HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 03 16 PC MinutesThe Town of Lees6urq in Virginia
Leesburg Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
November 3, 2016
The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, November 3, 2016 in the Town Council
Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Brian
Boucher, Chris Murphy, Shelby Caputo, and Karen Cicalese.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 pm by Chairman Welsh Chamblin
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL
Members Present: Chairman Welsh Chamblin, Commissioners Babbin, Barnes, Harper, Kidder
and Robinson and Vice Mayor Burk
Absent: Commissioner Burk
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Commissioner Harper
Second: Commissioner Robinson
Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk absent)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 20, 2016
Motion: Commissioner Robinson
Second: Commissioner Harper
Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk absent)
DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS
No meetings were disclosed, however, Commissioner Harper wished to congratulate
Commissioner Kidder for her Civic Achievement Award.
CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT
Chairman Welsh Chamblin commented that the Commission had a light agenda for the evening
and she was looking forward to a good discussion. She also encouraged everyone to vote in next
week's election.
PETITIONERS
None
PUBLIC HEARING
None
Leesburg Planning Commission
November 3, 2016 Minutes
SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
None
ZONING
TLOA-2015-0006 Sign Regulations Text Amendment (Continued), Chris Murphy, Zoning
Administrator and Shelby Caputo, Deputy Town Attorney
Mr. Murphy, continued the discussion from the previous meeting on October 20, 2016.
Discussion at that meeting focused on temporary sign regulations, specifically the 90 -day use
limitation and the allowance of off -premises temporary signage such as real estate open house
signs, place of worship signs, yard sale signs, lost dog/cat signs, etc. A motion to postpone
action to November 3, 2016 was passed for the purpose of giving staff additional time to address
these concerns.
Ms. Caputo spoke with Martin Crim, author of the Local Government Attorney's Association
(LGA) model ordinance, regarding the 90 -day limit. Mr. Crim noted that the LGA was also
struggling with the duration limitations and explained that 90 days is justified when established
on the basis of aesthetic concerns and potential hazards created by less resilient materials.
Additionally, 90 days will adequately address signage concerns associated with elections,
holiday expressions, and the typical amount of time it takes to sell or lease a property. Properties
can go up for sale or lease more than once per year, there are multiple holidays per year, and one
might want to make political statements multiple times per year. Mr. Murphy concluded that
staff found that it would be difficult to devise further limitations on the current 90 day period that
wouldn't potentially run afoul of the strict scrutiny provisions established in the Reed decision
Commissioner Babbin asked for clarification on real estate signage duration limits. Mr. Murphy
responded that real estate signs were in a separate sub -category of temporary signs and there was
a provision that they be removed within 10 days of the sale or lease of the property.
Commissioner Babbin commented that properties can be up for sale for longer than a 3 month
period and for sale/lease signs should not fall under the 90 day durational limit. She also
expressed concerns regarding political signs as there can be more than 1 election in a given year.
Mr. Murphy explained that this was in response to her concern that there wasn't a provision to
prevent someone erecting a sign for 90 days, removing it for 1 day, and erecting another sign
again. Commissioner Babbin clarified that her concern regarded erecting the same sign and
wished to have that distinction made in the ordinance.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin raised concerns regarding the impact this limitation would have on a
sign for a church meeting or some other type of meeting where the same sign is put up each
weekend. She used the Farmer's Market as an example and asked if it was allowable to place a
temporary directional sign on the shopping center's property. Ms. Caputo commented that the
Farmer's Market is on commercial property and would require a sign permit. A sign permit is
not required for temporary signs placed on residential property.
Commissioner Babbin asked about churches that don't fall under commercial or residential
zoning. Mr. Murphy responded that a lot of churches are on residentially zoned property.
Commissioner Babbin reference Page 15-8, Item E-3 of the proposed amendment which
Leesburg Planning Commission
November 3, 2016 Minutes
addresses temporary signs on residential property and commented that if a property is considered
residential, due to its zoning district that should be indicated in the ordinance. Ms. Caputo agreed
and suggested changing the language to "On a property zoned residential' which would include
churches and schools.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if schools were zoned residential. Mr. Murphy answered that
the majority of schools and churches are on properties that are zoned residential and that staff
will make the suggested change to the language.
Commissioner Baines asked how this would affect churches not located in residential districts
and suggested they be treated the same as churches located in residential districts. Mr. Murphy
explained that this would be illegal as it addresses content based signage.
Commissioner Babbin asked if it were possible to separate out properties that are used as a place
of worship. Ms. Caputo replied that staff could add a section (15.4.E.4) to address signage for
properties that are used as a school or place of worship and a permit would not be required.
There was discussion as to whether to recommend these changes as part of the motion or to
allow staff time to incorporate the changes and bring it back to the Commission.
Vice Mayor Burk asked the Commission to consider what impacts the changes they propose
might make to other categories of signs, such as political signs. She also noted that she
appreciated how much effort and detail the Planning Commission puts in in its review of
applications and amendments and strongly encouraged the Commission to not send anything to
Council that was not complete.
Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning asked if Reed allowed the
separation of signs by various categories. Ms. Caputo replied that it goes to location. Reed is
violated when a sign is regulated based on its content.
Commissioner Babbin commented that there were 3 categories of signs being dealt with. The
first was content based and is prohibited by Reed. The second is regulation by location which is
not specifically addressed by Reed but seems to be allowable. The third deals with regulation
based on who is placing the sign. For instance, if a church or non-profit is placing a sign on
school property can it be regulated differently than a commercial entity? Ms. Caputo responded
that she did not think that would be possible. Mr. Murphy noted that additional language
changes can be made to address this concern.
