Chincoteague Reports

June 23, 2009, Planning Commission Meeting

Members Attending: Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Gene Taylor, John Jester, Tripp Muth, Steve Katsetos
Member(s) Absent: Mollie Cherrix
Staff Attending: Jared Anderson, Town Planner
Public Attendance: SIx members of the public
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Rosenberger convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m in Council Chambers.

Public Participation
Nancy Lane rose to speak on the subject of siting requirements for wind energy systems. She encouraged the Commission to consider lessening the proposed minimum 1/2 acre requirement for these systems, stating that few lots on the island would meet the 1/2 acre minimum.

Agenda Adoption
Chairman Rosenberger asked the Commission members if the agenda, as proposed, should be accepted. The agenda was approved as presented.

Adoption of the May 26, 2009, Minutes
The minutes were unanimously adopted as presented.

Arts and Cultural District
Mr. Behr relayed that he met with Ann Coats of Snow Hill who presented ideas and guidance for the Chincoteague Arts and Cultural District. The state of Maryland has criteria for a subject district while Virginia currently allows these districts but has no criteria. Among the items discussed with Ms. Coats were:

• affordable housing and business space for artists
• affordable restoration, including affordable loans for remodeling
• relaxing some ordinances, e.g., parking in the immediate area
• various financial incentives for the district
• considering multi-use buildings, i.e., store and home
• creating an historic district in addition to an arts and cultural district
• publicizing the advantages of establishing a business on Chincoteague
• setting goals and time lines for the district.

Wind Energy Systems
Mr. Anderson began by stating that he has gained support of the Town Council to proceed with a Wind Energy System Plan. He continued that two major concerns with the draft plan are minimum lot size for installation of a system and the noise generated by the system. One approach for the noise concern is to mirror the town noise ordinance requirements. Chairman Rosenberger suggested that Mr. Anderson continue to work on acceptable solutions for these problems.

Commission members had several comments. Mr. Muth wondered if the town had received any applications for turbine installation. Mr. Anderson replied that the town has not. Mr. Jester suggested that the turbines should be approved with conditional use permits. He also added that Curtis Merritt Harbor would be an ideal location for a turbine. Mr. Katsetos asked if these systems would be allowed in all the town’s zoning districts. Mr. Anderson replied that they would. The discussion ended with Chairman Rosenberger requesting that proposed changes to the plan be submitted to Mr. Anderson before the August meeting.

Signage for Home Occupations
Mr. Anderson began by stating that the issue of incidental signage for home occupations comes to the Commission from the Town Council. The Council has received complaints that the current number of signs allowed in residential neighborhoods is excessive. The July 2008 sign ordinance allows for a small identifying sign, a sandwich board, a banner, and two commercial flags to advertise a home occupation.

The proposal from the Council is that only one small sign identifying the home occupation be allowed. Mr. Jester amplified the Council’s concern by adding that this signage is in residential neighborhoods and the residents in these areas have the right to expect that the residential character of the area be maintained. Signage in nonresidential neighborhoods would not be limited by the proposal. He suggested that the Commission spend some time examining the issue and developing new guidelines.

Commission members had numerous concerns.  Mr. Katsetos wondered about the acceptability of non-commercial flags, such as the American flag. Mr. Muth expressed concern about the current business atmosphere and the need to support our business community with signage. He also stated that if the proposed limitation were to be passed current signage would be grandfathered. Chairman Rosenberger relayed that signage should not affect the composure of a residential area and that he believes the community wants fewer, smaller signs in residential neighborhoods.

Mr. Anderson recommended that the Commissioners get additional input from the community. Mr. Jester asked Mr. Anderson to send a memo to Council to get specific information about the complaints they are receiving.

Building Permits
The Commissioners reviewed the building permits from the past two months. The Chairman noted that only one request was structural. Mr. Muth added that the state now requires a costly engineering analysis and that people are waiting to see if this requirement will be discontinued in the near future.

Updates/New Items
• Photovoltaic Cells. Mr. Anderson suggested that the Commission may want to address the issue of siting solar panels. The Chairman responded that it would be reasonable to include them in an ordinance that addressed alternative energy systems.

• CPEAV Training (the Virginia Certified Planning Commissioner’s Program). Mr. Anderson sent letters to Accomac mayors to gauge their response to offering this training in Chincoteague. He is waiting for their responses. The Commissioners would like to be able to attend this training locally.

• June BZA Meeting. The Board received two appeals for signs that exceeded the ordinance size limit. The smaller sign request (17 feet) was granted; the larger sign request rejected.

• Comprehensive Plan Public Input Sessions. The Town is receiving comments to the Comprehensive Plan on June 22, 23, and 24. The comments will be forwarded to the Council and the Commission.

• No Planning Commission Meeting in July. The Chairman proposed that the next meeting be held on the second Tuesday in August at 7:00 pm. He additionally requested that Mr. Anderson provide the revised Council meeting schedule to the Commissioners.

Commission Members Announcements or Comments.
• Mr. Behr noted that the Virginia Commission for the Arts has given the town a $5,000 matching grant. In a related comment Mr. Taylor pointed out that a five acre lot that supported the Arts with several structures would need to be approved as a subdivision.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:20.

Notes prepared by Nancy Lane

N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting. The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings. These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

March 24, 2009, Planning Commission Meeting

The Agenda and supporting materials may be found at this address: 
http://www.chincoteague-va.gov/municipal/meetings.shtm

Members Attending: Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Mollie Cherrix, Gene Taylor, John Jester, Tripp Muth
Member(s) Absent: Steve Katsetos
Staff Attending: Jared Anderson, Town Planner
Public Attendance: Two members of the public
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Rosenberger convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m in Council Chambers.

Public Participation
No members of the public rose to speak.

Agenda Adoption
Chairman Rosenberger asked the Commission members if the agenda, as proposed, should be accepted. The agenda was approved as presented.

Adoption of the February 24, 2009, Minutes
The minutes were unanimously adopted as presented following a motion to accept by John Jester and seconded by Mollie Cherrix.

Fence Ordinance. Mr. Anderson opened the discussion stating the proposed fence ordinance was standard across all zoning districts. Chairman Rosenberger asked about the one and one-half story limit, specifically is there a height limit for the floor(s). Mr. Anderson suggested that, as this is a fence ordinance, we should not focus on the characteristics of the barn, but rather the fence. Mr. Taylor suggested that the issue is addressed by the 35 foot height limit for all structures. The Chairman asked that the town attorney review the ordinance before it goes to Council to insure there are no legal issues. Mr. Rosenberger continued that there should be a public hearing before
attorney review. Mr. Jester moved to take the fence ordinance to public hearing. All members agreed.

Affordable Housing. Mr. Anderson distributed the state code ordinance on affordable housing, suggesting that this should be the starting point for town decision-making on the subject. Developer perspective is also critical. He added that the median annual income in Chincoteague is $28,000. Mr. Anderson pointed out that Katrina Cottages are one viable option for affordable housing. Mr. Jester asked who would be the audience for these homes. The Chairman responded that town employees, for one, would be eligible. The discussion continued that one advantage of these homes is that they could
easily be sited on a 12,000 square foot lot. Many of these homes are smaller than trailers, including double-wides. Mr. Taylor offered that a small lot could have two Katrina Cottages with the owner renting one of them.

Mr. Anderson stated that the Cottages could be limited to certain zones, e.g., R-3. He expressed interest in pursuing the option. Mr. Jester wanted to present a  conceptual overview to the Council to be sure they are in agreement. Mr. Anderson offered to present to the Council. Mr. Taylor continued with the question: what is affordable? Mr. Anderson replied that 20-25% below the market rate is generally what is considered affordable. He continued that a family should not spend more than 30%
of their income on mortgage payments.

Maddox Corridor Planning. Mr. Anderson led a discussion focusing on the members’ vision of the future Maddox corridor. He included the Dollar Store area and Taylor Street as part of the corridor. Members agreed that the new bridge will greatly increase traffic along the corridor. A discussion on parking ensued. Everyone agreed that the town must be proactive and should buy land for parking. Mr. Behr added that both Maddox and Main Street are empowerment zones. Maddox merchants must band together in a similar manner to the Main Street merchants. Mr. Behr and Mr. Anderson agreed to jointly work on “bonding” Maddox merchants.

Mr. Jester offered that recommendations should be developed for Council. Mr. Anderson suggested that a first step was getting merchant support as the Council would try to be supportive to the merchants.

Updates/New Items
• There will be no BZA in April.
• CPEAV Training (the Virginia Certified Planning Commissioner’s Program). This training may be offered on the Eastern Shore in the near future.
• Wind Energy Guideline--Draft. Mr. Anderson stated that ANEC has identifed requirements and a vendor list. Chairman Rosenberger indicated that the town should be prepared when they receive a request to construct a wind tower. Mr. Anderson stated that siting is a major concern. He agreed to come back to the Commission with guidelines in an ordinance format.
• Next Month Agenda Suggestion--Arts & Cultural District. Where does it go and what it means to be in the District. Mr. Anderson requested that the Commission address this topic at the next meeting. Mr. Behr agreed to gather material for the discussion.

Commission Member Announcements or Comments
Chairman Rosenberger complimented Mr. Jester on the Ash Wednesday Storm presentation at the Bateman Center on Saturday, March 21.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:20.

Notes prepared by Nancy Lane

N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting. The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings. These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

November 13, 2008, Special Joint Council/Planning Commission Workshop

Members Attending: Mayor Jack Tarr, Ellen Richardson, John Jester, Jim Frese, Terry
Howard, John Howard, Chuck Ward, Bob Behr

Member(s) Absent: Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Mollie Cherrix, Chuck Ward, Jane
Wolffe, John Jester, Tripp Muth

Staff Attending: Jared Anderson, Town Planner, and Robert Ritter, Town Manager

Public Attendance: Three members of the public
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agenda and background material for this meeting is available on the Town website.  Click here. Note that there is no audio record of this meeting.

Mayor Tarr convened the meeting at 5:10 p.m in Council Chambers.

Agenda Adoption. The agenda was approved as presented.

Adoption of the October 30, 2008, Minutes. Mayor Tarr postponed the adoption of minutes until the next meeting. The reason was to give Mr. Anderson an opportunity to correct several inaccurate items in the minutes.

Discussion of the March 2008 Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update for the Town of Chincoteague. The discussion of the Draft Plan began with page 4-10. The changes are documented below:

4-10. Year-Round Economic Activity. Line 4: Mr. Ward asked for a change from “after” to “in the event of”.

4-11. Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport. Mr. Jester noted that the town must update the information about where the spaceport is going. He suggested that Mr. Anderson contact the NASA Public Affairs Office.

4-12. Wallops Research Park. Mayor Tarr wondered if the detail in the third paragraph was needed. This paragraph will be deleted.

4-13. Regional Partners. Mayor Tarr requested that Mr. Anderson verify that the Virginia Economic Development Commission still exists.

4-14. Regional Partners. Second paragraph: Mayor Tarr noted that the Chamber of Commerce is not now a part of the Virginia Tourism Commission. Fourth paragraph: Mr. Jester proposed that the first sentence read “The Industrial Development Authority of Accomack County owns and develops the Accomack Airport and Industrial Park.”

4-14. Enterprise Zone Projects. Second paragraph: Mr. Howard commented that the cost and operational detail listed is not needed. He requested that the Draft just list the grants.

4-15. Main Street Revitalization. First paragraph: Mr. Ward suggested that that this section mention that buildings should have residents on the second floor. Fourth bullet: Add detail about where and how long the boardwalk/pedestrian walkways should be. Sixth bullet: The town should promote the use of transient boat slips.

Additional comments: Parking for downtown and Maddox Boulevard must be addressed. Look at recommending a seafood market at Curtis Merritt Harbor. Include a recommendation for directional signage.

4-16. Balanced Year-Round Economy. Add the following bullets: Promote educational opportunites/Eastern Shore Community College on the island. Promote non-polluting green industries. Establish a Committee for Economic Development.

4-18. Make the Island More User-Friendly. Add websites to orient and educate visitors.

4-19. Fishing and Island Seafood Industries. Mr. Howardsuggested that “Down the Bay” way of life be documents as a story for tourists.

4-19/20. Planning for Commercial Growth. Fourth bullet: Delete all but the first sentence of this bullet. Bullets five through eight: delete. Last bullet: Change “Develop” to “Maintain.”

5-1. Education. Replace the picture of the old elementary school. First paragraph: Change “Three public schools....” to “Two.” Change “Middle School” to “Combined School”.

5-3. Library. First paragraph: Delete: “Fund raising to complete the project is underway.”

5-3. Fire & Emergency Services. Change title to add “Medical Services.” First paragraph: “three paramedics should read “five EMTs” and “Monday through Friday....” should be changed to “24/7.”

5-4. Fire & Emergency Services. First paragraph: Delete “$10,000.” Third paragraph, last sentence should read “.....Town should continue to apply for improved ISO classification.....”

5-4. Police Protection. Note that the 10 full-time officers also serve as instructors.

5-5. Public Works. Water. Last paragraph: The number of deep wells is incorrect. The number is 4.

5-6. Delete the second and sixth paragraphs.

5-7. Sewage Disposal. Second paragraph: Remove the second-to-last sentence: “By reading the documentation justifying the closures one discovers that a high percentage of the potential pollution is from “contributing boat” polluters.” Fourth paragraph: Remove “It is anticipated that the feasibility study will be completed in mid-2007.”

5-8. Second bullet: Remove.

5-8. Flood Insurance. Remove the third paragraph. Last sentence on the page should read: “The Mayor and Town Council should continue to take.....”

5-9. Remove picture and replace with a Chincoteague picture. Third paragraph: remove. Fifth paragraph, last sentence should read: “Taxpayers should not be expected to replace the harbor at the end of its current lifetime.” Last paragraph: replace “Town Commission” with “Town Council.”

At this point the group agreed to continue the discussion at a later date, beginning with page 5-10.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:10.

Notes prepared by Nancy Lane

N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting. The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings. These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

October 28, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting

Members Attending: Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Mollie Cherrix, Chuck
Ward, Jane Wolffe, John Jester, Tripp Muth
Member(s) Absent: None
Staff Attending: Robert Ritter, Town Manager
Public Attendance: Seven members of the public
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Rosenberger convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m in Council Chambers.
Public Participation. No members of the public rose to speak.

Agenda Adoption. Chairman Rosenberger asked the Commission members if the agenda, as proposed, should be accepted. Mr. Behr made a motion, seconded by Ms. Wolffe and agreed to by all, to approve the agenda as presented.

Adoption of the September 23, 2008, Minutes. Mr. Ward requested one change to the minutes, specifying that the reference to “a former employee of the Conservation District Commission” be changed to ....”Conservation District.” Mr. Behr made a motion, seconded, to accept the minutes with the suggested change; they were unanimously adopted.

Pony Pines Subdivision Review.
Chairman Rosenberger noted that the Pony Pines Subdivision Review was re-submitted to the Commission, with some changes, on October 22. He further stated that the commissioners needed to review the revised request from Mr Schmidt prior to his attendance at the November meeting. Mr. Schmidt is seeking approval for 19 mounds; the Chairman suggested that there may be more attractive and less costly septic systems. Chairman Rosenberger suggested that Mr. Anderson should notify Mr. Schmidt of options for non-mound systems under the newer Health Department guidelines.

Mr. Jester requested that the Commission should move quickly with this revised request in an effort to be more business-friendly. Chairman Rosenberger offered that the town should develop a checklist to let a developer know what the town expects. Mr. Muth echoed the need for a checklist.

Ms. Wolffe asked if the Commission could verify who would be responsible for the roads in the development. At this point Mr. Ward made a motion, seconded by Ms. Cherrix, to table the discussion until the November Commission meeting. Chairman Rosenberger asked that each commissioner read the revised paperwork and submit questions to Mr. Anderson before the next meeting.

Subdivision Ordinance
The Chairman recapped the changes to the Ordinance as creating major and minor subdivisions, while simplifying the overall process. Mr. Ward suggested that the approval process should, rather than having concurrent roads engineer, planning director, zoning administrator, and health officer approval, the health officer approval should come only after all other approvals have been granted. This would insure that a process (health officer approval) that can take up to 90 days would be done only after all the design elements were complete. Chairman Rosenberger replied that most health department concerns were around the presence of a septic permit. He also added that that the health department now has a 20 day turn-around time. The Chairman asked that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Lewis review Mr. Ward’s proposed change and make a recommendation to the Commission.

Mr. Jester raised a concern with Mr. Lewis’ previous recommendation that any division of land be considered a subdivision. Ms. Wolffe echoed Mr. Jester’s belief that a division into 2 lots was too small to be considered a subdivision. However, she continued that Mr. Lewis does not raise issues to the Commission unless there is a problem. Mr. Ward continued that it puts the Board of Zoning Appeals in an awkward situation when a buyer purchases a lot not knowing that it is non-conforming. Chairman Rosenberger stated that he would ask Mr. Lewis for additional rationale for considering
2 lots as a subdivision.

Chairman Rosenberger stated that the Commission should now review the changed document, and when the members agree on content, a public meeting will be held. Mr. Jester offered that the members must consider how to communicate changes to the public.

Ms. Wolffe made a motion to table the discussion of the document. All agreed. Possible Green Space Requirement. Chairman Rosenberger provided a Memo prepared by Mr. Anderson, Lot Size Coverage Limitation/Landscaping/Guidelines, to the members and requested that questions or comments be provided to Mr. Anderson.

Complementary Therapy
Chairman Rosenberger related that the question of Complementary Therapy has been before the Town Council. He continued that he has done some computer research on the subject, provided in the member’s packets. Several opinions were expressed by commissioners: Mr. Jester related that some people in the community think of these therapies as “witchcraft”. Ms. Wolffe offered that Chairman Rosenberger had supplied documents with good definitions of the various therapies and that many are practiced in hospitals. These definitions should be provided to the Council. Additionally, she added that anyone in Virginia can open a business; if the applicant appealed a Council “no” decision, she would likely win. Mr. Ward reiterated that the business requested is legal and zoning determines where it can be located. Mr. Ward also stated that he wants to see these businesses added to the town code. Mr. Behr offered that none of the requested practices are licensed in Virginia so the services would be limited. The issue is where will the practices be offered.

Chairman Rosenberger indicated that the Commission would send a letter to Council in November and that the discussion would be continued at the November Planning Commission meeting.

Boat Trailers on Public Right of Ways
Chairman Rosenberger reminded the members that the issue at hand was the time limit for parking trailers on town streets. He continued that Williamsburg has a policy that does not allow boat trailer parking between 12 midnight and 6 am without a town-provided sticker. Mr. Ritter stated that he
would like to see a 12 hour parking limit. Chairman Rosenberger replied that a limit like this would be hard to administer. Mr. Jester offered that tires could be chalked as they are in larger jurisdictions. The Chairman replied that the owner of the trailer could then move the trailer a few feet to avoid a citation.

Mr. Ward said he did not think this was an issue for the Planning Commission, but rather one for the Police Department; boat trailers should not be singled out from other vehicles. He wants the town to be friendly to boat trailers. The Chairman reminded the group that the issue arose because Sunset Bay prohibited boat trailer  parking. Ms. Wolffe also stated that another causal factor was that the proposed development of Landmark Plaza was not allowing boat trailer parking. The residents of Ocean
Boulevard complained about parking when the restaurant was in the Plaza; the subdivision would cause the same kinds of problems.

Chairman Rosenberger reminded the members that the intent was to be proactive. The Ordinance Committee now has the issue for resolution.

