Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/27/2024 - Adopted Board Records ACTION NO. 022724-1 ITEM NO. D.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance authorizing the relocation of Windsor Hills district precinct 303 polling place pursuant from our lady of Nazareth Church at 2505 Electric Road in Roanoke to Christ the King Church at 2335 Electric Road in Roanoke SUBMITTED BY: Peter S. Lubeck County Attorney APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrate o 3- 0 - ISSUE: Request to move the location of Windsor Hills District Precinct 303 Polling Place from Our Lady of Nazareth Roman Catholic Church to Christ the King Presbyterian Church. BACKGROUND: The Roanoke County Electoral Board requests that the Board of Supervisors approve its recommendation that Windsor Hills District Precinct 303 Polling Place be relocated from Our Lady of Nazareth Roman Catholic Church at 2505 Electric Road in Roanoke, Virginia 24018 to Christ the King Presbyterian Church at 2335 Electric Road in Roanoke, Virginia, 24018. Per§ 24.2-306(A) of the Code of Virginia, any changes in polling places must be enacted more than 60 days prior to the next election. Per§ 24.2-306(B), notice of such change must be mailed to all voters registered in the affected precincts at least 15 days prior to the next election. DISCUSSION: Our Lady of Nazareth church has willingly provided a polling place for Precinct 303 voters but is no longer available in the third week of June for primary elections. Rather than move voters from this location for each June primary, the Electoral Board agrees Page 1 of 2 that finding a new polling place is in the best interests of the voters. Because this ordinance cannot be enacted within the required 60 days prior to the March 2024 primary elections, the Virginia Department of Elections has approved an emergency relocation of the polling place for the month of March 2024. However, Board action is necessary in order to retain Christ the King Church as a polling place for the remainder of 2024. Christ the King church has agreed to serve for the remainder of this year and is potentially open to continuing to serve as a polling place for Precinct 303 going forward. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact, including the required legal notice and postage for mailing notification postcards to affected voters, is estimated to be approximately $1,000. This sum will be paid from Voter Registration and Elections' current budget appropriation; no additional funding is being requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the ordinance and scheduling of the second reading for March 12, 2024. VOTE: Supervisor Radford moved to approve the first reading of this ordinance and scheduling the second reading. Supervisor Mahoney seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® 0 ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ 0 Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ CC: Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney Anna Cloeter, Registrar Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 022724-2 ITEM NO. E.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards SUBMITTED BY: Madeline Hanlon Assistant to County Adminis or APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrat G� O *0I Z7z ISSUE: Appointments to Committees, Commissions BACKGROUND: 1. Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission (Citizen Appointments) Barry Trent- Term Expires: September 8, 2026 Greg Walter- Term Expires: April 8, 2027 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of appointments. VOTE: Supervisor Hooker moved to approve all appointments. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Page 1 of 2 Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® El ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ 0 Mr. Mahoney ® 0 0 Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ CC: Frank Maguire, Roanoke Valley Greenway Coordinator Barry Trent Greg Walter Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2024 RESOLUTION 022724-3 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM F- 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 February 27, 2024, designated as Item F-Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6 inclusive, as follows: 1. McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle Expansion-Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Salem (Second reading) 2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating Stormwater Local Assistance Fund (SLAF) grant in the amount of $531,425 from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ), along with a$531,425 for the Stream Restoration of a Tributary to Mudlick Creek along Canter Drive in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Second Reading) 3. Ordinance authorizing the granting of new public drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, on property owned by 1) Alice B. Kefauver (Tax Map# 079.01-01-64.00-0000), located at 3020 Pebble Drive, 2) Roy M. Carpenter (Tax Map # 079.01-01-61.00-0000), located at 3017 Woodway Road, 3) Leonard W. Stiff and Rebecca G. Stiff(Tax Map 079.01-01- 63.00-0000), located at 3012 Pebble Drive, and,4) David L. Bratton (Tax Map# 079.01-01-62.00-0000), located at 3006 Pebble Drive for the purpose of constructing drainage improvements; Vinton Magisterial District (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 4. Ordinance allocating $65,033 of Roanoke County funds to the Grant Fund for the East Roanoke River Greenway crossing of the Blue Ridge Parkway along Highland Road (State Route 618), VDOT UPC 113356, Vinton Magisterial District (Second Reading) 5. The petition of Kevin Manor to obtain a special use permit to operate a short- Page 1 of 2 term rental on approximately 1.23 acres of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 4127 Mockingbird Hill Road, Hollins Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) 6. Proclamation— Multiple Sclerosis Education Awareness Month On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution; seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None A COPY TESTS: 03-ol-Loll and L. Caywood, P.E. County Administrator/ Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Paula Benke, Transit Planner Tarek Moneir, Director of Development Services Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 022724-3.a ITEM NO. F_1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA FOR A MCAFEE KNOB TRAILHEAD SHUTTLE EXPANSION SUBMITTED BY: Paula Benke Transit Planner APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Roanoke County wishes to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Salem to add two new shuttle stops for the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle within the City of Salem. BACKGROUND: Activity around the National Park Service (NPS) Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT) McAfee Knob overlook has grown exponentially in recent years. The demand to visit the Appalachian Trail's most photographed location has outpaced existing NPS resources. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) obtained funding in 2017 to design and construct a pedestrian bridge to carry the AT over Route 311. Bridge construction is underway and has closed the existing McAfee Knob Trailhead parking lot for 2024. The NPS began a Visitor Use Management (VUM) Plan in 2018 for the Virginia's Triple Crown segment of the AT (McAfee Knob, Dragon's Tooth and Tinker Cliffs) to identify strategies to enable long-term protection and preservation of AT resources while also improving the visitor experience. The VUM Plan is nearing completion. As part of the VUM Plan and considering the impact that pedestrian bridge construction would likely have on the trailhead parking lot, in February 2021, the National Park Service published the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Triple Crown Area Transit Page 1 of 3 Feasibility Study to consider the potential of operating a shuttle to serve one or more of the Virginia Triple Crown trailheads. One recommendation from the Transit Feasibility Report was to run a pilot service between the Interstate 81, Exit 140 Park and Ride and the McAfee Knob parking lot. Roanoke County applied for and received Demonstration Project funding from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) to operate this pilot service. On September 2, 2022, the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle started service with a fixed route from the 1-81, Exit 140 Park and Ride to the McAfee Knob Trailhead to ease the parking congestion at the McAfee Knob Trailhead parking lot. Service paused on November 27, 2022, over the winter months and resumed on March 3, 2023, until November 26, 2023. Day, Section and Through Hiker feedback from the 2022-2023 season included inquiries regarding hotel accommodations, dining options and where to restock essential items. Other data collected was that individuals were visiting for an average of two to three days and looking for other activities to do in the Roanoke Valley. DISCUSSION: Roanoke County again applied for and was awarded Demonstration Project funding in 2023 to expand shuttle service while the pedestrian bridge is under construction. In 2024, the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle will add four on demand stops to the already existing fixed route with connections to Valley Metro bus service. Two of the shuttle stops will be in the City of Salem at 601 East Main Street ( Longwood Park ) and at 101 South Broad Street. Additional stops will be located at the Orange Market Park and Ride and along Route 311 near the Dragon's Tooth Trailhead parking lot. By adding additional stops, the shuttle is meeting the strategic needs outlined in the Triple Crown Area Transit Feasibility Study, to enable long-term protection, and preservation of AT resources while improving the visitor experience. The shuttle will also provide connectivity to local resources in Salem and allow for travel throughout the Roanoke Valley with access to multiple Valley Metro stops. County staff have worked with City of Salem staff to identify shuttle stops and parameters for service. The MOU with the City of Salem is planned to conclude on June 30, 2025, when the current DRPT Demonstration Project funding ends. The 2024 shuttle season will start on March 1, 2024, and conclude on December 1, 2024. The 2025 shuttle season will start March 7, 2025, and conclude on June 30, 2025. Page 2 of 3 FISCAL IMPACT: The Board of Supervisors accepted and appropriated $170,709 from DRPT and $42,677 in local match for the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle expansion on September 12, 2023, for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. All fares collected from the operation of the shuttle service are retained to offset the cost of the service. There is no cost associated with the MOU. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. VOTE: Supervisor Mahoney moved to approve the ordinance. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ 0 Ms. Hooker ® 0 0 Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ 0 Ms. Shepherd ® 0 0 Mr. North ® 0 0 CC: Paula Benke, Transit Planner Page 3 of 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2024 ORDINANCE 022724-3.a APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA FOR A MCAFEE KNOB TRAILHEAD SHUTTLE EXPANSION WHEREAS, activity around the National Park Service (NPS) Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT) McAfee Knob overlook has grown exponentially in recent years; and WHEREAS, the NPS began a Visitor Use Management (VUM) Plan in 2018 for the Virginia's Triple Crown segment of the AT (McAfee Knob, Dragon's Tooth and Tinker Cliffs) to identify strategies to enable long-term protection and preservation of AT resources while also improving the visitor experience. The VUM Plan is nearing completion; and WHEREAS, in February 2021, the NPS published the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Triple Crown Area Transit Feasibility Study to consider the potential of operating a shuttle to serve one or more of the Virginia Triple Crown trailheads. One recommendation from the Transit Feasibility Report was to run a pilot service between the Interstate 81, Exit 140 Park and Ride and the McAfee Knob parking lot; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County applied for and received Demonstration Project funding from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) to operate this pilot service. On September 2, 2022, the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle started service with a fixed route from the 1-81, Exit 130 Park and Ride to the McAfee Knob Trailhead to ease the parking congestion at the Trailhead parking lot; and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, hiker feedback from the 2022-2023 season included inquiries regarding hotel accommodations, dining options, and where to restock essential items. Other data collected indicated that hikers were visiting the area for an average of two to three days, and looking for other activities to do in the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County again applied for and was awarded Demonstration Project funding in 2023 to expand shuttle service while a trailhead pedestrian bridge is under construction; and WHEREAS, in 2024, the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle will add four on-demand stops to the already existing fixed route, with connections to Valley Metro bus service. It is proposed that two of the shuttle stops be located in the City of Salem: one at Longwood Park (601 E. Main Street) and the other at 101 South Broad Street. Additional stops are also proposed at the Orange Market Park and Ride and along Route 311, near the Dragon's Tooth Trailhead parking lot; and WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the joint exercise of powers by political subdivisions of the Commonwealth; and WHEREAS, the City of Salem has expressed willingness to enter into an agreement for the joint operation of the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle, to include stops within the boundaries of the City of Salem; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Board approve the proposed agreement; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 13, 2024, and the second reading was held on February 27, 2024. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, as follows: Page 2 of 3 1. The agreement entitled "Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Salem and Roanoke County for the Use of the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle," is hereby approved, subject to any minor changes that may be approved as to form by the County Attorney; and 2. The County administrator, Deputy County Administrator, Assistant County Administrator, any of whom may act, are authorized to execute said agreement. 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance; seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: O 'o`f'Z0Z. cl Ri and L. Caywood, P.E. ounty Administrator/Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Paula Benke, Transit Planner Page 3of3 ACTION NO. 022724-3.b ITEM NO. F.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance accepting and appropriating Stormwater Local Assistance Fund (SLAF) grant in the amount of $531,425 from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), along with a $531,425 local match for the Stream Restoration of a Tributary to Mudlick Creek along Canter Drive in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: Tarek Moneir Director of Development Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Accept and appropriate a SLAF grant in the amount of $531,425 from DEQ, along with a local match of $531,425 from the Monsanto settlement funds for the Stream Restoration of a Tributary to Mudlick Creek along Canter Drive in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. BACKGROUND: The Roanoke River is impaired by excessive sediment. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has assigned Roanoke County a wasteload allocation (WLA) for sediment that is enforceable under the County's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The County is required by its MS4 permit to decrease discharge of sediment to the Roanoke River to the maximum extent practicable to meet its WLA. One of the means that the County has been addressing this permit requirement is by constructing natural stream restoration projects in streams within its MS4 service area that are experiencing severe bank erosion. In 2015, the County performed a screening assessment of County streams to identify the most promising candidate sites for stream restoration projects. One of the top sites identified in this study was an unnamed tributary to Mudlick Creek located at Hidden Page 1 of 3 Valley High School and along Canter Drive in Windsor Hills Magisterial District. In June 2022, residents along Canter Drive contacted the County and requested assistance to address erosion issues that they were experiencing from this unnamed tributary. Several meetings were held with residents to discuss their erosion concerns. Department of Development Services staff explained that the erosion from the stream on their property could not be addressed through the County's regular drainage program; however, since this section of unnamed stream had been identified as a significant source of sediment, it might be possible to construct a stream restoration project to further the County's MS4 permit compliance. Staff informed the residents that this process was contingent on obtaining easements from five impacted residential properties, and from the Roanoke County School Board for work on Hidden Valley High School property; obtaining state SLAF funding and continued local funding. The affected residents expressed support for this stream restoration project. Easement donations were made by the residents and the Roanoke County School Board. The Board of Supervisors accepted the easements at its meeting on May 9, 2023. In October 2023, an application for SLAF funding was submitted to DEQ. We have recently received notification that our grant application was approved. A copy of the grant notification letter from DEQ, dated January 16, 2024, is filed with our Department of Development Services and available for review upon request. There have been no changes since the first reading held on February 13, 2024. DISCUSSION: The Stream Restoration of a Tributary to Mudlick Creek along Canter Drive project has been selected by DEQ for a grant in the amount of$531,425 (50% of total estimated cost of the project of$1,062,850). Constructing this stream restoration project would support compliance with the County's MS4 permit and would address citizen erosion concerns. If the Board of Supervisors appropriates this funding, design and permitting should be completed by the end of this summer, with solicitation for construction bids in late summer/early fall 2024, and construction commencing before the end of calendar year 2024. Page 2 of 3 FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated total project cost is $1,062,850, excluding Department of Development Services staff time for administration. The SLAF grant in the amount of$531,425 requires a 50% local match. The 50% local match in the amount of$531,425 will be funded with the funds received from the Monsanto litigation settlement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the second reading of this ordinance accepting and appropriating the $531,425 grant from DEQ and appropriating $531,425 from the Monsanto settlement funds for the required local match for a total project cost of $1,062,850 to the Grant Fund for the Stream Restoration of a Tributary to Mudlick Creek along Canter Drive. There have been no changes since the first reading. VOTE: Supervisor Mahoney moved to approve the ordinance. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® 0 El Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ 0 Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ 0 Mr. North ® 0 ❑ CC: Tarek Moneir, Director of Development Services Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services Joshua Pegram, Finance Page 3 of 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2024 ORDINANCE 022724-3.b ACCEPTING $531,425 FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND APPROPRIATING SUCH FUNDS, ALONG WITH A $531,425 LOCAL MATCH, FOR STREAM RESTORATION OF A TRIBUTARY TO MUDLICK CREEK ALONG CANTER DRIVE IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Roanoke County has an obligation under its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit to decrease discharge of sediment to the Roanoke River to the maximum extent practicable to meet its Waste Load Allocation; and WHEREAS, one way the County has decreased sediment discharge is by constructing natural stream restoration projects in streams experiencing severe bank erosion; and WHEREAS, in 2015, the County identified an unnamed tributary to Mudlick Creek located at Hidden Valley High School and along Canter Drive as a promising candidate for stream restoration; and WHEREAS, in 2022, residents along Canter Drive contacted the County and requested assistance to address erosion issues pertaining to this unnamed tributary; and WHEREAS, necessary easement donations were made by the residents and the Roanoke County School Board, which were accepted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on May 9, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Stream Restoration of a Tributary to Mudlick Creek along Canter Drive project has been selected by DEQ for a grant in the amount of $531,425, with a local match of$531,425, for a total grant amount of$1,062,850; and WHEREAS, the estimated total project cost is $1,062,850, excluding staff time for administration; and WHEREAS, funds received from the Monsanto litigation settlement will be used for the required 50% local match in the amount of$531,425; 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 February 13, 2024, and the second reading was held on February 27, 2024. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the sum of$531,425 is hereby accepted from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and appropriated to the Grant Fund. 2. That the County's matching sum of$531,425 be appropriated to the Grant Fund. 3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution; seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: 03 :CI `f-2'L `/ Richa . Caywood, P.E. unty Administrator/Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Tarek Moneir, Development Services Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services Joshua Pegram, Finance ACTION NO. 022724-3.c ITEM NO. F_3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance authorizing the granting of new public drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, on property owned by 1) Alice B. Kefauver (Tax Map# 079.01-01-64.00-0000), located at 3020 Pebble Drive, 2) Roy M. Carpenter (Tax Map # 079.01-01-61.00-0000), located at 3017 Woodway Road, 3) Leonard W. Stiff and Rebecca G. Stiff (Tax Map 079.01-01-63.00-0000), located at 3012 Pebble Drive, and, 4) David L. Bratton (Tax Map # 079.01-01-62.00-0000), located at 3006 Pebble Drive, for the purpose of constructing drainage improvements; Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Tarek Moneir Director of Development Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of new public drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for multiple properties (Tax Map #s. 079.01-01-64.00- 0000, 079.01-01-61.00-0000; 079.01-01-63.00-0000; and 079.01-01-62.00-0000) for the purpose of drainage improvements, in the Vinton Magisterial District. BACKGROUND: Alice B. Kefauver, Roy M. Carpenter, Leonard W. Stiff and Rebecca G. Stiff, and David L. Bratton, who own properties located between Pebble Drive and Woodway Road, are granting drainage easements to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors located as shown on the attached plats. These easements are of the purpose of correcting long-standing drainage problems. DISCUSSION: Page 1 of 3 The subject parcels were developed in the 1960s, and the drainage system consists of un-reinforced concrete pipe that is cracking and separating at the joints. Portions of the drainage system in this area have already been replaced, and the current proposed work will address long-standing problems. Total failure of said pipe could result in significant flooding and property damage to the homes in the area. In order to correct this long-standing drainage issue, additional easements are needed. As shown on Exhibit "A," there is an existing 15 feet wide sanitary and drainage easement that was established when the development occurred, which crosses the same properties that are the subject of this ordinance. The owners of the impacted parcels (see Exhibit "A") have agreed to donate public drainage easements to Roanoke County for construction and maintenance of the proposed improvements. Properties considered for this ordinance include: Alice B. Kefauver (Tax Map# 079.01-01-64.00-0000) Roy M. Carpenter (Tax Map # 079.01-01-61.00-0000) Leonard W. Stiff and Rebecca G. Stiff(Tax Map 079.01-01-63.00-0000) David L. Bratton (Tax Map # 079.01-01-62.00-0000) Maps indicating the location of each proposed easement are attached to this report (see "Exhibit A"). The easements are necessary for the installation and maintenance of a new drainage system. The new drainage system will be designed and constructed to provide positive drainage. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no cost to Roanoke County for preparation of the easement deeds as they have been prepared by Roanoke County staff. Roanoke County will advertise for bids for construction of the drainage improvements. The estimated cost of$380,000 for this project is covered by the American Rescue Plan Act known as ARPA funding available for the Department of Development Services and previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. Future maintenance for this said easement will be covered by routine maintenance efforts by Department of Development Services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Page 2 of 3 Staff recommends approval of this ordinance and scheduling the second reading for March 26, 2024. VOTE: Supervisor Mahoney moved to approve the first reading of this ordinance and scheduling the second reading and public hearing for March 26, 2024. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® 0 ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® El ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT "A" �l \ _______ _ PARHAM DR. RT. ` °ia•°��o`e .-•;-', (50' R/W) I 1 . I rII %, I I ` ...7.\\ /I , mch * C) I • / \ ..0 1 - � a in 1 'r.sa, o a 1 1 N. `, CO `tJ Tax / QI I / I r 1 #079.01-01-62.00 / \ ` II 1 Property of a h - -DAVID L.BRATTON I 1 +I ! \ \ r 1 ° C\ \ 1 -16 n 2 L) I I / Tl'P $ '--\ `� 1 I I Ca 0 w -1' g ce 1 p__f_______.7. -m 1 g 1 I I I I`1 I I /I / tLX 10'PUBLIC 1 I I r U1y 1 L/7�� 9 �p l P.-1 P�37T „'/, _©_ El l' Tax #079.01-01-60.00 N 1 1 O I I Tax #079.01-01-64.00 - , Property of M O I I property of 1 / RONALD J.HODGES a I O ALICE B.KEFAUVER / I 1 I n I I 1 C . w O h / 1 I I I 1 „a. ... I N it. „/ I ____—_____- I N I I _ / t+s•4�'/ I EX.16'PUBLIC I m /� 2Q / U11UT!EASEMENT r — y @� P.B.1,Pg.37 C O - ��IW C/ 1 N M I Tax #079.01-01-59.00 PI 0 1 �� -�_—-_ _ 1 Property of 0 I J ___— /--_j KARNES LIVING TRUST [*I I / I x R1 I oi- ---/ IL v, i �I * / -- - - + I I 53 w i i ® I 1 — --r---I 1 I 0 Tax079.01-01-65.00 r I I I N Property of i /,,,,,,%1 1 JOEL E.&BETTY D. I / - , I .. 1 I4 I' PENDLETON I I , 1. / I -4 f / I I Tax go79.01-01-58.00 0 — I I I �1- — ——_ —— - I Property of BARRY W.& i t*] _ I8 --------` Al SANDRA W.WITT / a I I II ( 474q-44 w = J� 1.,,,_ --__---_ - •l� 1 g I N e 11 �- ---- ---- ---- - �- did I I r I Tax �1079.. 66.00 I • ,,,,,,/) M Property of I I Tax #079.01-01-57.00 W LORI E.GRUBB I I I Property of I DUANE W.ISON Sr.& / oo JOYCE A.ISON / Ell , / • / 2 VICINITY MAP ppp ciO :,,,,,, tilJ • EDDINGTON ego C • K/• ...... a NEW VARIABLE WIDTH •• PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT • COU\l" St -No 4r b �� SUea�o�e e$��r O ALICE B. KEFAUVER 3020 PEBBLE DR. et- ' -.,$ I. , 9 s k c. %A a. SITE Smoke Mee ROY M. CARPENTER . o %ti `x Rt 72e9 O 3017 WOODWAY DR. % \e pa s a 0 1� ar 41' LEONARD W. & v ��s'o �% O 671 +/- REBECCA G. STIFF O •Y a OP or �. S R'2"e° V. 3012 PEBBLE DR. C 1 O 'i s -q, ' �q, °�, or m C F`beborn Cr a DAVID L. BRATTON e e �/O to > Rt e5° .* O 3006 WOODWAY DR. . ��>r Ill ► It r lie amiaa r lord or % S s AO aw.11 L kw, n Q. . SCALE: 1"= 50' DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2024 ® � PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 'kT' ACTION NO. 022724-3.d ITEM NO. F_4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance allocating $65,033 of Roanoke County funds to the Grant Fund for the East Roanoke River Greenway crossing of the Blue Ridge Parkway along Highland Road (State Route 618), VDOT UPC 113356, Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Megan G. Cronise Assistant Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has requested that a new Appendix A be executed to include $65,033 of Roanoke County funds transferred from the Revenue Sharing account to the Grant Fund to satisfy a project deficit for the East Roanoke River Greenway crossing of the Blue Ridge Parkway along Highland Road (State Route 618), which is currently under construction. BACKGROUND: The TA Set-Aside Program provides eighty percent (80%) Federal funding with a required twenty percent (20%) percent local match for improvements to non-motorized transportation that enhance the public's traveling experience, revitalize communities and improve the quality of life. The Roanoke River Greenway is envisioned as the backbone of the Roanoke Valley greenway system and has been designated as the top greenway priority by the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission in the 1995, 2007 and 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plans, all adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. The Roanoke County 2016 Community Strategic Plan also identifies greenways as a high priority strategic initiative for supporting a multi-modal transportation network and keeping Roanoke County healthy, clean, and beautiful. The 2022 County of Roanoke Page 1 of 4 Strategic Planning document supports continuing construction of the Roanoke River Greenway in the Outdoor Recreation Strategic Target Outcome Area. The proposed greenway will provide an accessible, 0.30-mile-long, 8 to 10-foot-wide, paved shared use path along the north side of Highland Road (Route 618). The greenway will cross underneath the Blue Ridge Parkway through an existing overpass. The western terminus of the project will connect to a new trailhead constructed with a previous project (VDOT UPC 91191) at 3226 Highland Road that is owned by the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRFA) and leased by Roanoke County for Explore Park. The eastern terminus of the project will connect to a proposed trailhead (UPC 110155) at 3404 Highland Road that is owned by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA). The proposed on-road alignment is supported in the Roanoke Valley/Blue Ridge Parkway Trail Plan approved in 2015 with a Finding of No Significant Impact in the Environmental Assessment. The timeline for this project is as follows: • 2012-2017: Conceptual planning and preliminary engineering efforts took place, funded by Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism; • November 1, 2017: Roanoke County requested TA Set-Aside Program funding for construction of the Roanoke River Greenway, Parkway Crossing project; • June 20, 2018: Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the Six-Year Improvement Program which included TA Set-Aside funding for this project; • May 28, 2019: Board of Supervisors adopted the Roanoke County Fiscal Year 2020- 2029 Capital Improvement Program which included TA Set-Aside Grant funding; • July 18, 2019: Roanoke County executed a Project Administration Agreement and an Appendix A with VDOT; • October 1, 2019: Roanoke County requested additional TA Set-Aside Program funding for construction due to a funding deficit identified by the 30 percent design plan cost estimate; • February 12, 2020: VRFA Board of Directors approved the donation of temporary and permanent easements needed on VRFA property; • October 20, 2020: CTB approved