2400 Washington Avenue

PRESENT:       Charles C. Allen; Herbert H. Bateman, Jr.; Joe S. Frank; Madeline McMillan (arrived at 4:45 p.m.); Sharon P. Scott; and Joseph C. Whitaker ---- 6

ABSENT:        William F. Haskins ---- 1

OTHERS PRESENT: Randy W. Hildebrandt; Stuart E. Katz; Mabel V. Washington; Alan Archer; Neil Morgan; Gregg Jones; Butch Blanks; Joseph Durant; Richard Caplan; Chief James Fox; Chris Bridge; Glen Butler; Florence Kingston; Michael King; Christine Mignogna; Rhonda Sturgis; Philip Shock; Fred Whittaker; Sabine Hirschauer; Lottie Vincent; Cleder Jones; Kim Lee; and Jennifer D. Walker

            I.          Continuation of City Council’s Strategic Goals Discussion

            II.         Draft 2008 General Assembly Legislative Program

                        Mr. Randy W. Hildebrandt, City Manager, introduced Dr. Rhonda Sturgis, Legislative Relations Coordinator, to report on the 2008 State Legislative Priorities for the City of Newport News. He hoped to adopt the priorities at the October 23, 2007 Regular Meeting of City Council, and planned to arrange a breakfast meeting with the City’s General Assembly delegation after the November 2007 election. The breakfast would provide the opportunity for City Council to present its major areas of concern and solicit delegation sponsorship of legislation to support the City’s initiatives in the 2008 General Assembly. 

                        Dr. Sturgis noted the following sections of the Newport News’ 2008 State Legislative Priorities: I) General Information; II) City Legislative Requests; III) Budget Requests; and IV) Statewide Policy Positions. (A draft copy of the 2008 State Legislative Priorities for the City of Newport News is attached and made a part of these minutes.)

                        Section I, General Information of the 2008 State Legislative Priorities included: 1) Contact Information for elected and appointed officials as well as legislative staff; 2) General Assembly Dates; 3) FY 2008 Budget; 4) Virginia State Senate Districts noting precinct boundaries and voter precincts polling places; and 5) Virginia State House of Delegates Districts noting precinct boundaries and voter precincts polling places.

                        Section II, City Legislative Requests of the 2008 State Legislative Priorities included:  1) Legislation authorizing localities to require realtors and sellers of real property, located within local historic districts,

to disclose that property was located within a historic district and was subject to specific historic district requirements as to alterations and maintenance to the exterior of the property; 2) legislation allowing governing bodies authority to set different tax rates for residential homes, apartment complexes, and non-residential properties; 3)  legislation proposing that a JLARC study investigate the implications for the Commonwealth of Virginia to provide for State income tax credits when a property tax bill exceeded a certain percentage of income; 4) legislation allowing the City of Newport News to increase the income limit to $52,000 and the net worth limit to $350,000 under the homeowners exemption and deferral program;  5)  legislation to add authority for the City to require the removal of grass and weeds from occupied property; 6) legislation to include grass, not just weeds, for removal from private and public property; 7) legislation requiring all inoperative vehicles on residential property, commercial property, and agricultural property to be enclosed in a building or structure, with the exception of one vehicle, which must be shielded or screened from view by an opaque fence; 8) propose further review and analysis be completed, with locality input, before future policy changes were made for the Comprehensive Services for At-Risk Youth and Families Guideline for Foster Care Prevention Services; 9) legislation allowing local law enforcement agencies to charge a fee, not to exceed $20 for the criminal processing of those who were required to be registered; 10) legislation allowing juvenile fingerprints to be maintained in the Automatic Fingerprint Identification System, even if judges issued a “Withhold Finding;” 11) legislation allowing jurisdiction department employees with investigative needs (Fire, Police, Codes, and Finance) to have access to the Commissioner of the Revenue’s and Treasurer’s database records; 12) legislation creating sentencing guidelines for juvenile offenders so that Circuit Court Judges had guidance in determining when a juvenile should be tried as an adult; and 13)  legislation allowing each Class 1 misdemeanor to be treated as a separate incident, instead of one offense per arrest as currently stipulated.

