HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/11/2012 - City Council - Minutes - RegularUNAPPROVED MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
June 11, 2012
A work session of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the City
Manager’s Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, on June 11,
2012, at 6:30 p.m., there being present all the members of said Council, to wit: Byron Randolph
Foley, John C. Givens, Jane W. Johnson, William D. Jones, and Lisa D. Garst; with Byron
Randolph Foley, Mayor, presiding; together with Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager; James E.
Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Krystal M. Coleman, Deputy Clerk of
Council; Mary Ellen H. Wines, Deputy Zoning Administrator; Frank P. Turk, Director of Finance;
Benjamin W. Tripp, Planner; and the following business was transacted:
Mayor Foley reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the
Council to hold a work session; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding the keeping of chickens; and
WHEREAS, there were no other topics for discussion.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the work session was
adjourned at 7:21 p.m.
Mayor
Clerk of Council
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
COUNCIL MEETING
June 11, 2012
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in
Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, on June 11, 2012, at
7:30 p.m., there being present all the members of said Council, to wit: Byron
Randolph Foley, John C. Givens, Jane W. Johnson, William D. Jones, and Lisa D.
Garst; with Byron Randolph Foley, Mayor, presiding; together with Kevin S.
Boggess, City Manager; James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Clerk
of Council; Frank P. Turk, Director of Finance; Melinda J. Payne, Director of
Planning and Economic Development; Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., City Engineer;
Mike Stevens, Communications Director; Benjamin W. Tripp, Planner; Mary Ellen
H. Wines, Deputy Zoning Administrator; and Stephen M. Yost, City Attorney, and
the following business was transacted:
Mayor Foley requested that there be a moment of silence in honor of Mr.
Steve Mullins who passed away over the weekend. Mr. Mullins served on the
original School Board of the City of Salem and has been a successful
businessman, father, and a gentleman in the community.
The May 29, 2012, work session and regular meeting minutes were
approved as written.
Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a
public hearing and consider adopting Resolution 1205 approving the 2012
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Salem; the Planning Commission at its
regularly scheduled meeting on May 16, 2012, recommended approval of the
plan; notice of such hearing was published in the May 24 and 31, 2012, issues of
The Roanoke Times, a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Salem;
and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council appeared before the Council to present
the proposed 2012 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Salem; he thanked City
Council and the Planning Commission for their time in developing the plan; he
noted that there were some early morning meetings and he appreciates the
input given; he discussed the process for the Comprehensive Plan update; he
further noted there were several citizen volunteers who assisted with the
update: Michelle Darby, David Robbins, David Wells, Kathy Elam, and Bob Smith;
he also thanked City staff members for their assistance: Kevin Boggess, Melinda
Payne, Mary Ellen Wines, Benjamin Tripp, Chuck Van Allman, Judy Hough, Will
ITEM 1
PUBLIC HEARING
AND RESOLUTION
1205 ADOPTED
APPROVING THE
2012
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOR THE CITY
OF SALEM
2
Simpson, Caleb Taylor, Angela Sellers, and Todd Sutphin; he noted that staff
members spent a lot of hours on the project; he further noted that the plan
presented to the Council is an update to the 2003 adopted plan; he stated that
the 2003 plan was a major milestone for the City of Salem – the plan was
developed with a lot of citizen input, and there was a lot of brainstorming that
went into the plan; further, it was really a transition docu ment from the five- to
ten-page document that the City had previously; in 2008 the Planning
Commission looked through the existing plan and adopted a resolution stating
the plan had been reviewed and was adequate for the near future for the City;
around 2010 with this update, the City decided it was time for an overhaul as
there had been some changes on City Council and some changes in key staff and
it was really a good time to go back and review the document; he noted that a
lot of the foundation from the 2003 plan was used in the proposed 2012 plan;
staff felt the seven areas that were identified in the 2003 plan were important
areas then and are still important today; he noted the areas are: economic
development, government services, education, housing, land use, open space,
and infrastructure; the areas were revised, and a lot of the revisions were based
on citizen input; he noted the presentations around the room show the ideas
that were incorporated into the plan, and those ideas were directly from ci tizen
input; one opportunity with the plan revision was using technology for input; he
further discussed the technology, i.e. emails and website comments; with the
development of the plan, two public meetings were held in March 2011 at the
Salem Civic Center; over 100 citizens came out for the meetings and had the
opportunity to talk to the Commission, City Council, and staff; the present draft
was posted online in April, and last month another public meeting was held on
May 7th; the presentation signs, which show everyone what is presented in the
plan, were part of it, the public meeting also provided citizens an opportunity to
discuss the plan; with the plan, there is updated demographic data, updated
strategies and goals, and objectives for the seven areas mentioned, and the
maps have been updated as well; he further discussed the “Future Generalized
Map” noting that it is an important planning document for the City; based on
input from citizens, the Planning Commission and City Council, three new
categories have been created for future land use: a downtown category, a
mixed-use category, and a transitional category; he further discussed the three
new categories; he noted that there is one proposed change to the plan before
Council; on Page 49 (land use area) the second objective that begins with
“reprogram underutilized major corridors..”; the first strategy--part of the line is,
“eastern Boulevard, from east city limits to Route 419;” it is recommended that
the comma after Eastern Boulevard be deleted so t hat it would read as one
phrase; he noted that his presentation was concluded and that he would be glad
to answer any questions; and
3
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst acknowledged John Long for his
contribution to the historical elements of the Comprehensive P lan; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens thanked the Clerk of Council, city staff, and
the citizens on the committee for a job well done; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that going into the public hearing the light
system would be utilized; therefore, citizen comments would be limited to
approximately five (5) minutes; and
WHEREAS, Frank Munley, 425 Boulevard, appeared before the Council
and thanked Council for all the work done on the Comprehensive Plan revision;
he stated that he submitted a list of 20 points (included below) to Council and
will not address each point, but would like to say a few words; he gave Mayor
Foley a copy of his comments; he then stated that on Page 35 (#2 in comments
below) that he was a little confused because if something beyond the 2012
future land use map, as seen in the proposed Comprehensive Plan, is intended or
envisioned then the plan as presented would seem to be incomplete and
approval would be premature; he stated that on Page 49 (#8 in comments
below) that if the downtown is to be expanded using the Transitional Business
District classification, please indicate the candidate properties as much as
possible; he stated that once again there is a lack of detail on an important point
and assumes that some of the orange areas indicated on the map would not be
tampered with and others are in question; more detail could be included; he
stated that on Pages 50 and 54 of the plan, the City’s intention is expressed that
there be more open space in the development of the Elizabeth Campus; he
stated that it is not apparent whether the open space is to be provided by the
people the city sells the property to or by the city; he then noted that in the
1998 rezoning process of the Elizabeth Campus, it was said again and again by
the Planning Commission and the City Council that a rezoning was premised on
mixed use; indeed there were promises on a certain acreage, possibly 16 acres,
that would be devoted to a city park; here it is 14 years later and we are still
waiting for a sign of mixed use on the property; he noted that while the city’s
intentions are welcome, some action would be appreciated; he further noted
that a running course could possibly be developed at Mowles Spring Park; he
stated that on Page 50 (#10 in comments below) regarding spot zoning; that in
2010 that issue was raised when half of the 500 block of Boulevard on the north
side was encouraged to go from residential to RB; he stated that it would be
worthwhile to assure citizens in the Comprehensive Plan that spot zoning
requests will be minimized, he would prefer that they be prohibited by
minimizing “upzonings” in residential areas, which is not specifically mentioned
in the plan; he noted that on Page 50 (#12 in comments below) that RB is one of
4
the highest or perhaps the highest of zoning in the residential family; he stated
that to use RB zoning to maintain residential character is nonsense in his
opinion; he stated that RB weakens residential character, especially when it is
not required to meet the needs of those requesting a rezoning and because RB
still includes retail sales by special exception, and that he feels new zoning
categories could be created that would alleviate his concern; he noted that on
Page 52 (#15 in comments below) that Downtown Business District wou ld be a
welcome expansion since the DBD has conditions on set-back and makes for a
more livable and enjoyable community; on the other hand where there are
mixed-use areas, an expansion might not be appropriate if it results in
unnecessary upzonings from residential categories; he further noted that on
Page 60 (#20 in comments below) regarding recycling that he looks forward to
the day when the city is recycling glass; he stated that citizens became “well
trained” when glass was being recycled and would not like to see that habit
broken; he thanked Council for its attention; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Munley’s submitted comments are listed below:
REVISED COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED 2012 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO: Salem City Council
11 June 2012
FROM: Frank Munley
425 Boulevard
Salem
1. p. 35, under I. Economic Development: “Turnover of non-commercial areas to
commercial uses (i.e., Apperson Drive, Thompson Memorial Drive.”)
