HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/12/2025 - City Council - Agenda -Regular
Agenda
Monday, May 12, 2025, 6:30 PM
Regular Session, 6:30 PM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
WORK SESSION
WORK SESSION IS CANCELLED FOR MAY 12, 2025
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Bid Opening, Awards, Recognitions
A. Salem High School State Championship - Diving
Consider the adoption of Resolution 1495 honoring Salem High School Diver Avery
Mangus for her VHSL Class 4 State Diving Championship.
B. Salem High School Speech Team
Consider the adoption of Resolution 1496 honoring the Salem High School Speech
Team for winning the VHSL Class 4 State Championship.
C. Salem High Debate Team
Consider the adoption of Resolution 1497 honoring the Salem High School Debate
Team for winning the Virginia High School League Class 4 State Championship.
4. Consent Agenda
A. Citizen Comments
Comments from the public, limited to five minutes, on matters not already having a
public hearing at the same meeting.
B. Minutes
Consider acceptance of the April 22, 2025; April 23, 2025; and April 25, 2025 Special
Meeting Budget Work Sessions and the April 28, 2025, Regular Meeting minutes.
Page 1 of 204
5. Old Business
A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Consider adoption of ordinance on second reading for the request of Clipp Family
Trust, or assigns, contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 2381-2383
Roanoke Blvd. (T/M# 225-2-6.1) from HBD Highway Business District with conditions
to HBD Highway Business District. (Approved on first reading at the April 28, 2025,
Council meeting.)
B. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Consider ordinance on second reading for the request of ABoone Real Estate, Inc.,
contact purchaser, to rezone the properties located at 1906 Mill Ln. & 1400 blk Penley
Blvd. (T/M#s 205-2-5 & 204-13-1) from RSF/AG Residential Single Family/Agriculture
Districts & AG Agriculture Districts to RSF Residential Single Family District.
(Approved on first reading at the April 28, 2025, Council meeting.)
6. New Business
A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Hold public hearing and consider ordinance on first reading for the request of Gwynn
Properties, LLC, contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 220 Brand
Avenue (T/M# 74-2-8) from HBD Highway Business District with conditions to HBD
Highway Business District. (Advertised in the April 24 and May 1, 2025, issues of
the Salem Times-Register.)(Planning Commission recommended approval by a
unanimous vote.)
B. Public Hearing on effective real estate tax rate for Fiscal Year 2026
Hold a Public hearing on the effective real estate tax rate for Fiscal Year 2026.
C. Tax Rates Resolution
Request to levy the following tax rates for Fiscal Year 2026:
1. Real Estate tax rate of $1.18 per $100 assessed valuation
2. Personal property tax rate of $3.40 per $100 assessed valuation
3. Machinery and tools tax rate of $3.20 per $100 assessed valuation
D. Public Hearing on the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2026
Hold a public hearing on the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2026.
E. Approval of Electric Rates
Consider approval of Resolution 1500 amending the Electric Rate Tariffs
F. Salem City Schools Budget
Consider adoption of Resolution 1499 approving the Salem City Schools budget for
Fiscal Year 2026.
G. Review of budget adoption for Fiscal Year 2026.
Page 2 of 204
Review of budget adoption for Fiscal Year 2026
H. Budget Appropriation Ordinances
Consider on first reading the ordinances appropriating funds for:
(a) Fiscal year 2026 operating budget and approval of the Schematic List of Positions
and Pay Scale for Fiscal Year 2026;
(b) Fiscal year 2026 capital budget and;
(c) Fiscal year 2026 budget for Salem City Schools
I. Appropriation of Funds
Request to appropriate additional Smart Scale funding for Mason Creek Greenway
Phase 3. Audit - Finance Committee
J. Appropriation of Funds
Request to appropriate Carbon Reduction Program and local funding for Roanoke
River Greenway from Apperson Drive to Cook Drive. Audit - Finance Committee
K. Appropriation of Funds
Request to appropriate Virginia Highway Safety Improvement Program (VHSIP) funds
for 4 pedestrian crossings. Audit - Finance Committee
L. Appropriation of Funds
Request to appropriate Smart Scale and local funds for downtown improvements
along College Avenue. Audit - Finance Committee
M. Appropriation of Funds
Request to appropriate highway maintenance carryover for various projects. Audit -
Finance Committee
7. Adjournment
Page 3 of 204
Item #: 3.A.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Salem High School State Championship - Diving
Consider the adoption of Resolution 1495 honoring Salem
High School Diver Avery Mangus for her VHSL Class 4
State Diving Championship.
SUBMITTED BY: Rob Light, Assistant City Manager/Clerk of Council
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This time has been set aside to recognize Salem High School Diver Avery Mangus for
her VHSL Class 4 State Championship.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Item 3A 5-12-25 HighSchoolResolution 1495 -SwimmingDiving2025-Council
Page 4 of 204
CITY COUNCIL
Joint Resolution
Mayor, City of Salem
SWIMMING & DIVING
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, May 12, 2025:
ATTEST:
H. Rob Light Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Salem City Council:
John Saunders
Hunter Holliday
Randy Foley
Anne Marie Green
Renée Ferris Turk
RESOLUTION 1495
RESOLUTION HONORING SALEM HIGH SCHOOL 2025 DIVING STATE CHAMPION
WHEREAS, with a great deal of pride and enthusiasm the City of Salem champions the development of
its young people by providing an array of opportunities in both the academic and sporting arenas; and
WHEREAS, throughout the years, our youth have excelled in both areas, bringing numerous accolades to
the city and school division; and
WHEREAS, the high school Swimming and Diving programs instill in their participants the significance
of teamwork and create accord and purpose among the participants and coaches; and
WHEREAS, Avery Mangus distinguished herself, her school, and the entire Salem community by being
crowned a Virginia High School League State Diving Champion in Class 4; and
WHEREAS, the state title, culminated an incredible senior season as Avery posted a score of 298.65
points in her eleven dives at the state meet at Richmond’s St. Catherine’s School on February 27; and
WHEREAS, despite competing in just her second year in the sport, Avery focused her energy on constant
improvement by making countless trips to the Christiansburg Aquatic Center to practice and hone her
specialty; and
WHEREAS, her success in winning a State Title was complemented by her incredibly positive attitude
and the exemplary sportsmanship she displayed throughout the season; and
WHEREAS, Avery also distinguished herself by winning the Regional Diving title as a junior and finishing
fifth this season; and
WHEREAS, along with Swimming and Diving Coach Christen King, Avery Mangus and her teammates
brought recognition to the Salem community and the high school by showcasing their skills in Southwest
Virginia and statewide; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA,
that the Council joins with the citizens of the City of Salem in saluting these amazing achievements during
the 2025 Swimming and Diving season.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to the coaches and each team
member and that a copy be placed on display at Salem High School.
Page 5 of 204
Item #: 3.B.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Salem High School Speech Team
Consider the adoption of Resolution 1496 honoring the
Salem High School Speech Team for winning the VHSL
Class 4 State Championship.
SUBMITTED BY: Rob Light, Assistant City Manager/Clerk of Council
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This time has been set aside to recognize the Salem High School Speech Team for
the achievement of winning the 2025 VHSL Class 4 State Championship.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Item 3B 5-12-25 HighSchoolResolution 1496-Speech 2025-Council
Page 6 of 204
CITY COUNCIL
Joint Resolution
Mayor, City of Salem
SPEECH/FORENSICS
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, May 12, 2025:
ATTEST:
H. Rob Light Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Salem City Council:
John Saunders
Hunter Holliday
Randy Foley
Anne Marie Green
Renée Ferris Turk
RESOLUTION 1496
RESOLUTION HONORING SALEM HIGH SCHOOL 2025 SPEECH STATE CHAMPION
WHEREAS, with a great deal of pride and enthusiasm, the City of Salem champions the development of
its young people by providing an array of opportunities in both the academic and sporting arenas; and
WHEREAS, throughout the years, our youth have excelled in both areas, bringing numerous accolades to
the city and school division; and
WHEREAS, Head Coach Mark Ingerson led another dominant Speech competition team at Salem High
School to its 19th consecutive state championship in March of 2025 on its home turf; and
WHEREAS, this victory gave Salem the most Speech titles in Virginia High School League history and
the second most overall championships for any VHSL athletic or academic team; and
WHEREAS, the team’s 39-11 title clinching victory over E.C. Glass High School was was a true
team effort with 13 students placing in the top 3 and accounting for 4 state titles out of 10 events; and
WHEREAS, the team was led by Senior Claire Rawlins who won her second straight state championships
in Impromptu Speaking, marking the 100th individual state championship in school history; and
WHEREAS, Senior Charlie Bain won the state championship in Serious Dramatic; and
WHEREAS, Juniors Lacey Stratton and Bella Poarch won the state title in Humorous Duo; and
WHEREAS, Freshman Rosalie Botos won the state championship in Prose Interpretation; and
WHEREAS, Senior Hall Blackwood finished as runner-up in Storytelling; and
WHEREAS, Senior Rebekah Steinweg finished as runner-up in Extemporaneous Speaking; and
WHEREAS, Junior Parneet Gill finished as runner-up in Original Oratory; and
WHEREAS, Freshman Tara Farrokhpoor finished as runner-up in Serious Dramatic; and
WHEREAS, Senior Noah Lovern finished as runner-up in Humorous Interpretation; and
WHEREAS, Seniors Connor Smythers and Colton Easter finished third in Serious Duo; and
WHEREAS, Junior Brenasha Devlin finished third in Prose Interpretation; and
WHEREAS, Junior Ariana Turner finished third in Humorous Interpretation; and
WHEREAS, Eighth grader Caden Smythers finished third in Storytelling; and
WHEREAS, Freshmen Aly Ory and Zippy Elliott supported the team by competing in Humorous Duo at
the state tournament; and
WHEREAS, Eighth grader Tori Iverson and freshman Lori Lowry supported the team by competing in
Serious Duo at the state tournament; and
WHEREAS, Senior Kaelyn Henzey provided outstanding support to the team throughout the season in
her role as team manager; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA,
Council joins with the citizens of the City of Salem in saluting the amazing achievements of this Speech
Dynasty and Head Coach Mark Ingerson.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to the coaches and each team
member and that a copy be placed on display at Salem High School.
Page 7 of 204
Item #: 3.C.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Salem High Debate Team
Consider the adoption of Resolution 1497 honoring the
Salem High School Debate Team for winning the Virginia
High School League Class 4 State Championship.
SUBMITTED BY: Rob Light, Assistant City Manager/Clerk of Council
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This time has been set aside to recognize the Salem High School Debate team for the
achievement of winning the 2025 Virginia High School League team State Title in
Debate.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Item 3C 5-12-24 HighSchoolResolution 1497 -Debate2025-Council
Page 8 of 204
CITY COUNCIL
Joint Resolution
Mayor, City of Salem
DEBATE
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, May 12, 2025:
ATTEST:
H. Rob Light Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Salem City Council:
John Saunders
Hunter Holliday
Randy Foley
Anne Marie Green
Renée Ferris Turk
RESOLUTION 1497
RESOLUTION HONORING SALEM HIGH SCHOOL 2025 DEBATE STATE CHAMPION
WHEREAS, with a great deal of pride and enthusiasm the City of Salem champions the development of
its young people by providing an array of opportunities in both the academic and sporting arenas; and
WHEREAS, throughout the years, our youth have excelled in both areas, bringing numerous accolades to
the city and school division; and
WHEREAS, the high school debate program instills in its participants the significance of teamwork and
creates accord and purpose among its participants and coaches; and
WHEREAS, The Salem High School Debate Team distinguished itself, the school, and the entire
community by being crowned a Virginia High School League State Champion on April 26, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the team’s 32-8 victory over Dominion High School during Class 4 competition at James
Madison University marked the school’s second straight state title; and
WHEREAS, Salem won individual state championships in three of four events, led by senior captain
Claire Rawlins, who made history as the school’s first Lincoln-Douglas State Champion, going undefeated in
state competition while debating whether Artificial General Intelligence is immoral; and
WHEREAS, Rawlins completed VHSL postseason competition with an extraordinary 14-1 record with
her only loss occurring in the state semi-finals to the eventual runner-up. She now holds four VHSL titles—two
in Speech and two in Debate; and
WHEREAS, seniors U.V. Singh and Grayson Smith went undefeated as they won the Public Forum
Debate state title. This marks Salem’s second all-time championship in this event and the first since Garrett
Hicks and Sami Hoyer won in 2018; and
WHEREAS, Singh and Smith amassed a 12-1 record throughout the VHSL playoffs while debating the
resolution of whether the United States should significantly increase nuclear energy production; and
WHEREAS, sophomore Dylan Hancock delivered a standout performance by winning the school’s first-
ever State Championship in Congressional Debate, earning an exceptional 482 out of a possible 500 speaker
points in a highly competitive field of 24 participants; and
WHEREAS, the following students also achieved top honors at the state championships:
- Rebekah Steinweg (12th grade) – Runner-up, Congressional Debate
- Luke Stovall (11th grade) and Kody Hinnant (10th grade) – Runner-up, Policy Debate
- Abby Jones (10th grade) – 4th place, Lincoln-Douglas Debate
WHEREAS, the following students also contributed to Salem’s team championship by representing the
school at the state level:
- Charlie Bain (12th grade) and Nesa Garcia-Perez (10th grade) – Congressional Debate
- Leah Johnson (10th grade) and Ashley Toapanta (10th grade) – Policy Debate
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA,
that Council joins with the citizens of the City of Salem in saluting the amazing achievements of the team,
Head Coach Mark Ingerson and Assistant Coach Rachel Wurster.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to the coaches and each team
member and that a copy be placed on display at Salem High School.
Page 9 of 204
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 9:30 AM
9:30 AM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
1.Call to Order
A work session of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council
Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, on April 22, 2025, at
9:30 a.m., there being present the following members of said Council, to wit: Renée
Ferris Turk, Mayor; Anne Marie Green, Vice-Mayor; Councilmembers: Byron
Randolph Foley, H. Hunter Holliday, and John Saunders (remote participation); with
Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor, presiding; together with Chris Dorsey, City Manager; Rob
Light, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Crystal Williams, Assistant to the
City Manager; Rosie Jordan, Director of Finance; Tammy Todd, Assistant Director of
Finance; and Shawn Crockett, Senior Accountant; and the following business was
transacted:
Mayor Turk reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the
Council to hold a budget work session.
Mayor Turk requested that Mr. Light read a request from Councilman Saunders to
participate remotely in this Council meeting.
The request from Councilman Saunders stated: "in accordance with Section 2.2-
3708.3 B(1) of the Code of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Remote
Participation Policy of the City of Salem, I hereby request to participate remotely due
to a temporary medical condition that prevents my physical attendance."
Randy Foley motioned to accept the remote participation of Councilman Saunders.
Hunter Holliday seconded the motion.
Ayes: Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renee Turk
Nays: None
Abstaining: John Saunders
Item #: 4.B
Date: 5/12/2025
Page 10 of 204
2. New Business
A. Discussion regarding the Fiscal Year 2026 budget
Discussion was held regarding the Fiscal Year 2026 budget.
3. Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Council, the work session was
adjourned at 2:11 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
H. Robert Light Renée Ferris Turk
Clerk of Council Mayor
Page 11 of 204
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
Wednesday, April 23, 2025 at 10:00 AM
10:00 AM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
1. Call to Order
A work session of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council
Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, on April 23, 2025, at
10:00 a.m., there being present the following members of said Council, to wit: Renée
Ferris Turk, Mayor; Anne Marie Green, Vice-Mayor; Councilmembers: Byron
Randolph Foley, H. Hunter Holliday, and John Saunders (remote participation); with
Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor, presiding; together with Chris Dorsey, City Manager; Rob
Light, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Crystal Williams, Assistant to the
City Manager; Rosie Jordan, Director of Finance; Tammy Todd, Assistant Director of
Finance; and Shawn Crockett, Senior Accountant; and the following business was
transacted:
Mayor Turk reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the
Council to hold a budget work session.
Mayor Turk requested that Mr. Light read a request from Councilman Saunders to
participate remotely in this Council meeting.
The request from Councilman Saunders stated: "in accordance with Section 2.2-
3708.3 B(1) of the Code of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Remote
Participation Policy of the City of Salem, I hereby request to participate remotely due
to a temporary medical condition that prevents my physical attendance."
Randy Foley motioned to accept the remote participation of Councilman Saunders.
Anne Marie Green seconded the motion.
Ayes: Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renee Turk
Nays: None
Abstaining: John Saunders
Page 12 of 204
2. New Business
A. Discussion regarding the Fiscal Year 2026 budget
Discussion was held regarding the Fiscal Year 2026 budget.
3. Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Council, the work session was
adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
H. Robert Light Renée Ferris Turk
Clerk of Council Mayor
Page 13 of 204
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
Friday, April 25, 2025 at 10:00 AM
10:00 AM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
1. Call to Order
A work session of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council
Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, on April 25, 2025, at
10:00 a.m., there being present the following members of said Council, to wit: Renée
Ferris Turk, Mayor; Anne Marie Green, Vice-Mayor; Councilmembers: Byron
Randolph Foley, H. Hunter Holliday, and John Saunders (remote participation); with
Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor, presiding; together with Chris Dorsey, City Manager; Rob
Light, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Crystal Williams, Assistant to the
City Manager; Rosie Jordan, Director of Finance; Tammy Todd, Assistant Director of
Finance; and Shawn Crockett, Senior Accountant; and the following business was
transacted:
Mayor Turk reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the
Council to hold a budget work session.
Mayor Turk requested that Mr. Light read a request from Councilman Saunders to
participate remotely in this Council meeting.
The request from Councilman Saunders stated: "in accordance with Section 2.2-
3708.3 B(1) of the Code of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Remote
Participation Policy of the City of Salem, I hereby request to participate remotely due
to a temporary medical condition that prevents my physical attendance."
2. New Business
A. Discussion regarding the Fiscal Year 2026 budget
Discussion was held regarding the Fiscal Year 2026 budget.
Page 14 of 204
3. Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Council, the work session was
adjourned at 2:14 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
H. Robert Light Renée Ferris Turk
Clerk of Council Mayor
Page 15 of 204
CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
Monday, April 28, 2025 at 6:30 PM
Regular Session, 6:30 PM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
WORK SESSION
WORK SESSION IS CANCELLED FOR APRIL 28, 2025
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was called to order at
6:30 p.m., there being present the following members to wit: Renée Ferris Turk,
Mayor; Anne Marie Green, Vice-Mayor; Councilmembers: Byron Randolph Foley, H.
Hunter Holliday, and John Saunders; with Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor, presiding
together with Chris Dorsey, City Manager; Rob Light, Assistant City Manager and
Clerk of Council; Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance; Chuck Van Allman,
Director of Community Development; Mike Stevens, Director of Communications; and
Jim Guynn, City Attorney
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Bid Opening, Awards, Recognitions
There were none this evening.
4. Consent Agenda
A. Citizen Comments
Comments from the public, limited to five minutes, on matters not already
having a public hearing at the same meeting.
John Breen, 142 Bogey Lane, expressed concerns regarding Salem’s current site
plan approval process. Council was requested to work with the Planning Commission
Page 16 of 204
to create a Site Plan Review Committee coupled to a public hearing process.
Jack Susser, 115 Union Street, spoke to Council in support of preserving Preston
Place, emphasizing its historical and cultural value to the Salem community. He
proposed utilizing Preston Place as a venue for community events, tourism, and
fundraising activities.
Cynthia Munley, 425 Roanoke Boulevard, voiced support for preserving Preston
Place. She shared suggestions for the property’s usage and indicated that the City
already purchased the adjacent former restaurant . She also raised a separate
concern about the former skate park, requesting clarification on the status of a nearby
property. Finally, Ms. Munley addressed an environmental concern regarding the
decline of tree canopy coverage in Virginia and the Roanoke Valley and proposed the
creation of a Tree Steward Program.
Councilman Foley clarified for the record that the City has not purchased Tokyo
Express as indicated by Ms. Munley.
Ms. Munley asked if the property was for sale, and it was confirmed that it was.
B. Minutes
Consider acceptance of the April 14, 2025, Work Session and Regular
Meeting minutes.
The minutes were approved as written.
C. Financial Reports
Consider acceptance of the Statement of Revenues and Expenses for the
nine months ending March 2025.
The Financial Reports were received.
5. Old Business
There was no Old Business this evening.
6. New Business
A. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Budget
Request to approve the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) budget
for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.
The 2025-2026 annual budget for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority was
presented by Jon Lanford, Chief Executive Officer of the Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority on behalf of the Board of Directors. He shared that he had with him this
evening from the Resource Authority Jeremy Garrett, Director of Operations -
Technical Services; Brad Brewer, Finance Manager; and Nancy Duval, Budget
Manager. Mr. Lanford provided an update on the Smith Gap facility and the Fiscal
Page 17 of 204
Year 2026 budget. The Authority has completed a master planning process for the
Smith Gap facility, which was presented to its Board of Directors. Based on current
operations and tonnage, the facility is estimated to have approximately 40 years of
airspace remaining. Technological advancements may extend usability further. The
Archaea project, which converts methane to renewable natural gas, is progressing
well and is expected to be a significant revenue source. This has enabled the
Authority to resume equipment replacement and address previously deferred capital
and operational needs due to past revenue issues. The Fiscal Year 2026 budget,
approved by the Resource Authority Board on March 26, totals $19,116,734 — a net
increase of approximately $2.3 million from the previous year. Contributing factors
include the Archaea project and increased municipal waste tonnage, including a new
contract with a neighboring locality. Mr. Lanford stated that a $1.50 per ton municipal
rate increase is proposed (from $56.50 to $58.00 per ton), expected to generate
approximately $30,000 in new revenue. Also proposed is a rate adjustment for
Commercial/private tipping rates: from $67.50 to $69.50/ton. He emphasized the
importance of modest, regular rate adjustments to avoid significant future increases
and maintain fiscal stability. Questions were invited regarding the master plan,
projects, or budget.
Randy Foley motioned to approve the Fiscal Year 2026 budget for the Roanoke
Valley Resource Authority. Anne Marie Green seconded the motion.
Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renee Turk
Nays: None
Abstaining: None
B. Presentation of Salem School Division Budget
Receive presentation from the Chairman of the Salem School Board regarding
the 2025-2026 budget pursuant to Section 8.5 of the 1968 Charter of the City
of Salem, as amended.
Andy Raines, Chairman of the Salem City School Board, expressed gratitude to City
Council and administration for their continued support and collaboration. The speaker
emphasized that the Salem City School’s progress and educational achievements are
the result of strong partnerships and the dedication of school employees.
Mr. Raines presented the Fiscal Year 2026 proposed budget approved by the School
Board at the March 20, 2025, meeting, consisting of the School Fund Budget of
$59,545,236; the Grant Fund Budget of $3,614,257; and the Cafeteria Fund Budget
of $2,759,451; for a total budget of $65,918,944. This reflects an 8% increase over
the current fiscal year, driven by: Increased state revenues tied to enrollment growth
in the expanded online school program, which is offset by associated program
expenditures; targeted state support for at-risk and high-need students; and salary
increases for staff.
The proposed budget, based on the General Assembly's approved version from
March, includes a requested local appropriation increase of $431,911. The school
Page 18 of 204
division remains prepared to revise the budget as necessary pending final state
budget decisions. Mr. Raines noted that the needs of students and employees were
prioritized during the budget process in an effort to provide a competitive salary and
benefits package while complying with state and federal mandates. He outlined
specific budget highlights and charts that were included as attachments to the budget
for reference purposes. Mr. Raines concluded by thanking city leadership and
school staff for their contributions and responsible stewardship of public resources.
The budget was formally presented in compliance with the May 1 deadline.
Mayor Turk noted that no action was necessary on this item this evening.
C. Public Hearing and Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Hold public hearing and consider adoption of ordinance on first reading for the
request of Clipp Family Trust, or assigns, contract purchaser, to rezone the
property located at 2381-2383 Roanoke Blvd. (T/M# 225-2-6.1) from HBD
Highway Business District with conditions to HBD Highway Business
District. (Advertised in the April 10 and 17, 2025, issues of the Salem Times-
Register.) (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a
unanimous vote.)
Mayor Turk asked Mr. Van Allman if there was any additional information for Council
regarding this public hearing.
Mr. Van Allman replied that there was no new information and that the Planning
Commission minutes included all details.
Mayor Turk opened the public hearing.
No one came forward to speak.
Mayor Turk closed the public hearing.
Randy Foley motioned to adopt the ordinance on first reading to approve the rezoning
from HBD with conditions to HBD without conditions. Hunter Holliday seconded the
motion.
Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renee Turk
Nays: None
Abstaining: None
D. Public Hearing for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Special
Exception Permit
Hold public hearing for the request of ABoone Real Estate, Inc., contract
purchaser, to rezone the properties located at 1906 Mill Ln. & 1400 blk Penley
Blvd. (T/M#s 205-2-5 & 204-13-1) from RSF/AG Residential Single
Page 19 of 204
Family/Agriculture Districts & AG Agriculture Districts to RSF Residential
Single Family District, and for a Special Exception Permit to include both
parcels in the Cluster Housing Overlay District. (Advertised in the April 10 and
17, 2025, issues of the Salem Times-Register.)
Mr. Light confirmed that the public hearing is for both the rezoning and special
exception permit requests of ABoone Real Estate, Inc., contract purchaser, for the
aforementioned properties. He clarified that Council would consider the first reading
of the rezoning and one reading of the special exception permit. He noted that a
proffer statement was included for the special exception permit in the agenda
packet. He indicated that the proffer statement was submitted by the contract
purchaser. Technically, this cannot be accepted as a proffer; therefore, this was
included as conditions on the special exception. However, the property owners, who
also feel strongly about providing these proffers, submitted today a proffer statement
that can be considered with the rezoning. He indicated that if Council would like to
accept these proffers when they reach the item to consider the first reading of the
ordinance, they may do so and the ordinance will be edited to include these proffers
for the second reading of the ordinance. The recommendation of staff, if Council was
amenable, was to accept the proffers with the rezoning and then consider the special
exception permit as it was.
Mayor Turk opened the public hearing.
Dorothy Johnson, 1453 Penley Boulevard, expressed concern regarding safety and
infrastructure issues on Penley Boulevard. While not opposed to nearby
development, she urged City Council to consider road improvements due to the
road’s function as a key thoroughfare during flooding events and its use as a school
bus route. She noted that an approximate two-block section lacks curbing and
guttering, is narrow, and presents hazards for passing vehicles. Specific incidents
were cited involving damaged mailboxes and close calls with traffic. Ms. Johnson
requested that the city evaluate and address these road conditions.
Stella Reinhard, 213 North Broad Street, raised several concerns related to the
proposed development on Mill Lane. First, she recommended an alternative to
individual driveways for approximately ten homes, suggesting a parallel back alley to
reduce curb cuts and traffic along a school bus route. Second, Ms. Reinhard
expressed concern about traffic safety at the Riverside Drive and low water bridge
intersection, noting the potential need for road shoulders or a roundabout. Third, she
urged the City to prioritize preservation of the tree canopy. Concerns were raised
about clear-cutting for development and the resulting impacts on water retention,
ecosystems, and heat islands. Ms. Reinhard encouraged the City and developers to
explore methods to preserve trees where feasible.
John Breen, 142 Bogey Lane, expressed concerns regarding the City of Salem's
current practice of not allowing public comment on site plans. In anticipation of an
upcoming development, he offered several suggestions and questions for
consideration during the site planning phase. These included the need for clarity on
Page 20 of 204
the placement and extent of sidewalks, the design of streetlights (with a preference
for decorative options in upscale developments), and the potential inclusion of a
walking path within open space. Mr. Breen questioned whether the open space would
be active or passive and suggested adding this information in the site
plan. Additional concerns were raised about stormwater infrastructure and long -term
maintenance responsibilities, particularly regarding the effectiveness of homeowners'
associations (HOAs) in managing complex drainage systems. He urged the City to
allow public input on site plans, emphasizing the value of community expertise and
the importance of thoughtful planning for developments impacting a significant
number of new residents.
Mayor Turk closed the public hearing.
Mr. Light clarified that this item was solely the public hearing, and that Council would
vote on each of the next two items separately.
E. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Consider the request of ABoone Real Estate, Inc., contact purchaser, to
rezone the properties located at 1906 Mill Ln. & 1400 blk Penley Blvd. (T/M#s
205-2-5 & 204-13-1) from RSF/AG Residential Single Family/Agriculture
Districts & AG Agriculture Districts to RSF Residential Single Family District.
(The Planning Commission recommended approval by a unanimous vote.)
Alexander Boone, 5760 Reserve Point Lane, Roanoke County, shared that the
development would include approximately 70 high -quality homes on 51-foot-wide lots.
He emphasized that the smaller lots were in response to rising development costs
and market preferences for lower-maintenance properties. The development would
feature a monument entrance, sidewalks adjacent to the roads, and passive open
space serving as a buffer to surrounding communities. While public access to the
open space is planned, walking trails were not proposed due to past community
objections. The housing product would include a variety of designs, including one -
story, one-and-a-half-story (with first-floor primary suites), and two-story homes,
aimed at a diverse market including empty nesters and young professionals.
Anticipated home prices will range from the mid-$400,000s to over $500,000.
Mr. Boone addressed concerns about stormwater management, noting that it must
comply with state regulations and would be managed by a required homeowners
association (HOA) following developer turnover. In response to comments regarding
driveways and traffic, the developer stated that driveway turnarounds were
incorporated after consultation with the Planning Commission and City staff. The use
of rear alleys was deemed impractical due to space and stormwater constraints. He
welcomed further questions and discussion regarding the project.
Councilman Foley asked to confirm for the benefit of the public that there would be
curbing on Mill Lane for the nine homes that were mentioned and within the
Page 21 of 204
neighborhood.
Mr. Boone responded that there would be curbing for these homes and with the
internal portion of the neighborhood.
Councilwoman Green requested clarification of Lot 10 and if that piece of land was
going to be split between the landowners..
Mr. Boone pointed out the lot on the audiovisual monitors and responded that this
piece was left in case the Planning Department had requested a second
entrance. As this was not desired, the decision had been made to gift this land to
each of the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Boon addressed concerns about tree removal, stating that tree clearing is done
strategically to accommodate grading, utilities, and stormwater infrastructure, which
often necessitates significant clearing. The developer committed to replanting efforts,
including planting two to three trees per yard and implementing general landscaping
throughout the community. Efforts will also be made to preserve natural buffers,
particularly near Penley Boulevard and adjacent streets, with coordination ongoing
between the developer and the project engineer.
Councilman Foley asked to confirm that there would not be a prohibition of trees.
Mr. Boone confirmed that this was correct as long as it was approved by the HOA.
Councilman Holliday asked if the trees would be included in the site plan.
Mr. Boone responded that if required by the plot plan or building permits, trees would
be included accordingly. A comprehensive landscaping plan is anticipated, which will
designate the placement of trees throughout the community to create that boulevard
effect.
Councilman Foley asked for the record if this was being proffered as it was at the
Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Boone responded affirmatively and asked that these proffers be accepted with the
application.
Mr. Light clarified that technically it is the owners, the Dorseys, proffering the
conditions. He read out the proffers being submitted:
1) The development shall not exceed 70 single-family residential homes;
2) Lots that have driveway access directly to Mill Lane shall include a driveway
turnaround so that residents are not forced to back onto Mill Lane;
3) Minimum lot frontage shall be 51 feet. Lots that front on the arc of the cul-de-sac
shall be allowed to reduce frontage to a minimum of 40 feet provided that the lot width
at the front building setback is not less than 51 feet.