Number of Home Occupations in One Residence
Chairman Rosenberger opened the discussion by relating that the concern was with parking needs. Ms. Cherrix offered that the original intent was to have one home occupation. Ms. Wolffe countered that the community should be pro-business. A husband and wife should, therefore, both be able to work out of their home. Mr. Ward said that it is important to look at the principle use of the dwelling, i.e., is it a home or business. He continued that the “limited home occupation” definition required that business owners be occupants of the structure. Chairman Rosenberger wondered if the Comprehensive Plan addressed this issue.  Mr. Ward made a motion that would recommend a limit of one home occupation per dwelling. He continued that this was always the intent . Ms. Cherrix seconded this motion. During the discussion period Mr. Muth offered that a husband and wife should not be discouraged from both operating a business out of their home. The Chairman said the real issue was that they should be occupants of the structure.

Ms. Wolffe believed that much work in now done on the computer and that we should not discourage people from moving to the community to work at home. 

After this discussion and a vote by the commissioners on Mr. Ward’s motion, the motion was defeated. The chairman wondered if the issue should be referred to Mr. Poulson.  Mr. Jester suggested that the issue be added to the Comprehensive Plan with the planner conducting additional research and presenting a revised proposal.  The Chairman related that in the past there has been a problem with 2 businesses operated out of a dwelling when the business owners did not reside in the building. Mr. Muth asked what the real problem was. Mr. Ward answered that the problem was traffic
to and from the house.

Ms. Wolffe offered that it is very difficult to find small, inexpensive business space in the town and the goal should be to make small business possible. The Chairman asked that Mr. Anderson examine the number of business sales vs. the service tax impact. Mr. Muth said that some employers require an at-home worker to get a business license even though the work is all computer work at home. Additional comments included Ms. Cherrix’ request to look at the kind of occupation, and the Chairman’s comment that broadband may increase the number of businesses on the island.
Updates.

There will be no BZA in November
Chairman Rosenberger advised the commissioners of the BZA decision in October to grant a variance in setback requirements for two side lots to a developer. Ms. Wolffe wondered if this would set a precedent. The Chairman answered that it would not.

CPEAV Training (Virginia Certified Planning Commissioner’s Program)
Ms. Wolffe offered that the trainer, Mr. Chandler, a professor at VPI, was very knowledgable. She encouraged attendance at the training.

Directional Signs
Chairman Rosenberger reminded that the commissioners that town merchants have concerns about advertising their businesses. Mr. Behr stated that he had contacted Berlin and Snow Hill to learn more about their directional signs.  He continued that Mr. Anderson said there may be monies for design work. Mr. Behr was in favor of hiring a consultant.

Ms. Wolffe continued that she had looked at the 600+ businesses in the town and categorized them in 45 service areas. She provided a list of these services along with which services could be identified at 18 town locations. Rather than have the names of individual businesses the types of service would include arrows telling visitors how to get to the services.

Chairman Rosenberger said the Chamber of Commerce should provide input to the proposal. Mr. Jester suggested that pictures be used whenever possible, with the project beginning on a small scale and building as the town gains experience with the signs. Mr. Ward wondered if off-premise signs would be allowed. Ms. Wolffe replied that no new signs would be permitted.

Ms. Wolffe asked what the next steps should be. Mr. Jester responded that Ms. Wolffe and Mr. Behr should look for a consultant and go to the Chamber for their comments (that would be supplied to the consultant.) The Chairman expressed the desire for the Chamber to supply money for this program. Mr. Behr and Ms. Wolffe agreed to follow up with the town merchants.

Permits
A copy of all permits issued from August through October was provided to the commissioners.

Comprehensive Plan Q & A
The Chairman announced that a Comprehensive Plan Q and A would be held on Thursday.

Announcements
There were no announcements.

Mr. Ward made a motion, seconded and unanimously adopted, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10.

Notes prepared by Nancy Lane

N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting. The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings. These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

September 23, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting

Members Attending: Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Mollie Cherrix, Chuck Ward, John Jester, Tripp Muth

Member(s) Absent: Jane Wolffe

Staff Attending: Jared Anderson, Town Planner and Commission Secretary

Public Attendance: Eight members of the public

The agenda, backup materials and an audio recording of this meeting are available on the Town website.  Click here.

Chairman Rosenberger convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m in Council Chambers.

Public Participation
When no members of the public rose to speak Chairman Rosenberger closed the public portion of the meeting.

Agenda Adoption
Chairman Rosenberger asked the Commission members if the agenda, as proposed, should be accepted. Mr. Ward made a motion, agreed to by all, to approve the agenda as presented.

Adoption of the August 26, 2008, Minutes
Chairman Rosenberger noted one change to the minutes relative to the vote for review of subdivision plans. Specifically, he noted that Mr. Muth and Mrs. Cherrix were not present at the August meeting and should be so reflected in the vote. Mr. Ward made a motion, seconded, to accept the minutes with the suggested change; they were unanimously adopted.

Election of Officers
Mr. Behr nominated Mr. Rosenberger for the position of Commission Chair. Mr. Ward seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations and the Commissioners unanimously approved Mr. Rosenberger as the continuing Chair. Mr. Behr nominated Mr. Ward for the position of Vice Chair. As their were no other nominations, Mr. Ward was unanimously approved to be Vice Chair.

Saving Open Space in Chincoteague’s Traditional Neighborhoods
The Commissioners reviewed a memo from Ms. Ruth Lane that proposed endorsing an “Open Space” easement program that included the town’s holding of the easement.  She further provided a sample easement for property that she owns. Chairman Rosenberger asked if the Commissioners had questions about the proposal.  The Chair expressed concern about who would administer the agreement. Mr. Ward stated he believes the town should support the easement proposal “100%.” He continued that the zoning ordinances of the town still have to be obeyed and there is no liability for the town. He suggested that the Soil and Water Conservation District hold the easement.

Mr. Jester stated that there is a tax loss for the town. He stated that the lot(s) that Ms. Lane is proposing for the prototype are totally fenced and not “open”, looking like a “box”. He further relayed that the island does not lack for green space. He asks that the town attorney review the proposal. Ms. Lane responded that Virginia Outdoors’ position is that the tax loss to the town is compensated by no need for the town to provide services to the land in question. She continued that she does not believe that many citizens will develop an easement for their property. The proposal does not address large land areas, but rather spaces like a side yard. She queried all her neighbors; they are uniformly positive about the proposal.  She continued that the town attorney has reviewed the proposal with no objections. Mr. Ward offered that the creation of a town sewer could have the result of more dense buildup. He believes open space will make properties adjacent to the easement(s) more valuable, even though the property with the easement is less valuable. Ms. Lane responded that some older areas of the town are not reproducible. They can be saved, but not duplicated.

At this point Mr. Behr moved, and Ms. Cherrix seconded, to send the proposal to the Town Council for consideration. All approved this proposal.

Possible Green Space Requirement
Mr. Anderson provided a Memo, Lot Size Coverage Limitation/Landscaping/Guidelines, to the members, the intent of which was to identify what green space means to the community. Chairman Rosenberger suggested that the Commission may want to wait for the results of the revised Comprehensive Plan before tackling this issue in depth. Mr. Ward stated that he would like to go to the Council with a Commission consensus on green space.

Specifically, that subdivisions in the town need to identify landscaping plans that must be approved by the Commission. He further clarified that individual lots would not have to meet this requirement. Mr. Ward then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Jester, to postpone the green space discussion. All members agreed with the motion.

Planning Director’s Update
• Directional Signs
Mr. Anderson opened the discussion by answering a question posed at last month’s meeting about whether the town could access grant monies to fund the signs. He continued that because T-21 funds are designed for revitalization projects in the downtown area, the monies may be used for signs in that area.

Chairman Rosenberger asked that Ms. Wolffe and Mr. Behr meet with the Public Works director and bring a proposal back to the Commission with the ultimate goal of making a recommendation to the Council. He also asked for coordination with the Eastern Shore branding program. The town should consider whether it wants its own identity/branding. The Chamber of Commerce should also be consulted as they would benefit from this project.

Mr. Behr suggested that the town enlist help from a professional organization. This help could consist of a good plan to insure a quality product. Mr. Jester requested a concrete branding product before the end of the year. He also expressed the desire for additional grant monies.

Mr. Ward added that the town must get the existing signage under control, noting that adding additional signs to the already-saturated market would have little effect. Mr.  Muth echoed this sentiment. Mr. Jester pointed out that whatever is done must be business-friendly.

• There will be a BZA next month
The meeting will address a setback request on Ridge Road. Chairman Rosenberger stated that the Commission recommendation would be for the BZA to follow existing zoning requirements.

• Boat Trailers on Public Right-of-ways
Mr. Anderson discussed a memo he prepared addressing prolonged trailer parking on public roads. The memo proposed that trailers could not be parked on town streets for longer than 12 consecutive hours.  Chairman Rosenberger offered that people should be able to park trailers on the street if they have a resident sticker. Mr. Jester added that the town is looking at the storing trailers at the town harbor. Mr. Ward continued that the town should not ban parking for legally tagged vehicles. Rather the town should provide a place for these vehicles to park; the police department should be commenting on this issue. Mr. Behr also wanted the harbormaster to be consulted as this could be another source of revenue for the town.

Announcements
• Mr. Ward expressed displeasure that he had received a digital copy of the revised (lengthy) Comprehensive Plan on Monday, with thorough review needed before the combined Council/Commission meeting on Thursday. He added that the public should also have an opportunity to review the Plan. Mr. Muth, Mr. Behr, and Ms. Cherrix all agreed.

• Chairman Rosenberger reminded the members that Council approved the parking lot maintenance provisions presented to them with one change: the specific 100 ft. requirement was changed to a “reasonable” distance. Several members wondered what “reasonable” meant.

The motion was made and passed to adjourn the meeting at 8:17.

Notes prepared by Nancy Lane

N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting. The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings. These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

August 26, 2008 Planning Commission Meeteing

Members Attending: Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Jane Wolffe, Chuck Ward, John Jester

Member(s) Absent: Tripp Muth, Mollie Cherrix

Staff Attending: Jared Anderson, Town Planner and Commission Secretary; and Robert Ritter, Town Manager

Public Attendance: Five members of the public
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To listen to an audio recording of this meeting or read the agenda and background materials, CLICK HERE.

Chairman Rosenberger convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m in Council Chambers. He welcomed John Jester to the Commission and suggested that the Commission should prepare a letter of appreciation to former member, Ellen Richardson.

Public Participation
Ruth Lane rose and spoke about encouraging “open space” in Chincoteague by creating “open space easements”. Her stated goal was to reintroduce the concept of preserving open space in traditional Chincoteague neighborhoods. The open space initiative would:

• Keep Chincoteague Island as the natural community it has always been by saving some of it’s small, but important, neighborhood open spaces. Streets such as Booth and Deep Hole have vacant lots exemplifying her concept of open space.

• Virginia state law allows towns to encourage open space by holding easements drawn up by private property owners to protect existing neighborhoods. Towns would vote to “accept” properties with certain easements.

• The initiative is entirely with property owners. There is no cost to the town. The loss of some tax revenue would be offset by the fact that no town services would be needed for the open space.

• The town’s support of open space encourages citizens to participate in saving traditional values.

Ms. Lane’s stated objective was to provide property owners with the option of putting an easement on their land thereby reducing their tax liability. She asked the Commissioners to add this initiative to their next meeting agenda and to consider making a recommendation to the Town Council.

Ms. Wolffe asked if Ms. Lane had talked with local attorneys. She responded that she had consulted with Messrs. West and Poulson, both of whom were fine with the legality of the proposal. Mr. Jester asked how the property would be maintained, i.e., would the burden be on the town. Ms. Lane replied that maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner. Chairman Rosenberger then agreed to add discussion of Ms. Lane’s proposal to the evening’s agenda. Later in the meeting the Commissioners voted unanimously to add the discussion to the agenda of the September meeting.

No additional members of the public rose to speak. Chairman Rosenberger closed the
public portion of the meeting.

Agenda Adoption. Chairman Rosenberger asked the Commission members if the agenda, as proposed, should be accepted. Mr. Ward made a motion, agreed to by all, to add Ms. Lane’s request to the agenda. Chairman Rosenberger added discussion on signage, including directional signs and balloons to the evening’s agenda.

Adoption of June 24, 2008, Minutes. Mr. Ward made a motion, seconded by Mr. Jester, to accept the minutes; they were unanimously adopted.

Subdivision Ordinance
Mr. Anderson opened the discussion reminding the Commission that he had been asked to develop “Option A” and “Option B”, representing two approaches for reviewing subdivision requests. Option A addressed requirements for an administrative review for divisions resulting in 2-4 lots with a $100.00 fee, and administrative and Planning Commission review for divisions resulting in five or more lots with a $500.00 fee. Option B specified three levels of review: In-house review for 2-3 lots ($100.00 fee), in-house review for 4-6 lots ($250.00 fee), and in-house and Planning Commission review for 7+ lots ($500.00 fee). Mr. Anderson pointed out Mr. Lewis’ concern that some subdivisions are created that do not meet minimum zoning requirements. A purchaser of a subdivided property may assume that each of the parcels is buildable, when they may not be. The purchaser then likely goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. Chairman Rosenberger echoed this concern.

Mr. Jester offered that two pieces of property do not constitute a subdivision. Mr. Anderson replied that most locales in Virginia do consider two properties as a subdivision. Mr. Ward stated that on a small island like Chincoteague every subdivision should be reviewed.

Chairman Rosenberger asked the Commissioners if they would state a preference for Option A or Option B before forwarding the proposal to Town Council. Mr. Ward proposed that Option A be accepted. Ms. Wolffe clarified that this proposal would replace the old “major” and “minor” subdivisions. The proposal was adopted by all except Mr. Jester who expressed concern about the specified 2-4 day turnaround time.

Mr. Ward clarified that 1) the document addresses creating a new lot, e.g., subdividing an existing lot creates one new lot; 2) the applicant does not need to specify why the lot is being subdivided; 3) all roads need signs as deemed necessary by the town; and 4) planning commissioners must have the ability to make comments to the developer early in the process before much time and money has been spent on the project. Mr. Behr wondered if this would mean two reviews. Mr. Ward responded that the Commissioners could have concurrent review with staff. Ms. Wolffe and Chairman Rosenberger agreed with this approach based on past issues that have surfaced. Mr. Jester concluded the discussion by stating that early review would be advantageous to the developer.

Mr. Anderson agreed to add the subdivision discussion to the next meeting’s agenda.

Parking Lot Maintenance
Mr. Anderson provided a memo to the Commissioners Subject: Parking Bay Maintenance, directed to residential projects. The memo proposed to include the requirement for a legally enforcement covenant or agreement that would require owners of a subdivision to maintain their parking bays and/or accessways in a manner consistent with the requirement for roads. Mr. Ward clarified that the requirement is for new roads and parking areas. He further recommended that the commission forward the proposed language to Council. Mr. Jester requested that the town attorney review the language. Ms. Wolffe replied that Mr. Poulson has reviewed the language. Mr. Ritter reminded the group that there will be a public hearingon parking on September 18. Chairman Rosenberger suggested that Parking Bay Maintenance be added to the hearing agenda. Mr. Anderson agreed to facilitate additional attorney and Council review to enable the issue to be discussed at the Public Meeting. A motion was made, and unanimously adopted, to forward the language to
Council by Thursday with a recommendation to that it be included in the 9/18 Public Meeting.

Possible Green Space Requirement
Mr. Anderson provided a Memo, Green Space Requirement, to the members. He stated that we have the tools in place to provide green/open space. Ms. Wolffe added that her interpretation of green space is “landscaping” for subdivisions. Mr. Jester offered that the town already has green space with it’s parks and the nearby Refuge.

Chairman Rosenberger suggested that green space can also mean green parking areas. Mr. Ward expressed concern with impervious parking areas. Chairman Rosenberger wondered if the town should establish a landscaping requirement. Mr. Jester responded that the town should make recommendations. Ms. Wolffe added that the town should review the Manteo, N.C., ordinance, stating it has excellent ideas on trees, shading, and buffer zones. She further suggested that Messrs. Anderson and Ritter consider the Manteo plan.

Mr. Ritter asked for Commission direction. Mr. Jester offered that a first step is to identify the problem that needs to be solved. Chairman Rosenberger replied that esthetics was a start for problem definition. Mr. Behr added that landscaping must be a part of a developer’s submission to the Planning Commission. Chairman Rosenberger further amplified that the initial guidance should be for subdivisions with four or more new lots. Smaller subdivisions could be added later. Ms. Wolffe declared that she would like to see some things be a requirement. Mr. Ward concluded that Mr. Anderson should summarize the Commission’s discussion, including landscaping and pervious requirements, suggestions from other sources, state codes, etc., and bring the results to the next meeting.

Balloons and Directional Signs
Balloons. Chairman Rosenberger related that the Mayor has asked about the intent of the sign ordinance relative to balloons. Mr. Ward stated that the intent was to have no balloons. Ms. Wolffe agreed. Mr. Ward continued that a primary concern is height limitation that applied to all structures and signs all the island. This is especially a concern because of the mosquito plane. He added that balloons have a tendency to get away and create additional problems for the environment. Mr. Behr agreed that “no balloons” was the intent. Mr. Jester completed the discussion by adding that we need to be friendly to businesses, focussing on what can be done for them.

Directional Signs. Chairman Rosenberger raised the issued of directional signs, wondering if the town could access grant monies to fund the creation of the signs. He continued that Northampton County is attempting to “brand” the Eastern Shore and that directional signs for Chincoteague could support this effort. Public Works needs to be a major player as the signs would be placed on public right-of-ways.

Mr. Ward offered that he would like to severely limit off-premise signage for businesses.  Mr. Jester suggested bringing this issue to the Chamber of Commerce. Chairman Rosenberger suggested that businesses add money to the effort.

Planning Director’s Update
Mr. Anderson provided the following updates:

• Mobile Advertising. There is still no update from Virginia Beach on their mobile advertising problems.

• No BZA next month.

• September 25 Planning Meeting. Mr. Anderson stated that Redmond and Johnson will present their planning document at 5 pm on 9/25. The public is welcome to attend.

The motion was made and passed to adjourn the meeting at 9:12.

Notes prepared by Nancy Lane

N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting. The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings. These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

June 24, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting

Members Attending: Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Jane Wolffe, Ellen Richardson,
Chuck Ward, Mollie Cherrix, Tripp Muth
Member(s) Absent: Bob Behr
Staff Attending: Jared Anderson, Town Planner and Commission Secretary; and
Robert Ritter, Town Manager
Public Attendance: Seven members of the public
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Rosenberger convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m in Council Chambers.

Public Participation.
Ruth Lane rose and spoke about encouraging “open space” in Chincoteague by creating “open space easements”. Her major points included:

• Keeping Chincoteague Island as the natural community it has always been by saving some of it’s small, but important, neighborhood open spaces. She provided the example of Cleveland Street that has several vacant lots exemplifying her concept of open space.

• Virginia state law allows towns to encourage open space by holding easements drawn up by private property owners to protect existing neighborhoods. Towns would vote to “accept” properties with certain easements. The City of Chesapeake has such a program.

• The initiative is entirely with property owners. There is no cost to the town. The loss of some tax revenue would be offset by the fact that no town services would be needed for the open space.

• The town’s support of open space encourages citizens to participate in saving traditional values.

• A Piney Island property owner would volunteer to get such a program started.  Ms. Lane asked the Commissioners to comment on her proposal prior to presenting it to the Town Council. Commission members appeared generally favorable to the proposal.  Mr. Ward suggested leaving the space(s) as “natural heritage areas” rather than developing as a park, for example. Several members suggested that native plants be encouraged to preserve natural habitat. Ms. Lane cautioned that if the initiative was
framed as a conservation effort some homeowners could perceive it as creating a jungle-like atmosphere in their communities and, therefore, become alarmed. 

No additional members of the public rose to speak.

