PLANNING COMMISSION
Reverse Parking, Satellite Dishes and ‘Political’ Signs

By WAYNE CREED
Cape Charles Wave

May 11, 2015

The May 5 Cape Charles Planning Commission agenda covered not just the visual and aesthetic, but also the fiscal issues that could have broad effects for both businesses and the general population.

Due to scheduling conflicts, the Planning Commission had to conduct the session with a skeleton crew: two members absent and a third 30 minutes late.

Town Planner Larry DiRe reported that “reverse angle parking” will be implemented on Mason Avenue in the next week or so. For higher traffic areas, reverse angle parking is a safer type of angle parking — instead of pulling into the parking spot, cars are supposed to (but not required to) back into their spots, allowing them to make eye contact with oncoming traffic when exiting the parking space. You don’t have to back out into oncoming traffic. The benefits will be to create a more efficient parking scenario, fitting more parking into less space.

DiRe also noted that the town will be looking at reverse angle parking on some parts of Bay Avenue. Once feasibility is determined, the same application process with VDOT will have to be undertaken (possibly in front of the gazebo, and south towards the pier).

The Commission once again visited the notion of a Tourist Zoning Ordinance somewhat akin to the Technology Zone already in place. The goal of these specialized economic zones is to attract investment in the downtown and harbor areas. How this will actually be implemented is still in question but could involve a grant or credit. “We need to look at this,” said Commissioner Joan Natali. “Do we need to change this to say grant, or credit, to reflect what is accurate?”

Natali also voiced fiscal concerns about how the town plans to create the incentive structure. “I really believe the Treasurer needs to weigh in on this” to provide an adequate level of insight and context, she said.

DiRe noted that he and Town Manager Brent Manuel had begun discussions with the Treasurer. Natali also voiced concerns about businesses that may attempt to take advantage of the program. “How do we determine if what they did was appropriate? If they don’t meet the criteria, don’t meet the regulations, how do we handle getting money back, or getting refunds?” she asked. DiRe agreed that should be looked at, and those rules and stipulations should be undertaken as part of creating the new tax zone.

CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE

DiRe also noted that he had met with the Cape Charles Business Association regarding the Tourism Zone. He reported that the Business Association felt there was a lack of clarity regarding the whole endeavor, and they would like to see more details. They also felt that the $25,000 eligibility requirement was too high, and that $10,000 or $15,000 would be more feasible.

The Commission also investigated the Satellite Ordinance, and whether any changes needed to be applied. DiRe stated that the Historic Review Board had also visited the topic, and currently, the Historic Guidelines are more lax than town zoning; basically, satellite dishes are treated like trash cans — they should just be placed in the back of the residence.

“The problem,” said Commissioner Andy Buchholz, “is DirectTV points south. The other ones, I think, have satellites in different locations. But they have to point where they can get access. Even if we do put something in place, it won’t trickle down to the installers; they’ll put it where they want.”

Asked what the federal regulations say, DiRe said the FCC states that dishes can be no larger than 1 meter.

“I don’t see where there’s much we can do about it,” said Chairman Dennis McCoy. “This is driven by technology. How do we mitigate it? It is an Historic District Review Board issue. We can give them guidance, but the historic guidelines are theirs.”

Natali countered that this was not something they should throw over the fence to the HDRB. “It is in the ordinance (section 4.9), and it deals specifically with satellite dishes. We need to do due diligence, research this, make recommendations and send it to Council. The problem — do we have definitions to go on? Do we task staff, or do we come up with them ourselves?” she asked.

“We could adopt the FCC definitions and regulations,” said Buchholz. “We have adopted federal regulations before, like from the IRS.”

After some discussion, there was general consensus to adopt federal regulations regarding the size of satellite dishes, and send it to the HDRB. A motion was made by Natali and approved. However, what to do about the problem of old, non-functioning dishes still loomed.

“Why not send them a nice notice that they are in violation, and ignoring the law,” said Natali. “Why have an ordinance if you are not going to enforce it?”

“That is a good point,” agreed McCoy. Natali went on to state that the town needs to establish a standard, and any deviation would require a variance. There was consensus to have staff research options for non-working dishes.

“Figuring that out will be tough,” Buchholz said.

Zoning ordinance and Comp Plan revisions and corrections were also on the agenda. Planner DiRe noted that some verbiage in the Comp Plan was either redundant or wrong, such as section 2.9 that refers to properties as recreational, seasonal, or occasional occupancies. Commissioner Bill Stramm recommended removing the terms “recreational” and “occasional,” and replacing with “seasonal.” Motion to use “seasonal” carried.

Just as the Planning Commission played a pivotal role in erasing the cultural and historical significance of the old high school by paving the way for Town Council to sell the structure for $10, the Commission endeavored to finish the job by erasing references in the Comp Plan to using the old high school as a community center. It was recommended to remove the phrase and replace it with one emphasizing the desire for a “neighborhood community center,” along with a definition of what a community center is. Motion carried.