Thompson Memorial Drive covers a lot of territory! Surely, some specification of
intent could be provided. Looking at the Existing and Future Generalized Land Use
maps, I gather that there are some vacant properties along Thompson Memorial Drive
that are the target of this proposed action. If so, turning them commercial would appear
to amount to what the city says it doesn’t want to do: spot-zone! The plan should be as
specific as possible, and if the vacant properties are meant, then say so.
2. p. 35: “Strategy: Adopt a new official future land use map for Salem that accurately
reflects areas suitable for existing and future commercial and industrial development as
well as neighborhoods.” If something beyond the 2012 future land use map is intended
or envisioned, then the plan as presented is incomplete and approval would be
premature.
3. p. 39: “Objective: Improve the library facility, either by renovating and adding on to
the present building, or building a new library in a different location.”
The plan properly sings the praises of our library, a centrally located facility that
provides so many valuable services to our community. I would prefer renovation and
addition, but if a new library is built, it should be close to the current one, whose
location right now is ideal, being right in the downtown area with a convenient mix of
shops and, of course, Mill Mountain Coffee and Tea. How nice to borrow a book and
hop across the street to MMC&T to read it.
4. p. 45: “Strategy: Using available state and federal funding, continue to purchase
5
homes within designated floodplains.” This is a repeat of wording in the 2003
Comprehensive Plan, and raises the question of where these areas are—again a lack of
specificity. (I’m sure floodplain areas are well known to the city, but the Comprehensive
Plan should be “comprehensive” to the average citizen.) Furthermore, if these homes in
the floodplain are replaced, what would be appropriate replacements? Something that
thrives on floods? A rice field? Stormwater management areas?
5. p. 46: “The creation of a local historic conservation district that achieves this
balance [between preserving historic character while allowing new development] is one
alternative that should be explored by Salem…and southeasterly along the
Boulevard, including Pennsylvania Avenue and connecting streets to 4th Street .”
This is most welcome and provides the kind of detail that should characterize other
crucial parts of the plan. But I note that this wording repeats exactly what was in the
2003 Comprehensive Plan. And yet, the city intentionally pushed to up -zone half of the
500 block to RB, an action that was for the most part unnecessary to meet the needs
which supposedly prompted this action. I hope this part of the 2012 Comprehensive
Plan will be more faithfully followed by avoiding unnecessary up-zoning with the weak
excuse of eliminating “spot zoning” (more below on this issue).
6. p. 46: “Future housing developments that incorporate development techniques, such
as zero lot line development, will reflect a more efficient land use pattern and allow an
infill pattern of development on more of the remaining small parcels of vacant land.”
How small are these parcels that “zero lot line development” would be helpful? Are
these lower-income houses? And where in the city are such developments envisioned?
Again, more detail is needed.
7. p. 49: “Strategy: Plan for the transition of Route 419, 4th Street, western West Main
Street, East Main Street, eastern Boulevard, from the east City limit to Route 419, and
Apperson Drive to higher intensity commercial use.” Strictly speaking, the 300, 400, 500,
and 600 blocks of Boulevard are “eastern.” I assume (and hope!) you aren’t including us
in the proposed transition. Each item in the strategy is delimited by commas. I believe
you should say “eastern Boulevard from the east City limit to Route 419…”, i.e., remove
the comma. Or, say “eastern Boulevard east of Route 419 to the City limit.”
8. p. 49: “Strategy: Consider expanding downtown into adjacent areas through the use
of the Transitional Business District zoning or other zoning classifications.”
The region along W. Main Street west of the current Downtown to the Duck Pond is
shown on the new future land use map as orange, i.e., mixed use. That seems right to
me, assuming the "Mixed Use" category used for creating the future land use map
includes residential properties. But if some of it is to be Transitional Business District,
show where. Otherwise, there is once again a lack of detail on an important point.
This point is addressed again in item 15 below.
9. p. 50: “Strategy: Ensure that any future development on the Salem Commerce Park
[Elizabeth Campus] property is undertaken with concern for compatible architectural
styles, parking lot design and location, lighting, and the incorporation and reservation of
open space and walkways for the benefit of Salem residents.”
p. 54: “Strategy: Ensure that open space is incorporated into the design of new
development that occurs on property acquired from the City of Salem. e.g., the
Elizabeth Campus.” Both citations are word-for-word repeats from the 2003
Comprehensive Plan. In the 1998 rezoning process of the Elizabeth Campus, it was said
again and again by the Planning Commission and City Council that the rezoning was
premised on “mixed use.” And indeed, there were promises that a certain acreage (16
acres sticks in my mind) would be devoted to a city park area. Here we are 14 years later
and still waiting for a sign of “mixed use.” While the city’s intentions are welcome, some
6
action would be appreciated. The words about parking lot design and location are
appreciated. Let’s not have a repeat of the “in your face” parking lot highly visible along
Idaho and Texas streets.
10: p. 50: “Strategy: Minimize approval of spot zoning requests.”
I addressed spot zoning very briefly in item 5 above, but more remains to be said.
Here is the definition of spot zoning: “A spot zoning is the upzoning (allowing more
intensive uses) of land to a classification that is different than that of the surrounding
land.” Up-zoning the majority of properties in a half block of Boulevard does not
eliminate spot zoning but is instead a violation of it. To present such an action as an
effort to eliminate spot zoning is to turn the concept on its head. It would be worthwhile
to assure citizens in the Comprehensive Plan that spot zoning requests will be minimi zed
(I would prefer that they be prohibited!) by minimizing upzonings in residential areas.
11. p. 50: “Strategy: Update the Future Land Use Map to identify areas for development
and redevelopment. Use this plan to guide rezoning requests.” I’m not quite sure what
is meant by this. On the one hand, shouldn’t the areas for development and
redevelopment be in the plan as presented? With full appreciation that
a city is an evolving and dynamic entity, the purpose of the plan should be to establish a
time horizon that can be relied on for at least 5 years, by which time §15.2-2230 of the
state code requires the plan to be revised. If the plan as presented isn’t up to this, then
why finalize it? On the other hand, if the intent is to frequently update the Future Land
Use Map as soon as new areas are identified and posting the new map on the web site,
then that’s welcome. If this is so, a bit of clarification would help.
12. p. 50: “Strategy: Consider locations for the use of the Residential Business District
zoning where it is appropriate to maintain a residential character.”
RB is one of the highest, if not the highest, zonings in the “residential” family. To use
it to maintain residential character is nonsense. If anything, RB weakens residential
character, especially when it is not required to meet the needs of those requesting a
rezoning, and because RB still includes retail sales as a use by exception. I understand
that the reason for the inclusion of retail sales is to accommodate the zoning needs of
some businesses on West Main Street between downtown and the Duck Pond. Please
explore ways to re-define zoning categories, including new categories, to eliminate the
establishment of retail sales operations in residential areas.
