Planning Commission
Regular MeetingPetersburg, VA · March 7, 2024
Minutes
City of Petersburg
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2024
Minutes
The City of Petersburg Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, March 7, 2024, was
called to order by Chair Alexander, at 6:30 p.m. A roll call was completed by Ms. Michelle
Murrills.
Members Present: Ms. Tammy Alexander, Chair
Mr. Fenton Bland, Vice Chair
Mr. Thomas Hairston
Ms. Marie Vargo
Dr. James Norman
Mrs. Candace Taylor
Mr. Michael Edwards – on Zoom call link.
Members Absent: Dr. Bill Irvin
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
A Quorum was established by Ms. Murrills.
Others Present: Ms. Naomi Siodmok-Planning Director, Mr. Jared Crews Planning Department
Manager, Ms. Michelle Murrills, Mr. Max Gorman, Mr. Michael Packer, Ms. Amanda Green, Ms.
Kirsten Katzenbach, and Mr. David Gerschick.
3. Adoption of the Agenda:
1
Chair Alexander called for any changes to the agenda. Commissioner Hairston moved to approve
the agenda. Commissioner Vargo seconded it. It passed unanimously.
4. Consent Agenda:
a. January 2024 minutes. Vice Chair Bland moved to approve the minutes and
Commissioner Vargo seconded it. It passed unanimously.
5. Public Hearings:
2024-REZ-01: A public hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval of a
petition to rezone property located at 303, 309, 315, 323, 419, and 431 West Washington Street
from B-2, General Commercial, and R-3, Two-Family Residence, to the RB, OfficeApartment
District. HEARING RESCHEDULED FOR APRIL 4, 2024.
Even though it was rescheduled, the Planning Director, Ms. Siodmok, wanted to discuss it for a
moment. She reminded the commissioners that this had been a discussion during last month's
meeting and afterwards several commissioners came up and had questions about what was the
purpose of the rezoning on Washington. She was told that the rezoning was due to the fact that a
lot of the buildings on that stretch of the block were non-conforming so this would make them
conforming, and also that some of the buildings on that portion of the block are large enough to
accommodate offices and other mixed uses. She then reminded the commissioners that this will
come back in front of you next month so if you have any questions, please ask. There was a
gentleman in the audience who wanted to speak on this hearing and was told that because the
change had come at such a late hour, there would be time for the public to speak on the matter
later in the meeting.
2024-ZTA-01: A public hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval to
amend and readopt Article 24 Nonconforming Uses and Article 25 Supplementary Height, Area,
and Bulk Regulations, as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg to allow the
rehabilitation and continuation of noncomplying structures. ALTERNATIVE TO 2023-ZTA-01.
Director Siodmok made the presentation.
This is relative to the case that y’all have heard before where we had conversations about how to
allow existing structures, like duplexes, to continue even though they might be on a lot that
doesn’t comply or has been vacant for more than two years and someone is interested in
renovating them. So, this alternative language that was presented by City Council to share with
you all. So, what this code does is it splits out some definitions to help clarify things. What this
is really looking to do is, if it is a duplex which either sits on a lot that does not have the 60 feet
frontage or it has been vacant for more than two years. And as you all know, the commission
2
was trying to make it originally an even wider scope that would cover all duplexes, triplexes,
quadplexes as well as commercial buildings. That scope has changed based on this
recommendation by council. These would only be allowed in a district that is zoned to allow
them. If for instance a duplex was in a single-family zoned district this would not apply to you.
If the duplex had not been lived in for over two years then it would have to revert back to single
family home…BUT most of the properties that we have been discussing are zoned for
multifamily housing and so if it is zoned as such, but the lot is just not big enough, this code
would allow you to modify the property and would allow you to restore, maintain or repair that
home even if it has been vacant for over 2 years. My team has tried to see just how many
properties were affected by this resolution. We talked to Chief Reid to try and make a
determination about the impact of this resolution. He said that the best way to go about doing it
is to look at the blighted home list that the city has. They already have a list of vacant and
underutilized homes that may have a red tag on them. Based upon this list, there are 35
structures on the list that are duplexes and 24 of them are zones R-3 which means that this would
help those structures to be allowed to be fixed up as duplexes. Even if this is not as big and
broad as we wanted, we will still be making a difference. Because of that, staff recommends to
approve this option. She then asked if there were any questions.
Commissioner Hairston then said that if he was hearing her correctly there were only 35
duplexes that were being affected and Director Siodmok said yes on the blighted property list.
Commissioner Hairston said okay, but we were asking about said properties city wide. Director
Siodmok said that she could not imagine that there would be very many more…Commissioner
Hairston then asked that if this went through then there would be only 11ish that would not be
covered by this new resolution. The answer that was given was yes, but those are multifamily
and not just duplexes.
Commissioner Edwards then asked how recently the list was made and the director said back in
October 2023. He said that he asked the question because he has a hard time believing that that
is all there is on the blighted property list. He said that he was the inspector for Ward Four back
then and that he had at least 25-30 just in his area alone. He also said that I know it does not
happen overnight, so I am wondering about those numbers. The director said that this was the
list that she was given to use. It is the most current that the planning department has received.
Commissioner Hairston then asked who compiled the list and the answer was that it came from
code enforcement. Commissioner Edwards then added that he just found the low numbers hard
to believe. Commissioner Vargo then asked if it could be because of the zoning. Chair
Alexander than asked if it could be because of the definition of blight…perhaps only counting
those that were actually red tagged. The Chair then asked Commissioner Hairston if that helped
and he said no, because if it were then only 11 houses left, he could support it, but the question is
raised about the accuracy of the numbers how can he support it? He has seen many lists in the
last few months, and every one is different because other people keep saying that the other lists
are not accurate. So, how do we check the accuracy of the list? Director Siodmok then said that
Code Enforcement is who one would work with to do that. She said that when she coordinated
with the Code Enforcement Director this is what was made available to us and she said that she
would think that they would be most knowledgeable about what the data is and what is current.
3
Commissioner Edwards added that not all red tagged properties are blighted properties.
Sometimes properties have dangerous issues with them that have nothing to do with being
blighted.
Commissioner Hairston then asked if the commission could have a meeting with code
enforcement to ask about how they compiled their list; because a decision is about to be made
that is not easily reversed and the commission needs all information. Commissioner Vargo
mentioned that these are just ball park figures because the commission will not be voting just off
of this list. This is more about the concept of it. Commissioner Hairston agreed but said that
there could be some real consequences because as much as it could be 7 houses instead of 11…it
also could be 70 and that could be a big deal. Because if it is just 11 houses then he is all for
voting for it, but if it is much more that could change his vote. Direct Siodmok said that it is
more than those 11 because there are people who came before the planning department asking
for a variance whose houses were not on the red tag list or recognized as blight, but they would
be covered by this approval since their properties are zoned R-3 and for whatever reason they are
not able to be permitted for a duplex. What we are trying to do with this tonight is that we are
trying to show that people will be helped by this amendment, those in the multi-family zones.
What is not happening is that before we had an even bigger scope where if the use wasn’t even
allowed in that district, we were going to still allow them to be a duplex. After all, if it had been
a duplex since the dawn of Petersburg then we were going to allow you to stay a duplex, but
council thought that went too far. But they were willing to make a compromise that if it is in a
district that would allow multi-family to begin with then they would allow all previously built
multi-family structures to stay multi-family structures and if you cannot currently renovate then
we are going to allow you to renovate.
Commissioner Hairston then said that was a real compromise because the Planning Commission
wanted to blanket the whole city with this, so that the duplexes in 6th Ward could finally go
okay…because he knows of three duplexes that have been worked on, are now ready to be
zoned, and are now being told that they are not allowed to be duplexes. He said that he does not
know if they were on any list, but yeah, he wants to help those people. He then asked if there
was any way to make exceptions, because there are so many empty properties that would benefit
from that. He keeps saying that everyone says that Petersburg needs more affordable housing
and if we would just fix up the properties that we have, we would have plenty of affordable
housing. But City Council keeps fighting us tooth and nail over fixing the properties that we
have. They want us to take a multi-family house like a duplex and turn it into a single-family
home on a street that has smaller houses to begin with. The director then said that maybe the
little victories should be taken and maybe down the road one could come back for more. After
all, this is going to help some of these people who are needing this to fix up their homes.
Commissioner Vargo said that that is where she is coming from since she would rather see
people in houses than empty houses that fall down and contribute to more problems in the city
and anything that is at least a step in the right direction, she is on board.
Director Siodmok then spoke with Mr. Crews, Planning Department Manager, about whether
any exceptions could really be made, and he said no. This compromise would work great for
those properties that were in R-3 districts, but unfortunately would nothing for those properties
in R-1 or R-2 districts.
4
Chair Alexander then opened the public part of the hearing.
First to speak was Mr. Michael R. Packer, 1245 Woodland Road, I speak in favor of these
amendments. The reason that the city believes that these are necessary relates to a determination
of a prior administrator who ruled that a non-conforming residential structure ceased to be used
for more than two years for two or more units than it could only be used for one unit, even if the
structure is located in a residential district that allows for multi-family units. So, if you are in an
R-3 district that allows for two units but the structure does not conform to the lot size, if the two
units are not used as two units over two years, then it can only be used for one unit. There are
many of those situations in Petersburg. In 2024, the general assembly amended the zoning
legislation. That amendment prohibited local zoning ordinance from making non-conforming
structures illegal based upon their use or lack thereof. So, the zoning administrators’
determination was in fact repealed by the general assembly in 2014 when they when they
changed the legislation to say that once a non-conforming structure is in place, in a district that
non-conforming structure can be used for the purpose that it was constructed for, if it’s allowable
in that district. There is no two-year situation where that use goes away. So that is what the
problem is, is that we have that conflict between the zoning administrator’s determination and
what state law says. What this ordinance does is that it fixes that. It very clearly states non-
conforming structures can last forever, used forever for whatever is allowed in that district, and if
it is not used for more than two years it does not lose that ability. It fixes the problem. The
previously drafted proposal went far beyond bringing the zoning administrator’s determination
into compliance with state law, it proposed to bring zoning administrator and preservation
planner the authority to allow for a higher residential density than the ordinance would otherwise
allow. And one cannot do that under the state’s legislation. And that is why council has sent this
back to you, not because they do not want to help the people that need the help.
Ms. Amanda Green, 301 Rolfe Street, I have a property on 855 E Bank Street, in the Blandford
District and the properties all around there are multi-family homes, but I am not exactly sure
what the zoning is for Blandford. However, I have an R-3 property and I believe that this
amendment would affect it. Because right now I am trying to get a permit. I have spent
thousands of dollars on plans for my duplex and so this would impact me. And I am very
concerned because I’ve already spent the money. This property has been vacant for two years
because I was working on Pocahontas Island, on my building there. And so, I would fall into
that category of people that this would impact. I have been thinking about the fact that I have
recently put all this money into plans to fix this house and just recently applied for permits. So,
if this goes to inactive then technically all this money that I spent so far on this house, I pretty
much would not be able to move forward as this house as a single-family home, depending on
the Blandford districts zoning. The director then said that this does support allowing the building
to remain a duplex. Right now, without this in place the building, which has a lot smaller than is
legal, would not be allowed to remain a duplex, but if this passes then yes, your house could
remain a duplex.