After further discussion, it was determined to bring this back to the Commission after staff has
had an opportunity to draft this new language.
Discussion moved to temporary off- premises directional signs. Mr. Murphy explained that
during the last meeting concerns were expressed regarding the need for an allowance for off -
premises signs for yard sales, lost dog/cat, etc. Off -premises signage has been specifically
prohibited in the Zoning Ordinance since 1961. Because the Town has prohibited all off -
premises signs since 1961, regardless of the message, there is no concern that this will violate the
Leesburg Planning Commission
November 3, 2016 Minutes
Reed ruling. Due to the narrowly focuses direction of Town Council in Resolution No. 2015-
141, staff is not proposing any new language that is not directly related to the strict scrutiny test
resulting from Reed. There is no direct nexus between granting more rights pertaining to
residential off -premises directional signs and amending Article 15 to comport with the Reed
decision. Therefore, it is staff s position that such a change has not been authorized by Council.
If the Planning Commission would like to take a more comprehensive look at other elements of
the sign ordinance they can address Council and ask them to initiate different amendments to the
sign ordinance. Commissioner Babbin asked why a directional sign was not considered a minor
sign as they were all under 2 square feet in size. Mr. Murphy answered that directional signs
could be minor signs if they were posted on a property. Off -premises signage, regardless of size,
is prohibited. Commissioner Babbin noted that she was not in support of prohibiting all off -
premises signage, however she was also not in support of having an ordinance that was flagrantly
violated. She did not wish to vote for an ordinance that was not going to be enforced. Mr.
Murphy responded that he understood her concerns, however, this fell beyond the purview of
what staff is permitted to do under the initiation to comport with Reed. Permitting off -premises
signage is a change to the ordinance that is not affected by Reed and would be instituting a new
form of sign that has been prohibited since 1961.
Commissioner Harper asked if it were possible to amend the sign ordinance to address these
concerns all at once instead of this piecemeal approach. Mr. Murphy responded that it was not
due to the confines of the resolution initiated by Council. The Commission could send a
recommendation to Council to initiate sign ordinance amendments. A number of Commissioners
commented that this was an inefficient approach and that a more comprehensive approach was
needed.
Chairman Welsh Chamblin commented that she too agreed that it would be beneficial to look at
the entire sign ordinance as a whole. However, she was concerned that if the Commission were
to go back to Council with this request and Council were to say no; they could adopt what is
currently written without the Commission's suggestions to these amendments.
Commissioner Babbin suggested malting a motion to recommend to Council that they initiate a
resolution to review the entire sign ordinance rather than sending a recommendation of denial.
They could then postpone the vote on what is in front of them now. Ms. Caputo explained that
revising the sign ordinance and getting it approved could tape another year at least and the
ordinance needs to comply with Reed now. The Town does not have the resources to have a
committee or staff of people to work solely on the sign ordinance.
Commissioner Kidder commented that she was in support of the prohibition of off -premises
signage for aesthetic reasons. She was opposed to a proliferation of off -premises signage and it
makes sense for a Town that cares about its appearance to have limits.
Commissioner Babbin responded that she was in agreement that there needs to be limits
however, she was against the entire prohibition of off -premises signage which exists currently
and is flagrantly violated every day. She was not in favor of having laws on the books that will
be violated.
Leesburg Planning Commission
November 3, 2016 Minutes
Chairman Welsh Chamblin expressed concerns regarding Council voting on the amendments as
is if the Commission chose not to act on these amendments but rather send a request to Council
to initiate a resolution to make changes to other elements of the sign ordinance. Vice Mayor
Burk responded that she thought that Council probably would vote on the amendments as is. She
encouraged the Commission to move forward on these amendments to make the ordinance legal
and then make a recommendation that they would like to continue to look at the entire sign
ordinance.
Commissioner Robinson expressed concerns regarding the complexity of the ordinance as it is
difficult to understand. She was hesitant to pass this along to Council and wait another year to
address these other issues.
After further discussion it was determined to move forward on these amendments and to
continue discussion and take action at their next meeting on November 17, 2016 to allow staff
time to make the proposed changes.
Ms. Caputo confirmed that staff will be revising the residential property language under the
temporary sign permit exemption 15.4 and adding another section that would exempt temporary
signs located on other types of property such as school, educational properties and other
institutional non-profit properties from the permit process. This is to ensure that this will be
allowable regardless of where the church is located as some are not located in residential
districts.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
None
COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT
Vice Mayor Burk encouraged everyone to vote.
STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Kidder noted that there was a lot of concern expressed regarding the Tree Canopy
at the last EAC meeting she had attended. She noted that the Planning Commission is supposed
to have semi-annual briefings from the Tree Commission. The last briefing was in November of
2015 and she asked to have staff schedule a briefing for an upcoming meeting.
STAFF DISCUSSION
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Robinson noted that Brian Boucher and Scott Parker were giving a presentation
regarding the drafted procedures for the interim approach to the new proffer legislation. She
encouraged the Commission members to come prepared with their questions.
Leesburg Planning Commission
November 3, 2016 Minutes
Commissioner Robinson reminded the Commission that they had voted to send a
recommendation to Council to initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment to address the
appearance of stacked townhouse (two -over -two) units and lots. This needs to be brought
forward to Council and she asked if there was a Commissioner member willing to bring this
recommendation forth to Council. Commissioner Harper volunteered to bring the
recommendation forward.
ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting was adjourned at 8:18 PM:
Zr
oved by
a, en Cicalese, Commission Clerk