13. p. 52: “Strategy: Evaluate neighborhoods without sidewalks and determine where it
may be appropriate to install them.” This is most welcome for an enthusiastic
pedestrian, which I am! Again, there is a lack of specifics, not that all needs can be
foreseen. Here is one suggestion: A sidewalk on the Civic Center (east) side of Idaho,
from the corner of Texas and Idaho up to the Roanoke College property. (This might
require the permission of the property owner(s) along that side.) And then, hoping
across the Idaho-Texas-Boulevard intersection, a sidewalk along the East side of
Boulevard bordering the Civic Center would be great for walking up to the Civic Center. I
can’t immediately identify other areas by name, but I often come across stretches
where I wish there were sidewalks.
14. p. 52: “Strategy: Investigate options for bringing passenger rail to the area.”
I suspect there is wide agreement on this throughout the Roanoke Valley. It is quite
appropriately in this plan.
15. p. 52: “Objective: Determine areas where expansion [of the Downtown Business
District] could occur.” This issue was addressed in a different context in item 8 above.
But further, on the one hand, this would be a welcome expansion since DBD has
conditions on things like setback that make for a more livable and enjoyable community.
7
On the other hand, where there are “mixed-use” areas, an expansion might not be
appropriate if it involve results in unnecessary up-zonings from residential categories.
16. p. 54: “Strategy: Consider appropriate measures to protect large city parks from
future development, including the use of transfer of development rights easements.”
I am not sure what a “transfer of development right easement” would be on park land
already owned by the city. Would it make it harder for the city to change the park land
to a developable property?
17. p. 54: “Strategy: Evaluate future alternative uses for Mowles Spring Park, and
develop a master plan based upon the recreational and cultural needs of the community
and the property’s development feasibility.”
This is a repeat from the 2003 plan. I encourage the city to get moving on this. I
would also remind city officials that the running track that existed on the Elizabeth
Campus before it was rezoned was considered to be first class, one of the best in the
state if not the country. It certainly was beautiful. During the rezoning process, Council
talked about putting a running track there. Please keep that promise in mind.
18. p. 54: “Ensure that open space is incorporated into the design of new development
that occurs on property acquired from the City of Salem. e.g., the Elizabeth Campus (aka
“Salem Commerce Park”). I addressed this in item 9 above and repeat here: “In the 1998
rezoning process of the Elizabeth Campus, it was said again and again by the Planning
Commission and City Council that the rezoning was premised on “mixed use.” And
indeed, there were promises that a certain acreage (16 acres sticks in my mind) would
be devoted to a city park area. Here we are 14 years later and still waiting for a sign of
“mixed use.” While the city’s intentions are welcome, some action would be
appreciated.”
19. p. 58: Under Local Actions: “Evaluate the feasibility and desirability of
incorporating traffic calming techniques on specific streets as a strategy to mitigate the
negative impacts of traffic volumes and speeds on specific streets in neighborhoods…”
This is welcome. But what specific streets are being considered? It wouldn’t hurt to
mention a few prime candidates.
20. p. 60: “Objective: Initiate the collection of additional recyclable materials as
markets evolve.”
Many, many people in Salem are disappointed that glass is not being recycled.
Roanoke City and Roanoke County have locations where glass can be recycled. Why
doesn’t Salem? Why can’t Salem collect glass and send it to Cycle Systems in Roanoke
(http://www.cyclesystems.com/)? According to a friend, “Proceeds from the sale of
recycled material at Cycle Systems is donated to the Clean Valley Council. If Cycle
Systems won’t contract with a municipality, then get the word out (web site, and signs
at recycling centers in the city) directing people to Cycle Systems.
Here’s another idea this friend shared with me: composting yard waste and making it
available to Salem’s home gardeners. And
WHEREAS, James Ruhland, 428 North Broad Street, appeared before the
Council as a member of the Young Architect’s Forum (YAF), which is essentially a
subset of the Blue Ridge American Institute of Architects; he congratulated
Council on the redraft of the Comprehensive Plan; he stated that the proposed
2012 Comprehensive Plan has garnered some attention amongst the YAF, who
are essentially young professionals and allied professionals (architects who have
achieved licensure within the last 10 years); he stated that the YAF would like to
8
propose on the coattails of the proposed plan, a multi-day planning charrette; he
stated that this type of event could garner some unique value based on the
momentum already begun by redrafting the Comprehensive Plan; he offered the
services of YAF to Council and its citizens at essentially no cost to the City; the
YAF would only ask for help to organize the event; he stated that he submitted a
letter to the City Manager’s office on Friday describing the proposed event; he
stated that he would answer any questions Council may have about the event;
he suggested that the event be held in the fall and asked Council and the City to
officially endorse the event; he stated that in doing so it may garner a certain
amount of authority for anyone else asked to participate in the event as a
sponsor or to host a particular venue for the event, etc.; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if Mr. Ruhland was asking Council to
hold off on the approval of the proposed 2012 Comprehensive Plan to allow the
charrette he proposed, or was he asking that Council support the event in
addition to approval of the plan; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ruhland stated that the YAF does not view the plan as an
item that is up for approval if it has to be acted upon at this meeting; he stated
that he is making the offer on behalf of the YAF in a public manner; and
WHEREAS, it was noted that the event proposed is independent of the
approval, or not, of the proposed 2012 Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned if Mr. Ruhland has ever held an
event like the one he proposed; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ruhland stated that many of the professionals in YAF have
participated in charrettes for other localities; no less than four for other
municipalities ranging from the Eastern Shore to Grundy and som e points west;
he stated that the YAF is a somewhat loosely defined group because it does
involve professionals that have been accredited within the past 10 years, but
they are also allied professionals, engineers, contractors, etc.; and invitations are
also extended to intern professionals who are working toward licensure or some
students in some instances who all bring a unique set of resources and energy;
he also noted that he was working with Marsh-Witt and Associates back in 2003
when they were contracted as consultants for Salem’s Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Johnson questioned how many members of
YAF are Salem residents; and
9
WHEREAS, Mr. Ruhland stated that he believes he is the only one with a
Salem address; he stated that Roanoke City is essentially the hub for the Blue
Ridge AIA and hence the YAF as well; he further stated that the group meets
regularly to discuss various topics and has a meeting scheduled with the City
Manager of Roanoke City to discuss similar issues in hopes of doing some work
there as well; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that the letter he submitted also
mentioned an anticipated budget and questioned if that is something that would
need to be established as a fee-based service for the YAF or is that a budget the
city would need to provide in order to carry out whatever designs are proposed;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ruhland stated that a budget would essentially be for
materials to hold the event itself (i.e. miscellaneous paper costs, etc.); he stated
that the YAF would be leaning on engineering and GIS services of the City; and
WHEREAS, Cynthia Munley, 425 Boulevard appeared before the Council
and acknowledged that the City does an excellent job in education, trash
services, utilities, greenway and beautification; she would like to see the
proposed 2012 Comprehensive Plan be filled in with some details that would
make it comparable to other services and activities of the city; she stated that
she poured over the plan and has trouble seeing the vision of the pl an; she noted
that she submitted quite a few comments last year, as did other citizens, and she
did not see a lot of those suggestions show up in the proposed plan; she stated
that the details to make the city’s goals happen do not seem to be there; she
knows Council takes the task of funding the city very seriously and in looking at
the plan she feels it could be tweaked and improved to help meet the goal of
reaching the maximum amount of revenue that can be gained by the way the
city is planned; she noted that the plan proposes creating a sense of place, a
local historic conservation district on Page 46, and village centers which are ideas
citizens came up with and she is glad to see them incorporated in the plan; she
commended the local conservation district yet she does not see any specifics on
it, if there is infill on properties that are developed, having any kind of review
that would look at the proposed plans that would make them fit in with the
historic district; if it is a number of years before mor e specific ideas are
developed, then there could be compromises to the character of the historic
district; she stated that if she were a businessman being “courted” by the city
and she looked at the proposed plan, she would have some difficulty concerning
the main vision and questioned if Council could summarize the vision; she asked
what is the main idea of the plan; and
10
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley responded that the idea is to make Salem mo re
livable, business friendly for all; he noted that the plan is designed to be general
and less specific; he stated that he feels that general is better because if certain
things are “locked down” then there is no room for flexibility and the city cannot