Agenda Adoption
Chairman Rosenberger asked the Commission members if the agenda, as proposed, should be accepted. Mr. Ward made a motion, that was seconded, that the agenda be adopted; all approved.

Adoption of May 27, 2008, Minutes.
Mr. Ward made a motion, seconded, to accept the minutes;, they were unanimously adopted.

Subdivision Ordinance.
Chairman Rosenberger asked if there was any public input regarding the changes to the Subdivision Ordinance. Hearing none he closed the public portion of the discussion and opened up discussion among Commission members.

Mr. Anderson stated that the Commission should address four areas: a letter from the Zoning Administrator, the fee schedule, the SWOT Analysis, and the State code. Mr.Anderson then presented a letter from Mr. Kenny Lewis, the Zoning Administrator. The letter presented the following concerns regarding the number of lots that would create a subdivision:

1. When a person subdivides a parcel into two lots they would be required to comply with the town’s subdivision ordinance. This may include a full set of plans, top drawings, sidewalks, water mains, soil and erosion plans, etc. Was this the intent of the change?

2. The proposed change in the number of lots in a subdivision does not address the fee schedule for such a change.

Mr. Anderson reiterated Mr. Lewis’ concern that most property divisions (into two parcels) will have a problem, e.g., setback requirements, but do not require following full subdivision procedures. Mr. Ward disagreed believing that not all subdivisions would result in building on the subdivided property.

Chairman Rosenberger indicated that the intent was not to put the full burden of the Ordinance on a two parcel division, even though a division would likely mean subsequent building on the second lot. At this point the Chairman suggested that the Ordinance wording could be modified. Mr. Anderson offered a three tiered approach that would provide another (lower) level: dividing a single lot into two with zoning approval only.

Ms. Wolffe then asked how condominium units on a single lot would be addressed. Mr. Anderson affirmed that Section 13.01, Definitions, covers condo units, but he would clarify this point in the upcoming revision to the document.

Mr. Ward again wondered if a three tiered approach that would break out two unit subdivisions into its own category was needed. He stated that the existing language would adequately deal with any concerns of undue burden. When Mr. Anderson asked if the Commission was, indeed, ready to adopt a three-tiered approach, Chairman Rosenberger indicated that the decision was premature.

Mr. Ward next made a motion that Mr. Anderson continue to refine the document, Ms. Wolffe seconded and the Commission unanimously agreed to address the Subdivision Ordinance changes at a later date.

Parking Lot Maintenance
Mr. Anderson noted that he had added parking lot maintenance to the Zoning Ordinance per a Commission request. However, he indicated that there is a natural incentive for businesses to maintain viable parking lots.  Mr. Wolffe replied that the concern is with parking for subdivisions,not businesses.  Some subdivisioins will have very large parking areas. The town continues to address
poorly maintained private roads and she does not want to see that pattern carried over into parking lot maintenance.

Chairman Rosenberger reminded the group that condominiums have recently included language in their covenants about parking lot maintenance. However, these private covenants may not be adequate for the future. Mr. Ward recommended that parking area maintenance be added to the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 14.09, Improvements required to be provided by the developer......

Possible Green Space Requirement
Mr. Anderson provided a document, Green Requirements for the city of Rockville, Maryland, to the members. Mr. Anderson asked for the Commissioner’s opinions on the following questions:

1. Is it the intent of the Planning Commission to prescribe certain types of vegetation, if there was to be an open space requirement? Mr. Ward offered that the restriction should be “no invasive species” only. Ms. Wolffe stated that Manteo, North Carolina, has a list of plants that “do well”.

2. Do we want to have lot coverage limitations? Chairman Rosenberger replied “yes”.

3. What would be our definition of “open space”? The Chairman responded that the Rockville document has a good definition.

4. Do we focus on certain zoning districts(s)? The Chairman offered that the Comprehensive Plan may provide direction, specifically, one zone at a time. Mr. Ward added that the commercial zone versus commercial use must be differentiated.

5. What is the primary purpose of a green space requirement? Commissioners offered a number of purposes including esthetics and water quality. 

6. Do we want a landscaping requirement? If so then we would need to specifically outline what types of landscaping are acceptable. Mr. Ward stated that the initial focus should be on pervious/impervious surfaces with later focus on landscaping.  He added that the Green Space Requirement must have a good purpose/intent established early on.

Ms. Wolffe offered that Manteo, North Carolina, has also addressed green requirements. She wondered if the Rockville document might be too complex for Chincoteague and suggested that the town requirements be kept simple.

Building Permits.
The Commissioners reviewed the list of recently issued building  permits. There was brief comment about the proposed shopping center at the Maddox Boulevard circle.

Planning Director’s Update. Mr. Anderson provided the following updates:
• Mobile Advertising. There is still no update from Virginia Beach on their mobile advertising problems.
• No BZA next month.
• Virginia Outdoors Plan CD. Mr. Anderson provided each Commissioner with a Plan CD.

Commission Members Announcements or Comments.
Ms. Wolffe stated that there was no ordinance addressing directional signs. She checked into the cost of the directional signs used in Snow Hill and found it prohibitive for Chincoteague. She will continue to explore sign cost with Cat Edwards and determine if grant money can be found to build on the sign style the town currently uses.  She indicated that this is an important initiative that must be pursued.

Mr. Ward related a suggestion made to him by a former law enforcement officer about alternative transportation given escalating fuel prices. Specifically, he asked if the town could issue safety stickers for vehicles such as golf carts. A second commissioner stated that golf carts must be licensed and insured per a recent town council discussion.

Chairman Rosenberger made a point of thanking Mayor Tarr, the Town Council, and Mr.Anderson for their efforts in resolving the recent sign issue.

Ms. Richardson made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ward, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed and the meeting ended at 9:25.

Notes prepared by Nancy Lane
N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting. The information
contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is
thought to be a complete account of the proceedings. These notes are intended to be a
public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following
the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed
and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

May 22, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting

Attendance
Present:  Ray Rosenberger  [Chairman],  Robert Behr, Tripp Muth,  Hon. Ellen W. Richardson, Chuck Ward,        
Absent: Mrs. Jane Wolffe and Mrs. Mollie Cherrix

Staff:  Jared Anderson, Director of Planning and Robert Ritter, Town Manager

Chairman Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm

The meeting agenda and backup material may be found at:

http://www.chincoteague-va.gov/municipal/meetings.shtm

Audio of the meeting will be located at:
http://www.chincoteague-va.gov/municipal/meetings.shtm
________________________________________________________________

Three members of the public attended; none participated

1. Subdivision Ordinance
Mr. Anderson discussed proposed changes to the Subdivision Ordinance.  He suggested that smaller divisions  of 4 or less should be reviewed in-house by the Planning Director, the Zoning Administrator and the Public Works Director while larger divisions of 5 to 10 divisions would also require the Planning Committee.   Currently some lots are divided improperly.  The amendment would institute an in-house review process to catch problems before they occur, even if the divisions are too small to currently be defined as a subdivision.  Currently the Planning Commission comes in if there are 10 lots to be subdivided; the proposal would bring that number down to 4 lots.

There was a discussion of the appropriate fee to be charged for processing each subdivision. 

Mr. Ward would like to have Section 13-E clarified or changed as it covers transfers of land to a relative to avoid the review process.

Mr. Behr noted that staff will amend the current major/minor language.

Mr. Ward recommended a motion to have a public hearing on the subject before the Planning Commission.  The motion passed.

2. Number of home occupations in one structure
Mr. Anderson discussed his memoranda concerning the number of occupations to be allowed in a single dwelling unit.  The current code shows no limit on Home Occupations although there are limiting factors such as zoning, parking and commercial restrictions.  He asked the Planning Commission for guidance as to whether he should do further work on this area of regulation, and whether the code should be revised to limit such occupations.

Mr. Muth questioned why the commission should review this.

Mr. Ward explained that the proposal would allow one business per occupation, but that two could be allowed by the Planning Commission.  The Town can make an exception for two businesses per occupation but not for three.

There was some discussion about the current practice that allows two paths: Conditional Use that goes through the Town Council and costs $1500, and Special Exception that goes through the BZA and costs $450.

Mr. Rosenberger said that the public wants to keep residential areas residential, and that there needs to be consideration as to whether the occupation constitutes supplemental income or primary income.  He suggested that Mr. Anderson do further work on the subject and report back to the commission.

Mr. Anderson suggested that if the town places a limit at one shop,  some people might combine two or more businesses into one, and thus requiring only 2 parking spaces.  There followed a discussion of parking spaces, limitations, and requirements.

There followed some discussion of whether Mr. Anderson should do further work on this subject.  Mr. Rosenberg suggested it should be postponed.  Mr. Ward said that although it might not be an issue now, the town should be proactive because it will come up some time in the future.  It is better to deal with an issue before conditions require it.  He suggested that Mr. Anderson should put it on a back burner, but remain aware of it.

Mr. Ward made a motion that the subject be postponed and the motion passed.

3. Possible Green Space Requirement
Mr. Anderson introduced the subject which he had researched at the request of the Planning Committee.  He noted that the town would like to have more green space and less concrete and asphalt.  He asked what species of plants would be put in.  He noted that set backs do not guarantee green space.  Even with set backs residents can build out-buildings on more of their lots and  pave larger areas of the lot.

Mr. Rosenberger said that Mr. Anderson should pursue this research further.

Mr. Behr suggested that he should concentrate on the most immediate problems first, that is on developers and commercial property first.  He added that we need a plan for the future of the island, because if we do not we will end up with no trees some time in the future.

It was agreed that no motion was required on this subject.

4. Planning Director’s Update
Parking lot maintenance, Next month

5. Commission Members Announcements or Comments
Mr. Behr announced that there would be a Water Heritage Festival on June 21 at Robert Reed Park.

The next meeting of the BZA will be on June 21. 

There are plans for a Joint Planning Commission / Town Council Meeting.

The Council did not act on the Parking Lot Motion sent to them.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:54.
________________________________________________________

This report was prepared by Ed Schamel.

N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting. The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings. These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

April 22, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting

April 22, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting

Members Attending: Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Jane Wolffe, Ellen Richardson, Chuck Ward, Mollie Cherrix, Tripp Muth
Member(s) Absent: None
Staff Attending: Jared Anderson, Town Planner and Commission Secretary; and Robert Ritter, Town Manager
Public Attendance: Two public citizens

Chairman Rosenberger convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m in Council Chambers.

Public Participation. There was no public participation.

The meeting agenda and backup material may be found at:
http://www.chincoteague-va.gov/municipal/meetings.shtm

Audio of the meeting will be located at:
http://www.chincoteague-va.gov/municipal/meetings.shtm

Agenda Adoption. Chairman Rosenberger asked the Commission members if the agenda, as proposed, should be accepted. A motion was made and seconded that the agenda be adopted, and all approved.

Adoption of March 25, 2008, Minutes. Mr. Ward made a motion, seconded, to accept the minutes and they were unanimously accepted.

Parking Recommendations to Zoning Ordinance

The majority of the evening was spent addressing Commission changes to these Parking Recommendations. Highlights of that discussion follow:

Chairman Rosenberger reminded the commissioners of last month’s public meeting. Mr. Anderson stated that changes made to the recommendations were based on public input and subsequent discussion with commissioners. In no case were the changes more restrictive than those discussed at the public meeting. They were reflected (and highlighted) in the revised document.

6.6.1 Definitions
• Mr. Anderson reminded the group that staff had added the 9 feet by 18 feet option for parking of one motor vehicle. 10 feet by 20 feet has been added as another option.

6.6.2
• Mr. Ward asked “what is a recreational rental?” He continued that if this was meant to include bicycle rentals, then some current businesses do not have the stated capacity. He suggested that the group may want to explore the issue. He additionally inquired if the business license addresses the number of bicycles. Mr. Anderson agreed to research these questions.

6.6.5 Medical and Dental Clinic Lots
Mr. Ward stated that he prefers the floor area ratio standard for medical and dental clinic parking. Mr. Anderson replyed that he had surveyed the literature and that the TVA requires 5.7 spaces per 1000 square feet. This is roughly equivalent to the 1 space for every 200 square feet of floor area in the current proposal. Ms. Wolffe reminded the group that since the downtown clinic has more square footage because they occupy the
old Delmarva Power building the three spaces per treatment room may be the better choice. Chairman Rosenberger said that either option would increase parking over the existing requirement.

Mr. Ward stated that the size of treatment rooms varies with the practice. Ms. Wolffe wondered if there is a current problem. Mr. Anderson countered that if a doctor or dentist opened an office, assistants and walk-ins could create a parking problem. That said, existing offices would be grandfathered.

Mr. Ward stated that whatever option is chosen, the town must make it easy to comply with the requirement. Ms. Wolffe conveyed that it makes sense to base parking on the number of treatment rooms, since the number of people that can be seen is limited by the number of doctors.

When Chairman Rosenberger asked the Commissioners which option they preferred, Ms. Wolffe asked if she should abstain from the vote. Both the Chairman and Mr. Anderson stated that she should not since current offices are grandfathered.

At this point Mr. Ward reminded the group that Dr. Baczek has one treatment room with multiple chairs, and wondered if the proposal should be reworded to accommodate this scenario. Mr. Muth suggested that the proposal should say treatment area rather than treatment room. Mr. Behr inquired of Mr. Anderson about the best management practice in this situation. Mr. Anderson said the TVA standards (5.7 spaces/1000 sq. ft.) were the best he had seen.

Mr. Ward made the point that he does not want to restrict future doctors from coming to the island; patient accommodation is the real issue. He stated that he is now leaning more to the treatment room option. Ms. Cherrix stated that she prefers the option that includes spaces/per treatment room with additional parking for doctors and employees. Mr. Behr asked if Mr. Anderson could look into other sources for ideas and options. Again a commissioner (Ms. Wolffe) stated that she did not want to discourage this business on the island. Mr. Anderson said he did not believe that the current proposed requirement was overly restrictive for a new business.

The Chairman then asked for, and received a motion, seconded, to approved the current language with the replacement of treatment room with treatment area. The motion carried with Ms. Wolffe abstaining, and Mr. Ward not approving.

6.6.8 Marina Parking
Chairman Rosenberger suggested that the word “mooring” was too vague. Mr. Anderson agreed to replace the word with “boat slip”. He agreed to reference “boat trailer” as the vehicle referenced in the requirement for 10 x 45 foot space.

6.6.15 Accessway
Ms. Wolffe made the point that she would like to see the surface composition adequate to accommodate heavy vehicle traffic. Mr. Ward stated he would like to see adjacent parking areas connected whenever possible to enable emergency vehicle access and egress. Chairman Rosenberger said he did not believe that the current wording precluded these options.

6.6.16 Compact Car Parking Spaces
Chairman Rosenberger reminded the group that enforcement of the requirement for compact car spaces is by the community, not the town. Mr. Behr suggested that the 8 x 16 foot size of a compact car space should be referenced in the document. There was also some discussion about reducing the required percent of compact car spaces from 20 to 10 percent. Mr. Ward wanted to keep the 20 percent requirement, and all
members agreed.

6.6.17 Entrances
Mr. Anderson agreed to strike the phrase “Entrance permits?” from the document.

6.6.19 Best Management Practices
Chairman Rosenberger reiterated that there is still no “book” for best management practices (BMP), and Mr. Anderson replied that the point is to encourage development of green areas and promote innovation. Ms. Wolffe expressed concern that BMP could include shell and gravel surfaces that would create a lot of dust. Mr. Rosenberger explained that, as of now, a “pervious” surface is not defined, and this should be done at
a later time. He also suggested that “green space” be addressed in the near future.

Mr. Ward wanted to provide incentives for the BMPs. Ms. Wolffe feared that gravel and shells would be used because they are inexpensive. She would like to see them excluded from the BMPs. Chairman Rosenberger suggested that a paragraph should be added stating the surface must be dust free. Mr. Ward continued that standards must be referenced so that the developer knows how to comply and the town knows what can be approved. Ms. Wolffe proposed that 6.6.19 be excluded from the document at present, but revisited at a later time with accompanying standards. The motion was seconded, and all approved.

6.6.6 Transient Occupancy Parking Requirements
Mr. Anderson presented the commissioners with a memorandum dated April 17, 2008, that identified the various concerns and presented four options for transient parking requirements. The options were:
1. Do not amend the current language or the interpretation of the language.
2. Do not amend the current language, but interpret it differently, i.e., multiply before rounding up.
3. Average the parking spaces required under the current language with that required for a non-transient occupancy complex.
4. Require one parking space per sleeping unit.

Mr. Ward expressed a preference for option 2. He stated that developers want to insure that there is enough parking for occupants. Ms. Richardson wanted to insure that open, grassy areas are used for overflow situations. Chairman Rosenberger stated that this would require new wording. Mr. Muth continued that Mr. Obrecht made a legitimate point at the public meeting; the parking lot of Sunset Bay is too large. He added that a developer will not do what he doesn’t have to do, and the commission needs to address this.

Ms. Wolffe and Mr. Ward suggested that Mr. Anderson should include an example of how the second option would be applied. Mr. Anderson agreed to reword the option. Ms. Wolffe then made a motion to adopt option 1 with a requirement for green space added at a later date. Ms. Cherrix seconded and all approved.

6.6.1 (g) Fire Safety
At this point Ms. Wolffe stated that she is concerned about the paragraph in the Definitions on Fire Safety, specifically, “....an emergency lane(s) shall be established that provides vehicle access to at least 100 feet of three (3) sides of any structure(s) with a lane width of 18 feet.” She wondered if the requirement was to include the entire side of the building, or just the corner to the second and third sides.

Mr. Ward asked if the fire department could approve the access for multiple dwellings. Mr. Behr stated that he believed this would be too much for the fire department, that this was a job for the zoning department. Mr. Anderson added that he thought it would be a tough sell to get the volunteer fire department to perform this function.

Ms. Wolffe proposed a wording change to this paragraph that would clarify that access must provided to at least 100 feet from the furthest points on three sides of the structure with a lane width of 18 feet. Mr. Ward moved to incorporate these changes. Mr. Behr seconded and all approved.

At this point Ms. Wolffe stated that she would like to include a requirement in this document to mandate that owners maintain parking areas. Mr. Anderson replied that this requirement is in the Subdivision Ordinance for Private Roads. Chairman Rosenberger asked Mr. Anderson to include this topic on next month’s commission agenda.

Subdivision Ordinance

Due to the late hour, Mr. Anderson suggested that this topic be postponed until the next meeting. Ms. Cherrix so motioned, Ms. Richardson seconded, and all approved.

Complimentary Therapy

As this topic will be heard at the next Town Council meeting, Mr. Ward moved that the Commission discuss the issue at the next meeting. Ms. Wolffe seconded, and all approved.

Planning Director’s Update

• CPEAV Training
Mr. Anderson encouraged Commission members to attend this training. Ms. Wolffe and Chairman Rosenberger have attended. Mr. Anderson offered to provide additional information as requested.

• 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan
Mr. Anderson brought this document to the attention of Commissioners. He stated that it has much information about the Eastern Shore and is available on the internet.

Commission Members Announcements or Comments

There were no announcements or comments.

Ms. Cherrix made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ward, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed and the meeting ended at 9:25.

Notes prepared by Nancy Lane

N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting. The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings. These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

March 25, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting

The Chincoteague Planning Commission met on February 26, 2008 to conduct a Public Hearing: on proposed parking regulations, and to consider the following items: a review of complimentary therapy (old business), moving billboards and the Planning Director's update.