Page 22 of 204
Randy Foley motioned to adopt the ordinance on first reading to rezone the identified
properties to RSF Residential Single-Family District with the proffers provided. Anne
Marie Green seconded the motion.
Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renee Turk
Nays: None
Abstaining: None
F. Special Exception Permit
Consider the request of ABoone Real Estate, Inc., contact purchaser, for a
Special Exception Permit to include the properties located at 1906 Mill Ln. &
1400 blk Penley Blvd. (T/M#s 205-2-5 & 204-13-1) in the Cluster Housing
Overlay District. (The Planning Commission recommended approval by a
unanimous vote.). The approval of the Special Exception Permit is contingent
upon final Council approval on second reading of the ordinance to rezone the
properties from RSF/AG Residential Single Family/Agriculture and AG
Agriculture Districts to RSF Residential Single-Family District.
Anne Marie Green motioned to accept the Special Exception Permit request. Hunter
Holliday seconded the motion.
Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renee Turk
Nays: None
Abstaining: None
G. Olde Salem Days 2025
Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
approve City Council’s request for the temporary closure of Main Street on
September 13, 2025, for the Olde Salem Days event.
Mayor Turk noted that Council needed to approve this request yearly in the form of a
resolution requesting VDOT approval of the temporary closure of Main Street each
year that Olde Salem Days is held.
John Saunders motioned to adopt Resolution 1494 for this year's Olde Salem Days.
Hunter Holliday seconded the motion.
Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renee Turk
Nays: None
Abstaining: None
H. Boards and Commissions
Consider appointments to various boards and commissions.
Randy Foley motioned to reappoint Ray Varney for a full five-year term ending May
11, 2030, to the Board of Appeals (USBC Building Code). Councilman Foley noted
Page 23 of 204
that Mr. Varney has been serving on this for about a year or so to fill a vacancy, and
this will be for a full term. He also noted that Mr. Varney is a retired engineer for
VDOT. Anne Marie Green seconded the motion.
Ayes: John Saunders, Hunter Holliday, Randy Foley, Anne Marie Green, Renee Turk
Nays: None
Abstaining: None
7. Adjournment
Mayor Turk thanked the citizens for their presence this evening and expressed
Council's appreciation for their interaction. She noted that the City website is kept up
to date with information on meetings and City events. She shared that the website
is https://www.salemva.gov/.
Mr. Dorsey informed Council and the public of increasing challenges in meeting
advertising deadlines, particularly with The Roanoke Times, which now requires
submissions up to a week in advance. Due to these timing constraints and in
compliance with state law, staff will begin using Cardinal News Online as an
additional approved outlet for legal notices and advertisements. This change aims to
ensure continued compliance with statutory deadlines amid evolving publication
requirements.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
H. Robert Light Renée Ferris Turk
Clerk of Council Mayor
Page 24 of 204
Item #: 5.A.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Consider adoption of ordinance on second reading for the
request of Clipp Family Trust, or assigns, contract
purchaser, to rezone the property located at 2381-2383
Roanoke Blvd. (T/M# 225-2-6.1) from HBD Highway
Business District with conditions to HBD Highway Business
District. (Approved on first reading at the April 28, 2025,
Council meeting.)
SUBMITTED BY: Maxwell Dillon, Planner
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Zoning: HBD Highway Business District
Land Use Plan Designation: Commercial
Existing Use: Disabled American Veterans organization
Proposed Use: Standard Commercial
The subject property (2381-2383 Roanoke Boulevard) consists of a 1.372-acre tract of
land which currently sits within the HBD Highway Business District zoning designation.
The property has historically served as home to the Salem Chapter of the Disabled
American Veterans organization. In 1990, the property was rezoned from Business
District B-1 to Business District B-3, with conditions including the following:
4. A reversion clause will be applied if the building is not used as either a thrift store,
meeting hall, or club. This clause will require a reversion of the zoning to Business
District B-1 if not used for any of the above purposes. The Disabled American
Veterans will not use this site as an official drop-off point for contributions to the
Disabled American Veterans.
Because the former rezoning included a reversion clause to a zoning district that no
longer exists (B-1), and the proposed use of the property does not meet the specified
restrictions, the applicant is requesting a rezoning from HBD with conditions to HBD
without conditions to allow the development of a standard commercial multi-tenant
Page 25 of 204
structure.
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as Commercial which is
consistent with the proposed future utilization of the property.
REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-214.3. Site
development regulations for HBD
FISCAL IMPACT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend that Council consider adoption of the ordinance on second reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2381-2383 Roanoke Boulevard - Rezoning Application
2. 2381-2383 Roanoke Boulevard - Conceptual Plan
3. Item 6C 4-28-25 2383 Roanoke Blvd - Legal Description
4. March 2025 PC Minutes As Amended
5. Council letter to Property Owner 2381-2383 Roanoke Blvd. Tax Map 225-2-6.1
6. Legal Ad 4.10
7. Item 6C. 6D. 6E. 6F 4-28-25 Legal Ad 4.17
8. Item 6C 4-28-25 Ordinance for 2381-2383 Roanoke Blvd_incl. legal description
Page 26 of 204
1
City of Salem
Rezoning Application
Pre-application Meeting (optional)
• Meetings with the Community Development Staff are recommended prior to submittal of a
rezoning application. Please bring a plat to the meeting with a sketch of your proposal.
Application Submittal
• The application deadline is the first of the month for inclusion on the following month’s agenda. If
the first falls on a weekend or holiday, the application deadline will be the following business day.
• When submitting an application be sure to include the following: a complete application, plat of the
subject property, legal description that includes metes and bounds, and supplementary information
to support the request (such as conceptual plans and building elevations). Please note: incomplete
applications will not be accepted and will be returned to the applicant.
• The application fee is due at time of submittal. (See Page 4)
• PLEASE NOTE: As per 106-520(C) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance no application shall be
accepted for a lot or parcel that does not comply with the minimum lot area, width, or frontage
requirements of the requested zoning district. A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals must
be obtained prior to the submission of a rezoning application.
Application Distribution for City Review
• Complete applications may be routed to City departments for review.
Staff/Applicant Meeting
• The staff may contact the applicant to schedule a meeting to discuss comments provided by
reviewing agencies, to request additional information or plan revisions, and to negotiate proffers.
Planning Commission
• Revised conceptual plans and draft proffers must be submitted prior to the Planning Commission
meeting. Proffers and conceptual plans may be revised in accordance with Staff’s
recommendations, and revisions incorporating the staff’s recommendations must be submitted
prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
• A staff report and recommendation is included in the Planning Commission packet. The packet is
distributed approximately 1 week prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
• The Planning Commission meets on the 1st Wednesday after the 1st City Council meeting of the
month.
• Following a public hearing on the rezoning case, the Planning Commission may recommend
approval, approval with revisions to the proffers, denial, or deferral of the application.
City Council
• Signed and notarized final proffers must be submitted prior to the City Council meeting.
• A staff report containing the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Staff is sent to the
City Council prior to the meeting.
• The City Council typically hears rezoning cases on the 4th Monday of every month. Cases are
usually heard by Council at the meeting following the Planning Commission meeting.
• Following a public hearing on the case, the City Council may vote to approve, approve with
proffered conditions, deny, defer the application to another meeting, or remand the application
back to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
Page 27 of 204
2
TO THE APPLICANT:
It is the policy of the City of Salem City Council, the City of Salem Planning Commission, and City of
Salem Board of Zoning Appeals to require a property to be posted when a zoning action is being
considered. Such a posting notifies the general public of an impending action and the location being
considered.
It is incumbent on you, the applicant, to e nsure the sign is in the proper location and remains there until
an action has taken place. Consequently, the procedure for posting is as follows:
1.The Community Development Staff will post the sign on your property.
2.You should check the location of the sign to make certain it is in the right place on your
property. If it is not, notify the Community Development Office as soon as possible.
3.You should check periodically to ensure the safety of the sign. If it is stolen or otherwise
harmed, notify the Community Development Office as soon as possible.
In submitting this rezoning application, you hereby grant permission to the agents and employees of the City
of Salem to enter the referenced property for the purposes of processing and reviewing the above
application.
Should you have any questions regarding this policy, please contact a member of Community Development.
ATTACHMENTS - For ALL REQUESTS you must submit the following electronically:
A fully completed signed application.
Acknowledgement of Application Fee Payment Procedure (Page 4)
Signed Proffer Statement if applicable (Pages 6 & 7)
A plat of the subject property, which accurately reflects the current property boundaries, is drawn to
scale, and shows existing structures. (Typically, available from the City Clerk’s Office.)
Responses to questions on Page 5
Historic Impact Information (if any)
For applications requiring plans, please submit electronically only. No hard copies will be
accepted.
Check here if the conceptual plan will serve as the preliminary plat.
NOTE: Elevations will be required with new development.
Page 28 of 204
Page 29 of 204
Page 30 of 204
5
PLEASE RESPOND FOR ALL REZONING APPLICATIONS:
1. What is the Future Land Use Designation for the subject property? _______________________________________
2. Describe in detail the proposed use of the property. _________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. List any sensitive environmental or unique features on the property. Are there any high voltage transmission lines,
public utility lines, or others? ________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Is the subject property located within the Floodplain District? YES NO If yes, describe the proposed
measures for meeting the standards of the Floodplain Ordinance. ____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Is the subject property listed as a historic structure or located within a historic district? YES NO
If yes, describe the proposed measures for meeting the standards of the Department of Historic Resources.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Have you provided a conceptual plan of the proposed development, including general lot configurations and road
locations? Are the proposed lot sizes compatible with existing parcel sizes in the area?
PLEASE RESPOND FOR COMMERCIAL REZONING APPLICATIONS
1. What provisions will be made to ensure safe and adequate access to the subject property?
2. How will the traffic impact of this development be addressed?
3. Describe why the proposed use is desirable and appropriate for the area. What measure will be taken to assure that
the proposed use will not have a negative impact on the surrounding vicinity?
4. What type of signage is proposed for the site?
5. Have architectural/building elevations been submitted with this application?
Page 31 of 204
6
TAX MAP NO.:
Return to: Office of Community Development
21 South Bruffey Street
Salem, Virginia 24153
This document prepared by:
(NAME AND ADDRESS):
PROFFER STATEMENT
WHEREAS, , , ,
(“the Owner(s)”) is/are the owner(s) of certain real property known as
_______________________________________ (property description/location) (“the Property”) totaling approximately
acres, located in the City of Salem, Virginia which is more particularly described as follows:
(legal description or an attachment containing a legal
description. Also include tax map #); and
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) has/have filed an application to rezone the Property from current
zoning of (current zoning) to
(proposed zoning), c onditional, pursuant to the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance (the
“Zoning Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, the Owner desires to proffer to the City of Salem (the “City”) certain conditions in
connection with the development of the Property that will protect the City and its citizens, provide for
the orderly development of the Property, and offset the impacts of development; and
WHEREAS, the below-listed proffers are designed and intended to mitigate impacts that have been
identified; and
WHEREAS, the Owner certifies that all below-listed proffers are voluntary, reasonable, and directly
related to the rezoning applied for; and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized to accept these proffers pursuant to the Code of Virginia, and
the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in the event that there is any conflict between these proffers and the Zoning Ordinance,
the conflict shall be resolved by the City’s Zoning Administrator, subject to appeal to the Board of Zoning
Appeals and the courts as provided by law; and
WHEREAS, these proffers shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto,
and their respective heirs, successors and assigns; and
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) acknowledges that impacts of development not offset by the below-listed
proffers may be cause for denial of the rezoning request.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner(s) agrees to meet and comply with the following proffers in
connection with the development of the Property should the Owner’s application to rezone the property be
approved:
Page 32 of 204
7
PROFFERS
1.(proffer 1)
2.(proffer 2)
3.(proffer 3)
4.etc.
(Ind icat e if yo u in ten d th e p ro ff e rs to be o ffe re d a s a g rou p (i.e . “a ll o r n o th ing ”. Otherwise, each will
be considered to be individually offered for separate consideration by the City. The City does not have to
accept proffers that are offered)
Once proffered and accepted as part of an amendment to the zoning ordinance, these conditions
shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the property
covered by these conditions; provided, however, that such conditions shall continue if the subsequent
amendment is part of a comprehensive implementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
By:
Owner
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF SALEM, to wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20
by .
Owner
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Page 33 of 204
8
Acceptance:
The Proffers herein have been accepted as follows: (“All” o r l ist sp e cif ic p roff e rs
accepted)
by action of the Council of the City of Salem on
Date
ATTEST:
Clerk of Council
Salem, Virginia
Page 34 of 204
Page 35 of 204
Page 36 of 204
n
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
Work Session, 5:30 PM, Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North
Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
Regular Session, 7:00 PM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
WORK SESSION
1. Call to Order
A work session meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia,
was held in the Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad
Street, at 5:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, there being present the following
members of said Commission, to wit: Denise P. King, Reid Garst, Mark Henrickson,
Jackson Beamer and Nathan Routt, constituting a legal quorum, with Chair King,
presiding; together with Christopher J. Dorsey, City Manager and Executive
Secretary, and H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager and Deputy Executive
Secretary, ex officio members of said Commission; Charles E. Van Allman, Jr.,
Director of Community Development, Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning
Administrator, Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner, Lisa D. Browning, Codes Compliance
Investigator and Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; and the following business was
transacted:
Chair King called to order at 5:30 p.m. and reported that this date, place, and time
had been set in order for the Commission to hold a work session.
Mary Ellen Wines introduced the new Codes Compliance Investigator, Lisa
Browning, to the Planning Commission members.
2. New Business
A. Comprehensive Plan Update
B. 2381-2383 Roanoke Blvd.
C. 1906 Mill Ln. & 1400 Blk. Penley Blvd.
D. Simms Farm
Page 37 of 204
3. Adjournment
Chair King adjourned at 6:52 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was
called to order at 7:00 PM, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street,
on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, there being present the following members to wit:
Denise P. King, Reid Garst, Mark Henrickson, Jackson Beamer; and Nathan Routt,
constituting a legal quorum, with Chair King, presiding; together with Christopher J.
Dorsey, City Manager, and Executive Secretary, H. Robert Light, Assistant City
Manager and Deputy Executive Secretary, ex officio members of said Commission;
Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development, Mary Ellen Wines,
Planning & Zoning Administrator, Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner, Lisa D. Browning, Codes
Compliance Investigator, and Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; and the following
business was transacted:
Chair King reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the
Commission to hold the regular meeting.
A. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Consent Agenda
A. Minutes
Consider acceptance of the minutes of the January 15, 2024, work session
and regular meeting.
Chair King asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes from
January 15, 2024, work session and regular meeting. No changes were suggested,
and the minutes were accepted as presented.
B. Cancellation of February meeting
Chair King reported that the Commission did not meet in February due to no items
being on the agenda.
3. Old Business
No old business was reported.
Page 38 of 204
4. New Business
A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Hold public hearing and consider the request of Cliff Family Trust or
Assigns, Contract Purchaser, to rezone the property located at 2381-2383
Roanoke Boulevard (T/M# 225-2-6.1) from HBD Highway Business District
with Conditions to HBD Highway Business District.
Staff noted that the subject property located at 2381-2383 Roanoke Boulevard (T/M#
225-2-6.1) was rezoned before the current zoning ordinance with a condition on the
property that said it would revert to B-1 should it ever cease to be the Disabled American
Veterans Meeting Hall and Thrift Store. The City of Salem no longer has a zoning district
B-1; therefore, the petitioners have asked to remove that condition and allow the property
to stand as HBD Highway Business District.
Chair King asked if anyone was present to speak on behalf of the applicant. Mr.
Jonathan Martin of 105 Downing Place, Apex, North Carolina 27502 asked to speak on
behalf of the Cliff Family Trust. Mr. Martin stated that he came to the Commission today
as they have a contract to purchase the property which was previously occupied by the
Disabled American Veterans and is currently vacant. As part of their due diligence, it
was learned that there are conditions associated with the property which would prohibit
them from repositioning it into a neighborhood center which would be their goal should
they acquire the property. The conditions in the zoning code are written specifically to
the Disabled American Veterans’ use for the space limiting it to either a thrift store, a
meeting hall or a club. The conditions also mentioned improvements which were
required when they took occupancy. As mentioned, the Disabled American Veterans
have vacated and have been marketing the property. Their hope is that the
Commissioners will consider rezoning the property from HBD Highway Business District
with Conditions to HBD Highway Business District. The applicant stated that they feel
this part of Roanoke Boulevard would benefit from having a neighborhood center. If
there are any questions about the plans or the conceptual design, please let them know
and they will be provided.
Commissioner Henrickson inquired about how many tenant spaces they are hoping to
have.
Mr. Jonathan Martin stated that, at this time, the building consists of 9,000 square feet
total, divided into three 3,000 S.F. suites. Right now, they would leave the building as is
depending on leasing. As part of their work, they would come with formal plans and
upgrade or alter the good majority of the front and exterior, however, he did not know if
they would change the footprint, depending on leasing and what tenants approach them.
If they did, they would come with formal plans.
Commissioner Henrickson asked if they had any prospective tenants at this point.
Page 39 of 204
Mr. Martin stated that they do not, however, the design that was provided is what they
are targeting, but they do not really know until they lease it.
Chair King inquired as to who would be responsible for maintenance of the property, the
owner or the tenants.
Mr. Martin stated it would depend on the lease structure and what is agreed on within
the leases. He would assume there would most likely be a triple-net lease where they
would be responsible for maintaining the property. The applicant would probably do self-
management; however, the tenants would be responsible for maintenance at the
property.
Chair King stated that the concern when inspecting the property was a shed located at
the back which looked like at one point it was probably locked. It was not locked on that
day and the doors were standing open. This is a concern, especially with an owner who
resides out of town and the concern of who would be there to make sure that the property
is maintained.
Mr. Martin stated that within the purchase contract is a condition that the shed and a
couple other sheds actually be removed prior to their closing.
Chair King asked the applicant if they were aware that the business to the east of the
building towards the City of Roanoke is currently parking vehicles on the property.
Mr. Martin stated that he had seen vehicles there, but that he was not sure who they
belonged to. As part of their due diligence, having visited the property a couple of times,
he had seen vehicles there. If the Planning Commission would like, he can certainly
make a request to the current owner to remove them.
Chair King stated that is not a problem for the Planning Commission but did not know if
the applicant understood that they actually belonged to the other business.
The applicant thanked the Commission for letting them know because he did not know
who the vehicles belonged to.
Chair King asked if there was anyone else present to speak on this matter.
Mr. Chris Marlman of 2244 Bainbridge Drive addressed the Commission. Mr. Malman
stated that his property backs up to 2381-2383 Roanoke Blvd. and there have been
several occasions where he has taken care of the upkeep behind the building where
weeds and grass have overgrown. Mr. Malman stated that there has been a lot of activity
in the past that has gone on behind the facility and he has had to call the non-emergency
number several times because people would hang out. In the past, there were people
living there in the Connex containers which have since been removed. The concern is
what type of facility the applicant would like to put there and what would be their
responsibility to the residents living on the backside of the property. He stated that he
Page 40 of 204
had planted trees which face the backside to try to block some of that activity because
there is traffic that is in and out of the property all the time. Just two weeks prior, alarms
were going off inside of the building and he had to contact whoever was responsible for
selling the building and they contacted people to come and shut off the alarms. The fire
alarms and all kinds of other alarms were going off inside the building. Mr. Malman can
hear them when he is outside on the back porch. It has been an inconvenience for those
living there and he has lived there for probably 12 years. He stated that there were very
few people to get ahold of at that time to try to take care of some of the issues they were
having because the property changed hands quite a few times as far as who was in
charge of the facility. There was trash being dropped back there, people would come
back there, go through all the containers, throw trash on the ground and leave it a mess.
He asked if that would be taken care of with the tenants that are moving in, would the
residents have people to take care of issues if they had them and how to get in touch
with them.
Commissioner Henrickson asked if Mr. Martin would like to address these issues.
Mr. Martin stated that they would be a proactive property manager and would have
landscaping and parking lot sweeping as necessary. Mr. Martin stated that they do not
know which tenants would be occupying the space, however, they see them as service-
oriented tenants that would serve the neighborhood and the campus across the street.
To answer the gentleman’s question, they are a very proactive property management
company and would be on top of those issues.
Chair King asked if the property manager would be located in Salem or in the Roanoke
Valley. She asked if this is someone, if a phone call was made, would be able to be at
the property within a reasonable time.
Mr. Martin responded that he, being based in North Carolina, would be the property
manager. This is his full-time job, however, if the caller felt that it required it and if issues
did pop up, they could hire somebody that could be local. He stated that within a triple-
net lease structure, the tenant is going to be responsible for certain things as far as
maintenance and upkeep specifically. As the manager of the property, they would make
sure there is proper landscaping and maintenance.
Vice-Chair Garst asked about the picture provided that showed potential shops such as
a coffee shop, pet shop, yoga or sandwiches. So, he asked if these will be multiple
businesses. He asked if they would have a triple-net lease with each one of the
businesses.
Mr. Martin responded that each one would be a specific triple-net lease.
Vice-Chair Garst asked who would maintain the entire property.
Mr. Martin responded that the applicant would set up any landscaping or services,
however, the tenant would reimburse them as part of a reconciliation at the end of the
Page 41 of 204
year for those services. The applicant would do the property management as well, but
they would have local landscaping or whatever services were needed.
Vice-Chair Garst asked if the applicant would be responsible, and if the tenant would be
responsible based on their square footage share or some other measurement.
Mr. Martin responded yes to that question.
Chair King asked to make sure that the purchase contract stated that the shed(s) will be
removed as part of the contract because her concern was the same as the resident on
Bainbridge Drive.
Commissioner Beamer asked if the purchase is contingent upon approval.
Mr. Martin responded that the contract is contingent upon approval.
Commissioner Beamer asked if the Disabled American Veterans had the whole building.
Mr. Martin answered affirmatively.
Chair King asked if there were any further questions or if anyone else was present to
speak on this matter.
The public hearing was closed at 7:12 PM. Chair King asked for questions or
comments from the Planning Commission. Hearing none, she entertained a motion.
Commissioner Routt made a motion to approve the amendment, which was seconded
by Commissioner Beamer. Upon a roll call vote, the same stood as follows:
Mr. Routt – Aye
Mr. Henrickson – Aye
Mr. Beamer – Aye
Mr. Garst – Aye
Chair King – Aye
Chair King explained that the Planning Commission is a research and recommending
body to the City Council. This has been approved with a 5-0 vote and will now go to
City Council. Attendees will need to appear at the City Council meeting when this is
on their agenda. They will be notified once it has been placed on their Agenda.
B. Public Hearing for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Special
Exception Permit
Hold public hearing for the request of R. Fralin Development Corp. & Simms
Property, LLC, property owners, to amend rezoning Ordinance #344 and to
amend the Special Exception Permit by removing proffer #4 relating to the
maximum height of 1.5 stories for structures constructed on cluster lots for the
Page 42 of 204
properties located at 113 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-4), 117 Parker Ln (T/M #273-
3-5), 121 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-6), 125 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-7), 129 Parker
Ln (T/M #273-3-8), 133 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-9), 137 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-
10), 141 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-12), 142 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-11), 134 Parker
Ln (T/M #288-3-9), 130 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-8), 126 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-
7), 122 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-6), 118 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-5), 114 Parker
Ln (T/M #288-3-4), and 211 Diamond Rd, (T/M #272-2-1).
Chair King asked for any comments from Staff. Staff noted the applicant was requesting
the removal of that condition, as Mr. Light had stated, for the two cluster blocks that were
included as part of the original rezoning and special exception permit. The proffers
included on the rezoning are the exact same as the conditions placed on the special
exception permit. Staff has had several inquiries as to what the request was for and did
have one neighbor that contacted staff to voice his concerns over the request.
Chair King opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. and asked for the applicant to speak
first.
Mr. Brian McCahill of 5211 S. Concourse Drive, Roanoke, VA 24019, COO of R. P. Fralin
Inc. addressed the Commission. He stated that Gwen Phillips, Operations Manager, is
present as well. She will be delivering a presentation prepared to update the Commission
on progress in the community and explain the rationale for the request and try to answer
questions from the public as well as the Commission. His main comment was to state
that the request is all about meeting market demand. The applicant has no objection to
building the 1.5 story homes that the proffer requires. There are certain lots where they
are finding the market would like to see two story homes. They have had a lot of success,
particularly in Glenvar, with this kind of housing product. They are selling quickly, and he
thinks the applicant can meet the demand in Salem as well if they are able to build
products like that. Gwen Phillips manages their sales and a lot of their home operations.
Gwen Phillips of 5211 S. Concourse Drive, Roanoke, VA 24019 addressed the
Commission, thanking the Commission for consideration of their application. She has
been with the R. P. Fralin organization for about 5 years and was not present at the initial
request. She is the Interim Sales Manager and gets to work with the Property
Management Division on a lot of their customer facing roles within the organization. She
has participated in many requests such as this to provide much needed housing to the
community. Wanting to provide more information about who they are as an organization,
she stated the name is R. P. Fralin Inc. and their mission and values are to provide their
customers and employees with quality and value to their clients with integrity and to foster
an atmosphere where all grow professionally and personally. The organization’s beliefs
are choosing to go positive, they should listen to others’ ideas, thank you goes a long way,
and it is not about them. R. P. Fralin Inc. introduction is they are a regional real estate
developer based in Roanoke, Virginia. They employ approximately 40 employees, and
the breath of their force comes from their subcontractors. They have over 300 workers
by way of their subcontractor activities. They are the builder that employs lots of
companies locally that help to build their product. Their expertise is in real estate
acquisition, land development, home building and luxury apartment communities. They
Page 43 of 204
have developed over 1,500 residential lots, have built over 2,000 homes, and have built
and retained 10 luxury apartment communities with six under construction. They have
also built and retained a plethora of commercial buildings. They have a diversity of
products and also a diversity of locations so they can offer that as experience. Being
familiar with the Simms master plan, this is an overview of what the full project will
eventually look like, as they work through current and future phases bringing it to the
market. Ms. Phillips stated that their request is simple. When originally rezoned, the
applicant proffered 8 conditions. Since then, they discovered that it would be a benefit to
the market and future citizens to request to remove Proffer #4 which is restricting their
cluster lots to homes with a maximum of 1.5 stories. This request only impacts 31 total
lots of the full master plan. There are 10 unbuilt lots in the current Section 1 that are ready
to go and 20 undeveloped lots in future Sections 3 and 4. In reference to the above stated
presentation, they are looking at 10 in Phase A which is towards the bottom right and then
the full cluster section of Phase E, both circled in purple. In comparing the lots, the
applicant is asking to remove Proffer #4 versus what has been completed in the Simms
Farm community so far, it is a little section indicated on the presentation and what remains
in Section 1 that they can offer to the market soon. In referring to a drone video of what
is currently in the Simms Farm subdivision, she indicated that the video gives a real picture
of what is there. She stated that they are here to speak firsthand that the market really
wants a 2-story home. The market really wants to be able to move their family and have
that extra space to grow. They have found the market that 2 story family homes typically
serve is underserved, but not to the exclusion of what they are currently building. They
are still able to build the 1.5 story plan but would like to offer the 2 story plans. In summary,
she stated that removing Proffer #4 enhances their ability to serve the market demand.
She provided an overview of some of the plans that would be proposed to meet the lot
conditions. They are looking at 1,800 to 2,000 S.F. on basements with about 900 S.F.
available to finish or storage space, depending on the need. Most are going to contain 4
bedrooms and 2.5 baths.
Vice-Chair Garst questioned whether the market needs are not being met as it seemed
like they were selling the 1.5 story houses.
Ms. Phillips stated that the 1.5-story homes are selling by default because it is a location
that they want but is not as much space as preferred.
Vice-Chair Garst asked how many 2 stories are going to be built outside of the cluster.
Ms. Phillips did not have the number.
Vice-Chair Garst asked if this is 170 give or take units.
Commissioner Henrickson responded 140+.
Mr. McCahill stated that it would be a 50/50 mix. A lot depends on the topography of those
sections, so lots that are relatively flat, they build 1 to 1.5 story homes. Most folks that
buy those homes do not want steps or storage space in the basement. Lots that are
sloping would take on 2 story homes. Within the cluster lot, the applicant is still designing
the future sections, but he can state that 3, 4 or maybe 5 of the remaining Section 1 lots
could be 2 stories. They would be completely finished with that section right now if they
Page 44 of 204
had Proffer #4 removed. People are buying them, but it is slow because they are not able
to serve that demand. They can build more modest 2 story homes in the cluster lot section
to get to a lower price point than they can in the rest of the Simms Farm plan.
Mr. John Breen of 142 Bogey Lane appeared before the Commission and stated he did
not think it was fair to confront 25 minutes of presentation with 3 minutes. Mr. Breen
voiced the following concerns. He stated that by any rational measure, allowing 2 story
homes on the cluster lots sets an undesirable precedent and outcomes and empowers an
undesirable developer. Proof positive, look at the Better Business Bureau. A proffer that
was geared to protect the surrounding neighborhood and predicate the cluster area
approval would not be enforced. Fralin even ignores the Salem code for Section 1
landscaping. Two story homes are not affordable housing and not at all what was
promised when the cluster overlay was approved. Fralin’s current existing 2-story homes
are in the $535,000 to $550,000 range. The cluster homes are $80,000+ less. Two story
homes on tiny lots favors only the developer’s profits. He stated that they offer nothing
positive to the school system. Two story homes attract kids. The estimated property taxes
for the 2 story homes that Fralin built is $4,500 per home versus $11,000 cost per student
to our school system. The Fralin request lacks any benefit to Salem or any desirable basis
for approval. Fralin has already sold half of the lots in Section 1 as 1.5 stories. Several
of these have sold in the last 120 days. Aside from the foregoing concerns, Mr. Breen
stated that the Fralin application seeks to remove the proffer from 211 Diamond Road.
This address is indicated on Salem’s GIS site as the address for 53.29 acres. This is an
obvious effort to set up this acreage for more tiny lots with 2 story homes. Parker
addresses which are on the application as 113, 118 and 122 are either mostly built or
under construction so why would there be a need to remove Proffer #4? Of the lots in
Section1, 22 have already been sold and constructed as 1.5 story homes. This
demonstrates 1.5 story homes are marketplace viable. As a citizen of Salem, I cannot tell
the Commission more. I stood here 5 years ago to stop Salem from approving Fralin. Mr.
McCahill stood here and lectured for 25 minutes on several occasions about how great
the 1.5 story homes would be. It’s time he sticks to his promise and proffer fully.
Mr. Wesley Trent of 98 Upland Drive appeared before the Commission and stated that he
had voiced his opposition to this project from the beginning. He listened to everything that
the applicant had to say, telling them what they were going to do, and they hadn’t done it
yet. The proffers that are in place right now like starting at certain times of the morning
have not been followed. The proffer of stopping in the afternoon has not been followed.
The trees that were planted along Upland Drive are all dead. The amount of work cutting
grass or chemically burning the grass off. The City of Salem had to come in and clean it
up because they blew it all into the street. Mr. Trent stated that he does not understand
why the Commission would allow additional proffers to be lifted when Fralin cannot follow
the ones he is doing. Mr. Trent stated he opposes the proffer to be removed.
Mr. Mike Fisher of 66 Upland Drive appeared before the Commission. Mr. Fisher is
located directly across from the development and stated that Mr. Fralin’s request to have
the proffer removed hit home when he found out about it. Mr. Fisher stated that he was
part of the process at the onset 5 years ago when this happened with the Planning
Commission, with the City Council meetings and the community meetings with Mr. Fralin
at the American Legion buildings. He was involved with everything that he could possibly
Page 45 of 204
could because he knew the Simms family very close and personally. Mr. Fisher got
involved and was worried about the site distances, etc. He took an active role in the first
planning commission and the City Council meeting. He looks at the proffer and this proffer
was put in place very specifically. There is a reason that this proffer was put in place. Mr.
