HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2022 - Regular December 13, 2022 907
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center,this being the only regularly scheduled meeting
of the month of December 2022. Audio and video recordings of this meeting will be
held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order, Pastor Daniel Palmer of North
Roanoke Baptist Church provided an invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited
by all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Mahoney called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Paul M. Mahoney; Supervisors Martha B. Hooker,
Phil C. North, P. Jason Peters, David F. Radford
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator; Rebecca
Owens, Deputy County Administrator; Doug Blount,
Assistant County Administrator, Peter S. Lubeck, County
Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and
Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board
Before the meeting started, a video was shown from the State of the
County.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution recognizing Megan Cronise, Assistant Director of
Planning for her exemplary service to Roanoke County (Richard
L. Caywood, County Administrator)
908 December 13, 2022
Resolution was read.
RESOLUTION 121322-1 RECOGNIZING MEGAN CRONISE,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, FOR HER EXEMPLARY
SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, in May 2006, Megan Cronise was hired by Roanoke County as a
Planner II, and during her tenure has been promoted to Principal Planner,
Transportation Planning Manager and Assistant Director of Planning; and
WHEREAS, Megan has led and managed the Transportation Division of the
Planning Department for the past four (4) years; and
WHEREAS, Megan has developed strong, effective, working relationships and
partnerships with local, regional and state transportation groups and agencies; and
WHEREAS, Megan has coordinated and submitted many successful
transportation grant applications over the years, including over a $100 million of funded
transportation projects in the Route 419 and Route 460 corridors, multimodal
improvements along Plantation Road, Williamson Road, and West Main Street and
greenway projects such as the Glade Creek Greenway at Vinyard Park West; and
WHEREAS, in 2022, Megan has coordinated and assisted in the submission of
18 grant applications totaling $98 million in transportation projects and studies, which
included the successful funding of CORTRAN and the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle;
and
WHEREAS, Megan continues to plan for transportation improvements to the
County's transportation system by coordinating recommendations in the Roanoke
County 200 Plan and Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study; and
WHEREAS, Megan keeps citizens, County departments and the Board of
Supervisors informed on a variety of transportation issues including changes in traffic
operations, traffic safety issues, funding opportunities and current studies; and
WHEREAS, Megan continues to be a strong and passionate advocate for the
County's and region's transportation system and its improvement; and
WHEREAS, Megan's positive attitude and commitment to her programs make a
difference every day in many of Roanoke County's citizens' lives.
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 Megan Cronise for her dedicated service to Roanoke County;
and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for continued
success in the future.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
December 13, 2022 909
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing to introduce Dani Poe, Assistant Director of Economic
Development(Megan Baker, Director of Economic Development)
Briefing was given.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution requesting the Commonwealth Transportation Board
fund a SMART SCALE application for Interstate 81 Southbound
Widening between Exit 137 and Exit 128, Catawba Magisterial
District(Megan G. Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning)
Ms. Cronise outlined the request for resolution.
Supervisor North commented this is the great example of regional
partnerships and relationships.
Supervisor.Hooker commented she is so appreciative of this effort living in
the western side of Roanoke County.
RESOLUTION 121322-2 REQUESTING THE COMMONWEALTH
TRANSPORTATION BOARD FUND A SMART SCALE
APPLICATION FOR INTERSTATE 81 SOUTHBOUND WIDENING
BETWEEN EXIT 137 AND EXIT 128, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the 2018 Virginia General Assembly directed the Commonwealth
Transportation Board (CTB) to develop and adopt an Interstate 81 Corridor
Improvement Plan and evaluate financing options for Interstate 81 corridor
improvements; and
WHEREAS, data from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) shows
that Interstate 81 has the highest proportion of incident delay compared to all other
Virginia interstates, and the loss of one lane leads to a 65 percent reduction in highway
capacity; and
WHEREAS, Interstate 81 is critical to the economic vitality of the Commonwealth
with the highest per capita truck volume in the state, carrying nearly 50 percent of the
state's value of goods; and
910 December 13, 2022
WHEREAS, according to the 1-81 Corridor Improvement Study, the Roanoke
area of the corridor experiences the highest degree of congestion and crash density in
the state; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization (RVTPO)
applied for and was awarded SMART SCALE funding in Rounds 1 and 2 in 2016 and
2017 to fund interstate widening between Exits 143 and 141 Northbound and
Southbound, which was completed in 2022; and
WHEREAS, the 2019 Interstate 81 Corridor Improvement Program and Fund has
facilitated several additional capital and operational projects, to include an active
widening project between Exits 141 and 137 Northbound and Southbound, design of a
project to widen the interstate between Exits 143 and 150, as well as design of a project
to widen the northbound direction only between Exit 118 and 137; and
WHEREAS, the only remaining segment of Interstate 81 not funded for widening
throughout the 32 miles between Christiansburg and Troutville is located between Exit
137 at Wildwood Road and Exit 128 at Ironto.
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors has consistently
expressed support for improvements to Interstate 81 through Roanoke County and the
Roanoke Valley.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board of Supervisors hereby supports funding of Interstate 81
Southbound widening between Exit 137 and Exit 128.
2. That the Clerk to the Board forthwith send a certified copy of this
Resolution to Commonwealth Transportation Board member Dr. Ray
Smoot.
3. That this resolution is effective immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Radford to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
2. Request to approve the strategic target outcome areas and
endorse the strategic planning work plan (Madeline Sefcik,
Assistant to the County Administrator)
Ms. Sefcik provided a PowerPoint presentation.
December 13, 2022 911
Supervisor Radford asked if staff was going to consider looking at laying
this out in a linear format, like a Gantt chart so we can see the movement of all the parts
and pieces. Ms. Sefcik responded staff has had brief discussions on ways to track; at
the moment we have not settled on one particular outcome. We are going to work on
something that is visually pleasing.
Supervisor North suggested putting something on the webpage that can
be shared and can be transparent. So not only can we check it out, but citizens can
check it as well.
Supervisor Hooker noted that she thought this encapsulated our
discussions and our desires going forward.
Supervisor Mahoney noted in rereading this over the weekend, it truly is a
lot of work. One aspect is that jumped out is that it appears we are going to be hiring a
lot of consultants and he is concerned about what impact it will have on the operating
budget. There was no further discussion.
A-121322-3
3. Presentation of year-end financial results for June 30, 2022,
acceptance of audit report and allocation of year-end funds
(Jessica Beemer, Assistant Director of Finance and Management
Services; John Aldridge, Partner, Brown Edwards)
Ms. Beemer introduced Mr. Aldridge who advised it was a clean audit with
an unmodified opinion.
Supervisor North acted how does Roanoke County compare with the rest
of the State with Mr. Aldridge advising conservatively balanced. There was no further
discussion.
A-121322-4
4. Resolution directing the County Attorney to file a petition for no
special election upon the retirement of Steven A. McGraw as the
Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk, and that Rhonda D. Perdue
be vested with the powers and duties of such office for the
remainder of the unexpired term of office (Peter S. Lubeck,
County Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck outlined the request for resolution. Also in attendance was
Steve McGraw and Rhonda Perdue.
912 December 13, 2022
RESOLUTION 121322-5 DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
TO FILE A PETITION FOR NO SPECIAL ELECTION UPON THE
RETIREMENT OF STEVEN A. MCGRAW AS THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK, AND THAT RHONDA D.
PERDUE BE VESTED WITH THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF
SUCH OFFICE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE UNEXPIRED
TERM OF OFFICE
WHEREAS, Steven A. McGraw was elected by the citizens of Roanoke County
to serve as the Clerk of the Circuit Court for a term of office commencing January 1,
2016 and ending December 2023; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McGraw submitted his notice to retire effective February 1,
2023; and
WHEREAS, Section 24.1-228.1(B) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
provides that, since the vacancy is occurring within the 12 months immediately
preceding the end of the term of that office, the governing body may petition the Circuit
Court to request that no special election be ordered, and that the highest ranking deputy
officer for the Circuit Court Clerk be vested with the powers and perform all the duties of
the office; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Board adopt a resolution directing the County
Attorney to file a petition requesting that no special election be ordered and that,
pursuant to Section 24.2-28.1(B) of the Code of Virginia, Rhonda D. Perdue, the highest
ranking deputy officer for the Circuit Court Clerk, be vested with the powers and perform
all the duties of the office, and that Ms. Perdue be entitled to all the privileges and
protections afforded by law to elected or appointed constitutional officers, for the
remainder of the unexpired term; and
WHEREAS, the election to fill this position would thus be held at the general
election scheduled for November 7, 2023.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, that the County Attorney is directed to file a petition for no election, as set forth
in this resolution.
On motion of.Supervisor Hooker to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
5. Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding between
the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke
County School Board regarding joint capital funding (Peter S.
Lubeck, County Attorney; Rebecca Owens, Deputy County
Administrator)
December 13, 2022 913
Mr. Lubeck outlined the request for resolution
Supervisor Mahoney advised he has spoken with School Board Chairman
David Linden several times and Mr. Linden has indicated to me that the school board is
not able to make any representations or presentations to us because they have not yet
had a formal meeting and they have not been able to discuss the proposed MOU in a
regular school board meeting. I believe the school board is scheduled to meet
Thursday. He did indicate to me that he had an opportunity to transmit the draft
memorandum of understanding to the attorney for the school board. Mr. Linden has
reported to me that she has recommended or suggested a minor modification or change
suggested to the board, if you look at the last page of the memorandum of
understanding and it is at page 92 of our agenda, it's IV subsection F. This section talks
about how the present Board of Supervisors cannot bind the actions of a future Board
and the recommendation or suggestion from Mr. Linden and counsel for the school
board is that sentence be expanded to also include the school board so that a current or
present Board of Supervisors or a current and present school board can't bind a future
school board. So if the pleasure of the board, if you'd be comfortable with amending
subsection F and I'd ask Mr. Lubeck to also handle that. Again, I think there's an
opportunity that we may hear some additional recommendations or suggestions from
the school board after their meeting this Thursday.
Supervisor Hooker asked with regard to this change, would escalation in
debt and the plan for repayment come into play. — Mr. Lubeck responded it expresses
the intent of the Board. Mr. Lubeck responded that he does not believe that the
amounts would be compromised. It would certainly, this is a document that expresses
the intent of the Boards as of today and the amounts, we know what they are and I
believe that those amounts would not change. It's just simply a principle of law that this
Board or the school board cannot bind a future board's actions.
Supervisor North asked if some of this language will be embedded in the
Roanoke County financial policy with Rebecca Owens, Deputy County Administrator
responding in the affirmative.
Mr. Caywood clarified that the MOU doesn't bind future boards, the
issuance of debt does, because that's a contractual obligation when we issue debt. So
future plans for debt that we might issue in the future wouldn't be binding, but the
payments that we have to make on debt that we've issued in the past is binding on us
as a County because we pulled down that note.
Supervisor Mahoney stated this is our statement of intent, but I would add
that as the school board goes forward through 2023 with whether it's design, whether
it's build, whether it's design, build, construction, contract, whatever, at some point in
time, maybe a year from now, the school board will confront having to deal with a bid
price. If things are great and the bid price is such that it's less than what we estimated, I
think that provides some flexibility for the schools to do some other capital projects. On
the other hand, if the bid price is significantly higher than what we are estimating today,
we need to get back together with the school board and try to figure out how do we go
914 December 13, 2022
forward. So, we're trying to give a statement of intent today, realizing that we may not
know what the actual dollar amount is until maybe a year from now. He hopes it could
go quicker, but thinks based on our experience in terms of major capital projects, it's
going to be anywhere from 10 months to 12 months as school board goes through the
process. We would hope that we'll have good news maybe a year from now and it'll be
less than what we have anticipated.