Members Attending: Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Ellen Richardson, Chuck Ward, Mollie Cherrix, Tripp Muth
Member(s) Absent: Jane Wolffe
Staff Attending: Jared Anderson, Town Planner and Commission Secretary; and Robert Ritter, Town Manager
Public Attendance: Eleven public citizens, including Mayor Tarr

The meeting agenda and backup material may be found at:
Agenda & Backup Materials

Audio of the meeting will be located at:
Recording of the Meeting

Chairman Rosenberger convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m in Council Chambers. Public Participation. One person in the audience requested to speak on the parking issue before the Commission. The Chairman suggested that the gentleman speak when that agenda item was discussed later.  Agenda Adoption. Chairman Rosenberger asked the Commission members if the agenda, as proposed, should be accepted. Mr. Ward moved that the agenda be adopted; Ms. Richardson seconded, and all approved.

New Commission Member
The Chairman welcomed Mr. Tripp Muth, a newly appointed Commission member, to the group.

Adoption of February 26, 2008, Minutes
Mr. Ward asked Mr. Anderson if the minutes could be copied two-sided to save money. Mr. Anderson agreed that he would provide two-sided copies of the minutes in the future. Mr. Behr made a motion to accept the minutes. Ms. Cherrix seconded the motion and the Minutes were unanimously accepted.

Public Hearing: Parking Recommendations to Zoning Ordinance
Mr. Anderson summarized the changes to the parking recommendations of 2005/2006 as follows:

• Combining definitions
• defining the gray area between roads and parking lots
• accommodating best management practices
• allowing compact car parking spaces
• allowing for green parking areas
• recognizing transient occupancy

Chairman Rosenberger asked the assembled public for comment. Mr. Freddie Obrecht, representing Sunset Bay, asked to speak. Mr. Obrecht expressed concern about the number of parking spaces required for the Sunset Bay development. He believed the number is excessive. He reiterated that, for each unit, the code requires 1.2 spaces per bedroom. Additionally, if there is a fractional parking requirement, e.g., a two bedroom unit would require 2.4 parking spaces, the total number (2.4 in this case) is rounded up for each unit (3 in this case). Each boat slip also requires one additional parking space.
As an example, current ordinance guidance would require 4 spaces for every two bedroom unit that also owns a boat slip. Mr. Obrecht made the point that boat trailers are not permitted to park on the property. He stated there are currently 265 spaces on the property. On this past Easter weekend there were approximately 15 occupied spaces. He concluded by stating the current requirement is unrealistic, and that he would like to make the existing property more attractive by incorporating more green
areas.

Ms. Shawn Jennings also asked to speak before the Commission. She agreed with Mr. Obrecht that we need to make our parking areas more attractive, and that the chances that the Sunset Bay parking lot would ever be “full” are “slim.” That said, she expressed concern that single family homeowners would have to abide by a more stringent set of rules than large developers. She was especially concerned that developments with 10 or more units would have more lenient parking requirements than smaller (or single family) units. She concluded by saying that she was in favor of one set of parking
requirements for everyone. 

At this point Mayor Tarr spoke, indicating that he has looked at other jurisdictions and that one parking space per bedroom is the norm. He stated that marina parking was usually not addressed, but the town ordinance requirement of one space per boat slip seems like overkill for a private marina. He stated that if a slip is deeded to a unit, then additional parking should not be required. Conversely, if slips are rented or sold, then a parking space should be required.

Mr. Ward reiterated that Sunset Bay currently has 265 parking spaces. Chairman Rosenberger then asked Mr. Obrecht how many of the units had sold and how many were rentals. Mr. Obrecht replied that 40 of 65 units have sold, and probably 40% are rentals. Mr. Obrecht clarified that he is not contesting the requirement of 1.2 spaces per bedroom. He is contesting the “rounding up” per unit, rather than per the development as a whole.

The Chairman then returned to the issue of “green space”. He stated there is nothing in the current ordinance requiring green space. This could mean fewer parking spaces result in more residential units on the property. Mr. Obrecht replied that he does not want to take down existing homes along Main Street to make room for more parking.  Mr. Behr also expressed concern that if less parking is allowed, then that space would be used for more condominium units. Mayor Tarr made the point that controlling density with asphalt is not planning.

Mr. Anderson conveyed that some jurisdictions have an “open space” requirement that limits the amount of structure on a given parcel.

At this point Chairman Rosenberger closed the public portion of the meeting and opened the discussion to Commission members. He agreed that controlling asphalt is March 25, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting not the way to go, but at this time there are no other options. The Commission did request landscaping, and the ordinances require hard top surfaces, even though green areas seem to be a better option. That said, the island is crowded in the summer, and parking has been an issue in the past. Mr. Lewis has had to turn down business requests because of parking. The town desires to meet everyone’s needs.

Mr. Ward then expressed the desire to speak to Ms. Jennings concerns. He stated that the rounding up of parking spaces based on the 1.2 spaces per bedroom seemed to be the issue--specifically whether it should be done by unit or complex. He continued that if there is no boat ramp, then why do we require large spaces for boat trailers? Trailers are not allowed on the Sunset Bay site. The Chairman then asked Mr. Obrecht if that prohibition was in the Sunset Bay Charter. Mr. Obrecht said that it was; there is no
parking of trailers allowed on the site for longer than 24 hours.

Mr. Ward agreed with the Mayor that the town “should not use parking to control density.” The ordinance should include a required percentage of landscaped area, e.g., 2 parts landscaping for 8 parts parking.

At this point the Chairman recommended that the Commission go through Mr. Anderson’s Memorandum on Zoning Ordinance--Parking, paragraph by paragraph. The salient points of the discussion follow:

6.6.1 Definitions
• The Chairman asked about the reference point for Best Management Practices, (d).  Mr. Anderson replied that best management practices need to be approved by engineering and improve storm water runoff. The practices would provide an avenue for innovation.

• Mr. Anderson reviewed the proposed requirement for a Compact Car Parking Space, (e): 8 feet wide x 16 feet deep. He stated the goal is to reduce the amount of asphalt.

• Mr. Anderson discussed the requirement for ingress/egress for an access-way or
parking bay, (f). Mr. Ward stated the Commission must consider the worst case
scenario for turning radius for entrances to state roads. The island has many boats
and moving vans that require a large turning radius. VDOT should establish the
standard. Mr Anderson replied that VDOT provides the town with money to resolve
these problems. Mr. Ward reminded the group that VDOT will not provide funding for
roads that do not meet their standards.

• Regarding Parking Spaces, (i), Mr. Anderson stated he believes the 9 feet x 18 feet requirement for one motor vehicle is sufficient.

6.6.5 Medical and Dental Clinic Lots
Mr. Anderson expressed the opinion that the requirement for “four spaces per examination or treatment room, plus one space for each doctor and employee” was probably not enough. Chairman Rosenberger asked if Mr. Anderson had compared Dr. Wolffe’s parking area to that of the Shore medical facility. Mr. Anderson said he had. He also stated that all employees of the clinic may not work at the same time. Mr. Ward contributed that a floor area ratio might work well in making a parking determination.

The Chairman replied that Dr. Amrien’s practice may not fit that model as he has lots of patients with limited floor space at a given time.

6.6.6 Transient Occupancy Parking Requirements
Mr. Ward stated that, as presented, there is a 30% increase in parking requirements for developments because of the rounding up per unit requirement. He proposed to do away with the rounding up requirement and require 1 parking space per bedroom. Mr. Anderson relayed that he did not want to create more lenient requirements for developers, but he is concerned about large, empty parking lots. Mr. Behr agreed with Mr. Ward’s proposal and wants to incorporate a “green space” requirement. Mr. Ward followed that the code should have a high-end limit on impervious surface.

6.6.8 Marina Parking
Chairman Rosenberger suggested that if a condo restricts trailer parking, then the Commission may want to address parking requirements differently. That said, he reminded the members that there have been concerns in the past about trailers on streets. Where would the trailers go if not allowed in parking lots?

Chairman Rosenberger asked Mr. Anderson if State building codes impact any of the submitted recommendations. Mr. Anderson replied they do not.

Mr. Ward continued that he appreciated the work that went into the document. Because Sunset Bay has a large asphalt parking lot, the rounding up requirement for parking (an additional 30%) will always be the issue. He indicated he does not see the demand for a lot of the required size. Additionally, he would like to see a minimum previous requirement for projects of a certain size.

Chairman Rosenberger added that residential areas have different requirements. The town does not have a lot of parking, so the Commission needs to look for a balance. He then asked the Commission members what they would like to do with the proposal on the table. Mr. Behr responded that he would like more time to discuss the proposal. Mr. Ritter reminded the Commission that if they made the proposal more restrictive, another public meeting would be necessary. The Chairman responded that they would only be making recommendations to the Town Council. At this point Mr. Behr made a motion to allow more time to consider the proposals. Mr. Ward seconded the motion. The Chairman reminded the members that many people may want quick action, so each Commission member should provide Mr. Anderson with their comments to the proposal before the next meeting. All approved the motion, as amended, by the Chairman.

Review of Complimentary Therapy (old business)
Mr. Anderson reminded the members that Mr. Ward recommended adding Complimentary Therapy to the list of approved businesses in the town code. Mr.  Anderson provided members with documents describing the various services that would be offered by the petitioner, Ms. Schreibstein.

Chairman Rosenberger asked if acupuncture was on the approved list of town businesses. Mr. Ward countered that it could be added to the list, and Mr. Anderson offered that many different businesses could be added to the list. Mr. Ward continued that he had spoken with a massage therapist, and that Reiki is a common service offered. He continued that Feng Shui is more of a consulting service and that it probably does not need to be included in the town code. Additionally massage would be included in the C-1 and C-2 zoning areas as “professional offices.”

Chairman Rosenberger expressed the desire to provide clear guidance to the zoning administrator. Mr. Ward questioned if it was possible to name every service; he expressed the desire to allow the zoning administrator some discretion. Mr. Behr relayed that crystal therapy is a certified service, and that training is required.  Chairman Rosenberger recommended forwarding the proposal to the ordinance
committee.

Moving Billboards
Mr. Anderson began the discussion describing moving billboards as vehicles that are on the road for the purpose of advertising, and not making deliveries. He indicated that they have been a contentious issue in many parts of the country, e.g., Virginia Beach prohibits them. While he had not seen any moving billboards on the island, he asked if the Commission wanted to address the issue.

Ms. Richardson asked how the billboards could be legal if the F&M Bank had to change their rotating sign. Mr. Anderson responded that he did not know what the legal issues were with the sign.

Mr. Ward asked if this was a zoning or traffic issue. Mr. Anderson replied that it was a zoning code issue. Mr. Ward then asked if there was any legislation at the state level that would restrict these billboards. Chairman Rosenberger responded that the Motor Vehicle Code does not address the fact that many buses have been converted to signboards.

Mr. Ward continued that the real issue was not the vehicle, but the flashing sign(s). The Chairman relayed that these signs were not cheap, so using them in Chincoteague may not pay off, as it does in Virginia Beach.

Mr. Muth made the point that the Commission needs to distinguish the type of sign, because the real need is to address the larger signs.

Ms. Cherrix made the point that these signs are louvered. Mr. Muth continued that the problem could be addressed by sign size, and by whose vehicle the sign was on. Mr. Behr asserted that the real issue is highway safety. These signs are likely to cause more accidents. The Chairman noted that another concern is aesthetics; the signs are ugly. Mr. Ward suggested that the Fish and Wildlife Service be consulted. The Refuge does not allow advertising.

Chairman Rosenberger proposed that Mr. Anderson gather additional information and come back to the Commission with a recommendation.

Planning Director’s Update
• Upcoming Community Events
        There will be an Earth Day celebration on April 19.
• 100th Anniversary Celebration
        The 100th Anniversary Celebration earlier in the month was a great success. There will be a parade
        to further commemorate the anniversary on Memorial Day weekend.
• Major/Minor Subdivision Update
        Mr. Anderson stated that he continues to work on this proposal to insure that it is a good product.
• Board of Zoning Appeals
        There is no BZA meeting this month. However, there is an appeal request before the Board for a
        zero foot set-back to accommodate a septic installation, #8 04 01. The Chairman noted that there
        must be a “hardship” before approval can be granted. Mr. Ward followed that he could not make a
        recommendation without details.

Commission Members Announcements or Comments
Mr. Behr welcomed Mr. Muth to the Commission.
Chairman Rosenberger complimented the Mayor and Committee for the great job they did on the 100th Anniversary Celebration.

Ms. Richardson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed and the meeting ended at 8:45.

Notes prepared by Nancy Lane

N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting. The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings. These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

February 26, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting

The Chincoteague Planning Commission met on February 26, 2008 to conduct  a Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit and consider the following items: Parking Recommendations, Directional Signs, 100th Year Celebration by the Town, Concession Stands and Moving Signs.

Members Attending: Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Jane Wolffe, Chuck Ward, Mollie Cherrix
Member(s) Absent: Ellen Richardson
Staff Attending: Jared Anderson, Town Planner and Commission Secretary; and Robert Ritter, Town Manager
Public Attendance: Five public citizens

The meeting agenda and backup material may be found at:
Agenda & Backup Materials
 
Audio of the meeting will be located at:
Recording of the Meeting
 
Chairman Rosenberger convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.

Public Participation
No members of the public rose to speak when requested by the Chairman.

Agenda Adoption
Chairman Rosenberger requested that the agenda be supplemented with one item concerning the Directional Sign Post Program. The Commission unanimously approved the addition of this additional item.

Adoption of January 22, 2008, Minutes
Several spelling corrections were noted by Commission members. The Minutes were approved unanimously pending the minor
corrections.

Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit, Ms. Christine Schreibstein.
Regarding the subject, at the last Commission meeting the members decided to request public input. As a result, two announcements for the meeting were placed in the Eastern Shore Post. Since her original application, Ms. Schreibstein has amended her request to state that the reason for the permit is “Home Occupation” in lieu of “Business”. This requires a conditional use permit and additional consideration by the Commission. The “Home Occupation” would exist in the R-2 zone.

Chairman Rosenberger asked the assembled public for comment, and receiving none, closed the comment period for discussion by the Commission members only. The issue for the Commission is parking and the need for 4 parking spaces. The property currently has two parking spaces and could accommodate a third space if one auto is backed in. The applicant indicates that she is not willing to increase the number of spaces.

The Chairman suggested that the Council can grant the application with a variance for that parcel and that use only. Ms. Wolffe asked if the applicant could apply for a Conditional Use Permit in a commercial area. Mr. Ward stated that the Council is concerned with parking and the Commission should make a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Anderson relayed that the options are to grant, deny, or grant conditionally.

Mr. Ward indicated that this “business” is not presently allowed in the Code, and this application should additionally request that this type of service be allowed in the town.  Therefore, the Commission should recommend to the Council that the zoning code be amended to add this use.

Mr. Ward stated that 12,500 ft. are needed for this permit, while the applicant has about one half of the land needed. This means the Council would have to grant a variance for two (instead of four) parking spaces--for a lot that is half the required size. This request should be addressed by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Several members expressed concern because the application has morphed over time from an anticipated business of eight to two clients, and that there is no room for business to “grow”, even with a Conditional Use Permit.

Ms. Wolffe suggested that the application could be approved conditionally assuming the neighbors are canvassed annually to insure there are no parking issues. She indicated she would like to see this service available on the Island. Mr. Behr expressed concerns over the lack of parking, and the impact on future property owners on the street. Furthermore, he said he was hesitant to establish a business in a residential area. Chairman Rosenberger asked the Commission for a recommendation. Mr. Ward motioned that the Commission make an unfavorable recommendation to the Council  based on lack of parking, lot size, parking space arrangement, and inability of the business to grow in the future. Mr. Behr seconded the motion. The motion carried with Ms. Wolffe opposing. Mr. Anderson agreed to take the recommendation to the Council.  Mr. Ward requested that “Complimentary Medicine” be added to the approved list of businesses in the Chincoteague zoning scheme and discussed at the next meeting. Mr. Behr seconded the proposal and all members approved the proposal.

Parking Recommendations
Mr. Anderson reminded the members that in 2006 the Commission made parking recommendations to the Town Council. The recommendations specified that parking regulations should be kept in the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Wolffe questioned why some of the Commission’s prior (2006) recommendations had been changed. Her first question was why the auto space requirement changed from 10’x20’ to 9’x18’. Mr. Anderson noted that the change was based on his sampling of 75 jurisdictions. The majority of the jurisdictions required a 9’ parking space width.  Additionally, he measured a large car and determined that it would fit within the new dimensions. Ms. Wolffe’s second issue addressed the subdivision ingress and egress requirements. Mr. Anderson stated that these requirements should meet the minimum VDOT standards, but once on a property there are no VDOT standards. Ms. Wolffe’s third concern was that property owners in a subdivision need to know they become responsible for road maintenance once the developer is gone. Mr. Anderson said the new ordinance does not address parking lots, and that multi-family developments need covenants to insure they take care of their parking lots. He added that this would be covered by the “best management practices” in his report.

Ms. Wolfe’s fourth question revolved around the previous Commission recommendation that parking surfaces be paved. Her concern was that whether or not the paved surface would be included in the “best management practices”. Mr. Anderson replied that the concept with the practices is that green spaces be considered when engineering a parking area. Chairman Rosenberg iterated that a sea of asphalt is definitely a concern.  Mr. Ward continued with several concerns: 1) drainage is a major concern on the island and must be addressed; 2) owners need to know they are responsible for maintaining the lots; 3) there must be room for fire/ambulance vehicles to access and egress the site; 4) quality of the construction must be good enough to last; and finally, 5) parking must not spill over into the street.

Chairman Rosenberger asked if there was further discussion, and hearing none, Mr. Ward made a motion to schedule a public hearing for parking ordinance review. The public meeting would be held at the March meeting. Ms. Wolffe seconded the motion, and all approved.

Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Members briefly noted the two set-back issues addressed by the most recent BZA meeting. Mr. Anderson agreed that he would continue to include BZA decisions in the Planning Commission paperwork for their review.

Planning Director’s Update
Directional signs. The members expressed the desire for a common, branded, sign design. The signs would cost about $75 each. Various Commissioners were concerned about the time it is taking for the Council to review the Ordinance. Mr. Rosenberger stated that the town does not need to change the Ordinance, but can institute directional signs using their policy-making authority.

Ms. Wolffe reiterated that the people want a directional sign program. Snow Hill adds directional signs in their town as money becomes available, and they do not put specific business names on their signs. The rationale is that business names will change, therefore causing frequent changes to the signs. She also relayed that Mr. Kenny Lewis indicated the island has about 600 businesses, but only 32 services--a manageable number.

Chairman Rosenberger expressed a desire to make a formal recommendation to the Council. Mr. Ward requested that the Chairman and Mr. Anderson prepare a request to the town to have the Historical Review Board develop a sign policy.

Planning Commission Vacancy
Mr. Anderson relayed that the Council postponed the vacancy discussion until all members are present at the Council meeting.

Chincoteague 100th Year Anniversary Celebration.
The celebration will take place on March 13, beginning at 5 p.m. in the Community Center. The committee is planning a kickoff event followed by events throughout the calendar year. Chairman Rosenberger asked if there would be a tie-in with the library. Mr. Anderson said there would be a 3 p.m. event, and, there would also be a noon-time ringing of all island church bells. Mr. Ward asked who he could contact to make recommendations for the event. Mr. Anderson responded that he could contact Mr. Jester.

Concession Stand on Maddox (Retail Sales)
Mr. Lewis has asked the Commission for a recommendation reference subject. Chairman Rosenberger was concerned that mobile homes be used as stores. He stated that businesses should be permanent structures, and not on wheels. Mr. Ward expressed concern over fire safety and handicap accessibility. Mr. Behr stated that mobile homes are not appropriate for commercial use. Chairman Rosenberger asked Mr. Anderson to convey this opinion to Mr. Lewis. Mr. Anderson noted that mobile homes are not permitted in zone C-1, but the question is, are mobile businesses? There was no further discussion.