Fralin, back in 2019 when this whole thing was starting for the rezoning, his pitch to the
public was that we need housing for the City of Salem for single people, married couples
without children and we need small cluster homes. Mr. Fisher indicated he was only
speaking about the cluster lots. Mr. Fralin stated that we need homes for senior individuals
who do not want to climb steps and retirees. That was Mr. Fralin’s pitch for wanting to
have cluster homes. That hasn’t changed today. We still need homes for those people.
Mr. Fralin or his people are now saying that times have changed. We need 2 story homes
on these small lots, and we need to have them for children, but Mr. Fisher didn’t hear
anything tonight about the single people, the married couples without children or the
retirees and that is why Mr. Fralin wanted to make cluster homes back in 2019-2020.
Once the development was passed, Mr. Fralin has come in and developed that area and
he has really developed that area. He has moved all over to make that development. Mr.
Fralin is the one that came up with his plan for how he wanted this area to look. The City
of Salem directed that, if he was going to have cluster lots, they would have to be this
size. He built those lots at his absolute minimum that he could get by with under City
code. In this cul-de-sac that he has built on Parker Lane, when going down around the
back, the lots are bigger. The first house Mr. Fralin built there on Parker Lane, 101 Parker
Lane, is 1,623 S.F. It has 3 bedrooms and 2 baths on a slab. Ideally, this is what we
thought when Mr. Fralin presented this to the Planning Commission and City Council back
in 2019, just like he showed these pictures tonight. They have shown these pictures
tonight of 2 story homes. They showed us 1.5 story homes. They looked nice and Mr.
Fisher liked the homes. He built the first home up there on a slab. Mr. Fisher went up
there and he said this is going to be nice because this is what we are going to have. Again,
that house is 1,623 S.F. He built a home across the street at 110 Parker Lane that is a
“1.5” story home. It is 1,302 S.F. with 3 bedrooms and 2 baths and has a basement
garage. Mr. Fisher thinks that when Mr. Fralin states that he needs 2.5 story homes and
putting in garages, something that he is doing 1.5 story on, that someone could, if they
bought that house, make rooms in the basement. He is using it for a garage and making
a small house. Going down into the cul-de-sac at 138 Parker Lane, Mr. Fralin has a little
bit bigger lot. This home is 2,523 S.F. Mr. Fisher stated all of this information is from the
City of Salem GIS website. This is a 3 bedroom, 2 bath with garage and has a basement.
This house is within eyesight from Mr. Fisher’s home. They have put a fence up since
then and he only sees half the basement. He stated that it is an appealing house. His
argument is that Mr. Fralin was designing this neighborhood. If Mr. Fralin can go in that
cul-de-sac with a bigger lot and put in a 2,500 S.F. home, he had the opportunity to do
this when he was making cluster lots. He could have made the homes bigger; he could
have accommodated more square footage and could have taken of what he is asking for
today. What he asked for back in 2019 and 2020 was for the singles, the married couples,
the elderly people and the retirees. That has not changed today. As indicated in the
packets he submitted to each person with pictures, when he saw the pictures and 101
Parker Lane go in, this would be a nice footprint on this street and cul-de-sac. The homes
are all flat, they are 1.5 stories like he said. When Mr. Fralin went across the street, he
Page 46 of 204
added a basement. Now when we go up Upland Drive, we see 2 and 1.5 stories of home
from the back. Mr. Fisher’s argument at the beginning was they did not want to see the
back of people’s homes and we asked for trees that would obscure the view where they
did not have to see them. If Mr. Fralin, in his development and he is the one that moved
the earth, was being a good neighbor to the neighborhood, he could have moved the earth
to accommodate a 1.5 story home where they didn’t have to see the back. That was his
land, and he has elected, by what Mr. Fisher heard tonight, because the topography
caused the problem, but Mr. Fralin had the opportunity to change the topography and he
did not. Now, we have to look at 1.5 story homes. That is not what we wanted. This was
all done. The proffer was put in place by the City of Salem City Council with the approval
of Mr. Fralin and the approval of the Simms Family. It was very specific. Nothing has
changed from what he wanted before to what it is today. There are plenty of
developments. There is one coming before the Commission tonight about a new
development wanting cluster homes. There is an opportunity where, if it needs to be done,
and the Commission approves, a location where we can do it. This Simms location is
specific. This was a neighborhood, everybody here knows how the opposition and
tensions were, but it passed. We lived with it but when he started putting the back of
homes in our faces, 2.5 stories to look at, that was disheartening and not what he thought
to see. Had he known we would be looking at that, he would have stressed those points
back in the first process. The only other issue Mr. Fisher has is that we need trees. We
do not want to see the back of homes. In the City of Salem, we did not have any
subdivisions backing up to main roads. The first one that did happen was Mr. Fralin’s
development on N. Mill Road. Four homes. That was the first time it happened. Nowhere
else in the City of Salem, so this was happening. Mr. Fisher asked to please give us
something where we did not have to see it. Trees were put in place. In the planning
phase, he has a copy of it and has spoken to Max Dillon who has helped him through it
and thank you so much. It was planned for Green Giant arborvitae. I have Green Giant
arborvitae in his yard. He planted them for the simple reason that he did not want to see
his next-door neighbor’s house. He planted them and a Green Giant arborvitae from the
Arbor Foundation will grow 40’-60’ tall. Loved when he saw that in the plans. When the
final plan came out, it dictated that they would put 25’ Emerald Green arborvitae. The
Arbor Foundation states that an Emerald Green arborvitae at its maximum height will be
15’ tall. That will not cover anything up that they are seeing now, 2.5 story homes from
the back. How that got changed in the process, he does not know. The planners, or
whoever was putting this together, knew that was an issue and somebody made a
comment that it was going to affect the powerlines. Mr. Fisher stated that he lives there,
and he can see it and has them in his yard. Of the tree line that is planted there, a 40’
Green Giant arborvitae would not cause any problems at all. Mr. Fisher voiced his
opposition, and nothing has changed since 2020. He opposes this and hopes the
Commission will take this information into consideration.
Mr. Buddy Killinger of 201 Homeplace Drive appeared before the Commission and stated
he is located on the private road part of Homeplace Drive, on the north end of Simms
Farm, going down his driveway 600’-700’. His concern is the buffer that Mr. Fisher was
just talking about. He will be looking at the back of all these homes, there is no changing
that. He took it upon himself 2 years ago and planted 100 trees down his driveway to give
the trees a chance to grow so they are not looking into the back of the houses.
Page 47 of 204
Unfortunately, that is not the view that they want. The trees are more like a bush and will
not grow any more than they are growing. He has lived there for 30 years. On McVitty
Road, the house that has the pond behind it, has the same trees that have been there for
30 years. They look the same. They might be a little taller, but all are half dead. This is
not covering up anything. It is not a buffer. Mr. Killinger looked up buffer in the dictionary
and this is not a buffer. He did not know if he would live to see the development get over
to him. He stated that hopefully, the City of Salem will hold them accountable and protect
the neighborhood. He stated that it is horrible looking into the back of someone’s house.
Ms. Stella Reinhardt of 213 North Broad Street appeared before the Commission and
stated that she is from a different neighborhood. Her concern is the precedent that gets
set. She did have a couple questions hopefully that could be answered. With the homes,
because of the topography we have been told, will have garages in the basements, but
not necessarily mandated garages. When requesting to change a proffer from a 1.5 story
home to a 2-story home, some of those will have basements as well. In effect, they would
be 3 story homes. She asked if it was correct that you could finish a basement if it didn’t
have a garage.
Staff member, Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator, responded that when
it is built as a basement, it is not considered one of the stories. Yes, they could finish the
basement to have living space.
Ms. Reinhardt asked about the 52 acres that are yet to be developed. She asked if the
proffer change request is applying to that to turn it into 2 story cluster homes as well.
Chair King responded that it is only the sections in the advertised information.
Ms. Reinhardt stated that there are 3 things from Fralin on the Agenda so that confused
her.
Ms. Wines responded that there are 2 cluster blocks that were included in the master plan.
The second section or second block has not been platted yet. It is part of the overall larger
parcel, so the cluster only applies to that block with those several lots still in it, not to all
the acreage that is left.
Ms. Reinhardt voiced her worry about what she referred to as “the shell game”. As she
pays attention to these things, the rest of Salem, and she always loved the Simms Farm.
She did not hear about it until everything had been voted on and done. She was interested
and questioned why she did not hear about that. Sometimes it feels like these things are
happening behind closed doors, under the table and residents of the community do not
hear about it until the very end. The Simms Farm neighborhood was fighting it vigorously,
as she understands, but this was what was agreed on at the time, with these proffers to
protect the neighborhood. She stated that she thinks, as she understands it by talking
with people, they tried hard to get proffers that would protect them in certain ways. Ms.
Reinhardt stated her concern is that this is special land and some of the approaches to it
are on country roads that are narrow. Having a 2-story home that welcomes a family,
having a 3rd story potentially for some of those homes, will increase the load of people on
the roads, surfaces, traffic, sewer systems, school system, all of those things. There is
an increase and that was not planned for originally. She thinks that it is important because
Page 48 of 204
it was all discussed originally. She does think it is important for the developers to figure
out their plans ahead of time. In her neighborhood of North Broad Street, they have been
fussing that they were not included and the term “its an open sandbox” kept getting used.
There were not enough proffers, there were not enough decisions made before it was
rezoned. In this case, they did work hard to try to work with the City of Salem to try to get
some of these proffers. If we do not hold the developers to their word, unless there is a
real emergency, it seems that we are testing the bounds of the discussions that happened
originally to protect the neighborhoods. We have kind of forgotten that conversation a
little bit and forget why we did it and she does not like the idea that developers may come
and say they are going to do this and its going to be beautiful and then they come back
and change everything. Ms. Reinhardt voiced her opinion that the developers should be
held accountable.
Ms. Chris McCart of 316 North Broad Street appeared before the Commission and stated
she is not from that neighborhood, she does have to agree with Ms. Reinhardt. Her first
point is that she would like the Commission to vote no on this for three reasons. The first
point was the same that the Simms Farm was passed initially, and that proffer was placed
there to appease the current residents at least somewhat so removing it now is like
breaking a promise to a large group of citizens. The second issue is that Fralin states that
1.5 story maximum restricts their ability to accommodate current market trends and
demands preferring 2 story homes for growing families. Later tonight, as part of your
packet, Community Development notes that while Salem’s comprehensive planning effort
is still ongoing, countless community engaged conversations have included citizens
desires for additional housing affordability, diversity and availability. High quality infill
projects that accommodate the construction of smaller homes on smaller lots were
described as desirable throughout the process. Ms. McCart questioned which is right.
They have one developer saying we cannot sell small homes; we need big homes. Then
we have another developer saying everybody in town wants small homes on small lots.
She stated that the data is out there, and she encourages everyone to go find that data or
put people in place to do that for them. She asked what is the true demand in Salem. Her
third point was that Fralin states that with higher interest rates which are more
commensurate with historical averages, the new home market is commanding more
families and those experiencing household formation or simply want a larger new home.
She stated it took her some time to understand what this means. Higher interest rates
mean people want higher, bigger houses. Interest rates are higher, it costs more, so I can
afford less of a house. She was trying to understand how this works and realized this is
not about the homeowners. If you have Wall Street companies coming in and buying up
large houses, increasing market rates when interest rates are going up is a good time to
buy in, buy those houses and then rent them all. She asked if that is what Salem is
wanting to do, or do we want homeowners that own their own home. For these reasons,
Ms. McCart urged the Planning Commission to vote no.
The public hearing was closed at 7:49 PM. Chair King reported that 4C and 4D are
actually two aspects of the same issue.
Page 49 of 204
C. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Consider the request of R. Fralin Development Corp. & Simms Property, LLC, property
owners, to amend Ordinance #344 by removing proffer #4 relating to the maximum
height of 1.5 stories for structures constructed on cluster lots for the properties
located at 113 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-4), 117 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-5), 121 Parker
Ln (T/M #273-3-6), 125 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-7), 129 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-8), 133
Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-9), 137 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-10), 141 Parker Ln (T/M #288-
3-12), 142 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-11), 134 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-9), 130 Parker Ln
(T/M #288-3-8), 126 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-7), 122 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-6), 118
Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-5), 114 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-4), and 211 Diamond Rd, (T/M
#272-2-1).
Vice-Chair Garst made a motion to deny the amendment, which was seconded by
Commissioner Henrickson. Upon a roll call vote, the same stood as follows:
Mr. Routt – Aye
Mr. Henrickson – Aye
Mr. Beamer – Aye
Mr. Garst – Aye
Chair King – Aye
Chair King explained the amendment request has been denied with a 5-0 vote. The
amendment request will now go to City Council. Those in attendance will need to appear
at the City Council meeting when this is on the Agenda. They will be notified when this
has been placed on the City Council Agenda.
D. Special Exception Permit
Consider the request of R. Fralin Development Corp. & Simms Property, LLC, property owners, to amend the Special Exception Permit by removing condition #4 relating to the maximum height of 1.5 stories for structures constructed on cluster lots for the properties located at 113 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-4), 117 Parker Ln (T/M #273- 3-5), 121 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-6), 125 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-7), 129 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-8), 133 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-9), 137 Parker Ln (T/M #273-3-10), 141 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-12), 142 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-11), 134 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-9), 130 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-8), 126 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-7), 122 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-6), 118 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-5), 114 Parker Ln (T/M #288-3-4), and 211 Diamond Rd, (T/M #272-2-1).
Vice-Chair Garst made a motion to recommend denial for the special exception change
as well, which was seconded by Commissioner Henrickson. Upon a roll call vote, the
same stood as follows:
Mr. Routt – Aye
Mr. Henrickson – Aye
Page 50 of 204
Mr. Beamer – Aye
Mr. Garst – Aye
Chair King – Aye
This special exception request has been denied and was unanimous with a 5-0 vote. The
request will now go to City Council. They will be notified once that has been placed on
the Agenda for the City Council.
E. Public Hearing for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Special
Exception Permit
Hold public hearing for the request of ABoone Real Estate, Inc., contact
purchaser, to rezone the properties located at 1906 Mill Ln. & 1400 blk Penley
Blvd. (T/M#s 205-2-5 & 204-13-1) from RSF/AG Residential Single
Family/Agriculture Districts & AG Agriculture Districts to RSF Residential Single
Family District and for a Special Exception Permit to include both parcels in the
Cluster Housing Overlay District.
Commissioner Beamer requested a 30 second time out in case any attendees would like
to leave the meeting.
Chair King asked Staff for additional comments or information. Staff reported that there
are two large parcels of the current Dorsey Farm, one is zoned Agricultural and
Residential Single-family, and the other is zoned Agriculture. They have applied for a
rezoning to Residential Single-family with a special exception permit for cluster housing
overlay. The proposal includes 70 smaller cluster housing lots which they will offset with
the required open space to counterbalance the reduction in lot size. We have had several
inquiries from neighbors over the public items but have not had any comments from
neighbors.
Chair King opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. and asked if there was anyone present
to speak for the applicant.
Mr. Alexander Boone at 5760 in the County of Roanoke addressed the Commission. Mr.
Boone stated that he is here for ABoone Development, the applicant, with his colleague
Cort Rosen and their partners, Joe Thomas Jr. and the Bowman Excavating team of
Devon and Brent Bowman. They stated they were excited to be there to discuss some of
the same issues previously discussed. They think there is a great opportunity to create
another single-family community in the Mill Lane area where there are already single-
family detached homes. Everybody knows the property as the Dorsey Farm and the
Dorseys are an important part of the history of the farm that goes back many years.
Fortunately, Jeff Dorsey is here tonight, and they appreciate him being here. The
attendees might wonder where the name Stilton Mill came from. Mr. Rosen found in the
land records the name Langhorn actually came from Mr. Langhorn, who was a landowner
and one of his companies was called the Stilton Land Company. We want to honor the
history of the property and thought it was appropriate to call it Stilton Mill to recognize Mill
Lane. Mr. Boone commits to the Commission that this will be a well-done community. It
will be a credit to Salem. Mr. Boone believes that their reputation in the community speaks
for itself. They have worked very hard to make sure that they have outstanding
Page 51 of 204
communities. They take good care of their customers. They build nice homes and make
sure they have nice monument signs. They want to create community identity. They are
going to have landscaping. He stated that this will be a well-done community. This will
not be a one-size-fits-all housing project. Mr. Boone stated that, having heard everything
previously discussed, there is a market for the 2 stories and there is a market for the 1
and 1.5 stories. They know that and their market data shows that. They know that there
is such a demand. He addressed the planning commissioners on how difficult it is to
develop and grow when landlocked. He stated that the City of Salem, unfortunately, is
landlocked. With the small amount of land that is left, they have to make efficient
determinations of the uses. It is important to be efficient, but Salem has to have housing
because the area cannot grow if people do not have a place to live. That is what it comes
down to. We have requested a rezoning from the Agricultural Single Family and regular
Agricultural to Residential Single Family with the much-discussed cluster housing overlay
from the last one. This is very timely because the RSF designation is in the future land
use designation of the comprehensive plan. He believes they are good there. The cluster
housing ordinance or overlay is smaller lots, but there is more open space. Mr. Boone
stated they have exceeded the minimum amount of open space, not by a lot, 2.8 acres is
the minimum and they are at 3.1, but we maximized it as they could. If recommended by
this Commission and approved by the City Council, Stilton Mill will have 70 brand-new
high-quality homes. They will have different homes to meet different market niches. They
are going to have 2-story homes we think, as Mr. McCahill and Ms. Phillips, there is a
market for that, no question about it. There is also a market for the 1 and 1.5 story homes
and their lots actually work out very well. The topography of this land works very well for
that type of product. They are going to have basement lots and slab lots. They are not
going to try to force basements on slabs or force slabs on basements. They are going to
work with the topography that is there. It is a beautiful piece of land, and it is conducive
to what they are trying to do. As mentioned, they have worked with Engineer, Chris Burns,
many times on landscaping and the open space. As the Fralin team stated, housing costs
are so high, everyone in here knows, especially Mr. Henrickson, that costs are up 45%
since 2020. It was interesting when he first read the Salem Zoning Ordinance years ago,
he was talking to Mr. Burns on the phone and he read that there was a 75’ lot. He thought
that it was tough to achieve and then talked about the cluster, which is at 40’. They are
asking for, as he spoke to Mr. Henrickson about, for a 51’ lot under the cluster housing
overlay. They do not want to go to the minimum. They think 51’ allows flexibility to build
the empty nester homes on 1 and 1.5 stories or it allows for the 2-story home. They are
looking at probably a 40’ wide house regardless of whether it is a main floor, primary
bedroom suite or a second-floor primary bedroom suite. He stated that the 75’ lot today
is just not viable. People sometimes say that developers are trying to be greedy.
Obviously, they have to make some money to continue on in the business and there is a
tremendous amount of risk in this business. Doing a 75’ lot is not a viable business model
unfortunately anymore. One of the things that they are trying to do is to create. He says
it is embarrassing to talk about affordable housing because there is no affordable housing.
There is especially no new affordable housing, but they are trying to build less expensive
housing, and their company certainly has built more expensive. We are working to try to
help with that and a smaller lot definitely helps. They believe that they can bring houses
into this community and that is their goal, to begin in the mid-to-high $400,000 range and
Page 52 of 204
probably go into the $500,000 range. As Mr. Henrickson knows, the average new house
in the U.S. last year was $450,000. Their goal is to have a high-quality house. They are
not going to have customer complaints. They are not going to have the BBB out there.
They are not going to have that in their community. We will be proud of this community.
He makes that commitment. Mr. Boone introduced his colleague, Mr. Rosen, who is going
to address some of the traffic issues and storm water management that attendees would
be interested in hearing. Mr. Boone appreciated the opportunity, looked forward to any
rebuttal and to answering any questions.
Mr. Cort Rosen of 255 Cassell Lane, Roanoke, Virginia addressed the Commission about
Stilton Mill. They are excited to propose this new community in Salem to provide high
quality housing options. Alexander Boone has provided the vision for Stilton Mill, what
they believe to be its conformance with the comprehensive plan and the land use, and
their goal to offer a community that provides multiple housing options rather than the same
house built over and over again. Their desire to create a neighborhood within Salem
affords people the opportunity to live in high-quality, well-built homes in a well-designed
neighborhood. He wanted to briefly share a few technical items that hopefully will address
questions. The ingress/egress to the proposed Stilton Mill community is aligned with
Millwood Drive, directly across from Mill Lane. This new entrance is done intentionally for
multiple reasons. First, aligning roads directly across from one another creates a safer
ingress/egress and reduces potential conflict between vehicles. Secondly, doing this
prevents headlights from inadvertently going into a neighbor’s windows. Thirdly, it creates
road connectivity that, when building new roads, you want to create a road network that
makes sense and is logical. Their Engineer, Chris Burns, conducted an exhaustive turn-
lane study and determined that there are no warrants for turn lanes going in or out of the
community. He believed that the Commission was provided with the turn-lane study. As
noted on the concept plan, there is an empty lot that is in between two existing homes
that front Penley Blvd. The Planning and Transportation Departments have suggested
that there is no need for a street connection here. Their plan has been, following
comments from the Planning Commission and their visit with City Council, to approach
the owners of the existing homes on either side and offer to divide and deed that property
to them at no cost. Fourthly and more importantly, as has been brought up a few times,
the driveways of Lots 1-3 and 65-70, which are the lots that front Mill Lane, will include
turnaround areas so that residents will not be forced to back out onto Mill Lane, but will
be able to leave and egress onto Mill Lane driving forward. This will create a safer egress
point for them and reduce backing onto Mill Lane. They do ask for a positive
recommendation to City Council, and he is happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Henrickson asked about the one lot that faces Penley and the turn around.
He asked how are they going to address that as part of this proposal.
Mr. Rosen responded that they could talk about how they could address it. He believes
both him and Mr. Boone have track records where, if they present something publicly,
they do what they say, but if there is another way the Planning Commission would want
them to address that, they could certainly explore it. They intend to do it. They did not
offer any proffers but are happy to talk about that. It was not something they offered
initially.
Page 53 of 204
Mr. Guynn asked that what he had said was not a proffer.
Mr. Rosen stated that it has not been proffered, but they would be happy to talk about
proffering it. Their commitment is to go to those homeowners and offer them each half of
the lot and deed it over at no cost. As for the turnarounds, Mr. Burns has done work from
an engineering perspective to make sure that fits after discussion with several Planning
Commission members. They are committed to doing that. Again, they can talk about
proffers and are happy to proffer the turnaround and the driveways. They are committing
publicly, that is what they will do.
Mr. Guynn stated that they would like a notice of proffers.
Mr. Rosen stated that they always do what they say so however it needs to be addressed,
they are happy to do it.
Commissioner Henrickson asked if this is the site plan that they are putting forth. Not
doubting that the applicant was not going to do what he says he is going to do. If this gets
rezoned, the opportunity to then say we want to do it this way now.
Mr. Rosen stated that it would not be more than 70 lots because that is what is shown on
the plan. There are issues that he cannot answer right now that he does not know if Mr.
Burns could answer, like the storm water management area which he would note is not
considered as part of the open space. He doesn’t know the exact sizing of the storm
water pond yet. It would be hard. The storm water facility may shrink a little and the open
space may expand, for example. He would say that he will more than substantially
conform with this, but until Mr. Burns gets into the geometry of roads, it would be hard to
say precisely where the line would be.
Commissioner Beamer asked about the turnaround and what Mr. Rosen was talking about
on what he would call a “T”.
Mr. Rosen responded yes.
Commissioner Routt asked if even on the narrow lots, they could do that.
Mr. Rosen responded yes.
Commissioner Beamer asked about the open space and whether they were going to take
care of that or an HOA.
Mr. Rosen responded that an HOA would take care of that, and they planned to put parks
on the property. Again, they have to figure out from a topography rating perspective but
plan to put amenities within the open space, potentially a walking trail and all the stuff they
have to work on with Mr. Burns and his team.
Chair King asked if there was anyone else to speak on this matter.
Mr. John Breen of 142 Bogey Lane addressed the Commission and stated that he has to
say that ABoone is so much better than the prior developer. He has seen those
developments, and they do credit to the land most of the time. That said, he has a couple
questions that he wonders if the developer would be willing to answer. Mr. Breen
understands the desire to have multiple types of housing on these lots and that can be a
Page 54 of 204
good thing. He questioned if there are any limits to the spacing between the different
styles. He has seen developments where this is talked about and then suddenly what we
have is four of this in a row and then 5 of that in a row. Really, the desirability of differing
styles gets defeated. He is wondering if there is some kind of implied limit so that we do
not get style by style by style all in a box. Mr. Breen inquired about 51 being a narrow lot
and wondered if there could be a comment as to how that works out with the space
between each unit. He knows with Fralin, there isn’t a lot of space, and we had 55’ lots
there. He was not sure exactly if there is going to be a waiver of size setbacks or are they
such that the buildings are going to be where he can stretch his arms out and touch wall
to wall.
Commissioner Henrickson responded to answer the second question first, on the plan, it
is 5’ side yard setbacks.
Chair King stated that it meets the code.
Commissioner Routt stated that it is 5’ from the property line and the other house would
be 5’ as well.
Chair King asked if someone wished to speak on the first question about the design for
the integration of patio and single family.
Mr. Boone answered that they do have guidelines where they do not build the same exact
elevation of a house right next to each other. They do not build them across the street
from each other. Topography has a lot to say about what gets built. What they try to do,
what they want to have is a 1 story or a 1.5 story next to a 2 story when it works because
it ends up having families next to empty nesters or married with no kids and build a real
community. They have talked with people in some of their communities, if they look at
them and they are mixed up, they have all of the types of houses mixed in and some of
the empty nesters joke with him and say they are glad they did that. They tell him that all
of the other builders want to put us old people all by ourselves and not with everybody
else. They want to be with all the other communities. They want to hear the kids. The
market will dictate what homes are next to each other, other than the topography. He
thinks that where they have some of the slab lots, there will be more empty nester housing
there and then the basement lots are to be more of the 2 stories. They are not going to
see five of the same houses together like in other communities. That is not going to
happen.
Vice-Chair Garst asked if that was by the standard of his developments in the past.
Mr. Boone stated that they do not build the same elevation next door to each other or
across the street where basically you can see it within eye shot. So, they could build the
same plan, but it cannot have the same elevation, it cannot look the same and they will
maintain all architectural control. That is something that they do every day.
Commissioner Routt asked if they planned to build all of the houses.
Mr. Boone stated that at this point they do not know. They are working with NVR Ryan
Homes. They do not have a contract or agreement with them. They have lots of
developments in relationships with them. He has worked with them in thousands of
Page 55 of 204
houses in the Richmond market. It was a chance that his company could build some of
the houses there. Also, there is a builder here, Mr. Steve Poff. He may build some houses
there. It is all based on lots and what the costs end up being. Mr. Boone will be 100%
architectural control. He will be involved in choosing every elevation and every floor plan
that gets built in there, whether it is Mr. Poff, Ryan Homes or ABoone homes. They do
not know yet.
Commissioner Routt asked if they had plans to sell any of the lots individually.
Mr. Boone answered no.
Chair King asked if anyone else was present to speak.
Mr. Jeffrey Dorsey, of 2700 Fletcher Street, Salem addressed the Commission and stated
that he had come to speak on behalf of this rezoning. He is supportive of it. Mr. Dorsey
has two brothers, Charlie and Doug, who could not be here. They have authorized him
to speak on their behalf. His brother Charlie is a resident of a piece of the family farm
that adjoins this property. Doug and Jeff do not live on the property. Moreover, they all
grew up on this property. His grandfather and grandmother bought this property in 1942
and lived there until their deaths. His mother lived there until her death, and he grew up
there from infancy until he left home. They are excited about Mr. Boone’s work and the
proposal and think it fits the property. They think it respects the property. They think it
ties into the broader history of the property. He stated that the family is 100% supportive
of it and asked for the Commission to approve it.
Chair King asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak on this matter.
Mr. Robert Hobbs of 1550 Millwood Drive, Salem addressed the Commission and stated
that he lives just about 8 houses up from the intersection where this is going to occur.
First, he has listened to everything said, but one thing he has not heard about is
infrastructure. He stated that supporting this project, roads, improvements to sewer,
improvements to water, taking up the extra traffic that will be showing up every day. They
are building 70 houses. That is going to 150 extra vehicles per day on average that is
going to be coming in and out of Mill Lane. They already have trouble with the four-way
stop and the low water bridge. If a train gets stopped on the tracks, vehicles will be there
for several hours. He asked if Interstate 81 gets backed up, have they seen what it does
to Riverside Road, Mill Lane and at the low water bridge. This is going to triple that. He
stated he has not seen anything about new roads or new streets, improving Mill Lane,
improving Riverside. He asked that they show him, and he wanted to see this. As this
stands right now, there is not near enough information, there is not near enough planning
that this should go through. Mr. Hobbs stated that he strongly opposes this, as many of
his neighbors do. Speaking about making driveways so that they could turnaround, are
they going to do that on Millwood for the residents that have to back out of their driveways
because that is going to get dangerous. People are going to get hurt. People are not
thinking about what they are doing. Progression, improvement and growth are important
to everyone, and we have to have it, but we must be smart about it. This is not common
sense. This is not what we need to do in Salem. Salem is not that.
Chair King asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak on this matter.
Page 56 of 204
Ms. Donna Shell of 1471 Penley Blvd. addressed the Commission and stated that she is
that neighbor. She would like half a lot as proposed by Mr. Boone. Her question is similar
about traffic too. Her road, Penley Blvd., is a cut-through road and she can see people
pulling out and instead of going down to River Road, they are going to turn on to Penley.
It is a small road. People are speeding through there. She never sees traffic police
through there. That was not why she came to speak. Her main question is about this
land. Her home backs up to this land. Right now, it is all wooded. She would like to know
if all of that is coming down. She asked if there was going to be green space or trees
between her property and the new property.
Mr. Chris Burns of 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke addressed the Commission. Mr.
Burns addressed traffic. He stated that he also lives in this area. He lives in Roanoke
County but is in the Russlen Farms development and is familiar with Riverside Drive and
Mill Lane. He is not concerned about the amount of traffic that is going to come from this
development. There are 15,000 cars per day that come through the four-way stop. This
is going to add less than 5% to that. Being someone who drives through there every day,
he does not think it is going to change anything. Mentioning the driveways, he does think
that is a legitimate concern. He does think that it is important that they have people pulling
out onto Mill Lane rather than backing into it. He also added regarding the comment about
Interstate 81 traffic, that is clearly a problem right now, particularly with the construction
that is going on. He does think that as that work is completed and there are three lanes
available in each direction on I-81, that issue is going to almost go away. He stated that
if there is an accident on I-81 after that project is complete, two lanes will be available
most of the time. When people are cutting through Salem, it is because it is down to one
lane or even worse. As far as infrastructure, as far as utilities, there is an 8’ water line and
an 8’ sewer line in Mill Lane. Those are typical utilities to serve something like this. He
stated that he believes every zoning request goes through the Water and Sewer
Department for review and they have not heard any concerns as far as utility
infrastructure. He would be happy to address any other questions that he did not cover.
Commissioner Henrickson asked if he could address Ms. Shell’s concern where the lots
back up to her property. He asked if there was going to be a fence or any screening of
any kind.
Vice-Chair Garst asked if there are going to be any of the trees left.