Supervisor Peters stated he wanted to go on record. He shared his
concerns about this last Wednesday and for the record, he will share them again. His
first concern with this is that we are allocating $17 million in 2024 and $80 million in
2025, totaling $97 million. The project's estimated to be 93 million, so he has a hard
time understanding if we're going to allocate $97 million and appropriate through debt
funding then we turn around and ask the school board to apply for grants. It's been my
experience that you have to be able to show a need. One of the things that he has a lot
of questions about the MOU, one of the things that he has spoken about with a couple
of my colleagues was why do we not just amend the financial policy and we can put the
number wherever you want to put it, but we want to borrow $40 million in 24, $40 million
in '25, total $80 million in debt servicing, allowing them the opportunity to show a need
going forward with the grants that we are asking them to look at. We have already
determined, it seems to me, and the information that he received from the
administration that it doesn't look like the solar option is an option that is in our best
interest and our financial folks have analyzed it as well. He has a hard time with the
section here. We're going to ask them to get an energy consultant, which will probably
cost us a couple hundred thousand dollars to tell us probably what we've already found
out. The other part he has with this, and said on Wednesday, is that nobody is more in
support of the CTE than he is. He has made that clear for over the last year, 18 months.
He even sat down with Mr. Linden and Mr. Greenway back in the spring and caused a
little bit of a firestorm there that I was trying to get a deal to work out. But I thought the
purpose of this was to solidify the CTE, to take the recommendations of our CTE
committee and to move that forward in this agreement. He does not think we've
adequately addressed the elementary schools, but also thinks we do need to
understand our children and we need our ADM in our schools because it is going down.
As I shared with some of my colleagues earlier, we do live in a different world and I'll go
back 50 years and if Norfolk Southern were coming to town 50 years ago and added a
thousand jobs. In most of those cases, the spouse was a homemaker and they had two
or three children and they had probably pumped 2,000 to 3,000 kids into our schools.
But that's not the case in 2022. As I deal with people daily, people aren't having kids.
They're wanting to travel and they're wanting to go here and do this. They're not having
the children that our past generations have. So he does think we need to look at our
school structure. I know Mr. Radford mentioned on Wednesday that there are some
localities that are doing K through 8. He does not think we have that answer. He doesn't
think we truly know how to address the elementary schools. He thinks that we need to
ask the school board to work in a holistic manner with us because I think the
December 13, 2022 915
demographics are going to change completely. The comment was made Wednesday
that the school board is not in charge of economic development or economic growth,
and that statement's absolutely true. But as Chairman Mahoney mentioned at the State
of the County on Wednesday, we added 550 jobs. Our unemployment number is under
2% or close to it. Even if we were to bring a thousand more people to the valley, that
doesn't guarantee they're going'to have kids. So again, I think that we need to take a
holistic look at this. He feels that the MOU should address just the CTE that all 10
members of both Boards agree this needs to be done. We don't want to jeopardize our
ability to have grants. He thinks this does. Then we need to move into a conversation to
address the elementary schools in a different way.
Supervisor Hooker asked if the MOU, in setting forth funding for future
projects, the same as allocation in the grant process. Peter Lubeck responded that his
interpretation is that we don't have to actually, physically allocate the money, which will
not take place until we borrow the funds. Ms. Owens responded it is her understanding
in the grant process, what would be required is for the actual documentation and full
explanation of the project itself. She thinks what we have in our financial policy and
what we have tried to reiterate here in the MOU would just be changes that this Board
would be authorizing in terms of the amount of the borrowing that this Board would
authorize on an annual basis. So for example, on page three of five of the MOU in
section three where it has updates to the policy, we would essentially continue the
allowance of the 17 million in fiscal year'24, which our current policy already outlines for
the schools. Then we, in fiscal year '25, would essentially just be authorizing an amount
up to 80 million. She thinks all we're doing there is continuing with that $17 million and
then authorizing an additional $63 million in the MOU. We've documented that we
understand that there are the needs of the CTE as well as two elementary schools with
the thought being that if the schools did apply for and received grants, that that would
be great and those would go towards the project and just minimize the amount of the
actual borrowing. So I think that all we were trying to do here was just really kind of
expand upon what we have in the current policy and just update it and then we would
update the policy at a later time to, if this is approved, actually mirror that. Then we
continue on to say that beginning in fiscal year'27, we just kind of continue and indicate
that we would actually authorize and increase that amount from $17 to $20 million.
Supervisor Peters asked for a point of clarification. What is the difference
in if you're applying for an SRO grant or an ambulance or a firetruck, and a lot of those
grants have in there their fund sources for whatever this is? Why would that be any
different in this case? Because there is a funding source for this and we're in this MOU.
It's getting ready to be approved and this would also then be adopted into our financial
policy. Ms. Owens responded Supervisor Peters is correct, this is just the intent.
Supervisor Peters reiterated, he does not want anybody to take away from
this that he is not supportive of this. There's already been too many moving parts that
has given me a time to say, let's pause for a minute, let this thing land and know exactly
how we need to play it out. Meanwhile, knowing that we're all committed to this. And
916 December 13, 2022
then the other point he brought up on Wednesday, let's say everything is perfect. We
get the grants, they get $17 million and they get $20 million in 2027, which elementary
school can be done? He does not want to be in the position pit the Catawba versus
Vinton districts against each other again, because I don't think we've had a holistic look
of how this needs to be played out, especially at the elementary level.
Supervisor Radford commented the one thing he wants to tweak, and that
is item D that talks about the school board retaining an independent energy consultant.
He sees that a little different. He does not see it costing a $100,000 or $200,000 for a
staff person. Those people you can hire as a consultant through the architectural firm
and they can actually evaluate and make a recommendation. So, my whole thought
about D was going to be more cost effective and not to hire somebody full-time. They
can do what they want to do with it. They can, to me, he is not reading it that they have
to do solar, but it's a recommendation to look at it and consider it because we might
want to do the same thing with some of our architectural services when we do a library
or we do a fire station. So I don't see that as a big expense.
Supervisor North commented in the spirit of this agreement, this is what
the citizens' committee that worked for almost a year or more recommended be done.
So, he thinks we are following the direction of our citizens' committee when this was
included.
RESOLUTION 121322-6 APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ROANOKE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE ROANOKE COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD REGARDING JOINT CAPITAL FUNDING
WHEREAS, between 1997 and 2001, the Board of Supervisors appropriated
funds to the School Board for Phase I of the School Capital Improvement Plan (the
"School CIP") totaling $47.7 million. Between 2001 and 2004, the Board of Supervisors
funded Phase 2 of the School CIP at a total cost of $23 million. Because of the large
amount of school capital needs, the County needs were largely put on hold. However, in
2004, the County committed to build a much-needed public safety building to house
police, fire, dispatch and information technology services, at a cost of$28 million; and
WHEREAS, in 2005, the County's budgetary funding'for debt payments within
the County's current taxing structure was depleted. However, many capital needs
remained for both the schools and the general County government. Because the ability
to fund needed future capital projects was uncertain, the Board of Supervisors and the
School Board worked collaboratively on a long-range financial plan that would enable
both boards to plan and fund future capital needs. Accordingly, the Board of
Supervisors adopted a policy, which established a variety of reserve policies and a
combined debt-payment reserve fund; and
December 13, 2022 917
WHEREAS, the policy pertaining to the Combined Debt Payment Reserve Fund
included a contribution schedule that was used to fund debt service. The boards each
committed to annually adding an additional $300,000 to the fund (for example, in the
200520-06 budget, the boards jointly contributed an additional $600,000 to the Fund; in
the 2006-2007 budget, the boards jointly contributed an additional $1,200,000 to the
Fund, etc.). Additionally, the policy pertaining to the Combined Debt-Payment Reserve
Fund also set forth a borrowing schedule for the acquisition of new debt (as prior debts
were paid). After the first several years, a three-year cycle of borrowing was
established, which authorized the acquisition of new debt in an amount not to exceed
$10 million each year. For two (2) consecutive years of each three-year cycle, the funds
($20 million) were devoted to school capital needs, and the third year, the funds ($10
million) were devoted to general County capital needs; and
WHEREAS, this policy was updated in fiscal year ("FY") 2021 and again in 2023
to increase the borrowing amount to $12 million and $17 million respectively. Further,
incremental annual debt service contributions, as required, were included in the annual
budgets; and
WHEREAS; it is proposed that the Board of Supervisors and School Board enter
into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in order to further update the policy for the
financing of necessary County and school capital projects in a fiscally responsible
manner and to thereby avoid unnecessary budgetary conflict.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, as follows:
1. The Memorandum of Understanding attached to this resolution as
Attachment A is hereby approved, and
2. The Chairman and County Administrator are authorized to execute the
Memorandum on behalf of the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution with the addition of the
School Board in Paragraph IV, Section f, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: Supervisor Peters
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance appropriating $61,460,835.43 from the Roanoke County
Public Schools' fiscal year 2021-2022 year-end funds to the fiscal
year 2022-2023 Roanoke County Public Schools' Budget (Susan
Peterson, Director of Finance for Roanoke County Public
Schools)
Ms. Peterson outlined the request for ordinance.
918 December 13, 2022
Supervisor Mahoney asked Ms. Peterson to work through the $61 million,
which she explained. There was no further discussion.
Supervisor Hooker's motion to approve the first reading and set the
second reading and public hearing for January 10, 2023, was seconded by Supervisor
Peters and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance amending Article II (Definitions and Use Types), Article
III (District Regulations), and Article IV (Use and Design
Standards) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance regarding
halfway houses (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for ordinance and the changes to the
code.
There was no discussion.