the Six-Year Improvement Program which included additional TA Set-Aside funding; • February 9, 2021: RVRA Board of Directors approved the donation of temporary and perpetual easements for the greenway; • May 11, 2021: Board of Supervisors accepted and appropriated the additional TA Set-Aside funding; • May 29, 2021: Roanoke County executed a revised Appendix A with VDOT; • April 15, 2022: Roanoke County requested a portion of identified TA Set-Aside surplus funds available to the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization Page 2 of 4 (RVTPO) to satisfy a funding deficit identified by an updated construction estimate; • June 23, 2022: RVTPO awarded the additional TA Set-Aside funding for the project for fiscal years 2023 and 2024; • September 29, 2022: Roanoke County received environmental certification from VDOT; • October 13, 2022: A General Agreement was executed between the National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway and the County of Roanoke, Virginia, concerning the Roanoke River Greenway; • October 18, 2022: Roanoke County requested a one-year extension of the original TA Set-Aside funding to September 30, 2023; • November 17, 2022: VDOT certified all right-of-way obtained by Roanoke County; • January 24, 2023: Board of Supervisors accepted and appropriated additional TA Set-Aside funding; • February 9, 2023: VDOT executed a revised Appendix A; • August 9, 2023: The project was advertised for construction with the adjacent project, Blue Ridge Parkway to Explore Park (VDOT UPC 110155); • September 22, 2023: Three construction bids were received that all exceeded the engineer's estimates for the projects; • October 2023: The Board of Supervisors authorized allocation of local funds to satisfy project deficits for the Highland Road Crossing project (VDOT UPC 113356) totaling $65,033 and the Base Bid and Bid Alternate #1 for the Blue Ridge Parkway to Explore Park project (VDOT UPC 110155) totaling $242,372; • November 28, 2023: With the addition of these local funds, Roanoke County was authorized to award and execute a construction contract with Alleghany Construction Company to construct the Highland Road Crossing project and the Base Bid and Bid Alternate #1 for the Blue Ridge Parkway to Explore Park project; • November 29, 2023: The National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway issued a Special Use Permit for Construction; and • December 4, 2023: Roanoke County issued a Notice to Proceed for work to commence. DISCUSSION: VDOT Central Office has requested an updated Appendix A to reflect the new local funds allocated to the project. Once the Board of Supervisors approves the new ordinance, the Appendix A can be executed with VDOT. There have been no changes since the first reading of the ordinance at the February 13, 2024 board meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: The Board of Supervisors allocated $65,033 of local funds from the Revenue Sharing Page 3 of 4 account to the Grant Fund in October 2023. The Board of Supervisors have accepted and appropriated three other rounds of funding for this project in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 ($458,258 including the match), in fiscal years 2021 and 2022 ($250,000 including the match), and most recently in fiscal year 2023 ($87,643 including the match). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the second reading of this ordinance. VOTE: Supervisor Mahoney moved to approve the second reading of the ordinance. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ El Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ CC: Megan Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services Joshua Pegram, Finance Page 4 of 4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2024 ORDINANCE 022724-3.d ALLOCATING $65,033 OF ROANOKE COUNTY FUNDS TO THE GRANT FUND FOR THE EAST ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY CROSSING OF THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY ALONG HIGHLAND ROAD (STATE ROUTE 618), VDOT UPC 113356, VINTON 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 submitted grant applications for Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set-Aside Program funding to construct the East Roanoke River Greenway Crossing of the Blue Ridge Parkway in 2017 and in 2019; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County was awarded and the Board of Supervisors accepted and appropriated the TA Set-Aside Program funding on May 28, 2019, and on May 11, 2021; and WHEREAS, in 2022, the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization awarded Roanoke County additional TA Set-Aside Program funding for fiscal year 2023 and fiscal year 2024; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors accepted and appropriated the $70,114 of TA Set-Aside Program funding and $17,529 of local match on January 24, 2023; and WHEREAS, in September 2023, construction bids were received and a project deficit was identified; and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, in October 2023, the Board of Supervisors allocated $65,033 to the Grant Fund for the project to enable award of the contract and construction initiation; 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 February 13, 2024, and the second reading was held on February 27, 2024. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the sum of $65,033 has been allocated to the Grant Fund for the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism for the purpose of the East Roanoke River Greenway Crossing of the Blue Ridge Parkway. 2. 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. 3. That this ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution; seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None Page 2 of 3 A COPY TESTE: 03 -2`i-20ZCI Ri and aywood, P.E. County Administrator/Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Tarek Moneir, Development Services Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services Joshua Pegram, Finance Page 3 of 3 ACTION NO. 022724-3.e ITEM NO. F_5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Kevin Manor to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 1.23 acres of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 4127 Mockingbird Hill Road, Hollins Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Consent agenda item for first reading of an ordinance. BACKGROUND: The first reading of this ordinance is accomplished by adoption of this ordinance in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions; rather, approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for March 26, 2024. The title of this ordinance is as follows: The petition of Kevin Manor to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 1.23 acres of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 4127 Mockingbird Hill Road, Hollins Magisterial District. DISCUSSION: There is no discussion on this item. FISCAL IMPACT: Page 1 of 2 There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of this ordinance for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for March 26, 2024. 2. That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. VOTE: Supervisor Mahoney moved to approve the first reading of this ordinance and scheduling the second reading and public hearing for March 26, 2024. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® El El Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ El Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ El Mr. North ® El 0 CC: Philip Thompson, Director of Planning Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 022724-5 ITEM NO. L_1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Appalachian Power Company to rezone approximately 3.255 acres from C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, to 1-2, High Intensity Industrial District, located at 1835 Loch Haven Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Richard L. Ca ood County Admi strator O3_ o(- Z 02`1 ISSUE: Agenda item for public hearing and second reading of an ordinance to rezone property . from commercial to industrial. BACKGROUND: The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines construction yards as "establishments housing facilities of businesses primarily engaged in construction activities, including outside storage of materials and equipment. Typical uses are building contractor's yards." Construction yards are not permitted in the C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, but are permitted by right in the 1-2, High Intensity Industrial District. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on February 6, 2024. One person spoke during the public hearing. Jim Cowan of Cowan Perry spoke during the public hearing on behalf of his client RND20 LLC, owner of the adjacent office building located at 1745 Loch Haven Drive. He expressed strong opposition to the rezoning with concerns including inconsistency with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, visual impact, interrupted viewsheds, lack of desired restrictions Page 1 of 4 on the submitted concept plan, bay doors facing the office building, insufficient screening, and the availability of other industrial zoned property available for the intended use. Mr. Cowan noted that the owners of 1745 Loch Haven Drive made a large investment in the property, and they believe the development of this site as a construction yard will deter prospective tenants. The Planning Commission discussed the use and operation of the construction yard, building orientation, building heights, whether materials would be stored on site (no - only equipment will be stored on site), lighting, fencing, proffered conditions, views from the adjacent office building, buffers, the existing AEP facility across the street, and uses allowed by-right in C-2. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the application to rezone approximately 3.255 acres from C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, to 1-2, High Intensity Industrial District, located at 1835 Loch Haven Drive with the following proffered conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the "Concept Plan for AEP Mobile Transformer - Roanoke, Virginia" prepared by Hurt and Proffitt dated February 13, 2024 subject to any changes required by the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Department of Transportation, or the Western Virginia Water Authority during the site plan review process. 2. The Type B Landscape Buffer adjacent to the western property line shall consist of two rows of large evergreen trees, eight (8) feet in height above ground when planted, in place of the deciduous trees and evergreen shrubs. 