Mr. Burns stated that they have not gotten far enough into the planning process to know
exactly where the grading limits will be. Typically, when having residential single-family
development adjacent to other residential single-family development, there is not a
requirement as far as the zoning ordinance is concerned, for a buffer. He would have to
defer to the developer to offer something like that.
Vice-Chair Garst asked about the statement that Mr. Burns made about 15,000 cars going
through Mill Lane and Riverside Drive intersection.
Mr. Burns stated that it is according to the VDOT traffic data. There is daily traffic of 8,000
he thinks on Mill Lane and 7,000 on Riverside Drive.
Vice-Chair Garst stated that certainly, this will increase as a percentage.
Page 57 of 204
Mr. Burns explained, for comparison, a development like this is 700 vehicles per day or
roughly 10 per house and that is spread throughout the day, so they also look at peak
hour traffic when everyone is going to work and school in the mornings or when everyone
is coming home in the evenings. Those percentages are similar in the peak hours, around
4% to 5%, and that is what they are anticipating.
Mr. Boone stated that as far as the question about houses that back up to each other, it
is difficult to answer that not having looked at the topography and the grading of what it is
going to be. He will say that these are very deep lots, and these houses are not going to
be backing up right up to each other. They are deep lots and, if we looked at the plans,
they could tell how deep they are, so there is a lot of distance between the houses. The
homes on Penley Blvd. also have deep backyards so there is going to be separation. We
will plant some trees but until they get in and know exactly what it is going to be, as Mr.
Burns said, it is because the zoning and subdivision ordinances do not require it when
you have residential backing up to like kind residential. They will look at that because that
helps their community as well to have some buffer. Hopefully, they will be able to keep
some of the trees in there, it just depends on where the grading is and, as Mr. Burns said,
what the limits of disturbance would be. They will plant trees in the backyard, but do not
know what they will be. He affirms and represents that they will do that.
Ms. Megan Lucado of 5100 Millwood Drive addressed the Commission. She lives on the
corner lot of Millwood Drive and Mill Lane. A lot of the same issues that everyone has
addressed are a lot of her concerns. She does have questions about the traffic studies
that were done. She knows the one that was done directly in front of her house was just
for 2 different days for partial times of the day and neither of those were done when there
has been an I-81 backup or during the time when kids are being dropped off at South
Salem Elementary School. There are often backups all the way to her house on Mill Lane.
She has concern with Millwood Drive being extended directly across. She stated that
there are going to often come times when there is a cluster, and people cannot get in or
out. She questioned if there had been any thought toward another four-way stop on
Millwood Drive and Mill Lane to help alleviate some of the traffic. Also, just to mention the
trees, when they bought her house 15 years ago, they really enjoyed having a farm across
from them. She is not naïve; she knows that there is going to be development there but
is there going to be any kind of trees left at all or is everything going to be wiped out and
is there just going to be tons of tiny homes right on top of each other. From the plan that
they put out, there are going to be 3 homes looking directly into her backyard. She cannot
fathom that being enough space for 3 houses to look directly in her backyard.
Ms. Lisa Miller of 1890 Oak Drive. She urged the Commission to vote yes on this. It is a
tale of two developers here tonight. She stated that she has a great developer behind
her. As a realtor, knowing and reselling their homes versus some other people’s homes,
she has clients that will not even look at other people's homes. They are building what is
needed here in Salem, which is the smaller homes for retirees. They have reverse
engineered what we need. She is not sure who is asking for a great big home or a larger
home on a tiny lot. If you are building a home for families, they have dogs and kids and
they want yards. She is glad the Commission voted against that tonight. Typically, in the
past, builders used model homes. She assumes that they will possibly be doing that
again. The variety is nice. She recently sold a 1.5 story home where the people who
Page 58 of 204
bought it were thrilled to have 2 story homes and families next to them because it was that
sense of community. Right now, we have the opportunity, somebody is going to build,
somebody is going to develop that land. It would have been nice if the strip down below
that was recently rezoned as industrial, would have been a great PUD where we could
have had townhomes and some places to go on that side of the tracks versus heading
across. Maybe that can be addressed later. Right now, they are proposing to build a true
neighborhood, and she cannot wait to sell their houses. She has clients right now that
want to stay in Salem, but they want a small single-level house with walking paths and
green spaces. The only concern she would have agreed with the people on Mill Lane is
those driveways are a little hairy, so if they could figure out perhaps a back alley or some
other way to do that. The “T” turnarounds are great. She thinks Salem should be happy
they have chosen to develop this land instead of letting somebody else do it.
Mr. Paul Hicks of 1520 Penley Blvd. addressed the Commission. He lives right across
the street from where the road is going to come out. He has been living on Penley Blvd.
for 48 years. He has 1.9 acres of land. He is kind of glad they are moving the road, but
he is really concerned. When they had the meeting on the first house that they built in
front of him, 6 houses, a person on the Planning Commission at that time that he knew
very well but he did not mention by name, he kind of promised him when they finished
that they would curb and gutter Penley Blvd. the same as it is going over the hill. The
road is too narrow for some traffic, school buses and things that come in front of his house.
There is a lot of traffic but that is not his main concern. His main concern, he has built
houses here in Salem. He built about 35 when he was able to, but he is way past building
now. He built 2 houses on Mill Lane that joins Penley Blvd., and he had to put in curb and
gutter on that side of the road on Penley Blvd. He did part of it himself. He built 3 homes
on Franklin Street and had to curb and gutter that. Every house that he built did not have
it and most of them he had to do it. He thinks that Penley Blvd. has got to be finished.
That is his main concern. The traffic today at 5 o’clock was terrible. It is almost back to
the railroad tracks right now. River Road in both directions, people getting off work, it is
one of the worst roads in Salem. That is another concern that he has. Also, the buffer
that was talked about. He has cypress trees between his house and the house next door.
He did have pine trees but had all of them cut down. It cost him $5,000 to get all of them
cut down because it was not suitable when the wind comes and blows them over. If they
plant cypress trees, they stay there forever. He would like to see cypress trees over there.
Plant them 10’ apart and they grow together, and it will make that look good.
Mr. C. E. Cumbe of 1510 Millwood Drive addressed the Commission. He has lived there
since 1987 and has really seen the traffic increase. His question is the concern with the
traffic on Mill Lane and the curve going up towards South Salem Elementary School.
Every time he pulls out, he guns his vehicle and hopes that no one is coming around the
curve. About 80% of the time when he does pull out, somebody comes up the hill from
River Road. In the 90s, people in Woodbridge complained so much about the traffic that
the City of Salem came up with the design for a new proposed bridge. They found out
that it was going to be down about where Bojangles is, it would come out at the main
entrance of Woodbridge, and Millwood and Millstream would become the main
thoroughfare. This room was filled by people from Woodbridge, and he had not heard
another word about that bridge. They build all of these houses; traffic is going to increase.
Page 59 of 204
Those people are going to complain, all Russlen Farms and Woodbridge are going to
complain about it. He asked if the City of Salem is planning on building that bridge and,
if so, he hopes that it is not going to be where the Bojangles is, aligning with the main
entrance to Woodbridge because he does not want to live on a throughfare. He moved
there in 1987 because it was a subdivision, and he does not want it to become a main
road.
Ms. Stella Reinhardt of 213 North Broad Street addressed the Commission. Looking at
the map on her phone, she wanted to ask about one of the big issues of the crossroads
at Mill Lane and Riverside Drive. Riverside Drive has no shoulder. It is winding and curvy,
and it comes out into West Main Street, which is not an easy drive either on its own. She
asked if one of the issues with building houses on country roads is all the driveways and
how they take their lives in their hands just getting out of their houses. She asked if she
understood correctly that each of those house lots that looked like they open onto Mill
Lane would come onto Mill Lane.
Vice-Chair Garst answered 9.
Ms. Reinhardt asked if it is 70 houses, why not take part of 2 of those lots right at the
division of the Y and the ones horizontal to Mill Lane and, having a number of houses, 6
on one side and 3 on the other side, that would be 9 additional driveways on Mill Lane.
That is going to be crazy with 70 new houses and all of the additional building that is going
on in Salem. She is wondering why they could not sacrifice at least part of those 2
horizontal lots right at the division of the Y road and have those houses face new drives
there and the back of the houses are to Mill Lane. They could even have a berm with
trees. The trees she keeps hearing about. She asked if we could save some of those
mature trees. If some of the lots are deep, with the climate the way it has been the last
few summers, if it is far away from the houses. They might be able to save some of those
trees as a buffer, help for the climate, and screening for the people that are going to all of
a sudden have tons of company. The other thing too, this is going to bring a lot of traffic
onto Mill Lane, Riverside Drive and the bridge. She asked if they were thinking about
traffic circles, maybe at the main entrance. She stated that the roads are narrow enough
that we could actually drive a narrow traffic circle and not have multiple lanes. That might
be helpful.
Chair King closed the public meeting at 8:39 pm. Chair King asked Staff to correct her if
she is incorrect in the statement that she fully appreciates, as do the other Commissioners,
concerns about traffic. Unfortunately, the Commission cannot hold the developer
responsible for the four-way stop, the low-water bridge or the accidents on I-81 anymore
than they can hold any one of them responsible for those issues. She wants to make sure
that everybody understands. She happens to live one block from Main Street and, if there
is an accident on I-81, she knows about it. That is not an everyday situation.
Chair King asked for comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Henrickson asked if he could take that a little further. Being a former
developer, it seems like every time a new subdivision comes up, traffic is always the main
issue. He knows that in their work session that they had earlier, they talked extensively
with Staff on what plans have been talked about to help the River Road/Mill Lane
Page 60 of 204
intersection and what else has been talked about to try to alleviate some of the traffic, but
like was said, that is a City issue and needs to be addressed. He knows that Staff is
working to figure out something there, but that is not the developer’s issue at this point.
Commissioner Beamer asked Chair King, talking about infrastructure, that she has reports
on the police and school system.
Chair King stated that she fully understands that sometimes our citizens do not understand
the type of research that the Planning Commission does. She has statements from both
the Police Chief and School Superintendent because those things do concern them. The
School Superintendent has made it quite clear that Salem is nowhere near capacity
because the Commission was concerned about putting 70 lots in here with the potential
for children at South Salem Elementary School, Andrew Lewis and Salem High School,
all of which he says has more than enough capacity to take everyone. The Police Chief
says that there is a situation with speeding on Mill Lane, however, his comment was that
when we put in residential areas where there has been nothing but vacant land, it provides
a visual area that causes people to slow down. His concern was about the driveways
coming onto Mill Lane, as was the concern of all five of the Commissioners. They were
pleased to have an opportunity to view the property at different times with Mr. Boone and
Mr. Rosen and they heard us. As we heard tonight, what they plan to do is to put those
“T” driveways in so that no one is backing out onto Mill Lane. Having said that, neither
they nor the Commission can tell you what a person is going to do on any given day.
Obviously, the purpose of those driveways is to keep people from backing out onto Mill
Lane. Chair King also commented on the issue that anything coming before the Planning
Commission is always advertised in the Salem Times Register. That is the method that
is required by State Law and, if they every have any questions about what might be
coming up on the Planning Commission’s Agenda, please do not hesitate to contact the
Staff or any one of the Commissioners. It is on the City of Salem website and is not a
secret. It is not anything that is done under the table. It is all publicized.
Chair King asked if there were any other comments from the Commissioners tonight. The
public meeting ended at 8:44 PM.
F. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Consider the request of ABoone Real Estate, Inc., contact purchaser, to rezone
the properties located at 1906 Mill Ln. & 1400 blk Penley Blvd. (T/M#s 205-2-5
& 204-13- 1) from RSF/AG Residential Single Family/Agriculture Districts & AG
Agriculture Districts to RSF Residential Single-Family District.
Chair King asked if there was a motion on this request. Commissioner Henrickson made
a motion to approve with conditions. Chair King stated that the conditions will be put on
the Special Exception Permit request.
Mr. Garst suggested that Mr. Boone proffer driveways designed to allow for turnaround
so that they have a little flexibility whether it is a “T” or a loop.
Mr. Boone stated that they do not really care what it looks like. They want them to look
Page 61 of 204
good, they do not want too much asphalt but as far as the actual configuration is
concerned, they are fine. He deferred to Mr. Burns on what it is, maybe 5’ or 6’.
Mr. Burns stated that he thinks Mr. Garst is saying do not put the term “T” turnaround into
the proffer. We need to word it in a way that allows the room to make a turnaround.
Commissioner Henrickson asked about approval with the number of lots.
Mr. Boone stated that they will proffer no more than 70 lots. Mr. Boone stated that they
had talked about storm water management, but this is what they want.
Mr. Burns stated that they stay away from substantial conformance just because they
have not gotten far enough with the design. He stated he thinks they are fine to proffer
maximum number of lots. He thinks they can even proffer a frontage requirement if that
helps.
Mr. Boone stated that he would be glad to proffer 51’ on the width of the lots.
Mr. Burns stated that he just did not know where storm water management was going to
go.
Mr. Boone stated maximum would be 70 lots and the lots will be no smaller than 51’ wide.
They could be larger.
Commissioner Henrickson made a motion to approve with the proffer. Commissioner
Routt seconded the motion.
Upon a roll call vote, the same stood as follows:
Mr. Routt – Aye
Mr. Henrickson – Aye
Mr. Beamer – Aye
Mr. Garst – Aye
Chair King – Aye
This was a unanimous decision to approve the request with a 5-0 vote. The request will
now go to City Council. They will be notified once that has been placed on the Agenda
for the City Council.
G. Special Exception Permit
Consider the request of ABoone Real Estate, Inc., contact purchaser, for a
Special Exception Permit to include the properties located at 1906 Mill Ln. &
1400 blk Penley Blvd. (T/M#s 205-2-5 & 204-13-1) in the Cluster Housing
Overlay District.
Chair King stated they will do the same conditions because those are conditions that the
Page 62 of 204
Commission can put on.
Mr. Rosen asked if the Commission would be able to put those conditions on and they do
not need to.
Chair King stated that is correct because it is a special exception permit.
Commissioner Henrickson made a motion to approve with conditions. Mr.
seconded the motion.
Upon a roll call vote, the same stood as follows:
Mr. Routt – Aye
Mr. Henrickson – Aye
Mr. Beamer – Aye
Mr. Garst – Aye
Chair King – Aye
This was a unanimous decision to approve the request with a 5-0 vote. The request will
now go to City Council. They will be notified once that has been placed on the Agenda
for the City Council.
5. Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair King adjourned the meeting at 8:49 PM.
Page 63 of 204
Page 64 of 204
Page 65 of 204
Page 66 of 204
Page 67 of 204
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2381-2383 ROANOKE
BOULEVARD (TAX MAP # 225-2-6.1) FROM HBD HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT
WITH CONDITIONS TO HBD HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the Clipp Family Trust or assigns, owner or contract purchaser heretofore
petitioned to rezone property located at 2381-2383 Roanoke Boulevard (Tax Map # 225-2-6.1)
from HBD Highway Business District with conditions to HBD Highway Business District; and
the map referred to shall be changed in this respect and no other, said property being described as
follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the north right-of-way line of Boulevard Roanoke (85 feet wide) at
the point of intersection with the corporation line of the City of Salem and the City of Roanoke;
thence with the said corporation line N. 04 deg 50' 00" E. 227.41 feet; thence leaving the
aforesaid corporation line and with a new line on a curved to the left with a radius of 1,612.00
feet, a tangent of 103.07 feet, an arc distance of 205.86 feet and a chord S. 64 deg 44' 30" W.
205.72 feet to a point on said new line being the southeast boundary of Block 9, Boulevard
Estates Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 6, page 52 in the Clerk's Office for the Circuit
Court of Roanoke County; thence with the said boundary of Block 9, S. 61 deg 05' 00" W.
156.03 feet to a point on the south boundary line of Lot 5, Block 9, Boulevard Estates; thence
with a new line leaving the aforesaid Block 9, boundary S. 28 deg 55' 00" E. 200.00 feet to a
point on the aforesaid north right-of-way line of Boulevard Roanoke; thence with said right-of-
way line N. 61 deg 05' 00" E. 156.03 feet to a point; thence continuing with the said right-of-way
line on a curved to the right with a radius of 1,412 feet, a tangent of 39.51 feet, an arc distance of
79.00 feet and a chord N. 62 deg 41' 10" E. 78.99 feet to the point of BEGINNING, and being
new Lot lB, containing 1.372 acres as shown 011 plat showing the resubdivision of property of
Fralin and Waldron, Inc. creating New Lots lA and lB, dated April 4, 1990, prepared by
Lumsden & Associates, Engineers-Surveyors-Planners; and
WHEREAS, the subject property consists of a 1.372 acre tract of land which currently
sits within the HBD Highway Business District zoning designation; and
WHEREAS, in 1990, the City Council of the City of Salem rezoned the property from
Business District B-1 to Business District B-3 with conditions; and
WHEREAS, one of the conditions stated that if the building is not used as either a thrift
store, meeting hall, or club the zoning will revert to Business District B-1; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use of the property does not meet the specified restrictions;
and
WHEREAS, the zoning district known as Business District B-3 with conditions no longer
exists and the zoning district HBD Highway Business District with conditions is the closest in
scope and purpose to B-3 Business District with conditions; and
WHEREAS, HBD Highway Business District is closest in scope and purpose to Business
District B-1; and
Page 68 of 204
WHEREAS, the City of Salem Planning Commission recommended approval of the
requested rezoning;
NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that
the zoning designation of the property located at 2381-2383 Roanoke Boulevard (Tax Map #
225-2-6.1) be rezoned to HBD Highway Business District;
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be
and the same are hereby repealed.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its final passage.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
John Saunders -
H. Hunter Holliday –
Byron Randolph Foley –
Anne Marie Green –
Renee F. Turk –
Passed:
Effective:
/s/____ _
Mayor
ATTEST:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Page 69 of 204
Item #: 5.B.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Consider ordinance on second reading for the request of
ABoone Real Estate, Inc., contact purchaser, to rezone the
properties located at 1906 Mill Ln. & 1400 blk Penley Blvd.
(T/M#s 205-2-5 & 204-13-1) from RSF/AG Residential
Single Family/Agriculture Districts & AG Agriculture Districts
to RSF Residential Single Family District. (Approved on first
reading at the April 28, 2025, Council meeting.)
SUBMITTED BY:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Zoning: AG Agriculture and RSF Residential Single Family
Land Use Plan Designation: Residential
Existing Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Residential Subdivision – Cluster Overlay
The subject properties (1906 Mill Lane and 1400 blk Penley Boulevard) together
consist of an approximately 18.66-acre tract of land which currently sits within the AG
Agriculture and RSF Residential Single Family zoning designations. The properties
are currently vacant, but the applicant is requesting to both rezone the entirety of each
property to RSF Residential Single Family and acquire a Special Exception Permit for
the Cluster Housing Overlay District which reduces the minimum lot requirements for
each individual parcel.
The property owners have voluntarily submitted three proffers for the rezoning request
that have been incorporated in the attached ordinance:
1. The development shall not exceed 70 single-family residential homes.
2. Lots that have driveway access directly to Mill Lane shall include a driveway
turnaround so that residents are not forced to back onto Mill Lane.
3. Minimum lot frontage shall be 51 feet. Lots that front on the arc of the cul-de-
sac shall be allowed to reduce frontage to a minimum of 40 feet provided that
Page 70 of 204
the lot width at the front building setback is not less than 51 feet.
According to a litany of sources, including the American Planning Association, the
United States is experiencing a housing crisis. Of course, the severity and nature of
that issue is unique to each individual municipality, but Salem is not immune to
availability and affordability challenges experienced nationwide. One of the most
straightforward methods to addressing the housing shortage issue is simply increasing
the supply of homes, an objective accomplished in landlocked areas by maximizing
infill development opportunities. The concept plan for this project shows approximately
70 parcels on which a variety of detached single family home archetypes could be
situated. The application includes a Turn Lane Analysis, supported by the City of
Salem Engineering Department, which concluded that the proposed development
does not warrant any tapers or turn lanes on Mill Lane.
While Salem’s Comprehensive Planning effort is still ongoing, countless community
engagement conversations have included citizen desires for additional housing
affordability, diversity, and availability. High-quality, infill projects that accommodate
the construction of smaller homes on smaller lots were described as desirable
throughout the process. This project, while not necessarily targeted to directly
increase the supply of “workforce housing,” can expand the variety of options available
to both existing and prospective residents, enhance common open space availability,
and ultimately assist with the facilitation of a healthier housing portfolio for Salem.
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as Residential which is
consistent with the proposed future utilization of the property.
REQUIREMENTS:
The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-222.3., site development
regulations for the Cluster Housing Overlay (COL).
FISCAL IMPACT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend consideration of the ordinance, which includes the proffers voluntarily
offered by the property owners, on second reading. The request is consistent with the
Future Land Use Map and embodies planning concepts described in the
Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Steelton Mill Rezoning Application
2. Item 6D. 6E. 6F 4-28-25 Council meeting owner notification letter 1906 Mill Lane
and 1400 Blk Penley Blvd. Tax Map 205-2-5 and 204-13-1
3. Item 5B 5-12-25 Dorsey Proffer Statement
Page 71 of 204
4. Item 5B 5-12-25 Rezoning Ordinance 1906 Mill Lane with Legal Description with
proffers for second reading (002)_RL3
Page 72 of 204
1
City of Salem
Rezoning Application
Pre-application Meeting (optional)
• Meetings with the Community Development Staff are recommended prior to submittal of a
rezoning application. Please bring a plat to the meeting with a sketch of your proposal.
Application Submittal
• The application deadline is the first of the month for inclusion on the following month’s agenda. If
the first falls on a weekend or holiday, the application deadline will be the following business day.
• When submitting an application be sure to include the following: a complete application, plat of the
subject property, legal description that includes metes and bounds, and supplementary information
to support the request (such as conceptual plans and building elevations). Please note: incomplete
applications will not be accepted and will be returned to the applicant.
• The application fee is due at time of submittal. (See Page 4)
• PLEASE NOTE: As per 106-520(C) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance no application shall be
accepted for a lot or parcel that does not comply with the minimum lot area, width, or frontage
requirements of the requested zoning district. A variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals must
be obtained prior to the submission of a rezoning application.
Application Distribution for City Review
• Complete applications may be routed to City departments for review.
Staff/Applicant Meeting
• The staff may contact the applicant to schedule a meeting to discuss comments provided by
reviewing agencies, to request additional information or plan revisions, and to negotiate proffers.
Planning Commission
• Revised conceptual plans and draft proffers must be submitted prior to the Planning Commission
meeting. Proffers and conceptual plans may be revised in accordance with Staff’s
recommendations, and revisions incorporating the staff’s recommendations must be submitted
prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
• A staff report and recommendation is included in the Planning Commission packet. The packet is
distributed approximately 1 week prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
• The Planning Commission meets on the 1st Wednesday after the 1st City Council meeting of the
month.
• Following a public hearing on the rezoning case, the Planning Commission may recommend
approval, approval with revisions to the proffers, denial, or deferral of the application.
City Council
• Signed and notarized final proffers must be submitted prior to the City Council meeting.
• A staff report containing the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Staff is sent to the
City Council prior to the meeting.
• The City Council typically hears rezoning cases on the 4th Monday of every month. Cases are
usually heard by Council at the meeting following the Planning Commission meeting.
• Following a public hearing on the case, the City Council may vote to approve, approve with
proffered conditions, deny, defer the application to another meeting, or remand the application
back to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
Page 73 of 204
2
TO THE APPLICANT:
It is the policy of the City of Salem City Council, the City of Salem Planning Commission, and City of
Salem Board of Zoning Appeals to require a property to be posted when a zoning action is being
considered. Such a posting notifies the general public of an impending action and the location being
considered.
It is incumbent on you, the applicant, to e nsure the sign is in the proper location and remains there until
an action has taken place. Consequently, the procedure for posting is as follows:
1.The Community Development Staff will post the sign on your property.
2.You should check the location of the sign to make certain it is in the right place on your
property. If it is not, notify the Community Development Office as soon as possible.
3.You should check periodically to ensure the safety of the sign. If it is stolen or otherwise
harmed, notify the Community Development Office as soon as possible.
In submitting this rezoning application, you hereby grant permission to the agents and employees of the City
of Salem to enter the referenced property for the purposes of processing and reviewing the above
application.
Should you have any questions regarding this policy, please contact a member of Community Development.
ATTACHMENTS - For ALL REQUESTS you must submit the following electronically:
A fully completed signed application.
Acknowledgement of Application Fee Payment Procedure (Page 4)
Signed Proffer Statement if applicable (Pages 6 & 7)
A plat of the subject property, which accurately reflects the current property boundaries, is drawn to
scale, and shows existing structures. (Typically, available from the City Clerk’s Office.)
Responses to questions on Page 5
Historic Impact Information (if any)
For applications requiring plans, please submit electronically only. No hard copies will be
accepted.
Check here if the conceptual plan will serve as the preliminary plat.
NOTE: Elevations will be required with new development.
Page 74 of 204
Page 75 of 204
Page 76 of 204
Page 77 of 204
5
PLEASE RESPOND FOR ALL REZONING APPLICATIONS:
1. What is the Future Land Use Designation for the subject property? _______________________________________
2. Describe in detail the proposed use of the property. _________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. List any sensitive environmental or unique features on the property. Are there any high voltage transmission lines,
public utility lines, or others? ________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Is the subject property located within the Floodplain District? YES NO If yes, describe the proposed
measures for meeting the standards of the Floodplain Ordinance. ____________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Is the subject property listed as a historic structure or located within a historic district? YES NO
If yes, describe the proposed measures for meeting the standards of the Department of Historic Resources.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Have you provided a conceptual plan of the proposed development, including general lot configurations and road
locations? Are the proposed lot sizes compatible with existing parcel sizes in the area?
PLEASE RESPOND FOR COMMERCIAL REZONING APPLICATIONS
1. What provisions will be made to ensure safe and adequate access to the subject property?
2. How will the traffic impact of this development be addressed?
3. Describe why the proposed use is desirable and appropriate for the area. What measure will be taken to assure that
the proposed use will not have a negative impact on the surrounding vicinity?
4. What type of signage is proposed for the site?
5. Have architectural/building elevations been submitted with this application?
Page 78 of 204
MILL
W
O
O
D
D
R
KENSINGTON DR
M
I
L
L
L
N
M
I
L
L
L
N
PENLEY BLVD PENLEY BLVD
LOT 1
LOT 6
LOT 5
LOT 4
LOT 3
LOT 2
LOT 7
LOT 8 LOT 9
LOT 13 LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 16
LOT 17 LOT 18
LOT 22LOT 23LOT 24LOT 25LOT 26LOT 27
LOT 46
LOT 47
LOT 48
LOT 49
LOT 50
LOT 51LOT 52LOT 53LOT 54LOT 55LOT 57LOT 58LOT 59 LOT 56
LOT 45
LOT 29 LOT 28
LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10
LOT 21
LOT 19
LOT 20
LOT 30LOT 31LOT 32
LOT 33
LOT 34
LOT 35
LOT 36 LOT 37 LOT 38 LOT 39 LOT 40 LOT 41 LOT 42 LOT 43 LOT 44
LOT 60
LOT 61
LOT 65
LOT 66
LOT 67
LOT 68
LOT 69
PROPOSED
SWM LOT
PROPOSED ROAD B
PROPOSED ROAD A
LOT 70
LOT 62
LOT 63
LOT 64
PROPOSED
OPEN SPACE
±3.1 AC.
PROPOSED OPEN SPACE
±3.1 AC.
PROJECT NO.
REVISIONS
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
www.balzer.cc
Roanoke / Richmond
New River Valley
Shenandoah Valley
P L A N N E R S / A R C H I T E C T S
E N G I N E E R S / S U R V E Y O R S
J:
\
2
4
\
0
0
\
0
4
\
0
4
2
4
0
0
9
1
.
0
0
D
O
R
S
E
Y
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
S
F
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
d
w
g
\
0
4
2
4
0
0
9
1
.
0
0
S
t
e
e
l
t
o
n
M
i
l
l
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
B
a
s
e
2
0
2
5
-
0
1
-
2
8
.
d
w
g
P
L
O
T
T
E
D
:
1/
3
1
/
2
0
2
5
1
2
:
3
4
:
4
2
P
M
1208 Corporate Circle
Roanoke, VA 24018
540.772.9580
LDS, KPG
CPB
CPB
1/31/2025
1" = 50'
ST
E
E
L
T
O
N
M
I
L
L
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
P
L
A
N
19
0
6
M
I
L
L
L
A
N
E
SA
L
E
M
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
EX-A
04240091.00
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Page 79 of 204
Project Narrative in Support of Rezoning and Special Exception Permit
Tax Parcel 205-2-5 – 1906 Mill Lane from Agriculture District (AGRSF) to
Residential Single Family (RSF) with Cluster Housing Overlay
and
Tax Parcel 204-13-1 – 1400 Penley Boulevard from Agriculture District (AG) to
Residential Single Family (RSF) with Cluster Housing Overlay
Applicant: ABoone Real Estate, Inc.
Owners: Charles N. Dorsey, Douglas R. Dorsey and Jeffrey L. Dorsey
January 30, 2025
ABoone Real Estate, Inc. (“ABoone”), Jeffrey L. Dorsey, Charles N. Dorsey and Douglas R. Dorsey
(together, the “Dorseys”) request to rezone City of Salem Tax Parcels 205-2-5 and 204-13-1 (the
“Property”), located at 1906 Mill Lane and 1400 Penley Boulevard, more commonly known as the
Dorsey Farm, from AGRSF and AG (“Agriculture District”), respectively, to Residential Single
Family (“RSF”) with Cluster Housing Overlay (“COL”). The RSF designation is in keeping with the
Future Land Use Designation of the Comprehensive Plan for both parcels and complements the
surrounding residential single family detached neighborhoods in the immediate area. The Cluster
Housing Overlay offers a greater amount of open space and creates a more community-oriented
environment with a lower environmental impact.
ABoone proposes to develop the property, which will be called “Steelton Mill,” into a single-family
neighborhood of new homes for all lifestyles, including homes with main floor primary bedroom
suites to provide housing options for Salem residents who need one floor living options. A new
home community for Salem in a convenient location will help address the acute housing shortage
and, at the same time, meet the needs of Salem for newer, high-quality housing for existing residents
while creating an opportunity to encourage others to move to Salem. As with virtually all
communities in the United States, Salem currently suffers from a shortage of all types of housing,
and the addition of this new community will play a role both in helping to reduce this shortage and
meet the increasing demand and need for diverse housing options to attract and, importantly, retain
existing residents who need one floor living options
The Dorsey Farm is an appropriate location for single family homes under the RSF ordinance. Lot
size, layout and overall acreage under the RSF district are compatible with the existing lots in the
surrounding communities. The main entrance to the new Steelton Mill will be aligned with Millwood
Drive, which serves both a safety function as well as a connectivity role in the street network.
In addition to main floor and upstairs bedroom options, the Steelton Mill community will offer
brand-new housing for sale starting in the mid- to upper-$400,000 range with both walkout
Page 80 of 204
basements and slabs. All homes will have garages and off-street parking with setbacks as set forth
under RSF and the Cluster Housing Overlay. The concept plan makes efficient use of the property
and creates a walkable neighborhood with higher density complementary to its surroundings, while
preserving some open space for the enjoyment of residents. Additionally, ABoone shall dedicate the
open space required under the Cluster Housing for the benefit of the Steelton Mill community and
the surrounding neighbors.
