Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/25/2024 - Adopted Board Records ACTION NO. 062524-1 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: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution approving the Roanoke County Public Schools (RCPS) for fiscal year 2024-2025 upon certain terms and conditions SUBMITTED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Resolution to approve the annual budget for Roanoke County Public Schools. BACKGROUND: State Code 22.1-93 requires the governing body of a County to prepare and approve an annual budget for education purposes by May 15 or within thirty (30) days of the receipt by the County of the estimates of State funds, whichever shall later occur. The Commonwealth of Virginia adopted their FY2024-2025 budget on May 13, 2024, and the Roanoke County School Board received their final estimate of State Funds on May 29, 2024. DISCUSSION: The Roanoke County Public Schools (RCPS) School Board approved their revised fiscal year 2024-2025 budget on June 10, 2024. Attached is a copy of the fiscal year 2024-2025 Roanoke County Public Schools Budget. The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will need to approve the resolution for the budget, however this does not authorize the spending of funds until such time as the appropriation ordinance is approved. This . approval is scheduled for later in this meeting. Page 1 of 2 Dr. Ken Nicely, Superintendent and Kathie Rawlings, Associate Director of Finance will attend the Board of Supervisors meeting to present the RCPS budget. FISCAL IMPACT: Per the revenue sharing agreement with RCPS, the current County proposed fiscal year 2024-2025 Operating Budget includes a transfer in the amount of $92,543,849 for RCPS operations as part of the Schools categories. The appropriation of RCPS funds totals $376,954,726 and will occur as part of the adoption of the fiscal year 2024-2025 school budget ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the Roanoke County Public Schools fiscal year 2024-2025 budget to satisfy State Code requirements. VOTE: Supervisor Radford moved to approve the resolution adopting the Roanoke County Public Schools budget for fiscal year 2024-2025 as proposed and set forth in the resolution. Supervisor Mahoney seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ CC: Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services Susan Peterson, RCPS Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2024 RESOLUTION 062524-1 APPROVING THE ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 UPON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHEREAS, State Code 22.1-93 requires the governing body of a County to prepare and approve an annual budget for education purposes by May 15 or within thirty(30)days of the receipt by the County of the estimates of state funds, whichever shall later occur; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County School Board approved their fiscal year 2024- 2025 budget on June 10, 2024 both by fund and state categories. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that the fiscal year 2024-2025 Roanoke County Public Schools budget as set forth by the School Board's adoption on June 10, 2024, a copy of which is incorporated by reference herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said approval. On motion of Supervisor Radford to approve the resolution adopting the Roanoke County Public Schools budget for fiscal year 2024-2025; seconded by Supervisor Mahoney and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Rich- ': L. Caywood, P.E. .unty Administrator/ Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Page 1 of 2 CC: Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services Susan Peterson, RCPS Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 062524-2 ITEM NO. D.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF OPIOID-RELATED CLAIMS AGAINST KROGER AND ITS RELATED CORPORATE ENTITIES, AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND/OR THE COUNTY'S OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO EXECUTE THE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE SETTLEMENTS SUBMITTED BY: Peter S. Lubeck County Attorney APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Approval of opioid settlement agreement with Kroger. BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic that has cost thousands of human lives across the country also impacts the County of Roanoke by adversely impacting the delivery of emergency medical, law enforcement, criminal justice, mental health and substance abuse services, and other services by Roanoke County's various departments and agencies. Roanoke County has been required and will continue to be required to allocate substantial taxpayer dollars, resources, staff energy and time to address the damage the opioid epidemic has caused and continues to cause the citizens of Roanoke County. Roanoke County has filed suit against Kroger and certain of its related corporate entities for its role in the distribution, manufacture, and sale of the pharmaceutical opioid products that have fueled the opioid epidemic that has harmed Roanoke County. The County's suit seeks recovery of the public funds previously expended and to be. expended in the future to abate the consequences and harms of the opioid epidemic. Page 1 of 2 A settlement proposal has been negotiated that will cause Kroger to pay over a billion dollars nationwide to resolve opioid-related claims against it. The County has approved and adopted the Virginia Opioid Abatement Fund and Settlement Allocation Memorandum of Understanding (the "Virginia MOU"), and affirms that this pending settlement with Kroger shall be considered a "Settlement" that is subject to the Virginia MOU, and shall be administered and allocated in the same manner as the opioid settlements entered into previously with the Distributors, Janssen, Teva,Allergan, Walmart, CVS, and Walgreens. DISCUSSION: The County's outside opioid litigation counsel has recommended that the County participate in the settlement in order to recover its share of the funds that the settlement would provide. FISCAL IMPACT: It is anticipated that, if sufficient locality-participation is achieved in Virginia, the County would receive direct distributions of approximately $160,286 (over 11 years), and would receive approximately $34,604 additional funds that would flow through the Virginia Opioid Abatement Authority. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the resolution. VOTE: Supervisor Mahoney moved to adopt the resolution. Supervisor North seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford /1 ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ CC: Peter S. Lubeck, 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, JUNE 25, 2024 RESOLUTION 062524-2 APPROVING THE COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF OPIOID-RELATED CLAIMS. AGAINST KROGER AND ITS RELATED CORPORATE ENTITIES, AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND/OR THE COUNTY'S OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO EXECUTE THE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE SETTLEMENTS WHEREAS, the opioid epidemic that has cost thousands of human lives across the country also impacts the County of Roanoke by adversely impacting the delivery of emergency medical, law enforcement, criminal justice, mental health and substance abuse services, and other services by Roanoke County's various departments and agencies; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County has been required and will continue to be required to allocate substantial taxpayer dollars, resources, staff energy and time to address the damage the opioid epidemic has caused and continues to cause the citizens of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, a settlement proposal has been negotiated that will cause Kroger to pay over a billion dollars nationwide to resolve opioid-related claims against it; and WHEREAS, the County has approved and adopted the Virginia Opioid Abatement Fund and Settlement Allocation Memorandum of Understanding (the "Virginia MOU"), and affirms that this pending settlement with Kroger shall be considered a "Settlement" that is subject to the Virginia MOU, and shall be administered and allocated in the same manner as the opioid settlements entered into previously with the Distributors, Janssen, Teva, Allergan, Walmart, CVS, and Walgreens; and WHEREAS, the County's outside opioid litigation counsel has recommended that the County participate in the settlement in order to recover its share of the funds that the settlement would provide; and WHEREAS, the County Attorney has reviewed the available information about the proposed settlements and concurs with the recommendation of outside counsel. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County approves of the County's participation in the proposed settlement of opioid-related claims against Kroger and its related corporate entities, and directs the County Attorney and/or the County's outside counsel to execute the documents necessary to effectuate the County's participation in the settlements, including the required release of claims against Kroger. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution; seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Rich. •d L. Caywood, P.E. C. my Administrator/ Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney ACTION NO. 062524-3 ITEM NO. E.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Emergency Ordinance to appropriate funds for the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 for Roanoke County Public Schools Categories SUBMITTED BY:: Laurie Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Emergency ordinance to appropriate funds for fiscal year 2024-2025 Roanoke County Public Schools (RCPS) Categories. BACKGROUND: The fiscal year 2024-2025 Roanoke County Public Schools categories were presented to the Board of Supervisors during a briefing held on April 9, 2024. Since then, the categories have been revised to reflect revised revenues. The revised categories were adopted by the Roanoke County School Board on June 10, 2024. The original categories were advertised in the Roanoke Times on April 14, 2024, and a public hearing was held on April 23, 2024. There is no requirement to hold a second hearing. Attached for your approval is an ordinance for the Roanoke County Public Schools fiscal year 2024-2025 categories. DISCUSSION: The total Roanoke County Public Schools categories for fiscal year 2024-2025 is $376,954,726 and the categories are as follows: Page 1 of 3 Schools Instruction $ 153,554,539 Schools Admin, Attendance & Health 9,849,934 Schools Pupil Transportation 11,543,443 Schools Operation and Maintenance 21,106,680 Schools Food Service & Other Non-instructional Operations 8,830,427 Schools Facilities 102,452,176 Schools Debt and Fund Transfers 24,453,319 Schools Technology 15,275,409 Schools Non-Categorical Spending 29,888,799 Total School Categories $ 376,954,726 The Non-Categorical Spending category represents $23,584,888 for the Schools Health Insurance Fund, $1,714,101 for the Schools Dental Insurance Fund, $408,203 for the Schools Risk Management Fund, $142,790. for the Schools Other Post-Employment Benefits Trust Fund, and $4,038,817 in Student Activity Funds. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the fiscal year 2024-2025 Roanoke County Public Schools appropriation ordinance provides funding for the Schools effective July 1, 2024. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the Roanoke County Public Schools fiscal year 2024-2025 categories appropriation ordinance and upon a four-fifths vote to waive the second reading of the ordinance. VOTE: Supervisor Radford moved to approve the ordinance as an emergency ordinance, due to time constraints, and to dispense the second reading upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the members of the Board. Supervisor Mahoney seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ Page 2 of 3 CC: Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services Susan Peterson, RCPS Page 3 of 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2024 EMERGENCY 062524-3 ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CATEGORIES WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public hearing was held on April 23, 2024, concerning the adoption of the annual budget for Roanoke County which included the Roanoke County Public Schools categories for fiscal year 2024-2025; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved said categories on June 25, 2024, 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 WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on June 25, 2024, and the second reading of this ordinance was waived after a four- fifths vote, 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 categories for the period beginning July 1, 2024, and ending June 30, 2025, for the functions and purposes indicated: Page 1 of 3 County of Roanoke,Virginia Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Roanoke County Public Schools Categories First Reading June 25,2024;Second Reading Waived Appropriation Amount Revenues: Schools Instruction $ 153,554,539 Schools Administration,Attendance, and Health $ 9,849,934 Schools Pupil Transportation $ 11,543,443 Schools Operation and Maintenance $ 21,106,680 Schools Food Service and Other Noninstructional Operations $ 8,830,427 Schools Facilities $ 102,452,176 Schools Debt and Fund Transfers $ 24,453,319 Schools Technology $ 15,275,409 Schools Non-Categorical Spending $ 29,888,799 Total Revenue-Schools Categories $ 376,954,726 Expenditures: Schools Instruction $ 153,554,539 Schools Administration,Attendance, and Health $ 9,849,934 Schools Pupil Transportation $ 11,543,443 Schools Operation and Maintenance $ 21,106,680 Schools Food Service and Other Noninstructional Operations $ 8,830,427 Schools Facilities $ 102,452,176 Schools Debt and Fund Transfers $ 24,453,319 Schools Technology $ 15,275,409 Schools Non-Categorical Spending $ 29,888,799 Total Expenditures -Schools Categories $ 376,954,726 2. That the Non-Categorical Spending represents $23,584,888 for the Schools Health Insurance Fund, $1,714,101 for the Schools Dental Insurance Fund, $408,203 for the Schools Risk Management Fund, $142,790 for the Schools Other Post-Employment Benefits Trust Fund, and $4,038,817 in Student Activity Funds. Page 2 of 3 3. That all funded outstanding categorical encumbrances at June 30, 2024, are re-appropriated to the 2024-2025 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, 2024. On motion of Supervisor Radford to approve the ordinance as an emergency ordinance, due to time constraints, and to dispense the second reading upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the members of the board; seconded by Supervisor Mahoney and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Richard . Caywood, P.E. / Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services Susan Peterson, RCPS Page 3 of 3 ACTION NO. 062524-4 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: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Franco and Dawn DeBartolo to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 2.99 acres of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 3663 Chaparral Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Agenda item for public hearing and second reading of ordinance for a special use permit for short-term rental in a residential district. BACKGROUND: • The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a short-term rental as "the provision of a room or space that is suitable or intended for occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging purposes, for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days, in exchange for a charge for the occupancy. This use does not include existing uses defined in this ordinance including bed and breakfast, bed and breakfast inn, boarding house, country inn, and hotel/motel/motor lodge." • A short-term rental has several use and design standards. In the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, a special use permit is required for a short-term rental on lots less than five (5) acres in size. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on June 4, 2024. One (1) citizen spoke during the public hearing. His concerns included the maintenance Page 1 of 4 of the access easement, liability insurance related to the access easement, future owners of the property assisting with maintenance of the easement and having liability insurance, and the special use permit passing to future owners. The Planning Commission discussed the ingress-egress easement, the applicant's willingness to contribute to the maintenance of the easement, the applicant providing information about their liability insurance, the special use permit conditions, the short- term rental being in operation for over a year with no complaints, the property owner lives on the property, the use is only for the accessory structure, the surrounding land use, and the future land use designation. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the special use permit for a short- term rental with the following conditions: 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the existing accessory structure (approximately 890 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed two (2) people. 3. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking spaces required for the principal dwelling. All parking shall be provided on-site and shall be located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. 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 for a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 2.99 acres on property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, with the following conditions: Page 2 of 4 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the existing accessory structure (approximately 890 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed two (2) people. 3. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking spaces required for the principal dwelling. All parking shall be provided on-site and shall be located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use and transient taxes be paid. VOTE: Supervisor Mahoney found that the proposed special use permit: 1. Meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; 2. Is in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; and 3. Will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. Therefore, moved that the Board approve the petition to obtain a special use permit, with the following seven (7) conditions: 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the existing accessory structure (approximately 890 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed two (2) people. 3. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking spaces required for the principal dwelling. All parking shall be provided on-site and shall be located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. Page 3 of 4 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use and transient occupancy taxes be paid. Supervisor Shepherd seconded the motion. Motion Approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ CC: Philip Thompson, Director of Planning 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, JUNE 25, 2024 ORDINANCE 062524-4 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO FRANCO AND DAWN DEBARTOLO TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON APPROXIMATELY 2.99 ACRES OF LAND ZONED R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 3663 CHAPARRAL DRIVE, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Franco and Dawn DeBartolo have filed a petition for a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 2.99 acres of land zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) District, located at 3663 Chaparral Drive (Roanoke County Tax Map Number 087.09-03-03.00-0000), in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 28, 2024, and the . second reading and public hearing were held on June 25, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 4, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition to obtain a special use permit, with seven (7) conditions; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, 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. Page 1 of 3 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 seven (7) conditions: a. The short-term rental shall be limited to the existing accessory structure (approximately 890 square feet). b. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed two (2) people. c. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking spaces required for the principal dwelling. All parking shall be provided on-site and shall be located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas. d. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. e. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. f. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. g. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use and transient occupancy taxes be paid. Page 2 of 3 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance; seconded by Supervisor Shepherd and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: Nor-- A COPY TESTE: Jr. Ric . : . Caywood, P.E. Ce r my Administrator/ Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Philip Thompson, Director of Planning Page3of3 ACTION NO. 062524-5 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: June 25, 2024 • AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Evelyn Liu to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 2.0432 acres of land zoned R-1,. Low Density Residential District, located at 4058 Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Agenda item for public hearing and second reading of ordinance for a special use permit for short-term rental in a residential district. BACKGROUND: • The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a short-term rental as "the provision of a room or space that is suitable or intended for occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging purposes, for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days, in exchange for a charge for the occupancy. This use does not include existing uses defined in this ordinance including bed. and breakfast, bed and breakfast inn, boarding house, country inn, and hotel/motel/motor lodge." • A short-term rental has several use and design standards. In the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, a special use permit is required for a short-term rental on lots less than five (5) acres in size. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on June 4, 2024. There was one letter submitted by Nathan Webster in support of the petition. Six (6) citizens spoke at the public hearing. Several citizens raised concerns including: the Page 1 of 4 short-term rental has been in use for a year; possible expansion of the special use permit to the main house; enforcement of the special use permit conditions; possible noise from events; sight distance at the short-term rental driveway entrance; and the number of short-term rentals allowed in the County in the future. A few citizens spoke on behalf of the applicant's character and supported the project. The Planning Commission discussed: that no .complaints from neighbors have been received by staff on the short-term rental use; applicant contacted county after receiving enforcement letter and started special use permit process; special use permit conditions; access to the accessory structure; property owner lives in the main house on the property; applicant manages the short-term rental use; applicant's vetting process for renters; enforcement of short-term rentals; events restriction; noise ordinance; and no rentals will be allowed when property owner is out of town. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the special use permit for a short- term rental with the following conditions: 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the existing accessory structure (approximately 1,095 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed six (6) people. 3. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking spaces required for the principal dwelling. All parking shall be provided on-site and shall be located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. 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 for a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 2.04 acres on property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, with the following Page 2 of 4 conditions: 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the existing accessory structure (approximately 1,095 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed six (6) people. 3. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking spaces required for the principal dwelling. All parking shall be provided on-site and shall be located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. VOTE: Supervisor Radford found that the proposed special use permit: 1. Meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; 2. Is in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; and 3. Will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. Therefore, moved that the Board approve the petition to obtain a special use permit, with the following seven (7) conditions: 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the existing accessory structure (approximately 1,095 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed six (6) people. 3. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking spaces required for the principal dwelling. All parking shall be provided on-site and shall be located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. Page 3 of 4 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. Supervisor Shepherd seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ CC: Philip Thompson, Director of Planning 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, JUNE 25, 2024 ORDINANCE 062524-5 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO EVELYN LIU TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON APPROXIMATELY 2.0432 ACRES OF LAND ZONED R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 4058 KEAGY ROAD, WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Evelyn Liu has filed a petition for a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 2.0432 acres of land zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) District, located at 4058 Keagy Road (Roanoke County Tax Map Number 067.00-01-06.00-0000), in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 28, 2024, and the second reading and public hearing were held on June 25, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 4, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition to obtain a special use permit, with seven (7) conditions; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, 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. Page 1 of 3 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 seven (7) conditions: a. The short-term rental shall be limited to the existing accessory structure (approximately 1,095 square feet). b. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed six (6) people. c. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking spaces required for the principal dwelling. All parking shall be provided on-site and shall be located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas. d. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. e. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. f. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. g. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. Page 2 of 3 On motion of Supervisor Radford to adopt the ordinance; seconded by Supervisor Shepherd and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Richa . Caywood, P.E. Co ty Administrator/ Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Philip Thompson, Director of Planning Page3of3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2024 RESOLUTION 062524-6.a-k APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM G - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for June 25, 2024, designated as Item G -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 11 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes— June 11, 2024 2. Ordinance accepting funds in the amount of$328,811 from Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services and appropriating such funds for use by the Roanoke County Police Department for school resource officers. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 3. Ordinance accepting funds in the amount of$322,675 from Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services and appropriating such funds for use by the Roanoke County Police Department for school resource officers. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 4. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $4,000 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management for the Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) Educational Grant Program. 