Municipal Planning Commission — Charleston, WV
Date: 2023-09-06
Time: 15:00

Municipal Planning Commission
 City Service Center – 915 Quarrier Street – Suite 6
 Wednesday, September 6, 2023
 3:00 p.m.

 Agenda

1. Call to Order

2. Unfinished Business

 Text Amendment: Bill No. 8002 A bill to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, as amended, by
 allowing “Firearms Sales Establishments” as a conditional use in the C-8 Village Commercial District. Postponed
 to the October 4, 2023 MPC Meeting by request of applicant.

3. New Business

 Rezoning: Bill No. 8005 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia, enacted
 the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by rezoning from a R-6 district to a
 C-8 district, the parcel of land identified as 2417 Hampshire Drive, North Charleston District, Tax Map 16, Parcel
 47 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County, State of West Virginia.

 Rezoning: Bill No. 8006 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia, enacted
 the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by zoning the previously unzoned
 parcel to a R-4 district, that parcel of land identified as 2155 Presidential Dr, which is located at Loudon District
 19, Tax Map 04, Parcel 181.7 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County, State of West Virginia.

 Rezoning: Bill No. 8011 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia, enacted
 the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by zoning the previously unzoned
 parcels to a R-2 district, those parcels of land located at Loudon District 19, Tax Map 08, Parcels 90.15 through
 90.20 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County, State of West Virginia.

 Text Amendment: Bill No. 8009 – A bill to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, as amended,
 by updating section 3-070 relating to temporary construction fencing.

4. Minutes of the August 9, 2023 MPC meeting

5. Announcements

6. Adjournment


 *Meetings may be recorded and broadcast via internet https://charlestonwv.civicclerk.com

Municipal Planning Commission
 City Service Center – 915 Quarrier Street – Suite 6
 Wednesday, September 6, 2023
 3:00 p.m.

 Agenda

1. Call to Order

2. Unfinished Business

 Text Amendment: Bill No. 8002 A bill to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, as amended, by
 allowing “Firearms Sales Establishments” as a conditional use in the C-8 Village Commercial District. Postponed
 to the October 4, 2023 MPC Meeting by request of applicant.

3. New Business

 Rezoning: Bill No. 8005 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia, enacted
 the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by rezoning from a R-6 district to a
 C-8 district, the parcel of land identified as 2417 Hampshire Drive, North Charleston District, Tax Map 16, Parcel
 47 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County, State of West Virginia.

 Rezoning: Bill No. 8006 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia, enacted
 the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by zoning the previously unzoned
 parcel to a R-4 district, that parcel of land identified as 2155 Presidential Dr, which is located at Loudon District
 19, Tax Map 04, Parcel 181.7 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County, State of West Virginia.

 Rezoning: Bill No. 8011 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia, enacted
 the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by zoning the previously unzoned
 parcels to a R-2 district, those parcels of land located at Loudon District 19, Tax Map 08, Parcels 90.15 through
 90.20 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County, State of West Virginia.

 Text Amendment: Bill No. 8009 – A bill to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, as amended,
 by updating section 3-070 relating to temporary construction fencing.

4. Minutes of the August 9, 2023 MPC meeting

5. Announcements

6. Adjournment


 *Meetings may be recorded and broadcast via internet https://charlestonwv.civicclerk.com
 Bill No. 8005

 Introduced in Council: Adopted by Council:

 September 5, 2023 _ __

 Introduced by: Referred to:
 Municipal Planning Commission
 XXXXXXXXXX Planning, Streets and Traffic


 1 Bill No. 8005 – A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia,
 2 enacted the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by rezoning
 3 from a R-6 district to a C-8 district, the parcel of land identified as 2417 Hampshire Drive, North
 4 Charleston District, Tax Map 16, Parcel 47 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County, State of
 5 West Virginia.
 6
 7 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA
 8 THAT:
 9
10 1. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia, enacted the 1st day
11 of January 2006, as amended, is hereby amended by rezoning from a R-10 district to a C-10
12 district the whole of the following described lot or parcel of land:
13
14 Parcel No. 324 as shown on West Charleston Tax Map No. 27. Subject parcel commonly
15 known as “LTS 32-33 BK 7 BIGLEY-WALKER ADN 43X120” 812 Indiana Avenue,
16 Charleston, West Virginia. Said tax map is of record on the Planning Office.
17
18 2. The Zoning Map, attached to and made a part of said Zoning Ordinance, is hereby
19 amended in accordance with Section 1 of this Ordinance.
20
21 3. All prior ordinances, or parts of ordinances, inconsistent with this Ordinance, are
22 hereby repealed to the extent of said inconsistency.
23
24
25
 Bill No. 8006