The City of Salem needs housing in general but, specifically, new housing. 70% of the City’s housing
stock was built before 1980 and 91% of the housing stock was built before the year 2000. New home
construction in Salem has declined each decade since the 1970s. This decline in new home
construction over the past 50 years has made it increasingly difficult to find housing – especially
housing that does not require significant and, often, financially infeasible remodeling. Economic
development is listed as Objective 1 in the Comprehensive Plan Chapter IV Community Goals,
Objectives and Strategies. The lack of housing is a deterrent to economic growth. Communities
cannot grow if people are not able to find a place to live. Businesses do not expand or relocate
without diverse forms of housing to meet the needs of their workforce. As a result, additional new
housing is critical for communities to be competitive in business attraction and retention.
The Dorsey Farm is perfectly suited for this type of single-family residential development based on
the topography of the property and its direct access to existing Salem utilities. The property adjoins
public streets and is accessible to the Salem street network. The location along Mill Lane is less than
a mile from West Main Street/Route 11, Salem’s commercial corridor that affords residents safe and
easy access to the shopping, schools, churches, dining and transportation of the entire region. The
proposed new community will have a positive impact on the community by providing existing and
new residents with new housing that can attract all lifestyles. These families will remain or become a
part of the fabric of Salem and will contribute socially and economically to the life of the City.
For the reasons described above and more particularly set forth in its Application, ABoone Real
Estate, Inc., Charles N. Dorsey, Douglas R. Dorsey and Jeffrey L. Dorsey respectfully request that
the City of Salem adopt its application for Rezoning to Residential Single Family (RSF) with Cluster
Housing Overlay in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem.
Respectfully submitted this 30th day of January, 2025.
Page 81 of 204
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE REZONED
CONTAINING CITY OF SALEM TAX ID 204-13-1 (TRACT “B” AS SHOWN ON PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 84)
AND TAX ID 205-2-5 (TRACT “A-2-B” AS SHOWN ON INSTRUMENT NO.220003675)
NOTE: THERE IS A 0°10’11” DIFFERENCE IN THE BASIS OF BEARINGS BETWEEN THE PLATS REFERENCED ABOVE. THE
BEARINGS FROM PLAT BOOK 13 PAGE 84 HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED IN THE DESCRIPTION BELOW
TO MATCH INSTRUMENT NO.220003675.
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF MILL LANE, BEING APPROXIMATELY 0.19 MILE SOUTH OF
SHOUTHSIDE DRIVE AND BEING THE COMMON CORNER BETWEEN TAX IDs 205-2-5 AND 179-2-1, SAID POINT
BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THENCE DEPARTING THE EAST LINE OF MILL LANE, ALONG THE LINE OF TAX ID 205-2-5 THE FOLLOWING COURSES
AND DISTANCES: N71°48’54”E 160.24 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N51°23’23’E 50.38 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE
N35°46’20”E 91.53 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S74°37’38”E 427.61 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N59°10’04”E 272.00
FEET TO A POINT, BEING A COMMON CORNER OF TAX ID 205-2-5 AND 204-13-1.
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE LINE OF TAX ID 204-13-1 THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES:
S85°19’11”E 211.52 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S15°58’11”E 487.15 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S86°08’11”E 127.21
FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S03°51’49”W 170.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N86°08’11”W 20.00 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE S03°51’49”W 180.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N86°08’11”W 512.81 FEET TO A POINT; BEING A
COMMON CORNER OF TAX ID 204-13-1 AND 205-2-5.
THENCE CONTINUING WITH THE LINE OF TAX ID 205-2-5 THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES:
N84°18’11”W 126.03 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S05°41’49”W 144.86 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF
PENLEY BOULEVARD, THENCE WITH SAID LINE N84°18’11”W 50.00 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE DEPARTING THE
NORTH LINE OF PENLEY BOULEVARD N05°41’49”E 144.86 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N84°18’11”W 173.81 FEET TO
A POINT; THENCE N04°17’17”E 38.69 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N84°18’11”W 231.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
EAST LINE OF MILL LANE, THENCE WITH SAID LINE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 496.13 FEET, A LENGTH OF 133.41 FEET, AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N14°54’21”W
133.01 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N21°57’32”W 111.41 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 2504.13 FEET, A LENGTH OF 188.63 FEET, AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF
N26°41’55”W 188.59 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE ALONG A REVERSE CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF
8935.17, A LENGTH OF 147.26, AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N28°47’53”W 147.26 FEET TO A POINT,
BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
HAVING A TOTAL AREA OF 812,584.8 SQUARE FEET OR 18.654 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, SITUATE IN THE CITY OF
SALEM, VIRGINIA, THIS DESCRIPTION BEING COMPILED FROM RECORDS.
Page 82 of 204
TURN LANE ANALYSIS
FOR
STEELTON MILL
Mill Lane
City of Salem, Virginia
B&A PROJECT #04240091.00
DATE: January 28, 2025
PLANNERS ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS
1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Phone (540) 772-9580
Page 83 of 204
2
Introduction:
This traffic study is being provided to analyze the projected traffic from a proposed
single-family cluster residential development located on Mill Lane in the City of Salem.
The property consists of Parcel ID’s 205-2-5 and 204-13-1 and totals approximately 18
acres. The proposed development is anticipated to consist of approximately 70 single-
family lots. A concept plan is included with this report as Attachment 1.
The property is currently vacant. The proposed development is expected to include a
full access entrance on Mill Lane that will be located across from Millwood Drive.
Please see the attached concept plan for additional information.
Existing Daily and Peak Hour Traffic:
Existing traffic volumes for Mill Lane was not readily available. Manual traffic counts
were obtained at the intersection of Mill Lane and Millwood Drive. The counts were
performed on January 22, 2025 from 7 am to 9 am and 4 pm to 6 pm to capture the AM
and PM peak hours. The traffic count data is provided at the end of this report as
Attachment 2.
For the intersection of Mill Lane and Millwood Drive, it was determined that the AM peak
hour occurred from 7:00 am – 8:00 am and the PM peak hour occurred from 5:00 pm –
6:00 pm.
It is assumed that the proposed project will be completed by the year 2028. A 2%
background growth factor per year was applied to bring the background traffic to the
buildout year.
Page 84 of 204
3
Existing Peak Hour Traffic Data
Background Peak Hour Traffic Data (w/ growth rate applied)
107 vph
(63 vph)
Millwood Dr.
SITE
KEY
00 vph = AM PH
(00 vph) = PM PH Mill Ln.
155 vph
(123 vph)
124 vph
(251 vph)
114 vph
(67 vph)
Millwood Dr.
SITE
KEY
00 vph = AM PH
(00 vph) = PM PH
Proposed
Entrance
Mill Ln.
164 vph
(131 vph)
132 vph
(266 vph)
Page 85 of 204
4
Proposed Site Generated Traffic:
The trip generation calculations were based on the proposed land use shown on the
concept plan created by Balzer and Associates, Inc. (please see Attachment 1). The
policies and procedures found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, 11th Edition, were employed to determine the potential site
generated traffic volumes for the proposed development. Traffic volumes for the
average weekday and weekday peak hours of the adjacent street traffic are provided
and illustrated in the Table below.
Proposed Trip Generation:
Trip Generation
Land Use AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY
Proposed
Development
ITE
Code
Independent
Variable Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total
Single-Family
Detached Housing
210 70 D.U. 13 41 54 45 26 71 727
Page 86 of 204
5
Turn-Lane Requirements:
Traffic entering the proposed development is expected to follow a similar pattern as
existing traffic entering at Millwood Drive. For the purposes of this analysis, the following
assumptions were made regarding entering and exiting traffic at each entrance:
PM Peak Hour:
- 70% of traffic to/from north
- 30% of traffic to/from south
PM Peak Hour:
- 80% of traffic to/from north
- 20% of traffic to/from south
The analyses to determine turn lane warrants on Mill Lane to serve the proposed
development were completed by following the procedures and methodologies found in
the VDOT Road Design Manual, Volume I, Appendix F.
Right-Turn Lane into Site from Mill Lane
AM Peak Hour Analysis:
- 4 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from Mill Lane
- Approach Volume = 164 VPH + 4 VPH = 168 VPH Mill Lane
- Right Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F:
No Turn Lane or Taper Warranted (please see Attachment 3).
PM Peak Hour Analysis:
- 9 Vehicles per Hour Turning Right into site from Mill Lane
- Approach Volume = 131 VPH + 9 VPH = 140 VPH Mill Lane
- Right Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F:
No Turn Lane or Taper Warranted (please see Attachment 3).
Page 87 of 204
6
Left-Turn Lane into Site from Mill Lane
AM Peak Hour Analysis:
- 9 (6.4%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from Mill Lane
- Advancing Volume = 132 VPH + 9 VPH = 141 VPH Mill Lane
- Opposing Volume = 183 VPH Mill Lane
-- Left Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F:
No Turn Lane or Taper Warranted (please see Attachment 4).
PM Peak Hour Analysis:
- 36 (11.9%) Vehicles per Hour Turning Left into site from Mill Lane
- Advancing Volume = 266 VPH + 36 VPH = 302 VPH Mill Lane
- Opposing Volume = 140 VPH Mill Lane
-- Left Turn Lane Requirement, as per VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F:
No Turn Lane or Taper Warranted (please see Attachment 4).
Page 88 of 204
7
Summary:
Based on the data provided, the assumptions made, and the potential site generated
traffic, the results of the analysis are:
· The proposed development does not warrant any tapers or turn lanes on Mill
Lane.
· The proposed entrance to the development shall be a stop condition and sight
distance requirements shall be confirmed during design.
Page 89 of 204
MILL
W
O
O
D
D
R
KENSINGTON DR
M
I
L
L
L
N
M
I
L
L
L
N
PENLEY BLVD PENLEY BLVD
LOT 1
LOT 6
LOT 5
LOT 4
LOT 3
LOT 2
LOT 7
LOT 8 LOT 9
LOT 13 LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 16
LOT 17 LOT 18
LOT 22LOT 23LOT 24LOT 25LOT 26LOT 27
LOT 46
LOT 47
LOT 48
LOT 49
LOT 50
LOT 51LOT 52LOT 53LOT 54LOT 55LOT 57LOT 58LOT 59 LOT 56
LOT 45
LOT 29 LOT 28
LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10
LOT 21
LOT 19
LOT 20
LOT 30LOT 31LOT 32
LOT 33
LOT 34
LOT 35
LOT 36 LOT 37 LOT 38 LOT 39 LOT 40 LOT 41 LOT 42 LOT 43 LOT 44
LOT 60
LOT 61
LOT 65
LOT 66
LOT 67
LOT 68
LOT 69
PROPOSED
SWM LOT
PROPOSED ROAD B
PROPOSED ROAD A
LOT 70
LOT 62
LOT 63
LOT 64
PROJECT NO.
REVISIONS
SCALE
DATE
CHECKED BY
DESIGNED BY
DRAWN BY
www.balzer.cc
Roanoke / Richmond
New River Valley
Shenandoah Valley
P LA N N E R S / AR C H I TE C T S
EN GINEERS / SU RVEYOR S
J:
\
2
4
\
0
0
\
0
4
\
0
4
2
4
0
0
9
1
.
0
0
D
O
R
S
E
Y
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
S
F
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
d
w
g
\
0
4
2
4
0
0
9
1
.
0
0
S
t
e
e
l
t
o
n
M
i
l
l
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
B
a
s
e
2
0
2
5
-
0
1
-
2
8
.
d
w
g
P
L
O
T
T
E
D
:
1/
2
8
/
2
0
2
5
1
2
:
4
8
:
0
8
P
M
1208 Corporate Circle
Roanoke, VA 24018
540.772.9580
LDS, KPG
CPB
CPB
1/28/2025
1" = 50'
ST
E
E
L
T
O
N
M
I
L
L
CO
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
19
0
6
M
I
L
L
L
A
N
E
SA
L
E
M
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
EX-A
04240091.00
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Page 90 of 204
Start Time Right Thru Thru Left Right Left Total
7:00 AM 7 33 21 2 5 19 87
7:15 AM 6 44 49 3 9 26 137
7:30 AM 2 17 52 3 10 18 102
7:45 AM 4 11 24 1 2 18 60
8:00 AM 1 10 33 1 2 16 63
8:15 AM 5 10 24 1 3 23 66
8:30 AM 3 18 18 0 3 5 47
8:45 AM 8 6 17 0 1 15 47
7:00 - 8:00 AM 19 105 146 9 26 81 386
4:00 PM 8 24 19 3 0 5 59
4:15 PM 19 20 23 3 0 8 73
4:30 PM 10 25 8 2 0 10 55
4:45 PM 19 26 17 5 2 10 79
5:00 PM 22 28 21 4 4 11 90
5:15 PM 28 36 31 6 2 11 114
5:30 PM 19 45 29 5 5 12 115
5:45 PM 20 53 24 3 1 17 118
5:00 - 6:00 PM 89 162 105 18 12 51 437
Mill Lane & Millwood Drive Traffic Count Summary
Mill Ln. NBMill Ln. SB Millwood Dr. EB
Page 91 of 204
Page 92 of 204
Page 93 of 204
Page 94 of 204
Page 95 of 204
Page 96 of 204
Page 97 of 204
Page 98 of 204
Page 99 of 204
Page 100 of 204
Page 101 of 204
Page 102 of 204
Page 103 of 204
Page 104 of 204
Page 105 of 204
Page 106 of 204
Page 107 of 204
Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-89
FIGURE 3-26 WARRANTS FOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (2-LANE HIGHWAY)
Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private).
LEGEND
PHV - Peak Hour Volume (also Design Hourly Volume equivalent)
Adjustment for Right Turns
For posted speeds at or under 45 mph, PHV right turns > 40, and
PHV total < 300.
Adjusted right turns = PHV Right Turns - 20
If PHV is not known use formula: PHV = ADT x K x D
K = the percent of AADT occurring in the peak hour
D = the percent of traffic in the peak direction of flow
Note: An average of 11% for K x D will suffice.
When right turn facilities are warranted, see Figure 3-1 for design criteria.*
* Rev. 1/15
NO TURN LANES
OR TAPERS REQUIRED
Page 108 of 204
Road Design Manual Appendix F Page F-69
WARRANT FOR LEFT-TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAY
FIGURE 3-4 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE
HIGHWAY
FIGURE 3-5 WARRANT FOR LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO LANE
HIGHWAY
Page 109 of 204
Page 110 of 204
Page 111 of 204
Page 112 of 204
Page 113 of 204
Page 114 of 204
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1906 MILL LANE AND
1400 BLOCK PENLEY BOULEVARD (TAX MAP #S 205-2-5 AND 204-13-1) FROM RSF/AG
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY/AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS AND AG AGRICULTURE
DISTRICTS TO RSF RESIDENTIAL FAMILY DISTRICT
WHEREAS, ABoone Real Estate Inc., contract purchaser, petitioned to rezone the
properties at 1906 Mill Lane and 1400 block Penley Boulevard (Tax Map #s 205-2-5 and 204-13-
1) from RSF/AG Residential Single Family/Agriculture Districts and AG Agriculture Districts to
RSF Residential Family District; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning is in accordance with good zoning practice; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salem Planning Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning request;
NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that the
properties at 1906 Mill Lane and 1400 block Penley Boulevard (Tax Map #s 205-2-5 and 204-13-
1) be and hereby are rezoned from RSF/AG Residential Single Family/Agriculture Districts and
AG Agriculture Districts to RSF Residential Family District with the following three (3) proffers:
1. The development shall not exceed 70 single-family residential homes.
2. Lots that have driveway access directly to Mill Lane shall include a driveway turnaround
so that residents are not forced to back onto Mill Lane.
3. Minimum lot frontage shall be 51 feet. Lots that front on the arc of the cul-de-sac shall be
allowed to reduce frontage to a minimum of 40 feet provided that the lot width at the front
building setback is not less than 51 feet.
The map shall be changed in this respect and no other, said property being described as follows:
CONTAINING CITY OF SALEM TAX ID 204-13-1 (TRACT “B” AS SHOWN ON PLAT
BOOK 13, PAGE 84) AND TAX ID 205-2-5 (TRACT “A-2-B” AS SHOWN ON
INSTRUMENT NO.220003675)
NOTE: THERE IS A 0°10’11” DIFFERENCE IN THE BASIS OF BEARINGS BETWEEN THE
PLATS REFERENCED ABOVE. THE BEARINGS FROM PLAT BOOK 13 PAGE 84 HAVE
BEEN ADJUSTED IN THE DESCRIPTION BELOW TO MATCH INSTRUMENT
NO.220003675.
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF MILL LANE, BEING
APPROXIMATELY 0.19 MILE SOUTH OF SOUTHSIDE DRIVE AND BEING THE
COMMON CORNER BETWEEN TAX IDs 205-2-5 AND 179-2-1, SAID POINT BEING THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
THENCE DEPARTING THE EAST LINE OF MILL LANE, ALONG THE LINE OF TAX ID
205-2-5 THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: N71°48’54”E 160.24 FEET TO A
Page 115 of 204
POINT; THENCE N51°23’23’E 50.38 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N35°46’20”E 91.53
FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S74°37’38”E 427.61 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE
N59°10’04”E 272.00 FEET TO A POINT, BEING A COMMON CORNER OF TAX ID 205-2-5
AND 204-13-1.
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE LINE OF TAX ID 204-13-1 THE FOLLOWING
COURSES AND DISTANCES: S85°19’11”E 211.52 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE
S15°58’11”E 487.15 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S86°08’11”E 127.21 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE S03°51’49”W 170.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N86°08’11”W 20.00 FEET TO
A POINT; THENCE S03°51’49”W 180.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N86°08’11”W
512.81 FEET TO A POINT; BEING A COMMON CORNER OF TAX ID 204-13-1 AND 205-2-
5.
THENCE CONTINUING WITH THE LINE OF TAX ID 205-2-5 THE FOLLOWING
COURSES AND DISTANCES: N84°18’11”W 126.03 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE
S05°41’49”W 144.86 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF PENLEY BOULEVARD,
THENCE WITH SAID LINE N84°18’11”W 50.00 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE
DEPARTING THE NORTH LINE OF PENLEY BOULEVARD N05°41’49”E 144.86 FEET TO
A POINT; THENCE N84°18’11”W 173.81 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N04°17’17”E 38.69
FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N84°18’11”W 231.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE
OF MILL LANE, THENCE WITH SAID LINE ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE
LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 496.13 FEET, A LENGTH OF 133.41 FEET, AND A CHORD
BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N14°54’21”W 133.01 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE
N21°57’32”W 111.41 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 2504.13 FEET, A LENGTH OF 188.63 FEET, AND A CHORD
BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N26°41’55”W 188.59 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE ALONG
A REVERSE CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 8935.17, A LENGTH OF
147.26, AND A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N28°47’53”W 147.26 FEET TO A
POINT, BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
HAVING A TOTAL AREA OF 812,584.8 SQUARE FEET OR 18.654 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS, SITUATE IN THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, THIS DESCRIPTION BEING
COMPILED FROM RECORDS.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be
and the same are hereby repealed.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its final passage.
Page 116 of 204
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
John Saunders -
H. Hunter Holliday –
Byron Randolph Foley –
Anne Marie Green –
Renee F. Turk –
Passed:
Effective:
/s/____ _
Mayor
ATTEST:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Page 117 of 204
Item #: 6.A.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Hold public hearing and consider ordinance on first reading
for the request of Gwynn Properties, LLC, contract
purchaser, to rezone the property located at 220 Brand
Avenue (T/M# 74-2-8) from HBD Highway Business District
with conditions to HBD Highway Business District.
(Advertised in the April 24 and May 1, 2025, issues of
the Salem Times-Register.)(Planning Commission
recommended approval by a unanimous vote.)
SUBMITTED BY: Maxwell Dillon, Planner
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Zoning: HBD Highway Business District with conditions
Land Use Plan Designation: Commercial
Existing Use: Union Office
Proposed Use: Therapy for Mental Health/Addiction - Guidance Service
The subject property (220 Brand Avenue) consists of a 1.756-acre tract of land which
currently sits within the HBD Highway Business District zoning designation. The
property has historically served as a Union Hall. In 1979, the property was rezoned
from Residential Business District RB to Business District B-3, with the following
condition:
1. Only a Union Hall and Office shall be constructed on said parcel of land, and
should such development not occur within two years or not used as a Union Hall, then
the zoning shall revert to Residential Business District RB without any further action by
the Planning Commission or Council.
The applicant, Gwynn Properties, LLC, is requesting a rezoning of the property from
HBD Highway Business District with conditions to HBD Highway Business District
without conditions in order to utilize the property for a different purpose than a Union
Page 118 of 204
Hall. If approved, the applicant plans to operate a therapy service for people struggling
with mental health and addiction issues. Because no medicine will be stored or
distributed on-site, this use is considered a Guidance Service (permitted by-right in
HBD) as opposed to an Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Clinic
(permitted by Special Exception Permit in HBD) by the City of Salem Zoning
Ordinance. Currently, the applicant has no plans for the undeveloped rear yard area.
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as commercial, which is
consistent with the proposed future utilization of the property.
REQUIREMENTS: The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-214.3. Site
development regulations for HBD.
FISCAL IMPACT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend that Council hold a public hearing and consider adoption of ordinance on
first reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Brand Ave Rezoning
2. Medicine clarification
3. Ordinance_58
4. legal description
5. 220 Brand Ave - Affidavit
6. Item 6A 5-12-25 April 16 2025 PC Minutes
7. Item 6A 5-12-25 Council meeting owner notification letter - 220 Brand Avenue
8. Item 6A 5-12-24 Legal Ad 5.01
9. Item 6A 5-12-25 Legal Ad 4.24
10. Item 6A 5-12-25 Rezoning Ordinance for 220 Brand Avenue Tax Map 74-2-8
Page 119 of 204
Page 120 of 204
Page 121 of 204
Page 122 of 204
Page 123 of 204
Page 124 of 204
Page 125 of 204
Page 126 of 204
Page 127 of 204
Page 128 of 204
Page 129 of 204
Page 130 of 204
Page 134 of 204
Page 135 of 204
Page 136 of 204
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Wednesday, April 16, 2025, at 7:00 PM
Work Session, 6:00 PM, Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall,
114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
Regular Session, 7:00 PM, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
WORK SESSION
1. Call to Order
A work session meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia,
was held in the Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad
Street, at 6:00 p.m., on Wednesday, April 16, 2025, there being present the
following members of said Commission, to wit: Denise P. King, Reid Garst,
Jackson Beamer, Mark Henrickson, and Nathan Routt, constituting a legal quorum,
with Chair King, presiding; together with Christopher J. Dorsey, City Manager and
Executive Secretary, and H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager and Deputy
Executive Secretary, ex officio members of said Commission; Charles E. Van
Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning &
Zoning Administrator; Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner, Melissa Wickham,
Administrative Assistant, and Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; and the following
business was transacted:
Chair King reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the
Commission to hold a work session.
The work session meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. New Business
A. 220 Brand Avenue Rezoning
B. Brand Avenue Townhouse
C. Comprehensive Plan Update
Page 137 of 204
Item 2.A. Staff noted that a rezoning request was submitted by Gwynn Properties
LLC to rezone the property located at 220 Brand Avenue from HBD with conditions
to HBD without conditions and a discussion was held.
Item 2.B. Staff noted that a continuance had been requested from Riverland Oaks,
LLC for the Brand Avenue Townhouse development to the May 14, 2025, Planning
Commission meeting.
Item 2.C. Staff updated the commission on the current review of the
comprehensive plan.
3. Adjournment
Chair King adjourned at 6:52 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia,
was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 16, 2025, in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, 114 North Broad Street. Present were Chair Denise P. King,
Vice-Chair Reid Garst, Commissioners Jackson Beamer, Mark Henrickson, and
Nathan Routt, constituting a legal quorum. Chair King presided.
Also present were Christopher J. Dorsey, City Manager and Executive Secretary;
H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager and Deputy Executive Secretary; Charles
E. Van Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development; Mary Ellen Wines,
Planning & Zoning Administrator; Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner; Lisa D. Browning,
Codes Compliance Investigator; and Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney.
Chair King noted that the meeting was properly advertised in the Salem Times
Register and convened as scheduled.
A. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Consent Agenda
A. Minutes
1) Consider acceptance of the minutes from the March 12, 2025, work
session and regular meeting.
Commissioner Henrickson noted a correction on Page 21 of the packet
regarding a subdivision builder's name. The minutes incorrectly listed
"NVR Bryant" and should be amended to "Ryan Homes."
Page 138 of 204
Chair King confirmed no further corrections were raised and accepted the
minutes as corrected.
3. New Business
A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Hold a public hearing and consider the request of Gwynn Properties, LLC,
contract purchaser, to rezone the property located at 220 Brand Avenue
(T/M# 74-2-8) from HBD Highway Business District with conditions to HBD
Highway Business District.
Chair King opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. and asked for the applicant
to present their request. They need to state their name and address for the
record.
Ms. Edna Gwynn of 3491 Basin Road, Mebane, North Carolina, addressed
the Commission. Ms. Gwynn, owner of Above & Beyond Mental Health
Services, currently operates a location in Danville, Virginia. She intends to
open a second office in Salem, providing services such as addiction
counseling, marriage counseling, and psychiatric therapy.
Ms. Gwynn confirmed she would utilize the existing building with interior
renovations only and has no plans for development in the grassy area
behind the structure. She also intends to install a 6' privacy fence along
Carey Avenue.
Mr. Keith Dalton, Realtor for the property, confirmed that the fence would
front Carey Avenue only, not extend to adjacent property lines.
Chair King stated that each speaker would have 3 minutes to speak, and
the clock is sitting right there so they can keep an eye on where they are in
relationship to those 3 minutes. She asked if anyone would like to speak
about this item to please come forward. They need their name and address.
Mr. Kenneth Griggs of 145 Carey Avenue addressed the Commission and
stated he lives right behind the property that is being talked about. His main
concern is what are they going to do about the water situation there. He
stated that he has been asking the City for over 32 years to come in and fix
that water problem. Behind his house and on the property, Ms. Gwynn
wants to buy, it floods badly. The water is not even 10' from his house
coming in and goes all the way around his property. He is circled from it.
He stated that something needs to be done about the water situation on that
property.
Page 139 of 204
Mr. Phillip Bland at 312 Carey Avenue addressed the Commission and
stated his concern is the same as Mr. Griggs. He wanted to elaborate a little
more. The water that is continually coming down is surface water runoff
every time there is heavy rain. Most people here are probably aware of it.
Not only does it flood Mr. Griggs property and around there, it floods across
the street to the residences over there. They have talked about this before
and nothing has been done about it. This is a situation that was the result
of the extension of Harrison Avenue. Natural run-off used to go across to
what is now VDOT and down through there into the creek. They blocked
that off. They also constructed a main sewer line from Harrison Avenue
down and connected onto the main sewer on Carey. They created an open
culvert that takes all that water from the north end of Carey Avenue and the
north end of Brand Avenue. It filters downhill into the lot that she is
purchasing. He does not have a problem with any of that as long as it is
resolved prior to making any developments on that land. It has to be
resolved. It should be resolved whether there are developments or not. His
neighbors get flooded all the time. He does not. He is higher but he has
great neighbors. Mr. Griggs is not the only one that lives on an island until
that water evaporates. This is a situation that the City developed years ago,
and they just keep kicking the can down the road as they continue
developing. There is nothing really effective that has been done to take care
of it.
Chair King asked Ms. Gwynn up to the podium to clarify some information.
Chair King asked if she was correct from the application that Ms. Gwynn
was not developing this land, and she intends to use the building already in
existence with some potential changes to the inside of the building.
Ms. Gwynn confirmed that is correct.
Chair King asked if Ms. Gwynn has any plans whatsoever at this time for
anything in the grassy area behind the building.
Ms. Gwynn answered no. They are actually going to put a privacy fence in
the back.
Commissioner Henrickson asked if she could elaborate on that a little.
Ms. Gwynn answered that there is a neighborhood behind the building.
They are planning on putting a 6' privacy fence to separate it from the
neighborhood.
Vice-Chair Garst inquired if it would be at the parking lot.
Ms. Gwynn stated no. Where the chain link fence is now, they would replace
that with the privacy fence.
Page 140 of 204
Chair King asked just to verify if the privacy fence was actually going to front
Carey Avenue rather than Brand Avenue.
Ms. Gwynn stated yes.
Chair King asked if anyone else had questions for Ms. Gwynn.
Commissioner Beamer asked if she was going to just run it up the side or
just at Carey Avenue.
Mr. Keith Dalton, Realtor of 817 Craig Avenue, one block away from this
property, addressed the Commission and stated that right now their plans
are for the fence to front just Carey Avenue. He had not even talked to them
about going up the side to the adjoining property. Right now, just Carey
Avenue was the only thing they had talked about.
Chair King stated she noted when she was on-site at the property that there
was a fence along what would be the southerly border of that property.
Mr. Dalton asked if that was the one with the double gate.
Commissioner Beamer said no. The double gate was what they call the east
side.
Mr. Dalton stated on the north side there was none, and he could not
understand why, but there was nothing beside it.
Chair King stated that it is heavily timbered and with brush. Mr. Dalton
asked if this is what they refer to as a natural fence. Chair King confirmed
yes.
Mr. Dalton confirmed that on the east side, they have not talked about
getting anything done on that. They have talked about just the Carey
Avenue side for now.
Vice-Chair Garst asked for clarification that no drugs would be distributed
here. He asked if this was all mental health therapy.
Ms. Gwynn confirmed there would be no drugs. They are licensed by DMAS
with the State of Virginia. She has been licensed since 2019, and she is a
licensed mental health therapist.
Commissioner Beamer stated he was very familiar with where Mebane and
Danville are. He asked if she lived in Mebane.
Ms. Gwynn stated that she does live in Mebane.
Commissioner Beamer asked if she works in Danville.
Page 141 of 204
Ms. Gwynn stated that her husband is from Danville, Virginia and that is
why she ended up on this side of the country. She grew up in Florida but
married someone from Danville.
Commissioner Beamer asked if she was going to work in Salem some.
Ms. Gwynn stated that no. She would be here in the summer if she gets
approval to get this started, but she would not live in Salem. She has little
children in school.
Commissioner Henrickson asked how many employees she would figure to
have in that facility.
Ms. Gwynn answered typically when they have groups, only 12. It is a State-
run program, so they have guidelines. When they have groups, every group
of 12 gets 5 employees. If they decide to do a second group, it would be
another 5 employees. It is all State guideline regulated.
Chair King asked what her hours of operation would be.
Ms. Gwynn answered 9-5, Monday through Friday.
Commissioner Beamer asked if this was for children or adults or everyone.
Ms. Gwynn stated she is licensed for adults. She is not licensed for children.
Commissioner Beamer asked if 18 and up.
Ms. Gwynn stated yes.
Commissioner Beamer asked how many she anticipated might be on-site,
staff and patients, at any time.
Ms. Gwynn stated probably 25 at the most. That would probably be at least
6 staff because they do have a secretary and a security person.
Commissioner Beamer responded by asking does that put it at 31.
Ms. Gwynn stated no. She runs it every day. The one she has now, they
probably had 23 people on-site today and that includes employees and
staff.
Chair King asked if there were any other questions. She asked Charles Van
Allman if he could shed any light on the water management situation as
head of the Community Development Department.
Page 142 of 204
Mr. Van Allman stated that the citizens on Carey Avenue are correct in
saying there are water issues up there. The City is looking at possibilities to
alleviate those problems. There are a lot of technical issues regarding the
curvature of the road and how deep the sewer is going to be. They are
looking at a way of getting some of the water out of there. They are in the
initial stages, and he really cannot comment any further on what is going to
be done exactly, but they have started planning stages to try to do
something to help up there.
Chair King asked if there was anyone else to speak.
