HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/15/2024 - Planning Commission - Agenda -RegularPlanning Commission Meeting
AGENDA
Wednesday, May 15, 2024, 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
2.Old Business
A.Discussion of items on the May agenda
1. 1200 block Thompson Memorial Dr rezoning from RSF to HBD
3.New Business
A.Discussion of items on the May agenda
1. 324 Pennsylvania Avenue - Special Exception - two family dwelling
B.Discussion of items on the June agenda
1. Section 106-406.25 - Storage Containers
4.Adjournment
REGULAR SESSION
1.Call to Order
A.Pledge of Allegiance
2.Consent Agenda
A.Minutes
Consider acceptance of the minutes from the April 10, 2024, work session and regular
meeting.
3.Old Business
A.Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
1
Consider the request of Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal P. Patel, property owners, for rezoning the
property located at 1200 block Thompson Memorial Drive (Tax Map # 20 - 2 - 4) from RSF
Residential Single-Family District to HBD Highway Business District. (Continued from the
April 10, 2024, meeting, request to withdraw received from the petitioner)
4.New Business
A.Special Exception Permit
Hold public hearing to consider the request of JBN Investments, LLC, property owner, for the
issuance of a special exception permit to allow for the conversion of a single family dwelling
to a two family dwelling on the property located at 324 Pennsylvania Avenue (Tax Map # 120
– 6 - 3). STAFF REPORT
5.Adjournment
2
Planning Commission Meeting
MINUTES Wednesday, April 10, 2024, 7:00 PM Work Session 6:00PM, Regular Session 7:00PM Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard:
WORK SESSION
1.Call to Order A work session of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the
Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, at 6:00
p.m. on March 13, 2024; there being the members of said Commission, to wit: Vicki G.
Daulton, Chair; Reid Garst, Neil L. Conner, and Jackson Beamer; together with
Christopher Dorsey, City Manager; H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager; Mary Ellen
Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; William L. Simpson, Jr., Assistant Director of
Community Development; Maxwell S. Dillon, Planner; and Jim Guynn, City Attorney; and
the following business was transacted: Chair Daulton called the meeting to order at 6:00
p.m. and reported that this, date, place, and time had been set for the Commission to
hold a work session.
2.Comprehensive Plan Update
An update was given regarding the progress of the Comprehensive Plan update.
3.Old Business
A.Discussion of items on the April agenda
1.860 Mount Vernon Lane rezoning from RSF to PUD
2.1200 block Thompson Memorial Dr rezoning from RSF to HBD
A discussion was held regarding the old business items on the April agenda.
4.New Business
A.Discussion of items on the April agenda
1.Home Occupation Permit Amendment - 275 Fort Lewis Blvd 2.Use Not Provided For Permit Amendment - 125 Knotbreak Road
A discussion was held regarding the new items on the April agenda.
B.Discussion of items on the May agenda
1.324 Pennsylvania Avenue - two family dwelling
A discussion was held regarding the items on the May agenda.
5.Adjournment
3
Chair Daulton inquired if there were any other items for discussion and hearing
none, adjourned the work session at 6:37 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held
after due and proper notice in the Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke
Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m., on April 10, 2024. Notice of such hearing was
published in the March 28, and April 4, 2024, 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 Christopher
Dorsey, City Manager; H. Robert Light, Assistant City Manager; Jim Guynn, City
Attorney; Mary Ellen Wines, Planning & Zoning Administrator; Maxwell S. Dillon, City
Planner; and William L. Simpson, Jr., Assistant Director of Community Development,
and the following business was transacted:
A. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Consent Agenda
Reid Garst motioned for Vice Chair King to remotely participate in the meeting. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst
Chair Daulton stated that she is still hearing from many citizens that the vote for the
HopeTree rezoning needs to wait until the Comprehensive Plan update has been
completed. She stated that the Commission has 100 days to make a decision and the
100 days is up today. The City already has a comprehensive plan in place. She explained
that a comprehensive plane does not have any laws or ordinances--it is simply a
visionary tool, a guide for the future. The comprehensive plan currently being updated is
to go through 2045, and the decision simply cannot wait until that time. The City's
current comprehensive plan addresses a PUD development.
She stated that there is a new poll posted on the Community Development website
and asked that everyone participate in the poll. She asked those present at the meeting
to refrain from outbursts.
4
A. Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the March 13, 2024, work session and
regular meeting.
Consider acceptance of the minutes from the March 13, 2024, work session and
regular meeting.