 Introduced in Council: Adopted by Council:

 September 5, 2023 _ __

 Introduced by: Referred to:
 Municipal Planning Commission
 Sam Minardi Planning, Streets and Traffic


 1 Bill No. 8006 – A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia,
 2 enacted the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by zoning
 3 the previously unzoned parcel to a R-4 district, that parcel of land identified as 2155 Presidential
 4 Dr, which is located at Loudon District 19, Tax Map 04, Parcel 181.7 in the City of Charleston,
 5 Kanawha County, State of West Virginia.
 6
 7 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA
 8 THAT:
 9
10 1. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia, enacted the 1st day
11 of January 2006, as amended, is hereby amended by zoning to a R-14 district the whole of the
12 following described lot or parcel of land:
13
14 Loudon District 19, Tax Map 04, Parcel 181.7 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha
15 County, State of West Virginia.
16
17 2. The Zoning Map, attached to and made a part of said Zoning Ordinance, is hereby
18 amended in accordance with Section 1 of this Ordinance.
19
20 3. All prior ordinances, or parts of ordinances, inconsistent with this Ordinance, are
21 hereby repealed to the extent of said inconsistency.
22
23
24
 Bill No. 8011

 Introduced in Council: Adopted by Council:

 September 5, 2023 _ __

 Introduced by: Referred to:
 Municipal Planning Commission
 Sam Minardi Planning, Streets and Traffic


 1 Bill No. 8011 – A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia,
 2 enacted the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by zoning
 3 the previously unzoned parcels to a R-2 district, those parcels of land located at Loudon District
 4 19, Tax Map 08, Parcels 90.15 through 90.20 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County, State
 5 of West Virginia.
 6
 7 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA
 8 THAT:
 9
10 1. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia, enacted the 1st day
11 of January 2006, as amended, is hereby amended by zoning to a R-14 district the whole of the
12 following described lots or parcels of land:
13
14 Loudon District 19, Tax Map 08, Parcels 90.15 through 90.20 in the City of
15 Charleston, Kanawha County, State of West Virginia.
16
17 2. The Zoning Map, attached to and made a part of said Zoning Ordinance, is hereby
18 amended in accordance with Section 1 of this Ordinance.
19
20 3. All prior ordinances, or parts of ordinances, inconsistent with this Ordinance, are
21 hereby repealed to the extent of said inconsistency.
22
23
24
 Bill No. 8009

 Introduced in Council: Adopted by Council:

 August 7, 2023 _ __

 Introduced by: Referred to:
 Mary Beth Hoover Municipal Planning Commission
 Chad Robinson Planning, Streets and Traffic