Richard Smith of 208 Brand Avenue addressed the Commission and stated
he owns the property beside this establishment. He asked if they had
decided that they were going to be 9 to 5, no overnight stays and nobody
on the premises after hours.
Ms. Gwynn confirmed.
Mr. Smith stated that his biggest concern was the neighborhood behind him.
He has become friends with most of these neighbors and they watch his
property. They have had break-ins, and they have seen people and so forth.
His other question was were they changing the zoning to accommodate the
medical part of this or what was the zoning change actually doing.
Ms. Wines stated that originally, when the property was rezoned, there was
a condition placed on the property that said it would be used for a union hall
and union hall office only, so that is all that can be there. If they want to use
the property for any other purpose, they have to remove that condition. That
is what they are asking for tonight is to remove the condition. The zoning
stays the same, so whatever is allowed in the HBD Highway Business
District by right would be allowed at that location.
Mr. Smith stated he had noticed that everything down through there had a
different type of highway business tag on it. His property is actually zoned
single-family business, and he had never heard of that. That was his
biggest concern. He asked for confirmation that they have a privacy fence
they are going to put up. The gentleman that spoke about the water in his
backyard, if he was him, he would say you have to do more than 6' because
he is on the bottom, and they are above him so he can see everything. That
is something they can work out, but the water condition is definitely an issue.
They did not notice that one of the things that is cheap and quick and would
not cost a lot is a pumping station. It is a 4" line over to the next street. It
would empty it out in about an hour. His main concern was that there are
no overnight stays because there are a lot of small children on that street.
He asked if they had contracts with certain agencies.
Page 143 of 204
Ms. Gwynn stated no.
Mr. Smith stated that was the other thing. When they start making contracts
with government issues, they get people in there that they really do not want
to have. That would be a concern of his. He stated that was really the only
thing he had other than the overnight stays.
Chair King asked if anyone else wanted to speak on this tonight.
Commissioner Beamer asked if all three of the speakers' properties were
toward Main Street from this property.
Chair King stated they are all on Carey Avenue.
Chair King inquired if anyone else wanted to speak on the matter and
hearing none closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
She asked if the members of the Commission had any questions.
Chair King stated that she thinks they have clarified that there is not going
to be development on this property. She wants to make sure that everyone
understands that and that their request is to remove the condition that was
made. Chair King stated she would entertain a motion.
Commissioner Henrickson stated that he believed all the questions that they
had were answered. They have heard and, hopefully, the City can somehow
take care of this water issue. He did not think that concerned why they were
there which was to remove one condition, so he made a motion to go ahead
and remove the condition and that the property be rezoned HBD Highway
Business District. The motion was seconded by Mr. Beamer.
Chair King asked for a roll call vote:
Mr. Routt - Aye
Mr. Henrickson - Aye
Mr. Beamer - Aye
Mr. Garst - Aye
Chair King - Aye
Chair King explained that the Planning Commission is a research and
recommending body to the City Council. This matter has been approved
with a 5-0 vote and will now go to City Council. Attendees will need to
appear at the City Council meeting when this is on their Agenda. They will
be notified of the time and date once it has been placed on their Agenda.
For those of the public, everything will appear in the Salem Times Register
or the Roanoke Times, as well as the website for the City of Salem.
Page 144 of 204
B. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Hold public hearing and consider the request of Riverland Oaks, LLC,
property owner, to rezone the property located at 19 Carey Avenue (T/M#
83-1-11) from RSF Residential Single-Family District to RB Residential
Business District with proffered conditions. The petitioner has requested to
continue this item to the May 14, 2025, meeting.
Chair King asked if there was anyone present to speak on behalf of the
applicant.
Patrick Snead of 302 Live Oak Court, Salem addressed the Commission
and officially requested a continuance to the May 14, 2025, Planning
Commission meeting.
Chair King asked if he wanted to share the reason for the continuation.
Mr. Snead stated that they have been having conversations with the City
regarding some of the concerns of the neighborhood. They had a meeting
yesterday and they thought it was a little too close to today's meeting and
needed to see how that conversation went. They just need a little bit more
time.
Chair King asked for clarification that they are requesting to have it
continued until the May meeting.
Mr. Snead stated yes.
Chair King asked for a motion.
Commissioner Henrickson asked if it would be okay if anyone present
tonight wished to speak on this matter.
Chair King stated no because he had requested a continuation.
Chair King asked for a motion. Mr. Garst so moved, and Mr. Routt
seconded. Chair King asked for a roll call vote:
Mr. Routt - Aye
Mr. Henrickson - Aye
Mr. Beamer - Aye
Mr. Garst - Aye
Chair King - Aye
Chair King confirmed that this matter will be continued until the May meeting.
Mr. Snead asked if new notices would be sent out to the residents so they
would know the exact date.
Page 145 of 204
Ms. Wines confirmed that new letters would be sent to the neighbors as they
were before.
Vice-Chair Garst asked for confirmation that everything had to be restarted.
Chair King confirmed yes, the whole process restarts.
Chair King reminded everyone present that the Planning Commission is a
research and recommending body to the City Council. This will appear on
the City Council's Agenda. Attendees will need to appear at the City Council
meeting when this is on their agenda. They will be notified once it has been
placed on their Agenda. If they are interested in this matter, make sure that
they know when the meeting will be held.
4. Adjournment
Chair King asked if there was anything further business for the Planning
Commission. There being no further business, Chair King adjourned the meeting
at 7:22 p.m.
Page 146 of 204
Page 147 of 204
Page 148 of 204
Page 149 of 204
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 220 BRAND AVENUE (TAX
MAP # 74-2-8) FROM HBD HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS TO
HBD HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Gwynn Properties, LLC, contract purchaser, petitioned to rezone the parcel
located at 220 Brand Avenue (Tax Map #74-2-8) from HBD Highway Business District with
conditions to HBD Highway Business District; and the map referred to shall be changed in this
respect and no other, said property being described as follows:
BEGINNING AT AN IRON PIN IN THE WEST LINE OF CAREY AVENUE AT THE
SOUTHEAST COMER OF THE PROPERTY OF SALLIE KAE & J.E. PRICE; THENCE
WITH THE WEST RINE OF CAREY AVENUE S. 9° 48' W. 236.75 FEET TO AN IRON PIN;
THENCE LEAVING CAREY AVENUE AND WITH A NEW LINE THRU THE PROPERTY
OF ROBERSON FAWLER CO. INC. N. 89° 01' 32” W. 338.01 FEET TO AN IRON PIN ON
THE EAST LLNE OF A 20 FOOT STREET; THENCE WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID 20
FOOT STREET N. 10°13' E. 222.60 FEET TO AN IRON PIN; THENCE LEAVING SAID 20
FOOT STREET N. 88° 34' E. 338.88 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING; AND BEING
A PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL LOT #8, OF THE J.E. PRICE MAP RECORDED IN
COUNTY DEED BOOK #350, PAGE #355, ALL OF WHICH IS MORE FULLY SHOWN ON
A SURVEY DATED OCTOBER 4, 1979, MADE BY JACK G. BESS, C.LS. FOR I.U.E. AFL-
CIO LOCAL 161 ATTACHED TO THE DEED RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, AT DEED BOOK 85, PAGE
22
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is in accordance with good zoning practice; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salem Planning Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning request;
NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that
the parcel at 220 Brand Avenue (TAX MAP # 74-2-8) be and hereby is rezoned to HBD
Highway Business District;
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be
and the same are hereby repealed.
Page 150 of 204
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its final passage.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
John Saunders -
H. Hunter Holliday –
Byron Randolph Foley –
Anne Marie Green –
Renee F. Turk –
Passed:
Effective:
/s/____ _
Mayor
ATTEST:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Page 151 of 204
Item #: 6.B.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing on effective real estate tax rate for Fiscal
Year 2026
Hold a Public hearing on the effective real estate tax rate for
Fiscal Year 2026.
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Pursuant to Section 58.1-3321, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, when the total
assessed value of real property, excluding additional assessments due to new
construction or improvements to property, exceeds last year's total assessed value of
real property by 1% or more, the effective tax rate increase must be calculated. The
City’s real property assessments, excluding new construction and improvements to
property, increased 8.28% over the previous year. Therefore, the City must calculate
the effective tax rate increase, advertise the effective tax rate increase and conduct a
public hearing pertaining to the effective tax rate increase. The calculated effective
tax rate increase is 6.47%.
The advertisement was published in the Salem Times Register on May 1, 2025 as
required by the Code of Virginia.
FISCAL IMPACT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing. No action is required by Council at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 152 of 204
Item #: 6.C.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Tax Rates Resolution
Request to levy the following tax rates for Fiscal Year 2026:
1. Real Estate tax rate of $1.18 per $100 assessed
valuation
2. Personal property tax rate of $3.40 per $100
assessed valuation
3. Machinery and tools tax rate of $3.20 per $100
assessed valuation
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Chapter 8, Section 8.3 of the City Charter requires the City Council to annually lay a
tax levy for the ensuing fiscal year on all property, real and personal, subject to
taxation for city purposes.
State law requires a public hearing be held when the assessment increase for real
estate is in excess of 1 percent or a tax rate change is proposed in real estate,
personal property or machinery and tools tax. The 2026 reassessment increased the
assessed value by more than 1%. A public hearing was held on May 12, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution which sets the tax rates for Fiscal
Year 2026.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Tax Rates Resolution 1498
Page 153 of 204
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, MAY 12, 2025:
RESOLUTION 1498
A RESOLUTION IMPOSING TAXES ON REAL ESTATE, TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, MACHINERY AND
TOOLS, AND ALL LEGAL SUBJECTS OF TAXATION FOR CITY PURPOSES, INCLUDING THE PROPERTY OF
RAILROAD, EXPRESS, TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH, WATER, HEAT (GAS), LIGHT, AND POWER COMPANIES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that taxes be and are
hereby levied for the support of the City government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025, and
ending June 30, 2026, as follows:
1. Upon all real estate and improvements thereon (not exempt from taxation by law)
within the City, there shall be and is hereby levied a tax of one dollar and eighteen cents
($1.18) on every one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation thereof;
2. Upon all tangible personal property (except as hereinafter excepted), and other and
sundry legal subjects of taxation, including the property of railroad, express, telephone,
telegraph, water, heat (gas), light and power companies (not exempt from taxation by
law), there shall be and is hereby levied a tax of three dollars and forty ($3.40) on every
one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation thereof; provided, however, those
certain household goods and personal effects classified in Section 58.1-3504 of the Code
of Virginia, 1950, as amended to date, are hereby exempted from this levy.
3. Upon all machinery and tools, there shall be and is hereby levied a tax of three dollars
and twenty cents ($3.20) on every one hundred dollars ($100) assessed valuation
thereof.
This resolution shall be in full force and effect on July 1, 2025.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
John Saunders –
H. Hunter Holliday –
Byron Randolph Foley –
Anne Marie Green –
Renee F. Turk –
ATTEST:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Page 154 of 204
Item #: 6.D.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing on the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year
2026
Hold a public hearing on the proposed budget for Fiscal
Year 2026.
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This time has been set aside for a public hearing on the proposed annual budget for
Fiscal Year 2026. The proposed budget was presented to the City Council on April
12, 2025 and advertised in Cardinal News on May 2, 2025 and May 5, 2025. A copy
of the proposed budget was made available on the City website
https://salemva.gov/214/Annual-Budgets. The School’s budget is included in the
overall City budget.
FISCAL IMPACT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 155 of 204
Item #: 6.E.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Electric Rates
Consider approval of Resolution 1500 amending the Electric
Rate Tariffs
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Attached is a resolution approving the amended electric rate tariffs. City staff has
calculated the power cost adjustment (PCA) that is needed for electric bills beginning
on July 1, 2025, to be $0.001736 per kilowatt hour (KWH). The electric rate tariffs
have been updated to include this PCA. These updated tariffs, if approved, will
become effective for billing on or after July 1, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approving the attached resolution approving the updated electric rate
tariffs to be effective for all bills issued on or after July 1, 2025.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Electric Rate Resolution 1500
2. Electric Rates 7-1-2025
Page 156 of 204
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, MAY 12, 2025:
RESOLUTION 1500
WHEREAS, the City of Salem owns and operates its own electric utility, regulated by locally
elected officials of the City for the benefit of its residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salem electric utility provides reliable service at rates for City
residents that are competitive with other municipal utilities; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a "Book of Electric Rates" that provides for electric charges
and other special terms and conditions applicable to electric customers of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to amend this "Book of Electric Rates" by readopting Schedule
R.S. (Codes 01), Schedule S.W.S. (Code 06), Schedule S.G.S. (Code 04), Schedule M.G.S. (Codes 05,
75), Schedule L.G.S. (Codes 09, 79), Schedule L.P.S. (Codes 50, 51), Schedule A.F.L.S. (Code 56),
Schedule O.L. (Codes 07, 07L, 08, 08L, 31, 32, 32L, 33, 34, 34L, 37, 38, 38L and 39), Schedule N.M.
(Code 88), Schedule T.S., Virginia – Street Lighting Rates, Schedule P.C.A., ADDITIONAL FEES, and
Terms and Conditions of Service; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that the City's "Book of
Electric Rates" is hereby amended in compliance with the above codes and terms and
conditions, copies of which are attached, and that the rates are adopted for use on all electric
utility bills rendered on or after July 1, 2025.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
H. Hunter Holliday –
Anne Marie Green –
Byron Randolph Foley –
John Saunders –
Renee F. Turk –
ATTEST:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Page 157 of 204
Page 1 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
SCHEDULE R.S.
(Residential Electric Service)
CODE 01
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for electric service through one meter to individual residential customers, including rural residential customers engaged
principally in agricultural pursuits.
MONTHLY RATE
Electric Base Charge................................................. $ 9.50 per month
Energy Charge
All metered KWH.................................. $ 0.14590 per KWH
Power Cost Adjustment
All KWH…………………………... $ 0.001736 per KWH
POWER COST ADJUSTMENT:
The charges in the above MONTHLY RATE are subject to the provisions of the City of Salem’s Schedule P.C.A., which is included herein by
reference.
MINIMUM CHARGE
This Schedule is subject to a minimum charge equal to the Electric Base Charge.
PAYMENT
Bills are due upon presentation and payable at the Utility Collections Office located in City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem,
Virginia or at authorized collection agencies of the City of Salem. Payment is due when indicated on the bill. A penalty of $5.00 per service in the
case of residential service or five percent (5%) of the bill for commercial and Industrial service will be added to the bill for any payment not
received on or before the due date. Any account which becomes 25 days past due is subject to being cutoff for non-payment.
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
See Terms and Conditions of Service.
This Schedule is available to rural and domestic customers engaged principally in agricultural pursuits where service is taken through
one meter for residential purposes, as well as for the usual farm uses outside of the home, but service under this Schedule shall not be extended to
operations of a commercial nature or operations such as processing, preparing or distributing products not raised or produced on the farm, unless
such operation is incidental to the usual residential and farm uses.
Normally, this Schedule is available for single phase service only. However, at the City of Salem, Virginia's option, and subject to the
City of Salem, Virginia's Terms and Conditions of Service relating to the extension of service, three phase service may be provided to individual
residences under this Schedule, when all service on such Schedule is taken through one meter and usage is for domestic or agricultural purposes.
Where three phase power service is required and/or where motors or heating equipment are used for commercial or industrial purposes, the
applicable power Schedule will apply to such power service.
Page 158 of 204
Page 2 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
SCHEDULE S.W.S.
(Sanctuary Worship Service)
CODE 06
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available to the synagogue or church building in which the sanctuary or the principal place of worship is located.
MONTHLY RATE
Electric Base Charge................................................. $ 12.75 per month
Demand Charge
All KW of Billing Demand............... $ 0.00 per KW
Energy Charge
All metered KWH.................................. $ 0.14830 per KWH
Power Cost Adjustment
All KWH…………………………... $ 0.001736 per KWH
POWER COST ADJUSTMENT:
The charges in the above MONTHLY RATE are subject to the provisions of the City of Salem’s Schedule P.C.A., which is included herein by
reference.
MEASUREMENT OF BILLING DEMAND
The billing demand in KW shall be taken each month as the highest registration of a 15-minute peak in kilowatts as registered during
the month by a demand meter or indicator.
MINIMUM CHARGE
This Schedule is subject to a minimum charge equal to the Electric Base Charge.
PAYMENT
Bills are due upon presentation and payable at the Utility Collections Office located in City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem,
Virginia or at authorized collection agencies of the City of Salem. Payment is due when indicated on the bill. A penalty of $5.00 per service in the
case of residential service or five percent (5%) of the bill for commercial and Industrial service will be added to the bill for any payment not
received on or before the due date. Any account which becomes 25 days past due is subject to being cutoff for non-payment.
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
See Terms and Conditions of Service.
TERM OF CONTRACT
See Terms and Conditions.
Auxiliary buildings of church organizations, such as classrooms, day care centers, etc., are not eligible for this rate unless electrical
wiring is integrated to the building wiring in which the sanctuary is located and all buildings are metered through one meter.
An exemption will be granted to Sanctuary Worship Service customers whose electric service was separated prior to January 1, 2000
for the purpose of separating the electric service of auxiliary buildings from the electric service to the building for the principal place of worship.
This exemption shall allow for a maximum of two Sanctuary Worship Service meters.
Page 159 of 204
Page 3 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
SCHEDULE S.G.S.
(Small General Service)
CODE 04
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for general service customers with electrical capacity requirements of 25 KW or less per month. When a customer being
served under this Schedule exceeds 25 KW per month for more than two months during the past twelve months, the customer will be placed on
the appropriate rate Schedule.
MONTHLY RATE
Electric Base Charge................................................. $15.75 per month
Demand Charge
All KW of Billing Demand............... $ 0.00 per KW
Energy Charge
All metered KWH.............................. $ 0.14100 per KWH
Power Cost Adjustment
All KWH…………………………… $ 0.001736 per KWH
POWER COST ADJUSTMENT:
The charges in the above MONTHLY RATE are subject to the provisions of the City of Salem’s Schedule P.C.A., which is included herein by
reference.
MEASUREMENT OF BILLING DEMAND
The billing demand in KW shall be taken each month as the highest registration of a 15-minute peak in kilowatts as registered during
the month by a demand meter or indicator.
MINIMUM CHARGE
This Schedule is subject to a minimum monthly charge equal to the Electric Base Charge.
PAYMENT
Bills are due upon presentation and payable at the Utility Collections Office located in City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem,
Virginia or at authorized collection agencies of the City of Salem. Payment is due when indicated on the bill. A penalty of $5.00 per service in the
case of residential service or five percent (5%) of the bill for commercial and Industrial service will be added to the bill for any payment not
received on or before the due date. Any account which becomes 25 days past due is subject to being cutoff for non-payment.
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
See Terms and Conditions of Service.
Page 160 of 204
Page 4 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
SCHEDULE M.G.S.
(Medium General Service)
CODE 05, 75
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for general service customers with electrical capacity requirements exceeding 25 KW per month for more than two months
during the past twelve months but less than 400 KW per month.
Customers may, at the City of Salem, Virginia’s discretion, be required to contract for capacity in 50 KW increments.
MONTHLY RATE DELIVERY VOLTAGE
Secondary (05) Primary (75)
Electric Base Charge................................................. $20.00 per month $25.00 per month
Demand Charge
All KW of Billing Demand............... $ 6.50 per KW $ 5.80 per KW
Energy Charge
All metered KWH............................. $ 0.11960 per KWH $ 0.11880 per KWH
Power Cost Adjustment
All KWH…………………………… $ 0.001736 per KWH $ 0.001736 per KWH
Reactive Demand Charge for each KVAR of leading or
Lagging reactive demand……………………… $ 0.30 per KVAR $ 0.30 per KVAR
POWER COST ADJUSTMENT:
The charges in the above MONTHLY RATE are subject to the provisions of the City of Salem’s Schedule P.C.A., which is included herein by
reference.
MEASUREMENT OF BILLING DEMAND
The billing demand in KW shall be taken each month as the highest registration of a 15-minute peak in kilowatts as registered during
the month by a demand meter or indicator.
The monthly billing demand established hereunder shall not be less than 60% of the greater of 1) the customer's contract capacity or 2)
the customer's highest previously established monthly billing demand during the past 11 months.
The reactive demand in KVAR shall be taken each month as the single highest 15-minute peak KVAR as registered during the month
by a demand meter or indicator.
Billing demands shall be rounded to the nearest tenth of a KW and KVAR.
MINIMUM CHARGE
This Schedule is subject to a minimum monthly charge equal to the Electric Base Charge, plus such additional charges as are derived
from application of the energy charge and demand charge.
PAYMENT
Bills are due upon presentation and payable at the Utility Collections Office located in City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem,
Virginia or at authorized collection agencies of the City of Salem. Payment is due when indicated on the bill. A penalty of $5.00 per service in the
case of residential service or five percent (5%) of the bill for commercial and Industrial service will be added to the bill for any payment not
received on or before the due date. Any account which becomes 25 days past due is subject to being cutoff for non-payment.
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
See Terms and Conditions of Service.
TERM OF CONTRACT
See Terms and Conditions.
Page 161 of 204
Page 5 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
SCHEDULE L.G.S.
(Large General Service)
CODE 09, 79
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for general service customers with electrical capacity requirements exceeding 100 KW per month for more than two months
during the past twelve months but less than 1,000 KW per month.
Customers may, at the City of Salem, Virginia’s discretion, be required to contract for capacity in 50 KW increments.
MONTHLY RATE DELIVERY VOLTAGE
Secondary (09) Primary (79)
Electric Base Charge................................................. $60.00 per month $80.00 per month
Demand Charge
All KW of Billing Demand............... $15.25 per KW $13.85 per KW
Energy Charge
All metered KWH.............................. $ 0.09300 per KWH $ 0.09150 per KWH
Power Cost Adjustment
All KWH…………………………… $ 0.001736 per KWH $ 0.001736 per KWH
Reactive Demand Charge for each KVAR of leading or
Lagging reactive demand……………………… $ 0.30 per KVAR $ 0.30 per KVAR
POWER COST ADJUSTMENT:
The charges in the above MONTHLY RATE are subject to the provisions of the City of Salem’s Schedule P.C.A., which is included herein by
reference.
MEASUREMENT OF BILLING DEMAND
The billing demand in KW shall be taken each month as the highest registration of a 15-minute peak in kilowatts as registered during
the month by a demand meter or indicator.
The monthly billing demand established hereunder shall not be less than 60% of the greater of 1) the customer's contract capacity or 2)
the customer's highest previously established monthly billing demand during the past 11 months.
The reactive demand in KVAR shall be taken each month as the single highest 15-minute peak KVAR as registered during the month
by a demand meter or indicator.
Billing demands shall be rounded to the nearest tenth of a KW and KVAR.
MINIMUM CHARGE
This Schedule is subject to a minimum monthly charge equal to the Electric Base Charge, plus such additional charges as are derived
from application of the energy charge and demand charge.
PAYMENT
Bills are due upon presentation and payable at the Utility Collections Office located in City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem,
Virginia or at authorized collection agencies of the City of Salem. Payment is due when indicated on the bill. A penalty of $5.00 per service in the
case of residential service or five percent (5%) of the bill for commercial and Industrial service will be added to the bill for any payment not
received on or before the due date. Any account which becomes 25 days past due is subject to being cutoff for non-payment.
TERM
12 months
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
See Terms and Conditions of Service.
TERM OF CONTRACT
See Terms and Conditions.
Page 162 of 204
Page 6 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
SCHEDULE L.P.S.
(Large Power Service)
CODE 50, 51
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for general service customers with normal maximum demands greater than 1,000 KW. Each customer shall contract for a
definite amount of electrical capacity in kilowatts which shall be sufficient to meet the customer's normal maximum demand, but in no case shall
the capacity contracted for be less than 1,000 KW. The City of Salem, Virginia shall not be required to supply capacity in excess of the capacity
for which the customer has contracted. Contracts shall be in multiples of 100 KW.
MONTHLY RATE DELIVERY VOLTAGE
Secondary (51) Primary (50)
Electric Base Charge................................................. $375.00 per month $375.00 per month
Demand Charge
All KW of Billing Demand.............. $16.75 per KW $15.25 per KW
Energy Charge
All metered KWH.............................. $ 0.08870 per KWH $ 0.08870 per KWH
Power Cost Adjustment
All KWH…………………………… $ 0.001736 per KWH $ 0.001736 per KWH
Reactive Demand Charge for each KVAR of leading or
Lagging reactive demand………………………. $ 0.30 per KVAR $ 0.30 per KVAR
POWER COST ADJUSTMENT:
The charges in the above MONTHLY RATE are subject to the provisions of the City of Salem’s Schedule P.C.A., which is included herein by
reference.
DETERMINATION OF BILLING DEMAND
The monthly billing demand in KW shall be taken each month as the highest registration of a 15-minute peak in kilowatts as registered
during the month by a demand meter or indicator. The monthly billing demand established hereunder shall not be less than the greater of: 1) 60%
of the customer's contract capacity or 2) 60% of the customer's highest monthly billing demand during the prior 11 months.
The reactive demand KVAR shall be taken each month as the highest single 15-minute peak in KVAR as registered during the month
by a KVAR meter or indicator.
Billing demands shall be rounded to the nearest tenth of a KW and KVAR.
MINIMUM CHARGE
This Schedule is subject to a minimum monthly charge equal to the Electric Base Charge, plus such additional charges as are derived
from application of the energy charge, demand charge and reactive demand charge.
PAYMENT
Bills are due upon presentation and payable at the Utility Collections Office located in City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem,
Virginia or at authorized collection agencies of the City of Salem. Payment is due when indicated on the bill. A penalty of $5.00 per service in the
case of residential service or five percent (5%) of the bill for commercial and Industrial service will be added to the bill for any payment not
received on or before the due date. Any account which becomes 25 days past due is subject to being cutoff for non-payment.
TERM
12 months
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
See Terms and Conditions of Service.
TERM OF CONTRACT
See Terms and Conditions.
Page 163 of 204
Page 7 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
SCHEDULE A.F.L.S.
(Athletic Field Lighting Service)
CODE 56
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for general service for outdoor lighting and incidental use with electrical capacity requirements exceeding 25 KW, through
one meter for athletic fields sponsored by public schools, communities, civic organizations or other public institutions.
MONTHLY RATE DELIVERY VOLTAGE
Secondary or Primary (56)
Electric Base Charge................................................. $14.25 per month
Energy Charge
All metered KWH............................. $ 0.15063 per KWH
Power Cost Adjustment
All KWH…………………………… $ 0.001736 per KWH
POWER COST ADJUSTMENT:
The charges in the above MONTHLY RATE are subject to the provisions of the City of Salem’s Schedule P.C.A., which is included herein by
reference.
MINIMUM CHARGE
This Schedule is subject to a minimum monthly charge equal to the Electric Base Charge, plus such additional charges as are derived
from application of the energy charge.
PAYMENT
Bills are due upon presentation and payable at the Utility Collections Office located in City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem,
Virginia or at authorized collection agencies of the City of Salem. Payment is due when indicated on the bill. A penalty of $5.00 per service in the
case of residential service or five percent (5%) of the bill for commercial and Industrial service will be added to the bill for any payment not
received on or before the due date. Any account which becomes 25 days past due is subject to being cutoff for non-payment.
TERM
12 months
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
See Terms and Conditions of Service.
TERM OF CONTRACT
See Terms and Conditions.
Page 164 of 204
Page 8 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
SCHEDULE O.L.
(Outdoor Lighting)
CODES 07, 07L, 08, 08L, 31, 32, 32L, 33, 34, 34L, 37, 38, 38L, 39,
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for outdoor lighting to individual customers located outside areas covered by municipal street lighting systems.
MONTHLY RATE
A. Overhead Lighting Service
For each of the following, the City of Salem, Virginia will provide lamp, photo-electric relay control equipment, luminaire and
upsweep arm not over 6 feet in length, and shall mount same on an existing wood distribution pole by the City of Salem, Virginia which can be
connected to existing secondary facilities by one span of not over 150 feet.
Initial
Code Wattage Lumens Type of Lamp KWH Total
(07) 100 9,500 H.P. SODIUM 40 $11.45
(07L) 50 5,000 LED 18 $11.45
(08) 250 30,000 H.P. SODIUM 105 $15.70
(08L) 96 13,000 LED 35 $15.70
(31) 250 (Flood) 28,500 H.P. SODIUM 105 $16.20
(32) 400 (Flood) 50,000 H.P. SODIUM 167 $20.45
(32L) 186 28,000 LED 67 $20.45
(33) 400 (Flood) 36,000 METAL HALIDE 158 $20.45
(34) 1000 (Flood) 110,000 METAL HALIDE 378 $40.95
(34L) 550 65,000 LED 198 $40.95
Additional Facilities
Where additional facilities are requested, the customer shall pay in advance the total installation cost of such additional facilities extending from
the nearest or most suitable pole of the City of Salem, Virginia to the point designated by the customer.
B. Post-Top Lighting Service
For each of the following, the City of Salem, Virginia will provide lamp, photo-electric relay control equipment, post-top luminaire
and installation (the type and height of which will be consistent with the City of Salem, Virginia’s construction standards), including underground
wiring for a distance of 30 feet from the City of Salem, Virginia’s existing secondary facilities.
Initial
Code Wattage Lumens Type of Lamp KWH Total
(37) 70 5,800 H.P. SODIUM 29 $16.70
(38) 150 22,000 H.P. SODIUM 59 $17.45
(38L) 116 11,000 LED 42 $17.45
(39) 86 4,350 LED 28 $22.95
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
When new facilities in addition to those specified above are to be installed by the City of Salem, Virginia, the customer will, in addition to the
above monthly charge, pay in advance the installation cost of such facilities.
Standard post heights for post top lighting are 8', 10', 12' and 14' mounting height. 12' and 14' post are only available within a distance of 10'
from a public road.
Page 165 of 204
Page 9 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
SCHEDULE O.L.
(Outdoor Lighting)
CODES 07, 07L, 08, 08L, 31, 32, 32L, 33, 34, 34L, 37, 38, 38L, 39,
(continued)
PAYMENT
Bills are due upon presentation and payable at the Utility Collections Office located in City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem,
Virginia or at authorized collection agencies of the City of Salem. Payment is due when indicated on the bill. A penalty of $5.00 per service in the
case of residential service or five percent (5%) of the bill for commercial and Industrial service will be added to the bill for any payment not
received on or before the due date. Any account which becomes 25 days past due is subject to being cutoff for non-payment.
HOURS OF LIGHTING
All lamps shall burn from one-half hour after sunset until one-half hour before sunrise, every night and all night.
TERM
12 months
Page 166 of 204
Page 10 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
SCHEDULE N.M.
(Net Metering Rider)
Code 88
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for new or existing customers who take standard service from the City, own and operate an eligible renewable energy
generator designed to operate in parallel with the City’s system and who request to connect to the City’s system. Net metering customers must
take service under one of the standard rate schedules.
CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
1. For purposes of this Schedule, an eligible renewable energy generator is an electrical generating facility which complies with all of the
following requirements:
a.) has a capacity less than or equal to 10 kW for customers taking service under rate code 01, and not more
than 500 kW for customers taking service under rate codes 04, 06, 05, 75, 09, 79, 50, or 51;
b.) uses solar or wind as its total energy source;
c.) is owned and operated by the customer and is located on the customer’s premises at the customer’s service location;
d.) is designed and installed to operate in parallel with the City’s system without adversely affecting the operation of
equipment and service of the City and its customers and without presenting safety hazards to City and customer
personnel; and
e.) is intended primarily to offset all or part of the customer’s own electricity requirements.