                        Councilwoman Scott stated she received complaints from citizens regarding inoperable vehicles in neighboring backyards, which were an eyesore. She stated the proposed legislation requiring an inoperative vehicle to be screened from view by an opaque fence would only eliminate the sight from public view from one’s front yard. The proposed legislation did not eliminate the problem for adjacent homeowners who viewed inoperable vehicles in their neighbor’s back or side yards.  Dr. Sturgis explained that the proposed legislation would help the problem because it would reduce the number of vehicles in someone’s yard.

                        Councilman Whitaker voiced concern about an inoperable vehicle in a neighbor’s yard that had been kept for more than 14 years. He stated the vehicle posed a health threat due to rust and paint sediment that became dislodged, and went into the City’s drainage system each time it rained. He felt the proposed legislation should impose a length of time for inoperable vehicles.

                        Mayor Frank voiced concern about a time limit for inoperative vehicles and how this affected military personnel who left their vehicles with family and friends for an extended period of time due to deployment. He asked the City Manager to look into the matter to see what could be done to include a provision for military personnel who left their vehicles with family and friends due to deployment.

                        City Manager Hildebrandt stated he and the City Attorney, Stuart Katz, would look into the issues addressed by City Council pertaining to an exception for military personnel who left their vehicles with a relative or friend and inoperable vehicles that were an eyesore to neighboring residents but were outside of public view.

                        Mayor Frank inquired about the actual cost for registering a person convicted of an offense as related to proposed legislation that would allow local law enforcement agencies to charge a fee, of no more than $20, to recoup such cost. Dr. Sturgis replied she would get the actual costs from the Police Department in order to decide the correct amount to recover the cost.

                        Mayor Frank requested that the Commonwealth’s Attorney brief City Council regarding the proposed legislation that allowed juvenile’s fingerprints to be maintained in the Automatic Fingerprint Identification System, even when judges issued a “Withhold Finding” and proposed legislation that created sentencing guidelines for juvenile offenders so that Circuit Court Judges had more guidance in determining when a juvenile should be tried as an adult. Dr. Sturgis stated she would get input from the Commonwealth Attorney regarding the two matters.

                        Mayor Frank suggested that City Council submit legislation that allowed Class 1 juvenile misdemeanors to be treated as separate incidents, instead of one offense per arrest as currently stipulated. The City should work from a point of view that eliminated opportunities for juveniles to commit crimes. He felt City Council should leave it to a judge’s discretion.

                        Section III, Budget Requests of the 2008 State Legislative Priorities included: 1) Legislation creating a State supported incentive fund for major economic development projects; 2) legislation supporting adequate funding for Virginia Enterprise State incentives; 3)  legislation supporting fully funding localities which housed a Virginia Port Authority facility under the new funding formula that was developed and approved by the 2000 General Assembly; 4) legislation supporting historic resources in Newport News (Lee Hall Depot - $250,000; Warwick Court House - $50,000; Virginia War Museum - $250,000; The Newsome House Museum – $100,000; Endview Plantation - $100,000; and Lee Hall Mansion - $200,000); 5) legislation funding State aid to public libraries by FY2009; and 6) legislation supporting Virginia Library Association’s and the Newport News Public Library System’s request for funding to continue and expand electronic resources through FIND IT VIRGINIA.

                        Mayor Frank suggested a provision that required the State to pay for already committed items related to adequate funding for Virginia Enterprise State incentives. He felt the City should have a policy that required the State to fully stand by its commitments. 

                        City Manager Hildebrandt requested that the proposal for supporting adequate funding for Virginia Enterprise State incentives be changed to read “support full funding for Virginia Enterprise State incentives.” Dr. Sturgis stated she would amend the verbiage in the proposed request.