Ms. Michelle Murrills, 131 S Market St, I think that one thing you guys need to remember is that
you also will be influencing houses that have already been made into single family homes,
perhaps not the way they wanted them to be. So that if you do pass this, then this would affect
those as well. From what I understand they would have the ability to decide whether or not they
5
would want to be a duplex or perhaps even when they sell the house. The house might be worth
more money as it has the ability to go back to being a duplex. But also, there are houses that are
not on that blighted housing list that are part of the blighted houses that are red tagged houses
that someone has noticed. I guarantee you I know of a lot of houses that need to be red tagged in
the districts that have not been. The other thing is too that I still disagree with this since I still
believe that if you buy a house, any where in this city, that looks like a duplex, that has the
innards of a duplex, because even if it has been rented out in the past two years, if it catches on
fire and has to be rebuilt it cannot be rebuilt as a duplex. But if it is in a historical district, it still
has to look like it. So, all of that to me, trying to get investors to come into Petersburg, does not
make any sense. If it is built as a duplex, even if it was built 150 years ago, and it still looks like
a duplex, especially if it is some blighted building, it should still be allowed to be a duplex.
Thank you.
Ms. Kirsten Katzenbach, 301 S Jefferson, I agree with you, and I really appreciate your
comments. This is a very complicated issue and I feel as though it is being rushed to the table. I
felt like that before I came tonight, and now I’m certain of it. I work closely with Code
Enforcement, and our blighted list changes, to say monthly would be an understatement. There
is sometimes a red tag that is not even recorded. So, I think that it is important that when we rely
upon data to make a high impact decision, that would change the landscape possibly of our city,
that we recognize that the source may perhaps be flawed. So, we need to look at the city and
these houses whether blighted, duplex, tri-plex, etc., I like a lot of what I hear in this, I just don’t
think that it is finished. And I think that we need true data. To make a decision of this level of
impact with flawed data is a very dangerous thing to do for our city. So, I encourage you all to
send this back, have it polished and get some real figures. Ms. Murrills is correct, there are many
houses that have not been red tagged, there are many houses that have been red tagged so long
ago that they are now white tagged, because the tags were not revisited. There are houses on
East Fillmore that have been retagged so many times in the past four years that the housing has
changed hands several times. So, if we are going to deal with some of this, and there is a lot of
good stuff in this, there really is, just like the woman who said that there is work being put into
these houses. We all want positive change, no one can disagree with that. We want people to be
able to purchase property. A lot of these properties that we are talking about that have been
abandoned for over two years have not hit the fair market. They belong to deceased members,
they belong to family members that have inherited it and not anything with it, we also need to
recognize that “Fair Market” has not been a voice here because these houses have not ever made
it to market, in some cases in over fifty years. So, this is a bigger picture than just saying a
duplex that has been vacant should be zoned or R-3 or R-2. This is a much bigger picture and I
think that it deserves a committee review, I think it deserves a public hearing bigger than this. I
think that these things should have been published publicly and I think that we should be able to
come to a meeting with this held out so that the public can review it. I think that there is a lot
going on here that just needs some polish, some professional input, and I also think that the code
enforcement should be called in and really hold them accountable for what numbers are real and
when were they last visited. Thank you.
Chair Alexander then asked if anyone else wanted to speak when no one said yes, she closed the
public hearing. Then she asked the commissioners if they had anything else they wanted to say.
6
Commissioner Hairston then said that his biggest concern is that he went and sat with the
comprehensive plan people and other professionals and all the professionals kept telling him was
that we are not the first city to have this problem and literally if it was a duplex for 150 years and
then sat for two years, it still should be grandfathered in as a duplex. I don’t understand what the
problem is. The house was built as a duplex in 1878. It has been a duplex forever, someone’s
grandma died, the house sat for two years because of Covid, you opened it back up, you want to
make it a duplex and we say no. That to me is just ridiculous. It is unfair, and it really is
preventing the city from having developers come here. And then we are going to have the wrong
kind of housing. What we should do is get on the trolley and ride around and look at them,
because then if you look at them, you will see that this is ridiculous. I understand that this is
going to help some of these areas, and I am for that, but then what do we do? We just helped the
R-3 areas but what about the rest of the city? I know a lot of what we have been looking at is on
High Street and High Street will be fixed but what about the rest of the city? We want to make a
decision that is informed with good information that will help the entirety of the city, not just the
R-3 because a lot of these duplexes are not in the right zone. That is why the city’s
Comprehensive Plan people said to me that they are grandfathered in. They are the ones who
told me to come here and say this. They said, “Look this is how you handle it, and this is what
you say.” I came here and said that, we constructed this wonderful idea, we sent it to council
who told us to listen to the people that they hired. These are professionals. City council spent
money, we hired consultants, the consultants said this is what you do. So, all the people that are
professionals…we took everything they said and then were told no. That is really what they did,
because we had the Comprehensive Plan, Main Street Petersburg people, I met with people from
three different organizations, people from the governor’s office…all of these people said these
things to me and all I did was regurgitate it. And then they just sent it back like no…with no
understanding of why. I do not even understand why. Why is it that a duplex is a duplex for 150
years and now because we had Covid, it can no longer be a duplex. When ever other city in
Virginia grandfathered them in. They said they had the problem in Richmond, in Lynchburg, so
we are not having a brand new problem, we are just dealing with it in a brand new fashion. So, I
cannot in good conscious support it. I am for sending it back and telling them y’all need to do
better than that. This is unacceptable.
One thing that Director Siodmok wanted to remind everyone of was the fact that after the city is
done with the Comprehensive Plan the next thing on the agenda is a complete zoning rewrite that
will help implement the Comprehensive Plan we are drafting. But right now, what we are
working with is the ability to address a problem that a lot of people are just sitting, waiting, and
hoping they can improve their duplexes. We are trying to help those who are ready to go. This
does help at least some of them.
Chair Alexander then asked how hard it would be, if the commission made this a stop gap
measure until after the zoning rewrite, how hard would it be to bring it back and is City Council
going to give push back for trying to do so. After all, the other night one of the councilors told
the Planning Commission that we needed to get on board with them. So that is my issue, if we
do this and they come back and tell us that is all we get, we really, as Commissioner Hairston
says, we have not helped all the people who also need our help. I would want to help these few
people, of course, but this cannot be where this ends. So, my issue is, is this going to be where
City Council squashes it?
7
Director Siodmok said that if they adopt the Comprehensive Plan that says pretty much that
single family zones should allow structures that have additional units, as long as they fit with the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Hairston said that he would love to support the ordinance as wanted by City
Council, but that the squeaky wheel gets the oil and by not passing this, it would keep the
pressure on City Council to pass the encompassing plan for the whole city. And while City
Council may be screaming at us, we can then say, but what you want is not in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. He said that he thinks that if we pass it now, the way it is, then when
the Comprehensive Plan gets passed, we will be silenced and ignored, and this will never be
addressed again.
Director Siodmok then mentioned that she has not heard from the specific home owners that
have been part of her presentation. Probably because they think that they have just given up on
anything being done for them. Commissioner Vargo said that that was something that she was
worried about. That these people want to come in and invest in the city, but then they just leave
because they give up hope. Yes, it’s a gamble, but she wants to at least see that large group of
people who are in the R-3 zone be able to do something with their properties. Then when we go
forward from Comprehensive plan that this will be our best shot at getting all that we want.
Commissioner Hairston then said that he would like to have someone from Code Enforcement
come in and explain the code, because what the commission is about to do will affect a lot of the
people in Petersburg. Our job is to help move the city forward, help people, and do so by taking
the advice of the professionals that the city hires, and then send it to City Council. Chair
Alexander reminded everyone that if this passes tonight that this would help at least some of the
people who need help. Commissioner Vargo said that the precedents has been set which might
cause the rest of the city to fall in line eventually.
Commissioner Vargo then said that she moved to accept the recommendation of staff and the
resolution that comes with it. Vice Chair Bland seconded the motion.
The vote was as follows:
5 Ayes
1 Abstention – Hairston
1 Nay – Edwards
6. OLD BUSINESS
Director Siodmok wanted to mention more about how the signage issue, with the sandwich
boards, is going. She said that after talking with legal and risk management and that the city has
decided to go with an application process just so that there would be liability insurance and there
is a record of who is allowed to then have the signs.
8
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Public Comment Period – Public Comments may be provided regarding proposed
Rezoning 2024-REZ-01. Please limit comments to no more than three minutes.
Chair Alexander then made a clarification, after speaking with Mr. Crews, that this is just a
special time for the public to speak on 2024-REZ-01 and not the public hearing. Mr. Crews then
clarified further by saying that before the city had realized that they needed to reschedule, they
had sent out letters and such to people who would be most impacted by the rezoning. Because
of the short notice they thought it would be best to allow anyone from the public who was
coming for this reason a chance to speak and be heard on the record. Chair Alexander did say
that anyone who wanted to come back and speak at the public hearing would be allowed to do
so as well.
First to step up was Mr. David Gerschick, 315 W Washington Street, which is now under this
residential rezoning. I am very concerned. I don’t see any need for this, it is going in the wrong
direction. This is a historic neighborhood, and it is zoned as such. The homes are, well at least
mine, is on the Petersburg, State and National historic registries. This would degrade the value
of that home further and I am very concerned about this. So, I plan on a vigorous defense, I am
against it. I have been reading 15.2 and so I am getting up to speed. Fortunately, I am pretty
well educated, and I well financed so you will continue to see me at the next hearings and
please change the direction of this…I plead with you. Thank you for your time.
Chair Alexander then asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak and when there
was no one she closed this public comment period.
b. Discussion on Adult Day Care Center use within City.
Director Siodmok then made the presentation, stating that she just wanted to let the
commissioners know why this was coming. There have been at least five requests to open up
adult day cares here in the City of Petersburg. The director just wanted to bring this to
everyone’s attention and say that is there are any questions please let her know, but otherwise
she just wanted to let everyone know that this should be on their radar.
Here is the definition of what an adult day care center is:
Any facility that is either operated for profit or that desires licensure and that provides
supplementary care and protection during only a part of the day for four or more aged,
infirm or disabled adults who reside elsewhere, except:
(1) A facility or portion of a facility licensed by the State Board of Health or the
Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services; and
9
(2) The home or residence of an individual who cares for only persons related to him by
blood or marriage.
Right now, this is permitted under the generic use of “Retail sale of merchandise, services,
recreational areas, parking areas and other facilities, as set forth and described in this section
and ordinarily accepted as shopping center use” as outlined in the B-1, Shopping Center District
Regulations. If it is allowed in the shopping center it is allowed with the current interpretation
of the code, adult day care centers are allowed in all Petersburg’s commercial zones (B-1, B-2,
and B-3). So, all of our commercial districts would allow this use based on this definition.