5. The petition of Brad Prescott to obtain a special use permit to develop on a lot without public road frontage and to obtain a special use permit for custom manufacturing in a C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, on approximately 1.44 acres of land located in the 2900 block of Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) Page 1 of 2 6. The petition of Jonathan Kenneth Burns-Carrera to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 1.42 acres of land zoned R-1, Low Intensity Residential District, located at 5909 Old Mountain Road, Hollins Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) 7. The petition of Trail Development Group, LLC to rezone approximately 9.67 acres from I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, located near 3475 and 3801 Challenger Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) 8. Resolution approving the second amendment to the county administrator's employment agreement. 9. Resolution approving the second amendment to the county attorney's employment agreement. 10.Ordinance approving the payment of a bonus to the county administrator and the county attorney. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 11.Accept and allocate a Stormwater Local Assistance Fund (SLAF) grant in the amount of$607,212 from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ). On motion of Supervisor Shepherd to adopt all matters on the consent agenda; seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: char L. Caywood, P.E. County Administrator/ Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services Joshua Pegram, Finance Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney Tarek Moneir, Director of Development Services Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 062524-6.b ITEM NO. G.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance accepting funds in the amount of $328,811 from Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services and appropriating such funds for use by the Roanoke County Police Department for school resource officers. SUBMITTED BY: Michael Poindexter Chief of Police APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Accept and appropriate $328,811 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) fiscal year 2025 along with a $187,781 local match for eight School Resource Officers. BACKGROUND: DCJS has awarded funding to the Roanoke County Police Department through the Fiscal Year 2025 School Resource Officer Grant Program Fund, in the amount of $328,811 along with a local match of$187,781. We are still in the hiring process for the eight School Resource Officers under this grant. DISCUSSION: DCJS has awarded funding to the Roanoke County Police Department to fund salaries, benefits, and supplies for eight new School Resource Officers to be assigned to eight of the sixteen elementary schools located within Roanoke County. FISCAL IMPACT: This grant requires a local match of $187,781 if all eight School Resource Officers are hired. The fiscal year 2025 adopted operating budget includes $225,000 for a local Page 1 of 2 match towards School Resource Officers. Any other local match needed due to multiple grants being administered simultaneously will come from police departmental savings. All funds needed to cover the costs for the School Resource Officers will be deposited within the grant fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the first reading of the ordinance and scheduling the second reading for July 9, 2024. VOTE: Supervisor Shepherd moved to approve the first reading of this ordinance and scheduling the second reading for July 9, 2024. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 062524-6.c ITEM NO. G.3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance accepting funds in the amount of $322,675 from Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services and appropriating such funds for use by the Roanoke County Police Department for school resource officers SUBMITTED BY: Michael Poindexter Chief of Police APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Accept and appropriate $322,675 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) fiscal year 2025 along with a $184,278 local match for eight School Resource Officers. BACKGROUND: DCJS has awarded funding to the Roanoke County Police Department through the Fiscal Year 2025, School Resource Officer Grant Program Fund, in the amount of $322,675 along with a local match of$184,278. We are still in the hiring process for the eight School Resource Officers under this grant. DISCUSSION: DCJS has awarded funding to the Roanoke County Police Department to fund salaries, benefits, and supplies for eight new School Resource Officers to be assigned to eight of the sixteen elementary schools located within Roanoke County. FISCAL IMPACT: This grant requires a local match of $184,278 if all eight School Resource Officers are hired. The fiscal year 2025 adopted operating budget includes $225,000 for a local Page 1 of 2 match towards School Resource Officers. Any other local match needed due to multiple grants being administered simultaneously will come from police departmental savings. All funds needed to cover the costs for the School Resource Officers will be deposited within the grant fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the first reading of the ordinance and scheduling the second reading for July 9, 2024. VOTE: Supervisor Shepherd moved to approve the first reading of this ordinance and scheduling the second reading for July 9, 2024. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 062524-6.d ITEM NO. G.4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $4,000 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management for the Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) Educational Grant Program SUBMITTED BY: Susan Slough Director of Emergency Communications APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $4,000 in grant funding from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management Public Safety Access Point (PSAP) education program. BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Emergency Management awards grant funds from 911 user taxes. The purpose of the program is to financially assist Virginia primary Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) with the purchase of equipment, services and training that support the continuity and enhancement of wireless E-911. DISCUSSION: Each year the Roanoke County E-911 Center has applied for, and been awarded, an educational grant, provided by the Virginia E-911 Services Board. This grant is used to offset the expense of training. FISCAL IMPACT: Awarded grant funds total $4,000. No local matching funds are required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends accepting and allocating $4,000 for the Public Safety Access Point grant program to the Grant Fund. Page 1 of 2 VOTE: Supervisor Shepherd moved to accept and allocate the grant funds. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ CC: Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services Joshua Pegram, Finance Susan Slough, Director of Emergency Communications Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 062524-6.e ITEM NO. G.5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Brad Prescott to obtain a special use permit to develop on a lot without public road frontage and to obtain a special use permit for custom manufacturing in a C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, on approximately 1.44 acres of land located in the 2900 block of Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning 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 July 23, 2024. The title of this ordinance is as follows: The petition of Brad Prescott to obtain a special use permit to develop on a lot without public road frontage and to obtain a special use permit for custom manufacturing in a C- 2, High Intensity Commercial District, on approximately 1.44 acres of land located in the 2900 block of Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District. Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION: There is no discussion on this item. FISCAL IMPACT: 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 July 23, 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 Shepherd moved to approve the first reading of this ordinance and scheduling the second reading and public hearing for July 23, 2024. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 062524-6.f ITEM NO. G.6 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Jonathan Kenneth Burns-Carrera to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 1.42 acres of land zoned R-1, Low Intensity Residential District, located at 5909 Old Mountain Road, Hollins Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning 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 July 23, 2024. The title of this ordinance is as follows: The petition of Jonathan Kenneth Burns-Carrera to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 1.42 acres of land zoned R-1, Low Intensity Residential District, located at 5909 Old Mountain Road, Hollins Magisterial District. Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION: There is no discussion on this item. FISCAL IMPACT: 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 July 23, 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 Shepherd moved to approve the first reading of this ordinance and scheduling the second reading and public hearing for July 23, 2024. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 062524-6.g ITEM NO. G.7 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Trail Development Group, LLC to rezone approximately 9.67 acres from I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, located near 3475 and 3801 Challenger Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning 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 July 23, 2024. The title of this ordinance is as follows: The petition of Trail Development Group, LLC to rezone approximately 9.67 acres from I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, located near 3475 and 3801 Challenger Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District. DISCUSSION: There is no discussion on this item. Page 1 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: 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 July 23, 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 Shepherd moved to approve the first reading of this ordinance and scheduling the second reading and public hearing for July 23, 2024. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 062524-6.h ITEM NO. G.8 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY: Peter S. Lubeck County Attorney APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Resolution approving the second amendment to the County Administrator's employment agreement. BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors and Richard L. Caywood entered into an employment agreement on December 14, 2021. A first amendment was made to the employment agreement on May 23, 2023. DISCUSSION: A second amendment to the employment agreement is proposed as attached. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Page 1 of 2 VOTE: Supervisor Shepherd moved to adopt the resolution. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ CC: Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney Page 2 of 2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This Second Amendment to the County Administrator's Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement" or "Agreement") is made this 25th day of June 2024. The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Board") and Richard L. Caywood ("Mr. Caywood" or the "County Administrator") entered into the Employment Agreement on December 14, 2021. The First Amendment to the Agreement was made on May 23, 2023. It is the desire of the Board and Mr. Caywood to execute a second amendment to the Agreement, as follows: 1. Section III(A) is amended to now state, A. If the Administrator is terminated by the Board during such time that the Administrator is willing and able to perform the duties of the Administrator, then, in that event, the Board agrees to pay the Administrator twelve (12) months of the then current salary in a lump sum, subject to tax withholdings within thirty(30) days of the date of termination and to continue applicable benefits, including health benefits, for a period of twelve (12) months by acceptance of which the Administrator shall constitute a full and final release of the Board of all claims of any kind for salaries, money and damages. However, that in the event the Administrator is terminated because of the commission of an act involving moral turpitude, malfeasance, or dishonesty, then, in that event, the County shall have no obligation to award the severance payment and benefits designated in this paragraph. 2. Section IV(C) is amended to now state, C. The annual salary of the Administrator may be adjusted or increased for any subsequent fiscal year, during the term of this Agreement, based on an annual performance review prior to the end of the fiscal year. In lieu of or in addition to a Page 1 of 2 salary increase, the Board may provide a bonus to the Administrator (which may be in the form of a contribution to the Administrator's 457 retirement plan with the County) based on his annual performance review (it is the intent of the Board to provide such bonuses to recognize exceptional accomplishments; for example, in fiscal year 2024, a bonus was paid to Mr. Caywood because economic development investment in the County exceeded $177 million). Any adjustments for subsequent years shall be in writing and shall be in the form of an amendment or addendum, except for the above-mentioned cost of living increases or compensation adjustments as provided in paragraph "B" above. Thereafter, unless the Board of Supervisors indicates otherwise, pay adjustments shall be governed by the same pay increase conditions as all other County employees. These amendments shall be effective immediately. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: Phil C. North, Chairman ATTEST: Chief Deputy Clerk Richard L. Caywood, P.E. 