HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/11/2023 - Planning Commission - Agenda -RegularPlanning Commission Meeting
AGENDA
Wednesday, October 11, 2023, 7:00 PM
Work Session 6:00PM Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street:
Regular Session 7:00PM Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street
WORK SESSION
1.Call to Order
2.New Business
A.Discussion of items on the October agenda
1. 1862 Murrell Avenue (Tax Map # 128-1-4)
2. 1000 blk Ohio Avenue (Tax Map # 197-1-15)
B.Introduction of items on the November agenda
1. Code changes, sign ordinance
2. Code changes, zoning ordinance
3. 800-802 Maryland Avenue
3.Adjournment
REGULAR SESSION
1.Call to Order
2.Pledge of Allegiance
A.Pledge of Allegiance
3.Consent Agenda
A.Minutes
Consider acceptance of the minutes from the September 13, 2023, work session and regular
meeting and the September 29, 2023, joint work session with City Council.
4.New Business
A.Special Exception Permit
1
Hold public hearing to consider the request of Bruce Maxey, property owner, for the issuance
of a Special Exception permit to allow a 1,200 square foot detached garage on the property
located at 1862 Murrell Avenue (Tax Map # 128-1-4).
B.Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Hold public hearing to consider the request of Crystal Lowery, property owner, for rezoning
the property located at 1000 Blk Ohio Ave (Tax Map # 197-1-15) from HM Heavy
Manufacturing District to RSF Residential Single Family District.
5.Adjournment
City Council meeting, October 23, 2023, 6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street
2
Planning Commission Meeting
MINUTES Wednesday, September 13, 2023, 7:00 PM Work Session 6:00PM Regular Session 7:00PM Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street:
WORK SESSION
1. Call to Order A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in
Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia,
at 6:00 p.m. on September 13, 2023; there being the members of said Commission, to wit:
Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Denise P. King, Vice Chair; Reid Garst, Neil L. Conner (absent),
and Jackson Beamer; together with Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator;
Charles E. Van Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development; and Jim H. Guynn, Jr.,
City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Chair Daulton called the meeting
to order at 5:67 p.m. and reported that this date, place and time had been set for the
Commission to hold a work session.
2. New Business
A. Discussion of items on the September agenda 1. 640 Joan Circle (Tax Map # 243-2-16)
A discussion was held regarding the item on the September agenda.
B. Introduction of items on the October agenda 1. 1862 Murrell Avenue (Tax Map # 128-1-4) 2. 1000 blk Ohio Avenue (Tax Map # 197-1-15)
Items for the October agenda were introduced, and a discussion was held.
3. Adjournment Chair Daulton inquired if there were any other items for discussion and hearing none,
adjourned the work session at 6:45 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order
3
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held
after due and proper notice in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street,
Salem, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m., on September 13, 2023. Notice of such hearing was
published in the August 31 and September 7, 2023, issues of the "Salem Times Register," a
newspaper published and having general circulation in the City of Salem. All adjacent
property owners were notified via the U. S. Postal Service.
The Commission, constituting a legal quorum, presided together with Jim H. Guynn, Jr.,
City Attorney; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; and Charles E. Van
Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development, and the following business was
transacted:
A. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Consent Agenda
A. Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the August 16, 2023, work session and
regular meeting.
Reid Garst motioned Consider acceptance of the minutes from the July 12, 2023, work
session and regular meeting. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Daulton, Garst, King
Absent: Conner
3. New Business
A. Special Exception Permit Hold public hearing to consider the request of David A. Thompson, property owner,
for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a 1,500 square foot detached
garage on the property located at 640 Joan Circle, (Tax Map # 243 -2 - 16).
Staff noted the following:
The subject property (640 Joan Circle, Tax Map # 243-2-16) consists of a 1.05-acre tract of
land that sits within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning district. The applicant has
submitted building plans to construct an accessory structure on his property; however,
because the proposed plans indicate a square footage of greater than 1,000 (1,500 square
feet), a Special Exception Permit is required.
If approved, the building plans indicate that the structure will be constructed on a concrete pad with a combination of masonry, vinyl siding, and asphalt shingles. The structure will be
required to adhere to the site development regulations prescribed in Section 106-202.3. (B) 2. Accessory Structures of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
4
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as residential, still consistent with
the proposed utilization of the property should the Special Exception Permit be granted.