Other business
Chairman Rosenberger indicated that the mayor has asked the Planning Commission to look at the moving sign issue, i.e., signs on trucks. The Chairman asked Mr. Anderson to review the request and determine if the moving sign issue is a zoning question and bring the results of his research back to the Commission.

Mr. Ward noted that Megan McCook has a permit to have an Earth Day Celebration on April 19 in Memorial Park. There will be lots of exhibits on subjects such as wind power, solar energy, etc. Mr. Ward also noted that the Commission should streamline the process and associated town codes to eliminate obstacles to establishing alternative energy sources.

Ms. Wolffe asked that landscaping be placed on the April Commission agenda.  Mr. Behr relayed that the Earth Day Celebration was under the umbrella of the Chincoteague Cultural Alliance, and that the Alliance is looking for other ways to promote conservation.

Chairman Rosenberger noted that the Town Council gave Mr. Derrickson a Certificate of Appreciation for his public service.

Ms. Wolffe made a motion to adjourn. The motion passed and the meeting ended at 8:23.

Notes prepared by Nancy Lane

N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting. The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings. These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

January 22, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting

Members Attending: Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Jane Wolffe, Chuck Ward, Ellen Richardson, and Mollie Cherrix

Staff Attending: Jared Anderson, Town Planner (Director of Planning)

Public Attendance: 
Two (2) members of the public attended

Chairman Rosenberger convened the Meeting at 7:00 PM in Council Chambers.  The Chairman noted that Mr. Tom Derrickson is not present at tonight’s meeting because he has chosen not to continue as a Commission member, thereby creating a Commission vacancy.   

Public Participation:  No one rose to speak.

Agenda Adoption:  The Agenda for this meeting was adopted unanimously.

Adoption of Minutes: The Minutes of the November 27, 2007 Planning Commission meeting were adopted unanimously. 

Election of Officers
Mr. Behr made a motion to nominate Ray Rosenberger for another term as Chairman.  This motion was seconded by Ms. Richardson and adopted unanimously.  Ms. Wolffe next made a motion to elect Chuck Ward as Vice Chair; Mr. Behr seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.  Chairman Rosenberger thanked Ms. Wolffe for her service and support as outgoing Vice Chair.  Next, Chairman Rosenberger made a motion to retain Jared Anderson as Commission Secretary.  This motion was seconded by Ms. Cherrix and carried unanimously. 

Update Major/Minor Subdivision
The Commission deliberated the notion of amending the current Subdivision Ordinance.  A “minor subdivision” is currently defined in the code as the division of a parcel of land into at least four (4) but no more than ten (10) lots; a “major subdivision” is the division of a parcel of land into eleven (11) or more lots.  In Chincoteague land division of one parcel into less than four (4) parcels is currently not subject to local laws. 

This situation could result in ‘illegal’ land plats (lots which are too small, or have illegal setbacks per the current Code) being recorded at the County level.  Mr. Anderson reported that the County Clerk’s office in Accomac, where Chincoteague and all County municipality land plats are recorded, will only ‘backstop’ a non-subdivisional recordation (i.e., check for municipality authorization) if the plat to be recorded contains a ‘signature & title line’; otherwise the County will not check the municipal legality of the recordation (dimensions and Code compliance, etc.).

Mr. Anderson:  We should amend the Code so that ALL divisions of land are properly approved.

Mr. Behr:  Are there other Towns in the County with similar concerns?

Mr. Anderson:  Not sure, will check.

Mr. Ward:  We need the change the Code and the County will be bound to honor that.

Chairman Rosenberger:  We should do away with the distinction of major and minor subdivisions.

Mr. Ward:  Engineers, surveyors and developers WANT the Code to be clear.  The County is also subject to civil litigation, if a recorded plat is ‘illegal.’  Providing the County with a ‘checklist’ of dimensional and basic (Code) requirements for Chincoteague would be some stopgap protection against the current risk.

Mr. Ward made a motion that the Code be amended as follows:  land parceled into three (3) new lots is a minor subdivision requiring Planning Administrator approval; four (4) or more new lots is a major subdivision, to go through the approval procedure currently in the Code for major subdivisions.  Mr. Behr seconded this motion.

Ms. Wolffe next questioned changing the definition of major and minor subdivision, because many potential variables would be impacted by this language, such as roads, sidewalks, lighting and other infrastructure.  Mr. Ward responded that if the Code changes then those issues “would be looked at.”
Chairman Rosenberger asked Mr. Ward if he wished to revise his motion.

Mr. Ward next revised his motion to recommend a Code change as follows:  the creation of three (3) or fewer new lots parcels will require the Planning Administrator’s signature. Ms. Cherrix seconded.

Chairman Rosenberger requested Mr. Anderson to draft the language for the Code revision and put it on the February meeting’s agenda for review, prior to recommending the Code change to Town Council.  Mr. Anderson recommended that the Commission also hold a Public Hearing to identify any ‘unforeseen issues’ prior to Council consideration, at which point the recommended Code change will likely receive another Public Hearing.

Ms. Wolffe:  Will the Code change entail a new fee?

Chairman Rosenberger (to Mr. Anderson):  “Put in no designated fee.”

Mr. Ward’s revised motion was then passed unanimously.

Setting a Public Hearing for Conditional Use Permit – Ms. Schreibstein
A public hearing was set by the Commission for February 26, 2008, in a motion by Mr. Ward, and seconded by Ms. Cherrix.  This hearing will allow public comment on the application of Ms. Schreibstein to operate a home occupation [she provides Reiki complementary therapy services] with less than four (4) parking spaces at her home. 

Chairman Rosenberger noted that with a Public Hearing, the Planning Commission may approve this application even though it does not meet the zoning Code.  Ms. Wolffe stated that the Commission has many options available in granting a conditional use permit.  Mr. Ward confirmed that the conditional use permit is specific to this application only, and will not accrue to other parties or successive property owners.  The motion was carried unanimously.

Planning Director’s Update

(1)    Comprehensive Plan:  Mr. Anderson will meet this week with the Consultants to review the entire Plan document, subsequent to inclusion of the suggested revisions resulting from the September 19, 2007 Stakeholders Meeting.  Mr. Anderson will next provide an update for the Commission at the February meeting, and dates will be set then for formal Town acceptance of the Plan.

(2)    Current Developments:  The Town has not received construction permit applications for either the Maddox Circle project or the Deep Hole land clearing work.  Mr. Anderson however noted that sediment control docs have been received by the Town for the Maddox work, which he said is currently being held up due to “roundabout issues,” specifically the planned number of property entrances off the traffic circle, and that the Town has requested a new design.  Mr. Anderson said he believes this project will be commercial/retail in nature, once permits are filed.  Mr. Anderson said that a Town staff has performed an informal  visual check for drainage at the Deep Hole site, and that the Town plans to return again soon for another look.

(3)    Planning Commission Vacancy: January 25, 2008 is the deadline for application for the Commission vacancy created by Mr. Derrickson.  Mr. Anderson noted that “several applications” for membership have already been received by the Town, and he said he was hopeful that more will be coming.  Mr. Anderson expressed appreciation for the service of  Mr. Derrickson.  Chairman Rosenberger asked Mr. Anderson to prepare a Letter of Appreciation for Mr. Derrickson’s service to the Planning Commission.

(4)    Board of Zoning Appeals [BZA] Update:  Chairman Rosenberger attended that last BZA meeting and he recommends that the Planning Commission meet yearly with the BZA, to review notable agenda, and any problems or issues.  Mr. Anderson agrees with this concept.  Chairman Rosenberger said that he has given the BZA “an open invitation” to, as-needed, refer any issue(s) to the Planning Commission for advice and recommendations.  Chairman Rosenberger requested of Mr. Anderson to prospectively provide the Commission with a list of active BZA agenda—e.g., this month, the BZA is considering two (2) setback issues.

Commission Members’ Announcements and/or Comments

Ms. Wolffe [citing a January 17, 2008 Parking presentation by Mr. Anderson to the Town Council]:  Why the new language “parking stall” and “parking bay”?
Mr. Anderson:  these are VDOT terms.
Ms. Wolffe:  Are there currently any specifications in our Town parking ordinance, for landscaping around parking and buffer areas in Chincoteague? 
Mr. Anderson: He is not aware of any.
Chairman Rosenberger:  When the Council returns its Parking recommendations to the Planning Commission, the landscaping matter can be re-visited; Chairman Rosenberger meantime requested Mr. Anderson to look at “the parameters of landscaping” in the current ordinance, and brief the Commission in February.
Mr. Ward: Also need to address any [environmental] issues of existing trees and wooded areas, as regards changes to the parking ordinance.

Ms. Wolffe [to Mr. Anderson]:  What is the process to get a particular type of business approved so it becomes a “use permitted by right”? 
Mr. Anderson:  The Ordinance Committee makes a recommendation to the Town Council, which is empowered to amend the Code.

Mr. Behr: What is the deadline for the Comprehensive Plan?  Are we “floating”?
Chairman Rosenberger: The deadline is “ASAP.” 
Mr. Anderson:  There are no deadlines.  The State only requires a review every five (5) years, and we have met that requirement; but we (the Town) still wishes to move on with formalizing the public revisions (see Planning Director’s Update, above).

Chairman Rosenberger next noted that a recent Sign Workshop identified issues of increased costs to businesses caused by Sign Ordinance changes, due to the new [compliant] signs which are necessitated by a tenant change at a site.  Chairman Rosenberger said that the intent of the Code change is increased conformance. 
Ms. Wolffe next commented that “a large percentage of people” said they were in favor of directional signs on Chincoteague.
Ms. Wolffe then provided at Chairman Rosenberger’s request, color pictures for the Committee, of existing Snow Hill, MD directional signage made by the Selby Sign Company (sp?).
Chairman Rosenberger: These [signs, depicted in the pictures] are “unobtrusive yet informative.”  He said that Commission can get an estimate from Selby Company and “have it ready for the Budget Committee to look at in July.”
Mr. Behr:  Can the Budget Committee order these [signs] as the budget will allow?
Chairman Rosenberger:  He believes the Commission would first provide Public Works with a recommendation; and the signs will be established and subsequently ordered by Public Works.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 PM.

Notes by Victoria Weiskopf

N.B.  These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings.  These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

November 27, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting

The November 27, 2007 Planning Commission meeting covered five topics:  election of officers, review of major/minor subdivision, review of fencing section of Zoning Ordinance, building permit update and announcements from commissioners. 

Members Attending:  Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Chuck Ward, Tom Derrickson, Molly Cherrix

Absent Members:  Ellen Richardson, Jane Wolffe

Staff Attending:  Jared Anderson, Planning Director

Public Attendance: Five (5) members of the public attended

Chairman Rosenberger convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.

Public Participation Segment
Mr. Tommy Clark of Don’s Restaurant rose to speak.  Mr. Clark expressed his concern that compliance to new signage regulations, should these be adopted by the Town Council, will be costly to businesses such as his.  His informal survey of signage along Maddox Blvd suggested that approximately eighty percent of the existing commercial signs there would be out of compliance with the proposed, new sign ordinance. Chairman Rosenberger said that existing signs will be unaffected by new regulations, and furthermore if the new regulations are for smaller signs, then this will most likely result in lower costs to businesses.

Election of Officers
According to the by-laws of the Planning Commission, officers should be elected each year during the regular September meeting.  The Staff recommended that elections for Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary be held during the November 27, 2007 meeting.  The election of officers was deferred until the January 2008 meeting, or whenever next there is a full Commission meeting with all members in attendance.

Review of Major/Minor Subdivision
Some Commissioners have raised concerns about what constitutes a “subdivision.”
The state code allows local jurisdiction to craft their own definitions of what constitutes a subdivision.  If the local jurisdiction does not define “subdivision” then the State definition applies.

The Town of Chincoteague distinguishes between a “major” and a “minor” subdivision.  A minor subdivision is the division of a parcel of land into at least four but no more than ten lots.  A major subdivision is the division of a parcel of land into eleven or more lots.

Three issues of subdivision were reviewed:

1.  Application of “subdivision” in the case of splitting a parcel in two:  Mr. Behr noted that the Planning Administrator recommends designating as a “subdivision” the case of splitting a parcel in two.  Mr. Ward stated that splitting a parcel into two or three lots most resembles a family land transaction, and for this reason should perhaps be exempt from reviews such as a Town subdivision would require.

2.  Subdivision yielding lots smaller than permitted by Town Ordinances:  the Staff cited potential for a property owner of such a lot requiring a building variance and perhaps not being able to obtain one and to build, due to lot size and related setback violations which would have not been reviewed at the time of recordation, due to the fact that these parcels are currently not classified by the Town as legal subdivisions.  The Staff recommends the Commission consider this potential problem and discuss again at the January meeting, before making and recommendations to the Council in this matter.

3.  Differentiation between “major” and “minor” subdivisions.  Mr. Derrickson expressed his concern that changes to the existing Town subdivision designation are probably unnecessary and are in the undesirable direction of adding even more regulation to existing land laws. The Chairman stated that changes to the Town’s subdivision designation will be addressed again at the January meeting.  He stated that the Commission’s two main objectives in this matter will be (a) make the Town subdivision definition as simple as possible, and (b) have the County backstop it, i.e., install a check for Town compliance at the County level.

Review of Fencing Section of Zoning Ordinance
During the May 22, 2007 meeting of the Planning Commission the Staff recommended that the allowable height of a front yard fence be lowered to 42 inches from the current 48 inches and that a 6 foot high fence of solid construction should be allowed to begin a the front of a structure rather than at the rear of a structure.

The Commission instructed the Staff to complete additional research on these proposals.    In doing so that staff discovered that there was a discrepancy in the Sight Distance Triangle requirements.  That discrepancy was resolved during the most recent meeting of the Town Council.   Now the Staff recommendation returns for consideration by the Commission.

The Chairman noted that vegetation remains the main safety issue in the context of the sight-distance triangle requirements of the fencing ordinance.  He also noted that many fixed structures (e.g., the brick walled entry-ways to some larger housing subdivisions) throughout Chincoteague are in violation of the fencing ordinance, and will be addressed by the Zoning Administrator as time allows.  The Chairman stated that the Commission needs input from the Zoning Administrator as to the adequacy of the current ordinance.  Ms. Cherrix questioned whether vegetation is addressed in the fencing ordinance.  Staff checked on this at the meeting, referencing the Ordinance, and reported that vegetation is addressed in it, along with constructed fencing structures.

Building Permit Update
The list of building permits issued for August and September can be found on the Town website at this location:

Construction Costs for 60 August building permits totaled $1,690,725 and yielded $6,670.64 in fees exclusive of penalties and taxes.

Construction costs for 71 September building permits totaled $389,262 and yielded $2,692.56 in fees exclusive of penalties and taxes.

The Staff told the Commission that the decrease in fee revenues from August to September cannot readily be explained. Staff will research this and report his findings in January.  The Chairman questioned Staff as to the status of permits for Pony Pines and Sunset Bay, and construction at the Town circle. Staff responded that the owners of these projects have not filed any new permit applications, site plans or had any correspondence with the Town.  The status of these projects is currently unchanged.

Commission Members Comments or Announcements
Mr. Behr said that a sub-committee for Architectural and Historical Review has been formed and he questioned the Chairman on a plan to utilize this sub-committee. Chairman Rosenberger responded that the Commission will first wait for the Comprehensive Plan to be adopted by the Town.

The Chairman requested Staff to provide the Commission with updates on recent workshops and stakeholder meetings held by Town Council to vet the Draft Comprehensive Plan.  Staff responded that he has contacted the consultant who is synthesizing the Plan meetings content, and has not yet received a response.  The Chairman stated that the meetings updates and consultant report should be available for the January Commission meeting.

Mr. Behr expressed a concern that perhaps a consultant should be utilized to explore various integration concepts for the new bridge (the Town drawbridge replacement) with Maddox Boulevard.  Concerns are for street aesthetics as well as signs and lighting in the area where the bridge will meet Maddox Blvd. on Chincoteague.  The Chairman responded that VDOT and the Town already have Plans for lights and signs in the area; aesthetics (architectural and street appearance on Maddox) were not addressed by the Chairman at tonight’s meeting.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:20 p.m.

Notes by Victoria Weiskopf

N.B.  These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings.  These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

September 25, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting

Members Attending:  Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Chuck Ward, Ellen Richardson, Molly Cherrix

Staff Attending:  Jared Anderson, Planning Director

Public Attendance:  2 members of the public attended

Public Participation Segment:  No one rose to speak.

Adoption of Minutes: 
The minutes of the last 3 meetings were approved.  In future, minutes will record the Chairman voting only when he must do so to break a tie vote.  Also, those who second a motion will also be identified.

Public Hearing for Proposed Sign Ordinance:
There was no public participation on this issue at this meeting.  The entire set of recommendations from the Planning Commission was referred to the Town Council for their action.

Review of Roads Subdivision:
Chairman Rosenberger noted that this issue is really in the hands of the Town Council, since last February.  However, since Council will be taking it up soon and holding a Public Hearing, he wanted to update Commissioner Ward (who is relatively new to the Planning Commission) and to be sure that all Commission members are ready to answer questions which may arise on this matter.  The Public Hearing will probably occur on October 18.  Full information on the issue is available at the town offices, for those interested.  Although many towns are now adopting VDOT standards for roads now, our Town Council decided to take up the recommendations on a one-at-a-time basis, rather than just adopting them as a package.  One issue which was never fully decided upon at the Planning Commission was whether to recommend that private roads be prohibited in the future, based on the poor experience the town has had with the longer-term viability of private roads.  Another issue which may be contentious is the issue of whether some roads in subdivisions are parking lots rather than actual roads.  (Note: a group of up to three homes would not be considered a subdivision; 4 to 9 homes is defined as a minor subdivision; 10 or more homes is considered a major subdivision.)

Commission Members Comments or Announcements:
Bob Behr inquired about the new road being cut in on Deep Hole Road, near the Town Offices.  Although no-one had firm information, it is believed that it is there to give access to the landowner to locate buildable locations on his property.  Kenny Lewis may have more definitive information.

Chuck Ward had asked Jared Anderson to review the Cape Charles "tree ordinance", as a possible model for Chincoteague, which currently has no requirements to save trees.  Mr. Anderson has reviewed the ordinance and will put this topic on an agenda in the near future.

Mr. Anderson reported that 55 people attended the recent Stakeholder Meetings for the new Comprehensive Plan.  He will synthesize the comments and provide them to the planning consultants.

Mr. Rosenberger announced a possible training opportunity for the Commission members.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:35 p.m.

Notes by Gail Reichard

N.B.  These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings.  These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

August 28, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting

Members Attending:  Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Tom Derrickson, Jane Wolffe, Chuck Ward, Ellen Richardson, Molly Cherrix

Staff Attending:  Jared Anderson, Planning Director; Robert Ritter, Town Manager

Public Attendance:  Approximately 7 members of the public attended

Public Participation Segment 
No one rose to speak.

Adoption of minutes
The minutes were provisionally adopted, with the condition that Mr. Anderson reviewed the tape of the meeting and re-checked the exact language of one section, to be sure it is correctly stated in the minutes.  It was noted that in the future, to be most useful for research and archiving purposes, complex issues should be couched in the clearest possible language regarding the intentions of the Commission.

Public Hearing on Repeal of Conflicting Language regarding Sight Distance Triangles
No one from the public rose to speak on this matter.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend removal of the conflicting language from the zoning ordinance.  If Town Council approves this change, it would provide for enforcement of sight distance triangles under the Traffic section of the Virginia Code.  Kenny Lewis, Building and Zoning Administrator, would still be the enforcing officer. 

Public Hearing on Stair Landings for Exterior Doors
There was one speaker on this issue, who supported the change from 3'x3' to 5'x5' as the maximum stair landing size.  The reason given was for safety considerations, especially for persons with mobility limitations.  The Commission subsequently voted to recommend such a change to Town Council.