                        Section IV, Statewide Policy Positions of the 2008 State Legislative Priorities included: 1) Legislation supporting enhanced local domain authority and opposing legislation that further limited local authority or hindered the public purposes of redevelopment and community development; 2) supporting legislation that allowed localities, by ordinance, to exempt from real property taxes up to 20% of the value of residential property; 3) opposing legislation that reduced or restricted and redirected the utilization of HB 599 funds; 4) supporting legislation to amend the fees that localities could impose for unaltered companion animals; 5) supporting legislation that consolidated the State Air Pollution Control Board, the State Water Control Board and the Waste Management Board into one, eleven-member citizen board; 6) supporting legislation which would place stricter guidelines on the services provided by payday lender businesses; 7) supporting legislation to preserve K-12 education at-risk incentive funding; 8) opposing legislation that took away local control of public Internet access in public libraries; 9) supporting legislation that allowed localities to prohibit firearms in public libraries under Virginia State Code §15.2-915 and §18.2-308; and 10) supporting legislation that allowed localities to implement additional regulations for pawn shops and second hand shops.

                        Mayor Frank stated he would like the City to support legislation that prohibited payday lenders from charging interest above 30%.

                        Councilman Bateman inquired whether the City could require payday lenders to reduce their interest rate to 36%. City Attorney Katz replied that requirement could not be amended since it was allowed by the State.

                        Councilwoman Scott inquired whether the City could limit payday lender’s proximity to one another. She felt payday lenders were opening up shops too close to each other. City Attorney Katz replied that was a matter the City was researching.

                        Mayor Frank felt the City should propose legislation to abolish payday lending establishments. City Manager Hildebrandt stated in order to abolish payday lenders the City had to support legislation that limited payday lenders interest rates to 36%.

                        Mayor Frank suggested that the City take the position in stating that payday loans needed to be abolished in Virginia. He did not want to support a 36% interest rate which he felt was outrageous. 

                        Dr. Sturgis stated she would make the necessary changes and address the concerns of City Council for adoption at the October 23, 2007, Regular Meeting of City Council.

            III.       Appeal of Decision of North End/Huntington Heights Architectural

                        Review Board – Richard Byars

                        Mayor Frank explained the General Assembly amended the Code of Virginia in 2006 to require appeals from Historic District Architectural Review Boards to be heard by local governing bodies rather than the Boards of Zoning Appeals.  As a result, Mr. Richard Byars was appealing a decision by the North End/Huntington Heights Architectural Review Board (Board) that denied his request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to enclose eaves, by means of installing a vinyl soffit, on his property at 231 54^th Street, which was located in the North End/Huntington Heights Historic District (District). Mayor Frank stated it was incumbent upon Mr. Byars to demonstrate to City Council why the decision of the Board was illegal and therefore unreasonable. He further advised that following Mr. Byars’ remarks, Ms. Sheila McAllister, Assistant Director, Department of Planning, would present facts of why the decision of the Board was in conformance with its written guidelines. A member of City Council would then make a motion to either overturn or uphold the Board’s decision, with a statement as to what evidence either rendered the Board’s decision reasonable or fairly debatable, or unreasonable and not fairly debatable. Mayor Frank introduced Mr. Richard Byars to present the owner’s perspective on this matter.

                        Mr. Byars thanked City Council for allowing him to present his case regarding the decision by the Board. Although he understood, appreciated and respected the scope, mission and purpose of the Board, he felt the Board’s decision denying his request to box-in the roof eaves of his property located at 231 – 54^th Street was unreasonable. (A copy of his prepared remarks and exhibits are attached and made a part of these minutes.)

                        Ms. Sheila McAllister reported the North End-Huntington Heights neighborhood was designated a Virginia Historic Landmark, and placed on the National Register of Historic Places in October 1986. Since the inception of the District the neighborhood worked vehemently to create a historic district. City Council approved the creation of the District in 1999 as an Overlay District in the Zoning Ordinance. Over 80% of the residents living in the neighborhood signed a petition in favor of the establishment of the District and the Board. 

                        Ms. McAllister stated the District reflected artistic, economic and social forces at work in the first half of the 20^th Century. She stated it was the intent of the Board to preserve the uniqueness and range of architectural styles by encouraging responsible changes, additions and modifications to houses within the neighborhood. The guidelines were not overly restricted and the Board understood that there had been many changes in the neighborhood prior to the historic district being in place. Siding was allowed and instead of maintaining a slate roof one could replace it with architectural shingles. The guidelines were not as restricted as one would notice in older historic districts, such as Hilton Village.

                        Ms. McAllister stated Mr. Byars owned the property at 231 54^th Street since April 16, 2007.  She reported Mr. Byars, made an appointment with David Watson, City Liaison, North End/Huntington Heights Architectural Review Board, in April 2007, to discuss renovations to his property, and was provided with a copy of the Board’s guidelines at that time. In his discussions with the City liaison, Mr. Byars discussed replacing his slate roof, which was his original intent. Mr. Byars decided not to replace the roof. Between May and June 2007, Board members noticed that Mr. Byars was doing work on his property. At that time, Board members told Mr. Byars the work he was doing required a Certificate of Appropriateness. In May 2007, Mr. Byars submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following items: 1) Installation of vinyl soffit to cover new support material that was added to replace/supplement deteriorated rafter tails; 2) replacement of porch columns with matching replicas; 3) replacement of porch railings with matching replicas; and 4) replacement of porch flooring with matching tongue & groove material.   Out of the four items, Mr. Byars received a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of porch columns; porch railings; and porch flooring. Mr. Byars request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for enclosing the eaves, by means of installing a vinyl soffit, was denied because the guidelines expressly stated that enclosure of exposed eaves was prohibited. (A copy of the Architectural Guidelines, Section IV. (J)(2)(b) is attached and made a part of these minutes.)

                        Ms. McAllister stated it had been noted by the Department of Codes Compliance that the replacement of roof sheathing, railings and support columns required a building permit. The Department of Codes Compliance had received no application for such permits from Mr. Byars. 

                        Ms. McAllister stated the guidelines were the necessary keys for ensuring the historic integrity of the buildings, maintaining the district and reducing deterioration and incompatible uses that were encroaching into the neighborhood. The Board’s decision was based on requirements clearly stated within its Guidelines. Therefore, their decision was not arbitrary. Ms. McAllister asked that City Council deny Mr. Byars’ request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for enclosing the eaves, by means of installing vinyl soffit, at his property located at 231 - 54^th Street. (A copy of the motion is attached and made a part of these minutes.)

                        Mayor Frank inquired what percentage of work had been completed by Mr. Byars, in regards to enclosing the eaves, before he was told it was against the Guidelines. Mr. Watson was not able to document how far along Mr. Byars was into the process.  

                        Vice Mayor Allen inquired about Mr. Byars attempts to get permission from the Board for the slate roof before he started the replacement project. Mr. Byars replied he inquired about the slate roof because he knew it was a requirement. 

                        Vice Mayor Allen inquired how Mr. Byars knew there was a requirement for the slate roof but not a requirement for other matters in the District. Mr. Byars replied throughout his experience soffits were never a problem. Vice Mayor Allen stated Mr. Byars knew that slate roofs required review in historical districts, but he did not interpret that to mean that everything done that changed the appearance of a building required review. Mr. Byars replied he did not interpret that to mean everything done that changed the appearance of a building required review.

                        Vice Mayor Allen inquired whether Mr. Byars purchased title insurance when he purchased the property and whether the insurance defined the historical district. Mr. Byars replied he did purchase title insurance and did not notice whether the insurance defined the historical district. Mr. Byars stated he was aware that he lived in a historical district, and indicated he was not arguing whether he lived in a historical district or not.

                        Councilwoman McMillan inquired, since the purpose of the historical district was to maintain uniqueness of style, and knowing there was architectural damage to the property, did the installation of vinyl soffit destroy that uniqueness. Ms. McAllister replied the installation of vinyl soffit did destroy the uniqueness. She stated there was a uniqueness of style for that period of house and when the eaves were boxed in the house looked like any other remodeled house with vinyl siding. Councilwoman McMillan stated, in other words, just like all the other houses in the neighborhood as noted in Exhibit C of Mr. Byars attached information. She stated no one would really notice if there was a difference or not. Ms. McAllister stated one of the reasons that the board specifically wanted to prohibit vinyl soffit was because they wanted to maintain the details of the house. She stated the house might look appealing to some people, but if you were looking for a historical house, the uniqueness was lost by the installation of boxed eaves.