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, JUNE 25, 2024 RESOLUTION 062524-6.h APPROVING THE SECOND 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, a first amendment was made to the employment agreement on May 23, 2023; and WHEREAS, a second amendment to the employment agreement is proposed as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows: 1. The proposed Second Amendment to the County Administrator's Employment Agreement, dated June 25, 2024, which is hereby attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, 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 Shepherd to adopt the resolution; seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None Page 1 of 2 A COPY TESTS: Ri d L. C ood, P.E. County Administrator/ Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney Page 2 of 2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This Second Amendment to the County Administrator's Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement" or "Agreement") is made this 25th day of June 2024. The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Board") and Richard L. Caywood ("Mr. Caywood" or the "County Administrator") entered into the Employment Agreement on December 14, 2021. The First Amendment to the Agreement was made on May 23, 2023. It is the desire of the Board and Mr. Caywood to execute a second amendment to the Agreement, as follows: 1. Section III(A) is amended to now state, A. If the Administrator is terminated by the Board during such time that the Administrator is willing and able to perform the duties of the Administrator, then, in that event, the Board agrees to pay the Administrator twelve (12) months of the then current salary in a lump sum, subject to tax withholdings within thirty(30)days of the date of termination and to continue applicable benefits, including health benefits, for a period of twelve (12) months by acceptance of which the Administrator shall constitute a full and final release of the Board of all claims of any kind for salaries, money and damages. However, that in the event the Administrator is terminated because of the commission of an act involving moral turpitude, malfeasance, or dishonesty, then, in that event, the County shall have no obligation to award the severance payment and benefits designated in this paragraph. 2. Section IV(C) is amended to now state, C. The annual salary of the Administrator may be adjusted or increased for any subsequent fiscal year, during the term of this Agreement, based on an annual performance review prior to the end of the fiscal year. In lieu of or in addition to a Page 1 of 2 salary increase, the Board may provide a bonus to the Administrator (which may be in the form of a contribution to the Administrator's 457 retirement plan with the County) based on his annual performance review (it is the intent of the Board to provide such bonuses to recognize exceptional accomplishments; for example, in fiscal year 2024, a bonus was paid to Mr. Caywood because economic development investment in the County exceeded $177 million). Any adjustments for subsequent years shall be in writing and shall be in the form of an amendment or addendum, except for the above-mentioned cost of living increases or compensation adjustments as provided in paragraph "B" above. Thereafter, unless the.Board of Supervisors indicates otherwise, pay adjustments shall be governed by the same pay increase conditions as all other County employees. These amendments shall be effective immediately. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: Phil C. North, Chairman ATTEST: Chief Deputy Clerk Richard L. Caywood, P.E. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 062524-6.i ITEM NO. G.9 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY: Peter S. Lubeck County Attorney APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Resolution approving the second amendment to the County Attorney's employment agreement. BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors and Peter S. Lubeck entered into an employment agreement on June 8, 2021. A first amendment was made to the agreement on May 23, 2023. DISCUSSION: A second amendment to the employment agreement is proposed as attached. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Page 1 of 2 VOTE: Supervisor Shepherd moved to adopt the resolution. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd �I ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ CC: Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney Page 2 of 2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This Second Amendment to the County Attorney's Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement"or"Agreement") is made this 25th day of June 2024. The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Board") and Peter S. Lubeck ("Mr. Lubeck" or the "County Attorney") entered into the Employment Agreement on June 8, 2021. The First Amendment to the Agreement was made on May 23, 2023. It is the desire of the Board and Mr. Lubeck to execute a second amendment to the Agreement, as follows: 1. Section 5(c) is amended to now state, c. As more fully set forth in Section 15 of this Agreement, the Board will conduct an annual performance evaluation of Mr. Lubeck before the end of each fiscal year. In addition to a salary increase, the Board may provide a bonus to the County Attorney (which may be in the form of a contribution to Mr. Lubeck's 457 retirement plan with the County) based on his annual performance review (it is the intent of the Board to provide such bonuses to recognize exceptional accomplishments; for example, in fiscal year 2024, a bonus was paid to Mr. Lubeck because economic development investment in the County exceeded $177 million). Any adjustments for subsequent years during the term of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be in the form of an amendment or addendum, except for the above-mentioned cost of living increases as provided in paragraph "b" above. This amendment shall be effective immediately. Page 1of2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: Phil C. North, Chairman ATTEST: Chief Deputy Clerk Peter S. Lubeck 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, JUNE 25, 2024 RESOLUTION 062524-6.i APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and Peter S. Lubeck entered into an employment agreement on June 8, 2021; and WHEREAS, a first amendment was made to the employment agreement on May 23, 2023; and WHEREAS, a second amendment to the employment agreement is proposed as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows: 1. The proposed Second Amendment to the County Attorney's Employment Agreement, dated June 25, 2024, which is hereby attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, 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 Shepherd to adopt the resolution; seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None Page 1 of 2 A COPY TESTE: Richard . Caywood, P.E. Cou• ° Administrator/ Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney Page 2 of 2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This Second Amendment to the County Attorney's Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement" or"Agreement") is made this 25th day of June 2024. The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Board") and Peter S. Lubeck ("Mr. Lubeck" or the "County Attorney") entered into the Employment Agreement on June 8, 2021. The First Amendment to the Agreement was made on May 23, 2023. It is the desire of the Board and Mr. Lubeck to execute a second amendment to the Agreement, as follows: 1. Section 5(c) is amended to now state, c.As more fully set forth in Section 15 of this Agreement, the Board will conduct an annual performance evaluation of Mr. Lubeck before the end of each fiscal year. In addition to a salary increase, the Board may provide a bonus to the County Attorney (which may be in the form of a contribution to Mr. Lubeck's 457 retirement plan with the County) based on his annual performance review (it is the intent of the Board to provide such bonuses to recognize exceptional accomplishments; for example, in fiscal year 2024, a bonus was paid to Mr. Lubeck because economic development investment in the County exceeded $177 million). Any adjustments for subsequent years during the term of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be in the form of an amendment or addendum, except for the above-mentioned cost of living increases as provided in paragraph "b" above. This amendment shall be effective immediately. Page 1 of 2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: Phil C. North, Chairman ATTEST: Chief Deputy Clerk Peter S. Lubeck Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 062524-6.t ITEM NO. G.10 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PAYMENT OF A BONUS TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Payment of a bonus to the County Administrator and the County Attorney. BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors conducted the annual performance evaluations for the County Administrator and the County Attorney on June 11, 2024. DISCUSSION: In recognition of their excellent performance, the Board desires to provide the County Administrator and the County Attorney with a bonus of $5,000 each. Such bonuses are authorized by Section 15.2-1508 of the Code of Virginia, and by the Board's employment agreements with the County Administrator and the County Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT: It is proposed that a $5,000 bonus be paid to both the County Administrator and the County Attorney ($10,000 total). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the first reading and scheduling the second reading for July 9, 2024. Page 1 of 2 VOTE: Supervisor Shepherd moved to approve the first reading of this ordinance and scheduling the second reading for July 9, 2024. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. 062524-6.k ITEM NO. G.11 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Accept and allocate a Stormwater Local Assistance Fund (SLAF) grant in the amount of $607,212 from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). SUBMITTED BY: Tarek Moneir Director of Development Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Accept and allocate a SLAF grant in the amount of$607,212 from DEQ, which requires a local match of $607,212 for the Stream Restoration of Wolf Creek, Phase 2 in the Vinton Magisterial District. BACKGROUND: The Roanoke River is impaired by excessive sediment. Roanoke County has an obligation under its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit to lower discharges of sediment to the Roanoke River towards meeting its Waste Load Allocation (WLA). Roanoke County has an on-going program to construct natural stream restoration projects as a strategy to comply with its permit requirements. A natural stream restoration project on Wolf Creek in Goode Park was constructed in the Spring of 2021. In order to continue to make improvements to Wolf Creek, staff has been developing an additional stream restoration project on Wolf Creek, along the Wolf Creek Greenway, between Spring Grove Drive and Tulip Lane. A SLAF grant for the Wolf Creek, Phase 2 project was initially approved by DEQ in December 2021. The Board of Supervisors appropriated funds from this grant on January 24, 2023. The project was advertised for construction and construction bids Page 1 of 3 were received on May 12, 2023. Only one bid was received, and the bid amount was greater than the funds available; therefore, the procurement was cancelled, and the contract for construction was not awarded. Roanoke County requested DEQ to Cancel the SLAF grant at that time hoping to re-apply again for 2024 funding. In October 2023, Department of Development Services submitted a new application for SLAF funding to DEQ. This application requested increased funding in response to the increases in construction costs and our previous bid experience. We have received notification that our grant application was approved. Attached is a copy of the grant notification letter from the DEQ, dated January 16, 2024. DISCUSSION: The Stream Restoration of Wolf Creek, Phase 2 project has been selected by DEQ for a grant in the amount of$607,212 (50% of the total project cost - $1,214,424). This project will lower sediment discharge to the Roanoke River and will mitigate the severe streambank erosion that is causing damage to the park and adjacent Wolf Creek Greenway in Vinton Magisterial District. If the Board of Supervisors accepts this grant, staff anticipates soliciting for construction bids in this summer/early fall of 2024, with construction commencing before the end of calendar year 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated project cost is $1,214,424 excluding Department of Development Services staff time for administration. The SLAF grant in the amount of$607,212 requires a 50% (of the total project cost) local match. The SLAF grant revenues and the 50% local match was included and appropriated through the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Capital Improvement Program. These funds will be moved to the Grant Fund where the project resides. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends accepting and allocating the SLAF grant revenues to the Wolf Creek Phase 2 project and moving the necessary budgeted funds to the Grant Fund where the project resides. Page 2 of 3 VOTE: Supervisor Shepherd moved to accept and allocate the grant funds. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Yes No Absent Mr. Radford ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Hooker ® ❑ ❑ Mr. Mahoney ® ❑ ❑ Ms. Shepherd ® ❑ ❑ Mr. North ® ❑ ❑ CC: Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services Joshua Pegram, Finance Tarek Moneir, Director of Development Services Page 3 of 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2024 RESOLUTION 062524-9 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies; and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution; seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Hooker(Not in attendance during closed session) A COPY TESTE: Rich d L. Caywood, P.E. ( . my Administrator/ Clerk to the Board of Supervisors ACTION NO. 062524-10 ITEM NO. M.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 25, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Neil Aneja and Shama Kakar to obtain a • special use permit to operate a short-term rental on • approximately 0.30 acre of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 2726 White Pelican Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Agenda item for public hearing and second reading of ordinance for a special use permit for short-term rental in a residential district. BACKGROUND: • The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a short-term rental as "the provision of a room or space that is suitable or intended for occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging purposes, for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days, in exchange for a charge for the occupancy. This use does not include existing uses defined in this ordinance including bed and breakfast, bed and breakfast inn, boarding house, country inn, and hotel/motel/motor lodge." • A short-term rental has several use and design standards. In the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, a special use permit is required for a short-term rental on lots less than five (5) acres in size. • In 2022, Neil Aneja and Shama Kakar filed a petition for a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on the same property that is subject to this petition. On November 9, 2022, the Board of Supervisors thoroughly considered his petition, including thorough consideration of the concerns of the neighbors, the Page 1 of 3 layout of the neighborhood, the nature and location of the residential neighborhood, and the actions of Neil Aneja. On November 9, 2022 the Board of Supervisors denied this petition. Despite this denial, Neil Aneja and Shama Kakar continued to operate the subject property as a short-term rental in violation of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, and thus was the subject of numerous enforcement actions by Roanoke County, and numerous Roanoke County General District Court filings by Roanoke County. Enforcement actions were significantly delayed due to service of process issues on Neil Aneja and Shama Kakar. DISCUSSION: Neil Aneja and Shama Kakar have filed this second petition for a special use permit to operate a short-term rental at 2726 White Pelican Lane. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on June 4, 2024. Three (3) citizens spoke during the public hearing in opposition to the request. Their concerns included: the short-term rental use has been going on for a long time without any approvals; parking on the street; cars blocking mailboxes; commercial use; not a suitable use for this neighborhood; traffic safety; noise; the applicant has not been following the rules, codes or ordinances; and the narrowness and length of the driveway will not allow 5 cars to be parked there. The Planning Commission discussed the following during its public hearing: no changes have been made to the application since the 2022 Board of Supervisors denial of Neil Aneja and Shama Kakar's first petition for a special use permit; noncompliance by the petitioners and zoning enforcement history including General District and Circuit Court cases; continued use of the short-term rental use without County approvals; not enough space to park 5 vehicles on site; past parking issues; noise, impact to the neighborhood; special use permit conditions; and how can the County expect the applicants to comply with conditions when they have not complied with the County regulations to date. The Planning Commission recommends denial of the special use permit for a short-term rental. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.30 acre on property zoned R-1, Low Density Page 2 of 3 Residential District. VOTE: Supervisor Mahoney found that the proposed special use permit request: 1. Is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted comprehensive plan, 2. Is inconsistent with good zoning practice, and/or 3. Will result in substantial detriment to the community. Therefore, moved the Board to deny the request, and also requested that a transcript of this matter be attached to the denial ordinance as an exhibit. 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 Page 3 of 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2024 ORDINANCE 062524-10 DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO NEIL ANEJA AND SHAMA KAKAR TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON APPROXIMATELY 0.3 ACRE OF LAND ZONED R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 2726 WHITE PELICAN LANE, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Neil Aneja and Shama Kakar have filed a petition for a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.3 acre of land zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) District, located at 2726 White Pelican Lane (Roanoke County Tax Map Number 087.13-02-11.00-0000), in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, this is the second petition for such a special use permit (to operate a short-term rental at 2726 White Pelican Lane) filed by Mr. Aneja and Ms. Kakar; their first petition was heard by the Planning Commission on October 25, 2022, and heard by the Board of Supervisors on November 9, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors DENIED Mr. Aneja's and Ms. Kakar's first petition by Ordinance 110222-4, finding 1) that the proposed special use was inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted comprehensive plan or good zoning practice, and 2) that the proposed special use will result in substantial detriment to the community (a copy of Ordinance 110222-4 is attached and incorporated as Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, Mr. Aneja and Ms. Kakar consulted with counsel regarding their desire to appeal the Board's denial of their petition and communicated such desire to the County Attorney, but the petitioners had already missed the deadline to file a timely appeal; and Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, Mr. Aneja and Ms. Kakar unlawfully operated their property at 2726 White Pelican Lane as a short-term rental prior to filing their first petition and continued to unlawfully operate it as a short-term rental following the Board's denial of their first petition; and WHEREAS, Mr. Aneja was charged with violating the provisions of the Roanoke County Code by continuing to operate the property as a short-term rental and was found guilty of this violation by the Roanoke County General District Court on May 25, 2023, and WHEREAS, Mr. Aneja appealed the General District Court's ruling to the Roanoke County Circuit Court, and the Circuit Court sustained the conviction on July 18, 2023; and WHEREAS, Mr. Aneja and Ms. Kakar thereafter continued to unlawfully operate the property at 2726 White Pelican Lane as a short-term rental; and WHEREAS, Mr. Aneja and Ms. Kakar were charged multiple times with such unlawful activity, and the Roanoke County General District Court found, on each occasion, that evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions; and WHEREAS, despite such continued unlawful activity, Mr. Aneja and Ms. Kakar filed this second petition to again bring the matter before the Board of Supervisors for consideration; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this second petition on June 4, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommended denial of the petition to obtain a special use permit; and Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 28, 2024, and the second reading and public hearing were held on June 25, 2024; and WHEREAS, during the public hearing on June 25, 2024, the Board considered the second petition filed by petitioners, presentation on the petition by County staff, comments by legal counsel for petitioners (the petitioners only appearing by counsel), and comments by several citizens who reside on White Pelican Lane who were negatively impacted by the petitioners' continued unlawful use of the property; and WHEREAS, during the public hearing on June 25, 2024, the Board considered evidence showing that the petitioners have operated a short-term rental at 2726 White Pelican Lane in violation of the Roanoke County Code and further considered evidence showing that the petitioners have been convicted of violations in various courts across the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Board specifically considered that Mr. Aneja was convicted on December 7, 2017, in the Roanoke City General District Court, for violating the provisions of Roanoke City's zoning ordinance by conducting an unlawful use in a residential district; and WHEREAS, following this conviction in Roanoke City, Mr. Aneja persisted in such unlawful activity and was found guilty of such by the Court on May 3, 2018, at which time the Court revoked and imposed a portion of a previously suspended penalty (a copy of this conviction and revocation is attached and incorporated as Exhibit B); and WHEREAS, the Board also specifically considered that Ms. Kakar was also convicted on December 7, 2017, in the Roanoke City General District Court, for a criminal zoning violation; the Court imposed a fine and specifically noted on her Page 3 of 5 conviction order that she was "Not to rent property until further notice —take down listing on the website"; and WHEREAS, following this conviction in Roanoke City, Ms. Kakar persisted in such unlawful activity in violation of the Court's order and was found guilty of such on April 5, 2018. The Court noted on her conviction order that "Court finds Defendant has violated order— Court now imposes $300 fine" (a copy of this conviction and revocation is attached and incorporated as Exhibit C). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, as follows: 1. The Board finds that the proposed special use is inconsistent with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Board further finds that the proposed special use is inconsistent with good zoning practice. 3. The Board further finds that the proposed special use will result in substantial detriment to the surrounding neighborhood and community. 4. The special use permit is hereby denied. 5. A transcript of the Board's June 25, 2024 hearing on this matter shall be attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit D. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to deny the ordinance; seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North NAYS: None Page 4 of 5 A COPY TESTE: z Richar . aywood, P.E. Co ty Administrator/ Clerk to the Board of Supervisors CC: Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney Philip Thompson, Director of Planning Michael B. Massey, Counsel for Neil Aneja Page 5 of 5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2022 ORDINANCE 110922-4 DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO NEIL ANEJA TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON APPROXIMATELY 0.3 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 2726 WHITE PELICAN LANE (TAX MAP NO: 087.13-02-11.00-0000), IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Neil Aneja has filed a petition for a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) District containing approximately 0.3 acre, located at 2726 White Pelican Lane, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 25, 2022, and the second reading and public hearing were held on November 9, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition; and WHEREAS, during the public hearing on November 9, 2022 the Board considered comments made by the petitioner and also considered comments made by several citizens; and 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 is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the County's adopted comprehensive plan or good zoning practice, and Page 1 of 2 2. The Board further finds that the proposed special use will result in substantial detriment to the community. 3. The special use permit is hereby denied. On motion of Supervisor Hooker to deny the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney NAYS: None A Y TESTE: De orah C. Jac s Chie eputy Cle the Board of Supervisors cc: Philip Thompson, Director of Planning Tarek Moneir, Director of Development Rebecca James, Zoning Administrator Kenneth Fay, Director of Real Estate Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney Page 2 of 2 'WIN/IONS CASE NO. G C, 70-/6 O POMMdk IEALTH OF VIRGINIA Va.Code§.19.2- 3;Rule 3A:4 ACCUSED: Roanoke City CITYORCOUNTY ANEJA,NE T` [x]General District Court [ ] Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court 31 CAMPBELL AVE SW STE B Sep 07,2017 ADDRESSRrOGTLON 2:00 PM 315 W Church Avex:S W„2 ild Fl Roanoke,VA 24016. - Roanoke,VA-2401 I sraEEPADDRFS3 OP COURT To be completed upon service as Summons [ ]Commonwealth of Virginia[X]City [ ]County• [ ]Town of ROXIiQ1Ce G88Y Mailing addiess ❑ Same as above TO THE ACCUSED: ❑ I/I i � You are hereby commanded to appear before this Court on • S07 2017 02:00 PM07/12/2017 RACE SEX BORN Hr. WOt. EYES HAM ii f f f1 ep...A, to answer the charge that on or about M MO. DAY YR. Fr. EN. i ` 0 nATEAtmTa�oFtn*AADta DATE within this [ ]Town of Roanoke City [x] CITY [ ]COUNTY you cud unlawfully -N f VIOLATION OF USE TABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS r I t a—�]-1—j bra STATE ROANOKE CITY GENERAL DISTRICT �J 1138 MONTROSE AVE SE I,the undersigned clerk or deputy clerk of the ❑ Commercial Driver's License .2 j/1 l g - Cod above-named co(C}rt,athis date ate the docCmto nt CLASS MISDEMEANOR g:00 Code 3.bi-391(Cj on this date that the document to �'_ which this authentication a affixed a madern copy of ❑ EXECUTED by delivering a true copy of this i a record in the above-named court, in performance of my official duti.s. stmmons to the Accused in person today. Z 0 For legal entities other than individuals,service o2/1//4'' It �llf\ pursuant to Va.Code§192-76. GATE jr") DEPCLEF t _ .IX The Accused certified to me the above mailing 63 r address. ,l b e� 071111 a 7$$ ail_1,4 1:i:. • in violation of Section 36.2-311- [ ]Code of Virginia(OR) DM)M( CM,4T II Opp-" ,ARRESTING OFFICER [71C I Ordinances of this City;County or Town. D S ti 3 (,C F B ILI 'iefier - YOU MUST APPEAR in court at the time and place shown above and appearat all other times and HAMM%AGENCY AND Tual DICHON places and before any court or judge to which this case may be rescheduled,continued;transferred or for -(0 I 2,1 ,_ --1-_- va appesled Attorney for the Accused: f7t Gr WARNING TO THE ACCUSED:You may be tried and convicted in your absence if you fail to appear "� in response to this summons.Willful faillu:e to appear for a misdemeanor charge is a separate offense. -916:I -T Short Offense Description(not a legal definition): � '. VIOLATION OF USE TABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTAICT� -_: " ' I,the undersigned,have found probable cause to believe that the Accused committed the offense chaiged, � �-� based on the sworn statements of INSPECTOR WEST S AC BARRY ,cqmpla;nant Offense Tray, Number. -- 07/14/2017 02:43 PM ., OGM1700015731 FOR ADIv4NTSTRATIVEUSE ONLY DATE AND TAM ISSUED [ 1 aEx ix]monsraA•rE (=l name • Virginia Crime Code: 999-9999-99 SUMMONS R.L.Warren FORM DC319(MASTFA PAGE ONE OF TWO)ant '17 1111 9n ow111q I impose the following Disposition: Offense Tracking Number: .417,tx1l '44• The Accused was this day: [ ]tried in absence present � 117 . Jr)E FINE( -]CIVIL 1�TY`oof$.s0 -- ' - d�i fi'j'�' with$ F INE /e]PROSECUTING ATTORNEY PRESENT(NAME) . [ ] JAIL SENTENCE of - - �$' l •�� daysTer c-err-ci '� imposes,[ ]of which 1 ADEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY PRESENT(NAME) 4, mandatory minimum with suspended •COSTS [ ] NO ATTORNEY [ ] ATTORNEY WAIVED ' for a period of •conditioned 461 *cm MISD FEE [ ] If convicted,no jail sentence will be',. own being of good behavior,keeping the peace,obeying this 462 FIXED DRUG MISD FEE sea and paying fines and costs. [ l PRESENT �� credit is granted for pre-ttrial detention. 