Planning director briefs council on proposed zoning change, short‑term rental appeal and Spicer Building windows dispute

Bobby Tahan, director of city planning, briefed the council on three items scheduled for the city’s regular agenda: a zoning text amendment for large‑format commercial buildings, a conditional use permit request for a four‑bedroom short‑term rental at 2413 Massey Street, and an appeal of an after‑the‑fact amendment for window replacements at the Spicer Building (119 East Princess Anne Road).

On the zoning text amendment, Tahan said the Planning Commission recommended approval by a 6‑0 vote. The proposal would require a conditional use permit for the redevelopment, substantial improvement or establishment of principal uses in buildings larger than 30,000 square feet in the CC (community commercial) and CR (regional commercial) zoning districts. Tahan said the change targets a small number of vacant large buildings—“only a handful, probably not more than 5 or 6”—and would not affect occupied properties or routine tenant swaps.

Tahan said the Planning Commission recommended denial of a conditional use permit request for a short‑term rental at 2413 Massey Street by a 3‑3 vote. At the Planning Commission hearing, members expressed concerns about the operator’s business model and the proposed emergency contact; the transcript says the applicant had been subleasing and originally proposed an out‑of‑town management firm. Tahan told council the applicant subsequently secured a local management company to address those concerns; the council will hear the item on the regular agenda.

The third item involves the Spicer Building at Princess Anne and Monticello. The property received a development certificate in 2020 that included specific window materials and profiles. In October 2024 the applicant requested after‑the‑fact approval for “Chicago style” windows that the applicant said were installed to protect the building while it was open to the elements and due to supply‑chain issues. Tahan said the Architectural Review Board recommended approval 4‑3, but the Planning Commission later voted 4‑3 to deny the amendment. Tahan said the Planning Commission’s denial followed a public hearing in which the applicant did not present; he said staff will check whether the installation was first reported by a complaint or discovered proactively.

Councilmembers asked about timing and inspection: whether the incorrect windows could have been caught before full installation and whether enforcement options exist. Tahan said the permit process includes design review inspections intended to verify conformance with approved plans but acknowledged a mismatch can be missed and that civil enforcement would require a zoning violation process; he said the primary remedy would be removal and replacement rather than a fine.

Tahan identified the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board votes and recommended docket items for tonight’s council action. The presentation closed with staff offering to provide further detail on inspection timing and complaint reporting when requested.