 1 Bill No. 8009 - A BILL to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, as
 2 amended, by updating section 3-070 relating to temporary construction fencing.
 3
 4 Now, therefore, be it ordained by the Council of the City of Charleston:
 5
 6 That Section 03-070 of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Charleston, as amended, is
 7 hereby amended to read as follows:
 8
 9 Sec. 3-070 Temporary Uses
10 A. Intent
11
12 Temporary Uses shall be permitted by the granting of a Temporary Zoning Permit
13 issued by the Planning Director in accordance with the requirements of this
14 section.
15
16 B. General Provisions
17
18 1. The duration of the temporary period is stated hereinafter, provided,
19 however, renewal of the permit may be requested. The Planning Director
20 is not obligated to renew such permits if doing so leads to a defacto
21 permanent use.
22
23 2. Temporary Uses shall be subject to all the regulations of the applicable
24 district in which they are located.
25
26 C. Permitted Temporary Uses
27
28 1. Temporary office, model home or model apartment, and related signs,
29 both incidental and necessary for the sale, rental, or lease of real property
30 in the district. Maximum duration: 18 months.
31
32 2. In any zoning district, temporary construction fencing may be authorized to
33 enclose an active construction site if necessary to protect materials and
34 equipment, to prevent unauthorized entry to the site, or to mitigate a threat
35 to public safety. The fence shall be removed when construction activity
36 has been completed or discontinued or the hazard has been resolved.
37 Maximum duration: 90 days or as otherwise required by the Planning
38 Director.
39
40 23. Non-commercial concrete batching plant, both incidental and necessary to
41 construction in the district. Maximum duration: 18 months.
42
43 34. Temporary building or yard for construction materials and equipment, both
44 incidental and necessary to construction in the district. Maximum duration:
45 18 months.
46
47 45. Parking lot designated for a special event in a district. Maximum duration:
48 3 days.
49
50 56. Parking of recreational vehicles in the front yard for visitation. Maximum
51 duration: 7 consecutive days, with a maximum total of 14 days per year. A
52 permit shall not be required for this temporary use.
53
54 67. Mobile home as a temporary office during the period of construction and
55 development. Maximum duration: 18 months.
56
57 78. Moving and storage containers parked in the front yard. Maximum
58 duration: 30 days. A permit shall not be required for this temporary use.
59
60 89. Other similar uses deemed temporary by the Board of Zoning Appeals and
61 attached with such time period, conditions and safeguards as the Board
62 may deem necessary.
63
64 D. Standards
65
66 1. Adequate access and off-street parking facilities shall be provided which
67 shall not interfere with traffic movement on adjacent streets.
68
69 2. No public address systems or other noise producing devices shall be
70 permitted in a residential district.
71
72 3. Any flood lights or other lighting shall be directed upon the premises and
73 shall not be detrimental to adjacent properties.
74
75 4. Signs shall not flash or blink or resemble traffic and emergency warning
76 signals, and shall be limited in size to twenty (20) square feet each in
77 number to three signs.
78
79 5. The lot shall be put in clean condition devoid of temporary use remnants
80 upon termination of the temporary period.
81

Municipal Planning Commission
 City Service Center – 915 Quarrier Street – Suite 6
 Wednesday, September 6, 2023
 3:00 P.M.
Members Present Members Absent
Aric Margolis, Chair Justin Marlow
Quintie Smith Brady Campbell
Adam Krason
Shawn Taylor
Cory Stout
Lisa Fischer Casto Staff Present
Mary Beth Hoover Dan Vriendt
JoEllen Zacks (Joined by phone @ Bill No. 8009) Chad Webb
Alice Hypes
Shannon Ferrari
Terri Allen, Mayor’s Designee (Joined @ Bill No. 8009)
J.D. Stricklen, Kanawha County Representative
Brady Campbell
Doug Hartley
Alex Zurbuch


1. Call to Order

 Aric introduced Doug Hartley, a new member of the Municipal Planning Committee.

2. Unfinished Business - None

3. New Business

 Rezoning: Bill No. 8005 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West
 Virginia, enacted the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by
 rezoning from a R-6 district to a C-8 district, the parcel of land identified as 2417 Hampshire Drive,
 North Charleston District, Tax Map 16, Parcel 47 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County, State
 of West Virginia.

 Dan explained Bill No. 8005. The subject property is along Route 21, where there is a lot of
 commercial property and there is an equal amount of residential property. The Hampshire Drive
 property is a vacant lot. It is a consolidated lot, and he is requesting that it be rezoned. Aric asked
 if he owned the property beside him. Dan said he did not own the adjacent lot. He is wanting to
 do a small auto repair shop on that lot. Aric mentioned that the road is very narrow.

 Dan further stated there are three houses on the road and a business. It is a narrow road, but a
 very lightly used road.

 Chad presented the staff analysis and recommendation.
 1
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
APPLICABLE CODE: Charleston Zoning Ordinance, adopted January 1, 2006, Article 29.


