Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/2/2026 - Minutes AOA p ROANOKE COUNTY• : PLANNING COMMISSION,` z :. :MEETING MINUTES:: ::_ June 2, 2026 : ..:. '.:. . Commissioners Present: Mr. Troy Henderson, Chairman Mr. Rick James, Vice-Chairman: Mr. Wayne Bower . Mr. Jim Woltz Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Deputy County Attorney Ms. Rebecca James, Zoning Administrator Ms. Skylar Camerlinck,:Long Range Planner Ms. Marion Pickering,:Recording Secretary Call to Order Mr. Henderson called:the meeting to:or er at 6:00 Invocation Mr. Woltz led the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance:::: :: Approval of Agenda Mr. James made a motion to approve:the agenda which passed 4-0: Approval of Minutes Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the minutes of May 5,2026: The motion passed47 • O. Consent Agenda —July:7,:2026 . .... 1. The petition :of the Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County to rezone approximately 0:81 acre zoned C-2C, High Intensity :Commercial with Conditions, to remove proffered conditions from the property:located at:3306West Main Street;Catawba eE Magisterial District.: Ms. Rebecca James presented, noting :that both items under consent are part:of:an effort to remove outdated proffered conditions countywide. The proffers under consideration are from a 1987 action and include the following: 1. Use of property will be limited to the sale:of used automobiles. .... : . .... 2. No outside storage of inoperable vehicles or:junk vehicles. 3. Development will be in general accord with submitted concept plan, 5-11-87, including the landscaping.p g .. . .... .page of 8 . :: : .... .. . .... .. .. . .... .. ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 2,2026 4. An additional point of access from Shawnee Drive will be constructed. 5. No billboards will be constructed on the property. 6. Only signage will be single letters on building frontage. . Ms. James advised that the site is currently used for automobile sales. She then reviewed a location map, the project site, photographs of the property, existing zoning, surrounding zoning, and future land use designation, which is Glenvar village, noting that the proposed ' action and use is consistent with this designation. 2. The petition of the Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County to rezone approximately 0.20 acre zoned C-2C, High Intensity Commercial with Conditions, to remove proffered conditions from the property located at 5999 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Ms. Skylar Camerlinck presented. She reviewed the location map and project site, noting its current use in retail sales as a home goods store and coffee shop. She reviewed photographs of the site and existing and surrounding zoning, noting the property was originally restricted to sale and storage of oriental and Persian rugs, area rugs, flooring materials, and antiques, with restrictions on signage size and installation, and this action is designed to remove these proffers and bring the property into compliance. Ms. Camerlinck reviewed the property's future land use designation, which is Core, noting its current use is consistent with that designation. Mr. Bower asked if the applicants had petitioned the County for a business license and Ms. Camerlinck confirmed that they had applied and were approved by a former County staff member. The discrepancy was not caught within a 60-day period, so the County could not reverse the approval, therefore this action is necessary to bring the property into compliance. Mr. Bower commented that this is a great business. Mr. James motioned to approve the consent as presented. The motion passed 4-0. Public Hearings 1. The petition of Travis Bell to obtain a special use permit to operate a commercial kennel on approximately 2.0 acres zoned AG-1, Agricultural/Rural Low Density District, located at 6754 Grubb Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Ms. Camerlinck presented. She reviewed a location map, the project site, an aerial map, photographs of the property, and setbacks for the property. Ms. Camerlinck then reviewed the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance definitions and standards for commercial kennels, noting a recent amendment in May of 2026, and provided a summary of the property's zoning background. Ms. Camerlinck reported that 15 letters were mailed to adjoining property owners containing information about this request and in response a total of six written comments were submitted to staff noting concerns about noise, property values, environmental impacts, and prior operation, and copies of these statements had been provided to the Commissioners. She then reviewed the Bell's business plan, listing the services the kennel proposed to offer to Page 2 of 8 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 2, 2026 about five.to ten dogs per day to include boarding, -canine daycare, and grooming. She also listed the proposed hours of operation. Ms. Camerlinck then reviewed existing zoning and surrounding zoning, and the future land use designation for the property, which is Rural Village, noting that the intended use is consistent with this designation. Ms. Camerlinck concluded her report with three conditions identified by staff that should be applied if the Planning Commission recommended approval: 1. The maximum number of dogs on site shall be limited to twelve (12) between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 2. The maximum number of dogs on site overnight (after 6:00 p.m. and before 7:30 a.m. the following day) shall be limited to two (2). 3. All outdoor runs, outdoor training areas, and outdoor pens associated with a commercial kennel shall be set back a minimum of forty-six (46) feet from all property lines. Mr. Woltz asked if there had been any prior complaints made to the County regarding this property. Ms. Camerlinck confirmed that one complaint had been received in January of 2024 alleging that there may be a commercial kennel in operation. The County investigated and were unable to find any evidence, so the complaint was closed. No other complaints have been received. Mr. Woltz asked how many dogs per household are permitted in AG-1 zoned districts. Ms. Camerlinck stated that without a multiple dog permit, the number of dogs allowed per household is three. A multiple dog permit would allow for more than three dogs but would not apply to dogs that do not belong to the owner/occupant of the property. Mr. Woltz then inquired about setbacks and Ms. Camerlinck confirmed that originally the required setback was 100 feet, but the County has since amended that standard to allow for situationally based changes. Mr. Henderson invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Cloyse Bell, resident of 610 Dalewood Avenue, Salem, noted that he does not reside at this property but is Mr. Travis Bell's father and a part owner of 6754 Grubb Road where Travis Bell resides. Mr. Henderson invited Mr. Travis Bell to join his father at the podium. Mr. Travis Bell stated he began watching dogs for friends and neighbors and realized there was a good market in their area and decided to do it commercially. Mr. Cloyse Bell stated Travis has worked with animals most of his life, he has volunteered at Mill Mountain Zoo,worked for Roanoke Animal Control and Angels of Assisi, and is very experienced with dogs. They understand why the neighborhood may have reservations as far as noise and pollution, and they are sensitive to those issues as well. He stated there are no outdoor kennels or runs, all waste is picked up immediately, and the back yard is sprayed with antibacterial spray. They are doing everything they can to be a desirable part of the neighborhood. Mr. Woltz asked if Mr. Bell's clients are from the area and Mr. Bell confirmed that five or six are local. Mr. Woltz asked about hours of operation and services provided which Mr. Bell clarified. Mr. James asked for the average number of dogs on property during the day for day boarding, and Mr. Bell stated it was an average of seven, though Page 3 of 8 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 2,2026 sometimes there are more due to his clients' summer vacation plans. Mr. Cloyse Bell added that Travis has his own dogs and two dogs he is fostering and trying to adopt out. Mr. Henderson asked how many dogs Mr. Bell owns personally and Mr. Bell stated he owns three. Mr. James asked if the average five to seven dogs on the property daily live within five miles of the Bell's property. Mr. Bell stated that some people travel a good ten miles across town and come from all over, but the majority are located within 7 miles. Mr. James observed there is obviously a need for Mr. Bell's service or people wouldn't be driving so far. Mr. Bell stated he offers a more personalized service compared to standard commercial kennels that is preferred by Mr. Bell's patrons. Mr. Henderson opened the Public Hearing. The following citizens addressed the Commission: Ms. Deirdre Rea, resident of 6820 Sugar Rum Ridge Road; Mr. Jacob Washofsky, resident of 6872 Sugar Rum Ridge Road; Mr. John Thomas, resident of 6867 Sugar Rum Ridge Road; Ms. Jennifer Kazemi, resident of 6955 Sugar Rum Ridge Road; Ms. Elaine Quiroz, resident of 6815 Sugar Rum Ridge Road; Mr. Larry Overstreet, resident of 6823 Trelawney Trail; Mr. William Rea, resident of 6820 Sugar Rum Ridge Road; Mr. Ivan Chatlov, resident of 6898 Sugar Rum Ridge Road; Ms. Brigit Greimel, resident of 6898 Sugar Rum Ridge Road, Mrs. Carrie Brill, resident of 6768 Christopher Drive; Mr. Roger Elkin, resident of 6459 Cotton Hill Road; Mr. Bruce Feldberg, resident of 6687 Christopher Drive; Ms. Mary Brewer, resident of 6451 Cotton Hill Road; and Ms. Cynthia Boone, resident of 6755 Christopher Drive. The citizens expressed the following concerns: The lack of studies performed to document the need for the kennel and the environmental impact it might have; the acreage listed in the application; noise and quality of life issues created by the kennel; increased traffic on a narrow, privately maintained road; concerns regarding contamination of local wells and waterways by fecal material and antibacterial spray; concerns that requirements for lot size, buffers, and setbacks had not been adequately addressed in the review process; inconsistent and conflicting statements in Mr. Bell's application, particularly language about future scalability and expansion; Facebook screenshots provided by Ms. Kazemi allegedly'showing more dogs than Mr. Bell claims to board; safety concerns related to intrusion onto private property by patrons of the kennel approaching adjoining properties in search of the kennel and the sudden occurrence of packages and mail going missing from an adjoining property coinciding with the opening of the kennel; concerns about Mr. Bell's kennel having been in operation prior to his application process; a general perception of inadequacies in the County's investigation, application review, and notification process; and concerns. regarding a drop in property values, with Ms. Quiroz alleging the expected drop in property value due to the kennel to be five to fifteen percent. Many stated they themselves owned dogs and none of the speakers expressed misgivings about animal welfare or suggested that this was a negligent operation but rather felt the kennel was instead detrimental to the value, safety, and quality of life in the neighborhood. Each citizen stated they would like more time for the application to be discussed and Page 4 of 8 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 2,2026 evaluated by- the neighborhood and the County,. and each citizen asked the Commission for a continuance or dismissal of the application. Mr. Henderson closed the public hearing and asked for questions from the Commission. Mr. James asked how many letters went out and Mr. Thompson confirmed that fifteen letters went out to adjacent property owners. Mr. Bower asked whether the County had a noise ordinance and if it had any language about decibels, and how the County might address enforcement of the existing code. Ms. Lower read from the County's noise ordinance, noting that penalties can be imposed pursuant to violation of this ordinance and the applicant would be required to comply with these terms. She confirmed that there is no language about decibels, and the enforcement process was complaint driven. Mr. Bower asked about how the setbacks were determined and Mr. Thompson and Ms. Lower clarified. Mr. Bower and Mr. Thompson discussed the matter of on-site dogs, which dogs this application applies to, provisions in the County code for fostering animals, and Ms. Lower read off the conditions listed in the County ordinance pertaining to the fostering of dogs. Mr. Bower then addressed the matter of parcel size, and Ms. James stated that the property consists of two separate parcels that add up to more than two acres and Mr. Thompson commented that the special use permit is only for one parcel so that might need to be rectified by doing a boundary line adjustment. Mr. Bower then asked about the environmental inspections recommended by the citizens and stated he has never heard of such inspections being required for a kennel. Mr. Thompson elaborated on the review process, stating that when an individual applies for a special use that is allowed in AG-1, there are places where such use is appropriate and places where it is not appropriate and that is the reason for this process. He also spoke to the language about future expansion in the application and explained that if Mr. Bell were ever to expand his operation he would have to go through this review process again and submit a new application to get approval from the Commission before he could expand his business. Mr. Thompson emphasized that, at this point, expansion is not part of Mr. Bell's plan. Ms. Lower offered a point of clarification stating she had pulled the property records and the deed that conveyed the property to the Bells in 2019 identified the parcel as being a full 2.00 acres. She stated she does not know why the survey has a discrepancy, but explained that is why the GIS shows 2.00 acres. There was some further discussion and clarification of the deed, acreage, and setbacks between Mr. Bower, Ms. Lower, and Mr. Thompson, who stated that there is a process whereby a smaller setback can be discussed and approved based on site constraints. • Page 5 of 8 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 2, 2026 Mr. Henderson asked the Commission if they had further questions for staff or the applicant and there were none. Mr. Woltz commented that it's important to recognize how many uses are permitted in AG-1, including many other uses that create as much or more noise than a commercial kennel. He stated that within a half mile of this area there are probably a hundred dogs and based on the environmental concerns expressed by the citizens it sounds as if the Commission ought to restrict everyone to one dog. He expressed familiarity with the area under consideration and stated he is not sure that twelve dogs could have the impact described and is not sure it can be determined with any certainty that it's Mr. Bell's dogs the citizens are hearing, given the number of other dog owners in the area. He believes Mr. Bell is doing something good and cares about the animals, and while Mr. Woltz understands that citizens may have valid concerns and the Commission may want to table the application for a later date, he expressed confidence in the County's staff and application process, and stated that he believes it's important to keep the scale of the operation in mind, to remember that the lot is one of the largest in the area, and that he does not believe this situation can be framed as an environmental crisis in an AG-1 district. Mr. Bower stated he had heard a lot of emotions but also a lot of facts. He admitted that he himself had some questions but they have been clarified. He stated that he did not feel the need to postpone, especially as there would be three weeks to discuss and evaluate this application further before the final hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. James observed that several of the issues the Commission heard this evening were consistent with multiple dog permit applications and stated that he had visited the site that day and heard a dog bark, but it wasn't coming from Mr. Bell's property. He also stated that the area is zoned Agricultural which does provide for many by right uses and he is not aware of any guidelines that require the County to perform inspections such as ground water sampling or water monitoring required for a commercial discharge facility. Mr. Thompson noted that there are some standards, but they are more about animal waste being disposed of in a manner acceptable to the Virginia Department of Health. Mr. James asked if in the event it was determined that Mr. Bell was operating outside County guidelines, the permit could be revoked. Mr. Thompson stated that when Mr. Bell met with County staff, they were not aware of any prior operation and that's why the wording in the application appears the way it does. If there were complaints over conditions, subsequent inspections, and multiple violations, the Board of Supervisors would revoke the special use permit. Mr. Thompson also noted that the special use permit runs with the property, not the owner. If this property were sold, whoever bought the property could still run the kennel unless this use lapsed for a period of two years. Mr. Henderson observed that this situation felt similar to the kennel in Glenvar that was within 100 yards of the Roanoke River and was the application that initiated the Commission's work on this ordinance in the first place. Page 6 of 8 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 2,2026 Mr. Woltz again called attention to the high number of dogs across the area and stated there are far worse things that could impact property value than twelve dogs during the day and two at night. He stated that he is not sure how a small kennel could be worse for the environment than the tremendous number of dogs in the area. Mr. Henderson asked if there was a possibility of a motion. Mr. Woltz stated he would be glad to make a motion to approve the special use permit request, finding that it met the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conformed with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; is in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; and will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. Mr. Woltz moved that the Commission recommended approval of the petition for a special use permit with the following conditions: 1. The maximum number of dogs on site shall be limited to twelve (12) between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 2. The maximum number of dogs on site overnight (after 6:00 p.m. and before 7:30 a.m. the following day) shall be limited to two (2). • 3. All outdoor runs, outdoor training areas, and outdoor pens associated with a commercial kennel shall be set back a minimum of forty-six (46) feet from all property lines. There being no discussion on the motion, Mr. Henderson asked for a vote. The motion passed 4-0. Mr. Henderson advised that this application would go before the Board of Supervisors in three weeks on June 23, 2026, at 2 p.m. Reaffirmation of Sec. 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia for Reed Road Solar 1, LLC Ms. Lower reported that her office recommends that the Commission reaffirm that Reed Solar 1, LLC is in substantial compliance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Following a request by Reed Road Solar 1 LLC, the Planning Commission voted to reaffirm its 2024 determination that the solar facility proposed by Reed Road Solar 1 LLC, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors by Ordinance #082024-11, is substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2- 2232. Mr. Bower made the motion to approve the County's recommendation. The motion passed 3-1, with Mr. Woltz opposed. Discussion of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Ms. Lower reported that after consultation with the Board of Supervisors, her office recommends that the Commission defer action until after the November election. She read the letter drafted for this purpose and submitted copies to the Commission for review. Page 7 of 8 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 2, 2026 The Planning Commission voted to authorize its Chairman to sign and send a letter to the Chair of the Board of Supervisors advising that the Planning Commission recommends deferring further action, studies, or public hearings on certain zoning ordinance amendments until after the November election. The consensus of the Planning Commission is that the pause will allow all to see the outcome of the Virginia General Assembly's proposed Right to Reproductive 'Freedom Amendment to the Virginia Constitution, and that waiting for the results ensures that the Planning Commissioners have clarity to inform studies and draft recommendations that align with state law. Mr. James made the motion to approve this action. The motion passed 4-0. • Citizens Comments • There were none. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff There were none. Final Orders Mr. Thompson advised that at its last meeting, the Board of Supervisors had voted to approve the application of Michelle and Brian Ellison to rezone from R-1 to AR, voted to adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendment to incorporate the assessment of Plantation Road and surrounding areas into the Roanoke County 200 Plan, and voted to approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendments, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Adjournment Mr. Woltz motioned to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed 4-0. Mr. Henderson adjourned the meeting at 8:02 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: a Marion Pickering Record' ecretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission c)YI. ci Philip T mpson Sec etary, Roanoke County Planning Commission \f, ) c.„„0-v, Troy Hende son Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 8 of 8