David Thompson, property owner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he has
lived at the residence since 1981. His grandchildren outgrew the swimming pool on the
property; therefore, he plans to fill in the pool and place a garage, not to work out of, but to
store cars. He has been a collector for years. He stated that the roofline will be maybe a foot
taller than the roofline on his house. He stated that the neighbor's house to the left of his
property is probably 12-foot taller than his house-- other than that it does not affect anyone.
Chair Daulton questioned if the garage was going to be a foot taller than his
residence.
Mr. Thompson confirmed that it would be, and Chair Daulton asked how tall it would be.
He stated that his house is 11-foot tall, and the garage will be 12-foot tall.
The Zoning Administrator clarified that accessory buildings cannot be taller than the main
house, but one side is two-stories, and the other side is one-story; therefore, the average
height of Mr. Thompson's residence is around 18-feet. She then asked Mr. Thompson how
tall the garage would be.
Mr. Thompson stated that the garage would be 16-feet tall. He further stated that the plans
show the garage being vinyl sided, but he plans to brick up 4-feet and then vinyl side with
arch shingles. He stated that he has a nice home and wants to make the garage nice for
everyone.
Member Beamer questioned if Mr. Thompson would access the garage from the lower
driveway on the left when facing his property. Mr. Thompson stated that he would and
make a circle behind.
Vice Chair King noted that Mr. Thompson already has a two-bay garage and a
carport but has a need for an additional four-bay garage spots.
Mr. Thompson stated that his wife has the two-car garage full of junk, and park under the
carport, but he has five or six cars in his driveway that need to be around the back out of
sight.
Chair Daulton questioned if he plans to gravel the driveway to the proposed garage, and
Mr. Thompson stated he would pave the driveway.
Vice Chair King questioned why the proposed garage is planned to be directly beside
the adjoining property owner.
Mr. Thompson stated that it is more convenient to pull around to go in the house.
Member Garst questioned the cost of the garage. Mr. Thompson stated that he plans to
do the work himself and it will be stick built.
5
Vice Chair King questioned if Mr. Thompson had considered moving the building to
another portion of his property, and he stated that he has not considered it.
Member Garst asked if Mr. Thompson would consider moving the garage. Mr. Thompson stated that it would be too much out of the way.
It was noted that accessory structures have a setback of five-foot.
Mr. Thompson stated that he plans to have the structure seven-foot off the property line.
Mike Fisher appeared before the Commission and stated that he respects Mr. Thompson
being a property owner and having a large lot. Mr. Thompson is requesting approval for a
four-bay garage and the Commission has already stated that he has a two-car garage and a
carport. He understands and appreciates Mr. Thompson being a car enthusiast, however,
nowhere in Karen Hills is there over a 1,000 square-foot detached building. There is another
car enthusiast who lives in Karen Hills currently building a three-bay garage that is
approximately 943 square feet. He stated that he does not live in the neighborhood, but his
daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren live next door to Mr. Thompson. He stated that Mr.
Thompson's residence is 1,512 square-foot house on the upper level, and he is asking to
essentially build another house within a few feet of a fence because accessory structures
only have to be five feet from the property line. He feels that the structure will have a
negative impact on the neighborhood. The topography of Mr. Thompson's land definitely
slopes down and feels the structure is too big--the proposed driveway on the plans is 50-feet
wide, which is wider that the street in front of the house. He stated that Mr. Thompson has a
very large lot and if he would consider moving the garage to the lower left part of his
property it would have less of a negative impact--the structure is taller than a house and the
same size as a house. He further stated that his daughter and son-in-law purchased their
home a year ago, and one of the reasons they purchased the home was for the beautiful view,
which will definitely be affected with the construction of the proposed garage. He
understands he can build a 1,000 square-foot building anywhere on his property but feels if
the Planning Commission allows a 1,500 square-foot structure at the location proposed, it
will have a negative affect and will affect the view. He asked that the Commission take all of
this into consideration. Paul Daniels, 642 Joan Circle, appeared before the Commission and stated that Mr. Fisher said basically everything he planned to say. He said that he has never been in the ballpark
of telling anyone what they can and cannot do on their property--it's America, but if the structure runs lengthwise along his fence and is16-foot tall, it will have an impact on the view from his property, which is a big reason why they purchased the home.
Mr. Thompson reappeared before the Commission and stated that per the code he can
build 1,000 square-foot building but could build it two-stories tall and place a lift in the
building.
Vice Chair King stated that he could not build a two-story structure as it would be too tall.
