The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/23/2023 - Regular May 23, 2023 175 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 second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of May 2023. 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, a moment of silence was observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Hooker called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Martha B. Hooker; Supervisors Paul M. Mahoney, Phil C. North, P. Jason Peters and 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 IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Legislative briefing regarding the 2023 session of the General Assembly (Peter S Lubeck, County Attorney) Mr. Eldon James provided the legislative briefing. 176 May 23, 2023 IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution adopting 1) the fiscal year 2023-2024 Operating and Capital Budget Revenues and Expenditures for the County of Roanoke, Virginia and Roanoke County Public Schools and 2) the fiscal years 2024-2033 Capital Improvement Program for the County of Roanoke, Virginia and Roanoke County Public Schools and 3) the fiscal year 2023-2024 Fee Compendium (Steve Elliott, Budget Administrator) Mr. Elliott outlined the request for resolution and provided a PowerPoint presentation. Supervisor North asked with regard to page 14 of the packet, which refers • to schedule number three, summary of county schools funding sources, more specifically line item debt fund hyphen schools. There's a sum of money each year through 2029, but he does not see any sum of money beyond 2029. Why, he thought that was part of our agreements to continue, is that just the interest amount of money is, what does that have to do with our MOU on the 1.8 million? Could you comment on that? Rebecca Owens, Deputy County Administrator asked for more information, which Supervisor North responded, page 14, more specifically schedul3d three of the 22 through 31 capital improvement summary of County and schools funding sources. It goes down to Roanoke County Public Schools at the bottom of that Excel sheet or chart if you will, where it says debt fund dash schools. Ms. Owens advised it's the actual Roanoke County Public Schools all funding sources in that section there. So, the third line there, the debt fund hyphen schools. So that is the planned money through fiscal year 2029 that we were actually bringing in that was remaining in the debt fund. So those were funds that were available, cash, that was actually in the debt fund. In the County we actually have a little bit of that as well. For example, when we had a planned amount that we were going to issue debt for and it actually sold at a better interest rate than that assumed 6%. Then we actually had some cash savings and so there was a period of time that we were actually pulling money out to be able to help fund some of those projects. Couple years ago, the board made the decision that we would just leave all the money that was in there and it would just go to fund the debt in the future and that's why after fiscal year 2029, you're not actually seeing any money allocated for fiscal year 2030 through 2033 because we're not pulling any cash out of the debt fund and back over in to be able to fund the capital projects. Because now we have a different plan where we've got borrowings that are allocated each and every year we've identified the amount of money that we need to actually put into that fund on an annual basis from the county and the schools to be able to fund that appropriately. We felt like by leaving that cash, any cash available in there that would long term minimize the amount of money that we would have to keep putting into the fund. 111 May 23, 2023 177 Supervisor North stated let's say fiscal year 2028, fiscal year 2030 and so forth, the school's years, if you get a bond that's 20 million, but you have some, if you purchase it at a lower price, then that extra money would then go back into this debt fund. Is that correct? Ms. Owens responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Radford inquired with regard toward the building and trade permit fees. When he read the second column, effective date, it says 2004. Mr. Elliott responded in the affirmative, stating we have update of the fees last year, but not all. Supervisor Radford stated the building code changes every two years and they have a suggested fee cycle in each of those updates. He is just making sure we're staying up with the suggested fees. Mr. Elliott responded staff does examine those fees annually from all departments and departments can make requests to change fees every year as part of our budget cycle. Additional we also compare again surrounding jurisdictions and try to maintain those fees at a similar level. There was no further discussion. RESOLUTION 052323-1 ADOPTING 1) THE FISCAL YEAR 2023- 2024 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA AND ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND 2) THE FISCAL YEARS 2024-2033 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA AND ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND 3) THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 FEE COMPENDIUM WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2503 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that the governing body of the County shall prepare and approve an annual budget; and WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and fiscal planning purposes only; and WHEREAS, this budget contains a complete itemized and classified plan of all contemplated expenditures and all estimated revenues and borrowings for the ensuing fiscal year; and WHEREAS, a brief synopsis of,said budget was published as required by the provisions of Section 15.2-2506 of the State Code, and the public hearings as required thereon were held on April 25, 2023 and May 9, 2023. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia: 1. That there is hereby approved the annual operating and capital budget revenues and expenditures for fiscal year 2023-2024 for Roanoke County, Virginia, and Roanoke County Public Schools, as shown on the attached Schedules 1 and 2. 178 May 23, 2023 2. That there is hereby approved the Capital Improvement Program for fiscal years 2024-2033 for Roanoke County, Virginia, and Roanoke County Public Schools, as shown on the attached Schedule 3. 3. That the preparation and approval of these budgets is for informative and fiscal planning purposes only. 4. That there is hereby approved a Fee Compendium which lists all fees and charges imposed by the County for providing specialized programs and services. The Fee Compendium provides details on the type of fee, authority to levy the fee, current fees, and proposed changes to the current fees. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinances to appropriate funds for: (a) Fiscal year 2023-2024 operations budget and approval of the Classification and Pay Plan for fiscal year 2023-2024 for the County of Roanoke, Virginia; There was no discussion. ORDINANCE 052323-2 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 OPERATIONS BUDGET AND APPROVAL OF THE CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in_the newspaper, public hearings were held on April 25, 2023 and May 9, 2023 concerning the adoption of the annual budget for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2023-2024; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved said budget on May 23, 2023, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and May 23, 2023 179 WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 9, 2023, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2023, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter. BE IT ORDAINED by the.Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds for the period beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, for the functions and purposes indicated: 180 May 23, 2023 County of Roanoke,Virginia Fiscal Year 2023-2024 County Operations First Reading May 9,2023;Second Reading May 23,2023 Appropriation Amount Revenues: General Fund-County: General Government $ 246,847,274 Public Works Projects 175,732 Fleet Service Center 4,086,231 Communications&Information Technology 13,952,894 Recreation Fee Class 5,198,646 Children's Services Act 7,948,166 Grants &Other Funds 2,024,936 Parks, Recreation&Tourism -School Operations 418,291 Police E-Citation 60,000 Community Development Technology Fee 40,000 Police Special Programs 2,500 Criminal Justice Academy 454,152 Subtotal, General Fund 281,208,822 Debt Service Fund-from County 14,878,894 Debt Service Fund-from Schools 4,125,345 Subtotal, Debt Service Fund 19,004,239 Internal Service Fund-Health Insurance 13,365,987 Internal Service Fund-Dental Insurance 821,204 Internal Service Fund-Risk Management 1,604,003 Subtotal, Internal Service Funds 15,791,194 Total Revenue-County Operations Funds $ 316,004,255 Expenditures: General Government-County Operations: General Administration Board of Supervisors $ 496,434 County Administration 1,059,288 Internal Auditor 194,520 Public Information 344,133 County Attorney 752,968 Human Resources 1,130,173 Subtotal,General Administration 3,977,516 Constitutional Officers Commissioner of the Revenue 1,054,580 Commonwealth's Attorney 1,567,615 Sheriffs Office 14,951,433 Treasurer 1,260,683 Clerk of the Circuit Court 1,363,258 Subtotal, Constitutional Officers 20,197,569 May 23, 2023 181 Appropriation Amount Judicial Administration Circuit Court $ 257,068 General District Court 103,440 Magistrate 1,590 Juvenile& Domestic Relations Court 39,086 Court Service Unit 670,144 Courthouse Maintenance 60,000 Subtotal, Judicial Administration 1,131,328 Management Services Real Estate Valuation(Assessor) 1,057,944 Finance&Management Services 2,831,811 Subtotal, Management Services 3,889,755 Public Safety Police 17,152,104 Fire&Rescue 23,049,523 Subtotal, Public Safety 40,201,627 Community Services Economic Development 590,862 Development Services 3,838,282 Planning 2,384,396 General Services 9,549,321 Subtotal, Community Services 16,362,861 Human Services Parks, Recreation, &Tourism 5,838,532 Public Health 579,181 Social Services 14,560,683 Library 4,865,913 Virginia Cooperative Extension 115,391 Elections (Registrar) 878,412 Subtotal, Human Services 26,838,112 Non-Departmental Employee Benefits 2,458,302 Transfer to Communications&Information Technology 11,908,477 Contributions-Discretionary, Contractual, Dues &Memberships 2,480,357 Miscellaneous 1,646,411 Board Contingency 50,000 General Government Expenditure Contingency 608,162 Addition to Fund Balance 2,974,113 Subtotal, Non-Departmental 22,125,822 82 May 23, 2023 2. That the County Administrator may authorize or delegate the authorization of the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one department to another. 3. That all funded outstanding operating encumbrances at June 30, 2023, are re-appropriated to the 2023-2024 fiscal year to the same department and account for which they are encumbered in the previous year. 4. That all General Government Fund unexpended appropriations and all General Government revenues collected in excess of appropriated revenues at the end of any fiscal year not lapse but shall be re-appropriated and presented to the Board of Supervisors for allocation based on guidance provided in Section 10-1 through 5 of the County of Roanoke Comprehensive Financial Policy as approved by the Board of Supervisors. 5. Account balances remaining in the Fee Class Fund collected by the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department will be allocated to accounts as defined by the Fee Class Accounts Procedure. 6. Account balances remaining in Children's Services Act (C111), Police Confiscated Property (C120), Police Special Programs (C121), Forfeited Asset Sharing (C122), Sheriff Confiscated Property (C123), Sheriff Jail Fees (C124), Inventory Accounts (C125), Criminal Justice Academy (C126), Police Training Facility (C127), Garage - Fleet Service Center (C130), Motor Pool (C132), Grants (C135), Opioid Abatement Settlement Fund (C136), Communications and Information Technology (C141-C144), Fee Class (C150), PRT Schools Ground Maintenance .(C151), Public Works Fund (C170), South Peak Community Development Authority (C201), County Debt Fund (C310, C320, C330, C340, C360, C365, C375), County Capital and Economic Development Funds (C420, C421, C425, C428, C440, C445, C451, C455, C475), County Trust Funds (C501, C502), Internal Service Funds (C700, C705, C710), Special Welfare (C810), Regional Fire/Rescue Training Center (C814), Commonwealth Fund (C815), and Economic Development Authority (C818) funds will carry over 100% and be re- appropriated to the individual funds. 