                        Councilwoman McMillan zeroed in on the word “reasonable” and what was considered reasonable when you restored an old house and came across a problem that prohibited someone from buying it, although you had a reasonable solution, except for an architectural detail that only would be familiar to someone who knew that style of house. She felt the uniqueness of the house was not being destroyed. Ms. McAllister stated that

reasonableness was different for a homeowner who was buying the house to renovate and live in, as opposed to someone who was buying the house as an investment to sell. Such details were very important to some.

                        Mr. Philip Shook, Chairman, North End/Huntington Heights Architectural Review Board, stated, as far as reasonableness, when Mr. Byars came before the Board, after the fact, Mr. Whittaker, member of the Board, discussed other options that could have been performed. Such options would not have required boxing in the eaves and would have maintained the original design of the property.

                        Councilwoman Scott inquired whether there were other homes in the area that had the open eaves type styling that had been restored. Mr. Shook replied there were many homes with the open eaves type styling that had been restored.

                       Mayor Frank inquired whether there were restored homes with the boxed soffits. Mr. Shook replied there were homes with the boxed soffits that had been restored prior to 2000 before the guidelines were changed. 

                        Mayor Frank felt the house was very attractive and felt it did not detract from the neighborhood; however, the language in the guidelines was clear that boxing in of exposed eaves was prohibited.  He stated Mr. Byars lived in the neighborhood, knew it was historical and made a bad decision in not going to the Board for approval. 

                        Councilwoman McMillan did not understand why people were led to an appeal process if everything was in black and white.

                        Councilman Whitaker felt the house was beautifully done, but indicated he was in agreement with the Board. He asked the Board to try and work with Mr. Byars to see what could be done to remedy the situation. 

                        Councilwoman Scott was disturbed that Mr. Byars had been a resident of the District for 20 years and was not familiar with the guidelines. She inquired about the costs to restore the property back to its original style. Mr. Byars estimated the costs would amount to more than $50,000 to restore the residence. 

                        Councilwoman Scott was concerned that if City Council changed the policy for Mr. Byars they would have to do the same for the next person, which defeated the purpose of having the Board and the guidelines. She understood, just as Councilwoman McMillan stated, that the City had the appeals process, but this matter did not seem to fit because it was so crystal clear in the document that stated it could not be changed. 

                        Mr. Fred Whittaker stated Mr. Byars was aware that boxing-in the exposed eaves was a prohibited action. He stated the Board had made a clear and consistent ruling that residents could not box-in the eaves since 2000. There were a number of houses that had been restored before 2000 that they could not go back and change. The Board had been consistent since 2000 in their interpretation of the guidelines. He agreed the house was an improvement of what it was; however, North End Huntington Heights was a historical neighborhood. He stated the boxed-in eaves destroyed the entire character of the house. He asked City Council to uphold the Board’s decision.

                        Mayor Frank did not believe City Council had in this appellate process the discretion to ignore the clearly stated guidelines that were promulgated. He felt City Council had no other choice but to support the action taken by the Architectural Review Board.

                        Vice Mayor Allen made a motion to uphold the decision of the North End/Huntington Heights Architectural Guidelines, Section IV. (J)(2)(b), “boxing-in of exposed eaves is prohibited” in the case of Mr. Byars; seconded by Councilman Whitaker.

                        Vote on Roll Call:

                        Ayes:    Allen, Bateman, Frank, Scott, Whitaker

                        Nays:   McMillan

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS,

ON MOTION, COUNCIL ADJOURNED AT 5:44 P.M.

Jennifer D. Walker, CMC                                               Joe S. Frank

Chief Deputy City Clerk                                                Mayor

                                                                               Presiding Officer