Planning Commission Favors Tourism Tax Breaks

By WAYNE CREED
Cape Charles Wave

June 8, 2015

Cape Charles Planning Commission on June 2 again grappled with the details and implementation of Tourist Zone incentives which it hopes “will foster the town’s development, maintenance and expansion of commercial, tourist and industrial businesses engaged in the tourism industry.” Currently, the entire area of the Town of Cape Charles is designated a tourism zone pursuant to Virginia Code.

To qualify for a tax break or incentive, according to Town Planner Larry DiRe, a business would have to make some form of verifiable capital improvement. The difficult part is coming up with actual dollar figures to be applied. “This all seems OK so far, but we really need to nail down the dollar amounts,” said Planning Commission member Joan Natali.

Commission member Andy Buchholz said, “We may want to look at a tier-based system based on net sales totals, and cap it based on that. The little guy doesn’t have that much capital — this would make it more fair for everyone, to put it on a scale so that everyone gets something instead of just helping out the big guy.”

“Is there going to be a gross cap on this,” asked Commission member Dan Burke. “I mean, how much is the town going to be in this for? What will the obligation be?”

“When you look at the big picture,” said Buchholz, “what we’re really talking about here is a big thank you to business for bringing revenue here. If we’re out some percentage, if you look at the amount of revenue that will be generated, it will more than wash out.”

“This really is to help the little guy — the little guys are the ones that make up this town,” said Natali.

CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE

While still a work in progress, the figures being played with are 25-50% relief based on the total capital improvement cost. The Commission hopes to get some input from the Treasurer on the current structure and any issues before moving forward.

Whether or not to allow Accessory Units on town property was again taken up by the Commission. When this issue was considered previously it was voted down. However, as noted by Commission member Mike Strub, “The ordinance is pretty much the same, but the Council has changed, and maybe also the climate.”

“This is a very walkable town,” said Natali. “And this is one of the few ways that we can attempt to provide lower income housing for residents. We have teachers sometimes sharing four to an apartment because they can’t afford the rent. This is something we can do to help that.”

“An interesting scenario,” pointed out Buchholz, “is, say the main owner moves into the accessory unit for the summer, and rents out their house as a summer rental. Add in the transient occupancy tax, and it could be a win-win.”

“Another good thing, since it is under one bath, the connection fees are half. We’re a walkable town; this is a great way to make it more walkable,” Natali said.

The consensus was to move forward on crafting an ordinance that will eventually make its way to Town Council.

During the zoning ordinance review, the sign ordinance again bubbled to the surface. After issuing a warning to Haas Construction for illegally placing the Cape Charles Lofts “Now Leasing” sign in the right of way, Planner DiRe decided that the zoning ordinance lacked enforcement. That is, even as the sign was too large, there was nothing in the ordinance to prevent it from being displayed. DiRe said an issue is that the sign is at one time informational, yet it displays a Realtor’s phone number. So, is it a realty sign, an informational sign, or what? The ambivalence of the code allows it to simultaneously exist in several realms all at the same time, yet still remain legal, DiRe believes.

“That is ridiculous,” said Buchholz. “It doesn’t make sense — it’s not right. I don’t know how we missed that.”

“But it’s right here,” said Natali, reading from the ordinance.

“This guy is just gaming the system again,” said a disgusted Burke, shaking his head. “Putting up an illegal sign.”

“It is legal,” said DiRe. “That’s the problem. That’s what I’m saying.”

The consensus was to rewrite the ordinance, with firm geometric measurements that will define the acceptable size per use. This will require a public hearing “if anyone bothers to show up,” said Buchholz.

The Commission did finally receive a copy of the draft Comprehensive Plan marked up in red ink by Town Councilman Steve Bennett highlighting areas he felt needed more work or removal. The Commission decided to forgo delving into Benett’s complaints until they could get consultant Elaine Meil of the Accomack-Northampton Planning District Commission to be present. (Ms. Meil was instrumental in helping the Commission revise the document.)

Even with the comments in hand, there were still some issues the Commission felt needed to be addressed. “Are we supposed to take these changes from Bennett and assume they are now the consensus of Town Council?” asked Strub. “Are we supposed to use them to make whole cloth changes to the document?” Part of the issue stems from trying to determine just when the document is actually finished. Bennett made comments such as ,”this has already been done” in several sections.

“But we are only required to review the Comp Plan every five years. In this case, we started well over a year ago,” said Natali, meaning that while the review is going on, new things might happen. At what point must a non-binding, guiding document account for everything that has occurred during the review?