2. Renewable energy generator equipment and installations shall comply with all applicable safety and performance standards of the
National Electrical Code. The equipment and installation shall comply with UL 1741 and IEEE 1547 standards for grid-tie operation.
3. All customers wanting to connect a renewable energy generator to the City’s electric system shall contact the Electric Department and
the Building Inspector’s Office to provide connection details and get the appropriate permits.
4. For renewable energy generators with an alternating current capacity of greater than 25 kW, some additional requirements may need
to be met:
a.) electric distribution facilities and customer impact limitations – a review of existing facilities and expected impacts to
power quality may be required;
b.) secondary and service limitations – a review of existing secondary and service equipment may be required;
c.) protection schemes – a review of the generator protective scheme and the coordination with the distribution protection.
5. The City shall have the right to inspect and test the renewable energy generator equipment and installation prior to interconnection.
The City also reserves the right to conduct additional tests and inspections and install additional equipment or meters at any time
following interconnection. If such tests indicate adverse effects on the City’s electric system, the customer shall be required to correct
the problem in a timely manner. If the problem is not satisfactorily corrected, the City reserves the right to disconnect customer’s
service.
6. The customer is solely responsible for all equipment and installation costs of the renewable energy generator facility. The City shall
not be liable for any damages to renewable energy generator equipment arising from the interconnection to the City’s
distribution system including, but not limited to, lightning, outages, or voltage regulation.
7. The renewable energy generator installation must have a visibly open, lockable, manual disconnect switch which is accessible by the
City and clearly labeled.
MONTHLY CHARGES
All monthly charges shall be in accordance with the standard billing schedule under which the customer takes service. Such charges
shall be based on the customer’s net energy for the billing period, to the extent that the net energy exceeds zero. If the customer’s net energy for
the billing period is zero or negative, the customer shall pay only the charges from the standard rate schedule not based on energy consumption
(kWh). The customer shall receive no compensation from the City for excess generation (“negative net energy”) during the billing period. The
negative net energy will be carried forward and credited against positive energy usage in subsequent billing periods.
Negative net energy is not transferable, and the customer shall receive no compensation from the City for any negative net energy
upon termination of service from the City.
Page 167 of 204
Page 11 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
SCHEDULE T.S.
(Temporary Service)
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for lighting and general service for a limited duration, where capacity is available, to nonpermanent installations such as
construction projects, transient uses such as traveling shows, fairs, exhibitions, outdoor or indoor entertainment, seasonal installations, or under
other circumstances where the City of Salem, Virginia has reason to believe that the facilities installed will not be used for a permanent supply of
electricity. Temporary service shall be provided through its own separately metered delivery point.
OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES
All facilities necessary for service, including fixtures, controls, poles, transformers, secondaries, lamps and other appurtenances, shall
be owned and maintained by the City of Salem, Virginia. All service and necessary maintenance will be performed only during the regular
scheduled working hours of the City of Salem, Virginia. The City of Salem, Virginia shall be allowed 48 hours after notification by the customer
to replace all burned-out lamps.
TERM OF CONTRACT
Variable
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
See Terms and Condition of Service
A deposit equal to the full estimated amount of the bill and/or construction costs under this Schedule may be required at the option of
the City of Salem, Virginia.
The customer will be required to pay an additional charge equal to the total cost of installation, connection, disconnection, and
removal of the facilities required to serve the temporary load.
MONTHLY RATE
Temporary service will be supplied only under the City of Salem, Virginia's Tariff Schedules S.G.S., M.G.S., and L.G.S. when the
City of Salem, Virginia has available unsold capacity.
PAYMENT
Bills are due upon presentation and payable at the Utility Collections Office located in City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem,
Virginia or at authorized collection agencies of the City of Salem. Payment is due when indicated on the bill. A penalty of $5.00 per service in the
case of residential service or five percent (5%) of the bill for commercial and Industrial service will be added to the bill for any payment not
received on or before the due date. Any account which becomes 25 days past due is subject to being cutoff for non-payment.
MINIMUM CHARGE
The same minimum charges as set forth applicable to the Schedule under the Schedule under which temporary service is supplied shall
be applicable to such temporary service and in no case shall the minimum charge be less than one full monthly minimum charge under such
schedule.
NON-RECOVERABLE COST OF TEMPORARY SERVICE
Charges for temporary service installations are based on the estimated non-recoverable costs of installing and removing the necessary
facilities to render electric service. In addition, the customer receiving service will pay the cost of energy which will be billed on the applicable
tariff.
Metering:
Secondary metering, single phase, self contained $60.00
Secondary metering, single phase, with current transformer $250.00
Secondary metering, three phase, self contained $75.00
Line Extensions (transformers not included):
1 pole tap, single phase $500.00
2 pole tap, single phase $750.00
Transformers – Single Phase:
37.5 kVA $250.00
75 kVA $300.00
Page 168 of 204
Page 12 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
SCHEDULE T.S.
(Temporary Service)
(continued)
Notes:
Where installation involves a transformer and a one or two pole tap, the charge for the transformer and metering should be added to
the charge for the line to determine the total non-recoverable cost to be charged to the customer.
Where line extensions in excess of two poles and transformer installations in excess of 75 kVA are required, estimates will be secured
from the Electric Department before non-recoverable costs are quoted to the customer.
No money for clearing right-of-way is included in line estimates. This should be added to costs if applicable.
Estimates include money for surveying and engineering expense.
Page 169 of 204
Page 13 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
Virginia - Street Lighting Rates
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE
Available for lighting service sold for the lighting of public streets, public highways and other public outdoor areas in municipalities
and political subdivisions where such service can be supplied from the existing general distribution system.
MONTHLY RATE
A. Overhead Service on Existing Secondary Distribution Facilities
KWH / Month Cost / Month
High Pressure Sodium
100 watt 40 $ 9.45
250 watt 103 $15.95
400 watt 167 $20.95
LED
40 Watt 15 $9.45
96 Watt 35 $15.95
183 Watt 66 $20.95
B. Service on City of Salem, Virginia owned Standard Metal, Concrete, or Ornamental Poles, or Wood Poles Served from
Underground Distribution
KWH / Month Cost / Month
High Pressure Sodium
100 watt 40 $19.55
150 watt 59 $21.85
250 watt 103 $25.95
400 watt 167 $30.95
LED
40 Watt 15 $19.55
116 Watt 42 $21.85
96 Watt 35 $25.95
183 Watt 66 $30.95
Downtown
51 Watt Overhead 19 $59.95
55 Watt Post Top (2 fixtures per pole) 40 $113.35
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Decorative and other non-standard fixtures and/or poles are not included in the standard street lighting rate but may be installed at the
option of the City of Salem, Virginia.
Page 170 of 204
Page 14 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
SCHEDULE P.C.A.
(Power Cost Adjustment)
APPLICABILITY
This clause is applicable to and becomes a part of each electric rate schedule in which reference is made to Schedule W.P.C.A.
FORMULA
The amount charged for each kWh of energy sold by the City of Salem may be increased in accordance with the following:
Where:
PCA = Power cost adjustment factor; provided, however, that such factor shall not be less than zero.
C = The estimated total cost of power in dollars to be purchased by the City of Salem for the twelve-month period.
P = The estimated total kilowatt-hours to be purchased by the City of Salem for the twelve-month period.
S = The estimated total kilowatt-hours to be sold by the City of Salem for the twelve-month period.
B = The average cost of wholesale power per kilowatt-hour purchased by the City of Salem which is recovered in the City of
Salem's retail rate schedules, currently $0.074034.
The PCA factor will be computed according to the above formula for a twelve-month period beginning July of each fiscal year.
Should it appear at any time during the twelve-month period that continued use of the PCA factor then in effect for the remainder of the twelve-
month period will result in a substantial under recovery of the power cost, the City of Salem may modify the existing PCA factor to recover the
applicable power cost more accurately. However, the PCA factor will not be less than zero.
Power cost and kilowatt-hours used in the above formula may exclude such quantities applicable to certain customers billed under rate
schedules not subject to the PCA factor.
S
PxBCPCA
Page 171 of 204
Page 15 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
ADDITIONAL FEES
MISCELLANEOUS
Reconnection Charge for Non-payment $25.00
$75.00 after hours or on weekends
$250.00 Commercial, Fraudulent, or Denial of Access*
Meter Check for Accuracy $50.00*
* Deposit required. See Terms and Conditions below.
POLE ATTACHMENT FEES AND OTHER CHARGES
Annual Pole Attachment Fee $29.38 per attachment per year
One-time License Agreement Fee $1,000
Permit Application Fee $25.00 per pole per application
Unauthorized Attachment Penalty Fee 5 times annual fee per occurrence, for residential service drop
10 times annual fee per occurrence, for all other
Failure to Abandon or Remove Facilities Penalty ¼ annual rate per day per pole
Page 172 of 204
Page 16 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
APPLICATION
A copy of the Rate Schedules and Standard Terms and Conditions under which service is to be rendered to the customer will be
furnished upon request at the City of Salem, Virginia's office. The customer shall elect the Schedule upon which his application for service shall
be based.
A written agreement may be required from each customer before service will be commenced. A copy of the agreement will be
furnished to the customer upon request.
When the customer desires delivery of energy at more than one point, a separate agreement will be required for each separate point of
delivery. Service delivered at each point of delivery will be billed separately under the applicable Schedule.
PAYMENTS
Meters will be read monthly, except that readings may be estimated on occasion as necessary. All initial and final bills will be based
on actual meter readings.
Bills will be rendered by the City of Salem, Virginia to the customer monthly in accordance with the Schedule selected applicable to
the customer's service, with the following exception:
Year-round residential customers shall have the option of paying bills under the City of Salem, Virginia's equal payment
plan (Budget Plan), whereby the total service for the succeeding 12-month period is estimated in advance, and bills are rendered
monthly on the basis of one-twelfth of the 12-month estimate. The City of Salem, Virginia may at any time during the 12-month
period adjust the estimate so made, and the bills rendered in accordance with such estimate, to conform more nearly with the actual
charges for service being experienced. The normal equal payment period will be 12 months, commencing in any month selected by
the City of Salem, Virginia, but in those cases where billing is commenced during a month which leaves less than 12 months until the
beginning of the next normal equal payment period to which the customer is assigned, payments shall be calculated on the basis of the
months in such period.
In case the actual charges for the service used during any equal payment period exceeds the bills as rendered on the equal
payment plan, the amount of such excess shall be paid by the customer on or before the due date of the bill covering the last month of
the equal payment period in which such excess appears. In case the actual charges for the service used during the equal payment
period is less than the amount paid under the equal payment plan during such period, the amount of such overpayment shall, at the
option of the City of Salem, Virginia, either be refunded to the customer or credited on the customer's last bill for the period.
If a customer fails to pay bills as rendered on the equal payment plan, the City of Salem, Virginia shall have the right to
withdraw the plan with respect to such customer and to restore the customer to billing as provided for in the applicable Schedules, in
addition to any other rights which the City of Salem, Virginia may have under such Schedules in case of arrearage in the payment of
bills.
All bills are payable at the business offices or authorized collection agencies of the City of Salem, Virginia within the time limits
specified in the Schedule. The word "month" as used herein and in the Schedules is hereby defined to be the elapsed time between two
successive meter readings approximately thirty (30) days apart. In the event of the stoppage of or the failure of any meter to register the full
amount of energy consumed, the customer will be billed for such period on an estimated consumption based upon his use of energy in a similar
period of like use, and the customer shall pay to the City of Salem, Virginia such estimated amount.
Where indicated on the applicable tariff schedule, a delayed payment charge, indicated on the appropriate rate schedule, will be
applied to any outstanding account balances, excluding local consumer utility taxes, not received by the City of Salem, Virginia by the date
indicated in the payment provision of the applicable tariff schedule.
INSPECTION
It is in the interest of the customer to properly install and maintain his wiring and electrical equipment, and the customer shall at all
times be responsible for the character and condition thereof. The City of Salem, Virginia is not required to inspect such wiring and electrical
equipment, and in no event shall the City of Salem, Virginia be responsible therefor or liable for any damages to person or property caused by
such wiring or equipment.
Where a customer's premises are located in a municipality or other governmental subdivision where inspection laws or ordinances are
in effect, the City of Salem, Virginia may withhold furnishing service to new installations until it has received notification from the appropriate
governmental official that the inspection laws or ordinances have been complied with.
SERVICE CONNECTIONS
The City of Salem, Virginia shall, when requested to furnish service, designate the location of its service connection. The customer's
wiring shall, except for those cases listed below, be brought outside the building wall nearest the City of Salem, Virginia's service wires so as to
be readily accessible thereto.
Contact the City of Salem, Virginia Electric Department about service connection requirements for different applications.
All inside wiring shall be grounded in accordance with the requirements of the National Electrical Code or the requirements of any
local inspection service authorized by a state or local authority.
When a customer desires that energy be delivered at a point or in a manner other than that designated by the City of Salem, Virginia,
the customer shall pay the additional cost thereof.
Page 173 of 204
Page 17 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
(continued)
RELOCATION OF CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA'S FACILITIES AT CUSTOMER'S REQUEST
Whenever, at the customer's request, the City of Salem, Virginia facilities located on the customer's premises are relocated to suit the
convenience of the customer, the customer may be required to reimburse the City of Salem, Virginia for the entire cost incurred in making such
relocation.
LOCATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA'S EQUIPMENT
In order to provide service to the customer, the City of Salem, Virginia shall have the right to construct its poles, lines and circuits on
the property or within the buildings of the customer at a point or points convenient for such purpose. The customer shall provide suitable space
for the installation of necessary measuring instruments so that such instruments will be protected from injury by the elements or through the
negligence of deliberate acts of the customer, its agents and employees.
USE OF ENERGY BY CUSTOMER
The Tariff Schedules for electric energy included in this tariff are classified by the character of use of such energy and are not
available for service except as provided therein.
A customer may not change from one Schedule to another during the term of the contract except with the consent of the City of
Salem, Virginia.
The service connections, transformers, meters and appliances supplied by the City of Salem, Virginia for each customer have a
definite capacity and no additions by any customer other than residential customers receiving service under Tariff Schedule RS to the equipment,
or load connected thereto, shall be allowed, except with the consent of the City of Salem, Virginia.
The customer shall install only motors, apparatus or appliances which are suitable for operation in connection with the character of the
service supplied by the City of Salem, Virginia and which shall not be detrimental to such service, The electric power shall not be used in such a
manner as to cause unwarranted voltage fluctuations or disturbances in the City of Salem, Virginia's transmission or distribution system.
The customer shall make no attachment of any kind whatsoever to the City of Salem, Virginia's lines, poles, crossarms, structures or
other facilities without the express written consent of the City of Salem, Virginia.
All apparatus used by the customer shall be designed, maintained and operated so as to secure the highest practicable commercial
efficiency and power factor and the proper balancing of phases. Motors which are frequently started or which are arranged for automatic control
shall be designed in a manner which gives maximum starting torque with minimum current flow, and shall be equipped with controlling devices
approved by the City of Salem, Virginia. The customer shall notify the City of Salem, Virginia of any significant increase or decrease in the
customer's connected load.
The customer shall not be permitted to operate his own generating equipment in parallel with the City of Salem, Virginia's service,
except with the express written consent of the City of Salem, Virginia.
VOLTAGE
For electricity supplied for residential service in urban areas, the City of Salem, Virginia shall endeavor to supply voltages such that
variation from nominal voltage to minimum voltage will not be more than 5% of the nominal voltage, and the variation from nominal voltage to
maximum voltage will not be more than 5% of the nominal voltage.
The City of Salem, Virginia shall not be responsible for variations in voltage in excess of those specified above arising from causes
beyond the control of the City of Salem, Virginia.
METER ACCURACY AND TESTS
The customer shall pay the City of Salem, Virginia a fee as defined in City of Salem Fee Schedule for each test requested by the
customer. The deposit shall be refunded only if the percentage registration of the meter exceeds 102%. The customer will be refunded based on
the meter error for that customer’s previous 12 monthly bills.
If the customer has been incorrectly billed because of errors other than meter accuracy, the City of Salem, Virginia shall estimate the
electricity used during the previous 12 months of incorrect registration based on all known relevant facts. If the customer has been over-billed,
their refund will be based on that estimated consumption. If the customer has been under-billed, the error will be corrected and there will be no
true-up billing.
DENIAL OR DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE
Except as may be otherwise provided by law, the City of Salem, Virginia reserves the right to refuse to serve any applicant for service,
or to discontinue to serve any customer after ten days' notice in writing, if the applicant or customer is indebted to the City of Salem, Virginia for
any service previously rendered at any location; provided, however, that no such notice shall be given where any emergency exists or where
fraudulent use of electricity is detected. The City of Salem, Virginia may refuse to provide service to any applicant if in the City of Salem,
Virginia's reasonable judgment the applicant's installation of wiring or electrical energy consuming equipment is regarded as dangerous or
creating a hazardous condition or is of such condition that satisfactory service cannot be provided.
The City of Salem, Virginia reserves the right to discontinue service to any customer for failure to provide and maintain adequate
security for the payment of bills as requested by the City of Salem, Virginia, for failure to comply with these Terms and Conditions of Service or
to prevent fraud upon the City of Salem, Virginia.
Any discontinuance of service shall not terminate the contract between the City of Salem, Virginia and the customer, nor shall it
abrogate any minimum charge which may be effective.
Page 174 of 204
Page 18 of 18
City of Salem Virginia
Effective July 1, 2025
Print date 5/6/2025
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
(continued)
RECONNECTION CHARGE
In cases where the City of Salem, Virginia had discontinued service as herein provided for, the customer shall pay the City of Salem,
Virginia a reconnection charge prior to the City of Salem, Virginia's reconnection of the service. Except as set forth below, the reconnection
charge for residential or small general service customer shall be as defined in City of Salem Fee Schedule. For all other customers the charge
shall be the actual cost of making the reconnection, with a minimum of $250.00. In addition, the City of Salem, Virginia may, at its option,
require a deposit from the customer prior to reconnecting the service. The reconnection charge for all customers, where service has been
disconnected for fraudulent use of electricity or where access to the meter has been denied, will be the actual cost of the reconnection, with a
minimum of $250.00.
TERM OF CONTRACT
Customer’s may at the City of Salem, Virginia’s discretion be required to contract for capacity.
Contracts under this Schedule will be made for an initial period of not less than one (1) year and shall continue thereafter until either
party has given six (6) months written notice to the other of the intention to terminate the contract. The City of Salem, Virginia will have the right
to make contracts for initial periods longer than one (1) year.
A new initial contract will not be required for existing customers who increase their contract requirements after the original initial
period, unless new or additional facilities are required.
DELIVERY VOLTAGE
The standard nominal distribution service voltages within the City of Salem, Virginia service area are:
Secondary Primary
Single Phase Three Phase
120/240 volts 12.47/7.2 KV
120/208 volts
Three Phase
120/208 volts
120/240 volts
277/480 volts
Page 175 of 204
Item #: 6.F.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Salem City Schools Budget
Consider adoption of Resolution 1499 approving the Salem
City Schools budget for Fiscal Year 2026.
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Attached is a resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2026 budget for the Salem City
Schools. The budget was approved by the School Board on March 25, 2025. The
proposed budget is available for review on the School’s website
at https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/slmsdva/Board.nsf/Public.
The approval of the Fiscal Year 2026 budget for Salem City Schools is being
requested to fulfill our legal requirement of approving the budget. The budget is
prepared for informative and fiscal planning purposes only and does not actually
commit or appropriate funds for expenditure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approving the attached resolution approving the budget for Salem
City Schools for the 2026 fiscal year.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Salem City Schools Budget Resolution 1499 May 12 2025
2. FY26 - Schools - Summary of FY26 Budget Proposal Adoption Attachment A for
finance
Page 176 of 204
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, May 12, 2025:
RESOLUTION 1499
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SALEM CITY SCHOOLS FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET
WHEREAS, Section 22.1-93 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that the
governing body of the City shall prepare and approve an annual budget; and
WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and fiscal
planning purposes only; and
WHEREAS, the Salem City School Board approved their Fiscal Year 2026 budget on
March 20, 2025,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
that the Salem City Schools budget for the Fiscal Year 2026 as shown on the attached schedules
is hereby approved.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
John Saunders –
H. Hunter Holliday –
Byron Randolph Foley –
Anne Marie Green –
Renee F. Turk –
ATTEST:
_________________
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia
Page 177 of 204
Salem City Schools
Summary of Proposed Budget As of March 20, 2025
FY 2026
Note: This page is shown for general comparison of totals only. This schedule is based on the original adopted budget whereas
the detailed budget shows any budget amendments year to date which may differ
School Operating Fund Budget
FY 2025 Adopted
Budget
FY 2026 Proposed
Budget as of
3/20/2025
Increase
(Decrease) of FY
26 from FY 25
Adopted
Increase
(Decrease) %
Revenue
State Revenue, excluding Sales Tax (1)$25,731,101 $30,079,820 $4,348,719 16.9%(1)
Sales Tax 4,423,748 4,565,979 142,231 3.2%(2)
Subtotal-All State Revenue $30,154,849 $34,645,799 $4,490,950 14.9%
Federal Revenue 4,001,953 3,614,257 (387,696)-9.7%(3)
Local Revenue 23,781,130 24,213,041 431,911 1.8%(4)
Other Revenue 564,441 686,396 121,955 21.6%(5)
Total School Fund Revenue Budget $58,502,373 $63,159,493 $4,657,120 8.0%
Expenditures
Central Administration $2,241,116 $2,451,922 $210,806 9.4%(6)
Instruction-Centralized Cost 8,006,950 11,076,979 3,070,029 38.3%(7)
Salem High School 12,488,351 13,019,344 530,993 4.3%(8)
Andrew Lewis Middle School 8,685,037 9,613,718 928,681 10.7%(8)
G. W. Carver 4,510,800 4,724,042 213,242 4.7%(8)
West Salem 4,120,481 4,521,858 401,377 9.7%(8)
South Salem 3,910,007 4,421,847 511,840 13.1%(8)
East Salem 4,442,495 4,681,669 239,174 5.4%(8)
Attendance and Health 1,755,883 1,903,071 147,188 8.4%(8)
Transportation 2,476,100 2,586,786 110,686 4.5%(8)
Special Purpose Grants 4,001,953 3,614,257 (387,696)-9.7%(3)
Non Departmental (Incl Debt Service)1,863,200 544,000 (1,319,200)-70.8%(9)
Total School Fund Expenditure Budget $58,502,373 $63,159,493 $4,657,120 8.0%
Budget Shortfall $0 $0
(1) State revenue changes due to Compensation Supplement and At Risk funding updates, as well as an increase in enrollment due to online
school program.
(2) Sales tax is budgeted using local estimate (i.e. State's estimate less $100,000).
(3) Reflects mostly the FY 25 Amended budget as it is the most updated Federal grant information received. Includes removal of the ESSER
Federal COVID-19 related grants. Includes a new Year Round School for EL and Special Education programs grant of $300,000
(4) Reflects an increase in funding from the City of $431,911 being asked.
(5) Includes an increase in Facilities and Sale of Equipment to match trends of revenues received, as well as the New Horizons Healthcare
partnership program.
(6) Reflects changes in salaries due to raises and changes in personnel. Also includes addition/removal of positions as directed by the need
of the division.
(7) Reflects changes in salaries due to raises and changes in personnel. Also includes addition/removal of positions as directed by the need
of the division. Incorporates costs of the online school program, as well as increases in summer school and instructional software licensing
fee increases.
(8) Reflects changes in salaries due to raises and changes in personnel. Also includes addition/removal of positions as directed by the need
of the division and those no longer funded by ALL In Tutoring grant funds. Includes increases in utilities and building maintenance costs.
(9) Temporary account for an additional 1% Salary Increase of $405,000 placeholder and $50,000 for mid-year contingencies. Also included
a proposed laptop lease of $89,000.
Page 178 of 204
Cafeteria Fund Budget
FY 2025 Adopted
Budget
FY 2026 Proposed
Budget as of
3/20/2025
Increase
(Decrease) of FY
26 from FY 25
Adopted
Increase
(Decrease) %
Revenue
Salem High School $782,705 $830,713 $48,008 6.1%
Andrew Lewis Middle School 552,713 596,240 43,527 7.9%
G W Carver 384,333 456,177 71,844 18.7%
West Salem 262,824 292,972 30,148 11.5%
South Salem 241,716 271,169 29,453 12.2%
East Salem 281,405 312,180 30,775 10.9%
$2,505,696 $2,759,451 $253,755 10.1%
Expenditures
Salem High School $882,383 $888,828 $6,445 0.7%
Andrew Lewis Middle School 542,615 665,593 122,978 22.7%
G W Carver 303,756 316,220 12,464 4.1%
West Salem 258,282 300,148 41,866 16.2%
South Salem 239,335 305,227 65,892 27.5%
East Salem 279,325 283,435 4,110 1.5%
Total Cafeteria Fund Budget $2,505,696 $2,759,451 $253,755 10.1%
Total Proposed School Budget (School
Operating, Grant and Cafeteria)$61,008,069 $65,918,944 $4,910,875 8.0%
Page 179 of 204
Item #: 6.G.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Review of budget adoption for Fiscal Year 2026.
Review of budget adoption for Fiscal Year 2026
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
The adoption of the Fiscal Year 2026 budget is a legal requirement per the City Charter
in Section 8.3. This step must be completed before July 1 of each year to meet this
requirement. The adoption will include all City funds, Salem City Schools and the
Capital Improvement Plan. Approval of the budget is for informative and fiscal planning
purposes only and does not actually commit or appropriate funds for expenditure. The
commitment of funds will not occur until the approval of the second reading of the Fiscal
Year 2026 appropriation ordinance on May 27, 2025. Attached is the list of changes
that have been made to the budget since its presentation on April 14, 2025, to City
Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. List of Changes - Fy26 Budget
Page 180 of 204
General Fund Budget Changes for FY2026
Revenue Budget Originally Presented $ 119,399,873
10-012-0100-40200 Finance Designation Of Beginning Fund Balance 200,000
10-012-0100-42030 Finance Business License Tax 31,515
10-012-0100-48350 Finance CSA-Reimbursement From State (157,993)
10-018-0100-48547 Streets Southwest VA Produce Prescription Program 3,500
10-030-0100-48395 Police Police State Grants 8,000
85,022
General Fund Revenue Budget-Adjusted $ 119,484,895
Expenditure Budget Originally Presented $ 119,399,873
10-008-1232-53370 Real Estate Software Maintenance/Support 14,408
10-008-1232-56012 Real Estate Books And Subscriptions (13,608)
10-012-3325-57030 Finance RVJDC Juvenile Placement Program 46,641
10-012-5350-55730 Finance Administrative Expenses 40,000
10-012-5350-55753 Finance 1a - Foster Care - IV-E Children (8,841)
10-012-5350-55756 Finance 1b - Foster Care - All Others (6,591)
10-012-5350-55765 Finance 1e - Educational Svcs - Congregate Care (18,574)
10-012-5350-55768 Finance 2a - Treatment Foster Care - IV-E (8,923)
10-012-5350-55771 Finance 2a1 - Treatment Foster Care - Other (20,842)
10-012-5350-55780 Finance 2e - Family Foster Care - Other (8,367)
10-012-5350-55783 Finance 2f - Community Based Svcs (48,900)
10-012-5350-55789 Finance 2g - Special Ed Private Day Placement (111,361)
10-012-8150-55677 Finance Salem Economic Development Authority (150,000)
10-012-9107-55680 Finance Roanoke City Skate Park 200,000
10-012-9110-59505 Finance Contingency for Economic Development 150,000
10-018-7251-55963 Streets Southwest VA Produce Prescription Program 3,500
10-019-1320-55210 Registrar Postage 1,600
10-019-1320-55410 Registrar Lease/Rent Of Equipment 2,160
10-027-2170-55800 Clerk of Circuit Court Miscellaneous 720
10-030-3140-55859 Police Police State Grants 8,000
10-034-3230-56004 Rescue Squad Medical Supplies (1,000)
10-080-8110-55633 Economic Development Resource Partner Organizations 15,000
85,022
General Fund Expenditure Budget-Adjusted 119,484,895$
Page 181 of 204
Item #: 6.H.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Budget Appropriation Ordinances
Consider on first reading the ordinances appropriating funds
for:
(a) Fiscal year 2026 operating budget and approval of the
Schematic List of Positions and Pay Scale for Fiscal Year
2026;
(b) Fiscal year 2026 capital budget and;
(c) Fiscal year 2026 budget for Salem City Schools
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This is the first reading of three ordinances to appropriate funds for Fiscal Year 2026
for the City of Salem operating and capital budgets, Salem City Schools categories,
and approve the City of Salem Schematic List of Positions and Pay Scale for Fiscal
Year 2026.
The Fiscal Year 2026 operating budget and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) were
presented to City Council on April 14, 2025. The operating budget reflects the tax
rates adopted at the City Council meeting on May 12, 2025. The proposed budget
was advertised in Cardinal News on May 2, 2025, and May 5, 2025. A public hearing
was held on the budget on May 12, 2025 to receive oral comments from the public
concerning the proposed Fiscal Year 2026 operating budget and capital budget.
Attached for your approval are three budget appropriation ordinances for Fiscal Year
2026 and the Schematic List of Positions and Pay Scale for Fiscal Year 2026. In
order to separate Salem City Schools funding from City funding and more clearly
distinguish the appropriations of City Council, City staff has divided the appropriation
into three ordinances. Each ordinance will be voted on separately. City staff has
included a list of changes that have been made to the budget since the presentation
on April 14, 2025.
Page 182 of 204
The total City budget for Fiscal Year 2026 is $244,552,116, which includes the
following funds: General, Water, Sewer, Civic Center, Catering, Electric, Debt Service,
and Schools. The total excludes transfers. The budget is recommended to be
appropriated in three separate budget ordinances.
a. The first budget ordinance provides funding in the amount of $173,201,472 in Fiscal
Year 2026 for the City’s operations budget. The ordinance also approves the City’s
Schematic List of Positions and Pay Scale for Fiscal Year 2026.
b. The second budget ordinance provides funding in the amount of $5,431,700 in
Fiscal Year 2026 for the City’s capital budget.
c. The third budget ordinance provides funding in the amount of $65,918,944 in Fiscal
Year 2026 for Salem City Schools.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of the Fiscal Year 2026 budget appropriation ordinances provides funding for
City and School operations, transfers, and capital budgets effective July 1, 2025.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the three Fiscal Year 2026 budget
appropriation ordinances. Staff also recommends approval of the attached Schematic
List of Positions and Pay Scale for Fiscal Year 2026. The second reading of the three
ordinances will be held on May 27, 2025.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Budget Appropriation Ordinances 5-12-25
2. Schematic List of Positions and Pay Scale
3. List of Changes - Fy26 Budget
4. Capital Appropriation Ordinance 5-12-25
5. School Budget Appropriation Ordinance 5-12-25
Page 183 of 204
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026
OPERATIONS BUDGET AND APPROVAL OF THE SCHEMATIC LIST OF POSITIONS
AND PAY SCALE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 FOR THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA.
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public hearing was
held on May 12, 2025, concerning the adoption of the annual budget for the City of
Salem for Fiscal Year 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, approved said budget on
May 27, 2025, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.3 of the Charter of the City of
Salem and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 12,
2025 and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 2025, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 7.3 of the Charter of the City of Salem.