3. The Type B Landscape Buffer screening requirement adjacent to the western property line shall be constructed of an opaque vinyl material. A revised concept plan was submitted after the Planning Commission meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the second reading of an ordinance to rezone approximately 3.255 acres from C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, to I-2, High Intensity Industrial District, located at 1835 Loch Haven Drive with the following proffered conditions: Page 2 of 4 1. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the "Concept Plan for AEP Mobile Transformer - Roanoke, Virginia" prepared by Hurt and Proffitt dated February 13, 2024 subject to any changes required by the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Department of Transportation, or the Western Virginia Water Authority during the site plan review process. 2. The Type B Landscape Buffer adjacent to the western property line shall consist of two rows of large evergreen trees, eight (8) feet in height above ground when planted, in place of the deciduous trees and evergreen shrubs. 3. The Type B Landscape Buffer screening requirement adjacent to the western property line shall be constructed of an opaque vinyl material. VOTE: Supervisor Hooker moved to approve the rezoning request as it has been requested, with the following proffered conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the "Concept Plan for AEP Mobile Transformer— Roanoke, Virginia" prepared by Hurt and Proffitt dated February 13, 2024, subject to any changes required by the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Department of Transportation, or the Western Virginia Water authority during the site plan review process. 2. The Type B Landscape Buffer adjacent to the western property line shall consist of two rows of large evergreen trees, eight (8) feet in height above ground when planted, in place of the deciduous trees and evergreen shrubs. 3. The Type B Landscape Buffer screening requirement adjacent to the western property line shall be constructed of an opaque vinyl material. Supervisor Hooker FURTHER MOVED that the draft ordinance that was prepared and included in our board packet be approved and adopted, including the provision that the audio portion of today's hearing that pertains to this matter be transcribed and attached to the ordinance as an integral exhibit, demonstrating that the Board fully considered arguments both for and against the rezoning request, including, but not limited to, the arguments shared and discussed during today's meeting. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Abstain Mr. Radford ►1 ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Page 3 of 4 Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ❑ ❑ lEl Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ CC: Philip Thompson, Director of Planning Teresa Hall, AEP Page 4 of 4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2024 ORDINANCE 022724-5 REZONING APPROXIMATELY 3.255 ACRES FROM C-2 (HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT TO I-2C (HIGH INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS TO ALLOW FOR A CONSTRUCTION YARD AT 1835 LOCH HAVEN DRIVE, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company is requesting to rezone approximately 3.255 acres from C-2 (High Intensity Commercial) District to I-2C (High Intensity Industrial) District with conditions to allow for a construction yard located at 1835 Loch Haven Drive (Roanoke County Tax Map Number: 036.11-03-01.00-0000); and WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company submitted three voluntarily proffered conditions along with this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 23, 2024, and the second reading and public hearing were held on February 27, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on February 6, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition as requested; 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 Appalachian Power Company to rezone approximately 3.255 acres from C-2 (High Intensity Commercial) District to I-2C (High Intensity Industrial) District with conditions to allow for a construction yard located at Page 1 of 4 1835 Loch Haven Drive (Roanoke County Tax Map Number: 036.11-03- 01.00-0000) is hereby approved with the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the "Concept Plan for AEP Mobile Transformer — Roanoke, Virginia" prepared by Hurt and Proffitt dated December 5, 2023 subject to any changes required by the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Department of Transportation, or the Western Virginia Water authority during the site plan review process. b. The Type B Landscape Buffer adjacent to the western property line shall consist of two rows of large evergreen trees, eight (8) feet in height above ground when planted, in place of the deciduous trees and evergreen shrubs. c. The Type B Landscape Buffer screening requirement adjacent to the western property line shall be constructed of an opaque vinyl material. 2. The Board finds that the request as submitted by Appalachian Power Company is inconsistent with the Core future land use designation of the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan, however the subject property is adjacent to other property zoned 1-2 (High Intensity Industrial) District with Conditions, and the proposed use would be an extension of the current use on that adjacent property. 3. The Board further finds that the request as submitted by Appalachian Power Company is good zoning practice and will not result in substantial detriment to the community. 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. Page 2 of 4 5. The Board has fully considered arguments both for and against the proposed rezoning request, including, but not limited to, the arguments shared and discussed during today's meeting. The audio portion of today's hearing that pertains to this matter shall be transcribed and attached to this ordinance as Exhibit A. Supervisor Hooker moved to approve the rezoning request as it has been requested, with the following proffered conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the "Concept Plan for AEP Mobile Transformer — Roanoke, Virginia" prepared by Hurt and Proffitt dated February 13, 2024, subject to any changes required by the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Department of Transportation, or the Western Virginia Water authority during the site plan review process. 2. The Type B Landscape Buffer adjacent to the western property line shall consist of two rows of large evergreen trees, eight (8) feet in height above ground when planted, in place of the deciduous trees and evergreen shrubs. 3. The Type B Landscape Buffer screening requirement adjacent to the western property line shall be constructed of an opaque vinyl material. Supervisor Hooker FURTHER MOVED that the draft ordinance that was prepared and included in our board packet be approved and adopted, including the provision that the audio portion of today's hearing that pertains to this matter be transcribed and attached to the ordinance as an integral exhibit, demonstrating that the Board fully considered arguments both for and against the rezoning request, including, but not limited to, the arguments shared and discussed during today's meeting. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Page 3 of 4 AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: 03- o;%-Zoz / Richa L. Caywood, P.E. C ty Administrator/ Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Philip Thompson, Director of Planning Rachel Lower, Assistant County Attorney James K. Cowan, Jr., CowanPerry, PC Page 4 of 4 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Meeting February 27 , 2024 @ 7 : 00 p .m. 2 1 2 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH : Evening session . 3 Moving onto the agenda to item J, public 4 hearing and second reading of ordinances . 5 Item 1 , petition of Appalachian Power Company 6 to rezone approximately 3 . 255 acres from C2 7 high intensity commercial district to I2 high 8 intensity industrial district , located at 1835 9 Loch Haven Drive, Catawba Magisterial 10 District . 11 Chair recognizes Philip Thompson, 12 Director of Planning . 13 MR. PHILIP THOMPSON : Thank you, 14 Mr . Chairman, members of board . As you 15 mentioned, Appalachian Power is looking to 16 rezone a little over 3 acres from a commercial 17 zoning district to an industrial zoning 18 district . The location of the property kind 19 of sits across from AEP ' s existing facility 20 off of Loch Haven Road. This property sits 21 next to or to the east of the Allstate 22 building, right adjacent to Interstate 81 . 23 It ' s at 1835 Loch Haven Drive, again, a little 24 over 3 . 2 acres . 3 1 It ' s currently vacant , vacant 2 commercial buildings that were on the site 3 previously. They are proposed to rezone to 4 I2 . They want to operate a construction yard . 5 That ' s what we have classified this use , a 6 construction yard, as a permanent use in the 7 I2 zoning district . It is not allowed in the 8 C2 zoning district . So this is kind of an 9 expansion of their current use across the 10 street at 1810 Loch Haven Drive . This is 11 located across the street . 12 Call photos . So here ' s a view of the 13 site . Again, there ' s a couple buildings . 14 Used to be, I think, Jim Walters Home Sales on 15 the property previously . And think that used 16 as a photo studio . So you see the existing 17 buildings that exist on the site through these 18 photos . And then this is kind of a view from 19 that parking lot looking west to the Allstate 20 building . 21 So kind of little bit of history on the 22 property. It was owned by Jim Walter Home, 23 Model Homes . So there ' s modular homes on the 24 property . They served as display model for 4 1 prospective customers to tour . Then from 2010 2 to 2021 the property was served as a school 3 photography studio . AEP acquired the property 4 in 2021 , and it has since remained unoccupied 5 since that time . They have been working on a 6 variety of plans for this property since then . 7 Again, the existing facility located 8 across the street was rezoned back in 1987 9 from B1 to M2 . That conditional rezoning had 10 proffered conditions , which addressed 11 permanent use types , the concept plan, 12 performance, landscaping, and buffers and 13 construction deadlines . 14 So, again, this proposed rezoning would 15 be an extension of that facility, right . They 16 are just trying to move some of that use 17 across the street on this property. 18 We define the construction yard as 19 establishments housing facilities of 20 businesses primarily engaged in construction 21 activities , including outside storage of 22 materials and equipment . It ' s the outside 23 storage of equipment that classifies this as 24 construction yard. 5 1 There will be no storage of materials 2 at this site . They have plenty of room on the 3 other property . This is just really for 4 vehicles and trailers . It is permitted by 5 right in the I2 district . There is one 6 standard . It doesn ' t really apply in this 7 case . But if they had materials that they 8 were storing, it would have to be screened for 9 anything from a residential use that ' s within 10 a hundred feet of the property. And there 11 isn ' t a residential use within a hundred feet 12 so . . . 