HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/14/2004 - Regular
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
Agenda
September 14,2004
Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for September 14, 2004. Regular
meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public
hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from
this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3,
and will be rebroadcast on Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and on Saturdays at 4:00 p.m. The
meetings are now closed-captioned. Individuals who require assistance or special
arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact
the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance.
NOTE: At 1 :00 p.m., the Board members will tour the locations of the items to be
discussed in the following scheduled work sessions: P-1 and P-2.
A.
OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.)
1. Roll Call
2. Invocation:
Dr. Maurita Wiggins
Valley Community Church
3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag
B.
REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
C.
PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Certificate of recognition to Roanoke County Schools for being selected as
one of the Best 100 Communities for Music Education in America in 2004
2. Recognition of Ms. Miki Sawada, Yokohama, Japan, for completion of an
internship with Roanoke County
D.
BRIEFINGS
1
E.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to approve resolution authorizing the application, acceptance and
appropriation of a Homeland Security grant to the Fire and Rescue
Department in the amount of $285,619.08 from the Office of Domestic
Preparedness. (Rick Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue)
F.
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING
ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not
indicate support for, or judge the merits o~ the requested zoning actions but
satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will
be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission.
G.
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. First reading of an ordinance amending ordinance 52488-12 authorizing
an amendment to the lease with Ingersoll-Rand (Bogar, LLC) to provide for
an early termination of a recreational lease. (Jill Loope, Assistant Director
of Economic Development; Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation &
Tourism)
2. First reading of an ordinance amending Sections 7-71 Building Permit
Fees and 7-72 Trade Permit Fees, and establishing a new Section 7-73
Miscellaneous Fees of Article 5, Chapter 7, Building Regulations of the
Roanoke County Code, and providing for an effective date. (Arnold
Covey, Director of Community Development)
H.
PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance to change the zoning
classification of 115 acres from AG-3 to AR with conditions, and granting a
special use permit with conditions to develop and operate a golf course on
approximately 362 acres, all located at 3687 Pitzer Road, Vinton Magisterial
District, upon the petition of George Golf Design, Inc. (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
I.
APPOINTMENTS
1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (Appointed by
District)
2. Grievance Panel
3. Library Board (Appointed by District)
4. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (Appointed by District)
2
5. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority
6. Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Community
Advisory Committee (CAC)
J.
CONSENT AGENDA
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED
BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION
IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
1. Approval of minutes - August 24 and August 31,2004
2. Ratification of the removal of a committee appointment to the Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority
3. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the amount
of $389.53
4. Request to approve the fiscal year 2004-2005 performance contract with Blue
Ridge Behavioral Healthcare
5. Resolution granting coverage to the Western Virginia Water Authority under
the County's guarantee to the Virginia Department of Transportation for public
works projects
K.
REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
L.
M.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
N.
REPORTS
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
3. Board Contingency Fund
4. Future Capital Projects
5. Report from VDOT of changes to the secondary road system in July 2004
3
6. Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio
Policy, as of August 31,2004
O.
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
1. Joseph P. McNamara
2. Joseph B. "Butch" Church
3. Michael A. Wray
4. Michael W. Altizer
5. Richard C. Flora
P.
WORK SESSIONS (4th Floor Conference Room) - 4:30 p.m.
1. Work session to discuss animal complaints on Ivyland Road, Vinton
Magisterial District. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator)
2. Work session to consider expanding the scope of County authority for the
removal of dilapidated and unsafe buildings. (Arnold Covey, Director of
Community Development)
3. Work session to discuss the prioritized list of primary and interstate projects to
be adopted for the Virginia Department of Transportation Six-Year
Improvement Program for fiscal years 2006-2011. (Arnold Covey, Director of
Community Development)
4. Work session to discuss proposed amendments to the Roanoke County
Code Section 21-73, General PrereQuisites to Grant of Division 3.
Exemption for Elderlv and Disabled Persons of Chapter 21. Taxation to
increase the various asset threshold amount provisions for real estate tax
exemption for the elderly and handicapped. (Paul Mahoney, County
Attorney)
5. Work session to discuss Senate Bill 5005 and the impact of the changes
on the upcoming budget. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator)
o.
CLOSED MEETING pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (1)
discussion or consideration of the employment, assignment, appointment,
promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific
public officers; namely, special assistant for legislative relations and appointment
to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA).
R.
CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
4
S.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to adopt a prioritized list of primary and interstate projects to be
presented at the pre-allocation public hearing for the Virginia Department
of Transportation Six-Year Improvement Program, fiscal years 2006-2011.
(Amold Covey, Director of Community Development)
1.
ADJOURNMENT
5
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER
C -I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Certificate of recognition to Roanoke County Schools for being
selected one of the Best 100 Communities for Music Education
in America in 2004
Elmer C. Hodge ël1
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
For the third consecutive year, the Roanoke County Schools have been named one of the
Best 100 Communities for Music Education in America. The award is based on nationwide
survey responses concerning the school system and the types of music programs offered
at the elementary and secondary levels. Roanoke County is one of two Virginia
communities honored this year.
The survey was conducted jointly by the country's top organizations devoted to music and
learning which included:
:Þ- American Music Conference
:Þ- National Association for Music Education
:Þ- Music Teachers National Association
:Þ- Mr. Holland's Opus Foundation
:Þ- Music for All Foundation
:Þ- National School Boards Association
:Þ- Yamaha Corporation of America
:Þ- VH1 Save the Music
Dr. Linda Weber, Superintendent, and Jim Bradshaw, Music Coordinator, will be present to
accept the certificate of recognition.
<to- of l\oano~
~-I
CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION
AWARDED TO
Roanoke County Schools
for being selected
2004 Best 100 Communities for Music Education in America
.
For the third consecutive year, Roanoke County Schools have been named one of the top 100 communities in
the United States for music education. They are one of only two Virginia communities to receive the honor
this year.
The award was made by the following associations: American Music Conference, National Association for
Music Education, Music Teachers National Association, Mr. Holland's Opus Foundation, Music for All
Foundation, National School Boards Association, Yamaha Corporation of America, and VH1 Save the Music.
.
.
Recipients of the award were determined based upon responses to a wide array of questions regarding the
school system and the music programs offered at the elementary and secondary levels.
Roanoke County Schools provide outstanding music programs and community support which enriches the
lives of children and advances student achievements.
.
.
The Board wishes to recognize and congratulate Roanoke County Schools for being selected as one of the
Best 100 Communities for Music Education in America in 2004.
Presented this14th day of September, 2004.
~ ,¿)... y (. ~ <:N c...
Richard C. Flora, Chairman
In uk,¡ 7,(. ~
Mich I w. Al~¡'te,-y;~
Jos ph B. "Butch" Church
J~::: ~
I
I
"""'~ Q.Lj
Michael A. Wray ~-
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
C-Q
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
Recognition of Ms. Miki Sawada, Yokohama,
completion of internship with Roanoke County
Elmer Hodge t¡f
County Administrator
Japan, for
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
We are pleased to recognize Miki Sawada, Intern from Yokohama, Japan, and present her
with a Certificate of Honorary Citizenship. Ms. Sawada came to the County in May 2003
through the International Internship Programs. She graduated from Chuo University in
Tokyo with a B.A. degree in Faculty of Law, specializing in International Law and Business.
While at the County, her main focus has been working in the Department of Economic
Development, where she assisted with marketing projects targeted to Japanese
companies. However, she has also experienced training opportunities in the departments
of Information Technology; Parks, Recreation and Tourism; and Finance.
Ms. Sawada will be leaving this month to return to her home in Japan and we want to wish
her well as she continues on her career path.
(,0. of l\oano~
(-~
CERTIFICA TE OF HONORARY CITIZENSHIP
BE IT HEREBY KNOWN THAT
MIKI SAWADA
Yokohallla, Japan
has, on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, been named an
HONORARY CITIZEN
OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, USA
and shall hold and enjoy a place of high esteem in
the minds and hearts of the Citizens
of the County of Roanoke.
~ , c.)... .s> c. ~ 0.- ...
Richard C. Flora, Chairman
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
~ ;f~~
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator
ATTEST:
~J.~
Diane S. Childers, Clerk
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
E--\
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
Resolution authorizing the application, acceptance and
appropriation of a Homeland Security grant to the Fire and
Rescue Department in amount of $285,619.08 from ODP,
National Domestic Preparedness Office Grant Program,
administered through Virginia Department of Emergency
Management
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
Richard E. Burch
Chief of Fire and Rescue
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge ê ;t
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Roanoke County has been awarded funds in the amount of $285,619.08 administered by
Virginia Department of Emergency Management under the State Homeland Security Grant
Program. These funds are to assist in preparedness and to help guard against acts of
terrorism. These Homeland Security funds are distributed through the Virginia Department
of Emergency Management to various County departments for specific equipment
designated in the grant guidelines. The majority of these funds will be applied to a new
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system to improve County-wide emergency Police, Fire
and Rescue responses.
FISCAL IMPACT:
These funds do not require a County match in funding.
ALTERNATIVES:
None
Ë -I
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution and authorizing that a certified copy
accompany the grant application for the grant award. Staff also recommends the
appropriation of the grant funds in the amount of $285,619.08 to the Fire and Rescue
Department for the administration of the grant.
E.. I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE APPLICANTS AGENT, THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT AND APPROPRIATION OF GRANT
MONIES
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that
Elmer Hodge, County Administrator or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute for
and in behalf of the Roanoke County, a public entity established under the laws of the
State of Virginia, this application and to file it in the appropriate State Office for the
purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance under the ODP, National
Domestic Preparedness Office Grant Program (s), administered by the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
That, Roanoke County, a public entity established under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, hereby authorizes it agent to provide to the Commonwealth
and to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) for all matters pertaining to such Federal
financial assistance any and all information pertaining to these Grants as may be
requested.
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County authorizes the
acceptance of said grant monies in the amount of $285.619.08 and authorizes the
appropriation of said monies for the purposes authorized in the grant application.
1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
G-I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
First reading of an ordinance amending ordinance 52488-12
authorizing an amendment to the lease with Ingersoll Rand
(Bogar, LLC) to provide for an early termination of a
recreational lease
SUBMITTED BY:
Jill Loope, Assistant Director of Economic Development
Pete Haislip, Director of Parks Recreation and Tourism
Elmer C. Hodge ê ff
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Roanoke County has leased approximately 5 acres in the Hollins/Old Mountain Road area
(adjacent to the Ingersoll Rand facility) for recreational purposes since 1988. This lease
was established in agreement with Ingersoll Rand at a rate of $1.00 per year, and has been
used primarily as a baseball/soccer field for County residents. The Ingersoll Rand property
was sold to Bogar, LLC. in January 2004, and the new owners have requested that the
County amend the lease agreement to allow them flexibility with the marketing and eventual
sale of the property for industrial purposes. Specifically, they are requesting that the
County agree to vacate the property within 90 days upon receipt of a written notice by the
owners. It is understood that any notification will be predicated upon the pending sale of
the property to an appropriate industrial user.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of relocating any related facilities or equipment that may be necessary to establish
a new location in the Hollins area. Cost will be determined following the development of a
master plan for the area including the Hollins Park/Mason property.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the amendment to the lease agreement.
G --I
2. Maintain the current lease, which requires a written notice of termination by the owners
within 90 days of the expiration date of the agreement. The absence of a termination
notice results in an automatic renewal of the agreement for an additional 3 year term.