Pony Pines Major Subdivision Plans
The developers have submitted amended plans which incorporate several changes recommended by the Commission and/or neighbors of the project.  Since these are still preliminary plans, only Kenny Lewis needs to approve them; however, since the Commission members had raised several issues at the June meeting, Mr. Lewis felt it was important for them to hear directly from the developers again.  (The Commission is required to sign off only on final plans.)

The developers have made changes to the decks, lighting, fencing and landscaping, in accordance with preferences expressed by Commission members and/or neighbors.  The Chairman of the Planning Commission expressed appreciation to this developer for their willingness to co-operate with the town and its citizens regarding suggested improvements to the plans.

Mr. Derrickson expressed concern that the Commission might be asking developers to provide too much information regarding their plans.  However, the developer stated willingness to give the Commission additional information regarding the specifics of the landscaping plan, and to look into a recommended type of lighting the town is moving toward using in future projects.  The pitch of the septic mounds will be double-checked by the engineer to insure that drainage from heavy rainfall will not flow towards neighboring properties.

A motion was unanimously approved to notify Mr. Lewis that all the Commission’s  questions have been addressed by the developer, and that he can proceed with his approval process for the property.

Planning Director's Report
Mr. Anderson provided the Commission with a written analysis and clarification of the processes for both "conditional use" requests, and "special exception" requests.  He would like their input on this document after they have reviewed it.

Mr. Anderson stated that there will be four "stakeholder" meetings on the proposed Comprehensive Plan on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at various times of the day.  They want to have 10 to 15 people in each session.  They can still accept names from the Planning Commission as to people who should be invited to participate.  Most invitees were selected from sign-in lists at the 2005 meetings, plus the meeting held on June 28, 2007.  The meetings on September 19th are open to the public, however they wish to keep the 4 discussion groups at a manageable size.

Review of New Sign Ordinance Provisions
There was a lengthy review and discussion of various technical provisions and wordings in the latest draft of the new sign ordinance, to address comments received from Town Attorney Jon Poulson, and to address any other Commission members' final concerns before they set a date for a public hearing.

(The note-taker had to leave before this discussion concluded.  If anything of interest to the Chincoteague Reports subscribers occurred after her departure, it will be included in an addendum to this report, to be filed later.)

Notes submitted by Gail Reichard

N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith and is presented as accurately as possible.  These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

June 26 and July 18, 2007 Planning Commission Meetings

The agenda for the June 26 Planning Commission meeting was so full that the meeting was carried over to a special continuation meeting on July 18.  This report will cover the items presented at both meetings, which covered a total of 5 hours.  Agenda items included:  Pony Pines subdivision plans, Channel Breeze Condo Phase I Platt Approval, Sunset Bay request for more units and less parking, proposed changes in C1 and C2 zoning.

Attendance for June 26 meeting
Present:  Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Chuck Ward, Ellen Richardson, Mollie Cherrix.  Also staff members Kenny Lewis, Building and Zoning Administrator and Jared Anderson, Planning Director.

Approximately 20 members of the public attended.

Public Participation Segment
No one rose to speak.

Conditional Use Application of C. Schreibstein for approval of a "complementary therapy" usage in an R2 zone.
After a fact-finding session with Ms. Schreibstein, the Commission unanimously agreed to go to a public hearing on this application at the next meeting.

Request for approval of the Pony Pines subdivision plans
Fred Schmidt, attorney, Charles Cooley, engineer, and Robin Cohen, architect, presented plans for a 19-unit subdivision of 1300 square foot, 3-story buildings (2 floors with parking underneath) on the site of the former Pony Pines restaurant.  After questioning and discussion of a variety of issues such as deck locations, lighting, landscaping, fencing, drainage, septic, parking surfaces, etc., the public was invited to comment.  Three neighboring property owners did so.  The developers indicated willingness to consult with those having issues with the current design, where possible.

The issue arose as to whether the current plat is preliminary or final.  After determination that it must show certain changes before final approval can be granted, the Commission voted to delay any approval until such changes are made.

Channel Breeze Condo Phase I plat approval
Although the original plat was approved and recorded, it was discovered that it had not been given final signatures by Mr. Lewis and the Planning Commission.  This is a technical matter only, not any change to the Channel Breeze plans, and was corrected by having the required signatures added.  Item was on the agenda only to provide full and transparent information to the public.

Request for more units at Sunset Bay South – Phase II, and fewer parking spaces
Sunset Bay attorney , Mr. Inman, presented their request to add 6 more units to the condominium development since additional property has been acquired on the south side, and to decrease the number of required parking spaces for the development as a whole.  Since the request for the additional units apparently met all existing standards, the Commission approved that part of the application after questioning.

With regard to the parking modification, the Commission decided to make no final decision at this time.  Although reducing the parking requirements might have certain advantages with regard to landscaping, there was concern that during rental season the full complement of spaces would be needed, based on the town's previous experience.  Mr. Lewis also noted that since each unit of the complex would be individually owned, they could not interpret the regulation as if it were all one large one-owner complex.

The developers noted that 32 units in Sunset Bay have been sold and closed so far.

Proposed Zoning Changes in C-1 and C-2 (Commercial) zoning districts
The Town Council referred a proposed zoning change to the Commission, for response within 90 days, that would change condominiums, townhouses and multifamily dwellings in C-1 and C-2 from "permitted by right" status to "conditional use" status.  This would give the town more control over various types of multi-unit housing using land designated for commercial usage.  There would be no change in R-3 districts, where multi-unit housing would continue to be permitted by right.

In addition, Council asked the Commission to review two possible approaches which could be used to implement the above change if it were recommended.  Option #1 would apply R-3 criteria when such a conditional use request is made;  Option #2 would specify that individual project-specific criteria be developed which would be considered by Council when such conditional use requests are made.

A public hearing is the next necessary step, and it was scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting.

Planning Director's Update
Jared Anderson, the town's Planning Director, gave a brief update on possible training opportunities for the Commissioners, and reminded all attendees of the upcoming joint workshop on the Comprehensive Plan revisions slated for June 28.

Since the meeting had already run for 3 ½ hours, several more agenda items were postponed to the next meeting. Since no July meeting is typically held, a special meeting to finish the agenda, as well as to conduct the two public hearings noted in the above proceedings, was scheduled for Wednesday, July 18.  Adjournment was at approximately 10:30 p.m.

Attendance for  July 18 meeting
Present:  Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Tom Derrickson, JaneWolffe, Chuck Ward, Ellen Richardson, Mollie Cherrix.  Also staff members Kenny Lewis, Jared Anderson, and Town Manager Robert Ritter.

Approximately 16 members of the public attended.

Public Participation Segment
No one rose to speak.

Public Hearing on Zoning Change in C-1 and C-2 for multi-unit residential housing
No member of the public rose to speak on this issue.  The Commission therefore proceeded with its own discussion of the issue, and of the options for implementation of any such change.  Many members found the legal language confusing, and discussion occurred here and again at the end of the meeting.  After clarifications, the decision of the Commission was to recommend the zoning change from "permitted use" to "conditional use" to the Council, with an additional recommendation to use option #2 (as given in the above notes), which would give the town government more negotiating ability with developers requesting multi-unit housing in commercial districts.

Public Hearing on Schreibstein Conditional Use Permit Application
Several persons spoke in support Ms. Schreibstein's request for a conditional use permit for her "complementary therapy" facility.  Although there were some questions about parking sufficiency and possible "double-usage" of the facility, it was determined that these were not issues for the Planning Commission to decide, but should be referred to the BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals) if the Planning Commission voted to approve the "complementary therapy" use.  The Commission voted, with Mr. Ward abstaining, to grant the requested use.

Sight Distance Triangles
Planning Director Anderson had noticed a conflict of language between the Code language and the zoning ordinance language relating to "sight triangle distances".  Messrs. Lewis and Rosenberger noted that this issue had been discussed and agreed upon in 2004, but apparently the issue never went to public hearing.  The Commission voted to go to public hearing at the next meeting to remove the conflict from the zoning ordinances.

Stair Landings for Exterior Doors
The Virginia Code specifies a minimum of 3 feet by 3 feet as a landing area between an exterior door and the connecting stairs.  However, 5 feet by 5 feet is now seen as a safer option for aging or disabled populations.  The BZA has already approved one application for the larger size for safety reasons.  Mr. Lewis pointed out that it is important that landings not become porches, since that will affect setback requirements.  The Commission unanimously voted to go to public hearing on a recommendation that landings up to 5 feet x 5 feet be acceptable.

A bi-monthly building permit update was supplied in the Commission members' packets by Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Rosenberger noted that Town Attorney Jon Poulson has responded to their new sign ordinance recommendations, and that the Commissioners need to be sure they are working with the most recent copy of the document, which will be on the August agenda.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m.

Notes by Gail Reichard

N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings.  These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island.  Notes of the meetings are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive not financial compensation for their efforts.

 

 

 

 

 

April 24, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting

The April 24, 2007 meeting of the Planning Commission covered these topics:  Planning Director’s Update, Building and Zoning Administrator’s Update and Review of by-Laws

Members Present: Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Robert Behr, Ellen Richardson, Tom Derrickson, Charles Ward and Jane Wolffe

Members Absent: Mollie Cherrix

Staff Present: Jared Anderson, Town Planner; Kenny Lewis, Building and Zoning Administrator

Approximately 9 people attended the meeting.

The meeting began at 7:02

Audio of the meeting and the agenda and supporting materials may be viewed through this link:
Audio - Agenda - Backup Materials

Planning Directors’ Update
Subdivision Ordinance-Roads.  Mr. Anderson reported the he and other Town officials met with Town Attorney Jon Poulson on April 4 to discuss the proposed subdivision ordinance changes regarding roads.

Sign Ordinance.  Mr. Anderson reported that the sign ordinance was currently in the hands of the Town Council and that the document would return to the Planning Commission for a public hearing.

Building and Zoning Administrator’s Update
Mr. Lewis reported on the following activity
•    Sixty to seventy building permits are being issued each month.  This level of activity is about the same as experience by all of Accomack County.
•    Only one or two building permits for single family development are issued each month.
•    Birchwood Development has slowed because of the recent ruling on sewage.  Only five units are currently under development.
•    Pony Pines has yet to file its final plat.  That is anticipated to be submitted within the next few months.
•    Sunset Bay will request approval for an additional five or six units on the south side of its development
•    No discussions and no filings have been made regarding development at Landmark Plaza.
•    Silver Sails development off of Willow Street wants to add units.  The developer is currently discussing plans with the Health Department.
•    Reed Trailer Park is going through the subdivision process.
•    The preliminary plat for subdivision has been filed for a new development located of Pine Drive.

Mr. Lewis said that the subdivision process usually takes six months to complete.  However, recently developers seem to be struggling to meet the Town’s requirements.  The subdivision process now takes most developers between one and one-and-a-half years to complete.

In response to questions raised by Commissioners, Mr. Lewis said:
•    Variances are issued to the property in question not to the owners of the property.  Variances do not have any time limits.  However, special exceptions to zoning do have time limits imposed on them.
•    Town Ordinances distinguish between “major” and “minor” subdivisions.  A minor subdivision is one that has ten or fewer lots.  A minor subdivision does not have to come before the Planning Commission for approval.

Mr. Lewis suggested that the distinction between major and minor subdivisions may no longer be helpful to the Town and that the Planning Commission might want to reconsider this division.  One of the issues that is not addressed by allowing minor subdivisions to exist within the code is that there is no requirement for a developer to provide roads adequate to support both the new and existing development.  Adequate roads are ultimately a safety issue because without them, access for fire safety equipment may not be sufficient.

Review of By-Laws
The Review of the By-laws was postponed until the May meeting.

Screening Residential and Commercial Areas
The Planning Commission considered changes to the zoning ordinance that addresses screening in residential districts R-1, R-2 and R-3 and Commercial districts C-1 and C-2. 

The staff suggested the following wording changes to Sections 3.1.5, 3.4.7, 3.7.16, 4.1.27, 4.4.49 Fences. The suggested changes are indicated in bold italic.

(1)  All fences to be located from a point even with the front (strike the word “rear”) of the main structure (excluding open decks and open porches) extending to the front lot line shall have a maximum height of four feet and shall be at least 30 percent open space when viewed at any point perpendicular (90° angle) to the fence line, regardless of the construction materials.  Any fence on the remainder of the property shall have a maximum height of six feet and may be of solid construction.  In the event the main structure is less than 25 feet from the front property line, the remainder of the property for purposes of this section shall start at the 25 foot setback from the front lot line. A fence previously in compliance with this section may remain in place if a new addition is construction to an existing residence.

(2) As to any lot on which there is no existing main structure, all fences shall have a maximum height of four feet and shall have a maximum height of four feet and shall be at least 30 percent open space when viewed at any point perpendicular (90° angle) to the fence line, expect for a fence erected or construction along the rear lot line which may have a maximum height of six feet and may be of solid construction.

(3) Fully enclosed containment fences of solid construction may be erected to enclose aboveground sewage disposal systems and fuel storage tanks.  Such containment fences shall not extend more than three feet beyond the perimeter of that to be enclosed.  The containment fence shall not extend more than one foot above that to be enclosed and shall not exceed a maximum height of six feet. Such containment fences shall not be placed closer than five feet from any side or rear lot line and shall not be placed closer than 15 feet from the front lot line.

Chairman Rosenberger introduced this item by explaining that it arose from the join meeting of the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).  The BZA indicated that a large number of issues they review deal with home owners seeking exceptions to the Town’s ordinances that govern fences.

A lengthy discussion followed introduction of this suggested change to the Town’s Ordinances.  Some of the concerns raised by Commissioners were:

•    The paramount issue to be addressed is safety.  Public safety is significantly protected by zoning ordinances that require a proper “sight triangle” that does not block critical views of vehicle operators, pedestrians and cyclists.
•    A solid fence should not be allowed forward of the rear of a house.
•    What about decorative elements of a fence such as posts and gates?  Should these also be limited to the four or six foot height restrictions?
•    Four foot fences on lots at intersections are too tall to allow sufficient view of the traffic.  Three foot fences on lots at intersections are sufficiently low to ensure a safe intersection.

The draft suggestion was returned for staff to be revised and returned to the Commission for consideration during its May meeting.

Comments and Announcements by Commissioners
Chairman Rosenberger requested that the State curriculum for members of planning commissions and boards of zoning appeals be provided to Mr. Ward.  There was discussion of working with Accomack and Northampton Counties to bring the classroom portion of the training to the Eastern Shore.  The process involves two weekend class sessions separate by ten weeks during which participants complete a home study course.

Mr. Ward asked about the status of the draft comprehensive plan. Mr. Rosenberger said that he, the Mayor, Mr. Lewis and others had met with consultants Redman and Johnston to review the input received at the public information session in February.  The planners were directed to revise the plan to make its simpler and to bring it more in line with the current plan.  They were specifically directed to revise the section of mix-use districts and to reinstate the commercial zones that were eliminated in the drat plan.  No date has been set for the revised plan to be completed.

Ms. Wolffe said that she was concerned about the extensive work the Planning Commission had done on the subdivision ordinance.  These had been submitted to the Town Attorney in March of 2006 and as of this date no response had been received.  She reminded the Commission that many of the changes related to public safety issues and that it was not appropriate for the Commissions work to languish for more than a year.  Councilwoman Ellen Richardson said that she would raise the issue during the next Town Council meeting.  Mr. Rosenberger said that he would speak to this point during the public participation portion of the next Town Council Meeting.

Mr. Behr asked about the status of the Architecture and Historical subcommittee appointed during the fall of 2006.  Mr. Rosenberger said that without an issue for the subcommittee to work on there was no need to call them into session. He said that after the draft Comprehensive Plan was farther along it would be appropriate for the subcommittee to address issues related to any historical districts that may be proposed. 

Mr. Behr further asked about the Town’s designation by the Virginia General Assembly as an Arts and Cultural District.  He suggested that the subcommittee might be the proper place to develop implementation plans for this designation. Mr. Rosenberger agreed and indicated that if there was something for the subcommittee to work on that it should be called into session.

The meeting adjourned at 8:19 p.m.

Notes by Bill Troxler

N.B.  These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings.  These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

January 23, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting

The regular monthly meeting of the Planning Commission began at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers.  The Commission considered a proposal to increase the number of units being built at Sunset Bay Villas, changes in the Town’s sign ordinance and future agenda topics.

Members present:  Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Ellen Richardson, Mollie Cherrix and Jane Wolffe

Members absent:   Bob Behr, Tom Derrickson,

Staff present:  Robert Ritter, Town Manager; Kenny Lewis, Building and Zoning Administrator

Eight people attended the meeting.

Audio of the meeting and the agenda and supporting materials may be viewed through this link:

Audio, Agenda and Backup Materials

Chairman Rosenberger acknowledged at the opening of the meeting that Mr. Ray Daisey had resigned from the Planning Commission.  Since this vacancy reduced the total number of Commissioners, the four members present constituted a quorum and the Commission could proceed with its agenda.

Public Participation
Mr. Obrecht, developer of Sunset Bay Villas, rose to ask the Planning Commission to review the Town’s requirements for parking.  He said that the square footage of asphalt that was required to be put in place at Sunset Bay Villas was very large.  He asked the Commission to consider requiring less parking per unit and increasing the amount of landscaping to make developments “more street friendly.”

Proposal to Change Sunset Bay Villas Approved Subdivision Plat
Chairman Rosenberger recognized Mr. Obrecht’s request that the Planning Commission consider allowing the construction of six additional units in the Sunset bay Villa development.  Mr. Rosenberger asked Mr. Lewis if the documentation of the Sunset Bay Villas proposal was complete and if the Commission could proceed with hearing the matter during this meeting.  Mr. Lewis advised that the document was not complete because increasing the number of units to be built required a resubmission of the subdivision plan.

A lengthy discussion ensued about the details of the required submission during which Mr. Obrecht asked for guidance on any specific issues that the Planning Commission knew would arise during the review of their new subdivision plan. 

Chairman Rosenberger said that he was concerned that there was a clear assignment of responsibility for maintenance of the fire hydrants to the condominium association.  Mr. Obrecht stated that there would be a letter to that effect and that a fire service company would be employed to maintain, test and flush the hydrants on a regular schedule.

Commissioner Richardson said that she was concerned that the storm water drainage into the catch basin adjacent to the Coast Guard Station would be maintained.  She said that the Town had abandoned the catch basin on the north side of the property and that made this southern drainage port essential.  Mr. Obrecht said that they would put an easement on the property to ensure that this drainage route would remain in place.

Chairman Rosenberger said that he was concerned about the change in parking plans.  The new site plan shows an additional parking lot and a third access way to Main Street.  Mr. Rosenberger stated that this third access point from the development was a potential source of accidents.  Mr. Obrecht replied that the lot which this access point would hold only eighteen cars and was the farthest away from the buildings.  He did not anticipate much traffic would come and go via this access to Main Street.

Mr. Obrecht reported that the six additional units would not exceed the 140 total units that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality had approved for the waster water treatment system of the development.  That approval was for the discharge of 11,500 gallons per day of wastewater.  [Sunset Bay Villas permit number VA0091049 reissued December 27, 2006]

Chairman Rosenberger advised that the Commission would act on the resubmitted application by receiving it at one meeting, tabling it and then considering it at the subsequent meeting.

Mr. Lewis reminded Mr. Obrecht that Sunset Bay Villas was obligated to notify neighboring property owners of their planned for an increase in the number of units and that the resubmission would have to have new soil and erosion plans.

Report on Joint Meeting with the Zoning Appeals Board (BZA)
The Planning Commission and the BZA met in joint session on January 11, 2006.  The purpose of the joint meeting is to review issues that commonly come before both bodies.  The joint meeting is prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan of the Town.

