Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says removal of Onancocks off-street parking rule was unlawful; council sends ordinance back to Planning Commission
Summary
At the July 22 meeting residents argued the towns June action removing Article XII (off-street parking) violated state notice requirements; Council agreed to send the parking ordinance back to the Planning Commission for review and schedule another joint public hearing.
Priscilla Hart, a resident, told the Onancock Town Council on July 22 that the councils June action to remove Article XII, the towns off-street parking provisions, was invalid because the required newspaper advertisement for a joint public hearing had not run for two successive weeks.
"The action to remove Article XII is invalid," Hart said, and she read aloud language from the state statute that prescribes advertising requirements for planning and zoning changes.
Why it matters: Article XII sets local parking requirements and exceptions for residential and business districts. Harts claim raises a procedural question about whether the town met Virginia Code notification rules before adopting changes that affect property owners and parking requirements.
Council discussion and next steps: Town Manager Matt Spuck told councilmembers the parking ordinance needs further review because of confusion over changes and Planning Commission recommendations. The council directed that the Planning Commission revisit the ordinance at its Aug. 5, 2024 meeting and that another joint public hearing be scheduled to allow additional public comment.
What was cited: The meeting record includes a printed excerpt of Virginia Code —5.2-2204 describing advertising and joint hearing notice requirements; Hart said she read that statute to the council during public comment. The town code excerpt in the meeting materials also shows the municipal code heading "ARTICLE XII. OFF-STREET PARKING REMOVED," which residents cited in their arguments.
Council response: Council did not make a final legal determination during the meeting. The councils action to return the ordinance to the Planning Commission and to schedule a new joint public hearing was the formal next step recorded in open session.
Claims and status: Hart alleged the June 24 removal was unlawful for lack of proper notice; the council committed to additional review and a new hearing, leaving the residents allegation unresolved pending that process.
What to expect next: The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the ordinance on Aug. 5, 2024; the council plans a subsequent joint public hearing where affected property owners and other residents may speak again.