7. That the Board of Supervisors anticipates receiving various grants, donations, and other miscellaneous revenues. These anticipated funds are appropriated to the Grants Fund for the various functions and purposes as provided therein, and said appropriation shall be acknowledged and allocated to the appropriate fund upon approval by the Board of Supervisors on the Consent Agenda. 8. That the Board of Supervisors approves the County of Roanoke Classification and Pay Plan. The Classification and Pay Plan included as part of this ordinance is effective July 1, 2023. The County Administrator shall implement the County Classification and Pay Plan pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution 082515-1. May 23, 2023 183 9. That the Board of Supervisors recognizes that the General Assembly has presently approved a 5% increase in pay for each of the Commonwealth's elected constitutional officers. The Board desires to further supplement the pay of the County's presently-elected constitutional officers in recognition of the essential services that they perform. Accordingly, in accordance with Section 15.2-1605.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Board appropriates such a supplement to the County's presently-elected 1) Treasurer, 2) Commissioner of Revenue, 3) Clerk of Circuit Court, and 4) Commonwealth's Attorney, in the amount of 13% above the salary set by the General Assembly and State Compensation Board. If, however, the General Assembly amends its proposed budget for fiscal year 203-2024 to adjust the constitutional officers' salary increase to an amount either below or above the presently-approved 5% increase, the supplement provided by the Board of Supervisors will be adjusted so that the compensation received by the County's presently-elected constitutional officers will be commensurate with the Commonwealth's presently- budgeted 5% increase, plus the above-stated 13% County supplement. Such supplement will be provided to each of the presently- elected constitutional officers in future fiscal years, so long as they remain in office, or until the Board of Supervisors takes additional action to reduce, increase, or eliminate such supplement. 10. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2023. On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney NAYS: None (b) Fiscal year 2023-2024 capital budget for the County of Roanoke, Virginia; and There was no discussion. ORDINANCE 052323-3 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were held on April 25, 2023 and May 9, 2023 concerning the adoption of the annual budget for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2023-2024; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved said budget on May 23, 2023, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the 1 84 May 23, 2023 Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 9, 2023 and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2023, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds for the period beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, for the functions and purposes indicated: County of Roanoke,Virginia Fiscal Year 2023-2024 County Capital First Reading May 9,2023;Second Reading May 23,2023 Appropriation Amount Revenues: County Capital: Transfer from General Government Fund $ 7,615,000 County Unrestricted Cash(excl.Transfer from General Govt.Fund) 6,680,078 County Restricted Cash 325,000 Non-County Funding Sources 517,550 Total Revenue-County Capital $ 15,137,628 Expenditures: County Capital: FY 2024 Capital Fund supported by General Government Fund excluding General Government Transfers to ClP&Fleet Replacement $ 4,015,000 FY 2024 Capital Year Budget-Assessments and Studies 750,000 FY 2024 Capital Year Budget-Buildings and Facilities 2,685,000 FY 2024 Capital Year Budget-Computer Infrastructure,Software and Hardware 2,662,628 FY 2024 Capital Year Budget-Capital Maintenance Programs and Recurring 3,825,000 FY 2024 Capital Year Budget-Transportation 500,000 Subtotal, FY 2022 Capital Year Budget 10,422,628 FY 2024 Fleet Replacement Budget 700,000 Total Expenditures-County Capital $ 15,137,628 2. That the County Administrator may authorize or delegate the authorization of the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one project to another so as to provide for the completion of a capital project. May 23, 2023 185 3. That all funded outstanding capital encumbrances at June 30, 2023, are re- appropriated to the 2023-2024 fiscal year to the same account for which they are encumbered in the previous year. 4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project or until the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates the appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to close out the project and transfer to the funding source any remaining balances. This section applies to appropriations for capital projects at June 30, 2023, and appropriations in the 2023-2024 fiscal year budget. 5. That the Board of Supervisors anticipates receiving various grants, donations, and other miscellaneous revenues. These anticipated funds are appropriated to the Grants Fund for the various functions and purposes as provided therein, and said appropriation shall be acknowledged and allocated to the appropriate fund upon approval by the Board of Supervisors on the Consent Agenda. 6. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2023. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney NAYS: None (c) Fiscal year 2023-2024 for Roanoke County Public Schools Categories (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services) There was no discussion. ORDINANCE 052323-4 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CATEGORIES WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were held on April 25, 2023 and May 9, 2023 concerning the adoption of the annual budget for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2023-2024; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved said budget on May 23, 2023, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and 86 May 23, 2023 WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 9, 2023, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2023, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds for the period beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, for the functions and purposes indicated: County of Roanoke,Virginia Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Roanoke County Public Schools Categories First Reading May 9,2023;Second Reading May 23,2023 Appropriation Amount School Categories Schools Instruction $ 141,100,293 Schools Administration,Attendance,and Health 8,937,355 Schools Pupil Transportation 10,790,025 Schools Operation and Maintenance 19,795,233 Schools Food Service and Other Noninstructional Operations 8,534,234 Schools Facilities 28,299,221 Schools Debt and Fund Transfers 22,605,537 Schools Technology 14,015,177 Schools Non-Categorical Spending: Schools Health Insurance Fund $ 20,722,738 Schools Dental Insurance Fund 1,682,564 Schools Risk Management Fund 383,500 Schools Other Post-Employment Benefits Trust Fund 142,790 Schools Activity Funds 3,931,065 $ 26,862,657 Total-Schools Categories $ 280,939,732 2. That the Non-Categorical Spending represents $20,722,738 for the Schools Health Insurance Fund, $1,682,564 for the Schools Dental Insurance Fund, $383,500 for the Schools Risk Management Fund, $142,790 for the Schools Other Post-Employment Benefits Trust Fund, and $3,931,065 in School Activity Funds. May 23, 2023 187 3. That all funded outstanding categorical encumbrances at June 30, 2023, are re-appropriated to the 2023-2024 fiscal year to the same category for which they are encumbered in the previous year. 4. That all appropriations unexpended and remaining at the end of this fiscal year shall, pursuant to Section 22.1-100 of the Code of Virginia, revert to the fund of the Board of Supervisors from which derived, with the expectation that such funds will be re-appropriated back to Roanoke County Public Schools for use the next year, in accordance with Section 10-6 of the County's Comprehensive Financial Policy. 5. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2023. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Public hearing for citizen comments and second reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 10-3 (Levying of License Fees and Taxes) of the Roanoke County Code, raising the threshold of annual gross receipts for those entities required to pay the County Business License Tax (from $135,000 or more to $150,000 or more); and requiring entities that are below that threshold to pay only an annual $50 license fee (Steve Elliott, Budget Administrator) Mr. Elliott outlined the request for the ordinance. No changes since first reading. Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers on this agenda item. There was no discussion. ORDINANCE 052323-5 AMENDING SECTION 10-3 (LEVYING OF LICENSE FEES AND TAXES) OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, RAISING THE THRESHOLD OF ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THOSE ENTITIES REQUIRED TO PAY THE COUNTY BUSINESS LICENSE TAX (FROM $135,000 OR MORE TO $150,000 OR MORE); AND REQUIRING ENTITIES THAT ARE BELOW THE THRESHOLD TO PAY ONLY AN ANNUAL $50 LICENSE FEE 1 88 May 23, 2023 WHEREAS, Section 58.1-3703 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, authorizes localities to enact an ordinance levying a local license tax and/or fee for issuing a business license; and WHEREAS, Section 10-3(1) of the County Code presently imposes a fifty dollar ($50) annual license fee upon those entities whose annual gross receipts (during the prior year) are less than one hundred thirty-five thousand dollars ($135,000); and WHEREAS, Section 10-3(2) of the County Code presently imposes an annual license tax upon those entities whose annual gross receipts (during the prior year) from a business, trade, profession, occupation or calling are one hundred thirty-five thousand dollars ($135,000) or greater; and WHEREAS, in order to encourage and benefit small businesses in Roanoke County, it is proposed that the above County Code provisions be amended to 1) raise the threshold of annual gross receipts for those entities required to pay the County business license tax from one hundred thirty-five thousand dollars ($135,000) or more to one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) or more, and 2) require that entities below the threshold to pay only the annual fifty dollar ($50) license fee; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 9, 2023, and the second reading and public hearing was held on May 23, 2023. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors as follows: 1. That Sections 10-3(a)(1) and (2) of the Roanoke County Code are hereby amended as follows: Sec. 10-3. - Levying of license fees and taxes. (a) Subject to the limitations provided in § 58.1-3703.C. of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), and except as otherwise specifically provided for in this chapter of the Roanoke County Code, there are hereby imposed and levied for each and every year, beginning with January 1 of each year and ending December 31 following, and there shall be collected the following license fees and taxes upon the privilege of doing business or exercising a profession, trade, occupation or calling, including all phases thereof, in the county, which license fees and taxes shall be for the support of the county government, payment of the county debt, and for other county and public purposes: (1) There is hereby imposed and there shall be collected an annual license fee in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) for issuance of a license on businesses, trades, professions, occupations and callings and upon the persons, firms and corporations engaged therein within the county; provided, however, that this license fee shall not be charged to any person whose gross receipts from a business, trade, profession, occupation or calling are one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00) or greater during the preceding calendar year and who is subject to levy and payment of the annual license taxes as provided in subsection (a)(2) hereof; and May 23, 2023 1 89 (2) There is hereby levied and there shall be collected the annual license taxes at the rates and in the amounts hereinafter set forth in this chapter upon any person, firm, or corporation engaged in a business, trade, profession, occupation or calling subject to licensure in the county. Except as may be otherwise authorized by specific or special provisions of chapter 37 (§ 58.1-3700 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and this chapter of the Roanoke County Code, the annual license taxes shall not be imposed upon any person whose gross receipts from a business, profession, trade, occupation or calling are less than o one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.0 ) during the preceding calendar year. 2. All ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 3. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2023. On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney NAYS: None 2. The petition of Boing US Holdco, Inc. to obtain a special use permit to operate a car wash on approximately 1.97 acres of land zoned C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, and CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District, located at 3434 Buck Mountain Road and 5147 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) Mr. Thompson outlined the request for the special use permit. Supervisor Mahoney stated a significant number of documents in our agenda materials references the proposed VDOT work next year. In terms of that intersection. Do you see that VDOT work, if it comes about, having an adverse impact on access ingress and egress to the car wash? Mr. Thompson responded it's going to somewhat, so what it will do, from what his understanding of the drawings, right now, you have that, so the four (4) intersections along Rt. 220, they're making plans for to limit the through movement on the side streets. If you're on Buck Mountain coming onto Rt. 220, you have a left turn, a left through to Walmart and then a right turn. I think with the improvement that's made, you kind of get rid of that middle lane the left through. So potentially if this was built today, you could wait probably and get into those left turn lanes and make the left on. He thinks it's going to be more difficult once those improvements are made at that intersection because you only have the one left turn lane. Supervisor Mahoney asked with regard to the concrete median that's there on 1 90 May 23, 2023 Buck Mountain, would that remain or would that be extended? Mr. Thompson advised it will remain. Supervisor North stated he reached out to VDOT and the car wash will have to deal with a right turn, out a right turn in and a right turn out, which means, that if I'm someone living along Buck Mountain in Brandon Wood or Kings Chase or up there off Starkey Road and I want to take my car to get washed, I'm going to go on down Buck Mountain and I'm going to turn right in. I'm going to go in there, I'm going to get the car washed. Then when I leave, I'm not going to be able to turn left to go back up Buck Mountain and I'm going to have to take a little jaunt down 220 and I can't remember the median size there today. Hopefully it's large enough to accommodate a few vehicles that are going to have to make a U-turn, come back up, catch a left turn stoplight and go back home up Buck Mountain Road or wherever I live off Starkey or over the Cave Spring area. So that exists already today. It's just going to be something you have to contend with tomorrow. So, the one question he has that he couldn't find an answer to in this enormous monstrosity of a package was how many cars are going to be stacked up before they start backing up on Buck Mountain Road? Mr. Thompson responded, so go back to the concept plan, what they show from the pay stations, you can see on the bottom where they're stacked up a little bit, there are 14 cars. There are two rows of seven that come back and they only come back a certain distance, not even to the end of the parking. So, you probably have at least that going back to the entrance; you looking at 28 vehicles potentially. That was the worst-case scenario. It meets our requirements, because there's a requirement for how much stacking you have to have at a drive-through facility, which is what I'll see to consider. Supervisor North then asked is the sidewalk along Franklin Road that was planned already, never mind this application, is that correct? Mr. Thompson advised as part of the application. What they're proposing at both this intersection of Buck Mountain 220 and Indian Grave, is that there will be crosswalks across 220. This is VDOT's proposal. This is part of the project of Rt. 220 that has already been approved advised Mr. Thompson. Andrew Barclay spoke on behalf of the petitioner. Supervisor North inquired about the price point system and any of these located any please else with Mr. Barclay advising they have over 400 locations in the United States. We have different levels for membership and thinks the lowest one's about 15 to $16. Supervisor Mahoney stated this is a challenging intersection and did they have any discussions with the credit union to have a frontage road with Mr. Barclay responding in the negative. Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with the following citizens speaking on this agenda item: Judy Hawks of 5314 Amanda Lane stated, "I'm asking this board to deny the special use permit for a car wash in Clearbrook because it clearly violates the Clearbrook Village overlay (CVOD), and according to Dr. Google, there are already 41 May 23, 2023 191 car washes in Roanoke. We don't need ,number 42, and now I hear we may get 43. When I moved here 20 years ago, I knew the area was zoned commercial, but was so impressed that the residents of this community created a plan for smart economic growth, that it would embrace our culture and had the vision of a village type development with nice shops, restaurants, and maybe a motel or two to welcome travelers from the parkway in 220 into the valley. First it was the Walmart and now a car wash. Is this really the best we can do? Is a board ever going to honor the overlay and vision of growth that the residents who live here want? They dedicated their time and energy to create the CVOD. For what? It's just a waste of time if you keep ignoring the overlay and approving special use permits. We're not opposed to smart growth, and this isn't about Willow Tree, but it would be awesome to incorporate the shop in their village. The store amplifies the culture of Appalachia and the Blue Ridge. The artifacts, primitive item in antiques from the area, all sorts of craft, pottery, jewelry and woodworking, all made from local artisans. In fact, I have a picture of how one the garden is visualized. The village could work, look like. We still have the opportunity to create something unique and different to welcome travelers from the Parkway 220 into the valley. Think of something like an upscale Fancy Gap, Meadows of Dan, Explore Park, Tuggle Gap and other things that dot the Blue Ridge. We can promote tourism, economic growth and have the village that our community works so hard to create. The other reason you should deny the permit is the traffic. Doesn't take a traffic study or engineer to realize the traffic is only going to get worse. You've already discussed the Buck Mountain issue, but at Tanglewood you go from six lanes to four lanes and it's horrific. It backs up at Clearbrook and that's only going to get worse. I remember a few years ago there were plans for a second ingress egress at Buck Mountain Road in 220, but it was going to be very expensive and the developer didn't have to pay for this, and we're going to make the same mistake again. Or will the developer pay for the road improvements to accommodate the traffic or must we wait until VDOT has the time and money to fix the traffic problems? Thank you for your time. Please uphold the CVOD vision this community has for growth." Shelby Campbell of 5498 Indian Grave Road stated she is one street over from Buck Mountain Road. "I've been living there for the majority of my life, so I deal with the traffic, the wrecks, the jam up. Sometimes I barely make it to my stop [inaudible] to get home because I file the traffic. I'm also one of the vendors, a hundred plus give or take, at Willow Tree Antiques since 2018. This place has really turned around and I feel like we give so much back to the community and to Roanoke. I mean you see on TV all the time, people say support the small businesses. That's who we are. We are small businesses and we havegrown tremendously. We are looked after by our owner Robin Barker. She's done a tremendous job with us. I mean, I know, and even in the parking lot, like y'all mentioned, when we are down there and we're trying to leave, we have to sit there to either go, if we want to go to Walmart or if we want to go and get on 220 or even find one to go home, we sit in that parking lot waiting for someone to either let us out or they like to change. But it's been a big deal there with 1 92 May 23, 2023 the traffic, the way it is and everything and you sit and think about the stuff, it's there. We're just a small community. That's all we ever have been. We'll never be a big town, probably and when you think about what's there, we have two stoplights. We have a dealership that changes in and out from one type of car to another. We have an empty motel, we have a graveyard behind, we have a Walmart, an elementary school, a park, fire station, rescue squad, 21 townhouses that's been pushed in behind the elementary school that we filed against. But that didn't have to change. Two doctor's offices, a rundown, excuse me, bug infected motel down the road, one convenience store, one beauty shop, one tattoo shop, one piano shop, and another rundown restaurant's been sitting vacant for many, many years. So, I don't want to see this car wash be squeezed into this small community of family-owned people that know each other for generations back. I just think if it doesn't work, it becomes an eyesore. Then you've labeled it as just a car wash, so the next person that wants it, are they going to have to be a car wash? Well, if it didn't do good the first time, it may not do good the second time. It's that like a building where you can go in and paint it, stain it, add bricks to it, whatever, and make it sellable again. But I just don't think it fits our community and we're not busy there and we all have wells. We can wash our own car in our own yard. But this, just like I said, I just, I'd hate to see this be taken away. We may not make the money that the carwash might make, I don't know. But I just think we work hard to give back to our Valley and we are known by so many people, visitors, people going in and out of states, people coming in there. I'd appreciate it if y'all would stand for us and put this down that the carwash should not fit in our community that we all love and have been there for so many years to see you. Thank you." Marsha Underwood of 2909 Tamarack Trail stated, "I have been a resident of Roanoke County for 53 years, a transplant from Indiana through GE, choosing to stay in Roanoke County after being annexed by the city and wanting our children to have the best education possible. I'm here not as a big business owner, not as an attorney, but as a concerned resident of Roanoke County speaking from the heart. Do visitors who have families in the area or people just traveling the 220 corridor to other destinations stop and say, "Oh, there's a car wash, let's go check it out." No, I don't think so. But I know firsthand and I have heard many times, "We love stopping in at the Willow Tree when we visit," or, "I was driving by last weekend on my way to the beach and saw the Willow Tree yard sale." This lady just,had to stop, shop and that was on her way to North Carolina taking her purchase treasures to share with her friends. This would not happen if a carwash was on that corner. I know the Clearbrook area is a close-knit community. Unfortunately, the owner of Willow Tree, a lifelong resident was outbid by big business from out of state. Is this what we want from Roanoke County? To not support those whose dreams or to have a business and choose Roanoke County as their choice to have it?And not only is this one big business owner's dream, but also the dreams of 75 vendors who have their little shops in Willow Tree Antiques and Primitives. I am one of those vendors.and I have been,one for eight years. We love our customers and are always so excited to hear how much they love browsing, shopping May 23, 2023 193 and finding unique items, not just not found elsewhere, only at Willow Tree. Will they say the same about a car wash? I don't think so. Being frequently at Willow Tree, I also have observed firsthand the traffic and many accidents on the corner of Buck Mountain Road and 220, there is not an easy access into this property. Would a carwash make this a more difficult corner for traffic? Maybe so. In closing, I was at the planning commissions meeting and I know now it