tell a private property owner what to do; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Munley stated that she would like for the plan to be
more specific to achieve the city’s goals; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst added that a significant amount of staff
time had gone into developing the plan and many conversations were had
related to specifics/generalities of the plan; one of the things that was driven
home time and time again both from the comments received on-line and in
public hearings, was that people want to have that sense of place and the things
that make Salem unique; they want the history and the community aspects
reserved, but at the same time they also want the city to be relevant and
current, and ready to adapt for the future; she stated that those are all things
that had to be kept fluid with the plan; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Munley stated that one of the ideas she submitted last
year that she did not see appear in the plan, was to bring in an outside planner
that could specifically help with the vision for Salem; she stated that she has
been asking for that for a long time and feels it could h elp avoid a lot of
mistakes; she stated that recently there have been some things that have
happened that sort of show what maybe Salem is not on top of the latest and
best design standards; she stated that she agrees with developing East and West
Main Street; certain streets were set out to be developed —Fourth and Eighth
Streets, but also Thompson Memorial Drive and Apperson Drive are included to
be targeted for development; she enjoys driving down Thompson Memorial
Drive and not having a lot of commercial on each side with cars coming in and
out; she stated that she does not envision how Thompson Memorial would be
developed and how it would fit in with trying to keep a beautiful entrance into
the City; she feels that is one area of the plan that needs to be spelled out more
clearly; she thanked Council for not including the Boulevard from the 300 to 600
block on the list of various areas to commercially develop; maintaining the
beauty and grace of this connector street depends on it not going any further to
commercial development; however, the proposed block zoning two years ago
gave a contradictory message, which completely worked against the city’s stated
strategy on Page 48; she stated that she feels that strategy should be a goal and
gave an example of how more specific details are needed to carry out good
planning goals (see comments below); and
11
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that Mrs. Munley’s five minutes has
elapsed; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Munley asked if she could speak a little longer; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that she could not speak a little longer,
that everyone was being held to the same standard; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Munley asked the audience if anyone would give their
time to her; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens stated that Council has set parameters so
that everyone would have a chance to speak; he stated that she has already
spoken nearly seven minutes and it is not fair to others who would like to speak;
he thanked Mrs. Munley for her concerns; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that there are also other issues on the
agenda for people to speak about; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Munley stated that she has taken a lot of time to get her
comments together; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that Council has received her comments
and have read the comments she submitted; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Munley stated that she would appreciate a few more
minutes; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens declined to allow her anymore time; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley stated that Council has received her comments
and can read them; he appreciates her comments and her input; he further
noted that everyone has been limited to five minutes to speak before Council;
and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Munley gave Council a copy of the Elizabeth Campus as it
was originally proposed in 1998, which includes a small park and running fields;
and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Munley’s submitted comments are listed below:
Cynthia Munley’s comments on 2012 City of Salem proposed Comprehensive Plan
12
Good evening. I am Cynthia Munley, 425 Blvd. First, I would like to acknowledge that
the city does an excellent job in education, trash services, utilities, the greenways, and
beautification. Citizens often tout these enviable services. Salem is a more challenged
when it comes to planning issues as some glaring mistakes have been made o ver the
years that also stir less complementary comments of citizens and others.
I have poured over the city’s Comprehensive Plan and helped get people out last year to
participate in the city’s workshop at the Civic Center. This year, unfortunately, I missed
the notification as apparently did others and was unable to help get citizens out. I have
sent in my comments to city officials, which I assume you read and I’ll not go over all of
them, but I want to emphasize some main points that stand out.
I know you take the task of funding the City seriously. The plan you propose contains
some ideas that I and others contributed last year such as: village centers, the Main
Street program, creating a “sense of place” and defining a “local historic conservati on
district” (p. 46). The last one is commendable but looking further in that section, I see
no goals or strategies for some sort of review that could possibly keep new
development compatible with the historical character of the neighborhoods.
If I were a businessman being courted by the city and I looked at this Comprehensive
Plan, I would have difficulty discerning an identifiable vision. Good ideas surface but the
main emphasized and repeated vision is to identify areas to be converted from non -
commercial to commercial uses (p. 35) While I agree with developing East and West
Main and Fourth and Eighth Streets, I believe Salemites don’t want to open up
Thompson Memorial and Apperson to additional commercial development.
Thank you for not including the Boulevard from the 300 to the 600 blocks in your list of
areas to commercially develop. Retaining the beauty and grace of this connector street
depends on it not going any further commercial. However, the proposed block zoning
two years ago gave a contradictory message which completely worked against the city’s
stated strategy on page 48: “Ensure areas that are zoned Residential-Business continue
to have a residential nature to them.” That strategy should really be a goal.
Here’s an example of how more specific details are needed to carry out your good
planning goals. The strategy on our unique Boulevard should be: maintain the current
stable mix of business/residential, completely eliminate spot and block zoning,
grandfather in the current business-zoned properties with the idea of eventually
converting back commercial properties to residential. Small residential -compatible
offices could be allowed with residential zoning with exception for a small office. If the
city had not been checked by citizens on the Boulevard block- zoning in 2010, the 500
block could have allowed a gas station or a drug store! The city should take care that its
actions don’t undermine its own goals and commendable ideas.
Let’s remember that Thompson Memorial is our main, beautiful entrance. We don’t
really want cars entering and exiting and a lot of sprawl in that entrance. We all
remember how jaw-droppingly graceful Apperson Street used to be. Just because it is
half commercial now doesn’t mean we want the rest of it to match the air conditioners,
cut trees and corrugated big box buildings pushed right up to the road all along
Apperson.
13
The main goal of the Comprehensive Plan should be to attract the highest quality
businesses returning the best income for Salem without creating sprawl on so many
designated streets in town. This could be accomplished by focusing more on
revisioning certain areas and intersections instead-- like Salem Valley Eight, the
Boulevard to the West of College Avenue, the Truck Route and Hammerhead Hardware
area. Sprucing up appropriate streets or intersections attracts higher-quality
businesses.
This plan raises the specter that opening up so many areas will suck businesses out of
our downtown. For instance, downtown Main Street has several empty buildings for
lease. The advantage of town centers is that you can better realize your revenue goals
while bringing in more attractive and acceptable designs and businesses. Salem
development needs to express a cohesive vision using state -of-the-art planning ideas
with similar setbacks and beautification and will be attractive enough to draw enough
retail customers to sustain the businesses. The plan in its current form could
exacerbate some areas of town by drawing businesses from one part of Salem to
another (i.e. businesses from Main Street to Apperson, for example.) Your plan should
not undermine the businesses that you already have. This plan is not careful enough
about that.
The main idea that I suggested last year that does not appear in this plan was for Salem
to hire an outside city planner to help with the visioning process. Cities really serious
about fixing past, avoiding future mistakes and creating a workable, sustainable vision
and economy will hire a planner that specializes in creating a prosperous and
sustainable vision that is easily recognizable. What is ours? I propose the following: A
livable bedroom community featuring high quality-of-life with protected historic
residential and downtown districts with quaint, charming town centers, industry
separated from residential areas, controlled new development carried out in
appropriate styles, all tied together by attractive roads with sidewalks, trees, median
strips, greenways, bikepaths, and connected parks and as a recognized gateway to
dozens of recreational activities in our city and region from sports to outdoor
exploration} (regional amenities: the A.T., Jefferson National Forest, Carvin’s Cove, and
many others like the two Nature Conservancy sites: Falls Ridge and Bottom Creek
Gorge.) This vision would bring the revenue Salem leaders want to attract.