STANDARD OF REVIEW: A rezoning is a change to the zoning map, which requires a legislative
decision. Therefore, the Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to Planning Committee
with final action being at City Council. The Commission should determine if the request is spot
zoning and if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A rezoning is considered spot zoning
when all the following factors are present: A small parcel of land is singled out for special and
privileged treatment; The singling out is not in the public interest but only for the benefit of the
landowner; the action is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. If a request is
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the commission should consider if the original zoning
classification was in error, or if the character of the area has changed significantly since the
adoption of the comprehensive plan. Proposed uses should be treated with care, because once
rezoned, any use that is permitted within the district would be permitted ‘by right’ with no review
by the Commission.
HISTORY:
The parcel in question is currently zoned R-6. The petitioner seeks to construct a garage for a
proposed auto repair shop on the property.
ANALYSIS:
Existing Land Use and Zoning: The parcel in question is currently zoned R-8 and currently consists
of an empty residential lot.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The parcel currently resides in a Rural Neighborhood – as
defined by the future land use plan – with pockets of Traditional Neighborhood around the main
thoroughfare through the area.
Current Zoning: The current R-6 zoning allows for limited multi-family structures, single family
homes, and some limited educational uses.
Proposed Zoning: The proposed C-8 zoning allows for “a village concept” that seeks to provide “a
mix of residential uses adjacent to and/or above commercial uses to increase the intensity of the
activity in the area.” Looking at the increase in commercial uses to both the north and the south
of the parcel in question, a C-8 zoning would conform to the proposed use of the land and
wouldn’t breach the prohibition against spot zoning by further solidifying the area’s use as a
village commercial corridor.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan’s future land use map
designates this property as being part of a Rural Neighborhood. The intent in these areas is to
maintain the rural character of the area while having more “flexible” standards than what’s typical
imposed in commercial areas and traditional neighborhoods. This expansion of the developing
commercial area within a rural residential one conforms with this less restrictive intent.




 2
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
Summary: Petitioner seeks to add further commercial activity to the village corridor region
amongst rural neighborhoods. Such a change complies with the future land use map and the
stated purpose of the proposed commercial zoning.
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
1. The rezoning is consistent with the future land use map in that it complies with the area’s
 designation as a rural neighborhood with relaxed development standards versus core
 neighborhoods and commercial nodes,
2. The rezoning allows for the development of further commercial uses in the area, and
3. The rezoning avoids spot rezoning by conforming the proposed commercial zoning to the
 surrounding development trends along the main artery of the area and maintains a
 confluence between the commercial and residential zones.
Aric asked if there was any knowledge as to why the petitioner was not present. Chad said he did
not. Aric asked if Chad had received any calls about this rezoning. Chad said he had not received
any calls from anyone concerning the rezoning.
Aric asked if anyone had any questions. Questions were asked by council and answered. One
question pertaining to cars parked in the business’s yard and if the neighborhood would have an
issue with that. Aric and Dan both pointed out there would be fencing requirements to hide the
cars from the view of residents in that neighborhood. Dan said if the car is having engine work,
the ordinance provides that it can sit outside a fence. The code says if the car has body damage,
it can only sit out for 48 hours. Otherwise, it must be behind the fence. The fence has to be
opaque.
Aric said that when the MPC reviews a rezoning request, the review is supposed to take in every
aspect of what could possibly go in a particular location. Anything that is approved in a C-8 can
go in this location, regardless of the applicant’s stated intentions. Therefore, the MPC looks at
everything that can be permitted in a C-8 district for the purpose of determining if there is any
permitted use for a C-8 that they do not want in that area.


 3
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
A question was asked by a member of the MPC concerning parking requirements. Dan explained
that the ordinance does have onsite parking requirements that are based on the size of the square
foot and use of the building, which is in addition to any parking needed to conduct business.
Dan said there is three houses and a business that use this street. It is a substandard street but it
has low utilization. It is not a dead-end street.
Aric closed the case and entertained a motion.
MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made by Adam Krason to adopt Bill 8005. The motion was
seconded by Quintie Smith and passed by a majority vote of 8-2.
Rezoning: Bill No. 8006 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West
Virginia, enacted the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by
zoning the previously unzoned parcel to a R-4 district, that parcel of land identified as 2155
Presidential Dr, which is located at Loudon District 19, Tax Map 04, Parcel 181.7 in the City of
Charleston, Kanawha County, State of West Virginia.

Chad presented the staff analysis and recommendation.

