HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/2021 - Regular December 14, 2021 671
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the only regularly scheduled meeting
of the month of December 2021. Audio and video recordings of this meeting will be
held on file,for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order, a moment of silence was
observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: : CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Radford called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll
call was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Supervisors Martha B. Hooker, Paul M. Mahoney, Phil C.
North and David F. Radford
MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor P. Jason Peters
STAFF PRESENT: Daniel R. O'Donnell, . County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Rebecca Owens,
Assistant County Administrator; Peter S. Lubeck, County
Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and
Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing to discuss with the Board of Supervisors the 2022 Real
Estate Assessment and Roanoke Valley Economic Conditions
(Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services,
Kenneth Fay, Director of Real Estate; Steve Elliott, Budget
Manager)
Laurie Gearheart, Steve Elliott, and Kenneth Fay provided a PowerPoint
presentation.
672 December 14, 2021
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Presentation of year-end financial results for June 30, 2021,
acceptance of audit report and allocation of year-end funds
(Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services)
John Aldridge, Partner with Brown Edwards was in attendance. He
indicated it was a clean audit with no issues and complies with State code. There was
no discussion.
A-121421-1
2. Resolution supporting the design and limited access control
changes for the Interstate 81 Widening Project from Exit 137 to
Exit 141, Catawba Magisterial District (Megan G. Cronise,
Transportation Planning Administrator)
Ms. Cronise outlined the request for resolution. Supervisor Hooker
commented it is really needed and is looking forward to being completed. There was no
discussion.
RESOLUTION 121421-2 SUPPORTING THE DESIGN AND
LIMITED ACCESS CONTROL CHANGES FOR THE
INTERSTATE 81 WIDENING PROJECT FROM EXIT 137 TO EXIT
141, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Interstate 81 (1-81) Widening Project, as depicted on the plans
for project 0081-080-946, P101, RW201, C501 (UPC 116203) in the City of Salem and
Roanoke County, is classified as a "limited access highway" by the Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with 24 VAC 30-401-20 limited access control change
procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution or letter of support be received
from the locality within which the highway is located where the change in limited access
is proposed; and
WHEREAS, the limited access control lines along 1-81 Northbound and
Southbound from Exit 137 to Exit 141 will be modified as depicted in the Limited Access
Adjustment Exhibits and the Limited Access Adjustment Locations Table entitled "1-81
Widening MM 136.6 to MM 141.8, VDOT Project Number 0081-080-946, UPC 116203,
Proposed Limited Access Adjustment Exhibit"; and
WHEREAS, the limited access control changes are necessary for the widening,
safety improvements, and maintenance of the interstate, which includes breaks in
limited access for entrances to stormwater management facilities (SWM); and
December 14, 2021 673
WHEREAS, a Virtual Design Public Hearing was held on February 9, 2021, and
the comment period expired on February 19, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the design concept made available for the Virtual Public Hearing
represents the major design features along with limited access control changes; and
WHEREAS, VDOT has requested the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
express its support of the major design features and the limited access control changes
made available at the Virtual Public Hearing and refined in the Limited Access
Adjustment Exhibits and the Limited Access Adjustment Locations Table.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board of Supervisors hereby supports the widening of Interstate 81
between Exit 137 and Exit 141 to include the major design features and
proposed limited access control changes included in the Limited Access
Adjustment Exhibits and the Limited Access Adjustment Locations Table.
2. That the Clerk to the Board forthwith send a certified copy of this Resolution
to Commonwealth Transportation Board member Dr. Ray Smoot.
3. That this resolution is effective immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
3. Resolution appointing a County Administrator and approving an
employment agreement(Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck outlined the change in the resolution. There was no
discussion.
RESOLUTION 121421-3 APPOINTING A COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR AND APPROVING AN EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Section 4 of the Roanoke County Charter provides for the
appointment of a County Administrator, his or her powers and duties, compensation and
tenure of office; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1540 of the Code of Virginia provides for the
appointment of a chief administrative officer by the governing body of that locality; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1541 of the Code of Virginia establishes the various
duties and responsibilities of the administrative head of the local government; and
674 December 14, 2021
WHEREAS, an employment agreement between a prospective County
Administrator and the Board of Supervisors has been negotiated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Richard L. Caywood is hereby appointed County Administrator for
Roanoke County, and that his/her tenure shall commence on February 1, 2022.
2. That Richard L. Caywood shall exercise all of the powers and fulfill all of
the duties and obligations of County Administrator as provided in the Roanoke County
Charter, the Code of Virginia, the position description, the policies and regulations
adopted by the Board, and the legal directives of the Board.
3. That the employment agreement negotiated between the Board and
Richard L. Caywood is hereby approved, and the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the
Board is hereby authorized to execute this agreement of behalf the Board.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Hooker
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
Supervisor North stated Supervisor Peters asked that he voice his support
for Mr. Caywood and he believes Mr. Caywood is sincere and wants to see Roanoke
County move forward and he looks forward to working with Mr. Caywood in the years to
come.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed
amendments to the fiscal year 2021-2022 budget in accordance
with Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2507 (Laurie Gearheart,
Director of Finance and Management Services)
Vice Chairman Radford opened and closed the public hearing with no
citizens speaking on this agenda item.
December 14, 2021 675
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Emergency ordinance appropriating $9,560,389.91 from the
Roanoke County Public Schools' fiscal year 2020-2021 year-end
funds to the fiscal year 2021-2022 Roanoke County Public
Schools Budget (It is requested, upon a four-fifths vote of the
Board, the second reading be waived and the ordinance adopted
as an emergency measure) (Susan Peterson, Director of Finance
for Roanoke County Public Schools)
Ms. Peterson outlined the emergency request for ordinance. There
was no discussion.
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 121421-4 APPROPRIATING
$9,560,389.91 FROM THE ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS' FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021 YEAR-END FUNDS TO
THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS' BUDGET
WHEREAS, § 22.1-100 of the Code of Virginia states that at the end of each
fiscal year, all unexpended public school funds that were derived from the funds of the
local governing body shall revert back to the governing body, and that it is within the
local governing body's discretion whether to then re-appropriate such funds back to the
school budget for the next year; and
WHEREAS, Section 10, paragraph 6 of the County Board of Supervisors'
Comprehensive Financial Policy (dated October 19, 2021) sets forth purposes for which
such unexpended year-end funds may be re-appropriated; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County School Board, at their November 11, 2021
meeting, proposed that the Board of Supervisors re-appropriate unexpended fiscal year
2020-2021 year-end funds'to the Schools' fiscal year 2021-2022 budget for the
following purposes:
Description Amount
Funded outstanding encumbrances $80,154.47
Emergency contingency funds $2,000,000.00
Major capital projects $3,740,117.72
Minor capital projects $1,847,783.72
Childrens' Services Act reserves $1,000,000.00
Fleet replacements $500,000.00
Technology replacements $392,334.00
TOTAL $9,560,389.91
676 December 14, 2021
and;
WHEREAS, the School Board's proposal is consistent with the Board of
Supervisors' Comprehensive Financial Policy; and
WHEREAS, the School Board has requested that the Board of Supervisors adopt
this ordinance with only one reading (as an emergency ordinance) in order to expedite
the distribution of funds for necessary expenditures; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 14, 2021,
and the second reading has been dispensed with, upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of
the members of the Board, this being deemed to be an emergency measure pursuant to
Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The Roanoke County School Board's unexpended fiscal year 2020-2021
year-end funds in the amount of $9,560,389.91 are appropriated to the
School Board's fiscal year 2021-2022 budget, to be used as proposed for the
above-stated purposes.
2. An emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be effective upon
its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor North
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
2. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Public Schools budget
and appropriating $1,845,871 to the General Fund (Susan
Peterson, Director of Finance Roanoke County Public Schools)
Ms. Peterson outlined the request for ordinance. There was no
discussion.
Supervisor Hooker's motion to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for January 22, 2022 was seconded by Supervisor North and approved
by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
December 14, 2021 677
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting funds in the amount of$50,000 from Friends
of the Blue Ridge, and appropriating the funds to Roanoke
County's Fee Class Fund to be used for constructing a
playground at Explore Park (Doug Blount, Director of General
Services and Parks, Recreation and Tourism)
Mr. Blount outlined the request and advised no changes since the first
reading held on November 17, 2022. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 121421-5 ACCEPTING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $50,000 FROM FRIENDS OF THE BLUE RIDGE, AND
APPROPRIATING THE FUNDS TO ROANOKE COUNTY'S FEE
CLASS FUND TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTING A
PLAYGROUND AT EXPLORE PARK
WHEREAS, outdoor assets are very important in Virginia's Blue Ridge; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for a destination and inclusive playground as
identified in the Adventure Plan for Explore Park; and
WHERAS, Friends of the Blue Ridge wants to help preserve, promote and
enhance the outstanding beauty, ecological vitality, and cultural distinctiveness for the
Blue Ridge region for future generations; and
WHEREAS, Friends of the Blue Ridge, a non-profit organization, would like to donate
$50,000 for the purpose of constructing and inclusive and destination playground at
Explore Park; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that such
funds be accepted appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on November 17, 2021, and
the second reading was held on December 14, 2021.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of$50,000 is hereby accepted from Friends of the Blue Ridge.