Mention in the plan on p. 49 for expanding downtown into adjacent areas through the
use of the Transitional Business District zoning or other zoning classifications is a
worrisome and destabilizing idea. We will be doing well to keep our downtown filled
with businesses, properly design the new development along West and East Main Street
and working on some intersections that can become highly-attractive retail and
restaurant centers with a charming sense of place. We don’t need to completely
develop Thompson Memorial and Apperson Street.
We could have avoided many mistakes of the past with a professional planner who gave
us clear vision. {If you are wondering what I’m talking about, here are some examples of
longstanding problems: The gas station and fast food abutting Lake Spring, a parking lot
on Oakey’s Field, the 2.5 million gallon water tower which could have been put
underground with pumps, the County Jail building hiding historic Monterrey, and the
multistory Salem Bank and Trust. More recent examples that could have been avoided
14
are parking lots in front of buildings like Lowe’s, ACE on the E.C. and the VA Credit
Union, which the city paid to move to the rear to no avail. Also, the elevated new Chic
Filet with a driveway in front is hard for future neighbors to match. These are just a few
examples.} Salem has wasted its unique, beautiful, central large spaces and chopped
them up like on Apperson and the Elizabeth Campus. It’s better to keep those large
spaces to maximize quality of life and redevelop underutilized areas. Salem has a lot of
junk yards and underutilized properties that could be repurposed if we have adequate
vision.
If I understand this Comprehensive Plan, it looks like the city wants to develop every last
inch of the Elizabeth Campus through private business. According to the original plan
proffered to citizens, there was a city park and a running course. Here it is well into the
next century. Where is our city park and running trails?
I implore you to postpone adopting this plan until you can get more input and citizen
buy-in. Work with concerned, interested and talented Salem citizens to give some
tangible visions with pictures for identified areas of town and make your plan more real
and create more sense of place. More time is needed to make sure that the plan
increases revenue without creating sprawl and undermining its own goals. Here’s
where harnessing the input and ideas of citizens most interested in urban planning can
make Salem a planned city commensurate with the level of its other services and
qualities. and
WHEREAS, Stella Reinhard, 213 North Broad Street, appeared before the
Council and thanked Council for its work on the proposed 2012 Comprehensive
Plan; she saw a lot of ideas from citizens incorporated, which was encouraging;
she stated that she submitted comments to Council last week, which she revised
and resent to Council earlier today; she stated that her comments have
approximately 21 points and were written as she read through the plan, she read
through about six sections of the plan; she stated that Salem has done a good
job of adapting to new technology and that for future discussions, she suggested
that it would be useful to have a laptop available for citizens to plug into
enabling them to show Council a few images rather than copying and giving the
images to Council; it is expensive to copy large images; she asked Council to
consider having a laptop available for citizens to use in order to present things to
Council; she noted that Council will read her comments and will know what she
feels is important, but she would like to mention a few things; she stated that
she has not heard about a charrette before, but likes the idea; whether or not
Council approves the proposed plan or not, she would like for Council to wait
until the end of summer to consider the plan; it is her understanding that not
many people attended the last charrette; she did not see the advertising for the
meeting; she understands that Council wants to move things forward and she
would like to be a part of the process; she noted that she has a background in
graphic design and has worked with a lot of developers in New Hampshire in the
past and would like to see a vision process where the city identifies the different
15
places in Salem that are very important for the sense of place that has been
mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan; she noted the areas she feels are specific
to the sense of place in Salem (Apperson Drive, Boulevard, Main Street, etc.); she
feels that if actual visual photos of what is envisioned in 20, 25, or 30 years from
now were included in the plan, then the city could aim for that and kind of keep
the things out of the city that its citizens don’t want and could push for the
things that are wanted; she noted that she has a background in that area and she
would put together a presentation that would show some of her work and ideas;
she thinks the 2003 Comprehensive Plan needs to be revisited with specific
regard to the college and any properties that reflect institutional; she stated that
in RB zoning she feels that curb cuts need to be addressed; she further stated
that as she looks at how Apperson Drive currently looks and feels there needs to
be a vision for how it is developed; if too much asphalt is placed along the area
then it begins to lose its beauty; she asked Council to read the comments she
presented to Council; and
WHEREAS, Council thanked Mrs. Reinhard for her comments; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst stated that she and Councilwoman
Johnson served on the Comprehensive Plan on behalf of Council, along with
citizen representatives; the conversations were good and important and she
hopes it helped staff because it helped Council; she feels that discussions were
held about some of the things Council felt were important, relevant and vital
going forward; Council knows it is not 100 percent complete, but it is a working
document and a living document and it is a guide; she is very grateful for the
time staff has placed in developing the proposed document; it has been an 18-
month process with countless early morning, afternoon, and evening meetings;
she appreciates the citizen representation, and input; also appreciates all the
work the Communications Department did in order to get the web features up
and running so that input could be obtained through some new media; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Johnson concurred with Councilwoman Garst’s
comments; and
WHEREAS, it was noted that the legal requirement is for the
Comprehensive Plan to be reviewed every five years, but the Planning
Commission and Council has the option to revisit the plan as often as deemed
necessary; and
WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the hearing;
16
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN GARST, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN JOHNSON, AND DULY CARRIED, Resolution 1205 was hereby
adopted approving the 2012 Comprehensive Plan with the change indicated by
the comma on Page 49 – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones
– aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley –
aye.
Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a
public hearing and consider an ordinance on first reading amending Chapter 106,
Article III Use and Design Standards, Section 106-316.3 Accessory uses;
residential use types and Article VI Definitions and Use Types, Section 106-602.1
Agricultural use types of The Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, pertaining to
urban agriculture; also consider amending Chapter 106, Article II Use and Design
Standards of the Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, by adding Section 106 -318
Urban Agriculture; notice of such hearing had been published in the May 24, and
31, 2012, issues of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper having general circulation in
the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held May 16,
2012, doth recommend approval; and
WHEREAS, staff noted the following: this request is to amend Chapter
106, Article IV Use and Design Standards, Section 106-316(C) and Article VI
Definitions and Use Types, Section 106-602.1 pertaining to urban agriculture; the
second part of the request is to consider amending Chapter 106, Article III Use
and Design Standards by adding Section 106-318 Urban Agriculture; over the last
several years there has been an increase in popularity of urban agriculture
throughout the nation, and Salem is not exempt; acknowledging this trend and
in recognition of citizens’ desires, City Council requested that staff research and
determine the applicability of allowing the keeping of chickens as part of the
Comprehensive Plan review; and the following recommendations are in
recognition that there may be viable agricultural uses accessory to single family
dwellings; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council appeared before the Council to discuss
and present a propose change to the zoning ordinance to potentially allow
chickens in Residential Single Family (RSF) Districts; he thanked the City
Manager, Mary Ellen Wines, and Ben Tripp for their hard work to develop the
proposed changes; a lot of time was spent doing research in talking to other
localities, the Virginia Cooperative Extension, and developing the ordinance; he
stated that currently in the City Code in Chapter 14 pertaining to animals it
ITEM 2
ORDINANCE
PASSED AMENDING
CHAPTER 106,
ARTICLE III USE AND
DESIGN
STANDARDS,
SECTION 106-316.3
ACCESSORY USES;
RESIDENTIAL USE
TYPES AND ARTICLE
VI DEFINITIONS AND
USE TYPES, SECTION
106-602.1
AGRICULTURAL USE
TYPES OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF
SALEM, VIRGINIA,
PERTAINING TO
URBAN
AGRICULTURE; ALSO
CONSIDER
AMENDING
CHAPTER 106,
ARTICLE II USE AND
DESIGN STANDARDS
OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA, BY
ADDING SECTION
106-318 URBAN
AGRICULTURE
17
allows chickens in all uses, it doesn’t define zoning classifications on where
chickens can and cannot be; however, the zoning code Chapter 106 only allows
chickens in Agricultural Districts and does not allow chickens in RSF; the zoning
code trumps the regular City Code so to speak insofar as what is going to take