5�3 •i P b Pursuant w$53.1-187, 460 Fi}orD TRAFFIC [ ]iced pursuant to§19.2-190.1. 2 by Serve jail sentence beginning INFRACTION FEE Plea of Accused: 4r ]on weekends only 5 191: not guilty [.8 Witnesses sworn S Work release [ ]authorized if eligible [ ]required 001 in'CRlM CHILD FEE [ ] nolo contendere • i 0 [ ]not authorized 113 MINESS FEE [ ] guilty [-] Plea voluntarily and intelligently red V [ ] Public work force[ ]authorized [ ]not authorized after the defendant was apprised of his right against on PROBATION for lIl3 IGNITION INTERLOCK self-incrimination and his right to confront [ ] the witnesses against him. [ l VASAP [ ]local community-basal probation agency 113 DUI FEE [ ]Plea and Recommendation [ ]Monitoring by GPS/other tracking device 113 And was TRIED and FOUND by me: �/(1 [ ]DRIVER'S LICENSE suspended for 120 CT.APPT.ATTY [ ] guilty ofCil — — [ ] not guilty V4( guilty as charged Driver's License per attached order - ' 121 TRIAL IN ABSENCE FEE VCC W //-- [ ]Ignition Interlock for 125 WEIGIETIG FEE . . ,. . [ ] facts sufficient to find guilt but defer adjudicati n/ [ ] RESTITUTION order incorporated 133'BLOOD TEST FEE disposition to p*-- Rtsti,,` • payment is a condition of suspended:`DATE ANDTII� 6 \ ��� 137'ITMET)PAY and place accused on probation • i - SERVICE hours to be§§4.1 305,18.2-57:3,182.251 or 19.2-303.2. 192 TRAUMA CENTER FEE [ ] A separate order for First Offender is ..1:: ,-. •, ,,1._. ,y 223 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES and incorporated in this order. i t 4 �.• d"..` -' by [ ] Costs imposed upon' y>'t to , --•''red against fines and costs 234 JAIL ADMISSION FEE � • n•.. •••bibited between defendant and viclim/victim's TRAIIdING _j_all. (� / 243 LOCAL�// 1/ _ family or household members LOCAL MY INI JUDGE .5 - ] Reimburse Commonwealth for investigatory medical fees FE And was FOUND by me tobe: 1 [ ] Pay$50 fee to the Court for Trauma Center 244 COURTHOUSEFnnd SECURITY FEE ( v [ ] driving a oonunercial motor vehicle ' i [ ] Other. OTHER(SPECIFY) [ ] carrying hazardous materials • . • --- , [ ] I ORDER a noble prosequi on prosecution's motion [ ] I ORDER the charge dismissed[ ]with prejudice [ ] Bail on Appeal $ [ ] conditioned upon payment of costs and [ ] Remanded for[ ]CCRE Report[ ] • --- / .[ ] successful completion•of[ ]traffic school • DRIVER'S LICINSF/PRIVI EGE TO DRIVE IN VIRGINIA TOTAL $ • ii '!�=� ( ]mature driver school,§16.1-69.48:1. SUSPENDED EFFECTIVE IN 30 DAYS W FINES,COSTS. tom. g [ ] compliance with law,§16.1-69.48:1(AXvi). FORFEITURES,PE ALTIES OR RESTITUTION ARE NOT PAID. [ ] Stay of the proceedings pursuant to§16.1-131.1 [ ] accord and satisfaction,§19.2-151. - ��?{�f „ [ ] under§§4.1-305,182-573,18.2-251 or 19.2- 9?11•Jr*' (./6 /�3032.32� A JUDOE DATE JUDGE FORM Db31 '-'•'PAGE TWO OF TWO)07/17 0 `e:.;.,,` IY 7}f{ Authentication Record §8.01-391 (C) Roanoke City General District Court I,the undersigned deck or deputy deck of the above-named court,authenticate pursuant to VA Code§8.01-391(C)on this date that the document to which this authentication is affixed is a true copy of a recor,, in the above-named co (ma m e performance 1 my official duties. OA a•CptJW CLERK Ce •I'SL.MIVIONS ,..... . , CASE 1,,Tc). Gc.,170./4ge(.0. . COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Va.Code§,19.243;Rule 3A:4 ACCUSED: Roanoke City . .KAICAR,SHAMAR , ., CITY OR COUNT? ' . . , . [X]General District Court [ 1 Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court- '' . . ' ..'-'2126 WHITE PELICAN LANE Sep 07,2017 315 W church Ave,.SW,.2nd Fl Roanoke,-VA 24016 - - -: '.-' -.7 • Roanoke,VA 24018 ADDILICOLOCA MON • 02:00 PM STEEETADDRESS OF COVET Hearing Date/Time . To be ea:Evicted upon'serif=as Summons [ ] Commonwealth of Virginia[X] City [ ] County [ ]Town of RbagtOke'city • Mailing address,0 Same as above TO THE ACCUSED: VVV.-- 1-_-_] V r i f.(1— - You are hereby commanded to appear before this Court on ' _ . - .. ' . . _. , Sep 07,2017 02:00 PM to answer the Charge that on or about 07/13/2017 V ItACE SEX BORN "tr. war. EYES HAIR I Id/11 /1°7.- DA7E AND MAE OF BEARDIG :DATE MO. DAY YR. FT. IN. 47A103 within this [ ]Town of Roanoke City [X] CITY [ I COUNTY you did unlawfully SSN F •i 1"' . VIOLATION OF USE TABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL.DISTRICTS. . c.--- . . . DLO STATE I CM;GENERAL 1.1.S1 RiC,'T d fen . , i,zh,z;unde:r5:,i-wc; ort;or deputy closlt o, the • 1124 CHAPMAN AVE SW a:ithriticirtepurant . 0 Commercial Driver's License abeeememe,.1 uoiirt e • su to Va . cede,3.6-1..291(cl on to.is date that the clorAitrierit t.c .. . ... ., Cuss, MISDEMEANOR 1.211/15,, . Which this attzhenticazion is affixed IE-:a.true copy of. 3 fer.O.H in the above-narnect couri,made in •' '''; • - ''-' ' " 0 EXECUTED by delivering a true copy of this .. . _. . , idttrforrririni....e of my official Vsummons to the Accused in person-Way. Di Liz ,..t_ ,,,IC V X -: .„ ' .. . . 0 .For legal entities other than-individuals,service • /// _,:ii pursuant to Va.Code§19.2-76. DA, ..4. 10E i'lli:V-1,,:i[Tic: : ' - . - ._. .. . lal The Accused certified to me the-above mailing address. .3/s/ii- — - . . _ 07)=01/ I0S a i . ?..›.2..z .. . DATE AND-COM Or SERVICE in violation of Section 362-311- „ [ ]:Code of Virginia(OR) •. . j14 Se%ITO' ,ARRES7D1G OFFICER ,._ [X 1 OrdinanCes of this City;Coimty or ToWn. Wit-..4L- 4:{itis7EX 0541 43 :WO ')/) YOU MUST APPEAR in court at the time and place:Shownabotre and appear at all othertiniei and ' BADGE NO.,AGENCY AND JURISIBCT/ON I. , , places and before any court or judge to.whiCh this case maybe rescheduled,cCeitinued,transferred or- - .a for 2..cla. .i)A appealed /0"— - . — ,..2.,,,.--;,:.,---•..,--- Attorney.for the Accused: WARNING:TO THE ACCUSED:You may be tried and convicted in your absence if you fail appear - . . , in response to this summons.Willful failure to appear for a•misderneanor charge is a separate offense. -•-•*--;-11-_•_--- -. . Short Offense Description(not a legal defmition): ----0,--#.t*--4..--- 1,the undersigned,have found probable cause to believe that the ACcuied Committed the offense Charged, VIOLATION'OF USE TABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS .• . , • .':'4ir--1.':------if s-• based on the sworn statements of INSPECTOR-WEST: STACYz. ARRY •complainant, Offense Tracki_ng.Number: -..-,-4,--- -- 770GM1700015730 07/14/2017 02:31 PM k• .„„,....1 FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY , Virginia Crime Code: - DATE AND TM E9SUED [ i CLERK .[X]means/cm-1 Dunoe, . . -• .99a-9999,99 SUMMONS FoEM DC-319 MASTER.PAGE ONE OF TW 0)07/11 - JUL 21'17 AMii.:210 The Accused was this day: tried in absence present I impose the following Disposition: Offense Tracking Number ?70_ 1 li573.t - - . [ J •FINE•[ ]CIVIL PENALTY of$^�� . • D1�Qi'('� with$,. —4 n suspended FINEE $ �'� [0 PROSECUTING ATTORNEY PRESENT(NAME) f ril tr.' .i , JAIL SENTENCE of ----- ` - T 77:ocAtS1Y imposed,[ ]of which days [ ]DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY PRESENT(NAME) /�.,,.r '� mandatory minimum with suspended COSTA [ ] NO ATTORNEY [ ] ATTORNEY WAIVED P. for a period of conditioned 461 FIXED MD FEE Le [ ] If convicted,no jail sentence will be imporki upon big of good behavior,keeping the peace,obeying this 462 FIXED DRUG MISD FEE [ ]DTIMPREIERPRESENT JP order and paying 5nes�and costs .,�P Pursuant to§53.1-187,credit is granted for pre-trial detention. 460 D TRAFFIC [ ]Ce tificd pursuant to§192-I90.1. • (,0 [ ] Serve jail sentence beginning. INF1tACT1ON FEE --- Plea of Accused: [ ]on weekends only 001 CHILD FEE S [4, not guilty wit witnesses Sworn *3DR 46. [ ]Work release [ ]authorized if eligible [ ]required [ J. nolo.contendere P P [ ]not authorized 113 WITNESS FEE [ ] guilty. [ ] Plea voluntarily and intelligently entered [ ] Public workforce( ]:authorized [ ]not authorized ; • after the defendant was apprised of his right against 113 It'NrTION INTERLOCK -- compulsory self-incrimination and his right to confront ( ].,onPROBATION for 4 the witnesses against him. [ ]VASAP [ ]local community-based probation agency 113 DUI FEE [ ]Plea and Recommendation [ ]Monitoring by GPS/otlter tracking device 1L3 ! And was TRIED and FOUND by me: [ ]DRIVER'S LICENSE suspended for 120 CT.I ATTY - [ ] not guilty [41guilty as charged , [ ] guilty of— [ ]Restricted Driver's License per attached order 121 TRISIL IN ABSENCE FEE -- -- VCC [ ]Ignition Interlock for 125`WEiGIta1G FEE ---- [ ] facts sufficient to fmd guilt but defer adjudication/ [ ] RESTITUTION order incorporated _w disposition to [ ] Restitution payment is a condition of suspended 133 BLOOD TEST FEE P DATE AND TIME sentence. and place accused on probation, 137 TIME TO PAY [ ] COMMUNITY SERVICE.-__.. - boors to be §§4.1-305,182-573,18.2-251 or 19.2-303 2 192 TRAUMA CENTER FEE [ ] A separate order for First Offender is attached completed by and incorporated in this order. and supervised by _ 223 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES [ ] Costs imposed upon endant. [ ]to be credited against fines and costs 234 JAIL ADMISSION FEE • [ ] Contact prohibited between defendant and victim/victim's 243 LOCAL TRAINING !a-I III family or household members 5 �— bA JUDGE [ ] Reimburse Commonwealth for investigatory medical fees ACADEMY FEE And was FOUND by me to be: [ ] Pay$50 fee to the Court for Trauma ter Fa 244 COURTHOUSE I v 9 SECURITY FEE [ ] driving a commercial motor vehicle [or Other.• .. [ ] carrying hazardous materials - �T ��PF.CE�'7� [ ] I ORDER a nolle prosequi on prosecution's motion --=�- '� [ 1 I ORDER the charge dismissed[ ]with•prejudice [ ] Bail on Appeal $-_--.�__. i [ ] conditioned upon payment of costs and [ ] Remanded for[ ]CCRE Report[ ] n . [ ] successful completion of[ ]traffic school . DRIVER'S LICENSE/PRIVILEGE TO DRIVE IN VIRGINIA TOTAL $ [ ]matm a driver school,§ 16.1-69.48:1. SUSPENDED EFFECTIVE IN 30 DAYS IF FINES.COSTS, [ ] compliance with law,§16.1-69.48:1(A)(vi). FORFEITURES,PENALTIES OR ON ARE NOT PAID. [ 1 accord and satisfaction,§19.2-151. Va.Code§46.2-395. [ ] Stay of the proceedings pursuant to§16.1-131.1 [ ] under§§4.1-305,182-573,182-251 or 19.2- llel/ • 303.2. 1 JUDGE "— DATE JUDGE FORM DC-30STPR.PAGE TWO OP TWO)07/t7 0 0 Authentication Record §8.01-391 (C) Roanoke City General District Court I,the undersigned cleric or deputy deft of the above-named court,authenticate pursuant to VA Code§8A1-391(C)on this data that the document to which this authentication is affixed Is a true copy of a record in the above-named co�rt, a in the performance my otfxci I' lea. ,7 �!�.� D E •1•+I EPt1TY CLERK ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING JUNE 25, 2024, @ 7:00 P.M. 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDANCES 2 M.1 PETITION OF NEIL ANEJA: 3 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: At this time, we will move on to 4 Item M,Public Hearings and Second Reading of Ordinances. Item Number 1,the 5 Petition of Neil Aneja to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental 6 on approximately 0.30 acres of land zoned R-1, low density residential district 7 located at 2726 White Pelican Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial. The Chair 8 recognizes Philip Thompson, Director of Planning. Mr.Thompson? 9 MR. PHILIP THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 10 members of the Board. This one you have seen before, and again,this is a Special 11 Use Permit Request for a short-term rental. The property is located off of White 12 Pelican Lane so it's deep within the Penn Forest subdivision. There's a lot of 13 residential units around it. 14 The address is 2726 White Pelican Lane. It is in the Cave Spring 15 Magisterial District. It's 0.3 acre in size. There is a single-family residence, and 16 they are seeking a Special Use Permit for short-term rental. Obviously, I think 17 everyone is aware they've been doing a short-term rental for some time. 18 A couple pictures of the home, a front view of the house, kind of 19 the entryway as well,the backyard with a deck and patio. These are the two side 20 yard views of the property. It's fairly flat along the road and then rises towards 21 the back. The layout, the house is 2,382 square feet in size, five bedrooms, three 22 bathrooms, living room, dining room, eat-in kitchen. They do have security 23 cameras installed to monitor who comes and goes. The driveway can serve 2 1 probably three vehicles due to its narrowness. Again, here's another floorplan that 2 was submitted by the applicant, showing the layout, and then the upper level. 3 Again, we went over this earlier today, but a short-term rental is 4 defined as the provision of a room or space that is suitable or intended for 5 occupancy for dwelling, sleeping or lodging purposes for a period of fewer than 6 30 consecutive days in exchange for a charge for the occupancy. 7 Again, we do have standards. In addition to the Special Use 8 Permit, you need to get a Zoning Permit, which provides information about the 9 property, about the applicant, about the person who would resolve any complaints. 10 If any change to the applicant's address or personal contact information has taken 11 place, they need to notify us within 30 days. The Short-term Rental Zoning 12 Permit expires if there is a change in ownership. The new owner would have to 13 get a new Zoning Permit, and then a Short-term Rental Zoning Permit can be 14 revoked by the Zoning Administrator. If there's violations against the applicable 15 regulations or the county code. Again,this is less than five acres so they require a 16 Special Use Permit. 17 Surrounding Zoning, RL1. This is in the middle of a heavily 18 density residential area. It is neighborhood conservation, which establishes single 19 family residential neighborhoods. An existing development pattern is 20 encouraged. 21 A little bit about the history. In November of 2022, the Board of 22 Supervisors denied this same request for a Special Use Permit for a short-term 23 rental. Since the denial,the applicant has continued to list the property online 3 1 platforms advertising short-term rental use. The enforcements start in April of 2 2022. There were numerous cases that have been heard in General District Court 3 and Circuit Court and are under advisement for both applicants. One being 4 through March of 2025, and one being through July 25th of 2024. 5 So, on June 4th,the Planning Commission did hold a Public 6 Hearing. There were three citizens who spoke during the Public Hearing in 7 opposition to the request. They had several concerns. Those included, you know, 8 the short-term rental use is being on for a long time without any approvals, 9 parking on the street and cars blocking mailboxes,the commercial use or nature 10 of the use, and that is not suitable for this neighborhood. 