The two issues of common concern were directional signs and fences.  The Planning Commission is preparing a new draft of the Town’s signage ordinance.  The Commission has not specific recommendations before it regarding the regulation of fences.

During the joint meeting there was some discussion of the Comprehensive Plan.  Chairman Rosenberger noted because that document is currently in draft form and under review by both the Town Council and Planning Commission, there was no need to duplicate those discussions during the current meeting.

Status of Outstanding Proposals
Chairman Rosenberger asked for a status report on proposals that the Planning Commission had forwarded to the Town Council.  He focused on proposals that had been recommended to the Town Council by the Planning Commission as long ago as a year.  Mr. Ritter advised that he was working with the Town Attorney to get these on the Council’s agenda perhaps as soon as the next meeting or soon there after.

Directional Signs
The Commission examined its work on specific sections of the Town’s signage ordinances.  These notes report only on the final action of the Commission. For details of the exchange, listen to the audio recording of the meeting.   For details of the signage ordinance refer to the November 14 minutes of the Commission. November 14, 2006 Minutes

Manually Operated Signs.  The Commission voted to recommend the following standards for manually operated signs:

• These signs must be 15 square feet or less in area or by no more than one-third of the size of the main sign. 

• Moveable signs are not allowed at business but may be used by not-for-profit corporations or charitable organizations.

Projecting Signs.  The Commission voted to recommend the following standards for signs projecting outward of a buildings exterior wall:

• Only one projecting sign is allowed for each commercial occupant of a structure

• 6 square feet or less in are,

• no higher than 12 ft off the ground

• have a vertical clearance of 9 feet

• project no farther than the street edge of the public sidewalk

Signs Permitted by Right.  The Commission voted to recommend the following list of signs by right:

• Directional signs for private enterprises must by 4 square feet or less.

• Directional signs for private enterprises may be placed only on private property

• The Town has a directional sign program that is not to be used for advertising specific business but is to be used for assisting the flow of pedestrian and automotive traffic.

Sign Illumination.  The Commission discussed sign illumination and agreed the following needed to be part of the ordinance.

• limit the amount of light coming off the sign

• light source should not be visible from the public right of way

• light source to be used only for illumination of the sign

Mr. Lewis requested that more specific standards be set for illumination in terms of candlepower.

Work Session
The next work session on the ordinances was set, tentatively, for February 8, at 7 p.m.

Call for Agenda Items
Chairman Rosenberger asked for agenda times the members wished to be placed on future agendas of the Commission.

Commissioner Wolffe requested that landscaping for subdivisions and general lighting standards through the community in residential and commercial district be discussed.

Mr. Lewis asked that onsite parking requirements be added to a future agenda.  Perhaps consideration should be given to negotiating reduced parking requirements by getting developers to do other work for the Town such as paving roads.

Chairman Rosenberger commented that the ordinance did not create the eye sore of large scale parking lots.  Rather it was the developer’s choice to build at maximum density the forced large scale parking.

The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

Notes by Bill Troxler

N.B.  These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings.  These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

November 28, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting

The regular monthly meeting of the Planning Commission began at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers.

Members present:  Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, Ellen Richardson, Mollie Cherrix
Members absent:   C. Ray Daisey, Tom Derrickson, Jane Wolffe
Staff present:  Robert Ritter, Town Manager; Kenny Lewis, Building and Zoning Administrator

Two members of the public attended.

The original agenda of 4 items was expanded to 6, with the members' approval.

Public Comment Period
Gail Reichard asked for an update on the newly-formed History and Architecture subcommittee of the Planning Commission.  Mr. Rosenberger stated that 3 applications to be on this subcommittee had been received:  Bill Troxler, Nancy Payne, and Laura Lintz.  Along with Commission members Jane Wolffe and Bob Behr, they will constitute the new subcommittee that will be called upon to deal with relevant subject matter that comes before the Commission. 

Public Hearing regarding amended language for Section 2.96 of the town's code.  If approved, this section will add the following language to the definition of Main Use:

A dock, including a boat lift(s), used in conjunction with the main use of a lot or structure, which is in compliance with all applicable County, State, and Federal regulatory and statutory provisions and permitted by all required agencies, is a secondary, incidental or accessory use or structure. Only open-sided shelter roof structures designed to shelter single boat slips and boat lifts, and gazebo-type structures are permitted by right.  Such structures shall not exceed a combined total of 400 square feet and can be constructed and/or maintained on any dock, pier, or dock or pier platform, in all zoning districts.  Such structures shall not exceed 12 feet in height and have a roof pitch not to exceed 2:12.

A structure erected on a lot, the specific location of which is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Accomack County Wetlands Board, the Virginia Marine Resource Commission, and/or the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and used in conjunction with the main use of a lot or permitted building is a secondary, incidental or accessory use or structure.

There was no public comment on this matter.  Bob Behr asked Kenny Lewis to clarify the reason for the 2:12 pitch requirement, and Mr. Lewis replied that it was to keep the roof low, but with sufficient slant for drainage.  The Commission unanimously approved sending this language change to Town Council for approval.

By-Laws Review
Proposed revisions to the by-laws of the Planning Commission were distributed to the members.  The Commission unanimously approved tabling the discussion of the proposed changes until the January 23, 2007 meeting, so that members could review the materials.

Redman/Johnston Draft Comprehensive Plan
Chairman Rosenberger reminded members of the joint Town Council/Planning Commission meeting to be held next Tuesday, December 5, at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers, when the planners will present their draft of the new Comprehensive Plan for Chincoteague.  Members were encouraged to fully review the draft plan in advance of the meeting, and bring all questions and/or comments to the meeting.  The public may attend this meeting, but will not be able to make comments or ask questions at this meeting.

Political Signs
Kenny Lewis advised that his reading of relevant state and local documents indicated that political signs must be treated just like other temporary signs.  They would be limited  to one per candidate and/or per issue per parcel, and must be of the appropriate size and setback.  They could be erected up to 60 days before an election, and must be removed within 5 days after an election.  The owner must consent to having the sign(s) on the property, and would be the responsible party in the event of any violations.

Bob Behr inquired whether political signs could be placed on public property;  Mr. Lewis said that was not permitted.  The Commission unanimously approved this handling of political signs.

Amended zoning fee schedule
A public hearing is required in order to approve a new schedule of zoning fees.  The Commission unanimously agreed to place this on the agenda for the January 23, 2007 meeting.

The Commission adjourned its meeting at 7:25 p.m.  There will be no December meeting, and the next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 23, 2007.

Notes submitted by Gail Reichard

N.B.  These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings.  These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

October 24, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting

The audio archieve of this meeting is located at this url:

Audio of Planning Commission Meeting

The regular monthly meeting of the Planning Commission began at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers.

Members present:  Chairman Ray Rosenberger, Bob Behr, C. Ray Daisey, Tom Derrickson,  Ellen Richardson.
Members absent:  Jane Wolffe, Mollie Cherrix
Staff present:  Robert Ritter, Town Manager
Staff absent:  Kenny Lewis, Building and Zoning Administrator

Four members of the public attended.

The original agenda of 8 items was expanded to 11 items, with the members' approval:

Public Comment period
No one rose to present any issues.

Minutes of the September 26
After clarification of a point referred to in the minutes, the minutes of the September 26 meeting were unanimously approved.

Public Hearing on Special Use" and "Conditional Use
The scheduled Public Hearing on "Special Use" and "Conditional Use" was cancelled, since authority for these categories of permits now lies with Town Council.

Public Hearing on Set-Backs on Corner Lots
The Public Hearing for set-backs on corner lots where the side yard fronts on a secondary street, road, right-of-way or easement was held.  Councilman David Ross rose to ask whether safety was compromised by changing the set-back from 25 feet to 15 feet, since no change in speed limit would be occurring and there would be less visibility opportunity for vehicles.  Mr. Rosenberger stated that the staff had assured them there would not be a visibility problem.  Mr. Ritter confirmed this was the case.

Mr. Daisey raised a concern that the additional provision specifying that a 25 foot side setback continue for waterfront lots (added at the last Planning Commission meeting) should not be part of this recommendation to Council.  He, Mr. Derrickson, and Mr. Behr all agreed that since its' purpose was to protect view lines better, it was not appropriate to include it with this provision.  There was unanimous approval of sending a recommendation to Council to change the side lot setback to 15 feet for corner lots, but not include the idea of retaining a 25 foot setback for corner waterfront lots.

Review of Sunset Bay Revised Site Plan
On the issue of reduction from two fire hydrants to one, Mr. Rosenberger read a section from a letter by Mr. J.W. Jeffries, former Acting Town Manager, stating his reasons for approval. Mr. Rosenberger queried Mr. Steve Fuller, from the Sunset Bay engineering firm, as to various fire-safety issues in the new complex.  Mr. Fuller did not know the answers, and stated that these were arrangements worked out with Mr. Jeffries.

On the issue of parking lot construction, Mr. Rosenberger asked if they would be constructed to meet VDOT standards.  Mr. Fuller said they would meet at least minimum standards for the entry road, Captains Lane.  He considers the parking areas to be private, and said they would be 6" stone base with 3" paving.  Mr. Rosenberger recommended 8" base with 2" topping, citing experiences the town has had with inadequately constructed parking areas becoming problems for the town a few years after construction.  Mr. Fuller was noncommittal.  Mr. Rosenberger reminded him that the Planning Commission never saw some of the changes to the parking lot areas now on the site plan, i.e. the parallel parking area.

Mr. Derrickson moved to approve the site plan changes, with Ms. Richardson seconding.  Mr. Behr and Mr. Rosenberger stated continuing reservations regarding adequate fire safety.  Mr. Derrickson,  Ms. Richardson, and Mr. Ritter expressed the belief that Mr. Jeffries decision to grant the changes must have been based on good grounds, since he was very familiar with both hydraulics and fire department access needs.
The changes were approved.

Construction of Open-Sided Structures
After a sub-group ( Mr. Rosenberger and Ms. Richardson) met to clarify confusing language relating to construction of open-sided structures such as boat slip covers and gazebos on docks and piers, a recommendation that the new language go to Public Hearing was unanimously approved.

Comments on Comprehensive Plan Update
Mr. Rosenberger encouraged the Commission members to send any comments on the  comprehensive plan update to the planning consultants, Redman/Johnston, as soon as possible, since they are working on having a draft by November 1.  A workshop session is anticipated on November 15.

Review of Commission By-laws
The planned review of the Commission By-laws was postponed until a date when all members can be present.

BZA Request
The BZA's request to review and comment on an appeal by Megan McCook was considered and discussed; however, no motion to comment was made.

Advertisement for candidates for Subcommittee on History and Architecture
Mr. Rosenberger asked Mr. Ritter why there had been no advertisement for candidates for the newly-created subcommittee on History and Architecture on Channel 9.  Mr. Ritter said that Mayor Tarr wished to discuss the matter with Mr. Rosenberger.  The deadline for applications is November 1.

Responsibilities of Commission Members Under the State Code
Mr. Rosenberger handed out materials from a session with Mike Chandler in June 2005 regarding education for Commission members on responsibilities under the state code, which he had found very helpful in clarifying roles and responsibilities.

Working Session on Signs
The date selected for a working session on signs is November 14 at 7:00 p.m.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:10 p.m.

Notes provided  by Gail Reichard

N.B.  These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings.  These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

Recommended Amendments to Town’s Zoning Ordinance

Redman/Johnston Associates, Planning Consultants to the Town and Planning Commission have submitted recommendations for amending the Town's Zoning Ordinance.

You may down load the ten page, 41 Kb pdf containing the recommendations at this link:

Download jr_recommended_amendments_to_zoning_ordinance.pdf

The recommended amendments are found on page four of the document.

The heading of this portion of the document contains, in part, this notice:  “Not for Public Disclosure.”  On October 11, 2006 Town released the document to the public.  Redman/Johnston's recommendations for amendments to the Town's Zoning Ordinance can be found on both Chincoteague Reports and the Town Website.

October 5, 2006 Meeting of the Chincoteague Planning Commission

Audio of this meeting will be available on the town web site:
www.chincoteague-va.gov/municipal/municipal.htm

The Chincoteague Planning Commission meeting opened at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Council meeting room.

Attendance
Members of the Commission: Ray Rosenberger, Chairman; Bob Behr, Mollie Cherrix, Tom Derrickson, and Jane Wolffe. 
Staff: Kenny Lewis and Robert Ritter, town manager Robert Ritter.
Five citizens were in attendance.

Public comments
Richard Conklin drew attention to the need for off-premise directional signs to help visitors locate businesses. For many years those with businesses not on Maddox or Main Street have been asking for such signs. Mr. Conklin suggested that when the new bridge comes into Maddox that even businesses located on Main Street will be left out.

Continuance of Work on the Revised Sign Ordinance
Commercial Off-Premise Directional Aigns. Such signs would help citizens locate businesses not on the main roads. Mr. Behr distributed examples of such signs from other towns. Previously the Chincoteague sign ordinance did not cover such signs.The Commission wants to include the right to directional signs in the revised sign ordinance. Several members underlined the importance of integrating such signs with the new overall master plan to insure uniformity and acceptable appearance. It was decided to refer a detailed specification of direction signs to the new historic and architectural review subcommittee.

Temporary Real Estate Signs. These signs must be no more than 4 square feet, no more than 6 feet high, and at least 25 feet from established roadways. If the main structure is less than 25 feet from the established roadway the real estate sign must be no less then the midpoint between the structure and the roadway. There can be small directional signs closer to the roadway if the structure is not easily visible from the road. Real estate signs must be taken down within 14 days of settlement.

Vacation Rental Signs.  These signs can be no larger than 4 square feet and must be within 2 feet of the structure.  It was indicated that on Chincoteague there are 672 business licenses for vacation rental properties.

Mansard Roof Signs. As there is a need to clarify how these differ from other roof signs this subject will be considered at the next meeting.  Balloons, pennants, and flags will also be considered at the next meeting.

Review of Results of Survey of Public Regarding Signs.  Two years ago the Town carried out a sign survey of public views and 1220 people responded.   Member of the Commission suggested that before concluding its work on this subject that it would be a good idea to make sure that the Commission's work on the revised sign ordinance   has taken account of all the issues raised in the survey. This will be done at the next meeting.

Next Steps. Members of the Commission expressed their eagerness to complete work on the sign ordinance. The next step, prior to sending to the Town Council, will be a meeting for public comments. Mr. Lewis suggested that this may not be possible until next January in view of the need to publish and distribute information about the complex ordinance so that the public is aware.

Historic and Architectural Review Subcommittee
Mr. Behr distributed a notice about the new historic and architectural review subcommittee that will be carried on Channel 9 and hopefully in the Chincoteague Beacon in order to solicit members for the new subcommittee. The text of the notice:

The Town of Chincoteague's Planning Commission is in the process of creating a Historic and Architectural Review Board to assist the Commission. This is a unique opportunity to help shape the future appearance of the island for the enjoyment of our community members and visitors alike. If interested in volunteering, please submit brief personal qualifications and why you would like to serve on this subcommittee.

Please send information by November 1, 2006 to:

Ray Rosenberger
Chairman, Planning Commission
Town of Chincoteague
6150 Community Drive
Chincoteague Island, VA 23336-2730

Future Business
Mrs. Wolffe commented that in the future the Commission might look at exterior lighting and noise issues.

Notes by David Johnson

N.B.  These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings.  These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

Chincoteague Planning Commission September 26, 2006

The Chincoteague Planning Commission meeting opened at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Council meeting room.  All members were in attendance:  Ray Rosenberger, chairman; Bob Behr, Mollie Cherrix, C. Ray Daisey, Tom Derrickson, Ellen Richardson, and Jane Wolffe.  Staff personnel Kenny Lewis and Robert Ritter were also in attendance.

Approximately nine citizens were in attendance.

There were ten items on the agenda.

1.  Public Comments:
Richard Conklin rose to request that the Commission consider "roofs over boatlifts" when they consider agenda item #6.  The Commission agreed to do so.

2.  The minutes of the August 8 meeting were reviewed and approved unanimously.

3.  Public Hearing on proposed changes to fence ordinance:
The Chairman explained that these changes were primarily for safety reasons, especially for    construction sites, so that the public is adequately protected.  They require a 6 foot fence, 30% or more open, and set back at least 15 feet from the public walkway.  No one commented on the proposed changes, and they were approved unanimously by the Commission.

4.  Sunset Bay Condominium Development site plan changes:
Fred Obrecht, developer, and Steve Fuller, engineering firm representative, appeared before the Commission to explain the changes to the originally-approved site plan, caused by having to create more parking spaces than originally conceived.  This is because the development will have a 64-slip marina, which will require more parking spaces.  The developer acquired additional land at the southern end of the development, so that the additional spaces could be created.

Commission members posed a variety of questions to the developer.  In the course of discussion, two issues of possible concern arose –

    (a) will the parking areas, as well as the roads in the development, be constructed to last for a  20-year period?

    (b) the number of fire hydrants shown on the revised plan has been reduced from two to one     – does this create a safety problem?

The Commission voted unanimously to postpone a decision on this application until the next meeting, and to do some research on the above issues before the next meeting.
Other information which emerged during the questioning period which may be of interest are the following items:

•    since the project's sewage system drains into the bay, a backflow preventer will be installed to prevent problems in case of floods such as those caused by Ernesto
•    there will not be a lot of green space in the development
•    phase 1 of the development is 85% sold; phase 2 (not yet begun) is 30% sold
•    the need for the additional parking may move some parking areas closer to the roadway
•    lighting in the project will be similar to the streetlights in downtown Chincoteague

5. Side yard set-backs on corner lots:
This issue was raised by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in a letter to Town Council, since they get many requests for variance; the current 25 foot setback is seen as onerous by many corner lot owners.  Although the BZA letter originally referenced moving to a 10 foot setback on these side yards, the language sent to the Planning Commission by Council refers to15 feet.  Mr. Ritter clarified that this was for safety reasons, since 15 feet would create an appropriate visibility triangle.  If adopted, this would create the same setback requirement for both residential and commercial properties.

Ms. Wolffe requested that the proposal drafted for Public Hearing include an exception for waterfront corner lots, retaining the 25-foot setback so that water views could be better retained.  Her amendment passed by a 4 to 3 vote.  The Commission voted unanimously to accept the 15 foot recommendation for all other corner lots, and to bring this issue to Public Hearing at the October meeting.

6.  Definition of "main use":   
This issue was referred to the Commission by Town Council, after the town's attorney apparently advised them that roofed structures such as gazebos and covered boat areas were not permitted under his interpretation of the current town ordinances.  After several attempts by the Commission members to reach a clear understanding of the proposed new language submitted by Council, a unanimous decision was made to refer this issue to a sub-group composed of Mr. Rosenberger, Mr. Derrickson, and Ms. Richardson.  They will clarify the intentions and language of the proposal and bring the result to the October meeting.  The plan would be to hold the Public Hearing on this matter at the November meeting, in order to meet Council's request for a 90-day response time.

7.  "Conditional use" permit change:
This issue was also referred by Town Council, requesting a 90-day response time.  Town Council is proposing a change whereby Council itself, not the Board of Zoning Appeals, would be the approver of certain conditional use permits.  Mr. Lewis stated that he believed the intention was to protect the public by putting these decisions in the hands of elected rather than appointed officials.  The Commission voted to have this issue go to public hearing at the October meeting, with Ms. Wolffe voting against the motion on the basis that, in her reading of the proposed language, it appeared that permitting townhouses or condos in R1 zoning districts could occur under this language.

8.  By-laws review:
Chairman Rosenberger asked the members to review copies of the by-laws and bring comments to the next meeting regarding possible changes.

9.  Review of sign ordinance:
There will be a special meeting of the Commission to try to finish up this issue on Thursday, October 5, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council chamber.