Supervisor Hooker's motion to approve the first reading and set the
second reading and public hearing for January 10, 2023, was seconded by Supervisor
Peters and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 121322-7 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON . THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM H- 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 December
13, 2022, designated as Item H - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 7 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes—July 26, 2022; August 23, 2022
December 13, 2022 919
2. The petition of Greg and Amanda Speiran to obtain a special use permit to
operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.1608 acre on land zoned R-1,
Low Density Residential, located at 3113 Fleetwood Avenue, Windsor Hills
Magisterial District (First Reading of Ordinance and request for. Public
Hearing)
3. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a donation from the Friends of the
Roanoke County Public Library in the amount of $25,000 for use by the
Roanoke County Library Department (First Reading of Ordinance)
4. Confirmation of appointment to the Audit Committee, Blue Ridge Behavioral
Healthcare Board of Directors; Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, South
Peak Community Development Authority, Total Action for Progress (TAP)
Board of Directors, Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority,
Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority
5. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of property at 6781 Mount Chestnut
Road (Tax Map Number 075.00-02-33.00-0000) for the purpose of expanding
Happy Hollow Gardens Park, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, and
authorizing execution of a deed and other documents necessary to
accomplish the acquisition of this real estate (Second Reading of
Ordinance)
6. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of$19,726 to the Clerk of
the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia for Technology Trust
Funds
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
A-121322-7.a
A-121322-7.b
A-121322-7.c
ORDINANCE 121322-7.d AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
PROPERTY AT 6781 MOUNT CHESTNUT ROAD (TAX MAP NO:
075.00-02-33.00-0000) FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPANDING
HAPPY HOLLOW GARDENS PARK, WINDSOR HILLS
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
A DEED AND OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMPLISH THE ACQUISITION OF THIS REAL ESTATE
920 December 13, 2022
WHEREAS, Thomas J. Landsberg and Kathleen Steinbacher, husband and wife,
are the owners of approximately 4.26 acres located in Roanoke County and identified
as Roanoke County Tax Map Number 075.00-02-33.00-0000; and
WHEREAS, Thomas J. Landsberg and Kathleen Steinbacher wish to donate a
1.7697-acre portion of this property to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as a
conservation gift for the purpose of conserving the land in its natural state as a forest,
habitat for wildlife, open-space, and recreational area;
WHEREAS, the property to be donated is undeveloped, and contains features
which provide general forestry, open-space, and recreational benefits to the public; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County desires to accept the
donated property and to make it perpetually available for forestry, open-space, and
recreational use; and
WHEREAS, the property is adjacent to the County's "Happy Hollow Park," and as
such, Roanoke County would receive, own, operate, and maintain the property as part
of"Happy Hollow Park," and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County intends to accomplish
the protection of the property in perpetuity by imposing certain restrictions upon the
uses of the property as set forth in the Deed of Gift; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County has determined that it
111
is in the public interest to accept this donation of property; and
WHEREAS, § 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition
and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading
of this ordinance was held on November 9, 2022, and the second reading was held on
December 13, 2022;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Roanoke, as follows:
1. That the acquisition by donation of approximately 1.7697 acres located in
Roanoke County, Virginia (a portion of tax map #075.00-02-33.00-0000) is
hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant
County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents,
including but not limited to the Deed of Gift and any other incidental
documents required for this acquisition and to take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition
of this real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County
Attorney.
3. That this ordinance is to be in full force and effect upon its passage.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to approve the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker; North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
December 13, 2022 921
A-121322-7.e
•
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Mahoney moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
October 31, 2022
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of October 31, 2022
5. Accounts Paid —October 31, 2022
6. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio
Policy as of October 31, 2022
7. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio
Policy as of November`30, 2022
Chairman Mahoney recessed to the third floor for work session at 4:47
p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss Department of Social Services staffing
with the Board of Supervisors (Susan Goad, Director of Social
Services; Rebecca Owens, Deputy County Administrator; Steve
Elliott, Budget Manager)
County Administrator, Richard Caywood, provided an overview and turned
the meeting over to Susan Goad who went through the PowerPoint presentation. Steve
Elliottt went through the financial data.
Supervisor Mahoney asked about how soon, if we hire by March, will they
be able to make a difference. Ms. Goad advised the training normally takes about three
(3) months unless we hire from other agencies and they can start right away.
111 Supervisor North stated looking over at slide 19, you have base here FY
2019 and while everyone was going over this, he re-calculated the percent starting on
922 December 13, 2022
page 14 carrying over to 15, and just want to share those numbers, because he is
looking at a base of 19 not 18 and the reason is because it's pre-COVID. I consider 19
pre-COVID. With that said, the percent's for children serving foster care would be 65.7,
not 95.5. The percent for increase in child protective reports would be 10.4, not 6.2,
which goes up. The increase in energy assistance went up slightly to 24.75 using 19 as
a base. The increase in valid adult protective service reports goes up 45.4 rather than
59.5%. The guardianship cases only went up 25.4 from 19 versus 29.2 from 18. The
service intake calls went to 32%, not 45.7, using 19 as a base. Increase in childcare
cases was 52%, it actually went up from 19 versus 2018 a lot more. And then an
increase in Medicaid cases 86.1% was in 18, but in 19 was only 55. And then on the
SNAP cases they went up to 50 from 44.2. Much ado maybe about nothing, but I look at
2019 and this whole holistic view of this request for additional people as pre-COVID and
so, Mr. Elliott, got a question for you, and then he is going to come back with another
question for social services. What's the total cost of this whole request.for 12 people
over part of one year and the whole year of the next? Is it like $120,000? Mr. Elliott
responded it would. be approximately $120,000. Supervisor North then asked for
confirmation that the State provides us with 85% across the Board with Mr. Elliott
responding in the affirmative. Supervisor North then asked if we have staff staying at
home still today working that did not want to come back or just got more work done at
home than in the office with Ms. Goad responding we did not lose any employees, per
se. What we have done for staff is to be able to telework. Supervisor North asked how
many are teleworking with Ms. Goad advising 40% of staff. Supervisor North asked
with regard to these new hires, are they going to work in the office or are they going to
work from home? Ms. Goad responded most of the folks who are still teleworking are
benefits workers, and benefits, as long as you have a laptop and access you can work
from home and generally the benefit staff is working from home about four days a week.
The services staff is a little different, because they are required to go into people's
homes and so they can work from home, but primarily I don't see a lot of my services
staff working from home. They may work from home two days a week, but primarily
they're in the office or they are in the field.
Supervisor Peters inquired if this number is going to make it better or is
this what fits the budget. Ms. Goad responded we certainly think this would help
tremendously with where we are today. Clearly, we will have to keep looking at this in
cooperation with the Commonwealth if the workload continues to rise.
Supervisor North inquired what was being done with the legislators and
our legislative agenda. Is there something we ought to be looking at more carefully
going forward in the future? Is Eldon (our legislative liaison) dialed into this? Mr.
Lubeck responded that Sue Rowland that the expertise on this so we should check with
Eldon.
Supervisor Mahoney inquired if we have enough space, etc. Ms. Goad
responded yes, but parking may be an issue. Joanna Spar, Assistant Director of
Benefits, noted the laptops are provided by the State.
December 13, 2022 923
It was the consensus of the Board to move forward with the request.
The work session was held from 5:04 p.m. until 5:43 p.m.
Chairman Mahoney called the meeting back into order at 7:01 p.m.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Panda Storage Rentals and Sales to obtain a special
use permit for equipment sales and rentals and a special use permit for
mini-warehouse on approximately 4.82 acres on land zoned C-2, High
Intensity Commercial District, located in the 5300 block of West Main
Street and the 5400 block of Pleasant Run Drive, Catawba Magisterial
District (POSTPONED UNTIL JANUARY 10, 2023)
2. The petition of Barnett Properties, LLC, to rezone approximately
9.38 acres from R-3C (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential
District with conditions), R-1 (Low Density Residential District), I-
1C (Low Intensity. Industrial District with conditions), C-2C (High
Intensity Commercial District with_ conditions), and C-1 (Low
Intensity Commercial District), to C-2C (High Intensity
Commercial District with conditions), for retail sales, located in
the 4400 block of Brambleton Avenue, including 4449 and 4457
Brambleton Avenue, and the 4500 and 4600 blocks of Old Cave
Spring Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Philip Thompson,
Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson provided an overview with a PowerPoint presentation.
Supervisor Radford asked what hours of operation mean? Mr. Thompson
responded it's just when they're open to the public. There was some conversation about
some stores will restock at night, so wouldn't prohibit that from happening. But the store
would not be open to the public. Supervisor Radford then asked how about dumpsters
coming at 3:00 AM in the morning and dumping stuff, how is that being handled? Mr.
Thompson advised he would let the applicant address. Supervisor Radford then
commented Mr. Thompson talked about the parking, there's more parking than what's
required. Did we require that or did the applicant do that? Mr. Thompson responded it
was the applicant; it is typically more than the County requires.
Alan Manus with Barnett Properties provided PowerPoint presentation.
Supervisor Radford ask why so much parking with Mr. Manus responding we would not
necessarily want that much, but as the question has been asked and answered, they
must have it. Okay. Especially with a standalone store where there's no other
businesses to share parking with, that ratio is important to them.
924 December 13, 2022
Supervisor Radford then inquired how much stacking did we pick up on
that intersection? How many cars, number of cars did they calculate with the petitioner
responding we can accommodate 20 vehicles in that, which is significantly longer than
what we can today, in the right turn lane? Supervisor Radford then stated we have
three lanes there; you have the turn left, you got the straight going through and the right.
The petitioner responded that's really the problem currently, is that the right turn
demand to go south on 221 is great, and what happens is because of that short right
turn lane now, it spills into the through lane and actually, at certain times, queues back,
which would be beyond our driveway now. But even with building our project, when we
lengthen that right turn lane all the way back to our driveway, that cleans up the queue
and the queue actually doesn't reach the driveway where we're proposing. And that's
why the level of service dropped from an E to acceptable level service D. Supervisor
Radford then advised he is reading some notes he received from some citizens. One
says that there was no traffic study between the intersection of Cave Spring Lane and
Old Cave Spring Road. Is that information you got from VDOT? The petitioner
responded when we scoped our study, VDOT did not deem that as a critical intersection
to analyze, so we did not analyze that particular intersection.
Supervisor Radford asked what type of fence material, wood or vinyl with
Mr. Manus responding opaque privacy fence. Supervisor Radford inquired about the
dumpsters and was advised the tenant will contract with waste management just like
every other business here. It's hard to control waste management or place a condition
upon waste management. They would communicate to them that they would prefer it
during the day, but believe your noise ordinance would come into play there also, if they
were doing it at the wrong hours. Supervisor Radford asked Mr. Lubeck, County
Attorney about the noise ordinance being 7:00 AM till 10:00 PM? Mr. Lubeck
responded generally that is the hours for the noise ordinance. He noted he would pull
the code section and advise.
Supervisor North asked with regard to lighting noting in the neighborhood
he lives in, there is some citizens complained about lighting on an adjacent retail
business, and they changed the lighting they put in. Mr. Caywood, you might want to
add to this, they put, in some lighting that didn't show so much clear. They put light
deflectors. That's what I'm trying to say on the lights. How high are these light poles
going to be? Are they going to be higher than the buffer fence, and secondly, are they
going to have deflectors on them? The petitioner responded we would plan to use
cutoff shields, is the term. Yes. It helps to cast that light down. It'd be a shoebox type
fixture that only shines down, does not shine up. Pole height, I mean when you get into
design, pole heights vary anywhere from 25 to 30 feet, typically. The shorter the poles,
the more poles you're going to have to get the adequate light level. So 30 feet is the
typical. Supervisor North then asked what is the fence height with 'petitioner responding
40 foot wide buffer with an eight foot fence.
Mr. Lubeck then advised he had reviewed the noise ordinance and there
would be two provisions of the noise ordinance that would potentially apply. The first is
111 December 13, 2022 925 -
the loading or unloading of trucks outdoors within 100 yards of a residential dwelling
between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM the following day. That would be a
violation. The second is the operation of a trash collection vehicle between the hours of
10:00 PM and 7:00 AM in such a manner as to be plainly audible at any residence 100
or more yards away.
Supervisor Mahoney asked with regard to the stacking, if he is driving
from 221 from Brambleton and he is going to make the left hand turn into what he
would call the main entrance in and out, when I looked at the concept plan it had a 75
foot distance. Is the 75 foot distance the length of the left turn lane? The petitioner
responded it is the length of the storage lane. So keep in mind, and again, that holds
about three vehicles or so. We're anticipating that most of the traffic coming from 221
would actually choose to use the right in right out access on 221 to access the site.
There could be people coming in on Old Cave Spring Road as well, but when we did
our queuing analysis, 75 feet was all that's required. However, if more stacking is
needed, it's going to be basically a back to back left-turn lane so that some of those
vehicles could spill into the opposing left turn lane to service 221. Supervisor Mahoney
commented so your hope is more people will use the right in right out off of Brambleton
and that the other traffic load will be coming from the other direction on Old Cave Spring
to make the right turn with the petitioner responding in the affirmative.
