tower is proposed to be sited, a determination of whether the location will provide a minimal level of coverage versus optimal coverage shall be taken into consideration.

(4) The following documentation must be submitted as part of any application for the approval of the siting of new towers:

6  

(a) To determine if a better location or alternative exists, evidence must be provided that

the applicant has investigated the possibilities for locating the proposed facilities on an existing tower, the use of stealth technology or location where the facilities would be permitted as an administratively approved use. The evidence shall consist of copies of letters sent to owners of all existing towers or other facilities within the applicant's designated search ring, requesting the following information:

1. Tower height;

2. Existing and planned tower users;

3. Suitability of the tower for co-location, including structural stability and potential for electromagnetic interference; and

4. A general description of the means and projected cost of shared use of the existing tower.

(b) A copy of all responses within 30 days from the mailing date of the letter required by division (D)(4)(a) above;

(c) A summary explanation of why the applicant believes the proposed facility cannot be located on an existing tower for 1 or both of the following reasons:

1. The structure does not meet the applicant's structural specifications or technical design requirements.

2. A co-location agreement cannot be obtained at a reasonable market rate and in a timely manner.

(d) A survey prepared by a licensed North Carolina surveyor showing the location of all existing property lines and improvements within a 1,000-foot radius of the proposed tower site and all proposed improvements including the tower, antennas, accessory structures and equipment. In addition, the survey must detail all proposed vegetation removal activities including an inventory of existing trees to be removed;

(e) Drawings of all proposed towers, antennas and accessory structures and equipment indicating elevations, height, colors and design;

(f) Documentation provided by the applicant that the proposed tower and all antennas and equipment comply with all applicable FCC regulations. In order to protect the public from unnecessary exposure to electromagnetic radiation, the tower owner shall provide documentation indicating that the power density levels do not exceed levels permitted by the FCC;

(g) Documentation provided by the applicant that the proposed tower, antennas and

7  

equipment meet FAA aviation and navigation requirements. All proposed improvements shall not restrict or interfere with air traffic or air travel from or to any existing or proposed airport. Any lighting shall not project onto any surrounding residential property. To the extent required by the FAA, strobes shall be used for night-time lighting. Whenever strobes are not required by the FAA, flashing beacons are the preferred type of lighting;

(h) A copy of the approved National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) compliance report for all towers, antennas, accessory structures or equipment proposed for the site if one is required;

(i) Documentation signed and sealed from a North Carolina licensed engineer that the proposed tower and antennas meet the structural requirements of the North Carolina Building Code and the co-location requirements of this section;

(j) Written indemnification of the town and proof of liability insurance or financial ability to respond to claims up to $1,000,000 in the aggregate which may arise from operation of the facility during its life at no cost to the town on a form approved by the Town Attorney;

(k) Evidence that the communications tower is structurally designed to support at least 1 additional telecommunication service provider, and an affidavit that the owner of the tower is willing to permit other user(s) to attach communication facilities, on a commercially reasonable basis, which do not interfere with the primary purpose of the tower. The tower owner may require that other users agree to negotiate regarding reasonable compensation to the owner from any liability that may result from the attachment. The site plan shall indicate a location for at least 1 equipment building in addition to that proposed for use by the applicant. Priority for co-location on the proposed tower shall be given to antennas that will serve a public safety need for the community;

(l) The proposed tower shall be designed to accommodate additional antennas equal in number to the applicant's present and future requirements;

(m) In addition to the other consideration of this chapter, the approving body in determining whether a tower is in harmony with the area or the effects and general compatibility of a tower with adjacent properties may consider the aesthetic effects of the tower as well as mitigating factors concerning aesthetics and may disapprove the tower on the grounds that the aesthetic effects are unacceptable. Factors relevant to the aesthetic effects are: the protection of the view in sensitive or particularly scenic areas and areas specifically designated in adopted plans such as unique natural features, scenic roadways and historic sites, the concentration of towers in the proposed area, and whether the height, design, placement or other characteristics of the proposed tower could be modified to have a less intrusive visual impact; and

(n) The approving body may request the applicant to conduct a balloon height test or similar tests on the proposed tower site to demonstrate the proposed height of the tower.

(E) WTS format preference. The following order of preference shall be used during the review and approval of WTS development:

8  

(1) Stealth antenna;

(2) Antenna located on existing WTS facilities, utility poles, water towers or similar utility

structure;

(3) Antenna attached to or mounted on an existing building or structure (single or co- location provider);

(4) Free-standing WTS development designed and constructed with co-location capability;

(5) Free-standing WTS development designed and constructed for single-provider use; and

(6) Signage within a wireless facility is only permitted consistent with the standards outlined in Section 156.130.

(F) Use guidelines and dimensional requirements.

(1) Antennas and towers may be considered either principal or accessory uses. A different existing use or an existing structure on the same lot shall not preclude the installation of an antenna or tower on the lot. For purposes of determining whether the installation of a tower or antenna complies with district development regulations, including but not limited to, setback requirements, lot size and coverage requirements, and other like requirements, the dimensions of the entire lot shall control, even though the antennas or towers may be located on leased parcels within the lots. Towers that are constructed, and antennas that are installed, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall not be deemed to constitute the expansion of a nonconforming use or structure.

(2) In order to provide spatial separation and create visual block from adjacent properties and streets, a buffer shall be installed around the outside of all improvements on the site, including the tower and guy anchors, any ground buildings or equipment, and security fencing. Ground buildings located in a residential district may be located outside the buffered area if they are constructed so the exterior appearance of the building has the appearance of a residential dwelling, including pitched roof and frame or brick veneer construction. The tower's guy anchors may be screened or fenced separately in order to comply with the requirements of this division.

(3) The base of the tower and each guy anchor shall be surrounded by a security fence or wall at least 8 feet in height unless the tower and all guy anchors are mounted entirely on a building over 8 feet in height. The tower's guy anchors may be screened or fenced separately in order to comply with the requirements of this section.

(4) An equipment compound shall only be used to house equipment and other supplies in support of the operation of the wireless communications facility or support structure. Any equipment not used in direct support of such operation shall not be stored on the site.

(5) Accessory buildings shall not be used as an employment center for any worker. This

9  

provision does not prohibit the periodic maintenance or periodic monitoring of equipment and instruments.

(6) The proposed tower, antenna, or accessory structure and equipment shall be placed in a location and in a manner that will minimize the visual impact on the surrounding area.

(7) No commercial advertising, company logo, or signage shall be allowed on the tower or its related facilities. However, signs shall be posted that list a telephone number for the owner of the tower and "No Trespassing" information. This sign shall be located on the accessory building or fencing and shall not exceed 4 square feet in area.

(8) The proposed tower shall be set back from all publicly owned roads or rights-of-way a distance equal to the tower height. If visible from any public road or right-of-way, a landscape plan indicating how the applicant proposes to screen any accessory structure or equipment from view.

(9) Setbacks of the base of the tower from all adjacent property lines shall be 1 foot for each foot of tower height. To encourage shared use of towers, applications for towers which will operate with more than 1 user immediately upon completion may have a 10% reduction in the required setbacks, but in no case shall the setback be less than those required for the underlying zoning district. Also, to encourage the construction of monopole structures, monopole towers may have a 20% reduction in the required setbacks. To encourage location of towers in forested areas with a minimum depth of 65 feet, the tower may have a 20% reduction in the required setbacks. In no case shall the setback be less than those required for the underlying zoning district. The setback reductions shall only be allowed upon a professional engineering certification which states that the structure's construction will cause the tower to crumble inward so that in the event of collapse no damage to structures on adjacent zoning lots will result.

(10) The proposed tower shall be set back from all property lines a distance equal to the proposed tower's fall zone as certified by a registered North Carolina engineer, plus 20 feet.

(11) The proposed tower shall be set back a distance equal to the tower's height plus 50 feet from any residential structure.

(12) No towers shall be located in the public trust waters of the town.

(G) Non-conforming towers. Continuation, relocation and reconstruction of, and enlargements and modifications to towers and associated equipment that do not meet current requirements of this chapter (towers constructed prior to July 3, 2002) are subject to the following requirements:

(1) A site plan shall be submitted for any relocation or reconstruction of a non-conforming tower.

(2) Increases in height shall not exceed 15% of the height of the tower as it existed in 2002, and shall not equal or exceed a height that would either require a special use permit or would require the tower, if unlit, to add lights.

10  

(3) Any relocation or structural change:

(a) Must be on the tower's current site;

(b) Must eliminate the need for an additional tower or provide both additional co-location

opportunities and additional antenna space beyond what is provided by the current tower; and

(c) May not change the style of the tower, if the tower is currently a monopole.

(4) Any relocation must comply with current ordinance setback requirements, if physically possible, or, if compliance is not possible, the relocation must not increase the amount by which setbacks are non-conforming, other than increases necessitated solely by changes in size of the base to support the new tower. If the foregoing setback requirements cannot be met, then setbacks may only be decreased by up to 15% of the originally constructed tower height(s).

(5) If a non-conforming tower is damaged beyond 50% of its replacement value, a replacement tower constructed on the same site or lot may not exceed the height of the previous tower, and must comply with all requirements of the current ordinance, except the requirement for a use permit.

(H) Decommissioning or abandonment.

(1) The owner of the wireless telecommunication facility shall complete decommissioning of the facility within 6 months of non-use 180 days of abandonment.

(2) The Town Manager may grant a 1 time, 6 month extension to the above decommissioning timeframe if it is determined that a special or unique circumstance exists.

(3) Decommissioning shall include the removal of all towers, buildings, cabling, electrical components, roads, and other associated facilities down to 36 inches below grade.

(4) Disturbed earth shall be graded and re-seeded, unless the landowner requests in writing that the access roads or other land surface areas not be restored.

(5) Should the wireless services provider fail to timely remove the abandoned wireless facility, the Town may cause such wireless facility to be removed and may recover the actual cost of such removal, including legal fees, if any, from the wireless services provider. If the owner of the facility fails to remove the structure and other improvements within the allotted timeframe, The Town will may take measures, including the execution of the surety bond, to remove the facility and restore the land to the condition existing prior to installation of the structure. If the surety bond amount is insufficient for restoration of the land, the town may hold the property owner responsible for the difference in cost.

(6) To ensure removal of any abandoned tower, antennae, accessory structure or equipment,

11  

a non-cancellable structure removal surety bond or other security acceptable to the town shall be required, in a form subject to approval by the Town Attorney, for removal of the facility and naming the town as a beneficiary. The amount of the surety shall be calculated by an independent, North Carolina certified professional engineer immediately prior to the date it is required to be provided, at the expense of the applicant, and shall be equal to 150% of the cost of removing the facility. The surety amount shall be recalculated every 5 years thereafter using the same process, and proof of the updated bond amount shall be forwarded to the Town. The surety, which shall be in the form of a single instrument, shall be provided to the Town upon failure of the owner to complete the decommissioning of the facility within the time period specified in division (I)(1) above.

(I) Small wireless facilities.

