Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/6/2026 - Minutes g0AN0 COUNTY �. A ? PLANNING COMMISSION 1838 MEETING MINUTES: April 6, 2026 . . Commissioners Present: Mr. Troy Henderson, Chairman Mr. Kelly McMurray, Vice-Chairman (by telephone) Mr. Jim Woltz (by telephone) Mr. Rick James Mr. Wayne Bower Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary. Ms. Rachel Lower, Deputy County Attorney: Ms. Skylar Camerlinck, Long Range Planner Ms. Sarah Gilmore, Long Range Planner Ms. Alyssa Dunbar, Development Review Planner Ms. Rebecca James, Zoning Administrator Ms. Marion Pickering, Recording Secretary Call to Order Mr. Henderson called the meeting to order.at 4:08 p.m. Ms. Lower advised the Commission that pursuant to the Planning Commission's adopted: remote participation policy Commissioner Woltz had:notified the Commission's Secretary and the Commission's Chair that he was unable to participate:in person. Commissioner Woltz was participating by telephone from the state.of Florida. He was unable to attend. . . . in person due to a::professional commitment which::required him .to:::be out of the: Commonwealth. Ms. Lower then advised that Commissioner McMurray was participating by telephone from his home in Roanoke: County because he was unable to attend in. person due to family logistics. She reported there were no challenges to Commissioner Woltz or Commissioner McMurray participating remotely by telephone, and a quorum of the Commission was present.:: Approval of Agenda . : Mr. James made a motionto approve the agenda, which passed 5-0. Approval of Minutes Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from February 24, 2026,-March 3, 2026, and March 17, 2026.The motion passed:5-0. Page 1 of 10 ; . : ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 6,2026 Consent Agenda - May 5, 2026 1. The petition of Michelle and Brian Ellison to rezone approximately 5.06 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District to AR, Agricultural/Residential District, located at 3169 and 3225 Bandy Road, Vinton Magisterial District. Ms. Camerlinck presented an aerial view, topographical map, photographs, Concept Plan, Building Plans, Conceptual Rendering, Existing Zoning, Surrounding Zoning, and the Future Land Use Designation, which is Development. Ms. Camerlinck noted that proposed rezoning is partially consistent with the parcel's future land use designation and partially consistent with its historic land use as well. Mr. Woltz asked what type of powerlines were one the property. Ms. Camerlinck confirmed they were wooden poles, not industrial sized. Mr. Woltz then inquired about the number of acres to be rezoned, and Ms. Camerlinck confirmed that it will be a total of 5.06 acres. Mr. Bower asked if water and sewer were available on the parcels and Ms. Camerlinck stated she believes it stops at the subdivision. Mr. Bower then asked if the current usage was consistent with past usage and Ms. Camerlinck confirmed. Mr. Bower inquired whether they could still use the property for agriculture if the Commission denied their request and Ms. Camerlinck stated that they could not do so because the property is not zoned for agricultural use, and they would not be able to keep livestock as they hope to do if the Commission did not approve their request. 2. Proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment would incorporate the Plantation Road and Surrounding Area Pedestrian Road Safety Assessment into the Roanoke County 200 Plan. The Plantation Road and Surrounding Area Pedestrian Road Safety Assessment provides detailed assessment findings and recommendations for improving the walkability of the Plantation Road area between Hershberger Road and Hollins Road. Mr. Thompson presented the amendment, noting that the amendment is to incorporate the findings of the safety assessment performed in the Plantation Road and surrounding pedestrian areas into the Roanoke County 200 Plan and noted that staff are applying for Smart Scale funding for one of the projects in the safety assessment. Mr. Bower stated he recalled there were three or four different projects. Mr. Thompson clarified that for Smart Scale the focus is narrowed down but this amendment was being incorporated to secure other funding opportunities in the future. 3. Proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments would: add definitions for community scale solar energy system and utility scale solar energy system, and amend the definition for major utility services in Sec. 30-29 (Use Types; Generally) in Article II (Definitions and Use Types); amend Article III (District Regulations) by adding community scale solar energy system and utility scale solar energy system as a special use in AG-3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve District, AG-1, Agricultural/Rural Low Density District, Page 2 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 6, 2026 AR, Agricultural/Residential District, I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District, and 1-2, High Intensity Industrial District; amend and/or add use and design standards for multi-family dwelling, single family dwelling, attached and detached (cluster subdivision option), community scale solar energy system and utility scale solar energy system, and commercial kennel in Article IV (Use and Design Standards). Mr. Thompson presented, explaining the amendments in greater detail. He noted a change in percentage of the study area. He concluded by asking for questions or comments. Mr. Woltz asked about the language he had requested regarding the impact of solar energy systems on elevated building sites. He said he could not find exactly what he had requested in the current amendment and is particularly concerned about the impact on future development projects on the land. Mr. Thompson read the current language aloud for him. Mr. Woltz stated that he would like to see more specific wording than what is currently written, adding that his goal was to have something regarding undeveloped properties elevated above the site of any solar energy systems. Mr. Bower inquired if this would be a difficult request to fulfill. Mr. Thompson suggested that Mr. Woltz's concerns would also be addressed in the pre-application process as these systems are approved only by special use permit. Mr. Woltz assured him that there would be plenty of undeveloped properties that would be impacted by solar energy systems, and therefore he wants stronger language for more residents that will be impacted by them, stating he has no objection to solar energy systems, but he is concerned about how the surrounding properties and their viewsheds and property values will be impacted by the installation of solar fields. Mr. Thompson suggested that we move forward with the public hearing and amend the language at that time and said he would prepare language for the public hearing. Mr. Woltz re-stated that he does not believe the current language is adequate and wants to see stronger wording. Mr. James made a motion to approve the consent agenda, which passed 5-0. Citizen's Comments There were none. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff There were none. Closed Session Mr. Henderson made a motion to go into a closed session pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(8) for consultation with legal counsel regarding zoning ordinance amendments requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel. Mr. James seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Page 3 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April6,2026 Adjournment Mr. Henderson adjourned the meeting at 4:39 p.m. to go into closed session and for dinner. The closed session started at 4:45 p.m. and ended at 5:41 p.m. EVENING SESSION Mr. Henderson called the evening session to order at 6:02 p.m. Certification Resolution Mr. Henderson stated that in the closed session just concluded, nothing was discussed but the matter which was identified in the motion to convene in closed session. Only those matters lawfully permitted to be discussed under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act were discussed. Mr. James motioned to adopt the certification resolution and Mr. Bower seconded the motion, which passed 5-0. Invocation Mr. James led the invocation and pledge of allegiance. Public Hearings 1. The petition of Old Orchard Farm, LLC, to rezone approximately 250 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District, and R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to AR, Agricultural/Residential District, located at 7015 and 7131 Old Mountain Road, Hollins Magisterial District. Ms. Camerlinck presented, reviewing location map, project site map, community outreach efforts, aerial view of the property, topographical map, photographs, and historical background on the property itself. Ms. Camerlinck reviewed Roanoke County zoning background regarding agriculture, commercial stables, agritourism, and detailed differences between R-1 Zoning and 'AR Zoning districts. She reviewed the conceptual plans and elevations for the property, including barn and riding arena, and reviewed the surrounding zoning for the parcels. Ms. Camerlinck then reviewed the future land use noting that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Conservation future land use designation, and is partially consistent with the Development future land use designation. Ms. Camerlinck noted that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Principal Industrial future land use designation. Ms. Camerlinck concluded by asking if there were any comments or questions from Commissioners. Mr. Henderson invited Mr. Whit Ellerman to address the Commission. Mr. Ellerman, a resident of 517 Walnut Ave, Roanoke, VA, 24014, stated that he and his family bought the property as part of a long-standing dream to move into a more rural setting convenient to their urban working lives and when they found a site that was rural and beautiful with agricultural roots but still in close proximity to their working lives it seemed like a dream come true. Their intent is to preserve a very special piece of property. Old Orchard Farm has been in operation since Page 4 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 6,2026 before Roanoke County was a county. They have found evidence of agricultural use on the property predating the Civil War and it is a remarkable piece of land. It is a very special place to residents who have lived there for many decades. The Ellermans' plan for the property is primarily for their personal residence and also for a stable and barn to board horses. They have no plans to develop the property further but in conversations with County staff they realized that the AR zoning designation is the happy medium that allows the limited agricultural use they plan to engage in while providing for flexibility in future usage if and when they are no longer on the property. Their use of the property is really intended to be limited primarily to equestrian use, some gardens for vegetable production, and some agritourism primarily connected to the equestrian side. Mr. Ellerman concluded that he was happy to answer any questions and clarify anything he has submitted previously. Mr. Henderson opened the public hearing. Mr. Dennis Brooks, a resident of 8140 Old Tavern Road, stated that his property abuts the Ellermans' property. He stated that what the Ellermans have done to this point has only enhanced the property. He has been a resident of the area for 25 years and endured the anxiety of the possibility of the regional jail being placed there. It's been a very rural but very pleasant setting, and the Ellermans have only enhanced the beauty of the property and the area, especially since so many subdivisions have been popping up across the area. Mr. Brooks stated that he stands in support of the Ellermans and their interest in preserving the property in its beautiful state. Mr. Rick Jerrel, resident at 7320 Old Mountain Road, stated that he met Mr. Ellerman through Neighborhood Watch several years ago. When the property came up for sale, the neighborhood was quite anxious about the outcome and virtually everyone he spoke with was opposed to a lot of residential housing going up, so it was a breath of fresh air when he began having conversations with Mr. Ellerman and hearing his plans for the property. He stated Mr. Ellerman has dramatically enhanced the property since taking ownership and reports that he, Mr. Jerrold, and every neighbor he has spoken with about the matter, has never seen a residential community become a farm but have seen lots of farms become residential communities. Mr. Jerrold reported that he and any neighbors he has spoken with want to see this property stay a farm and stay agricultural so that they all can enjoy its beauty for decades to come. Mr. Henderson closed the public hearing and asked for comments from staff and Commissioners. Mr. Bower said he's visited the property personally and attended the community meeting for the property where everyone spoke very highly of the Ellermans and were in favor of the project. At the meeting, Mr. Bower met Mr. Jerrel, who remarked to Mr. Bower that if a person owns a piece of property, he should be able Page 5 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April6,2026 to do with it what he wishes, and Mr. Bower stated he agrees with that. However, there is another side to the matter. The property has been zoned residential since the 1990s. Mr. Bower believes it's also important to note that it is incumbent on the prospective buyer to check a property's zoning before purchasing the property to ensure that the zoning accommodates their intended use. Having said that, Mr. Bower, having seen the project himself, believes there is a lot of validity to what Mr. Jerre) said at the community meeting. Beyond that, Mr. Bower has been considering what makes a great county. The first consideration is what do the citizens want? Mr. Bower brought up the matter of the recent housing study and the concerns he had about rezoning such a large parcel of land. He stated that though there is a shortage of housing in the County, and only so many acres of land left to build housing on, after reviewing the land tiers identified by the study and realizing the property is only ranked Tier Three, he feels better about making a change of zoning. However, the main reason that he found himself more in favor of approval is the matter of what makes a county great. Number one is listening to the citizens, and the citizens are in support of this project. Mr. Bower restated his opinion that it's a beautiful piece of land and Mr. Ellerman has the means to turn it into a shining star that the County will be proud of, and this is where he still stands because when neighbors, friends, and visitors pass down Old Mountain Road and see this beautiful agricultural land, they will feel a whole lot better about their county and what we represent than they would about a lot of houses on that land. Mr. Henderson stated he agrees with Mr. Bower's point that a buyer is not guaranteed anything on land that isn't zoned to their purpose, but he also agrees that the project is a good idea. Mr. Bower made a motion to find that the rezoning request is partly consistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan and partly inconsistent. It is good zoning practice, and it will not result in a substantial detriment to the community, so he therefore moved for approval of the rezoning request as it has been requested. Mr. Henderson asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. James stated that he greatly appreciated Mr. Bower bringing up the housing study. He encouraged everyone to review it and advised that the study warns that the existing housing situation in Roanoke County will be detrimental to county growth. Land available for residential development is minimal,.and the consultant charged the Commission with implementing good zoning practice to accommodate housing necessary for future growth. Mr. James stated that he is sensitive to the fact that 250 acres could potentially house a number of people who could live and work in the County, and he is also sensitive to the Principal Industrial land use designation of the property, as only 3 percent or less of the County's land is zoned for industrial development. However, that being said, he agrees with Mr. Bower that this is a unique opportunity to do something special. He does believe in a landowner's right to do what they wish with their property and it seems to him that Page 6 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 6, 2026 the Ellermans have acted in good faith at every opportunity and he has no doubt they will carry the project through to becoming what.Mr. Bower described as a shining star. He thanked the Ellermans for their commitment to this project. Mr. Henderson called for a vote. Mr. Bower's motion passed 5-0. 2. The petition of Scott & Heather Thompson to rezone approximately 44.33 acres from R-1 S, Low Density Residential District with special use permit, to AR, Agricultural/Residential District, located at 3525, 3529, and 3499 Harborwood Road, Catawba Magisterial District Ms. Alyssa Dunbar noted that there had been some telephone calls about the petition mainly looking for information about the project and raising concerns about traffic. She presented a location map, topographical map, project site, flood maps, photographs, property background, existing and proposed zoning background, concept plan while noting traffic would be minimal and no large scale events are planned. Ms. Dunbar presented concept elevations, existing zoning, and surrounding zoning. She reviewed future land use zoning, which is Rural Village and noted that the proposed rezoning is consistent with that designation. The Commissioners had no questions for staff. Mr. Scott Thompson, resident of 3525 Harborwood, said that about two years ago they hoped to find land where their children could ride horses. They had no intention of seeking rezoning or doing a commercial stable in the beginning, but their son has decided to stay on the property to run an equine operation, and all their children hope to work with horses in the future and are currently involved in various equestrian activities. A lot of neighbors have stopped by to meet the horses and they've had many guests in the guest house who said they would like to ride but the Thompson's property hasn't been approved for trail rides or lessons. They hope to keep all their children working on the property by developing an equestrian business that involves training, lessons, and trail rides. He asked if there were any questions. Mr. Henderson commented that the property up on the hill has been greatly improved but shared some concerns about traffic along Harborwood, especially regarding the bed and breakfast. Mr. Thompson clarified that they do not anticipate traffic to and from the property being much greater than it is today. The guest house usually only has one or two cars, they do not intend to use the property for large events, and the lesson program would have a maximum of 10- 15 participants, which Mr. Thompson estimates would be four to five cars at a time. No major parking lot is planned. Any larger events the farm hosted would have parking provided at the Green Hill Equestrian Center down the road. Mr. Henderson opened the public hearing. Mr. Cameron Janney, resident of 3225 Harborwood Road, asked to be told in writing what the requirements for agricultural zoning are. He alleged that he has been told many times that he cannot rezone his property. He related concerns Page 7 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 6,2026 regarding traffic (stating he would be requesting a VDOT traffic survey), visibility along the road, property lines and hikers or horseback riders straying on to neighboring properties and creating liability issues for surrounding owners, floodplains, tax burdens, commercial activity from the property, and stated that not all adjoining property owners (including himself) received a letter from the County regarding this petition. He stated that he and other neighbors that he has spoken to have major concerns about this project and submitted four pages detailing his concerns to the Commission. Rhonda Armitage, resident of 3387 Harborwood, stated that she did not receive a letter, and has the same concerns about traffic, visibility, and property lines being disregarded by hikers or riders and causing liability issues for surrounding property owners. Mr. Henderson stated he did receive his letter from the County and closed the public hearing. He asked for questions from staff or Commissioners. Mr. Bower advised that signs are posted in advance, and anyone going up and down the road should be able to see them, and Ms. James confirmed that all three signs were properly posted. Mr. Henderson discussed the matter of floodplain maps with Mr. Philip Thompson. Mr. Philip Thompson noted that trails are on the property and established for horseback riding and will be well marked. Mr. Henderson asked if the bridge is on private property and Mr. Thompson confirmed. Mr. Henderson addressed the question of agriculture brought up by Mr. Janney. Mr. Philip Thompson replied the area was zoned agricultural prior to 1992 and then it was changed to R-1, however if a property had an agricultural use and continued that use, as long as it did not stop for more than two years, it could remain. A lot of owners in the area still have agricultural use because they never stopped. It's been a consistent pattern in that area. This property also has a special use permit for a private stable so the use of the horses and stable was established prior to this application. The Thompsons were continuing this agricultural use from the previous owner, and now they are just asking to expand what they are already doing. Mr. Henderson returned to traffic concerns. Mr. Thompson said the bed and breakfast would be limited to five occupants, and that use is allowed as of today. Even the short-term rental is more than 5 acres so it's a by right use. He stated that the agritourism and stable might generate a few more trips but not many. He concluded by stating that the uses The Thompsons are proposing would not generate more than a few extra trips daily, and advised that were the Thompsons to use their property as R-1 and build multiple homes, the traffic generated would be significantly greater. Mr. Henderson proposed a motion to find that the proposed rezoning request is consistent with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan, is good zoning practice, and will not result in a substantial detriment to the community and he therefore moved that the Commission recommend approval of the rezoning Page 8 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 6,2026 request as it has been requested. He asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. James added that this is another special property where the owner wants to enhance the land. He referred back to Mr. Bower's consideration of what makes a great county, and stated that it takes folks that love the land and want to enhance it, and so far this evening the Commission has reviewed two really nice applications. Mr. Bower stated Mr. Philip Thompson made a really valid point about how much more traffic residential housing being built on the land would generate, and he likes the fact that we would be keeping some young people in the county by approving the petition and he appreciates that. Mr. Henderson said he is very glad to know his neighbors and called for a vote. The motion passed 5-0. 3. The petition of Tina Arcuri to amend a special use permit condition regarding freestanding signage on approximately 10.54 acres of land zoned C-2CS, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and special use permit, located at 917 North Electric Road, Catawba Magisterial District. Ms. Sarah Gilmore presented location map, project site, property background, community outreach efforts, photographs, existing site plan, existing and surrounding zoning, and future land use, noting that the petition is consistent with the Core future land use designation. Ms. Gilmore concluded that staff recommend the following amendment: d. Freestanding signage shall be limited to one freestanding sign approximately 12 feet in height and 10 feet in width, and shall be in conformance with the concept drawing provided by Image National Signs dated January 15, 2026 Mr. Henderson opened the public hearing and with nobody signed up to speak he closed the public hearing. Mr. Henderson made a motion to find that the proposed special use permit amendment request meets requirements of section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County code and the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in Article IV use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, conforms with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, and will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. He therefore moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the special use permit as follows: d. Freestanding signage shall be limited to one freestanding sign approximately 12 feet in height and 10 feet in width and shall be in conformance with the concept drawing provided by Image National Signs dated January 15, 2026. All other special use permit conditions shall remain in place. Page 9 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 6,2026 Mr. Henderson called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Citizen's Comments There were none. Comments of Planning Commissioner's and Planning Staff There were none. Adjournment Mr. Woltz motioned to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed 5-0. Mr. Henderson adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Marion Pickering Recordin Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission Philip Th pson Secret , Roanok County Planning Commission /4 Troy Hen a on Chairman, oanoke County Planning Commission Page 10 of 10