11 They also talked about traffic safety and noise being concerns. 12 The applicant has not been following the rules, codes or ordinances. The 13 narrowness and length of the driveway will not allow five cars to be parked in it. 14 The Planning Commission discussed a variety of items. Those 15 included no changes have been made to the application since the 2022 Board of 16 Supervisors' denial, zoning enforcement history, including the General District 17 and Circuit Court cases, the continued use of the short-term rental use without 18 county approvals. There's not enough space to park five vehicles onsite. Past 19 parking issues, noise, impact to the neighborhood, Special-Use Permit conditions. 20 Then, how can the county expect the applicants to comply with conditions when 21 they have not complied with the County Regulations to date. 4 1 So the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Special- 2 Use Permit for this short-term rental based on those issues. If you have any 3 questions, I'll be happy to answer them. 4 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Any questions for Mr. Thompson? 5 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: No sir. 6 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Okay. There are no questions, Mr. 7 Thompson. Does representatives for the Petitioners wish to speak? Welcome! 8 You need to state your name and address for the record. We appreciate it. 9 MIKE MASSEY: Yes sir. My name is Mike Massey. I'm an 10 attorney in the area. I represent Neil Aneja's mother. I was here at the Board of 11 Commissioner's meeting. I don't have anything to add. I believe, based on 12 speaking with Mr. Lubeck, that there's this probably, well, if you have any 13 questions for me, my client is willing to restrict the five parking spaces to the 14 three parking spaces that it would remain in the driveway only. We had submitted 15 at the last meeting that if the Board would be willing to maybe do a restrictive 16 grant through March 2025 and grant to see if there are any other issues, and return 17 back in March of 2025, allowing him to grant the Airbnb Permit, but come back at 18 that time, and if there are problems, then deny it, but certainly that was also 19 discussed at great length at the Board of Commissioner's Meeting. 20 It is agreed that there are no changes for these applications 21 submitted now. We did go to Court in March of 2024, and those matters are under 22 advisement, that he cannot have anymore violations whatsoever between now and 23 March of 2025. 5 1 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Thank you. Does anyone have any 2 questions for the Petitioner? 3 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Yes sir. 4 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Mr. Mahoney. 5 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Good evening, Mr. Massey. 6 Thank you for being here tonight. 7 MR. MIKE MASSEY: Yes sir. 8 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Were you representing the 9 applicants back in November of'22? 10 MR. MIKE MASSEY: I was not. 11 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: When did you start? 12 MR. MIKE MASSEY: I began in January of 2024 when I was 13 made aware of the violations and got involved to go to Court with him to help 14 stop that. 15 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Okay. 16 MR. MIKE MASSEY: I had some very, as I advised the Board of 17 Commissioner, I had some very long conversations with him that there's no 18 situation in which it was acceptable to have violations and that that needed to stop 19 completely without fail. 20 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: You understand that back in 21 November of'22, this Board considered all the issues and listened to the citizens. 22 Apart from what you just indicated, have your clients made any changes at all to 23 the application from what they submitted back— 6 1 MR. MIKE MASSEY: No. As we stated,there were no changes 2 from the application from November 2022 until now. 3 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: And you're aware this is R-1, 4 a single-family zoning district? 5 MR. MIKE MASSEY: Yes. 6 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: This is neighborhood 7 conservation. 8 MR. MIKE MASSEY: Yes. 9 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: In the materials that we have 10 in our Agenda, your client is identifying himself as a super host under Airbnb. 11 MR. MIKE MASSEY: Uh-huh. 12 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: And it also indicated that 13 there was something like 2,224 stays and 7,761 nights. I assume that's not for 14 White Pelican. 15 MR. MIKE MASSEY: Correct. That's for all of his properties, 16 that's right. 17 MR. PAUL MAHONEY: Do you know how many properties he 18 owns? 19 MR. MIKE MASSEY: I don't know exactly how many properties, 20 but it's more than three, but I would not know how many he's got exactly. 21 MR. PAUL MAHONEY: I see. Okay, because in one of the 22 communications we've received, one of the citizens, one of the neighbors had 7 1 indicated they had done some research, and I think they had identified something 2 like 20 different properties, most of them being in the City of Roanoke. 3 MR. MIKE MASSEY: That's correct, but I could not speak to 4 what— 5 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: In the materials in our 6 Agenda, as part of the application, your client also indicated that he was a full- 7 time Airbnb host and he has a full-time staff. Does your client have any other 8 employment or business, or is it all operating short-term rentals? 9 MR. MIKE MASSEY: He's an entrepreneur. He does some, 10 primarily this is his primary business,Airbnbs, short-term rentals. 11 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: From the materials that are in 12 our Agenda, your client submitted several reviews from guests who stayed at the 13 White Pelican property in September of 2023, October of 2023,June of'23 and 14 July of'23, and had I guess favorable reviews with all of them. 15 MR. MIKE MASSEY: Yes. 16 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Okay. I guess I would 17 conclude that based on that,your client is experienced and knowledgeable in the 18 business, but would you think that someone who's experienced and 19 knowledgeable in the business, operating short-term rentals, would get a business 20 license, would get zoning permission and pay transient occupancy taxes to the 21 locality in which they operate, and they've done none of those things? 22 MR. MIKE MASSEY: Mr. Mahoney, I have advised him and I 23 advised the Board of Commissioners and I would advise you that what operating 8 1 the Airbnb without a permit was unacceptable. So again, had I been involved 2 with him back before, my belief would have been it would not have happened, 3 advising him. So, my hope and my belief is that it will not happen again. He's 4 not had violations since the March date at least, and I know that's a short-term and 5 he is not allowed or permitted to have any more violations between now and 6 March of 2025 or he will be found guilty of all that are hanging over his head. 7 That would be the carrot, I guess, that would- 8 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Compel him to comply? 9 MR. MIKE MASSEY: Compel him to comply. 10 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Okay. When they began the 11 process, I guess back in July of 2022,they had been operating the short-term 12 rental without the appropriate permit, and then even after the denial in November 13 of'22.,they still continued to operate in violation. That's your knowledge. You 14 know that, correct? 15 MR. MIKE MASSEY: I now know that, yes sir. 16 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: I don't know. I guess I'm just 17 concerned that he has continued to operate in violation for all these years. I 18 understand what you're saying. You've counseled him not to do that, and I gather 19 when you had your case before in what was that? 20 MR. MIKE MASSEY: March. 21 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: March 28th? 22 MR. MIKE MASSEY: Yes sir. 9 1 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: I think there was a finding or 2 an agreement that there was sufficient evidence on all five charges, and that's why 3 it was continued over to 2025 with the admonition that they would not unlawfully 4 operate a short-term rental. 5 MR. MIKE MASSEY: Correct. 6 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: The county attorney has 7 prepared for us a booklet. Have you, could you- 8 MR. : Mr. Mahoney,there are copies for Mr. Massey up on 9 the Stand. 10 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Would you, when you get a 11 moment, look at that. This binder has certified copies of Court documents. It's 12 definitely not comprehensive. It's just a quick review of what we found on the 13 online Commonwealth of Virginia Court records. But are you aware that your 14 client has convictions of offenses in Fairfax County,Amherst County, Roanoke 15 City, Roanoke County, and the City of Lynchburg? 16 MR. MIKE MASSEY: Mr. Mahoney, I can't speak to any of this. 17 I have no knowledge of this. I'm only aware as to what he's been charged with 18 here in the county regarding the short-term rental. 19 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: So, if I ask you to look at Tab 20 #7, you're not aware of the convictions in the City of Roanoke in 2017? 21 MR. MIKE MASSEY: I have no knowledge. No sir. 22 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Your client persisted in 23 violating the City Zoning Ordinance. May 3`d, 2018, the Court revoked and 10 1 imposed a $100 fine of the suspended $300. Isn't it a problem that all these 2 convictions, all these revocations were occurring in the City of Roanoke, and then 3 your client comes to Roanoke County and continues to do the same kind of 4 violations here? Why should we trust your client? 5 MR. MIKE MASSEY: Mr. Mahoney, I can't speak to that. I'm 6 not able to address that. 7 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: With respect to Shama Kakar. 8 MR. MIKE MASSEY: Mr.Aneja's mother? 9 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Yes. In the spring of this year, 10 she met with County Staff. Are you aware that she admitted to County Planning 11 Staff that her son was continuing to rent out the property at White Pelican 12 unlawfully, but he claimed he had to do it as a business necessity? 13 MR. MIKE MASSEY: I was not there. I would not be able to 14 speak to that. 15 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Okay. 16 MR. MIKE MASSEY: And I'm not being cagey. I just don't 17 know. 18 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Okay. And she is the legal 19 owner of White Pelican, correct? 20 MR. MIKE MASSEY: That is correct. That's right. 21 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: If you would look at the other 22 binder. That's her criminal history. Look at Tab 2. Again,this is a reference back 11 1 to 2017 in the City of Roanoke, but you're indicating you're not aware of any of 2 those? 3 MR. MIKE MASSEY: I'm not aware, no sir. 4 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: And again, Tab 3, her 5 convictions and how she was ordered not to use the property as a rental? 6 MR. MIKE MASSEY: No sir, no knowledge. 7 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: It just seems to me that your 8 clients don't seem to be interested in following the law. So, with this history, I 9 appreciate your representations to us. With this history, I don't have a whole lot 10 of trust. 11 MR. MIKE MASSEY: I understand. 12 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: I have no further questions. 13 _ CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Thank you very much. Does 14 anyone else have any questions for the Petitioner's representative? Then thank 15 you very much, Mr. Massey. At this time, we will open the Public Hearing. This 16 means we would appreciate all who have come to address the Board today,when 17 your name is called,please come forward and state your name and address prior 18 to your comments. Each person is permitted to speak up to three minutes. 19 At the front of the podium is a light system that tells you how 20 much time you have remaining. When the light changes from green to yellow, 21 please share any concluding remarks. When the light changes from yellow to red, 22 your time has ended. So,with that said, the first person who signed up to speak 23 this evening on this subject,M.1 short-term rental, is Jon Conti. Would you 12 1 please step forward and give us your name for the record and your address? 2 Thank you, sir. 3 JON CONTI: Yes, hello. My name is Jon Conti. I live at 2720 4 White Pelican Lane, directly next door to the property in question. I just wanted 5 to make a quick statement that I am against this Airbnb. It has affected my 6 family. The childhood of my two children, all the traffic that's been going on, the 7 parties that have been held here, it's been treated as a, kind of like a conference 8 center. They allow 10 people to stay there. Those 10 people invite their 10 9 friends, and they all come over. They bring out coolers full of alcohol. They play 10 music into the night. They try to play football in the street with my children. 11 I'm the one that has to call the Airbnb and notify them. I say, 12 "There's a party going on here against your policies", and they say, "Well, how do 13 you know it's a party?" I don't know what their definition of a party is, but they 14 say, "Well, is there loud music?" I said, "There doesn't need to be loud music. 15 There's at least 35 people here. That's not allowed." 16 So about six hours or so later,Neil, I believe, had them evicted at 17 about 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. So eventually, they got to it. So, I don't know he's going 18 to be able to police his own property with his cameras. I know that cameras are 19 there. I can see them, but I don't see any way that he can actually police this 20 property and maintain how he wants to operate the number of cars, the number of 21 people. I know no pets are allowed there. I've seen pets brought in; two large 22 dogs brought in with crates going into the home. I know that was a violation of 23 what's on the description of the property on the Airbnb website as well. 13 1 So, I don't see how he will be able to comply. He hasn't complied 2 in the past. It's taken me time away from my family to come here,time away 3 from work to come here. I've had, you know, frustrating conversations with my 4 wife. It's brought me and my neighbors closer, which has been nice, but you 5 know, my daughter doesn't have the same childhood playing out in the street as 6 my son did before all this started happening. 