The current agreement is in effect until April of 2007.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1, approve the amendment of the lease.
(;/1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 52488-12 AUTHORIZING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE WITH INGERSOLL-RAND (BOGAR,
LLC) TO PROVIDE FOR AN EARLY TERMINATION OF A
RECREATIONAL LEASE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1.
That on February 9, 1988, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance
authorizing the lease of approximately 5 acres from Ingersoll-Rand for recreational
purposes (Ordinance No. 2988-6). The term of the lease was for a 25-year period.
2.
That on May 24, 1988, the Board amended this lease to provide for a 3-
year renewable term (Ordinance No. 52488-12).
3.
That Bogar, LLC purchased the Ingersoll-Rand property and is the
successor-in-interest to Ingersoll-Rand. It has requested an amendment to the lease to
provide for an early termination upon 90 days written notice.
4.
That pursuant to the provisions of § 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke
County, a first reading of an ordinance amending the lease was held on September 14,
2004; a second reading on this matter was held on September 28, 2004.
5.
That the amendment to the lease by Roanoke County from Ingersoll-
Rand, now Bogar, LLC, of approximately 5 acres for recreational purposes to provide
for an early termination of said lease is hereby authorized and approved.
6.
That the County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, is
authorized to execute such document and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke
1
G-J
County as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form
approved by the County Attorney.
2
"',
l ,"',
-"'-".,-- -'- ---,~',
ll_-.-,,\-, ::' ,'/ (i}'i/> /' ¡ }/.",',', /- ',-",:,:"'"",,
-:'r-'--!' ¡- <'~""( '; l-fl-.,
'!!iii¿¿i~ji2,i',.7,/(~ ,,' 9' -"iIQ i' Î:'," , ,', '
-l /_/"/"\, ',J <J;'Y,£~/, i,i, -,/¡",¡ ..' '~~//,'Ul':!1}
1,-.. "',:,:', :---,"",-. ,."',, ,.""",,: ", I'b..~'/..~ '<~I."-:"":,:'-,--",/,¡ ':-c'
" '",::_-,:,-',';"_:'~",r_:-:,!,,, -~"<>i:. """".:
"<:;, , , ¡ ;' - ,':, ."",<% "
ii, "f ("Ii; WW'Þ Il J/'
. «-i'i'::!,!_- , :'!1 !/
"-"----':;", , "-""'- '¡¡"",'/t)'"""
",,'it! ðb.. , ,- (J" if¡
"-, "'/':'.:::--:-¡! 6>. , ~I. /s
if¡,%.v,-- I¡"J
' ',' '-: "W1q ...~ "'::;'
1'/ ; 'eo;'i
;(,,' i/l" ~,,:,,:', ~,,"':~
"'¡;
¡! &"..,¡ R
' :( ~48 ~~~. I
',' ,""'" .j", 1000 ;.
) r<¡':<:i(~,¡~:;; .'
'-"-ì'~-:-i-,.,..L,.: '
" '
',c. -
'1";',/--_:
C,,'
,,' "",r":"
, "
f,
"
, f:f"",
! '-:i!!
,
, ; /";'
'"'j ¿' "-J,,;,,~--,
-- ,- ,
.:-. !
t--
--,
f--,
"':"-":;¡-""
- ",
"-"
"-, ,
""'f,
..-r
",.,'
, --'"
,..,'i
"/ '
,--_. ,._f/'
Ii
"
"i/,
.,
"//.,,
.',<,,",'
/i.,/'
"""
-"
--'0,_,
1000 Feet
,
..,','..
"
"
",
C_, -I
I
\
-A'\
0
CJ)
~
Q)
0>
C
>.0
-Q)
c: >
~Q)
00
Uo
Q).-
~E
00
c: c:
roo
00
a:::W
::::J
C')
::r
CD
..c.
I:
I»
Cñ
W .,..
0
0
~ I ...
... .
.
..
o.J,~: /1-
'. :"
.
..
...
,
County of Roanoke
Department of Economic Development
ACTION NO.
G-{j
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
First reading of an ordinance amending Sections 7-71 Building
Permit Fees and 7-72 Trade Permit Fees, and establishing a
new Section 7-73 Miscellaneous Fees of Article 5, Chapter 7,
Building Regulations of the Roanoke County Code, and
providing for an effective date
SUBMITTED BY:
Arnold Covey
Director of Community Development
Elmer C. Hodge t ff
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This is a proposal to update the building regulations ordinance and particularly, to update
the method used to estimate construction costs for the purpose of calculating permit fees,
to add certain fees that are not included in the current ordinance, and to modify other
existing fees. The county is currently working with Novalis Technologies on an integrated
land records management solution. As Phase One of the HP migration project, the
Information Technology Department, through Novalis Technologies, is developing the new
software package for land development. Phase One includes Community Development,
Real Estate Valuation and Business Licenses. A part of this update involves reviewing our
fees and processes and having them programmed into the new software.
The Community Development Department is working with the IT Department to develop a
new software system which we hope will be implemented in the next few months. One of
the issues to be addressed with the new system is the under-reporting of annual
construction values in Roanoke County. Under the current fee calculation method,
standard residential construction is valued at $26.10 per sq. ft. This value is obtained from
a construction cost table published by BOCA International in 1991 and adopted by the
County into the current ordinance. BOCA is now defunct and the table is no longer
1
G-d
published. A new method of calculating construction cost for the purpose of determining
permit fees as well as more accurate reporting is needed. After researching the matter we
discovered that we had an in-house method available that is updated annually and is
extremely accurate. This is the building construction value base rates as determined
annually by the County Real Estate Valuation office. Linking our permitting software to the
property assessment software will provide an accurate method to calculate cost that is
updated automatically on an annual basis. We propose to delete the 1991 BOCA table in
Section 7-71 and replace it with a reference to the cost values as adjusted on an annual
basis by the Real Estate Valuation office.
Obviously, this would result in a substantial increase in permits fees if no other adjustment
is made. To offset this effect, it is our intention to create a new permit type for construction
performed under the International Residential Code, specifically one and two family
dwellings. This permit will be called a "Residential Construction Permit" and will cover all
work necessary to complete the project as described on the application. No additional
permits or fees would be required from subcontractors working on the project who are
identified at the time of application. Attached are several examples showing the effect of
this change on permit fees for various types of residential construction.
This change will result in approximately 1,500 fewer permits issued annually by the clerks.
It is anticipated that this will enhance office efficiency and provide the clerks a better
opportunity to serve our customers.
The commercial permit process will remain unchanged; however, commercial permit fees
will be affected. The effect varies because of the wide variation in commercial construction
costs. Most commercial permits will see a fee increase even though a few actually will
experience a decline in fees. Sample comparisons are attached for review.
Fees to be Modified:
. Re-inspection Fee - $50.00 (applies on 3rd re-inspection of same item)
. Increase minimum permit fees to $30.00 from $25.00
Fees to be added:
. Existing Building CO - $35.00
. Elevator Periodic Inspection $35.00
. Amusement Devices:
Kiddie Rides - $15.00
Circular rides or flat rides that can be inspected from less than 20 feet above ground -
$25.00
2
All Other Types of Devices - $45.00
(Amusement Device Fees reduced 50% when a private inspector is used)
FISCAL IMPACT:
No impact to existing funding levels.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve changes to the ordinance.
2. Develop an alternate method of determining construction costs
3. Take no action
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1, approval of the changes to the ordinance.
3
c;-~
Building Building Current Sq Ft Current Current Proposed Sq Ft Proposed Proposed
Type Details Const. Cost Valuation Permit Fee Const. Cost Valuation Fee
Single Family Residence Living Area 1276 sq ft $26.10 per sq ft $45,693 $250 bid. $59.00 per sq ft $97,273
Garage 435 sq ft $8.00 per sq ft $100 elec. $29.50 or 50% of base
Unfin. Basement 476 sq ft $6.00 per sq ft $75 plb. $11,80 or 30% of base
Deck 20 x 20 400 sq ft est. cost $6000 $75 mech. $8.85 or 15% of base
$500.00 $510.00
Duplex Living Area 2016 sq ft $26.10 per sq ft $54,619 $295 bid. $54.00 per sq ft $109,674
Deck (2)10 x 10 est. cost $2000 $85 elec. $8.10 or 15% of base
$60 plb.
$60 mech.
$500.00 $538,00
Manufactured Home Living Area 1000 sq ft NONE NONE $50 bId, $29.00 per sq ft $29,435
Deck 10 x 10 $25 elec $4.35 or 15% of base
$25 plb
$10 CO
$110.00 $170.00
Apartments 27041 sq ft $26.10 per sq ft $761,713 $1,582.00 $41.00 per sq ft $1,108,861 $1,874.00
Warehouse 137,280 sq ft $22.88 per sq ft $3,142,174 $2,891.50 $21.00 per sq ft $2,882,880 $2,823.00
Mini Storage 3750 sq ft $20.21 per sq ft $75,801 $400,00 $22.00 per sq ft $82,500 $435,00
Grocery 58,860 sq ft $26.04 per sq ft $1,533,185 $2,086 $49.00 per sq ft $2,884,140 $2,762.00
Private School 3000 sq ft $41 .28 per sq ft $123,869 $568.00 $70.00 per sq ft $210,000 $740.00
",
\
fJ
Building Building Current Sq Ft Current Current Proposed Sq Ft Proposed Proposed
Type Details Const. Cost Valuation Fee Const. Cost Valuation Fee
Auto Dealership 6323 sq ft $22.88 per sq ft $144,726 $610.00 $30.00 per sq ft $189,690 $698.00
Church 40,000 sq ft $37.61 per sq ft $1,504,448 $2,072.00 $70.00 per sq ft $2,800,000 $3,170.00
Fast Food 782 sq ft $30.15 per sq ft $23,576 $140.00 $71.00 per sq ft $55,522 $300.00
(¡\
t
Building Type
Single Family Residence
Townhouse
Patio Home
Duplex
Unfinished Basement
Manufactured Home
Maunfactured Home Class B & C
Bü 1 lñ'~ '..,~~>." , ..' It \\;'t~{~:!.wìf~' ,,' ,~~
Condominium Apartment
Condo High Rise
Triplex
Townhouse Apartment
High Rise Apartment
Garden Apartment
Industrial
Manufacturing
Lumber Yard
Packing Plant / Food
Bottler/Brewery
Warehouse
Cold Storage / Freezer
Truck Terminal
Service Garage
Heavy Manufacturing
Light Manufacturing
Warehouse Condo
Prefab Warehouse
Office-Warehouse
Petrol
Mining
Department Store
Super Market
Shop-Strip
Office-4 story
Medical Condo
Fast Food
Office Condo
Mini-Warehouse
Commercial
Convenience Store
Carwash
Shopping Mall/ Department Store
Office
Medical Office / Clinic
Restaurants
Banks
"¡"..:"..:;~
'"'\ , .