APPLICABLE CODE: Charleston Zoning Ordinance, adopted January 1, 2006, Article 29.
STANDARD OF REVIEW: A rezoning is a change to the zoning map, which requires a legislative
decision. Therefore, the Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to Planning Committee
with final action being at City Council. The Commission should determine if the request is spot
zoning and if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A rezoning is considered spot zoning
when all the following factors are present: A small parcel of land is singled out for special and
privileged treatment; The singling out is not in the public interest but only for the benefit of the
landowner; the action is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. If a request is
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the commission should consider if the original zoning
classification was in error, or if the character of the area has changed significantly since the
adoption of the comprehensive plan. Proposed uses should be treated with care, because once
rezoned, any use that is permitted within the district would be permitted ‘by right’ with no review
by the Commission.
HISTORY:
The parcel in question was previously unincorporated and is now in the process of annexation.
Therefore, it does not have a previous zoning designation.
ANALYSIS:
Existing Land Use and Zoning: The parcel in question is currently unzoned and consists of a single-
family home.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The parcel is currently a single-family home, and the proposed
zoning is R-4, which would make it the same as the surrounding single-family residences.
Current Zoning: As it has just been annexed, the parcel has no current zoning.
Proposed Zoning: The proposed R-4 zoning allows for the continued focus on single-family homes
and the desirability of the surrounding neighborhood.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan’s future land use map
designates this property as being part of a Suburban Neighborhood. The intent in these areas is
 4
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
to preserve a predominantly contemporary single-family area with less focus on walkability and
more focus on larger, non-square lots. The current residence at 2155 Presidential fully conforms
with the surrounding character of the neighborhood and the intent of the Suburban
Neighborhood land use.




Summary: Petitioner seeks to add this now annexed parcel into the zoning map by zoning it R-4.
Such a zoning fully complies with the purpose of the zoning designation and the parcels place in
the future land use map.


RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
 1. The zoning is consistent with the future land use map in that it complies with the
 area’s designation as a suburban neighborhood with a focus on single family homes
 and a more modern suburban character,
 5
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
 2. The zoning allows for the parcel to be cohesively incorporated into the existing zoning
 map, and
 3. The rezoning avoids spot rezoning by conforming the proposed residential zoning to
 the development trends of the residental area surrounding it.
Aric closed the case and entertained a motion.
MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made by Cory Stout to adopt Bill 8006. The motion was
seconded by Doug Hartley and passed by a unanimous vote of 10-0.
Rezoning: Bill No. 8011 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West
Virginia, enacted the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by
zoning the previously unzoned parcels to a R-2 district, those parcels of land located at Loudon
District 19, Tax Map 08, Parcels 90.15 through 90.20 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County,
State of West Virginia.

APPLICABLE CODE: Charleston Zoning Ordinance, adopted January 1, 2006, Article 29.
STANDARD OF REVIEW: A rezoning is a change to the zoning map, which requires a legislative
decision. Therefore, the Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to Planning Committee
with final action being at City Council. The Commission should determine if the request is spot
zoning and if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A rezoning is considered spot zoning
when all the following factors are present: A small parcel of land is singled out for special and
privileged treatment; The singling out is not in the public interest but only for the benefit of the
landowner; the action is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. If a request is
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the commission should consider if the original zoning
classification was in error, or if the character of the area has changed significantly since the
adoption of the comprehensive plan. Proposed uses should be treated with care, because once
rezoned, any use that is permitted within the district would be permitted ‘by right’ with no review
by the Commission.
HISTORY:
The parcels in question were previously unincorporated and are now in the process of annexation.
Therefore, they do not have a previous zoning designation.
ANALYSIS:
Existing Land Use and Zoning: The parcels in question are currently unzoned and consist of single-
family homes and one empty developable lot.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The parcels are currently a part of a subdivided development,
and the neighborhood consists of solely single-family homes.
Current Zoning: As it has just been annexed, the parcel has no current zoning.
Proposed Zoning: The proposed R-2 zoning allows for the continued focus on single-family homes
and the desirability of the surrounding neighborhood.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan’s future land use map
designates this property as being part of a Suburban Neighborhood. The intent in these areas is
to preserve a predominantly contemporary single-family area with less focus on walkability and
more focus on larger, non-square lots. The current residences at along Stonehenge Drive fully


 6
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
conform with the surrounding character of the neighborhood and the intent of the Suburban
Neighborhood land use.




