04/15/2026
TONITE! Wed, 6:30, Salem City Hall--COME, BRING OTHERS!
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON A. BOONE 171 TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED BUILDING CODE CHANGE TO BE LOCATED ON THE FORMER WHEELER 40 ACRES (RADIO TOWER ACREAGE) (NEARISH TO MASON CREEK & LAKESIDE NORTH OF E. MAIN)
ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED BUILDING PLAN, LEGAL ADVERT SHOWN.
SPEAK YOUR MIND, SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS WITH OUR LEADERS!
***Planning Commission Meeting will address a request for a CHANGE IN BUILDING CODE proposed by Alexander Boone to change Salem Building Code (REFERRING TO LANGUAGE IN THE NEWLY REVISED COMP PLAN--BEFORE CODE HAS BEEN WRITTEN) to allow Townhome Developments to decrease the distance by HALF between buildings in the curl of 171 dense townhomes slated for the former 40 acre Radio Station property north of East Main and near Mason Creek.
When Salem's New Comprehensive Plan was passed recently, Residents were assured during the "Vote FOR PASSAGE & APPROVAL" that Citizens' Concerns were unnecessary --concerns with its lack of teeth, its lack of details, and its strong signals that respect for EXISTING residential neighborhoods will NO LONGER EXIST in upcoming rewritten code--and that mixed residential and commercial would BE INVADING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOODS NEARLY EVERYWHERE IN OUR DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS AND OTHER AREAS --with greater density everywhere--
Answers were not required before the vote, we were assured. We were fulfilling a governing requirement--it would not necessarily affect our development rules, our neighborhood protections.
***And now, one Roanoke Valley developer with multiple current ongoing developments in Salem has submitted a BUILDING CODE CHANGE REGARDING DISTANCE OF TOWNHOMES FROM ONE ANOTHER--HALVING THE DISTANCE--referring to language in the Newly Passed Comp Plan.
***THIS INITIALLY AFFECTS THE "WHEELER 40 ACRES" where the Radio Tower is for Q99. BUT WOULD THAT NOT THEN AFFECT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS THROUGHOUT SALEM?
(And that development already allows up to 45 foot tall buildings I believe and the buildings curl around like a snail with no particular effort to "CREATE NEIGHBORHOOD").
The surrounding neighborhood showed up when the rezoning advertisements ran and the Public Hearings were held. They came to all of the Public Hearing and Vote Meetings and consistently filled the room, had many speakers voicing A VARIETY OF WELL-RESEARCHED concerns.
The VOTES DID NOT REFLECT THAT--the REZONING WAS PASSED QUICKLY AND OVERWHELMINGLY. THE CONCERNS WERE NOT ADDRESSED. THE VOICED & RECORDED PROMISE TO PUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THE RESERVED 20 ACRES OFFERED VERBALLY BY THE DEVELOPER WAS DELAYED (HAS IT NOW BEEN FULFILLED--OR NOT? WILL IT BE FULFILLED?)
POTENTIAL GOOD THINGS--(There IS to be a playground that surrounding neighborhoods can use as well. There is SUPPOSED TO BE RESERVED PROTECTED 20ish acres--these could be good things. Salem Leaders need to ensure they are honored.)
A TROUBLING TREND?
3 to 4 LARGE PARCELS OF SALEM OPEN-ACREAGE WERE LOST TO US AS POTENTIAL OPEN ACREAGE SUMMER OF 2025--REZONED IN ONE FELL SWOOP WITH QUICK SUMMER RUNS THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCI. Summer 2025 was a bad year for rezoning open acreage (some of our last in Salem) for INFILL DENSE DEVELOPMENTS--without ANY PRE-DISCUSSIONS WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOODS OR THE CITY RESIDENT POPULATION AS A WHOLE AS TO THE FUTURE BEST USE OF THESE PRECIOUS PARCELS of OPEN ACREAGE.
INFORMED TOO LATE!
RESIDENTS WERE BROUGHT IN TOO LATE IN THE PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE AWARE, AND HAVE ANY INFLUENCE IN THE FUTURE USE OF THESE PARCELS.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
BECAUSE SALEM DOES NOT HAVE MUCH OPEN ACREAGE LEFT, AND FEW WAYS TO GROW LAND-WISE. WE ARE LAND-LOCKED.
Yet METHODS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED THAT LEAVE OUT SALEM RESIDENTS AS TO THE ACTUAL URBAN PLANNING NEEDS FOR THE REMAINING OPEN ACREAGE IN OUR CITY.
HOW ARE SALEM RESIDENTS' COMMENT RIGHTS EFFECTIVELY BEING COMPROMISED?
*If rezoning occurs BROUGHT UP BY the well-known original owner--
*FOR THE DEVELOPER (who might or might not be Salem based--but is often Roanoke Valley based)--
*If the SPECTOR IS RAISED OF WHAT COULD GO THERE AS AN EXCUSE TO PUSH A POTENTIAL DEVELOPER/PURCHASER OF THAT LAND PARCEL THROUGH QUICKLY BEFORE EFFECTIVE PUBLIC INPUT CAN BE GATHERED & ASSESSED--
*BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION THAT INCLUDES SALEM RESIDENTS--
*OF OTHER POSSIBLE BEST USES FOR THIS RARE & FAST DISAPPEARING OPEN ACREAGE IN OUR LAND-TRAPPED CITY--
*THEN SOMETIMES THE MORE LOCAL DEVELOPER WHO NOW HAS REZONED LAND THAT HE DID NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF REZONING--
*CAN EVEN SUBCONTRACT TO AN OUTSIDE BUILDER TO ACTUALLY BUILD THE DEVELOPMENT--A BUILDER FROM OUTSIDE OF THIS AREA, WHO MAY HAVE ISSUES THAT ARE CREATING LEGAL CHALLENGES ELSEWHERE--
* BUT LOCAL RESIDENTS DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THESE BUILDER ISSUES, THIS "MANAGED" PROCESS AND THE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AND INHERENT FLAWS IN THIS "MANEUVERED" SYSTEM.
*****THIS "managed/maneuvered process" SUPPORTS the WISHES of the DEVELOPERS OVER the NEEDS OF SALEM's URBAN PLANNING and the NEEDS--OFTEN LEGITIMATE CONCERNS & DESIRES--of SALEM's RESIDENTS.
COME IF YOU CAN TONITE! SHARE INFO WITH YOUR CONTACTS--
COME TO THE NEXT TWO COUNCIL MEETINGS--
SPEAK TONITE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING,
SPEAK AT THE COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING.
SIGN UP TO SPEAK BEFORE THE SECOND VOTE AT COUNCIL.
SEND IN COMMENTS TO COUNCIL
SEND LETTERS TO EDITORS.
e-mails below:
__________________________________
(Write your comments once--send to all! 🙂)
CITY COUNCIL emails:
Mayor Renée Turk
Vice Mayor Anne Marie Green
Councilman Byron "Randy" Foley
Councilman Hunter Holliday
Councilman John Saunders
PLANNING COMMISSION EMAILS:
Denise "Dee" King – [email protected]
Reid Garst – [email protected]
Jackson Beamer – [email protected]
Nathan Routt – [email protected]
Mark Henrickson – [email protected]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
Econ Dev. Director Tommy Miller, & the general Dept. emails:
[email protected]
[email protected]