7 This street is a street where it's nice and flat. There's a cul-de-sac. 8 That's where everyone goes to learn to ride their bikes. My daughter is starting to 9 do that. We have new kids on the block as well. We have seven, eight, nine kids 10 on this street, and I don't think this is a conducive environment to raising these 11 children, and I ask you to turn this down and vote"no". That's all I have. 12 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Thank you, sir. 13 JON CONTI: Thank you so much. 14 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: The next speaker is John Bingham. 15 Would you come forward please, sir, and state your name and address for the 16 record? 17 JOHN BINGHAM: Sure. My name is John Bingman. I live at 18 2725 White Pelican Lane, which is across the street from 2726. The main thing I 19 want to say to you is, and it sounds like you've already covered a lot of things, so 20 I'll leave those things alone. I think the main thing is I'd like the neighborhood to 21 stay residential in nature, and that's really the mainstay of what was planned,what 22 people had purchased as they purchased their homes on the street. Even the 23 person who's seeking the permit with the idea of it being a single-family 14 1 residence, which is really the purpose of the neighborhood and the housing on the 2 street. 3 There are 14 houses on the street so it's not a very large street, but 4 it is closed off, and it's a very nice and quiet place most of the time, and that's 5 why we have lived there for 30 years. So, I would just say, in fairness to the other 6 property owners, I ask that you would vote this down. 7 I want to also say there's been some other things. There's been, 8 the safety of the children is a big risk on the street because it is one of the few 9 areas that is flat and level, and the children tend to flock there because it's easy to 10 play and run around. We have a lot of basketball goals and things like that that 11 keep them occupied. So, it is a safety thing, in my mind. Although, my children 12 are long gone. 13 The parking has been a disturbance ever since it's been there, but I 14 think that's been covered in several things you've heard already tonight. So, I'm 15 just going to leave you with an example, and this example happened between 16 February 11th and the 22nd. There was a rental to a solar panel company who had 17 seven different individuals staying at the home. They were all unrelated. They 18 were here selling solar panels across the county and Roanoke City. I happened to 19 speak with one of them a couple of times, and I found out the reason that they 20 were on White Pelican is because the other place that they were at couldn't 21 manage the parking. So,they had to move them to a place that could. Even at 22 White Pelican, seven cars don't fit in front of this one residence so it was even a 23 problem there. 15 1 One night there was some kind if get-together with the people 2 there and there were 12 or 15 cars out on the street, and pretty much within two 3 homes down, one in each direction and in front of his house and my home, cars 4 were all in the street. This is just an example what can happen. It's not like that 5 all the time, but it does happen. It's not the owner that has to deal with this, it's 6 the neighbors that have to deal with this. 7 So, I ask as you're thinking about this that you keep us in mind as 8 to what you would want in your neighborhood and how you would like it to 9 remain a residence area instead of having a commercial business that operates 10 exactly when you're coming home to relax. That's my comments, and I 11 appreciate your time and your attention. 12 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Mr. Bingham, can you clarify 13 that date again when the installers were there? 14 JOHN BINGHAM: They were there from, I have a list of 90 other 15 dates that happened in the last year here. The dates I have were February 11 th to 16 February, it's either 22nd or 23`d 17 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: This year? 18 JOHN BINGHAM: Of this year, yes. 19 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: For the record, the Board may 20 recall that the Clerk had forwarded to us the letter that Mr. Bingham had sent to 21 us, I think last Friday. I think all the Board members received a copy of that. 22 JOHN BINGHAM: Okay. Thank you so much for the time. I 23 appreciate it. 16 1 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Thank you, sir. The next speaker is 2 Karen Mitchell? 3 KAREN MITCHELL: Mitchell, yes. 4 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Ms. Mitchell, if you'd state your 5 name for the record and address, we'd appreciate it. 6 KAREN MITCHELL: Yes sir. My name is Karen Mitchell, and I 7 live at 2743 White Pelican Lane. I just want to echo what both of the Johns 8 before me have been sharing. You know, we've lived there 47 years so our 9 children were raised on White Pelican. Our grandchildren grew up coming over 10 and learning to ride their bikes and all on our street. Now I push my great 11 grandbaby in her stroller and my little great grandson rides along on his trike. 12 So that's the kind of neighborhood that we've had all these years. I 13 think that there maybe has been four homes sold on our street in the last couple of 14 years, and all of them have young children. Well, one is expecting. The others 15 have young children. So, the street has quite a number of young children on it. 16 The big concern, this 30-day rental, I mean these are, I don't mean 17 this to sound, you know, snobby or whatever, but I mean they're transient. So, 18 you know, they have no real interest in the neighborhood. They have no 19 investment or stake in the neighborhood. They have, you know, no sense of 20 neighborliness and comradery in the neighborhood like we do. So, I just don't 21 think that this would be good for the street to have this business. 22 It's right in the middle of the street. It's in the middle of one side. 23 There isn't a house on White Pelican that's not affected by all the traffic. The one 17 1 that John mentioned where there was a lot of cars out there, one of them was a 2 souped-up car, and the guy drove very fast on and off the street. It's a small 3 street. I mean at the end of the street,the sign says ".14" so it's 14 hundredths, I 4 guess, of a mile. It's not even the length of a football field or anything. It's a very 5 small street. 6 You know, we have all loved living on the street. We appreciate all 7 that Roanoke County does for us, the services, the great schools. We feel safe, but 8 this is a big concern, and especially since, you know, with a 30-day rental, it's 9 strangers. I mean if somebody's got a child whose friends are over here at this 10 house, are you as comfortable with him just running over to the friend's house. 11 These are strangers. We don't know who they are. 12 So, we would certainly appreciate that you're taking this, our 13 request, into consideration and voting"no". 14 CHAIRNMAN PHIL NORTH: Thank you. 15 KAREN MITCHELL: Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: The next speaker is Hollie Dulaney. 17 Hollie Dulaney? Thank you. Hollie, will you please state your full name and 18 your address for the record? 19 HOLLIE DULANEY: Hollie Dulaney, 2702 White Pelican Lane. 20 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Thank you. 21 HOLLIE DULANEY: Thank you all for listening. We appreciate 22 you not giving him the permit last year, but he was able to show his true colors by 23 just breaking the rules that come. So,this has been such a traumatic course of 18 1 events for, I would say the highest would be Jon Conti's family. They almost 2 moved. They contemplated moving. They were just being, I mean it was just, it 3 was horrible. 4 You know,we've been there for almost 16 years. My kids are 16 5 and 14 now. My 16-year-old is driving. We make sure he goes really slow down 6 the road because there's always kids. There's always kids. You just never know 7 when someone, and then there's baby deer. 8 It's such a quiet neighborhood and street. There's retirees. There's 9 young families. This is basically a hotel. You know, like they've had weddings 10 there. It's just, it's just not been appropriate, but we hope that you guys vote "no" 11 on this. I have a feeling you guys will, and I appreciate your time. Thank you so 12 much. 13 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Thank you. Does the Clerk have 14 anyone else signed up to speak? 15 CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK RHONDA PERDUE: No sir. 16 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Is there anyone else in the audience 17 who hasn't signed up, but does want to speak? Okay. With that said, we will 18 close the Public Hearing, and at this time I will ask is there a Motion on the 19 Petition? 20 SUPERVISOR PAUL MAHONEY: Yes sir. Let me also make a 21 comment first. As I said this afternoon, before my wife and I decided to downsize 22 and try to move to a patio home, one level living,we had lived for 36, almost 37 23 years up on Skylark, which is about four blocks away from you all, from White 19 1 Pelican. My wife and I would often walk through the neighborhood and do the 2 circle around the high school. So, I know the neighborhood very well. 3 .I think for the Board members' benefit, if you looked at the map of 4 White Pelican and how this is buried in Penn Forest, it's well off of Chaparral, but 5 you look at that street and as they indicated, it's a short, one block cul-de-sac with 6 about seven or eight homes on either side. So, it's a very, very short, very narrow 7 residential street. I think that's important,particularly when you look at Number 8. One, the size of the lot that is subject to the Application, three-tenths of an acre. 9 As compared to some of the other Applications that we have 10 considered that have been almost three acres or two, two and a-half acres, when 11 you're in a small lot like most of the lots are in Penn Forest, it's a challenge to 12 have this kind of activity. Many of the other Applications we've considered and 13 approved have had off-street parking. This does not have off-street parking. You 14 may be able to park one car in the driveway, but if you have four or five other cars 15 for all the other bedrooms, it's an adverse impact on the neighbors. 16 You look at, from the Application, and I appreciate the applicants. 17 It sounds like they have a very successful business. If Airbnb calls them a super 18 host, and with all the other properties they have I guess primarily in Roanoke 19 City, they've had over 2,000 stays and 7,000 nights. This is a business, and I 20 think this is fundamentally different from some of the other Applications we've 21 had where you've had an individual or a husband and wife own a house and 22 they're willing to have a short-term rental for maybe the basement, or apartments 23 in the basement, and the owners live there. They can monitor the activities, make 20 1 sure that this is not turning into a party house, make sure that you don't have loud 2 music till 2:00 in the morning. 3 I think that's different. In effect, what we are seeing is a 4 commercial use in a residential district, and I think that's a little bit different than 5 some of the other Applications we've seen. I don't know how many other 6 properties the applicants own. I think Mr. Bingham, from some of his research, 7 had indicated maybe 20. I don't know that for a fact, but when we look at the 8 criminal history records that our attorney has gathered for me, clearly, they had 9 property in the City of Roanoke, and they've had problems and violations in the 10 City of Roanoke. They've had the same issues in the City of Roanoke that they 11 have here. 12 This is a business. This is not a residential use. I think with those 13 elements, under our Code and under our Ordinance, we, the Board have to make 14 certain findings before you can grant a special use permit, and I can't make those 15 findings here. I think this use is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the 16 county's comprehensive plan. It is inconsistent with good zoning practice. Like I 17 said, this is a business, not a residential use. 18 And more importantly, it will result, and has resulted, and will 19 continue to result in substantial detriment to the community. We've had almost 20 two years' worth of violations where the applicants, we've taken them to Court. 21 There's been judgments against them. They've been found guilty, and they 22 continue to operate. In effect, they're thumbing their nose at the neighbors, this 23 Board, this county, and the judicial system. 21 1 I appreciate what Mr. Massey has indicated, that he's tried to 2 counsel his clients. Sorry, I just don't, with that history, I can't make a finding 3 and trust this applicant to comply with the Provisions of the County Code. With 4 that being said, members of the Board, I would Move that this Board deny the 5 request. I would also request that a transcript of this matter be attached to the 6 denial exhibit, the Denial Ordinance as an exhibit. Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Thank you, Mr. Mahoney. With that 8 said, is there a second to the Motion made by the gentleman from Cave Spring? 9 SUPERVISOR RADFORD: Second. 10 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Is there any discussion on the 11 Motion? With that said, will the Clerk please call the roll? 12 CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK RHONDA PERDUE: Mr. Radford? 13 SUPERVISOR RADFORD: Yes. 14 CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK RHONDA PERDUE: Mrs. Hooker? 15 SUPERVISOR HOOKER: Yes. 16 CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK RHONDA PERDUE: Mr. Mahoney? 17 SUPERVISOR MAHONEY: Yes. 18 CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK RHONDA PERDUE: Mrs. Shepherd? 19 SUPERVISOR SHEPHERD? Yes. 20 CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK RHONDA PERDUE: Mr. North? 21 CHAIRMAN PHIL NORTH: Yes. CERTIFICATE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ROANOKE I,Patricia B.Wells, dohereby certify that the excerpt of these proceedings were by me transcribed by me by means of audio/visual recording,and that to the best of my ability the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the excerpt of the proceedings as aforesaid. I further certify that I am not a relative, counsel or attorney for either party,or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action. This the 8th day of July,2024. W1174" , et a) (le Patricia B. Wells