Chairman Mahoney opened the public hearing with the following citizens
to speak:
KC Huang — HOA Manager of Brambleton Commons - 4515, 4525
Brambleton Avenue stated "I'm very concerned about the 18 small business in the
Brambleton Common, include four medical office. They take care more than hundred
patient daily. They all depend on only one entrance. The new development propose
their second entrance and exit at the Brambleton Avenue will prevent the car exit from
the Brambleton Common complex. In normal traffic, car exit from the Brambleton
Common, had to wait for the traffic light break, for other cars mercy. In the new
development, put second exit in the Brambleton Avenue. There will be first get into the
Brambleton Avenue car from the Brambleton Common will never get a chance to exit. It
will choke the 18 small business. Even majority member feel need to pass the rezoning
request. I'm here respectfully asking all honorable member to make a small change on a
rezoning request and give the 18 small business in Brambleton Common a chance to
survive by making the new development second entrance and exit at the Brambleton
Avenue enter only. Since they have an amend entrance and exit at Old Cave Spring
Road already, also, if this agreeable, the traffic light at Old Cave Spring Road in the
Brambleton Avenue will regulate the car exit for the new development to the Brambleton
Avenue. This will help a lot the traffic coming from the Brambleton North and Colonial
111 Avenue. So please, give us a chance to survive, and thank you for your time."
Supervisor Mahoney stated the next speaker was unable to be here, but
believe she has asked the clerk to read her letter into the record.
926 December 13, 2022
This speaker was unable to be here, but I believe she has asked the clerk to read her
letter into the record.
Joanne Milan Hawley - 5206 Bradford Circle, previously of 7652
Wineberry Trail wrote, "I have been a resident of Roanoke County for almost 30 years.
For most of this time, I was working at the Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Salem. As
such, I travelled daily through the intersection at which this construction is proposed.
Over those twenty-eight working years, I have watched as the congestion at that
intersection has steadily increased as more residential areas were developed. In the
evening commute time, the line of waiting cars can reach back quite a way on Old Cave
Spring Road toward McVitty Road. In 2021, a year after my retirement, I moved off
Mason's Knob and now am located only 0.5 miles from the intersection of Old Cave
Spring, Brambleton, and Colonial Avenues. Since my main egress is through the
intersection being considered, I have found that area is congested often during the day,
in addition to working commute times. I feel that the addition of another large grocery
store in that particular location will contribute to the probability of increased traffic
accidents at an already congested and highly traveled intersection. Secondly, I question
the need for another supermarket across the street from a current Kroger store, 0.8
miles from another Kroger store and 2.4 miles from a Food Lion on Electric Road.
Surely, there are other areas of the County with a lesser density of grocery shopping
choices that might be a better location choice.
Gerald Betters of 4821 Farmington Place Court stated, "Old Cave Spring
Road is a two-lane country road, appropriate for residential neighborhood traffic, but not
designed for commercial traffic. Traffic that will accumulate at the vicinity of the grocery
store cannot be accommodated by Old Cave Spring Road and will block its immediate
intersections. Queues and stacking extend from Brambleton Avenue to McVitty Road
and toward 419 now—they develop early morning, subside, and then are at their worst
late afternoon, precisely the times people grocery shop. It is not credible that the
remedial measures of elongating the left and right turn lanes at Brambleton will alleviate
the increase in congestion from the grocery store when it is unlikely to alleviate the
traffic problem now. The Wetherill Engineering Traffic Impact Analysis is inadequate
and incomplete, rendering its projections inaccurate, and proposed remedial measures
unproven. First, the Wetherill analysis omits study of the intersection of Old Cave Spring
Road and Cave Spring Lane (both sections connected by Farmington Drive). This
collector road will convey most of the customers north and west, designated by Barnett
as the grocery store's primary customer base. Second, the Wetherill study was
conducted in February, the severest winter month, when traffic volume would be among
the lightest and, thus not "typical." At the Planning Commission Hearing, Wetherill said
that it met with VDOT and Roanoke County officials about the scope of the study. They
decided that the intersection of Old Cave Spring Road and Cave Spring Lane is "not
major enough," that is, "not deemed a critical intersection," "for the fruition of this
property." Further, VDOT said that "We gave them our concurrence with the traffic
study. . . . We provided any of the signal information that they needed, and the traffic
December 13, 2022 927
counts that we had that we could offer them." [Planning Commission Hearing, Nov. 1].
These statements by Wetherill and VDOT are contrary to the Roanoke County Police
Department's Speed Study of Cave Spring Lane eastbound at the intersection with Old
Cave Spring Road, conducted in January 2020, seasonally comparable. This study
finds that Cave Spring Lane actually supplies Old Cave Spring Road with two and a half
times as much traffic late afternoon, and 68 percent more traffic morning and late
afternoon combined, as McVitty Road. [Roanoke County Police Extended Speed
Summary, Cave Spring Lane 4900 EB, Page 2; Wetherill Roanoke Grocery Store Traffic
Impact Analysis, Figure-3]So, two things appear to be true: (1) the intersection at Cave
Spring Lane and Old Cave Spring Road is actually more critical to the traffic impact
analysis than McVitty Road, and (2) the actual typical numbers are far higher than the
numbers reported in the Wetherill study, that actual traffic impacts are significantly
under-represented and the effectiveness of proposed remedial measures remains
unsubstantiated. Moreover, driver behavior is deteriorating dangerously on Cave Spring
Lane from 2020 to 2022, according to Roanoke County Police speed studies. Higher
traffic volumes, generated by the grocery store, will inevitably result in significantly more
violations, and many more dangerous situations. Chief of Police and Fire and Rescue
assessments of this project would no doubt be quite different if they had the Roanoke
County Police's Cave Spring Lane 2020 study before them, instead of the Wetherill
study that obscures the true problem. [Staff Report, Nov. 1, Pages 4, 5]. In the end,
police enforcement can only focus on speeding and stop sign observance. Such
enforcement is not designed to reduce traffic volume. Thus, it will have no effect on the
sheer number of cars traveling on Old Cave Spring Road and Cave Spring Lane."
Jill Betters of 4821 Farmington Place Court stated, "The Barnett grocery
store will eliminate this rustic residential area and have an adverse impact on the quality
of life of the surrounding residences, in addition to increased traffic congestion. The
grocery store itself will generate noise around the clock from parking cars, large delivery
trucks, palette jacks and forklifts, HVAC equipment, trash collection and compacting;
light at night from parking lot lights and parking cars; litter blown or discarded on
adjacent properties; and grocery carts removed from the premises, abandoned on
people's lawns, and thrown into the Creek. At present, residents of Farmington Place
could hear the VDOT trucks emptying and maneuvering, particularly in the winter, on
their lot at the corner of Brambleton Avenue and Old Cave Spring Road: Also,
Farmington Place residents can see the light poles and fixtures, and the light itself,
generated at the Kroger CVS parking lot. The Economic Development Department
tends to find that properties are. "underutilized"—that there is a "higher and better use"
for them "to enhance the County's tax base"—because they tend to evaluate proposed
projects by looking to continually climb the zoning ladder until they reach C2 or 12. [Staff
Report, .Planning Commission, Nov. 1, Page 4] The Economic Development
Department, and the Planning. Commission, following their perceived mission to
facilitate development, especially commercial, are not considering the context within
which they are making their decisions. Because of a reduction in quality of life from
928 December 13, 2022
proximity to a grocery store, property values of numerous houses in the surrounding
residential areas will decline appreciably. This will mean a substantial decline in tax
revenue for the County, offsetting any assumed potential gain from a commercial
property. In Roanoke County, 70 to 85 percent of the real estate tax base is residential
real estate. This means that residential properties are the primary source of income for
the County, the foundation of the tax revenue structure, and the source of income
stability year after year. This allotment has proven immensely successful financially for
this particular region, while providing ample opportunities for replenishing the
population. [Richard Caywood, Roanoke County Administrator, Roanoke County Civic
Leagues and Neighborhood Associations meeting, Nov. 7, and at several previous
meetings in May over the years during the annual County Budget presentation]. In the
end, taxes are simply a tool serving a higher purpose, a more profound mission. What is
of ultimate value in Roanoke County is not tax revenue but its people and their quality of
life. Their homes are fundamental to this and they look to the County to protect them.
Residents in the vicinity made the decision to purchase their homes because this land
was zoned residential at the time, and future land use was designated residential. They
assumed in good faith that this area would remain residential, that the County will honor
that zoning."
Rick Milan of 4734 Oakcliff Drive stated, "Should the Board approve the
Rezoning Application, we respectfully ask that approval be made contingent on the
following Conditions. Enforce these Conditions through the permitting process by
attaching these Conditions to the various required permits. Ensure compliance through
inspection by County enforcement inspectors during construction and when construction
is completed. Use any other legal enforcement mechanisms to ensure establishment
and compliance. (1) Building Siting. Reverse the location of the grocery store building,
such that the building is closest to Brambleton Avenue, where other commercial
buildings are located, and the back facing that road rather than the residential area, the
front facing north rather than south. If the building is sited at the southwest corner of the
property, both Access Drives can remain the same. This is the most effective way to
mitigate the noise problem, the most intrusive noise being generated at the back of the
building, most likely around the clock. (2) Lower Elevation. Drop the elevation of the
building and parking lot anther 30 feet, that is, from 1130 feet down to 1100 feet to
provide a buffer from noise and light for the large number of residences adjacent to the
project. The store and its parking lot are already much higher than Old Cave Spring
Road. (3) Buffer Zone. To buffer from the adverse impacts and to maintain some
semblance of this rustic residential area, install a 40-foot Landscape Buffer of the dense
kind surrounding the grocery store building and parking lot bordering residential areas.
In addition, an eight-foot wooden fence, not chain link, should be installed between the
grocery store building and parking lot and the buffer. (4) Lighting Restrictions. Parking
lot light pole height and fixture angle and shielding should provide minimum ground
illuminance and be installed such that light emanating from the fixtures does not shine
beyond the paved lot perimeter and be reflected downward from the atmosphere.
December 13, 2022 929
Lighting attached to the building should also conform this geographic and illuminance
limit. (5) Turn Off Lights at Night. As many lights as possible should be turned off at
night. This would include most of the lighting in the parking lot. Only those lights
necessary to illuminate access the store at the rear should be operational."
Susan Lewis of 4812 Cave Spring Lane stated, "(6) Limit Hours of
Operation. The Planning Commission's recommendation to limit hours of operation—
that is, business hours when the store will be open to the public—will be helpful and is
important to implement. But this measure will only be partially effective in reducing noise
and lighting at night. Grocery stores routinely unload large trucks and restock the
shelves between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (7) Parking Lot Reduction. If the building is
not relocated to the southwest corner of the lot, then eliminate one row of parking at.the
south and move the building further down south, that is, farther away from the adjacent
residential area north. Barnett is already requesting more parking spaces than the
County requires for this size and type of commercial development. (8) Traffic Study.
Since neither VDOT officials nor County officials adequately guided and evaluated the
Wetherill traffic study, establish a committee of affected individuals and organizations to
identify and provide guidance to an objective third party—not Barnett, Wetherill, or
Roanoke County Traffic—to perform a more typical and inclusive traffic impact
evaluation. Conduct during months of typical traffic volume: October or April. Include the
intersection of Old Cave Spring Road and Cave Spring Lane, as well as Farmington
Place Court and Cave Spring Lane. Consider school bus and emergency vehicle
access. (9) Traffic Management. Apply to VDOT for a traffic light at the intersection of
Cave Spring Lane and Old Cave Spring-Road. Otherwise, entry onto Old Cave Spring
Road from Cave Spring Lane will be virtually impossible without dangerous maneuvers.