13 The concept plan -- this is in your 14 packet -- they show roughly, I think, an 15 18 , 000 square foot building that ' s being 16 proposed for the property. They also have a 17 gravel storage lot . So there ' s three kind of 18 canopies we kind of show those drawings -- for 19 some other equipment . So there ' s -- to the 20 upper right-hand side there ' s a gravel storage 21 area that will have two of the canopies . 22 The building will have , I think, six 23 bays on both sides , garage doors on both 24 sides . Mainly, I think, that ' s to be able to 6 1 drive through, you know, from the circulation . 2 To be able to pick up equipment, hook up and 3 drive through at end of the day and store that 4 equipment . 5 Little parking lot to the south of the 6 building, there will be another canopy that ' s 7 over that as well . It will be completely 8 fenced. I think a eight foot total fence 9 height will be chain link with three barbed 10 wires at the top . Storm water management will 11 be handled by underground retention as well as 12 a small pond to the bottom of the drawing . 13 That ' s where the storm water management pond 14 will be located . 15 Again, the purpose of the facility is 16 to warehouse mobile transformer equipment and 17 other large equipment utilized by AEP 18 transmission construction and service crew in 19 the region . So the building will only be 20 occupied as equipment is being picked up in 21 the morning . They go out to the site, do 22 whatever . Come back at the end of the day and 23 put it back into the garage or on the yard . 24 There is a -- one of the bays or two of 7 1 the bays might also be used for also 2 maintenance of the equipment . That may be 3 used as part of it during use of the building . 4 But that would be when they have to do that 5 type of work . 6 Buffer, since adjacent property is C2 7 to the left , which is the Allstate building, 8 that would be rezoned to I2 . There is a type 9 B buffer that ' s required along the western 10 property line . So there ' s two different 11 options that they could have . One is a 12 30-foot buffer with no fencing . Or one is a 13 20-foot buffer with fencing and landscaping . 14 Since they are putting up landscaping, it will 15 probably be that type 2 option that they will 16 utilize . 17 Move on to some other drawings . These 18 are just close-ups of underground detention 19 and storm water pond and the building . The 20 storage area that will have some additional 21 canopies . Here ' s kind of a rendering of that 22 bigger building with the six garage bays . 23 Again, I think it will be the same on 24 the other side . So straight through on both 8 1 sides . It will have garage doors and the 2 different parking canopies for the equipment 3 as well . So A and B are in that gravel area . 4 Part canopy C is behind the building or to the 5 south of the building . 6 Existing zoning, across the street is 7 I2C, which is the AEP facility . To the east 8 and south you hit Interstate 81 . So there ' s 9 really no zoning in place . To the west you 10 have the C2 zoning of the Allstate building . 11 This is currently zoned C2 . 12 Future land use is core . Which is a 13 highest intensity kind of commercial district . 14 So it is -- typically this use is industrial 15 use , and would not be consistent with the 16 general core . So while the proposed rezoning 17 is not consistent with the core future land 18 use designation, the existing facility across 19 Loch Haven Drive is also designated core . 20 So, again, this is an expansion of that use . 21 Public hearing, the Planning Commission 22 held a public hearing on February 6th . There 23 was one citizen, James Cowan, who spoke during 24 the public hearing . He ' s an attorney who is 9 1 representing the people who own the Allstate 2 property next door . So on behalf of his 3 client he expressed strong opposition to the 4 rezoning, with concerns including 5 inconsistency with the Roanoke County 6 comprehensive plan, visual impact , interrupted 7 viewsheds , lack of desired restrictions on the 8 submitted concept plan, bay doors facing the 9 office building, insufficient screening, and 10 the availability of other industrial zoned 11 property available for the intended use . 12 He noted that the owners of 1745 Loch 13 Haven Drive made a large investment in the 14 property, and they believe the development of 15 this site construction yard will deter 16 prospective tenants of that building . 17 I believe included in your packet is 18 his letter that he submitted to the Planning 19 Commission . So you have that as well . So the 20 Planning Commission discussed the use and 21 operation of the construction yard, the 22 building orientation, the building heights , 23 whether materials would be stored on site and, 24 no, only equipment will be stored on site, no 10 1 construction materials , lighting, fencing, 2 proffered conditions , views from the adjacent 3 office building . Also talked about buffers , 4 the existing AEP facility across the street, 5 and what uses would be allowed by C2 , and you 6 may potentially give a higher intensity use 7 adjacent to the Allstate building . 8 So the Planning Commission did 9 recommend approval of this application to 10 rezone the 3 . 255 acres from C2 to I2 high 11 intensity commercial with three proffered 12 conditions that was offered by the applicant . 13 The first one is that site shall be 14 developed in general conformance with the 15 concept plan for AEP Mobile Transformer, 16 Roanoke, Virginia, prepared by Hurt & Proffitt 17 dated February 13 , 2024 , subject to any 18 changes required through the comprehensive 19 site plan review process . 20 So this site plan was amended after the 21 Planning Commission . And the only thing that 22 having changed -- obviously, the date changed . 23 But the only thing that changed was there was 24 a reference on the original about the height 11 1 being 16 feet of the building, and it ' s not 2 going to be 16 feet . 3 So they submitted a revised concept 4 plan -- which is in your packet -- that has a 5 height that -- I believe , 20 feet -- 25 feet 6 as the height . That was the only revision 7 made to -- since they had a revised concept 8 plan, they updated the proffered position with 9 that date . 10 Two and three are still the same . The 11 type of landscape buffer adjacent to the 12 property line shall consist of two rows of 13 large evergreen trees , which will be eight 14 feet in height above the ground when planted, 15 in place of the deciduous trees and evergreen 16 shrubs that are required as part of the type B 17 buffer . And that the type B landscape buffer 18 screening requirement adjacent to the property 19 line shall be constructed of opaque vinyl 20 material , vinyl slats along that western 21 property or in the fence along the western 22 property line . 23 With that , I will take any questions 24 you ask . 12 1 MS . MARTHA HOOKER : I have a couple of 2 questions for staff . Mr . Thompson, when I was 3 reviewing the packet and looking at page 216, 4 which is very similar to your slide 17 -- you 5 don ' t need to bring it back up . It just shows 6 that on the north side of Loch Haven Drive 7 it ' s all purple . It ' s all I2C, and so this 8 portion that ' s before us tonight is just 9 wanting to change that proposed lot to match 10 what ' s across the street . 11 MR. THOMPSON : Right . 12 MS . HOOKER : My question is , how long 13 has APCO been across the street? I know that 14 they have had -- some of that ' s been legacy, 15 and then they have continued to add buildings 16 and uses inside that area . 17 But I wonder if you knew -- because 18 they have been there a substantial time . 19 MR. THOMPSON : Yeah ' 87 is when the 20 rezoning took place . So I imagine shortly 21 around that time frame . 22 MS . HOOKER : Okay . 23 MR. THOMPSON : It was before our 24 current zoning ordinance . So it ' s been a 13 1 while , 30-something years . 2 MS . HOOKER: Okay . 3 MR. THOMPSON : 37 years I guess . So 4 it ' s been there for a while . The Allstate 5 building was built in 2016 . The property they 6 currently have they purchased in 2021 . So 7 it ' s been three years that AEP has owned the 8 property . 9 MS . HOOKER: Right . I was looking 10 through the site plan, and it ' s been 11 proffered . 12 MR. THOMPSON : Correct . 13 MS . HOOKER: So with the proffer of the 14 site plan, does that restrict them from other 15 industrial uses ? 16 MR. THOMPSON : Yes . 17 MS . HOOKER: So they couldn ' t bring in 18 anything else . It has to conform to what is 19 laid out on the plan as it is , or they would 20 need to come back to us -- 21 MR. THOMPSON : Correct . 22 MS . HOOKER: -- with another rezoning 23 and hearing? 24 MR. THOMPSON : Correct . 14 1 MS . HOOKER : And then my other question 2 is -- let ' s see -- I heard you mention 16 3 feet . I had made a note about 16 feet , but 4 now I ' m hearing 25 . 5 MR. THOMPSON : On the original plan it 6 showed a height of 16 feet, but then there was 7 some conversation . So they have resubmitted a 8 revised concept plan, which is in the packet 9 that you all have, which shows those heights 10 of 25 feet . 11 MS . HOOKER : And so the main building, 12 the main storage facility with the 6 garages , 13 garage doors on each side, that one is the 25 14 foot? 15 MR. THOMPSON : Correct . 16 MS . HOOKER : And the canopies are 16 . 17 Is that accurate? 18 MR. THOMPSON : Canopies are 20 . 19 MS . HOOKER: Thank you . 20 MR. THOMPSON : 20 was somewhere in 21 there . 22 MS . HOOKER: I think that ' s all I have 23 for staff at this time . 24 MR. THOMPSON : Sure . 15 1 MR. CHAIRMAN : Anyone else? At this 2 point we will recognize any representatives 3 for the petitioner ' s to speak . 4 State your name and who you represent . 5 MS . TERESA HALL : All right . Good 6 evening, Mr . Chairman, members of the board 7 and staff . I ' m Teresa Hall . I ' m here on 8 behalf of Appalachian Power and operating 9 company under American Electric Power . I ' m 10 joined by my colleague Rob Mann, who works in 11 our real estate department , as well as a 12 couple of representatives with Hurt & 13 Proffitt . 14 We are here this evening to ask for 15 support for the company ' s petition to rezone 16 the Loch Haven Drive property . The land, as 17 Philip noted, will be used to store large 18 equipment that ' s known as mobile transformers . 19 This equipment is vital to the company ' s 20 ability to provide safe and reliable 21 electricity for customers . 22 Mobile transformers are factory-built . 