is in your hands to make the final decision. Is big business best or is it best to support your community? I think supporting your community is best. Thank you so much. Oh and by the way, Willow Tree Antiques and Primitives was voted platinum in the Roanoker Magazine's best of 2023. Thank you so much." Supervisor Radford stated one of the speakers talked about the Clearbrook Village Overlay District and that this petition does not meet the requirements and asked Mr. Thompson to explain. Mr. Thompson advised the way he understands it is that it happened is there was a citizens committee that was formed to develop the design guidelines piece, and so in your document there's the design guidelines piece. It talks about how the placement of buildings and the village concept and certain things like that, about the architectural treatment and some of those things as well, and also talked about a lot of issues that were site development related. A lot of those requirements were incorporated into the overlay district ordinance, and so they're going to have to meet those, one way or the other. But when you get to how it looks, right, the architectural treatment, that's going to be more in the design guidelines piece and how it's laid out and what they envisioned for that back in the late '90s, the 2000s, so that's where it's probably inconsistent with that. Some of the design guidelines in the design guideline document. Supervisor Radford then asked are we here because of the special permit that is needed. Mr. Thompson responded the special use permit is because of the C2 district, not the CVOD. The C2 district requires a special use permit for a car wash. Supervisor Mahoney commented he is not a fan of car washes. The Cave Spring district already has four and this will make five. He agrees with many of the comments that Ms. Hawks made. He has been around here too long and was part of the process when we were putting in the car dealerships and the Walmart and the overlay district was part of that and the design guidelines were part of that. He hates to admit it, but in some respect, the County's attempt to accomplish I think what Ms. Hawks is talking about, has not come to fruition. We had hoped that the overlay district and the design guidelines would help jumpstart the development in that part of the Clearbrook community and part of that initiative also included extending water and sewer lines along Buck Mountain underneath the parkway. We had to get congressional approval for that, to extend water and sewer to that part of Clearbrook, and it just hasn't developed as we had hoped. With respect to this specific application, traffic is a problem and for the life of me, he cannot imagine how the applicant will be successful. He thinks it's going to be very challenging to get in and out, but at the same time, he does not know if it's government's role to save somebody from their own financial decisions. If 194 May 23, 2023 you're successful, but fear that you will not be successful because it's so hard to get in and out. Part of the headache for this site is VDOT, and I'm not blaming VDOT, please, don't misinterpret me, but VDOT has certain regulations with respect to road cuts that you can have on Rt. 220. So, this property has a substantial amount of frontage, but VDOT does not allow the company to have another road cut directly onto Rt. 220, and that has been true for Willow Tree. Before Willow Tree, it was a gun shop. They've all had the same challenges with respect to road access. I think that's going to be a problem, and that when VDOT goes through with its 2024 plans, it will make that intersection even more challenging. But having said all that, I really don't see a basis to deny the application. There was no further discussion. ORDINANCE 052323-6 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO BOING US HOLDCO, INC. TO OPERATE A CAR WASH ON APPROXIMATELY 1.97 ACRES OF LAND ZONED C-2 (HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) AND CVOD (CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT), LOCATED AT 3434 BUCK MOUNTAIN ROAD AND 5147 FRANKLIN ROAD (TAX MAP NO: 088.03-02-01.00-0000), IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Boing US Holdco, Inc. has filed a petition for a special use permit to operate a car wash on approximately 1.97 acres of land zoned C-2 (High Intensity Commercial) District and CVOD (Clearbrook Village Overlay District), located at 3434 Buck Mountain Road and 5147 Franklin Road (Tax Map No: 088.03-02-01.00-0000), in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 25, 2023, and the second reading and public hearing were held on May 23, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on May 2, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition to obtain a special use permit, with two conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. The Board finds that the proposed special use meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Board further finds that the proposed special use is in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, and will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. 3. The special use permit is hereby approved, with the following conditions: May 23, 2023 195 a. The car wash shall be developed in substantial conformance with the concept site plan and conceptual landscaping plan for Take 5 Car Wash prepared by Pennoni Associates, Inc. dated March 3, 2023, subject to any changes required during the comprehensive site plan review process. b. The car wash shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the architectural renderings titled Take 5 Car Wash Roanoke VA prepared by COR3 Design, LLC, subject to any changes required during the building plan review process. 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to approve the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, North, Radford NAYS: Supervisors Peters, Hooker 3. The petition of Martie Murphy to obtain a special use permit to operate a car wash on approximately 5.995 acres of land zoned C- 2 (High Intensity Commercial District), and C-2C (High Intensity Commercial District with conditions) located at 3939 Valley Gateway Boulevard, Vinton Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) Mr. Thompson outlined the request for special use permit. Supervisor North commented this property was excavated by a prior owner or the current owner and they abandoned the property with their plans for what we believe was a grocery store. Mr. Thompson responded in the affirmative stating it was a Lidl grocery store. Supervisor North noted there was a lot of granite rock issues there. You can see the rocks still piled up. Has there been any concern about the applicant involving the rock? Mr. Thompson advised it has been mentioned to the applicant, but has not heard of any concerns. Supervisor North then asked if any market analysis was done by the petitioner that was shared with staff during the application process? Mr. Thompson responded in the negative. Supervisor North then asked if there have been any other interested parties with respect, to this property. Mr. Thompson responded in the negative. Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak on this agenda item. Supervisor Peters commented he has heard from a lot of people. Along that Rt. 460 corridor and thinks so has Supervisor North. His first response was is this the highest and best use for this property; on top of that it is right on Rt. 460. In his 196 May 23, 2023 opinion, it would be a prime piece of land for retail shops or restaurants that everyone in the Bonsack area is wanting more of. He struggled with this one. Supervisor Radford wanted to give a counterpoint to what Supervisor Peters is saying. He heard and appreciated all the emails. We operate in the free enterprise and it's not up to us to say how many restaurants, car washes, hotels, motels that we can build in there. The people might want have all those restaurants, where are they? Why aren't they there now? Why is it taking them so long? We tore down of Ruby Tuesdays in Cave Springs to put in a car wash. So, there's a clear good example. That argument does not work. So, I side on the free enterprise and like Mr. Mahoney said, if the applicant wants to take the risk, let them take the risk and push that project. If they're successful, that's great. He also hears highest and best use, but they check all the boxes to be able to put a car wash-there. He just wanted to give you a counterpoint to hear. Supervisor Peters noted Chick-Fil-A just came in not that long ago. The Lewis Scale Center just came in. The Kroger complex itself is not really that old. And you look at, you got Applebee's. I mean that corridor has development purposes. Have I potential is you've got the other homes that are on right on 460 just past the little scale clinic that we put in. It's a main thoroughfare through there. That is one of our last corridors to develop. And in my opinion, and I think that we need to be very strategic on what we put down there. You're right, they could put a car wash down there, but what if it's not successful? Then we have three car washes within a mile of each other. We have the Blue Hills, this one and then the one that's already in the complex, literally right beside this one. So, I guess that's my concern is that I'm hearing from the citizens and I'm hearing what they're saying and that that's the reason for my comment. Supervisor North noted that both gentlemen have good points; no five (5) districts are the same. He cannot support this site for a car wash. There was no further discussion. ORDINANCE 052323-7 DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO MARTIE MURPHY TO OPERATE A CAR WASH ON APPROXIMATELY 5.995 ACRES OF LAND ZONED C-2 (HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) AND C-2C (HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS), LOCATED AT 3939 VALLEY GATEWAY BOULEVARD (TAX MAP NO: 050.01-01-05.06-0000), IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Martie Murphy has filed a petition_for a special use permit to operate a car wash on approximately 5.995 acres of land which is split zoned C-2 (High Intensity Commercial) District and C-2C (High Intensity Commercial) District with existing May 23, 2023 197 conditions, located at 3939 Valley Gateway Boulevard (Tax Map No: 050.01-01-05.06- 0000), in the Vinton Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the said property contains the following two (2) conditions imposed upon the parcel by Ordinance#072506-8 adopted on July 25, 2006: (1) Before a certificate of occupancy can be issued for any building constructed along the southern border of the property, a row of staggered evergreen trees will be installed along said southern border at or near the top of the slope above the existing storm water detention facility. Trees will be spaced 12' on center and will extend from one end of the building or buildings along that border to the other end. It is estimated that this would result in the planting of no more than 45 trees. (2) Screening shall be provided for HVAC rooftop units on the building or buildings located along the southern border of the property in order to shield those units from the view of residents situated directly behind the Integrity Windows facility. Screening shall be in the form of covers or parapet walls, and shall be a neutral color. WHEREAS, the petitioner has not requested amendment or removal of the two (2) conditions imposed upon the parcel by Ordinance #072506-8 adopted on July 25, 2006; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 25, 2023, and the second reading and public hearing were held on May 23, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on May 2, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition to obtain a special use permit, with two conditions; and WHEREAS, during the public hearing on May 23, 2023 the Board considered the Planning Commission's recommendation, considered the recommendation of County staff, and thoroughly deliberated the petition; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 5. The Board finds that the proposed special use is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted comprehensive plan or good zoning practice. 6. The Board further finds that the proposed special use will result in substantial detriment to the community. 7. The special use permit is hereby denied. 