This includes school buses and emergency vehicles. (10) Stormwater Management
Facility. An underground stormwater management facility should be specified, large
enough to prevent an increase in unmanaged stormwater flow into Mudlick Creek,
exacerbating flooding onto Farmington Place and adjacent properties down- and up-
stream. According to the Roanoke County report, Evaluation of Drainage Concerns at
Farmington Place, this land's vicinity is at the bottom of a sizable drainage area of "70-
80 acres" [Pages 1, 5]. At present, even without the grocery store, Mudlick Creek floods
onto Farmington Place property up to 30 feet at the east end, as "can be expected
during heavy storms" with current storm activity. [Page 4]. After approving the design,
the County agrees to inspect the facility during construction and when construction is
completed to ensure that the facility conforms to approved specifications. We
respectfully refer the Board to our Written Comment submitted directly to the Board that
provides our complete reasoning, evidence, and specific details. This Written Comment
submitted to the Board supersedes and replaces the Comment appearing in the
111 Planning Commission's Packet previously conveyed to the Board."
Carol Michie of 4924 Cave Spring Lane stated, "The Farmington Place
Homeowners Association respectfully requests that.the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors not approve the grocery store rezoning application. The grocery store
930 December 13, 2022
commercial project violates the Future Land Use Designations of this land, which
specify residential development, as defined by the Roanoke County Comprehensive
Plan. The grocery store project requires rezoning that forces commercial into an
otherwise longstanding residentially zoned area, and would betray residents who
purchased their property assuming that they could rely on the County to honor and
protect this zoning. A residential property would have been built on the proposed
grocery store property long ago, but for the VDOT properties at Brambleton Road and
Old Cave Spring Road, needed for ingress and egress. VDOT refused to sell this land
since the 1980s until it was purchased by Roanoke County in February 2021. Did the
County offer this land for sale to residential developers? The grocery store will increase
traffic congestion on Old Cave Spring Road, despite proposed remedial measures,
which is already at an untenable level. Further, the grocery store will increase already
excessive congestion and speeding problems on Cave Spring Lane, the collector road
that will carry most of the traffic from the target customer base north and west
designated by Barnett. Traffic studies conducted by the Roanoke County Police
Department invalidate the Wetherill Traffic study because it did not study the
intersection of Cave Spring Lane and Old Cave Spring Road. In fact, the Police study of
January 2020 indicates that Cave Spring Lane actually supplies Old Cave Spring Road
with two and a half times as much traffic late afternoon, and 68 percent more traffic
overall, as McVitty Road. The proposed grocery store will exacerbate the substantial
congestion at the Cave Spring Lane intersection now. Moreover, the Wetherill study
was conducted in February, the severest winter month, a period of least traffic, again,
calling into question the effectiveness of remedial measures. There is no need for this
grocery store—be it commercial diversity, retail opportunities, or otherwise—because
there is already a grocery store across the street, another three minutes away, and
another eight minutes away, which is actually closer to the designated customer base.
The grocery store will substantially reduce the quality of life at, and therefore ..the
desirability of, the surrounding residential properties due to perpetual noise, lighting,
traffic congestion, etc., reducing the real estate monetary value of these properties. The
presumed increase in tax revenue from a commercial property will be offset by the
reduced property values of numerous surrounding residential properties.
Wayne Weaver, 4818 Cave Spring Lane stated, "I was in the material
handling business for 43 years. As being a part of the material handling business, I was
a sales engineer. What we did in that part of... What I want to bring to the table is what
did. Forklifts, backup alarms or requirements by OSHA. Everybody knows what that is.
It's a federal law for every fork truck to have some kind of noise beeper when that truck
is going in reverse. These trucks have flashing lights, they have horns and drivers are
required to blow the horns when they're leaving the intersection of an aisle. The lift
trucks horn, excuse me. Dock equipment sold a number of these to Kroger distribution.
December 13, 2022 931
What they do, it's a metal board. It secures the board to the truck and as a fork truck
goes along with a static load, it makes a tremendous noise. Lift trucks going over these
wards cause a huge amount of noise. Most tractor trailers, and this is a study we done
when they go to a warehouse, have at least 30 pallet loads on a truck. So with that
being said, it takes 30 trips into a truck to the rack and back into that truck to offload that
truck at any given time of the day. Conveyors constantly running. Those conveyors are
stacking product from the warehouse down on a pallet. These hardly ever stop and
they're running almost the whole time the warehouse is open. My last point of what I
would like to say here is that most, and I think it's already been said, most of the loading
is done after hours. What that means is there's nobody in the store, they can back the
trucks in, offload at night and that's when you have the most noise and that noise
generates way beyond where it's on premises. So with my point being said, I would like
for the county to rethink about where they would do something with this store in another
location. Again, I thank you for listening to each and every one of us and I appreciate
the time."
Barbara Miller, 4940 Cave Spring Lane stated, "My husband and I bought
our house in Cave Spring Lane 27 years ago. We fell in love with the area. Our
backyard backs up to what the lighting and everything that this is going to create. The
noise; the lighting, and that's going to be ... We just love the area because of the
wildlife, the wonderful view and to know that we're not going to have that, it's very
disappointing. My next concern is the traffic. I have on one side of me, four children and
on the other side, three. The traffic on Cave Spring Lane is absolutely horrible and I
cringe when those children cross that road to get to the bus stop. There was one
morning I saw a car pass the school bus, even with the stop sign out, and of course I
didn't get the license plate of the car, but I did call and report it. This has been some
time ago, but it seems like when they come around the curve at Farmington Road, the
house on my left is Farmington. On my right it's still Cave Spring Lane and it seems like
when they come around that curb, they pick up speed to go down to the Old Cave
Spring Road. I mean it is just like for some reason they like to speed up. So that
concerns me."
Ruby Weaver of 4818 Cave Spring Lane stated, "I'm a member of the
Farmington Place Homeowners Association. Here are my issues. The access to Cave
Spring Lane for my driveway during the morning, working hours and evening hours. The
road is heavily traveled during the day and the evening. There are many days when
backing out of my driveway I stay at the top of my driveway to get clearance so that I
can see clearance. I have a very pitched driveway, so in order to get out on Cave
Spring lane, I stay at the top of my driveway and make sure that there's nothing coming
one way or the other. There's nowhere for cars to go. If there is an encounter, you're
111 going to go in a ditch or you're going to go into a framed fence across the street from us.
The other issue that I have is getting our mail and our trash cans. You have to really risk
your life at some point in time just to go to the mailbox or bring he trashcan up or down.
And there have been times when a neighbor of mine that used to live there actually had
932 December 13, 2022
to jump into the ditch to avoid a car breaking her leg. We've had our mailbox destroyed
twice and we've had several trash receptacles destroyed. We've lived in this area for 23
years. We love it. But to have enterprise come in and destroy what we have built and
live there for is very destructive to us. So I appreciate your time."
Kirk Grove of 434643 Shrewsbury Court, which is an adjoining property to
this proposed facility stated, "I want to clear up one misconception before I get started
here. They've talked about a cross section through that showed a large retaining wall.
That is at the highest peak of the land and this is very steep land. And if you look
closely, you'll see at the loading dock area and the drive-through and the dumpsters that
the gray back there is roughly the same gray as my adjoining property. So there really is
very misleading that cut through the highest spot on the whole site. It is a steep space
and all that noise that the noise ordinance would apply to is right adjacent to my
property and that Kingston Court neighborhood. But I would like to address with you
guys the process. And I must admit I'm a little naive in the rezoning request as being
part of the public. I do not know how much interaction the economic development
department in the zoning department has had with the petitioner and the tenant as to
other options in the area. My concern is the developer came in and picked this spot and
I have a lot of concerns with that. And they started with the planning commission's
public meeting in November. The developer was unwilling to name his client. Second,
the request by the petitioner for rezoning did not include any proffers that showed their 111
willingness to work with the surrounding residential neighborhoods to address their
concerns. Third, the request to rezone to C2 does not meet any of the Roanoke County
comprehensive plans. And finally, a comment by one of the Planning Commission board
members stating that he likes the project because it cleans up the zoning on the existing
parcels of the land and development developers rezoning request. It doesn't take a lot
of research to determine that the developer's client is probably Publix. And this is where
I'm requesting the elected board of supervisors in Brenner County to step in and request
a thorough review of the big picture for Publix beyond the present day rezoning request
before approving it. And I offer the following to this request. In reference to the planning
department's executive summary the economic department comments reflect the bias
as the county is a property owner and the rezoning application. In addition, the
economic development states that it will enhance the tax base. This tax base will be
offset somewhat due to decrease decreased residential property values and revenue
income taxes will be offset by the loss of revenue at nearby grocery stores. They also
state it creates desirable retail shopping opportunities.This is misleading as it does not
create any new opportunities, just competition. The developer is from North Carolina
and the tenant, which is probably Publix, is headquartered in Florida. So all the revenue
from this project is leaving the area. The use of these parcels per the existing
comprehensive plan, but encourage local business to build in the transition zones and
keep the money in the neighborhood and in the county. Executive summary also notes
a statement from the county chief of Police that it will result in an increased demand for
police services. However, the biggest concern I have is for the future of this area in all of
December 13, 2022 933
Southwest County, Southwestern Virginia. The.petitioner's client is most likely Publix
and they're looking to expand in the Virginia. My question to the board is has the
economic development planning department visited other sites and options? I'm sure
Publix is committed to moving into this area, but they .have no other facilities in this
area. The closest would be in Greensboro and Winston-Salem, which is five stores.
Now while they were building a refrigerated and frozen distribution center in
Greensboro, it's slated to be open in operation by 2025. They are competing against
Kroger, which has a distribution center here in Salem and has at least a dozen stores in
the immediate area. And my question to you guys, and you have to be our advocates
because we voted for you guys, put you in your business positions and you are my
advocates and representatives. So I question. They have chosen this site that has two
Kroger stores, a pharmacy and pharmacies, CVS and Walgreens all within a mile in a
few minutes. Will Publix provide enough of a difference in services to compete with
Kroger with our distribution center in this area? And until recently, actually it was
regional headquarter here. The Roanoke County due to its terrain does not have the
capacity for future growth of clientele, especially the Southwest County. This is an issue
that this area has dealt with for years and years. So my questions are what if the
business model fails and they abandon moving into Southwest Virginia? The Southwest
County is stuck with a building that may not be able to fill. Present Kroger across the
street came from is from Harris Teeter because Harris Teeter model in this area did not
work. So You Crops is another example of a failed business model in this area. So I
have lots of concerns that I'm hoping that you guys are looking toward the future and
will work with Publix, whether it's this site or some other site. But take your time and
don't rush this process. It's been rushed through on the public and I'm hoping you guys
have spent the time with the petitioner to look at all options of Roanoke County. There's
three grocery stores in this area. Something's got to give. So you may have an empty
Publix in the future or an empty Kroger's. So there are other options. Please make sure
that you guys spend the time and don't rush through this process and I hope that you do
not."