The Zoning Administrator noted that the accessory structure could not be as tall as the
main house.
6
Mr. Thompson does not feel that the neighbor's view would be affected by the
proposed structure.
Vice Chair King stated that she went to the adjacent property and a property up from the
property and looked back to where she thought the structure would be and feels that the
structure would impact the view especially being that close to the property line.
Chair Daulton questioned if there was a reason why Mr. Thompson could not build a 1,000
square-foot structure.
Mr. Thompson stated that 1,000 square-foot building will not meet his needs. He stated
he would attach the structure to his house and build it as big as he wants if this is not
approved.
It was noted that an email was received by Engineering from Judy Harveycutter about
her concerns regarding the size and placement of the proposed structure. Member Garst
read the email. It was also noted that two other emails were received, but they appeared
before the Commission; and a neighbor came into the Community Development office
about the request and had no concerns.
A discussion was held regarding side-yard setback requirements for attached
structures and how it has to be attached to the primary structure.
No other person(s) appeared related to the request.
Denise King motioned to deny request of David A. Thompson, property owner, for the
issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a 1,500 square foot detached garage on the
property located at 640 Joan Circle (Tax Map #243-2-16). Reid Garst seconded the motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Daulton, Garst, King
Absent: Conner
4. Adjournment On motion by Member Garst, seconded by Member Beamer, the meeting was
adjourned at 7:20 pm.
City Council meeting, September 25, 2023, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street
7
Special Meeting of the Salem Planning Commission in joint
session with Salem City Council
MINUTES Friday, September 29, 2023, 8:30 AM Salem Police Department, 1st Floor Conference Room, 36 E. Calhoun St:
JOINT SESSION
1. Call to Order A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the
1st Floor Conference Room of the Salem Police Department, 36 East Calhoun Street, Salem,
Virginia, at 8:30 a.m. on September 29, 2023; there being the members of said Commission,
to wit: Vicki G. Daulton, Chair; Denise P. King, Vice Chair; Reid Garst, Neil L. Conner,
and Jackson Beamer; together with Salem City Council, James E. Taliaferro, II, City
Manager and Executive Secretary, H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of
Council, Charles Van Allman, Jr., Director of Community Development, Mary Ellen
Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Crystal L. Williams, Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner
I; and Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City Attorney; and the following business was transacted: Mayor
Turk and Chair Daulton called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and reported that this date,
place and time had been set for the Commission to hold a work session.
2. New Business
A. Presentation of Proposed Code Changes
Ms. Wines presented a PowerPoint presentation that contained the following topics:
1. Chapter 40, Hotels and similar establishments:
Ms. Wines stated that as discussed in a previous work session, creating a city code
chapter that is specifically dedicated to the regulation of hotels, motels, and similar
establishments has become more prevalent in the last couple of years due to ongoing
issues with vagrancy and crime. Over the course of the past several years, the delineation
between transient occupancy and residential living has become almost non-existent. In an
effort to reinstall the separation between those two concepts, the Community
Development Department has worked closely with the Police Department and the
Commonwealth's Attorney Office to create a new chapter for the City Code. These new
guidelines will introduce measures that require hotels within the City of Salem to do
things like provide a guest register to City Officials upon request and allow a maximum
stay of twenty-nine (29) consecutive nights (unless a guest falls into one of the listed
exceptions), and a discussion was held.
2. Chapter 66, Signs:
Ms. Wines stated that Signs perform an important function in identifying and promoting
properties, businesses, services, residences, events, and other matters of interest to the
public; however, signs also obstruct views, distract motorists, displace alternative uses for
8
land, and pose other problems that legitimately call for regulation. As a result, it is
incredibly important to ensure that signs are properly managed, maintained, and even
improved (when necessary) - especially those which do not meet current standards and
those that advertise businesses no longer in operation. The following guidelines are
mechanisms by which nonconforming signs and signs no longer advertising a bona fide
business will be regulated moving forward. Regarding nonconforming signs: The City
shall give the owner twelve (12) months to utilize the sign, make it conform with the
requirements of this chapter, or remove the sign and all parts of the sign structure.
During this time, no other sign permits will be issued for the parcel on which the
nonconforming sign is located. Failure to meet the required 10’ setback will not be
enforced as a nonconforming sign due to historic right of way expansion. For signs no
longer advertising an existing bona fide business: A sign no longer advertising an
existing business shall have the sign face replaced with a white blank face a maximum of
sixty (60) days after the closing or moving of the business, and a discussion was held.