23 They are tested, and then delivered to us 24 completely assembled . They allow us to 16 1 perform maintenance on our facilities without 2 interrupting power for customers . The layout 3 of this property is ideal for this purpose . 4 It is not too steep or too hilly to support 5 the safe entry and exit of the trucks and the 6 transformers at that site . 7 In terms of traffic impact , there will 8 be a few vehicles each day that come in in the 9 morning and leave at the end of the day, but 10 it ' s on an as-needed basis . There could be 11 days where you wouldn ' t even have traffic 12 there . 13 Appalachian Power ' s parent company, 14 AEP, owned other property near the John Vaughn 15 Center, but it is not well-suited for the 16 purpose of housing mobile transformers . This 17 property that we already own, that is also on 18 the site, is simply too hilly and steep for 19 this purpose . 20 The property for which we are 21 requesting the rezoning is adjacent to what 22 we refer to as the John Vaughn property . This 23 site is home to much of the region ' s 24 transmission and distribution operations , and 17 1 many of our employees work there . At this 2 location we maintenance equipment , tools and 3 vehicles and store supplies . 4 We continue to invest in this location . 5 Construction of a new transmission store room 6 at the John Vaughn location is under way now . 7 And we recently celebrated completion of the 8 company ' s new distribution service center . 9 All are at this site . This location is a 10 vital part of the company ' s operations an 11 critical to the company ' s ability to continue 12 to provide safe and reliable power for our 13 customers . 14 Thank you for the opportunity to 15 address the board . At this time I will turn 16 the podium over to Brian, who is with Hurt & 17 Proffitt if you have any additional questions 18 for me or for him. 19 MR. BRIAN CROSSMAN : Okay . Thank you . 20 MR. NORTH : Welcome sir . Tell is your 21 name and who you represent . 22 MR. CROSSMAN : Yes , my name is Brian 23 Crossman with Hurt & Proffitt , the engineering 24 firm representing AEP on this property . And 18 1 really I ' m here -- I can answer any of the 2 technical questions or specific site issues or 3 any other details that you all may have on the 4 site . 5 CHAIRMAN NORTH : Do you have more 6 questions ? 7 MS . HOOKER: I do . I have a laundry 8 list of questions . And if you want me to just 9 start from the top, I ' m happy to do that . 10 MR. CROSSMAN : Go right ahead . 11 MS . HOOKER : And some of them I feel 12 like I even know what ' s going on, but I really 13 want it for the public record . And so I 14 appreciate you listening and answering the 15 questions that I have got . 16 So what will happen to the existing 17 structures , and what is that timeline on this 18 parcel? 19 I know that there ' s is an old home used 20 to be I think, Wayne IT, and they took 21 professional pictures for the schools . And 22 that hasn ' t been in use, I guess , since you 23 all purchased it in 2021 . 24 So what is going to happen to that 19 1 property? How quickly will this turn over . 2 MR. CROSSMAN : So those will eventually 3 be demolished . I ' m not sure if we have done 4 it yet or we are under contract to do the 5 asbestos , lead, mold testing on the facility 6 before we do the demolition to make sure it ' s 7 safe . 8 We would need to submit site plans for 9 full county approval . And that ' s going to 10 take sometime . Right now it ' s anticipated it 11 will be Spring of 2025 before really any 12 construction work is going to start on that 13 site . 14 MS . HOOKER: Okay . So I noticed that 15 on the fencing -- which is probably standard 16 to protect your equipment -- that it ' s eight 17 feet high, chain link . There ' s going to be 18 some vinyl strips to help hide the equipment 19 beyond . But then there ' s also three rows of 20 barbed wire as I understand . 21 And I just wanted you to speak to that . 22 Because that is a pretty harsh look, and how 23 necessary is that barbed wire . 24 MR. CROSSMAN : You want to answer that 20 1 since it ' s more of an AEP . . . 2 MS . HALL : Right . It is part of our 3 physical security standards that we have this 4 type of fencing . However, if it ' s the board ' s 5 wish, we could work with you to put in a 6 fencing that is higher, that would still serve 7 the purpose but would be perhaps more 8 presentable and higher in height . 9 MS . HOOKER : And so what would be -- 10 what would that option look like? 11 MS . HALL : I have not seen what it 12 would look like . But it ' s my understanding 13 that it ' s more pleasing to the eye to have 14 that type of fencing . 15 MR. CROSSMAN : It would essentially be 16 the same chain link fence, without the barbed 17 wire . 18 MS . HOOKER: Okay. It would just be a 19 taller -- 20 MR. CROSSMAN : It would be a taller 21 fence . 22 MS . HOOKER: Okay . I personally think 23 that that would be a great thing to do . It -- 24 I think it would help the aesthetics there . 21 1 I would be in favor of that . 2 And if I may continue, Mr . Chairman, I 3 have got several others . 4 So there ' s going to be some outside 5 lighting on that parcel . And I was just 6 checking to make sure it was going to be down 7 lit . 8 MR. CROSSMAN : It is , and that ' s just 9 part of the site plan approval process where 10 they are -- 11 MS . HOOKER : Perfect . Perfect . And 12 then the roofing material and the colors of 13 the roofing material , from your neighbor they 14 will be able to -- they will be looking 15 straight down on top of those buildings . 16 And I was curious about what your 17 schematics that you thought those would look 18 like? 19 MR. CROSSMAN : Typical of what ' s been 20 done that type of building has been just a 21 metal seem roof, and I believe the color is a 22 white -- 23 MS . HOOKER : A white roof? 24 MS . HALL : Standard white roof . 22 1 MS . HOOKER : And the garages doors -- I 2 know at some point I ' m asking about the garage 3 door color also . 4 MR. CROSSMAN : It would be the same 5 white . 6 MS . HOOKER: Okay . Okay . And is the 7 siding -- I know that there would be some kind 8 of siding on the garage . The other shelters 9 don ' t have siding . They don ' t have walls . Or 10 do they? 11 MR. CROSSMAN : I believe one or two of 12 the -- I believe the two in the gravel yard 13 might have a rear wall to them. 14 MS . HOOKER: Okay . 15 MR. CROSSMAN : Again, that would 16 probably just be a metal , a metal wall . 17 MS . HOOKER : Metal siding . 18 MR. CROSSMAN : Yes . 19 MS . HOOKER: And would it be white or 20 would it look metallic? Or do you know at 21 this point even . 22 MR . CROSSMAN : I don ' t know that we 23 know that . 24 MS . HOOKER: Okay . 23 1 MR . CROSSMAN : I know on other AEP 2 projects we have done they have got standard 3 color templates they use in the buildings . 4 MS . HOOKER: I think what I was trying 5 to avoid was like the , you know, 6 mini-warehouse look . 7 MR . CROSSMAN : The main building is 8 going to be block for the bottom portion of 9 the building . 10 MS . HOOKER : Okay . 11 MR. CROSSMAN : As was mentioned, one of 12 the bays in that building could be storage or 13 could be a maintenance . 14 MS . HOOKER : Sure . 15 MR. CROSSMAN : So part of that 16 maintenance could be some wash down because of 17 the water in there . The lower course of that 18 building would be block building . 19 So I believe -- I believe it is a split 20 face block on the lower portion of the 21 building . 22 MS . HOOKER: Excellent , excellent . 23 Okay . And then some kind of metal siding . 24 And we ' re not positive about the color . It ' s 24 1 either metallic or . 2 MR . CROSSMAN : Metal siding on the top 3 and I believe it ' s going to match the new 4 buildings that were just installed across the 5 street just to keep of consistent . 6 MS . HOOKER : Great . I like that . 7 That ' s good . Will there be equipment storage 8 outside of the storage building in the 9 canopies on some of the paved areas especially 10 is what I ' m concerned about on the western 11 side of the lot . 12 Will there be outside storage that ' s 13 not under a canopy . 14 MR. CROSSMAN : No, because what we did, 15 the site we used some modeling software . And 16 based on the trailer sizes and the type of 17 vehicles that would be pulling them, we 18 modeled the movements within the site to get 19 the building as big as we can get it for the 20 vehicles to still be able to do those 21 movements . 22 So there is really no room in the 23 building to store anything within the building 24 or under those canopies in the graveled 25 1 area . 2 MS . HOOKER : That ' s excellent . That ' s 3 very good . I ' m pleased to hear that . 4 So just speak to the storm water 5 management . I understand that there ' s 6 underground storm water management , but 7 there ' s also a pond . Will there have to be 8 some kind of additional fencing or work around 9 that? 10 MR. CROSSMAN : There ' s not additional 11 fencing for the site inside the pond . 12 MS . HOOKER : Good . Good . But there 13 is underground, and then there is a detention 14 pond? 15 MR. CROSSMAN : Yes , just because the 16 site is not large enough for the pond size 17 required . 18 MS . HOOKER : Sure . Very good . 19 Mr . Chairman that ' s all I have at this time . 20 CHAIRMAN NORTH : Okay . Anyone else 21 have questions? 22 MR. DAVID RADFORD : Just a comment . In 23 the construction world, I deal with AEP . And 24 some of our stuff has gotten and stolen since 26 1 Covid because it ' s got a supply and demand . 2 So I would understand why you need 3 security and high fence . And the barbed wire 4 sometimes seems excessive, but it works . 5 So just letting you all know from my 6 perspective that -- 7 CHAIRMAN NORTH : Thank you . I have a 8 question . So I visualize trailers , low bid 9 trailers with the transformers already on it , 10 and that ' s what you ' re storing there . 11 How many of those are you going to have 12 that are inside , and how many are going to be 13 under cover? Do you have an idea at any one 14 time? 15 MR. CROSSMAN : We have -- there are -- 16 CHAIRMAN NORTH : Looked like you had 17 four bays . 18 MS . HALL : Six . 19 CHAIRMAN NORTH : Six? 20 MS . HALL : There are six bays , but it 21 could be up to 14 . 22 CHAIRMAN NORTH : Yeah, In that one 23 building? 24 MR. CROSSMAN : Because some of them are 27 1 full length of the building, and others you 2 could pull them in from either side that were 3 shorter . And then it appears there ' s about 14 4 spaces under the canopy within the gravel 5 area . 6 CHAIRMAN NORTH : So if that ' s -- go 7 ahead . 8 MR. CROSSMAN : Just the other canopy 9 that was closer to the building was really 10 just for the personnel vehicles that would be 11 there if someone was inside the building . 