2. The funds are appropriated to the County's Fee Class Fund for the purpose of
constructing the proposed playground at Explore Park.
3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
678 December 14, 2021
2. Ordinance accepting funds in the amount of$118,089.97 from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, appropriating such funds to Roanoke
County's grant fund, for distribution to the Town of Vinton for the
purpose of providing municipal utility assistance, and authorizing
the execution of 1) a Memorandum of Understanding and 2)
Certification of receipt for the use of such funds (Laurie
Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services)
Ms. Gearheart outlined the request for ordinance and advised there were
no changed since the first reading held on November 17, 2021. There was no
discussion.
ORDINANCE 121421-6 ACCEPTING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $118,089.97 FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
APPROPRIATING SUCH FUNDS TO ROANOKE COUNTY'S
GRANT FUND, FOR DISTRIBUTION TO THE TOWN OF VINTON
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MUNICIPAL UTILITY
ASSISTANCE
AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF 1) A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING AND 2) CERTIFICATION OF RECEIPT FOR
THE USE OF SUCH FUNDS
WHEREAS, the American Rescue Plan Act ("ARPA") was passed by the United
States Congress and signed into law by the United States President on March 11, 2021;
and
WHEREAS, a primary component of the ARPA is the provision of funding for state
and local fiscal recovery for direct costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the ARPA funds, the Commonwealth of Virginia has
allocated a share of the state and local fiscal recovery funds to a Municipal Utility
Assistance program to continue to help provide direct assistance to utility customers with
accounts over 30 days in arrears pursuant to section 602 of the Social Security Act, as
added by section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act, Pub. L.-No. 117-2 (Mar. 11,
2021) and appropriated in Item 479.20, Chapter 1, 2021 Acts of Assembly, Special
Session II; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vinton ("Town") has been notified that it has been
awarded SLFRF through the American Rescue Plan Act in the amount of$118,089.97 to
assist with municipal utility customer relief for all eligible customers of the Town; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County (the "County") has agreed to act as the Town's
fiscal agent as required by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development ("DHCD") to facilitate assistance to eligible customers, and a memorandum
of understanding has been proposed to such effect; and
December 14, 2021 679
WHEREAS, in order to receive the SLFRF funding, the Town and County must also
complete a Certification of Receipt for Use of State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 17, 2021,
and the second reading was held on December 14, 2021.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the sum of $118,089.97 is accepted, and is appropriated to the County's
Grant Fund, in the Commonwealth's ARPA allocation, for use by the Town to
establish a COVID-19 Municipal Utility Assistance Program.
2. The County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is authorized
to execute a memorandum of understanding with the Town of Vinton, in which
the County will agree to act as the fiscal agent for the Town for the Municipal
Utility Assistance Program, on a form as approved by the County Attorney.
3. The County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is further
authorized to execute a Certificate of Receipt for the COVID-19 ARPA SLFRF
Payments, and any other such documents that may be necessary to effectuate
the Municipal Utility Assistance Program.
4. And this ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Chapter 18, Section 18-63.1 of the Roanoke
County Code, discontinuing Roanoke County's receipt of applications and fees
for the issuance of permits for septic tanks, on-site sewage disposal systems and
wells (Tarek Moneir, Director of Development Services)
Mr. Moneir outlined the request and advised no changes since the first
reading held on November 17, 2021. There was no discussion.
Vice Chairman Radford opened and closed the public hearing with no
citizens to speak on this agenda item. Supervisor Radford commented he is glad we
are moving forward with this and we are no longer micromanaging.
680 December 14, 2021
ORDINANCE 121421-7 AMENDING CHAPTER 18, SECTION 18-
63.1 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, DISCONTINUING
ROANOKE COUNTY'S RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS AND FEES
FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR SEPTIC TANKS, ON-
SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS AND WELLS
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Code states that County staff receive
applications and fees for permits for private wells, septic tanks and on-site sewage
disposal systems on behalf of the Virginia Department of Health (VDH); and
WHEREAS, over the years, VDH's fee schedule and process has increased in
complexity, and the Virginia Administrative Code now states that "all requests for a
sewage disposal system construction permit shall be directed initially to the district or
local health department"; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke City and Alleghany Health District Director Cynthia B.
Morrow, MD, MPH, has requested the Roanoke County Code be amended to be
consistent with the Virginia Administrative Code so that the County no longer receives
permit applications and fees on behalf of VDH; and
WHEREAS, it is accordingly proposed that Chapter 18, Section 18-63.1 of the
Roanoke County Code be amended;
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 17, 2021,
and the second reading and public hearing were held on December 14, 2021.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors as follows:
1. Chapter 18, Article III, Section 18-63.1 of the Roanoke County Code is hereby
amended to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 18-63.1. Procedures and fees for issuance of permits for septic tanks,
on-site sewage disposal systems and wells.
(a) All buildings in the county in those areas where septic tanks are permitted
shall have an on-site sewage disposal system, alternative discharging
sewage system or septic tanks installed for the disposing of sewage and
other human waste.
(b) Before any on-site sewage disposal, alternative discharging sewage system
or septic tank systems or private wells are constructed or installed, it shall be
the duty of the landowner upon whose land the construction or installation
shall take place to secure a permit from the Virginia Department of Healthte
be issued by the health department. Application for such permit(s) shall be
made directly to the Virginia Department of Health, Roanoke City and
Alleqhany Health Districtcounty's department of development and inspection,
prescribed by the health department. Before any
alternative discharging sewage systems are constructed or installed, the
December 14, 2021 681
applicant shall additionally for land disturbance secure a special use permit as
required by the Roanoke County Erosion & Sediment ControlZoning
Ordinance.
Bach on site sewage disposal system, alternative discharging sewage system
permit and before the application will be processed by the health department.
The state permit fee of twenty five dollars ($25.00) for construction of a
made for such permit and before processing by the h alth department. The
treasurer shall not collect the state fee(s) from owner's-whose famile
(d) The health department shall review this permit application based upon the
requirements and regulations promulgated pursuant to title 32.1 of the Code
period of fifty four (54) months from the date of issuance unless there has
soil or site conditions where the
septic system is to be located. The availability of a public sewer system shall
permit.
(e) In the event the health department denies a permit on the land on which the
owner seeks to construct his principal place of residence, the county's portion
of the state application fee shall be refunded to the owner. Such fee shall not
be-refunded by the county until final resolution by the health department of
(cf)Applications shall be limited to one site specific proposal. When site
conditions change, or the needs of the applicant change, or the applicant
proposes and requests another site be evaluated, and a new site evaluation
is conducted, a new application and fee is required.
( � ) Any person, firm, or corporation violating any provisions of this section
shall be subject to a Class 3 misdemeanor for each offense; and a separate
offense shall be deemed committed on each day during or on which a
violation occurs or continues. Further, any violation or attempted violation of
this section may be restrained, corrected, or abated by injunction or other
appropriate proceeding.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately.
682 December 14, 2021
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
Supervisor Hooker requested that the Board consider adding Mr. Todd
Simmons as a member of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. There was no
objections and confirmation was added to the Consent Agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Mahoney requested that the Resolution establishing a meeting
schedule for the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for calendar year 2022 be
pulled from the Consent Agenda. There were no objections.
Supervisor Mahoney advised that he pulled the calendar for clarification
on the November date. He asked that the November meeting be moved to Wednesday
November 9th. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 121421-8 ESTABLISHING A MEETING
SCHEDULE FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2022
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That for calendar year 2022, the regular meetings of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are set forth below with public hearings
scheduled for 7:00 p.m. unless otherwise advertised.
Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 2:00 pm (Organizational Meeting)
Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 3 pm
Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 3 pm
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 3 pm
Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 3 pm
Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 3 pm
December 14, 2021 683
Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 3 pm
Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 3 pm
Tuesday, July 26, 2022 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 3 pm
Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 3:00 pm and 7 p.m.
Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 3 pm
Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 3 pm
Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday December 13, 2022 at 3 pm and 7 pm
2. That the organizational meeting for 2023 shall be held on Tuesday,
January 10, 2023, at 2:00 p.m.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
RESOLUTION 121421-9 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for December
14, 2021, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 5 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes—August 24, 2021, August 30, 2021, September 7, 2021
2. Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke County Audit Committee;
Roanoke County Library Board (District); Roanoke Valley Broadband
Authority; Roanoke Valley Resource Authority; South Peak Community
Development Authority and the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority
3. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
accept Heys Lane Road, Belmont Section 2 in the Vinton Magisterial District
into the Virginia Department of Transportation System
4. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $1,872.15 to the Clerk
of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia
684 December 14, 2021
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
A-121421-9.a
A-121421-9.b
RESOLUTION 121421-9.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
HEYS LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition Form AM-4.3, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the
Virginia Department of Transportationt Subdivision Street Requirements; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention,
which applies to this request foraddition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.2-
705, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after
receiving a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of
thedeveloper,whichever occurs last intime.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, .this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and
drainage; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board hereby guarantees the
performance of the street(s) requested herein to become a part of the State maintained
secondary system of state highways for a period of one year from the date of
the acceptance of the referenced streets by VDOT into the secondary system of111
state highways. This Board will reimburse all costs incurred by VDOT to repair faults in
December 14, 2021 685
the referenced streets and related drainage facilities associated with workmanship
or materials as determined exclusively by VDOT.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Mahoney moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of November
30, 2021
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of November 30, 2021
5. Accounts Paid — November 30, 2021
6. Proclamation signed by the Chairman —Arbor Day
N RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session with the Board of Supervisors to review possible
water and sewer projects with second round of ARPA funds
(Michael McEvoy, Executive Director, Western Virginia Water
Authority; Philip Thompson, Director of Planning; Jill Loope,
Director of Economic Development)
Mr. McEvoy and Mr. Thompson outlined the possible water and sewer
projects with a PowerPoint presentation.