Kenneth Luckay stated, "I have had my private practice, not Lewis Gale,
but an independent practice, something very rare and I think somewhat valuable for the
area in Brambleton Commons for the last 11 years. In that time, I've seen the traffic
come to a point where I have lost patients. Some of my seniors will no longer come to
see me because of trying to get out. And with the current proposed model with a right in,
right out on Brambleton, that will make it even harder for us to see our patients. And I'm
not alone. I'm one of 18 different businesses in that development. And this will not be
helpful for us. It may force me to have to leave the area as well as others in that
development because we will not be able to access, as Casey said, our businesses and
in the road."
Paula Powell of 5455 Lake Dale Road stated, "My business is in
Brambleton Commons. The entrance and exit is directly adjacent, directly below the
driveway that exists there now comes right up against the exit and entrance to our
934 December 13, 2022
Brambleton Commons. I've owned this business for 23 years. I've watched the
community south of 419 on Brambleton Avenue grow exponentially; residential business
and even a new high school. All the while making the intersection of Brambleton
Avenue and Colonial Avenue and Old Cave Spring Road become more dangerous and
difficult to navigate. It is near impossible to make a left-hand turn out of Brambleton
Commons and exiting to the right depends solely on the mercy of oncoming traffic. With
the right on red at Old Cave Spring Road, there is never a break in southbound traffic
on Brambleton Avenue. Adding exit traffic from a much adored grocery chain with 200
plus parking spaces will prevent customers that frequent the 18 businesses at
Brambleton Commons and beyond ingress and egress. It seems a more thoughtful plan
would only allow entrance from Brambleton Avenue and no right on red at Old Cave
Spring Road to stop an already overloaded intersection from becoming more dangerous
and protecting existing businesses."
Lolitta Pittman stated, "I. have a Roanoke City address, I've been a
property owner at Brambleton Commons since 1990 and have been a business owner
in the county since 1985. Those of us who work there at Brambleton Commons on a
daily basis understand that this is a very hazardous situation, leaving the property as
Paul announced. My remarks are not based on a VDOT study. They come from daily
observation of being there and trying to maneuver outside, leave the property, and
making a left-hand turn, especially late afternoon. Well, I'd say from three o'clock on
when the schools let out a Hidden Valley High School and Cave Spring Middle School.
What we have found to be a remedy, instead of sitting there through at least two cycles
of traffic lights at the intersection of Old Cave Spring Road and Brambleton Avenue is
that we will take a right-hand turn and then make a U-ie to come back. So that is not the
best traffic flow situation. So I'm thinking that with our exit, our entrance and exit, we
have one. The property that's being under consideration is within 30 yards of where our
entrance and exit is, which is basically the width of this room. So if I'm having to make a
U-ie to get out of my property, how about the people that are coming out of my property.
How about the people that are coming out of the grocery store? Are they going to be
making U-ies, too, to get back to the right? I don't know. It seems like it's a recipe for
disaster. I don't know what to expect if that happens. Critical to the success of a bricks
and mortar business is the ability of customers to access it. Even a single or slight
inconvenience could lead to a decline in sales. Customers will shy away from a
business that is just too difficult for them to get into and leave. Please take that into your
consideration. I don't know what the remedy is. I don't have one, short of not approving
the rezoning request, but if you do approve the rezoning request, please give some
support and protection to your small business owners in the county."
Whitney Smith stated, "I want to reiterate what Ms. Pittman said about the
U-turn. We use that phrase what lies, dang lies the statistics. They're talking about the
traffic. The study seems like it's got a lot of flaws in it. I did the human test and went and
stood down there for about 20 minutes at the bottom of the hill. There's three car
lengths between, coming from Bojangles to make a left-hand turn. How in the world.
December 13, 2022 935
There's a lot of traffic going be going right there. When they're not going, like she was
saying, you have right on red coming out Old Cave Spring. They mentioned that at
some point you could take a left off of 221 into the grocery store. Now in real life, forget
all the statistics, I can't wait to see that happen, especially at certain times of the day. I
want to reiterate what she just said there. Of course, on the traffic, everything that they
had brought up in the planning commission about our neighborhood... and I forgot to
mention, I'm Whitney Smith. I live on the north side in Kingston Court at 4686 Kettering.
I've traveled that road, literally, I added up. I have probably taken that route 10,000
times. I don't see how that traffic is going to work. If an 18 wheeler has to leave there
and they can't get out at Old Cave Spring certain times a day, and they have to leave
the main entrance and can't do a U-turn through the church, I.guess, they're going to
have to drive all the way around through Penn Forest and cut through the high school to
somehow get back to 419. I don't think that's going to work very well either. I know
everybody is thinking it could be Publix and different stores, but I don't think the secrecy
of not knowing who it is very important. It could be Food Line for all I know. If it's Food
Line, we already have two. I hate for them to be a third unless they're thinking about
closing one there. I really think that should be disclosed to.the public to begin with. If
anything, I do think this should be tabled. I'm so happy that Farmington showed up. We
have a lot of kids in our neighborhood, and parents, it's hard for them to get out at night.
Director of planning, Mr. Thompson, did say after the December 6th meeting that a
letter would be sent out to the neighborhood to talk about the meeting for tonight. It
never went out and the minutes from the November 1st meeting had not been posted
on the website, so our neighborhoods also had a hard time reading about what
happened at that meeting. I think that's very important. I'd like to reiterate the
cannibalization of sales. If you're looking to increase revenue, .I don't see a lot of the
Southwest County people who go to Kroger, get their fuel points. If they stop going
there and go across the street, are we really benefiting sales in our area? I think you
really have to weigh that. Whereas, we do have the new development out there. New
development at... I can't think of.the name of off the top of my head. Where Dunkin'
Donuts and all that is, where we started years ago. Because of the economy and
different things that happened, obviously, it's had to delay. That piece of property right
there almost seems like a better fit for a new grocery store. I believe they might have
looked at it. Anyway, thank you. I hope you take my vote no for the store."
Michelle Davis of 4909 Cave.Spring Lane stated, "I have moved to the
county having formally served on Roanoke City Council. It is so good to see you all. It's
much more nerve-wracking being on this side of the desk than being on that side.
Recognizing that you all have a very difficult job. Recognizing,.,I know a rezoning is
always a difficult request, especially when you have public that are coming out to speak
against it. I'm here with my family this evening. We all live on the property together.
We're so thrilled to be in the county. Don't tell the people in the city I said that, but it is a
lovely place. We are on Cave Spring Lane and are directly impacted by the traffic
backup on Old Cave Spring Road daily. My daughter dances at Ardell Stone, right
936 December 13, 2022
around the corner. Getting her to dance class in the evenings is a very difficult
proposition as it is. You've already heard the traffic concerns. I don't need to reiterate
them for you. I think the fatal flaw of the proposal that you all have received is the fact
that Old Cave Spring Road and Cave Spring Lane intersection have not been studied.
The traffic already backs up past that intersection on a regular basis. Looking at the site
plan as it was designed, it seems to me that anyone who is going anywhere, leaving the
parking lot of the proposed grocery store, anywhere but up Bent Mountain is going to
have to use Old Cave Spring Road in order to exit that parking lot. The amount of traffic
that'puts on an already over trafficked road that I know you all have been working for
decades to try and fix and have not had the support from the state in order to try and fix
that and the funding from the state to fix that intersection. The impact that this grocery
store will have on that already poorly designed intersection is going to be tremendous to
the many residents who already live back in that area. To speak to the bottom line,
many people have brought up the fact that the density of grocery stores in our area is
already significant. I understand competition. Competition is great, but what happens.
The sales tax increase looks really nice on paper and I love the idea, but what happens
when it drives one of the other grocery stores out of business and that sales tax base
decreases and you're left at a net-zero with an empty building that nobody can lease out
for many years. I know a lot of money and work has already gone into this proposal. I
see a lot of familiar faces in the room who have worked on this proposal already. I
would ask that, at a minimum, the traffic be studied at Old Cave Spring Road and Cave
Spring Lane based on the sheer number of residents that live back there and have to
use that intersection every single day."
Shane Dwyer of 1314 Trevino Drive stated, "My address is in Roanoke
City but I do live about a hundred yards away from the county line there at Allen. I don't
really have a dog in this fight but you can tell from that concept proposal there are some
unique hints that this is a Publix, so I want to voice my support for Publix. I think it's a
great company and I think it would be a great get to have here in the Roanoke Valley. I
know myself, I work in Salem. I would go out of the way to stop at Publix on my way
home and visit that grocery store, because I do appreciate what they have to offer as
compared to Kroger, and Food Line and some of the other options. A lot of folks here do
have very valid points. Again, I don't live on that side of town so I wouldn't have to deal
with that.traffic. I understand where they are coming from but I hope that if this plan
does not work, that the county works with the developer to find something else. The site
over next Kroger at Bonsack. I would welcome very much to be over there. Put me
closer over there as well. Hopefully, we can come to a conclusion that makes it work for
everybody."
Brian Blevins of VDOT asked for questions. Supervisor Radford stated
you heard comments from the people that were speaking about Cave Spring Lane and
Old Cave Spring. The intersection wasn't studied. They asked the traffic guy with the
petitioner that you recommend that would be impacted. It's impacted now from what we
hear. By the way, I drive through there all the time. Sometimes, it's backed up,
December 13, 2022 937
sometimes, it's not. Mr. Blevins responded I think one thing to explain, and maybe, the
petitioner would have been able to explain that. At least, with a study of this size for
what they are anticipating for trips, VDOT can only require improvements along the
frontage of the property.. The frontage of the property only includes a small portion of
Old Cave Spring Lane and a small portion of Brambleton Avenue. The number of
intersections that they studied was only to look at major impacts and major intersections
and for the flow of traffic along the three signals. As they stated, there are some
operational issues there during the peak hours and on Saturdays. The only reason why
the intersection of McVitty and Old Cave Spring Lane was included was simply because
of the fact that is where most of the cut through traffic from 419 from Brambleton come
from. It was deemed that Old Case Spring Lane, while it could have been included,
might see a slight increase in traffic from this grocery store, but the changes there would
be minimal, at least for what's coming out and going in, because there's other ways out
of that neighborhood. They don't have to come out that way unless they're going to this
area to shop, or go to work or something like that. There was no reason to include it.
Plus we couldn't have required improvements there anyway. It may have identified an
issue that already exists and may not have identified anything new. As for the project,
they are correct. We have been working on a project for weeks. We had a project on the
books for a number of years, decades I think they said. Unfortunately, after preliminary
engineering and right of way, which we do already own right of way through there, we
could not obtain the funding including partner with the county and in multiple different
applications in multiple different ways to actually expand and straighten McVitty slightly.
It would have included some of the improvements that the developers doing today,
which includes extending that right turn lane. That will improve the operations at the
intersection including the re-striping. They're doing some minor re-striping on the
opposite side of the intersection, which will also improve some of the operations at the
intersection, decreasing the delay overall.
Supervisor Radford then asked Mr. Blevins his opinion of their access and
egress on Brambleton Avenue real close to an existing business and close to your
traffic light. Apparently, you guys are okay with that? Mr. Blevins responded in the
affirmative stating we deemed it acceptable. We concur with the study. There will be
some folks using that to drop back onto Brambleton to go south on 221 towards Bent
Mountain. In general, we do have some access management requirements that they're
supposed to follow, but within this situation, the pressure that it relieved off of the full
access off of Old Cave Spring Lane made it to where it was beneficial for,us to approve
this and allow it to stay where it is. The other intersections, while I understand they likely
do have operational issues during the peak hours, if that development were constructed
today, it likely wouldn't get anything more than a right in, right out, similar to what the
grocery store is proposing.