(1) Standards. Small wireless facilities and utility poles installed to support small wireless facilities in the right-of-way shall comply with the following requirements:

(a) Height of new small wireless facilities. New small wireless facilities in the ROW may not extend (i) more than ten feet (10’) above an existing utility pole in place as of the effective date of this Chapter; or (ii) for small wireless facilities on a new utility pole, above the height permitted for a new utility pole under this Chapter.

(b) Height of new or modified utility poles installed to support small wireless facilities. Each new or modified utility pole installed in the ROW shall not exceed the greater of (i) ten feet (10’) above an existing utility pole; or (ii) fifty feet (50’) above ground level. In the Single-Family Residential (RS-1, RS-2) zoning districts, where the existing utilities are installed underground, a utility pole or wireless support structure cannot exceed forty feet (40’) above ground level, unless the applicant obtains a variance approving the taller utility pole or wireless support structure.

(c) Maximum Size. The small cell facility must conform to the size and height limitations as defined for a small cell facility in this Chapter.

(d) Utility Pole Modifications. Utility pole modifications relating to small wireless facility collocations shall be fabricated from material having a degree of strength capable of supporting the small wireless facility and shall be capable of withstanding wind forces and ice loads in accordance with applicable standards. A modification shall be securely bound in accordance with applicable engineering standards.

(e) Color. Small wireless facilities shall be the color for the antenna and related equipment that is consistent with or most blends into the wireless support structure on which they are installed, unless a different color is needed for public safety or service reliability reasons.

(f) Wiring and Cabling. Wires and cables connecting the antenna and appurtenances serving the small cell facility shall be installed in accordance with the version of the National Electrical Code and National Electrical Safety Code adopted by the City and in force at the time

12  

of installation. In no event shall wiring and cabling serving the small wireless facility interfere with any wiring or cabling installed by a cable television or video service operator, electric utility, or telephone utility.

(g) Guy Wires Restricted. Guy wires and similar support structures may not be used as part of the installation of any small wireless facility, unless the small wireless facility is proposed to be attached to an existing utility pole that incorporated guy wires prior to the date of the small wireless application.

(h) Grounding. The small wireless facility including any ground-mounted equipment, shall be grounded in accordance with the requirements of the most current edition of the National Electrical Code adopted by the City regarding grounding of wireless facilities.

(i) Signage. Other than warning or notification signs required by federal law or regulations, or identification and location markings, a small wireless facility shall not have signs installed thereon.

(j) Access. Wireless providers and their employees, agents, and contractors shall have

the right of access to utility poles, wireless support structures and small wireless facilities in the right-of-way at all times for purposes consistent with this Chapter.

(2) Other Requirements.

(a) Small wireless facilities shall be located such that they do not interfere with public health or safety facility, such as, but not limited to a fire hydrant, fire station, fire escape, water valve, underground vault, valve housing structure, or any other public health or safety facility. New utility poles and small wireless facilities shall not be installed directly over any water, sewer, or reuse main or service line.

(b) Any tree disturbing activity necessary for the installation or collocation of small wireless facilities and utility poles installed to support then shall comply with Section 156.137, tree and vegetation preservation and planning.

(c) Small wireless facilities and utility poles or wireless support structures on which they are collocated shall not be lighted or marked by artificial means, except when small wireless facilities are collocated on a light pole or where illumination is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal, state, or local regulations.

(d) A wireless provider shall repair, at its sole cost and expense, any damages including but not limited to subsidence, cracking, erosion, collapse, weakening, or loss of lateral support to city streets, sidewalks, walks, curbs, gutters, trees, parkways, street lights, traffic signals, improvements of any kind or nature, or utility lines and systems, underground utility line and systems, or sewer or water systems and water and sewer lines that result from any activities performed in connection with the installation and/or maintenance of a wireless facility in the right-of-way. The wireless provider shall restore such areas, structures and systems to

13  

substantially the same condition in which they existed prior to the installation or maintenance that necessitated the repairs.

(e) Small wireless facilities shall blend in with the surrounding environment or otherwise concealed to the extent practicable.

(3) Application process for small wireless facilities located within public rights-of-way or zoning districts other than Single-Family Residential (RS-1 & RS-2).

(a) An applicant seeking to locate small wireless facilities at multiple locations in the Town shall be allowed, at the applicant's discretion, to file a consolidated application for no more than 25 separate facilities and receive a permit for the collocation of all the small wireless facilities meeting the requirements of this section. The Town may remove small wireless facility collocations from a consolidated application and treat separately small wireless facility collocations (i) for which incomplete information has been provided or (ii) that are denied. The Town may issue a separate permit for each collocation that is approved.

(b) An application must include an attestation that the small wireless facilities shall be collocated on a utility pole or wireless support structure and that the small wireless facilities will be activated for use by a wireless services provider to provide service no later than one year from the permit issuance date, unless the Town and the wireless provider agree to extend this period or a delay is caused by a lack of commercial power at the site.

(c) Within 30 days of receiving an application, the Town will determine and notify the applicant whether the application is complete. If an application is incomplete, the Town must specifically identify the missing information. The processing deadline is tolled from the time the Town sends the notice of incompleteness to the time the applicant provides the missing information. That processing deadline also may be amended by mutual agreement of the applicant and the Town.

(d) The permit application shall be deemed approved if the Town fails to approve or deny the application within 45 days from the time the application is deemed complete or a mutually agreed upon time frame between the Town and the applicant.

(e) The Town may deny a proposed collocation of a small wireless facility or installation or modification of a utility pole only if the application:

i. Interferes with the safe operation of traffic control equipment. ii. Interferes with sight lines or clear zones for vehicles or pedestrians.

iii. Interferes with compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act or similar federal or state standards regarding pedestrian access or movement.

iv. Fails to comply with reasonable and nondiscriminatory spacing requirements that apply to other communications service providers and electric utilities in the right-of-way and that concern the location of ground-mounted equipment and new utility poles. Such spacing requirements shall not prevent a small wireless facility from serving any location.

v. Fails to comply with the requirements and design standards outlined in this

14  

Chapter and other applicable codes, including screening of ground-mounted equipment.

(f) The permit may specify that collocation of the small wireless facility shall commence within six months of approval and shall be activated for use no later than one year from the permit issuance date, unless the Town and the wireless provider agree to extend this period or a delay is caused by a lack of commercial power at the site.

(4) A wireless provider may apply to the Town to place, replace, or modify utility poles in public rights-of-way to support the collocation of small wireless facilities. Such application shall be accepted and processed in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 156.058(I)(3) and other local codes governing the placement of utility poles in the public rights-of-way, including provisions or regulations that concern public safety, objective design standards for decorative utility poles or city utility poles, or reasonable and nondiscriminatory stealth and concealment requirements, including those relating to screening or landscaping, or public safety and reasonable spacing requirements. The application may be submitted in conjunction with the associated small wireless facility application.

(5) Removal, Relocation or Modification of a Small Wireless Facility

(a) Notice. Within ninety (90) days following written notice from the Town, the wireless provider shall, at its own expense, protect, support, temporarily or permanently disconnect, remove, relocate, change or alter the position of any small wireless facilities or utility pole for which it has a permit hereunder whenever the Town has determined that such removal, relocation, change or alteration, is reasonably necessary for the construction, repair, maintenance, or installation of any Town improvement in or upon, or the operations of the Town in or upon, the public right-of-way.

(b) Emergency Removal or Relocation of Facilities. The Town retains the right to cut or move any small wireless facilities or utility poles located within the public right-of-way, as the Town may determine to be necessary, appropriate or useful in response to any public health or safety emergency. If circumstances permit, the Town shall notify the wireless provider and provide it an opportunity to move its small wireless facilities or utility poles prior to cutting or removing them and shall notify the wireless provider after cutting or removing a small wireless facility or utility pole.

(J) Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. ABANDONMENT. Cessation of use of a wireless support structure, antenna, or equipment for wireless telecommunications activity with the intention to give up the use, maintenance, and control of the facilities. A wireless facility shall be deemed abandoned at the earlier of the date that the wireless services provider indicates that it is abandoning such facility or the date that is 180 days after the date that such wireless facility ceases to transmit a signal, unless the wireless services provider gives the Town reasonable evidence that it is diligently working to place such wireless facility back in service.

15  

ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT STRUCTURE. A building or cabinet-like structure located adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of, a wireless telecommunications tower or antenna to house equipment customarily incidental to the receiving or transmitting of wireless broadcasts, cellular telephone calls, voice messaging and paging services. ALTERNATIVE TOWER STRUCTURE. Clock towers, sculptures, bell steeples, light poles and similar alternative-design mounting structures that conceal the presence of antennas or towers. ANTENNA. Equipment used for transmitting or receiving radio frequency signals which is attached to a tower, building or other structure usually consisting of a series of directional panels, microwave or satellite dishes or omni-directional "whip" antennae. ANTENNA, STEALTH. Wireless telecommunications antenna and related equipment designed to blend into surrounding environment or integrated into the physical structure to which it is attached. BASE TRANSCEIVER STATION. Equipment that provides the link between wireless communications and land-based public telephone switching networks, including radio frequency transceivers, back-up power sources, power amplifiers and signal processing hardware, typically contained in a small building or cabinet. CO-LOCATION. The location of wireless telecommunications equipment from more than 1 provider on 1 common tower, building or structure. COLLOCATION. The placement, installation, maintenance, modification, operation, or replacement of wireless facilities on an existing wireless support structure, utility pole, or other structure capable of supporting the attachment of wireless facilities. ELIGIBLE FACILITIES REQUEST. A request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves co-location of new transmission equipment or replacement of transmission equipment but does not include a substantial modification (see definition below). MICRO WIRELESS FACILITY. A small wireless facility that meets the following qualifications: (i) is not larger in dimension than 24 inches in length, 15 inches in width, and 12 inches in height; and (ii) has no exterior antenna longer than 11 inches. PRE-EXISTING TOWERS AND ANTENNAS. Any tower or antenna on which a permit has been properly issued prior to the effective date of this chapter. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. Any activities ensuring that wireless facilities and telecommunications towers are kept in good operating condition. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE includes inspections, testing, and modifications that maintain functional capacity and structural integrity. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE includes replacing antennas of a similar size, weight, shape, and color; replacing accessory equipment within an existing equipment compound; and

16  

relocating antennas to different heights on an existing tower upon which they are located. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE does not include substantial modification. SEARCH RING. A circle or other shape drawn on a map that indicates where a site could be located to meet the radio frequency engineering requirements of a wireless carrier. The size and shape of a search ring varies depending upon the topography, demographics, and other factors. SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY. A wireless facility that meets both of the following qualifications: (i) each wireless provider’s antenna could fit within an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna and exposed elements could fit within an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet; and (ii) all other wireless equipment associated with the wireless facility, whether ground- or pole-mounted, is cumulatively no more than 28 cubic feet in volume. The following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume: electric meter, concealment elements, telecommunications demarcation box, ground-based enclosures, grounding equipment, power transfer switches, cut-off switches, vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services, and other support structures. SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION. The mounting of a wireless facility on a telecommunications tower that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the tower. A mounting is presumed to be a substantial modification if it meets 1 or more of the criteria listed below: (a) Increasing the existing vertical height of the structure by the greater of: 1. More than 10%; or 2. The height of 1 additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet, whichever is greater. (b) Except where necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable, adding an appurtenance to the body of an antenna support structure that protrudes horizontally from the edge of an antenna support structure the greater of: 1. More than 20 feet; or 2. More than the width of the antenna support structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater.

(c) Increasing the square footage of the existing equipment compound by more than 2,500 square feet.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER. Any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting 1 or more antennas, including self-supporting lattice towers, guy towers and monopole towers. The term includes radio and television transmission towers, personal communications service towers (PCS), microwave towers, common-carrier towers, cellular telephone towers, alternative tower structures and the like. This definition does not include any structure erected solely for a residential, non-commercial individual use, such as television antennas, satellite dishes or amateur radio antennas. TOWER, GUY. A tower design that features supporting cables and wires anchored to the ground surrounding the tower.

17  

TOWER, LATTICE. Three- or 4-legged steel girdered structures typically supporting multiple communications users and services generally ranging from 60 to 200 feet in height. TOWER, MONOPOLE. Single pole design, approximately 3 feet in diameter at the base narrowing to approximately 1 1/2 feet at the top, generally ranging from 25 to 150 feet in height. UTILITY POLE. Pole used to support essential services such as power, telephone or cable TV lines, or used to support street or pedestrian way lighting, typically located in public rights-of-way. Such term shall not include structures supporting only wireless facilities. WIRELESS FACILITY. The set of equipment and network components, exclusive of the underlying wireless support structure, including, but not limited to, antennas, accessory equipment, transmitters, receivers, base stations, power supplies, cabling and associated equipment necessary to provide wireless telecommunications services. Equipment at a fixed location that enables wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network, including (i) equipment associated with wireless communications and (ii) radio transceivers, antennas, wires, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration. The term includes small wireless facilities. The term shall not include any of the following: a. The structure or improvements on, under, within, or adjacent to which the equipment is collocated. b. Wireline backhaul facilities. c. Coaxial or fiber-optic cable that is between wireless structures or utility poles or city utility poles or that is otherwise not immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a particular antenna. WIRELESS PROVIDER. A wireless infrastructure provider or a wireless services provider. WIRELESS SUPPORT STRUCTURE. A new or existing freestanding structure, such as a monopole, tower, or other structure designed to support or capable of supporting wireless facilities. Such term shall not include utility poles. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES (WTS). Licensed or unlicensed wireless telecommunication services including cellular, digital cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio (EPMR), commercial or private paging services or similar services marketed or provided to the general public. This definition does not include services by non-commercial entities in the Amateur Radio Service, Public Safety Radio Service, or licenses assigned to non-profit organizations, such as the Red Cross, Civil Air Patrol, Military Affiliated Radio Service (MARS), that are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. PART II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption.

18  

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

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA

SESSION 2017

SESSION LAW 2017-159

HOUSE BILL 310

*H310-v-7*

AN ACT TO REFORM COLLOCATION OF SMALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS

INFRASTRUCTURE TO AID IN DEPLOYMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. The General Assembly finds the following:

(1) The design, engineering, permitting, construction, modification,

maintenance, and operation of wireless facilities are instrumental to the

provision of emergency services and to increasing access to advanced

technology and information for the citizens of North Carolina.

(2) Cities and counties play a key role in facilitating the use of the public

rights-of-way.

(3) Wireless services providers and wireless infrastructure providers must have

access to the public rights-of-way and the ability to attach to poles and

structures in the public rights-of-way to densify their networks and provide

next generation services.

(4) Small wireless facilities, including facilities commonly referred to as small

cells and distributed antenna systems, often may be deployed most

effectively in the public rights-of-way.

(5) Expeditious processes and reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates, fees, and

terms related to such deployments are essential to the construction and

maintenance of wireless facilities.

(6) Wireless facilities help ensure the State remain competitive in the global

economy.

(7) The timely design, engineering, permitting, construction, modification,

maintenance, and operation of wireless facilities are matters of statewide

concern and interest.

SECTION 2.(a) G.S. 160A-400.51(4a) is recodified as G.S. 160A-400.51(4d).

SECTION 2.(b) G.S. 160A-400.51(7a) is recodified as G.S. 160A-400.51(7b).

SECTION 2.(c) Part 3E of Article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes, as

amended by subsections (a) and (b) of this section, reads as rewritten:

"Part 3E. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.

"§ 160A-400.50. Purpose and compliance with federal law.

…

(c) This Part shall not be construed to authorize a city to require the construction or

installation of wireless facilities or to regulate wireless services other than as set forth herein.

"§ 160A-400.51. Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this Part.

(1) Antenna. – Communications equipment that transmits, receives, or transmits

and receives electromagnetic radio signals used in the provision of all types

of wireless communications services.

Page 2 Session Law 2017-159 House Bill 310

(1a) Applicable codes. – The North Carolina State Building Code and any other

uniform building, fire, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical codes adopted by

a recognized national code organization together with State or local

amendments to those codes enacted solely to address imminent threats of

destruction of property or injury to persons.

(2) Application. – A formal request submitted to the city to construct or modify

a wireless support structure or a wireless facility.A request that is submitted

by an applicant to a city for a permit to collocate wireless facilities or to

approve the installation, modification, or replacement of a utility pole, city

utility pole, or wireless support structure.

(2a) Base station. – A station at a specific site authorized to communicate with

mobile stations, generally consisting of radio receivers, antennas, coaxial

cables, power supplies, and other associated electronics.

(3) Building permit. – An official administrative authorization issued by the city

prior to beginning construction consistent with the provisions of

G.S. 160A-417.

(3a) City right-of-way. – A right-of-way owned, leased, or operated by a city,

including any public street or alley that is not a part of the State highway

system.

(3b) City utility pole. – A pole owned by a city in the city right-of-way that

provides lighting, traffic control, or a similar function.

(4) Collocation. – The placement or installation placement, installation,

maintenance, modification, operation, or replacement of wireless facilities

on on, under, within, or on the surface of the earth adjacent to existing

structures, including electrical transmission towers,utility poles, city utility

poles, water towers, buildings, and other structures capable of structurally

supporting the attachment of wireless facilities in compliance with

applicable codes. The term "collocation" does not include the installation of

new utility poles, city utility poles, or wireless support structures.

(4a) Communications facility. – The set of equipment and network components,

including wires and cables and associated facilities used by a

communications service provider to provide communications service.

(4b) Communications service. – Cable service as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 522(6),

information service as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 153(24), telecommunications

service as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 153(53), or wireless services.

(4c) Communications service provider. – A cable operator as defined in 47

U.S.C. § 522(5); a provider of information service, as defined in 47 U.S.C. §

153(24); a telecommunications carrier, as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 153(51); or

a wireless provider.

(4d) Eligible facilities request. – A request for modification of an existing

wireless tower or base station that involves collocation of new transmission

equipment or replacement of transmission equipment but does not include a

substantial modification.

(5) Equipment compound. – An area surrounding or near the base of a wireless

support structure within which a wireless facility is located.

(5a) Fall zone. – The area in which a wireless support structure may be expected

to fall in the event of a structural failure, as measured by engineering

standards.

(6) Land development regulation. – Any ordinance enacted pursuant to this Part.

House Bill 310 Session Law 2017-159 Page 3

(6a) Micro wireless facility. – A small wireless facility that is no larger in

dimension than 24 inches in length, 15 inches in width, and 12 inches in

height and that has an exterior antenna, if any, no longer than 11 inches.

(7) Search ring. – The area within which a wireless support facility or wireless

facility must be located in order to meet service objectives of the wireless

service provider using the wireless facility or wireless support structure.

(7a) Small wireless facility. – A wireless facility that meets both of the following

qualifications:

a. Each antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than six cubic

feet in volume or, in the case of an antenna that has exposed

elements, the antenna and all of its exposed elements, if enclosed,

could fit within an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet.

b. All other wireless equipment associated with the facility has a

cumulative volume of no more than 28 cubic feet. For purposes of

this sub-subdivision, the following types of ancillary equipment are

not included in the calculation of equipment volume: electric meters,

concealment elements, telecommunications demarcation boxes,

ground-based enclosures, grounding equipment, power transfer

switches, cut-off switches, vertical cable runs for the connection of

power and other services, or other support structures.

(7b) Substantial modification. – The mounting of a proposed wireless facility on

a wireless support structure that substantially changes the physical

dimensions of the support structure. A mounting is presumed to be a

substantial modification if it meets any one or more of the criteria listed

below. The burden is on the local government to demonstrate that a

mounting that does not meet the listed criteria constitutes a substantial

change to the physical dimensions of the wireless support structure.

a. Increasing the existing vertical height of the structure by the greater

of (i) more than ten percent (10%) or (ii) the height of one additional

antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to

exceed 20 feet.

b. Except where necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement

weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable, adding an

appurtenance to the body of a wireless support structure that

protrudes horizontally from the edge of the wireless support structure

the greater of (i) more than 20 feet or (ii) more than the width of the

wireless support structure at the level of the appurtenance.

c. Increasing the square footage of the existing equipment compound

by more than 2,500 square feet.

(8) Utility pole. – A structure that is designed for and used to carry lines, cables,

or wires wires, lighting facilities, or small wireless facilities for telephone,

cable television, or electricity, or to provide lighting.lighting, or wireless

services.

(8a) Water tower. – A water storage tank, a standpipe, or an elevated tank

situated on a support structure originally constructed for use as a reservoir or

facility to store or deliver water.

(9) Wireless facility. – The set of equipment and network components, exclusive

of the underlying wireless support structure or tower, including antennas,

transmitters, receivers, base stations, power supplies, cabling, and associated

equipment necessary to provide wireless data and wireless

telecommunications services to a discrete geographic area.Equipment at a

Page 4 Session Law 2017-159 House Bill 310

fixed location that enables wireless communications between user equipment

and a communications network, including (i) equipment associated with

wireless communications and (ii) radio transceivers, antennas, wires, coaxial

or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable

equipment, regardless of technological configuration. The term includes

small wireless facilities. The term shall not include any of the following:

a. The structure or improvements on, under, within, or adjacent to

which the equipment is collocated.

b. Wireline backhaul facilities.

c. Coaxial or fiber-optic cable that is between wireless structures or

utility poles or city utility poles or that is otherwise not immediately

adjacent to or directly associated with a particular antenna.

(9a) Wireless infrastructure provider. – Any person with a certificate to provide

telecommunications service in the State who builds or installs wireless

communication transmission equipment, wireless facilities, or wireless

support structures for small wireless facilities but that does not provide

wireless services.

(9b) Wireless provider. – A wireless infrastructure provider or a wireless services

provider.

(9c) Wireless services. – Any services, using licensed or unlicensed wireless

spectrum, including the use of Wi-Fi, whether at a fixed location or mobile,

provided to the public using wireless facilities.

(9d) Wireless services provider. – A person who provides wireless services.

(10) Wireless support structure. – A new or existing structure, such as a

monopole, lattice tower, or guyed tower that is designed to support or

capable of supporting wireless facilities. A utility pole or a city utility pole is

not a wireless support structure.

…

"§ 160A-400.54. Collocation of small wireless facilities.

(a) Except as expressly provided in this Part, a city shall not prohibit, regulate, or

charge for the collocation of small wireless facilities.

(b) A city may not establish a moratorium on (i) filing, receiving, or processing

applications or (ii) issuing permits or any other approvals for the collocation of small wireless

facilities.

(c) Small wireless facilities that meet the height requirements of

G.S. 160A-400.55(b)(2) shall only be subject to administrative review and approval under

subsection (d) of this section if they are collocated (i) in a city right-of-way within any zoning

district or (ii) outside of city rights-of-way on property other than single-family residential

property.

(d) A city may require an applicant to obtain a permit to collocate a small wireless

facility. A city shall receive applications for, process, and issue such permits subject to the

following requirements:

(1) A city may not, directly or indirectly, require an applicant to perform

services unrelated to the collocation for which approval is sought. For

purposes of this subdivision, "services unrelated to the collocation," includes

in-kind contributions to the city such as the reservation of fiber, conduit, or

pole space for the city.

(2) The wireless provider completes an application as specified in form and

content by the city. A wireless provider shall not be required to provide more

information to obtain a permit than communications service providers that

are not wireless providers.

House Bill 310 Session Law 2017-159 Page 5

(3) A permit application shall be deemed complete unless the city provides

notice otherwise in writing to the applicant within 30 days of submission or

within some other mutually agreed upon time frame. The notice shall

identify the deficiencies in the application which, if cured, would make the

application complete. The application shall be deemed complete on

resubmission if the additional materials cure the deficiencies identified.

(4) The permit application shall be processed on a nondiscriminatory basis and

shall be deemed approved if the city fails to approve or deny the application

within 45 days from the time the application is deemed complete or a

mutually agreed upon time frame between the city and the applicant.

(5) A city may deny an application only on the basis that it does not meet any of

the following: (i) the city's applicable codes; (ii) local code provisions or

regulations that concern public safety, objective design standards for

decorative utility poles, city utility poles, or reasonable and

nondiscriminatory stealth and concealment requirements, including

screening or landscaping for ground-mounted equipment; (iii) public safety

and reasonable spacing requirements concerning the location of

ground-mounted equipment in a right-of-way; or (iv) the historic

preservation requirements in subsection 160A-400.55(h). The city must (i)

document the basis for a denial, including the specific code provisions on

which the denial was based and (ii) send the documentation to the applicant

on or before the day the city denies an application. The applicant may cure

the deficiencies identified by the city and resubmit the application within 30

days of the denial without paying an additional application fee. The city

shall approve or deny the revised application within 30 days of the date on

which the application was resubmitted. Any subsequent review shall be

limited to the deficiencies cited in the prior denial.

(6) An application must include an attestation that the small wireless facilities

shall be collocated on the utility pole, city utility pole, or wireless support

structure and that the small wireless facilities shall be activated for use by a

wireless services provider to provide service no later than one year from the

permit issuance date, unless the city and the wireless provider agree to

extend this period or a delay is caused by a lack of commercial power at the

site.

(7) An applicant seeking to collocate small wireless facilities at multiple

locations within the jurisdiction of a city shall be allowed at the applicant's

discretion to file a consolidated application for no more than 25 separate

facilities and receive a permit for the collocation of all the small wireless

facilities meeting the requirements of this section. A city may remove small

wireless facility collocations from a consolidated application and treat

separately small wireless facility collocations (i) for which incomplete

information has been provided or (ii) that are denied. The city may issue a

separate permit for each collocation that is approved.

(8) The permit may specify that collocation of the small wireless facility shall

commence within six months of approval and shall be activated for use no

later than one year from the permit issuance date, unless the city and the

wireless provider agree to extend this period or a delay is caused by a lack of

commercial power at the site.

(e) A city may charge an application fee that shall not exceed the lesser of (i) the actual,

direct, and reasonable costs to process and review applications for collocated small wireless

facilities; (ii) the amount charged by the city for permitting of any similar activity; or (iii) one

Page 6 Session Law 2017-159 House Bill 310

hundred dollars ($100.00) per facility for the first five small wireless facilities addressed in an

application, plus fifty dollars ($50.00) for each additional small wireless facility addressed in

the application. In any dispute concerning the appropriateness of a fee, the city has the burden

of proving that the fee meets the requirements of this subsection.

(f) A city may impose a technical consulting fee for each application, not to exceed five

hundred dollars ($500.00), to offset the cost of reviewing and processing applications required

by this section. The fee must be based on the actual, direct, and reasonable administrative costs

incurred for the review, processing, and approval of an application. A city may engage an

outside consultant for technical consultation and the review of an application. The fee imposed

by a city for the review of the application shall not be used for either of the following:

(1) Travel expenses incurred in the review of a collocation application by an

outside consultant or other third party.

(2) Direct payment or reimbursement for an outside consultant or other third

party based on a contingent fee basis or results-based arrangement.

In any dispute concerning the appropriateness of a fee, the city has the burden of proving

that the fee meets the requirements of this subsection.

(g) A city may require a wireless services provider to remove an abandoned wireless

facility within 180 days of abandonment. Should the wireless services provider fail to timely

remove the abandoned wireless facility, the city may cause such wireless facility to be removed

and may recover the actual cost of such removal, including legal fees, if any, from the wireless

services provider. For purposes of this subsection, a wireless facility shall be deemed

abandoned at the earlier of the date that the wireless services provider indicates that it is

abandoning such facility or the date that is 180 days after the date that such wireless facility

ceases to transmit a signal, unless the wireless services provider gives the city reasonable

evidence that it is diligently working to place such wireless facility back in service.

(h) A city shall not require an application or permit or charge fees for (i) routine

maintenance; (ii) the replacement of small wireless facilities with small wireless facilities that

are the same size or smaller; or (iii) installation, placement, maintenance, or replacement of

micro wireless facilities that are suspended on cables strung between existing utility poles or

city utility poles in compliance with applicable codes by or for a communications service

provider authorized to occupy the city rights-of-way and who is remitting taxes under

G.S. 105-164.4(a)(4c) or G.S. 105-164.4(a)(6).

(i) Nothing in this section shall prevent a city from requiring a work permit for work

that involves excavation, affects traffic patterns, or obstructs vehicular traffic in the city

right-of-way.

"§ 160A-400.55. Use of public right-of-way.

(a) A city shall not enter into an exclusive arrangement with any person for use of city

rights-of-way for the construction, operation, marketing, or maintenance of wireless facilities or

wireless support structures or the collocation of small wireless facilities.

(b) Subject to the requirements of G.S. 160A-400.54, a wireless provider may collocate

small wireless facilities along, across, upon, or under any city right-of-way. Subject to the

requirements of this section, a wireless provider may place, maintain, modify, operate, or

replace associated utility poles, city utility poles, conduit, cable, or related appurtenances and

facilities along, across, upon, and under any city right-of-way. The placement, maintenance,

modification, operation, or replacement of utility poles and city utility poles associated with the

collocation of small wireless facilities, along, across, upon, or under any city right-of-way shall

be subject only to review or approval under subsection (d) of G.S. 160A-400.54 if the wireless

provider meets all the following requirements:

(1) Each new utility pole and each modified or replacement utility pole or city

utility pole installed in the right-of-way shall not exceed 50 feet above

ground level.

House Bill 310 Session Law 2017-159 Page 7

(2) Each new small wireless facility in the right-of-way shall not extend more

than 10 feet above the utility pole, city utility pole, or wireless support

structure on which it is collocated.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a city from allowing utility

poles, city utility poles, or wireless facilities that exceed the limits set forth in subdivision (1) of

subsection (b) of this section.

(d) Applicants for use of a city right-of-way shall comply with a city's undergrounding

requirements prohibiting the installation of above-ground structures in the city rights-of-way

without prior zoning approval, if those requirements (i) are nondiscriminatory with respect to

type of utility, (ii) do not prohibit the replacement of structures existing at the time of adoption

of the requirements, and (iii) have a waiver process.

(d1) Notwithstanding subsection (d) of this section, in no instance in an area zoned

single-family residential where the existing utilities are installed underground may a utility

pole, city utility pole, or wireless support structure exceed forty (40) feet above ground level,

unless the city grants a waiver or variance approving a taller utility pole, city utility pole, or

wireless support structure.

(e) Except as provided in this part, a city may assess a right-of-way charge under this

section for use or occupation of the right-of-way by a wireless provider, subject to the

restrictions set forth under G.S. 160A-296(a)(6). In addition, charges authorized by this section

shall meet all of the following requirements:

(1) The right-of-way charge shall not exceed the direct and actual cost of

managing the city rights-of-way and shall not be based on the wireless

provider's revenue or customer counts.

(2) The right-of-way charge shall not exceed that imposed on other users of the

right-of-way, including publicly, cooperatively, or municipally owned

utilities.

(3) The right-of-way charge shall be reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

Nothing in this subsection is intended to establish or otherwise affect rates charged for

attachments to utility poles, city utility poles, or wireless support structures. At its discretion, a

city may provide free access to city rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis in order to

facilitate the public benefits of the deployment of wireless services.

(f) Nothing in this section is intended to authorize a person to place, maintain, modify,

operate, or replace a privately owned utility pole or wireless support structure or to collocate

small wireless facilities on a privately owned utility pole, a privately owned wireless support

structure, or other private property without the consent of the property owner.

(g) A city may require a wireless provider to repair all damage to a city right-of-way

directly caused by the activities of the wireless provider, while occupying, installing, repairing,

or maintaining wireless facilities, wireless support structures, city utility poles, or utility poles

and to return the right-of-way to its functional equivalence before the damage. If the wireless

provider fails to make the repairs required by the city within a reasonable time after written

notice, the city may undertake those repairs and charge the applicable party the reasonable and

documented cost of the repairs. The city may maintain an action to recover the costs of the

repairs.

(h) This section shall not be construed to limit local government authority to enforce

historic preservation zoning regulations consistent with Part 3C of Article 19 of this Chapter,

the preservation of local zoning authority under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7), the requirements for

facility modifications under 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), or the National Historic Preservation Act of

1966, 54 U.S.C. § 300101, et seq., as amended, and the regulations, local acts, and city charter

provisions adopted to implement those laws.

(i) A wireless provider may apply to a city to place utility poles in the city

rights-of-way, or to replace or modify utility poles or city utility poles in the public rights-of

Page 8 Session Law 2017-159 House Bill 310

way, to support the collocation of small wireless facilities. A city shall accept and process the

application in accordance with the provisions of G.S. 160A-400.54(d), applicable codes, and

other local codes governing the placement of utility poles or city utility poles in the city

rights-of-way, including provisions or regulations that concern public safety, objective design

standards for decorative utility poles or city utility poles, or reasonable and nondiscriminatory

stealth and concealment requirements, including those relating to screening or landscaping, or

public safety and reasonable spacing requirements. The application may be submitted in

conjunction with the associated small wireless facility application.

"§ 160A-400.56. Access to city utility poles to install small wireless facilities.

(a) A city may not enter into an exclusive arrangement with any person for the right to

collocate small wireless facilities on city utility poles. A city shall allow any wireless provider

to collocate small wireless facilities on its city utility poles at just, reasonable, and

nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions, but in no instance may the rate exceed fifty

dollars ($50.00) per city utility pole per year. The North Carolina Utilities Commission shall

not consider this subsection as evidence in a proceeding initiated pursuant to G.S. 62-350(c).

(b) A request to collocate under this section may be denied only if there is insufficient

capacity or for reasons of safety, reliability, and generally applicable engineering principles,

and those limitations cannot be remedied by rearranging, expanding, or otherwise

reengineering the facilities at the reasonable and actual cost of the city to be reimbursed by the

wireless provider. In granting a request under this section, a city shall require the requesting

entity to comply with applicable safety requirements, including the National Electrical Safety

Code and the applicable rules and regulations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration.

(c) If a city that operates a public enterprise as permitted by Article 16 of this Chapter

has an existing city utility pole attachment rate, fee, or other term with an entity, then, subject

to termination provisions, that attachment rate, fee, or other term shall apply to collocations by

that entity or its related entities on city utility poles.

(d) Following receipt of the first request from a wireless provider to collocate on a city

utility pole, a city shall, within 60 days, establish the rates, terms, and conditions for the use of

or attachment to the city utility poles that it owns or controls. Upon request, a party shall state

in writing its objections to any proposed rate, terms, and conditions of the other party.

(e) In any controversy concerning the appropriateness of a rate for a collocation

attachment to a city utility pole, the city has the burden of proving that the rates are reasonably

related to the actual, direct, and reasonable costs incurred for use of space on the pole for such

period.

(f) The city shall provide a good-faith estimate for any make-ready work necessary to

enable the city utility pole to support the requested collocation, including pole replacement if

necessary, within 60 days after receipt of a complete application. Make-ready work, including

any pole replacement, shall be completed within 60 days of written acceptance of the

good-faith estimate by the applicant. For purposes of this section, the term "make-ready work"

means any modification or replacement of a city utility pole necessary for the city utility pole to

support a small wireless facility in compliance with applicable safety requirements, including

the National Electrical Safety Code, that is performed in preparation for a collocation

installation.

(g) The city shall not require more make-ready work than that required to meet

applicable codes or industry standards. Fees for make-ready work shall not include costs related

to preexisting or prior damage or noncompliance. Fees for make-ready work, including any

pole replacement, shall not exceed actual costs or the amount charged to other communications

service providers for similar work and shall not include any consultant fees or expenses.

House Bill 310 Session Law 2017-159 Page 9

(h) Nothing in this Part shall be construed to apply to an entity whose poles, ducts, and

conduits are subject to regulation under section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47

U.S.C. § 151, et seq., as amended, or under G.S. 62-350.

(i) This section shall not apply to an excluded entity. Nothing in this section shall be

construed to affect the authority of an excluded entity to deny, limit, restrict, or determine the

rates, fees, terms, and conditions for the use of or attachment to its utility poles, city utility

poles, or wireless support structures by a wireless provider. This section shall not be construed

to alter or affect the provisions of G.S. 62-350, and the rates, terms, or conditions for the use of

poles, ducts, or conduits by communications service providers, as defined in G.S. 62-350, are

governed solely by G.S. 62-350. For purposes of this section, "excluded entity" means (i) a city

that owns or operates a public enterprise pursuant to Article 16 of this Chapter consisting of an

electric power generation, transmission, or distribution system or (ii) an electric membership

corporation organized under Chapter 117 of the General Statutes that owns or controls poles,

ducts, or conduits, but which is exempt from regulation under section 224 of the

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., as amended.

"§ 160A-400.57. Applicability.

(a) A city shall not adopt or enforce any ordinance, rule, regulation, or resolution that

regulates the design, engineering, construction, installation, or operation of any small wireless

facility located in an interior structure or upon the site of any stadium or athletic facility. This

subsection does not apply to a stadium or athletic facility owned or otherwise controlled by the

city. This subsection does not prohibit the enforcement of applicable codes.

(b) Nothing contained in this Part shall amend, modify, or otherwise affect any

easement between private parties. Any and all rights for the use of a right-of-way are subject to

the rights granted pursuant to an easement between private parties.

(c) Except as provided in this Part or otherwise specifically authorized by the General

Statutes, a city may not adopt or enforce any regulation on the placement or operation of

communications facilities in the rights-of-way of State-maintained highways or city

rights-of-way by a provider authorized by State law to operate in the rights-of-way of

State-maintained highways or city rights-of-way and may not regulate any communications

services.

(d) Except as provided in this Part or specifically authorized by the General Statutes, a

city may not impose or collect any tax, fee, or charge to provide a communications service over

a communications facility in the right-of-way.

(e) The approval of the installation, placement, maintenance, or operation of a small

wireless facility pursuant to this Part does not authorize the provision of any communications

services or the installation, placement, maintenance, or operation of any communications

facility, including a wireline backhaul facility, other than a small wireless facility, in the

right-of-way."

SECTION 3.(a) G.S. 136-18 reads as rewritten:

"§ 136-18. Powers of Department of Transportation.

The said Department of Transportation is vested with the following powers:

…

(10) To make proper and reasonable rules, regulations and ordinances for the

placing or erection of telephone, telegraph, electric and other lines, above or

below ground, wireless facilities, signboards, fences, gas, water, sewerage,

oil, or other pipelines, and other similar obstructions that may, in the opinion

of the Department of Transportation, contribute to the hazard upon any of

the said highways or in any way interfere with the same, and to make

reasonable rules and regulations for the proper control thereof. And

whenever the order of the said Department of Transportation shall require

the removal of, or changes in, the location of telephone, telegraph, electric or

Page 10 Session Law 2017-159 House Bill 310

other lines, wireless facilities, signboards, fences, gas, water, sewerage, oil,

or other pipelines, or other similar obstructions, the owners thereof shall at

their own expense, except as provided in G.S. 136-19.5(c), move or change

the same to conform to the order of said Department of Transportation. Any

violation of such rules and regulations or noncompliance with such orders

shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this subdivision,

"wireless facilities" shall have the definition set forth in G.S. 160A-400.51.

…."

SECTION 3.(b) Article 2 of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes is amended by

adding a new section to read:

"§ 136-18.3A. Wireless communications infrastructure.

(a) The definitions set forth in G.S. 160A-400.51 shall apply to this section.

(b) The Department of Transportation is authorized to issue permits to wireless

providers for the collocation of wireless facilities and the construction, operation, modification,

or maintenance of utility poles, wireless support structures, conduit, cable, and related

appurtenances and facilities for the provision of wireless services along, across, upon, or under

the rights-of-way of State-maintained highways. The permits and included requirements shall

be issued and administered in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner.

(c) The Department of Transportation shall take action to approve or deny a permit

application for collocation of a small wireless facility under this section within a reasonable

period of time of receiving the application from a wireless provider.

(d) The collocation of small wireless facilities and the construction, operation,

modification, or maintenance of utility poles, wireless support structures, conduit, cable, and

related appurtenances and facilities for the provision of small wireless facilities along, across,

upon, or under the rights-of-way of State-maintained highways shall be subject to all of the

following requirements:

(1) The structures and facilities shall not obstruct or hinder the usual travel or

public safety on any rights-of-way of State-maintained highways or obstruct

the legal use of such rights-of-way of State-maintained highways by other

utilities.

(2) Each new or modified utility pole and wireless support structure installed in

the right-of-way of State-maintained highways shall not exceed the greater

of (i) 10 feet in height above the height of the tallest existing utility pole,

other than a utility pole supporting only wireless facilities, in place as of July

1, 2017, located within 500 feet of the new pole in the same rights-of-way or

(ii) 50 feet above ground level.

(3) Each new small wireless facility in the right-of-way shall not extend (i) more

than 10 feet above an existing utility pole, other than a utility pole

supporting only wireless facilities, or wireless support structure in place as

of July 1, 2017, or (ii) above the height permitted for a new utility pole or

wireless support structure under subdivision (2) of this section."

House Bill 310 Session Law 2017-159 Page 11

SECTION 4. This act is effective when it becomes law.

In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 29th

day of June,

2017.

s/ Daniel J. Forest

President of the Senate

s/ Tim Moore

Speaker of the House of Representatives

s/ Roy Cooper

Governor

Approved 11:39 a.m. this 21st day of July, 2017

Small Cell FAQs What is a small cell? A small cell is just like the name implies. A small cell augments Verizon’s capacity in a given area. It consists of a radio, antenna, power and a fiber connection. Small cells are short range mobile cell sites used to complement larger macro cells (or cell towers). Small cells enable the Verizon network team to strategically add capacity to high traffic areas. Why small cells? Demand for wireless data services has nearly doubled over the last year, and is expected to grow 650% between 2013 and 2018 according to Cisco. It’s part of Verizon’s network strategy to provide reliable service and to stay ahead of this booming demand for wireless data. Small cell networks add capacity in small specific areas to improve in-building coverage, voice quality, reliability, and data speeds for local residents, businesses, first responders and visitors using the Verizon Wireless network. How does it work? A small cell uses small radios and a single antenna placed on existing utility poles, transit poles, street lights, signs and signal light poles. The coverage area can range from a few hundred feet to upwards of 1,000 ft. depending on topography, capacity needs, and more. This small focused footprint supports 4G LTE-enabled devices, allowing more consumers to do things like stream video or share photos on social media during events. Where has Verizon deployed small cells? Verizon first began adding small cells in late 2013 across the country to meet community needs. Does this replace the need for macro cell sites? For Verizon, small cells are part of a balanced approach to network capacity. Verizon will continue to add traditional macro cell sites, expand its 4G XLTE footprint for bandwidth and capacity, and will keep investing in the things that keep its network running, even during times of disaster – battery back-up, generators, mobile cell sites, and more. Are small cells the same as a distributed antenna system (DAS)? Like a DAS, small cells are connected by fiber to a centralized base station. Small cells complement distributed antenna systems that allow for the availability of robust 4G LTE coverage to customers in challenging coverage areas, like basements of public buildings or large stadiums. Where will Verizon add small cells? Verizon looks to add small cells in areas ranging from urban centers to residential communities where there is a need for extra capacity to serve customers to stay ahead of the demand for wireless data.

Page 2

Are small cells subject to the same regulation as a traditional/macro cell site? The approval process for small cells varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Verizon works hand-in-hand with each local jurisdiction on small cells placement including right-of-way regulations and more. Are small cells safe? The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires compliance with its Radio Frequency (RF) emissions safety limits to ensure the safe operation of cellular facilities. Verizon fully complies with all standards and operates well within the safety guidelines set by the FCC. Additionally, we work with local jurisdictions to ensure all applicable federal, state and local regulations are followed. In general, due to their small size, low wattage and limited coverage, emissions from small cells are a small fraction of FCC-permitted levels in any publicly accessible area.

Are small cells reviewed for compliance with FCC safety guidelines? Yes. All small cells must comply with the same stringent standards by which macro communications sites are reviewed and regulated.

STEALTH ANTENNAS

STEALTH ANTENNAS

STEALTH ANTENNAS

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #4B:

Old Business/Items Deferred from Previous Meetings

B. Update on Dare County Flood Maps

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None required.

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Update on two approaches being considered by Outer Banks’ planners to address issues surrounding the prelimnary flood maps for Dare County: (1) a comprehensive educational campaign about flood hazards and (2) consideration of adopting local ordinances with higher floodplain development standards.

ATTACHMENTS:

Staff Report Draft “Low Risk” is not “No Risk” Logo Draft “Low Risk” is not “No Risk” Bumper Sticker Draft “Low Risk” is not “No Risk” Brochure Draft “Low Risk” is not “No Risk” Fact Sheet

Town of Duck, North Carolina Department of Community Development

Dare County Preliminary Flood Maps

Agenda Item 4B

1

TO: Mayor Kingston and Members of the Duck Town Council

FROM: Joe Heard, AICP, Director of Community Development

DATE: November 1, 2017

RE: Update on Preliminary Dare County Flood Maps Preliminary Flood Map Review Process On June 20, 2016, representatives of the N.C. Floodplain Mapping Program (NCFMP) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) first presented information about the newly released preliminary flood maps for Dare County to local government officials and the general public. Information about the existing and preliminary flood maps has been available for viewing at FEMA’s Flood Risk Information System (FRIS) website. N.C. Floodplain Mapping officials estimate that the remaining flood map review and adoption process will take between 15 to 18 months. The following steps are part of the process: Beginning with formal notice to all local governments and legal notice posted in a local

newspaper on August 16, 2017, interested parties have been given a 90-day period to provide comments or appeal a flood zone designation on the preliminary maps. This comment/appeal period will end on November 13, 2017.

The FEMA and the NCFMP will then evaluate all comments and appeals, and make changes accordingly. This process could take approximately a year to complete.

Once the review is complete, the final flood maps will be provided to local communities, who will be given six (6) months to bring themselves into compliance by adopting the new flood maps and updating flood damage prevention ordinances.

Preliminary Flood Map Changes in Duck The preliminary flood map amendments in the Town of Duck show a significant reduction in the number of properties to be located in a special hazard flood area (A or V zone). Figures provided show the number of structures located in a V flood zone decreasing from 397 to 255 (36% decrease). The number of structures in an A flood zone are proposed to decrease from 882 to 187 (79% reduction). While these figures are general in nature and individual properties may or may not change flood zones, the figures show that a significant number of property owners may benefit from reduced insurance rates and potentially lower development standards. Staff Initiatives Over the past year, planners and floodplain managers from all the towns and Dare County have met to consider ramifications if the preliminary flood maps for Dare County are adopted as

Town of Duck, North Carolina Department of Community Development

Dare County Preliminary Flood Maps

Agenda Item 4B

2

proposed. Planners from the various communities have several common concerns about the large number of properties being shifted from V zones to A zones, being shifted from A zones to X zones, and significant lowering of the base flood elevation in remaining A flood zones:

Property owners may view their location in an X flood zone to mean that they have a very minimal or no risk of flooding.

This perception of very low or no risk may cause owners to decide to drop flood insurance. This decision can lead to uninsured damages during future flooding events and significant insurance rate increases should the property be reclassified in a flood hazard zone in the future.

The potential reduction in minimum building elevation and other standards will encourage the construction of significant improvements without flood prevention measures in areas at risk of flooding. Damages to these improvements could cause hardship to property owners and negatively impact the community’s flood insurance rating in the future.

To combat these potential issues, Outer Banks’ planners are proposing a two-pronged approach involving a comprehensive educational campaign about flood hazards and consideration of adopting local ordinances with higher floodplain development standards. Educational Campaign - “Low Risk” is not “No Risk” Development of a countywide educational campaign is well underway and will likely consist of a website, brochures, and media blitz similar to the “More Beach to Love” campaign for the beach nourishment project. Entitled “Low Risk” is not “No Risk”, the intent of this campaign is to educate property owners, renters, real estate agencies, and others that there are still flooding risks on properties located in X flood zones and advising property owners to consider maintaining flood insurance in these situations. The design and website development is being led by the Dare County Public Relations Department. Some preliminary logos and brochures are attached for your information. Higher Floodplain Development Standards Based on initial feedback, it is likely that each of the towns and Dare County will consider the adoption of development standards that maintain a minimum building elevation standard (even in X flood zones) to help mitigate the impacts of significant changes anticipated with the adoption of the new flood maps. To provide a well-reasoned and acceptable approach to these development standard amendments, Outer Banks’ planners have involved the Outer Banks Home Builders Association, Outer Banks Association of Realtors, and local engineers and surveyors in discussions about potential solutions to these concerns. The planners met most recently with a committee of contractors, engineers, and surveyors organized by the Outer Banks Home Builders Association on October 19, 2017. The assembled group agreed on many basic concepts for ordinances and identified several issues that will require additional consideration. Items discussed included:

Town of Duck, North Carolina Department of Community Development

Dare County Preliminary Flood Maps

Agenda Item 4B

3

General Agreement:

Establishing a base elevation requirement of twelve feet (12’) in V flood zones. Establishing a minimum elevation requirement of eight feet (8’) or three feet (3’) of freeboard,

whichever is greater, in all other areas (including X zones). Require flood vents in all enclosures below the required floodplain elevation. Require an elevation certificate for new construction in all zones at the completion of a project.

Further Discussion Needed: Desire for consistent “free of obstruction” standards in V zones (Duck currently two feet). Should accessory structures have to comply with elevation/flood protection standards. Use of flood resistant materials below the required floodplain elevation. Should additions have to comply with elevation standards. Will “lateral additions” be

permitted at the same elevation as the existing floors. Will substantial repairs or renovations trigger compliance with elevation/flood protection

standards. ATTACHMENTS

Draft “Low Risk” is not “No Risk” Logo Draft “Low Risk” is not “No Risk” Bumper Sticker Draft “Low Risk” is not “No Risk” Brochure Draft “Low Risk” is not “No Risk” Fact Sheet

“LOW RISK” Is Not “NO RISK”

Rainfall from hurricanes and other storms can cause flooding. Even homes in areas that generally do not flood may be damaged due to flash flooding from rain and inadequate drainage. Proper es located in low‐risk X‐zones are s ll vulnerable to flooding.

Heavy rain and surface runoff may overwhelm stormwater improve‐ments resul ng in floodwaters over‐flowing into roads and buildings.

Storm surge from hurricanes is not the only cause of flooding.

The damage from 1 inch of flood water can cost more than $20,000 to repair. Floods are the number one natural disaster in the Un ed States.

“LOW RISK” is not “NO RISK”

Flooding from Hurricane Ma hew rainfall

in Kill Devil Hills, NC

Altera on of natural drainage pa erns and wetland areas can result in increased risks of flooding. Wetland areas help dissipate wave energy and reduce erosion. Drainage ditches and streams should be kept free of debris.

Rainfall from Hurricane Ma hew in October 2016 exceeded more than 10 inches in Dare County communi es.

HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW ABOUT FLOOD

RISKS?

Did you know that 1 in 4 flood losses occur in low‐risk X zones? Floods can happen anywhere.

Flood maps only depict those areas subject to a 1% annual chance of flooding and do not reflect other sources of flooding such as rainfall or elevated groundwater levels. Flood maps do not account for all sources of flood risks.

Insert Seals of COUNTY and TOWN s here

and website address

Floodsmart website if enough room

FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS and RATING FACTORS There are many factors that affect the cost of a flood insurance policy, the risks associated

with your property directly affect the rate you pay .

ARE YOU IN A FLOOD ZONE? If the property is located in a flood zone, then the cost of insur-

ance will reflect the flood zone designa on for the property. Proper es in low-risk X ones or Shaded

X zones are generally the lower in cost. Some X zone proper es may qualify for a preferred risk

policy (PRP). Proper es in AE zones, AO zones and VE zones will be higher in cost due to the higher

risk associated with these flood zones. VE zones are the highest risk zones and are the most costly.

HAS THE ZONE CHANGED? If the flood zone designa on for your property has changed recently,

talk to your insurance agent about what impacts the new designa on may have on your insurance

rate. If your property has changed from a higher risk zone to a lower risk zone, you may experience

decreased insurance costs. Don’t assume your insurance agent will know that the flood zone for your

property has changed.

IS IT YOUR FULL TIME HOME? If the property is your permanent, year-round dwelling or a

second home will impact the cost of the flood policy.

ELEVATE TO MITIGATE Eleva on of structures is the preferred construc on

technique on the Outer Banks to mi gate flood risks. Older, exis ng homes can be raised to mi gate

flood risks. The eleva on of the first floor of living area directly impacts the cost of flood insurance. If

the first floor is below the base flood eleva on, then your insurance rate will be significantly higher.

Equipment, such as the HVAC unit, should also be elevated to the applicable base flood eleva on for

costs savings.

FLOOD VENTS Flood vents are required for enclosed areas located below the base flood eleva on.

If no vents are provided or an insufficient number of vents are provided, then this will impact your rate

as well.

ENCLOSED AREAS Areas located below the base flood eleva on are limited to use for parking,

access and storage. All construc on materials used in areas below the base flood should be flood

resistant materials.

An eleva on of 1 foot above the base flood eleva on o en results in 30% reduc on in an-nual premiums.

ELEVATE TO MITIGATE!

Older home in Ha eras village elevated to mi gate flood risks

Flood Insurance —What You Need to Know

Insert Seals of COUNTY and TOWN s here and website address

Floodsmart website if enough room

Homeowners insurance policies do not cover flooding. A separate policy for flood is needed.

Flood insurance is an important tool to protect your property from flood risks. Coverage may be

purchased for building and contents or just contents.

FLOOD INSURANCE COVERAGE (coverage limits set by FEMA) Basic Coverage Limits Addi onal Insurance

Limits Total Insurance Limits

Building Coverage

Single Family $60,000 $190,000 $250,000

Two-to Four Family $60,000 $190,000 $250,000

Other Residen al $175,000 $75,000 $250,000

Small Business $175,000 $325,000 $500,000

Contents Coverage

Residen al $25,000 $75,000 $100,000

Non-residen al/Small Business $150,000 $350,000 $500,000

Business owners and renters can also purchase flood insurance policies.

General Guidance on Flood Insurance Coverage

Building Coverage Contents What’s Not Covered

Building and founda on Clothing and furniture Cash, precious metals

Electrical, plumbing, mechanical systems Curtains Landscaping

Refrigerators, stoves, built-in appliances Window HVACs Hot tubs and pools

Permanently installed carpets over unfinished floor Portable microwaves Temporary housing

Permanently installed cabinets, paneling, bookcases Washers and dryers Sep c systems

Window blinds Freezers/food in them Fences

Debris removal Artwork up to $2500 Vehicles

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #5:

New Business

A. Discussion/Consideration of Ordinance 17-14, an Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Duck, North Carolina, Amending Chapter 72: Parking Schedules of the Town of Duck Code of Ordinances, by Adding the Tuckahoe Subdivision

B. Discussion/Consideration of a Request to Authorize Community

Development Staff to Work with the Planning Board on Amendments to the Duck Town Code Intended to Bring Town Regulations into Compliance with Recently Adopted State Legislation

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

See Attachments

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:

See Attachments

ATTACHMENTS:

See Attachments

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #5A:

New Business

A. Discussion/Consideration of Ordinance 17-14, an Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Duck, North Carolina, Amending Chapter 72: Parking Schedules of the Town of Duck Code of Ordinances, by Adding the Tuckahoe Subdivision

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Per discussion

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Town has received a request from Bob Armentrout, President of the Tuckahoe Homeowners Association requesting that the Tuckahoe subdivision be added to the list of private streets where the Police Department may enforce parking regulations. While other regulations related to private streets, such as speed limit, may not be enforced by the Police Department, the North Carolina General Statutes provide the authority for Towns to enforce no parking regulations on private streets. In order to grant the Police Department this authority, the Town must adopt an ordinance specifying the subdivision or specific streets where the regulations may be enforced. The attached ordinance would add the Tuckahoe subdivision to this list for the Town of Duck.

ATTACHMENTS:

Ordinance 17-14 Email from Bob Armentrout, President of the Tuckahoe

Homeowners Association

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE VII: TRAFFIC CODE, CHAPTER 72: PARKING SCHEDULES, SCHEDULE I. GENERAL PARKING REGULATIONS,

OF THE TOWN OF DUCK CODE OF ORDINANCES

Ordinance No. 17-14

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C Gen. Stat. §160A-174 a town may by ordinance define, prohibit, regulate or abate acts, omissions, or conditions, detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens and the peace and dignity of the town; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §160A-301 a town may regulate the stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles on the public streets and in specified areas of any privately owned public vehicular areas provided the owner or person in general charge of the operation and control of that area requests in writing that such an ordinance be adopted; and

WHEREAS, the town has received a written request from the owner or person in charge of privately owned public vehicular areas within the subdivisions of Sound Sea Village, Saltaire, Georgetown Sands, Osprey, South Snow Geese, Bayberry Bluffs, Sea Ridge, Sea Pines, Sandy Ridge, Olde Duck Beach, Four Seasons, Snow Geese Dunes, Ships Watch, Poteskeet, Wild Duck Dunes, Gull’s Flight Homeowners Association, the Sanderling Homes Association, Inc., Sandhills, Port Trinitie, Duck Ridge Village, the Sanderling Property Owners Association, and most recently, Tuckahoe, that the town adopt an ordinance prohibiting the stopping, standing or parking of vehicles on and along the roads within those subdivisions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY the Town Council for the Town of Duck, North Carolina, that Title VII: Traffic Code, Chapter 72: Parking Schedules, Schedule I. General Parking Regulations, of the Town of Duck Code of Ordinances be amended as follows:

Part I.

CHAPTER 72: PARKING SCHEDULES Schedule I. General parking regulations SCHEDULE I. GENERAL PARKING REGULATIONS. (A) Regulations. No person shall stop, stand or park a motor vehicle except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or traffic control device in any of the following places: (1) On a multi-use pedestrian path situated within the right-of-way of a street or highway and adjacent to the paved portion thereof, that is constructed for the use of pedestrians, bicyclists and other non-motorized vehicles;

(2) Except for emergency vehicles, public safety vehicles, motorized vehicles of town contractors engaged in town-related activities, or motorized vehicles of the state or state contractors engaged in state-related activities, no motorized vehicle shall be allowed to operate, park, or be left standing on the shoulder of North Carolina Highway 12 or any street maintained by the North Carolina Department of Transportation; (3) On streets or parts of streets in the following subdivisions.

Subdivision Sound Sea Village Saltaire Georgetown Sands Osprey South Snow Geese Bayberry Bluffs Sea Ridge Sea Pines Sandy Ridge Olde Duck Beach Four Seasons Ships Watch Snow Geese Dunes Poteskeet (non-state maintained roads)Wild Duck Dunes Gull’s Flight Sanderling Homes Association, Inc. (Oyster Catcher Lane, Skimmer Way, Bunting Lane, Bunting Way, Shearwater Way, Sandpiper Cove and Pelican Way) Sandhills Port Trinitie Duck Ridge Village (Duck Ridge Village Court)Sanderling Property Owners Association (Station Bay Drive, Martin Lane, Vireo Lane, Waxwing Lane, Waxwing Court and Blue Heron Lane)Tuckahoe

(4) On the following roads.

Road North Carolina Highway 12 SR 1293 Seabreeze Drive SR 1297 Poteskeet Drive SR 1408 Dianne Street SR 1409 Christopher Drive/Oceanway CourtSR 1410 Teresa Court SR 1417 Plover Drive SR 1425 Wampum Drive SR 1469 Sea Hawk Drive WestSR 1473 Buffell Head Road SR 1474 Old Squaw Drive

SR 1475 Sprigtail Drive SR 1476 Canvas Back Drive SR 1477 Wood Duck Drive SR 1478 Pintail Drive SR 1479 Widgeon Drive SR 1484 Sea Hawk Drive East SR 1518 Dune Road SR 1519 Speckled Trout Drive

(B) Civil penalties. (1) Violations of this chapter shall subject the offender to a civil penalty in the amount of $25. Pursuant to G.S. § 160A-175, criminal penalties for violation of this chapter as set out in G.S. § 14-4 are hereby removed. Civil penalties may be recovered by the town in a civil action in the nature of debt or may be collected in other amounts as prescribed herein within the prescribed time following the issuance of notice or citation for the violation. (2) Whenever a member of the Police Department of the town or other person charged by ordinance or Charter with the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter regulating the parking of vehicles shall find that any of those provisions are being, or have been, violated by the owner or operator of any vehicle, the officer or person shall notify the owner or operator of the vehicle of the violation by conspicuously attaching to the vehicle a parking violation notice or citation in a form as the Finance Director of the town may direct. (3) The parking violation notice or citation shall, among other things: (a) State upon its face the amount of the penalty for the specific violation if the penalty is paid within 48 hours from and after the violation; (b) Notify the offender that a failure to pay the penalty within 30 days from the violation shall subject the offender to an additional late penalty in the amount of $20; (c) Notify the offender that a failure to pay the penalty within the prescribed time shall subject the offender to a civil action in the nature of debt for the stated penalty plus an additional penalty in the amount of $50, together with the cost of the action to be taxed by the court; (d) Further provide that the offender may answer the town parking citation by mailing the citation and the stated penalty to P.O. Box 8369, Duck, North Carolina, 27949, or may pay the amount at the Town Administrative Offices and that upon payment, the case or claim and right of action by the town will be deemed compromised and settled; and (e) That the penalty must be paid within 48 hours of the issuance of the citation. The notice shall further state that if the parking violation citation is not cleared within 48 hours, court action by the filing of a civil complaint for collection of

the penalty may be taken. As used upon the parking violation citation, the word "cleared" shall mean either: 1. Payment; 2. Arrangement for payment to be made; or 3. A prima facie showing that the parking citation was received as a result of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. (4) The Town Manager or the Town Manager’s designee is authorized to accept payments in full and final settlement of the claim or claims, right or rights of action which the town may have to enforce the penalty by civil action in the nature of debt. Acceptance of a penalty shall be deemed a full and final release of any and all claims, or right of action arising out of contended violations. (5) (a) A delinquent penalty of $20, in addition to the one imposed for payment within 48 hours, shall apply in those cases in which the civil penalty prescribed in division (B)(1) above has not been paid within 30 days from the date of the violation. (b) A penalty of $35, in addition to the one imposed for payment within 48 hours and the delinquent penalty, shall apply in those cases in which the penalties set forth above in division (B)(1) above have not been paid within the prescribed period of time, and in which a civil action shall have been instituted. (6) All penalties paid to the town or as may be recovered in a civil action in the nature of debt as herein provided shall be paid into the general fund of the town at a time and under regulations as may be prescribed by the Finance Director. Part II.

This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the 1st day of November, 2017.

______________________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Town Clerk

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #5B:

New Business

B. Discussion/Consideration of a Request to Authorize Community Development Staff to Work with the Planning Board on Amendments to the Duck Town Code Intended to Bring Town Regulations into Compliance with Recently Adopted State Legislation

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Consider Authorizing the Planning Board’s Review of the Potential Text Amendments

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: During its most recent legislative session, the N.C. State Legislature adopted several new laws that require local communities to amend current standards and policies. Potential amendments include:

1. Establishment of Zoning Enforcement Deadlines 2. Standards for Small Wireless Facilities 3. New Categories of Exempt Subdivisions 4. Plan Consistency Statements 5. Appeals of Building Inspector Decisions

ATTACHMENTS:

Memorandum from Director of Community Development Joe Heard

Town of Duck, North Carolina

Department of Community Development Authorization for Ordinance Amendments

Agenda Item 5B

1

TO: Mayor Kingston and Members of the Duck Town Council

FROM: Joe Heard, AICP, Director of Community Development

DATE: November 1, 2017

RE: Consideration of Ordinance Amendments At the Annual Conference of the North Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association in September, I had the opportunity to attend a session presented by professors David Owens and Adam Lovelady with the UNC School of Government regarding planning/zoning legislation adopted during the past year by the North Carolina legislature. The UNCSOG highlighted several changes that must be incorporated into the policies and ordinances of local governments. Zoning Enforcement Deadlines The State adopted several limitations on the ability of local governments to engage in zoning enforcement. These new criteria may not require ordinance changes, but may impact current policies of the Town of Duck regarding zoning enforcement. If a local government seeks to enforce a zoning violation by filing a lawsuit, such lawsuit must

be filed within five (5) years of when “the facts constituting the violation are known to the governing body, an agent, or an employee of the unit of local government” or “the violation can be determined from the public record of the unit of local government”.

If a local government seeks to enforce a zoning violation by filing a lawsuit, such lawsuit must be filed within seven (7) years from when “the violation is apparent from a public right-of-way” or “the violation is in plain view from a place to which the public is invited”.

There is an exemption from these standards for violations involving public health and safety. Small Wireless Facilities The State has mandated an administrative approval process and established development standards for small and micro wireless facilities. Necessary amendments are being proposed by the Planning Board as part of the Board’s review of standards for wireless telecommunication systems. New Category of Exempt Subdivisions The State has created a new category of exempt plats for “the division of a tract into parcels in accordance with a probated will”. This change simply codifies previous court decisions. The Town will need to add this new exemption in our subdivision code.

A second subdivision change requires an expedited review process for subdivisions of lots five acres or greater into three or fewer parcels. These scenario is highly unlikely to occur within Duck, but must be covered in our ordinance in case the situation arises. Plan Consistency Statement The State adopted a standard that if a community opts to grant approval of a zoning map or text amendment that is inconsistent with its comprehensive plan, then such action becomes an amendment to the plan itself. In this scenario, the Town Council would also have to adopt a statement describing why the amendment is necessary to benefit the community. The Town may need to amend the approval process in the zoning ordinance to include these standards. Appeals of Building Inspection Decisions The State now requires that local governments establish an internal process for appealing decisions or interpretations made by a building inspector. The Town will need to establish an internal appeal process. At this time, Community Development staff is asking for the Town Council’s authorization to work with the Planning Board and Town Attorney (as necessary) on these potential text amendments.

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #6:

Items Referred To and Presentations from the Town Attorney

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Per discussion

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:

None

ATTACHMENTS:

None

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #7: Items Referred to and Presentations from the Town Manager

A. Update on Departmental Activities

B. Update on the Beach Nourishment Project

C. Update on Phase I of the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan

D. Update on Director of Public Information, Events and Marketing

Position

E. Financial Statement for October FY 2018

RECOMMENDED ACTION: See attachments

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:

See attachments

ATTACHMENTS:

See attachments

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #7A: Items Referred To and Presentations from the Town Manager

A. Update on Departmental Activities

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None required

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

ATTACHMENTS:

Will be provided at the meeting

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #7B: Items Referred To and Presentations from the Town Manager

B. Update on the Beach Nourishment Project

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None required

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

ATTACHMENTS:

None

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #7C: Items Referred To and Presentations from the Town Manager

C. Update on Phase I of the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan

RECOMMENDED ACTION: None required

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Town Manager will provide an update for the Council on Phase I of the Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan.

ATTACHMENTS:

None

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #7D: Items Referred To and Presentations from the Town Manager

D. Update on the Director of Public Information, Events and

Marketing Position

RECOMMENDED ACTION: None required

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Town Manager will provide an update for the Council on the Director of Public Information, Events and Marketing Position.

ATTACHMENTS:

None

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #7E: Items Referred To and Presentations from the Town Manager

E. Financial Statement for October FY 2018

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None required

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Town Manager will provide the Council with an overview of the October FY 2018 financial reports.

ATTACHMENTS:

October FY 2018 Financial Statement October FY 2018 Beach Activities Report October FY 2018 Beach Nourishment Capital Project Report

FY 2017 FY 2018 % FY 2017 FY 2018 % FY 2017 FY 2018 %REVENUE Actual Budgeted Change October October Change YTD YTD Change

Ad Valorem $3357.6 $3333.9 -1% $271.7 $311.5 15% $1012.0 $1059.1 5%MSDA $635.8 $633.5 0% $66.2 $62.3 -6% $199.7 $196.2 -2%MSDB $348.9 $348.4 0% $38.3 $22.0 -43% $106.6 $96.8 -9%

Sub-Tot Advalorem Taxes: $4342.3 $4315.8 -1% $376.2 $395.8 5% $1318.3 $1352.0 3%Sales Tax $1354.1 $1186.2 -12% $185.1 $201.1 9% $449.2 $485.1 8%

Transfer Tax $327.5 $305.4 -7% $77.2 $84.9 0% $77.2 $84.9 10%Occupancy Tax $1317.7 $1343.4 2% $132.1 $0.0 -100% $829.7 $730.8 -12%

Sub-Total Other Taxes: $2999.3 $2835.0 -5% $394.4 $286.1 -27% $1356.1 $1300.9 -4%Beer and Wine $1.8 $1.5 -15% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

Utility Franchise Tax $383.3 $360.0 -6% $0.0 $0.0 0% $80.7 $86.3 7%Sub-Total Unrest Intergov: $385.1 $361.5 -6% $0.0 $0.0 0% $80.7 $86.3 0%

Visitors' Bureau Grant $6.0 $453.9 7465% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $3.0 100%DENR Public Access Grant $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

State Grants $24.5 $12.8 -48% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%Shoreline Grant $20.7 $294.2 1324% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $19.0 100%

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

Federal Grants $0.8 $1.0 19% $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 $29.7 $0.0 -100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%Sub-Tot Rest Intergov: $91.7 $771.9 742% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $22.0 100%

Building Permits $97.5 $93.0 -5% $16.0 $12.6 -21% $31.0 $25.1 -19%Inspection Fees $37.5 $32.0 -15% $1.9 $1.7 -13% $12.1 $12.5 4%

Other Permits $13.7 $15.0 10% $0.6 $1.0 70% $5.3 $2.3 -57%Sub-Total Permits & Fees: $148.7 $140.0 -6% $18.6 $15.3 -21% $48.4 $39.9 -21%

Mixed Beverage Tax $37.3 $36.0 -3% $12.3 $0.0 -100% $12.3 $0.0 0%ABC Distribution $18.3 $15.0 -18% $6.3 $0.0 -100% $6.3 $0.0 0%

Other $107.6 $84.0 -22% $7.7 $9.8 27% $33.1 $27.8 -16%Sub-Total Miscellaneous: $163.2 $135.0 -17% $26.3 $9.8 -63% $51.6 $27.8 -46%

Interfund Transfers $124.5 $1255.0 100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%Fund Balance $0.0 $450.0 100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

Debt Proceeds $0.0 $160.0 -100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%Debt Proceeds Bonds $0.0 $0.0 -100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $159.5 100%

Dare Beach Nourishment $0.0 $0.0 -100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%Investment Earnings CP $0.0 $0.0 -100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

Sub-Tot Non-Rev Receipts: $124.5 $1865.0 1398% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $159.5 100%

Tot General Fund Rev: $8254.8 $10424.3 26% $815.5 $707.0 -13% $2855.0 $2988.5 5%

FY 2017 FY 2018 % FY 2017 FY 2018 % FY 2017 FY 2018 %EXPENDITURES Actual Budgeted Change October October Change YTD YTD Change

Governing Body $192.3 $195.2 1% $2.4 $6.4 170% $116.9 $129.4 11%Administration $415.1 $473.4 14% $34.2 $27.3 -20% $113.2 $144.9 28%

Finance $65.6 $70.0 7% $5.7 $5.9 5% $14.2 $20.4 43%Legal $57.7 $65.0 13% $0.0 $0.4 100% $15.8 $15.8 0%

Public Buildings $408.2 $804.0 97% $6.2 $12.3 100% $24.6 $35.5 44%Information Technology $109.3 $112.9 3% $5.8 $5.9 3% $25.5 $30.7 21%Sub-Total Gen Gov: $1248.3 $1720.5 38% $54.2 $58.3 8% $310.3 $376.8 21%

Police $1086.0 $1254.5 16% $72.6 $63.8 -12% $346.2 $528.6 53%Fire $1007.5 $1041.7 3% $52.2 $83.5 60% $281.5 $361.7 29%

Inspections $166.9 $179.0 7% $12.1 $6.1 -50% $53.9 $58.0 7%Ocean Rescue $343.0 $365.0 6% $40.0 $20.0 100% $200.0 $260.0 30%

Sub-Total Public Safety: $2603.4 $2840.2 9% $177.0 $173.5 -2% $881.6 $1208.3 37%Streets and Highways $284.5 $1195.6 320% $5.8 $6.2 7% $49.4 $38.5 -22%

Sub-Total Transportation: $284.5 $1195.6 320% $5.8 $6.2 7% $49.4 $38.5 -22%Sanitation $971.5 $938.0 -3% $87.6 $78.6 -10% $169.6 $249.4 47%

Beach Management $165.6 $1566.6 846% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $19.0 100%Sub-Total Envmntal Prot: $1137.1 $2504.6 120% $87.6 $78.6 -10% $169.6 $268.4 58%Community Development $210.3 $244.5 16% $16.5 $11.0 -33% $54.4 $89.8 65%

Sub-Tot Econ & Phys Dev.: $210.3 $244.5 16% $16.5 $11.0 -33% $54.4 $89.8 65%Parks $536.1 $528.3 -1% $18.6 $34.5 85% $112.7 $153.3 36%

Sub-Tot Cult & Recreat: $536.1 $528.3 -1% $18.6 $34.5 85% $112.7 $153.3 36%Capital Outlays $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

CO BN Prof. Services $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%CO BN Preconstruction $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

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

Contingency $0.0 $75.0 100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%Fund Balance $0.0 $94.1 100% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

Sub-Tot Budgetary Acc: $1221.4 $1390.5 14% $0.0 $0.0 0% $0.0 $0.0 0%

Tot General Fd Expend: $7241.1 $10424.3 44% $359.7 $362.2 1% $1577.9 $2135.1 35%

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

Ad‐Valorem Taxes

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

FY 2017 FY 2018

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000Other Taxes ‐ Shared Revenues

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

FY 2017 FY 2018

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

Permits and Fees

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

FY 2017 FY 2018

$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

Total Revenues

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

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 FY 2018

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

$500,000

Public Safety

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

FY 2017 FY 2018

$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 FY 2018

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

Total Expenditures

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018

Town of Duck General Fund

FY 2018(in thousands)

PRELIMINARYNOT ALL DATA 

RECEIVED AT DATE OF REPORT

Expenditure Report 

Beach Management Activities

Through October 2017

Beach NourishmentPrevious 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

FY 2015 Budget Expenditures Task

$121,044 $118,184.67 Permitting, Engineering ‐ CP&E

$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

FY 2016 Budget Expenditures Task

$60,000 $3,344.54 Permitting, Engineering ‐ CP&E

$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

FY 2017 Budget

$118,028.00 $111,543.39 Debt Service on SOBs

BN Capital Project Costs

$14,313,880.00 $12,825,284.69 BN CP Ordinance

Total B.N.  Costs to Date: $13,932,641.64Funding Provided By Dare Couny $55,867.92 FY 2012

$242,962.29 FY 2014$479,316.00 FY 2016

$5,581,944.11 Dare Occupancy TaxTotal Funding from Dare County: $6,360,090.32

$7,572,551.32 Town Funded$6,961,703.39 SOB Funds$610,847.93 General Fund

See Attached Beach Nourishment Capital Project Report for Current Project Breakdown

Beach PlantingFY 2017 Budget Expenditures Task

$75,000.00 $52,980.80 beach grass/sea oats planting

FY 2018 Budget

$75,000.00 $19,023.06 beach grass/sea oats planting/

monitoring

Expenditure Report 

Beach Nourishment Capital Project

Through October 2017

Beach Nourishment Capital Project

Revenues October Total to Date

$6,963,000 $0.00 $6,961,703.39 Bond Proceeds

$281,638 $6,318.25 $281,637.19 Transfer from Capital Reserve

$0 $2.49 $11,229.05 Interest from Bonds

$7,069,242 $30,365.85 $5,581,944.11 County Funding

$14,313,880 $36,686.59 $12,836,513.74

Expenditures October Total to Date

$12,927,069 $20,245.00 $12,229,552.02 Construction

$165,053 $16,439.10 $128,623.85 Construction Management

$274,842 $0.00 $274,841.38 Turtle Monitoring

$861,666 $0.00 $111,666.24 Preconstruction Costs

$85,250 $0.00 $80,601.20 Professional Services ‐ Other

$14,313,880 $36,684.10 $12,825,284.69

balance $11,229.05

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #8:

Mayor’s Agenda

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:

None

ATTACHMENTS:

None

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #9:

Council Members’ Agenda

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:

None

ATTACHMENTS:

None

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #10:

Other Business

A. Additional Public Comments

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

None required

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:

Council will take additional comments from the public.

ATTACHMENTS:

None

AGENDA: November 1, 2017 Regular Meeting

ITEM #11:

Adjournment

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Per discussion

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The next meeting will be the Mid-Month Meeting on Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 1:00 p.m.

ATTACHMENTS:

None