It was the consensus of the Board to have staff prioritize these projects
and see how the rules unfold and then come back to the Board with the list that staff
thinks represents the priorities based on what staff has heard and the project feasibility.
686 December 14, 2021
It was suggested that ARPA funds could be used to pay the engineering
costs associated with a project.
The work session was held from 4:22 p.m. until 5:13 p.m.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:03 p.m., Supervisor Radford moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A 3 —
Discussion or consideration of the disposition of publicly held real property, where
discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or
negotiating strategy of the public body; namely, property located at the Vinton Business
Center. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Mahoney and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
The closed session was held from 5:39 p.m. until 6:40 p.m.
Vice Chairman Radford recessed to the third floor at 4:04 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:01 p.m., Supervisor Radford moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 121421-10 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:
December 14, 2021 687
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 Hooker to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of The Lawson Companies to amend existing
proffered conditions on approximately 12.15 acres on property
zoned R-3C (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) District
with conditions, to construct 216 apartments located in the 5000
block of Cove Road, the 2700 block of Peters Creek Road, and
south of Beacon Ridge subdivision, Catawba Magisterial District
(Philip Thompson, Director of Planning)
Philip Thompson outlined the petition and provided a PowerPoint
presentation.
Supervisor Hooker stated she has a few questions and points of
clarification. First, the current zoning is R-3, with Mr. Thompson responding in the
affirmation. Secondly, the real point of discussion tonight is really about the proffers
and how they need to be amended or how they are requesting amendments to those
proffers, with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative. She added that some people
understood there was some commercial property involved, but there is no commercial
property involved. Mr. Thompson responded the secondary access road access from
Peters Creek Road has a small piece of property that is commercial.
Mr. Thompson explained it's not part of this because the access across
that could be allowed into this. There are no units being built in this area. It's just
access. So you can have a higher density, you could have, obviously, if it was lower
intensity use, you can, if it's the higher intensity use, you could have access across that.
So it's not part of the rezoning request because there's no proffer conditions associated
with that. It is part of their project because that's their secondary access to Peters Creek
road. Supervisor Hooker reiterated so it is not part of the rezoning, with Mr. Thompson
confirming.
688 December 14, 2021
•
Supervisor Hooker then asked if the density is allowed by right, with Mr.
Thompson explaining currently it is 18 units per acre. Ms. Hooker then asked what the
density for 216 units is. Mr. Thompson responded 17.11, which Ms. Hooker advised is
what she also calculated. However, from the 185 units according to the existing proffers
actually is a little less, 15.2. Mr. Thompson confirmed that is correct. Supervisor
Hooker stated she just wanted to clarify because the focus is on the proffers.
Supervisor Mahoney stated he did not understand the access point off
Peters Creek Road. Why is it entrance only? Why couldn't it be used for entrance and
exit? Mr. Thompson replied it is not wide enough. Supervisor Mahoney stated he was
not sure if it was width or a size issue or if Roanoke City had some limitations on access
points.
Supervisor Radford asked if the access point was an easement or actually
a property. Supervisor Mahoney responded it is a piece of property; its' own separate
parcel.
Supervisor North asked with regard to school capacity, enrollments and
initial students, so please explain how there is only going to be an additional 48
students,in the 185 units and the 216 units seems too small. Mr. Thompson advised he
would let the petitioner explain, however, he thinks they utilized national standards in
the generation of the number of school children for their project. We did submit that
application over to the schools and we did not receive any comments back. Supervisor
North added from what he can discern, if these numbers are right on capacity and
enrollment, the combined collective to total yields only a 71%.capacity; there's plenty of
room. He was just looking at the numbers for the additional students. It's such a small
amount.
Next, Jonathan Puvak, attorney for the petitioner, and Frederick Fletcher,
Development Management, provided an overview of the project.
Supervisor Hooker asked for clarification that the building would not be
four stories with Mr. Fletcher confirming. Next, Supervisor Hooker asked to be shown
on the map where the trash receptacle (dumpster) will be. Mr. Fletcher stated it's going
to be a little difficult, but if you're looking between Buildings, F and B, we will have one
there, it makes it the easiest for the dumpster to turn around, however, similar again, to
keep leveraging off the retreat that will be at masonry enclosed structure. So it will be
full masonry. It will beta compactor in there along with the recycling kind of bay adjacent
to it. And that will be central to Phase One, Phase Two would ultimately have one likely
tucked up there. And again, engineering is still ongoing, but next to Building E and then
the last one will likely end up actually fitting between Building C and D. And we'll have to
steal a couple parking spaces to put that in there, but we'll have three smaller
compactors we find that helps people don't like to carry their trash too far.
December 14, 2021 689
Supervisor Hooker stated she would agree. She was just curious because
she was hearing at the Planning Commission meeting, some kind of commentary about
as a vehicle would come to empty the dumpster that they may have to use your ingress
to do that, but the way she is seeing it and the way you're describing it, now, maybe
they could do it even from those parking spaces. How would they, what's the vision for
emptying that in that location? Mr. Fletcher explained we work with the waste
companies, we're designing this, so they make sure they've got the right turn radius is
things of that nature. Ultimately, what we'll do is we'll probably have to delete a couple
parking spaces. So those kind of get angled, they're able to pull forward. They can
dump from back or from front, typically out of these compactors, they'll pull forward and
then back in, or in some location, and they'll pull in straight and then back out. But I wish
I had a final answer just given where we are in site plan design.
Supervisor Hooker asked to go back to the secondary entrance and right
now you all have it labeled as an ingress. That, from what she is hearing you say,
there's really no chance of it being two-way traffic there. She just sees that as being
such a wonderful option, if that was at all possible, it would really alleviate some of the
traffic concerns she has. She knows that it would have to be right turn only in entrance,
right turn and right turn exiting only coming onto Peters Creek. But what I hear you
saying is that's just not even possible. Mr. Fletcher responded that he never likes to say
never. We are in the engineering process now. As it stands today, we don't have the
space. And I don't think anybody, whether it is Lawson companies or another applicant
would have that space. That said, we want our residents to have as well. That's a big
selling point. And so we'll continue to study it and also study whether it makes more
sense as that being an ingress and egress through our traffic impact analysis. But as it
sits today, it looks as though we're only going to have the one lane.
Supervisor Hooker then asked about the elevation for the rear properties,
you had mentioned again tonight that maybe the retaining wall wasn't going to be as
substantial as you earlier thought you don't have any renderings of what that may look
like. Can you just describe them again for what that elevation may look like in the sloped
area? You said maybe two foot walls, but maybe several of them, so it would be
stepped. Mr. Fletcher responded in the affirmative. One of the biggest concerns was if
we do a large wall and you plant a tree and it's immature stage of 15 foot wall is going to
in effect, make that tree invisible residents above, it looks like now that we've gotten that
down to more of a slope or even a couple steps, but within those steps and you see
those around the county, there would be landing. So within those landings, we would
expect to plant, but if we slope the whole thing, we'll be able to plant even more
substantially. So that was one of the concerns we echoed back to our engineers and
they have worked to reconfigure certain other areas and bring that grade a little bit more
up. And so then ultimately we're looking at more landscaping there, and the County has
a very specific requirement around the density of the plantings, the kind of plantings that
can be in there trees versus shrubbery versus ground cover. So we'll be following that.
And we typically, and here certainly will be signing up with our engineer for what we call
690 December 14, 2021
the enhanced landscaping, so County minimum and then we do the enhanced
landscaping. Because we find that's some of the biggest bang for your buck you can get
is by doing really nice landscaping out of these communities.
Supervisor Hooker advised Roanoke County did not request a traffic
impact analysis is what she is understanding, but you're working with Roanoke City to
get that completed. Mr. Fletcher responded in the affirmative stating last week as we
were coming in to the planning commission, we got the letter handed to us from the city
engineers and we reached out to them the next day. So scoped that basically decided
upon the limits of our study, which intersection, which roads would be considered. We
actually are using a pretty aggressive multiplier, COVID multiplier. So traffic has been
down recently due to COVID seem as though it's picked up, but we're still using a
multiplier in excess of 20 to 25% above and beyond what we're actually counting out
there. So we're probably going to ultimately come out with a traffic account that's more
aggressive or more, I guess, maybe conservative from the county's perspective than
what's really there. Supervisor Hooker stated she is looking forward to seeing that. She
noted Chief Hall had some commentary in the staff report, and she appreciated you
addressing that regarding the safety and security and any crime element that may be
involved in. We acknowledged that our police are short staffed. We're working on that;
we're making inroads. We're certainly trying to recruit and looking what we can do to
better that, but that is still an issue. It's not anything about any particular development. I
think just the more. intense development, the more things can go wrong. She just
wanted to acknowledge that, and mention she appreciated you going over the formulas
for the school impact. She feels like it will be more than that, and for some families
dealing with multiple bedrooms and children that they will tend to have more than just
one or two children in a bedroom. So she agrees with you though, that the schools can
handle it, even if it was doubled. The numbers proved that and she appreciated you
bringing that forward. Next, she wants to hear what the targeted household income was
for, she thought she saw something about 70,000 for the household income was the
target and then I couldn't go back and find that number. Mr. Fletcher replied so the
area's immediate income for a four person household here in the Roanoke Valley. So
it's not specific to the county. They study it kind of in a larger geographic area is 78,400.