10.  Election of officers:
By unanimous vote, Mr. Rosenberger will continue as Chairman and Ms. Richardson will be Vice-Chair, for the 2006-07 season

The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 

Notes by Gail Reichard

N.B.  These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings.  These notes are  intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

August 22, 2006 Meeting of Planning Commission

All member of the Commission were present:
Robert Behr
Mollie Cherrix
C. Ray Daisey
Thomas Derrickson
Ellen Richardson
Ray Rosenberger (chairman)
Jane Wolffe

Professional Staff: Town manager Robert Ritter and committee staff Kenny Lewis.

Audience: About 10 people.

Audio of this meeting will be available at this URL:

Audio Archive of Town Meetings

Amended Site Plan for the Sunset Bay Condominium Development
At its September meeting the Commission will consider an amended site plan for the Sunset Bay condominium development on South Main Street.  In the original plan there was nothing about a marina but that has now been revised to include a marina. More parking will be needed.  The Commission will need more information on this for the September meeting. The September meeting will also have to consider the proposed new zoning language for construction fences, an issue that arose from the Sunset Bay development.

Parking and Boat Trailers
The Commission discussed the issue of limited parking at the downtown park and town docks, particularly for boat trailers. The Council has already approved the placing of signs stating that there can be no overnight parking and a two hour parking limit unless one is underway on a boat.

Historic and Architectural Review Board
Bob Behr reported on the proposed Historic and Architectural Review Board. The Commission is considering the establishment of a subcommittee on this subject with two members from the Commission and three citizen members. The subcommittee/board would be advisory to the Commission, a resource for exploring issues in greater detail. Mr. Behr provided examples of the duties and responsibilities of the board: to advise on architectural and landscaping plans of new projects; to advise on historical significance of new projects; to serve as a liaison with organizations to promote the positive image of the island; to advise the Planning Commission and the Town Council on implementing the new Arts and Cultural District. Mr. Rosenberger stated that the Commission can initiate matters and wants to be proactive on these issues.

Mr. Behr noted that a number of communities in Virginia have established architectural review boards, particularly where there are historic districts. It is expected that Chincoteague will soon receive authorization for the creation of such a district.

After some discussion focused on the related work of the Johnston/Redman consultants the Commission voted to approve the establishment of the subcommittee. Information about it will be carried on the town television channel 9 and at the September meeting of the Commission the appointment of members will be considered.

Mr. Ritter emphasized that consideration of a new comprehensive plan emerging from the Johnston/Redman proposals will be a substantial focus of work in the future and will have a lot of impact on the issues that the new subcommittee would be examining. There would also be a need to coordinate with the work of the Town Council committee on recreation and community enhancement.

The Island Community of Manteo North Carolina coast as a Model for Chincoteague
Mr. Daisey distributed several documents related to the island community of Manteo on the North Carolina coast. Chincoteague and Manteo share many issues and problems. Mr. Daisey drew particular attention to a document titled  The Manteo Way of Building: A Guide for Development.  He suggested that Chincoteague might want to do its own version of this type of document. He and the rest of the Commission members agreed that they would wait for the Johnston/Redman consultants to complete their work before pursuing this. The mayor of Manteo is interested in visiting Chincoteague. 

The documents handed out by Mr. Daisey may be found on Chincoteague Reports in the Category Comprehensive Plan - Chincoteague under the heading Land Use and Zoning in a Small, Atlantic Coast, Island Community.  Or follow this link:

http://www.chincoteaguereports.com/my_weblog/2006/08/land_use_and_zo.html

Johnston and Redman Planning Consultants to Meet with Council and Commission
Mr. Ritter announced that Johnston and Redman would be prepared for a meeting with the Council and the Commission by the second or third week of September. They have been summarizing the questionnaires distributed to citizens earlier this summer. Mr. Ritter hopes to announce a date for a joint meeting by September 1.

Parking Requirements for Subdivisions with Boat Slips
Mr. Daisey raised the issue of parking requirements for subdivisions with boat slips. There seemed to be a need to clarify matters, in particular to prevent the parking of boats on town streets. The staff will look into this.

Sign Ordinance
There was further discussion of the Commission's work on a comprehensive revision of the sign ordinance. Most of the work has been completed. The Commission plans a further sign workshop on September 7 to focus particularly on real estate signs, directional signs, and scrolling signs. Members are anxious to complete work and send the new ordinance to the Town Council.

Agenda Items for September 26 meeting
The next regular meeting of the Commission will take place September 26. Among the matters to be considered at that meeting are: revision of setback on corner lots, structures on piers, Sunset Bay marina, election of officers, and revision of Commission bylaws.

Notes by David Johnson

N.B. These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting. The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings. These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the civic affairs of Chincoteague Island. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

August 8, 2006 Chincoteague Planning Commission Meeting

Planning Commission Members Present:

Thomas Derrickson
C. Ray Daisey
Robert Behr
Ray Rosenberger (chairman)
Ellen Richardson
Absent:
Mollie Cherrix
Jane Wolffe

Professional Staff: Town manager Robert Ritter (part of meeting) and committee staff Kenny Lewis.

Audience: About 20 people.

This meeting was a workshop on signs. The Commission continued its review and approval of various components of the revised sign ordinance, in preparation for submission of its recommendations to the Town Council. The Commission's work on the sign ordinance has been underway for almost two years. Apparently the impulse to review the town's sign ordinance came from the Town Council after there had been complaints about the proliferation of scrolling and flashing signs. The Commission's work has dealt comprehensively with all kinds of signs.

The one area of substantial controversy dealt with real estate signs. Most of the audience members were at the meeting because of that subject. At the beginning of the meeting public comments were received. The revised ordinance would require that real estate signs (including vacation rentals) be placed within 2 feet of structures and in size be no more than 4 square feet. Several real estate agents and other citizens expressed opposition to this proposal, primarily because of the great variation of houses and properties on the island and the difficulty of reading such signs on many properties, particularly those distant from roads. It was clarified that there could also be small directional signs placed closer to roads to insure that for sale signs would be noticed.

Mr. Lewis stated that the 2 foot proposal had come about because of the frequent problems that have arisen in identifying property and right of way lines. The current ordinance states that real estate signs must be 10 feet back of such lines but there is often confusion about how to determine that. There have been time consuming court appearances because of this problem. The new ordinance would make it easier to enforce and would insure uniformity.

Several members of the Commission noted the "hodgepodge" character of properties on the island and the difficulty of finding one scheme that fits all situations.

Several citizens spoke in favor of having directional signs which would help people locate businesses that are not on the main streets. A number of businesses have been waiting years for this.

Concern was expressed about the proliferation of vacation rental signs. A citizen proposed that they somehow be made better looking. One member of the Commission noted that during the winter such signs help to identify unoccupied houses.

Chairman Rosenberger said there were some 3000 real estate signs on the island and that the Commission's work seeks to beautify the island, to try to achieve a neater and more uniform appearance. The Commission is trying to look at everyone's interests, not just one group. We are concerned about enforcement, uniformity, and the cosmetic appearance. He also said that matters are complex. For every answer there are three questions. We can't solve all problems. A survey of citizen views on signs had been made at the start of the process.

After the discussion of real estate and vacation rental signs the Commission continued its work in approving different sections of the sign ordinance: nonconforming signs, sign height, theater signs, gasoline stations, directory signs, spacing of free-standing signs. Several additional subjects were postponed to the next meeting. A need to get something completed and to the Council soon was expressed.

It was agreed that addressing directional signs and scrolling signs would be a priority for the next meeting August 22.

Summary by David Johnson.

N.B.  These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings.  These notes are  intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the activities of Chincoteague Government. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

June 27, 2006 Chincoteague Planning Commission Meeting

Mission, Membership and Meetings of the Planning Commission

"Planning Commission- composed of seven members appointed by the Town Council to administer the Town plan and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the Town." (language from town website www.chincoteague-va.gov)

Members:
PLANNING COMMISSION TERM 4 YEARS:
Thomas Derrickson 12/31/07
Jane Wolffe 12/31/08
C. Ray Daisey 12/31/08
Mollie Cherrix 12/31/09
Robert Behr 12/31/09
Ray Rosenberger (chairman) 12/31/09
Ellen Richardson (Town Council member)

The Planning Commission normally meets on the fourth Tuesday of every month.  It is an advisory body that provides recommendations to the Town  Council and is frequently tasked with work by the Council.

Approving the Agenda and Setting the Context

The June 27 meeting  of the Chincoteague Planning Commission was called to order by the Chairman at 7pm and adjourned at 9:15pm.

All members were present except for Jane Wolffe. Kenny Lewis. the  town's building and zoning administrator, was present as staff as was the new town manager, Robert Ritter. There were three people in the audience.

The first 40 minutes of the meeting were taken up with Mr. Ritter's interaction with the Commission on the subject of how to set an agenda  for meetings to be more in compliance with Robert's Rules of Order and efficient public process. The intention is to try to make sure  that the subject of meetings is known in advance to the public and  the topics addressed at meetings do not stray too far from the  announced agenda. The town plans to post the agenda a week in advance of meetings. There was some concern by members that too strict a process would restrict productive discussion but members were reassured by Mr. Ritter that they had some flexibility. Mr. Ritter also
emphasized the importance of giving the Commission staff time to do preliminary research on issues and provide recommendations. The chairman stated that given Mr. Lewis' already overburdened work schedule this was unrealistic, but Mr. Ritter said that adding staff support is being explored.

After this discussion the Commission voted on the adoption of an amended agenda for this meeting.

#1-Public participation. (The chairman requested this business item to be the first on every adjenda of the Planning Commission.

#2-Mr. Lewis's Board of Zoning Appeals report.

#3-Committee suggestions for upcoming meeting in August. (There will be no July meeting)

#4-Fences and trellises.

#5-Workshop on sign ordinance review.

Deliberations of the Planning Commission - June 27

#1-Public participation. No one requested to speak to the Planning Commission.

#2-Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) report.
There was just one issue. A 6 foot chain link fence has been erected near Captain's Fish's for the work site on the Sunset Bay condominiums on South Main Street. It is clearly a temporary fence
for safety and security of the work site.  This issue will come before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Members felt it was a justifiable fence. Mr. Lewis would like the Commission to look into providing
general construction fence standards.  (Mr. Lewis is also the staff for the BZA.) The Committee will look into this.

#3-Suggestions for Agenda of August meeting.
Construction fence standards.

Mr. Daisey summarized the issues related to the Captain's Cove septic controversy, with the prospect of substantial outflow into Chincoteague Bay.  Does the Commission have something so say about this? Mr. Ritter said he was working on having representatives of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the developer's engineering firm meet with the town council on July 10.

Mr.  Daisey has been doing research on the island town of Manteo on the North Carolina outer banks (www.townofmanteo.com) Manteo shares a number of issues with Chincoteague (there are few populated coastal islands) and John Wilson, the mayor of Manteo, would be interested in
visiting Chincoteague. Mr. Daisey has several documents related to Manteo which will be distributed to Commission members. Issues include affordable housing and building codes. Mr. Ritter noted that he is working on getting Ed McMahon of the Urban Land Institute to come to Chincoteague to discuss some of these issues. Might not happen until December because of scheduling problems. (Members of the Commission have been pushing for McMahon to come to Chincoteague).

Mr. Behr noted that the Commission is trying to set up a subcommittee on beautification, architectural, and landscaping issues. Issues related to the visual appearance of the island. An attempt was made to get the town television Channel 9 to carry information about this
and soliciting possible members from the public.  Mr. Ritter said it was still unclear what the purpose of the subcommittee would be. There was some discontent by members of the Commission with the delay in carrying the announcement on Channel 9 but members agreed to refine the sub-committee's purpose at the August meeting. Mr. Behr said that part of the concept of the subcommittee is to let the future members brainstorm about the possible functions of the subcommittee.

Mr. Daisey said there was a need to look more into zoning issues re the storage of boats and boat trailers in subdivisions and marinas.The August meeting of the Commission should also discuss the work of the Town's planning consultants, Redman/Johnston, and the public meetings on this to be held on June 28 and 29.

#4-Fences and trellises.
Mr. Lewis brought this item to the agenda because a citizen had complained about his ruling that a short 6 foot high solid fence with roses in front of it was a fence, not a trellis. 6 foot high fences
are not permitted in front yards in Chincoteague. The Commission voted to support Mr. Lewis' position.

#5-Sign ordinance review.
Commission will take this up at a special meeting scheduled for August 9. The Chairman has a number of issues and questions related to this which he will give to Mr. Lewis to help prepare for the August meeting (responding to Mr. Ritter's request for how to better prepare for meetings). The Chairman also noted that they had promised to let real estate people give their responses to the new sign ordinance.

The Commission did not have time to get to this subject. A preliminary date of August 9 was set for the workshop. The committee has been working on updating the town's sign ordinance for almost two years. The complete text of the revised sign ordinance as of the April 26 meeting of the Planning Commission can be found at:
http://www.chincoteague-va.gov/government/meetings/minutes/commissions%20&%20committees/planning%20minutes/APRIL%2025%202006.pdf

The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

Notes of the meeting transcribed by David Johnson

N.B.  These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings.  These notes are  intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the activities of Chincoteague Government. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

May 5, 2006 Meeting of the Planning Commission

The meeting convened at 7:05 pm in the Town Council chamber with six of the seven members present.  Mr. Derrickson arrived a few minutes late.  The entire Commission was present during all deliberations and voting.
PC 6-5-23

Public Comment

There being no public input the Chairman closed the public comment portion of the meeting.

The Chairman presented the following information to the Commission.
1.  The Town Council reported that twenty letters were sent to local attorneys requesting service as the Town Attorney.  Only one response was received.  The Council determined that this person was not qualified to fulfill the duties of the office.

The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to send a letter to the Town Council recommending that an attorney be hired as a secondary Town Attorney who could be called upon when the primary Town Attorney was perceived to have a conflict of interest in a matter pending before the town or when the primary Town Attorney was, for any reason, unable to perform his duties.

2.  The New Town Manager is expected to report for duty on June 5, 2006.  He is currently employed by the State of Delaware.  He currently serves on the Dover Town Council.  He holds a degree in engineering.

3.  The Chairman reminded members of the Commission of upcoming joint meetings with the Town Council and the return of a planning consultant to the Town during August.

Old Business

1.  The Chairman asked for comments on appeals pending before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). 

There upon ensued an active discussion of several specific appeals and general planning concerns.  Members of the Commission asked if there had ever been any study conducted of the capacity limits of public service on the Island.  The questions raised included:  how much water can the wells on the mainland provide?  In light of the increasing density of

development on the Island, how much fire protection can the local fire company provide during an event which might include multiple hotels or condominiums?  How many students can the schools hold?  What is the capacity of the police department to ensure public safety as the density of development increases?

Mr. Lewis advised the he was unaware of any such study of public service capacity ever being done on the Island.  The Chairman indicated that there is ongoing discussion of building a second water tower along Hallie Whealton Smith Drive to improve water pressure on the north end of the Island.

At the conclusion of a vigorous discussion, the Commission decided not to offer written comments on any of the appeals pending before the BZA.

New Business

1. Proposed Architectural Sub-Committee
The Chairman called upon Mr. Behr to report on his assignment to investigate the creation of a sub-committee of the Planning Commission that would make recommendations on architecture and landscaping of new projects.

Mr. Behr discussed SB283, an enrolled billed scheduled to be signed into law by the Governor during July.  This Bill designated Chincoteague Island as an “Arts and Cultural District.”  The designation allows local government to provide various types of incentives to encourage the development of arts related business.  The intent of the bill is to foster economic development in local communities.  Mr. Behr reported findings from both the Virginia Arts Council and the National Governors Council that demonstrated how a vibrant arts community contributes to economic well being, quality of life and public safety.  The Governors Council determined that successful arts districts exhibited the following common characteristics:  a location with the power to attract an audience, quality management and adequate funding.

Mr. Behr proposed that the Planning Commission establish an Architectural Study Sub-Committee with the following functions: 1) to advise on the architectural and landscaping plans of new projects, 2) to advise on how the historical significance of the town may be affected by new projects, 3) to serve as a liaison with existing  groups trying to promote the image of the Island, 4) to advise the Planning Commission and Town Council on how best to implement the Arts and Cultural District on Chincoteague.

Following a lengthy discussion the Planning Commission unanimously approved a motion offered by Ms. Wolffe to the effect that the Planning Commission will establish a sub committee to make recommendations on design issues on the Island.  The intent of the Planning Commission was to seek five citizen members to populate the sub committee. 

2. Fences
Mr. Lewis requested that the Planning Commission review the existing ordnances regarding fences.  He reported an increasing number of applications for “trellises” and “arbors” to be placed in front of residential structures.  He has been denying these applications because, he believes, these are non-conforming structures under the definition of “fence” in the Town Zoning Code.  At issue is the prohibition of a solid fence structure in front of a residence.   

Currently a fence from the rear of a house to the front set-back may be no higher than four feet and must be at least 30% open space.  In the rear of the house to the set-back a fence may be 6 feet tall and solid.  Applicants seek to put multiple sections of six foot and taller solid fence structures in front of houses and use these as backdrops for landscaping plantings.  Although these structures do not enclose the front yard of the properties, Mr. Lewis has interpreted them as fences which under the code are defined as man-made structures which obstruct access or view.  Applicants argue that the structures are not fences, but landscaping and are thus not covered under zoning regulations.

Considerable discussion followed Mr. Lewis’ presentation.  The conversation included screening of swimming pools, hedges and fences blocking from sight distance at road intersections, landscaping and the nature of directional signs on the Island.  The discussion ended without resolution.  The Planning Commission agreed to place the topic of “fences” on its agenda for the next meeting.

3.  Signage
Ms. Wolffe presented the Planning Commission with a twenty-nine page document covering the topic of signage.  She provided photographs of current Island signage along with measurements of height and size.  Her presentation also included photographs of signage from Sedona, Arizona.  This town is widely recognized because the surrounding countryside is often used in movies and commercials.  Sedona attracts more than four million visitors a year.   The town has put in place aggressive ordnances intended to restrain commercial signage and preserve a high quality of exterior architectural style within the community.

The information was presented to the Planning Commission as part of its ongoing discussion of signage and will be reviewed during the next meeting.

Other members of the Commission offered photographs of local signage.  Mr. Daisey reported on his recent visit to Berlin, MD and how impressed he was with signage in the old part of Town.  He promised to return to Berlin with a camera to take pictures of signage for the Commission to review.

The consensus of the Planning Commission was that limits on heights, positioning, size and landscaping of commercial signage needed to be developed.

Closing

The Chairman reminded members of the Commission that the BZA will meet on June 8, that the formal dedication of the Town Park on the Waterfront will occur on June 14 and that there will be no meeting of the Planning commission during July.

The Meeting adjourned at 9:15 pm

         

N.B.  These notes do not constitute the public record of this meeting.  The information contained herein is offered in good faith, is presented as accurately as possible, is thought to be a complete account of the proceedings.  These notes are intended to be a public service devoid of political commentary for those who are interested in following the activities of Chincoteague Government. Notes of the meeting are recorded, transcribed and distributed by volunteers who receive no financial compensation for their efforts.

Chincoteague Planning Commission

The Chincoteague PLANNING COMMISSION has the responsibility to administer the Town plan and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the Town. Terms of the members are 4 YEARS.

Address correspondence to:

Chincoteague Planning Commission
Town Office
6150 Community Drive
Chincoteague Island, Virginia 23336

Current Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Listed by Term Expiration

Thomas Derrickson
12/31/07
 
Jane Wolffe    
12/31/08
 
Charles Ward
12/31/08

Mollie Cherrix            
12/31/09
 
Robert Behr
12/31/09

Ray Rosenberger Chairman
12/31/09

Councilwoman Ellen Richardson Elected Term