3. Chapter 74, Streets, and 106, Zoning, Addressing properties:
Ms. Wines explained that historically in the City of Salem, a property could be addressed
to any street frontage available to that particular parcel regardless of access or to which
street the primary structure was oriented. For example, corner lots or lots with two street
frontages could "choose" which street to be addressed. This, in turn, can affect the zoning
setback requirements for front yards, side yards, and rear yards. Moving forward, this
proposed code change verifies that all buildings shall be addressed according to the street
to which the lot (and corresponding primary structure) faces. This is further defined in
the zoning ordinance by Building, front which is defined as that portion of a building
facing the street of address. The goal of this change is to ensure the front door shall be
provided with orientation to the street on which it is addressed. She further explained
that updating section 74-103 of the city code to match the corresponding state code would
be included, and a discussion was held.
4. Chapter 94, Nuisances:
Ms. Wines stated that since the introduction of trees into the nuisance ordinance in June
of 2021, there have been numerous complaints regarding trees, their limbs, and their
potential to possibly impact another property. From the inception of the nuisance
ordinance, the incorporation of trees was ultimately intended to assist property owners
when a danger to life and property was either probable or had already occurred due to the
falling of trees and/or branches. She further explained that throughout the
implementation of the nuisance ordinance, the code enforcement team has learned and
concluded that once the damage has occurred, it is simply a private property issue that
should be handled between property owners. As a result, the phrase "have fallen" should
be removed from the nuisance ordinance. Furthermore, in addition to the removal of
damage which has already occurred, it is proposed that the term "imminent" be added to
the “trees or parts thereof in danger of falling” phrase to mitigate the flooding of calls
received for what are actually benign organisms. Certainly, an act of God can render any
tree a significant danger, but these changes are crafted in a way which establishes a
credible threat to life/property under normal circumstances must be present for the City to
get involved, and a discussion was held.
5. Chapter 106, Zoning
9
a. Allowed Uses
i. Ms. Wines stated that administrative services is defined as governmental offices
providing administrative, clerical or public contact services that deal directly with
the citizen. Typical uses include federal, state, county, and city offices. She further
explained that currently, administrative services are not allowed by right in any
zoning district. As it is appropriate to have such offices in certain districts, it is
proposed to add the use by right in the following districts: RB – Residential
Business District, HBD – Highway Business District, LM – Light Manufacturing
District
ii. Ms. Wines explained that BCD, Business Commerce District was designed as a
flexible zoning district to include commercial and industrial uses. Development
standards would be established during the rezoning process. However, several
parcels have been rezoned to BCD without the establishment of site development
regulations. The included map delineated multiple locations within the city. She
further explained that it is appropriate that retail and restaurant be added, and
development regulations be the same as HBD if not already established, and a
discussion was held.
b. Short-term rentals
Ms. Wines detailed that for the last two years, legislation was introduced to, but not
passed by, the Virginia General Assembly which would authorize the state to regulate
short term rentals in localities that had not already adopted corresponding regulations.
Many leaders expect that the bill will be re-introduced and passed at some point in the
near future. At this point, it is proposed to install the regulations for short term
rentals (along with the use and design standards) without actually permitting the use
in any zoning district. This will shield the City of Salem from being forced to adopt
the state's standards, while also providing the flexibility to permit short term rentals if
it is deemed appropriate at some point in the future. She continued by detailing the
specific regulations that could be considered, and a discussion was held.
c. Parking
Ms. Wines explained that over the last several years it has been discussed to revise
the parking requirements. As the comprehensive plan revision moves forward and
subsequently the zoning ordinance update will follow then there will be time to test
the effectiveness of these changes. She further explained that removing a section of
the code that was added in the wrong location and adding a graphic to code would be
included in these changes. She continued by stating that changes to the criteria for
determining required parking spaces is suggested in an effort to reduce the minimum
required parking and introduce maximum allowed parking. The changes would be as
follows: change the basis from gross square feet to net square feet. Net square fee is
75% of the gross floor area. Where the number of parking spaces is based on the
square footage of the building this will reduce the minimum requirements by 25%.
Maximum allowed parking shall be 140% of the minimum. There will be allowances
added for reductions regarding alternative transportation modes and green
infrastructure, and a discussion was held.