So our targets will, that's a four person household. So our targets are 60% renters of
that. So for a four person household, that's about $48,000. One point of clarification,
because this comes up frequently. If you are an entry level firefighter and you're a
single, which means your income limit is about $33,000, you come in making $30,000
and you're doing a great job and make $35,000 the next year. It does not mean that you
are kicked out of your apartment, that you can live in that apartment as long as you
would like. So many cannot move in with income above the income limits. So the
income reservation areas, but if they do go above and beyond those limits, there's some
compliance stuff we have to take care of on our end, but it does not impact that resident
in the lease. They can live there as long as they wish. So that's just always important
because we don't want to disincentivize our residents from making more money.
December 14, 2021 691
Supervisor Hooker asked if they would still break ground in 2022 with Mr.
Fletcher responded 2022 or likely early 2023. So where we'll go from here is site plan
review. We have the Virginia Housing, affordable housing tax credit program application
process that takes anywhere from six to nine months. And that's something that we've
done, we're 17 for 17. So our last 17 applications have been accepted and approved
and it is a competitive process and we pride ourselves on having done well at that. So
that would be approved. And we'd ultimately be looking for pull in, build in permits and
really getting things rolling in December and then kind of continuing site work through
the early part of 2023 with an expected initial delivery date of those first two buildings,
the 72 units at the tail end of well, really at probably Q1, Q2 of 2024. So again, it is out
there in the future that we have some time. I think that's also a concern. Sometimes we
hear is this going to show up overnight? And with us, it most certainly won't because we
like to take our time to make sure that methodical in our approach.
Supervisor Hooker asked if she heard correctly about Phase Two and
Phase Three are about one year each following 2024. Mr. Fletcher responded in the
affirmative stating the delivery of these units in 2024 for Phase One, ultimately Phase
Two, would've started construction by the time Phase One is being delivered. However,
it wouldn't deliver its units until Q1, Q2 of 2025; and then ultimately the final phase in
2026.
Supervisor Hooker then asked if the rear buffer yard would remain
wooded. Mr. Fletcher responded in the affirmative stating their intent and the way it's
shown here. The reason we've called it out specifically as buffer is it will remain
wooded. Again, in full transparency, be there are some utility lines that run through
there and there's actually been a request and we have yet to been able to connect with
an adjacent owner for an easement potentially to actually access some of those utilities.
But that would be you basically have to clear a very small area, a path, for those utility
lines to run. However, especially up near candlelight, we would not be even putting our
prints there. So there would be no notice and something that's important. It's not just a
tree buffer. It's really a light buffer. So all of our projects and communities are required
to be dark sky compliant. It's part of our EarthCraft program. So while we have really
ample ground lighting, we're not allowed to have anything that's up. So because of that
there is very little, if any, light pollution that comes from our community, so you will not
see the light. We also have the zero cut off. So during the day it's energy efficient, but
also if it's a cloudier day, you won't have that bright light glaring in your eyes as you are
coming up the street.
Supervisor Hooker then asked for Mr. Fletcher to review real quickly on
the site plan here where the fencing will go? She knows that he said perimeter, but she
would just like to see or hear from him how it's going to be put in place during the
phases. Mr. Fletcher responded what we would expect is, and it's kind of hard to pick
up on the colors, but it's kind of a black Navy color that delineates Phase One. Phase
One would be fenced along, it's parcel two and there's a cell tower there, there'd be
fencing along that area; it's likely fencing would be on top as there is still a retaining
692 December 14, 2021
wall. So it would be fencing slash guardrail. On top of that retaining wall, we just want to
enhance the look of the property. We will likely not fence the frontage, we'll have
sidewalk. It is the frontage along Cove Road. We'll have a sidewalk there along with
landscaping along Cove road. So no fence in there we'll be required to fence along the
back of the CVS because that will be a retaining wall, and then along the entrance as
well, it will be a retaining wall. They-carry over around partial nine we'll fence in that
area behind building G, and then we'll fence up to where phase one ends and the
backside, where that pink line touches the darker line that would be construction
temporary fencing, because obviously, ultimately, we're going to bring that down and
fence around the backside. We would continue that on and the only place where it
doesn't go outside or on the property line. The purple dash line would all be fenced.
The pink line down there beyond the purple would be fenced; then we'd pink up along
partial eight, where the pink is. And then we would come inside of the tree buffer and
fence along there. So there'd be no access of a pedestrian from candlelight down to our
site. Instead, it will be fenced there, so there won't be an access point.
Supervisor North asked if the rental office would be on site with Mr.
Fletcher responding in the affirmative; the clubhouse will have our leasing office, fitness
center, a club room, and then restrooms and then adjacent to that, we've got our
maintenance building. So, we'll have onsite maintenance staff, probably two or three
maintenance staffers, and then we'll have a property manager. And once the property is
fully built out two leasing staff on site.
Supervisor Radford asked how they are going to monitor the bedroom
capacity or how do they do that in your present job? Mr. Fletcher indicated there're very
specific when we're actually going in for our certificates of occupancy on the building,
we have to post in our management office; as well as on the leasing website,
occupancy restrictions. And then when leasing the property, we have our property
managers go over that. We have rarely had issues with overfilling bedrooms. However,
when we do, our property managers, given that they're on staff 40 plus hours a week,
they can pretty quickly identify it and move to rectify it. So, again, they're strict from a
fire and safety perspective requirements and we take any kind of safety compliance
really strictly there. So that would really be up to the property management team to
notice and then they would act on that. Supervisor Radford then asked if they have
provisions in their leases to restrict the capacity? Mr. Fletcher responded in the
affirmative stating they give them an opportunity to rectify if they are over capacity,
whether that's renting a larger unit or an additional unit, and then ultimately have to
figure out another solution for them. He added it is clearly spelled out in leasing
agreement and is something that we're very clear on because there's also a compliance
piece there. So a four person household means there's a certain level of income that
we're reserved for. So four person is higher than three person. So there's a tax credit
compliance piece to that as well. So probably more frequently than a typical apartment
community, we're actually having to do property compliance audits and so through that
process, we would also likely pick up on whether there is a number of folks, children or
December 14, 2021 693
whatnot in a bedroom. Next, Mr. Radford stated he had mentioned the Traffic
Engineering Study done by Roanoke City Traffic Department. So he, as a developer,
usually have that done prior to when he comes to a rezoning. Why have you not done
that ahead of time? Mr. Fletcher explained when we originally requested the rezoning,
it was actually a request for a proffer amendment and there was no expectation that a
Traffic Impact Analysis would be required. So, I think its 100 trips per day is what
triggers the requirement. Based on Roanoke city's analysis, we're going to come out at
about 103 or 104 trips per day, peak hour trips. We're going to come out just over that
threshold. Based on our initial conversations, Traffic Impact Analysis wasn't necessary
because the burden we're adding is really 31 units when considering, so it is a
comparison of 185 to 216. That said, we've scoped that, I'd say beyond what would
typically be scoped. And we'll be working through that with site planning, and obviously
we're not going to be given an entrance on the city's roads if we can't come to some
kind of an agreement with them on our Traffic Impact Analysis, whether that's a
requirement for improvements or retirement of the signal or changing up our ingress
egress pattern on Peter's Creek.
Supervisor Radford then stated based on the GIS map on_Cove Road you
should have enough room to put a right turn into the project. Mr. Fletcher responded
we've got what he calls a soft turn on both sides. So because of the grade and because
of the way that CVS is laid out. CVS actually does not have our right turn either, but
we're going to be setting back our curb and there is what I call a gradual on both sides,
kind of a V into the property that will, in effect, act as a right turn. This is something that
will definitely be studies during the Traffic Impact Study, whether a right turn is
necessary as well as what that might mean for our kind of pedestrian improvements
they have planned.
Supervisor Radford then asked going back to the access road next to
CVS, have you thought about talking to your neighbor to the east or west about
acquiring a little more sliver of land? Mr. Fletcher responded in the negative, stating
when they do reach out to CVS, their BMP is on that side and so we would ultimately be
impacting their BMP. On the house that's on the north side, we've not looked into that.
It's something we can definitely do. I'm sure you know,- as a developer it's sometimes
trickier when you get multiple sellers into the mix. This is all being sold by the local
group, Fralin and Waldron to us and so we're excited to work with them. And, ultimately,
we had actually originally considered a single point of access off of Cove and then we
realized that we had enough width there to create another ingress or egress. It's
definitely something we can do. I can't commit that as you know, sometimes it's hard to.
They might realize that we have to have it, which, we are traffic engineers, so we don't,
and then they can really hold out on us. So don't want to commit to that, but it's
definitely a conversation we'd be happy to have.