2005 Base
Rate
59.00
63.00
62.00
54.00
48.00
29.00
62.00
62.00
54.00
40.00
41.00
38.00
21.00
26.00
17.00
43.00
46.00
21.00
31.00
29.00
32.00
26.00
24.00
23.00
21.00
27.00
30.00
30.00
38.00
49.00
47.00
52.00
60.00
71.00
53.00
22.00
51.00
51.00
30.00
45.00
55.00
60.00
66.00
75.00
G"~,
Community Service
Service Station
Auto Sales
Parking Garage
Lab/Research
Day Care Center
Theaters
Lounge/Nightclub
Bowling Alley / Arena
Commercial Office Condos
Hotel/Motel fewer than 3 stories
Hotel/Motel higher than 3 stories
Furniture Showroom
Recreation/Clubs
Institutional - Single Family Residence
Churches- Single Family Residence
School/College -Single Family Residence
Homes Aged - Single Family Residence
Club/Lodges-Single Family Residence
Institutional
Churches
School/College
Hospital
Homes Aged
Orphanages
Mortuary/Cemetery
Clubs/Lodges
Airport
Utilities
Public School
Public College
Public Hospital
Other County
Other State
Other Federal
Other Municpal
38.00
45.00
30.00
22.00
68.00
52.00
52.00
42.00
39.00
51.00
44.00
48.00
42.00
44.00
54.00
70.00
70.00
60.00
43.00
54.00
70.00
70.00
88.00
62.00
45.00
56.00
44.00
57.00
38.00
80.00
80.00
88.00
60.00
60.00
60.00
60.00
C;-à
-....
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 7-71. BUILDING PERMIT FEES
AND 7-72. TRADE PERMIT FEES, ESTABLISHING A NEW SECTION 7-
73. MISCELLANOUS FEES, OF ARTICLE 5 OF CHAPTER 7. BUILDING
REGULATIONS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, as part of the HP migration project the Department of Community
Development is implementing a new software system to track building permits and to
calculate permit fees; and
WHEREAS, Novalis Technologies, Inc. is developing an integrated land records
management solution for the County; and
WHEREAS, this new software system will address the problem of the under-
reporting of annual construction values in the County; and
WHEREAS, the new method of calculating these permit fees will be based upon
building construction values as determined by the County's Real Estate Valuation
Office; and
WHEREAS, the first reading was held on September 14, 2004; and the second
reading and public hearing was held on September 28, 2004.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Article V. Fees of Chapter 7. Building Regulations be amended to read
and provide as follows:
ARTICLE V.
FEES
Sec. 7-71. Building permittees.
Permit fees are determined by calculating a value of construction. In order to derive this
valuation, the square footaqe of the structure is multiplied by the buildinQ construction
value base rates as adjusted annuallv bv the Countv Real Estate Valuation Office.
1
G-~..
An estimated cost of construction is obtained from the applicant and is used to
determine the permit fees for applications that do not correspond to the square footage
construction value base rates as described above. This includes, but is not limited to,
interior and exterior alterations, roofing and siding construction, and demolitions.
There is hereby established the following schedule for fees for building and demolition
permits as set out on Attachment A.
Sec. 7-72. Trade permit fees.
There is hereby established the following schedule for fees for trade permits (trade
permits include permits for heating, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing). The following
schedule for trade permits is based upon the valuation as calculated pursuant to section
7-71 as modified by a percentage factor for the use groups and the type of trade permit,
as shown on Attachment B:
In excess of $5,000.00 the fee shall be $75.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof.
No trade permit shall be issued for less than $30.00.
Sec. 7-73. Miscellaneous fees.
There is herebv established the followinq schedule of miscellaneous fees:
Reinspection on Construction: $50.00 (appües on 3rd re-!nspection of same item
Certificate of Occupancv:
Commerclê.!..:....$25.00
Tern ora - Sin Ie Famil - 10.00
Temporarv - Commerclê.!..:....$25.00
~nq BuUQjna CO - $35.00
Elevator Periodic Inspection $35.00
Amusement Devices:
Kidd~es - $15.00
Circular rides or flat rides that can be inspected from less than 20 feet above around
=--$25.00
~vpes of Dev!ces - $45.00
(Amusement Device Fees reduced 50% when a private inspector is used)
2. The Director of Community Development is aranted the authoritv to implement these
fees when the software packaqe from Novalis Technoloaies, Inc. becomes operational.
2
Attachment A
§ 7-71. Building permit fees.
BUILDING AND FEE SCHEDULE
Valuation Fee Valuation Fee Valuation Fee
$ 0.00--5,000.00 $ 30.00 $41,000.00 $225.00 $ 84,000.00 $ 440.00
42,000.00 230.00 85,000.00 445.00
6,000.00 36.00 43,000.00 235.00 86,000.00 450.00
7,000.00 42.00 44,000.00 240.00 87,000.00 455.00
8,000.00 48.00 45,000.00 245.00 88,000.00 460.00
9,000.00 54.00 46,000.00 250.00 89,000.00 465.00
10,000.00 60.00 47,000.00 255.00 90,000.00 470.00
11,000.00 66.00 48,000.00 260.00 91,000.00 475.00
12,000.00 72.00 49,000.00 265.00 92,000.00 480.00
13,000.00 78.00 50,000.00 270.00 93,000.00 485.00
14,000.00 84.00 51,000.00 275.00 94,000.00 490.00
15,000.00 90.00 52,000.00 280.00 95,000.00 495.00
16,000.00 96.00 53,000.00 285.00 96,000.00 500.00
17,000.00 102.00 54,000.00 290.00 97,000.00 505.00
18,000.00 108.00 55,000.00 295.00 98,000.00 510.00
19,000.00 114.00 56,000.00 300.00 99,000.00 515.00
20,000.00 120.00 57,000.00 305.00 100,000.00 520.00
58,000.00 310.00
Over 20,000.00.00 equals 59,000.00 315.00 Over 100,000.00.00 equal
$120.00 plus $5.00 60,000.00 320.00 $520.00 plus $2.00
perM 61,000.00 325.00 per M
21,000.00 125.00 62,000.00 330.00
22,000.00 130.00 63,000.00 335.00
23,000.00 135.00 64,000.00 340.00 Figure Fraction from
24,000.00 140.00 65,000.00 345.00 here
25,000.00 145.00 66,000.00 350.00 200,000.00 720.00
26,000.00 150.00 67,000.00 355.00 300,000.00 920.00
27,000.00 155.00 68,000.00 360.00 400,000.00 1,120.00
28,000.00 160.00 69,000.00 365.00 500,000.00 1,320.00
29,000.00 165.00 70,000.00 370.00
~
\
}J
f
30,000.00 170.00 71,000.00 375.00 Over $500,000.00 equals
31,000.00 175.00 72,000.00 380.00 $1,320 plus
32,000.00 180.00 73,000.00 385.00 $1.00 per M
33,000.00 185.00 74,000.00 390.00 600,000.00 1,420.00
34,000.00 190.00 75,000.00 395.00 700,000.00 1,520.00
35,000.00 195.00 76,000.00 400.00 800,000.00 1,620,00
36,000.00 200.00 77,000.00 405.00 900,000.00 1,720.00
37,000.00 205.00 78,000.00 410.00 1,000,000.00 1,820.00
38,000.00 210.00 79,000.00 415.00
39,000.00 215.00 80,000.00 420.00
40,000.00 220.00 81,000.00 425.00 Over 1,000,000.00
82,000.00 430.00 equals $1,820 plus
83,000.00 435.00 0.50 per M
f'
~ \
I
l-r/
Attachment B
§ 7-72. Trade permit fees.
Percent Chart
Class Heating (percent) Mechanical Plumbing Electric (percent)
(percent (percent)
1 . A 1--A5 6 8 8 8
2.B 5 8 5 9
3.E 6 11 8 9
4. F1 & F2 4 5 5 5
5. H1--H4 4 5 5 5
6. 1-1 1-2 1-3 595 812 8 999 912 9
7. M 5 9 5 9
8. R-1 R-2 R-3 & 564 915 7 10 15 7 815 7
R4
9. S1 & S2 4 9 4 7
Valuation Fee
$0.00 to $1,000 30.00
1,000.00 to 40.00
2,000.00
2,000.01 to 50.00
3,000.00
3,000.01 to 60.00
4,000.00
4,000.01 to 75.00
5,000.00
Cì\
¡J
c;-~
§ 7-71
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
ARTICLE V. FEES
Sec. 7.71. Building permit fees.
Permit fees are determined by calculating a value of construction. In order to derive this
valuation, the area of the structure is multiplied by the applicable square footage. The square
footage construction cost is determined by the type of construction and use group from the
following chart and this valuation is adjusted by the cost multiplier of 0.88.
Use
Group
The square footage construction cost is determined by the type of construction an
grou rom the following chart:
Square Foot Construction Costs Type of Construction
2A
2B
2C
3A 3B 5B
$69.75 $67.88 .83 $60.81 NA
57.55 55.67 55.62 48.61 47.52
38.88 38 37.91 34.16 33.04
39.15 8.92 37.97 35.06 33.98
48.74 46.92 46.06 40.46 39.03
43 42.15 41.29 35.69 34.26
5.56 24.51 24.44 20.22 18.91
24.02 22.97 22.90 18.71 17.40
62.79 60.97 60.11 54.51 NA
74.57 72.75 71.89 66.29 NA
27.15 28.43 27.47 21.79 20.69
7.00 45.34 45.40 39.98 38,50
40. 38.85 38.91 33.49 32.01
36.90 34.84 34.84 30.84 29.66
24.02 .97 22.90 18.71 17.40
A.l $79.65 .51
A-2 67.44 66.
A-3 44.50 43.62
A-4 & 5 44.51 43.68
E 58.61 57.28
B 53.83 52.51
F 1 & 2 33.24 32.40
HI- 4 31.70 30.86 .
I -I 72.66 71.33
I -2 & 3 84.43 83.10
M 34.06 33.19
R-1. 54.71 53.92
R-2 48.22 47.43
R-3 & 4 41.38 40.63
S-l & 2 31.70 30.86
Foundations: $6.00 per square foo
Attached Garage: $8.00 per s e foot
Detached Garage: $10.00 square foot
Storage Buildings in dential Areas: $8.00 per square foot
Greenhouses: $8.00 r square foot
Reinspection on nstruction: $25.00
Certificate occupancy:
Com erciaI-$25.00
Te porary-Single Family-$10.00
m porary - Commercial- $25.00
$76.13
63.92
42.74
79
55.0
50.26
31.16
29.62
69.08
80.86
32.29
52.17
46.72
38.51
29
An estimated cost of construction is obtained from the applicant and is used to determine
the permit fees for applications that do not correspond to the square footage construction cost
chart. This includes, but is not limited to, interior and exterior alterations, carports, decks,
roofing and siding construction, and demolitions.
There is hereby established the following schedule for fees for building and demolition
permits:
Stipp. No.2
374
G-~
,J.
BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7-71
BUILDING AND FEE SCHEDULE
Valuation Fee Valuation Fee Valuation Fee
$ 9.00 4.,9B9.90 $ 25.00 $ 39,000.00 $ 215.00 $ 78,000.00 $ 410.00
5,000.00 30.00 40,000.00 220.00 79,000.00 415.00
6,000.00 36.00 41,000.00 225.00 80,000.00 420.00
7,000.00 42.00 42,000.00 230.00 81,000.00 425.00
8,000.00 48.00 43,000.00 235.00 82,000.00 430.00
9,000.00 54.00 44,000.00 240.00 83,000.00 435.00
10,000.00 60.00 45,000.00 245.00 84,000.00 440.00
11,000.00 .66.00 46,000.00 250.00 85,000.00 445.00
12,000.00 72.00 47,000.00 255.00 86,000.00 450.00
13,000.00 78.00 48,000.00 260.00 87,000.00 455.00
14,000.00 84.00 49,000.00 265.00 88,000.00 460.00
15,000.00 90.00 50,000.00 270.00 89,000.00 465.00
16,000.00 96.00 51,000.00 275.00 90,000.00 470.00
17,000.00 102.00 52,000.00 280.00 91,000.00 475.00
18,000.00 108.00 53,000.00 285.00 92,000.00 480.00
19,000.00 114.00 54,000.00 290.00 93,000.00 485.00
20,000.00 120.00 55,000.00 295.00 94,000.00 490.00
56,000.00 300.00 95,000.00 495.00
Over 20,000.00.00 equals 57,000.00 305.00 96,000.00 500.00
$120.00 plus $5.00 58,000.00 310.00 97,000.00 505.00
perM 59,000.00 315.00 98,000.00 510.00
21,000.00 125.00 60,000.00 320.00 99,000.00 515.00
22,000.00 130.00 61,000.00 325.00 100,000.00 520.00
23,000.00 135.00 62,000.00 330.00
24,000.00 140.00 63,000.00 335.00 Over 100,000.00.00 equal
25,000.00 145.00 64,000.00 340.00 $520.00 plus $2.00
26,000.00 150.00 65,000.00 345.00 per M
27,000.00 155.00 66,000.00 350.00
28,000.00 160.00 67,000.00 355.00
29,000.00 165.00 68,000.00 360.00 Figure Fraction from
30,000.00 170.00 69,000.00 365.00 here
31,000.00 175.00 70,000.00 370.00 200,000.00 720.00
32,000.00 180.00 71,000.00 375.00 300,000.00 920.00
33,000.00 185.00 72,000.00 380.00 400,000.00 1,120.00
34,000.00 190.00 73,000.00 385.00 500,000.00 1,320.00
35,000.00 195.00 74,000.00 390.00
36,000.00 200.00 75,000.00 395.00 Over $500,000.00 equals
37,000.00 205.00 76,000.00 400.00 $1,320 plus
38,000.00 210.00 77,000.00 405.00 $1.00 per M
Supp. No.2
375
G-~
§ 7-71
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
Valuation
Fee
Valuation
Fee
Valuation
Fee
$ 600,000.00 $ 1,420.00 $ 900,000.00 $1,720.00
700,000.00 1,520.00 1,000,000.00 1,820.00
800,000.00 1,620.00
(Ord. No. 61489-12, 6-14-89; Ord. No. 42391-18, § 1, 4-23.91)
Over 1,000,000.00
equals $1,820 plus
0.50 per M
Sec. 7.72. Trade permit fees.
There is hereby established the following schedule for fees for trade permits (trade permits
include permits for heating, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing). The following schedule for
trade permits is based upon the valuation as calculated pursuant to section 7-71 as modified
by a percentage factor for the use groups and the type of trade permit, as shown QR tR~
, fallewiRg 9Rart:
Percent Chart
Class
Heating
(percent)
Mechanical
(percent
Plumbing
(percent)
Electric
(percent)
1. AI-A5
2. B
3. E
4. Fl & F2
5. HI-H4
6. I-I
1-2
1-3
7. M
8. R-l
R-2
R.3 & R4
9. 81 & 82
6
5
6
4
4
5
9
5
5
5
6
4
4
8
8
11
5
5
8
12
8
9
9
15 .
7
9
8
5
8
5
5
9
9
9
5
10
15
7
4
8
9
9
5
5
9
12 .
9
9
8
15
7
7
Valuation
Fee
$
e.ee to $ SeB.Be
699.91 te- 1,800.00
1,000.00 to 2,000.00
2,000.01 to 3,000.00
3,000.01 to 4,000.00
4,000.01 to 5,000.00
~
Be.ee
40.00
50.00
60.00
75.00
In excess of $5,000.00 the fee shall be $75.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof.
Supp. No.2
376
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
)4-\
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Second reading of an ordinance to change the zoning
classification of 115 acres (Tax Map Nos. 79.04-2-10, 10.1,
10.2, 11, and 12) from AG-3 to AR, with conditions, and
granting a special use permit with conditions to develop and
operate a golf course on 362 acres (Tax Map Nos. 79.04-2-
10, 10.1, 10.2, 11, 12, and 79.01-1-1) all located at 3687
Pitzer Road, Vinton Magisterial District upon the application
of George Golf Design, Inc.
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
On August 24, 2004 the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing and voted on an
ordinance granting a rezoning and special use permit for a golf course on Pitzer Road
upon the application of George Golf Designs, Inc. This rezoning included a proffered
condition submitted by the owner, NBO Associates.
Under State Code voluntary proffers must be in writing signed by the owner(s) and
submitted to the governing body prior to the public hearing. This proffer was not signed
by the owner(s) and submitted to the Board prior to the beginning of the public hearing.
It does not comply with the State Code, the County Code, or County policies. Therefore
the proffered rezoning ordinance is not legally enforceable.
Due to this procedural flaw, this matter is being re-advertised for a public hearing and
Board action on September 14, 2004.
The owner(s) have signed the proffer; it is in writing; and it is submitted to the Board
prior to this public hearing.
1
~-
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board hold the advertised public hearing, and then vote
upon the ordinance rezoning the property and granting the special use permit.
2
I-{- I
PETITIONER:
CASE NUMBER:
George Golf Design
24-8/2004
Planning Commission Hearing Date:
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date:
August 10, 2004 (Continued from 8/3104)
August 24,2004
A.
REQUEST
The petition of George Golf Design, Inc. to conditionally rezone 115 acres from AG-3,
Agricultural to AR, Agricultural Residential and to obtain a Special Use Permit to
develop and operate a golf course on 362 acres, located at 3687 Pitzer Road,
Vinton Magisterial District.
B.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Janet Corcoran, 3852 Pitzer Road, spoke in favor of the golf course. Ms. Ona Early,
3387 Mount Pleasant Blvd. spoke on behalf of the Mt. Pleasant Civic League and
expressed the civic league's unanimous support of the golf course proposal. Ms.
Shelby Cundiff, 316 Chestnut Mountain Drive, expressed support of the golf course
proposal but stated concerns that there were so many unknown factors dealing with
future residential development. Ms. Elizabeth Abe, 6909 Mary B Place, expressed
concerns with wetlands and creeks on the property in addition to potential traffic on
Pitzer Road.
C.
SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Ms. Janet Scheid presented the staff report. Mr. McNeil stated that he thought the
project should be presented as one package with the golf course proposal and the
residential development together. He expressed concern regarding future residential
density on the residual property. Ms. Hooker inquired as to the type of golf course the
petitioner proposed and plans for future residential development.
D.
CONDITIONS
Rezoning:
1. Residential density on tax maps #79.04-2-10, #79.04-2-10.1,
#79.04-2-10.2, #79.04-2-11 and #79.04-2-12 will be no
greater than 1 house per 3 acres (as currently allowed under
AG-3 zoning) unless a subsequent rezoning to Planned
Residential Development, per the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance, is approved.
SUP:
1. The chemicals used on the golf course shall minimize the
effect on ground water pollution.
2. The club house shall be constructed primarily of the
following exterior materials: stone, brick and wood.
E.
COMMISSION ACTION(S)
Mr. McNeil made the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning with conditions.
Motion carried 4-0.
Mr. McNeil made the motion to recommend approval of the SUP with conditions.
Motion carried 4-0. '5
6
F.
DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE
G.
ATTACHMENTS:
- Concept Plan
- Staff Report
- Vicinity Map
- Other
Janet Scheid, Secretary
Roanoke County Planning Commission
"
H--
7
H-I
George Golf Design, Inc. Proffer
Case Number: 24-8/2004
1. Residential density on tax maps #79.04-2-10, #79.04-2-10,1,
#79,04.2-10.2, #79.04-2-11, and #79.04-2-12 will be no greater than
1 house per 3 acres (as currently allowed under AG-3 zoning) unless
a subsequent rezoning to Planned Residential Development, per the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, is approved,
NBO Associates, a Virginia partnership, Owner
~!J. ~ '
Edward W.' NUnnallY,. roO
~~-
Ronald C. Brooks, Partner
~~.~~
Brenda Saul Brooks, Partner
Dana Michelle N. Grady, P
ner
Rachel Eliza eth Nunna Iy, Partner
~)t~
Alan Dale Jenkins, Partner
14-1
,-.,
','i
Petitioner: George Golf Design, Inc.
Request: Rezone 115 acres from AG-3, Agricultural to AR, Agricultural Residential with condition and
obtain a Special Use Permit to develop and operate a golf course on 362 acres.
Location: 3687 Pitzer Road
Magisterial District: Vinton
Rezoning Proffer: 1. Residential density on tax maps #79.04.2-10, #79.04-2-10.1, #79.04-2-10.2, #79.04-2-11
and #79.04-2.12 will be no greater than 1 house per 3 acres (as currently allowed under AG-3 zoning) unless
a subsequent rezoning to Planned Residential Development, per the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, is
approved.
Special Use Permit Conditions: 1. The chemicals used on the golf course shall minimize the effect on
ground water pollution. 2. The club house shall be constructed primarily of the following exterior
materials: stone, brick and wood.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This is a request for a conditional rezoning from AG-3 to AR and a Special Use Permit for the purpose of
constructing and operating an 18.hole golf course. The golf course will occupy approximately 250 acres of
the larger 362 acre property. The proffered condition on the rezoning limits the residential density on the
AG.3 portion of the site to one house per 3 acres. The site is designated Rural Preserve in the 1998
Community Plan and the golf course proposal is compatible with that designation. Staff believes this is a
unique opportunity to preserve 250 acres of open space while providing recreational opportunities to
citizens and visitors.
1.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
1. AG.3 zoning allows 1 house per 3 acres.
AR zoning allows 1 house per acre without public water and sewer.
AR zoning allows 1 house per 30,000 square feet (one acre equals 43,560 sq. ft.) with either
public water or public sewer.
AR zoning allows 1 house per 25,000 square feet with both public water and public sewer.
2. Golf course is allowed with approved Special Use Permit in AR zoning district.
3. VDOT commercial entrance permit will be required. In addition, VDOT approval is required
for pedestrian/golf cart crossing of Pitzer Road.
4. Site plan review will be required.
5. Well and septic permit approval is required by the Virginia Department of Health.
2.
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Backç¡round: The subject property is locally known as the Saul Farm and has been used for agricultural
production for many years. The property is divided by Pitzer Road. The portion of the property to the north
of Pitzer Road slopes towards the road. The property levels out near Horseshoe Branch where wetlands
can be found along the stream. On the far side of the stream the land slopes upward to the tree line. On
1
4--
this side of the road the property has been cleared and utilized for crops and pasture land. Thick vegetation
exists along the stream. The property is currently served by a farm road.
The portion of the property on the south side of the road slopes gently down from Pitzer Road and rises
steeply towards the rear property line. While the land is primarily pasture there are some groves of mature
trees. A brick silo and 3 barns are on this side of the property.
Surroundina Neiqhborhood: The surrounding neighborhood consists of AG-3 and AR zoned properties.
Properties consist of either residential home sites or vacant land that is utilized for farming. To the west of
the proposed golf course is the Blue Ridge Parkway and rural residential properties ranging in size from 4-6
acres. To the west, directly across the Parkway is a rural residential property consisting of approximately 90
acres. To the south of the site are large acreage parcels some of which have homes on them and some
that do not. To the east of the site, further down Pitzer Road, are residential homes on 1-acre lots. To the
north of the proposed golf course are undeveloped properties consisting of mature woodlands.
3.
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Site Layout: The conceptual plan provided by the petitioner shows the layout of the golf course covering
approximately 250 acres with the remaining 112 acres being reserved for future residential development.
The course wìfl span both sides of Pitzer Road and utilize a pedestrian/golf cart crossing of the road. The
conceptual plan depicts the future residential development in three separate areas of the site: the northwest
corner, the southwest corner and the southeast corner on the east side of Saul Lane.
The proposal is for an 18-hole golf course, a club house and a maintenance facility. The type of golf course
- whether it will be a private equity golf course, a private membership golf course, or a public golf course -
has not been determined yet by the petitioner.
Building Desian and Architecture: The club house could range in size from 5,000 to 25,000 square feet
depending on the type of course built. For instance, a public daily fee course would call for a club house
towards the smaller end of the sizeJange - it would likely have a small pro shop, a small snack bar, an
eating and gathering area and an outdoor pavilion area. On the other hand, a private course would
necessitate a club house towards the upper end of the size range. This type of club house would provide
member services such as locker rooms, shower facilities. golf bag storage areas and would have a more
complete dining facility. In either case, the club house would typically operate the same daily hours as the
golf course - in other words from daylight to dark. The food service facility would be primarily for patrons of
the golf course.
The design of the club house will be architecturally compatible with the rural nature of the proposed site and
the exterior will primarily be constructed of stone, brick and wood. It is the petitioner's intent that the club
house be an attractive attribute to the golf course and appear to belong on the site.
Golf cart storage will be indoors. This provides protection to the equipment, convenience to the customers
and improves site aesthetics.
As stated earlier the golf course is proposed to be constructed on both sides of Pitzer Road and a golf cart
crossing of Pitzer Road is shown on the conceptual plan. VDOT will review the request for th is crossing and
determine necessary safety features. Petitioner has stated that typically those features include marked
pedestrian cross walks, caution signs andlor "slow golf cart crossing" signs;
2
H- \
The petitioner, a golf course architect, desires to retain some of the existing barns and silo on the property
and incorporate them into the site design and architecture of the new buildings. At this point in time, the
details of the site plan have not been finalized so it is not certain that this will occur.
A maintenance facility will be required for the operation of the golf course. This facility needs road access
and will have parking for approximately 15 employees. This building will range in size from 5,000 to 12,000
square feet and will be single story. It will consist of equipment storage, repair shop, storage of chemicals,
fertilizer and grass seed. Approximately 3 tractor trailers will off-load at this location per year. The design of
this facility will be integrated and blended into the site. The building facade will be appropriate for the rural
location.
Chemical Use on the Golf Course: The petitioner has stated that he will use primarily organic chemicals
and all chemicals will be within the guidelines of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A professional
golf course superintendent, experienced in chemical application, will manage the golf course maintenance
operation.
The petitioner will apply for and seek certification of the golf course from Audubon International. This is an
organization that works in cooperation with the U.S. Golf Association to designate golf courses as Audubon
Cooperative Sanctuaries. The organization is not affiliated with the National Audubon Society.
Project Phasina: the petitioner plans to begin construction of the golf course by the end of 2004 with an
anticipated opening date of spring to summer 2006.
AccesslTraffic: Access to this site will be from Pitzer Road, State Route 617. A minimum 24 foot paved
driveway will serve the club house area. Pitzer Road has a statutory speed limit of 55 mph in this location.
Upon review by the Roanoke County Traffic Engineer and the VDOT Assistant Resident Engineer it is
estimated that approximately 650-730 vehicle trips per day could be generated by the golf course alone.
(Note: these traffic projections are based on national averages and studies of municipal courses, private
country clubs and public courses with driving ranges, clubhouses, banquet facilities, etc. These projections
may be high and the type of course will determine the actual number of trips generated by the site). The
traffic projections do not take into consideration any future development of the 112 acres of residual
property. The most recent traffic count (year 2000) for this section of Pitzer Road (Route 617) is 600 vehicle
trips per day. .
Approximately 100 parking spaces will be required at the club house per Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance. This parking lot or lots will be required to be paved and landscaped according to Roanoke
County ordinances.
Fire & Rescue/Utilities: This site is located within the 6-8 minute response time from Mt. Pleasant station.
No hydrants are available in this area.
Blue Ridge Parkway: The United States Department of Interior, National Park Service has stated that the
golf course will not be visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway and therefore they have no visual impact
concerns with the proposed golf course. They have also stated that they would like the opportunity to
review any proposed housing on this site to ensure that the scenic quality of this view area is not
compromised.
~
3
~-I
4.
CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN
The site is designated as Rural Preserve in the 1998 Community Plan. The golf course is consistent with
the Community Plan designation and will provide a rural, recreational facility.
Any future housing planned for the site will either be allowed by right or will require a rezoning action and
review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Supervisors. As exists today and under
the proposed AR and conditional AG-3 zoning, approximately 84 houses could be built on the residual 112
acres, without public water or sewer service. That number of houses would increase to approximately 135
homes with public water and sewer service. The Community Plan encourages the clustering of homes in
Rural Preserve designations. If petitioner proposes a future rezoning to increase the residential density
allowed on the residual land, staff would encourage rezoning to a Planned Residential Development, thus
the language in the proffered condition limiting rezoning to Planned Residential Development. This would
provide the opportunity to utilize clustering, private roads and flexible lot configurations to preserve
important environmental and visual resources on this property.
5.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS
This is a request to rezone approximately 115 acres of land from AG-3 to AR with a proffered condition
limiting the residential density to what is currently allowed under AG-3 and to obtain a Special Use Permit
on 362 acres to operate a golf course. The property is designated Rural Preserve in the 1998 Community
Plan and the proposed plan is consistent and compatible with the policies and guidelines of that
designation.
The proposal provides a unique opportunity to provide a recreational facility while preserving 250 acres of
open space.
DATE: August 5, 2004
CASE NUMBER: 24.8/2004
HEARING DATES:
PREPARED BY: J. Scheid
PC: 8/10/04
BOS: 8/24/04
4
\--\ - \
County of Roanoke
CoIIUIlunity Development
Planning & Zoning
5204 Bernard Drive
POBox 29800
For Staff Use Only
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
(540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108
BOS date:
ÂJ-
Case Number
ALL APPLICANTS
. -
Check type of application filed (check all that apply)
0 Rezoning ø Special Use 0 Vañance
Applicants nameladdress w/zip Phone:
George Golf Dcsign, Inc.
Lester George, President Work: 804-272-4700
609 Twínridge Lane Cell #:
Richmond. VA 23235 Fax No.: 804-272-4771
Owner's name/address w/zip Phone #: 540-312-7712
NBO Associates, clD Ronald C. Brooks
4616 Phyllis Road, Roanoke, VA 24012 Fax No. #:
Prope,rty Location Magisterial District: Vinton
3687 Pitze:r Road
Mt. Pleasant, VA Community Planning area: Mt. Pleasant
Tax Map No.: Existing Zoning: AR. AG3
079.04-02~1D_OO'{)OOO 079.04-02~11.00"{)OOO
079.04-02-12.00"{)OOO 079,OO..{)!.{} 1.00"{)OOO
Size ofparcel(s): Acres: 361.74 Existing Land Use: Rural Pteserve
. . . . .'
RE2¡ONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT$ (RÌsf
Proposed Zoning: N/ A
Proposed Land Use: Golf Course w/ Residual Parcels for Future Development
Does the parcel meet the minimnm Jot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? NA
Yes 0 No 0 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQtJIRED FIRST.
Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes 0 No 0 NA
IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST
Ifrezonlng reques~ are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes 0 No 0 NA
,-..,
Y ARl4.NCE APPLICANTS (J1
Variance ofSection(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to:
Is the application complctt? Please check if enc}osed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR
INCOMPLETE.
RlSV R/S V RJSV
§§ Consu1tation Ei 8 !12"x J1"concrptplan EE Applicationfcc
Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, ifapplicable
Justification Wa!I:r and sewer application Adjoining property owners
I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner=s agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and
consent of the owner. .
Owner's Signature
"
- I
I.roSnF1C~~ON' FÖR REzONING ORSPECIAL U~E¡~~ R:EQPEST;
\~-
Applicant
The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the change
in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use
additional space ifnecessary.
Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the
beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance.
The FountainHead Golf Club will further the purpose of the Roanoke County Ordinance by meeting the creation of a
convenient, attractive and harmonious community and by facilitating the provision of adequate recreational areas within
Roanoke County.
Specific to the Rural Preserve classification, The FountainHead Golf Club will maintain a rural appearance and offer a much-
needed recreátional facility for people in the Roanoke area. It also enhances the county's economic development opportunities by
providing the premier golf facility in Southwest Virginia.
Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community
Plan.
The FounWnHead Golf Club meets and exceeds the requirements of CoIIm1UDity Plan by preserving approximately 70% (guideline
requests 50%) of its property in open space.
The coUI'S'e provides for an innovative yet unobtrusive addition to the community by preserving open space which creates habitat
and protects wildlife, enhances environmental protection and límíts future types of development
Please descn'be the impact( s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as
the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and reScue.
The course will generate little to no impact to school systems while it will increase tax revenue to Roanoke County.
FountainHead will be served by Mt Pleasant Fire and Rescue station as it is currently. Adjacent and nearby property
values will be enhanced with the introduction of an upscale go1f community and the rural nature of the coII1ID11Dity will be
preserved..
The golf course will be served by well and septic under this proposal and necessary permits will be obtained from the
health department. The golf course will utilize integrated pest management practices to maintain the course and the
proposed lakes will serve as stormwater best management practices. The impervious cover of the project will be very low
and overall water quality of the receiving waters should be improved by removing cattle from streams and adjacent land.
Access to the property will occur via a co!I11mrcial entrance along Pitzer Roa.d..
I
I JU~~C~TION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
Applicant
The of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a variance
can be granted. Please read the factors 1is~ below carefully and in your own words, descnoe how the request meets each factor. If
additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper.
",0"'-0
~o'<.., .!i'~' ,7<"
f.>._~~~
!~~ .~,~~~~;;~
0":;-;,-:'.-. "f~.~",~~
d"._~¡:;:.b
183i\
\-\- -
The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building pennit.
Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development xegulations and may require
changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special
use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations.
A concept plan is requixed with all r~zoningt special use permit and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a
professional site planDer. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division
staff ma exe t some of the items or su est the addition of extra items, but the followin axe considered minimllm:
ALL APPLICANTS
ø a. Applicant name and name of development
ø b. Date, scale and north arrow
c.
Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions
ø d.
21 e.
21 f.
21 g.
h.
Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoinÎng properties
Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc.
- i
The zoning and land use of all adj acent properties
All property lines and easements
All buildings, existing and proposed, and dùnensions, floor area and heights
Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development
Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces
- J.
Additional information required for REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS
& Ie. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm draw) and connections at the site
21 1.
Any driveways, en1rances/exits, curb openings and crossovers
21 m.
r:h.n.
~ o.
~ p.
- q.
Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals
Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections
Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants
Any proffered conditions at the si~ and how they are addressed
If proj ect is to be phased, please show phase schedule
~ ~~(IÞ ef
Date
'"
\-4'- \
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 115
ACRES (TAX MAP NOS. 79.04-2-10,10.1,10.2,11, AND 12) FROM AG-
3 TO AR, WITH CONDITIONS, AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE A GOLF
COURSE ON 362 ACRES (TAX MAP NOS. 79.04-2-10, 10.1, 10.2, 11,
12, AND 79.01-1-1) ALL LOCATED AT 3687 PITZER ROAD, VINTON
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF GEORGE
GOLF DESIGN, INC.
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 27, 2004, and the
second reading and public hearing were held August 24,2004; and,
WHEREAS, due to a procedural flaw regarding receipt of proffered conditions
this matter was re-advertised for public hearing and Board action on September 14,
2004; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on August 10, 2004, having been continued from August 3, 2004; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1.
That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
115 acres, as described herein, and located at 3687 Pitzer Road (Tax Map Numbers
79.04-2-10, 10.1, 10.2, 11, and 12) in the Vinton Magisterial District, is hereby changed
from the zoning classification of AG-3, Agricultural District, to the zoning classification of
AR, Agricultural Residential District, with conditions.
2.
That this action is taken upon the application of George Golf Design, Inc.
1
w-
3.
That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the
following condition which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby
accepts:
(1) Residential density on Tax Map Numbers 79.04-2-10, 10.1 10.2,
11, and 12 will be no greater than one (1) house per three (3) acres (as currently
allowed under AG-3 zoning) unless a subsequent rezoning to Planned
Residential Development, per the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, is
approved.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
115 acres being made up of Tax Map Nos. 79.04-2-10, 79.04-2-10.1,
79.04-2- 10.2, 79.04-2-11, and 79.04-2-12
5.
That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to George
Golf Design, Inc. to develop and operate a golf course on 362 acres (Tax Map Numbers
79.04-2-10,10.1,10.2,11,12, and 79.01-1-1) located at 3687 Pitzer Road in the Vinton
Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan
pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions:
(1) The chemicals used on the golf course shall minimize the effect on
ground water pollution.
(2) The club house shall be constructed primarily of the following
exterior materials: stone, brick, and wood.
6.
That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
2
l'
........
Zoning; AR
\
Applicants name: George Golf Design, Inc.
Proposed Zoning: Special Use I AcQ--:> tcA.e...
Existing Zoning: AR, AG8
Tax Map No Pt. 79.04-2-10,11.12,10.1,10.2
AND 79.00-1-1
""
,.
ROANOKE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
\...
.~
ACTION NO.
-:cJ - (~
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards
SUBMITTED BY:
Diane S. Childers
Clerk to the Board
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge ¡! /1"
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (Appointed by District)
The one-year term of Barbara Fasnacht, Catawba Magisterial District, expired on
August 31,2004.
2. Grievance Panel
The following three year terms will expire on October 10, 2004: Lee Blair, Alternate,
and Joanne Thompson, Alternate.
3. Library Board (Appointed by District)
Ms. Connie Goodman, who represents the Vinton Magisterial District, has resigned.
Her four-year term will expire December 31,2004.
-II-b
4. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (Appointed by District)
The three-year term of Bobby G. Semones, Vinton Magisterial District, expired on June
30,2004.
5. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority
Resolution RA91-13 adopted by the Roanoke County Resource Authority on October
23, 1991, provides the Board of Supervisors with the authority to remove at any time,
without cause, any member appointed by it and appoint a successor member to fill the
unexpired portion of the removed member's term.
The Board of Supervisors has indicated its desire to remove Daniel R. Lineberry as its
appointee to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority effective immediately. A letter was
sent to Mr. Lineberry on August 26, 2004, notifying him of this decision and ratification
of this action has been placed on the consent agenda. This four-year term expires on
December 31, 2005.
6. Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Community Advisory
Committee (CAC)
The late Lee B. Eddy served on this committee without a term limit. The County has
three representatives on this Committee and the Board is asked to appoint a citizen
and/or representative of the community, business, education, health care or civic
interests rather than staff members.
2
3\-5
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED
AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for September
14, 2004, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through
5, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes - August 24 and August 31,2004
2. Ratification of the removal of a committee appointment to the Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority
3. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the amount of
$389.53
4. Request to approve the fiscal year 2004-2005 performance contract with Blue
Ridge Behavioral Healthcare
5. Resolution granting coverage to the Western Virginia Water Authority under the
County's guarantee to the Virginia Department of Transportation for public works
projects
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by
law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item
pursuant to this resolution.
1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
3-d
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Ratification of the removal of a committee appointment to the
Roanoke Valley Resource Authority
SUBMITTED BY:
Diane S. Childers
Clerk to the Board
Elmer C. Hodge elf
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Resolution RA91-13 adopted by the Roanoke County Resource Authority on October 23,
1991, provides the Board of Supervisors with the authority to remove at any time, without
cause, any member appointed by it and appoint a successor member to fill the unexpired
portion of the removed member's term. The Board of Supervisors has indicated its desire
to remove Daniel R. Lineberry as its appointee to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority
effective immediately. A letter was sent to Mr. Lineberry on August 26,2004, notifying him
of this action.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
~'3.
....J-
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues
in the amount of $389.53
SUBMITTED BY:
Dr. Lorraine Lange
Assistant Superintendent of Instruction
Elmer C. Hodge Ilf
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Virginia Western Community College (VWCC) did not bill one class during second
semester of the 2003-2004 school year.
Roanoke County Schools paid the bill and received $389.53 from VWCC for teacher
salary and use of building.
Roanoke County Schools requests that $389.53 be appropriated to the instructional
program (Budget Code: 797530-650).
FISCAL IMPACT:
An appropriation of $389.53 is requested for the additional revenue received from the dual
enrollment program.
ALTERNATIVES:
None
~-3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends appropriation of dual enrollment revenues in the amount of $389.53 to
the instructional program.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
.~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Request to approve the annual performance contract with Blue
Ridge Behavioral Healthcare
SUBMITTED BY:
John M. Chambliss, Jr.
Assistant County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR"S COMMENTS:
~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare (BRBH) serves as the local Community Services Board
(CSB) serving Roanoke City, Salem, Botetourt County, Craig County and Roanoke County.
They provide the services prescribed by the State's Department of Mental Health, Mental
Retardation, and Substance Abuse Services.
Each year, BRBH is required to provide a performance contract with the State Department
of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services depicting the services
that they anticipate providing to their member agencies. A copy of this agreement has
been placed in the Board reading file for review. The County of Roanoke provides
$118,585 in its FY2004 - 05 budget for our contribution toward these services. The money
is leveraged by BRBH to match other state and federal monies to provide or purchase
services needed by residents of our community.
As one of the localities making up the BRBH, Roanoke County is being asked to approve
their plan for FY 2004 - 2005.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact. $118,585 is included in the County's FY 2004-2005 budget as our
contribution to BRBH which is part of the local money included in their plan.
~-LI
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2004 - 2005 annual performance contract of Blue
Ridge Behavioral Healthcare with the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental
Retardation, and Substance Abuse Services.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
J-s
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Resolution granting coverage to the Western Virginia Water
Authority under the County's guarantee to the Virginia
Department of Transportation for public works projects
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~ Þ('~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This resolution extends to the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) the guarantee
the County made previously to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to
reimburse the Commonwealth for any damage to highways or bridges as a result of
County public improvement construction projects within the state-maintained right of
way.
On January 9,2001 the Board adopted a resolution of guarantee to VDOT to indemnify
and hold harmless, to the extent permitted by law and the Constitution, the
Commonwealth against losses, claims, damages or injuries to highways and bridges,
persons and property arising out of permits for public improvement construction projects
within the state right-of-way. These projects were primarily Utility Department projects
water and sewer. Without this resolution of guarantee the County would have had to
acquire bonds or letters of credit with associated issuance costs. The resolution saves
the County these annual costs.
VDOT has determined that it cannot accept an undertaking from WVWA without a fee,
bond or letter of credit. WVWA has requested the County to include it under the
County's guarantee resolution.
On August 27, 2004, the WVWA adopted a resolution binding itself to reimburse the
County for any amounts that it would have to pay to VDOT for any damage or injury to
1
,.,}-..5
highways or bridges arising from a WVWA public works project in the VDOT right-of-
way.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. WVWA has agreed to reimburse the County for any amount the County would
have to pay to VDOT for any damages or injuries arising from public works projects.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the proposed
resolution.
2
Js
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2004.
RESOLUTION GRANTING COVERAGE TO THE WESTERN VIRGINIA
WATER AUTHORITY UNDER THE COUNTY'S GUARANTEE TO THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR PUBLIC
WORKS PROJECTS
WHEREAS, Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County") is a political subdivision of
the Commonwealth of Virginia exercising public and essential governmental functions
pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, heretofore on January 9, 2001, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia adopted its resolution obligating itself to pay to the Commonwealth of
Virginia acting through the Virginia Department of Transportation for any expense,
damage or injury sustained by the Virginia Department of Transportation growing out of
the granting to Roanoke County permits for installation, construction, reconstruction,
maintenance and operation of certain public works along, across, over and upon the
highway system of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2004, the Western Virginia Water Authority (the
"Authority") adopted a similar resolution; and
WHEREAS, on August 27,2004, the Authority adopted a resolution binding itself
to reimburse Roanoke County for any payments made to the Commonwealth of Virginia
under its resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has indicated in a
communication dated August 13, 2004, that if the Roanoke County Board of
.J'^'s
Supervisors grants the Authority coverage under its existing resolution to guarantee the
payment of any damages caused by the Authority to the Virginia highway system
relating to the Authority's existing water lines and any new construction of water and
sewer lines that the Authority installs, it will accept the Authority's undertaking without
requiring a guarantee fee or bond.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia that it grants coverage to the Western Virginia Water Authority under its
resolution to guarantee to the Virginia Department of Transportation for expense,
damage or injury growing out of the granting to the Authority of permits for installation,
construction, reconstruction, maintenance or operation of water and sewer lines or other
public works that the Authority may install along, across or over and upon the highway
system of Virginia.
2
GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2004
Amount
$9,738,285
July 1, 2004
Explore Park Loan Repayment
20,000
Balance at September 14, 2004
9,758,285
Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only.
Balance from above
$9,758,285
$9,758,285
Note: On December 18, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the
General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25% of General Fund Revenues
2004 - 2005 General Fund Revenues $147,255,793
6.25% of General Fund Revenues $9,203,487
Submitted By
Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By
Elmer C. Hodge l ¡oj
County Administrator
N ~\
% of General
Fund Revenues
6.61%
6.63%
6.63%
Submitted By
Approved By
N-~
CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2004
Amount
$11,389,450.22
Balance at September 14, 2004
$11,389,450.22
Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Elmer C. Hodge ~,If
County Administrator
N-3
RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Amount
From 2004-2005 Original Budget $100,000.00
Balance at September 14, 2004 $100,000.00
Submitted By
Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By
Elmer C. Hodge tlf
County Administrator
N-Y
FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Savings from 1996-1997 debt budget $ 670,000
Transfer from County Capital Projects Fund 1,113,043
FY1997-1998 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000
Savings from 1997-1998 debt fund 321,772
FY1998-1999 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000
FY1999-2000 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000
Less increase in debt service (1,219,855) 780,145
Savings from 1998-1999 debt fund 495,363
FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000
Less increase in debt service (1,801,579) 198,421
FY 2001-2002 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000
Less increase in debt service (465,400)
Savings from 2001-02 debt fund 116,594 1,651,194
FY 2002-2003 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000
Less increase in debt service (2,592,125) (592,125)
FY 2003-2004 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000
Less increase in debt service (2,202,725) (202,725)
FY 2004-2005 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000
Less increase in debt service (4,192,701) (2,192,701)
Balance at September 14, 2004 $ 6,242,387
Submitted By
Approved By
Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Elmer C. Hodge é 1-1
County Administrator
ACTION NO.
fV-5
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Report from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
of changes to the secondary road system in July 2004
SUBMITTED BY:
Diane S. Childers
Clerk to the Board
Elmer C. Hodge tl/
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Attached is the list of all changes to the secondary system of state highways in Roanoke
County approved by the Director of the Local Assistance Division in July 2004. All
changes to the secondary system, with the exception of legal discontinuances, are effective
the day they are approved by the Director of the Local Assistance Division.
Report of Changes to the Secondary System of State Highways
26-Aug-O4
24
County of Roanoke
Street Names grouped by Project/Subdivision
Route
Length Date BOS
Miles Resolution Effective
System Change:
Addition
-----...w
"------------'-"---.
The Hills Of Spring Grove, Section 1
Fountain Lane
01275
Meadow Springs Circle
Spring Grove Drive
01276
00673
Spring Grove Drive
--
Wexford, Phase 3
00673
Montague Way
01322
Total Net Change in Mileage
0.52
Street Termini
-----._~._--_.-
0.22 5/11/2004 7/30/2004
0.04 5/11/2004 7/30/2004
0.04 5/11/2004 7/30/2004
-----
0,04 5/11/2004 7/30/2004
From: Intersection Of Spring Grove Drive Rt 673 To: Intersection Of
Meadow Spring Circle Rt 1276 - ---- .. -
From: Intersecton Of Fountain Lane Rte 1275 To: Cul-de-sac
From: 0,04 Miles West Of End Of Maintanance To: 0,08 Miles West Of
End OfMaintanance
From: End Of Maintanance To: 0,04 Miles North
From: Route 690 South Roselawn Road To: CuI De Sac
0.18
5/11/2004 7/30/2004
This document summarizes implemented changes in the secondary system of state highways that will be reported to the Commonwealth Transportation Board on August 19, 2004
~
,
(l\
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER
tv-to
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER.
MEETING DATE: September 14. 2004.
AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of
August 31,2004.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
BANKERS ACCEPTANCE:
SUNTRUST CAP
1,242,971.56
1,242,971.56
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS:
SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA SAVINGS & LOAN
100,000.00
100,000.00
COMMERICAL PAPER:
SUNTRUST CAP
298,403.42
298,403,42
CORPORATE BONDS
ALEXANDER KEY FED
3,401,980.25
3,401,980.25
GOVERNMENT:
ALEXANDER KEY FED
ALEXANDER KEY - Sub Acct
SUNTRUST-CAP
48.528,631.21
4,350,068.50
10,651.682,81
63,530.382.52
LOCAL GOV'T INVESTMENT POOL:
GENERAL OPERATION
16,130,789.80
16,130,789.80
MONEY MARKET:
ALEXANDER KEY FED
ALEXANDER KEY - Sub Acct
SUNTRUST-CAP
SUNTRUST - SWEEP
WACHOVIA
5,783.081.30
32,572.74
2,989.516.52
4.122.124,76
2,316,699.19
15,243,994.51
TOTAL
99,948,522.06
09/08/04
1 of 1
ACTION NO.
ßJ
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Work session to discuss animal complaints on Ivyland Road,
Vinton Magisterial District
Elmer C. Hodge F fj-
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR"S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Board will be participating in a tour of a site on Ivyland Road at 1 :00 p.m. The property
is currently zoned AR and agricultural uses are permitted by right. The site consists of two
tracts of land which total slightly over 1 acre, and the following types of animals are now
being kept on this parcel of land: goats, pigs, cows, guineas hens, chickens, ducks, geese,
birds.
The County has been receiving complaints from residents of the neighborhood, whose
homes are within approximately 50' of the animals. This time has been set aside for the
Board to discuss this matter following the site visit.
ACTION NO.
p-~
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Work session to consider expanding the scope of County
authority for the removal of dilapidated and unsafe buildings.
SUBMITTED BY:
Arnold Covey
Director of Community Development
Elmer C. Hodge ¿; If
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This is a work session to discuss the following procedures that relate to dilapidated and
unsafe structures. Staff will review the following processes:
. The current process as it relates to unsafe structures under Chapter 7, Article IV,
Unsafe Building and Structures of the Roanoke County Code.
. The administrative and enforcement responsibilities relating to Part III, Maintenanceof
Existing Structures in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC).
. 15.2-900 of the Code of Virginia relating to "Abatement or removal of nuisances by
localities; recovery of costs".
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
P-3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Work session to discuss the prioritized list of primary and
interstate project to be adopted for the Virginia Department of
Transportation Six-Year Improvement Program for fiscal years
2006-2011
SUBMITTED BY:
Arnold Covey
Director of Community Development
Elmer C. Hodge ê JI
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff will review the September 14, 2004 board report on this same topic and will present
the list of projects that are currently on the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
FY 2004-2005 Six-Year Improvement Program, interstate and primary road projects that
should be on the VDOT FY 2006-2011 Six-Year Improvement Program, and desired spot
improvement projects on interstate and primary roads.
ACTION NO.
P-4
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Work session to discuss proposed amendments to the
Roanoke County Code Section 21-73, General Prerequisites
to Grant of Division 3. Exemption for Elderlv and Disabled
Persons of Chapter 21. Taxation to increase the various
asset threshold amount provisions for real estate tax
exemption for the elderly and handicapped
SUBMITTED BY:
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This work session will consider a draft ordinance amending Section 21-73 of the
Roanoke County Code to increase the various asset threshold amount provisions for
the elderly and disabled persons real estate tax exemptions. The 2004 session of the
Virginia General Assembly amended Section 58.1-3211 of the State Code which
establishes the various restrictions, limitations, and conditions on the authority of local
governments to adopt real estate exemptions for elderly and handicapped persons.
The General Assembly has authorized the governing bodies of counties, cities, and
towns to adopt an ordinance to provide for the exemption from, deferral of, or a
combination program of exemptions from and deferrals of real estate taxation for elderly
or disabled property owners subject to certain conditions and in such amounts as the
ordinance may allow and the enabling legislation may authorize. Roanoke County has
adopted the exemption instead of deferral program for local real estate taxes for eligible
citizens.
The Board has budgeted $600,000 for this exemption program in the current fiscal year.
There are 1,386 persons in this program; and 1,463 parcels of real estate.
1
~-1
This real estate property tax relief program is authorized by Article X, Section 6 (b) of
the Constitution of Virginia. The exemption is intended to provide relief to those elderly
or disabled persons whose real estate property tax burden is deemed to be excessive in
comparison with their income and financial worth.
There are three conditions in calculating eligibility for this exemption:
1. Total combined income $50,000
2. Total combined net worth cannot exceed $100,000
3. The net worth amount shall not include the value of the sole dwelling house and
up to one acre of land.
Roanoke County excludes an amount up to $6,500 of income of each relative who is not
the spouse of an eligible owner living in the dwelling and who does not qualify for the
exemption.
The recent amendments by the General Assembly increased this amount ($6,500) to
$10,000; it increased the net combined financial worth to $200,000; and it allowed
excluding the value of the sole dwelling and land not to exceed 10 acres from this
calculation.
The draft ordinance recommends increasing from $6,500 to $10,000 of income of each
relative who is not the spouse of the owner living in the dwelling house and who does
not qualify for the exemption from the $50,000 total combined income limitation.
The ordinance does not recommend increasing the total combined net worth from
$100,000 to $200,000.
The ordinance does not recommend increasing the value of acreage from one acre to
ten acres in calculating the total combined net worth of the owner and spouse.
Finally the ordinance allows exempting the income of a relative or the relative's spouse
who moves in and provides care for an eligible person in order to avoid going into a
hospital, nursing home, convalescent home, or other similar facility.
The current total combined income and total combined net worth limitations appear to
be appropriate for Roanoke County based upon median family income statistical data.
The higher dollar limits are more appropriate for the more expensive Northern Virginia
and Tidewater areas of the Commonwealth. Roanoke County's program provides real
estate tax relief to elderly and handicapped citizens of modest means while assisting
them in alleviating an undue real estate tax burden. By excluding the value of the sole
dwelling house and up to one acre of land from the total combined net worth calculation,
the County helps these qualifying citizens to retain the family home. At the same time
this exemption program does not shift an undue tax burden to young families with
children.
2
\)-4
The ordinance grants a tax exemption to eligible persons based upon financial need
and ability to pay, while balancing the tax burden among the generations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The County has budgeted $600,000 in this fiscal year for this real estate exemption
program. Staff believes that these amendments can be accommodated within the
existing approved budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board authorize proceeding with the adoption of the
proposed ordinance. The first reading and public hearing would be scheduled for
September 28, 2004; second reading would be scheduled for October 12, 2004. If
adopted this ordinance would become effective for the tax year beginning January 1,
2005.
3
~""4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,2004
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING
SECTION 21-73, GENERAL PREREQUISITES TO GRANT OF DIVISION 3.
EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS OF CHAPTER
21. TAXATION TO INCREASE THE VARIOUS ASSET THRESHOLD
AMOUNT PROVISIONS FOR REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE
ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED
WHEREAS, Section 21-73 of the Roanoke County Code establishes a restriction
upon the total combined income for the exemption from or deferral of real estate taxes for
certain elderly or permanently or totally disabled persons; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 84-232 adopted on December 18, 1984, increased this
financial restriction from $15,000 to $18,000, and Ordinance 22388-9 adopted February 23,
1988, increased this financial restriction from $18,000 to $22,000, and Ordinance 82791-10
adopted August 27, 1991, increased this financial restriction from $22,000 to $30,000;
Ordinance 052201-14 adopted Mav 22. 2001. increased this financial restriction from
$30,000 to $50.000; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia amended
Section 58.1-3211 of the 1950 Code of Virginia by increasing various asset threshold
amounts; and
WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held on
September 28,2004; and the second reading was held on October 14, 2004.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1.
That Section 21-73, General prerequisites to arant of Division 3. Exemption
for elderly and disabled persons of Chapter 21, Taxation be amended to read and provide
1
P."4
as follows:
Sec. 21-73. General prerequisites to arant.
Exemptions provided for in this division shall be granted only if the following
conditions are met:
(1 )
That the total combined income, during the immediately preceding calendar
year, from all sources, of the owner of the dwelling and his relatives living therein did not
exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); provided, however, that the first sixty five hundred
dolbrs ($6,500) ten thousand dollars
spouse of the owner, who is living in the dwelling shall not be included in such total.
(2)
That the owner and his spouse did not have a total combined net worth,
including all equitable interests, exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) as
of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year. The amount of net worth
specified herein shall not include the value of the sole dwelling house and up to one (1)
acre of land.
3
Notwithstandin sub-section 1 above if a erson ualifies for an exem tion
and if that person can prove bv clear and convincina evidence that his or her phvsical or
mental health has deteriorated to the point that the onlv alternative to permanentlv residina
in a hospital. nursinq home. convalescent home or other facility or phvsical or mental care
is to have a relative move in and provide care for that person. and if a relative does then
move in for that purpose. then none of the income of the relative or of the relatives spouse
shall be counted towards the income limit. provided the owner of the residence has not
transferreq assets ,n excess of ten thousand~ars ($jO.OOQ) without aqeauate
consideration within a three vear period prior to or after the relative moves into such
2
þ-~ L{
residence.
2.
That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after January 1,
2005, and it shall become effective for the 2005 real estate tax year.
3
ACTION NO.
F-5
ITEM NO.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
Work session to discuss Senate Bill 5005 and the impact of the
changes on the upcoming budget
Elmer C. Hodge ¿fJ
County Administrator
AGENDA ITEM:
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Information was recently sent to the Board members regarding Senate Bill 5005 which
deals with the Personal Property Tax Reduction Act (PPTRA). This time has been set
aside to brief the Board on the outcome of the meeting with Secretary of Finance John
Bennett in Richmond on August 7, and the impact of the changes in car tax procedures on
the County's upcoming budget.