Why regulate? The Planning Commission may want to recommend a special use permit if the
use is desirable, but at times incompatible with a district or additional criteria for by-right
allowance of Adult Day Care Centers such as:
- Might have issues with parking.
- Must have a safe pick-up and drop-off area that includes step-free access. (Fairfax County)
- No such adult day care center shall be permitted to operate earlier than 7:00 a.m. or later
than 8:00 p.m. (Chesapeake)
Staff looked at neighboring and comparable jurisdictions to see how they regulate Adult Day
Care Centers. Prince George, Chesterfield, and Dinwiddie had no specific definitions nor
requirements. Hopewell, Charlottesville, and Fredericksburg have specific definitions and
outline where the use is permitted be right or with a special use permit. So, what would you
guys like to see added to the code for adult day care centers? Is there anything about this that
you are concerned about?
When there was no answer Chair Alexander said that the commissioners could just think about
it for next time.
c. Discussion on Recreational Substance Retail use within City.
Director Siodmok gave the presentation:
The reason why this is coming before you: Petersburg has seen an influx of requests for vape
shops. It has come in front of the Planning Commission before, but now it is even on a bigger
scale. The Planning Department was wondering if y’all wanted to change how Vape shops were
regulated. Right now, they are regulated as a generic retail shop. If we allow a retail shop, we
allow a vape shop. We took a look at what Chesterfield is doing with their vaping shops and we
wanted to know if you wanted to do more of what they are doing there. Staff is presenting
10
what Chesterfield adopted to see if Planning Commission would like to move a similar text
amendment forward. This text amendment regulates the retail sales of recreational substances
for on-site and off-site consumption. A special use permit is required for sale.
Draft Language –
Definitions Recreational Substances: Recreational Substances includes the following:
• Any product made of tobacco including cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, and pipe
tobacco.
• Any noncombustible product containing nicotine or vaping fluid that employs a heating
element, power source, or other electronic, chemical, or mechanical means, regardless of
shape or size, that can be used to produce vapor from a solution or other form.
• Any product, including any raw materials from hemp that are used for or added to a food or
beverage product, that contains hemp and has completed all stages of processing needed for
the product.
• Kratom, and any product including any raw materials from Kratom that are used for or added
to a food or beverage product, that contains Kratom and has completed all stages of processing
needed for the product
• Any pipe, vaporizer, other type of device, wrappings, or accessories associated with the
consumption or inhalation of the abovementioned substances and materials
Draft Language Recreational Substances, Retail. Unless modified or otherwise conditioned by
the Board of Supervisors at the time of zoning approval, Recreational Substances uses (both
Retail, Off-Site and Retail, On-Site) shall be subject to the following limitations and
requirements:
a. Must be located at least 2,000 linear feet from the property line of any public or private
school (pre-K through Grade 12)
b. Must be located at least 2,000 linear feet from the property line of an existing
Recreational Substances use (both Retail, Off-Site and Retail, On-Site); and c. Hours of
operation shall be limited to 8am to 8pm, Monday through Sunday.
When they are allowed in Chesterfield, they are only allowed in certain retail districts, and they
need a special use permit. So, what are your thoughts on how Chesterfield does this? Do you
have any thoughts on anything different you would like to see here in Petersburg?
Commissioner Harriston said that he liked the idea of keeping them away from schools…not just
schools, but gyms, parks, or any other recreational area. Commissioner Vargo said that she is in
favor of all of this as well. Especially because of just the general problems coming out of some
of these places, especially out on Crater. Commissioner Hairston said he was not sure about
the clustering of them, because it does make for good competition. Everyone agreed that it
was a good thing to take up. It was then said that one thing to think about is possibly regulating
the advertising of vape products since the goal is to keep them out of children’s hands. The
11
advertising for these products tends to be more sparkly and fun and more geared toward
children. The Director then said that that would have to be something that she would have to
look into how that works since it does then step into the free speech arena. Also, she was
asked if she could find out about the age of who is allowed to buy and how that is regulated. So
yes please…
Mr. Crews then asked if the Commissioners were interested in having the sales based on a
Special Use Permit. Because that way there would be the ability to regulate more details about
it. The commissioners all agreed.
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Director Siodmok said that the Comprehensive Plan Draft will come before the commissioners
next month.
Commissioner Edwards then said that he saw that the betting machines have passed, and the
Governor is planning on following the state. Does Petersburg have a plan in place yet? The
director said that yes, the city will plan for that. Mr. Crews said that the problem with the bill
that is sitting on the Governor’s desk is that it specifically says that localities are no longer
allowed to prohibit the use of gaming machines. So, we have some wiggle room as to where they
can go, but it looks like we will not be able to have a blanket prohibition.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Vargo then asked for adjournment at 7:45 seconded by Hairston.
12
Agenda
Public Notice
City of Petersburg
Planning Commission
Petersburg Public Library
201 W Washington Street
Petersburg, VA 23803
Thursday, March 7, 2024
6:30 PM – 8:30 PM
If you would like to make a comment during the public comment period, please mail your comments in
writing to the Department of Planning and Community Development, 135 N Union Street, Petersburg,
VA 23803 or email them to pcd@petersburg-va.org.
Should you have questions or concerns, please contact the Department of Planning and Community
Development at (804) 733-2308, or via email at pcd@petersburg-va.org.
City of Petersburg
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Thursday, March 7, 2024
6:30 PM – 8:30 PM
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84050435790
Meeting ID: 840 5043 5790
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Adoption of the Agenda
4. Consent Agenda
a. January 2024 Minutes
5. Public Hearings
a. 2024-REZ-01: A public hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval of
a petition to rezone property located at 303, 309, 315, 323, 419, and 431 West Washington
Street from B-2, General Commercial, and R-3,Two-Family Residence, to the RB, Office-
Apartment District. HEARING RESCHEDULED FOR APRIL 4, 2024.
b. 2024-ZTA-01: A public hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval to
amend and readopt Article 24 Nonconforming Uses and Article 25 Supplementary Height,
Area, and Bulk Regulations, as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petersburg to
allow the rehabilitation and continuation of noncomplying structures. ALTERNATIVE TO
2023-ZTA-01.
6. Old Business
7. New Business
a. Public Comment Period – Public Comments may be provided regarding proposed Rezoning
2024-REZ-01. Please limit comments to no more than three minutes.
b. Discussion on Adult Day Care Center use within City.
c. Discussion on Recreational Substance Retail use within City.
8. Announcements
9. Adjournment
City of Petersburg
Planning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2024
Minutes
The City of Petersburg Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, February 1,
Mr. Michael Edwards
Members Absent: Mrs. Candace Taylor
Dr. Bill Irvin
Dr. James Norman
A Quorum was established by Ms. Murrills.
Others Present: Ms. Naomi Siodmok-Planning Director, Ms. Sandra Robinson, Ms. Michelle
Murrills, Mr. Chase Gibrall, Mr. D. Wyatt, and Mr. Jaja Parham.
3. Adoption of the Agenda:
Chair Alexander called for any changes to the agenda. Commissioner Edwards moved to approve
the agenda. Commissioner Hairston seconded it. It passed unanimously.
4. Adoption of the Minutes:
The minutes from September 7, 2023, were then up for adoption. Commissioner Vargo moved
to approve the minutes and Commissioner Hairston seconded them. It passed unanimously.
5. Public Hearings:
2023-SUP-09: A Public Hearing and consideration of a request from Chase Gibrall, applicant,
and representative for Navarrete’s Auto Sales to obtain a Special Use Permit as provided for
1
under Article 23, Supplementary Use Regulations - Special Uses. Section 4, Special Uses
Enumerated. Item (22) of the Zoning Ordinance to establish a stand-alone used vehicle sales not
associated with a new-vehicle dealership or not located on the same parcel as such new-vehicle
dealership, if located upon parcels of less than one acre in area, such to be permitted within the
B-2 and M-1 zoning districts only. The subject property is located at 2520 Deerfield Drive, and
further identified as tax parcel number 065100007. The parcel of land contains 0.331 acres. The
applicant’s goal is to operate a used car lot containing a minimum of 10 cars on the property. The
comprehensive plan suggests this area is appropriate for commercial and residential uses. The
property is zoned B-2, General Commercial District.
Director Siodmok made the presentation:
Mr. Chase Gibrall is the applicant and owner who is seeking the Special Use Permit. A car sales
lot needs a Special Use Permit if it is a stand-alone lot and is under an acre. The lot is zoned B-2
and the Comprehensive Plan does recognize the site as commercial and uses such as used car lot
are permitted with the Special Use Permit.
Recommendations: Staff does recommend approval of this Special Use Permit with certain
conditions.
1. The lot shall be maintained in an appropriate, clean, manner; paved; and vehicles for sale
shall be parked only one per space.
2. Only 10 vehicles are to be for sale on the property at a given time due to parking
requirements. A site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the
issuance of a Business License showing the delineation of such parking spaces.
3. A lighting plan should be submitted and approve by the Planning Department staff to
ensure residentially used properties will not be impacted by glare or spillover.
Mr. Gibrall then said that the only person who had sent in a complaint to the Planning
Department was complaining about the last tenants of the property who were a car wash that
didn’t work well with the neighborhood because the car wash was open 24/7. Whereas a car
dealership would be closed by 5:00 and they would only be open a few days a week. He also
said that a couple of the neighbors asked if he would leave the light on there since it was an
empty lot and when the light was not left on, then people started congregating.
Chair Alexander then asked if the commissioners had any questions for the applicants.
Commissioner Hairston then asked what kind of cars would they be selling…new cars, used cars,
combination? The answer was just used cars.
Ms. Robinson then reiterated that this Special Use Permit would only allow the sale of used cars
and nothing else. They could not repair cars or even have inoperable vehicles or abandoned
vehicles on their lot.
Vice Chair Bland said that he knew several of the neighbors that had complained to him about
the noise and disruption that the car wash had caused in the neighborhood. He wanted to know if
anyone has spoken to the neighbors and specifically those closest to the property. The answer
2
was no. Vice Chair Bland said that it might help to get the neighbors on their side if they went
around and told what the plans were and to explain that this car lot will be good neighbors.
Commissioner Edwards asked to bring up a picture of the property. He then asked how the cars
would be parked since it is a small lot. The owner then explained how ten cars would fit on the
inside end of the lot. Also, there is inside space as well. He also said that he had gone out to see
the lot and while he was there several residents came out to speak with him and voice their
concerns. The biggest one being the vehicle traffic. The neighborhood already has an issue with
speeding and also with vehicles parked there for days or weeks with no one moving them. He
wanted to know what the assurance was going to be that they were going to follow the rules set
for them if this were allowed to happen. He said that he was cautiously going to approve this, but
that he rides the city, and he sees how other car lots are and that many of them do not follow the
rules that are given to them. Case in point, West Washington and South Street…that lot is a
disaster and that is not something that he wants to see happening in this neighborhood. He said
that those are the concerns that were shared with him when he visited the site this afternoon. So,
what kind of assurances can you give? After all, the city has a lot going on and cannot police
everyone that they approve.