Supervisor Radford stated he is hearing that you are targeting this toward
bus drivers, school teachers, retail employees, firefighters, construction workers. These
sound like normal job, normal people and he does not see a high crime rate. Mr.
694 December 14, 2021
Fletcher responded we all hear the core stories of section eights, which he is sure what
a lot of people were thinking this is. Section eight is HUD paying for the residents rent
and the resident pays next to nothing or nothing for their rent. Section eight is going
away basically because the federal government and state governments have
recognized that it does create these public housing complexes that are sources of
crime, depress property values in the area, and can also put a huge burden on the
schools and just the municipality overall. This is not that. This is really targeted housing
for people that live in the county. And again, we've heard from folks that our school
teachers or bus drivers or work here in County administration. It's housing for folks that
live here in the county. We're not expecting an influx of 216 new residents. Its residents
that right now look for an affordable apartment. And as you mentioned, they don't sound
like high crime residence, and he would also say $780 a month doesn't sound like a
super affordable rent for a one bedroom apartment if somebody is moving in as a single
renter. They'll be paying the rent, they'll be going through our background checks and
credit checks, and ultimately if they can't pay their rent, then they'll have to move on and
we'll find a tenant that can.
Supervisor North asked for clarification from Mr. Thompson if the
petitioner could, by right, construct 185 units and not go through a traffic study with us
with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative. Mr. Thompson clarified they might
have to with the City of Roanoke.
Vice Chairman Radford recessed the meeting from 8:03 p.m. until 8:12
p.m.
Vice Chairman Radford opened the public meeting with the following
citizens speaking on this issue.
Eric Orange, 5553 Heather Hill stated, "I live on the opposite side of
North Lakes from where the proposed development will be. I'm actually not here tonight
to speak in support of, or opposition of this project. I just wanted to share some
information that I have, and I just want to make sure that I clearly understand what's
being presented by Lawson. I'm all for affordable housing. I think it's important for
individuals to have a place that they can call home and rest their heads. But I also
understand the concerns that have been voiced by some of my fellow neighbors and
citizens. So I just wanted to share some numbers I had here and just make sure that I'm
accurately understanding what's being proposed. The first thing I want to speak to is
crime statistics. I noticed on a slide there, it stated that there's not an increase in crime
statistics. Now, I don't know if they're basing that on a national average, but I pulled
local numbers and based on local numbers, we do see a difference between developed
housing, such as an apartment complex, as opposed to what we see in multi-family
developments like North Lakes. Based on the numbers, I pulled numbers for a six
month period ending in November. Roanoke city's numbers reflect that Northridge
apartments, which is the closest possible comparison, it's literally across the street from
where this development will take place. They have roughly 200 housing units. And in
that period of time, they have certain Anders for reported publicly. It includes larcenies,
December 14, 2021 695
thefts, vandalisms, assaults, crimes of that type of nature. During that period of time,
that six month period, they saw eight crimes that would fall into those categories
reported at Northridge apartments and the same period of time for Northlake
subdivision, which I believe has roughly 800 homes, so four times as any homes, they
experience 17 of those crimes. So if you break the numbers down into a 200-resident
comparison, then what you're seeing is per 200 homes, you're seeing 4.25 crimes
committed in Northlake as opposed to eight crimes committed in Northridge apartments.
So it's nearly double the crime rate. If you look at it on that, and that's a local
comparison, and I just wanted to share those numbers. The other thing that I wanted to
point out here is, I know there was reference to income rates, but. I didn't hear any
specific numbers shared. So just based on what I saw, Roanoke County's household
median income is roughly $68,000. Roanoke city is $44,000 and the city of Salem is
$50,000. That medium breaks down to $54,000. So if you use those three and factor in
your numbers, the median income is actually $14,000 a year, less than what the
average county household has. Then if you take that 60% of that, it brings you down to
$32,400. Well, as we all know, you all as a board voted, not too long ago to increase
starting salaries for county public safety and many areas, many jurisdictions locally have
done the same. And so $32,000 is a far cry from what the average teacher, police
officer, firefighter, deputy sheriff makes. They're making roughly in the $40,000 range.
So based on those numbers, the average teacher, police officer, firefighter, or deputy
sheriff, would not qualify to live in these homes as previously stated. So I just wanted to
point out those facts and I appreciate you all's time tonight. Thank you."
Kim McLaughlin of 4900 Shadow Lane stated, "That puts me right there
in North Lakes. My concern is traffic. You've always talked about it. But as a former
VDOT employee, I've seen worse. I know we had a lane closure on Peters Creek road,
and I've seen accidents there already. If we get more traffic, which these many units
you're talking about, that's more cars. And with the egress problem, there's going to be
people trying to evade that intersection from the apartments, as well as people coming
down Peters Creek road from Roanoke or coming up over Cove road from both ends.
That is either from St. Elias or from the cemetery on the Roanoke county side. I've seen
people come through North Lakes to evade the congestion. And what I'm afraid of, is
people coming out of that apartment complex, knowing they have to turn right on Cove
road, going up over the hill, and they're going to come in on Green Ridge, turn right on
Twilight, then go up to Northlake, go back down to the light on Peters Creek road. That's
going to be inevitable. People are going to find it. And this is a residential area, it's not a,
what the VDOT would call a feeder route, and it's going to happen even with 185 units
or 216 units. And the estimate of the gentleman there about cars in an apartment
complex. I used to live, 47 years ago, when it used to be called Kings Arms, which is
now the apartment complex over the hill from the intersection. We had three vehicles
and we were entry level work. We had a small business, a small farm, and I was
working in a factory. Three vehicles. That's probably going to happen there at this new
unit. There's going to be more cars than what is predicted. So all I'm saying is we're
696 December 14, 2021
going to have to consider that egress diversion of traffic through residential areas and
that enters people walking their dogs, riding their bikes. It's a real concern for us at
North Lakes, and I thank you for your time."
Terry Armstrong of 4822 Shadow Lane stated, "I just wanted to express
my personal concerns. I'm just representing myself as a resident of Northlake
subdivision. Over the entire project and maybe all of this isn't appropriate to speak on
here, but I did want to speak on it. It seems like there's been very little consideration
given to the residents of the area, Northlake subdivision, the private residences on
Green Ridge and Cove road. And I'd like to highlight five key points of specific concern
for you to consider. Although I believe the gentleman may have addressed some of
those today. The first is school capacity. I don't know where those numbers he's quoting
about the capacity of the schools came from, but what I looked at on your website that
was submitted that's based on a 2016 study. And I would really like to see more
information based upon a current study. I tried to call the county to get that information, I
could not get it myself. I'm a little disturbed by the inconsistency in the information that
was shared in the letter sent to us and the maps and what was disclosed in the planning
commission, the difference between the three story and the four story which they talked
about today, they mentioned a pool today that was not in the information provided to us.
So I feel like we don't have full understanding of what is going on there. Safety services
in the county are stretched thin police, fire, and rescue, and I think it's putting the current
residences at undue risk to not only put any kind of complex in, but the complex that is
being proposed to increase the number of units, which is just going to be more people. I
think that's undue stress on our public services. And I think it's putting the current
residences of that area, that undue risk. I have very serious concerns about the traffic
concerns the gentleman before me spoke about. People walk and ride bikes on Cove
road. If you add two or 300 additional cars, I can't imagine what it's going to be like.
Traffic backs up through that intersection all the time, where somebody wants to make a
left turn into the Hardee's off of Cove road, and it backs up across the intersection. That
is also a diversion when there's an accident on interstate 81, those trucks take our exit
onto Peters Creek road to go through Salem and get back on 81 further north. And
that's a huge backup with what we have now. And then lastly, the buffers are a concern
between the commercial rental property that they're proposing and the residential area,
not on. Property that they're proposing and the residential area, not only backing up to
candlelight, but to the homes. And I don't think those have been properly considered,
and I don't think we have sufficient information based upon what was provided to us.
And also, the information that's on these maps is almost unbeatable. It's so small, even
with a magnifying glass. So I just feel like we need more information and those things
need to be considered. I appreciate everyone's time. Thank you very much."
Leon Melton of 5148 Basin Park Drive, North Lakes stated, "I second what
this gentleman spoke about,. about the traffic problems. That is my concern. I think
these guys did a good job explaining everything, but I think they're missing it by not
December 14, 2021 697
having an exit in an entry level off of Peter's Creek with the exit onto Cove Road. If they
try to make a left turn, if I was a resident in that complex, that's going to be a headache
at eight o'clock in the morning trying to make a left turn on the Cove Road, period. That
needs to be addressed, the issue of entrance and exit on the on Cove Road, especially.
And I think they really are missing Peters Creek where you do need a dual entrance and
exit, I should say. And the last thing, I haven't heard anybody mention, and maybe
somebody can answer this, but with additional students, would the bus stop be on Cove
Road or would it be in the apartment complex? I haven't heard that addressed at all.
That's a concern if it's on Cove Road right there, that's pretty close to traffic coming up
from the light and that could be an issue. But that's all I have. Thank you for your time
and for these gentlemen for explaining everything. Thank you."
