Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/29/2013 - JointMINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF VINTON TOWN COUNCIL, VINTON PLANNIW,6 COMMISSION AND VINTON BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HELD AT 6:00 P.M. CM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2013, AT THE VINTON WAR MEMORIAL, 814 WASHINGTON AVENUE, VINTON, VIRGINIA. Bradley E. Grose, Mayor William W. Nance, Vice Mayor 1. Douglas Adams, Jr. Robert R. Altice a, Matthew S. L,*Fe Pavid R, Jones, Chairman Sawn M. Michelsen 'kobert A. Patterson Paul R. Mason, Vice Chairm William E. Booth il Im TTI OTT Allen S. Kasey, Vice Chairman Sabrina Weeks Frederick J. Michelsen Donald R. Altice 7JJFATkJr*.T*f&JrA ,T*,W4JJk" STAFF PRESENT: Christopher S. Lawrence, Town Manager Susan N. Johnson, Town Clerk Ryan Spitzer, Assistant to the Town Manager Anita McMillan, Planning & Zoning Director Joey Hiner, Assistant Public Works Director Mary Beth Layman, Special Programs Director The Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The Town Clerk called the roll with Council Member Adams, Council Member Altice, Council Member Hare, Vice Mayor Nance and Mayor Grose present. Anita McMillan called the roll with Planning Commission Members Jones, Michelsen and Patterson present and Board of Zoning Appeals Members Micheisen, Kasey, Weeks, Benninger and Altice present. The Mayor made opening comments and expressed thanks to all in attendance. He then turned the meeting over to the Town Manager. The Town Manager commented that there- inwellvz* A4 be time for discussion of other issues that the group might have. He then introduced staff theA was present at the meeting, The Town Manager next commented that staff has been working for four years on the Downtown Revitalization Grant. Mr. Spitzer has been tasked with managing and coordinating the entire project and tonight he will be presenting design work to get your feedback, There will be a public meeting to sharing all of the designs before construction drawings are prepared, Mr. Benninger asked what was the costs differential. Mr. Spitzer responded that we have $3,000 set aside for each light. The teardrop lights are approximately $2,200 each and the acorn lights run a little less per light, Mr. Jones asked about the lighting ability and the response was as far as casting, the current design is for 39 of the teardrop lights throughout the downtown. If we go with the acorn light, there will be 45 to 50 lights because they had to be closer together, Mr, Benninger asked if we would have to tear up the sidewalks again to put a conduit in and the response was that we have found the plans from 1989 showing that AEP and the town put conduit in this area. Ms. Michelsen asked what would be the advantage over this style as opposed to the acorn style and the response was this style would set the town apart from other areas because most towns have the acorn lights. Mr, Kasey asked if these lights will be energy efficient and the response was in order to lease the lights from AEP, they have to be 100 waft metal high pressure sodium lights. If we wanted to use LED lights, we would have to buy them ourselves, The Town Manager gave an explanation that AEP has a program that if a locality has the ability to maintain its street lights, then you can buy them outright and have them installed. Since we do not have that capacity in Public Works, we can lease the lights from AEP and the maintenance is handled by AEP. Mr. Spitzer continued by commenting that we have 42 lights budgeted at $3,000 each. 2 indicated they will remove a lot of them for little or no costs, so this would also be a savings. G- q qqq 1� 1� pi iq� gp� i I P Al 01014141 14 141 Win abatement. One example is the property at 123 Gus Nicks Boulevard. We have been working with the County Building Official since 2009 and based on his inspection, it cannot bp; condemned. He indicated we can ask that it be secured, but he does not have the authority to say that this property is at the point that we have to demolish it. He does not feel comfortable because just looking at the outside, it only needs to be secured. However, those that live adjacent to this property and for those of us who have been receiving the complaints, know that a tree is growing from that house. Tonight we want to give you some information regarding a policy to address spot blight abatement. Ms. McMillan then showed pictures of houses at 308B 9th Street, 522 5th Street and 856 Chestnut Street. Ms. McMillan next commented that property can be considered blight if it meets any of the following: vacant for at least one year, subject of documented complaints; no longer maintained for useful occupancy; dilapidated or lacks normal maintenance and upkeep; subject of nuisance abatement actions undertaken by the Town; Any buildings or improvements which are detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of the community. Mr. Hare asked if any one of those criteria is met, can it be considered blight and the response was yes. Mr. Hare then asked if he went on a long-term assignment for work, say for two years, but he is still