Summary: Petitioner seeks to add these now annexed parcels into the zoning map by zoning it R-
2. Such a zoning fully complies with the purpose of the zoning designation and the parcels place
in the future land use map.
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
 1. The zoning is consistent with the future land use map in that it complies with the
 area’s designation as a suburban neighborhood with a focus on single family homes
 and a more modern suburban character,
 2. The zoning allows for the parcels to be cohesively incorporated into the existing
 zoning map, and
 3. The rezoning avoids spot rezoning by conforming the proposed residential zoning to
 the development trends of the residental area surrounding it.

 7
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
Aric entertained a motion.
MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made by Cory Stout to adopt Bill 8011. The motion was
seconded by Doug Hartley and passed by a unanimous vote of 10-0.

Text Amendment: Bill No. 8009 – A bill to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston,
as amended, by updating section 3-070 relating to temporary construction fencing.

Mary Beth Hoover presented the reason behind the proposal for Bill No. 8009. Mary Beth stated
that matter regarding temporary fencing, especially in the downtown area, was brought to the
attention of herself and Chad Robinson.

Adam Krason suggested 90 days after construction is halted or no activity is concerned, temporary
fencing shall be removed. Dan said the aforementioned 90-day period is a requirement of the
Building Commission.

Aric asked delay on a job due to an unforeseen condition, such as a DEP requirement, influence
this 90-day period. Dan said there is an existing provision that states that the maximum duration
is 90 days or as other required by the Planning Director. This provision allows for latitude in
granting an extension of the 90-day period due to unforeseen circumstances.

Adam Krason asked what the recourse was if the fence is not removed. Dan said it would be a
zoning violation, which could be a $300/per day fine or any other remedy necessary, including
filing a lawsuit in circuit court.

JD inquired about the same requirement on residential structures in disrepair and require
demolition. Could a lien be placed on the property? Dan said it would be an option of last resort.
Dan said the city would pursue their options in court first.

Dan stated that, if this bill passes, the company would be put on notice that the fence has to come
down and provide them with the language from the code that the site is supposed to be
reclaimed.

Chad went over the staff’s analysis and recommendations.

APPLICABLE CODE:
Charleston Zoning Ordinance adopted November 21, 2005, Article 3, Sec. 3-070.
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
The amendment is a change to the zoning ordinance, which requires a legislative decision. The
Commission is charged with conducting a public hearing and making a recommendation to
Planning Committee with final action being at City Council. The Commission should determine if
the text amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
HISTORY:
Before you today is a proposed text amendment to make the following change:

 8
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
 1. That Section 3-070(c)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Charleston, as amended,
 is hereby amended to read as follows:

 “In any zoning district, temporary construction fencing may be authorized to enclose an
 active construction site if necessary to protect materials and equipment, to prevent
 unauthorized entry to the site, or to mitigate a threat to public safety. The fence shall be
 removed when construction activity has been completed or discontinued or the hazard
 has been resolved. Maximum duration: 90 days or as otherwise required by the Planning
 Director.”

 2. Correct the numbering of the following subsections of Section C.

 ANALYSIS:
 At the request of Council Members Chad Robinson and Mary Beth Hoover, we considered what
 would be the easiest solution for construction site managers and the City. The proposed change
 would allow for full temporary fencing around construction sites for the purpose of securing
 equipment left on site. Such an accommodation would be in the best interest of both the city and
 the citizens involved in such construction jobs because it still limits temporary fencing from being
 left up permanently and provides the level of security necessary.
 RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
 Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
 1. The proposed change to temporary uses suits both the city and residences best interests
 and
 2. Puts no substantial burden on the city from effectively enforcing its zoning ordinances.

 MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made by Adam Kraus to adopt Bill 8009. The motion was
 seconded by Quintie Smith and passed by a unanimous vote of 10-0.

4. Minutes of the August 9, 2023 MPC meeting

 MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made, seconded and passed by a unanimous vote to approve
 the minutes from the August 9, 2023 MPC meeting.

5. Announcements

6. Adjournment




 9
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023