Justin Sherry of 5164 Wipledale Avenue stated "I am part of North Lakes
community. A couple things I would just like to talk about is the quality of life. Having
such a large complex in such a small area. Talking about traffic and everything else, it
comes down to the fact that there are eight to ten other apartment complexes in the
area that are comparable amenities, comparable price range. So why are we adding
another apartment complex and an area that is essentially, a majority of it is
compressing the area into something that I do not want someone living 20 feet off of a
property line. If I'm going to walk out of my apartment because teachers, I'm a teacher,
and other residents, 20 feet off to have a property offer with a fence in line, 20 feet off
your back deck is not a lot of room. That's from me to you. That's more like 25 feet. So
quality of life being there, who is going to want to live in an area that is so small and
compact? Specifically, Bent Creek Apartments, they have three pools, they have
basketball courts, they have tennis courts, and a one bedroom apartment is $750. That
is less than 3.8 miles away, and there are apartments open right now for rent. So
essentially, what we have to go and look at is, are we maximizing our tax dollars for this
property? What kind of tax revenue are we going to generate from tax subsidy housing?
If we put town homes there or something that had more property value, then we could
draw more tax revenue from it. Essentially, the hotels on Sterling are also considered
know essentially people were living there and the amount of foot traffic that went up and
down Peter's Creek was there. Sorry, I'm kind of everywhere with this. Just the fact that
eight to ten other apartment complexes in the area, we put town homes in there, slow
down the growth of essentially putting 10 pounds of apartments in an eight pound
complex, I think would pretty much ease this whole situation. Affordable housing is
needed. Housing crisis in this area is needed, but essentially increasing the numbers is
not going to solve everything. The loss in group even says so themselves, it's a good
start, but increasing 40 units in this area is not essentially going to save anybody a
headache. There are other places in the area that we could be better invested. Thank
you for your time."
Danny Goad of 4766 Read Mountain Road stated, "I'm speaking on behalf
of my mother and my father, Harlan and Corrine Goad who owned adjacent property
698 December 14, 2021
and they reside at 5075 Cove Road. I don't think the county has done their due
diligence in approving this project or considering this project. When we were at the
planning commission last week, only three members were present. The representative
from the Catawba District was not here. In the presentation, we heard it again tonight, it
appears as no consideration at all has been given to the people on the south side of the
development, southwest side of the development. The concern seems to .be North
Lakes and where the development is very close to a residence and to a three unit
apartment building right behind it. There's a well right on the property line there that's
very much at risk to being disturbed, and another one about 40 feet away from the
property line. A lot of things have changed since 1984. They've opened up the road
between 419 to the extension of Green Ridge Road. That's not something that Roanoke
County probably had a part in, but the residents of Roanoke County pay the price for it
with the heavy traffic, people short cutting off of Melrose and Peters Creek, and taking
the shortcut through there. This has already been mentioned. There's three times that
traffic has really heavy. Just this past week. It was backed up to Green Ridge Road
from Peters Creek. Twice a day in the morning, in the evening, it's backed up beyond
the crest of the hill. When anytime 81s backed up, that's a shortcut that everyone takes.
It seems like from the planning commission that it had almost been a done deal. But my
biggest thing, and there's been no mention of this, the density is actually increasing
36%, while the number of units has gone up to 216, the amount of land that is there has
dropped by more than two acres. And so, there are very significant changes that have
occurred since '84. There's a huge amount of traffic issues there at Hardee's, CVS. I
would encourage you all to drive through there at some point and see how difficult it is
to try to get out of the Hardee's parking lot because this entrance or ingress or egress,
whichever one you have there on Cove Road, they're not going to be able to see CVS,
and they're not going to be able to see the guy coming out of Hardee's either. You're
really creating a terrible problem by having access there on Cove Road. Thank you."
Danny Goad of 5071 Cove Road stated, "I reside right next to where
they're going to be building the complexes. The one thing that's already been mentioned
that we have a concern is the well. We use that well and water's the most important
thing to have in life. We always hear about developments and things that are going on
and the environmental part of it, so that should be a great consideration, even though
it's two or three families, that's two or three families. I think we've been overlooked in
this presentation and I voiced that at the last meeting. Also, I have a concern with, I
don't believe there's going to be a fence that goes to Cove Road and what you're going
to have if this is pet friendly, you're going to have people going off into the woods over
into these properties if there's not some kind of.a barrier put there. The third thing is
traffic that's been talked 'about and one thing I'd like to .know is how many parking
places that we have there or is projected at that apartment complex. And the traffic,
today, I went up to food line and just sat there and I counted the number of cars that it
took to get through the light, it was 15 cars could get through that light. There's
December 14, 2021 699
approximately 25 cars that will back up to our driveway, not to mention over the hill. So
if you're going to Green Ridge Road, you're well over 50 cars, maybe 60. Okay. If 15
cars are going to go through that light, there's about 11 or 12 cars that's going to be
backed up into where you pull out of the apartment complex onto Cove Road. So let's
say that you have 15 cars go, you got 15 more coming as soon as they get through
there and the light turns red. So how in the world can we say that this is going to be safe
and going to be able to allow this to take place? I don't want the blood on my hands of
not standing up here and speaking about it because somebody's going to get hurt
through this building. And to me, if I was going to build something and I knew that there
wouldn't be a problem with traffic, I would've already done the study or spoke out more
about what they're going to do. I've lived over there over 40 years. I graduated from
North Side High School. The traffic's been bad for years. And can you tell me that a
traffic pattern changed the light that nobody could figure that out in 40 years? Thank you
for your time."
Robin Goad Rolon Eller of 5071 Cove Road stated, she lives next door to
her parents and that house that you see, right there in that plot four of land, that Mr.
Thompson referred to as dilapidated is the home where I've raised my six children. For
12 years as a single mom, I've lived in that house for about 10 years, and I grew up in
the house next door with my two awesome brothers back there. The house is not
dilapidated, just to clarify. It is a farmhouse and it's beautiful. It has lots of character and
a lot of memories and love are in that home. And I know that's probably not relevant,to
why we're here today. But I too graduated from North Side in 1984 when all of this was
approved and my six children, well, five of them have graduated, I have one left to
graduate. So my concerns are, of course, the traffic. I'll tell you about a little story where
my daughter who's 19 now, she was almost run over at our bus stop, which is at the end
of our driveway because the traffic is so bad. But thank God he protected her that day.
So I don't know how you guys are going to plan to make it happen, to make it safe for
those kids crossing that busy street. But I have a heart of a mom, so that's my concern
there. Safety. Correction from Mr. Lawson, on the CVS does have a right hand lane to
turn into, a very skinny, small lane, but it is a turn lane. It's very short, but there is a turn
lane there at the CVS, if you come off of Peters Creek, there is a very short turn lane.
So I'm not sure how that got missed. And as far as the number, as far as schools go, I
don't know how you guys come up with your numbers, but right now the schools are
very understaffed. They are paying pretty good for substitute teachers that don't even
have a degree because of this under staffing. So maybe those numbers need to be
adjusted a little bit for the positions that are needed to be filled at the schools, because
there's a lot of substitute teachers working a lot of hours. I have a lot of friends that are
subs and they are working a lot because of the under staffing. One of my concerns too,
is when y'all were talking about the trash is how much noise is that going to produce
when the trash truck comes in to empty the trash? Those big, slamming the cans down,
waking us up. That's a noise disturbance. We can hear when the dumpster is emptied
700 December 14, 2021
over at Sheets. So especially this time of year where the foliage is not as full. So that's a
concern for me. But the traffic, y'all. I did videotape the traffic at four o'clock when I was
trying to get out of my driveway. I had to come back through after my delivery and at
five o'clock it wasn't any better. It was raining and there was almost an accident in front
of me and stuff like that. So that is a huge, huge issue. My well, right on the back of the
property there, that's our water source. We got to have it. So I just appeal to you today
to oppose this project for very logical reasons. And I appreciate your time. Thank you."
Kristina Cooper of 4791 Lantern Street stated, "I'm at the top of the
Beacon Ridge subdivision, just north, over at the Provost property. Just a couple things
I wanted to bring to attention. Again, everybody has talked about the traffic. I don't think
anybody has talked about the wildlife. I know that it was part of the planning commission
concerns. I witnessed the day that I got the notice that this was going to be taking place
two deer going into that forest. They're constant. We have got a great increase in North
Lakes, ever since the Wood Haven Industrial Park destroyed that woods, we've seen a
great increase in North Lakes of deer, fox, everything imaginable has come through. I
walk my dog every day through this neighborhood. I do know that the risks of the traffic.
We don't have sidewalks, we don't have lights, so it is a danger to walk every day, but I
do. I do have concerns that's going to be an increase risk to my safety and safety of my
neighbors. Everybody does walk their dogs. Everybody walks through the
neighborhood, kids ride their bikes. It is a very suburban area, and I am concerned
about the increase in traffic and in population. Something else, looking at the Roanoke
County 200 Plan. I just wanted to see if there was anything addressed in that plan for
Peter's Creek. Peter's Creek does have the most calls for fire, EMS, and police
services. We know that those are already stretched, so there are concerns about an
increase in population. Also, there is a significant flood plane in that area. There has
been loss of property in years past at Peter's Creek and Cove Road, so if there's any
concerns about that construction adding to that danger. As well, as the crash site, so
that is one of the most increased places is that intersection. So those are already been
made aware of the Roanoke County plan. So I just wanted to see if those would be
addressed as well. Thank you for your time."