1 98 May 23, 2023 On motion of Supervisor Peters to deny the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, North, Hooker NAYS: Supervisors Mahoney, Radford IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 052323-8 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 May 23, 2023, 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 13 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes— February 28, 2023 2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of $51,000 for fiscal year 2024 for shuttle service to the National Park Service's McAfee Knob Trailhead Parking Lot, Catawba Magisterial District (Second Reading) 3. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $187,242 in Virginia Department of Transportation Open Container Funding for the West Roanoke River Greenway Phase 1 (VDOT UPC No. 97171) Project, Catawba Magisterial District (Second Reading) 4. The petition of Larry and Rhonda Conner to obtain a special use permit to operate a. short-term rental on approximately 1.32 acres of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 5859 Bent Mountain Road, Windsor Hill Magisterial District (First Reading and request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) 5. The petition of Parker Design Group, Inc. to obtain a special use permit for religious assembly on approximately 2.91 acres of land zoned C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, located on Oakland Boulevard between 233 Hershberger Road and 4843 Oakland Boulevard, Hollins Magisterial District (First Reading and request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) 6. Resolution approving the first Amendment to the County Administrator's Employment Agreement 7. Resolution approving the first Amendment to the County Attorney's Employment Agreement May 23, 2023 1 99 8. Confirmation of appointment to the Community Policy & Management Team (CPMT); Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization (TPO); Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission; Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee; Virginia Western Community College Board; Western Virginia Water Authority 9. Resolution accepting a donation of a recycling trailer from Cox Communications for additional capacity at Fallowater Lane 10. Resolution requesting the U.S. Department of Transportation fund a Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant to install Electric Vehicle Chargers in Roanoke 11. Request to approve fiscal agent agreement for the Regional Center for Animal Care and Protection (RCACP 12. Request to approve a fiscal agent agreement with the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 13. Request to approve a fiscal agent agreement with the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority On motion of Supervisor North to approve the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None ORDINANCE 052323-8.a ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 FOR SHUTTLE SERVICE TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S MCAFEE KNOB TRAILHEAD PARKING LOT IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the National Park Service's McAfee Knob Overlook is one of the most highly visited locations along the Appalachian National Scenic Trail; and WHEREAS, the proposed shuttle service was studied by the National Park Service as the baseline service scenario in the February 2021 Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Triple Crown Area Transit Feasibility Study; and WHEREAS, the proposed shuttle service is included as part of Recommendation 1.Z. in the Roanoke Valley Transit Vision Plan, which was approved by the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization on September 22, 2016; and WHEREAS, the proposed shuttle service to the National Park Service's McAfee Knob Trailhead Parking Lot meets the goals of the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) Demonstration Project Assistance grant by offering a creative approach in determining a new travel market for public transportation, as well as by improving the utilization and productivity of an existing public transportation service with a connection to the Smart Way bus route at the 1-81 Exit 140 Park and Ride; and 200 May 23, 2023 WHEREAS, Roanoke County received $40,800 in Demonstration Project Assistance grant funding through DRPT for fiscal year 2024, which provides eighty (80) percent of net operating costs to operate the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County agrees to provide $10,200 for fiscal year 2024, which totals twenty (20) percent of net operating costs to match the DRPT operating funding; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 9, 2023, and the second reading was held on May 23, 2023. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the sum of $51,000 is accepted and appropriated for the purpose of the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle program. 2. That this ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to approve the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None ORDINANCE 052323-8.b ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING $187,242 I N VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OPEN CONTAINER FUNDING FOR THE WEST ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY PHASE 1 (VDOT UPC 97171) PROJECT, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Roanoke County desires to construct segments of the Roanoke River Greenway between Montgomery County and Franklin County to complete the backbone of the Roanoke Valley greenway system; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County is administering of the West Roanoke River Greenway Phase 1 (VDOT UPC No. 97171) project proposed along West Riverside Drive in Roanoke County and the City of Salem; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 2022, the Board of Supervisors approved the re- allocation of $4,524,105 in previously appropriated SMART SCALE funding and the re- allocation of $4,352,469 in previously appropriated Surface Transportation Block Grant Program funding to the West Roanoke River Greenway Phase 1 project grant account; WHEREAS, in September 2022, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) allocated $187,242 in Open Container funds to this project to satisfy a funding deficit prior to project phasing; and May 23, 2023 201 WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 9, 2023, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2023. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: 1. That the sum of $187,242 in Open Container funds is hereby accepted from the Virginia Department of Transportation and appropriated to the West Roanoke River Greenway Phase 1 project grant account; and 2. That Roanoke County hereby agrees to continue fulfilling the project administration agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation to provide the necessary oversight to ensure the project is developed in accordance with all state and federal requirements for design, right of way acquisition and construction of a federally funded transportation project; and 3. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby grants authority for the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator to execute project agreements. 4. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to approve the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None A-052323-8.c A-052323-8.d RESOLUTION 052323-8.e APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and Richard L. Caywood entered into an employment agreement on December 14, 2021; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board and Mr. Caywood to amend the agreement dated December 14, 2021, in order to compensate Mr. Caywood in an amount commensurate with the salaries of County Administrators in comparable localities throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows: 202 May 23, 2023 1. The proposed First Amendment to the County Administrator's Employment Agreement, dated May 23, 2023, which is hereby attached to this Resolution, is approved; the Chairman is authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the Board. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None RESOLUTION 052323-8.f APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and Peter S. Lubeck entered into an employment agreement on January 14, 2020, and subsequently entered into a second, revised agreement on June 8, 2021, which replaced the prior agreement; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board and Mr. Lubeck to amend the agreement dated June 8, 2021 in order to compensate Mr. Lubeck in an amount commensurate with the salaries of County Attorneys in comparable localities throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows: 1. The proposed First Amendment to the County Attorney's Employment Agreement, dated May 23, 2023, which is hereby attached to this Resolution, is approved; the Chairman is authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the Board. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None A-052323-8.g RESOLUTION 052323-8.h ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF A RECYCLING TRAILER FROM COX COMMUNICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL CAPACITY AT FALLOWATER LANE May 23, 2023 203 WHEREAS, in 2005, Roanoke County initiated a mobile drop-off recycling program which has grown since its inception to include trailers at the Brambleton Center, Cox Communications, William Byrd Middle School and Glenvar Middle School; and WHEREAS, the expanded recycling program was due in part to the provision of a drop-off location and donation of trailers to the County by Cox Communications as a part of their Cox Conserves environmental program—Cox Communications has corporately invested over one hundred million dollars in sustainability and conservation projects, to include initiatives related to emissions, water conservation and landfill impacts; and WHEREAS, Cox Communications continues their partnership and investment in recycling by providing use of their property on Fallowater Lane as a drop-off location for all County citizens, where the County currently has three trailers; and WHEREAS, Cox Communications would like to donate another trailer to handle the heavy flow of traffic at this site. The price of the new trailer is $21,220 and matches the specification requirements of the County; and WHEREAS, Solid Waste employees will continue to be responsible for hauling the recyclable materials to the processor and maintenance of the trailer and site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows: 1. The Board hereby accepts the donation of the recycling trailer. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None RESOLUTION 052323-8.i REQUESTING THAT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUND A CHARGING AND FUELING INFRASTRUCTURE DISCRETIONARY GRANT TO INSTALL ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE AT EXPLORE PARK, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors is committed to advocating for and improving transportation infrastructure in both the County and in the region; and WHEREAS, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funded the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Discretionary Grant Opportunity to strategically deploy charging and alternative fueling infrastructure to accelerate an electrified and alternative fuel 204 May 23, 2023 111 transportation system that is convenient, affordable, reliable, equitable, accessible and safe; and WHEREAS, locating electric vehicle charging stations at Explore Park meets the requirements of the CFI Community Program; and WHEREAS, installing electric vehicle charging stations at Explore Park will provide a needed charging station along the Blue Ridge Parkway and in the rural area of Roanoke County that will also be beneficial for visitors to Explore Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors requests the U.S. Department of Transportation fund a CFI Discretionary Grant through the Community Program to locate electric vehicle charging stations at Explore Park. 2. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby commits to provide a twenty percent (20%) matching contribution for a CFI Discretionary Grant, up to and not to exceed $200,000. 3. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby grants authority for the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator of Assistant County Administrator to execute project agreements for an approved CFI Discretionary Grant. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None A-052323-8.j A-052323-8.k A-052323-8.I IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Greg Sasnof of 806 Huff Road, Pilot, Virginia stated, "I'm proud to serve the citizens of Roanoke County as both fire captain and the president of Local 31 94 Roanoke County Professional firefighters and paramedics. On behalf of the professional firefighters that serve our citizens and travelers through Roanoke County, we thank you for the time you have spent over the.years meeting with your constituents and our members about our shared concerns and helping us find solutions. In those years we've developed good relationships and these relationships didn't happen overnight. We had a lot to work through initially, but in the end, I believe it is evident that our union is dedicated to its members in making our county a better place for our citizens and the May 23, 2023 2055 employees as are the Board of Supervisors and our county administration. The step plan that you approved earlier shows how much Roanoke County values our public safety employees and ensures that Roanoke County will continue to deliver superior services to our citizens and. remain the employer of choice for public safety professionals in our region. Thank you all. Appreciate every one of you." Charles Wertilik of 2317 Bloomfield Avenue in the Summerfield subdivision stated, I'm here because of Glo Fiber. "I've become very, very sick of paying the high cost and putting up with the bad service of Cox Communications. But we were pretty much stuck with them and I didn't feel like going to one of the satellite dish possibilities. So, when Glo Fiber came in, and although May they made a big mess of the subdivision, I'm glad that they did come in because they have afforded a much more cost-effective and reasonably priced situation for internet and TV. And so here I am being happy that this is happening. I have signed up with them and I've got the internet part of it. So yesterday a gentleman from Glo Fiber came to the house. He was soliciting business. He wasn't aware that I had the set up already. So I asked him about the TV part of it. I said, I'm hoping that this will be coming through soon. I understand that it's in process. And he said, no, it's not going to happen. The Board of Supervisors have stonewalled. So, I'm here to ask you folks today, is this true? And if so, why? Supervisor Peters advised we have a franchise agreement with Cox, for ten years that will run until the 2020's, which makes television exclusive. Supervisor Radford added Glo Fiber is more competitive with the internet versus Cox. They'll give you the streaming. You can stream TV through Glo fiber and their rate is a lot lower than Cox in terms of the cable, the broadband. I mean, Glo Fiber is going to a competitor for broadband, not cable W. Mr. Wertilik responded, "so we're stuck with Cox until 2029." Supervisor Radford stated for cable TV, but not for internet. Supervisor Peters stated he knows we normally do our comments at the end, but he would like to comment now, because the guys and ladies in the room that are here with now, and we probably won't see them here at 7:00 p.m., but he wants to recognize our fire and EMS. This is EMS week from the State of Virginia where we recognize our EMS providers. Last week we recognized our law enforcement. He just wanted to let them know how much we appreciate them. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Radford moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 206 May 23, 2023 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of April 30, 2023 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of April 30, 2023 5. Accounts Paid —April 30, 2022 Chairman Hooker recessed to the 3rd floor for work session at 4:45 p.m. IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Work session to discuss the employee engagement study results (Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator; Judy England- Joseph, Consultant, Institute for Public Sector Employee Engagement) Mr. Caywood provided an overview and turned the meeting over to Judy England-Joseph who provided a PowerPoint presentation. Supervisor North commented pay and benefits is the most important. The work session was held from 4:54 p.m. until 5:47 p.m. Chairman Hooker opened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. The petition of Terio and Lisa Comerose to remove the existing proffered conditions on approximately 14.713 acres of land zoned AVCS (AgriculturalNillage Center District with conditions and special use permit) and AR (Agricultural/Residential District) located at 9651 Bent Mountain Road, 9744 Tinsley Lane, and 9786 Tinsley Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) Mr. Thompson outlined the request for the special use permit. Andrew Stover, representing Mr. and Ms. Comerose provided brief overview. Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens speaking on this agenda item. There was no discussion. ORDINANCE 052323-9 REMOVING THE EXISTING PROFFERED CONDITION ON APPROXIMATELY 14.713 ACRES OF LAND ZONED AVCS (AGRICULTURAL/VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT May 23, 2023 207 WITH CONDITIONS AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT) AND AR (AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT), LOCATED AT 9651 BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD, 9744 TINSLEY LANE, AND 9786 TINSLEY LANE, LOCATED IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP NOS: 103.00-02-21.00- 0000, 103.00-02-21.01-0000, AND 103.00-02-23.00-0000) WHEREAS, Terio and Lisa Comerose have filed a petition to remove a proffered condition on approximately 14.713 acres (three separate parcels) located at 9651 Bent Mountain Road, 9744 Tinsley Lane, and 9786 Tinsley Lane in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the said property contains the following one (1) condition imposed upon the parcel by Ordinance#121311-12 adopted on December 13, 2011: (3) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan prepared by Pierson Engineering and Surveying, dated November 28, 2011, and the architectural renderings prepared by Interactive Design Group dated July 18, 2011. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 25, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on May 2, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning as requested to remove the one (1) proffered condition currently existing on the property; and WHEREAS, the second reading and public hearing were held on May 23, 2023. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 8. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted comprehensive plan, is good zoning practice, and will not result in substantial detriment to the community. 9. Accordingly; the Board approves the rezoning request; the following condition imposed by Ordinance #121311-12 adopted on December 13, 2011 is hereby removed as follows: (1) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan prepared by Pierson Engineering and Surveying, dated November 28 2011 and the archive oral renderings preparc�y rrv�crrrvc-rc ,zvrz�rn-rcr Tcc cna`"'�.��a `"'fp' Interactive Design Group rlated Iuly 18 o2011 10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. On motion of Supervisor Radford to approve the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote: 208 May 23, 2023 AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North,Radford, Hooker NAYS: None 2. The petition of Hugo Jimenez to 1) rezone approximately 1.24 acres of land from C-1 (Low Intensity Commercial District) to I-1 (Low Intensity Industrial District), and to 2) obtain a special use permit to operate a construction yard located at 5681 Starkey Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) Mr. Thompson outlined the request for the rezoning. Petitioner Hugo Jimenez was in attendance and outlined his request to rezone and a special use permit. Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with the following citizens to speak on this agenda item: Steve Cronemeyer of 5615 Rockbridge Court, Chantilly Place thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak in opposition to this request. He stated, "As you can probably already tell I'm a slow talker, but I'll try to keep with the three minutes as best I can. Thank you. I oppose this request for two reasons. First, it's negative impact on the quality of life for those of us residing at this particular end of Starkey Road. Second, this rezoning request does not comply with Roanoke County's comprehensive plan or with the requirements for zoning as an 11 low intensity industrial zone. Please allow me to elaborate on these two points if I could. First to neighborhood impact. The impact on our neighborhood is really a tale of almost two different and completely different Starkey roads. The other end of Starkey near 419 is a busy corridor and heavily developed with a mix of commercial and industrial properties. In fact, this end of Starkey is where the applicant currently has his business. On the other end, our end of Starkey Road from Crescent Boulevard to Buck Mountain Road is two-lane, quiet and primarily residential. It's as if we're talking about two completely different Starkey Roads. A landscaping operation with 11 trailers, seven pickup trucks, three dump trucks and excavators' tors will bring unwanted traffic, noise and dust. And is wholly out of character with our end of Starkey Road. And as was mentioned, the applicant already operates at the other end of Starkey Road, but this will bring more traffic to our end of the Starkey Road. And these vehicles and the equipment entering Starkey Road right at the mouth of the new roundabout that's under construction during the morning and the afternoon. Commuting hours when the workers are coming to and from this site will create an accident hazard and totally undermine the traffic flow and benefits of the new roundabout that's being built. And those living across the street from this parcel as I do, will see our quality of life and property values decline by introducing industrial zoning to a quiet residential neighborhood. Turning to the zoning issues. First, the comprehensive plan indicates future land use designation at a parcel is core with appropriate land use types including May 23, 2023 209 retail, personal services, offices and institutional uses. This request as described earlier, falls in the category of a limited industrial use. According to the comprehensive plan, limited industrial uses are only allowed in core areas that have been designated as economic opportunity areas. This parcel is not located in a designated economic opportunity area, and the fact that this requirement dates to 1998 doesn't change the fact that it's still a requirement of the comprehensive plan. For this reason alone, this request should be denied. Second, the verbiage for section 30-61 for low intensity industrial districts notes that these areas are primarily designated based on the suitability of the land in terms of slope and freedom from flooding. As the flood plain map clearly has shown, the vast majority of this parcel is in a flood way or a flood plain. So, from a flooding perspective, the parcel does not qualify to be rezoned to 11. In summary I ask that you deny this application due to its nonconformance with both the county's comprehensive plan and the requirements for 11 zoning, it's violation of Roanoke County stormwater regulations and how it will totally change the character of our neighborhood. Thank you for the opportunity. Consider my comments." Kathy Vanness of 5615 Rockbridge Court stated, "My husband and I recently moved there and we attended the public hearing earlier in the month. I'd also just like for the record to state my opposition to the proposal. Steve has covered a lot of the things we've talked about in our household and with our neighbors there as we've gotten to know the area. But I just wanted to point out a couple of other things from my perspective, the water issue within the floodplain. In the hearing last time, we were informed that there would not be any stockpiling of materials, which could be in danger of being run off during a flood situation. And it wasn't clear how that would be monitored. We know that landscaping companies, that's just part of their trade and I can't imagine that there would not be a time when a trailer would be filled with a mulch or there might not be materials on that site, even temporarily. So, I just wondered how that would be monitored by the county to ensure that that would not endanger the watershed there in the event of a flood. Given this fragile state of all of our waters, why would the county purposely endorse a known risk if we could avoid something like that? And how would that be monitored? During the hearing; I learned that the applicant operated a similar construction yard. The one person who spoke in support of that application was the owner of that property, who would certainly have a personal benefit from the rezoning taking place. I just wondered, given the concern of the current permanent residence who live in that area, how the business opportunity of one person, who's not a resident of the county, could outweigh the concerns of the many, many people who have expressed a concern in that area, who make their homes there, who own property there and are concerned about their property values? I just wanted the board of supervisors to consider who their allegiance is to? Residents, current residents of the county, or a business owner who's already operating in the county, already paying taxes presumably on his business, but the many real estate taxpayers in the area that would outweigh the one business who presumably would continue to operate at his current site if he's not issued this rezoning request. I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you very much." 210 May 23, 2023 Fred Corbett of 5511 Stearnes Avenue stated, "He lives a couple of blocks away from the proposed rezoning location. I sent all the supervisors at a letter or email, excuse me, an email. Did y'all, everybody get a chance to read that? Okay, if you read all my points there, another thing I wanted to bring up too was that it was mentioned earlier that the planning commission approved this on a vote. But the vote was two to one, so it's not really unanimous. It was unanimous, but I guess it was two to one, but some of the commissioners weren't there at the primary commission. Just wanted to point that out. I just do have some strong feelings about this. I did send you all some pictures of the conceptual maps as well, and I pointed some things out there about what other companies have done in the area to shield their property and things like that. Having lived in that community for many years and my grandparents had that property over there for years. I bought a lot from them and built my house back in 1989. But I have another house. I've been back there since 1976, so I've been in the neighborhood for a long, long time, my whole life, basically... adult life. But I just hate to see anything like this changed. Our community is a very close-knit community. Most of the citizens have been there for years and years. We were very conscientious about what we do, pay our tax and all that. We'd just like for you to consider denying this request because we want to keep our neighborhood like it's been for eons. Thank you, folks, for the time." Michele Meinhart of 1486 Hollybrook Road in Salem, which is Roanoke County, stated, "I have a house in Roanoke County. I'm very vested in our community. I am hoping to sell this property to my landscaper, who's been providing landscaping services in Roanoke County for quite a few years. He's done a great job of maintaining the property. It looks great now and it has for the entire time that I've owned it. He had to ask for rezoning to the industrial, because to operate a landscaping business. He wasn't allowed to park his trucks with the current commercial. But I'm sure you know that whole area around that building is commercial, except for across the street is a residential home, but then commercial all to the sides. I think he's done a great job for our community and I hope he's able to just continue operating his business..Thank you." Linda Kolnok of 5644 Rockbridge Court stated, "and I'm president of the Chantilly Place Homeowner Association. Our little street is made up of 17 condos and our street is directly across from Friendship Rehab on Starkey Road. I am here to represent the people that live on this quiet street. I would like everyone that lives on Rock Bridge Court to raise their hand to show that we do not support this rezoning from commercial to industrial district, so that a special use permit to operate a construction yard can be obtained. The main concern is letting a construction landscape company move in across the small bridge from the much-needed roundabout that the government is putting in at Starkey and Buck Mountain Road;to relieve the traffic congestion. This business is going to cause traffic problems when dump trucks, pickup trucks with trailers, and pickups with equipment try to-turn left onto their property after they have come through the roundabout from Buck Mountain. This property is sitting in a flood plain and its realty flat number three of section 30-74 Flood Plain Overlay District of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance states, May 23, 2023 211 "stockpiling of materials in the flood way is prohibited." Who is going to regulate this? Do you think that he is not going to store mulch, gravel, and Excedrin if he gets a good deal? We have a lot of small to large vehicle traffic noise, and traffic backs up to our street several times a day. We don't need more large vehicle traffic to cause problems on Starkey Road. Also, our concerns are pollution, equipment leaks especially into nearby creek, noise, dust and being in an eyesore. This is a residential area from our street up to Starkey and we would like to see most of it stay that way south of us. We are asking you to vote no on this rezoning. Thank you." "Lew McClung of 1486 Hollybrook Road in Salem stated, "There have been some comments about the flood way and flood plain. I own McClung Lumber. The structure there was recently burned to the ground, but we operated in a flood plain for many years. In fact, my first day of bringing the computer online was the flood of '85. Not a good day. And we got flooded. We had about three feet of water. There is no better business in the world than one that can get off the property quickly. My dad's car got off the property by going down the creek next to the building. So, when it floods, you don't want to be on it. The fact of stockpiling material and all those things... I think the neighbors will be vigilant enough to monitor that type of activity. So, I don't think that that's a reason for concern. The whole point of the roundabout that's going in is to reduce traffic. The only problem I've seen with roundabouts is people not knowing how to negotiate them. And that is, it says yield, not stop.. You put your signal on when exiting so that people know whether they can enter it. It's a pretty easy process. The stop signs alone that they've put in for the process have_helped the traffic. Traffic backs up on Starkey Road heavily. That would be a problem for anybody, anytime. I tried to get out of that property, I was just waiting for someone to be off their phone long enough to let me through. But now the roundabout will take care of that stack. I do feel that this business is not going to be an impact. In fact, if you drove it and looked now, there's a light buffer of trees currently in the area where he's proposing to improve that buffer. As you come down the property, you see the house and then you see... It's a very little bit of driveway. If you're paying attention to what's in front of you, which is also a rarity, at times, then by the time you can look back on the property, you've got to be doing that. Or the buffer that's there already is quite adequate. I think the increased buffer, and... do feel that he added all those extra vehicles and things so that vigilant neighbors wouldn't say, "oh, you only showed three trailers before and now you've got four." I think he loaded the property with what he could put there, so that he could hit the max. This business is not going to have a negative impact on the neighborhood and I hope you'll pass it. Thank you." Tommy Smith of 5627 Rockbridge Court stated, ". My wife and I.live right around the corner from the proposed site that's in question. First of all, thank you for your service to the county. Thank you for allowing just regular citizens like us to express what we think about things. Great country to live in. I wanted you to know that my wife and I are strongly opposed to this proposed construction. I'm going to try to give you five reasons unless the clock runs out on me. I wrote it down so 212 May 23, 2023 won't ramble, okay? First of all, locating a construction yard at the proposed address will affect the property values and the way of life for the folks that live there. In Chantilly Place,. I'm selfish because that's where I live. But right across from that is Crescent Heights, one of the oldest communities in South County, and they're going to be affected by this and have already been affected by some of the changes that have taken place. Other neighborhoods not too far away that may not even know what's going on are going to be affected by the next thing I want to talk about, which is the flow of the traffic. I'm sorry, but this construction will increase the flow of heavy equipment on our end of Starkey Road. We can't do a thing about what's going on on the other end because it's already there. But we can stand up and object to have an hour end of Starkey Road end up just like the other end of Starkey Road and have our community affected. We are thrilled with the roundabout that's going in there. It's been needed. We're looking forward to it. But negotiating a roundabout, most of us do know how to negotiate a roundabout. But it's going to be difficult to negotiate a roundabout with 10 dump trucks going through it at peak traffic times. Like in the morning, people going to work, school, or coming home in the evening and the workmen coming in at the same time. So, it is going to create a problem. The problem with the extra traffic is also going to create a safety hazard. I'm a selfish man. I've got six grandchildren that drive through there. And they come to see their grandmother to eat chicken. And I hate the thought that they're going to dodge 10 dump trucks to get there. I'm serious about that. We all worry about our family when they're on the road. I do think that it is going to be a safety hazard having all of that extra traffic in that area. Also concerned that changing this zoning, making this zoning request take place, is going to make it a lot harder to ever say no to the next person that comes along, regardless of which area they might be in. Our neighborhoods can't just keep on eroding from businesses .that are moving into them. I think everything else that I have written down here has already been said, and I'm not going to bore you for hearing it over and over. But I just want you to know that we strongly object to this construction there. And this has nothing to do with Mr. Jimenez and his integrity or his honesty. He's promised that he'll keep this place clean and going. I know he'll do everything in his power to do it, but the very nature of that business is going to be very, very difficult to do that. Thank you very much for your time." Supervisor Mahoney commented, "Listening to the citizens and reading their emails, I hear three major objections to the application. The first one is traffic, and I think there will be some negative traffic impacts. At the same time, Mr. Jimenez is operating his existing business half mile up the road on Starkey. Now that's different there, as Mr. Cronemeyer indicated, it's Starkey, there is four lanes wide and this area is two lanes wide. I think we all know, or at least if you live in that area, and I've lived here May 23, 2023 213 30, 38 years, and I probably go through that intersection four or five times a week. That part of Starkey and Buck Mountain is the shortcut. It's the cut through. A lot of the trucks from the fuel terminal don't go out on 419. They go down Starkey, go down Buck Mountain, to get on 220 heading south. I know when my wife and I go to Walmart, we don't go down 419 and 220. We go down Starkey and Buck Mountain. There is a tremendous amount of traffic there and I would really hope that the roundabout solves a lot of that problem. The second objection is flooding. If you look at the flood maps, almost all the property's in flood plain or flood way. I think what makes a difference though, as was mentioned earlier, it's not as though the applicant is building a new building, which would be a problem and maybe potentially a violation, depending where you put it in the flood way regulations. Most of the activity is going to be vehicles. I think as Mr. McClung indicated, you can move vehicles when it starts to flood. While I understand the flooding problem, I think that can be minimized and alleviated. The one problem clearly would be if you don't get the vehicles out of the way in time, then you run the risk of gasoline, diesel, oil, fuel, getting into that little creek, that little tributary that feeds Back Creek. The third big objection is the incompatibility of this use with the neighborhood. That, I think, is the real problem area. You have industrial use versus residential uses. As I look at that, it's almost as though Starkey is the dividing line between the different uses. On the west side of Starkey you have more commercial and industrial uses. On the east side on Starkey and then heading up Buck Mountain, you have more residential uses. Although I was not on the Board at the time, the county I think opened the door for more commercial and industrial uses when it rezoned the property for the Friendship Manor Rehab Facility. I think it also opened the door, probably correctly, when we rezoned the property for Virginia Varsity, that's back around the corner. I think that adds to the compatibility mix of this area. I would hope that the Starkey Road could act as a dividing line between commercial and industrial and residential. But I understand the concern of the citizens that once you open up that door, then it opens up the door to other uses kind of bleeding over that line. What tripped me up was when you look at what we have to make findings on before we can support this, we have to make a finding that this use "will not result in substantial detriment to the community." I think this application touches all the bases except that one base. So, in my perspective, I see and hear the potential detriment to the community. For that reason, Madam Chairman, I would make a motion to deny this application because I think it will result in a substantial detriment to the community. Supervisor North stated, in his opinion, the site's very intense. It's very small for what I see, and I've rode by it Sunday and slowly looked at it. Traffic's congested so I'd give that a negative. To buffer this plan, is a positive. Looks like there's some good buffer there and I'll have to tell you this, the floodplain, if this was me, I wouldn't build a chicken coop in a floodplain period. But to each his own. If that's the way you want to invest your money, that's your business. Traffic is the same amount of traffic that exists today because the petitioner has a facility already on that road. That's 214 May 23, 2023 a positive. There's no storage that's going to be there, that's a positive because some people were concerned about that. So, for that reason, he plans on supporting this because at the end of the day, it doesn't have a thing to do with your evaluation of your property. And if you don't believe me, you can ask anyone on our staff, including the assessor's office, and they'll tell you the same thing. So, I think this is going to be okay in the long run and everything's going to be good. Supervisor Radford commented he thinks this is a great plan to reuse this property. It has been vacant for a long time. It's not an eyesore. I remember removing those proffered conditions, so it would give the owner the ability to release it and reuse it. I think it's being treated unfairly, being called industrial. So, it trips over because of the parking by the vehicles overnight. He has some commercial property and people park their vehicles, which are not supposed to. He does not think this will affect the real estate value. All you have to do is look at your assessment that you just received several months ago. We have a housing problem, a shortage, and our values in Roanoke County are going up right now. He thinks that roundabout, from my time building those, that roundabout is really going to help that congestion at that point. He agrees with Mr. North, even though Mr. Jimenez is already at one end of Starkey, he still travels in both directions. So, if he's going to move down to this point, he's still going to travel in two directions. So, I don't see where the traffic is going to increase. And Mr. Mahoney, you're right. When you go from the west side of Starkey, you can see the influence of commercial and industrial and thinks that is the dividing line. Supervisor Mahoney moved to deny the request, which was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and was not carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker NAYS: Supervisors Peters, North, Radford Supervisor Radford moved to approve with the outside storage of materials on site prohibited. The motion was seconded by Supervisor North and was passed. ORDINANCE 052323-10 1) REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.24 ACRES OF LAND FROM C-1 (LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) TO I-1 C (LOW INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH A CONDITION) AND 2) GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A CONSTRUCTION YARD LOCATED AT 5681 STARKEY ROAD, IN THE CAVE. SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP NO: 087.18-01-40.00-0000) WHEREAS, Hugo Jimenez is requesting to rezone approximately 1.24 acres from C-1 (Low Intensity Commercial) District to I-1 C (Low Intensity Industrial) District with one condition on approximately 1.24 acres of land located at 5681 Starkey Road, May 23, 2023 215 identified as Roanoke County Tax Map No: 087.18-01-40.00-0000 (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property"); and WHEREAS, Hugo Jimenez is also requesting a special use permit to operate a construction yard on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 25, 2023, and the second reading and public hearing were held on May 23, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on May 2, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition as requested, with one condition associated with the requested special use permit; 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 Hugo Jimenez to rezone the subject property from C-1 (Low Intensity Commercial District) to I-1 C (Low Intensity Industrial District with one condition) is approved, with the following proffered condition: a. The Property owner hereby proffers that the property shall only be developed and used for the following purposes: general office, medical office, business or trade schools, communication services, garden center, personal improvement services, and veterinary hospital/clinic. In addition to the uses listed above, the property owner proffers that a construction yard may be allowed on the property with an approved special use permit. 2. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted comprehensive plan, is good zoning practice, and will not result in substantial detriment to the community. 3. The petition of Hugo Jimenez to obtain a special use permit on the subject property to operate a construction yard is approved, with the following condition: a. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the concept plan titled "Conceptual Landscape Plan" prepared . by Fiddlehead Landscape & Garden Design, dated March 20, 2023. b. The outside storage of materials on site shall be prohibited. 4. The Board further finds that the proposed special use permit meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County. Code, that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV (use and design standards) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, is in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, and.will 216 May 23, 2023 have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. On motion of Supervisor Radford to approve the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, North, Radford NAYS: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor North stated on May 16th, he participated in speaking to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, VDOT and Secretary of Transportation, at a meeting for the region that we're in here in the Salem district, the Salem Civic Center concerning specifically SMART SCALE projects and Interstate 81. The first seven speakers that spoke, six of the seven speakers addressed 181 concerns. And secondly, he has been talking to some citizens about booking events at the library and wish the library director was here to hear this. He participated in a conference call recently concerning the Hollins Library and discussions on future plans and made mention on there about, 'Well, don't you have a reservation system that citizens can go online and see openings for booking a meeting room, even paying for the meeting room in advance, whatever." I didn't really get a clear answer and so it's come up again that if I want to book the meeting room at Hollins for an event, I can't do so greater than 90 days and I don't know why that is and neither did the citizen that asked me. He does not understand why I thought we could get citizens to use an online registration system, but was told it's not working very well. Lots of ambiguity there. So, here's what he would like. He would like a clear, succinct memo outlined to each one of our Board members as to number one, how an online reservation system to book a meeting room operates within our library system if we have one that is an online system. And two, the question answered why we can't book meetings greater than 90 days out because there's some people that like to have meetings every quarter or every six months and they can't do it. We need to be a little more fluid and have good reasons that exist for us not being able to do this if we have this system. Maybe we don't have the system. Maybe staff recommends we don't have it, but it's about as clear as mud and he needs some clarity on it because he keeps getting this question asked of people in the Hollins District. Lastly, some information that was shared today in Richmond at the Commonwealth Transportation Board. While there was much and especially concerning SMART SCALE review and improvements going forward, Roanoke ridership in 2023 versus 2019 for Amtrak is up 57%, 27,444 riders thus far January through March, compared to 17,509 in 2019. That is a great success story. So, coming out of Covid, leaving it behind and the inception of many of these routes, it is absolutely a great success story and we can't do May 23, 2023 217 anything but justify extending this one day probably beyond Christiansburg all the way . to Bristol. So, it's a great, great story. The only problem I have with the Amtrak situation has been brought to light by several folks in the Vinton District who take the train, the parking down there is horrible, absolutely mind-boggling how people will continue to ride in. In fact, I'm almost of a mindset to drive to Lynchburg where the parking's free and less hassle because I can probably get home about 30 minutes sooner at the end of the day rather than having to drive back from Roanoke. We need to speak to our colleagues over in the city and find out how can we make this more user-friendly because it is an absolute debacle. We had people go there, when I took the train, they went with us. They got fined almost $140 because they claimed they didn't pay for their two days, which was something like, I don't know, $6-$7 a night. Mine went through, okay, I paid for the first night. The second night, I never got charged for, when I thought I was, so I paid $7. They did a $140... they got a ticket. They got a ticket, a virtual ticket for $140. They had to call up and debate it with the city or whoever's managing the parking down there. The parking down there is like a cluster, this one manages that, this one manages this, this one that. I'm going to tell you what, if people don't get dropped off and have to park down there, you don't know whether you're paying the right fare or not and it's 6 o'clock in the morning, downloading a software package is absolutely, it's challenging, it's 6:00 in the morning, for some people that aren't even awake. And it took two to get it downloaded for some instances. So, we went from paying for it to now having to download a software package. And you get no heads up on this from Amtrak because there's no communication between them and the station locations, i.e., the city. Supervisor Radford wished his wife a happy anniversary, 42 years today. He will be home soon. Supervisor Peters commented, he's not here with us tonight, but appreciates Sam Wall, his article he had in the newspaper a couple days ago about the challenges that we've got with our neighboring jurisdiction. He thinks he wrote a very good article and think's there's more to come there. Yesterday, we had the great pleasure of opening the renovated Mount Pleasant Library. Long time coming, he was glad to see it finally get across the finish line and it was a beautiful job by all involved. They did a great job. He reiterated just want to reiterate what I said earlier. I know the guys aren't here now, but this is EMS week. So, if you're out and about and you see some of the career medics and volunteer medics and EMTs, let them know you appreciate them 218 May 23, 2023 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Hooker adjourned the meeting at 8:21 p.m. mitted by: Approved by: D rah C. J c Martha B. Hooker Chief Deputy CI to the Board Chairman