Supervisor Mahoney stated one of the speakers talked about, from
Brambleton Commons, the difficulties of exiting Brambleton Commons and the impacts
of the right turnout from the proposed development. A concern that had been expressed
938 December 13, 2022
with the right turn on red from the existing intersection. Due to the possible, substantial
increase in traffic if this development were approved, would VDOT, perhaps, go back
and look at not allowing right turn on red, or would you think that, that would cause more
problems in terms of stacking coming out of, what I would call, the main entrance and
exit for the proposed development? Do you follow where I'm going? Mr. Blevins
responded he would have to lean on the traffic engineer for the developer to see what
they would think for sure, but I can tell you that right turn on reds reduce cues
throughout the cycle of the signal. If you were to stop all the traffic there and not allow
that right turn on red, especially if you have plentiful sight distance and no other reason
to stop it. Generally, that's the only reason why we would not allow right turn on red is
because of a sight distance issue which you don't have there. It would likely cause at
least that leg to go into an operational issue of F or worse. I don't think it would operate
acceptably, and likely the right turn lane would not function the way they anticipate in
their study. If you put all the traffic from the development to go right out there only, it
definitely wouldn't work. Right now, they have the option to go right out on Brambleton
or right out there. If you were to stop it, it would cue back, I'm almost positive, during the
peak hours.
Supervisor Mahoney then asked with regard to the stacking, if he is on
Colonial, and crossing over Brambleton and want to make a left turn into the project, we
were talking about a 75 foot distance stacking lane, how many cars can I put in 75 feet?
Four? Mr. Blevins responded in general, at least as far as engineers look at it, we think
about 25 feet per car. A car is not 25 feet long, but you have to think about buffer
distances, and shy distances and a lot of folks like to give extra space so they can look
at their cell phone when they're stopped. It's about three to four cars. Plus, as they
stated, it is a back to back turn lane with the left turn lane from Old Cave Spring Lane to
northbound on 221. Again, if there happened to be some reason why they couldn't get
out, why they couldn't make that left turn across, they could stack further into that left
turn lane. It does get some traffic there, but most of the time if they're going through that
intersection, they either want to go straight or they want to go south. Most of the folks
would not go left there unless they're going to Kroger or 419, which means they did the
cut through for no reason.
Supervisor Mahoney then asked if he is at development and exiting on Old
Cave Spring, how are you going to make a left turn there? He would think that would be
fairly dangerous because I have all the traffic coming towards Brambleton and I have all
this other traffic queuing up to make a left turn in. Would you see a realistic option of
making a left turn there? As one of the speakers said, if I'm making a right turn out only
onto Brambleton, at some point in time, I'm going to go a short distance down
Brambleton and do a U-turn, which is probably just as dangerous. It almost seems like if
I live further back in Windsor Hills, I'd be making a left turn out of that development. I'm
not going to be making a right turn out onto Brambleton. I'm going to be going out on
Old Cave Spring Lane. I question, is that a realistic opportunity? Mr. Blevins responded
it will be as much as anything else. I mean, I think you'd have a better distance here
December 13, 2022 939
from where this entrance exists than from where the Kroger entrance exists on Colonial.
It's pretty short. You've got four or five lanes you have to cross. In this situation, you're,
probably, only going to have two, plus you're looking upgrade instead of downgrade.
You should be able to see cars making turning movements in there to anticipate what
they're doing. If a large enough vehicle, a bus or a truck, you could have limited
instances where sight distance could be blocked, in which case they really should wait
until they can see or make a right turn out, and go back to 419 and go around the other
way.
Supervisor Radford then asked the petitioner stated he appreciates the
Farmington Place, someone in the association coming up and making their oral
comments and written comments. Part four, did they send you any of their comments?
The petitioner responded we did receive a letter from the HOA. We received it from the
planning department. Supervisor Radford stated they listed 10 recommendations. It
looks like you did a couple of them from their recommendation, but it looks like it's a big,
more expanded list. I'm not going to go through all of them, but you went, from one
meeting, you went to a 30 foot buffer to a 40 foot buffer. I mean, that's quite a bit more
shrubbery, or trees or whatever that you're putting in there, correct? Petitioner
: ii
responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Radford then asked with regard to the fence; a
couple speakers say they prefer wood because vinyl is going to look not too attractive.
Wood will look pretty good. I know it has higher maintenance on it. I'm not asking you to
proffer that, but I'm just suggesting that might be something. The petitioner advised at
eight feet, it more than likely will be wood. Vinyl fences get flimsy at eight feet.
Supervisor Radford then asked about the lighting. He noted he is in development so
know what our cutoff shield is. You're at a higher elevation than the Farmington people,
so you might have it cut down. If they're below, they can see under that shield, so
you've got to do an extended shield so they don't get that glare back from it. You're up
here, and they're down there. Recommendation of turning lights off at night. I'm sure
you guys want to conserve energy. I don't know what the tenant's protocol is for turning
off... I mean, if they had 50 lights, would they turn off 25 lights? Do you have any
experience with that? The petitioner stated some centers do that. A lot will keep them
on. It's an issue of public safety overnight. You don't want to make it a convenient spot
to loiter.
Supervisor Radford then asked about the stormwater management facility.
Has the engineer detailed that any on the concept plan? Is it above ground? Is it just a
ditch? Is it underground? The petitioner responded there's no detail to the concept plan,
but our preliminary studies are leading us to an underground facility from a grading
standpoint to get the volume.
Supervisor North stated in my personal opinion from listening to everyone
111 today, this is just too intense of an area for this surrounding residential community as
well as the roadway infrastructure. He thinks we're trying to put something there that's
complex, challenging, and is going to create a lot of complaints from citizens in the
future. Our department's going to get many phone calls and have to take a lot of time to
940 December 13, 2022
address them over and over again. He thinks, though, that we have other better county
locations and our economic development people are here. He would like the applicant
to consider those other locations for this grocery store. I also believe that it's an intense
area with a lot of commercial grocery stores already. There's been others in the
Roanoke County area and city that didn't make it very long after they've put thousands
and millions of dollars into their site improvements and now they're closed. So I would
like to see more housing on this development and I believe that this community and the
county at large has a growing need for more starter homes for young people, but also
for retirees and people that want to downsize to patio homes. They're in high demand all
over the county, in all areas. So put simply for these reasons, I probably cannot support
this project.
Supervisor Hooker stated she really wanted to support this project, but after
hearing what the citizens said made a difference and she appreciates you coming
tonight and even at the late hour hanging with us while we really process all this
information and try to make the right decisions because it's tough. It's a tough process,
but she is concerned about Brambleton Commons. She is concerned about those small
businesses. We're potentially sacrificing one area for another and doesn't like that and
struggles with that. And there was a comment about we don't need another grocery
store, and she understands what they are saying because there are several in that area.
Competition's always good. She would say that right there in between with 0.3 miles in
between all of them might be a little close for all of them, but competition is a good
thing. My third comment was Ms. Davis. I thought your commentary, as others
mentioned it too, about Old Cave Spring Road and Cave Spring Lane, she thinks were
right on with some of that commentary. It has impacted this, whether or not on paper
supposed to be impacting it. I believe that it truly is. The ride in and the ride out on
Brambleton for this new development potentially. It is just difficult at best and for the
amount of money that would be invested into this property, and we want it to be the right
thing. We want it to be the right thing with the right infrastructure is what we're really
looking for, she does not think that the residence would drop in value. But that being
said, I'm on this bend right now where we have got to be protecting our R-1. We have
got to be protecting it. We have too much encroachment, too much coming in on them,
and so she will not be supporting the petition.
Supervisor Mahoney stated he has a couple of comments. Comment
number one is he tries to follow what we as a County have adopted in our
comprehensive plan in terms of neighborhood conservation and transition. Again, that is
a guide. It's not an ordinance. It's not a mandated requirement, but he tries to follow that
a lot. My concern about this site is it's a very challenging site. But what we have left in
Roanoke County are,only challenging sites. All of the easy sites have been developed.
We are not like Roanoke City where we have a central business, or industrial, or
commercial core. He used the example of Roanoke County's development. We're like
wagon wheels and if you think of the spokes on a wagon wheel, the spokes are our
primary highways, whether they are 460, 460 west, 460 east, whether they're 419,
December 13, 2022 941
whether they're route 24, our development runs along those primary roads and so we
have commercial and industrial development along those primary roads. But you go one
block off that primary road and we have residential neighborhoods. And so, every time
we have a commercial development, that commercial development could have an
impact on that residential development. In his mind, if we can't put a major commercial
development on a four-lane divided highway where we have a traffic signal, we can't put
commercial development any place in Roanoke. We're not talking about putting a large
commercial development back off in a rural or farming area where you don't have
access to the road. This is a four-lane divided highway. That's what Brambleton is. And,
yes, we have residential neighborhoods one block off and he understands that, but
thinks that's true of almost every one of our developments throughout the county. He
understands the argument of do we need another grocery store, assuming this is
Publix? He does know if it's Publix or not. He is not here to discriminate between Publix,
and Kroger, or Harris Teeter, or Food Lion. If you look at our rezonings in Roanoke
County over the last couple of years, we have been inundated with car washes up and
down 419. We must have the cleanest cars in the whole world, we got so many car
washes here. He cannot deny a rezoning for a car wash. If somebody wants to build
another car wash and lose his investment, that's his problem, not mine. Likewise with
mini warehouses. We got mini warehouses everywhere. So if another grocery store
wants to come in, I wish them luck. He liked what Mr. Skaff and the other members of
the homeowners association put together for us. It was excellent. And I think as Mr.
Radford pointed out, some, not ,all. Some of the requests have been addressed,
whether it's lighting, whether it's buffer, whether it's opaque fencing, whether its hours of
operation. He thinks the applicant has attempted to address many of those concerns.
I'm comfortable... If there is a motion to approve, I'm comfortable supporting it. But his
final concern is we, the Board of Supervisors, have some responsibility in this. We
decided a couple of years ago to acquire the property from VDOT. We knew what that
site was like and we did it intentionally because we hoped, or assumed, or thought that
there would be some kind of new commercial development, whatever it was. And if we
decide not to go forward, then we never should have made the decision, two years ago
when we bought the property, if there's a mistake, then it was the mistake that this
board made when we initially acquired the property from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Supervisor Peters stated he has listened to my other board members and
I guess I have to err on the side of what you just said. We have seen this all across the
county. Mr. North, I listened to the comments about West Ruritan at 460. But I also see
the side of it that the improvements to those intersections would've never taken place
and the improvements we're seeing today would not have taken place if those
developments were not added. He wonders the same question here. We've heard about
the intersection, all the problems that are there. Well, once that is developed. You're
right, we did this land swap or whatever we did through the EDA in hopes that a
commercial development would take place there. My thought process is it'll help that
942 December 13, 2022
intersection because it'll force us to make improvements there as we have in many
other intersections all across the county.