Vanessa Hickson of 5511 Twilight Road stated, "As you all heard is the
cut through road into North Lakes that handles a lot of the congestion, which I foresee
increasing, obviously. I've lived in that community for 23 years, and over that time, I
have seen the addition of the Roanoke County public safety building and services,
which is on Cove Road, which will have to access down that long stretch of road, and
we will have police officers sitting in that line of traffic too, because I've sat behind them.
Just pointing that out. Additionally, in addition to the 200 unit complex that's been there
forever, we have the retreat, which is 258 units, and now we are proposing another 218
units, all within a two mile radius of each other to come through one of the highest
trafficked, probably backed up, small intersections in the city, aside from Elm Avenue.
Everybody talks about traffic. Roanoke really doesn't have traffic. They don't have LA
December 14, 2021 701
traffic, but Peters Creek and Cove Road can get pretty backed up. I guess the most
disconcerting thing I've here heard here tonight is the lack of planning for some type of
relief on behalf of the contractors to see if we can't make adjustments. The egress, the
ingress, talk to the neighbors, they might sell you a little bit of property, to make that turn
lane. So I think, that's just concerning overall. I think a traffic study in advance of this
project certainly would have been worth the time and effort for a $43 million project. So I
appreciate your time. Thank you."
The public hearing was closed.
Vice Chairman Radford then asked the petitioner to address the concerns
expressed by the citizens. So first, he really appreciates all the community comments.
He does not know if this group was told, but we had tried to set up a community meeting
in the community meetings over the last six weeks leading up to our planning
commission were being absorbed with, I know, Mr. Thompson may be able to speak to
that, but we're being absorbed with other county business, so we were unable to host a
community meeting and we're excited about this public forum. So appreciate the
comments, if there's any ones that he misses as he try to answer these, please let me
know. Speaking about the school numbers, again, full transparency. It was a 2016
Roanoke County Public School study, however, that's the best we have to work with.
And if those are even close to holding, then we should have plenty of capacity. We all
agree that's critical importance and the capacity constraints we might have from
teachers. That's something that hopefully landowners and property owners here in
Roanoke County would be concerned with as well. But we should have time hopefully to
address that, and that's not something that we as loss and companies can address fully.
With regard to the traffic concerns. One thing that was brought up, was the
trucks off Interstate 81, and that was actually something that was included in our
scoping. Part of our testing will require that we look at or test when because VDOT
actually does traffic counts when trucks are routed off 81. It's one of their emergency
access routes to go through Salem, and that is part of our scoping. So we will catch
that, because he would imagine that probably is a pretty critical point to measure that.
With regard to the entrance and exit off of Peter's Creek, that's something
that we would love to do, have both, and we're going to try our best because ultimately it
will benefit our residents to have an ingress and egress there and it will alleviate traffic
concerns and ultimately likely require us to do fewer turn lanes elsewhere. So if we can
do that, we'll do it. I'll commit to that.
On the bus stop, that's a great question. It's something that he believes
that County public schools would probably work with us on. We would love a bus stop
on site. One thing that wasn't mentioned was there's actually a bus stop, a public bus
stop, not for the schools, but there's a bus stop nearby, and that is something that we
hope reduces our transportation load that we're adding to the property.
The speaking of kind of cars not all apartment complexes are the same
and also what was true in the '80s and '90s may not be true today. Based on what we're
seeing, we are at peak parking and we run about 1.4 cars per unit. The County
702 December 14, 2021
minimums are about 1.75, which would put us somewhere in the 370 plus or minus
parking space range. However, that is over parked by our standard. We see on urban
communities where at one to one in the city of Richmond on the majority of our
properties, similarly in Norfolk, and then suburban communities, one in a quarter to 1.35
is what we're actually running at. And so I just wanted to make sure we were addressing
that.
A couple other items, we did review and I apologize, I am unfamiliar with
the Bent Creek Apartments, so he can't speak to that one, but North Ridge, which is, he
thinks built in the '70s is a two bedroom and a unit, which is two bedroom, one and a
half bath is about $200 more, and hopefully you'll agree once this is built out, a much
lower, it's older. And so we will have a higher quality product at a much lower rent level.
Just wanted to point that out, that as far as kind of the nearest comp, I know we've
spoken about retreat a lot. Somebody referenced motels up the road are acting as
affordable housing. I mean, ultimately, that's really why we're here. That's really not
supposed to be affordable housing. It's not probably the best land use for those motels,
and then it's ultimately not conducive for the families in the area. One of the biggest
impacts on childhood development is the number of moves that kids have and we find
that our residents are actually with us upwards of three, four, five years, and because of
that, you're not moving kids while they're at this critical development stages.
With regard to the fencing. I think the only place that won't be fenced and
just to again, make this clear, and I don't know if it's possible to pop this back up again,
but the only place that we would expect not to fence would be the frontage along Cove
Road, which is where we'll have sidewalk. Pets, our aluminum fence then is about, I
think, four to six inches, the pickets are apart, so it would have to be a really small
animal to move through there. So we would expect the fencing to take care of those
concerns. And also, we do allow dogs, however, it's not shown on here. Typically,
dependent upon the market, we would have some sort of a small dog park area as you
see a lot of properties.
Last was the EMS fire and police calls, as Roanoke City will actually be
doing the traffic review and the County will do more of a cursory review; the City is
going to send that out to all departments based on their location it is actually possible
they will be serviced by some of the City's emergency services and with that there
departments will review.
With regard to the well at the corner of the property, admittedly, we have
not worked around a lot of wells as we don't have them in Crystal, Virginia. He has
spoken with our engineer of the day after the planning commission. There are steps
that can be done for well protection, which we will definitely undertake because anything
that happens, if we were damage their well in any way, we are liable and responsible for
that. There are a number of well protection techniques. We have a lot of different
construction methods for making sure that we are not impacting an underground
stormwater system, a water line or a property owner's well, so that is something we take
seriously.
December 14, 2021 703
Supervisor North commented on his time on this Board of Supervisors, he
has gotten more complaints from citizens about roads because things were built and
they weren't addressed with respect to roads, both commercial as well as residential.
You build it and don't address the road issues on the front end, they will aggravate our
staff until the end of time. In his personal opinion, you are better to do it right on the
front then for us as staff and Roanoke County to put up with it, because we are the ones
that get the phone calls and it absorbs countless time away from handling other things.
Do it right before you do it wrong and wish to have done it right.. He does not care who
does the traffic study, VDOT, Roanoke City or a consultant. You better listen to their
recommendations on what needs to be done with the roadways, the ingress and the
egress because that area is congested today. We love to have more housing if it is
needed and there is a study that was done where we are 1,000 homes short in the
Roanoke Region. He asked the study be done by the Roanoke Valley Alleghany
Regional Commission, so we need to do so. We all know that inflation is putting
pressure on prices as well as housing prices. Do the transportation piece right on the
front end.
Supervisor Radford said most of his concerns were with transportation, but
there were a couple of things that the residents said. One said this was subsidized. He
did not hear this is a subsidized project. Mr. Fletcher confirmed stating the way the
proffers were written today, subsidized renters have their rent paid to us so they are not
really paying their rent. The way the affordable housing tax credit program works, we
reserve our rents and income at a certain level, 60% of area median income and then
we receive tax credits. There is a tax credit that comes from the Federal government to
the developer, but that never comes into the hands of the resident.
Supervisor Radford then stated the first speaker said that a police officer
making $42,000 or sheriff, could not be eligible. Mr. Fletcher responded the way the
Federal government, housing authority, calculates it as $78,400 is the area median is
per household; that is a four (4) person household. If you are a one person household,
that will adjust up or down based on the number of folks in the house. Sixty percent of
that is $47,040. If you are a married couple with a stay at home mom and two kids, the
husband or wife is the police officer, then you would qualify. If you are a single resident,
they would not qualify. The income for a one-person household looking for a one
bedroom is $32,940 and steps up as you increase the person household size, two
would be $37,680, three people is $42,360 and then four people is $47,040.
The numbers go up each year with AMI increases.
Supervisor Hooker stated she has a couple of questions that have not been
addressed. Someone mentioned something about a pool. Mr. Fletcher stated behind
the club house deck is probably labeled as clubhouse, there would be a meeting area.
Sometimes it is a pool, or a fire pit and grilling stations. Supervisor Hooker added that
she did not realize the school numbers were 2016 numbers. With the pandemic,
unfortunately, our school numbers have decreased. She does not think it would show
less capacity, but probably more. She has serious concerns about the traffic and has
704 December 14, 2021
111
some commentary. She first wanted to say thank you for a very good presentation;
appreciate your demeanor and how you are answering our questions. She does wish
we could have had a community meeting and am going to follow-up with a suggestion
shortly on that. We do need affordable housing in this area. The need has been
proven. She hears that it is going to accommodate those in the beginning salary range,
for a household income of approximately $48,000. She understands there are
pedestrian on Cove Road. She thinks it sounds scary because she travels Cove Road.
