Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/8/2021 - Regular (2)Roanoke County Board of Supervisors June 8, 2021 INVOCATION: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG Disclaimer: "Any invocation that may be offered before the official start of the Board meeting shall be the voluntary offering of a private citizen, to and for the benefit of the Board. The views or beliefs expressed by the invocation speaker have not been previously reviewed or approved by the Board and do not necessarily represent the religious beliefs or views of the Board in part or as a whole. No member of the community is required to attend or participate in the invocation and such decision will have no impact on their right to actively participate in the business of the Board." Page 1 of 4 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda June 8, 2021 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for June 8, 2021. Regular meetings are held on the second and 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. Because of the present state of emergency, and until further notice, members of the public are urged not to attend Board of Supervisor meetings in person. All are encouraged to view and participate in meetings through electronic means. Meetings may be viewed live on RVTV, Channel 3, or on the County's website https://roanokecountvva.gov (and accessed by clicking on the "Watch Board Meetings Online" button). Prior to and during meetings, citizens may share comments by email (to djacks@roanokecountvva.gov) or by phone (540-776- 7278). When submitting comments, please include your name and address. Comments submitted by email and by phone will be read aloud during meetings, subject to reasonable time limitations. For those individuals who desire to attend meetings in person, please be advised that seating modifications and limits have been established in order to facilitate social distancing; attendees who are not of the same household must sit six feet apart; and attendance at meetings will be limited to 25 individuals. A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Page 2 of 4 C. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution supporting installation of Locality Identification signs with accompanying recognition signs for Hidden Valley High School athletic achievement, located on Brambleton Avenue (Route 221) and Electric Road (Route 419), Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Isaac Henry, Transportation Planner) 2. Resolution establishing reasonable charges for costs incurred by the County in responding to Virginia Freedom of Information Act requests for public records (Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney) D. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1. Resolution approving the Secondary Six -Year Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2022 through 2027 and the Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for Fiscal Year 2022 (Megan G. Cronise, Transportation Planning Administrator) E. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. The petition of Zye and Gaven Reinhardt to obtain a special use permit in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District for a special events facility on approximately 31.32 acres, located at 2875 Timberview Road, Catawba Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) F. APPOINTMENTS 1. Library Board (appointed by District) 2. Parks, Recreation and Tourism (appointed by District) G. 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 — April 27, 2021 2. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $96,310.24 from the Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services for the "Four -For -Life" distribution 3. Resolution approving the County Attorney's employment contract 4. Resolution approving the County Administrator's employment contract Page 3 of 4 5. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors to Debra R. Hartman, Deputy Chief Treasurer, upon her retirement after three -three (23) years of service 6. Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission (At -Large) and to Visit Virginia's Blue Ridge H. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS I. REPORTS 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report J. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Paul M. Mahoney 2. Martha B. Hooker 3. Phil C. North 4. David F. Radford 5. P. Jason Peters K. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to discuss the Economic Development Strategic Plan with the Board of Supervisors (Jill Loope, Director of Economic Development) 2. Work session to discuss the stream buffer ordinance with the Board of Supervisors (Tarek Moneir, Director of Development Services) L. CLOSED MEETING, pursuant to the Code of Virginia as follows: 1. Section 2.2-3711.A.1 - Discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment; assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body; namely alternates for the Board of Equalization M. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION N. ADJOURNMENT Page 4 of 4 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 8, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: Resolution supporting installation of Locality Identification signs with accompanying recognition signs for Hidden Valley High School athletic achievement, located on Brambleton Avenue (Route 221) and Electric Road (Route 419), Windsor Hills Magisterial District Megan Cronise Transportation Planning Administrator Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requires a resolution from the Board of Supervisors for installation of permanent signs in the VDOT right-of-way as part of a Land Use Permit application package. BACKGROUND: The Hidden Valley Athletic Booster Club has requested the installation of signs to recognize Hidden Valley High School athletic state championships. VDOT allows this type of sign within their right-of-way when accompanying a Locality Identification sign. In Roanoke County, signs recognizing the athletic achievements of Glenvar High School and Northside High School have been installed with Locality Identification signs at gateways in the Catawba Magisterial District. DISCUSSION: Two locations for sign installation have been identified and preliminarily approved by VDOT: 1. Electric Road/Route 419 at the City of Salem boundary, in front of TMEIC; and 2. Brambleton Avenue/Route 221 at the City of Roanoke boundary, at the corner of Page 1 of 2 Red Rock Road, SW, near the J&L Oriental Food Mart and The Loft Hair Studio. The proposed signs would replace the existing "Enter Roanoke County" Locality Identification signs at these locations. Because there is more space for a sign at the Electric Road location, a two -post sign is proposed. The Brambleton Avenue sign will be a narrower, one -post design. A two -post sign is also proposed for installation on the Hidden Valley High School campus, outside of the VDOT right-of-way. The proposed signs and locations meet criteria listed in the VDOT Land Use Permit Guidance Manual, section 24VAC30-151-570 B.1., Miscellaneous Signs. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The Hidden Valley Athletic Booster Club will purchase and install the signs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the resolution of support for installation of the locality identification signs with accompanying recognition signs. Page 2 of 2 Hidden Valley Championship Sign Location Roanoke�County,.�i Jgain u 2019 l\ Disclaimer: It is understood that the data displayed through this application is subject to constant change and that its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The maps have been created from information provided by various government and private sources at various levels of accuracy. The data is provided to you as is; with no warranty, representation or guaranty as to the content, sequence, accuracy, timeliness or completeness of any of the information provided herein. It is the responsibility of the user of the data to be aware of the data's We limitations and to utilize the datmanner. in an appropriate N s Feet 0 55 110 220 Date: 5/31/2021 1:2,257 II Existing Electric Road Sign ENTER ROANOKE CO LEAVE CITY OF SALEM ti Virginia's Rail Heritage Region Proposed Electric Road Sign To be used at: nter Roano e Count A idden Valley Titans State Champions 01)- CD V m CO CU 0 Cam:_ Div- '09'11 r ross ountr '09'10'1: -nnl '04'14'1. N larairitelaatt m Public Information 0 0 M 75 00 11. _ r -JALte Existing Brambleton Avenue Sign Proposed Brambleton Avenue Sign nter Roano e Count A i To be used at: 1. Brambleton Location N C N -nnl '04'14'1. Cr r-I 4- 0 C.9 N Mililimitemsi drAIITE_ Div- '09'11 lun• !%1111011111FE r ross ountr '09'10'1: 0 m io m Public Information AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING INSTALLATION OF LOCALITY INDENTIFICATION SIGNS WITH ACCOMPANYING RECOGNITION SIGNS FOR HIDDEN VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ACHIEVEMENT, LOCATED ON BRAMBLETON AVENUE (ROUTE 221) AND ELECTRIC ROAD (ROUTE 419), WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors supports the installation of signs in the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) right-of-way recognizing Hidden Valley High School athletic state championships; and WHEREAS, VDOT permits such signs as accompaniment to Locality Identification signs at entrances to the County; and WHEREAS, a VDOT Land Use Permit is required for installation of Locality Identification signs; and WHEREAS, the signs must be in accordance with VDOT Land Use Permit Manual Regulations Guidance Manual; and WHEREAS, the installation and maintenance is the responsibility of Hidden Valley Athletic Booster Club; and WHEREAS, a resolution is required from the Board of Supervisors in support of the Locality Identification signs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests permits for the following Locality Identification signs, pursuant to Section 24VAC30-151-570, VDOT Land Use Permit Regulation Guidance Manual: Sign location: 40' West of Red Rock Rd SW (City of Roanoke) on Brambleton Avenue Rte. 221 Page 1 of 2 Sign location: 70' South of Keaqv Road Rte. 685 on Electric Road Rte. 419 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Salem Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 8, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: Resolution establishing reasonable charges for costs incurred by the County in responding to Virginia Freedom of Information Act requests for public records Peter S. Lubeck County Attorney Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator Update of the County's outdated 2012 resolution setting reasonable charges for costs incurred by the County in responding to Virginia Freedom of Information Act Requests for public records. BACKGROUND: The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), located at § 2.2-3700 et. seq. of the Code of Virginia, guarantees citizens of the Commonwealth and representatives of the media access to public records held by public bodies, public officials, and public employees. FOIA authorizes a public body to establish reasonable charges, not to exceed its actual costs incurred, for accessing, duplicating, supplying or searching for requested records (§ 2.2-3704 of the Code of Virginia). The Board adopted such a resolution setting forth fees for responding to request for documents under FOIA in 1983, and subsequently updated the resolution in 2012. DISCUSSION: Since 2012, the cost of responding to requests for documents has increased. Further, Page 1 of 2 technology has changed; it is no longer necessary to set forth charges for audio or video tapes (which are no longer used), and it is necessary to set a charge for providing USB flash drives (which are routinely used). It is proposed that the Board adopt a new resolution, setting forth updated charges for costs incurred in responding to requests for documents. Further, in its 2012 ordinance, the County waived all charges for requests that totaled $25 or less. It is now recommended that the Board waive charges for requests that total $5 or less. This will still allow County staff to provide responses to small requests free of charge, but sets a reasonable threshold for recovering actual costs incurred in responding to larger requests. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no cost incurred by the County in adopting this resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the Resolution. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2012 RESOLUTION 011012-4 ESTABLISHING REASONABLE CHARGES INCURRED BY THE COUNTY IN RESPONDING TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS WHEREAS, on September 27, 1983, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County adopted Resolution 83-181 which established fees charged for copies made on the County's photocopy machines for personal use and/or general public use; and WHEREAS, said resolution has not been revised or updated since that time; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County intends to establish a schedule for recovering its actual costs incurred in accessing, duplicating, supplying or searching for public records requested by citizens under the Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, this resolution is in compliance with Section 2.2-3704.F of the Code of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as follows: 1. Resolution 83-181 is hereby rescinded. 2. That the following schedule of reasonable charges in accessing, duplicating, supplying, or searching for public records requested by citizens under the Freedom of Information Act is hereby established: CHARGES a. Generally, when minimum search time is required, there will be no charge for the viewing only of an official document. When extensive search time is required to Page 1 of 3 provide the document(s) for viewing, or when copies of such documents are requested, charges are based on reimbursement to the County for the cost of searching for and reproducing such documents. If the charges to search for and reproduce the documents are expected to exceed $200, the County may require payment of the estimated costs in advance by the requestor. If such advance payment is required, the time allowed for response stops running until the requestor responds. b. Current charges for the costs incurred copying official County records have been calculated based on the costs of office machines and materials and are as follows: Office Copy Reproduction: Five pages, or fewer, no charge; thereafter $0.10 per black and white copy and $0.16 per color copy Audio or Video Tapes: $5.00 per tape (with tape provided by County) Audio or Video CDs: $5.00 per CD Maps: 24 by 36 inch maps - $4.75 per copy 36 by 48 inch maps - $7.70 per copy c. In addition to the copying costs the County will charge an hourly rate for the staff person(s) searching, retrieving, copying or otherwise preparing the records requested. d. Roanoke County waives all charges for requests that total $25.00 or less. e. For documents or other requests not specifically listed in this section, the County Administrator shall calculate the charge based on the actual cost to the County of searching for and providing the document, including but not limited to any associated labor or administrative costs. Page 2 of 3 f. Charges may be paid in cash or by check made payable to the Treasurer, Roanoke County. A receipt (receipts may be obtained through the appropriate department or the Treasurer's Office) will be provided to the requestor. 3. That this resolution is effective from and after the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None A COSY TESTE: Deborah C. Jacks Clerk to the Board of�'3'upervisors cc: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Page 3 of 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING REASONABLE CHARGES FOR COSTS INCURRED BY THE COUNTY IN RESPONDING TO VIRGINIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS WHEREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guarantees citizens of the Commonwealth and representatives of the media access to public records held by public bodies, public officials, and public employees; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3704 of FOIA authorizes a public body to establish reasonable charges, not to exceed its actual costs incurred, for accessing, duplicating, supplying or searching for requested records; and WHEREAS, on September 27, 1983, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County adopted Resolution 83-181 which established fees for responding to requests for documents under FOIA; and WHEREAS, said Resolution was updated on January 10, 2012, by Resolution 011012-4, but has not been revised or updated since that time; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County intends to update its resolution regarding FOIA to establish a schedule for recovering its actual costs incurred in accessing, duplicating, supplying or searching for public records requested by citizens; and NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as follows: 1. Resolution 011012-4 is hereby rescinded. Page 1 of 3 2. The following schedule of reasonable charges for accessing, duplicating, supplying or searching for public records requested by citizens under the Freedom of Information Act is hereby established: a. Generally, when minimum search time is required, there will be no charge for the viewing only of an official document. When extensive search time is required to provide the document(s) for viewing, or when copies of such documents are requested, charges are based on reimbursement to the County for the cost of searching for and reproducing such documents. If the charges to search for and reproduce the documents are expected to exceed $200, the County may require payment of the estimated costs in advance by the requestor. If such advance payment is required, the time allowed for response stops running until the requestor responds. b. Charges for costs incurred in copying and printing County records are as follows: Copying and printing $0.10 per one-sided black and white page $0.20 per double -sided black and white page $0.16 per one-sided color page $0.32 per double -sided color page USB flash drive $15 per flash drive Audio or video CDs $5 per CD Maps $7 per 24 x 36 inch map $10 per 36 x 48 inch map Page 2 of 3 c. In addition to copying and printing costs, the County will charge an hourly rate for the staff person(s) searching, retrieving, copying or otherwise preparing the records requested. d. Roanoke County waives all charges for requests that total $5.00 or less. e. For documents or other requests not specifically listed in this section, the County Administrator shall calculate the charge based on the actual cost to the County of searching for and providing the document, including but not limited to any associated labor or administrative costs. f. Charges may be paid in cash or by check made payable to the Treasurer, Roanoke County. A receipt (receipts may be obtained through the appropriate department or the Treasurer's Office) will be provided to the requestor. 3. This resolution is effective from and after the date of its adoption. Page 3 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. D.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 8, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution approving the Secondary Six -Year Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2022 through 2027 and the Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for Fiscal Year 2022 SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: Megan Cronise Transportation Planning Administrator Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator Discussion of the County's Secondary Road Six -Year Improvement Plan. BACKGROUND: Each year the Board of Supervisors approves the County's Secondary Road Six -Year Improvement Plan (SSYP) and the construction priority list for the upcoming fiscal year. The estimated allocation for the SSYP is $2,109,848 for fiscal years 2022 through 2027 with $318,521 allocated for fiscal year 2022. DISCUSSION: SSYP allocations for Roanoke County are typically designated through the following two funds: 1) TeleFee: Generated from telecommunications providers paying a Public Rights - of -Way Use Fee. 2) District Grant - Unpaved: For paving VDOT-maintained unpaved roads with an Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume (AADT) of 50 vehicle trips or more. Page 1 of 4 Fiscal year 2022 SSYP allocations from these two funds are proposed for the following projects and accounts: Dry Hollow Road ($224,056) Ivy Ridge Road ($54,465) Countywide Traffic, Engineering and Survey Services ($40,000) The SSYP is comprised of the following programs and components: District Grant - Unpaved: Four VDOT-maintained unpaved roads are currently programmed for paving: Moncap Trail: $200,000 total project estimate allocated in previous fiscal years with construction to occur in 2021; Ivy Ridge Road: $54,465 allocated in fiscal year 2022; $200,000 total project estimate allocated between fiscal years 2020 and 2023; Webb Road: $250,000 total project estimate allocated between fiscal years 2023 and 2026; and Berganblick Lane: $200,000 total project estimate allocated between fiscal years 2026 and 2027. Rural Addition Program: Older, private roads meeting certain criteria can be brought into the Secondary System through the Rural Addition Program. Harmony Lane, added in 2017, was completed in early 2021. No additional allocations are proposed for this program. Other Prioritized Projects: These projects are larger reconstruction projects for existing secondary roads. Three projects are included and all have additional funding sources: Fallowater Lane Extension: $1,495,521 allocated in previous fiscal years; $2,844,594 allocated from the Revenue Sharing Program (50/50 VDOT/County match). Total project funding: $4,340,115; Page 2 of 4 Dry Hollow Road: $224,056 allocated in fiscal year 2022; $1,216,000 allocated from the Revenue Sharing Program (50/50 VDOT/County match); remaining SSYP funding allocated between previous fiscal years and fiscal year 2024. Total project funding: $2,185,000; and Starkey Road/Buck Mountain Road Intersection Improvements: $13,444 allocated in fiscal year 2023; $1,146,556 allocated from the Revenue Sharing Program (50/50 VDOT/County match); $2,098,115 allocated from the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program; $2,583,365 recommended in SMART SCALE funding. Total project funding: $5,841,480. Countywide Incidental Improvements: $40,000 is allocated in fiscal year 2022 for services that include plan review, right-of- way engineering, preliminary engineering and surveys, traffic services, safety projects, minor drainage improvements, fertilization, and seeding. New Project: Improvements to Franklin Street have been included as a proposed new project with a total estimate of $350,000. The scope of this project is from Fairway Ridge Road and the City of Salem boundary, approximately 0.6 mile in length with about 190 vehicle trips per day. Half of the roadway is narrow and winding with steep topography on one side and a creek on the other. The other half of the roadway is flatter, while still narrow with the creek on one side. VDOT proposes trench widening a maximum of one to two feet in areas where adequate existing shoulder is available and relocating minor utilities where needed. The roadway would be overlaid with plant mix asphalt. Funding for this project is allocated in fiscal years 2025 and 2026 with construction anticipated in fiscal year 2025. Through fiscal year 2027, $322,168 in unallocated TeleFee funds are reserved in a balance entry account. These funds could be used to leverage future applications through various grant programs, to support existing projects with funding deficits, or to fund new projects. FISCAL IMPACT: For the above projects that include Revenue Sharing Program funding, this funding has been approved through previous actions by the Board of Supervisors. Taking action to adopt the resolution approving the SSYP will have no fiscal impact on the County budget, as this is VDOT funding designated for secondary road projects within Roanoke Page 3 of 4 County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the resolution approving the Secondary Road Six -Year Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2022 through 2027 and the construction priority list and estimated allocations for fiscal year 2022. Page 4 of 4 c a_ -0 O ®o 'De Ocfl N i 0 >(N 0 L/2 D0 ci N o E '- U ,_ 0 o � u_ N >- .>k >- (/) 0) C .E 0 4) U 0 D 0_ 0 O .v) E 4) a D O D 0 O m June 8, 2021 a V) V) c 0 0 L 8 G) >- •t7) 0 0 a 0 0 4) H • Annual adoption process N O ce O O a ZD 0 U N vl O 4 N .O Q O ci Q O O O co 69- 7 O O) E > O *(T).O N N c O o O Uc • TeleFee: Generated from telecommunications providers paying a Public Rights -of -Way Use Fee • District Grant - Unpaved: For paving eligible VDOT-maintained unpaved roads ti c O N D c c 0 U 0 ZD 0 O Q O Q cn N O ci cNI O U cn O ZD O O (NI LC) co • Dry Hollow Road: $224,056 • Ivy Ridge Road: $54,465 • Countywide Traffic, Engineering and Survey Services: $40,000 $350,000 is proposed to improve Franklin Street in fiscal years 2025 and 2026 • Ten active projects are included in the fiscal year 2022-2027 SSYP oD o O o a) c > o > a a o QJ f C 4) c O) D cn .0 2 - D D O D i o c o c 7 c 1 —c } D D a .O O U O `~ 0 U 2 a c t V •; O O c O ,� U •O O � O O} 2 Q 0 O OD 2r c O 0 p O} O _O 0 > `2 O U 1— it • • • m c O N i G) W 4) c 0 0 O 0 u_ 1 O . Construction contract to . be awarded in June a) c a) c O g - c) O 'O aO c O cc'� - . V) 69- O . Z O V z cC #0 -Harmony Lane O 'O c O O D S Q •— E O U O Q N •C O O � Li— N O •� ,U � _ 0 5 C O Q (i o O -a< cLO p _020 0 DU° .2: 2 a2 colLo 7C2 0 D ci) D c D D O Q 00 5 0 0 c T3 r?; eL o(7) _o U 1— • of West River Road 0 4) D .v' 0) 4) c .0) w 0 .E TD • O c 4) 0 0 U c 0 � . 0 i (71 O) c 0 .v) c o 0 U • 0 D 0 Ce .0 D O c Q 00 0 � 0V) • • rovemen c 0 0) (1) 2 CD E -0 w • • .c -a ® -5 o_ •.0 a c o - o 2 D) C CO 0 C\I U RI • • io . . • . CO CT 'ZIWA`L7:77ZT'[: 0 O U O O 0 Q O O 0 5 O .§ —0 64- � O -aO IL O O —C3 a (2 0000 > P _ . c O O Q_ .. • U O) C O c 0 U .O p a cr•�0 00� U cN F- b • Z 0 V #7 - Crowe aO) V' ^o c ' -F O__•X O O 0 g Oco -0 0U c 0 0 ocr a0} O E E } � p } 0 •O C O O • c 0 0 .0 0 c 0 O 0 c 0 U • N 0 N 0 LL project funding: $30,000 0 O • N c-I v) N Budget Detail Report SSYP FY22 WORKING DRAFT : FY22 WORKING FINAL 5/18/2021 9:20:51 AM 1 of 6 Budget Detail Report SSYP FY22 WORKING DRAFT : FY22 WORKING FINAL Fund Secondary System Roanoke County Construction Program Estimated Allocations FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 Total CTB Formula - Unpaved State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Formula Secondary State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TeleFee $264,056 $264,056 $264,056 $264,056 $264,056 $264,056 $1,584,336 District Grant - Unpaved $54,465 $73,177 $79,982 $79,982 $118,953 $118,953 $525,512 Total $318,521 $337,233 Board Approval Date: $344,038 $344,038 $383,009 $383,009 $2,109,848 Residency Administrator Date County Administrator Date 5/18/2021 9:20:51 AM 2 of 6 Budget Detail Report SSYP FY22 WORKING DRAFT : FY22 WORKING FINAL Roanoke County Roanoke County (080) UPC Description 110317 RTE 1728 - RECONSTRUCT & SURFACE TREAT NON-HARDSURFACED ROAD 0000.00 Project 1728080P69 Previous Budget Projected Total $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000 Total Estimate Balance: $200,000 $0 ROUTE 923 END OF STATE MAINTENANCE PE RW CN Schedule: 04/14/20 Estimate: $0 $0 $200,000 Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 3001500 CTB Formula: Unpaved - Roanoke $200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 112304 Fallowater Lane Extension 0000.00 Project 9999080926 Previous Budget Projected Total $3,335,635 $1,004,480 $1,840,114 $6,180,229 Total Estimate Balance: $4,340,114 -$1, 840,115 Electric Rd, Rte 419 Chevy Rd, Rte 799 PE RW CN Schedule: 05/18/18 12/17/19 03/04/21 Estimate: $394,083 $2,077,526 $1,868,505 Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 6030202 Revenue Sharing Funds :State Match (CNS202) 6030601 .Formula - Secondary $647 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 :Federal/State - Roanoke (CNS601) 6030606 Secondary Formula - $849 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Telecommunications : Roanoke 9030623 Local Project Contributions - $1,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Secondary 9090201 Revenue Sharing Funds :Local $0 $502 $0 $0 $920 $0 $0 Match (NOPOST) $0 $502 $0 $0 $920 $0 $0 112745 Hard Surface Unpaved Road for Rural Addition 0000.00 Project 0959080929 Previous Budget Projected Total $207,586 $0 $0 $207,586 Total Estimate Balance: $207,586 $0 Int. Route 221 0.15 MI S Rural Addition to End Cul-de- sac PE RW CN Schedule: 11/14/19 Estimate: $0 $0 $207,586 Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 6030606 Secondary Formula - Telecommunications : Roanoke $208 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5/18/2021 9:20:51 AM 3 of 6 Budget Detail Report SSYP FY22 WORKING DRAFT : FY22 WORKING FINAL Roanoke County Roanoke County (080) UPC Description 107309 Dry Hollow Road Safety Improvements 0001.00 Project 0649080R77 Previous Budget Projected Total $695,552 $224,056 $1,265,392 $2,185,000 Total Estimate Balance: $2,185,000 $0 0.11 S of West River Road West River Road PE RW CN Schedule: 10/02/15 07/13/21 05/10/22 Estimate: $400,000 $24,000 $1,761,000 Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 6030201 Revenue Sharing Funds :Local $200 $0 $213 $200 $0 $0 $0 Match 6030202 Revenue Sharing Funds :State $200 $0 $213 $200 $0 $0 $0 Match (CNS202) 6030606 Secondary Formula- $296 $224 $215 $224 $0 $0 $0 Telecommunications : Roanoke 113144 #SMART22 - Starkey Road/Buck Mtn Rd Int Improvements 0002.00 Project 0904080R35 Previous Budget Projected Total $883,689 $30,327 $4,927,464 $5,841,480 Total Estimate Balance: $5,841,480 $0 0.046 Mi. West of Intersection 0.039 Mi. North of Intersection Rte. 904 - Rte. 904 - Rte. 679 Rte. 679 PE RW CN Schedule: 01/16/19 05/07/21 12/13/22 Estimate: $800,000 $559,516 $4,481,964 Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 3020411 RSTP Match Roanoke $0 $6 $43 $128 $243 $0 $0 3120401 RSTP Roanoke $0 $24 $171 $513 $970 $0 $0 3190000 DGP Supplemental (HB1414) $83 $0 $500 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 6030201 Revenue Sharing Funds :Local $400 $0 $0 $173 $0 $0 $0 Match 6030202 Revenue Sharing Funds :State $400 $0 $0 $173 $0 $0 $0 Match (CNS202) 6030606 Secondary Formula - $0 $0 $13 $0 $0 $0 $0 Telecommunications : Roanoke -25441 Route 693 (Franklin Street) pavement wedging and overlay 0003.00 Project 0693080963 Previous Budget Projected Total $0 $0 $350,000 $350,000 Total Estimate Balance: $350,000 $0 Salem South City Limit Int Route 1396 PE RW CN Schedule: 08/16/24 05/27/25 Estimate: $10,000 $0 $340,000 Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 6030606 Secondary Formula - Telecommunications : Roanoke $0 $0 $0 $0 $224 $126 $0 5/18/2021 9:20:51 AM 4 of 6 Budget Detail Report SSYP FY22 WORKING DRAFT : FY22 WORKING FINAL Roanoke County Roanoke County (080) UPC Description 110958 RTE. 708 Ivy Ridge Hard Surface Non -Hard Surfaced Roadway 0004.00 Project 0708080P15 Previous Budget Projected Total $143,321 $54,465 $2,214 $200,000 Total Estimate Balance: $200,000 $0 INT ROUTE 221 END OF STATE MAINTENANCE PE RW CN Schedule: 07/15/22 Estimate: $0 $0 $200,000 Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 3001500 CTB Formula: Unpaved - Roanoke $62 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6071700 HB2 DG: Unpaved - Roanoke $82 $54 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 110957 RTE. 615 Webb Road Hard Surface Non -Hard Surfaced Roadway 0005.00 Project 0615080P16 Previous Budget Projected Total $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 Total Estimate Balance: $250,000 $0 ROANOKE/FRANKLIN COUNTY LINE INT ROUTE 220 PE RW CN Schedule: 06/24/26 Estimate: $0 $0 $250,000 Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 6071700 HB2 DG: Unpaved - Roanoke $0 $0 $71 $80 $80 $19 $0 117235 RTE 759 BERGANBLICK HARD SURFACE NON-HARDSURFACED ROADWAY 0006.00 Project 0759080949 Previous Budget Projected Total $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Total Estimate Balance: $200,000 $0 INT Route 752 (Old Mill Road) End of State Maintenance PE RW CN Schedule: 07/31/26 05/10/27 Estimate: $5,000 $0 $195,000 Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 6071700 HB2 DG: Unpaved - Roanoke $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $100 118717 Route 657 (Crowell Gap) Hard Surface Rural Rustic 0007.00 Project 0657080962 Previous Budget Projected Total $30,000 $0 $0 $30,000 Total Estimate Balance: $30,000 $0 0.72 MI E Route 666 0.78 MI E Route 666 PE RW CN Schedule: 09/29/21 Estimate: $0 $0 $30,000 Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 6030606 Secondary Formula - Telecommunications : Roanoke $30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5/18/2021 9:20:51 AM 5 of 6 Budget Detail Report SSYP FY22 WORKING DRAFT : FY22 WORKING FINAL Roanoke County Roanoke County (080) UPC Description 100133 COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC SERVICES 9999.99 Budget 1204007 Item VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COUNTY COUNTY Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 6030606 Secondary Formula - Telecommunications : Roanoke $253 $20 $16 $20 $20 $20 $20 100188 COUNTYWIDE ENGINEERING & SURVEY 9999.99 Budget 1204005 Item VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COUNTY COUNTY Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 6030601 .Formula - Secondary $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 :Federal/State - Roanoke (CNS601) 6030606 Secondary Formula - $232 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 Telecommunications : Roanoke 100295 COUNTYWIDE FERTILIZATION & SEEDING 9999.99 Budget 1204006 Item VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COUNTY COUNTY Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 6030606 Secondary Formula - Telecommunications : Roanoke $44 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 100349 COUNTYWIDE RIGHT OF WAY ENGR. 9999.99 Budget 1204008 Item VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN COUNTY COUNTY Funding Detail (in $1000s) Previous FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 6030601 .Formula - Secondary $9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 :Federal/State - Roanoke (CNS601) 6030606 Secondary Formula - $51 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Telecommunications : Roanoke 5/18/2021 9:20:51 AM 6 of 6 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON JUNE 8, 2021 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECONDARY ROAD SIX -YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022 THROUGH 2027 AND THE CONSTRUCTION PRIORITY LIST AND ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 WHEREAS, Sections 33.2-331 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) provides the opportunity for Roanoke County to work with the Virginia Department of Transportation in developing a Secondary Road Six -Year Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, this Board had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of the Secondary Road Six -Year Improvement Plan, in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation policies and procedures; and WHEREAS, a public hearing which was duly advertised on the proposed Secondary Road Six -Year Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-2027 and Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for Fiscal Year 2022 was held on June 8, 2021, to receive comments and recommendations on Roanoke County's Secondary Road Six -Year Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-2027 as well as the Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for Fiscal Year 2022; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does hereby approve the Secondary Road Six -Year Improvement Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal Years 2022-2027; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does also hereby approve the Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for Fiscal Year 2022; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested to be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency Office Page 1 of 2 along with a duly attested copy of the proposed Roanoke County Secondary Road Six - Year Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-2027 by the Clerk to the Board. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 8, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Zye and Gaven Reinhardt to obtain a special use permit in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District for a special events facility on approximately 31.32 acres, located at 2875 Timberview Road, Catawba Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator ISSUE: Agenda item for second reading of ordinance for a special use permit for a special events facility. BACKGROUND: The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines special events facility as "a place, structure, or other facility used for the assembly of or intention of attracting people for cultural, ceremonial, celebratory purposes or civic clubs for which there is a leasing fee. Such assembly includes, but is not limited to, anniversary and birthday celebrations, reunions, weddings, and receptions. Music concerts or festivals as a primary use shall be considered an outdoor gathering." A special events facility is permitted by special use permit in the AR, Agricultural/Residential, District. General use and design standards for a special events facility include fronting and having access to a publicly maintained street and regulating outdoor amplified music through the noise ordinance. Use and design standards for properties zoned AR require the property to be a minimum of 10 acres in size. Page 1 of 3 DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on February 2, 2021. Sixteen citizens submitted comments via email or phone prior to the public hearing. Three citizens spoke during the public hearing and one comment was received during the 10-minute recess period. All comments submitted by phone, email, or in person were in opposition to the petition except one. Concerns and issues expressed included: an increase in traffic on Timberview Road, traffic safety/pedestrian safety, potential for drunk driving, increased noise, erosion of rural character, lack of fire hydrants, increased presence of strangers on Timberview Road, decreased property values, increased taxes, and light pollution. The Planning Commission discussed several issues with staff and the applicant including: the proposed operation of the wedding venue; building code change of use; the need for businesses to support tourism in the Roanoke Valley; noise and lighting issues and the ordinances in place to mitigate those impacts; traffic; use of shuttles to transport guest to the site; condition of Timberview Road; environmental issues; occupancy of the proposed chapel (260 people); special events facility definition; surrounding zoning; future land use designations; and other events that would be held on site (business parties). The Planning Commission recommends approval of the special use permit for a special events facility with two conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the concept plan submitted with the application dated January 22, 2021, subject to any changes required during the site plan process. 