having his lawn mowed and his house maintained, would it be considered blighted because it is vacant? Ms. McMillan responded that there would be a thorough investigation of the property and other factors would need to be present before property can We determined to not be safe and it should be demolished. There are other potential conditions that may cause a property to be considered blighted such as a condemned structure, rat and rodent infestation, previous citations or inadequate facilities such as sewage, septic, plumbing, well or heating facilities. Other conditions could be potential trespass, nuisance to children, a fire hazard or substantial dilapidation of buildings or 9tructures. The proposed procedure would be to have a Town Team made up of representatives from the Planning, Police, Fire Marshal and Public Works Departments. This team will do the initial investigation and discuss complaints received about specific properties in order to build a good case. We do not want to consider property blighted just because it is not being mowed, but if it has been a constant problem in other areas for an extended period of time. Once we make that determination, we will contact the Building Official for his determination if the building is also structurally deficient, The next step would be to notify the property owner and give them 30 days to respond with 2. plan. Upon approval of the plan by the team and/or Building Official, the owner would hav't 90 days to complete the work. If the owner fails to notify the town within the 30 day period, a public hearing. Prior to a public hearing, the owner will again be notified and the appropriate ?dvertising will be placed in The Messenger. If Council approves the repair or demolition, bids will be solicited from contractors to abate the blight and carry out the approved plan to repair or dispose of the property. N that our existing code does not have a policy to define the process. This will also require an amendment to our current building code. We will work with Roanoke County's Building Official since the County amended their code in April. Other demolition prices were $7,000 for the property on Hardy Road and $8,000 for the one on Chestnut (before purchased by a ireveloper). The Town Manager commented that the government does have certain powers to control oT regulate properties through our zoning code. In this case, one of the most powerful things the government can do is take your house. Anything related to this has to be treated with the highest level of responsibility from the government side. That is why we are recommending a team approach for a thorough investigation so that everything is documented. Staff is not taking this lightly; this is the ultimate tool to tear down someone's house. This at least allows us an avenue to try and address those properties that we do have. A question was asked if any taxes are being paid on these properties. Ms. McMillan responded that back in 2005 when our comprehensive plan was updated, we listed houses in five neighborhoods which was Cleveland, Gladetown, Vinyard, Midway and part of downtown. The criteria we used back then were major deficiencies, dilapidated, received complaints and if utility costs and taxes were being paid. In every neighborhood we have at least three or four houses that have always been a problem and there are a lot more problems when the house is vacant. a WOMAN ON - at ItIfUltildtfUll III UJU Ritter to Tne property owner give em an opportuni to as r Maybe if they do not have the financial ability to tear the house down, we could give the more insight from a financial view. If these properties are causing us to have a ba appearance to others, after we have done all our homework we need to go ahead and mov forward instead of waiting four or five years. Mr. Kasey commented that if they find a homeowner that is up in age and cannot afford repair the place or tear it down there ought to be some kind of way to get an offer to purchas it from these people for an investment. A lot of these old places would cost more to repai than to tear it down and build brand new ones, Mr. Jones then commented that if you had lot leveled and you could build a house on it, it would be worth more than $1,000. Ms, Week asked if the property owners are local and the response was the one for the Gus Nick property is local. The Town Manager commented that unless that are other comments and questions it appea that there is enough interest from Council for staff to move forward with drafting the policy an code amendment and bring back to Council for further consideration, We will also share wit the Planning Commission. M ill I W 11§-MW*11122 WHOM- WIT In closing, Ms. McMillan commented that we need to review our entire zoning ordinanc-". because in the past few years we have just been making changes as the State Code requires. Also, the comprehensive plan will need to be reviewed in 2014 as well. On motion by Vice Mayor Nance, seconded by Mr. Hare, with a vote of 5-0, Council adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m. '117 k4 0. -�� Bradley E. Grose, Mayor JEST Susan N. Johnsk Town Clerk 9