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia,
as follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2026, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
Carryover 2,190,007$
Property Taxes 55,392,153
Other Local Taxes 29,773,315
Permits, Privilege Fees and Regulatory Licenses 368,940
Fines and Forfeitures 120,000
Revenue from Use of Money and Property 6,397,291
Charges for Services 3,954,147
Miscellaneous Revenue 527,000
Payment in Lieu of Taxes 3,314,000
Revenue from the Commonwealth - Categorical 14,492,987
Revenue from the Commonwealth - Non-categorical 2,886,557
Revenue from the Federal Government 14,498
Proceeds from Indebtedness 54,000
Total General Fund Revenues 119,484,895
Debt Service Fund 5,518,498
Water Fund 11,894,544
Sewer Fund 7,916,888
City of Salem, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2026
First Reading May 12, 2025; Second Reading May 27, 2025
Page 184 of 204
Appropriation
Amount
Civic Center Fund 6,028,360
Electric Fund 53,755,770
Catering Fund 1,108,628
Total Revenue 205,707,583
Less: Transfers (32,506,111)
Total Net of Transfers 173,201,472$
Expenditures:
General Government 14,827,764
Judicial Administration 3,477,106
Public Safety 25,690,074
Public Works 16,434,351
Health and Welfare 9,850,176
Education 26,948,396
Parks, Recreation and Culture 8,837,286
Community Development 4,500,912
Transfers to Other Funds 4,110,184
Debt Service 3,307,957
Contingency 1,500,689
Total General Fund Expenditures 119,484,895
Debt Service Fund 5,518,498
Water Fund 11,894,544
Sewer Fund 7,916,888
Civic Center Fund 6,028,360
Electric Fund 53,755,770
Catering Fund 1,108,628
Total Expenditures 205,707,583
Less: Transfers (32,506,111)
Total Net of Transfers 173,201,472$
2. The City Manager may authorize or delegate the authorization of the transfer
of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one department to
another within the same fund.
3. That all funded outstanding encumbrances at June 30, 2025 are re-
appropriated to the 2026 fiscal year to the same department and account for
which they are encumbered in the previous year.
4. That the City Council approves the City of Salem Schematic List of Positions
and Pay Scale. The Schematic List of Positions and Pay Scale included as
part of this ordinance are effective July 1, 2025.
5. That the budget, along with the list of changes, contains a complete itemized
and classified plan of all contemplated expenditures and all estimated
revenues for the ensuing year
This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2025.
Page 185 of 204
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
John Saunders –
H. Hunter Holliday –
Byron Randolph Foley –
Anne Marie Green –
Renee F. Turk –
Passed:
Effective:
/s/ Renee F. Turk
Mayor
ATTEST:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Page 186 of 204
Job Title Grade Min Mid Max
Account Services Supervisor 33 65,305.19$ 84,896.74$ 104,488.30$
Accountant 30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
Accounting Assistant 22 38,182.59$ 49,637.37$ 61,092.15$
Accounting Manager 36 75,598.92$ 98,278.59$ 120,958.27$
Accounting Technician 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Accreditation Manager 27 48,731.74$ 63,351.26$ 77,970.78$
Administrative Assistant 21 36,364.37$ 47,273.68$ 58,183.00$
Animal Control Officer 29 53,726.74$ 69,844.76$ 85,962.78$
Animal Shelter Manager 33 65,305.19$ 84,896.74$ 104,488.30$
Animal Shelter Worker 21 36,364.37$ 47,273.68$ 58,183.00$
Applications Manager 36 75,598.92$ 98,278.59$ 120,958.27$
Assistant Chef 20 34,632.74$ 45,022.56$ 55,412.38$
Assistant Chief WTP Operator 31 59,233.73$ 77,003.85$ 94,773.97$
Assistant Commonwealth Attorney 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Assistant Director of Civic Facilities 39 87,515.20$ 113,769.76$ 140,024.32$
Assistant Director of Community Development/Engineer 40 91,890.96$ 119,458.24$ 147,025.53$
Assistant Director of Electric Utility 40 91,890.96$ 119,458.24$ 147,025.53$
Assistant Director of Finance 39 87,515.20$ 113,769.76$ 140,024.32$
Assistant Director of Human Resources 39 87,515.20$ 113,769.76$ 140,024.32$
Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation 39 87,515.20$ 113,769.76$ 140,024.32$
Assistant Director of Water and Sewer 40 91,890.96$ 119,458.24$ 147,025.53$
Assistant Food and Beverage Manager 26 46,411.18$ 60,334.53$ 74,257.88$
Assistant Recreation Program Supervisor 25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
Assistant Telecommunicator Manager 32 62,195.42$ 80,854.04$ 99,512.67$
Assistant to the City Manager 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Assistant Utility Lines Manager 31 59,233.73$ 77,003.85$ 94,773.97$
Assistant Utility Maintenance Manager 31 59,233.73$ 77,003.85$ 94,773.97$
Asst Dir of Streets and GM-Street Super 40 91,890.96$ 119,458.24$ 147,025.53$
Automotive Mechanic 26 46,411.18$ 60,334.53$ 74,257.88$
Automotive Service Worker 21 36,364.37$ 47,273.68$ 58,183.00$
Box Office Supervisor 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Building Engineer 30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
Building Maintenance Assistant 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Building Maintenance Superintendent 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Building Maintenance Technician I 26 46,411.18$ 60,334.53$ 74,257.88$
Building Maintenance Technician II 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Building Maintenance Technician III 30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
Building Official 36 75,598.92$ 98,278.59$ 120,958.27$
Business Analyst I 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Business Analyst II 31 59,233.73$ 77,003.85$ 94,773.97$
Business Analyst III 33 65,305.19$ 84,896.74$ 104,488.30$
Captain Deputy Sheriff 36 75,598.92$ 98,278.59$ 120,958.27$
Chef 25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
Chief Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue 32 62,195.42$ 80,854.04$ 99,512.67$
Chief Deputy Court Clerk I 32 62,195.42$ 80,854.04$ 99,512.67$
Chief Deputy Treasurer 32 62,195.42$ 80,854.04$ 99,512.67$
Chief Engineer 38 83,347.81$ 108,352.15$ 133,356.49$
City of Salem, Virginia
Schematic List of Positions - Fiscal Year 2026
Page 187 of 204
Job Title Grade Min Mid Max
City of Salem, Virginia
Schematic List of Positions - Fiscal Year 2026
Chief of Police 44 111,694.03$ 145,202.24$ 178,710.45$
Chief WTP Operator 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Childrens Services Supervisor 30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
City Assessor 42 101,309.78$ 131,702.71$ 162,095.65$
City Garage Supervisor 30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
City Horticulturist 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Civic Center Booking Coordinator 22 38,182.59$ 49,637.37$ 61,092.15$
Civic Center Events & Production Manager 33 65,305.19$ 84,896.74$ 104,488.30$
Civic Center Events Manager 31 59,233.73$ 77,003.85$ 94,773.97$
Civic Center Mechanic 26 46,411.18$ 60,334.53$ 74,257.88$
Civic Center Operations Supervisor 25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
Civic Center Operations Worker 20 34,632.74$ 45,022.56$ 55,412.38$
Civic Center Public Relations Associate 20 34,632.74$ 45,022.56$ 55,412.38$
Civic Facilities Sales Representative 29 53,726.74$ 69,844.76$ 85,962.78$
Civil Engineer I 33 65,305.19$ 84,896.74$ 104,488.30$
Civil Engineer II 35 71,998.97$ 93,598.66$ 115,198.35$
Codes Compliance Investigator I 25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
Codes Enforcement Officer I 26 46,411.18$ 60,334.53$ 74,257.88$
Codes Enforcement Officer II 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Communications Specialist 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Construction Inspector 26 46,411.18$ 60,334.53$ 74,257.88$
Construction Project Manager 32 62,195.42$ 80,854.04$ 99,512.67$
Crime Analyst 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Custodian 20 34,632.74$ 45,022.56$ 55,412.38$
Deputy Chief of Police 41 96,485.51$ 125,431.16$ 154,376.81$
Deputy City Clerk-Executive Assistant 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue II 24 42,096.31$ 54,725.20$ 67,354.09$
Deputy Commonwealth Attorney 39 87,515.20$ 113,769.76$ 140,024.32$
Deputy Court Clerk II 22 38,182.59$ 49,637.37$ 61,092.15$
Deputy Court Clerk III 26 46,411.18$ 60,334.53$ 74,257.88$
Deputy Fire Chief 40 91,890.96$ 119,458.24$ 147,025.53$
Deputy Registrar 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Deputy Sheriff I 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Deputy Sheriff II 30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
Deputy Treasurer I 22 38,182.59$ 49,637.37$ 61,092.15$
Deputy Treasurer II 24 42,096.31$ 54,725.20$ 67,354.09$
Director of Civic Facilities 43 106,375.27$ 138,287.85$ 170,200.43$
Director of Communications 42 101,309.78$ 131,702.71$ 162,095.65$
Director of Community Development 44 111,694.03$ 145,202.24$ 178,710.45$
Director of Economic Development 43 106,375.27$ 138,287.85$ 170,200.43$
Director of Electric Utility 44 111,694.03$ 145,202.24$ 178,710.45$
Director of Finance 44 111,694.03$ 145,202.24$ 178,710.45$
Director of Human Resources 43 106,375.27$ 138,287.85$ 170,200.43$
Director of Parks and Recreation 43 106,375.27$ 138,287.85$ 170,200.43$
Director of Streets and General Maint 43 106,375.27$ 138,287.85$ 170,200.43$
Director of Technology Systems 44 111,694.03$ 145,202.24$ 178,710.45$
Director of Water and Sewer 43 106,375.27$ 138,287.85$ 170,200.43$
Page 188 of 204
Job Title Grade Min Mid Max
City of Salem, Virginia
Schematic List of Positions - Fiscal Year 2026
Economic Development Specialist 26 46,411.18$ 60,334.53$ 74,257.88$
Electric Line Crew Leader 35 71,998.97$ 93,598.66$ 115,198.35$
Electric Line Supervisor 36 75,598.92$ 98,278.59$ 120,958.27$
Electric Line Technician I 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Electric Line Technician II 33 65,305.19$ 84,896.74$ 104,488.30$
Electric Meter Technician 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Electrical Engineer 37 79,378.86$ 103,192.52$ 127,006.18$
Electrical Engineering Technician 30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
EMS Billing Specialist 21 36,364.37$ 47,273.68$ 58,183.00$
EMS Captain 35 71,998.97$ 93,598.66$ 115,198.35$
EMS Coordinator 38 83,347.81$ 108,352.15$ 133,356.49$
Equipment Operator I 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Equipment Operator II 25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
Equipment Operator III 27 48,731.74$ 63,351.26$ 77,970.78$
Evidence Technician 21 36,364.37$ 47,273.68$ 58,183.00$
Financial Services Supervisor 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Fire Administrative Captain 35 71,998.97$ 93,598.66$ 115,198.35$
Fire and EMS Training Officer 38 83,347.81$ 108,352.15$ 133,356.49$
Fire Battalion Chief Administration 38 83,347.81$ 108,352.15$ 133,356.49$
Fire Battalion Chief Operations 38 83,347.81$ 108,352.15$ 133,356.49$
Fire Captain 35 71,998.97$ 93,598.66$ 115,198.35$
Fire Chief 44 111,694.03$ 145,202.24$ 178,710.45$
Firefighter EMT 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Firefighter Paramedic 31 59,233.73$ 77,003.85$ 94,773.97$
Fleet Management Superintendent 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Food and Beverage Manager 31 59,233.73$ 77,003.85$ 94,773.97$
GIS Analyst 27 48,731.74$ 63,351.26$ 77,970.78$
GIS Manager 36 75,598.92$ 98,278.59$ 120,958.27$
Grants/Special Projects Coordinator 32 62,195.42$ 80,854.04$ 99,512.67$
Human Resource Technician 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Human Resources Data Specialist 25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
Human Resources Generalist 30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
Inventory and Procurement Specialist 24 42,096.31$ 54,725.20$ 67,354.09$
Inventory Assistant 20 34,632.74$ 45,022.56$ 55,412.38$
Inventory Technician 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Laborer 20 34,632.74$ 45,022.56$ 55,412.38$
Lead Lineman 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Legal Administrator 26 46,411.18$ 60,334.53$ 74,257.88$
Librarian 29 53,726.74$ 69,844.76$ 85,962.78$
Library Director 42 101,309.78$ 131,702.71$ 162,095.65$
Library Technician 22 38,182.59$ 49,637.37$ 61,092.15$
Lieutenant Deputy Sheriff 35 71,998.97$ 93,598.66$ 115,198.35$
Maintenance-Construction Worker I 21 36,364.37$ 47,273.68$ 58,183.00$
Maintenance-Construction Worker II 22 38,182.59$ 49,637.37$ 61,092.15$
Major Deputy Sheriff 37 79,378.86$ 103,192.52$ 127,006.18$
Master Deputy Sheriff 31 59,233.73$ 77,003.85$ 94,773.97$
Master Deputy Sheriff II 32 62,195.42$ 80,854.04$ 99,512.67$
Page 189 of 204
Job Title Grade Min Mid Max
City of Salem, Virginia
Schematic List of Positions - Fiscal Year 2026
Master Police Officer 31 59,233.73$ 77,003.85$ 94,773.97$
Meter Reader 21 36,364.37$ 47,273.68$ 58,183.00$
Meter Service Supervisor 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Network Administrator 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Organizational Development and Training Coordinator 32 62,195.42$ 80,854.04$ 99,512.67$
Paralegal 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Parks and Recreation Superintendent 36 75,598.92$ 98,278.59$ 120,958.27$
Payroll Manager 33 65,305.19$ 84,896.74$ 104,488.30$
Payroll Technician 25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
Permit Technician 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Planner I 33 65,305.19$ 84,896.74$ 104,488.30$
Planner II 35 71,998.97$ 93,598.66$ 115,198.35$
Planning and Zoning Administrator 36 75,598.92$ 98,278.59$ 120,958.27$
Police Captain 38 83,347.81$ 108,352.15$ 133,356.49$
Police Lieutenant 35 71,998.97$ 93,598.66$ 115,198.35$
Police Officer 29 53,726.74$ 69,844.76$ 85,962.78$
Police Records Specialist 21 36,364.37$ 47,273.68$ 58,183.00$
Police Sergeant 33 65,305.19$ 84,896.74$ 104,488.30$
Project Manager 36 75,598.92$ 98,278.59$ 120,958.27$
Purchasing Manager 31 59,233.73$ 77,003.85$ 94,773.97$
Real Estate Appraiser 27 48,731.74$ 63,351.26$ 77,970.78$
Recreation Maintenance Worker 20 34,632.74$ 45,022.56$ 55,412.38$
Recreation Program Supervisor I 27 48,731.74$ 63,351.26$ 77,970.78$
Recreation Program Supervisor II 29 53,726.74$ 69,844.76$ 85,962.78$
Recreation Site Supervisor 24 42,096.31$ 54,725.20$ 67,354.09$
Risk Manager 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Sanitation Equipment Operator 25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
Sanitation Superintendent 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Sanitation Worker 22 38,182.59$ 49,637.37$ 61,092.15$
Scanning-Imaging Technician 21 36,364.37$ 47,273.68$ 58,183.00$
Senior Accountant 32 62,195.42$ 80,854.04$ 99,512.67$
Senior Administrative Assistant 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Senior Animal Control Officer 30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
Senior Automotive Mechanic 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Senior Codes Compliance Investigator 32 62,195.42$ 80,854.04$ 99,512.67$
Senior Firefighter EMT 29 53,726.74$ 69,844.76$ 85,962.78$
Senior Firefighter Paramedic 32 62,195.42$ 80,854.04$ 99,512.67$
Senior Librarian 30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
Senior Library Assistant 22 38,182.59$ 49,637.37$ 61,092.15$
Senior Meter Reader 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Senior Police Officer 30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
Senior Police Records Specialist 22 38,182.59$ 49,637.37$ 61,092.15$
Senior Programmer Analyst 33 65,305.19$ 84,896.74$ 104,488.30$
Senior Real Estate Appraiser 30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
Senior Tax Technician 24 42,096.31$ 54,725.20$ 67,354.09$
Senior WTP Operator 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Sergeant Deputy Sheriff 33 65,305.19$ 84,896.74$ 104,488.30$
Page 190 of 204
Job Title Grade Min Mid Max
City of Salem, Virginia
Schematic List of Positions - Fiscal Year 2026
Small Engine Mechanic 25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
Stormwater Manager 35 71,998.97$ 93,598.66$ 115,198.35$
Streets Crew Supervisor 29 53,726.74$ 69,844.76$ 85,962.78$
Streets Superintendent 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Tax Specialist 26 46,411.18$ 60,334.53$ 74,257.88$
Tax Supervisor 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Technical Services Supervisor 30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
Technology Manager 36 75,598.92$ 98,278.59$ 120,958.27$
Technology Support Specialist 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
Telecommunications Manager 38 83,347.81$ 108,352.15$ 133,356.49$
Telecommunicator I 25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
Telecommunicator II 27 48,731.74$ 63,351.26$ 77,970.78$
Transfer Clerk 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Tree Trimmer 25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
Utility Asset Manager 38 83,347.81$ 108,352.15$ 133,356.49$
Utility Billing Specialist 24 42,096.31$ 54,725.20$ 67,354.09$
Utility Lines Crew Supervisor 29 53,726.74$ 69,844.76$ 85,962.78$
Utility Lines Manager 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Utility Lines Technician I 21 36,364.37$ 47,273.68$ 58,183.00$
Utility Lines Technician II 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Utility Locator 24 42,096.31$ 54,725.20$ 67,354.09$
Utility Maintenance Manager 34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
Utility Maintenance Mechanic 25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
Utility Maintenance Technician 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Water Meter Mechanic 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
Water Quality Manager 28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
WTP Operator Class I 27 48,731.74$ 63,351.26$ 77,970.78$
WTP Operator Class II 25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
WTP Operator III 23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
WTP Operator Trainee 22 38,182.59$ 49,637.37$ 61,092.15$
Page 191 of 204
Range Range Range
Range Minimum Midpoint Maximum
20 34,632.73$ 45,022.56$ 55,412.38$
21 36,364.37$ 47,273.68$ 58,183.00$
22 38,182.59$ 49,637.37$ 61,092.15$
23 40,091.72$ 52,119.24$ 64,146.75$
24 42,096.31$ 54,725.20$ 67,354.09$
25 44,201.12$ 57,461.46$ 70,721.79$
26 46,411.18$ 60,334.53$ 74,257.88$
27 48,731.74$ 63,351.26$ 77,970.78$
28 51,168.32$ 66,518.82$ 81,869.32$
29 53,726.74$ 69,844.76$ 85,962.78$
30 56,413.08$ 73,337.00$ 90,260.92$
31 59,233.73$ 77,003.85$ 94,773.97$
32 62,195.42$ 80,854.04$ 99,512.67$
33 65,305.19$ 84,896.74$ 104,488.30$
34 68,570.45$ 89,141.58$ 109,712.72$
35 71,998.97$ 93,598.66$ 115,198.35$
36 75,598.92$ 98,278.59$ 120,958.27$
37 79,378.86$ 103,192.52$ 127,006.18$
38 83,347.81$ 108,352.15$ 133,356.49$
39 87,515.20$ 113,769.76$ 140,024.32$
40 91,890.96$ 119,458.24$ 147,025.53$
41 96,485.51$ 125,431.16$ 154,376.81$
42 101,309.78$ 131,702.71$ 162,095.65$
43 106,375.27$ 138,287.85$ 170,200.43$
44 111,694.03$ 145,202.24$ 178,710.45$
45 117,278.73$ 152,462.35$ 187,645.97$
City of Salem, Virginia
Pay Scale for Fiscal Year 2026
Page 192 of 204
General Fund Budget Changes for FY2026
Revenue Budget Originally Presented $ 119,399,873
10-012-0100-40200 Finance Designation Of Beginning Fund Balance 200,000
10-012-0100-42030 Finance Business License Tax 31,515
10-012-0100-48350 Finance CSA-Reimbursement From State (157,993)
10-018-0100-48547 Streets Southwest VA Produce Prescription Program 3,500
10-030-0100-48395 Police Police State Grants 8,000
85,022
General Fund Revenue Budget-Adjusted $ 119,484,895
Expenditure Budget Originally Presented $ 119,399,873
10-008-1232-53370 Real Estate Software Maintenance/Support 14,408
10-008-1232-56012 Real Estate Books And Subscriptions (13,608)
10-012-3325-57030 Finance RVJDC Juvenile Placement Program 46,641
10-012-5350-55730 Finance Administrative Expenses 40,000
10-012-5350-55753 Finance 1a - Foster Care - IV-E Children (8,841)
10-012-5350-55756 Finance 1b - Foster Care - All Others (6,591)
10-012-5350-55765 Finance 1e - Educational Svcs - Congregate Care (18,574)
10-012-5350-55768 Finance 2a - Treatment Foster Care - IV-E (8,923)
10-012-5350-55771 Finance 2a1 - Treatment Foster Care - Other (20,842)
10-012-5350-55780 Finance 2e - Family Foster Care - Other (8,367)
10-012-5350-55783 Finance 2f - Community Based Svcs (48,900)
10-012-5350-55789 Finance 2g - Special Ed Private Day Placement (111,361)
10-012-8150-55677 Finance Salem Economic Development Authority (150,000)
10-012-9107-55680 Finance Roanoke City Skate Park 200,000
10-012-9110-59505 Finance Contingency for Economic Development 150,000
10-018-7251-55963 Streets Southwest VA Produce Prescription Program 3,500
10-019-1320-55210 Registrar Postage 1,600
10-019-1320-55410 Registrar Lease/Rent Of Equipment 2,160
10-027-2170-55800 Clerk of Circuit Court Miscellaneous 720
10-030-3140-55859 Police Police State Grants 8,000
10-034-3230-56004 Rescue Squad Medical Supplies (1,000)
10-080-8110-55633 Economic Development Resource Partner Organizations 15,000
85,022
General Fund Expenditure Budget-Adjusted 119,484,895$
Page 193 of 204
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 CAPITAL
BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public hearing was
held on May 12, 2025, concerning the adoption of the annual budget for the City of
Salem for Fiscal Year 2026; and
WHEREAS, City Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, approved said budget on
May 27, 2025, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.3 of the Charter of the City of
Salem and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 12,
2025, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 2025, pursuant to
the provisions of section 7.3 of Charter of the City of Salem
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia,
as follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2025, and ending June 30, 2026, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
Transfer from General Fund to Capital Projects Fund 1,403,700$
Transfer from Water Fund to Water Capital Fund 3,548,000
Transfer from Sewer Fund to Sewer Capital Fund 480,000
Total Revenue 5,431,700$
Expenditures:
Capital Projects Fund 1,403,700$
Water Capital Fund 3,548,000
Sewer Capital Fund 480,000
Total Expenditures 5,431,700$
City of Salem, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2026
Capital Projects Appropriations
First Reading May 12, 2025; Second Reading May 27, 2025
2.That the City Manager may authorize the transfer of any unencumbered
balance or portion thereof from one project to another so as to provide for the
completion of a capital project.
3.That all funded outstanding capital encumbrances at June 30, 2025, are re-
appropriated to Fiscal Year 2026 to the same account for which they
are encumbered in the previous year.
Page 194 of 204
4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of
the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project
or until the City Council, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates the
appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to
close out the project and transfer to the funding source any remaining
balances. This section applies to appropriations for capital projects at June
30, 2025, and appropriations in the 2026 fiscal year budget.
This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2025.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
H. Hunter Holliday –
Anne Marie Green –
Byron Randolph Foley –
John Saunders –
Renee F. Turk –
Passed:
Effective:
/s/ Renee F. Turk
Mayor
ATTEST:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Page 195 of 204
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 SALEM
CITY SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public hearing was
held on May 12, 2025, concerning the adoption of the annual budget for the City of
Salem for Fiscal Year 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia approved said budget on
May 12, 2025, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.3 of Salem City Code and
Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 12,
2025, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 2025, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 7.3 of the Salem City Code.
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia
as follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective
funds for the period beginning July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2026 for
the functions and purposes indicated.
Salem City Schools
First Reading May 12, 2025; Second Reading May 27, 2025
Appropriation
Amount
Revenue
State Revenue, excluding Sales Tax $30,079,820
Sales Tax 4,565,979
Federal Revenue 3,614,257
Local Revenue 24,213,041
Other Revenue 686,396
Food Service 2,759,451
Total School Fund Revenue Budget $65,918,944
Expenditures
Instruction $48,263,321
Administration, Attendance and Health 4,272,000
Pupil Transportation 2,590,786
Operations and Maintenance 4,280,400
Food Service 2,759,451
City of Salem, Virginia
FY 2026
Page 196 of 204
Appropriation
Amount
Debt Service and Fund Transfers 544,000
Technology 3,208,986
Total School Fund Expenditure Budget $65,918,944
2. That all funded outstanding categorical encumbrances at June 30, 2025
are re-appropriated to the 2026 fiscal year to the same category for which
they are encumbered in the previous year.
This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2025.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
John Saunders –
H. Hunter Holliday –
Byron Randolph Foley –
Anne Marie Green –
Renee F. Turk –
Passed:
Effective:
/s/ Renee F. Turk
Mayor
ATTEST:
H. Robert Light
Clerk of Council
City of Salem, Virginia
Page 197 of 204
Item #: 6.I.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Funds
Request to appropriate additional Smart Scale funding for
Mason Creek Greenway Phase 3. Audit - Finance
Committee
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Smart Scale funds of $2,610,310 were appropriated on November 8, 2021 for the
completion of Mason Creek Greenway Phase 3. Due to inflation since that time, an
additional $508,749 in Smart Scale funds has been awarded by VDOT to complete the
project at a total project cost of $3,119,059.
Mason Creek Greenway Phase 3 will begin at the intersection of East Main Street and
Kesler Mill Road, where the Hanging Rock Trail currently ends. It will consist of a
combination of sidewalk and bike lanes along East Main Street and Electric Road
ultimately connecting to the existing Mason Creek Greenway at Lynchburg Turnpike.
The construction of Mason Creek Greenway Phase 3 will also include pedestrian
signal improvements and ADA ramps.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Smart Scale funds will allow us to construct Mason Creek Greenway Phase 3
linking Hanging Rock Trail and Mason Creek Greenway at Lynchburg Turnpike.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends appropriating $508,749 to the Capital Projects federal grants account
20-012-0200-48995 and to the Mason Creek Greenway Phase 3 account 20-042-0205-
54730.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 198 of 204
Item #: 6.J.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Funds
Request to appropriate Carbon Reduction Program and
local funding for Roanoke River Greenway from Apperson
Drive to Cook Drive. Audit - Finance Committee
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
A connecting piece of the Roanoke River Greenway from Apperson Drive to Cook
Drive will be constructed as a shared use path that connects two existing Roanoke
River Greenway systems so that the Roanoke River Greenway can act as one
continuous transportation alternative spanning multiple localities.
VDOT awarded $1,615,259 in Carbon Reduction Program funds for the completion of
the Roanoke River Greenway connector from Apperson Drive to Cook Drive. An
additional $505,896 in local funds is needed to fully fund the project, which is available
in the Capital Projects reserve account.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Carbon Reduction Program funds and local funds will allow us to construct a
missing piece of the Roanoke River Greenway linking the greenway trailheads at
Apperson Drive and Cook Drive.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends appropriating $1,615,259 to the Capital Projects federal grants
account 20-012-0200-48995 and to the Roanoke River Greenway – Apperson to Cook
Connector account 20-042-0205-54739.
Staff recommends transferring $505,896 from the Capital Projects Reserve account 20-
012-0205-54100 to the Roanoke River Greenway – Apperson to Cook Connector
account.
ATTACHMENTS:
Page 199 of 204
None
Page 200 of 204
Item #: 6.K.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Funds
Request to appropriate Virginia Highway Safety
Improvement Program (VHSIP) funds for 4 pedestrian
crossings. Audit - Finance Committee
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Pedestrian crossings will be installed systematically at four unsignalized intersections
at the Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail along Kessler Mill Road and at the Roanoke
River Greenway along West Riverside Drive. The pedestrian crossings will improve
the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists utilizing the multi-use paths.
VDOT awarded $469,464 in VHSIP funds for the completion of these four pedestrian
crossings. No local match is required for these funds.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The VHSIP funds will allow us to complete the four pedestrian crossings and improve
safety of pedestrians and bicyclists utilizing the Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail and
Roanoke River Greenway.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends appropriating $469,464 to the Capital Projects state grants account
20-012-0200-48495 and to the Pedestrian Crossings account 20-042-0205-54427.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 201 of 204
Item #: 6.L.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Funds
Request to appropriate Smart Scale and local funds for
downtown improvements along College Avenue. Audit -
Finance Committee
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The City of Salem will continue downtown improvements along College Avenue from
Calhoun Street to the south side of Roanoke Boulevard. Improvements will replace
and widen sidewalks, as well as improve crosswalks.
VDOT awarded $2,708,507 in Smart Scale funds for the completion of the downtown
improvements along College Avenue. An additional $547,800 in local funds is needed
to fully fund the project, which is available in the Capital Projects reserve account.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Smart Scale funds and local funds will allow us to continue with downtown
improvements along College Avenue from Calhoun Street to the south side of Roanoke
Boulevard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends appropriating $2,708,507 to the Capital Projects federal grants
account 20-012-0200-48995 and to the Downtown Improvements – College Avenue
account 20-080-0205-54809.
Staff recommends transferring $547,800 from the Capital Projects Reserve account 20-
012-0205-54100 to the Downtown Improvements – College Avenue account 20-080-
0205-54809.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 202 of 204
Item #: 6.M.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL
MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Appropriation of Funds
Request to appropriate highway maintenance carryover for
various projects. Audit - Finance Committee
SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie Jordan, Director of Finance
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The City receives highway maintenance funding each year and any unspent funds
may be carried forward to the subsequent fiscal year. An appropriation of $1,143,564
from carryover funds is needed to cover certain projects that will be completed in fiscal
year 2025.
The City is working on a project to remove sidewalk trip hazards throughout the City
for a total of $716,904. The City has allocated $250,000 from the current year in
highway maintenance funds for this project. An additional appropriation of $466,904 is
needed to complete the project.
The project for repairs of the Apperson Drive Bridge #1800 at Cook Drive has been
funded for $682,432, which includes highway maintenance funding of $374,772 and
local funding of $307,660. Additional highway maintenance funding is available to use
on this project instead of local funding. The request is to appropriate an additional
$307,660 of highway maintenance funding and allow the City Manager to transfer
$307,660 back to the capital projects reserve to use for future projects.
The City is working on a project to heavily trim back or remove invasive trees along
the City’s roads. An appropriation of $135,000 is needed to complete the project.
The City is working on a project to update pavement markings on several roads within
the City. An appropriation of $234,000 is needed to complete the project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Highway maintenance funds may only be used for maintenance costs as determined by
the state. These projects fall within the guidelines of the highway maintenance
Page 203 of 204
program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends appropriating $1,143,564 of highway maintenance carryover funds to
the General Fund Designation of Beginning Fund Balance account, 10-012-0100-
40200, and to the following expenditures accounts:
10-018-4003-53814, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter $131,518
10-018-4012-53814, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter $335,386
10-018-4006-59410, Transfer To Capital Projects $307,660
10-018-4003-53829, Tree Trimming/Replacement $67,500
10-018-4012-53829, Tree Trimming/Replacement $67,500
10-018-4005-53822, Pavement Marking $234,000
Staff recommends appropriating $307,660 to the Capital Projects Fund revenue account
20-0012-0200-49905, Transfer From General Fund, and to the Capital Projects Fund
expenditure account 20-042-0205-54419, Apperson Drive Bridge Repairs #1800.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 204 of 204