Along those lines, the issue of political signs was once again broached by the Commission. The questionable history of the Cape Charles sign ordinance has its roots in the community-based protest against selling the old school, thus depriving underserved members of the community of facilities such as the basketball courts. The protest led to hundreds of “Community Center Now” signs showing grass roots, ground level support for the protest. However, members of the Planning Commission, who “just did not like” the signs, illegally went onto private and public property and removed them. After the fact, realizing they had encroached upon  1st Amendment rights, they enlisted the then-town planner to create an ordinance that would somehow make their illegal actions legal.

Currently, the pink “No New Zoning, Save our Water” signs have brought the issue back into the light. Although the current ordinance deals with political signs, which have been thoroughly dealt with by the federal government, signs like the “No New Zoning” ones are a different animal — the First Amendment is the arbiter in this case. In Cape Charles, there is no definition of what a “freedom of speech” sign actually constitutes, and that is what the Commission intends to remedy through future research and exploration by staff.

Ironically, just a one block away at the old high school, the developer has broken every known sign ordinance with the oversize “Now Leasing” sign placed on VDOT right-of-way (see related photos).

Code Enforcement official Jeb Brady sent a request to the Commission that all future utilities, either from new construction or existing work, be placed underground. “He needs to clarify this,” stated Buchholz. “This could be, for anyone, especially renovating, a big ouch. This is a massive amount of money.”

Chairman McCoy added, “I don’t want to touch this. It certainly places undue burden on business and home owners.”

Natali said, “We need to understand what Jeb is asking for. We need more information.” Consensus was to request more information from Zoning.

Also broached was the possibly of revisiting the ordinance to allow detached dwellings in town. The Planning Commission in the past had approved such an ordinance; however, the Town Council rejected it. “This is just stupid,” said Stramm. “If someone has an in-law, or son or daughter, and they have a room over the garage for them to stay in — well I just don’t see the big deal.”

Natali noted that previously it would have required a special use permit, and it would be good policy to keep that part of the old ordinance. “This is also a way to meet the needs of affordable housing in town,” she said. Since the detached dwellings would only have one bedroom and one bath, the water connection fees would be cut in half to only $6,000. Since most of the apartments being constructed at the old high school are supposedly only 1 bedroom, 1 bath, they also qualify for the reduced hookup rate of $6,000. The consensus was to look into the possibility of completing an ordinance in the future, and sending it on to Council for approval.

Share

Comments

3 Responses to “PLANNING COMMISSION
Reverse Parking, Satellite Dishes and ‘Political’ Signs”

  1. Steve Downs on May 11th, 2015 10:28 am

    Backing into parking spots on Mason Ave. will cause more harm than good. Bad idea Mr. DiRe. Treated like trashcans? Does that mean I can put a trashcan on the top of my roof as long as it’s in the back? With all the issues this town has, I am amused that the council is worrying about satellite dishes.

  2. Deborah Bender on May 11th, 2015 12:07 pm

    Point 1. Backing into parking spaces is not only stupid but DANGEROUS. There are a lot of people in this town that can barely drive forward. Then you have the issue of tourists that walk right out in front of cars on Mason Ave. and they will now be standing in empty parking spaces and getting run over.

    Point 2. Satellite dishes need a clear view of the southern sky.

    Point 3. I would bet a lot of money that the apartments in the old school will be 1 bedroom with an “office” or “sewing room” that will actually be the second bedroom. Same with the apartments yet to be built on Mason.

    The town cut the sewer hook-ups in half during the underhanded, colluded deal with the old school and now they are doing it again with Patrick Hand. The council will bend over backward for a developer anytime.

    I am so tired of this town worrying about where a sign is placed in someone’s yard but yet we have water that no one with a brain would ever put in their mouth. Perhaps someone from this town should go to Onancock and learn what they do with their water. I lived in Onancock for 17 years and NEVER had crappy water like we have here.

    This town would do well to worry about the CITIZENS THAT ARE PAYING TAXES instead of worrying about how to drag tourists in.

    Don & Deborah Bender (still wishing for decent water)

  3. Jack Demamp on May 11th, 2015 2:44 pm

    Glad to see the town following through with the reverse angle parking, and also glad VDOT is supportive.

    Reverse angle parking has been proven to be safer than head in angled parking and parallel parking. To address Mrs. Bender’s point of some folks who have a hard time driving forward — perhaps they should not be driving? Also, I suppose they all have a loop driveway, so they never have to back out of their driveway?

    Reverse angle parking is easier than parallel parking too; if you have a hard time with it, I’d suggest forfeiting your license, because you clearly do not belong behind the wheel.

    A study in PA showed a 25% reduction in accidents after utilizing reverse angle parking. When exiting a parking space, you simply look to your left and you have a clear view of any traffic or cyclists or pedestrians heading your way. Loading and unloading a car is also easier and safer (your doors and trunk open towards the sidewalk, rather than the street).

    You also gain more spaces, so really what’s not to like about it? (Of course, I know the answer to that: “The town suggested it, so I must be against it!”