Reid Garst motioned approve March 13, 2024, work session and regular meeting
minutes. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King 3. Old Business
A. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider the request of Virginia Baptist Children's Home (dba HopeTree Family
Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red Ln
and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41-
1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family
to PUD Planned Unit District. (Continued from the March 13, 2024, meeting.)
Jon Morris, President, and CEO of HopeTree Family Services, appeared before the
Commission and stated that since the process began there has been three goals in mind:
to honor the history of HopeTree; to position HopeTree for the future; and to do
something that the community will be proud of. He thanked the Planning Commission,
City Council, City staff, neighbors, and colleagues for their input during this process,
especially since February 14, 2024. He thanked Chair Daulton for requesting a joint
meeting after the March meeting and stated that the Commission has received a revised
application with the most recent changes, some of which resulted from the feedback
received from the meeting. The changes include the elimination of over 40 commercial
business uses; the reduction of the number of boutique hotel rooms; included accessory
dwelling units in the overall housing numbers; and placed maximum square footage on
any allowable commercial use. Changes were made to the existing plan to ensure that
commercial was in the center of the campus in Zones T5. The traffic study has been
confirmed by a third-party firm and nothing in the proposed plan will exceed the
outcomes of that study. Red Lane improvements were also added to the application with
more detail. All of the changes made have been more restrictive. He stated that
HopeTree honors and respects everyone who has given input throughout the entire
process. He feels that the revised plan before the Commission is a compromise from all
parties involved and still allows HopeTree to achieve all three of its goals. He asked the
Commission to approve the rezoning request.
Chair Daulton asked if homes would be sold prior to the development or if spec
houses would be built.
Todd Robertson, Stateson Homes, appeared before the Commission and stated that the
business model is that they sell the home and build on the lots; they don't sell the lots.
5
He stated that the homes are typically custom built, but there are some spec-built units
(i.e. townhomes).
Chair Daulton asked if the majority of the units will be single-family homes.
Mr. Robertson stated that single family means individually owned, but some could be
attached. He stated that they have a patio home that is popular that is attached, but
each of the homes are individually owned. He noted that there will be multiple types of
patio homes in the development.
Chair Daulton clarified and questioned if the majority will be single-family detached
homes.
Mr. Robertson stated that he could not answer the question at this time, but that single
family detached will be a part of the project. He stated that if the project had 340
"doors" he thinks the majority of the homes would be attached instead of detached.
A discussion was held regarding residential housing on the project--rental versus
owner occupied and who would own the rental properties; apartment-type housing,
etc. Use and refurbishing of the existing buildings, commercial spaces, etc.
A motion to approve as written was given and seconded.
Chair Daulton thanked the HopeTree team for the time spent going over the proposal
and she appreciates the time given. She stated that she still feels that some things need
to be tweaked; therefore, she will not be voting in favor of the rezoning request. She
stated that at some point in time, she would like to get together again and go over the
things she feels need to be modified.
Member Conner stated that he feels that HopeTree did a great job responding to the
neighborhood, and he thanked the neighbors for their feedback. He states that he feels
that he has a good understanding of what is being proposed on the property, and having
listened to it all, his first "knee-jerk" reaction was that this is not a good plan for the
property. After listening to everything, he feels that the uses being asked for in the
application are incongruent with the area. After using the same "lens" he has used for
other questions, he cannot "square it" in his head and feels that the current zoning of
residential, not necessarily just residential single-family, is the proper zoning for the
property. He is in favor of denser housing, but 340 units on 37 acres gives him pause
and he would like to flush that out more. He further stated that if the project gets built,
he hopes he is wrong. He loves Salem and is in favor of development but is not in favor
is this development.
Vice Chair King stated that she is currently on vacation in Norway, and it is 1:23 a.m. She
stated that is how seriously she takes her responsibilities on the Planning Commission.
She further stated that the Commission has respectfully listened to citizen comments for
approximately four hours at a public hearing, in addition the Commission has also met
with many individual citizens. She has spent considerable time reviewing the original
6
documents and all amendments line by line. She understands that people can become
emotional when thinking and speaking of their homes, and she also understands that this
can lead to a worst-case scenario in people's minds. In her opinion, the HopeTree project
is not a commercial project, it is a residential project with a potential of limited
commercial uses if and when there is a substantial need for it. Neither HopeTree nor its
developers are in the business of owning spec commercial spaces. In speaking to the
many citizens, she has had the opportunity to meet, she found that those citizens under
the approximate age of 55 have been in favor of the project; and those older than 55
have been generally against the project, but not all. She feels that as a city, we cannot
survive living in the past. We must live in the present and rebuild for our future. Salem
must continue to move forward because maintaining the current does not ensure our
future.
Member Garst stated that traffic has been the biggest complaint by far regarding this
project. Traffic is going to increase regardless of whether there is a PUD or RSF on the
property. He feels that the traffic will be a little greater with a PUD than RSF. To
determine the benefits to justify the additional traffic, he looked at the character of the
project and compared it to what it would look like with residential single family. He lives
in north Salem and believes that North Broad Street is a historic area, and one of the
reasons it has such character is because of its variety and versatility-- small houses, big
houses, apartment complexes, and duplexes all in the same street and they fit in, and
everyone seems to get along well. With residential single family, you're looking at
another neighborhood with largely "cookie cutter" houses with no shared greenspace--
something similar to Simms Farm. He stated that he held his nose when he voted yes for
Simms Farm and believes it was the correct thing, but believes this proposal is much
better. He feels that if another development is placed with just residential single family,
it is going to another development with single family 100 years from now and feels that
if a PUD is placed on the property, it will be historic like North Broad Street and believes
it is in more in line with the character of North Broad Street than a development of just
single family. He does not feel this is a heavily commercial project, but looks more like
Crystal Springs where you have residential with commercial built into to it where you
can walk down to eat breakfast, coffee, dinner, etc. He stated that he presented this
project to his students and 77 percent of them voted in favor of the project.
Member Beamer stated that he has listened to everyone and has read emails about
emails, he has met with some residents individually. He stated that he has chosen to live
at his current residence for 46 years. He has three different developments-- either new
or repurposed developments around his residents and it was all four sides, and he has
had three neighbors. He has made a lot of changes to his house and it's scary, but it has
all worked out. He feels that voting for the PUD is the best option for this property. He
stated that he has spoken to people adamantly against the project and people adamantly
for the project. He stated that he had spent hours and hours thinking about the project,
he has prayed about it, his wife has prayed about it for him. He loves this town; he gets
emotional about it. He hears the concerns--the Baptist Home is near and dear to him--a
lot of his friends he went to school with went there, he has refereed basketball games
there, he's played basketball, he's refereed softball there, he has played softball there,
7
and he has coached a lot of kids that went to school there later on. He stated that he
sees it all, he gets it all, but he feels it is best to vote yes and hopes that the residents
understand and he knows some will be upset with him for voting yes--some are his good
friends and he is sorry but he is doing what he thinks is right for the City; and deep down
in his soul, he feels this is what is right for everyone.
Reid Garst motioned the request of Virginia Baptist Children's Home (dba HopeTree
Family Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red
Lane and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41-
1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family to
PUD Planned Unit District. Jackson Beamer seconded the motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Garst, King
Nays: Conner, Daulton B. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Consider the request of Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal P. Patel, property owners, for
rezoning the property located at 1200 block Thompson Memorial Drive (Tax Map # 20 -
2 - 4) from RSF Residential Single-Family District to HBD Highway Business District.
(Continued from the March 13, 2024, meeting)
Petitioners request that the item be continued until the May 15, 2024, meeting.
Neil Conner motioned the request of Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal P. Patel, property
owners, for rezoning the property located at 1200 block Thompson Memorial Drive
(Tax Map # 20 - 2 - 4) from RSF Residential Single-Family District to HBD Highway
Business District. Reid Garst seconded the motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King
4. New Business
A. Home Occupation Permit Hold public hearing to consider the request of Philip M. and Rachel C. Knouff,
property owners, for the amendment of a Home Occupation Permit to allow retail
sales at the cut flower farm (garden) on the property located at 275 Ft Lewis Blvd
(Tax Map # 130-2-22).
Staff noted the following:
The subject property (275 Fort Lewis Boulevard) consists of a 1.779-acre tract of land
which currently sits within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning designation. The
applicant is requesting the addition of a retail license for the Home Occupation permit
related to the sale of flowers.
In 2022, the applicant requested the allowance of a wholesale flower business sustained
by the garden located on the subject property. Because a wholesale flower business is a
unique use in regard to a Home Occupation permit, staff referred the application to
Planning Commission for approval. The Planning Commission correspondingly approved
that item, and since that time, the applicant has experienced a demand for small-scale
8
purchases which are more profitable than bulk orders. As a result, the current request
entails the addition of a retail license to the home occupation permit which would
facilitate the purchase of flowers by individuals. If approved, all sales will be delivered to
customers off-site.
Rachel Knouff, property owner, appeared before the Commission and stated that she
came before the Commission two years ago to start her business for a wholesale license,
which was granted, and she is requesting a retail license as well. She stated that this will
not change the day-to-day activities of her business. She would still be growing flowers
as usual and transporting flowers from her property to be sold, it would just expand who
she can sell to. She has had a number of friends and family ask to buy flowers from her
and she has had to turn them down because she didn't have the license to do that. She
has enjoyed gifting, but there is only so much you can give before it becomes unhelpful
to your business; therefore, she is asking for permission to make those sales.
Member Garst questioned if there would be people coming to the residence to
purchase the flowers.
Mrs. Knouff stated that people will not be coming to the residence to purchase
flowers.
Member Beamer asked the petitioner to further explain how her business operates.
Mrs. Knouff stated that with her wholesale business, she emails a list to her florist clients
at the beginning of the week of what she has available, and they get back to her typically
the next day. She then makes the deliveries to the shops. She stated that the retail sales
would function basically the same, except it would be people making a request to her for
an arrangement for a holiday or special occasion. In that case, she would make an
arrangement and deliver it to that person's home.
It was clarified that the request is not for a change in her business, but a change to be
in compliance with tax laws.
Member Garst applauded Mrs. Knouff for her success and for her honesty.
Vice Chair King asked if any calls or comments were received from anyone in the
neighborhood.
The Planning and Zoning Administrator stated that no comments have been received
regarding the request.
No other person(s) appeared regarding the request.
Jackson Beamer motioned the request of Philip M. and Rachel C. Knouff, property
owners, for the amendment of a Home Occupation Permit to allow retail sales at the cut
flower farm (garden) on the property located at 275 Ft Lewis Blvd (Tax Map # 130-2-
22). Neil Conner seconded the motion.
9
Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King
B. Use Not Provided For Hold public hearing to consider the request of PHC of Virginia, LLC/Acadia Healthcare,
Mt Regis Center, property owner, for the amendment of the Use Not Provided For
permit to allow additions to the outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment
center on the property located at 125 Knotbreak Road, (Tax Map # 148-1-5).
Staff noted the following:
The subject property (125 Knotbreak Road) consists of a 5.012-acre tract of land which
currently sits within the BCD Business Commerce District. The applicant is requesting an
update to the previously issued Use Not Provided For Permit to allow the addition of 24
beds (~5,400 square foot addition).
In 2015, the applicant requested the issuance of a Use Not Provided For Permit to
accommodate the construction of an Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility primarily serving
the needs of those suffering from substance abuse and addiction. While that request
was approved, it limited the size of the facility to 48 beds. Since that time, Mount Regis
has experienced an increase in demand for beds within their facility, a trend that is
expected to continue in the future due to their partnerships with other medical
providers. Should this request be approved, Mount Regis intends to add a two-wing
addition to this location which would accommodate 8 bedrooms and 24 beds. Through
preliminary concept plan discussions, staff can confirm that Mount Regis is able (and
will be required) to meet City Code requirements (setbacks, landscaping, parking,
stormwater, etc.). Those details will be addressed through the site plan review process
with relevant city departments.
Jon Puvak, attorney working with Acadia Healthcare, 10 Franklin Road, Roanoke,
Virginia, appeared before the Commission and stated that Bubba Ingram, civil engineer;
Tim Morgan, architect; Bridget Funk, Director at Mount Regis; and Sharmain Garland,
operations at Mount Regis, are also present at the meeting.
Bridget Funk, Clinical Director at Mount Regis Center, appeared before the Commission
and stated that Mount Regis serves adults 18 and older who are suffering from a
substance use disorder. They also treat those who have co-occurring mental health
disorders. Mount Regis Center partners with medical and behavioral healthcare
providers in the region to enhance their comprehensive and holistic care. They receive
referrals from multiple entities both within and from outside the State of Virginia. While
in a program, patients receive treatment from a multi-disciplinary team of clinical and
medical professionals. They engage in daily structures programs that include evidence-
based therapeutic techniques. At the time of discharge, patients leave with an after-care
plan to aid them with the next steps of their recovery journey. Mount Regis Center
provides opportunities for educational and professional growth. They offer clinical
internships to students at local, regional colleges and universities. They also provide
residencies to those pursuing clinical state licensure.
10
Mr. Puvak stated that the reason for the request is that there is a demand. When the
project was built, it was built for 48 beds based on the need at the time with the goal
that it could be expanded in the future, which is where they are today. He stated that
the zoning is not going to change, they are asking for 24 additional beds, which will be
located in eight bedrooms on either wing of the existing building. They can meet all of
the design requirements as far as stormwater management, parking, and hope that
construction can commence by the end of this year and be completed within 18 months.
It is only approximately a 5,700 s.f. expansion of the existing building. He stated that
there is a demand for the services as Mount Regis Center currently has a 15-person
waiting list for every bed currently in the facility. It is a local facility that serves local
citizens with a planned arrival, not walk-ins. He showed some photos of the existing
facility and showed where the additional wings would be built. He noted that parking
would be added to accommodate the additional staff.
A discussion was held regarding the current number of beds, number of beds requesting
to be added, how people are referred to the facility--it can be self, family, or doctor
referral.
Member Conner questioned if it is all private insurance-based payment.
Mr. Puvak stated that they accept all private insurance and Medicaid.
No other person(s) appeared related to the request.
Neil Conner motioned the request of PHC of Virginia, LLC/Acadia Healthcare, Mt Regis
Center, property owner, for the amendment of the Use Not Provided For permit to allow
additions to the outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment center on the
property located at 125 Knotbreak Road, (Tax Map # 148-1-5). Reid Garst seconded the
motion.
Ayes: Beamer, Conner, Daulton, Garst, King
5. Adjournment Vice Chair King motioned to adjourn at 7:54 p.m. Jackson Beamer seconded.
City Council meeting, April 22, 2024, 6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street
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: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Hold public hearing to consider the request of Pinkesh R. Patel and Sonal
P. Patel, property owners, for rezoning the property located at 1200 Blk
Thompson Memorial Drive (Tax Map # 20-2-4) from RSF Residential Single
Family to HBD Highway Business District.
SUBMITTED BY: Max Dillon, Planner
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Zoning: RSF Residential Single Family
Land Use Plan Designation: Residential
Existing Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Commercial – gas station, convenience store, drive thru restaurant
The subject property (1200 blk Thompson Memorial Drive) consists of a 2.674 acre tract of land which
currently sits within the RSF Residential Single Family zoning designation. The applicant is requesting a
rezoning of the property from RSF to HBD in order to facilitate the construction of a gas station,
convenience store, and drive thru restaurant development. Situated adjacent to Interstate 81, this
property is uniquely positioned to potentially serve the commercial needs of both travelers and local
residents alike as there are no other commercial establishments currently located in this portion of
Salem. Furthermore, the approved Edgebrook Development to the north of this site in Roanoke County
may catalyze the evolution of its surrounding corridor. Still, the subject property is currently bounded
(within Salem) by residentially zoned parcels, many of which serve single family homes.
A conceptual site plan has been included with the submittal that displays a proposed convenience store
and restaurant positioned behind the gas pump structures (located closer to Thompson Memorial Drive).
The exhibit indicates two separate access points – one which intersects Penguin Lane and the other with
Thompson Memorial Drive. If this rezoning application is approved, this development project is subject
to site plan review and corresponding compliance with Salem’s ordinances.
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) identifies this area as residential which is inconsistent with the
proposed future utilization of the property.
REQUIREMENTS:
The proposal meets the requirements of Section 106-214.3. Site development regulations for HBD.
OPTIONS:
1. Recommend approval of the request.
2. Recommend denial of the request.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
From:Compton Biddle
To:Maxwell S Dillon
Subject:RE: [Ext.] RE: Continuance - Patel - 1200 Thompson Mem REZONE
Date:Friday, March 22, 2024 4:24:10 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Thank you Max. With that in mind, the applicant would like to continue thematter until May.
Let me know what you need from me to accomplish the continuance.
CoMpTon M. BiddLe, esq.direCT: 540.725.8197Fax: 540.389.9560
cbiddle@opnlaw.com
110 e. 1sT sTreeT | saLeM, Va 24153po Box 279 | saLeM, Va 24153
www.opnlaw.com
From: Maxwell S Dillon <msdillon@salemva.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 12:16 PM
To: Compton Biddle <CBiddle@opnlaw.com>
Subject: RE: [Ext.] RE: Continuance - Patel - 1200 Thompson Mem REZONE
[EXTERNAL]
Mr. Biddle,
You all can request to continue the item as long as you please. The time restriction only applies if
you all are not requesting the continuance, and Planning Commission is delaying their decision. I
hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Best,
Max Dillon, CZA
City of Salem Department of Community Development
Planner I
From: Compton Biddle <CBiddle@opnlaw.com>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 2:55 PM
24
From:Compton Biddle
To:Maxwell S Dillon
Cc:Mary Ellen H Wines; Pinkesh Patel; Benjamin Crew
Subject:RE: [Ext.] RE: Continuance - Patel - 1200 Thompson Mem REZONE
Date:Thursday, May 2, 2024 6:04:08 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Max,The applicant is going to withdraw its application currently schedule for the MayPlanning Commission date. Please confirm receipt and let me know if you needanything else prior to that date in order to accomplish the withdrawal.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. It is always a pleasure working with youroffice.
CoMPTon M. BIddle, esq.dIreCT: 540.725.8197Fax: 540.389.9560
cbiddle@opnlaw.com
110 e. 1sT sTreeT | saleM, Va 24153Po Box 279 | saleM, Va 24153
www.opnlaw.com
25
26
27
28
29
PAYMENT DATE
01/04/2024
COLLECTION STATION
Engineering/Inspections
RECEIVED FROM
Pinkesh Patel
City of Salem
P.O. Box 869
Salem, VA 24153
BATCH NO.
2024-00003588
RECEIPT NO.
2024-00070721
CASHIER
Krystal Graves
DESCRIPTION
rezone 1200 Thompson Memorial Drive 20-2-4
Printed by: Loretta Prillaman Page 1 of 1 02/01/2024 01:40:17 PM
PAYMENT CODE RECEIPT DESCRIPTION TRANSACTION AMOUNT
PLAN FILING FEE Planning Rezoning/Site Plan Rev $1,000.00
Total Cash $0.00
Total Check $1,000.00
Total Charge $0.00
Total Wire $0.00
Total Other $0.00
Total Remitted $1,000.00
Change $0.00
Total Received $1,000.00
$1,000.00Total Amount:
Customer Copy
30
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 JBN Investments, LLC, property
owner, for the issuance of a special exception permit to allow for the conversion
of a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling on the property located at 324
Pennsylvania Avenue (Tax Map # 120 – 6 - 3).
SUBMITTED BY: Max Dillon, Planner
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Zoning: RSF Residential Single Family
Land Use Plan Designation: Residential
Existing Use: Residential – Single Family
Proposed Use: Residential – Two Family Dwelling
The subject property consists of a 0.344 acre tract of land which currently sits within the RSF Residential
Single Family zoning designation. This parcel is 100 feet wide, and it contains two existing 50 foot-wide
interior lots. The applicant is requesting a Special Exception Permit for the allowance of a two family
dwelling that will provide two separate residential units within the same existing principal structure.
In 2022, the applicant purchased the subject property which consists of a primary house and a smaller
detached cottage in the rear yard. The primary structure contains multiple bedrooms and two kitchens.
Beginning in the fall of 2023, the Community Development staff received numerous complaints from
neighbors stating that the subject property was being utilized as a short-term rental. After coordinating
a site visit with the property owners in early 2024, CD staff learned that an interior wall had been placed
within the primary structure, and subsequently, two residential units had been created. At that time, CD
staff informed the property owners that the interior wall had to be removed, or a Special Exception
Permit for a two family dwelling obtained. Since that time, no complaints have been received. The
cottage in the rear yard is legal nonconforming, and as a result, can be rented on a long-term basis so long
as it is not vacant for more than two years.
324 Pennsylvania Avenue is located within an established, historic single family neighborhood, and
although there are other uses/zoning designations located on its periphery, the core of the Pennsylvania
Avenue is a traditional single family community.
REQUIREMENTS:
The proposal meets the minimum lot size, width, and frontage requirements of Section 106-202 for RSF.
OPTIONS:
1. Recommend approval of the request.
2. Recommend approval of the request with conditions.
3. Recommend denial of the request.
31
WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
R NEAL KEESEE, JR. (540) 983-7627 Neal Keesee@\1rvbla\1 com March 27, 2024 City of Salem Community Development 21 South Bruffey Street Salem, VA 24153 Re: Special Exception -324 Pennsylvania Ave, Salem VA (Tax Map 120-6-3) Dear Sir/Madam: On behalf of JBN Investments Inc., enclosed please find a completed Request for Special
Exception/Use Not Provided for Permit with regard to the above-referenced property along with a check in the amount of $500. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Enclosures Sincerely, WOODS ROGERS VANDEVENTER BLACK '"11!/lff;J R. Neal Keesee, Jr. P 0. Box 14125. Roanoke. Virginia 24038-4125 IO S. Jefferson Street, Suite 1800, Roanoke VA 24011 P (540) 983-7600 • F (540) 983-771 I wrvblaw.com
Roanoke l Lynchburg f Charlollcsv1lle I Richmond I Norfolk 32
City of Salem Community Development Application
Request for SPECIAL EXCEPTION/USE NOT PROVIDED FOR PERMIT
Case#: _______ _
APPLICANT INFORMATION Owner: JBN Investments LLC Telephone No. 54 0--983-7627 Contact Name: clo R. Neal Keesee, Jr. Address: 6591 Fairway Trail, Roanoke, VA 24018
Applicant/Contract Purchaser: Contact Name: Address:
PARCEL INFORMATION (Tax ID #'s) 120-6-3
Deed Book Page 220002015
Fax No. 540-983-7711 Email Address
Neal.Keesee@wrvblaw.com
Telephone No. Fax No. Email Address
For mLlliiRli parcels, please attach a page □ Total Area (acres/square feet) Current Zoning
Subdivisi on Requested Use �Special Exception □Use Not Provided For Location Description (Street Address, if applicable) Lots 19 & 20 Sec 48 Salem Improvement Co
324 Pennsylvania Ave, Salem, VA
SIGNATURE OF OWNER {.i CONTRACT PURCHASER O (attach contract) D LESSEE
As owner or authorized agent of this property, I hereby certify that this application Is complete and accurate to the
best of my knowl • nd I hereby grant pe ission to the agents and employees of the City of Salem to enter the
property for� • wing this request 2 /. ·1 � Signature._--'-..\---��"'--.,....""""�--.,-......-----------Date j} _ }J J+P-J Print Name R. Neal Keesee, Jr., Authorize Signature. __________________________ Date ______ _ Print Name
QUESTIONS/ LETTERS/ SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE FOLLOWING .. : Name R. Neal Keesee, Jr. Telephone No. 540-983-7627 _ Address: P.O. Box 14125; Roanoke, VA 24038-4125 Fax No. --Email Address
Neel Keesee@wrvblaw com
**It is the responsibility of the contact person to provide copies of a I correspondence to other interested parties to the application.
3
33
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF APPLICATION FEE PAYMENT PROCEDURE
Application fees must be submitted at the time of submittal. I hereby acknowledge that this application is not complete until the payment for all applicable fees has been received by the City of Salem Community Development Department. I acknowledge that I am responsible for ensuring that such fees are received by the City of Salem. I further acknowteclge that any application fee submitted after the deadline shall result In the appllcatlon being considered filed for the next month's �gs. ( , � A 1.-, ;f Signature of applicant/authorized agent _:� rm _J:.!_!!.__L ______ Date: -3 b ] )J42 t __
P rint Na m e : R. -Ne al Keesee' -Jr.---------
Signature of owner/authorized agent Date:
Print Name: ----------------------------------------------
If you would like your correspondence emailed and/or faxed, please make selections, and provide the information below:
II Neal.Keesee@wrvblaw.com Email _____________ _ □Fax: _________ _
. FEES: ,c ·'�
All application fees must be paid at the time of submittal. Please make checks payable to the City of
Salem:
Special Exception/Use Not Provided For/Use Not Provided For Permit application fee:
$500
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Staff Reviewer: Application Complete? C YES ONO
Date:
4
34
PLEASE RESPOND FOR ALL.SPECIAL EXCEPTION/USE NOT PROVIDED FOR APPLICATIONS: 1. This Special Exception/Use Not Provided For is being requested in order to?
Allow for a two-family d�E!!��JL�Y special e��eption per�J!.!_n_������-��_?e with
Section 106.202.2 of t�� City_��_?alem Zoning Ordinance ___________________ _ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. Describe how you plain to develop the property for the proposed use and any associated uses.
No changes to existing property. _Property is currently configured to accomodate two
families living_in main house each with a separate kitchen ___________________ _
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. Describe why the proposed use or exception is desirable and appropriate for the area. What measures will be taken to assure that the proposed use or exception will not have a negative impact on the surrounding vicinity? (This could include traffic or environmental impacts.)
��!_subje�!_Proe�t:!,yj� surrou_��_ed by or �ear the transitional b�siness district _________ _
��9 __ sit� o�_�J_ar�I_:_��!-Use of !he property_by -�o families will be controlled by _��le�------
and regulations on_all tenants so no negative impa_c_t. ________ _ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4. Is the subject property located within the Floodplain District? □ YES !!!I NO If yes, describe the proposed measures for meeting the standards of the Floodplain Ordinance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
_._. __________________________________________ _ ------------------------5. Have you provided a conceptual plan of the proposed development, including general lot configurations and road locations? Are the proposed lot sizes compatible with existing parcel sizes in the area?
No new development on the property -------------------------------____ , ___ , __________________________________________ _ -------------------------------------------------------------------------6. Is the subject property listed as a historic structure or located within a historic district? □ YES !!!I NO If yes, describe the proposed measures for meeting the standards of the Department of Historic Resources.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------·--------------------------------------
5
35
36
37
38
41
MB
L
U
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ow
n
e
r
N
a
m
e
Co
-
O
w
n
e
r
N
a
m
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
1
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
2
Ci
t
y
,
S
t
a
t
e
,
Z
i
p
12
0
-
6
-
3
32
4
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
J
B
N
I
N
V
E
S
T
M
E
N
T
S
L
L
C
65
9
1
F
A
I
R
W
A
Y
V
I
E
W
T
R
A
I
L
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
R
N
E
A
L
K
E
E
S
E
E
J
R
P
O
B
O
X
1
4
1
2
5
RO
A
N
O
K
E
V
A
2
4
0
3
8
-
4
1
2
5
12
0
-
6
-
2
32
0
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
D
A
V
I
D
P
R
E
D
D
I
N
G
DO
N
N
A
R
E
D
D
I
N
G
32
0
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
6
-
1
31
2
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
M
&
W
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
30
5
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
B
L
V
D
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
7
-
2
31
5
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
3
1
5
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
L
L
C
32
0
P
O
L
A
R
L
N
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
7
-
3
32
1
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
M
I
C
H
A
E
L
T
H
O
M
A
S
G
R
O
V
E
SA
M
A
R
A
M
U
J
E
E
B
K
H
A
L
I
Q
U
E
32
1
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
7
-
4
32
5
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
J
U
L
I
A
P
A
I
G
E
T
H
O
M
P
S
O
N
32
5
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
7
-
5
33
1
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
J
O
H
N
T
R
A
V
I
S
P
I
E
R
C
E
33
1
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
7
-
6
34
1
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
J
O
D
Y
B
B
A
L
D
W
I
N
JE
S
S
I
C
A
T
B
A
L
D
W
I
N
34
1
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
7
-
7
34
9
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
E
L
I
Z
A
B
E
T
H
C
H
A
R
L
E
T
O
N
C
O
L
E
34
9
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
7
-
1
0
36
3
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
E
U
G
E
N
E
M
B
A
N
E
I
I
I
TA
R
A
Y
B
A
N
E
36
3
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
6
-
1
1
36
0
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
C
M
A
X
W
E
L
L
RO
S
E
M
A
R
Y
B
M
A
X
W
E
L
L
36
0
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
6
-
1
0
35
6
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
C
H
R
I
S
T
O
P
H
E
R
J
M
C
G
R
A
T
H
MA
R
I
L
Y
M
C
G
R
A
T
H
28
2
8
P
U
L
P
I
T
H
I
L
L
C
T
WO
O
D
B
R
I
D
G
E
V
A
2
2
1
9
1
-
5
1
1
9
12
0
-
6
-
9
35
2
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
K
A
R
E
N
E
W
A
L
K
E
R
CA
R
L
V
W
A
L
K
E
R
35
2
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
6
-
8
34
8
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
D
C
O
R
E
L
L
34
8
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
6
-
7
34
4
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
D
A
V
I
D
W
H
A
L
L
JO
Y
C
E
S
H
A
L
L
34
4
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
6
-
6
34
0
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
T
H
E
B
L
Y
T
H
E
L
I
V
I
N
G
T
R
U
S
T
C/
O
G
R
E
G
O
R
Y
W
A
Y
N
E
B
L
Y
T
H
E
3
4
0
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
6
-
5
30
0
B
L
K
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
WI
L
L
I
A
M
&
L
A
R
A
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
S
RE
V
D
E
C
T
R
U
S
T
33
2
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
6
-
4
33
2
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
&
L
A
R
A
R
I
C
H
A
R
D
S
RE
V
D
E
C
T
R
U
S
T
33
2
P
E
N
N
S
Y
L
V
A
N
I
A
A
V
E
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
12
0
-
6
-
1
2
30
5
-
3
1
3
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
B
L
V
D
M
&
W
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
30
5
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
B
L
V
D
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
14
5
-
1
-
1
32
3
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
B
L
V
D
I
R
I
S
H
C
O
R
N
E
R
O
'
C
O
N
N
O
R
R
E
V
T
R
U
S
T
C
/
O
R
C
O
Y
O
'
C
O
N
N
O
R
32
3
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
B
L
V
D
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
14
6
-
1
-
2
32
9
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
B
L
V
D
C
H
E
R
Y
L
L
Y
N
N
C
A
R
T
E
R
LE
E
A
L
L
I
S
O
N
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
32
9
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
B
L
V
D
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
14
6
-
1
-
3
33
5
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
B
L
V
D
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
F
U
L
L
E
R
MA
R
L
Y
F
U
L
L
E
R
33
5
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
B
L
V
D
SA
L
E
M
V
A
2
4
1
5
3
40
42
43
39