2. The number of individuals at each event shall be limited to 250. The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this request on February 23, 2021. Two citizens spoke during the public hearing. In addition, three written comments and one phone message were read during the public hearing. Two in support of the project and four in opposition. Concerns raised included: increased traffic, safety issues, decreased property values, loss of privacy, noise, lights, and additional disruptions. The Board of Supervisors adopted a motion to postpone action on this application and requested the applicants to explore an alternative access off of Loch Haven Drive. The applicants have submitted information regarding the Board's request and asked to be placed back on the agenda. Page 2 of 3 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the special use permit with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the concept plan submitted with the application dated January 22, 2021, subject to any changes required during the site plan process. 2. The number of individuals at each event shall be limited to 250. 3. Parking shall be prohibited on Timberview Road. On -site parking shall be limited to 40 vehicles. 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Fridays, and from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Only one event shall be allowed per day. Page 3 of 3 April 14, 2021 To Whom It May Concern, At the conclusion of our last meeting with the Roanoke County supervisors, Martha Hooker requested that we try to find an easement to Loch Haven Road. We are bordered on the Loch Haven side by five neighbors. When approached about the possibility of having an easement through their property, three of the neighbors have signed documentation saying that they would not grant us an easement because it came too close to their residence (1,2,3). A fourth neighbor would not respond to our requests. The final property that is currently for sale has been for sale for 20 years. This land has not sold because it is in a flood zone. This land is accompanied with pictures included in this letter (4). The last option would be to travel through Loch Haven Country Club. Loch Haven Country Club has a road which travels directly between parking for their members and the lake; this would be a problem with families traveling to and from their cars passing in front of vehicles. Pictures are attached of the road from Loch Haven to Timberview Road (5). We wanted to remind the supervisors of Timberview Road and address concerns that residents had of traffic. Neighbors (along our property line) of our proposed venue agree with us having a venue, unlike Triple J farms. The venue will solely operate on the weekends which limits traffic to one or two days. We have also proposed that shuttle buses be used to further limit traffic on Timberview Road. Thank you for your time, Gaven and Zye Reinhardt V44-/ ) 6-Q1,4aOr 4)-Lee Aa a-0J' e2-4- C-e0-4,e_ Z77-- friA,61 1C9 14.e, Et ezrifitoo 1,A)riej- ceffo,..J v Ler-U a '91— u �r✓ram... ..a �A:. STAFF REPORT Petitioner: Zye Reinhardt and Gaven Reinhardt Request: Obtain a special use permit in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District to operate a special events facility Location: 2875 Timberview Road Magisterial District: Catawba EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Zye Reinhardt and Gaven Reinhardt are requesting a special use permit in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District to operate a special events facility. A wedding venue is proposed for the site, on which there is currently a single- family residence. The 2005 Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan indicates the Future Land Use Designation of this parcel is mostly Rural Preserve and a small portion is designated Transition. Rural Preserve is a future land use designation consisting of mostly undeveloped, outlying lands. These rural regions are generally seen as stable and require high degree of protection to preserve agricultural, forestal, recreational, and remote rural residential areas. The proposed project is consistent with the Rural Preserve future land use designation. Additionally, approximately 1.1 acres in the southeastern corner of the property falls under the Transition future land use designation. Transition is a future land use area that encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Transition areas generally serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Intense retail and highway oriented commercial uses are discouraged in transition areas, which are more suitable for office, institutional and small-scale, coordinated retail uses. The proposed project is also consistent with the Transition future land use designation. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 30-29-5 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines special events facility as "a place, structure, or other facility used for the assembly of or intention of attracting people for cultural, ceremonial, celebratory purposes or civic clubs for which there is a leasing fee. Such assembly includes, but is not limited to, anniversary and birthday celebrations, reunions, weddings, and receptions. Music concerts or festivals as a primary use shall be considered an outdoor gathering." A special events facility is permitted by special use permit in the AR, Agricultural/Residential, District, subject to Use and Design Standards in Article IV of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. The standards for a special events facility are listed below: (A) General Standards: 1. The site shall front directly on and have direct access to a publicly owned and maintained street. 2. Outdoor amplified music shall be regulated by Section 13-21(6) of the County Code (Noise Ordinance). 1 (B) Additional standards in the AR District: 1. The minimum acreage for a special events facility shall be 10 acres. Section 13-21 (6) of the County Code (Noise Ordinance) states: The following acts are declared to be noise disturbances in violation of this article unless specifically excepted in section 13-19. (6) Using or operating a loudspeaker or other sound amplification devices in a fixed or movable position exterior to any building, or mounted upon any motor vehicle or mounted in the interior of a building with the intent of providing service to an exterior area for the purpose of commercial advertising, giving instruction, information, directions, talks, addresses, lectures, or providing entertainment to any persons or assemblage of persons on any private or public property, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. Development of the site would require comprehensive site plan review(s) and building permit review(s). 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background — The property at 2875 Timberview Road is approximately 30.6 acres in size. There is one building on the property which currently serves as a single-family residence. The existing building would continue to serve as a single-family dwelling under this proposal, but the owners would vacate the premises for most weddings. Topography/Veqetation — The property rises from the west and north toward the south and east. Elevations on the property range from 1,205 feet (southwest corner) to 1,346 ft (south-central part of property). The existing single-family dwelling sits at approximately 1,320 feet, while the elevation at the bottom of the driveway is 1,273 feet. Most of the portion of the property that is south of the existing building has been cleared, while north of the building is wooded. This property is not in the floodway or floodplain. Surrounding Neighborhood — Surrounding properties are zoned AG-3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve, District to the north and west; and AR, Agricultural/Residential, District to the east and south. The surrounding neighborhood is predominantly composed of single-family residences on large lots. The closest single-family dwelling to the existing residence is located approximately 385 feet to the east. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Lavout/Architecture — The existing single-family dwelling is approximately 14,700 square feet in size. Under this proposal, the existing basketball gymnasium (4,200 sq. ft.) in the single-family dwelling would be converted into a wedding chapel. The existing racquetball court (1,050 sq. ft.) immediately adjacent to the gymnasium would be converted into restrooms, catering prep, and storage. The provided concept plan, floor layout, and renderings show these proposed changes. Outdoor weddings would be an option under this proposal. In the future, it is possible that the patio behind the existing single-family dwelling would be utilized, with a temporary transparent floor placed over the in - ground pool that is located on the patio. Receptions would be held in the main living area until the renovation of the gymnasium is complete. From that point forward, receptions would be held in the chapel. 2 Access/Traffic Circulation — The site currently has one point of access on Timberview Road, a paved driveway. About 270 feet from Timberview Road, the driveway splits, with a stamped concrete driveway leading to the front steps of the existing single-family dwelling and a paved section continuing to the parking area on the eastern side of the existing single-family dwelling. From the paved parking area, a dirt road continues around the patio on the south side of the existing single-family dwelling to western side of the existing single-family dwelling. Under this proposal, this dirt road would be converted to a gravel road, and a new gravel driveway would be constructed to extend northwest from the western side of the existing -single family dwelling to Timberview Road, which would provide a secondary access. An additional parking area would be constructed on the eastern side of the proposed driveway, directly northwest of the existing single-family dwelling. The additional driveway and parking area would be used by caterers and other wedding staff. The wedding party would park onsite, but attendees would be brought in via shuttle bus to minimize traffic on Timberview Road. The concept plan shows these proposed changes. Adioining Properties - Due to the current health situation regarding COVID-19, a community meeting could not be held for this project. In order to adequately inform all surrounding neighbors, staff expanded the adjacent property notice letter that is typically sent to adjoining property owners. Approximately 99 letters were sent out and contained the application and hearing dates information along with direct contact information for staff and instructions for how to submit comments. Agencies Comments: The following agencies provided comments on this application: Office of Building Safety — The proposed use of the structure as a special events venue will require a building code change of use. Roanoke County Transportation — The entirety of Timberview Road is identified in the 2020 Rural Bikeway Plan for future bicycle accommodations. Economic Development — Economic Development supports the Special Use Permit request for a wedding venue on Timberview Road in the Catawba district. The proposed use is consistent with the economic development goals of the County to enhance the tax base, provide employment opportunities and create new specialty event venues in desirable locations. Creative and unique event space will also support tourism development, while attracting corporate retreats to the County in close proximity to the Wood Haven Technology Park and the region's urban core. Fire and Rescue — This project will not adversely impact the services that Fire and Rescue provides. However, depending upon how the Office of Building Safety classifies the space/property--change of use, new construction, etc. —fire flow and access requirements may need to be addressed and yearly fire inspections performed. Parks and Recreation - There are two Hinchee Trail crossings on Dutch Oven Road and Timberview Road near the Electric Road/Route 419 intersection. These trail crossings are not in close vicinity to the proposed special event venue; however, the vehicles traveling to and from the facility will cross them Solid Waste — This address would be eligible for two automated containers under our ordinance. The ordinance only allows two containers per residential address even with a business attached. If it solely becomes a business location - they could have one additional container. These containers would be used only for bagged nominal trash (food waste etc.). We do not pick up any boxes, extra bags, brush or other bulky items from businesses (per the ordinance). I believe the volume of trash out of a facility such as this 3 would require the procurement of private dumpster service. Western Virginia Water Authority — There are no WVWA facilities for this address and would need to utilize well and septic for this parcel. Stormwater — There are no floodplain concerns. VDOT — We have reviewed the above mentioned special use request. The Department has no comments on this request. It appears from the information provided that use of this residence as a wedding venue and the proposed use of a shuttle service will not adversely impact the VDOT right of way. Any future expansions or redevelopment of the parcel or alteration to the existing drive may require VDOT review, approval, and permitting. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The 2005 Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan indicates the Future Land Use Designation of this parcel is mostly Rural Preserve. Rural Preserve is a future land use area of mostly undeveloped, outlying lands. These rural regions are generally stable and require a high degree of protection to preserve agricultural, forestal, recreational, and remote rural residential areas. The proposed special events facility use is consistent with the Rural Preserve future land use designation. A small portion of the property is designated Transition on the Future Land Use map. Transition is a future land use area that encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Transition areas generally serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Intense retail and highway oriented commercial uses are discouraged in transition areas, which are more suitable for office, institutional and small-scale, coordinated retail uses. The proposed project is also consistent with the Transition future land use designation. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS Zye and Gaven Reinhardt are requesting a special use permit in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District to operate a special events facility. A wedding venue is proposed for the site, on which there is currently a single-family residence. The proposed project is consistent with the Rural Preserve future land use designation, as well as the Transition future land use designation. When reviewing a special use permit adverse impacts shall be considered as well as the design, scale, use and operation of any proposed use and how well the proposed use conforms to the County's Comprehensive Plan as well as the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission may want to consider conditions to mitigate any impacts raised during the public hearing. These conditions could include, but not be limited to, the following: lighting, screening and buffering, hours of operation, concept plan conformance, size limits, number of events, and limiting the area on the property for the use. CASE NUMBER: PREPARED BY: HEARING DATES: ATTACHMENTS: # 3-2/2021 Isaac Henry PC: February 2, 2020 Application Materials Aerial Map Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Photographs BOS: February 23, 2020 4 AR Zoning District Regulations Rural Preserve Future Land Use Designation Transition Future Land Use Designation Public Comments 5 Consultation Application County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive POBox29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 For Staff Use Onl Date received: Received by: Application fee: PC/BZA date: Placards issued: BOS date: Case Number ALL APPLICANTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) ❑ Rezoning ISl Special Use ❑ Variance ❑ Waiver ❑ Administrative Appeal ❑ Comp Plan Review Applicants name/address w/zip Gaven Reinhardt 3144 Timberview Zye Reinhardt 2875 Timberview Road, 24019, 540-204- (15.2-2232) Rd 24019, 540 892-7761 7083 Owner's name/address w/zip Mark Reinhardt, 2875 Timberview road, 24019, 540-761-2739 Phone #: Work: Fax No. #: Property Location 2875 Timberview Road, 24019 Magisterial District: Catawba Community Planning area: Tax Map No.: 026.03-01-18.00-0000 Existing Zoning: Agricultural Size of parcel(s): Acres: 30 acres Existing Land Use: REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WAIVER AND COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW APPLICANTS (R/S/W/CP) Proposed Zoning: Special Use Permit Proposed Land Use: Wedding venue Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? FIRST (Rezoning). Use Type in Article IV (Special Use Permit)? Yes X No ❑ request? Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes XJ No ❑ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (V/W/AA) Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to . Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance . Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/S/W/CP V/AA R/S/W/CP V/AA 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan Application fee Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water 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 f the owner. R/S/W/CP V/AA Owner's Signature Mark Reinhardt 2 JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAIVER OR COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW REQUESTS Applicant The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit waiver or community plan (15.2-2232) review 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 if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. The request is for a special use permit that will allow my colleagues and I to operate a special use facility. The special use facility that we are inquiring is a wedding venue. As well as a wedding venue we will also be hosting business parties and other small functions during our colder months. This request will help maintain the natural forests located on the property of the venue due to the fact that we will not be destroying or changing the scenic beauty located in this region. Our main goal is to highlight/elevate the natural beauty around our venue to help our guests appreaciate all that roanoke has to offer. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. No longer will this residence be a home to few but a beautiful wedding destination to many, providing memories that will last a lifetime. The wedding venue conforms to the Roanoke community plan by ensuring scenic beauty within our blue ridge mountains. The wedding parties traveling from far and wide will come into contact with our gorgeous scenery and may possibly fall in love with this area, ensuring future tourists. These weddings will help promote many different religions from far and wide, showing that Roanoke is an inviting area to all types of people. Please describe 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 property will experience a high volume of citizens on many given weekends. As neighbors we have reached out to the adjoining properties ensuring that traffic will be limited on Timberview road as well as music will be discontinued after lOpm when the weddings will end (our lovely neighbors on the road have given us support in this endeavor). The venue is sitting on a private well and sewage system. We plan on having two shuttle busses in order to limit traffic on Timberview road so that we can provide safety to our neighbors. Near the venue resides 3 hotels which will allow out of town guests to stay within close proximity to the venue and help Roanoke county economic growth. Attached is a post to the neighbors indicating our plans for the venue and their support/concerns. 35 members of the road belong to this Facebook group. ® pa .o r.01190%l12:00PM (— Posts Q 0111) Mark Reinhardt residents Dec 2at10:21 AM•© Timberview Rd Seasons greetings neighbors. A few weeks ago a wedding planned by my daughter for a good friend took place at my house before the restrictions towards Covid were set, she was able to have 90 guests and it was a smashing success. The bride and groom were thrilled at having a wedding at my home which provided them with memories that will last a lifetime. With the success of this wedding my sons and I are thinking about establishing a wedding venue here permanently. My neighbors consisting of Gerry and Donna Stevens, the Ashby's and the Browns were asked if the music and lights at this wedding were intrusive in which they all replied that it did not affect them ( thank you to our wonderful neighbors Donna and Gerry for being so supportive). At this wedding there was an Abbot bus which brought the guests to the venue from the park and ride located in Salem which helped maintain low traffic on Timberview. We plan on having two shuttle buses in order to transfer guests to their cars when there is less traffic on the road (9-10pm). Our weddings will end at 10 allowing for music to not affect those in hearing distance. We wanted to establish a form of communication with our neighbors on Timberview road so that you can provide your concerns and for us to address them promptly. d Write a comment... cr Neighbors comments continued IS06a;�,o 4- Posts 5 Like ^,tlj 81% S12:00 PM Q Comment Q Send ai Courtney Harless and 3 others Seen by 36 Q Sandy Pinnell It would be nice to have a heads up when these buses will be on the road so we can be expecting them. There's not much room to pass a bus on some places. 1w Like Reply 1111 Mark Reinhardt Sandy Pinnell thank you fo... Gaven Reinhardt This would be about the size of the vehicle we plan on getting. We didn't want a Abbot bus or School bus going down Timberview. Shuttle Bus 1w Like Reply Write a comment... Neighbors comments continued.... EE O P 0 ;„e.10 ^,A'81% 012:Oa PM 4- Posts 1ta� a Robin Tate Your home is absolutely beautiful and is a perfect venue for weddings. Most of the activities will be behind your home which wouldn't effect anything on Timberview other then the traffic issues which you have already planned for. The Tate's wish you the best of luck with this new venture! Hopefully 2021 will be a better year for such events! Happy holidays to all our neighbors! 1w Like Reply 40 Jennifer Snare I think your home would be a wonderful venue for a wedding and wish you guys the best. lw Like Reply Jami Smith Weidmann 0 Are we invited to the parties?! 4 6d Like Reply 20 Donna Chapman Stevens Awesome.... this is the perfect place for a venue. M. the first one was such a success... I am sure they all will be!! 6d Like Reply 1 Write a comment... ICIF Neighbors comments continued... 042o„,O -di81%111200PM F Posts • • Jami Smith Weidmann 0 Are we invited to the parties?! 6d Like Reply 2 0 Donna Chapman Stevens Awesome.... this is the perfect place for a venue. the fast one was such a success... I am sure they all will be!! 6d Like Reply 10 Mark Reinhardt Author We have such wonderful neighbors and Jami Smith Weidmann you can be our unofficial wedding crasher. 5d Like Reply 1 ii Cathy Jennings Ashby I always think of the Reinhardt's home along the lines of the beautiful Biltmore Estate. I saw a few pictures of the wedding held there a few weeks ago and was captivated by the beauty of the estate as the lighting that night made it enchanting like in a Cinderella story. I think Mark and Susan's home would make a beautiful venue for weddings. I think of all the couples getting married there and m... See More 4d Like Reply Neighbors comments continued.... Concept plan Chateau de Laurea Ain ROANOKE AIM COUNTY VA Property Locotlou: 2875 'I'IMI3IRVII W RI) Pn rccl ID: 026, 01.0 I.18, 90.0nOO Mnglsterinl DI trict: Cutuwbu Mooing: 43U3 Cord IofI Pictomatry Tax Map 9 1111I)';ta Al ROANOKE COUNTY VA Property Location: 2875 TIMBERVIEW RD Pnreel ID! 026 03_O1-16.O0.0000 M i izlcrinl District: Catawba Account: 4393 Cnrd 1 of 1 Sum Aroa 4Y Laher FOR-1323 {ADJ-1323) BAS-3774(AOJ-3774) PT0.568 (FDJ•668? ...BAS-558 (A111-558) FOP.81 (A0J.61) PTO .105{4DJ.105) ...FOP •105 A111.105) FOP.81 (ADJ.81) FO P.476 (ADJ.476). FO P.97 I ADJ.971 FOP.971ADJ.97) PTO .106 (dDJ•106} ...FOP-106(AO.1-106j FUT -EMI (AOJ-5552) BAS -1112 jAbJ-1112} FEP -529 {ADJ-529) rot Area:14666 rot Adl Area: 14668 UnSk etched Subareas. FUS (3440} 5 1217/2020 The first three pictures listed are concept plans for the ceremony facility that is located next to the chateau. We will have two bathrooms as well as a catering room and storage on a small part of the ceremony facility. 20'"B" MR«. ADA DRINKING FOUNTAIN SERVICE SINK FEMALE LOAD BEARING WALL 2X8 WD STUDS 115" O.C. Wr tar GYM - - STAIR EACH SIDE CATERING PREP •_ 2 X 4WD STUDS 7 5B' LOAD BEARING WALL • 2 X WD STUDS 15- O.0 WI58" GWB ONE SIDE I•_q• 2X4WD STUDS +a 18-D.C. CLR W15/8" GWB EACH SIDE LOAD BEARING WALL - 2 X 8 WD STUDS 1B' O.G. WI 5i8" GWB EACH SIDE LOAD BEARING WALL - 2 X 4 WO STUDS a 16' W! 5J3" GWB TO THE RESTROOM SIDE AND 1" CLR SPACE OTHER SIDE STAMR ACCESS (BLW STAIR) 18"OC Wr518- 9 1 3''0' G WB EACH SIDE 2 X 4 WO STUDS © 18" O C LVL ABV 4 : IN/518" GWB EACH Sh1E 2 TABLES I 3'.4' CLR• e1� 3 CHAIRS NEW LANDING o COMPRISED OF PT 2 X 8'S r 1' - 4" Ca 0.0 AND PT 1" DECKING; FFE = -0'-1/7BFF -- 1'-0"MIN rih rstU 14' S 3/8 _ 8' ©' 3" . 6" H GUARDRAIL, TYP LOAD BEARING WALL - 2 X 4 WD STUDS C 18" Wf 518" GWB TO THE CATERING PREP SIDE AND 1" CLR SPACE OTHER SIDE NO OF RISERS AS RE'G TO MEET GRADE. MAX RISE =7"AND MAX RUN=11" Next attached to this form is the concept floor plan for the ceremony room located next to the pictures above. The following is a picture of how traffic flow will occur when people are being shuttled from the Salem park and ride to the venue. The shuttle bus will pull up the driveway (black outlined portion) drop the passengers off and drive around the back next to the wedding chapel and down the hill to another driveway (the dark grey figure drawn). Pictures below also indicate where the pathway is at the back of the chateau. Next to the Chapple the wedding party will be parked (the green grass along side the hill). The following pictures is the outside of the chapel showing parking for vendors and the road that will allow the shuttles and vendors to travel without hindering traffic to the main building. r (Parking for the vendors) The road that will travel alongside the back of the chapel meeting Timberview Road. Lastly We would like to show a few pictures of the inside of the house RECEPTION FLOOR PLAN ILAfilliio Ant 1 _r VT' =LI ..-7•1' - Roanoke, VA 24019 0 N O 0 U E O N N a Z C6 .N 8 — o U a m0, •-� 00 2L CD o --(--) oo • NU xo Oct 0) 12 3 0 N O 0. O 0) c 0 Mark Reinhardt d o L o fYp a)o -Qo a) N E Q 3o �> zco E 00 • O col CS 0 01 N N 0 Parcel size: 30.59 acres c0 Ct •- • < < O ■ N 0 C .45 0_ U o O 0 O 0 0 O LO Roanoke VA 24018 Future Land Use 0, O ro 0 c 0 0 a) O a) 3 v) El Future Land Use Conservation Rural Preserve Neighborhood Conservation c 0 cn C H Principal Industrial � o co N O 0 0 0 O� N N � m o 0 AR District Regulations SEC. 30-34. AR AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-34-1. Purpose. (A) These areas are generally characterized by very low density residential and institutional uses mixed with smaller parcels that have historically contained agricultural uses, forest land and open space outside the urban service area. These areas provide an opportunity for rural living in convenient proximity to urban services and employment. Agricultural uses should be encouraged to be maintained. Over time, however, these areas are expected to become increasingly residential in character, with residential development becoming the dominant use over agricultural and more rural type uses. The purpose of this district, consistent with the Rural Village land use category in the comprehensive plan, is to maintain these areas essentially in their rural state, consistent with the level of services anticipated by the county. These areas are generally suitable for low density residential development and other compatible land uses. (Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, § lf., 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4- 22-08) Sec. 30-34-2. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Agricultural and Forestry Uses Agriculture * Agritourism * Farm Brewery * Farm Distillery * Farm Winery * Forestry Operations * Stable, Commercial * Stable, Private * Wayside Stand * 1 AR District Regulations 2. Residential Uses Accessory Apartment * Home Beauty/Barber Salon * Home Occupation, Type II * Manufactured Home * Manufactured Home, Emergency * Multiple Dog Permit * Residential Human Care Facility Single Family Dwelling, Detached Single Family Dwelling, Detached (Zero Lot Line Option) * 3. Civic Uses Community Recreation * Family Day Care Home * Park and Ride Facility * Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Religious Assembly * Utility Services, Minor 4. Commercial Uses Bed and Breakfast * Veterinary Hospital/Clinic 5. Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower * Wind Energy System, Small * 2 AR District Regulations (B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Residential Uses Alternative Discharging Sewage Systems * 2. Civic Uses Camps * Cemetery * Crisis Center Day Care Center * Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary * Safety Services * Utility Services, Major * 3. Commercial Uses Antique Shops * Golf Course * Kennel, Commercial * Studio, Fine Arts 4. Industrial Uses Custom Manufacturing * Resource Extraction * 5. Miscellaneous Uses Broadcasting Tower * Outdoor Gatherings * 3 AR District Regulations (Ord. No. 42793-20, § II, 4-27-93; Ord. No. 82493-8, § 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 42694-12, § 7, 4- 26-94; Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 072605-7, § 1, 7-26-05; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08; Ord. No. 052609-22, § 1, 5-26-09; Ord. No. 030811- 1, § 1, 3-8-11, Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13, Ord. No. 062816-4, § 1, 6-28-16, Ord. No. 082818-8, § 1, 8-28-18) Sec. 30-34-3. Site Development Regulations. General Standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see Article IV, Use and Design Standards. (A) Minimum lot requirements 1. Lots served by private well and sewage disposal system: a. Area: 1 acre (43,560 square feet) b. Frontage: 110 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. 2. Lots served by either public sewer or water: a. Area: 30,000 square feet b. Frontage: 100 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. 3. Lots served by both public sewer and water: a. Area: 25,000 square feet b. Frontage: 90 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. (B) Minimum setback requirements. 1. Front yard: a. Principal structures: 30 feet. b. Accessory structures: Behind the front building line. 2. Side yard: a. Principal structures: 15 feet b. Accessory structures: 15 feet behind front building line or 10 feet behind rear building line. 4 AR District Regulations 3. Rear yard: a. Principal structures: 25 feet b. Accessory structures: 10 feet 4. Where a lot fronts on more than one street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all streets. 5. Where the principal structure is more than 150 feet from the street, accessory buildings may be located 150 feet from the street and 20 feet from any side property line. (C) Maximum height of structures. 1. All structures: 45 feet (D) Maximum coverage. 1. Building coverage: 25 percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12, § 10, 6-22-93, Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13) 5 Rural Preserve: A future land use area of mostly undeveloped, outlying lands. These rural regions are generally stable and require a high degree of protection to preserve agricultural, forestal, recreational, and remote rural residential areas. Land Use Types: Agricultural Production - The production of crops, plants, vines, trees, livestock, poultry and eggs. Agricultural Services - Services that support agricultural production such as soil and crop preparation, veterinary services and landscape and horticultural care. Forest and Wood Products - Tree farms, forest nurseries and reforestation services. Parks and Outdoor Recreation Facilities - Large regional parks and other recreation facilities that are designed to preserve environmentally sensitive lands and protect them from more intense land uses. Rural Residential - Single-family residential generally averaging a gross density of one unit per three acres. Cluster developments are encouraged. Rural Institutional - Limited intensity uses such as religious assembly facilities and clubs serving the local rural population base. Mining and Extraction Operations - Those uses that locate according to the availability of natural resources. There are strict limitations on these industries in the Rural Preserve designation due to potentially harmful effects on housing, farming and resource protection and conservation areas. Land Use Determinants: EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN - Locations where agricultural, recreational, and forestal uses are predominant and are encouraged to expand. EXISTING ZONING - Locations where agricultural zoning is in effect. RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL AREAS - Locations where limited, very low density residential and institutional uses are allowed. RESOURCE PROTECTION - Locations where valuable and irreplaceable resources such as open space, public water supply impoundments, rivers, streams, lakes, productive agricultural land, woodlands, critical slopes, ridgelines, historical and archeological sites and unique natural areas exist. ACCESS - Locations that are accessible by existing improved or unimproved rural roads and, to a lesser extent, rural arterial highways. RURAL SECTOR - Locations outside the urban service area. Transition: A future land use area that encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Transition areas generally serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Intense retail and highway oriented commercial uses are discouraged in transition areas, which are more suitable for office, institutional and small-scale, coordinated retail uses. Land Use Types: Office and Institutional - Planned office parks and independent facilities in park -like surroundings are encouraged. A high degree of architectural design and environmentally sensitive site design is encouraged. Retail - Small-scale planned and clustered retail uses. Multifamily Residential - Garden apartments at a density of 12 to 24 units per acre. Single -Family Attached Residential - Planned townhouse communities of 6 or more units per acre. Parks - Public and private recreational facilities. These facilities should be linked to residential areas by greenways, bike and pedestrian trails. Land Use Determinants: EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN - Locations where limited commercial uses exist. EXISTING ZONING - Locations where commercial zoning exists. ACCESS - Locations where properties have direct frontage and access to an arterial or major collector street. SURROUNDING LAND USE - Locations which serve as a logical buffer strip between conflicting land use patterns. ORIENTATION - Locations which are physically oriented toward the major street. URBAN SECTOR - Locations served by urban services. Page 1 of 1 Susan McCoy - Reinhardt comments From: Isaac Henry To: Susan McCoy Date: 1/2 5/20212:44 PM Subject: Reinhardt comments Hi Susan, I just got a call from Robert Pinnell, who lives at 2256 Timberview Road. Mr. Pinnell would like the following comments to be read at the PCPH for the Reinhardt application: "I am concerned about the fact that music concerts or festivals are included in the definition of Special Events Facility. I am totally against any concerts or music festivals on this property. This is a narrow road that a lot of people bike on and it would be unsafe to add the amount of traffic that would come from a music festival or concert. I am also concerned that concert or music festival attendees would be consuming alcohol and driving drunk on Timberview Road." Mr. Pinnell's phone number is 540-562-4547 Thanks! -Isaac file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/600ED95 8PO2_D OMAINM-Z... 1/25/2021 Page 1 of 2 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - Reinhardt land use application for 2875 Timberview rd. From: Marshall Beard <mbeard167@gmail.com> To: <planning@roanokecountyva.gov>, <djacks@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 1/26/2021 8:23 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Reinhardt land use application for 2875 Timberview rd. From: Marshall and Dusy Beard 2451 Timberview Rd. I own a home and 58 acres of land with approximately 3/4 of a mile of road frontage on Timberview Rd. I have invested a significant amount of money to live where I do for several reasons, including privacy, safety, and peace and quiet. The road began as a dirt trail and aside from some undersized culvert pipes and crumbling paving has seen little in the way of upgrades from the time my grandparents were the last house on the road in the late 1950's at 2186. This despite the major increase in tax base due to the construction of a significant amount of expensive homes. The road,which we own and pay taxes on, isn't sufficient to serve the residents of Timberview Rd much less the traffic the county has added with bikers and hikers now flying up and down it with little regard for the speed limit that sees 0 enforcement. The last thing we need is rural zoned land and a single family residence being turned into an event venue causing more traffic not only from cars but busses and event delivery trucks that don't fit on a lane and a half rural road. The residents know how to safely navigate the twists and turns and pass safely, strangers especially in a bigger vehicle do not, Roanoke College discovered this the hard way when they sent a small bus to pick up runners and caused an accident. Is it going to take killing another person on this road to finally wake the county into realizing infrastructure must proceed development to promote safety for the tax paying residents who own the land on which the road resides? We already can't get out of Dutch Oven Rd due to traffic from 311 combined with Allstate and the apartments that were permitted off Cove Rd without any infrastructure improvements. The trail.has brought that congestion to our front doors and now this proposal will further destroy the small amount of safety and privacy we paid for and are loosing more of everyday. There are no services on the road such as sewer, gas, internet, and fire hydrants, it would appear by code hydrants would be required at a minimum to ensure the safety of guests as well as the adjoining land owners in this wooded rural setting. Alcohol would seem to present another safety issue, most events feature some form of drinking and you must assume this will be a factor in driving as well as fire hazards file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/60107A3EPO2_DOMAINM-Z_... 1/27/2021 Page 2 of 2 I happen to have first hand experience with Mark Reinhardt and a wedding party from his home, a tree fell across timberview Rd and he drove his large pickup truck down the road with numerous people in the back. They appeared to be intoxicated as they were very loud and in full party mode, Mark proceeded to turn off Timberview rd and drive through the front yard of my house at 2186 Timberview Rd, his window was down and I was screaming at him to stop as he was driving over the 60 year old septic system composed of orangeburg piping with that heavy load. He couldn't hear me for the noise in the back and his own involvement in the ongoing party. I am trying to be kind in assuming alcohol was involved as I wouldn't want to think of someone as that simple without an outside influence. When I finally got through to him and could explain what he had just done his response was 'well it wasn't marked". I asked him if his was and how about I drive through your yard and see what you have to say? He drove off saying nothing, If this is how he conducts himself at his own function and respects the people on the road and their property, I can't see him controlling others any better. For all the above reasons you must deny this application!!! WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/60107A3EPO2_DOMAINM-Z_... 1/27/2021 Betty Matthews Moore Lives in The Woodlands, TX, owns parcel across street (no address point — Tax ID # 026.01-01-13.00- 0000) "I am wondering about liability insurance, if someone goes on my property and injures themselves, will I be liable? I feel that having events at this house will lower the value of my property. I am against allowing this special use permit." Page 1 of 1 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - Form Center / Planning and Zoning 10 2/2/21 Mark Reinhardt From: David Dabbs <dhdabbs00@verizon.net> To: "planning@roanokecountyva.gov" <planning@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 1/28/2021 9:44 AM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Form Center / Planning and Zoning 10 2/2/21 Mark Reinhardt February 2, 2012 Special use permit for Mark Reinhardt 2875 Timberview Road AR district David H Dabbs 2119 Timberview Road, as 45 year residents of this address. We ask you not approve the special use permit for this commercial venue in AR District. We do not believe it will benefit our people or our neighborhood in any at all. We do not foresee the county gaining much more tax base to remove additional trash and handling complaints that may happen. Thank you , D.H.Dabbs WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/60128779PO2_DOMAINM-Z_... 1/28/2021 Page 1 of 2 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - Land Use Application for Events Venue on Timberview Road From: Ginger Taylor <ginger.in.va@aol.com> To: "planning@roanokecountyva.gov" <planning@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 1/28/2021 3:57 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Land Use Application for Events Venue on Timberview Road We would like to offer the following questions and comments regarding the land use application submitted by Zye and Gaven Reinhardt for a special events facility on Timberview Road. Most residents of Timberview Road chose to live here because we appreciate its natural beauty, wooded properties, obscurity, and remoteness while still being close to "civilization," but most of all, we love the peace and quiet, and privacy it affords us. These qualities are scarce in most Roanoke Valley residential areas. While the applicants have presented the wedding they previously held at the site as evidence that it can be done without impacting their neighbors, there is a difference between privately holding a one-time wedding for a friend in your home and operating an events venue on a regular basis, and we believe that living in close proximity to such a venue and its inherent activity will adversely affect the quality of life we currently enjoy, and diminish the value of our properties. Following are some specific questions we have about the proposal: (1) What is the maximum number of guests the venue will accommodate? (2) Will live bands and DJs be permitted outside? (3) Will alcohol be allowed at the events either initially or in the future? Road Traffic - While guests will be shuttled to the venue, it appears the wedding party will be allowed to drive themselves since the application mentions parking for them. When you consider the size of some wedding parties, and then add the caterers, photographers, florists, possibly musicians and other support staff, it could result in a significant increase in traffic on a narrow, winding road that is already struggling to be maintained, and since the venue is open to other types of events, this could go on any day of the week. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/6012DF 06PO2_DOMAINM-Z_... 1/28/2021 Page 2 of 2 In addition, it is reasonable to expect that some guests may buck the rules, drive themselves to the site, and park along the road. There could also be situations where guests may offer to drop off others at the venue, and then drive back to catch the shuttle alone. Even in the best of circumstances, a significant increase in traffic seems unavoidable. Alcohol - Whether it's provided by the venue, the caterer, the wedding party or the guests themselves, if alcohol is present at an event, whether officially or unofficially, inebriated drivers would present a very real danger to residents and themselves. Noise — It appears the wedding previously held at the house was in November. While we don't know the specific weather conditions at that time, due to the time of year, we are guessing they were not conducive to outdoor activities. Any events held in the warmer months are likely to have activities taking place outside the home would present a noise problem especially if there is a band or DJ playing music which could potentially go on for HOURS. Property Values — Even in the best of circumstances, having an events venue that could accommodate hundreds of guests in proximity to private residences would adversely affect the value of those properties. While we appreciate the applicant's efforts to address some of the potential problems of operating an events venue in a residential area, we believe there are some issues which cannot be avoided, and we are not in favor of the application being approved. Thank you, Ginger and Danny Taylor 2941 Timberview Road WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/60 12DF06PO2_DOMAINM-Z_... 1/28/2021 Page 1 of 2 Philip Thompson - Fwd: [EXTERNAL] - Timberview Road, Roanoke County, Concerns From: Liz Belcher To: Philip Thompson Date: 1/28/20211:12 PM Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] - Timberview Road, Roanoke County, Concerns Attachments: timberview 1 pdf.pdf Phillip, I am forwarding this to you as I believe Mrs. Hunter's comments should be considered input to the special use permit before Planning Commission. Liz >>> Sandra Hunter <buckysmom@cox.net> 1/28/2021 12:30 PM >>> Dear Ms. Belcher, I hope that you have enjoyed the beautiful snow that fell during the night. Against the blue sky, it's gorgeous! I have a concern about a zoning social use permit that is being proposed for a residence on Timberview Road. I am attaching the letter that I received on 1/23/21. I do not have a residence on the road but my family has land next to the archery club for three generations. So, I love the community and have spent a lot of time there hiking and exploring. My husband loved bicycling the road and the mountainous area surrounding the road when he was younger though he now stays mostly on the Greenway. WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. Check out the Proposal: https://www.roanokecountyva.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/19937/Original-Submission Reinhardt with - maps The narrowness and curviness of the road, the lack of adequate road shoulders, the priority of Timberview being part of the rural bikeway , the increase of traffic, not to mention the many other issues that come with these types of venues in a residential/agricultural environment have me worried and concerned about how it will all change - not just for me but for the generations to come. I would appreciate your attention and thoughts on this proposal. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Sandy Garst Hunter file:///C :/Users/pthompson/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/6012B 825P02_DOMAINM-... 1/29/2021 Page 2 of 2 file:///C :/Users/pthompson/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/6012B 825PO2_DOMAINM-... 1/29/2021 0 o 0 -a o 0 N IP_ o 0 ce H z 0 V z 0 Q 0 c O 0 U 0 J N (/) o�,.o(1.) E (1) -0 E ° oOa)•� .- , Q >(0 a-C°0 E(/) 0 O L 0 (6) _g2 — U i 0) O c 0 0 .i •� ,(2. 0 O- �- c°•� U 0 0 -0 E E c L- L'0� 00 a) a)— (g (9) 0 .(L)- L- D ) 0 c o (t).) (6' -0 o aQ) L- 0 -E) `'-UOU� a) 1E- gj__) (--7) p�4�-0 O 0 = U Q E (D 0)IS) v) E 0)— UUE•OO� •(=' --.�jOO 0 O -Q D Use Permit in AG-3, AG-1, AR, and AV districts . H Z u •_ u_ W a_ tn •c; CO M H A) General Standards: O co c 0 U 4) c1) a) 0 0) 02 -o — O c -c o .0 cgO E ®'o z 0 ED 00 U >- O° U N Additional standards in the AR District: m The minimum acreage for a special events facility shall be 10 acres. H z O V • • 0 Um i N W v a� a N • Existing Home - 14,700 sf ti• c D v) _(:)73 E(/ 2 E 8-- o002 •Li) 0oE o>I0Q wi D Co 0^ .D �oQ��o•��o0 oa_c v)o° �004D 2 v• � o�� • w-U wUa- 0 cn O <0 at a . . . . c a a a) U C 0 U 0 c a) ( a) 0 .0 C 0 N . CO 2 •O O � -o a 0 c cn O „,„ o O 45 �U Q •c 0 c • O '- O O O c r D , 0 .0 ' O _ o , E a) DO O 0 Q I- 00)°cCC OU ,c � •� O O N �� Q} N �a r '=- >0 0 -o_ O O O>. E .(-) D .> a) > > > U } L zt can a 0 0 } 0 u_ N C P.) .- • .i _C q) 8 U a)E E O a) c o�000 _ 0 0 U O - V .X C - — O c� Q -13 0 O is • • O • H Z V c •2 H •— E E 0 U i c c 0 a N cn cn D N V 0 V �N • Increase in traffic on Timberview Road . . . O O 4) .> 4) E c O 4) O) 4/3 O > U c O � (j_3 O � Q- - O -a (6 ?) 02 U ® 02 coc • Light pollution i 0 •H 0 a_ v 0 os s � 3 O — i, • .- > V O 0 • ,„ D c N > a) i o E .0 O (1) ✓ l" N. o o :- E.cE E 0 (li :2 `;) .co c0 4�0 O The number of individuals at each event shall be limited to 250. N 0 0 z a 0 CY) c r 0 0 0 nn`` nn`` n` nn`` 0 0 2 c } _ c O O . O 0 (3), 2 8 •= 0 00) Ov,O�� 0 � 0 U}>_ .O -2 .0`r'3 0 . 0p00 -0 E Oau- ocLO Q8 N Q0 QQ> o 00 �00.�0 (NI} 2 O 0 D-0 eli 0) Q Q-C -3 0 O N .c 0 O-0 O}E Do Oc 0`."0 v o �'= * 0 2 0 C 0 O Dtt cn 0 00EOOoOD a) Q} U°ra u_ "'c.0-00r� 01 (2 0 _TD � ) c v) (r) -0 0) 0 E D— 0 0 ( C 078) .c .UOr-O.>,0 U0 U} 0 0} Q� a) N^c0)�.��Q�� 00 V ��� OQ� 000 - D c 0 0 1-mm . D O. � z ,24 H 0 H N c-I Page 1 of 1 Susan McCoy - Reinhardt comments From: Isaac Henry To: Susan McCoy Date: 1/2 5/20212:44 PM Subject: Reinhardt comments Hi Susan, I just got a call from Robert Pinnell, who lives at 2256 Timberview Road. Mr. Pinnell would like the following comments to be read at the PCPH for the Reinhardt application: "I am concerned about the fact that music concerts or festivals are included in the definition of Special Events Facility. I am totally against any concerts or music festivals on this property. This is a narrow road that a lot of people bike on and it would be unsafe to add the amount of traffic that would come from a music festival or concert. I am also concerned that concert or music festival attendees would be consuming alcohol and driving drunk on Timberview Road." Mr. Pinnell's phone number is 540-562-4547 Thanks! -Isaac file:MC :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/600ED95 8PO2_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 1 of 2 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - Reinhardt land use application for 2875 Timberview rd. From: Marshall Beard <mbeard167@gmail.com> To: <planning@roanokecountyva.gov>, <djacks@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 1/26/2021 8:23 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Reinhardt land use application for 2875 Timberview rd. From: Marshall and Dusy Beard 2451 Timberview Rd. I own a home and 58 acres of land with approximately 3/4 of a mile of road frontage on Timberview Rd. I have invested a significant amount of money to live where I do for several reasons, including privacy, safety, and peace and quiet. The road began as a dirt trail and aside from some undersized culvert pipes and crumbling paving has seen little in the way of upgrades from the time my grandparents were the last house on the road in the late 1950's at 2186. This despite the major increase in tax base due to the construction of a significant amount of expensive homes. The road,which we own and pay taxes on, isn't sufficient to serve the residents of Timberview Rd much less the traffic the county has added with bikers and hikers now flying up and down it with little regard for the speed limit that sees 0 enforcement. The last thing we need is rural zoned land and a single family residence being turned into an event venue causing more traffic not only from cars but busses and event delivery trucks that don't fit on a lane and a half rural road. The residents know how to safely navigate the twists and turns and pass safely, strangers especially in a bigger vehicle do not, Roanoke College discovered this the hard way when they sent a small bus to pick up runners and caused an accident. Is it going to take killing another person on this road to finally wake the county into realizing infrastructure must proceed development to promote safety for the tax paying residents who own the land on which the road resides? We already can't get out of Dutch Oven Rd due to traffic from 311 combined with Allstate and the apartments that were permitted off Cove Rd without any infrastructure improvements. The trail.has brought that congestion to our front doors and now this proposal will further destroy the small amount of safety and privacy we paid for and are loosing more of everyday. There are no services on the road such as sewer, gas, internet, and fire hydrants, it would appear by code hydrants would be required at a minimum to ensure the safety of guests as well as the adjoining land owners in this wooded rural setting. Alcohol would seem to present another safety issue, most events feature some form of drinking and you must assume this will be a factor in driving as well as fire hazards file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/60107A3EPO2_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 2 of 2 I happen to have first hand experience with Mark Reinhardt and a wedding party from his home, a tree fell across timberview Rd and he drove his large pickup truck down the road with numerous people in the back. They appeared to be intoxicated as they were very loud and in full party mode, Mark proceeded to turn off Timberview rd and drive through the front yard of my house at 2186 Timberview Rd, his window was down and I was screaming at him to stop as he was driving over the 60 year old septic system composed of orangeburg piping with that heavy load. He couldn't hear me for the noise in the back and his own involvement in the ongoing party. I am trying to be kind in assuming alcohol was involved as I wouldn't want to think of someone as that simple without an outside influence. When I finally got through to him and could explain what he had just done his response was 'well it wasn't marked". I asked him if his was and how about I drive through your yard and see what you have to say? He drove off saying nothing, If this is how he conducts himself at his own function and respects the people on the road and their property, I can't see him controlling others any better. For all the above reasons you must deny this application!!! WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/60107A3EPO2_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Betty Matthews Moore Lives in The Woodlands, TX, owns parcel across street (no address point — Tax ID # 026.01-01-13.00- 0000) "I am wondering about liability insurance, if someone goes on my property and injures themselves, will I be liable? I feel that having events at this house will lower the value of my property. I am against allowing this special use permit." Page 1 of 1 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - Form Center / Planning and Zoning 10 2/2/21 Mark Reinhardt From: David Dabbs <dhdabbs00@verizon.net> To: "planning@roanokecountyva.gov" <planning@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 1/28/2021 9:44 AM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Form Center / Planning and Zoning 10 2/2/21 Mark Reinhardt February 2, 2012 Special use permit for Mark Reinhardt 2875 Timberview Road AR district David H Dabbs 2119 Timberview Road, as 45 year residents of this address. We ask you not approve the special use permit for this commercial venue in AR District. We do not believe it will benefit our people or our neighborhood in any at all. We do not foresee the county gaining much more tax base to remove additional trash and handling complaints that may happen. Thank you , D.H.Dabbs WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/60128779P02_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 1 of 2 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - Land Use Application for Events Venue on Timberview Road From: Ginger Taylor <ginger.in.va@aol.com> To: "planning@roanokecountyva.gov" <planning@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 1/28/2021 3:57 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Land Use Application for Events Venue on Timberview Road We would like to offer the following questions and comments regarding the land use application submitted by Zye and Gaven Reinhardt for a special events facility on Timberview Road. Most residents of Timberview Road chose to live here because we appreciate its natural beauty, wooded properties, obscurity, and remoteness while still being close to "civilization," but most of all, we love the peace and quiet, and privacy it affords us. These qualities are scarce in most Roanoke Valley residential areas. While the applicants have presented the wedding they previously held at the site as evidence that it can be done without impacting their neighbors, there is a difference between privately holding a one-time wedding for a friend in your home and operating an events venue on a regular basis, and we believe that living in close proximity to such a venue and its inherent activity will adversely affect the quality of life we currently enjoy, and diminish the value of our properties. Following are some specific questions we have about the proposal: (1) What is the maximum number of guests the venue will accommodate? (2) Will live bands and DJs be permitted outside? (3) Will alcohol be allowed at the events either initially or in the future? Road Traffic - While guests will be shuttled to the venue, it appears the wedding party will be allowed to drive themselves since the application mentions parking for them. When you consider the size of some wedding parties, and then add the caterers, photographers, florists, possibly musicians and other support staff, it could result in a significant increase in traffic on a narrow, winding road that is already struggling to be maintained, and since the venue is open to other types of events, this could go on any day of the week. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/6012DF06P02_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 2 of 2 In addition, it is reasonable to expect that some guests may buck the rules, drive themselves to the site, and park along the road. There could also be situations where guests may offer to drop off others at the venue, and then drive back to catch the shuttle alone. Even in the best of circumstances, a significant increase in traffic seems unavoidable. Alcohol - Whether it's provided by the venue, the caterer, the wedding party or the guests themselves, if alcohol is present at an event, whether officially or unofficially, inebriated drivers would present a very real danger to residents and themselves. Noise — It appears the wedding previously held at the house was in November. While we don't know the specific weather conditions at that time, due to the time of year, we are guessing they were not conducive to outdoor activities. Any events held in the warmer months are likely to have activities taking place outside the home would present a noise problem especially if there is a band or DJ playing music which could potentially go on for HOURS. Property Values — Even in the best of circumstances, having an events venue that could accommodate hundreds of guests in proximity to private residences would adversely affect the value of those properties. While we appreciate the applicant's efforts to address some of the potential problems of operating an events venue in a residential area, we believe there are some issues which cannot be avoided, and we are not in favor of the application being approved. Thank you, Ginger and Danny Taylor 2941 Timberview Road WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/6012DF06P02_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 1 of 1 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - 2875 Timberview rd From: Rodney Larimer <wutney@gmail.com> To: <planning@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 1/30/2021 12:48 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - 2875 Timberview rd Cc: <djacks@roanokecountyva.gov> I am completely opposed to any commercial businesses proposed in the Timberview Rd area, which would bring further unwanted traffic to an already congested area along with the already added pedestrian traffic for the new Hinchee trail. The area around the existing park and the addition of the Counties proposed project will only add to the problem of more traffic on an unsuitable road for commercial traffic through what has been previously declared a greenway preservation area. In addition to traffic concerns in a green area, there is also concern regarding alcohol consumption which leads to public safety issues. You can call it what you like but it is still a commercial business that has no place in an established residential area. WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/6015 5 5 A8PO2_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 1 of 2 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - Current - zoned AR - tax map number 026.03-01-18.00-0000 - Mark Reinhardt -request special use permit Public Hearing 02/02/2021 From: Rebecca S Bethel <rsbethe15050@aol.com> To: "planning@roanokecountyva.gov" <planning@roanokecountyva.gov>, "djacks@r... Date: 1/31/2021 2:23 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Current - zoned AR - tax map number 026.03-01-18.00-0000 - Mark Reinhardt -request special use permit Public Hearing 02/02/2021 Cc: Rebecca S Bethel <rsbethe15050@aol.com>, "lebethe14646@aol.com" <lebethe... Lacy and Rebecca Bethel, residents at 2496 Timberview Road for over 30 Years. We chose this area to build our retirement home and live out ours days in peace and quite. Timberview Road is a rural area/ Agricultural/Residential preserving a rural lifestyle . Timberview Road is a 'dead end road' only ONE WAY IN and only ONE WAY OUT! NO Fire hydrants! Limited cell phone service and Internet! What about security during an event? There has been an increase in traffic by cars and bikes due to the opening of bike and walking trails. Timberview Road residents are having to yield to bikers on the road. While 2 cars can not pass with a bike on the side of the road with blinding curves. With the opening of the mountain bike trail, there has been an increase of vehicles and bike riders on the road, this has made the road less safe! An increase of private and commercial vehicles on this narrow curving road that has low level streams and low level culverts will place a burden on Virginia and or Roanoke County maintaining a safe road. I do not want my taxes to increase due to rezoning ! We live a few miles from the Reinhardt's and on one occasion we could hear loud music, late in the evening, and saw an Abbott bus going to their residence ! Abbott and Roanoke County School bus must drive approximately four and one half miles to turn around to exit back out. We have had large vehicles turn around in our drive way running over scrubs and breaking asphalt . Timberview Road can not handle additional traffic .. it will impact our quality of life, our rural lifestyle ,our safety. I need the planning commission preserve our community. Catawba District Member, Troy A Henderson and other members of the planning commission --- decline Reinhardt's application! Thank you, Lacy and Rebecca Bethel file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/6016BD 5 5P02_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 2 of 2 WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/60 16BD 5 5P02_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 1 of 2 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - Current - zoned AR - tax map number 026.03-01-18.00-0000 - Mark Reinhardt -request special use permit Public Hearing 02/02/2021 From: Rebecca S Bethel <rsbethe15050@aol.com> To: "planning@roanokecountyva.gov" <planning@roanokecountyva.gov>, "djacks@r... Date: 1/31/2021 2:23 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Current - zoned AR - tax map number 026.03-01-18.00-0000 - Mark Reinhardt -request special use permit Public Hearing 02/02/2021 Cc: Rebecca S Bethel <rsbethe15050@aol.com>, "lebethe14646@aol.com" <lebethe... Lacy and Rebecca Bethel, residents at 2496 Timberview Road for over 30 Years. We chose this area to build our retirement home and live out ours days in peace and quite. Timberview Road is a rural area/ Agricultural/Residential preserving a rural lifestyle . Timberview Road is a 'dead end road' only ONE WAY IN and only ONE WAY OUT! NO Fire hydrants! Limited cell phone service and Internet! What about security during an event? There has been an increase in traffic by cars and bikes due to the opening of bike and walking trails. Timberview Road residents are having to yield to bikers on the road. While 2 cars can not pass with a bike on the side of the road with blinding curves. With the opening of the mountain bike trail, there has been an increase of vehicles and bike riders on the road, this has made the road less safe! An increase of private and commercial vehicles on this narrow curving road that has low level streams and low level culverts will place a burden on Virginia and or Roanoke County maintaining a safe road. I do not want my taxes to increase due to rezoning ! We live a few miles from the Reinhardt's and on one occasion we could hear loud music, late in the evening, and saw an Abbott bus going to their residence ! Abbott and Roanoke County School bus must drive approximately four and one half miles to turn around to exit back out. We have had large vehicles turn around in our drive way running over scrubs and breaking asphalt . Timberview Road can not handle additional traffic .. it will impact our quality of life, our rural lifestyle ,our safety. I need the planning commission preserve our community. Catawba District Member, Troy A Henderson and other members of the planning commission --- decline Reinhardt's application! Thank you, Lacy and Rebecca Bethel file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/6016BD 5 5P02_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 2 of 2 WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/60 16BD 5 5P02_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 David J. Lofgren 3024 Timberview Road Roanoke, VA 24019-6512 January 28, 2021 Roanoke County Planning Commission 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 RE: Hearing for Special Use Permit - Reinhardt, 2875 Timberview Road; Feb 2, 2021 Messrs. James, Henderson, Woltz, Bower and McMurry; I am submitting these formal comments regarding the application for a Special Use Permit (SUP), by Mark Reinhardt, to hold special events at his current residential home on Timberview Road, Zoned AR (agricultural/residential), that is adjacent to private homes Zoned AG-3 (residential/rural preserve). I've known Dr. Reinhardt and his family as friendly good neighbors for over 20 years. His family home is beautiful and could easily support a wedding venue and similar events. However, my concerns focus around the larger question of whether a commercial venture in the midst of a long standing rural family community sets a detrimental precedent. Approval could easily invite interest in more commercial development that further stretches current zoning parameters and compromises the tranquil lifestyle and safety of current residents. Significantly, county Code Section 30-34-1., Purpose AR Agricultural/Rural District, states, "The purpose of this district... is to maintain these areas essentially in their rural state." BACKGROUND: The Timberview Road area is well known to the Commission having been thoroughly examined during a recent 2020 hearing application to permit new commercial activity in this same area (application subsequently withdrawn). To review, this area is composed of residential family homes on mostly larger acreage lots, all accessed only by narrow and torturous Timberview Road, which has no outlet (dead ended). There are no commercial properties that use Timberview Road. [Note: Loch Haven Lake Club partially borders Timberview Road, but all public access is solely from Loch Haven Drive] There are just two properties on Timberview Road that are not residential or forested without structures: • Sherwood Archers is a member only not -for -profit archery club on 89 acres, is not open to the public, does not allow private events, and has gated access. • Carvins Cove Natural Reserve recreation area, with hiking/biking trails and parking lot, is developed and managed by the Roanoke City Department of Parks and Recreation and is located wholly beyond the dead end of Timberview Road, within the Carvins Cove watershed. 1 CONCERNS: The principle concerns are two - the safety of residents; and establishing a commercial development precedent. There are many associated questions/concerns that the application does not address, or only partially addresses. These salient concerns follow: 1. Roadway and Residential Safety - Only recently repaired and posted with a speed limit, Timberview Road remains a very narrow road, with no shoulders, pavement markings/delineations and many blind hills and curves. a. VDOT has no plan to upgrade/improve Timberview Road. b. The SUP application states "The property will experience a high volume of citizens on many given weekends" which coincides with the highest traffic by non-residents using the Carvins Cove Natural Reserve and the Sherwood Archers Club, magnifying traffic risks. c. The SUP application states a closing time of 10:00 pm that is proximate to the closing times of Carvins Cove Natural Reserve and Sherwood Archers, which could lead to increased nighttime traffic and driving hazards. d. The SUP application does not provide estimates for the anticipated size of events, the number of attendees and vehicles, including supporting staff and vehicles (caterers, etc.). Is there a business plan with estimates for event attendance? The SUP application anticipates "high volume" attendance, but is that 100 or 1,000. What is the county Fire Marshall's determination for the maximum facility capacity? e. The SUP application states shuttle buses are planned for reducing traffic; however, it is unlikely that event attendees dressed in finer clothing and bearing gifts, will choose to travel to a public parking lot and transfer to a bus. Driving directly to the wedding venue will be far more comfortable and convenient, especially in summertime heat when the SUP application estimates for most wedding events and also the season for greatest use of the Carvins Cove Natural Reserve and Sherwood Archers. f. Historically, due to poor road conditions that are similar to Timberview Road, Valley Metro refused a charter bus request for a Roanoke College group to attend an event in the Bennet Springs area of Roanoke County. g. Parking on/along Timberview Road would be prohibitive. The SUP application does not address parking to accommodate those attendees not taking the shuttle buses, nor traffic and parking controls. 2 h. There is no mention in the SUP application regarding serving alcohol at proposed events, although consuming intoxicating beverages is extremely typical for wedding receptions. A for -profit wedding venture where alcohol is not allowed would probably not be very popular. Whether alcohol is served as part of the event, or brought by participants, intoxicated driving on Timberview Road is an extremely dangerous scenario. 2. Precedent setting for further commercial development: This concern is fairly self- explanatory. Specific points follow: a. At present, there are no commercial facilities or activities accessed by Timberview Road. The proposed property conversion from private residence to commercial use would be a precedent setting action for this rural residential community. b. Approval of the SUP application would encroach on the long held and codified character of this rural residential community. c. The application narrative states that other events, such as "hosting business parties and other small functions" are included in the SUP application, but there is no further explanation. If approved, this open ended caveat could unintentionally stretch the SUP provisions and lead to further precedent setting commercial activity not within the intended scope of a single activity zoning exception, i.e., wedding venue. Summary/Recommendation: 1. There are many unaddressed/unanswered concerns associated with this SUP application. 2. Noteworthy are the county SUP guidelines that state, "Special use permits are generally subject to certain standards or conditions to ensure that the use is appropriate to the area." 3. If approval of this SUP application is contemplated, a comprehensive listing of standards and conditions should be developed and made part of the Planning Commission's approval recommendation; however, this listing cannot be properly developed until, at a minimum, the concerns stated above are resolved. Sincerely, Pav-i,oU J. Lo fgre w Copy: Issac Henry Ms. Martha Hooker 3 1564 Rosewalk Lane Roanoke, Virginia 24014 540-915-6959 buckysmom@cox.net January 31, 2021 Roanoke County Planning Commission 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Board Members: am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed zoning change from Agricultural -Residential to special use at 2875 Timberview Road (Tax Map # 026-03-01-18-00-0000). My family has owned property ((Tax Map # 025.00-01-02.00-0000) across from Mr. Reinhardt's property for four generations and we have been good stewards of the land knowing that it is a part of an amazing rural, agricultural, historical and ecological community. In the proposal, the applicants explained that the wedding venue "conforms to Roanoke County's plan by ensuring scenic beauty within our blue ridge mountains" for "many" ... "traveling from far and wide". It was also stated that the venue will ensure "future tourists" and "promote many different religions from far and wide, showing that Roanoke is an inviting area to all types of people." Diversity is exactly what we want and that is why the local governments have come together to make Timberview a priority for the rural bikeway plan in conjunction with the help of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission. I believe that many different people "from far and wide" will enjoy the spectacular Timberview outdoors through experiencing the bikeway, Carvins Cove Preserve and the Hinchee Trail. The applicants answered the first question on the application dealing with the "further the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance" by stating "to operate a special use facility"... "we are inquiring is a wedding venue" ..."we will also be hosting business parties and other small functions during the colder months." But, the letter sent to me from the County of Roanoke Community Development Planning and Zoning states: A special events facility is defined as "a place, structure, or other facility used for the assembly of or intention of attracting people for cultural, ceremonial, celebratory purposes or civic clubs for which there is a leasing fee. Such assembly includes, but is not limited to, anniversary and birthday celebrations, reunions, weddings, and receptions. Music concerts or festivals as a primary use shall be considered an outdoor gathering." The types of activities listed in the letter -assemblies, weddings, anniversaries, birthday celebrations, reunions, receptions are more than I read in the application. I am very concerned that the venue would also be used for concerts and festivals and the activities are "not limited to" the listed events. Why should any community allow "not limited to" activities? This is not acceptable. am sure that as you visited the area, you were moved by the beauty and quietness of the forested ridges and feel of the wilderness around you. The Timberview area is unique and one of the most "green" areas left in the County. am sure that all of the residents made Timberview their home because of the beauty, quietness and rural character. "The scenic beauty of this area contributes to its quality of life and preserves property values. Limits on the extent of mountainside and ridgeline development will help preserve the scenic beauty of the County." (Roanoke County Ridgeline Protection Theme, Roanoke County Website) As for the impacts of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services, carefully read the responses made by the applicants. As stated by the applicants in the proposal , "our lovely neighbors on the road have given us support in this endeavor". I tried to access the Facebook group but could not find it. As I read the Facebook posts supplied by the applicants, noted that there were seven people who responded and wondered if any of the respondents were family members who also live on Timberview. I noticed that Donna Chapman Stevens' name, another neighbor in favor of the venue, is listed on the Resubdivision Plat along with Carl G. Stevens and Mark Steven Reinhardt. I would say that these "neighbors" would be favorably inclined to support the land use application. I have no way of knowing if there were negative responses. (Please see the map.) trrtsr MARK 51E4EN KOKHARDT r. AT ;RA C {NS+RUC li itLC As�c+ae-. ZA£3 A:+3i —CARL a As DONNA C. STEWNS etl, S 80r31.8:: C )8O-O,-OJ R' earn s ;RR,/ Rfol%+`: RIR os-,;- r@a Awls NEW TRACT JA 31.3l66 ACRES 88,08888 d> [MVO ;OA.. IE NgK52 TV YA a: 11. '5 ' ka,<O, P ZI. '9:C S ':!4 )'' FRO RO 40 CLARENCE E & VRWIE W VISE M5rRsaO'79 :8883Ofl51 IOW A.r $ a22;.i-81-18.08 FR3..Air rY J$ESTERN WRGINIA REPONAL— INDUSIR/AL FACILITY AUTHORITY rxAcr x , axawr-vc" r/0vn 0' LLOYD A dr JOYCE J BONMAN TAY K8: 024 42 27-1:.a ? [RAVnk' SL2,1 ARK 5)E'r9N R 8E,r, CAM, IAATi1±E((Ml Y i4AYPlf t EYP. Nd(8i16 I4'dG9 RR/AR, 3 CARA (9 B DOYNA 2. 