Mr. Gibrall then said that the city can put anything in the agreement with him if they approve of
it. He said that he can put it in the lease agreement with the person that will own the car lot. He
said that it seems like that the city wants his place to stay empty and that he not be able to use it
though. He said that it will be better than when it was empty. He said that right now he is
having a financial hardship. This is the first dealership of the owner of the business.
Commissioner Hairston then asked if the new owner was a Petersburg resident—the answer was
no. He then asked if there was something that the Planning Commission could put in the
agreement to assure that if the dealership owner falls short that there is some sort of
repercussion. So that if the dealership does not live up to the agreement, then the city does not
have to wait years to get them out of there. Because he said that he has seen it too many times
that once you let someone in, they no longer fulfill their obligations, and the property goes
downhill quickly. And then it takes years for anything to be done about it. Director Siodmok
said that the best way to do that is through conditions and then through zoning enforcement as
well. He then asked about leakage and such from the various cars and Ms. Robinson said that
anyone with this type of items for sale would have to meet local, state and federal guidelines for
a place like this. They would have to be certified with DMV to sell a car. But the owner would
not be able to work on a car for any reason. This lot is only for the sale of used vehicles.
Anyone who does buy a car that needs work would then have to take the car to a third party to
get it worked on.
Chair Alexander then asked if there was anyone who was wanting to speak for or against the
business and no one spoke.
Commissioner Vargo then moved to accept Staff recommendation with the conditions and the
accompanying resolution. It was seconded by Commissioner Bland. It passed unanimously.
3
2023-SUP-10: A Public Hearing and consideration of a request from Grand Generation, LLC,
owner, D. Wyatt for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article 23, Section 4(20) of the Zoning
Ordinance to operate as a vehicle removal operator, vehicle storage lot, or vehicle tow lot, such
to be permitted within the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts only. The subject property is located at
1700-1701 Midway Ave, Tax Parcel 028310001 and is zoned M-1, Light Industrial District. The
location of the subject property is within the Anchor Industrial Park, owned by Charles H. Funk
III of Funk LLC.
Director Siodmok gave the presentation.
This Special Use Permit is for vehicle removal operator, vehicle storage lot, and vehicle tow lot.
The lot is zoned for light industrial as well as its neighboring properties. It is also zoned as light
industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. So, this is consistent with the community’s vision for the
City of Petersburg. The Planning Department does recommend approval of this Special Use
Permit with the following conditions.
1. All vehicles are to be stored within the confides of the property’s fence.
2. Beyond vehicles, no open, outdoor storage is permitted.
3. The site shall be properly lit with lighting directed in a downward and inward position to
not spillover onto adjacent properties. A lighting plan shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of a Business License.
Chair Alexander then asked if any commissioner had any questions. When the answer was no,
she then spoke with the applicant, Mr. D. Wyatt.
Mr. Wyatt then said that he was a tow operator and he wanted to expand his business to the city
of Petersburg. He thought that it would be a good fit. He is wanting to put a fence cover on the
fence around his yard. So that the view will be blocked off and it will not be offensive to anyone
who sees it. He plans on keeping it very neat and clean.
Commissioner Hairston asked how many cars the lot could hold, and Mr. Wyatt said twenty to
twenty-five, he wasn’t sure. Chair Alexander asked what he was going to be bringing in and Mr.
Wyatt said that he would be towing wrecked cars, impounds, police tows, etc., and even people
who were broke down, but that he would not be towing repossessions and has no plans to ever
start. Mr. Wyatt said that he plans on putting a shed on the property for an office and he plans on
making it so that no one can see through his fence because he does not want anyone to know
what he has on the property.
Chair Alexander asked if any of the commissioners had any more questions of the applicant.
When the answer was no, she opened up the public hearing. She asked if anyone wanted to
speak for or against this application. When no one spoke, she then closed the public hearing and
asked if there was any discussion to be had by the commissioners. Commissioner Edwards then
said that he wanted to move that the commissioners accept Staff’s recommendations with the
recommendations and the resolution. Commissioner Hairston seconded it. Chair Alexander then
asked if there was any more discussion. When there wasn’t, she asked to call the vote. It passed
unanimously.
4
2023-ZTA-02: A public hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval to
amend and readopt Article 21, Sign Regulations, to regulate and allow for sandwich board/A-
frame signs.
Director Siodmok gave the presentation.
According to the code of the City of Petersburg, sandwich boards are not permitted. But right
now, if you go out you will find sandwich board signs throughout the city which can impact the
walkability and accessibility of the sidewalks. But Staff does see the benefits of signs and
therefore this is the perfect time to decide upon the regulation of them. So that this way we want
to bring the chance to regulate them and allow them before we go forward with the prohibition of
them. We do see that they help small businesses stand out and they create foot traffic for the
business. They can be a type that the information could be changed quickly, for instance if a
menu needs to be changed.
Currently, Chapter 98 (Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Spaces) Article II. Section 98-124a.
and Appendix B. Article 21. Section 6.7 prohibit the use of sandwich board signs per the
excerpts below:
Sec. 98-124: No person shall place, keep or store, or exhibit or display for sale, any goods,
wares or merchandise, or maintain any advertising signs, on the sidewalks of the city.
Section 6. - Prohibited signs: The following signs shall be prohibited in all districts:
6.7. All portable or nonstructural signs.
The proposed text amendment seeks to allow sandwich board signs with limitations to include
the following:
1. One (1) sandwich board sign may be located on a property occupied by a lawful use in
any zoning district allowing commercial uses. Such sign shall be located immediately adjacent to
the business it advertises.
2. The sign must be a maximum of four (4) feet in height and two (2) feet in width.
3. Signs are to be constructed of metal or wood (not grained plywood). Other materials,
including plastic, are prohibited.
4. Signs shall not be lighted or flashing in any manner. No attachments such as pennants,
balloons, etc. are allowed.
5. Sandwich board signs are only to be displayed during the business establishment’s hours
of operation.
6. Signs are limited to the furniture zone (there is a new definition in the code for furniture
zone—it is where you might have benches or trash cans, or light posts. It makes it so that a
5
wheelchair or someone walking has the ability to pass through.) of the sidewalk and must not
block the sidewalk clear zone. Signs shall not be in any required off-street parking space,
driveway, alley, curb ramp, or fire lane.
Right now, any business that has a sign hanging in the right of way has to have liability
insurance and has to be signed off on by the City Manager. This would be subject to that as well,
so that if anyone were to trip or anything because of the sign the city would not be held liable.
The inspiration for these limitations were Williamsburg, Staunton, and Charlottesville.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend approval of the proposed text amendments.
Chair Alexander asked what about the businesses that are down side alleys. Their only way to
bring in business is their “illegal” signs. Those would not be able to be adjacent to their
properties. Director Siodmok said that the details could be tweaked as needed. Commissioner
Hairston said that his biggest problem is that he is looking toward Petersburg growing and
becoming prosperous and he can see many people walking on the sidewalk and making it
difficult for the signs to have enough room along with everyone else. He is also worried that
then the city is going to have to go and hire someone just to deal with this. He said that he is
pro-sign, but signs that go anywhere BUT the sidewalk.
Commissioner Edwards said that he does not want to do anything that will hinder the businesses
downtown. You have some businesses that are on main streets and some that are down side
alleys. Those of us who live here know where to find these businesses, but people who do not
live here may need help finding those businesses. Especially since a lot of the GPSs are wrong
when it comes down to the exact coordinates of a certain business. He said that he does not think
that another hinderance should be placed on our local businesses. These signs are vital to
businesses to tell people “I’m here come visit me”. Yes, there is a need to make things look
good, but these businesses rely on that sign that says, “Hey I’m open”. He also said that he
thinks that there are many more details that need to be ironed out on this and that the Planning
Commission needs to take a step back and figure out what exactly needs to be done for our local
businesses. He believes that the best thing would be a Wayfinder Sign that would help direct
people to different businesses. Director Siodmok said that Mainstreet Petersburg is going to put
up Wayfinder signs through out Petersburg, but that they are going to more generic signs
pointing the way to old town or to a museum and not necessarily to a specific business.
Commissioner Vargo said that perhaps the city should set up a system that the businesses could
then pay for their portion of the Wayfinder sign but that they would all look cohesively similar.
She also said that the one thing about being downtown is that everything is so much closer than
elsewhere. The Signage is not going to be the same as on Crater Road. Because of that, those
sandwich boards can be a real business booster. It grabs your attention much quicker. Just have
everything standardized by the city, but if you are going to do a Wayfinder sign then allow the
businesses to pay for the signs just like they are going to pay for their sandwich board signs. Just
a thought.
Commissioner Hairston then said that since he was the one that doesn’t want the signs, he said
that he could live with the signs until Petersburg becomes too busy to have them on the sidewalk.
After all, one can always change it later if they become too much of a burden on the people
6
walking on the sidewalk. I can see how they are beneficial, but I am thinking of the future where
they will not even be needed. After all, we need to keep our sidewalks clear.
Ms. Robinson said to keep in mind that this proposed ordinance would not be just for the
downtown area but for the whole city. But that with the historic overlay, over the downtown
area, signage can be a problem that they don’t have out on Crater Road or out that way.
Chair Alexander then opened up the public hearing for people who are in favor of the
amendment.
Mr. Jaja Parham, Owner of the Mad House 1945 S Sycamore Street was the first to speak. So,
my wife and I are in favor of the signs. I spoke earlier with Michael Edwards and I anted to say
that we were in favor. But I want to know why only metal or wood? Why isn’t plastic included
in the rules and regulations? Also is there a way that we can make it slightly bigger from a 2-foot
width to a 2 ½ feet width just in case for people who order signs. Now I will say that I walked
around the city today and spoke with the various sign owners and they want this to go through so
that they can have their signs out. As Mr. Edwards has said, these signs help these businesses
survive, especially in a climate where some people are not getting enough foot traffic. Some
people need that extra little bit of advertising. That little bit of advertising can make the
difference and can keep the lights on in the place. At the end of the day, some of these people
that I spoke with do not think that Petersburg is being very business friendly right now. We want
to feel more support behind businesses right now and this is another option that would be good
for business. This would help businesses think that this will help turn the tide and will let them
believe that this city really is a city that they should stay and do business in. Thank you.
Chair Alexander then asked if anyone else had anything they wanted to say. Seeing no hands,
she closed the public hearing and asked the commissioners what they wanted to do.
Director Siodmok then asked if she could make a couple of comments. She said that the city
does not have to require certain dimensions, those can be eliminated if there is desire and there
does not have to be requirements of certain materials either. We also do not have to require that
the sign be adjacent or on the property itself. So, if you all see the benefit that it’s limited to one
but that it has to be in an area that’s not blocking the clear area of the sidewalk but that it can be
somewhere else, like say where you can find the different businesses in the alleys then we can
also change that. You just can’t block the sidewalk, but it doesn’t have to be on your property.
So, some changes can be made to that as well.