10
d. Storage Containers
Ms. Wines stated that the Planning and Zoning Division was directed at a previous
work session to count the number of storage containers being utilized in the city. As
the counting began it became very evident very quickly that the numbers would be in
the thousands. The containers are a very economical way for businesses to store
merchandise and materials so instead of recommending to not allow their use, staff
recommends the following:
i. Containers on residential property must be temporary, require a permit, and cannot
be any longer than 20; in length.
ii. Commercial and industrial property may use containers on a permanent basis as
long as they are in suitable condition, do not take up existing parking spaces, are
placed in the rear of property and shielded from public view, and cannot be seen
from the public way of the following streets, screening is not allowed:
a. Main Street
b. Wildwood Road
c. 4th Street
d. Thompson Memorial Drive
e. College Avenue
f. Electric Road
g. Texas Street
h. Roanoke Boulevard
i. Apperson Drive
j. South Colorado Street
And a discussion was held.
6. Further Discussion
Council and the Planning Commission highlighted the need to engage small business for feedback on any issues and feedback on such business types being established and operating in the City. Both bodies agreed that recurring joint meetings would be appropriate every six months.
3. Adjournment Mayor Turk inquired if there were any other items for discussion and hearing none, adjourned
the joint session at 10:05 a.m.
11
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA held in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 114 North Broad Street Salem, VA 24153
AGENDA ITEM: Special Exception Permit
Hold public hearing to consider the request of Bruce Maxey, property
owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception permit to allow a 1,200
square foot detached garage on the property located at 1862 Murrell
Avenue (Tax Map # 128-1-4).
SUBMITTED BY: Max Dillon, Planner
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Zoning: RSF Residential Single Family
Land Use Plan Designation: Residential
Existing Use: Residential
Proposed Use: Residential
The subject property (1862 Murrell Avenue, Tax Map # 128-1-4) consists of a 2.03 acre tract of land
that sits within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning district. The applicant has submitted a
rough sketch with the intention to construct an accessory structure on his property; however,
because the proposed plans indicate a square footage of greater than 1,000 (1,500 square feet), a
Special Exception Permit is required.
If approved, the preliminary plan indicate that the structure will be constructed behind the rear
building line of the home on the property, largely (if not entirely) shielded from the public view. The
applicant intends to use the detached garage for storage of equipment and vehicles. The existing
accessory structure on the property would be removed after the construction of the planned pole
barn garage. The structure will be required to adhere to the site development regulations
prescribed in Section 106-202.3. (B) 2. Accessory Structures of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as residential, still consistent with the
proposed utilization of the property should the Special Exception Permit be granted.
REQUIREMENTS:
The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-202.3. Site development regulations for RSF.
OPTIONS:
1. Recommend approval of the request.
2. Recommend approval of the request with conditions.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
12
13
14
15
"
L c I 78
'J o'
Q
lj
�
c;) o,
ll'l· �, �,I
,· ,,. ' ''"1'·
BOOK .• 18 r�;t 526
-"'I Cl� 97 ·w
3 5.3 0/
I',!> f
2 8� ,,qcres
,1'e"' L,. ,I t'· B-1
,,,_,\i
"' �1. . ,.,,� f. / . t" , . j ,. ti . /. .,.€( :'
'S
r 7 �:,,I I
(,\,j
(\J
('I.
LJ 31 o10 I
If!�" .f,'t/,•-1 ()�
!_''I( I �
0 ,,, �"1 � --
,)-01/ l•
l.,, 1 ,1
• t, \ .:
/"' I�
fr. p',.J. o·
()
0 I •·
I��I . t
�� 2 03 Acre�
-.:::._✓ �
Lo f q
r-�/
�-0 ¢,,,,., rt1n-r-vc.�,lr,
,,
(1\ t t� ;i .� .1.� .... D A,IJ••l"y J, 1,;.,. L8'vv,,.,.t! P #.1-,:J I
,,.�,,, --��
BY
lo f · 7../J
2,(}0 I'
·�1 .:.c
'-t .... ¾ 'j I) I Ill �'
9 � � 1
I � \,)
I� � ' ,\
'l"Ul<-'.V�A'
-r": -;,..o� -,1ew .:. .. tJ ,-8·8· 2 -i·• .. v.r.
--------,-3 9� 0/ t"" ,.',, ;,�� ---r::-�, :;; : ,.,,
ROl"10
SURVEY FOR
:. ',•7 V.1/l!_ '1.10 �1 -1· t I.Ct.-�/ll/i'7 S 5.A-1-·//1:'0NS
S,>/01"."-\'.:.3 0 1 1./1.'51,"V .:·;:-- /C7 8·8
\ /JLL.l::'r' I /'),A.JO � / YV.E.5 ]",l);/S:N7 co�p A.-/IIP
I •<t "' flY t; (�r,p·y TH.,._T THIS
,.l.A' ')r .._U�VE:V I� CORR£C'I"
,-" I I l I I , r l-ft;,:{.,1
• lRl1r1LO Lll"lO SURVE.YOR
.5�/..[P
VIRGINIA
ev T. P, PARKER Sc SON
ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS N
5CAL[
DATE
c-5
..!..:.. _lq_ o __ _ _ §_�p I. ( , e2.L
0 /'3($/
16
17
18
19
20
MBLU Location Owner Name Co-Owner Name Address 1 Address 2 City, State, Zip
128-1-4 1862 MURRELL AVE BRUCE A MAXEY 1862 MURRELL AVE SALEM VA 24153
128-1-3 1886 MURRELL AVE WALDROP FAMILY REV TRUST C/O DANIEL LAYMAN JR TRUSTEE 30 FRANKLIN RD 555 PROF ARTS BLDG ROANOKE VA 24011
99-4-1 1885 BURMA RD HOWARD M POAGE JR ROBIN T POAGE 1885 BURMA RD SALEM VA 24153
99-4-2 1875 BURMA RD STEVEN M POWERS ANDREA A POWERS 1875 BURMA RD SALEM VA 24153
99-4-3 1865 BURMA RD MICHAEL B PRESTON 1865 BURMA RD SALEM VA 24153
99-4-4 1855 BURMA RD JAMES PARKER RETHA PARKER 1855 BURMA RD SALEM VA 24153
99-4-5 1845 LAWNDALE AVE COOK IRREVOCABLE LIVING TRUST C/O BRUCE & TEENA COOK 1851 LAWNDALE AVE SALEM VA 24153
127-1-1 1842 MURRELL AVE CECELIA M PRUITT 1842 MURRELL AVE SALEM VA 24153
127-5-1.8 1817 EPPS DR BARRY DEAN TAYLOR ANGELA D TAYLOR 1817 EPPS DR SALEM VA 24153
128-1-5 1871 HARROGATE DR WHITE WHALE TWO LLC P O BOX 2202 SALEM VA 24153
21
22
23
24
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
held in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 114 North Broad Street Salem, VA 24153
AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Hold public hearing to consider the request of Crystal Lowery,
property owner, for rezoning the property located at 1000 Blk Ohio
Ave (Tax Map # 197-1-15) from HM Heavy Manufacturing District to
RSF Residential Single Family District.
SUBMITTED BY: Max Dillon, Planner
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Zoning: HM Heavy Manufacturing
Land Use Plan Designation: Residential
Existing Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Residential
The subject property (1000 blk Ohio Ave, Tax Map # 197-1-15) consists of a 0.172 acre tract of land
that sits within the HM Heavy Manufacturing zoning district. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of
the property to the RSF Residential Single Family zoning district in order to construct a single family
detached dwelling.
This item was presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on Wednesday, September 27, 2023 in
an effort to obtain a variance in regard to the lot size, lot width, and road frontage requirements of the
RSF Residential Single Family District. The Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously approved the
request.
If approved, this rezoning request would permit the applicant to build the proposed 1,248 square foot
single family home. Primary access to this unit would likely be from the rear alley, mimicking that of the
adjacent home (1021 Ohio Avenue). Any residential development on this property (aside from
requirements lifted by variance) will be required to adhere to the development standards prescribed in
Section 106-202.3. Site development regulations of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance.
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as residential, still consistent with the proposed
utilization of the property should the Special Exception Permit be granted.
REQUIREMENTS:
The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-202.3. Site development regulations for RSF with
the approved variance.
OPTIONS:
1. Recommend approval of the request.
2. Recommend approval of the request with conditions.
3. Recommend denial of the request. 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Board of Zoning Appeals
Unapproved MINUTES
Thursday, September 27, 2023, 4:00 PM
Council Chambers, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia
1. Call to Order
A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Salem, Virginia, was
held after due and proper notice in the Council Chambers, 114 North Broad Street, Salem,
Virginia, at 4:00 p.m., on September 27, 2023. Notice of such hearing was published in
the September 14, and 21, 2023, issues of the "Salem Times Register", a newspaper
published and having general circulation in the City. All adjacent property owners were
notified via the U. S. Postal Service.
The Board, constituting a legal quorum, presided together with Jim H. Guynn, Jr., City
Attorney, Maxwell S. Dillion, Planner, and Mary Ellen Wines, Planning and Zoning
Administrator; and the following business was transacted:
Captain Copenhaver called the hearing to order at 4:02 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Mr. Zoller, here. Mr. Sellars, here. Mr. Eanes, here. Mr. Gresham, here. Captain
Copenhaver, here.
3. Disclaimer
Captain Copenhaver declared that should anyone disagree with the Board’s decision shall
have the right to appeal to the Circuit Court of the City of Salem. You must exercise the
right to appeal no later than thirty (30) days following the Board’s decision by filing a
petition to the Circuit Court specifying the grounds on which aggrieved. Chairman
Copenhaver asked if everyone understood, if not, to ask when they approach.
4. New Business
A. Variance Request
Request of Crystal G. H. Lowery, property owner, for a variance from Section 106-
202.3(A) of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance pertaining to site development
regulations, for the property located at 1000 block of Ohio Avenue, Tax Map # 197-1-15.
The petitioner is requesting a variance of twenty-five (25) feet of frontage, twenty-five (25)
feet of lot width and one thousand five hundred square feet (1,500) square feet of lot area.
Proper legal notice has been given and all property owners have been notified of said
hearing. There have been two (2) phone calls inquiring as to what the request is about and
one (1) neighboring property owner that had some concerns as far as access goes; that may
be better addressed through the rezoning process if it moves forward.
Captain Copenhaver asked if all the board members had the opportunity to review the
correspondence associated with this matter. All responded with yes. Captain Copenhaver
asked the petitioner or their representative approach and present their case, asking for them
to state their name, address, and relationship to this hearing.
Donald Haddon employed at 1208 Corporate Circle with Balzer and Associates, the agent
of the requesting party. Crystal Lowery approached Balzer requesting that they do a
variance because there is a requirement for rezoning. This variance would go right along
with most of all the other lots in that area. Across the alley is already zoned RSF and the
lots are of like size and shaping in square footage. Future land use for the city is RSF. They
would like it to be single family and across Ohio Avenue is that redevelopment of the
Valleydale site, which is going to be a very large residential reuse for that parcel there. So,
it fits right in line with everything that is happening in the area. We are requesting a little
bit of a variance from the lot size and frontage. Lot size is currently 50 by 130. if he
remembers correctly, and we are asking for a variance of fifteen hundred (1,500) square
42
foot from the required square footage of RSF and twenty-five (25) foot of road frontage of
the required road frontage to accommodate a preexisting non-conforming lot.
Captain Copenhaver asked if Mr. Haddon could tell a bit more on how they are planning on
a building fitting in this lot and where the situation wise in relation to the lot next to it.
Donald Haddon answered the house next door at 1021 is the only lot other than the very
first lot at the alley that are being accessed from the alley. We are planning on setting our
proposed dwelling that is twenty-six (26) feet wide and forty-eight (48) feet deep, fifty (50)
foot back from the alley and that would put the front of that house right around, he did not
know what would be considered the front of the adjoining house at. It is accessing from the
alley, so we would consider the front on the alley. This building would be almost dead in
line with the back side of that house. This is going to allow for a little bit more off street
parking and drive there. Not to have a car to close to the alley to impede any traffic so to
say any turn arounds of emergency vehicles so to say. It is going to provide for a better turn
around in that area.
Captain Copenhaver asked if there was a plan to create an access from Ohio Avenue.
Donald Haddon responded that there was not currently, simply because of the topography
of the lot. The question was brought up about access. The main concern was of the
emergency vehicles back there. Currently there is an existing little gravel drive up front that
is insufficient for a driveway and insufficient for a turnaround especially for say a fire
truck. But if a forty (40) foot long driveway was added to get parking in front of this house
and to make it double wide that would give plenty of space to turn around. There is an
option of putting a parking spot down there and running a sidewalk down for emergency
access if that was a concern.
Mr. Zoller asked what the side yard setback requirement?
Ms. Wines responded that for RSF Residential Single Family, it is ten (10)% of the lot
width. Example if the lot is fifty (50) they require five (5) feet and that includes any
overhang, guttering, any part of the home.
Donald Haddon stated it will have a side yard setback of seven (7) feet. The sewer
connection would be to the alley, water connection out to Ohio.
Captain Copenhaver asked if there were any other persons wanting to speak on this matter.
Hearing none, Captain Copenhaver closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gresham motioned for approval.
Mr. Eanes seconded the motion.
Roll Call vote: Mr. Zoller, aye. Mr. Sellars, aye. Mr. Eanes, aye. Mr. Gresham, aye.
Captain Copenhaver, aye.
Captain Copenhaver stated the decision of the Zoning Administrator for the City of Salem
in refusing to issue a permit to the petitioner is hereby confirmed. The variation from the
terms of the zoning ordinance requested in the application of the petitioner should be, and
the same is, hereby granted in accordance with the application presented at this meeting.
The petitioner may now pursue rezoning. The next planning commission meeting will meet
on the 11th of October. Followed by City Council meeting on the 23rd of October. The
secretary of the Board of Zoning Appeals is here by instructed to certify a copy of this
order to the Clerk of City Council and the Building Official of the City of Salem. This
hearing is complete.
Captain Copenhaver adjourned the meeting at 4:11 pm.
ATTEST: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Captain Copenhaver
43
MBLU Location Owner Name Co-Owner Name Address 1 Address 2 City, State, Zip
197-1-15 1000 BLK OHIO AVE CRYSTAL LOWERY 1863 CHEROKEE ROSE CIR MOUNT PLEASANT SC 29466
197-1-16 1021 OHIO AVE JESSE A CROWDER 1021 OHIO AVE SALEM VA 24153
197-1-17 1000 BLK OHIO AVE JESSE A CROWDER 1021 OHIO AVE SALEM VA 24153
198-4-2 1015 OHIO AVE JERRY W BAILEY JR SIDNEY G WITT P O BOX 1368 SALEM VA 24153
198-4-1 1001 OHIO AVE JERRY W BAILEY JR 1001 OHIO AVE SALEM VA 24153
187-3-1 1002 CAROLINA AVE RANDOLPH WADDELL JR NORMA B WADDELL 1002 CAROLINA AVE SALEM VA 24153
197-1-1 1006 CAROLINA AVE KATHLEEN W CONNER 1006 CAROLINA AVE SALEM VA 24153
197-1-2 1012 CAROLINA AVE MICHALS HOME LLC 171 FOREST DR SALEM VA 24153
197-1-3 1016 CAROLINA AVE KATHRYN LEE 401 MONROE AVE # 102A CAPE CANAVERAL FL 32920
197-1-5 1024 CAROLINA AVE RACHEL E KESSLER 1024 CAROLINA AVE SALEM VA 24153
197-1-6 1100 CAROLINA AVE STEPHEN R HOOKER TRACEY L HOOKER 1100 CAROLINA AVE SALEM VA 24153
197-1-7 1102 CAROLINA AVE FRANCES S STEBBINS 1102 CAROLINA AVE SALEM VA 24153
197-1-8 1106 CAROLINA AVE DEANE A WELCH 1106 CAROLINA AVE SALEM VA 24153
197-1-9 1110 CAROLINA AVE JOSEPH M FOLEY DIANE L DEREU 302 ACADEMY ST SALEM VA 24153
197-1-10 1114 CAROLINA AVE KEITH D WOOSTER ELISABETH M WOOSTER 1114 CAROLINA AVE SALEM VA 24153
197-1-10.1 1120 CAROLINA AVE ADAM L SEDER NOVA SEDER P O BOX 6073 ASHEVILLE NC 28816
197-1-11 1225 PEARL ST DERICK WADE HALL 1225 PEARL ST SALEM VA 24153
197-1-12 1107 OHIO AVE RAYMOND J HUNT KATHLEEN M HUNT 1107 OHIO ST SALEM VA 24153
197-1-13 1100 BLK OHIO AVE RAYMOND J HUNT KATHLEEN M HUNT 1107 OHIO ST SALEM VA 24153
197-1-14 1100 BLK OHIO AVE RAYMOND J HUNT KATHLEEN M HUNT 1107 OHIO ST SALEM VA 24153
186-6-1 710 8TH ST VALLEYDALE CATALYST LLC 133 KIRK AVE ROANOKE VA 24011
198-5-2 1228 INDIANA ST CITY OF SALEM P O BOX 869 SALEM VA 24153
44
45
46
47