K
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a
closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance
with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements
by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution
applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the
closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
S' \
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
September 14, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Adoption of a list of Interstate and Primary road projects and
resolution to be presented at the Virginia Department of
Transportation's (VDOT's) public hearing for the Fiscal Years
2006-2011 Six-Year Improvement Program.
SUBMITTED BY:
Arnold Covey
Director, Department of Community Development
Elmer C. Hodge C 1'1"
County Administrator
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) is holding public hearings in late
September to receive comments about which essential rail, public transportation, bicycle,
pedestrian, and highway projects (except local/secondary roads) should be included in the
Fiscal Years 2006-2011 Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP). This year's public hearing
for the Salem District is scheduled for September 28, 2004 at VDOT's Salem District
Auditorium, beginning at 5 P.M. and ending when all comments have been received.
Representatives of VDOT state that they are working with a program of $6.3 billion over the
next six years -- $1 billion less than in the previous program. As such, they maintain that
funds to study, design, and build transportation projects are limited and that it is important
to hear from the local governments and residents about the projects they feel are the
highest priority for those funds.
~-I
A. Enclosed herein is a list of projects included in the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 VDOT Six-
Year Improvement Program that County staff and Board of Supervisors recommend for
continuance of funding for the planning and construction of said projects (please refer to
the attached map to see location of projects):
Map#:
Facility Rte # &
Name:
To:
From:
A-1
Interstate 73
Countywide
Countywide
A-2
Botetourt
Co. line
Montgomery
Co. line
Interstate 81
A-3
Rte. 11/460
(West Main St)
0.10 mi west
Rte 830
Salem City
limits
Comments:
In a letter dated June 3, 2001, the Board of
Supervisors encouraged VDOT to work closely
with the impacted citizens to address their
concerns and mitigate any negative impacts to
them. This is in addition to the resolution
120500-2 passed December 5, 2000
reaffirming the Board's support for 1-73. Upon
completion and approval of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, FHWA will
issue a Record of Decision.
Roanoke County continues to support VDOT's
proposed plan to widen 1-81 from its present
four lanes. We look forward to continuing our
partnership with VDOT to develop regional
cooperation for storm water detention facilities,
potential utility crossings, and other design
issues that could impact Roanoke County's
future.
Roanoke County continues to support the
ongoing design for improvements in this
important commercial and residential
development area. Improvements will provide
an increase in the level of service, bringing it
up to standards required for the expected
Qrowth.
B. Enclosed herein is a list of projects that are not included in the Fiscal Year 2004-
2005 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program that County staff and Board has identified as
extremely important to the continued growth of Roanoke County and/or for safety
improvements (please refer to the attached map to see location of proposed projects).
County staff and Board of Supervisors request that the following list of prioritized projects
be included in the FY 2006-2011 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program:
Map / Facility Rte # &
Priorit
y#: Name: From: To: Comments:
This project was previously on the SYIP,
but was removed. The residential
Rte. 221 Rte 735 Rte 694 (Old development expected to occur within this
B-1 (Bent Mtn Rd) (Coleman Bent Mtn Rd) area will place additional demands on the
Rd) road system that is currently providing an
inadequate level of service; safety issues
need to be addressed.
Map /
Priorit
v#:
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
Facility Rte # &
Name:
Rte. 11
(Williamson Rd)
Rte. 115
(Plantation Rd)
Rte. 2205
(Franklin Rd)
Rte. 116 (Jae
Valley Rd)
Rte. 460E
(Challenger
Ave)
From:
Rte 117
(Peters
Creek Rd)
Roanoke
City limits
Rte 419
(Electric
Rd)
Roanoke
City limits
Roanoke
City limits
To:
Roanoke City
limits
Rte. 11
(Williamson Rd)
Rte 715 (Pine
Needle Dr)
Franklin Co. line
Botetourt Co.
line
c I.
,..,.)"-
Comments:
Now that Route 11 has been widened
from Plantation Road to Hollins College,
this particular section of three-lane road
remains to be improved. Additionally, the
existing bridge over Carvins Creek does
not meet current standards, and the
alignment of Florist Road with Route 11
creates additional congestion and safety
concerns. The existing section of road,
1.52 miles, is currently a three-lane with
the center lane used for turning
movements. Ninety percent of the tracts
adjacent to Williamson Road are
developed for commercial use.
This two-lane section of Plantation Road
is approximately 2.43 miles in length
width with numerous secondary road
connections. If full funding were not
available, various spot improvements,
such as turn lanes, alignment and grade
improvements would help with safety
issues. Additional land is available along
the road for future development, which
will increase traffic and construction costs
in the future.
Increasing commercial and residential
development and commuter traffic have
placed transportation demands on this
corridor. Additional lanes, improved
vertical alignment, and/or spot
improvements are needed from the
Roanoke City limits (Rte 419 - Electric
Rd) south to the Franklin County line.
The VDOT Salem Residency has notified
staff that the bridge over Back Creek is in
need of repair and we wish to offer our
support for improvements to the
approaches and bridge replacement.
This road is servIng the growing
commuter traffic from Franklin County
and recreational traffic to Smith Mountain
Lake.
The continued residential, commercial,
and industrial growth within this corridor
has increased traffic demands.
('-.. I
'. -
,-.-) .
C. Enclosed herein is a list of projects that are not included in the Fiscal Year 2004-
2005 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program that County staff and Board feels deserve
consideration for spot improvements (please refer to the attached map to see location of
proposed projects):
Map#: Facility Rte # & Name: Comments:
C-1 Route 419 (Electric Road) Intersection improvements throuQhout corridor
C-2 Route 118 (Airport Road) Construct left-turn lane at intersection with Rte. 623
(Dent Rd.)
C-3 Route 24 (Washington Improvements at the intersection of William Byrd
A venue) HiQh School
C-4 Route 311 (Catawba Valley Construct left-turn lane at intersection with Route
Road) 864 (Bradshaw Road - Mason's Cove area)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the list of projects and resolution to
be presented at the Virginia Department of Transportation Update Hearing for the Fiscal
Years 2006-2011 Six-Year Improvement Program on September 28,2004.
Montgomery
County
FY 2006-2011 VDOT SYIP
w+,
Craig
County
Botetourt
County
Bedford
County
.
.
.
Projects on 04-05 SYI P
Projects not on 04-05 SYI P
Franklin
County
Projects not on 04-05 SYIP,
desired spot improvements
No Scale
Sevtenaber14,2004
,
"
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2004.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, VDOT, TO CONTINUE FUNDING PROJECTS
CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 VDOT SIX-
YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TO ADOPT THE PRIORITIZED
LIST OF INTERSTATE AND PRIMARY ROAD PROJECTS HEREIN
IDENTIFIED AS "NOT INCLUDED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005
VDOT SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM" FOR INCLUSION INTO
THE FISCAL YEAR 2006-2011 SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Six-Year Improvement Program is the Commonwealth Transportation
Board's plan for identifying funds anticipated to be available for highway and other forms of
transportation construction; and
WHEREAS, this program is updated annually to assist in the allocation of federal and state
funds for interstate, primary, and secondary roads.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows:
1.
That the following projects identified as "included in the Fiscal Year 2004-
2005 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program" are recommended for
continuance of funding for the planning and construction of said projects.
0
0
0
Interstate 73 - In a letter dated June 3, 2001, the Board of Supervisors
encouraged VDOT to work closely with the impacted citizens to
address their concerns and mitigate any negative impacts to them.
This is in addition to the resolution 120500-2 passed December 5,
2000 reaffirming the Board's support for 1-73.
Interstate 81 - Roanoke County continues to support VDOT's proposed
plan to widen 1-81 from its present four lanes. We look forward to
continuing our partnership with VDOT to develop regional
cooperation for storm water detention facilities, potential utility
crossings, and other design issues that could impact Roanoke
County's future.
Rte. 11/460 (West Main St) - From: Salem City limits, To: 0.10 mi west
Rte 830, Technology Dr. - Roanoke County continues to support
the ongoing design for improvements in this important commercial
and residential development area. Improvements will provide an
increase in the level of service, bringing it up to standards required
for the expected growth.
1
ç
2.
That the following projects identified as "not included in the Fiscal Year 2004-
2005 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program" have been identified,
prioritized, and selected by the Board of Supervisors as extremely important
to the growth of Roanoke County and/or for safety improvements and are
requested to be included in the Fiscal Year 2006-2011 VDOT Six-Year
Improvement Program.
1. Rte. 221 (Bent Mtn Rd) - From: Rte 735 (Coleman Rd), To: Rte
694 (Old Bent Mountain Rd) - This project was previously on
the SYIP, but was removed. The residential development
expected to occur within this area will place additional
demands on the road system that is currently providing an
inadequate level of service; safety issues need to be
addressed.
2. Bte. 11 (Williamson RJ!l- From: Rte 117 (Peters Creek Rd), To:
Roanoke City limits - Now that Route 11 has been widened
from Plantation Road to Hollins College, this particular section
of three-lane road remains to be improved. Additionally, the
existing bridge over Carvins Creek does not meet current
standards, and the alignment of Florist Road with Route 11
creates additional congestion and safety concerns. The
existing section of road, 1.52 miles, is currently a three-lane
with the center lane used for turning movements. Ninety
percent of the tracts adjacent to Williamson Road are
developed for commercial use.
3. Rte. 115 (Plantation Rdt- From: Roanoke City limits, To: Rte. 11
(Williamson Rd) - This two-lane section of Plantation Road is
approximately 2.43 miles in length with numerous secondary
road connections. If full funding were not available, various
spot improvements, such as turn lanes, alignment and grade
improvements would help with safety issues. Additional land
is available along the road for future development, which will
increase traffic and construction costs in the future.
4. Rte. 2205 (Franklin Rd) - From: Rte 419 (Electric Rd), To: Rte
715 (Pine Needle Dr) -Increasing commercial and residential
development and commuter traffic have placed transportation
demands on this corridor. Additional lanes, improved vertical
alignment, and/or spot improvements are needed from the
Roanoke City limits (Rte 419 Electric Rd) south to the Franklin
County line.
5. Rte. 116 (Jae Valley Rd) - From: Roanoke City limits, To:
2
"
Franklin Co. line - The VDOT Salem Residency has notified
staff that the bridge over Back Creek is in need of repair and
we wish to offer our support for improvements to the
approaches and bridge replacement. This road is serving the
growing commuter traffic from Franklin County and
recreational traffic to Smith Mountain Lake.
6. Rte. 460E (Cha/lenaer Ave), - From: Roanoke City limits, To:
Botetourt Co. line - The continued residential, commercial,
and industrial growth within this corridor has increased traffic
demands.
3.
That the following projects identified as "not included in the Fiscal Year 2004-
2005 VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program" are recommended for spot
improvements and for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2006-2011 VDOT Six-Year
Improvement Program.
0
Route 419 (Electric Road) - Intersection improvements throughout
corridor
0
Route 118 (4ir/Jorl Road) - Construct left-turn lane at intersection with
Rte. 623 (Dent Rd.)
0
Route 24 (Washinaton Avenue) -Improvements at the intersection of
William Byrd High School
0
Route 311 (Catawba Valley Road) - Construct left-turn lane at
intersection with Route 864 (Bradshaw Road - Mason's Cove area)
3