Commissioner Edwards then said that what you are saying is that if we change it, the signs at the
end of Sycamore would be permitted and they wouldn’t have to be at the business. Director
Siodmok then said that yes that is true, but that they could only have one. Commissioner
Hairston then asked about what exactly was permitted on the sidewalk and different businesses
have different things on the sidewalk near their businesses. Director Siodmok said that right now
the concentration is on signs, but eventually she wants to look at the outdoor seating and other
things that the business do as they are good for the city, the environment (making it welcoming
and inviting) and for business.
7
Commissioner Edwards put forth a motion to table this for more discussion. It was seconded by
Commissioner Hairston. Chair Alexander then asked how long he wanted to table it and
Commissioner Edwards said to table it until the February meeting so that it would give the
commissioners time to go and talk with the business owners and assess more of what they want.
He said that he also wants to know more about the furniture zone and where exactly that goes.
He said that he also wants to know the pros and cons of changing sign size and materials. It
passed unanimously.
2023-ZTA-03: A public hearing and consideration of a resolution recommending approval to
amend and readopt Article 3, Definitions, and Article 19, Off-Street Parking Regulations, to
clarify the requirement of driveways for low-density housing.
Director Siodmok gave the presentation.
This is looking at parking regulations for low density housing. This is to clarify that there is a
requirement for low density housing parking. So right now, our code does already state that
parking is required for residential development, it just doesn’t state clearly that it is required in
the form of a driveway. There seems to be a bit of confusion for developers working on a new
property and not installing a driveway prior to requesting a certificate of occupancy. So, with this
we are just going in and stating very clearly that driveways are required. First, we defined what
a driveway is. “The paved area between the road and the required parking spaces, which
provides an approach to those parking spaces.” We tried to keep it as simple as possible. We
then added an additional bullet under the general section for off street parking.
Residential parking requirements for single-family, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and
townhomes, must be accommodated in the form of a driveway that meets the minimum parking
space requirements and design standards of this article.
Article 19. Off Street Parking Regulations
This article already outlines the following:
1) That off-street parking is required for all land uses and structures unless otherwise stated.
2) Parking must be surfaced.
3) Dimensions of parking spaces (180 SF – 9’ x 20’ or 10’ x 18’).
4) Parking space requirements for residential.
a. SF and Townhouse: Two spaces per dwelling unit.
b. Multi-family (including two-family): One space per each one-bedroom unit; two spaces
per every two- or more bedroom dwelling units.
This is really just clarifying everything that all of that culminates in the creation of the driveway.
8
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the recommendation to amend and readopt
Article 19. and Article 3. of the City Zoning Ordinance.
Chair Alexander asked if there were any questions for staff and Commissioner Edwards asked
what are we going to do about people parking in their front yard? The Director said that that is
just an enforcement issue. Everyone is supposed to park on a paved surface and that parking in
the front yard is not allowed. He then asked who was supposed to enforce this? Code
compliance, the police, neighborhood services? You can have a gravel driveway, but it is
supposed to be paved unless you have prior approval. If a driveway was established but was not
paved prior to 1971, then the driveway does not have to be paved. But all new construction is to
have established paved driveways.
Chair Alexander opened the public hearing and asked if anyone from the public wanted to speak
for or against the ordinance. Seeing no one, she then closed the public hearing. She then asked
if the commissioners had any questions. Commissioner Vargo asked what prompted this
ordinance. Chair Alexander said that the city gets a lot of people parking on their front lawns.
Director Siodmok also said that with all these new houses being built, when the builders come in
for their certificate of occupancy, we realize that they don’t have the parking that they need. So,
this is just to clarify what is all needed in order to get their certificate of occupancy. The idea is
that this hopefully will alleviate some of the parking issues in some of the older parts of town
where there is not enough on-street parking.
Commissioner Edwards then moved to accept Staff’s recommendations along with the resolution
and Commissioner Hairston seconded it. It passed unanimously.
6. OLD BUSINESS
2023-ZTA-01 Amendments to Article 24 and 25 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the
rehabilitation and continuation of residential structures with five-units or less, development of
nonconforming lots, and existing neighborhood commercial structures with a certificate of
nonconforming use/structure.
Director Siodmok said she just wanted to give us an update and that this ordinance is council’s
agenda for Tuesday, January 16, 2024. It is on their voting agenda. Commissioner Edwards
asked if it would make it to a vote and the director said that she had not heard anything back that
there were any concerns. She just wanted everyone to be aware that it was coming up.
7. NEW BUSINESS
1. Planning Commission Committees.
Chair Alexander said that it was Commissioner Adaku who was interested in starting but she is
no longer with us (as she moved out of her Ward). And I would like to say as someone who has
been on this board way too long, the committee thing has always been more of a bureaucracy and
a problem than it has ever solved. She asked what everyone else thought. Director Siodmok said
that it was Commissioner Adaku that had asked to have it brought up and if there was no interest
then she would move on.
9
2. Used Vehicle Lots, Vape Shops, Car Washes, and Tire Establishments (Tentative).
Director Siodmok said that she had been noticing a lot of issues with used vehicle lots, vape
shops, car washes and tire establishments. So, she wanted to see if anyone had any ideas to
regulate them a little bit more so that there are not as many Special Use Permits. There are a few
options to looking into regulating them. Whether it is saying that they are only permitted in an
Industrial Zone (so that they don’t pop up in our commercial districts anymore), or potentially
putting distance requirements on them. Chesterfield County just updated their code for vape
shops and they made it so that there had to be a particular distance from schools and also that
they could not be within two thousand feet of each other, so that kind of limits the clustering and
it gives a bit of separation so that they are not focused in one location. So, if y’all are interested
we can spend more time looking into this. The consensus was that yes, the Commissioners were
very interested in looking into it. Director Siodmok asked if there were any other types of
businesses that should be looked at as well. Commissioner Hairston said that another business to
look at is Dollar Stores. Ms. Robinson said that there is some regulation of them already. If the
store wants to come to Petersburg, they have to either build a store over 10,000 square ft or get a
Special Use Permit. The City cannot sign off on a building permit unless it is at least over
10,000 sq feet store. Commissioner Edwards said that Councilman Cuthbert did put a
moratorium on Dollar Stores, but Director Siodmok explained that a moratorium was for a finite
period of time while the City looked at ways to address the issue. She also asked if there were
any other issues that the Commission wanted looked at.
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Director Siodmok said that the next joint meeting about the Comprehensive Plan with City
Council will be on February 27th to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Draft. There is also an open
house tomorrow night at PAALS to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Draft as well from 5:30-
7:30. The joint meeting with City Council will have the Comprehensive Plan up for discussion.
We also have the community meeting for 225 Medical Park Blvd to be held on the 18th here in
the multipurpose room here at the library, for anyone who wants to attend. Commissioner
Edwards asked if this was going to be the last meeting on the subject and Director Siodmok said
that yes there needed to be a vote one way or the other on this.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Hairston then asked for adjournment at 8:00 seconded by Commissioner
Edwards.
10
City of Petersburg
Department of Planning and Community Development
135 N Union St, Room 304
Petersburg, VA 23803
(804) 733-2308
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 7th, 2024
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning and Community Development
RE: 2024-ZTA-01: A Public Hearing and consideration of a resolution presented by
City Council to amend and readopt Article 24 Nonconforming Uses and Article
25 Supplementary Height, Area, and Bulk Regulations, as set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Petersburg, to allow the rehabilitation and continuation
of noncomplying structures as defined and to clarify the allowance of single-
family dwellings and accessory improvements on non-conforming lots recorded
prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
SUMMARY: This text amendment is proposed to support the rehabilitation and continued use
of existing structures, both residential and commercial, which were constructed prior to the
enactment of the current Zoning Ordinance and do not comply with modern standards. The
proposed amendment would allow existing noncomplying structures to be continued
indefinitely and be considered legal structures, with renovation and repair permissible so long
as the use of the structure is permitted in the underlying zoning district. For residential non-
complying structures, expansion of the structures will be allowed if no use nonconformities or
additional units are introduced.
The proposed amendment also includes a minor modification to Article 25 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which currently allows for the construction of a single-family dwelling on lots
created prior to the application of zoning regulations in cases where those lots do meet current
lot width and area requirements. The proposed amendment would clarify that this allowance
only applies to lots in zoning districts that allow residential uses and that only single-family
dwellings and accessory improvements to the lot are permitted.
BACKGROUND: The City of Petersburg has seen an influx of building permits to renovate
existing structures that have been vacant for years and do not conform with the existing zoning
designation. Per Article 24, Section 3, If any nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of
two years … it shall lose its nonconforming status and any further use shall conform to the
provisions of the zoning ordinance.
With that, existing duplexes have been required to reduce their density, most often to single-
family, to be suitable for redevelopment. This has put some renovations completely on hold,
which has stifled the removal of blight, and has required duplex structures to become single-
family homes.
There are currently 35 Blighted multi-family homes in the City of Petersburg per the Code
Enforcement Blighted Property list, including multiple duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. Of
these 35 properties, 26 do not meet the minimum lot width requirements of the zoning district
in which they are located. An additional 6 properties are non-conforming due to being in a
district where duplex, triplex, or quadplexes aren’t allowed but would otherwise be conforming
if rezoned.
The proposed amendment to Article 24 would result in the following major changes:
1. Noncomplying structures, as defined, would be allowed to remain and be maintained,
repaired, and altered so long as the uses within the structures comply with the
standards of the underlying zoning district. This would apply to both residential and
commercial structures.
2. Noncomplying residential structures that do not comply with lot width, area, or setback
requirements of a zoning district may be expanded in size so long as no nonconforming
uses are introduced and no new dwelling units are installed.
The modification to Article 25 is provided to clarify that the construction of single-family
dwellings on nonconforming lots will not be allowed in districts that do not allow residential
uses. The amendment also specifies that only “accessory” improvements are allowed beyond
the single-family dwelling.
The amendment as drafted is provided at City Council’s direction as an alternative to proposed
amendment 2023-ZTA-01, which was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission
on November 2, 2023.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend approval of the proposed text amendments.
ATTACHMENTS
Presentation
Resolution
Article 24. Nonconforming Uses – Revised.
Article 25. Supplementary Height, Area, and Bulk Regulations – Revised.
2024-ZTA-01: A Public
Hearing and consideration of a
resolution requested by City Council
to amend Article 24 Nonconforming
Uses and Article 25 Supplementary
PLANNING Height, Area, and Bulk Regulations,
COMMISSION as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance
MEETING of the City of Petersburg, to allow
MARCH 7, 2024 the rehabilitation and continuation
of noncomplying structures as
defined and to clarify the allowance
of single-family dwellings and
accessory improvements on non-
conforming lots recorded prior to
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
Request
The request from Council would result in the following
major changes to Article 24 Nonconforming Uses and Article
25 Supplementary Height, Area, and Bulk Regulations:
1. Noncomplying structures, as defined, would be allowed
to remain and be maintained, repaired, and altered so long
as the uses within the structures comply with the standards
of the underlying zoning district. This would apply to both
residential and commercial structures.
2. Noncomplying residential structures that do not comply
with lot width, area, or setback requirements of a zoning
district may be expanded in size so long as no
nonconforming uses are introduced, and no new dwelling
units are installed.
Background
In November 2023, Planning Commission
recommended approval of a text amendment to allow
duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and historic
commercial structures to be renovated even if
nonconforming if a certificate of nonconforming use is
issued.
After consideration by Council, an alternative
amendment was proposed in January 2024, which is
being presented today. This amendment narrows the
original scope, but still provides a benefit to existing
duplexes to support renovation, if the use is permitted
in the district, even if the structure is nonconforming.
Blighted Multi-Family Homes by Yard Width
*Note: Minimum
Lot Width for
Non-Conforming Conforming
duplexes is 60 ft.
Blighted Multi-Family Homes by Zoning District
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
R-2 R-3 R-5 R-B B-2 B-3 M-1
Duplex Triplex Quadplex
Impacts
Blighted Homes by Zoning Staff reviewed the blighted
District
properties list and
determined that of the 35
structures identified on that
list, 24 of those structures
(almost 70 percent), would
be helped by this ordinance.
A majority are duplexes
R-2 R-3 R-5 R-B B-2 B-3 M-1 located within an R-3, Two-
Family Residence, District.
Impacts (continued)
Most projects on hold due to the current zoning ordinance
can advance via this zoning amendment:
932-934
622 – 624
Priam
Independence
Street (R-3)
Ave (R-3)
1009 W 1004
High Street McKenzie
(R-3) Street (R-3)
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval and readoption of the
proposed text amendment to
Article 24. Nonconforming Uses; and
Article 25. Supplementary Height, Area, and Bulk
Regulations.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND READOPTING ARTICLE 24 NONCONFORMING USES AND ARTICLE 25
SUPPLEMENTARY HEIGHT, AREA, AND BULK REGULATIONS, AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF PETERSBURG, TO ALLOW THE REHABILITATION AND CONTINUATION OF
NONCOMPLYING STRUCTURES AS DEFINED AND TO CLARIFY THE ALLOWANCE OF SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLINGS AND ACCESSORY IMPROVEMENTS ON NON-CONFORMING LOTS RECORDED PRIOR TO
ADOPTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the City of Petersburg Zoning Ordinance includes both Article 24. – Nonconforming Uses and
Article 25. - Supplementary Height, Area, And Bulk Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of these sections are to regulate uses and lots; and
WHEREAS, The City of Petersburg has seen an influx of building permits to renovate existing structures
that have been vacant for more than two years and do not conform with the existing zoning
designation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to support the rehabilitation of existing, low-density housing to
support affordable housing by design, create housing ownership and rental opportunities, make low-
density communities accessible to all, and make building equity accessible; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to support the development of nonconforming lots to reduce barriers
to redevelopment on account of lots being created prior to the establishment of the zoning ordinance;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Title 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, this
public hearing was advertised, in accordance with applicable laws.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Council does hereby approve an ordinance amending Article
24. – Nonconforming Uses and Article 25. - Supplementary Height, Area, And Bulk Regulations as
indicated in Exhibit A.
PART II - CODE
APPENDIX B - ZONING
ARTICLE 24. NONCONFORMING USES
ARTICLE 24. NONCOMPLIANCE AND NONCONFORMITY USES
Section 1. Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this article is to regulate nonconforming uses in a manner consistent with sound planning and
zoning principles, and in conformity with state law. The general intent is that over time, nonconforming uses will
be discontinued in favor of uses conforming to the zoning ordinance and the zoning map.
Section 2. Term defined.
The term "nonconforming use" shall mean any use, lot, building or structure that was lawful on the date of
enactment of the zoning ordinance, or amendment thereto, which has been continued although otherwise
unlawful by such enactment or amendment. Any use, lot, building, or structure that was lawful on the date of
enactment of the zoning ordinance, or amendment thereto, shall remain lawful and shall not be a "nonconforming
use."
Section 3. Termination of nonconforming uses.
A nonconforming use may continue as it existed when it became nonconforming, provided that it may not be
changed, replaced, relocated, expanded in any manner, nor structurally altered, except as provided for in this
article.
1. If any nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of two years, or for a period of less than two
years if authorized by Virginia law, it shall lose its nonconforming status and any further use shall
conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance.
2. For the purposes of this article, cessation of a nonconforming use for the aforesaid period shall be
conclusively presumed to establish discontinuance. The possession of a business license to conduct
business upon a property shall not itself constitute proof of business activities on the premises.
3. Operation of only an accessory or incidental use to the principal nonconforming use during the two-
year period shall not have the effect of continuing the principal nonconforming use.
Section 1. - Noncomplying structures. Term defined.
Noncomplying structure means any building or structure that existed prior to the effective date of any change in
the zoning regulations or restrictions, but which thereafter, by reason of such change, is not in compliance with the
zoning regulations or restrictions then in effect.
Section 2. - Noncomplying structures.
Noncomplying structures shall be permitted to continue indefinitely and shall be considered legal structures, but
subject to the following restrictions:
1. Expansion. No noncomplying structure may be physically enlarged or expanded unless, after such
enlargement or expansion, it complies with the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located.
2. Repairs and maintenance. A noncomplying structure may be remodeled, renovated, maintained, repaired,
and altered so long as such work complies with this article and any other applicable controlling law or
regulation,
3. Uses in a noncomplying structure shall comply with the use limitations contained in the zoning district in
which the nonconforming structure is located or the nonconforming use provisions of this article.
Section 3. - Nonconforming uses. Terms defined.
1. Nonconforming use means any use that lawfully existed prior to the effective date of any change in the
zoning regulations or restrictions, but which thereafter, by reason of such change, is not in conformity with
the zoning regulations or restrictions then in effect,
2. The provisions of this section, Section 4, and Section 5 of this Article apply only to nonconforming uses, not
to structures or to noncompliance that arises from a failure to conform to the provisions of this ordinance
relating to height, floor area ratio, density, yard, setback, or open space.
Section 4.- Continuance of nonconforming uses.
Any nonconforming use, lawfully existing prior to the effective date of any change in the zoning
regulations or restrictions, may be continued as such subject to the provisions of this article, it being the intent of
the city to provide for the eventual elimination of all nonconforming uses.
Section 5. - Effect of abandonment of nonconforming use for two years.
In case a nonconforming use shall be abandoned for 2 years, then such nonconforming use shall
terminate, and the use of the property shall revert to a conforming use of the zoning district in which it is located.
Section 6. Destruction of a nonconforming use building.
No building which has been damaged, by any cause whatsoever, to the extent of more than fifty (50%)
percent of the fair market value of the building immediately prior to damage, shall be restored except in
conformity with the regulations of this ordinance, and all rights as a nonconforming use noncomplying structure
are terminated. If a building is damaged by less than fifty (50%) percent of the fair market value, it may be repaired
or reconstructed and used as before the time of damage, provided that such repairs or reconstruction be
substantially completed within twelve (12) months of the date of such damage.
Section 7. Nonconforming uses not validated.
A nonconforming use in violation of a provision of the ordinance which this ordinance amends or repeals
shall not be validated by the adoption of this ordinance.
Section 7. Intermittent use.
The casual, intermittent, temporary, or illegal use of land or buildings shall not be sufficient to establish the
existence of a nonconforming use, and the existence of a nonconforming use on part of a lot or tract shall not be
construed to establish a nonconforming use on the entire lot or tract.
Section 8. Existence of a nonconforming use or noncomplying structure.
Whether a legal nonconforming use or a legal noncomplying structure exists shall be a question of fact and
shall be decided by the Zoning Administrator with appeals to Board of Zoning Appeals, after public notice and
hearing, and in accordance with the rules of the board.
Section 9. Permitted changes of nonconforming uses or noncomplying structures.
A nonconforming use or noncomplying structures may be changed, altered, repaired, restored, replaced,
relocated, or expanded only in accordance with the provisions of this article and subject to the appropriate
approvals (including, among others, verification of the nonconforming use or noncomplying structure by the
Zoning Administrator, site plan approval, and building permit approval) otherwise required by law.
1. A nonconforming use or noncomplying structure may change to a conforming use or structure.
2. A nonconforming building or structure may be repaired, provided such repair constitutes only routine
maintenance necessary to keep the structure in the same general condition it was in when it originally became
nonconforming.
2. A one-family residential noncomplying structure which is nonconforming noncomplying with respect to
lot width, rear yard area or front, rear, or side yard setback requirements, but which otherwise conforms to the
use requirements of the district in which it is located, may be expanded in size so long as additional use
nonconformities are not introduced. New or expanded residential accessory uses and structures may be permitted
subject to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, provided that all new or expanded accessory structures and uses
shall meet all current zoning requirements, including height, yard requirements, and setbacks, for the zoning
district in which located. In no case shall a nonconforming single-family dwelling noncomplying structure used for
residential purposes be physically modified to accommodate additional dwelling units.
PART II - CODE
APPENDIX B - ZONING
ARTICLE 25. SUPPLEMENTARY HEIGHT, AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS
ARTICLE 25. SUPPLEMENTARY HEIGHT, AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS
Section 1. [Purpose.]
The regulations set forth in this section [article] qualify or supplement the district regulations appearing
elsewhere in this ordinance.
Section 2. Modification of height regulations.
(1) The height regulations as prescribed in this ordinance shall not apply to:
Belfries;
Chimneys;
Church spires;
Conveyors;
Cooling towers;
Elevator bulkheads;
Fire towers;
Flagpoles;
Monuments;
Ornamental towers and spires;
Smokestacks;
Stage towers or scenery lofts;
Water towers;
Tanks.
(2) Public, semipublic, or public service buildings, hospitals, institutions or schools, when permitted in a district,
may be erected to a height not exceeding sixty (60) feet, and churches and temples may be erected to a
height not exceeding seventy-five (75) feet, when the required side and rear yards are each increased by at
least one foot for each one foot of additional building height above the height regulation for the district in
which the building is located.
(3) Manufacturing buildings located in the "M-2" Heavy Industrial district, on land parcels at or exceeding one
hundred fifty (150) acres and used for gravity assisted processing, may erect to a height not exceeding one
hundred seventy-five (175) feet, when such buildings are set back from any other contiguous zoning district
by at least one foot for each one foot of additional building height above the height regulations for the "M-2"
Industrial District.
Section 3. Modification of area regulations.
3.1. Yards generally.
(1) Whenever a lot abuts upon a public alley, one-half of the alley width may be considered as a portion of
the required yard only.
(2) Every part of a required yard shall be open to the sky, except as authorized by this article; and ordinary
projections of sills, belt courses, window air conditioning units, chimneys, cornices and ornamental
features, which may project to a distance not to exceed twenty-four (24) inches into a required yard.
(3) Within a residence or office-apartment district, the least dimension of a yard upon which the principal
entrances or exists of a multiple dwelling face shall be twenty (20) feet.
(4) Where a lot is used for a commercial or industrial purpose more than one main building may be
located on the lot, but only when such buildings conform to all open space requirements around the
lot for the district in which the lot is located.
(5) A bathroom not exceeding fifty (50) square feet in area may be constructed on the rear of an existing
dwelling which does not have these sanitary facilities, provided the addition is at least ten (10) feet
from the rear lot line and conforms to the side line requirements.
(6) On residential lots having a width of less than fifty (50) feet and on record prior to November 20, 1947,
there shall be a side yard on each side of a building having a width of not less than ten (10) percent of
the average width of the lot; provided, however, that such side yard shall not be less than three (3)
feet.
(7) For housing projects involving the construction of several multiple-group dwellings on the same lot or
parcel of land, in order to permit a more flexible placing of the buildings on the land and more
desirable grouping of open spaces and such accessory facilities as recreation and parking areas, the
following yard requirements shall apply:
(a) Front, side and rear yard requirements along the boundaries of the lot shall be in accordance
with requirements previously established;
(b) Within the lot, minimum distances between main buildings, except Residential Town House
Districts, shall be as follows:
1. When buildings are front to front, not less than fifty (50) feet.
2. When buildings are front to rear, not less than sixty (60) feet.
3. When buildings are front to side, not less than fifty (50) feet.
4. When buildings are side to side, rear to side, or rear to rear, not less than twenty (20) feet
for one story buildings and not less than thirty (30) feet when one or both of the buildings
are more than one story.
3.2. Accessory buildings and structures.
(1) Except as herein provided, no accessory building shall project beyond a required yard line along any
street.
(2) Filling station pumps and pump islands may occupy the required yards; provided, however, that they
are not less than fifteen (15) feet from the street lines.
(3) One directional or name sign or sign advertising products sold on the premises may occupy required
yards in a district where such sign is permitted by the use regulations of this ordinance; provided such
sign is of not more than thirty (30) square feet in area, does not contain flashing, moving, or
intermittent illumination; and provided the requirements of other city ordinances are complied with.
(4) An ornamental fence or wall not more than three and one-half (3½) feet in height may project into or
enclose any required front or side yard to a depth from the street line equal to the required depth of
the front yard. Ornamental fences or walls may project into or enclose other required yards, provided
such fences and walls do not exceed a height of seven (7) feet.
(5) Accessory, open and uncovered swimming pools and home barbecue grills may occupy a required rear
yard, provided they are not located closer than five (5) feet to the rear lot line not closer than three (3)
feet to a side lot line.
(6) Accessory buildings which are not a part of the main building, although connected by an open
breezeway, may be constructed in a rear yard; provided, such accessory building does not occupy more
than twenty-five (25) percent of the area of the required rear yard; and provided, it is not located
closer than eight (8) feet to the rear lot line nor closer than three (3) feet to a side lot line.
3.3. Front yards.
(1) Where and official line has been established by the adopted major arterial plan, for the future
widening or opening of a street upon which a lot abuts, then the depth of a front or side yard shall be
measured from such official line to the nearest line of the building.
(2) On through lots, the required front yard shall be provided on each street.
(3) Where a lot is located at the intersection of two (2) or more streets, there shall be a front yard of
fifteen (15) feet on the side street; provided, however, that the buildable width of a lot of record at the
time of passage of this ordinance shall not be reduced to less than thirty-two (32) feet.
(4) Open unenclosed porches, platforms or paved terraces, open or covered by a roof or canopy, and
which do not extend above the level of the first floor of the building, may extend or project into the
front yard not more than six (6) feet.
(5) Where twenty-five (25) percent or more of the street frontage, or where twenty-five (25) percent or
more of the street frontage within four hundred (400) feet, of the property in question is improved
with buildings that have a front yard (with variation of six (6) feet or less) that is greater or less than
the required front yard in the district, no building shall project beyond the average front yard so
established; provided, however, that a depth of front yard of more than fifty (50) percent in excess of
the depth of the required front yard in the district in which the lot is located shall not be required.
Where forty (40) percent or more of the street frontage is improved with buildings that have no front
yard, no front yard shall be required for the remainder of the street frontage.
(6) All buildings hereinafter erected, or structurally altered so as to change the character of use of such
building, shall observe the following setback requirements or the setbacks or front yard requirements
set forth elsewhere in this ordinance, whichever is greater:
(a) Except as otherwise provided below, on Washington Street, the minimum setback shall be forty
(40) feet, and on Sycamore Street south of Halifax Street, the minimum setback shall be forty-five
(45) feet. (On Crater Road, between Graham Road and South Boulevard, the minimum setback on
the west side shall be forty (40) feet and on the east side shall be ninety (90) feet for dwellings
and sixty (60) feet for all other buildings.) On all other streets thirty (30) feet in width and less
than sixty (60) feet in width the minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet. The term "center line
of the street" as used below, shall mean the center line which existed November 20, 1947.
(a-1) The minimum setback along U.S. Rout 301 (South Crater Road) from the Norfolk and Western
Railway underpass south of Morton Avenue and to the Prince George County Line shall be one
hundred (100) feet. The minimum setback along U.S. Route 460 (County Drive) from the Norfolk
and Western Railway overpass, at the old corporate limits, to the Prince George County Line shall
be one hundred (100) feet. The minimum setback along State Route 604 (Halifax Road) from its
intersection with Boydton Plank Road south to the overpass over Interstate 85 shall be one
hundred (100) feet; along the west side of Halifax Road from Interstate 85 south to Vaughan
Road the minimum setback shall be one hundred forty-five (145) feet; along Halifax Road from
Vaughan Road south to the Dinwiddie County Line the minimum setback shall be one hundred
(100) feet. The minimum setback along State Route 142 (Boydton Plank Road) from its
intersection with Halifax Road west to the Dinwiddie County Line shall be one hundred (100) feet.
The minimum setback along State Route 632 (Wagner Road) from U.S. Route 301 east to U.S.
Route 460 shall be one hundred (100) feet. The minimum setback along State Route 608
(Johnson Road) from the Norfolk and Western Railway overpass, at the old corporate limits,
south to the Dinwiddie County Line south of Flank Road shall be one hundred (100) feet. The
minimum setback along State Route 109 (Hickory Hill Road) from U.S. 460 east to Fort Lee shall
be one hundred (100) feet.
The minimum setback along State Route 629 (Rives Road) from U.S. Route 301 east to the Prince
George County Line shall be one hundred (100) feet. The minimum setback along State Route
613 (Squirrel Level Road) from Boydton Plank Road southwest to the Dinwiddie County Line shall
be one hundred (100) feet. The minimum setback along Dupuy Road from Spring Street
Southwest to Boydton Plank Road shall be eighty (80) feet. The minimum setback along State
Route 613 (young's Road) from Brick House Run south to Boydton Plank Road shall be eighty (80)
feet. The minimum setback along Flank Road from U.S. Route 301 west to State Route
604(Halifax Road) shall be one hundred fifty (150) feet. The minimum setback along Defense
Road from Banister Road west to State Route 142 (Boydton Plank Road) shall be one hundred
fifty (150) feet. The term "center line of the street," as used below in subsection (b), when
referring to this paragraph shall mean the center line which existed January 1, 1972. Where there
are two (2) center lines on a road, the center line referred to is a line running half way between
and parallel to the two (2) existing center lines.
(b) The minimum setback required herein shall be the minimum horizontal distance from the center
line of the street to the main building, or any projection thereof. Where an existing building has
less setback than provided herein, any building hereafter erected or structurally altered within
twenty (20) feet of said existing building may observe the setback line established by the existing
building provided that provision be made in the structure for the removal of that portion which
extends beyond the setback line established herein, without damage to the balance of the
structure, and that the owner of the building to be erected or structurally altered enter into
agreement with the City of Petersburg, relieving the city of damage for the removal of that
portion of the structure extending beyond the required setback line, when at such time the city
acquires title to this portion of the property for street widening.
(c) No setback of any building shall be required on the south side of East Tabb Street, between North
Sycamore Street and Monroe Street.
(d) Where the minimum setback required herein would require a front yard, the depth of which is
greater than ten (10) percent of the average depth of a lot of record prior to November 20, 1947,
or require a front yard on the side having the greater, and the front yard is not required by the
district regulations, an application for a building permit, conforming to the provisions herein,
shall be denied by the building inspector for a period of sixty (60) days. The building inspector
shall immediately notify the council of such application for a permit, and unless the building
inspector be notified by the clerk of the council within sixty (60) days of date of the application
for permit, of the city's intention to purchase the land occupied by the setback required herein,
the building inspector shall grant the permit.
3.4. Side yards.
(1) Where dwelling units are erected above business and industrial structures in business and industrial
districts, no side yards are required, except such side yard as may be required in the district regulations
for a business or industrial building on the side of a lot adjoining a dwelling district.
(2) For the purpose of the side yard regulations, a two-family dwelling or a multiple dwelling shall be
considered as one building occupying one lot.
(3) The minimum width of side yards for schools, libraries, churches, community houses and other public
and semipublic buildings in residence districts shall be twenty-five (25) feet, except where a side yard is
adjacent to a business, commercial or industrial district, in which case the width of that yard shall be as
required in the chart of article 22, for the district in which e building is located.
3.5. Rear yards. Open or lattice-enclosed fire escapes, outside stairways and balconies opening upon fire towers,
and the ordinary projections of chimneys and flues, may project into the required rear yard for a distance of
not more than five (5) feet, but only where the same are so placed as not to obstruct light and ventilation.
3.6. Lot area. Where an unimproved lot in a zoning district that allows residential use was of record prior to the
application of zoning regulations and restrictions to the premises, and if such lot does not conform to the
requirements of such regulations and restrictions as to the width of lots or lot area per family, the provisions
of such lot area per family and lot width regulations and restrictions shall not prevent the owner of such lot
from erecting a one-family dwelling or making other accessory improvements on the lot; provided such
improvements conform in all other respects to the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions. However,
this section will not apply if the lot or lots in question were contiguous to another lot or lots of record owned
by the same person at the time the more restrictive regulations became in force.
PLANNING
Text Amendment
COMMISSION
MEETING
Discussion
MARCH 7, 2024 Adult Day Care
Center
Background
Why this is coming before you: As of the start of
2024, the City of Petersburg has received requests
for around five (5) Adult Day Care Centers.
Staff wants your feedback as to whether Planning
Commission wants this use specifically regulated in
the code/has any concerns.
If no concerns, no action needs to be taken, but due
to the increase in requests, staff wanted to share
the details of this use.
Background
A general definition for an Adult Day Care Center is:
Any facility that is either operated for profit or that
desires licensure and that provides supplementary care
and protection during only a part of the day for four or
more aged, infirm or disabled adults who reside
elsewhere, except:
(1) A facility or portion of a facility licensed by the State
Board of Health or the Department of Behavioral Health
and Developmental Services; and
(2) The home or residence of an individual who cares
for only persons related to him by blood or marriage.
Background
Currently, this use is permitted under the generic
use of “Retail sale of merchandise, services,
recreational areas, parking areas and other facilities,
as set forth and described in this section and
ordinarily accepted as shopping center use” as
outlined in the B-1, Shopping Center District
Regulations.
With the current interpretation of the code, adult
day care centers are allowed in all Petersburg’s
commercial zones (B-1, B-2, and B-3).
Why Regulate
Planning Commission may want to recommend a
special use permit if the use is desirable, but at
times incompatible with a district or additional
criteria for by-right allowance of Adult Day Care
Centers such as:
- Must have a safe pick-up and drop-off area that
includes step-free access. (Fairfax County)
- No such adult day care center shall be permitted
to operate earlier than 7:00 a.m. or later than 8:00
p.m. (Chesapeake)
Research
Staff looked at neighboring and comparable
jurisdictions to see how they regulate Adult Day
Care Centers.
Prince George, Chesterfield, and Dinwiddie had no
specific definitions nor requirements.
Hopewell, Charlottesville, and Fredericksburg have
specific definitions and outline where the use is
permitted be right or with a special use permit.
Questions
Would Planning Commission like to see a specific
definition of this use added to the code?
Would Planning Commission like to make edits to
where Adult Day Care Centers are currently
permitted?
Would Planning Commission like to add any
requirements for Adult Day Care Centers?
Locality Definition Districts (By Right) Districts (Special Use) Additional Notes
B-1 (Limited
Commercial),B-2
(Limited
“Adult day care means a facility that provides care and protection to four (4) Commercial) ,B-3
or more aged, infirm or disabled adults who reside elsewhere, during only a (Major
part of the day (a period of less than twenty-four (24) hours). The term shall Commercial) ,M-1
not include any facility, or portion thereof, that is licensed by the State (Light Industrial),
Board of Health, the State Department of Behavioral Health and and CH (Cherry
Developmental Services; or the home or residence of an individual Ave; Mixed Use R-3 (Medium Density
Charlottesville who cares only for persons related to them by blood or marriage.” Corridor) Residential)
Chesterfield N/A N/A N/A
Dinwiddie N/A N/A N/A
C-H (Commercial
Highway), C-M
Adult Day Care Center A. Any facility that is either operated for profit or (Creative Maker),
that desires licensure and that provides supplementary care and protection PD-R (Planned
during only a part of the day for four or more aged, infirm or Development
disabled adults who reside elsewhere, except: (1) A facility or portion of a Residential) , PD-C RMH (Residential
facility licensed by the State Board of Health or the Department of (Planned Mobile Homes), C-T
Behavioral Health and Developmental Services; and (2) The home or Development (Commercial/Office-
residence of an individual who cares for only persons related to him by Commercial Transitional District) ,
blood or marriage. B. Included in this definition are any two or more places, District) , and PD- C-D (Commercial-
establishments or institutions owned, operated or controlled by a single MU (Planned Downtown District), I-
entity and providing such supplementary care and protection to a combined Development 2 (General Industrial
Fredericksburg total of four or more aged, infirm or disabled adults. Mixed Use) District)
“Adult day care center: A facility which provides supplementary care and
protection during a part of the day only to four (4) or more aged, infirmed
or disabled adults who reside elsewhere, except a facility or portion of a B-2 (Limited
facility licensed by the Virginia State Board of Health or Department of commercial
Hopewell Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.” district) N/A
Prince George N/A N/A N/A
R-3 (Medium-
Density
Residential
District) (<6), R-4
(Medium-High
Density
Residential
District) (<6), B-1
(Limited Business
District), B-3
(Community
Business District),
R-3 (Medium-
B-4 (Urban
Commercial Density Care centers to meet health department requirements,
District), B-5 Residential provide enclosed outdoor recreation area, provide
(General Business District)(>6), R- traffic management, meet minimum area frontage
A day nursery, nursery school, day camp, summer camp or other place where District), IN-1 4 (Medium- requirements (see below), provide screening, provide
(Institutional
reception or care is provided with or without compensation, of persons of any age and District 1), IN-2 ( High Density pedestrian acccommodations, meet setbacks, provide Sec.
the primary use of the facility where said reception or care is provided is not a Institutional Residential off-street parking. Subject to additional conditions 35.2-
Lynchburg residence. District 2) District)(>6), through SUP process. 72.8
PLANNING
Text Amendment
COMMISSION
MEETING
Discussion
MARCH 7, 2024 Recreational
Substances
Background
Why this is coming before you: Petersburg has seen
an influx of requests for vape shops. Staff is
presenting what Chesterfield adopted to see if
Planning Commission would like to move a similar
text amendment forward.
This text amendment regulates the retail sales of
recreational substances for on-site and off-site
consumption. A special use permit is required.
Background
The goals behind Chesterfield’s language are to:
1) Decrease the number of teens using tobacco or
vape products due a correlation between
proximity of these stores to schools and
likelihood of smoking.
2) Reduce the density of tobacco retailers, since
that is also associated with higher youth
smoking rates.
3) Improve public health.
Draft Language - Definitions
Recreational Substances: Recreational Substances includes the following:
• Any product made of tobacco including cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, and
pipe tobacco.
• Any noncombustible product containing nicotine or vaping fluid that employs a
heating element, power source, or other electronic, chemical, or mechanical means,
regardless of shape or size, that can be used to produce vapor from a solution or
other form.
• Any product, including any raw materials from hemp that are used for or added to
a food or beverage product, that contains hemp and has completed all stages of
processing needed for the product.
• Kratom, and any product including any raw materials from Kratom that are used for
or added to a food or beverage product, that contains Kratom and has completed all
stages of processing needed for the product
• Any pipe, vaporizer, other type of device, wrappings, or accessories associated with
the consumption or inhalation of the abovementioned substances and materials.
Draft Language - Definitions
Recreational Substances, Retail, Off-Site Use: Any
establishment, facility, or location whose business operation
involves
(i) the retail sale of Recreational Substances and
(ii) includes Recreational Substances as 25% or more of its
total inventory or 15% or more of its total display shelf
area.
Recreational Substances, Retail, On-Site Use: Any
establishment, facility, or location whose business operation
allows the on-site use of Recreational Substances.
Draft Language
Recreational Substances, Retail. Unless modified or
otherwise conditioned by the Board of Supervisors at the
time of zoning approval, Recreational Substances uses (both
Retail, Off-Site and Retail, On-Site) shall be subject to the
following limitations and requirements:
a. Must be located at least 2,000 linear feet from the
property line of any public or private school (pre-K through
Grade 12);
b. Must be located at least 2,000 linear feet from the
property line of an existing Recreational Substances use
(both Retail, Off-Site and Retail, On-Site); and
c. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8am to 8pm,
Monday through Sunday.
Permitted Locations with SUP
In Chesterfield:
•C-3 Community Business District
•C-4 Regional Business District
•C-5 General Business District (on-site consumption is only
allowed with SUP in this district (C-5)).
Questions
What are your thoughts on how Chesterfield is
addressing vape shops and other recreational
substances?
Would you like to propose any differentiations?
Would you like Petersburg to also allow recreational
substance retail in commercial districts (B1, B-2, and
B-3) with a special use permit and then on-site
consumption in our General Commercial District (B-
2) with a special use permit?
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Meeting Date: April 26, 2023 Item Number: 16.A.
Subject:
To Consider Code Amendments Relative to Recreational Substances
Board Action Requested:
Hold public hearing and approve zoning ordinance amendment.
Summary of Information:
The currently adopted zoning ordinance does not enumerate uses pertaining to recreational substances. This
ordinance would amend and reenact section 19.1-570 of the zoning ordinance to add definitions for
Recreational Substances; Recreational Substances, Retail, Off-site Use; and Recreational Substances, Retail,
On-Site Use. The definitions identify certain vaping, tobacco, nicotine, hemp, and kratom products, and related
devices and accessories as recreational substances, for businesses selling such substances establish 25%
inventory and 15% shelf display thresholds as recreational substance retail, off-site use and identify those
businesses that allow the on-site use of recreational substances as Recreational Substances, Retail, On-Site Use.
The proposal would also amend and reenact section 19.1-52 to update the Use Table to include Recreational
Substances, Retail, Off-site Use and Recreational Substances, Retail, On-Site Use; and to add special
limitations for Recreational Substances, Retail to include a 2,000 ft. spacing requirement from schools and
other recreational substances retailers and hours of operation. These amendments would make Recreational
Substances, Retail, On-Site Use available by Conditional Use if approved by the Board of Supervisors within
the C-3, C-4, and C-5 zoning districts and would make Recreational Substances, Retail, Off-site Use available
via Conditional Use within C-5 zoning districts.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 21, 2023 and voted to forward a
recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments:
1. Recreational Substances Ordinance Amendment_BOS_230426
Preparer: Brett Meadows, Senior Planner
Approved By:
Page 398 of 430
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997,
AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 19.1-52 AND 19.1-570
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO RECREATIONAL SUBSTANCES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County:
(1) That Sections 19.1-52 and 19.1-570 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as
amended, are amended and re-enacted, to read as follows:
Chapter 19.1
ZONING
OOO
Sec. 19.1-52. Uses Generally.
OOO
D. Special Limitations for Specific Uses. The following uses shall be subject to the limitations
as specified:
OOO
5. Recreational Substances, Retail. Unless modified or otherwise conditioned by the Board
of Supervisors at the time of zoning approval, Recreational Substances uses (both Retail,
Off-Site and Retail, On-Site) shall be subject to the following limitations and requirements:
a. Must be located at least 2,000 linear feet from the property line of any public or
private school (pre-K through Grade 12);
b. Must be located at least 2,000 linear feet from the property line of an existing
Recreational Substances use (both Retail, Off-Site and Retail, On-Site); and
c. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8am to 8pm, Monday through Sunday.
P = Permitted by Right R and RS = Permitted with Restrictions A = Accessory
C = Conditional Use S = Special Exception M = Manufactured Home Permit
Use
Zoning Districts
R-7 thru
R-C R-TH R-MF MH-1 MH-2 MH-3 A O-1 O-2 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 I-1 I-2 I-3
88
Recreational Substances
Retail , off site use C C C
Retail, on-site use C
Page 400 of 430
OOO
Sec. 19.1-570. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following
meanings:
OOO
Recreational Substances: Recreational Substances includes the following:
• Any product made of tobacco including cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, and pipe
tobacco.
• Any noncombustible product containing nicotine or vaping fluid that employs a heating
element, power source, or other electronic, chemical, or mechanical means, regardless of
shape or size, that can be used to produce vapor from a solution or other form.
• Any product, including any raw materials from hemp that are used for or added to a food
or beverage product, that contains hemp and has completed all stages of processing needed
for the product.
• Kratom, and any product including any raw materials from Kratom that are used for or
added to a food or beverage product, that contains Kratom and has completed all stages of
processing needed for the product
• Any pipe, vaporizer, other type of device, wrappings, or accessories associated with the
consumption or inhalation of the abovementioned substances and materials.
Recreational Substances, Retail, Off-Site Use: Any establishment, facility, or location whose
business operation involves (i) the retail sale of Recreational Substances and (ii) includes
Recreational Substances as 25% or more of its total inventory or 15% or more of its total display
shelf area.
Recreational Substances, Retail, On-Site Use: Any establishment, facility, or location whose
business operation allows the on-site use of Recreational Substances.
OOO
(2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately after adoption.
1937:127463.1
Page 401 of 430
Get email alerts for Petersburg
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.