precedence; Chapter 14 and Chapter 106 contradict one another; City Council
requested that staff draft an ordinance to allow chickens in RSF, which is the
proposal before Council; he reviewed a few of the considerations in the draft—
chickens would be an accessory use to a residential single family home in RSF;
the chickens would be for personal use only and could not be used for a
commercial enterprise where chickens or eggs were sold; it allows for up to 6
hens with no roosters and no slaughtering of chickens and would be for the sole
use of the consumption of eggs; the ordinance itself requires eight (8) square
feet for a chicken run and one and one half square feet per chicken in a coop;
the ordinance as drafted requires a 25-foot setback from all property lines and a
50 foot setback from any adjacent principal structure; there is a quarter acre lot
size minimum and also there is a $25 annual permit fee to own chickens; as the
ordinance is drafted, the ordinance would require residents to register their
chickens by June 30, 2012; and July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2013, would be the
yearly permit time; he stated he was available to answer any questions; and
WHEREAS, George Givens, 1320 St. Jude Street, and owner of Givens
Bookstore located at 1641 East Main Street, appeared before the Council in
support of chickens being allowed in RSF; he stated that he feels that the issues
that brought this to the attention of City Council is a neighbor problem not a
chicken problem; he stated that whatever Council decides today is not going to
solve the neighbors’ problems and they are still going to be fighting with each
other no matter what; he feels that the neighbors’ issues have brought Council
into an adversarial position against residents who own chickens in Salem; he
stated that he has nine (9) chickens and no one even knows that they are there;
he has one neighbor and he does not have a problem with the chickens and feels
that is the case with 90-95 percent of the people who own chickens in the area;
chickens produce far less noise than dogs, carry less diseases than cats, and
produce less waste than dogs; he feels that if the decision were left up to the
neighbors who live next to chicken owners that 90 to 95 percent would approve
of their neighbors owning chickens; he stated that chickens produce far less
waste and are less trouble than domestic animals; he hopes that Council is not
going to turn this into an adversarial relationship between City Council chicken
owners; he feels that some of the rules are on the drastic side and could be
amended; no one knows that he has chickens behind his bookstore; the way the
rules are written, he can place the chickens at his residence but he does not
want to; he asked that Council offer a waiver for chicken owners who have not
received any complaints; he appreciates Council’s efforts on this matter; he
18
noted that he and his wife moved to Salem 29 years ago from Arizona and Salem
has been the perfect place to live; Council has always been very approachable
and the issues can be resolved; and
WHEREAS, Stuart Bain, 636 Pyrtle Drive, appeared before the Council to
address concerns he has regarding the proposed ordinance; he opposes
excessive regulation and violations of the Constitution on all levels and in all
forms; he stated that there are multiple instances of both in the proposed
ordinance; he noted that the proposed ordinance disqualifies use of adjacent
vacant properties to be used for laying hens; the minimum lot size fails to take
into account some urban areas such as New York City that allows keeping of
hens on areas as small as an apartment deck without incident and feels the lot
size requirement is unnecessary; the ordinance is inappropriately worded as if
chickens are being raised for slaughter and is so vaguely worded that it would
actually prevent the use of eggs to be used for things such as baking, gifts, arts
and crafts; because of the vagueness chickens are unable to be sold, but there is
a sign on Apperson Drive advertising the sale of bunnies; therefore, if bunnies
can be sold, why can’t chickens; he stated that the ordinance would actually
prevent the processing of meat made from chicken purchased at t he grocery
store; it also fails to take into account the size of the parcel as compared to other
sections of the Code; i.e. 106-302.5 allows one stabled animal per acre in a
residential single family area parcel, but for some reason a two-acre parcel and a
quarter-acre parcel are both limited to six (6) chickens; the ordinance also
references sections of the State Code and the City Code but then goes right into
conflicting directly with them; Section 14-36 of the existing animal code already
addresses such issues as the pen size, animal trespass, animal nuisance from
noise and stench; in addition, the section addressing the use of materials
prevents the use of recycled materials and also prevents things that are sharp or
metallic and may rust such as chicken wire; the setbacks listed are unreasonable
and unwarranted; he discussed drainage areas, fecal matter waste, disposal of
waste; he noted that there are no other section s in the code that require a
sketch; the tax of $25 per year for keeping chickens kind of off-sets the whole
point of having and enjoying chickens in the first place, and no tax is placed on
someone who wants to build 30 parrot habitats in their backyard; he noted that
he could have a kennel with over 30 dogs for the same price; yearly inspections
are not required for any other type of animal or stable and feels the inspections
are uncalled for and places an undue burden on animal control and other city
officials; he also noted that there are no other instances in the City Code where
any city official, for any capacity, for any manner is allowed to make periodic
unannounced inspections of any property for any reasons; it is a clear violation
of property owners’ rights and believes Council is asking residents to give up
their Fourth Amendment rights; he stated that the penalties are unenforceable;
19
he stated that he has 311 signatures of citizens and residents of the City of Salem
simply saying to not pass the ordinance, but rather simply remove the word
chicken from Section 106-602.1 in the City Code thus solving every problem that
is trying to be addressed without having to add excessive regulation; he thanked
Chairman Murphy of the Planning Commission for his nay vote because he
simply said that it does not need to be regulated; he then quoted Mayor Foley as
saying, “there is no way we can tell a private property owner what to do” and
added that comment was made at approximately 7:45 p.m. tonight; and
WHEREAS, Bill Wallace, 349 Pennsylvania Avenue, appeared before the
Council and showed Council a photo of a chicken house he has on his property;
he stated that it is an official chicken house and is built for raising chickens; the
house was built by R. Sagen Kime; the structure is 15 feet by 30 feet and can
hold more than six chickens; he stated that he is not asking for more than six
chickens but wants to make sure that the chicken house on his property meets
the setback requirements; he noted that he currently does not have chickens but
might would like to if the city would allow chickens in RSF; and
WHEREAS, Mary Burton, 901 Flanders Lane, appeared before the Council
and stated that her chicken house is approximately 27 ½ square feet; she stated
that she has had chickens as pets for her grandsons and no one ever knew she
had them, no one ever complained about them; she stated that they are good
little pets and they give her an egg every day; she has two chickens; she hopes
that Council does not approve the ordinance as presented as she would have to
place her coop in the middle of her pool in order to comply with the setbacks
proposed; and
WHEREAS, Christine Seto, 640 Pyrtle Drive, appeared before the Council
and stated that she currently has six chickens; she stated that she took an old
shed and made it to a chicken coop; owning chickens is abou t sustainability and
teaching her children the value of hard work, getting your hands dirty and having
something to show for it; she stated that it is important to her to be able to work
outside in her garden, etc.; she stated that her concerns with the ordinance is
that her coop is larger than the ordinance requires; the coop is placed within five
feet of her property line; her neighbors do not have an issue with her having
chickens; she also doesn’t like that the ordinance states that no scrap materials
can be used for the coop; she does not like the numerous regulations placed in
the ordinance and is concerned with the penalty for violations under the
ordinance; she thanked Council for listening and appreciates Council welcoming
urban agriculture; and
20
WHEREAS, Sally Vest, 619 Kesler Mill Road, appeared before the Council
and stated that she also has chickens; she stated that she has read the proposed
ordinance and feels the setback requirements should be reduced; she stated
that on her property she has a parking lot for her cars, and a very large garage;
therefore, she has very little space for her chickens; she stated that her chickens
are located on her in-laws’ land, who live next door; she cannot have chickens on
her property because her lot size is too small; she is also concerned with the
penalties for violations; she stated that she has nine (9) chickens which serve her
family very well; she also feels the setback requirements should be lessened and
feels that six (6) chickens are not enough to serve most families; she asked that
Council not vote on the proposed ordinance tonight and reconsider some items
in the ordinance; she further stated that she and her family love living in Salem
and feels that Council does an excellent job; and
WHEREAS, Anna Beebe-Sachs, 825 Virginia Avenue, appeared before the
Council; she stated that she has a problem with the setback requirements for
how it affects other people; she stated that she has two acres of land so the
setback requirements would not affect her; she stated that she has an issue with
the number of chickens you can have regardless of your lot size; she also feels
that the type of chicken you have should also be taken into consideration; she
stated that she has 19 chickens and if you go by the rule of six (6) chickens per