7Ct 7v"S nsmlwr"r.ae s,�.,, al TRACT ,.7Y„ �^F dX. & AAREN W :VOA FAT FROR REVIRS A %:STEVEN R 4 �.aw' kx C"irw NlC Hit ? - $$ NEW TRACT 3A 31.3165 ACRES `) ea'r1e' TRACT 2A-14.6255 ACRES =xx T'tBFA'K41744 `44u.a9•nu asrr 75 C A ,R' Xr0.TN o. MI ([CMN(p@?NIS) CALDWELL WHITE ASSOCIATES 31.G1rwass / suaysvOil@ o lAx Na 28 n 15:4U-!-N, 16.�-,Mr1 a¢ arcera.l. G.C. c1,1 Gn7 rR.; ¢C560 RK 2::-2 881 W$IR7MAENT nb. ,,e ,•• rx xxA avAoa an ■O. 18.865 It is mentioned that the "venue is sitting on a private well and sewage system". What kind of sewage system? A sewage field? Was the field configured for a single family residence? What about fire and rescue? Nothing is stated. They mention in the proposal that they "reached out to the adjoining properties that traffic will be limited on Timberview Road". What are the traffic numbers now and how would traffic be "limited"? I contacted the VDOT Salem Office and was told that the county could give me the traffic data. Timberview Road is very narrow and curvy with limited shoulders. In addition to the curviness, many of the driveways on Timberview are blind drives. Bicyclists and hikers as well as the normal Timberview traffic will be put in danger by the increased traffic. Traffic and safety are major areas of concern. There is NO mention of maximum occupancy, maximum event occupancy, the number of public and private events allowed, or lighting pollution. What are the limited occupancies? A festival or concert? The use two shuttle buses to limit the traffic on Timberview was mentioned in the proposal. Two buses (14 people per bus) cannot adequately handle traffic concerns. Gaven Reinhardt This would be about the size of the vehicle we plan en getting We didn't ant a Abbot bus or School bus going down Timberview. Under a photo in the proposal, there is a statement: "Next to the chapel the wedding party will be parked(the green grass along the side of the hill)." and "The following is a picture of how traffic flow will occur when people are being shuttled from the Salem park..." The photos are unclear and do not show much about the "flow" and I could not find anything about the parking of guests' cars. Is there going to be a parking area ? That brings up another concern about the watershed runoff and the infiltration from the parking areas (land cover) as well as fro the septic field with the addition of two bathrooms. The land has a down gradient that would allow the increase of run-off, which will increase the amount of particulate matter and possibly harmful bacteria into the mountain stream at the base of the slope. Pictometry Tax Map Noise? There will be noise but it is stated in the proposal that "music will be discontinued after 1 Opm when the weddings will end". Then, the traffic will be limited to the two buses shuttling the guests to and from the venue to Salem parking. I question that two shuttle buses will solve the heavy traffic problem that will exist. Wildlife and nature? There is abundant wildlife and nature in the Timberview community with Brushy Mountain as a backdrop and Carvins Cove Natural Reserve extending the trails that wind through the ridges. Hikers, birders, walkers, bicyclist, students, teachers and even people from "far and wide" take advantage of what the residents of Timberview found when they chose to make the residential/agricultural zoned area their home. Special use development with its traffic and noisy activities will impact local wildlife habitat. The proposed venue is incompatible with the preservation of the agricultural and the rural lifestyle of the community. Recently, wedding venues have become a fad. Many farmers and landowners who live out in the middle of nowhere have successfully re -purposed barns and spaces to accommodate celebrations. They may have also sponsored concerts and festivals. I am dismayed at the movement to take agricultural/rural land within an established community, such as Timberview, and turn it into venues that affect the rural quiet and beauty. Timberview Road is not comparable to these locations. respectfully ask the Planning Commission Board members to reject the application for a special land use zoning for the "wedding" venue at 2875 Timberview Road. It will be detrimental to the community. Thank you for your continued service and support to our county of Roanoke. Best regards, Sandra Garst Hunter Members of the Planning Commission: My name is Tim Philips. I live at 3010 Timberview Road. With regard to the special use permit requested by the Reinhardts dated January 13, 2021, there are various considerations that need to be addressed. The Reinhardts are, and have been, good neighbors to those of us on Timberview Rd. While their residence seems to be a good spot for such a venue, there are some concerns that affect the greater community that must be addressed in order for this to be good change. Existing Zoning and Special Use Permit The existing zoning for the property is Agricultural/Residential. Per Roanoke County regulation 30-34-2, a SUP for a Special Events Facility is not allowed. Contrast that with regulation 30-32-2, which does specifically allow for a Special Events Facility SUP for Agricultural/Rural Preserve. Since a zoning variance is not listed on the application, nor called out on the postings, I would expect that a zoning variance needs to be addressed via a separate application subsequent to this meeting and prior to potential approval of a special use permit. Road Safety and Ingress/Egress: The applicant states that they expect to use buses to shuttle attendees back and forth to the events. While I believe this may mitigate some traffic on Timberview Road if enforced, it is naive to think that most guests are going to want to voluntarily meet at a Park and Ride, board a bus (likely in finer clothing and perhaps bearing gifts, etc.), and share a ride to the residence. This would be true anytime, but is especially true with COVID-19 and the likely future desire for social isolation brought about our experiences with COVID-19. Thus, this reality leaves a lot of vehicles regularly travelling a road that, under the best of conditions, is extremely dangerous. Add the very high likelihood of consumption of alcohol at these events, the regular recreational bikers on Timberview, and regular vehicular traffic, and the recipe for grave circumstances is in place. I cannot overemphasize how difficult it is to simply pass another car on this road. It does not meet state standards due to width and other factors, and is not paved (only a slurry surface) like other roads. It is often in a state of what I would characterize as moderate to extreme disrepair. Precedence/lifestyle If approved, we don't like the precedence this might set. Given the campground petition of 14 months ago and its subsequent approval by the Planning Commission, where does all of this end? The residents of this road live here because we like the peaceful atmosphere and the solitude of this area. Steps Forward/Where do we go from here? As I said when I spoke at the meeting a year ago, most of the residents here are not opposed to change, but we are opposed to change that might not be good for the greater community. Notwithstanding issues related to a zoning variance, there is likely some compromise in this situation that might make this palatable, thus allowing the applicant to purse their venue, while at the same time, having a more limited impact: 1. Buses Make use of buses mandatory as part of the special use permit. In the case of a wedding, the immediate bride/groom party would be exempt. However, others must use the buses. The details of this provision are a little more complicated I am sure, but I think you get the intent. This is not to say that having a bus on this road is safe, because it clearly is not; however, it may be a little safer than having 50 -100 or more cars on it. 2. Regular patrols The speed limit on this road is 35mph, and it was posted only about 3 years ago. Prior to that, it was not posted at all. I challenge you to go 35 on this road, and can only say that to do so feels a lot like being at an amusement park. However, many people still speed and more patrols are already needed. Please add DUI checkpoints during events. Use of buses would help mitigate these issues, but not completely eliminate the increased risk. In summary, I would like to support my neighbor. However, the right mechanisms must be in place to protect the greater community by mandatory use of buses and increased patrols during events. Tim Philips January 30, 2021 Re: Planning Commission Hearing on February 2, 2021 Zye and Gaven Reinhardt land use application Dear Sir: I am writing in response to a notification dated January 13, 2021 (not received until January 23, 2021) regarding a land use application request. Please accept the following considerations when deciding to approve or deny this application: History: Timberview Rd is a rural lifestyle community. My family has owned land on this street for over 100 years. The community on this road has watched the number of residences increase over the past 40 years due to the rural nature and the beauty of the area. Roads: Timberview Rd began as a wagon trail. In the winter months there was a large gate located in an area before arriving at the Reinhardt property that was locked when winter began and was opened when spring arrived. This gate was to prevent anyone from going beyond that point. About 40 years ago (when we built our home on Timberview), the road was covered with a mixture of gravel & tar & later covered with asphalt. The culverts have not been updated to accommodate the run-off from the many creeks that are seen on the road and are now failing. Recently, a 12 foot culvert had to be replaced when the road was undermined by storm -water overflow at our driveway entrance. I had called the local VDOT office to report places where the road was "sinking". Several drive -by inspections yielded zero effort. The result was a 2 day road closure to traffic. That resulted in cancelled doctor appointments, etc. The road has no fire hydrants, is narrow and a fire truck would need the entire road to respond to emergency calls. Access: We have only one way into our community and one way to exit our community to get to Dutch Oven Road. Once on Dutch Oven Road, there is only one way to exit to Route 419. The bridge that allowed exit on Route 311 was allowed to deteriorate and became unsafe and was closed. When Virginia Tech has an activity, this causes Interstate 81 traffic to slow to a crawl; therefore, traffic "takes the back way" by getting off at our Exit 141 and using Blacksburg Road to get to Tech. You've added the traffic from the Allstate building, the new apartments constructed on Cove Road and the traffic from the APCO building. So, we have several issues — when the road is closed for repairs, there is no exit or entrance to your residence. The event dedicating the park on Dutch Oven caused the road to close to through traffic limiting our access to our homes, access for Emergency vehicles and buses. There are also trees that block the road when they frequently fall (some residents carry a chain saw in their vehicles during the winter knowing there is a possibility of having to clear the road). Parking for Hinchee park sometimes overflows onto the sides of Dutch Oven road. Land Use: This community is zoned Agriculture/Residential. Currently located on the road is Sherwood Archery (additional traffic and noise for scheduled events), the back entrance to Loch Haven Country Club (has events such as weddings, receptions, family outings, etc) and recently we have the Hinchee Trail opened. There are many bikes and runners using the road (not the designated Hinchee Trail). Everyone in my family has been "run off the road" by someone, with bikes being carried on their car, who are unfamiliar with the topography of the road. Problems would arise with the activities generating noise. Noise would be amplified in this little valley. There is insufficient parking, requiring parking areas, bathrooms, electrical upgrades and construction of facilities changing the community forever. Taxes/Services: We have very few services provided by Roanoke County — trash pick-up, policy and fire coverage and schools/school buses for those with school age children. Promised high speed internet service has not been provided even though we were told it would be available several months ago. Other sections of the county did receive these services. Yet, our real estate taxes continue to increase. What impact will approving this application have on our taxes? Conclusion: This road cannot support additional traffic and with potential alcohol involved, is ripe for accidents. The community promotes a rural lifestyle for those looking for it. It is zoned agriculture/residential and should remain so, without commercializing the community. Please deny the request. Thank you, John and Barbara Cosgrove 2610 Timberview Rd Roanoke, VA 24019-5914 Page 1 of 2 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - Proposed Land Use Application filed by Zye and Gaven Reinhardt From: "Steve Huff" <stevehuff@ntelos.net> To: <planning@aroanokecountyva.gov> Date: 2/1/2021 12:30 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Proposed Land Use Application filed by Zye and Gaven Reinhardt Dear Planning Commission: We have lived on Timberview road for 34 years now and I have attempted to list below, events concerning the road that we think have contributed to additional safety hazards while traveling on the road and certainly the addition of this proposed land use application would only add to these safety issues. 1-The road has never been properly maintained. In some years, cracks in the existing asphalt, pot holes and the shoulders of the road that deteriorated and gave away were only patched with tar and gravel and currently the majority of the shoulders of the road are cracked and deteriorating. Some shoulders have recently been patched with a very thin layer of asphalt. 2-We attended a VDOT meeting over 15 years ago in which VDOT stated that major repairs and widening of the road was in their 7 year plan but nothing major has ever been done to the road. 3-The road is narrow and winding with steep ravines in some areas and over the years numerous accidents have occurred on the road including death. 4-Within the past several years the city of Roanoke has improved an existing parking lot at the end of the road and opened up hiking and biking trails around Carvins Cove lake which has added a major burden on the road due to increased traffic. Traffic going to and from this parking lot often times are speeding past our driveway at over 55 mph. 35 mph signs have recently been installed on the road, however, they have not helped. Most all of the speeding that I see involves people who do not live on the road because those that do know how dangerous the road is. We have stopped walking on the road due to safety issues. 5- Since the Hinchie Trail has opened, we now have cyclist riding the complete length of Timberview road. If two cyclist are riding side by side it is impossible to pass them giving the lawful 3 feet clearance on most areas of the road. With all of the current volume of vehicles and bicycles on this road, I can't imagine adding to the existing burden with more traffic this proposed land use application would bring without major repairs and widening of the existing road to make it two lanes. I am very concerned about serious accidents and possible loss of life on this road as it is. I would also like to question if this application is approved, would it include music concerts and festivals as the definition of the special events facility vaguely eludes to in our notice we received, because if it does it will only add more concerns for the existing residents of this road. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stephen Huff 2222 Timberview road file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/6017F474P02_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 2 of 2 WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/6017F474P02_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 1 of 1 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - Reinhardt Land Use Application- 2875 Timberview Road From: "Shelley L. Bethel" <slbethe11010@aol.com> To: "planning@roanokecountyva.gov" <planning@roanokecountyva.gov>, "bos@roan... Date: 2/1/2021 1:07 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Reinhardt Land Use Application- 2875 Timberview Road Cc: Lacy Bethel <lebethel@aol.com> I truly ask that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will take into consideration the passion residents have for Timberview Road, our homes in the rural area and the wildlife habituated here. Our narrow road barely supports Carvins Cove bikers and outdoor enthusiast, much less parties with hundreds of individuals in attendance. My husband and I witnessed first hand an Abbott bus, twice the size of a school bus, drive haphazardly down our road, then creating a road block in a dangerous curve. What would happen if someone needed medical attention or a sudden house fire and emergency vehicles couldn't get to them in time? A matter of seconds could make a huge impact on a family. It is also a shame to sit on my deck on a nice evening/night and all we hear is music blaring through the woods and valleys (yes, we have already experienced this). Lastly, security is a major factor for our small community. While building our home, someone broke in and stole all the installed copper. Now we would have to live in fear thinking about hundreds of strangers traveling down Timberview Road possibly plotting a robbery. Sounds far fetched, but a concerning possibility. We are humbly asking for Roanoke County Planning Commission and Roanoke Board of Supervisors to take into deep consideration to decline the Reinhardt residence application to open up a high risk business. Billy's Barn is for sale. Thank you for your time in regards to this issue. Lacy and Shelley Bethel Jr. 2492 Timberview Road WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/6017FD 13 P02_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 1 of 2 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - Timberview Road Wedding Venue From: Dennis Hudson <dennishudson512@gmail.com> To: <planning@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 2/1/2021 4:41 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Timberview Road Wedding Venue We would like to give some input on the proposed wedding venue on Timberview Road. As others have commented, we built our home on this road for the natural beauty, privacy and the peace and quiet of this area. All of these qualities have been challenged recently. I know many reasons for leaving the zoning for this area "as is" have already been pointed out. There is already too much traffic for the condition of the road. The "bicycle rider" traffic has increased dramatically in the last few years. Joggers and runners are frequently on the road. The curves and hills of our road make it pretty risky already. The maintenance of the road is very poor. Potholes are common, the patching and paving is pretty minimal and poor. There is definitely no room for parking on the road, and we don't think shuttles are practical. We already have one wedding venue on Timberview Road that is nearly within sight of this proposed one. The noise from weddings and events at this venue can be pretty loud and annoying. I can't imagine another venue with more noise, alcohol, etc. We love the beauty of Timberview Road and there are some beautiful homes on our road. Let us please keep it residential and a road of beautiful HOMES. From our previous experience, the voice of the many families and citizens are completely ignored. To sum it up, I ask - WHY SHOULD THE PEACE AND COMFORT OF SO MANY BE CHALLENGED FOR THE PROFITS OF A FEW? Dennis and Linda Hudson 2950 Timberview Road 540 797-1765 file:///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/60182F32PO2_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 2 of 2 WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/60182F32P02_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 1 of 1 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - Hearing re: 19935 Proposal, 2875 Timberview Road From: "Laura E. Spafford" <dlvin@yahoo.com> To: "planning@roanokecountyva.gov" <planning@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 2/2/2021 1:04 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Hearing re: 19935 Proposal, 2875 Timberview Road Dear Mesdames and Sirs: I am concerned about this proposall: 1. Traffic on Timberview. Although the applicants reference having 15 or more passenger buses to transport guests, I am concerned that this will turn into a lot more traffic on Timberview. Do they have a parking lot to accommodate all the guests? How many guests might they accommodate at one time? Timberview Road is already stressed by traffic to and from the park at the end of the road. Drivers speed there. The road is poorly maintained in any case, often requiring patching for sinkholes, etc.In fact there is one there that's been under construction since December. It is hard to meet another vehicle without fearing one will be sent over an embankment, as some drivers refuse to give way. If they could get a right of way and access from Loch Haven, that would be preferable. 2. Residential vs. Commercial As mentioned before, there are enough strangers on the road as it is with the park. More in my opinion is not better. I believe that with increasing traffic, all of us risk the increased threat of theft or trespass. Laura Spafford Winn 3218 Timberview Road WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/60194DF 1 P02_DOMAINM-Z_P... 2/4/2021 Page 1 of 2 Philip Thompson - Fwd: [EXTERNAL] - Timberview Road, Roanoke County, Concerns From: Liz Belcher To: Philip Thompson Date: 1/28/20211:12 PM Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] - Timberview Road, Roanoke County, Concerns Attachments: timberview 1 pdf.pdf Phillip, I am forwarding this to you as I believe Mrs. Hunter's comments should be considered input to the special use permit before Planning Commission. Liz >>> Sandra Hunter <buckysmom@cox.net> 1/28/2021 12:30 PM >>> Dear Ms. Belcher, I hope that you have enjoyed the beautiful snow that fell during the night. Against the blue sky, it's gorgeous! I have a concern about a zoning social use permit that is being proposed for a residence on Timberview Road. [ am attaching the letter that I received on 1/23/21. 1 do not have a residence on the road but my family has land next to the archery club for three generations. So, I love the community and have spent a lot of time there hiking and exploring. My husband loved bicycling the road and the mountainous area surrounding the road when he was younger though he now stays mostly on the Greenway. WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. Check out the Proposal: https://www.roanokecountyva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19937/Original-Submission---Reinhardt---with- maps The narrowness and curviness of the road, the lack of adequate road shoulders, the priority of Timberview being part of the rural bikeway , the increase of traffic, not to mention the many other issues that come with these types of venues in a residential/agricultural environment have me worried and concerned about how it will all change - not just for me but for the generations to come. I would appreciate your attention and thoughts on this proposal. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Sandy Garst Hunter file:///C:/Users/pthompson/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/6012B825P02_DOMA1NM-... 1/29/2021 From: DARLENE FELTS <deedeefelts1308@verizon.net> To: <planning@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 2/2/2021 8:23 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Mark Reinhardt/land use application 1... meeting ? 2/2/2021 @7pm unable to access 2 ... original application by mark was to use as wedding venue It looks like for weddings you gym (chapel) would accomidate approx. #150 wedding guest ...(correct) ? Recent... wedding ... I could hear music and laughter from my porch ...(.5miles) amazing... I believe you had 90 attended and ended a little after 10 3 ... Zye & Gavin application include additional 5 assemblies 4... there are 2 that concerns me and that is Music concerts and FESTIVAL ??? !!! ???... Outdoor Gatherings! f U I Now I wouldn't need to be concerns ... as much if I had a free pass ... to all...outdoor gatherings... instead of listening from my porch Hi Just what would the quantity of music lovers be allowed at this 31 acre Chateau de Laurea Estate?? Vendors??? Beer trucks ??? Transportation ??? Security ??? What time of day?? Cut off time ?? I am a lot concerned with this .5 miles ...not far away !!! Darlene Felts 3084 Timberview Rd deedeefelts1308@verizon.net Sent from my iPhone ********************************************************************** * WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. Document for presentation at Roanoke County's Public Hearing, February 2, 2021 I am here tonight because Zye and Gaven Reinhardt have applied for a Land Use Application Request to obtain a special use permit for a Special Events Facility on property zoned AR Agricultural/Residential located at 2875 Timberview Road. It is the property owned by Dr. Mark and Susan Reinhardt. As background, many of you know, I am Bruce Allen Watson. Jane and I own property directly across Timberview Road from the Reinhardt property. Between two and three months ago, Dr. Reinhardt and I met briefly near my mailbox. He explained to me that his family had recently hosted a wedding at his house. He wanted to know if I had noted any difficulty with traffic or noise on the day of the wedding. My answer was that I had noted no disturbance at all. I did not even know they hosted the wedding. In order to prevent a lot of traffic, he said they had picked up the guests from a parking lot, using a shuttle bus. He indicated they planned to host other weddings in the future. From that day until I read the letter from Roanoke County regarding this public hearing, I heard nothing else about their future plans. Saturday morning, January 30, 2021. I called Dr Reinhardt to ask about their plans. He said there would be no problem with traffic for their future events because they would continue to use shuttles. Roanoke County's letter made it sound to me like they were also asking permission to have music concerts and music festivals. Assurance was given me that there were no plans for those activities. My comment was that I believed he would do what he said. My question was what will happen in the future when the property owne'rs change? Would there be a legal document which would prevent future owners from hosting some of the other options in the application. I felt some of the possible events could cause disturbance in our community? To me, there would be a huge difference between hosting a wedding, and hosting a music concert or music festival, which are both mentioned in the application. Dr. Reinhardt indicated that there is presently nothing in writing that would prevent present or future owners from hosting a musical concert or festival. He assured me that it would not happen as long as he owns the property. I believe him. I think we do not have to worry about music concerts or music festivals while he is in charge. My concern is what will happen when he, or his family, no longer own the property? I am uncertain if the Reinhardt's have hosted more than one wedding. I think it is commendable that they have used shuttles to prevent traffic problems in the neighborhood. Transporting guests by shuttle is not mandated by the application request. A large city bus, used as a shuttle, must be costly. Will future owners of what is now the Reinhardt property, continue to pay for shuttles, since shuttles are not mandated? After my conversation with Dr. Reinhardt, I tried to play catch up. I only learned about the application when I read the Roanoke County letter the day before, which was last Friday, January 29. Although there had apparently been considerable discussion in the community, nothing was said to me or my wife. Today makes the fourth day I have known about it. I am uncertain of the practical difference between granting a zoning variance , and granting a change for land use so people are allowed to do different things with their land than they were with their original Land Use Agreement. (such as the one now under consideration). When the Land Use Agreement is allowed to change by the municipality, to me, as a non lawyer person, it seems similar to allowed a variance in a zoning law. When a land owner receives a zoning variance, it is my understanding there is a generally accepted legal principle that the zoning variance will "run with the land". This means the variances are unaffected when the property is sold. In other words, the new owners receive the zoning variance, and all its benefits. If the request for a special events facility is granted to Zye and Gaven Reinhardt, the residents of Timberview need to know if that grant will "run with the land" like a zoning variance. If it does, and future owners can use those same benefits, the future owners would be allowed to host any type of events that were granted in the original application. Under those circumstances, it appears to me that even music music festivals and music concerts would be allowed. There is no limit mentioned in the application as to how many people can attend. The continued use of a shuttle would be at the discretion of the future owners. It the decision were made to stop the shuttle at some point in the future, guests could be allowed to drive directly up Timberview Rd to the venue on the Reinhardt property. I would like for the planning commission to inform us whether or not the types of events that can be hosted as mentioned in this application will "run with the land" to future owners, if the present application is approved by the Department of Planning. I have already mentioned, and will mention several more rimes that the Land Use Application for the facility does not appear to limit the number of guests in any way. That may be the most important point I will make. If I am in error with that statement, please correct me. That should be a concern for all of us. Would the limit be just few, fifty, a hundred, or even greater? If a popular band were to perform a concert, could thousands attend? In the application, the number of guests allowed appears unlimited. Other questions arise. To my knowledge, Timberview has no public water or sewage. If we have had rain for days, and an event is hosted, will the septic system handle the extra sewage? Could ground saturation from excessive rain allow sewage run off, and possibly create an environmental hazard? Are porta potties going to be required? If an accident occurs with shuttle bus involvement, will the owners of the facility be liable for any damages and injuries? How about if a guest is traveling late and misses the shuttle. If he or she decides to drive to the facility, who will be liable if an accident occurs.? Are the Reinhardt's prepared with liability insurance if they are sued because of a mishap? I understand Saturdays are the most popular days for weddings. We have considerable bike traffic on Saturdays. How would it be to drive down Timberview and encounter a bike and a full size shuttle bus going in the opposite oreven the same direction, and at the same time? Many times I pull over and stop when facing oncoming traffic, especially near a mailbox, and when facing a large oncoming vehicle. I think we all agree Timberview is a rather narrow road. Do we want to have to pass a large oncoming (full size) shuttle bus? If the Park and Ride at Exit 140 is used for guest parking, are events going to be planned when Virginia Tech has a home game? I have seen that parking lot overflowing on some of those days. I think the city of Salem maintains that Park and Ride. When a business uses the Park and Ride for the purpose of making money, does Salem require a fee, or is special permission required? What will be the days and times of operation? Do the plans include hosting events only on weekends and holidays? What is the latest time the facility will be open? Will outdoor live bands or D J's be allowed at weddings or other events? They would certainly cause a lot of noise disturbance in the neighborhood. Dr. Reinhardt said wine and beer will be allowed. While the alcohol content of beer and wine is less than of hard liquor, intoxication can still occur. Using the shuttle would eliminate driving under the influence on Timberview. The threat would still exist because the guests may still be under the influence when they drive away from the Park and Ride. The shuttle would not stop the driving under the influence; only shift it to another place. Since the traffic is much heavier on route 311 than Timberview, it may be more hazardous for drivers to leave from the Park and Ride, than if they just left the reception from the Timberview facility. Certainly, many more drivers would be encountered on 311, than on Timberview. I think many of you feel as I do. I like living on Timbeview, better than any place I have ever lived. We are in the mountains on a dead end road with trails nearby, and near an approximately 13,000 acre conservation easement that will never be developed. Yet we can be at Valley View Mall in ten to fifteen minutes. Do we really want any type of business to be located right in the middle of this fantastic neighborhood that could affect our peaceful coexistence? Once any type of commerce is allowed, it will change things forever. I truly believe Dr. Reinhardt would do everything he could to maintain our peaceful neighborhood. The problem is that a special events facility does not care who owns it. It will allow options for activities that I doubt any of us want. Again I repeat, the application does not indicate a limit on the number of guests allowed. Does anyone want that to be an option in our neighborhood? For most of us, our homes are the single most expensive asset we own, and for that matter will ever own. Did any of the applicants or their families check with a real estate appraiser to ask how a business like the one proposed would affect the home values of your neighbors? Learning that would have been my first priority. For me personally, I do not think I have the right to bring a business into the neighborhood that could adversely affect the value of my neighbor's property. I thought it would be important to know how the proposed special events facility could affect our real estate values. I consulted two real estate professionals: a retired real estate appraiser with decades of experience, and a presently working real estate broker who owns his own firm. The two of them are familiar with real estate on Timberview. Both of them said the special events facility as requested in the application would almost certainly cause a decrease in our real estate values. The decreased value could be along the whole Timberview Road. The decreased value would probably be greater in the area between the proposed facility and 419, where the traffic could be heavier. They took into consideration what the special events facility would allow; things like the types of events listed on the application, a facility without limits on number of guests, the potential that future owners may hold events and provide no shuttle, which would cause increased traffic and the. They also considered noise that could accompany these events, especially if music concerts and music festivals were allowed. I wanted to know how the proposed special events facility could affect our real estate values. I consulted two real estate professionals: a retired real estate appraiser with decades of experience, and a presently working real estate broker who owns his own firm. The two of them are familiar with real estate on Timberview. Both of them said the special events facility as requested would almost certainly cause a decrease in our real estate values. The decreased value could be along the whole Timberview Road. It would especially be a threat in the area between the proposed facility and 419, where the traffic could be heavier. They considered what would be allowed (the things listed in the application) if the application is granted: A facility without limits on number of guests, the potential that future owners may hold events and provide no shuttle, causing increased traffic, and the noise that could accompany such events, especially if music concerts and festivals are allowed. Dr. Reinhardt said they are not going to host some of those things. But if there are no plans to use them, why even have them listed in the application? There is no assurance that future owners will or will not host any and all of those events. The two real estate professionals I consulted said the closer our homes are to the facility, the greater the potential decrease in our appraised values. On Saturday, Dr. Reinhardt told me he had previously checked with some of the nearby neighbors and they said they would be alright with the special events facility so close to them. I am one of the neighbors closest to the propose facility, and I was not consulted. I wonder if the neighbors consulted would have been agreeable with having the facility, had they known their property values could decrease. Because of location, the real estate professionals said the home closest to the proposed facility, owned by Kathy and Earl Ashby, likely would be the home whose value would drop the most Of the closest houses to the proposed facility, whose equity will likely decrease the most, three of those houses belong to relatives. Jane's and my house is the about the fourth or fifth closest. I encourage you to choose your own real estate specialist to see if he or she will confirm or refute what my consultants said. Who knows how the equity in our homes will be used in the future? Are nursing homes in our future? Will we need a reverse mortgage to provide for our cost of living? As we get older, will we need to sell our house and buy a patio home for easier living? Remember we can sell our homes without tax consequence. Even a five to ten per cent devaluation would cost us thousands. In summary, the real estate professionals I consulted indicated our homes, the most important and most expensive investments we will likely ever have, will almost certainly decrease in value if the facility is allowed. There is absolutely no chance the facility will do anything to increase the value of our homes. Only the family making the request has something to gain. Because of its potential adverse affect on so many people, I cannot possibly be in favor of approval of this application. I think it is an important point that the value of our homes does not have to actually decrease, but just to have the potential for decrease. I think the word "potential" is an important one. Do any of us want to have a business in the neighborhood that has the potential to decrease our home values? The only way to find out for sure would be to let the business be established and find out what happens. Do any of us want to take that chance? I think not. I urge the Planning Commission to deny this application. Respectfully, Bruce Allen Watson 2860 Timberview Rd. Roanoke, VA 24019 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Re: Mark Reinhardt request for special use permit for Wedding venue February 23, 2021 Board of Supervisors meeting My name is Paula Jones. I live at 3324 Timberview Rd I, like Mark Reinhardt, am a long time resident of Timberview Road, having built my house and moved in during February of 1983. Mark's current house was built to replace the one that burned down many years ago and is, by far, the largest house on Timberview Road. Due to its size, I had always wondered what future plans Mark might have for his house, and now I know. I think Mark's house would make a nice wedding venue. However, there are some items that make this a difficult, if not impossible, venture --the current amount of traffic on this road and the current state of Timberview Road. As Mark stated at the Planning Commission meeting, when he moved onto Timberview Road there were only a few residents past him --in fact there were 4, one of which was often vacant as it was a rental. Since that time; until present, an additional 15 homes have been established with another just now being started. In addition to those homes, 4 others have been built across from Mark. In the one and three quarter miles before Mark's house, where there were once only three homes, there are now 12 additional homes. Only the first half mile of the road has fewer homes that were built after Mark's than what was there before Mark's house. In spite of the increase in houses on Timberview, very little has been done by VDOT to accommodate the increase and address the road's safety issues. With more homes, comes more traffic. In total there are about 57 homes on Timberview Road. If you consider an average of 2 vehicles per home and each person drives one round trip per day, that works out to 228 vehicles on the road per day for just the residents. Mark says his venue will only hold 250 people. He has offered to buy a bus that holds 25 people to transport everyone to the wedding to cut down on the amount of traffic on the road and the possibility of drunk driving. Some people will drive, such as the wedding party, caterers, photographer, and musicians. With that in mind, let's say he has 200 people to transport in the bus. It will take 8 round trips to get that number there. Mark has told us they will begin transporting people an hour before the wedding. It takes about 5 minutes to safely get to the beginning of the road from Marks, maybe another 5 minutes to get to where he is picking up people, 5 minutes to load them and then reverse the process (30 minutes per load of 25 people). That means in an hour he will only be able to transport 50 people. So, in order to make this work he has to start hours before the wedding or secure several more buses and qualified drivers. If he then decides to allow everyone to drive and you figure 2 people per vehicle (125 vehicles) and they want to get to the venue within 30 minutes of the event, we are looking at one vehicle every 14 seconds coming down Timberview Road. That also brings up the question of where will that many vehicles park and the obvious risk of drunk driving. There is no way that Timberview Road can support this kind of traffic. The buses he proposes to use will take up more than half of the road as the road is only 14-16 %2 feet wide in most places (yes, I walked it and measured it in random places --the first half mile of the road may be even narrower). In addition to the narrowness, there are many twists and turns and blind rises that make this road dangerous. In fact, my daughter was run off the road by a large van that only carried 12 people, not the 25 that Mark proposes. Fortunately, she was not hurt, but her car was too damaged to drive. Besides the road being so narrow, there are virtually no shoulders. So if you do meet someone, there is often no place to pull off. Another thing to consider with the narrowness of the road is the ability for emergency vehicles to get thru. If there is an emergency on the road on a day that Mark is having an event, that vehicle may be unable to get to the emergency due to all of the traffic that it encounters and no way to get around it due to the road conditions. Mark said he would only hold events on the weekends (Friday/Saturday). This is also the busiest traffic days on Timberview Road due to the trails at both ends (the Hinchee Trail and the trails at Carvins Cove). These trails are accessed all week, but the traffic on the weekends is far worse. As both parking lots are fairly small, drivers fly down the road to hurry there to get a spot. Many of the vehicles are trucks and suvs so they can carry all of their equipment. Also, we often have groups of bikers that ride from the beginning of the road, to the trails at the end (anywhere from 3-30 bikers in a group). People who hike the Hinchee trail often don't use the first part of the trail that parallels Timberview, but opt to walk on Timberview road instead, often with their dogs and children. The trails at the end of Timberview (Carvins Cove trails) do not close until 10:OOpm which coincides with the venue's proposed closing time. I feel that Mark might be able to make this work if he could find another way to access his property other than Timberview Road, as Timberview road is just too narrow, windy, has too many blind turns, and too much other recreational traffic to support this additional traffic safely. There have been many accidents on this road, some of them fatal, and the road conditions were a heavy factor in every single one. Until a time that these conditions are made safe for all who travel on Timberview Road, or Mark secures a different entrance onto his property that does not use Timberview Road, I would ask the Board to turn down this application. Roanoke County Supervisors, We border Mark and Susan Reinhardt on the Lock Haven side of their property. We were patients of theirs for years and, jointly with the Lockharts, sold the Reinhardts their property. They have been good neighbors and a mighty good dentist who cared more about doing good dental work than how much he charged. I approve of Mark and Susan turning their home into a wedding venue. ,P4.1/041/e, arry and 2608 Loch Haven Drive 540-362-4216 From C.P. & Carol Lockhart I was a patient of Dr. Reinhardt's up until he retired. I also sold him the property on Timberview where his house is. We border Mark and Susan on the Loch Haven Road side of their property. I have known Susan and Mark as honest and caring people. Gaven, their son, has worked on my computer several times as well. 1 approve of their wedding venue and wish them luck. 2578 Loch Haven Drive 540-366-6934 My wife (Donna) and I live and have property bordering both sides of Mark and Susan Reinhardt. I am in favor of them having a wedding venue next door. Matter of fact, we suggested the idea. The wedding their daughter hosted in October did not bother us in the slightest and we are their closest neighbors, distance wise. I know they will control traffic with shuttle vans as their daughter did. Gerry Stevens 2885 Timberview Road 540-915-0631 My name is Cindy Brown, and 1 border the Reinhardt's right across the street. I wholeheartedly APPROVE of the Reinhardt's request to have a wedding venue. They have always been good neighbors and I cannot see any way this venue would negatively affect my lifestyle. Cindy Brown 2790 Timberview Road 312-3946 From Charlie Overfelt: I have lived at the beginning of Timberview for a long time; one of the first inhabitants. I have known Susan and Mark Reinhardt for years and I am IN FAVOR of their request for a zoning variance. If everyone drives on their own side of the road, the road is not hazardous. Numerous school buses, UPS trucks, Fedex trucks, and propane gas trucks drive down the road with only one incident in forty years which was caused by someone driving too fast down the middle of the road. I have been to his house and it is perfect for a wedding venue. Charlie Overfelt 2042 Timberview 562-0808 Hello Roanoke Gaven and Brianna ounty Supervisors, I'm Jennifer Snare and I live next to Reinhardt s re Reinhardt on the far end of Timberview. I APPROVE of the quest to have a weddin venue at their house. Their home is the beautiful, and it adds to� scenic beaut of this road. Traffic has never been an they are the kind of people who would issue for me on this road and I know y control the traffic coming from the venue because they care about people and they have children on this road also Jennifer Snare 3126 Timberview Road. 540-293-7329 Page 1 of 1 Philip Thompson - Fwd: [EXTERNAL] - February 23 meeting From: Debbie Jacks To: Board (Debbie Jacks); Philip Thompson Date: 2/11/2021 2:57 PM Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] - February 23 meeting Attachments: Sherwood Archers letter.docx Philip: Will you include in the agenda packet or do you want me to read when we have the public hearing? Deborah C. Jacks County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2003 (540) 772-2005 (540) 772-2193 - fax (540) 494-2627 - cell djacks@roanokecountyva.gov >>> "Richard Jones" <jyke3068@verizon.net> 2/11/2021 2:32 PM >>> Dear Board Members, Please find attached a letter from Sherwood Archers on Timberview Road. I contacted a member of Sherwood after viewing the February 2021 Planning Commission Meeting concerning the application from Mark Reinhardt for a special use permit of a special events venue on his property on Timberview Road. One of the people who spoke in favor of this was Cathy Ashby. I was upset when Cathy totally misrepresented how Sherwood Archers conducts business/tournaments on their property. I have lived on Timberview Road for 38 years and have never seen what she described as " people parking all up and down the road during Sherwood's events". Both of my daughters joined the club for a time when they were involved in competitive archery at their school. They both helped out with these tournaments at Sherwood and other events at the club. I also got to know several of the members and have continued a cordial relationship with them. When I heard Cathy's remarks about the club, I contacted them and asked them to write the letter to explain how things work there. It bothers me that falsehoods were spread about this outstanding organization that has resided on Timberview Road longer than almost any resident (Mark included). Please feel free to share this with the members of the Planning Commission too. Even though it is too late to change their decision, I think the record needs to be set straight. Sherwood would like to enter this letter for the upcoming meeting on February 23rd when Mark Reinhardt's proposal is brought before the Board. Sincerely, Paula Jones WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/pthomp son/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/602545D 5P02_DOMAINM-... 2/17/2021 Dear Planning Commission, My name is Randy Brookshier, current vice president of Sherwood Archery club, located at 2720 Timberview road. It has come to my attention that our archery club may have been misrepresented at the recent Planning Commission meeting. I understand that one of the arguments presented at the meeting was that Sherwood Archers hosts several large events throughout the year and that it is common for us to have vehicles parked alongside the road in both directions during these events. This in incorrect. I have been a member of Sherwood Archers since 1981 when I returned to Roanoke from college. For a good portion of my tenure there I have been an officer in various positions. While, it is true that we do host large archery events; the Virginia State Indoor Tournament, The Va. State Closed tournament, the Sherwood Traditional Archers Rendezvous, and others, our attendees do not park along the road. We have a very large parking lot, that was enlarged a decade or more ago when we removed a number of large trees. We have a large driveway accessing this lot that could be used for over flow parking if needed, but our lot is large enough to accommodate the vehicles, as well as campers, which attend our events. Timberview road is narrow and is barely able to support the vehicle traffic as it is. I am sure if we had vehicles lining the sides of the road as reported, especially since our entrance is at a narrowed portion adjacent to a bridge, Roanoke County police officers would have been dispatched to rectify the situation. The only exception to this would be on the occasions that we have work parties scheduled to do maintenance on portions of the range near the road. Even then we ensure that the vehicles are well off the road to prevent an accident and usually there are only one or two vehicles present. Depending on the event, we may have vehicles parked parallel to the road, inside of our gate by the fence. But these vehicles are not parked along the road way. They are inside of our fence. With the recent increase of traffic on Timberview due to the bicycle community traveling back and forth transporting their bikes to the parking area at the end of the road, as well as the increase in bicycle traffic itself, one has to be vigilant in order to drive on the roadway. Sherwood Archers certainly wouldn't want to exacerbate the situation by promoting, advocating or allowing parking alongside the road as it bisects out property. Thank you, Randy Brookshier VP of Sherwood Archers (540) 384-7376 Page 1 of 2 Susan McCoy - [EXTERNAL] - Fwd: petition of Zye Reinhardt and Gaven Reinhardt to obtain a special use permit in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District for a special events facility on approximately 31.32 acres, located at 287 From: Rebecca S Bethel <rsbethe15050@aol.com> To: "planning@roanokecountyva.gov" <planning@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 2/18/2021 2:14 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Fwd: petition of Zye Reinhardt and Gaven Reinhardt to obtain a special use permit in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District for a special events facility on approximately 31.32 acres, located at 287 Original Message From: Rebecca S Bethel <rsbethe15050@aol.com> To: djacks@roanokecountyva.gov <djacks@roanokecountyva.gov>; BOS@roanokecountyva.gov <BOS@roanokecountyva.gov> Sent: Thu, Feb 18, 2021 2:08 pm Subject: petition of Zye Reinhardt and Gaven Reinhardt to obtain a special use permit in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District for a special events facility on approximately 31.32 acres, located at 287 Roanoke County BOARD OF SUPERVISORS : As a resident of 2496 Timberview Road Lacy and Rebecca Bethel, for over 30 Years we chose this area to build our retirement home and live out ours days in peace and quite. Timberview Road is a rural area/ Agricultural only suitable AS the current Zoning states Agricultural/Residential - gardening vegetable and or wild flowers! Timberview Road is a'dead end road' only ONE WAY IN and only ONE WAY OUT! NO Fire hydrants! Limited cell phone service and Internet! Neighbors stop in our driveway to use their cell phone because of no service down the road. What if there is a "dangerous situation" are the resident going to know? felt safe to work the road for a morning nature walk.... but NOT NOW too many cars and bikes, so YOU Roanoke County Supervisors' have taken away my right to feel safe! I can not say to the Board of Supervisors the last time I observed a Roanoke County Police car on Timeberview Road to observe and protect the residence! Remember Mail BOXES! We have an increase in traffic by cars and bikes due to the opening of bike and walking trails. Noticing a car with bike rack or a truck with wide side mirrors, not the mention school bus or large commercial vehicles, I have to stop and let them drive by . Additional traffic, private and or commercial on this narrow curving road, with low level streams, low level culverts, along with driving down steep hill with a sharp turn going across a bridge bridge that 2 vehicles can not safely pass. The bridge needs to be taken out and the road straighten. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/602E7654P02_DOMAINM-Z_... 2/19/2021 Page 2 of 2 Are you going the widen the road or make bike rider path? Probably NOT! Basically just 'repair a few pot holes' So why do you think this road could handle additional cars and commercial buses ? I know I DO NOT MY TAXES to increase due to rezoning! Decreasing the value of my retirement home and the our heritage to our children! We live about four blocks away from the Reinhardt's, we could hear loud music, late in the evening, and saw as Abbott bus going to their residence, how did that bus turn around on a dead end road? I understand they want to share and show off their beautiful home and make money, but this is TOO MUCH IMPACT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS and beauty of our area. Troy Henderson asking you to decline their application! do you want this your back yard? planning commission Hooker I invite you to travel on this road on a weekend to observe to bike traffic. Is this what you want this at your home address ? Regardless, if this is approved there will be increase in traffic - cars, travel buses commercial vehicles. If this is established as a commercial venue this would encourage others, an example as the pioneer camping at Lock Haven Lake ? You will be opening the door and destroying peaceful life we are living! Loch Haven Lake Club already has weddings, so why do we need another wedding venue ? Many days ,year round, there is insufficient parking at the established lots for bike riders and walkers. I know Reinhardts want 'show off their home and make money' but they need to think about others! I feel they are nice people, we are asking do not to this to your neighbors! Billy's Barn is for selling .... Perhaps the BOS can help Reinhardts make this as their wedding venue. Board of Supervisors ... as tax payer, I would like you to open your mind and heart- read and respect the concerns of the Timberview residents and decline Reinhard's petition. WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C :/Users/smccoy/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/602E7654P02_DOMAINM-Z_... 2/19/2021 Page 1 of 2 Philip Thompson - [EXTERNAL] - special use permit filed by Gaven and Zye Reinhardt From: cathy ashby <cmjashby@aol.com> To: "bos@roanokecountyva.gov" <bos@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 2/20/2021 7:28 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - special use permit filed by Gaven and Zye Reinhardt Cc: "mhooker@roanokecountyva.gov" <mhooker@roanokecountyva.gov>, "pthompson@... Roanoke County Board of Supervisors *February 3, 2021 Board of Supervisors Meeting Re: Special use permit filed by Gaven Reinhardt and Zye Reinhardt My name is Cathy Ashby. My husband and I live at 2870 Timberview Road. My husband and I have been a resident here for 35 years. Earl and I have no problem with The Reinhardt Family having a wedding venue at their residence on 2875 Timberview Road. We think it is a beautiful home and it would not change the beauty of the landscape or the building to have weddings there. Such a fantastic way to share a gorgeous home with others on their wedding day. A day that they will always remember! As far as I know, there is not another venue in Roanoke County that would compare to the Reinhardt home. Our home is right across the street from the Reinhardt home. Be mindful that this is a rural area and houses are far apart. Mark and Susan informed us of their daughter's friend getting married at their residence last year. We knew when the wedding started but did not hear anything inside the house so we walked outside. In the driveway, we did hear muffled voices but could not make out what was being said. We were inside our house most of the night and can honestly say that we did not hear the music or any other noises and sounds coming from the property. Please consider this special permit so that this wedding venue can come to our area. I've no doubt that brides across the region would love to have their special day in this gorgeous home! Your consideration is appreciated, Earl and Cathy Ashby file:///C:/Users/PTHOMP— 1/AppData/Local/Temp/9S3LQ80I.htm 4/27/2021 Page 2 of 2 2870 Timberview Road Roanoke, Virginia 5400-556-4225 cmjashby@aol.com WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file :///C:/Users/PTHOMP— 1/AppData/Local/Temp/9S3LQ80I.htm 4/27/2021 Peter S. Lubeck COUNTY ATTORNEY ROANOKE COUNTY OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 TEL: (540) 772-2071 FAX: (540) 772-2089 SAMPLE MOTIONS Mary Beth Nash Rachel W. Lower Marta J. Anderson SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS The petition of Zye Reinhardt and Gaven Reinhardt to obtain a special use permit in an AR (Agricultural/Residential) District for a special events facility on approximately 31.32 acres, located at 2875 Timberview Road, Catawba Magisterial District. MOTION TO APPROVE I find that the proposed special use permit: 1. Meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; 2. Is in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; and 3. Will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. I therefore MOVE THAT WE APPROVE the petition to obtain a special use permit with the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the concept plan submitted with the application dated January 22, 2021, subject to any changes required during the site plan review process. 2. The number of individuals at each event shall be limited to 250. 3. Parking shall be prohibited on Timberview Road. On -site parking shall be limited to 40 vehicles. 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Fridays, and from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Only one event shall be allowed per day. MOTION TO DENY I find that the proposed special use permit request: 1. Is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted comprehensive plan or good zoning practice, and/or 2. Will result in substantial detriment to the community. I therefore MOVE THAT WE DENY the request. MOTION TO DELAY ACTION I find that the required information for the submitted proposal is incomplete. I therefore MOVE TO DELAY action until additional necessary materials are submitted to the Board of Supervisors. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800 • Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN AN AR (AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT FOR A SPECIAL EVENTS FACILITY ON APROXIMATELY 31.32 ACRES, LOCATED AT 2875 TIMBERVIEW ROAD, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP NO. 026.03-01-18.00-0000) WHEREAS, Zye Reinhardt and Gaven Reinhardt have filed a petition for a special use permit in an AR (Agricultural/Residential) District for a special events facility on approximately 31.32 acres, located at 2875 Timberview Road (Tax Map No. 026.03- 01-18.00-0000), in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 26, 2021; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on February 2, 2021; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommended approval of the petition with certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the second reading and public hearing were held on February 23, 2021; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the matter was indefinitely postponed to allow the applicant additional time to explore alternative methods of ingress and egress; and WHEREAS, the matter was again brought before the Board for resumption of the second reading on June 8, 2021; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: Page 1 of 2 1. The Board finds that the proposed special use meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Board further finds that the proposed special use is in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, and will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. 3. The special use permit for a special events facility located at 2875 Timberview Road (Tax Map No. 026.03-01-18.00-0000), in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby APPROVED with the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the concept plan submitted with the application dated January 22, 2021, subject to any changes required during the site plan review process. b. The number of individuals at each event shall be limited to 250. c. Parking shall be prohibited on Timberview Road. On -site parking shall be limited to 40 vehicles. d. Hours of operation shall be limited to 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Fridays, and from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Only one event shall be allowed per day. 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. Page 2 of 2 Page 1 of 2 Debbie Jacks - [EXTERNAL] - Current - zoned AR - tax map number 026.03-01-18.00-0000 - Mark Reinhardt -request special use permit From: Rebecca Bethel <rsbethel@hotmail.com> To: "djacks@roanokecountyva.gov" <djacks@roanokecountyva.gov>, "planning@roa... Date: 5/24/2021 5:13 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Current - zoned AR - tax map number 026.03-01-18.00-0000 - Mark Reinhardt -request special use permit Lacy and Rebecca Bethel, residents at 2496 Timerbview Road for over 30 Years. We chose this area to build our retirement home and live out ours days in peace and quite. Timberview Road is a rural area/ Agricultural/Residential preserving a rural lifestyle . Timberview Road is a 'dead end road' only ONE WAY IN and only ONE WAY OUT! NO Fire hydrants! Limited cell phone service and Internet! What about security during an event? There has been an increase in traffic by cars and bikes due to the opening of bike and walking trails. Timberview Road residents are having to yield to bikers on the road. While 2 cars can not pass with a bike on the side of the road with blinding curves. With the opening of the mountain bike trail, there has been an increase of vehicles and bike riders on the road, this has made the road less safe! An increase of private and commercial vehicles on this narrow curving road that has low level streams and low level culverts will place a burden on Virginia and or Roanoke County maintaining a safe road. I do not want my taxes to increase due to rezoning ! We live a few miles from the Reinhardt's and on one occasion we could hear loud music, late in the evening, and saw an Abbott bus going to their residence ! Abbott and Roanoke County School bus must drive approximately four and one half miles to turn around to exit back out. We have had large vehicles turn around in our drive way running over scrubs and breaking asphalt . Timberview Road can not handle additional traffic .. it will impact our quality of life, our rural lifestyle ,our safety. I need the planning commission preserve our community. Catawba District Member, Troy A Henderson and other members of the planning commission --- decline Reinhardt's application! file:///C:/Users/djacks/AppData/Local/Temp/DJPA2A4W.htm 5/25/2021 Page 2 of 2 Thank you, Lacy and Rebecca Bethel WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file:///C:/Users/djacks/AppData/Local/Temp/DJPA2A4W.htm 5/25/2021 Page 1 of 1 Debbie Jacks - [EXTERNAL] - Reinhardt permit From: Jill Gross <gma3jill@gmail.com> To: <djacks@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 5/25/2021 8:42 AM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Reinhardt permit From: Tommy and Jill Gross 2103 Timberview Rd. Roanoke,VA 24019 540-562-1312 e-mail: gma3jill@gmail.com While we commend the Reinhardt boys desire to have a business started we have concerns. Mostly our road is a small country road and we feel our road has developed more traffic due to hikers and bikers using it especially on the weekends. Our main concern is safety. As it is now there is always some type of problem passing especially with the bikers.Our grass along the road is so tall you can hardly see if another car is coming in some blind spots. Also the road is so narrow sometimes a car and bus can hardly pass each other. We have had to pull over in other people's driveway at times to let bigger trucks get through. Living on Timberview for the last 42 years we know that traffic has picked up and the issue of safety still remains first for us. We DO NOT think the wedding venue would be in the best interest for our Timberview residents and our road. Thank you WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file:///C:/Users/djacks/AppData/Local/Temp/I3KGHY02.htm 5/25/2021 To Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, RE: Reinhardt Wedding Venue Special Use Permit I submitted a statement at the February Board of Supervisors public hearing concerning this request. I have kept current with the additional information the Reinhardts have submitted and attended the community meeting. I have not seen any additional information that would change my views on this petition, namely that even though the Reinhardt estate would be a nice wedding venue, the current problems that Timberview Road has-- ie. multiple safety issues --means that the additional traffic that the venue will generate will create too much of a negative impact on the neighborhood , Timberview residents, and the outdoor enthusiasts that access the trails. Even though the use of vans is an admirable attempt to alleviate the traffic, it can actually make the safety issues worse as they would be one of the largest vehicles on the road during the busiest days. I also feel that many guests would not want to use the vans and would drive anyway, creating even more problems. With that said, I would ask the Board to deny this petition. One issue I did want to bring up that is related to this petition comes from the community meeting we had on May 20th. A VDOT representative was there and kept talking about our recent road improvements. Please note, there have been NO improvements made on our road. What he seemed to be referring to was the repairs that have been made over the past year. This has included some culvert replacements, where the culverts had failed and the road caved in, and some 3 foot wide patches where the road had multiple pot holes and had disintegrated. For some of these repairs, it took us years of complaining to VDOT to get them done. In fact, there are several other places at culverts that the road is now undercut and collapsing that are still in need of repair. As the Reinhardts were at this meeting, I could see how they could construe what was said by the VDOT representative to mean the road was in good shape, however, this is not the case. Improvements and repairs are two totally different things. It would take millions in improvement to fix this road to where it could safely handle the additional traffic the Reinhardt venue will generate. The only improvements that VDOT has made on Timberview during the almost 40 years that I have lived there has been to straighten out and/or widen some of the curves. Everything else has been repair and then that can take years to finally be completed. Respectfully, Paula Jones 3324 Timberview Rd Page 1 of 1 Debbie Jacks - [EXTERNAL] - Reinhardt issue From: RICHARD MAYES <bertiemayes@cox.net> To: <djacks@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 5/27/2021 6:11 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Reinhardt issue My name is Alberta J. Mayes and my husband Richard, and I own property on Timberview Road purchased in 1971. To my knowledge and observation, the road looks just like it did when we purchased the property. Curvy, narrow road with no shoulders to speak of should you meet an oncoming vehicle that is larger than an ordinary sedan. Added to the fact that a new VA law letting bike riders use an entire lane and able to ride 2 vehicles side by side really increases the danger --in my opinion --to both bikers, walkers, and vehicle users. I tried to review the additional information submitted by the Reinhardts on the website provided in the May 19 letter we received, but the only thing I could find was info for something in the Cave Spring (I think) area. Nothing on Timberview. Not sure what I am doing wrong. Our thoughts and opinions on the rezoning for the Reinhardt property are the same as submitted to the Planning Commission in February PLEASE do not allow the rezoning to take place. Not sure what the "alternative access off of Loch Haven Drive" is but I think people will still want to use Timberview as the best way to access and leave any function on the Reinhardt property. Think this will really create problems for residents of Timberview now and in the future. Alberta and Richard Mayes. 7035 Brookview Road, Hollins, Va 24019 WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file:///C:/Users/djacks/AppData/Local/Temp/OA7LAE6Q.htm 5/28/2021 Page 1 of 1 Debbie Jacks - [EXTERNAL] - special use permit for the Reinhardts on timberview rd, roanoke county From: "Frankie Sherman Sr." <flshermsr@aol.com> To: "djacks@roanokecountyva.gov" <djacks@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 5/28/2021 6:04 PM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - special use permit for the Reinhardts on timberview rd, roanoke county My name is Frank Sherman sr. I and my wife live at 2144 Timberview rd, Roanoke Va 24019. We respectfully request you not approve a special request for special events on Timberview rd. This is a quiet and peaceful area of the county and a special events permit will take away our reason for living in this tranquil place and increase traffic, noise and disruption of our quiet life. Thank you Frank Sherman sr 2144 Timberview rd Roanoke, Va. 24019 WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file:///C:/Users/djacks/AppData/Local/Temp/EWNHROOG.htm 6/1/2021 Page 1 of 1 Debbie Jacks - [EXTERNAL] - Reinhardt petition From: Marshall Beard <dusbny@msn.com> To: "djacks@roanokecountyva.gov" <djacks@roanokecountyva.gov> Date: 6/4/2021 8:13 AM Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Reinhardt petition I am opposed to allowing the Reinhardts to use Timberview Road as an entrance and exit for their wedding venue business. The Reinhardts should purchase land on Loch Haven to create a safer entrance and exit from their business. When their original house burnt down, Mark made the decision to build an "over the top" mansion knowing that it would be too large for two people in the future once his children were grown. If his financial situation changed, the house would become too expensive to maintain. The Reinhardts JUST want to take advantage of a loophole to write off their property taxes and maintenance of the house as a business expense. Why should all of the other residents on the road be impacted by HIS poor planning and decision making? If any other person on Timberview Road could not afford their taxes and bills, they would have to sell their home. The Reinhardts do not deserve special treatment. There is already an excess of traffic on this road from cars and trucks hauling bicycles up and down the road, as well as people riding bicycles on the road. That traffic will increase during the summer months on Saturdays, prime time for weddings. Now we must deal with catering vans, florist vans, musicians vans, the immediate family of the bride and groom and their vehicles, and a shuttle van or two going up and down the road three or four times every weekend? I don't believe that the Reinhardts will just do weddings. They will rent the house for meetings and events that occur during the week. If this is a money making business, they are not going to turn down the money in order to respect the residents of the road, they are going to do what they want. If they can't afford to purchase land on Loch Haven, they should not be allowed to run a business off of Timberview Road. Dusty Beard Timberview Road Sent from my Galaxy Tab A WARNING: This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. DO NOT CLICK any links or downloaded attachments unless you know the content is from a trusted source. file:///C:/Users/djacks/AppData/Local/TempBJX4KQAB.htm 6/4/2021 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 8, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards SUBMITTED BY: Deborah C. Jacks Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator ISSUE: Open district appointments. BACKGROUND: 1. Library Board (appointed by District) The following District appointments remains open: Vinton Magisterial District Windsor Hills Magisterial District 2. Parks, Recreation and Tourism (appointed by District) Mike Roop's three (3) year term representing the Vinton Magisterial District has expired effective June 30, 2019. Open Windsor Hills Magisterial District FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. Page 1 of 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM G- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for June 8, 2021, designated as Item G - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes — April 27, 2021 2. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $96,310.24 from the Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services for the "Four -For -Life" distribution 3. Resolution approving the County Attorney's employment contract 4. Resolution approving the County Administrator's employment contract 5. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Debra R. Hartman, Deputy Chief Treasurer, upon her retirement after twenty-three (23) years of service 6. Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission (At -Large) and to Visit Virginia's Blue Ridge Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 8, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $96,310.24 from the Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services for the "Four -For -Life" distribution SUBMITTED BY: C. Travis Griffith Chief of Fire and Rescue APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator ISSUE: Accept and allocate $96,310.24 from the "Four -For -Life" program, Virginia Department of Health (VDOH) Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS). BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Health (VDOH) Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS) has awarded the Fire and Rescue Department grant funds totaling $96,310.24 as part of the "Four -for -Life" program funding. "Four -for -Life" funding is legislated by the Code of Virginia §46.2-694 and provides various grant programs to be used only for emergency medical service purposes. The "Four -for -Life" program, as amended in 2000, stipulates that four (4) additional dollars be charged and collected at the time of registration of each passenger vehicle, pickup, or panel truck. Funds may be utilized for training, equipment, and supplies for licensed, non-profit emergency medical service agencies. DISCUSSION: This grant awarded to the Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department will be utilized to purchase Emergency Medical Service (EMS) equipment that meets state guidelines. Approval of this grant funding from VDOH is dependent upon appropriate and timely Page 1 of 2 submission of required annual reporting. The Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department continues to meet those annual requirements to remain eligible for grant funding. FISCAL IMPACT: Awarded grant funds from the "Four -for -Life" program total $96,310.24. There is no County match required with acceptance of this grant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance and allocation of grant funds to the Fire and Rescue Department in the amount of $96,310.24 from the Virginia Department of Health Office of Emergency Medical Services. Page 2 of 2 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Department of Health Office of Emergency Medical Services 1041 Technology Park Drive Glen Allen, VA 23059-4500 May 11, 2021 COUNTY OF ROANOKE VIRGINIA 5204 Bernard Dr Roanoke VA 24018-4345 Dear City/County Administrator: IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED Please return this report within 30 days 1-800-523-6019 (VA only) 804-888-9100 FAX: 804-371-3108 Your locality will be receiving the Fiscal Ycar 2021 "Four -For -Lift" payment for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in the amount of $96,310.24 . These funds are for thc collection period July 01, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Guidelines for the use of these funds arc attached and arc available on our website: http:_`' www_vdh.virginia.goviemergcncv-medical-services return -to -locality/ . Prior to distribution of these funds to the local government, this office must receive your Report of Expenditures on last ycar's distribution. The total amount that must be reported for last year's distribution is annotated on the enclosed report. The Four -For -Lift program, as amended in 2000, stipulates that four additional dollars be charged and collected at the time of registration of each passenger vehicle, pickup or panel truck. The funds collected, pursuant to Section 46.2-694, Codc of Virginia, shall be used only for emergency medical services. The law further states that thc Department of Health shall return twenty-six percent (26°'o) of the registration fees collected to the locality wherein such vehicle is registered to provide funding for: 1. Training of volunteer or salaried emergency medical service personnel of licensed, non-profit cmcrgency medical service agencies; or 2. The purchase of necessary equipment and supplies for licensed, non-profit emergency medical service agencies. It is important to recognize two clauses in the Four -For -Life legislation: (1) non -supplanting funds and (2) failure to report the use of funds by any local governing body will result in funds being retained. The Assistant Attorney General, at our request has offcrcd the following intcrprctation for use of the funds. "Any funds received from Section 46.2-694 by a non -state agency cannot be used to match any other funds derived from Section 46.2-694 by that same non - state agency" Simply put, funds returned to localities cannot be used as the matching share of any grants offcrcd using Four -For -Life funds. "Each local governing body shall report 10 the Board of Health on the use of Four -For -Life funds, which were returned to it. In any case in which the local governing body grants the funds to a regional emergency medical council to be distributed to licensed, non-profit emergency medical and rescue services, the local governing body shall remain responsible for the proper use of the funds. If at the end of any fiscal year, a report on the use of Four -For -Life funds for that year has not been received from a local governing body, any funds due to that local governing body, for the next fiscal year shall be retained until such time as the report has been submitted to the board." If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the Office of Emergency Medical Services at 804-888-9100. Sincerely, Adam L. Harrell MBA, NRP VDUiYAR1MINr OF MALIH hair Oro lbaavid *If faIirairrat A WA vdh %irtiima guy ()rm.; ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 8, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: Resolution approving the County Attorney's employment contract Deborah C. Jacks Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator The Board of supervisors desires to approve a new employment agreement for the County Attorney. BACKGROUND: Attached is a resolution for consideration by the Board of Supervisors requesting the Board's approval of the new employment agreement for the County Attorney and would authorize the Chairman of the Board to execute this agreement on its behalf. Page 1 of 1 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into this 8th day of June 2021, between the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Board") and Peter S. Lubeck ("Mr. Lubeck" or the "County Attorney") and sets forth the terms and conditions of his employment by the Board as County Attorney for the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("Roanoke County"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Mr. Lubeck has served as the County Attorney for Roanoke County, Virginia ("Roanoke County") since January 2020, and the Board desires to continue to employ Mr. Lubeck in this capacity; and WHEREAS, the employment agreement entered into between Mr. Lubeck and the Board on January 14, 2020 shall remain in effect until July 1, 2021, at which time this Agreement shall supersede and replace the January 14, 2020 agreement; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board to (1) secure and retain the services of a County Attorney and to provide inducement for him to remain in such employment and (2) to provide a just means for termination of the County Attorney's services at such time as he may be unable fully to discharge his duties or when the Board may desire to otherwise terminate his employment; and WHEREAS, Mr. Lubeck desires to continue to accept employment as the County Attorney for Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to enter into an agreement setting forth the terms of such employment during such period; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the Board and the County Attorney agree to the following terms and conditions of employment: Section 1. Employment of and Duties of County Attorney. a. The Board hereby agrees to employ Peter S. Lubeck as County Attorney of Roanoke County to serve as the chief legal officer and advisor of Roanoke County. b. The County Attorney shall perform the functions and duties of County Attorney as prescribed by Chapter 7 of the Roanoke County Charter, Section 15.2-1542 of the Code of Virginia, and those set forth in the position description for the County Attorney approved by the Board and attached hereto as Appendix A and as amended from time to time, policies and regulations adopted by the Board, and the legal directives of the Board, and shall be identified as the County Attorney. The County Attorney shall devote all Page 1 of 8 necessary time, skill, labor, and attention to such duties as the chief legal officer and advisor of Roanoke County. c. The County Attorney shall have charge of the administration of the Roanoke County Attorney's office under the direction of the Board. The County Attorney shall fully and completely inform the Board of Supervisors of any and all legal issues and information that is relevant to the functioning of the Board and the County. The County Attorney shall be the chief legal officer and advisor for the Board; shall select, organize and assign all his personnel, as best serves Roanoke County government, subject to the policies of the Board and the laws of the Commonwealth; shall represent the County in all civil matters and business affairs of the County; shall from time to time suggest ordinances, resolutions, regulations, rules and procedures deemed necessary for the well ordering of Roanoke County; and in general perform all duties incident to the office of the County Attorney as prescribed by law and Board policy. d. The County Attorney shall perform any other legally permissible duties or functions which the Board may see fit to assign at any time during the term of this Agreement consistent with the office of the County Attorney. Section 2. Commencement of Employment: Term: County Attorney Serves at the Pleasure of Board. a. This agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by either party in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of this agreement. b. The Board and County Attorney acknowledge that the County Attorney serves only at the pleasure of the Board. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the Board of Supervisors to terminate the services of the County Attorney at any time, with or without reason, provided that it may not do so for any reason which would contravene the laws of the Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of these United States, and subject only to the Termination and Compensation provisions set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement. c. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the County Attorney to resign at any time from his position with the County, subject only to the provisions of Section 4 of this Agreement. d. The Board shall provide the County Attorney with at least six (6) months' notice of its intent not to renew this Agreement. Section 3. Termination and Compensation Pay. a. Termination by Board without cause: notice. The Board shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by providing the County Attorney with written notice setting forth the effective date of termination. Page 2 of 8 b. Termination by Board for cause. The County Attorney may be terminated by the Board for sufficient cause which shall include material breach of this Agreement, willful non-compliance with laws and regulations or Board policies, conviction of any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude, loss of license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia, or conviction of a crime involving his employment with Roanoke County or an act involving gross and willful negligence pertaining to the execution of responsibilities of the County Attorney. In the event of such termination for cause, all salary and benefits shall cease as of the effective date of such termination. The County Attorney shall be entitled to payment for accrued flexible leave, and holiday leave in accordance with Section 7 of this Agreement. c. Compensation Pay. In the event of termination as provided in paragraph "a" of this Section the County Attorney shall be entitled to payments for equivalent to six (6) months of annual base salary from the effective date of termination and flexible leave and holiday leave in accordance with Section 7 of this Agreement. d. Termination for Non -Compliance with Agreement or Resignation Requests. In the event the Board refuses, following written notice, to comply with any provisions of this Agreement benefiting the County Attorney, or if the County Attorney resigns (not for cause) following a request, either formal or informal, by a majority of the Board that the County Attorney resign, then in that event, the County Attorney may, at the County Attorney's option, be deemed to be terminated at the date of such refusal or suggestion, and the provisions of paragraph "c" above with regards to compensations shall apply. e. Termination for Disability, Sickness. If the County Attorney is disabled or is otherwise unable to perform his duties because of sickness, accident, injury, mental or physical incapacity or health, the Board shall have the option to terminate this Agreement effective on the date of written notice thereof without regard to any other notice provisions in this Agreement, and the County Attorney shall be entitled to leave and disability benefits applicable to full-time County employees. Section 4. Voluntary Resignation. The County Attorney may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice at least three months prior to the effective date of said resignation. The County Attorney shall be entitled to receive all compensation payable under this Agreement up to and including the effective date of said resignation, and leave accruals, as listed in Section 7 of this Agreement. Upon voluntary resignation the County Attorney waives any claim to compensation for the remainder of the term of this Agreement. The Board may, in its sole discretion, waive any or this entire three months' notice requirement. Section 5. Salary. a. The annual base salary of the County Attorney beginning July 1, 2021, shall be $155,000 to be paid in accordance with the standard policy of the Board governing payment of professional staff members in the Roanoke County government. Page 3 of 8 b. Subsequent to July 2021, the Board agrees to award the County Attorney in July of each fiscal year cost of living increases, or average compensation adjustment, if any, in the same amount as awarded to Roanoke County employees generally. c. As more fully set forth in Section 15 of this Agreement, the Board will conduct an annual performance evaluation of Mr. Lubeck before the end of each fiscal year. In addition to a salary increase, the Board may provide a bonus to the County Attorney based on his annual performance review. Any adjustments for subsequent years during the term of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be in the form of an amendment or addendum, except for the above -mentioned cost of living increases as provided in paragraph "b" above. Section 6. Cellular Telephone Allowance. The County will furnish the County Attorney with a PDA/cellular telephone and service for business use. Personal use of this PDA/cell phone shall be kept to a minimum. If he chooses to use his personal phone, he will be eligible for the same reimbursement as provided in the employee mobile device policy. Section 7. Flexible Leave and Holiday Leave. The County Attorney shall receive flexible leave and holiday leave as provided to all other County employees, and he shall accumulate flexible leave hours based upon ten years of service (26 days annual accumulation, 8 hours bi-weekly accumulation). Section 8. Hours of Work. The County Attorney is expected to observe office hours similar to those of other administration employees. It is recognized that the County Attorney will frequently be required to work beyond normal office hours for night or weekend meetings and related duties. In recognition of the fact that the County Attorney is expected to devote a significant amount of time outside of normal office hours to the business of Roanoke County, the County Attorney may, to the extent that his duties permit, take reasonable discretion in varying observance of office hours; however, no accumulation of compensatory time or monetary compensation is granted. Section 9. Holidays and Other Miscellaneous Benefits. The County Attorney shall be entitled to the same holidays and funeral, military, court, workers' compensation, emergency condition, discretionary and volunteer leave as other fulltime Roanoke County employees. Section 10. Health Insurance. Page 4 of 8 The County shall provide health, dental, and vision insurance coverage and short and long term disability insurance for the County Attorney and his dependents as it does for other full-time employees of the County. Section 11. Retirement and Life Insurance. The Board shall pay the employer share of the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) contribution and the total premium for VRS Group Term Life Insurance for the County Attorney. The County Attorney may also choose to enroll in the Deferred Compensation Plan available to other full-time employees of the County. If he chooses to enroll in the Deferred Compensation Plan, the County will pay on his behalf into such plan $385.00 per 26 pay periods each year, for the term of this Agreement. The County shall also allow for the opportunity to participate in the Optional Life Insurance Program as provided by the Virginia Retirement System. The County does not contribute anything to the monthly premium of the Optional Life Insurance Program. Section 12. Dues, Subscriptions and Professional Development. a. Dues and Subscriptions. The Board agrees to pay a reasonable amount for the professional dues and subscriptions of the County Attorney necessary for his continuation and full participation in LGA and other national, state, and local bar associations necessary and desirable for his continued professional participation, growth, and advancement and for the good of Roanoke County following approval by the Board of Supervisors any estimated expenses the County Attorney proposes under this Section. b. Professional Development. The Board also agrees to pay the travel and related expenses of the County Attorney for his professional development, professional training and education, and to attend necessary official and other functions for the Board and meetings of such other national, regional, state, and local groups, or committees thereof, on which the County Attorney serves as a member, following approval by the Board of any estimate of expenses the County Attorney proposes under this Section, such expenses to include registration fees, travel and subsistence expenses in accordance with Roanoke County travel policies. Such meetings would include the LGA Spring and Fall Conferences, VACo annual conference, and the ICMA annual conference, provided that the expenses therefore are within the total amount budgeted as provided in paragraph "c" of this Section. c. Office Operating Budget. The total available for the expenses set forth in this section shall be set annually by the Board in the operating budget based on and in consideration of the recommendation of the County Attorney and the expenses for dues and subscriptions and professional development in this Section are limited to such annual budgeted amount. Page 5 of 8 Section 13. Residency. The County Attorney shall reside in and be a bona fide resident of Roanoke County during the term of this Agreement. Section 14. Outside Employment or Activities. The County Attorney may, with prior approval of the Board, undertake consultative work, speaking engagements, writing, lecturing, or other professional activities for compensation so long as such activities do not interfere with the duties required under this Agreement. Section 15. Evaluation. The Board shall review and evaluate the performance of the County Attorney at least once annually before July 1st. This review shall be in accordance with specific criteria developed by the Board and the County Attorney. This criteria can be amended from time to time based on changes to the expectations of the Board, after the County Attorney has been informed of the proposed changes. Further, the Board shall provide the County Attorney with a summary written statement of the evaluation and provide the opportunity for the County Attorney to discuss this evaluation with the Board. Section 16. General Provisions. a. The Board agrees to provide insurance or self-insurance coverage in matters relating to the County Attorney's official duties within the scope of employment, and legal counsel for the County Attorney, as is provided to all Roanoke County employees generally in accordance with the Code of Virginia. b. This Agreement is expressly subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the regulations of Roanoke County. c. The obligations of the County under this Agreement shall be subject to and dependent upon appropriations being made from time to time by the Board of Supervisors of the County for such purpose. Any other provision to the contrary notwithstanding, this Agreement and the obligations herein shall not constitute a debt of the County within the meaning of any limitation on indebtedness of the County under any constitutional or statutory limitation and nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a pledge of the full faith and credit of the County under any provision of its Charter, as applicable, or the Constitution of Virginia. The failure of the governing body of the County to appropriate funds in any year for payment in full of the payments required by the Agreement during such year shall terminate this Agreement without any further liability on the part of the County off any kind, thirty (30) days after the Board of Supervisors of the County makes a final determination not to appropriate funds for this Agreement for the current fiscal year, unless the County provides appropriations for similar purposes or services. Page 6 of 8 d. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Board and the County Attorney and may be amended only by written agreement executed by them. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement shall be severable and shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors has caused this Agreement to be executed on its behalf by its Chair in accordance with action authorizing such execution on June 8, 2021, and the County Attorney has executed this Agreement, both in duplicate, on this date. Executed this 8th day of June 2021. Page 7 of 8 Attest: Chief Deputy Clerk BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By P. Jason Peters, Chairman Page 8 of 8 Peter S. Lubeck AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, on January 14, 2020, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approved and executed an employment agreement with Peter S. Lubeck, for Mr. Lubeck to serve as the County Attorney; and WHEREAS, the Board and the County Attorney desire to approve a new contract; and WHEREAS, a new employment agreement between the County Attorney and the Board of Supervisors has been negotiated. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a new employment agreement is hereby approved, and the Chairman of the Board is hereby authorized to execute this agreement of behalf the Board. 2. This resolution shall take effect effective June 8, 2021. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 8, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: Resolution approving the County Administrator's employment contract Deborah C. Jacks Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator The Board of Supervisors desires to approve a new employment agreement for the County Administrator. BACKGROUND: Attached is a resolution for consideration by the Board of Supervisors requesting the Board's approval of the new employment agreement for the County Administrator and would authorize the Chairman of the Board to execute this agreement on its behalf. Page 1 of 1 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into this 8th day of June 2021, between the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Board") and Daniel R. O'Donnell (the "County Administrator") and sets forth the terms and conditions of his employment by the Board as County Administrator for the County of Roanoke, Virginia ("Roanoke County"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Daniel R. O'Donnell has served as the Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia ("Roanoke County") since January 2020, and the Board desires to continue to employ Mr. O'Donnell in this capacity; and WHEREAS, this Agreement shall supersede and replace the Agreement entered into between Mr. O'Donnell and the Board on January 14, 2020; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board to (1) secure and retain the services of a County Administrator and to provide inducement for him to remain in such employment and (2) to provide a just means for termination of the County Administrators services at such time as he may be unable fully to discharge his duties or when the Board may desire to otherwise terminate his employment; and WHEREAS, Mr. O'Donnell desires to continue employment as the County Administrator for Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to enter into an agreement setting forth the terms of such employment during such period; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the Board and the County Administrator agree to the following terms and conditions of employment: Section 1. Employment of and Duties of County Administrator. a. The Board hereby agrees to employ Mr. O'Donnell as County Administrator of Roanoke County to serve as the chief administrative officer of Roanoke County. b. The County Administrator shall perform the functions and duties of County Administrator as prescribed by Chapter 4 of the Roanoke County Charter, Section 15.2-1541 of the Code of Virginia, and those set forth in the position description for the County Administrator approved by the Board and attached hereto as Appendix Page 1 of 8 A and as amended from time to time, policies and regulations adopted by the Board, and the legal directives of the Board. The County Administrator shall devote all necessary time, skill, labor, and attention to such duties as the chief administrative officer of Roanoke County. c. The County Administrator shall have charge of the administration of the Roanoke County government under the direction of the Board. The County Administrator shall fully and completely inform the Board of Supervisors of any and all information that is relevant and necessary to the functioning of the Board. The County Administrator shall be the chief executive for the Board; shall select, organize and assign all personnel, as best serves Roanoke County government, subject to the policies of the Board and the laws of the Commonwealth; shall oversee the business affairs to Roanoke County; shall from time to time suggest regulations, rules and procedures deemed necessary for the well ordering of Roanoke County; and in general perform all duties incident to the office of the County Administrator as prescribed by law and Board policy. d. The County Administrator shall perform any other legally permissible duties or functions which the Board may see fit to assign at any time during the term of this Agreement consistent with the office of the County Administrator. Section 2. Commencement of Employment; County Administrator Serves at the Pleasure of Board. a. This agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by either party in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 of this agreement. b. The Board and County Administrator acknowledge that the County Administrator serves only at the pleasure of the Board. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the Board of Supervisors to terminate the services of the County Administrator at any time, with or without reason, provided that it may not do so for any reason which would contravene the laws of the Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of these United States, and subject only to the Termination and Severance provisions set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement. c. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the County Administrator to resign at any time from his position with the County, subject only to the provisions of Section 4 of this Agreement. Section 3. Termination and Severance Pay. a. Termination by Board without Cause; Notice. The Board shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time by providing the County Administrator with written notice setting forth the effective date of termination and paying the County Page 2 of 8 Administrator the severance pay set forth in paragraph "c" of this Section. No severance shall be paid in the event that employment is terminated for the reasons set forth in paragraphs "b" or "e" of this Section. b. Termination by Board for Cause. The County Administrator may be terminated by the Board for sufficient cause which shall include material breach of this Agreement, non-compliance with laws, regulations or Board policies or Board directives, conviction of any felony or any crime involving moral turpitude, or conviction of a crime involving his employment with Roanoke County or an act involving gross and willful negligence. In the event of such termination for cause, all salary and benefits shall cease as of the effective date of such termination. The County Administrator shall be entitled to payment for accrued leave in accordance with County policy for other employees including up to 400 hours of accrued flexible leave, 24 hours of accrued holiday leave and thirty five dollars per every eight hours of banked sick leave. The County Administrator shall also be entitled to choose to retire under the Virginia Retirement System and shall be entitled to all retirement benefits afforded to all other retiring Roanoke County employees with 20 or more years of service. c. Severance Pay. In the event of termination as provided in paragraph "a" of this Section, the County Administrator shall be entitled to retire under the Virginia Retirement System and receive severance pay in an amount equal to three months' salary as specified in Section 5 of this Agreement plus all accrued flexible, holiday and banked sick leave as all retiring Roanoke County employees, including up to 400 hours of accrued flexible leave, 24 hours of accrued holiday leave and thirty five dollars per every eight hours of banked sick leave. Should the County Administrator choose to retire under the Virginia Retirement System he shall also be entitled to purchase health and dental insurance at the rates offered to retirees who chose to retire during the 2022 fiscal year. These rates will remain the same until the County Administrator is no longer eligible to receive County insurance. This severance pay and payments plus payment for this accrued leave shall be the total and complete amount due the County Administrator under this Agreement. Should the County Administrator make application for and receive unemployment benefits following a termination of his employment by the Board, the sum due under this paragraph shall be reduced directly by the total sum of unemployment benefits paid to the County Administrator. d. Termination for Non -Compliance with Agreement or Resignation Requests. In the event the Board refuses, following written notice, to comply with any provisions of this Agreement benefiting the County Administrator, or if the County Administrator resigns (not for cause) following a formal request by a majority of the Board that the County Administrator resign, then in that event, the County Administrator may, at the County Administrator's option, be deemed to be terminated at the date of such refusal or suggestion, and the provisions of paragraph "c" above with regards to severance compensations shall apply. Page 3 of 8 e. Termination for Disability, Sickness. If the County Administrator is disabled or is otherwise unable to perform the essential functions of the County Administrator job because of sickness, accident, injury, mental or physical incapacity or health, with or without a reasonable accommodation, the Board shall have the option to terminate this Agreement effective on the date of written notice thereof without regard to any other notice provisions in this Agreement, and he shall be entitled to leave and disability benefits applicable to full-time County employees. However, the Board shall have no obligation to provide the severance pay pursuant to paragraph "c" of this Section, or any other extra pay that would be paid to other County employees and subjection to involuntary demotion. Section 4. Voluntary Resignation. The County Administrator may terminate this Agreement by giving written notice at least five months prior to the effective date of said resignation. The County Administrator shall be entitled to receive no additional severance pay, however he will be entitled to payment for all accrued leave flex leave, holiday leave and banked sick leave listed in section 3.c of this agreement and, should he chose to retire, shall be entitled to purchase retiree health and dental insurance from the County at rates established in the fiscal year 2022 budget for retirees until he reaches Medicare eligibility at age 65. The Board may, in its sole discretion, waive any or all of this notice requirement. Section 5. Salary. The annual base salary of the County Administrator beginning June 8, 2021, shall be $200,543. The annual salary of the County Administrator may be adjusted or increased for any subsequent fiscal year during the term of this Agreement based on an annual performance review prior to the end of the fiscal year. In lieu of or in addition to a salary increase, the Board may provide a bonus to the County Administrator based on his annual performance review. Any adjustments for subsequent years during the term of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be in the form of an amendment or addendum. Section 6. Smartphone Allowance. The County will furnish the County Administrator with a smartphone, tablet and service for business use. If he chooses to use his personal phone, he will be eligible for the same reimbursement as provided in the employee mobile device policy. Personal use of this smartphone and tablet shall be kept to a minimum. Page 4 of 8 Section 7. Flexible Leave and Holiday Leave. The County Administrator shall receive and record flexible leave and holiday leave as provided to all other County employees based on his current length of tenure with the County. The County Administrator shall be entitled to cash in up to 40 hours of flexible leave per fiscal year at the base salary rate during the month of May during each year of the contract term. If this agreement is terminated prior to May 31, 2022 in accordance with Section 3.a, the County Administrator shall receive the 40 hour flex leave payment prior to termination. Section 8. Hours of Work. The County Administrator is expected to observe office hours similar to those of other administration employees. It is recognized that the County Administrator will frequently be required to work beyond normal office hours for night or weekend meetings and related duties. In recognition of the fact that the County Administrator is expected to devote a significant amount of time outside of normal office hours to the business of Roanoke County, the County Administrator may, to the extent that his duties permit, take reasonable discretion in varying observance of office hours; however, no accumulation of compensatory time or monetary compensation is granted. The County Administrator is expected to be available to communicate with Board Members and Public Safety Departments at all times, as conditions warrant. Section 9. Holidays and Other Miscellaneous Benefits. The County Administrator shall be entitled to the same holidays and funeral, military, court, workers' compensation and volunteer leave as other fulltime Roanoke County employees. The County Administrator should assure that a designated substitute is always available during those times. The County Administrator shall be entitled to all other benefits as other fulltime County employees not otherwise specified in this agreement. Section 10. Health Insurance. The County shall provide health, dental, and vision insurance coverage and short and long term disability insurance for the County Administrator and his dependents as it does for other full-time employees of the County. Page 5 of 8 Section 11. Retirement and Life Insurance. The Board shall pay the employer share of the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) contribution and the total premium for VRS Group Term Life Insurance for the County Administrator. The County Administrator may also choose to enroll in the Deferred Compensation Plan available to other full-time employees of the County. The County shall also allow for the opportunity to participate in the Optional Life Insurance Program as provided by the Virginia Retirement System. The County does not contribute anything to the monthly premium of the Optional Life Insurance Program. After employment either by termination or resignation, he is eligible to the current retiree health insurance plan as it exists at the time. Section 12. Dues, Subscriptions and Professional Development. a. Dues and Subscriptions. The Board agrees to pay a reasonable amount for the professional dues and subscriptions of the County Administrator necessary for his continuation and full participation in VLGMA and ICMA and other national, state, and local associations necessary and desirable for his continued professional participation, growth, and advancement and for the good of Roanoke County following approval by the Board of Supervisors any estimated expenses the County Administrator proposes under this Section. b. Professional Development. The Board also agrees to pay the travel and related expenses of the County Administrator for his professional development, professional training and education, and to attend necessary official and other functions for the Board and meetings of such other national, regional, state, and local groups, or committees thereof, on which the County Administrator serves as a member, following approval by the Board of any estimate of expenses the County Administrator proposes under this Section, such expenses to include registration fees, travel and subsistence expenses in accordance with Roanoke County travel policies. Such meetings would include the VLGMA Winter and Summer Conferences, VACo annual conference, and the ICMA annual conference, provided that the expenses therefore are within the total amount budgeted as provided in paragraph "c" of this Section. c. The total available for the expenses set forth in this section shall be set annually by the Board in the operating budget based on and in consideration of the recommendation of the County Administrator and the expenses for dues and subscriptions and professional development in this Section are limited to such annual budgeted amount. Page 6 of 8 Section 13. Residency. The County Administrator shall reside in and be a bona fide resident of Roanoke County during the term of this Agreement. Section 14. Reserved. Section 15. Outside Employment or Activities. The County Administrator may, with prior approval of the Board, undertake consultative work, speaking engagements, writing, lecturing, or other professional activities for compensation so long as such activities do not interfere with the duties required under this Agreement. Section 16. Evaluation. The Board shall review and evaluate the performance of the County Administrator at least once annually during the term of this Agreement. This review shall be in accordance with specific criteria developed by the Board. This criteria may be amended from time to time based on changes to the expectations of the Board, after the County Administrator has been informed of the proposed changes. Further, the Board shall provide the County Administrator with a summary written statement of the evaluation and provide the opportunity for the County Administrator to discuss this evaluation with the Board. Section 17. General Provisions. a. The Board agrees to provide insurance or self-insurance coverage in matters relating to the County Administrator's official duties within the scope of employment, and legal counsel for the County Administrator as is provided to all Roanoke County employees generally in accordance with the Code of Virginia. b. This Agreement is expressly subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the regulations of Roanoke County. c. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Board and the County Administrator and may be amended only by written agreement executed by them. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement shall be severable and shall remain in full force and effect. Page 7 of 8 d. This Agreement takes effect on provided that it has been duly executed by the Chair, the County Administrator, approved as to form by the County Attorney and attested by the Chief Deputy Clerk. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors has caused this Agreement to be executed on its behalf by its Chair in accordance with action authorizing such execution on June 8, 2021, and the County Administrator has executed this Agreement, both in duplicate, on this date. Executed this Attest: day of , 2021. Chief Deputy Clerk Approved as to form: County Attorney BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By County Administrator Page 8 of 8 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, on January 14, 2020, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approved and executed an employment agreement with Daniel R. O'Donnell, for Mr. O'Donnell to serve as the Roanoke County Administrator; and WHEREAS, the Board and the County Administrator desire to approve a new agreement; and WHEREAS, a new employment agreement between the County Administrator and the Board of Supervisors has been negotiated. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a new employment agreement is hereby approved, and the Chairman of the Board is hereby authorized to execute this agreement of behalf the Board. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 8, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors to Debra R. Hartman, Deputy Chief Treasurer, upon her retirement after three -three (23) years of service Deborah C. Jacks Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator Recognition of the retirement of Debra R. Hartman BACKGROUND: Debra R. Hartman, Deputy Chief Treasurer, retired on November 1, 2020 after twenty- three (23) years of service with Roanoke County's Treasurer's office. Ms. Hartman is unable to attend today's meeting and her quilt and resolution will be mailed to her home. DISCUSSION: There is no discussion associated with this agenda item. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Page 1 of 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO DEBRA R. HARTMAN, DEPUTY CHIEF TREASURER, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER TWENTY-THREE (23) YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Debra R. Hartman was employed by Roanoke County on November 10, 1997; and WHEREAS, Ms. Hartman retired on November 1, 2020, after twenty-three (23) years of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Ms. Hartman, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hartman began her career as a Treasurer Clerk II with Roanoke County after first developing her skills serving in many different roles within the banking industry prior to the financial mergers and acquisitions which occurred during the early 1990's; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hartman was appointed as Chief Deputy Treasurer on June 4, 2005, a position which required the application of those developed multi diverse skills for professional treasury management, and premium customer service for the citizens of Roanoke County as well as the intergovernmental employee workforce, and professional collections management; and WHEREAS, throughout Ms. Hartman's tenure with Roanoke County, she chose to advance her education and professionalism by participating in the Master governmental Deputy Treasurers program with the Treasurers Association of Virginia as adopted by the Page 1 of 2 Virginia General Assembly in 2004; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hartman achieved, and was awarded her designation as Master Governmental Deputy Treasurer on November 15, 2008, by the Treasurers' Association of Virginia in conjunction with the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia, subsequently recertifying on three (3) separate occasions in 2012, 2016 and 2020; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hartman went above and beyond her duties by participating in several key County and Treasury specific software projects, including Accounts Receivable conversion from the AS400 to Tyler Munis taxation platform, initialization of State of Virginia Debt Set -Off data exchange for collection pursuit, and the bankruptcy integration with the Western District of Virginia Bankruptcy upgrade, which aided in the advancement of production efficiencies in Treasury management, collections and customer service; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hartman was the epitome of an integral and reliable employee for the County of Roanoke demonstrating the personal empathy and caring for all of our citizens and employee's, with personal thoughtfulness in regards to the service rendered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to DEBRA R. HARTMAN for twenty-three (23) years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.6 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 8, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission (At -Large) and to Visit Virginia's Blue Ridge Deborah C. Jacks Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator Confirmation of appointments BACKGROUND: Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission: Mr. Lee Osborne's term will expire June 30, 2021. It is the consensus of the Board to reappoint Mr. Osborne to an additional three-year term to expire June 30, 2024. Visit Virginia's Blue Ridge: Mr. Daniel O'Donnell's term on this Board will expire June 30, 2021. It is the consensus of the Board to reappoint Mr. O'Donnell to an additional three-year term to expire June 30, 2024. Mr. Doug Blount's term on the Board will expire June 30, 2021. It is the consensus of the Board to reappoint Mr. Blount to an additional three-year term to expire June 30, 2024. Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION: There is no discussion associated with this agenda item. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no discussion associated with this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends confirmation of all appointments. Page 2 of 2 County of Roanoke Unappropriated Balance, Board Contingency, and Capital Reserves Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Reserves 0 M C1 VI' N M N L► CO 0 N M In O N c-I VS- 10 N CO US M n c-1 Vl N O M l0 Vl n'1 00 Ol N c I ci c-I a -I Lfl e-I a -I c-I lA nj 4.A. Ea) G; c cu o 01 Board Contingency 0 0 0 O ul $ 50,000 of Revenues 12.0% C G1 000 Unappropriated Balance $ 23,632,859 01 an N M lD M N o c) • 4l O 0_ y N O_ E O 0 +-, 7 O N cm O N C 0 C N v 0' CM O N a-+ C N 3 CU CL O 0 us 0 (C N u - C 0 CO la a a N i`- OCC VIO Q y Q 0 0N M ,y VD 0 U C RI _ -6 0 40 76 = _0b.0 ci N O N 0 -4 O CU CL 0_ < 0 NO N c-I CIS _0 E d U OJ 0 in0 C .2 (0 C en -0 C y to j, E O U( a N0 O1 3 Q CZa Q lfl Lfl O O N N co M CV CV LO LO O O 0) 0) U U C C @ @ C C — — 0 N N 00 110 -0 73 = 7 ci ci N N O O ,1 N N N 0 O O N O O C 73 d �0) • y C CC 0 ` • ` 0_ O_ O_ U s as m COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CHANGES IN OUTSTANDING DEBT Changes in outstanding debt for the fiscal year to date were as follows: Audited Outstanding Outstanding June 30, 2020 Additions Deletions June 08, 2021 General Obligation Bonds $ 948,122 $ $ 948,122 $ VPSA School Bonds 83,061,766 8,546,276 74,515,490 Lease Revenue Bonds 81,000,000 3,470,000 77,530,000 Subtotal 165,009,888 12,964,398 152,045,490 Premiums 11,716,653 11,716,653 $ 176,726,541 $ $ 12,964,398 $ 163,762,143 Submitted By Laurie L. Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services Approved By Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator ACTION NO. ITEM NO. K.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 8, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss the Economic Development Strategic Plan with the Board of Supervisors SUBMITTED BY: Jill Loope Director of Economic Development APPROVED BY: Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator ISSUE: This time has been set aside to discuss the Economic Development Strategic Plan with the Board of Supervisors. Page 1 of 1 Economic BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WORK SESSION SCOTT TATE AND ASHLEY POSTHUMUS CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT JUNE 8, 2021 op_ U li c CO U 0 cd co cd bn O . t al td O .- U 0 co 5 0 a U bA co cd cn U co co bA W wledge/topic areas/questions that the Board feels are important for cn co cn U II 0 co bA cd a It o U cn a.) a o U O ;_' O .O . cd co .� .- .0 •.O - .cu bA -C co -I—) O cn ._ ct cn CID . - cd au o co I a) co O bA cd ,- bA -ci )RAFT REPORT AND L PUBLIC INPUT SEPTEMBER, 2021 WE ARE HERE PROJECT KICKOFF NOVEMBER, 2021 PRESENTATION INITIAL SYNTHESIS AND SWOT ANALYSIS H O H I�►[l�:Sl1 111% 1 11\1 1 C) C) H cd O~ 4-5 • O~ 0 cd O cd cI -d cd QL 4J cd �0 t:4,)0 45 $-1 N O cd a � � cd • �0 En •- c ¢ E Initial Interview Conversations (36)••• 111111111 ork Session C) 4J cd cd S-i O C) • • cd 0 • 4J 0 cd CO 0-1 O • C o • •• 0 xEmmusinitom H H 0 O .\ • / 0 0 C.) CiZt O / E c U & § r Cr P4 f I' oano e Coun Overvie N O = > -0 O C O N U O .— ca +, X a_ _c ( a) Q 0 0 -C — C U E c 0 LE o o_o o O E j. CO aJ +•+ -0 C C O 2 U U o a) c co -o _ U O C -0 a) ,...,c co c O ai i co o_ aJ L co = _o aJ '— a_ = c O Q O O -I-)o a a) � -I--) = = C Q CO o 4-, ••_ 0_ Q Q co co co co 4) O) co To co a) co O) O O 6F} a) E O co 2 O O CO CO U U) 0 U) co co O 0) a) Q U) (a 0 O 0 Q Cfl a) Q O o U O a) : N O a) - C O 4 co .- 0 U .072 Q O .� O O - 0 C co Q Q-0 'V N.co Q E O O a) CO co caEc cn O a) O) a) U ca co O) -0 N U (a 1 -c >, 0 0 9 O CO N O c N � O -0 N CO a) O O E c� 4— O a) o H 0 I' oano e Coun Overvie U "L N N N O NE a) �, N N "E"'N LL O Ov �p N 1 t(/) L c E O 4) = N +_+ O O >, N _c 2 ca O 2Q N N D E E. O U co o t0/) O >, N -3 03 U +-' c 4J .� = 0 co N M ( O V o _a -0 In ' ' N N (Z o (a = -0 N N ELo O O ca N a) M - a) O _c >,73 N 00 N N _a> ON N > (� -• 0>- co - 0 0 }' ' O U -E-'(0 • d7 Q N N co co N N cn N • (/) N Cn IDO _c 1— > • O U O N cn N O c=n }- ' D Q) N N N (0 0= _ 0= 0= •� N _ 0 • Cfl N • U 0= Q a) }' a) = o U 2 E _a co E O w Oo o E E sa)U 0 To To rti O cw ca _ = o _ a) = N O _. U CO -I-)N IIF 1 o N 0 INITIAL DATA COLLECTION l0 O 0 L > M c ca ▪ O = = • N = O Lr) .c N E U co t L N▪ I O > - �� .- co cc • I' oano e Coun Overvie . 27,559 — Employed in Roanoke County, Live Outside 11,047 — Employed and Live in Roanoke County 34,731— Live in Roanoke County, Employed Outside GO 0 Figure 1: In -and- Out Commuter Map , 2019 I' oano e Coun Overvie co U •— ca > CZ O La-) C V O N •QM O _0N to - a) � C -C co4) M � CZ — -o N r lc N > >N N 0 c N co •— > � U -c Q Q U N a) '8_ N O 0 = 2 cA Table 1: Roanoke County Housing Tenure, 2015-2019 o 0 m 0 N 00 0 Ni .-i 0 .-i 0 m 139,686,209 122,802,852 16,883,357 0 0 Co of 00 0 d- O 0 m ri 0 in ui 3,562,258 3,191,847 0 N m Roanoke County m co ri 0 0 r, 00 2.2% 0 00 m Roanoke County 41,089 37,506 3,583 a s2 as J Total housing units Occupied housing units Vacant housing units Homeowner vacancy rate Rental vacancy rate 0 INITIAL DATA COLLECTION • . an. Existin • P ans Summa Documen 0 a) CO E Ca aJ O CO CT C- al) LE C6 N CO 0 a) 0 0 COttO a) U O aJ co 4J CO 4J CO C- O 0 117) a1 Can O U U C▪ 6 L 4J + aj O •± U U v) - 2005 Comprehensive Plan • . an. Existin • P ans Summa Documen 11- - - Sits N a--+ C N E 4_, •= o O i � (i) L U N O aJ U 0.).‘0.) C 0 c6 O aN N -I--)c6 N N 0 v : a)= DC a - 1 0. LP) oU °o -Z ct3 CO L.O C3- 0 i L. O U O •j, ,�, �_ CA CO CO a) a ° O = 0 o a a � +� >▪ , cm U 0. 0 C6 U N ▪ O a O b i 170- - O 0 _O ▪ a_ 0_ i O aO ai f6 Q.) 0 -.z c U a -0 v C6 .— O N-O a (I) a0 co=c Q ▪ vo moo Quco a �(/▪ 1 a ) Li-U c co U .be N CO CO a a N Q.) C (/') • . an. Existin • P ans Summa Documen Talent Attraction and Retention O ; C O ' U ;� aw OD 'O U cri•a) 0 a--+ CS ZN Za)O� O U a_, ClA E a N •w 0) O - w 0 0) Q i ca Li)w co t 2 O cri O N -o - a N o a •0 Z v a v N O v CO O C NJ Z 4-0 0) \ a) N i _ o 0 N t 2 z •- •o O O Q t O —O N p a'' }, N v N . — '� _ O N sz •O CO _c U v _ E -I--) • O� O U 0 t' 00 0 0 C 0.) 0.)i O U c� C4, a a ._coOs_ 0)— > O a O c Q o u E u a - 2020 RVAR CEDS a) 0 O • . an. Existin • P ans Summa Documen bA U mmntitio - -0 a Z 4J •-- Li)v o a.. L C a •a °o'_ •= z E •N O •-- = = _ O -a z O rC -' O w L.)' 0) E Ov 'L L _ 0- 0.) N; U i -I-) t 0 0. N -0 a) E c ca O a 0 CO > O O t E N 0 c. N N O •E E z - Q Ea1 o O O L i• •� O 0 N }' s_ a t0 -0 O U O v 'gip ca a - a co ai a_, CZ) � N cn a O O N v v CIO a cn _c fa — -0 N N a.., `_ O •— • cv) pQ O cn 0) O O kJ U= 0 . an. Existin: P ans Summa Documen 2 — :LO ,s,wm P c Udi a • — •E-- • ' •Elli -0 ban 0.41 12 = 12 U iii.' ICU (1)) 2-4-9 -c' n-.70g on O .._ ,-,-,. x 7... 03 ilJ = 2 ru .1,,1 ii• 17, 12 0- (1) C O 4) Ci- .2 tfl tf) mimm, QL-'3 CL) faA OW u% ° Lkil b.0 CZ'. 1 E H 0 E E • i(13 b_o "or CT3 a.) -1-11 c t13 0 bJD 0 tv 0 E z E- E- `urve 1 . 11 I L 2 4- O O E 4) a) a) U N N O t0/) co O a) N cc U) U a) L cn Q O a)Lz co O MN N— L 4) 0 .;. ■ ■ Both parties had similar feedback and opinions about Roanoke County .;. 0) c N- 0 0 co E = O> 0 U v tii a) 2 i a) O a) > 0 c ._ N co U = a) r 'E Q E ._ O E > OU -cO co O % O co ca) ca U t' = c 'a O U O.c -Q a) c a) a) o (Li. +r c - E_ > -0 '> CO O O) U) C -0 C 4) c Q co O co a)2 -0 U) C O c CZ 0 Cii O O >, cm- >, Q- 'E Q O N N U (/) (Jo) (a 4- " 4) N ) O U N > 0_of o a) co 0 2 1- LO C 1- • .;. INITIAL DATA COLLECTION 6urve 1 . 81 - I What words best describe Roanoke County? C.D4010'66 cot, ECD -0 0.>U) FIL5 I0 What words describe your ideal vision for Roanoke County's future economy? a), ... . • _ ,c,, _ „ =7-1.40.-1,- LF) A) 76 A.- -1-. c. 3i`lii = ,1 •:, > cD.E,;5CD = T E-.,..,.- ,....- __ -E 0= 'Li' .1../ 0 ,T .--to 0 - 6 z.- f-_.10)• 0_. St E '_1—.. • .,Ct (.14T- Li • 0 :t co EC E 2 0 a o. csn z '' 70 0 .4.•: .E.1 -4—P , cu >17. 6— . . P ti. D LI 0 E.m. g....., D z — --i -: c.r) i cri -5 _.I a) -0 i C ,--a cti of ,—.'E Ct ' g . ,- C CO ' , LI = (1) ! el,i _ k„," ,, ''' 4.-r [- 5.--,,:' 0 c.) .7_-_. 4,11 `11 - :.e, -0', .--E. M f ,.?, 0 o7.. 2 t CDT Ot g r 'D'ICC a CD -cP Cl) , — 0.- 4 = 0 •-=- _ co or; >7.,,,C) ro ID ,IT, 133 cr. '4= clo 5.42 L„- CO to_ CO (INN 0 w-1 CT N 121 6 urve I . ss s N a) s V a) > a:.r . N 0 Q N s a) i L N cp (1 • 4- a) •:• Mid -Atlantic position Outdoor and recreational activities ■ ■ K-12 education system enges/negative changes: Quality and availability of workforce ■ Rewarding career opportunities Population growth Retail and dining options ■ ■ • Impression or ease of starting a GO Research, development, and ■ c ((3 InlintintaMIWITMMISTM I GENEDGE EDA / Martin Bros Construction First Bank and Trust . . . . c GJ co 1— aJ u 0 1— 0 c 0 ca U 3 W I- 0 0 0 0 0 U) U) 0 0 O 0_ - - 00 0 0 D D a) cm a) 0 2- ▪ c a) n3 0 0 T O E g . „ma) N Et co 0 0 ▪ a3oa3 Et H o .N 3 m Tourism /Sma a) o_ 0 > a) O a) c .7) m co E (/) To c 0 cm a) ct a) o L 0 0 D0 Town of Vinton Roanoke County Parks, Recreation & Tourism . . . I N a) a) i co V a) > a:.r .N 0 Q N a) N N a) V V a N i co V 4- a) •�• Quality of life establishments/places Expansion of start-ups (pre-COVID) ■ ■ C3) C fi m • • • Business Attraction Forward -thinking enges/negative changes: co s V i co V 4- a) •�• c 0 03 0 • • • Talent/Skills Gap Collaboration 4) ca 03 • • Workforce Development Forward -thinking C3) C co • • i I co c i--' cn O N = O U c p O (a _aOco cm 0-U co [ }, a) ccaE cm co a)o_=c E 2u) co' -g 0 co o_c 0_ca a) o a) co = o a) }, C'a,� 0 a) a � •� > o > 0_ 0 o O 0 O _O • o_ L_ n 0 • o O v c o ca E c -0 C � a) co � °- O O 0 Ili = 0O _0 O .E co O O X a) ca ' — CO V 0) D O) a) _ a)ca a) cto' a) c 73 O co 0O a) E O 0) 73 p c� ' N U O O O 1 g o .co � U u) .c co 0 O 1— to' . . . • • .;. INITIAL DATA COLLECTION DISCUSSION What did you find most interesting or notable about the data? .� cu O ,- .- O cn cd -ci bA cn c cu O U ct. 0 bA cn cti. "-' O . cn Q n-. -1 cd cn L-Q cn cu cu DISCUSSION DISCUSSION Five areas to explore: ❖ Entrepreneurship ( a) co c 4--' a) o a) co a) N w co L = ca 0) co > O aJ N . o_ Eca r-. 4J - •— O = 5 2 -a cai U O = a) 1) aA (a Q c N a) N p� c co I-' V 'N`- a) a) a) = •_ a 0) p -0 c To=O o ,. _c o U CI) a)a) p . s Lto N p U a) ,� �; 1 co �_ co (i O a) iA Q 5 >, Q Q E = >O > U w U U f-a (�� a) a2 a) +, c CO ) 0 -C 0 N ca s— w CO C a) a) _0 cc ro CV cA N +-1 a) (13 �,2 2 a oc j cD o cD a) = a, _o i co U ( 0 tic -C -C -C Cn -C -C i 4— Regional collaboration c co o t a) E Q _O a) N -o E c o c O >; ( a) a) o O _cU }' a) o o c N O = (o +� O (/) Da) ca c a) co _ o iI ca O cA O O il N o O a U N _ Q DISCUSSION DISCUSSION i _O o_ a) 42 co a) L co a) ii Diversity, equality and sustainability .;. C a) 4) c O cn co X 4) C c,) (a a) c O (j 0.. N U 0 N 7 " (a — N to 4) O _c O E >' N ) U c TD tA c E c > C.• N = 0 p r o O U 0 U Q ▪ 70 � E o -c C O U a)U N = c a) _c W _a O O c co ccn >, = cn • .co o 0 Q c ••5 2 co (a # U• E rnN i• ii2 ▪ cn a) O) N (a U (a • — D a) (a (a • • • .. ... F1 DISCUSSION DISCUSSION Strategy Prioritization Process cu cd � cu O bbA .- cu cu 0 c."+-a+ c O cd co cd co • P.., o .- .- `- U -I--) _CID cu o cu cu U 0 co • c O O cn • O • cu ac O � O 4-, O O o e a cn o ToiC cu cd cu .,-, cl) .,-, EL' b ,-i DISCUSSION atatel @vt.edu ashleypos@vt.edu ACTION NO. ITEM NO. K.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 8, 2021 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: Work session to discuss the stream buffer ordinance with the Board of Supervisors Tarek Moneir Director of Development Services Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator At the work session on Stream Buffer, staff will make a presentation of the proposed amendment to the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. BACKGROUND: In order to protect property, lower impacts to downstream property and reduce water quality degradation due to land development, staff is proposing revisions to the erosion and sediment control ordinance to provide 25-foot-wide stream buffers on each side of perennial streams for new developments. These stream buffers would protect a strip of land along perennial streams to maintain floodwater storage and reduce soil erosion and property damage during floods. This item has been under consideration for several years. This presentation will display the latest proposed language that has been revised based on additional public input from Roanoke Regional Home Builder Association and local civil engineers. Staff has attached a copy of the presentation and the proposed amendment of Chapter 8.1 Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance. After receiving input from the Board, staff will work with the County Attorney's Office to finalize the updates to the ordinance accordingly. Page 1 of 1 a) o c o -a 0 ai m 2 -( - a a) o a o r t BACKGROUND U -LLE i aA 0 .cc 2 - Q)W I- Q) - 0 C6 ci_ca N O D -0 cam/) (� CO" 2 co ca O v)v) E g cn O o •X c6 O w Q) r `1- 1 CO f • 4-1E H co Q) 0 N Q) t • (1) N C Q) CO QQ) o E Q D U O .V Q Q, -, •� >+-; +-1(15 CO cu -0 O cJ + D VA •c ca C0- E N u - L .`n 1— ca 1— • • Waste Load Allocation (WLA). • E ro Q) 2 a--+ Q) -o 0 0 cu roU c LP: Q) c ca Q) •-o 0 U 0 ca 0 0 4J rou cu Q) 4J O c 0 • Buffers (BMP T10). Development with inadequate Stream Buffer m eve o • ment Service Proposed ordinance would: Example of 25-foot wide stream buffer N (4— Q wE E X U ++ O +., ▪ CO — CO N co CO > 0 CO c aJ c6 a)CD () L - a) 4 }, N O L U V N 1 a) COca CD cn -0 L U N L 4J CO ; O c60_ c L `, • — a1 c E W U • aLE 1 r% CD }' W a1 0_Q CD o LE • +-, 0-- a1 O ✓ co 0 co- 3 o Q.— _ L vi c% a' o �� +a v 0 4-1 Q O D O CO a6 L.4= CD CO � >•• U a1 co > cc u_ +, 0_ CO C •— CD cn .O Q a1 X • • • • 0 w < co CD 0 w J L co a) a--, E +- -- a O �--, U 4N-, a--, N 4 N N C N LJJ X a1 _CO C N a' E a� co c CD CD 0_ E v +- , a)O v v a v 5 v E - E a 2 Li) 0 z eve o • ment Service w U z Q z 0 0 w CO Q w cn I 0 Q CC CC 0 . O N N Q L N N E O 2 to 0 ▪ tap c co cc N ate--+ E O N E E O U a) > U cc four consultants. We made revisions to the ordinance based on these comments. co 0 0 .N N i C6 0 4J co N co E co O 0 NI < O = U CC CC 4J 0 4J 0 U CO N LA U O U i -I-0 a) a) -o -o to N co N ca 4J -o Revised to exempt these cases from requirement. O Q 0 O fo Y L CO E 2 0 a) t E O 4- a- ) cum E a) 0 t (U- 4- C CO -0 Language has been revised to address this concern. Stream crossing disturbance limits should be loosened. Language has been revised to address this concern. 0 a) fo fo Q a- ) U 0 U a) 0 a- ) a) 2 O a) -c a) n- 3 O ▪ fo a)▪ + N Z co a) E Q 0 a) > a) fo O t fo N a) CI) O fo a) project, what would be required? a- ) 0 Caul f- o a) a) a- ) > fo t 2 00 C a) E a) dA co roc 2 a) f0 O N a) t a- ) 0 fo a) 0 t a) U fo LL a-d a) E a) 2 a-d h eve o • ment Service w U z Q z 0 0 w m Q w i 0 m Stream Buffer benefits: • Lessen erosion to the stream (n 0 E L a-�+ W" 0 0 L 0 0 aJ cotto E Ca C a Jv) tJ) 0 0 E co - a--+ v) C 0 tL0 . Sv U 0 (0 0 a--) a tL0 CO S- 0 VJ) 0 C .CO a--+ C (0 • • • • • Stream Buffer costs: • a co 0 To tto .> c tn co co - 4J V) 4J C 4J 4J 4J C tL0 U X u) a--+ U CO 0 E v v) CU a--+ av-+ .E v) co 4- CO a--+ (/) 0 uses in the buffer area. To E O 4- 0 c E CT 1(12 CU CU 0_ 0 (13 CU C I_ a a CU Q 2 0 ate--+ Q E o CU C C CU a--+ a--+ U CO C a 0 C U 0 C _0 .v v a--+ CU Ca E CO eve o • ment Service Chapter 8.1 - EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DRAFT Footnotes: --- (1) --- Editor's note— Ord. No. 022316-7 , § 1, adopted February 23, 2016, in effect repealed ch. 8.1, §§ 8.1- 1-8.1-11 and enacted a new ch. 8.1, §§ 8.1-1-8.1-12 as set out herein. Former ch. 8.1 pertained to similar subject matter and derived from Ord. No. 012704-9, adopted January 27, 2004; Ord. No. 082206- 3, adopted August 22, 2006; Ord. No. 092507-5, adopted September 25, 2007; Ord. No. 052708-19, adopted May 27, 2008; and Ord. No. 092308-3 adopted September 23, 2008. Cross reference— Building regulations, Ch. 7; sewers and sewage disposal, Ch. 18; water, Ch. 22; zoning, App. A; subdivisions, App. B. State Law reference— Erosion and Sediment Control Law, Code of Virginia, § 10.1-50 et seq. Sec. 8.1-1. - Title, purpose and authority. This chapter shall be known as the "Erosion and Sediment Control and Steep Slope Development Ordinance of the County of Roanoke, Virginia." The purpose of this chapter is to prevent degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other natural resources of the county by establishing requirements for the control of soil erosion, sediment deposition and non-agricultural runoff —a 4 by establishing requirements for development of steep slopes] by developing requirements to retain maintain and cstablish stream buffers; and by establishing procedures whereby these requirements shall be administered and enforced. This chapter is authorized by the Code of Virginia, Title 62.1, Chapter 3.1, Article 2.4, known as the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, and the regulations implementing the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and the Erosion and Sediment Control Law in 9VAC25-830 through 9VAC25-890, as applicable - (Ord. No. 022316-7 , § 1, 2-23-16) Sec. 8.1-2. - Applicability of chapter in Town of Vinton. The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable within the corporate limits of the Town of Vinton. Administrative procedures and review fees may be established to accommodate the review of plans for development located within the town. (Ord. No. 022316-7 , § 1, 2-23-16) Sec. 8.1-3. - Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning: Agreement in lieu of a plan means a contract between the plan -approving authority and the owner that specifies conservation measures that must be implemented in the construction of a single-family residence; this contract may be executed by the plan -approving authority in lieu of a formal site plan. Agreement in lieu of a plan also means a contract between the plan -approving authority and the owner that specifies conservation measures that must be implemented in the construction of any land disturbing activity, other than a single-family residence, that disturbs between two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet and nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine (9,999) square feet; this contract may be executed by the plan -approving authority in lieu of a formal site plan. Applicant means any person submitting an erosion and sediment control plan for approval or requesting the issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land -disturbing activities to commence. Board means the Virginia State Water Control Board. Certified inspector means an employee or agent of a VESCP authority who (i) holds a certificate of competence from the board in the area of project inspection or (ii) is enrolled in the board's training program for project inspection and successfully completes such program within one (1) year after enrollment. Certified plan reviewer means an employee or agent of a VESCP authority who (i) holds a certificate of competence from the board in the area of plan review, (ii) is enrolled in the board's training program for plan review and successfully completes such program within one (1) year after enrollment, or (iii) is licensed as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to Article 1 (section 54.1-400 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 54.1 or a professional soil scientist as defined in section 54.1-2200 of the Code of Virginia. Certified program administrator means an employee or agent of a VESCP authority who (i) holds a certificate of competence from the board in the area of program administration or (ii) is enrolled in the board's training program for program administration and successfully completes such program within one (1) year after enrollment. Clearing means any activity which removes the vegetative ground cover including, but not limited to, root mat removal or top soil removal. County means the County of Roanoke. Department means the Department of Environmental Quality. Development means a tract or parcel of land developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to contain three (3) or more residential dwelling units. Director means the Director of the Department of Environmental Quality. District or soil and water conservation district refers to the Blue Ridge Soil and Water Conservation District. Erosion and sediment control plan or plan means a document containing material for the conservation of soil and water resources of a unit or group of units of land. It may include appropriate maps, an appropriate soil and water plan inventory, and management information with needed interpretations and a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment. The plan shall contain all major conservation decisions and all information deemed necessary by the county to assure that the entire unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives. An erosion and sediment control plan must be prepared by a Virginia professional engineer, land surveyor, landscape architect, architect, or professional soil scientist. Erosion impact area means an area of land not associated with current land disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring properties or into state waters. This definition shall not apply to any lot or parcel of land of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less used for residential purposes. Excavating means any digging, scooping or other methods of removing earth materials. Existino undeveloped land means land that prior to the issuance of the erosion and sediment control permit does not contain pavement, structures, or other hardscape within 25 feet twent five 25 feet of any perennial stream or contiguous wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the contiguous wetlands, or the ordinary high water mark if no wetlands exist., Filling means any depositing or stockpiling of earth materials. Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 10 pt, Italic Formatted: Normal, Indent First line: 0.31" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 10 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 10 pt Geotechnical report means a report provided at the applicant's expense, prepared and stamped by a professional engineer, that communicates site conditions, and recommends design and construction methods. (1) The geotechnical report shall include any or all of the following basic information, as determined by the professional engineer: a. Summary of all subsurface exploration data, including subsurface soil profile, exploration logs, laboratory or in situ test results, and ground water information; b. Interpretation and analysis of the subsurface data; c. Specific engineering recommendations for design; d. Discussion of conditions for solution of anticipated problems; and e. Recommended geotechnical special provisions. (2) For guidance in investigating site conditions and preparing geotechnical reports, the professional engineer may refer to all applicable sections of the "Checklist and Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical Reports and Preliminary Plans and Specifications," US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Publication No. FHWA ED-88-053, as amended. (3) Land -disturbing activity means any man-made change to the land surface that may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters or onto lands in the commonwealth, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, except that the term shall not include: (1) Minor land -disturbing activities such as home gardens and individual home landscaping, repairs and maintenance work; (2) Individual service connections; (3) Installation, maintenance, or repairs of any underground public utility lines when such activity occurs on an existing hard -surfaced road, street or sidewalk provided such land -disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk that is hard -surfaced; (4) Septic tank lines or drainage fields unless included in an overall plan for land -disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system; Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas operations and projects conducted pursuant to Title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia; (6) Tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops, or livestock feedlot operations; including engineering operations as follows: construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation; however, this exception shall not apply to harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 11 (Section 10.1-1100 et seq.) of Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia or is converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture use as described in subsection B of section 10.1-1163; Repair or rebuilding of the tracks, rights -of -way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company; (8) Agricultural engineering operations including but not limited to the construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds not required to comply with the Dam The geotechnical report shall be submitted to the plan -approving authority and included in site development files prior to issuance of a land disturbing permit. Grading means any excavating or filling of earth material or any combination thereof, including the land in its excavated or filled conditions. (5) (7) Safety Act (Va. Code § 10.1-604 et seq.) ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation; (9) Disturbed land areas of less than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet in size; except as herein described for residential development in section 8.1-6(e). (10) Installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; (11) Emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency repairs; however, if the land - disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment control plan, if the activity were not an emergency, then the land area disturbed shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. Land -disturbing permit or approval means a permit or other form of approval issued by the county for the clearing, filling, excavating, grading, transporting of land or for any combination thereof or for any other land disturbing activity set forth herein. Natural channel design concepts means the utilization of engineering analysis and fluvial geomorphic processes to create, rehabilitate, restore, or stabilize an open conveyance system for the purpose of creating or recreating a stream that conveys its bankfull storm event within its banks and allows larger flows to access its bankfull bench and its floodplain. Ordinary High Water Mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. Owner means the owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of a property. Peak flow rate means the maximum instantaneous flow from a given storm condition at a particular location. Perennial Stream means a stream that has a well-defined channel that contains water year around during a year of normal rainfall. Groundwater is the primary source of water, but the stream also carries storm water. Disturbance of a perennial stream may require permitting from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and/or the United States Corps of Engineers. Permittee means the person to whom the land -disturbing approval is issued or the person who certifies that the approved erosion and sediment control plan will be followed. Person means any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, county, city, town or other political subdivision of the commonwealth, any interstate body, or any other legal entity. Previously developed land means land that prior to the issuance of the erosion and sediment control permit contained pavement, structures, or other hardscape within 25 feet twenty five (25) feet of any perennial stream or contiguous wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the contiguous wetlands, or the ordinary high water mark if no wetlands exist, Responsible land disturber or RLD means an individual holding a certificate issued by the department who is responsible for carrying out the land -disturbing activity in accordance with the approved ESC plan. In addition, the RLD may be a Virginia professional engineer, land surveyor, landscape architect, architect, or professional soil scientist, provided that it is the same licensed professional who sealed and signed the ESC plan. The RLD may be the owner, applicant, permittee, designer, superintendent, project manager, contractor, or any other project or development team member. The RLD must be designated on the ESC plan or permit as a prerequisite for engaging in land disturbance. Formatted: Normal, Indent: First line: 0.31" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 10 pt Runoff volume means the volume of water that runs off the land development project from a prescribed storm event. Single-family residence means a noncommercial dwelling that is occupied exclusively by one (1) family. Steep slope means a slope greater than 3:1, or thirty-three and one-third (33.3) percent. Stream buffer means an area that is adjacent to a perennial stream, or contiguous nontidal wetlands, where natural grades and natural vegetation are left undisturbed whor^ gotation is octablishod. The stream buffer serves to protect the stream banks from excessive erosion and to allow stormwater runoff from surrounding land to flow through it to the stream in a diffuse manner so that the runoff does not become channelized and which provides for infiltration of the runoff and filtering out sediment and other nonpoint source pollutants from runoff. No land clearing or land grading that is regulated by this ordinance shall occur in a stream buffer, except as allowed b'j ooin Section 8.1.6 (v). State permit means an approval to conduct a land -disturbing activity issued by the board in the form of a state stormwater individual permit or coverage issued under a state general permit. State waters means all waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially within or bordering the commonwealth or within its jurisdictions. Town means the incorporated Town of Vinton. Transporting means any moving of earth materials from one (1) place to another place other than such movement incidental to grading, when such movement results in destroying the vegetative ground cover either by tracking or the buildup of earth materials to the extent that erosion and sedimentation will result from the soil or earth materials over which such transporting occurs. Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program or VESCP means a program approved by the board that has been established by a VESCP authority for the effective control of soil erosion, sediment deposition, and non-agricultural runoff associated with a land -disturbing activity to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream channels, waters, and other natural resources and shall include such items where applicable as local ordinances, rules, permit requirements, annual standards and specifications, policies and guidelines, technical materials, and requirements for plan review, inspection, enforcement where authorized in this article, and evaluation consistent with the requirements of this article and its associated regulations. VESCP plan -approving authority means the director of community development or his assignee, which is responsible for determining the adequacy of a plan submitted for land -disturbing activities on a unit or units of lands and for approving plans. VESCP authority or program authority means the county which has adopted a soil erosion and sediment control program that has been approved by the board. Water quality volume means the volume equal to the first one-half ('//) inch of runoff multiplied by the impervious surface of the land development project. (Ord. No. 022316-7 , § 1, 2-23-16) Sec. 8.1-4. - Administration of chapter in conjunction with subdivision and zoning ordinances. This chapter shall be administered, where applicable, in conjunction with the county's subdivision and zoning ordinances wherein such apply to the development and subdivision of land within the county or where such apply to development on previously subdivided land within the county. (Ord. No. 022316-7 , § 1, 2-23-16) Sec. 8.1-5. - Local erosion and sediment control program. (a) Pursuant to section 62.1-44.15:54 of the Code of Virginia, the county hereby establishes a VESCP program and adopts the regulations promulgated by the board; with the exception that the requirements contained in 9VAC25-840-40.19 do not apply to the regulated land -disturbing activities that meet the requirements of 8.1-7 of this chapter; (for the effective control of soil erosion and sediment deposition to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other natural resources) and the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, as amended, and those more stringent local criteria which the county board of supervisors, may adopt by resolution and incorporate into the manual of regulations and policies entitled "Stormwater Management Design Manual" and "Design and Construction Standards Manual." (b) In accordance with § 62.1-44.15:52 of the Code of Virginia, any plan approved prior to July 1, 2014 that provides for stormwater management that addresses any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or man-made channels shall satisfy the flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or man-made channels if the practices are designed to (i) detain the water quality volume and to release it over forty-eight (48) hours; (ii) detain and release over a 24-hour period the expected rainfall resulting from the one (1) year, 24-hour storm; and (iii) reduce the allowable peak flow rate resulting from the one and one half (1.5), two (2), and 10-year, 24-hour storms to a level that is less than or equal to the peak flow rate from the site assuming it was in a good forested condition, achieved through multiplication of the forested peak flow rate by a reduction factor that is equal to the runoff volume from the site when it was in a good forested condition divided by the runoff volume from the site in its proposed condition, and shall be exempt from any flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural or man-made channels. (c) For plans approved on and after July 1, 2014, the flow rate capacity and velocity requirements for natural and man-made channels shall be satisfied by compliance with water quantity requirements specified in § 62.1-44.15:28 of the Stormwater Management Act and 9VAC25-870-66 of the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) regulations, unless such land -disturbing activities are in accordance with the grandfathering provisions of the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Regulations. (d) The county hereby designates the director of community development or his assignee as the plan - approving authority. (e) The program and regulations provided for in this chapter shall be made available for public inspection at the office of the department of community development. Pursuant to section 62.1-44.15:53 of the Code of Virginia, an erosion and sediment control plan shall not be approved until it is reviewed by a certified plan reviewer. Inspections of land -disturbing activities shall be conducted by a certified inspector. The erosion control program of the county shall contain a certified program administrator, a certified plan reviewer, and a certified inspector, who may be the same person. (f) (Ord. No. 022316-7 , § 1, 2-23-16) Sec. 8.1-6. - Regulated land -disturbing activities; submission and approval of plans; contents of plans. (a) Except as provided herein, no person may engage in any land -disturbing activity until he or she has submitted to the department of community development an erosion and sediment control plan for the land -disturbing activity and such plan has been approved by the VESCP authority. No approval to begin a land -disturbing activity will be issued unless evidence of state permit coverage is obtained where it is required. Where land -disturbing activities involve lands under the jurisdiction of more than one (1) VESCP, an erosion and sediment control plan, at the option of the applicant, may be submitted to the department for review and approval rather than to each jurisdiction concerned. The department may charge the applicant a fee sufficient to cover the cost associated with conducting the review. (b) Where the land -disturbing activity results from the construction of a single-family residence, an agreement in lieu of a plan may, at the discretion of the county, be substituted for an erosion and sediment control plan if executed by the plan -approving authority. Additional requirements are given below: (1) Where the land -disturbing activity, from the construction of a single-family residence, results in less than five thousand (5,000) square feet of disturbed area, an "agreement in lieu of a plan" shall be accompanied by a plot plan that meets the county building permit plot plan requirements. (2) Where the land -disturbing activity, from the construction of a single-family residence, results in five thousand (5,000) square feet or more of disturbed area, an "agreement in lieu of a plan" shall be accompanied by a plot plan that meets the county building permit plot plan requirements, prepared by a responsible land disturber, Virginia professional engineer, land surveyor, landscape architect, architect, or professional soil scientist. A responsible land disturber must also be provided and identified. (3) The county may require additional information, or may decline to execute an agreement in lieu of a plan and may require an erosion and sediment control plan in instances where, in the county's opinion, it is necessary to properly protect downstream properties or the environment. (c) An erosion and sediment control plan shall be filed for a development and the buildings constructed within, regardless of the phasing of construction. (d) If individual lots or sections in a residential development are being developed by different property owners, all land -disturbing activities related to the building construction shall be covered by an erosion and sediment control plan or an "agreement in lieu of a plan" signed by the property owner. The property owner is responsible for complying with the provisions of (a) or (b) above for each lot to obtain an erosion and sediment control permit. (e) Land -disturbing activity of less than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet on individual lots in a residential development shall not be considered exempt from the provisions of this chapter, if the total land -disturbing activity in the development is equal to or greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet. (f) The standards contained with the "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations," and The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, as amended and those more stringent local criteria which the board of supervisors of the county, may adopt by resolution and incorporate into the manual of regulations and policies entitled "Stormwater Management Design Manual" and "Design and Construction Standards Manual" are to be used by the applicant when making a submittal under the provisions of this chapter and in the preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan. In cases where one standard conflicts with another, the more stringent applies. The VESCP plan -approving authority, in considering the adequacy of a submitted plan, shall be guided by the same standards, regulations and guidelines. The VESCP plan -approving authority shall review erosion and sediment control plans submitted to it and grant written approval within sixty (60) days of the receipt of the plan if it determines that the plan meets the requirements of the Erosion and Sediment Control Law and the board's regulations, and if the person responsible for carrying out the plan certifies that he will properly perform the measures included in the plan and will conform to the provisions of this chapter. In addition, as a prerequisite to engaging in the land -disturbing activities shown on the approved plan, the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall provide the name of the responsible land disturber, to the program authority, as provided by § 62.1-44.15:52, of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land -disturbing activity. Failure to provide the name of the responsible land disturber, prior to engaging in land -disturbing activities may result in revocation of the approval of the plan and the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be subject to the penalties provided in this chapter. However, the VESCP plan -approving authority may waive the certificate of competence requirement for an agreement in lieu of a plan for construction of a single family residence. If a violation occurs during the land -disturbing activity, then the person responsible for carrying out the agreement in lieu of a plan shall correct the violation and (g) provide the name of the responsible land disturber, as provided by § 62.1-44.15:52 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Failure to provide the name of the responsible land disturber shall be a violation of this chapter. (h) When the plan is determined to be inadequate, written notice of disapproval stating the specific reasons for disapproval shall be communicated to the applicant within forty-five (45) days. The notice shall specify the modifications, terms and conditions that will permit approval of the plan. If no action is taken by the plan -approving authority within the time specified above, the plan shall be deemed approved and the person authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. The VESCP authority shall act on any erosion and sediment control plan that has been previously disapproved within forty-five (45) days after the plan has been revised, resubmitted for approval, and deemed adequate. The VESCP authority may require changes to an approved plan when: (1) The inspection reveals that the plan is inadequate to satisfy applicable regulations; or (2) The person responsible for carrying out the plan finds that because of changed circumstances or for other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the requirements of this chapter, are agreed to by the plan approving authority and the person responsible for carrying out the plan; or, (3) A land -disturbing activity does not begin during the 180-day period following plan approval or it ceases for more than 180 days. In this event, the VESCP authority may evaluate the existing approved erosion and sediment control plan to determine whether the plan still satisfies local and state erosion and sediment control criteria and to verify that all design factors are still valid. If the VESCP authority finds the previously filed plan to be inadequate, a modified plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the resumption of land -disturbing activity. (i) (1) (k) Variances. The VESCP plan -approving authority may waive or modify any of the standards that are deemed to be inappropriate or too restrictive for site conditions, by granting a variance. A variance may be granted under these conditions: (1) At the time of plan submission, an applicant may request a variance to become part of the approved erosion and sediment control plan. The applicant shall explain the reasons for requesting variances in writing. Specific variances which are allowed by the plan -approving authority shall be documented in the plan. (2) During construction, the person responsible for implementing the approved plan may request a variance in writing from the plan -approving authority. The plan -approving authority shall respond in writing either approving or disapproving such a request. If the plan -approving authority does not approve a variance within ten (10) days of receipt of the request, the request shall be considered to be disapproved. Following disapproval, the applicant may resubmit a variance request with additional documentation. The VESCP authority shall consider variance requests judiciously, keeping in mind both the need of the applicant to maximize cost effectiveness and the need to protect off -site properties and resources from damage. In order to prevent further erosion, the county may require the property owner of land identified by the county as an erosion impact area to immediately take actions to minimize the delivery of sediment onto neighboring properties or into state waters, and to prepare and submit to the county an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that details how the erosion impact area will be permanently stabilized. Failure by the property owner to comply with county directions to immediately take actions to minimize the delivery of sediment onto neighboring properties or into state waters; or failure to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan within a reasonable time period set by the county; or failure to implement the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan after approval by the county within a reasonable time period set by the county shall be a violation of this chapter. Such violation shall be subject to all of the penalties and other legal actions contained in section 8.1-10. (I) (3) (m) When a land -disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission, and approval of an erosion control plan shall be the responsibility of the property owner. (n) In accordance with the procedure set forth in § 62.1-44.15:55 (E) of the Code of Virginia, any person engaging, in more than one (1) jurisdiction, in the creation and operation of wetland mitigation or stream restoration banks, which have been approved and are operated in accordance with applicable federal and state guidance, laws, or regulations for the establishment, use, and operation of wetland mitigation or stream restoration banks, pursuant to a mitigation banking instrument signed by the department of environmental quality, the virginia marine resources commission, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, may, at the option of that person, file general erosion and sediment control specifications for wetland mitigation or stream restoration banks annually with the board for review and approval consistent with guidelines established by the board. Approval of general erosion and sediment control specifications does not relieve the owner or operator from compliance with any other local ordinances and regulations including requirements to submit plans and obtain permits as may be required by such ordinances and regulations. (o) State agency projects are exempt from the provisions of this chapter, except as provided for in the Code of Virginia, section 62.1-44.15:56. (p) If the grade of a site is more than thirty-three and one-third (33.3) percent, refer to the International Building Code, Chapter 18, as amended, for foundation clearances from slopes. (q) Cut slopes or fill slopes shall not be greater than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), unless a geotechnical report is provided for the proposed slopes. (r) Cut slopes or fill slopes shall not be greater than twenty-five (25) vertical feet in height, unless a geotechnical report is provided for the proposed slopes. Cut slopes or fill slopes less than or equal to 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) may exceed twenty-five (25) vertical feet in height and shall not require a geotechnical report. (s) For any cut slopes or fill slopes greater than or equal to 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or greater than or equal to twenty-five (25) vertical feet in height with a slope greater than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), as - built plans showing that the finished geometry, based on a field survey performed by a licensed surveyor, is in substantial conformity with the design shall be provided to the plan -approving authority. (t) Fill materials, compaction methods and density specifications shall be indicated on the site development plans. Fill areas intended to support structures shall also be indicated on the site development plans. (u) Development plans for all new subdivisions shall show proposed lot grades to ensure positive drainage. v Stream Buffers (1) Except as provided in this section, each regulated land disturbing activity shall provide for stream buffers for the purposes of retarding runoff, preventing stream bank erosion, and filtering nonpoint source pollution from runoff. (2) The stream buffer, on existing undeveloped land, shall extend a minimum of twenty five (25) feet on each side of any perennial stream or contiguous nontidal wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the contiguous nontidal wetlands, or the ordinary high water mark if no wetlands exist. (3) The stream buffer, on previously developed land, shall either meet the requirements of (2) above, or extend from the side of any perennial stream or contiguous wetlands, measured horizontally from the edge of the contiguous wetlands, or the ordinary high water mark if no wetlands exist to the edge of existing paved surfaces, structures, or other hardscape; whichever is less. (4;) Commented [All: Need to add language to the agreement in lieu of esc plans that protect stream buffers. 1. Target vcgctativc covcr. The preferred vegetative covcr in a str am buffer chall be a native riparian forcct with ground covcr, chrub, and trcc mnopy laycrs. +h-Each stream buffer shall be retained maintained in as natural a condition as possible. Natural ground contours and native vegetation shall be preserved to the fullest extent possible. (5,3) The following types of improvements and activities shall not be required to retain, establish, or manage a stream buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied: i. The construction, installation, operation and maintenance of electric, gas and telephone transmission lines, railroads, and activities of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and their appurtenant structures, which are accomplished in compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:51 et seq.) or an erosion and sediment control plan approved by the State Water Control Board. ii. The construction, installation, and maintenance by public agencies of storm drainage, water and sewer lines. iii. The construction and installation of water and sewer lines constructed by private interests for dedication to public agencies, provided that all of the following are satisfied: 1. To the extent practical, as determined by the administrator, the location of the water or sewer lines, shall be outside of all stream buffer areas. 2. No more land shall be disturbed than is necessary to construct, install and maintain the water or sewer lines. 3. All construction and installation of the water or sewer lines shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local requirements and permits and be conducted in a manner that protects water quality. (64) The following types of structures, control measures and activities shall be allowed in a stream buffer, provided that the requirements of this section are satisfied: i. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures, provided that to the extent practical, as determined by the administrator, the control measures shall be located outside of the stream buffer and disturbance impacts are minimized. Upon removal of the temporary measures, grading and plantings shall be provided to reestablish the stream buffer by restoring pre -development grades and providing appropriate plantings. ii. Water -dependent facilities; water wells; passive recreation access, such as pedestrian trails and bicycle paths; historic preservation; archaeological activities; provided that all applicable Federal, State and local permits are obtained. iii. Storm drainage facilities necessary to drain to the stream, and stormwater management best management practices, provided that the disturbance to the buffer is minimized. iv. Roads, streets and driveways, provided that disturbance to the natural stream channel and buffer is limited to the minimum reasonably required to develop the site. Whenever practical, roads, streets, and driveways shall not be constructed parallel to a stream within the buffer. v. Selective removal of invasive plants and reestablishment of vegetative buffer using native. Ip ants. vi. Stream drainage improvements that comply with all Federal and State permitting. requirements. Where channel improvements are made, stream buffers shall be reestablished on both sides of the improved channel. There shall be no stream buffer requirements where streams are replaced with storm drainage pipes. (7,5) Stream buffers shall be indicated on erosion and sediment control plans, or plot plans; and they shall be physically marked and protected in the field with safety fencing or other appropriate means prior to the commencement of clearing or grading. (6) Any lot that was platted prior to the effective date of this paragraph, and any land disturbance whose erosion and sediment control plan has been submitted to the County for review prior to the effective date of this paragraph, are exempt from the requirements to protect and establish stream buffers. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.31", Hanging: 0.31" Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.13" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging: 0.1" (Ord. No. 022316-7 § 1, 2-23-16) Sec. 8.1-7. - Special provisions for land -disturbing activities that disturb less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet (a) This section applies to all land -disturbing activities that disturb less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, except that these special provisions shall not apply to any land -disturbing activity of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet on individual lots in a residential development, if the total land -disturbing activity in the development is equal to or greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (b) Land -disturbing activities shall meet all of the requirements of this chapter, except for the following: (1) The technical provisions contained in 9VAC25-840-40.19 shall not apply to land disturbing activities that meet the requirements of this section. These include: a. The adequacy of downstream channels and pipes are not required to be analyzed and verified. b. No stormwater management measures to address any flow rate capacity or velocity requirements for downstream natural or man-made channels shall be required. (2) An agreement in lieu of a plan may, at the discretion of the county, be substituted for an erosion and sediment control plan if executed by the plan -approving authority. All of the requirements of section 8.1-6(b) shall apply. This provision expands the use of an agreement in lieu of, beyond a single-family residence, to all land -disturbing activities that disturb less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to negate any requirements of the stormwater management ordinance of the county, where applicable. (Ord. No. 022316-7 , § 1, 2-23-16) Sec. 8.1-8. - Permits; fees; surety; etc. (a) Agencies authorized under any other law to issue grading, building, or other permits for activities involving land -disturbing activities may not issue any such permit unless the applicant submits with his application an approved erosion and sediment control plan, certification that the plan will be followed and evidence of state permit coverage where it is required. (b) No person shall engage in any land -disturbing activity until he has acquired a land -disturbing permit, unless the proposed land -disturbing activity is specifically exempt from the provisions of this chapter, and has paid the fees and posted the required surety. (c) Fees. An applicant requesting permission to begin land -disturbing activity pursuant to this article shall pay the following fees to cover the administrative expense of review, permitting, and inspection. Disturbed Area (Square Feet) Less than 5,000 5,000 - 9,999 10,000 - or greater Fee $25.00 $50.00 $100.00 + $100.00 per disturbed acre, or portion of an acre (d) No land -disturbing permit shall be issued until the applicant submits with the application an approved erosion and sediment control plan or agreement in lieu of an approved erosion and sediment control plan and certification that the plan will be followed. (e) Surety. All applicants for permits shall provide to the county a performance bond, cash escrow, or an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the director of community development or his assignee, to ensure that measures could be taken by the county at the applicant's expense should the applicant fail, after proper notice, within the time specified to initiate or maintain appropriate conservation measures required of him as a result of his land -disturbing activity. The amount of the bond or other security for performance shall not exceed the total of the estimated cost to initiate and maintain appropriate conservation action based on unit price for new public or private sector construction in the locality plus a contingency for the county's administrative costs and inflation. The contingency shall be ten (10) percent of the total estimated cost to initiate and maintain the appropriate conservation action. Should it be necessary for the county to take such conservation action, the county may collect from the applicant any costs in excess of the amount of the surety held. (f) (g) Within sixty (60) days of adequate stabilization and completion of all other site requirements, as determined by the director of community development or his assignee, such bond, cash escrow or letter of credit, or the unexpended or unobligated portion thereof shall be either refunded to the applicant or terminated. These requirements are in addition to all other provisions relating to the issuance of permits and are not intended to otherwise affect the requirements for such permits. (Ord. No. 022316-7 , § 1, 2-23-16) Sec. 8.1-9. - Monitoring, reports, and inspections. (a) The responsible land disturber, as provided in § 62.1-44.15:52, shall be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land -disturbing activity and provide for periodic inspections of the land -disturbing activity. The county may require the person responsible for carrying out the plan to monitor the land -disturbing activity. The person responsible for carrying out the plan will maintain records of these inspections and maintenance, to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation. (b) The department of community development shall periodically inspect the land -disturbing activity in accordance with 9VAC25-840-60 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation. The owner, permittee, or person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be given notice of the inspection. If the director of community development, or his assignee, determines that there is a failure to comply with the plan or if the plan is determined to be inadequate, notice shall be served upon the permittee or person responsible for carrying out the plan by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the permit application or in the plan certification, or by delivery at the site of the land -disturbing activities to the agent or employee supervising such activities. The notice shall specify the measures needed to comply with the plan and shall specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. Upon failure to comply within the specified time, the permit may be revoked and the permittee shall be deemed to be in violation of this chapter and, upon conviction, shall be subject to the penalties provided by this chapter. (c) Upon issuance of an inspection report denoting a violation of Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:55,-44.15:56, the director of community development, or his assignee, may, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this chapter, issue a stop work order requiring that all or part of the land -disturbing activities permitted on the site be stopped until the specified corrective measures have been taken. If land -disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan or proper permits, the director of community development or his assignee may, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this chapter, issue a stop work order requiring that all of the land -disturbing and/or construction activities be stopped until an approved plan or any required permits are obtained. Failure to comply will result in civil charges or penalties as outlined in section 8.1-10 of this chapter. Where the alleged noncompliance is causing or is in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion of lands or sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds of the commonwealth, or where the land - disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan or any required permits, such a stop work order may be issued without regard to whether the permittee has been issued a notice to comply as specified in this chapter. Otherwise, such a stop work order may be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply with such a notice to comply. The stop work order shall be served in the same manner as a notice to comply, and shall remain in effect for a period of seven (7) days from the date of service pending application by the county or permit holder for appropriate relief to the circuit court. The county shall serve such stop work order for disturbance without an approved plan or permits upon the owner by mailing with confirmation of delivery to the address specified in the land records. Said stop work order shall be posted on the site where the disturbance is occurring, and shall remain in effect until permits and plan approvals are secured, except in such situations where an agricultural exemption applies. If the alleged violator has not obtained an approved plan or any required permits within seven (7) days from the date of service of the stop work order, the director of community development or his assignee may issue a stop work order to the owner requiring that all construction and other work on the site, other than corrective measures, be stopped until an approved plan and any required permits have been obtained. Such an order shall be served upon the owner by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the permit application or the land records of the county. The owner may appeal the issuance of a stop work order to the circuit court of the county. Any person violating or failing, neglecting or refusing to obey a stop work order issued by the director of community development or his assignee may be compelled in a proceeding instituted in the circuit court of the county to obey same and to comply therewith by injunction, mandamus or other appropriate remedy. Upon completion and approval of corrective action or obtaining an approved plan or any required permits, the stop work order shall immediately be lifted. Nothing in this section shall prevent the director of community development or his assignee from taking any other action authorized by this chapter. (Ord. No. 022316-7 , § 1, 2-23-16) Sec. 8.1-10. - Penalties, injunctions, and other legal actions. (a) Violators of this chapter shall be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor. (b) Civil penalties: (1) A civil penalty in the amount listed on the schedule below shall be assessed for each violation of the respective offenses: a. Commencement of land disturbing activity without an approved plan as provided in section 8.1-6 shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day. b. Vegetative measures. Failure to comply with items 1, 2 3, or 5 of the minimum standards shall be three hundred dollars ($300.00) per violation per day. c. Structural measures. Failure to comply with items 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, or 18 of the minimum standards shall be three hundred dollars ($300.00) per violation per day. d. Watercourse measures. Failure to comply with items 12, 13 and 15 of the minimum standards, or unapproved disturbance of stream buffer shall be three hundred dollars ($300.00) per violation per day. e. Underground utility measures. Failure to comply with item 16(a) and/or (c) shall be three hundred dollars ($300.00) per violation per day. f. Failure to obey a stop work order shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day. g. Failure to stop work when permit revoked shall be one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day. (2) Each day during which the violation is found to have existed shall constitute a separate offense. However, in no event shall a series of specified violations arising from the same operative set of facts result in civil penalties which exceed a total of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), except that a series of violations arising from the commencement of land - disturbing activities without an approved plan for any site shall not result in civil penalties which exceed a total of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). The assessment of civil penalties according to this schedule shall be in lieu of criminal sanctions and shall preclude the prosecution of such violation as a misdemeanor under subsection (a) of this section. (c) The director of community development or his assignee, or the owner of property which has sustained damage or which is in imminent danger of being damaged, may apply to the circuit court of the county to enjoin a violation or a threatened violation of Va. Code §§ 62.1-44.15:55, 62.1- 44.15:56, without the necessity of showing that an adequate remedy at law does not exist. However, an owner of property shall not apply for injunctive relief unless (i) he has notified in writing the person who has violated the local program, and the program authority, that a violation of the local program has caused, or creates a probability of causing, damage to his property, and (ii) neither the person who has violated the local program nor the program authority has taken corrective action within fifteen (15) days to eliminate the conditions which have caused, or create the probability of causing, damage to his property. (d) In addition to any criminal penalties provided under this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter may be liable to the county in a civil action for damages. (e) Civil penalty enumerated. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this section, any person violating or failing, neglecting, or refusing to obey any injunction, mandamus or other remedy obtained pursuant to this section shall be subject, in the discretion of the court, to a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each violation. A civil action for such violation or failure may be brought by the county. Any civil penalties assessed by a court shall be paid into the treasury of the county, except that where the violator is the locality itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the penalty to be paid into the state treasury. With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey any regulation or condition of a permit or any provision of this chapter, the county may provide for the payment of civil charges for violations in specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in subsection (b)(2) of this section. Such civil charges shall be instead of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection (b) or (e). The county's attorney shall, upon request of the county take legal action to enforce the provisions of this chapter. (h) Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall be prima facie evidence in any legal or equitable proceeding for damages caused by erosion, siltation or sedimentation that all requirements of law have been met, and the complaining party must show negligence in order to recover any damages. (f) (g) (Ord. No. 022316-7 , § 1, 2-23-16) Sec. 8.1-11. - Hearings and appeals. (a) Hearings. (1) Any permit applicant or permittee, or person subject to the requirements of this chapter, who is aggrieved by any action, of the county in approving or disapproving any plans required by this chapter, or by any enforcement action taken pursuant to section 8.1-10, shall have the right to request, in writing, a hearing to the county administrator or his/her designee provided a petition requesting such hearing is filed with the administrator within thirty (30) days after notice of such action is given by the administrator. (2) The hearing shall be held provided that the county administrator and the aggrieved party has at least thirty (30) days prior notice. A verbatim record of the proceedings of such hearings shall be taken and filed with the board of supervisors. Depositions may be taken and read as in actions at law. (4) The county administrator, shall have power to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, and at the request of any party shall issue such subpoenas. The failure of any witness without legal excuse to appear or to testify or to produce documents shall be acted upon by the county administrator whose actions may include the procurement of an order of enforcement from the circuit court. Witnesses who are subpoenaed shall receive the same fees and reimbursement for mileage as in civil actions. (5) During its review, the county administrator shall consider evidence presented by all parties. After considering the evidence, the county administrator's decision shall be final. (b) Appeals. Final decisions of the county administrator, under this chapter, shall be subject to judicial review by the county circuit court, provided an appeal is filed within thirty (30) days from the date of any written decision adversely affecting the rights, duties, or privileges of any permit applicant, permittee, or person subject to any enforcement action under this chapter. (3) (Ord. No. 022316-7 , § 1, 2-23-16) Sec. 8.1-12. - Civil violations, summons, generally. (a) The director of community development, or his assignee, shall prepare an appropriate erosion and sediment control civil violation summons for use in enforcing the provisions of this chapter. (b) Any person of the VESCP plan approving authority charged with enforcing this chapter shall serve upon any owner or permittee in violation of this chapter, a summons notifying the owner or permittee of said violation. If unable to serve the owner or permittee in person, the county may notify by summons an owner or permittee committing or suffering the existence of a violation by certified, return receipt requested mail, of the infraction. The county sheriffs office may also deliver the summons. The summons shall contain the following information: (1) The name and address of the person charged. (2) The nature of the violation and chapter provision(s) being violated. (3) The location, date, and time that the violation occurred, or was observed. (4) The amount of the civil penalty assessed for the violation. (5) The manner, location, and time that the civil penalty may be paid to the county. (6) The right of the recipient of the summons to elect to stand trial for the infraction and the date of such trial. (c) The summons shall provide that any person summoned for a violation may, within five (5) days of actual receipt of the summons or, within ten (10) days from the date of mailing of the summons, elect to pay the civil penalty by making an appearance in person, or in writing by mail to the county treasurer's office and, by such appearance, may enter a waiver of trial, admit liability, and pay the civil penalty established for the violation charged and provide that a signature to an admission of liability shall have the same force and effect as a judgment in court; however, an admission shall not be deemed a criminal conviction for any purpose. (d) If a person charged with a violation does not elect to enter a waiver of trial and admit liability, the county shall cause the sheriff of the county to serve the summons on the person charged in the manner prescribed by law. The violation shall be tried in general district court in the same manner and with the same right of appeal as provided for in Title 8.01 of the Code of Virginia. In any trial for a scheduled violation authorized by this section, it shall be the burden of the county to show the liability of the violator by the preponderance of the evidence. Any admission of liability, or finding of liability shall not be a criminal conviction for any purpose. (e) The remedies provided for in this section are cumulative, and are not exclusive and, except as provided above, shall be in addition to any other remedies by law. (f) The owner or permittee may pay the civil penalty to the treasurer prior to the trial date, provided he also pays necessary court costs in addition to the civil penalty. (g) Within the time period prescribed in (c), above, the owner or permittee, may contest the violation by presenting it to the director of community development, who shall certify the contest in writing, on an appropriate form, to the general district court. (h) Failure to pay the civil penalty, or to contest the violation, within the time period prescribed in (c), above, shall result in the immediate issuance of a stop work order and the revocation of the permit, if any. (Ord. No. 022316-7 , § 1, 2-23-16) AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021 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 member's 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. Page 1 of 1