She has been on it when she has had to sit through the light multiple times. She thinks
because of the other apartment complexes, the cemetery, some of the traffic that comes
from the public safety center, it is a very heavily trafficked area. It has been discussed
ad nauseum with almost every speaker because it is seen as a huge concern. There is
a very short response time when people are pulling out of the cemetery or the other
apartment complexes, just because Cove Road works. There are some real concerns
here. We need more students for our schools to raise the ADM, but that increases
funding and that helps with some of our school needs. Measures for stormwater
management are highly regulated so she understand what you were saying about the
property. Actually being required to capture and you saying that you are required to go
beyond that in the minimum standards. We are working hard to increase our public
safety staff; it is concern that she still has. The Sheets, Hardies, CVS that intersection
gives her great concern. There has been some discussion about coming into the
complex from Peters Creek and from Cove. Another concern that she has is people
traveling East on Cove Road that live in this new apartment complex and they may have
to wait through several light cycles to be able to turn left to go home. She does not
think she has heard that discussed. So, she has heard there are valid concerns with
traffic. She personally has seen it and appreciates the fact that you are going through
this traffic study and would like to be able to see the traffic study. It really needs to be
handled with care.
Supervisor Mahoney stated this is an attempt to clean up what is at lease
in his opinion, a very problematic proffer that in his opinion violates the Federal Fair
Housing.Act and the Virginia Fair Housing Act and that is all we are really trying to do.
This property has been rezoned, whether it is 185 or 216 units, we can argue and
debate over that, but the bottom line is this is consistent with our comprehensive plan.
It is transition. It touches all the bases, it satisfies our zoning ordinance. He has a hard
time denying something that meets our comprehensive plan and satisfies our zoning
ordinance. He does have a problem with our custom or practice when we have had an
application like this. We have had a traffic impact analysis, TIA. So at this point, he
would be very favorable considering approving this application, he has to agree with
Supervisor Hooker that he would really like to see the TIA. He is not a traffic engineer,
but when he first looked at this application both when it went to the Planning
Commission and now before us. He could not figure out why you had a one-way in off
of Peters Creek. He would seem to him a fair more common sense approach is to have
a way out. He does not want to say to applicant that he has to go out and buy 20 extra 111
December 14, 2021 705
feet from a neighbor. He does not want to hold that applicant hostage, but he would like
to see what a TIA does. He is very favorable to the application, to the project. He
thinks it is an excellent project. We need affordable housing as Supervisor North
mentioned,. the County just went through a housing study. We have a need with this
kind of housing in our community. We can argue and quibble over what school has
more space or does not have more space, but if you look at the last decade of Roanoke
County Schools' financial reports, we have lost 900 students over the last decade. We
are hemorrhaging kids and what that means is when our kids graduate from Roanoke
County Schools, they cannot get jobs here. They have to leave and go somewhere
else. We need population, jobs, economic development. So, this is a very positive
project in many ways. ,There is a problem with traffic and I think we have to address
traffic and he would like to see whether VDOT or Roanoke City's traffic engineers
address that. He would also like to see another way in or out onto Peters Creek. He
supports the motion, but does not want to send a false message that this is a negative
view on his part. He thinks there might be a better way to do it.
Mr. Thompson discussed whether more time is needed based on the TIA.
Mr. Fletcher responded sooner is better.
Supervisor Radford asked if we have a study by Roanoke City, that is fine
for Cove and Peters Creek, but how about all that traffic backed up to 181. Who is going
to do that study and tell us that is a problem? Mr. Thompson responded if there is an
issue on 181, the whole County is impacted. Supervisor North stated he would feel
better if VDOT weighed in on this. He does not care who does the study, but VDOT
needs to review it and weigh in because this is not just Peters Creek and Cove Road
interchange.
Mr. Thompson responded that typically when a traffic impact analysis is
done, there is a project scoping meeting that is done. The applicant and their engineers
will meet with either VDOT or in this case the City to go over what the scope of the
traffic study will be, what intersections you are going to study, what assumptions you
are going to make about the traffic, what growth rate you may anticipate on area traffic.
In this case, this is going to be done by the City to satisfy their need. We always
forward our information to VDOT. They said they don't control these streets and
therefore, the City would have the say on the traffic study. He does not know if the
City's traffic study is going to do the scope.
Supervisor North stated can VDOT expand the scope; we are being
narrow-minded in our review if we don't get VDOT in on this topic. The State of Virginia
roads in the City that are maintained by the City, the roads in the County that feed this
area are maintained by VDOT. We need to have that looked into. There are two
different people taking notes about the condition of Cove Road and the traffic issue
today, never mind the extra density that is going to ensue from this. It goes back to
what he said before, this happened on Rt. 460, it happened at West Ruritan Road and
we continue, every time we bring this subject up or talk to the public, there is always an
element that is dissatisfied with the way it was handled. He is trying to avoid a
706 December 14, 2021
catastrophe. This isn't even in his district, but he knows it is going to be problematic.
We need to get outside the box and have VDOT weigh in on this.
Supervisor Mahoney commented it is not fair to an applicant that the
applicant has to cure the problems because Virginia Tech has a football game and
traffic gets on 181 and people take a shortcut. This is not fair to them. They have to
address their concerns and their needs, but does not think it is their obligation to fix all
the other road projects in Roanoke County or the Roanoke Valley.
Supervisor North stated nobody said it was, he is asking for a review by
VDOT, because the VDOT roads on Peters Creek are maintained by them and he
would like their expertise. If that is going to be an extra extension of undue delay, we
will just have to live with it. It is going to come back to haunt us: He is not suggesting
the applicant pay for the study; he is not suggesting anything outside of that. He is
suggesting that VDOT; who should have been here in this audience tonight, listening to
this because they could have spoken to some of it. If you don't address the issue
upfront, it is going to come right back like a boomerang and hit you upside the head.
Supervisor Radford stated that is why we are suggesting ingress and
egress off of Peters Creek, which will avoid Cove Road.
Supervisor Hooker moved to delay action until additional necessary
materials are submitted to the Board of Supervisors, which would be the traffic study
information until January 25, 2022. Supervisor North seconded the motion and the
motion carried by the carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Peters
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Mahoney stated he thinks all of us have heavy hearts and
sorrow and sadness for Supervisor Peters, our Chairman, and his family. He thinks it
hard to comprehend losing a child that is a disaster. Our prayers and thoughts are with
Jason and his family, particularly around this time of the year. Second, the Board put
him on the CEDS Committee, a part of the Regional Commission and last week Mr.
Stovall was elected Chairman, but they elected him Vice Chair. He thinks it is because
he showed up to the meeting. Thirdly, a week ago Monday, we had the lighting of the
Christmas tree at South County Library. Supervisor Peters was there to MC and he had
an opportunity to make a few comments. Supervisor Radford was there. He thanked
Wendy Shultz and all the folks at Parks and Recreation, and Toni Cox, our Library
Director. They did a great job; it was excellent. He wishes all citizens a Merry
Christmas, happy holidays; please be safe.
Supervisor Hooker thanked the citizens of the area that came out; we
have a great community and we enjoy and need to hear from you so thank you for being
December 14, 2021 707
here. Some really exciting news, we found out yesterday that we won four (4) different
VATI grants and it is really exciting news as far as expanding broadband. We are
working with Craig-Botetourt Electric Cooperation, Cox, Shentel, B2X and we are
working with Franklin County and we are really excited about the people have been
unserved and underserved are going to be given this opportunity that we so take for
granted; it is now considered a utility that many in our community have not had access
to. We are very excited and thankful about winning the grants. Congratulations to her
Board members who were invested yesterday; Supervisors Peters, North and Radford.
It was a great ceremony and we appreciate your leadership. As Supervisor Mahoney
mentioned earlier, our hearts are just a little dinged today as we consider Supervisor
Peters and what his family is going through today; we will continue to remember them in
our thoughts and prayers. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Supervisor North commented the infrastructure bill has earmarked a lot of
money to the State of Virginia over the next five (5) years, about $400 million in Federal
funds geared towards airports. In Roanoke and Blacksburg, we should get about $15
million, which will help our airport. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) funds
amounting to $25 million, Roanoke County and Vinton projects have been submitted for
consideration. Congratulations to Mr. Caywood, our new County Administrator on
February 1, 2022. He suggests folks get him a bottle of Tylenol for Christmas as he is
going to need it. Best of luck to luck to you in the future. Our thoughts and prayers are
with the Peters family, it is sad. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Supervisor Radford stated he too has a heavy heart for the Peters family;
yesterday when we had the investiture ceremony, Supervisor Peters was there with his
wife and two (2) small children and he told the crowd that was gathered in the
courthouse that his son had about two (2) hours to live. It is so heartbreaking and we
continue to lift up our prayers to Jason and Candye. On a happier note, he got his
daughter married off last week-end. So happy to see her and her new husband off
flourishing. He also welcomes Mr. Caywood to his new position and your might need
ibuprofen, Tylenol is just not strong enough. We are glad to have you in that position
and likewise Mr. O'Donnell; enjoy those mountain bike rides, those hockey games and
just walking around outside and enjoying. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
708 December 14, 2021
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairman Radford adjourned the meeting at 9:29 p.m.
Su► - itted by: Approved by:
r,�
// . �
, .,„,,,, Av. ‘' --. ' 44a\11/1 NV) t k
De: , ah C. Jac Tv Paul M. Mahoney ,
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman