Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/7/2026 - Minutes FtOANp ,F ROANOKE .COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION t 38 MEETING MINUTES::. : ..July 7, 2026 Commissioners Present: Mr. Rick James, Vice-Chairman Mr. Wayne Bower Mr. Jim Woltz Commissioners Absent: Mr. Troy Henderson, Chairman Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, SeCretary Ms. Rachel Lower,:Deputy County Attorney Ms. Sarah Gilmore, Long Range Planner Ms. Skylar Camerlinck, Long Range Planner. Mr. Isaac Henry,. Principal Planner.... .. . . • Ms. Marion is ering;:Recordin Secretary ... Call to Order Mr. James called the meeting to order at 6:11 p.m. Invocation Mr. James led the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance:. Approval of Agenda Mr. Woltz made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 3-0..: Approval of Minutes Mr. Bower made a motion to: approve the minutes of June 2, 2026 Public Hearing: The motion passed 3- Consent Agenda —August 4, 2026 1. The petition of Network Towers II, LLC to obtain a special use permit to construct a wireless.::communication .:facility approximately 199 feet:: :in: height on approximately 2.62:acres: zoned I-I, Low Intensity Industrial District, located at 0 Meacham Road and 6155 Twine Hollow Road, Catawba Magisterial District: Ms. Camerlinck presented, reviewing a location map, the project site, an aerial view of the property, photographs, concept plans, an elevation of the monopole and lightning:rod, existing :and surrounding zoning on the parcel,: and the future land use designation:which is Principal Industrial; noting:that the proposed use is consistent with that designation. • Page 1 of 10. : : ..- ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 7,2026 Mr. James asked Ms. Camerlinck to remind them of the purview of the Planning Commission and State guidance provided to localities regarding such towers. Ms. Camerlinck deferred to Mr. Thompson who clarified, stating that currently, the issues that the Commission can consider are very limited. He also noted there are two other cellular towers under consideration as well and the Commission would see more of these in future. Mr. Bower mentioned health concerns and said to his recollection that is not something the Commission can discuss, which Mr. Thompson affirmed. Mr. Bower then asked if it would have co-locators and Ms. Camerlinck confirmed that it could have up to three additional co-locators. 2. The petition of the Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County to rezone approximately 1.36 acres zoned C-2C, High Intensity Commercial with Conditions, to remove proffered conditions from the property located at 2222 Electric Road, • Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Mr. Thompson presented, stating he appeared on behalf of Ms. Alyssa Dunbar, who was out on vacation. He said this is another case in the County wide effort to remove outdated proffered conditions from properties to increase development potential, as only about four percent of Roanoke County property is currently zoned for commercial or industrial use. He noted that this effort is occurring at no cost to the property owners. Mr. Thompson presented a location map of the property, the project site, noting the proffers date back to 1983, an aerial view of the parcel, existing and surrounding zoning, and future land use designation, which is Core, noting the proposed action is consistent with this designation. He noted there had been talk of the property being put into use as a school, which the proffered conditions currently prohibit, and which removal of the proffers would allow. Mr. James asked Mr. Thompson to explain the communication process between the Economic Development Authority and the property owners, and Mr. Thompson related the process noting that the property owners are involved ahead of time through letters and meetings where owners are educated about the benefits of removal of proffers on their land, and their consent is obtained. Afterward, County staff provide them with updates as the process moves forward. Mr. Woltz commented that it takes a lot of time to go through these records and find these inconsistencies and thinks staff and Mr. Thompson should be commended for their work on this matter and stated it is important work because it smooths the path for development by catching problems before they can occur. Mr. Thompson commented that Ms. Dunbar has worked on a number of these items and also deserves credit. Page 2 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 7,2026 Mr.Woltz motioned to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 3-0. Public Hearings 1. The petition of Travis Bell to obtain a special use permit to operate a commercial kennel on approximately 3.64 acres zoned AG-1, Agricultural/Rural Low Density District, located at 6754 Grubb Road and 0 Grubb Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Ms. Camerlinck presented. She reviewed a map of the location, the project site, community outreach efforts, noting that 34 letters were mailed to adjoining property owners and tenants after the June 2nd hearing. She related a detailed list of concerns from the citizens expressed prior to and at the June 2nd hearing, as well as background information on the acreage of the parcel, noting the efforts made to clarify the exact amount of acreage. Ms. Camerlinck presented an aerial view of the property, photographs, and setbacks, noting the shortest setback is 46 feet. She reviewed a map showing the distances to adjacent residences, a map showing the distance of patrons to the kennel, a map of the addresses of citizens who spoke at the last hearing, zoning background on the property, noting the May 26th amendment to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance containing use and design standards for commercial kennels, a business plan for Mr. Bell's kennel, existing and surrounding zoning, and future land use designation which is Rural Village, noting that the proposed special use permit is consistent with that designation. She noted that staff recommended the following conditions in the event the Planning Commission recommends approval: 1. The maximum number of dogs onsite 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 onsite overnight (after 6:00 p.m. and before 7:30 a.m. the following day) shall be limited to two (2). 3. The setbacks of all outdoor runs, outdoor training areas, and outdoor pens associated with a commercial kennel shall be in substantial conformance with the "Setback Map" submitted by the applicant. Mr. James thanked Ms. Camerlinck and asked if she could confirm whether changes had been made to anything in addition to the acreage. Ms. Camerlinck noted the only other change was to the third condition related to setbacks. Mr. Bower asked about the number of letters, and Ms. Camerlinck stated they increased the radius and added everyone who spoke at the first hearing in response to . comments at the June 2nd hearing. Mr. James invited Mr. Cloyse Bell, resident of 610 Dalewood Avenue in Salem, and Mr. Travis Bell, resident of 6754 Grubb Road, to the podium. Mr. Cloyse Bell reported on their efforts to address concerns expressed at the June 2nd hearing, Page 3 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 7,2026 noting improved signage on the property intended to make.the kennel easier to find and lessen the instances of clients wandering onto neighboring properties in search of the kennel. He reviewed Mr. Travis Bell's training and experience and stated he provides a service to a small group of friends and neighbors, and there are three areas that are the main core of his business. He described the facility in detail, noting the presence of safety equipment such as smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, emergency generators, security cameras, and medical kit, and noted that all dogs are required to be up to date on all vaccinations. He detailed the conditions the dogs experience during the day and described the kennel's waste management practices. He stated they have not had any issues with the septic system since taking possession of the property in 2019, the play area is sprayed monthly with a professional grade EPA registered sanitizing concentrate that is designed for veterinary and kennel use, the dogs have 24/7 on site supervision, a kennel silencer is installed and used when necessary, screening is installed to block the dogs'view of outside wildlife or other disturbances to reduce barking and protect the animals from outside contact. He stated there are no plans for future expansion or additional buildings currently, and any future expansion will be driven by increased demand and handled through the Planning Commission and coordinated in compliance with the rules and regulations of Roanoke County. Mr. Bell concluded by saying that every effort is being made to ensure a calm, safe, and loving environment for the animals, their owners, and to maintain a peaceful neighborhood in which to live, and this business is Travis's home and life and it's his neighborhood too. Mr. Bower asked for clarification about the kennel silencer. Mr.Travis Bell explained, stating it doesn't hurt the dogs but gets their attention and limits constant barking. Mr. James opened the hearing to comments from the citizens. Ms. Dierdre Rea, resident of 6820 Sugar Rum Ridge Road, addressed the Commission. She began by expressing concern over inaccuracies in Ms. Camerlinck's presentation, stating that no meeting had been held on June 2nd 2025, and citing an address which Ms. Rea alleges does not exist, 6823 Sugar Rum Ridge Road, saying that she was "not quite sure" where Ms. Camerlinck is getting her information, but those items are not correct. Ms. Rea then advised that she had three primary points to make regarding perceived irregularities with the ordinances. She began with language in Section 30-15-4 Section B, alleging that the Commission, in a private, unadvertised vote, voted to reduce the property distance from 100 feet to 46 feet for this application to pass. She stated that it is because of this perceived overreach that a petition is now circulating to oppose this change over all Roanoke County. She then alleged that there had been an inadequate review of the concept map, citing Section 30-14 A3. She contended that the concept map had no supporting documentation, questioned whether a Page 4 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 7, 2026 --professional site planner had been consulted, stating this should have happened. because if it had, they would have supported her own conclusion that the septic system is over one hundred years old and "is a known problem,"though she did not provide any supporting evidence for this claim. She alleged that due to the age of the septic system, gray water containing chemicals from the kennel would run off into Back Creek. Ms. Rea then addressed the issue of the buffer yard, citing Section _ 30-92-2, stating she had provided pictures from her property for the Commissioner's review as she believes the buffer yard is inadequate and declared that the neighborhood would like this matter to receive further investigation. Mr. James thanked Ms. Rea for her comments and said he had pulled up Roanoke County GIS, and it did in fact show a 6823 Sugar Rum Ridge. Ms. Rea asserted that such an address does not exist, and Mr. James asked staff to evaluate that on GIS. Ms. Rea then suggested that staff might want to correct the date on the PowerPoint presentation, as it's not 2025 it's 2026, and Mr. James thanked her for bringing that matter to the Commission's attention. Ms. Melissa Franklin Saunders, resident at 6788 Grubb Road, addressed the Commission. She stated that she and her mother live just past Mr. Bell on the gravel driveway that cuts through his property, and his property was her Grandma Franklin's old home. She stated they do not have any problems with Mr. Bell or his operation, and they do not ever hear the dogs barking. She stated that Mr. Bell helps them with a lot of things and he is a good neighbor. Mr. Ali Kazemi, resident of 6955 Sugar Rum Ridge Road, stated that while Mr. Bell is a great person and he is good at what he does, the point of this hearing is whether this property is an adequate property for a commercial kennel, and as a neighborhood, they do not think so. He stated that based on Mr. Bell's social media posting, he has had up to 16 dogs on property even before obtaining approval for this kennel. He stated there are inconsistencies in the number of dogs in the application and staff report and he implored the committee to consider the gravity of the decision they are going to make, stating that they are all citizens of this beautiful country that has laws and regulations that we all pledge allegiance to and the neighborhood has submitted records of these laws not being met and of inconsistencies and discrepancies. He repeated that Mr. Bell is a great dog trainer and has a great record of dealing with dogs, but that's not the discussion. Mr. Kazemi stated they live in a residential area with streams passing the land the kennel is on, and therefore this land is not appropriate for a commercial kennel and Mr. Bell is welcome to take his great business anywhere more appropriate, but not here in their neighborhood. He expressed confidence that anyone in a similar position would share the neighborhood's concerns. Mr. Charlie Chockley, resident at 6633 Shingle Ridge Road, stated he can only give the testimony that he knows of, he did not wish anyone ill or problems one way or Page 5 of 10 • ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 7,2026 the other, but a large number of dogs together can be noise pollution in the worst. way and if you live near it, that becomes very annoying and stated he has been around this a lot and it's disturbing and he had nothing else to say except if you're in that situation sometimes during the day you can't think and people need to realize that a residential area needs to be kept a residential area, and a commercial kennel is not such a good idea. Mr. Woltz asked how close to the property Mr. Chockley lives, and Mr. Chockley stated he's across through the woods and south of the Parkway, and does not know exactly how close he is, but he does not live on the very same street. Mr. James closed the public hearing. Mr. James asked Mr. Thompson and Ms. Lower to speak to Ms. Rea's comments about non-compliance and asked if this application is in compliance with Roanoke County Ordinance. Mr. Thompson began with the fostering of dogs, stating that issue is addressed under the County's animal ordinance. If there is a complaint, Animal Control would be the department to deal with it. Mr. James asked whether there had been a history of complaints, and Mr. Thompson stated they had received one, noting that the county is not allowed to go on private property and must view the property from the right of way and Ms. Camerlinck was not able to see a kennel from the right of way when she went to follow up on that complaint. Mr. Thompson then addressed the zoning amendment matter, stating that several amendments had been passed on May 26th, 2026, that allow for an adjustment of the setback. Regarding the concept plan and application, Mr. Thompson stated that there is one standard application that has a whole host of different uses, and the Zoning Administrator is responsible for determining the level of detail and information by the size of the operation and if the Zoning administrator signs off on an application it is because they have decided that they have sufficient information from the applicant to move forward. Regarding Ms. Rae's concerns about the buffer yard, Mr. Thompson stated the amendment allows the Commission to adjust that standard at its discretion and asked if there were any other questions. Mr. James stated that he wanted to clarify that the Commission does have jurisdiction and latitude to consider those adjustments as a part of the special use process, and thanked Mr. Thompson for clarifying that the Planning Commission .is a recommending body, not an approving body. Mr. Thompson stated he had two other matters to address. Regarding the issue of • noise, a crime analyst with the Roanoke County Police Department had been contacted since the last public hearing to evaluate noise levels on Grubb Road, Sugar Rum Ridge Road, and other roads in the area, and reported that in a ten- year period no noise complaints had been received. Also, after the last public hearing, Mr. Thompson and Ms. Camerlinck visited the site on June 12th to see the operation and speak with property owners and, once again, they did not hear any Page 6 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 7, 2026 dogs barking on Mr..Bell's property, but they did hear dogs barking from neighboring properties. They were able to ascertain the property was clean and well-kept and there was no smell. He also noted the topography was quite steep and fairly wooded, and they had no concerns about conditions on the property. Mr. Bower asked if someone would address the number of dogs in the application specifically, the 16 dogs alleged by the citizens. Mr. Thompson confirmed that Mr. Bell's private dogs do not count toward the number of dogs listed on the special use permit. Mr. James asked how many dogs are allowed without a multiple dog permit in Roanoke County and Mr. Thompson stated it's three or up to four if you are fostering and affirmed that the application does not allow Mr. Bell to have 16 dogs in his commercial kennel operation. Mr. Bower asked Mr. Thompson if it's been confirmed that we are abiding by all laws and regulations and inquired about the kennel's prior operation and Mr. Thompson stated that should the Commission approve Mr. Bell's operation, it would be brought into compliance and required to. abide by all the rules and regulations. Mr. Woltz made a motion prefaced by the following comments: the area is wooded, and as Mr. Chockley appears to be located about a half mile away from the kennel, the noise he mentioned is likely not coming from the kennel; by coming forward to get this special use permit, the recommendation the Commission will make will be no more than 12 dogs during the day and 2 at night, and Mr. Bell will be required to comply with this standard. If he does not, it will be something the County can address by removing his special use permit. Mr. Woltz then stated that he found the proposed special use permit request: 1. Meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; 2. Is in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; and 3. Will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. He therefore moved that the Commission recommend approval of the petition for a special use permit with the following conditions: 1. The maximum number of dogs onsite 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 onsite overnight (after 6:00 p.m. and before 7:30 a.m. the following day) shall be limited to two (2). 3. The setbacks of all outdoor runs, outdoor training areas, and outdoor pens associated with a commercial kennel shall be.in substantial conformance with the . "Setback Map" submitted by the applicant. Page 7 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 7,2026 The motion passed unanimously, 3-0. Mr. James advised that this_matter would go before the Board of Supervisors the following Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 6 p.m., and thanked the citizens for their attendance and participation. 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. Camerlinck presented, noting that this petition will come before the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2026. She reviewed a location map, the project site, an aerial view of the property, photographs, zoning background on the property listing the proffered conditions they are proposing to remove 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. Ms. Camerlinck then reviewed existing and surrounding zoning, and future land use designation, which is Core, and noted the proposed action is consistent with this designation. Mr. James.asked if anyone had come to represent the Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County, and Mr. Thompson stated that EDA staff had met with the property owners, Cahas Valley Properties, regarding this matter, and noted that one of the benefits of this proffer removal process has been making connections to business owners and property owners and the potential this creates for discussing future development. He reported that the owners were very happy to remove the proffers and then clarified the matter of the permit that contradicted the twenty plus year old proffers, advising that when the property last came on the market, lots of potential business owners were turned away due to these proffers, so their removal will open a desirable property up to far more tenants, buyers, or businesses in the future. Mr. Woltz asked if highway right of way would be an issue for a business going in next door. Mr. Thompson said no. Mr. James stated that these types of conditions are an impediment to business, and Mr. Thompson stated that there were a lot of these created in the 1980's before our current zoning ordinance. Mr. James closed the public hearing, stating that while this review process is time consuming and tedious, it was worthwhile for businesses and future development in Roanoke County. Mr. Bower stated that he found that the proposed rezoning request: 1. Is consistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted comprehensive plan, and 2. Is good zoning practice, and 3. Will not result in substantial detriment to the community. Page 8 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 7,2026 He therefore moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request as it has been requested. The motion passed 3-0. Mr. James advised this application would go before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 2 p.m. 3. 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 3306 West Main Street, Catawba Magisterial District. Ms. Sarah Gilmore presented. She reviewed a location map, the project site, an aerial view of the property, photographs, and existing proffers from 1987 including: 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. 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. Gilmore then reviewed existing and surrounding zoning, and the future land use designation, which is Glenvar Village, noting that the proposed action is consistent with this designation. With no questions from any of the Commissioners, Mr. James asked Mr. Thompson if he had any comments. Mr. Thompson noted that of the two acres combined, one is by right use, and one has proffered limitations. He noted that by removing the proffers it will help determine the future use of the property and make it easier for any future owners to put the property into other use should they so desire. Mr. James opened the hearing and with no requests to speak, closed the hearing and entertained a motion which he himself made stating that he found that the proposed rezoning request: 1. Is consistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted comprehensive plan, and 2. Is good zoning practice, and 3. Will not result in substantial detriment to the community. He therefore moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request as it has been requested. Page 9 of 10 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 7,2026 . Mr. James asked for questions or comments. There. being none, the Commissioners voted and the motion passed 3-0. It was noted that this application would be heard by the Board of Supervisors at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2026. Citizens Comments There were none. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Mr. Woltz apologized for his late arrival. Mr. Thompson advised that Mr. Jason Nowak, Code Enforcement Planner, resigned in May and his position has been filled by Mr. Josh Willett from Development Services to work under the supervision of Mr. Bill Richardson in Zoning Enforcement. Mr. Thompson also advised that the Planning Department received a VACO award for placemaking and Mr. Issac Henry will present on that topic at a later date. Finally, Mr. Thompson advised that Mr. Paul Mahoney will appoint a new Planning Commissioner to represent the Cave Spring District at the July 14, 2026, Board of Supervisors meeting, but this new appointee may not be available for the August 4th meeting. Mr. James commended the Planning Staff on their creative work in placemaking and said he is glad that it has been recognized. Adjournment Mr. Woltz motioned to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed 3-0. . Mr. James adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: -, Marion Pickering Rec ecretary, Roanoke Coun y Planning Commission -ICJ ' C Philip Th pson Secreta , Roanoke County Planning Commission t90 Troy Hende' • Chairman, - •anoke County Planning Commission Page 10 of 10