12 CHAIRMAN NORTH : So I visualize this as 13 no one might go in there for three or four 14 days . If there ' s a transformer blows out , 15 someone will go there, hook it up to the 16 truck, take it to the site that ' s needed and . 17 MS . HALL : That ' s correct . 18 CHAIRMAN NORTH : What do you do with 19 the transformers that blow up somewhere? Do 20 you bring them back to the site? 21 MS . HALL : I don ' t believe so . 22 CHAIRMAN NORTH : All right . So this is 23 a pretty simple staging operation is what I 24 see it as . May not have a lot of activity in 28 1 any particular time during the day, and then 2 again may when needed as emergency dictates . 3 Okay. That ' s only question I have . 4 CHAIRMAN NORTH : Do you have some more 5 questions , Ms . Hooker? 6 MS . HOOKER : If I could go back and ask 7 again . Going back to the fencing, I hear from 8 my colleague that high fencing is necessary . 9 And I believe that it is necessary to protect 10 that equipment . 11 But your comment intrigues me . You 12 said that it would be potentially just a 13 higher chain link fence . So if it ' s eight 14 feet, it would be all chain link instead of 15 three rows of barbed wire . Is that the way 16 I understand? 17 MR . CROSSMAN : Again, I think that ' s up 18 to the board . The initial intention of the 19 application was to do the standard chain link 20 fence with the three strands of barbed wire at 21 the top . Whatever AEP ' s standard for fencing 22 is what that ' s intended to be . 23 MS . HOOKER: Sure . Understood . Okay. 24 CHAIRMAN NORTH : Anymore questions? 29 1 MS . HOOKER : Not at this time . 2 CHAIRMAN NORTH : Okay . Do we have 3 anyone to speak? Anyone signed up to speak 4 for this? If so, I will open the public 5 hearing . 6 Okay . That said, I will close the 7 public hearing . 8 At this time is there a motion? 9 MS . HOOKER: Yes , sir . I ' m happy to 10 make a motion . And I have been pondering this 11 and getting other ' s input regarding -- I went 12 and toured the site and your neighbor ' s 13 facility . 14 And, Mr . Chairman, I would like to make 15 a motion to approve . I find that the proposed 16 rezoning request is inconsistent with the core 17 future land use designation, the county ' s has 18 adopted comprehensive plan . However, the 19 subject property is adjacent to other 20 property zoned high intensity industrial 21 district with conditions . 22 And the proposed use would be an 23 extension of the current use of that adjacent 24 property as good zoning practice and will not 30 1 result in substantial detriment to the 2 community . 3 I , therefore, move that we approve the 4 rezoning request as it has been requested with 5 the following proffered conditions : 6 Number one, the site shall be developed 7 in general conformance with the concept plan 8 for AEP Mobile Transformer, Roanoke , Virginia, 9 prepared by Hurt & Proffitt , dated December 5 , 10 2023, subject to any changes required by the 11 County of Roanoke, Virginia, Department of 12 Transportation or the Western Virginia Water 13 Authority during the site plan review process . 14 The type B landscape buffer adjacent to 15 the western property line shall consist of two 16 rows of large evergreen trees , eight feet in 17 height above ground when planted in place of 18 the deciduous trees and evergreen shrubs . 19 The type B landscape buffer screening 20 requirement adjacent to the western property 21 line shall be constructed of an opaque vinyl 22 material . 23 I further move that the draft ordinance 24 that was prepared and included in our board 31 1 packet be approved and adopted, including the 2 provision that the audio portion of the 3 today ' s hearing be transcribed and attached to 4 the ordinance as an integral exhibit 5 demonstrating that the board fully considered 6 arguments both for and against the rezoning 7 request , including but not limited to, the 8 arguments shared and discussed during today ' s 9 meeting . 10 MR. PETER LUBECK: Ms . Hooker, if I 11 may . 12 MS . HOOKER : Yes . 13 MR. LUBECK: When I prepared the sample 14 motion, we had not yet received the 15 substituted concept plan, so there is a 16 different date . I apologize that I had 17 overlooked that . 18 So under the first motion to approve 19 under number one, the date of the concept plan 20 should be February 13th, instead of December 21 5th . 22 MS . HOOKER: Thank you for catching 23 that . 24 MR. PETER LUBECK : I apologize for that 32 1 oversight . 2 MS . HOOKER : No problem. Thank you for 3 catching that . February 13 , 2023 . 4 MR. PETER LUBECK : Yes , ma ' am. 2024 . 5 MS . HOOKER : 2024 . Thank you . 6 CHAIRMAN NORTH : Okay . You made the 7 motion? 8 MS . HOOKER: Yes , sir . 9 CHAIRMAN NORTH : Is there a second on 10 the motion? 11 MR. RADFORD : Second. 12 CHAIRMAN NORTH : Any discussion on the 13 motion? 14 Will the clerk, please call the roll . 15 CLERK MADELINE HANLON : Mr . Radford. 16 MR. RADFORD : Yes . 17 CLERK HANLON : Mrs . Hooker . 18 MRS . HOOKER: Yes . 19 CLERK HANLON : Mr . Mahoney. 20 MR. MAHONEY : Yes . 21 CLERK HANLON : Mrs . Shepherd . 22 MRS . SHEPHERD : I would like to take 23 a moment to ask Peter Lubeck a question . 24 MR. LUBECK : Yes , of course . 33 1 MRS . SHEPHERD : I have just realized -- 2 not knowing that AEP would be bringing Rob 3 Mann with them, and he is a realtor in my 4 office . Therefore, I need to know -- even 5 though I would not be receiving any money or 6 benefit that I ' m aware of -- if I should 7 abstain from this voting and motion so that 8 there is no impropriety or -- 9 MR. LUBECK : That is a very wise 10 question, Ms . Shepherd . I commend you for 11 asking it . 12 There would be no violation under a 13 reading of the Virginia Conflict of Interest 14 Act . So legally you may vote . 15 However, if you do perceive -- if you 16 do desire to avoid any appearance of 17 impropriety, you could certainly take that 18 into consideration and abstain from the vote . 19 So this would really be your decision on what 20 you feel best about . 21 Again, there would be no violation of 22 law if you did decide to vote, either for or 23 against . But if you desire to avoid any 24 appearance of impropriety, you may decide to 34 1 abstain . 2 MRS . SHEPHERD : I feel that I would 3 like to abstain . 4 MR . LUBECK : Very good . 5 CLERK HANLON : Mr . North . Continuing 6 the vote . 7 MR. NORTH : Yes . 8 9 10 (A recess was taken) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 35 1 CERTIFICATE 2 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 3 COUNTY OF ROANOKE 4 I , MaryTheresa Ferris , RPR, Notary 5 Public in and for the Commonwealth of Virginia, do 6 hereby certify that the excerpt of these proceedings 7 were by me transcribed by me by means of audio/visual 8 recording, and that to the best of my ability the 9 foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the 10 excerpt of the proceedings as aforesaid . 11 12 I further certify that I am not a 13 relative, counsel or attorney for either party, or 14 otherwise interested in the outcome of this action . 15 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set 17 my hand at Roanoke , Virginia, on the 21st day of 18 March 2024 . 19 20 21 --- MARYT ERESA FERRIS, RPR 22 NOTARY PUBLIC 23 My Commission expires December 31 , 2025 . Notary Registration Number 228190 . 24 ACTION NO. 022724-6 ITEM NO. L_2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: February 27, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Patricia M. Sink to rezone approximately 5.545 acres from AG-3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve District, to AV, AgriculturalNillage Center District, located at 3455 Pitzer Road, Vinton Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywo d County Adminis ator Q 3_ "/- Z.oL` ISSUE: Agenda item for public hearing and second reading of an ordinance to rezone agricultural land to allow for the subdivision of property. BACKGROUND: Applicant is petitioning to rezone property to subdivide off the existing house to sell. • The existing property is 5.545 acres in size. • The current AG-3 (Agricultural/Rural Preserve) zoning district would require 6.0 acres to subdivide the property into two (2) parcels. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on February 6, 2024. No citizens spoke during the public hearing. The applicant explained her desire to subdivide in order sell the home while retaining the majority of the land. She stated that her intention is for her son, who resides at 3443 Pitzer Road, to inherit the remaining land that is not sold with the home. She expressed her desire to sell only a small portion of the land with the existing home. Page 1 of 2 The Planning Commission recommends approval of the request to rezone approximately 5.545 acres from AG-3 to AV. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact with this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the second reading of an ordinance to rezone approximately 5.545 acres from AG-3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve, district, to AV, AgriculturalNillage Center, district. VOTE: Supervisor Shepherd moved to approve the motion. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ CC: Philip Thompson, Director of Planning Rachel Lower, Assistant County Attorney Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2024 ORDINANCE 022724-6 REZONING APPROXIMATELY 5.545 ACRES FROM AG-3 (AGRICULTURAURURAL PRESERVE) DISTRICT TO AV (AGRICULTURALNILLAGE CENTER) DISTRICT LOCATED AT 3455 PITZER ROAD, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Patricia M. Sink is requesting to rezone approximately 5.545 acres from AG-3 (Agricultural/Rural Preserve) District to AV (AgriculturalNillage Center) District in order to subdivide property located at 3455 Pitzer Road (Roanoke County Tax Map Number: 079.04-02- 15.00-0000); and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 23, 2024, and the second reading and public hearing were held on February 27, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on February 6, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition as requested; 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 Patricia M. Sink to rezone approximately 5.545 acres from AG-3 (Agricultural/Rural Preserve) District to AV (AgriculturalNillage Center) District on property located at 3455 Pitzer Road (Roanoke County Tax Map Number: 079.04-02-15.00-0000) is hereby approved. 2. The Board finds that the request as submitted by Patricia M. Sink is consistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted Page 1 of 2 Comprehensive Plan, is good zoning practice, and will not result in substantial detriment to the community. 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. Supervisor Shepherd moved to approve the second reading of the ordinance. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: 03- as'-Z.oL'? Ric --":L. Caywood, P.E. .unty Administrator/Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Philip Thompson, Director of Planning Page 2 of 2