The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4/14/2021 - Planning Commission - Minutes - RegularPlanning Commission Meeting MINUTES Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 PM Salem Civic Center, Community Room, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, VA 24153 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was called to order at 7:03 p.m., there being present the following members to wit: Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Denise P. King, Vice Chair; Reid A. Garst II, N. Jackson Beamer, and Neil L. Conner; with Vicki G. Daulton, Chair, presiding; together with Rob Light Assistant City Manager and Deputy Executive Secretary; Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., Community Development Director; Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator, and Benjamin W. Tripp, City Planner. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Election of Officers N. Jackson Beamer nominated Vicki G. Daulton as Chair; Neil Conner seconded. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King N. Jackson Beamer nominated Denise P. King as Vice Chair; Neil Conner seconded. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King N. Jackson Beamer nominated Rob Light as Executive Secretary Pro-Tem; Neil Conner seconded. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 4. Consent Agenda A. Minutes Consider the acceptance of the minutes from the December 16, 2020, regular meeting. N. Jackson Beamer motioned to accept the minutes as presented. Neil Conner seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 5. New Business A. Amendment to the Sign Ordinance Hold public hearing to consider amending Chapter 66, Article I, In General, Section 66-9, Article III, Construction Location, Division 1, Generally, Section 66-73, Article IV Permitted Signs by Use and District, Section 66-107, and Article V, Definitions, Section 66- 151, of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, pertaining to signs. The Executive Secretary Pro-Tem reported that notice of said hearing had been published in the April 1 and 8, 2021, issues of the Salem Times-Register. Staff noted the following: The maintenance of property has become an increasingly problematic issue. This includes the maintenance of signs. The code changes included in this item are to support the transition from a reactionary violation system to a more proactive system. These changes address abandoned signs, neglected signs and overall maintenance. Chair Daulton opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone to speak regarding the amendments. Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator, of 21 South Bruffey Street, Salem, appeared before the Commission to review the proposed changes. She requested that the Commission consider changing some of the code sections that affect the appearance and maintenance of signs and the removal of signs that are considered abandoned by a business that no longer sets on the property. Section 66-9 is the removal of signs. This section will give the property owner 60 days to cover a sign by blanking the face or covering the sign with a full cover. Section 66- 73 is to keep a sign in good repair. This section states that deterioration by neglect is prohibited. Neglected signs are being added to the prohibited sign list and in the definition section the definition of neglected signs will be added. The definition of abandoned signs will be changed to allow 60 days to cover or blank the face instead of 360, which is what was originally. A discussion was held regarding the state code and how it affects the city code. There were no other comments or questions. Chair Daulton closed the public hearing. Neil Conner motioned to recommend to the Council of the City of Salem the amendments to Chapter 66, Article I, In General, Section 66-9, Article III, Construction Location, Division 1, Generally, Section 66-73, Article IV Permitted Signs by Use and District, Section 66-107, and Article V, Definitions, Section 66-151, of THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, pertaining to signs be approved. Denise King seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King B. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Hold public hearing to consider amending Chapter 106, Zoning, Article II District Regulations, Sections 106-204.3(B)1 pertaining to singles-family dwellings; Article III Use & Design Standards, Section 106-304.5(B)(D) pertaining to home occupations, Article IV Development Standards, Section 106-505.11(A)(E) pertaining to parking, Article V Administration, Sections 106-504(A), 106-514, 106-518 pertaining to zoning permits, enforcement, and civil penalties of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA. The Executive Secretary Pro-Tem reported that notice of said hearing had been published in the April 1 and 8, 2021, issues of the Salem Times-Register. Staff noted the following: Staff continually reviews the Zoning Ordinance for its current applicability. There are several housekeeping changes including single-family dwelling setbacks, changes to home occupations, parking, and zoning permits. Other topics of discussion have arisen due to the recent shift from being reactionary regarding complaints of code violations to a more proactive system. To make this transition, changes to the zoning ordinance to include inspection warrants and a civil ticket system are needed. Chair Daulton opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone to speak regarding the amendments. Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator, of 21 South Bruffey Street, appeared before the Commission to review the proposed changes. She stated that there are some “housekeeping” items in the institution of inspection warrants and civil penalties in this group of amendments. For single-family dwellings in Residential Multi-Family, Residential Business, and Community Business Districts; it is requested that single-family dwellings adhere to the same setback requirements as required in the Residential Single-Family District to protect the single-family buffer, and to keep the setbacks in-line with the other single-family dwellings. The changes to Home Occupation Permits will allow retail and wholesale sales, e-commerce on-line only, no at home shopping. Currently the code states that there will be no retail sales at the home as part of the home occupation. It would also change the type of client that can come to a home with a home occupation. Currently it allows tutoring, lessons in fine arts, etc. but would also like to allow accounting, web design, interior design, marketing, and such to be allowed to have the same number—five clients per day. Currently the code allows for up to five (5) persons in your home as far as a family day home or a childcare. The State has changed its restrictions. If you pass the threshold of four children or three adults, it is then required to be licensed by the Department of Social Services; therefore, it is requested to reduce the threshold for home occupations so that the secondary licensing does not have to be met. She stated that based on numerous complaints over the last couple of years, it is requested that a change in the parking associated with home occupations to require the vehicle associated with the business to be parked on the premises and not on the street to prevent sight distance issues, blocking of driveways, etc. due to some of the larger type vehicles. The renewals of home occupations used to be renewed annually and would be researched and investigated each year. Currently home occupations are renewed through the Commissioner of the Revenue’s Office as part of the business license renewal, and they are not investigated unless there has been a complaint. The code needs to be updated to state the change of the Commissioner of the Revenue’s Office handling the renewals. She stated that currently a zoning permit is not required for patios or fences but is required for everything else. The re- roof of a residential home, non-structural, does not need to be reviewed so therefore, it is being added to the list that does not require a zoning permit. The enforcement section is where there are the most changes. An inspection warrant process will be established where if the property owner or occupant will not allow the city access to inspect the property, the evidence can be taken to the magistrate and if the magistrate deems it appropriate, can issue an inspection warrant to allow the city access to verify if they are indeed violating the zoning ordinance. It is also requested to expand the list of responsible parties. Currently everything focuses on the property owner only; and this would amend the list to include the tenant, occupant, or any person allowing the violation to happen on the property to be ultimately responsible. Section 106-514(E) Enforcements establishes what acts are actually a violation of the zoning ordinance. In order to institute civil penalties, which is being requested, a list of specific acts that would be considered a violation is required. In general, it means that anything that violates the zoning ordinance could result in a civil ticket. The criminal penalty section is being amended to allow for criminal penalties or civil penalties in lieu of criminal penalties. Section 106-518 is the big change. It is where civil penalties are instituted. The city is allowed to write tickets to violators after a 15-day warning. The ticket is like any other ticket written. The fine has to be paid in the Treasurer’s office. If the ticket is appealed, then it goes to General District Court where a judge will decide. Once penalties are issued up to $5,000 it becomes a criminal misdemeanor charge and will automatically go to General District Court as well. Section 106-520 currently reads that any proposed amendments are referred to Planning Commission by City Council. To avoid a step that City Council has to take action by resolution and send the item to the Commission, it is requested to remove the phrase “by City Council” to where the items are automatically referred to the Planning Commission as what is currently being done in practice. Vice Chair King questioned how the fines are collected if sent to General District Court. Ms. Wines stated that the debt would be collected by the court system. It was noted that the City would have to place a lien on the property itself if the fine(s) were not paid. The treasurer’s office would notify the zoning administrator that the fines have not been paid. There were no other comments or questions. Chair Daulton closed the public hearing. Reid Garst motioned to recommend to the Council of the City of Salem that the amendments to Chapter 106, Zoning, Article II District Regulations, Sections 106-204.3(B)1 pertaining to singles-family dwellings; Article III Use & Design Standards, Section 106- 304.5(B)(D) pertaining to home occupations, Article IV Development Standards, Section 106-505.11(A)(E) pertaining to parking, Article V Administration, Sections 106-504(A), 106-514, 106-518 pertaining to zoning permits, enforcement, and civil penalties of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA be approved as presented with a minor change in Section 106-304.5(B)5 that the total number of students shall not exceed six (6) per day and any other type of client shall also be limited to six (6) per day. Neil Conner seconded the motion. Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King C. Board of Zoning Appeals 2020 Annual Report It was noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals Annual Report was received. 6. Adjournment Neil Conner motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:35p.m. Seconded by Vice Chair King