quarter acre, then they would be in compliance with the number of the chickens
allowed; she feels that the proposed ordinance places too many restrictions on
chicken owners; and
WHEREAS, Sharon Reaser, 1550 Links View Drive, appeared before the
Council and stated that she does not have chickens and does not plan to get
chickens; she stated that she feels that this is not a chicken issue, it is a property
rights issue; she feels that the proposed ordinance is excessive and unnecessary
and is not characteristic of Salem; and
WHEREAS, Maggie Newman, 3041 Golf Colony Drive, appeared before
the Council and asked the people present at the meeting if anyone opposed
chickens and if anyone supports the proposed ordinance as written; she noted
that during the work session Council discussed offering a compliance period to
people who currently have chickens, possibly changing the setbacks, etc.; she
stated that instead of listening to people say the same thing over and over, she
would like to have Council’s opinion on where the ordinance is going to go; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley questioned if Mrs. Newman was the last speaker
because Council normally hears from everyone wanting to speak before it has a
discussion; and
21
WHEREAS, Mrs. Newman stated that she does not mean to cut anyone
off, but feels that it is not beneficial for Council to hear the same things from
different speakers; she feels that the setback requirements should be lessened;
she stated that the compliance period is also a concern for current chicken
owners; she stated that what Council decides affects how people feel; and
WHEREAS, Daniel Newman, 3041 Golf Colony Drive, appeared before the
Council and mentioned Mr. Kime as one of the founding people of Salem; he
noted that Mr. Kime had a chicken coop built five feet off of his property line and
is larger than the proposed ordinance allows; he stated that he feels that
chickens should be included in livestock; he feels the proposed ordinance is too
restrictive and does go against our Fourth Amendment rights; he asked Council
to consider the petition that has been circulated which basically asks for one
word to be removed from the code instead of adding four pages of regulations;
and
WHEREAS, Denny Akers, 609 Bowman Avenue, appeared before the
Council and stated that he has four chickens and stated, “bird sanctuary”; and
WHEREAS, Courtney Pugh, 1305 Turner Street, appeared before the
Council and stated that she does not have any chickens and she does not care
about the chickens; she stated that she has an issue with ordinances that limit
more of our property rights as individuals in the City of Salem; she stated that as
a member of the Park Place neighborhood she is already bombarded with issues
from the Salem Fair, football games, and everything else that goes on at the
Salem Civic Center; she stated that now Council is telling residents that they
cannot use their back yards for anything else if they want to have chickens
because you would have to have the coop in the middle of the backyard; she
doesn’t feel that it is right that someone can come into her backyard at anytime
to see if she has chickens; again, it is a Fourth Amendment right that is being
violated; she stated that she does not feel the City needs to be concerned on
whether she has poultry in her backyard, but should be concerned that all the
other rules of the city are being followed; and
WHEREAS, Carrie Cox, 227 Academy Street, appeared before the Council
and thanked those who have worked so hard and kept an open mind about th e
subject; she stated that she and her husband fully respect their neighbors and
want to live in harmony with them; Salem is their town and they love it; they
respect that some people may not like chickens and acknowledge that they have
every right to feel that way; they also respect that some people might not like
dogs, cats, muscle cars, or motorcycles; however, those who complain about
22
such things often fail to see that respect is a two-way street; she stated that the
complaints the city received about her chickens and indeed about all the
chickens in general have stemmed from a simple matter of personal preference;
fears about smell and noise have gone unfounded; she asked that Council keep
in mind the following: are the issues and concerns real, and based on actual
facts or are they simply personal preferences and ones that aren’t actually
harming anyone; much like the other differences in personal taste; she asked
Council to amend the proposed ordinance before it is adopted; the setback
requirements should be lessened and should be the same for any other
accessory use (five feet from the side and rear property lines); she stated that
the issues of noise and smell are well addressed in the proposed ordinance and
there should not be a concern on the general placement of the coop;
furthermore, when Council met on February 28, 2011, Item 7 on the agenda
regarded med cottages; she noted that the item passed and the cottages are
required to meet the same setback requirements as accessory structures; she
then noted the setback requirements for dog pens; she noted that the average
weight for a hen is seven pounds, which is much smaller than the average dog,
cat, and human; while a quarter acre is suitable for six (6) hens, she feels that
citizens with larger lot sizes should not be limited to six (6) hens; she stated that
Salem’s Animal Control officers have continually told residents it is legal to have
chickens and have recently told current chicken owners not to worry because
they would be “grandfathered;” she doesn’t believe that Salem is the type of
town that would punish those who have been honest and have tried to do the
right thing; she asked that in lieu of grandfathering the current chicken owners,
that Council grant exemption status; she stated that she has had her chickens
and has tried to work with the City for many years; countless hours and money
have been invested into keeping their chickens and her children are just as
invested; she asked that Council not punish current chicken owners when they
have been open, honest and forthcoming about ownership; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones asked Mrs. Cox how many chickens she
currently owns; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Cox stated that she currently has three (3) hens and six
(6) babies; she stated that her hens are getting older and need to find new
homes as they are ceasing to lay eggs; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley thanked Mr. Bain for recognizing his wisdom; he
clarified that he was talking about the comprehensive planning and rezoning of
property and selling property; he feels that Mr. Bain took his comments out of
context; and
23
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst addressed the issue of inspections; she
stated that the intent was to prevent cruelty, overcrowding, and an unclean
area; she is not sure how the periodic, unannounced inspections came about;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the periodic and unannounced
inspections follows the language used with other permits that are issued
throughout the city for various things; he noted that the language was also
found in other ordinances, and the ordinance was modeled after any other
ordinances found throughout the United States; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst noted that generally if there was going
to be an inspection, it would be a complaint-based inspection; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney noted that it would be; he noted that if it is
an unannounced inspection and if the land owner does not want it to be made,
then the inspector would have to leave; there are processes in which a search
permit from the court can be obtained if you have a basis satisfactory to the
judge; he gave an example of how a search permit would be issued; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst noted that an option would be to change
the language to complaint-based inspections; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones noted that Council has seen that times are
changing and this issue probably would have not been discussed previously; he
stated that Council understands that economic times have changed and people
also want healthier food alternatives; he stated that Council does not want to
take away anyone’s rights; it is addressing an issue and trying to figure out what
is best for the community; he noted that Council has visited properties and has
been trying to find the best way to manage the issue if it becomes a problem; he
stated that Council and city staff have worked to try to find out what is most
livable for the City of Salem and its residents; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that Councilman Jones is correct, but there
is conflicting language in the City Code that has to be clarified; a decision of
some type has to be made; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens noted that the ordinance is a broad -based
ordinance and cannot and will not satisfy every individual; and
WHEREAS, Maggie Newman reappeared before the Council and stated
that the majority of the people have issues with the setbacks; therefore, lets
24
address the setback requirements; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst asked about the intent behind the
phrasing for the use of scrap board; and
WHEREAS, Mary Ellen Wines, Deputy Zoning Administrator, appeared
before the Council and stated that the intent was to take into account all of the
different aspects--the people who have chickens, the people who want chickens,
don’t want chickens and those who want to protect the hens, neighbors, owners
all at the same time; therefore, many other ordinances and regulations and
standards were looked at all the way from the federal government to the
Extension Office; she noted that the majority of the other ordinances had some
type of regulation as far as materials used for various reasons; partly for the
protection of the hens so that the hens cannot be harmed from the materials
used to build the coop and that predators cannot get to the hens; the character
of the neighborhoods also need to be protected as well; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Johnson stated that she has visited various
properties with chickens and appreciates the honesty of current chicken owners;
she stated that she has also been approached by residents who are conc erned
about chickens being allowed throughout the city; she understands the reasons
and concerns of chicken owners and does not deny the right of property owners
to own chickens; she feels it is unfortunate that there was a disconnect in the
Code and chicken owners were misled about being able to keep chickens on
their property; she feels that all citizens of the city need to be taken into
consideration; she does not want the city to over regulate, but does feel that
certain regulations need to be in place to protect both the animals and the
neighbors; and
WHEREAS, Mary Burton reappeared before the Council and questioned if
the city required people who own dogs to build their dog houses out of special
material and if inspections were made to make sure the dogs are being well
cared for; and
WHEREAS, it was noted that if the City receives a complaint, then an
inspection is made; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that Council did have some discussion
about this issue at its work session held prior to the meeting but cannot legally
make a decision at a work session; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding setback requirements; and
25
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding the length of the compliance
period; and
WHEREAS, Stuart Bain reappeared before the Council and asked if it
would be simpler to remove the word chicken from the definition of agriculture
in the ordinance since all of the other issues (noise, waste, etc.) are already
addressed in the code; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney noted that if the word chicken was removed
from the definition of agriculture in the code, then chickens would not be
allowed as an agriculture use; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding the urban agriculture
movement, etc.; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens noted that the setback requirements could
be adjusted and they could revisit the ordinance in a year or so to see how the
allowance of chickens in RSF zoning has affected residents; and possibly change
the ordinance again depending on the complaints received or not received; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that a report could be given to
Council in a year to see how things are going; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding government over regulation,
etc.; and
WHEREAS, it was noted that the concerns addressed were related to
complaint-based inspections, setback requirements, materials, grace period,
penalty for violations; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding citizen concerns, fee
requirement to own chickens, number of chickens a resident can own , etc.; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding amendments to the proposed
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, it was noted that the following amendments be made to the
proposed ordinance: inspections should be complaint based or with due cause
instead of unannounced; change setback to five feet from property line, but
keep the 50’ requirement from an adjacent principal structure; remove the
material requirements; add a two-year grace period beginning July 1, 2012, for
26
current chicken owners who currently have more than six (6) chickens to come
into compliance with the number of chickens they own; and increase the size of
the run and pen from 64 square feet to 128 square feet; and
WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the request;
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN GARST, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance amending Chapter
106, Article III Use and Design Standards, Section 106-316.3 Accessory uses;
residential use types and Article VI Definitions and Use Types, Section 106-602.1
Agricultural use types of The Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, pertaining to
urban agriculture; also consider amending Chapter 106, Article II Use and Design
Standards of the Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, by adding Section 106 -318
Urban Agriculture was hereby passed on first reading as amended – the roll call
vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – nay, John C.
Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
The meeting was recessed for five minutes.
Mayor Foley requested that Council consider an ordinance on second
reading adopting the budget for fiscal year 2012-2013;
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN JOHNSON, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance adopting the
budget for fiscal year 2012-2013 was hereby approved – the roll call vote: Lisa D.
Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye,
and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
Mayor Foley requested that Council consider closing certain City offices
(Treasurer, Finance, Utility Collections, and Commissioner of the Revenue) to the
public on Monday, July 2, 2012, to facilitate the annual audit;
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, certain City offices (Treasurer,
Finance, Utility Collections, and Commissioner of the Revenue) will be closed to
the public on Monday, July 2, 2012, to facilitate the annual audit – the roll call
vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C.
Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
ITEM 3
ORDINANCE
APPROVED
ADOPTING THE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2012-2013
ITEM 4
CERTAIN CITY
OFFICES CLOSED ON
MONDAY, JULY 2,
2012, TO FACILITATE
THE ANNUAL AUDIT
27
Mayor Foley requested that Council consider adoption of Resolution
1206 accepting a certified employer’s rate for Fiscal Year 2012 -2013 for Virginia
Retirement System (VRS); and
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance reported that as a result of action
taken by the Virginia General Assembly, the City is required to take action
regarding contributions to the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) beginning July 1,
2012; while the City could choose a lesser rate that would provide funds for
salaries, capital or other financial needs, to do so would knowingly underfund
the City’s pension plan, require disclosure of such in the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report, and probably require even higher employer rates down the
road; Resolution 1206 authorizes the City to accept the “certified rate” approved
by the VRS Board of Trustees, a lesser rate equal to 70 percent of the “board
certified rate”, or the current VRS rate; whichever is greater; Resolution 1207
authorizes that employees begin paying a five percent employee share beginning
July 1, 2012; in addition, the resolution authorizes the City to provide the
required five percent salary increase plus a one percent across the board salary
increase in order to hold employees harmless from the increase in social security
and Medicare taxes an employee would be required to pay; Resolution 1208
acknowledges that the Salem School Board has made the election for its
contribution rate to be based on the employer contribution rates certified by the
Virginia Retirement System Board of Trustees and concurs with the election of
the City of Salem School Division to pay the Certified Rate of 7.91 percent, as
required by the 2012 Appropriation Act;
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, Resolution 1206 accepting a certified
employer’s rate for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 for the Virginia Retirement System was
hereby adopted:
(HERE SET OUT RESOLUTION)
– the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson
– aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
Mayor Foley requested that Council consider adoption of Resolution
1207 requiring the employee payment of five percent (5%) employee share for
the Virginia Retirement System (VRS);
ITEM 5
RESOLUTION 1206
ADOPTED
ACCEPTING A
CERTIFIED
EMPLOYER’S RATE
FOR FISCAL YEAR
2012-2013 FOR VRS
ITEM 6
RESOLUTION 1207
ADOPTED
REQUIRING
EMPLOYEE
PAYMENT OF FIVE
PERCENT (5%)
EMPLOYEE SHARE
OF VRS
28
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, Resolution 1207 requiring the
employee payment of five percent (5%) employee share for the Virginia
Retirement System (VRS):
(HERE SET OUT RESOLUTION)
– the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson
– aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
Mayor Foley requested that Council consider adoption of Resolution
1208 concurring with the Salem School Division’s action for VRS employee rates;
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, Resolution 1208 concurring with the
Salem School Division’s action for VRS employee rates:
(HERE SET OUT RESOLUTION)
– the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson
– aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye.
Mayor Foley requested that Council consider an ordinance on first
reading to amend, revise, and reordain Chapter 14, Article II, Sections 14-38, 14-
39, and 14-169, of The Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, pertaining to animals;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the proposed amendments
relate to the chicken ordinance passed; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that the amendment would add a
reminder to Chapter 14 to check Chapter 106 for any potential laws that would
influence animals; if there were additional regulations for chickens in place, it
would tell an animal control officer that is looking in Chapter 14 that they need
to look in Chapter 106 for additional regulations;
ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance to amend, revise, and
reordain Chapter 14, Article II, Sections 14-38, 14-39, and 14-169, of The Code of
the City of Salem, Virginia, pertaining to animals was hereby passed on first
ITEM 7
RESOLUTION 1208
ADOPTED
CONCURRING WITH
THE SALEM SCHOOL
DIVISION’S ACTION
FOR VRS EMPLOYEE
RATES
ITEM S1
ORDINANCE
PASSED AMENDING
CHAPTER 14,
ARTICLE II, SECTIONS
14-38, 14-39, AND
14-169, OF THE CITY
CODE PERTAINING
TO ANIMALS
29
reading – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W.
Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye;
There being no further business to come before the Council, the same on
motion adjourned at 10:03 p.m.