ORDINANCE 121322-9 REZONING APPROXIMATELY 9.38
ACRES FROM. R-3C (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS), R-1 (LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT), I-1 C (LOW INTENSITY
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS), C-2C (HIGH
INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS), AND
C-1 (LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) TO C-2C (HIGH
INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS), FOR
RETAIL SALES, LOCATED IN THE 4400 BLOCK OF
BRAMBLETON AVENUE, INCLUDING 4449 AND 4457
BRAMBLETON AVENUE, AND THE 4500 AND 4600 BLOCKS
OF OLD CAVE SPRING ROAD, WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT (TAX MAP NOS: 076.20-03-01.00-0000, 076.20-03-
02.00-0000, 076.20-03-03.00-0000, 076.20-03-04.00-0000, 076.20-
03-05.00-0000, 086.08-04-01.00-0000, 086.08-04-02.00-0000,
086.08-04-03.00-0000, 086.08-04-04.00-0000, 086.08-04-05.00-
0000, and 086.08-04-06.00-0000)
WHEREAS, Barnett Properties, LLC is requesting to rezone approximately 9.38
acres from R-3C (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions), R-1
(Low Density Residential District), I-1 C (Low Intensity Industrial District with conditions),
C-2C (High Intensity. Commercial District with. conditions), and C-1 (Low Intensity
Commercial District) to C-2C (High Intensity Commercial District with conditions), for
retail sales, located in the 4400 block of Brambleton Avenue, including 4449 and 4457
Brambleton Avenue, and the 4500 and 4600 blocks of Old Cave Spring Road; and
WHEREAS, the new 9.38-acre parcel being rezoned is made up of eleven
separate properties identified as Roanoke County Tax Map Numbers 076.20-03-01.00-
0000, 076.20-03-02.00-0000, 076.20-03-03.00-0000, 076.20-03-04.00-0000, 076.20-03-
05.00-0000, 086.08-04-01.00-0000,. 086.08-04-02.00-0000, 086.08-04-03.00-0000,
086.08-04-04.00-0000, 086.08-04-05.00-0000, and 086.08-04-06.00-0000; and
WHEREAS, seven of the eleven properties to be rezoned have existing
conditions attached to them from previously approved rezoning ordinances, these seven
properties being identified as Roanoke County Tax Map Numbers: 076.20-03-01.00-
0000, 076.20-03-02.00-0000, 07620-03-05.00-0000, 086.08-04-01.00-0000, 086.08-04-
02.00-0000, 086.08-04-03.00-0000, and 086.08-04-06.00-0000; and
December 13, 2022 943
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the applicant and the intent of the Board of
Supervisors that the existing conditions attached to these seven parcels referenced in
the immediately preceding paragraph be removed; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on November 1, 2022, and voted to postpone action on the application until
its December 6, 2022 meeting; and
WHEREAS, at its December 6, 2022 meeting the Roanoke County Planning
Commission considered a revised concept plan submitted by the applicant, and
considered proffered conditions submitted by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition as
requested, with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 25, 2022, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on December 13, 2022; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1.. The petition of Barnett Properties, LLC to rezone approximately 9.38 acres
from R-3C (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with
conditions), R-1 (Low Density Residential District), I-1 C (Low Intensity
Industrial District with conditions), C-2C (High Intensity Commercial
District with conditions), and C-1 (Low Intensity Commercial District) to C-
2C (High Intensity Commercial District with conditions), for retail sales,
located in the 4400 block of Brambleton Avenue, including 4449 and 4457
Brambleton Avenue, and the 4500 and 4600 blocks of Old Cave Spring
Road is approved, with the following proffered conditions:
a. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the
concept plan prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated August
30, 2022, and revised November 30, 2022, subject to any changes
required during the comprehensive site plan review process.
b. Hours of operation (open to the public) shall be no earlier than 6:00
a.m. and no later than 12:00 a.m. each day.
2. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning of approximately 9.38 acres,
while not consistent with the "Transition" or "Neighborhood Conservation"
future land use designations, it is in conformance with the C-2 zoned
properties along Old Cave Spring Road and along the corridor of
Brambleton Avenue.
3. The Board further finds that the proposed rezoning of approximately 9.38
acres is consistent with good zoning practice, and will not result in
substantial detriment to the community.
944 December 13, 2022
4. Any existing conditions on the 9.38-acre parcel which is the subject of this
rezoning are hereby removed and replaced with the two proffered
conditions submitted with this rezoning request.
5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district
map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this
ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Radford to approve the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: Supervisors Hooker, North
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
William Skaff stated Because two-thirds of the grocery store land is zoned
residential, two-thirds of this land has a future land use designation of transition and
one-third residential conservation, both designations residential making the grocery
store inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the county's adopted comprehensive
plan. Three, the surrounding properties are zoned residential. Four, residents bought
their homes assuming that the county would honor the zoning and future land use
designations. And five, the grocery store will result in substantial detriment to the
community including perpetual noise, nighttime light, traffic congestion and
endangerment, reducing quality of life, and causing property values to decline.
Therefore, rezoning is tantamount to a taking, that is confiscation, of real value by the
Roanoke County government. Accordingly, I respectfully propose that the board moved
to reduce my half the real estate evaluation that is assessment or taxable value of
houses and buildings located in Farmington Place, Kingston Court, and in the vicinity
along Cave Spring Lane and old Cave Spring Road, the Jeff Maronic property and
localities beyond that, that will be detrimentally affected by the grocery store. Freeze
these taxable values for as long as the grocery store is an operation and the land on
which it is located to zone C2. And, three, place a surcharge on the grocery store's tax
bill to compensate for this loss of revenue to the county equal to the revenue lost.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Peters invited everyone to the Illuminights event. I know we
went out there a few weeks ago. It was a great time. I had something else. Well,
whatever that was, move on. The last thing I'd like to tell everybody, I hope everybody
has a great Christmas. I want to thank our board for a great year. I want to thank you,
December 13, 2022 945
Chairman Mahoney, for a great year. You did a great job herding the cats. I want to
thank the staff for everything they do for us and all the employees of Roanoke County,
what they do to keep us moving daily, and the citizens for allowing us this opportunity.
Supervisor Hooker commented, "Delegate Joe McNamara, Mr. Brent
Hudson, Dr. Ken Nicely, Chairman Paul Mahoney and I .were able to visit Glen Cove
Elementary School recently and I want to thank them for arranging this tour. I've toured
it many times before, but it's always good to go and be reminded of the needs there and
that certainly happened. Number two, I'm pleased with the work this board has done.
And with the memorandum of understanding that was discussed and voted on today in
coming up with a solution for the school board's priority of a CTE center. We were able
to stay inside our current tax base with this funding plan and that's very important. I'm
especially pleased that we were able to think outside the box and put together a
package that helps to mitigate the concerns of the elementary schools. Number three,
our volunteer fire department. I just want to say thank you to them. They've been driving
around a lot of neighborhoods recently with Santa and the kids of all ages have been
enjoying that. I also enjoyed our Illuminights visit and plan to go back again with a
different set of grandkids and it's just a great thing that our county is providing. And then
the last thing is, you all, I have more champions I'm bringing. Glenvar High School
volleyball team, state champions. I've already talked to them and we're making
arrangements for them to come and be congratulated."
Supervisor North commented, "He attended the Virginia County
Conference with several other board members in November 13th through the 15th. Also
served as a moderator on the transportation forum with Virginia Secretary of
Transportation, Sheppard. Miller. The panel discussed in a variety of topics such as
smart scale airport, federal and state funding, and rural roads improvements. On
November the 17th, attended the regional partnership investor update downtown. It's
been the best year since 2017. regarding $234 million of economic impact as business
attraction has been higher than pre-pandemic. Just this year alone, we've had 234
economic inquiries in the region and remote workers have decreased 9% in large part...
Excuse me, have increased 9% in large part because workers are moving here from
Northern Virginia, DC, and the Maryland area, relocating to our region. Meanwhile,
we've been named in the top 24 mountain towns in the United States. Something to be
very proud of. Also, on November 21st, I chaired- the Roanoke Valley Allegheny
Regional Commission legislative agenda for 2023 General Assembly Representatives in
our area. Among the many items we shared in our priorities was airport expansion.
Delegate Austin, who chairs the Transportation Committee and the House of Delegates
and serves as the Vice Chair of the Appropriations' Committee, has had discussions
with the governor and has asked for a 10-year strategic benefit analysis for the airport
expansion for Governor Youngkin's review and support. The Governor stopped after
visiting this area on his way back and asked for that request when meeting one on one
with Delegate Austin. So far as I know, the .Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional
Commission is working with other entities here in the valley to put that together. On
946 December 13, 2022
December 6th, we spoke to the CTB in Richmond at VDOT headquarters on.the 181
widening project between exit 137 and 128.This is supported by the Secretary of
Transportation, both this area and the 164 expansion. The project resolution passed 15
to 0 and one abstention for smart scale VDOT application. Estimated smart scale cost is
around $300 million. This was the first project on the unfunded list of about six projects
that were unable to be funded in 2020 in the original 181 plan. And I will tell you this, this
was a total team effort and Dr. Smoot, Delegate Austin, the VDOT folks here, Brian
Blevins, all the regional governments that are putting together resolutions of support so
the application can- be bolstered from everyone in this area. This was a great
accomplishment and I hope that it doesn't have any bumps in the road... Pardon the
pun... As it goes forward to improve safety and fluidity along 181. Interesting enough, the
reason this project can't be pursued is it's going to take the northbound funding and use
that to leverage the southbound widening, which is using money wisely to get things
done."
Chairman Mahoney commented, 'We had a legislative breakfast that was
put on by the Salem Roanoke Chamber of Commerce, also the realtors and the home
builders, which I thought was great, bringing those private groups together. But we also
had Secretary Slater here who was talking about workforce development. I think all of
us believe meshes in with workforce development through the Career and Technical
Education.Facility in Roanoke County. I think that was important and it was great having
Attorney General Miyares here. On November 18th, I was invited to attend a meeting
that Rabbi Kathy Cohen of Temple Emanuel was putting together. She's concerned
about the increase in anti-Semitism, and prejudice, and hate crimes going on around
the country and she wanted to put together a community group to try to anticipate and
proactively address those issues. And so, I'll be looking forward to attending some of
those meetings with her. Members of Roanoke City Council were there. Other members
of the local community were there, and. I think I give a lot of credit to Rabbi Cohen
beginning that initiative. And. I'll try to represent the county well in those endeavors. I
read in the Roanoke Times the other day about how the city of Roanoke is part of their
legislative program. I thought it took a fairly courageous action to try to rescind some of
the criminal justice legislation that had been adopted in the previous general assembly.
And it came in late today, but Chief Hall... Before he retires and gets out of town, Chief
Hall was asking that we might include that as part of our legislative program. So I'd like
to find out from the Board would we want to support- what Roanoke City was
supporting? I'm planning on having lunch with Mayor:Lea sometime this week to try to
talk about different areas where Roanoke County and Roanoke City can cooperate
together. And I'd like to tell him that we would like to add that to our legislative program
if that's,fine with your approval. I want to echo what Supervisor Peters said.'Folks you
got to go to Illuminights. It is fantastic. We're running out of time. It ends fairly quickly.
My family enjoyed it. We are going to go out again with all sorts of grandchildren. And
so it is just a wonderful event and it has worked out so great with our partnership with
Center in the Square with respect to the Illuminights event at Explore Park. Finally,
December 13, 2022 947
happy holidays everybody. Be safe. Hope everybody has a happy joyous holiday
season.
Supervisor North added he would like to see a resolution for these items
you mentioned in January, but between now and then, I don't see anything wrong with
your writing a letter, since the board seems to be in agreement, of support and get that
out to all our local legislators before they go off to Richmond. I know they would
appreciate getting that a little early. We can follow up with the resolution later, of course,
but I have no objections. I don't think anyone else on the board would of writing a letter
of support.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Mahoney adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m.
Subm' d by: Approved by:
Deb rah C. Jack Martha B. Hooker
Chief eputy Clerk t he Board Chairman
948 December 13, 2022
•
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY