Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/22/2024 - Regular
Page 1 of 5 Invocation: Dr. Amy Bordeaux, First Church of Christ Scientist PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG Disclaimer: “Any invocation that may be offered before the official start of the Board meeting shall be the voluntary offering of a private citizen, to and for the benefit of the Board. The views or beliefs expressed by the invocation speaker have not been previously reviewed or approved by the Board and do not necessarily represent the religious beliefs or views of the Board in part or as a whole. No member of the community is required to attend or participate in the invocation and such decision will have no impact on their right to actively participate in the business of the Board.” Roanoke County Board of Supervisors October 22, 2024 Page 2 of 5 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for October 22, 2024. Regular meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be rebroadcast on Thursday at 7:00 p.m. and on Sunday from 10:00 a.m. until 5 p.m. Board of Supervisors meetings can also be viewed online through Roanoke County’s website at www.RoanokeCountyVA.gov. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance. Please turn all cell phones off or place them on silent. A.OPENING CEREMONIES 1.Roll Call B.REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1.Proclamation expressing the appreciation of the County of Roanoke to Roanoke College for their generosity and continued partnership. (Richard Caywood, County Administrator) 2.Resolution to recognize a Roanoke County Employee for exemplary service to Roanoke County. (Richard Caywood, County Administrator) 3.Recognition of Deputy Joe Mullins and Officer Justin Hubbard as recipients of awards this past summer at the annual YOVASO (Youth of Virginia Speak Out About Traffic Safety) Awards. (Eric Orange, Sheriff and Sgt. Dan Walters, Special Operations) 4.Resolution recognizing Lindsey Arnold for 50 years of service with the Cave Spring Rescue Squad. (Logan Spencer, Volunteer Chief, Cave Spring Rescue Squad) Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda October 22, 2024 Page 3 of 5 D. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing on Route 460 Corridor Improvements. (Ken King, VDOT Salem District Engineer) E. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 (Animals and Fowl), Article II (Dogs, Cats and Other Animals), Division 2 (License) and Division 3 (Rabies Control) to provide for a Lifetime Licensing Tax on the ownership of dogs and cats in Roanoke County. (F. Kevin Hutchins, Treasurer) (First reading and Request for Second Reading) F. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding the issuance of not to exceed $75,000,000 General Obligation School Bonds of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and providing for the form and details thereof in accordance with Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2606. (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services) G. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY 1. Approval of minutes – October 8, 2024 2. Proclamation recognizing November 2024 as National Adoption Month and November 23, 2024, as National Adoption Day in the County of Roanoke. 3. Ordinance authorizing the granting of new public drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, on property owned by the following: 1) Kerry L. Hall (Tax Map 036.20-01-02.00), located at 2731 Tully Drive; 2) Robert W. & Patrica A. Martin (Tax Map # 036.20-01-03.00), located at 2737 Tully Drive; and 3) Michael R. & Linda M. Walker (Tax Map # 036.20 -01-04.00), located at 2801 Neil Drive in Catawba Magisterial District for the purpose of constructing drainage improvements. (Second Reading) 4. Ordinance to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $455,452 from the Virginia Department of Fire Programs for the Aid to Localities Funds (VDFP) (Second Reading) Page 4 of 5 5. Ordinance amending Article III (District Regulations) and Article IV (Use and Design Standards) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to regulate tobacco, nicotine, and hemp product retail sale locations pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-912.4. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) 6. Ordinance amending Chapter 21 (Taxation), Article III (Real Estate Taxes), Division 3 (Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons) of the Roanoke County code. (Second Reading) 7. Ordinance authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $75,000,000 General Obligation School Bonds of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and providing for the form and details thereof. (Second Reading) 8. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to accept a portion of Appletree Drive extension of Plantation Grove Subdivisions Sections 1 & 3 in Hollins Magisterial District into the VDOT Secondary Road System. 9. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to accept a portion of South Gala Drive tension of Orchard Park Section 2 in the Hollins Magisterial District into the VDOT Secondary Road System. H. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS I. REPORTS 1. Unappropriated Balance, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of September 30, 2024 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of September 30, 2024 5. Accounts Paid – September 2024 6. Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of September 30, 2024 J. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the status of the County of Roanoke's ongoing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects as of June 30, 2024. (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services and Steve Elliott, Budget Administrator) Page 5 of 5 2. Work Session to review with the Board of Supervisors the 2025 Board Meeting Calendar and Planning Commission Schedule. (Richard Caywood, County Administrator) (Peter Lubeck, County Attorney) K. CLOSED MEETING, pursuant to the Code of Virginia as follows: 1. Section 2.2-3711(A)(5) of the Code of Virginia, for discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business’ or industry’s interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the community. The Board will discuss potential business location or expansion in the Catawba and Cave Spring magisterial districts. EVENING SESSION – 7:00 PM L. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION M. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING 1. The petition of Dale Wilkinson to rezone approximately 21.39 acres of land zoned I-1,Low Intensity Industrial District, to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, in order to develop a 225 -lot residential subdivision, located at 7812 Sanderson Drive, Hollins Magisterial District. (Megan Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning) (Second Reading and Public Hearing) N. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS O. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. David Radford 2. Tammy Shepherd 3. Martha Hooker 4. Paul Mahoney 5. Phil C. North P. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 22, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Proclamation expressing the appreciation of the County of Roanoke to Roanoke College for their generosity and continued partnership SUBMITTED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: During the week of October 6, 2024 to October 12, 2024, Roanoke County hosted our Sister City- Opole, Poland. Roanoke College provided lodging to the five Opole delegation members. BACKGROUND: The County of Roanoke and Roanoke College have had a deep, longstanding, and productive partnership for many years, often discussing initiatives for regional collaboration, education, and growth. Last week, Roanoke College provided lodging to the delegation members of Opole. Additionally, Dr. Shushok and Roanoke College staff went above and beyond our arrangements and expectations to ensure the visiting delegation had the opportunity to explore and enjoy the Roanoke College campus. DISCUSSION: Roanoke County appreciates Roanoke College's graciousness and continued partnership, and we look forward to a continued prosperous partnership. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Page 2 of 2 Staff recommends the Board adopt this proclamation. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2024 PROCLAMATION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE TO ROANOKE COLLEGE FOR THEIR GENEROSITY AND CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, County of Roanoke and Roanoke College have had a deep, longstanding, and productive partnership for many years, often discussing initiatives for regional collaboration, education, and growth; and WHEREAS, many of Roanoke County’s most talented employees and leaders are Roanoke College graduates; and WHEREAS, when Roanoke County began preparations to host a visiting delegation from its Sister City of Opole, Poland, Roanoke County Administrator Richard Caywood, on behalf of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, approached Roanoke College President Dr. Frank Shushok, Jr. to see if Roanoke College would be willing to partner with Roanoke County and Roanoke Valley Sister Cities in this effort; and WHEREAS, Dr. Shushok, on behalf of Roanoke College, donated beautiful accommodations in its Monterey House for the delegation to stay for the duration of their six day visit; and WHEREAS, Dr. Shushok and Roanoke College staff went above and beyond our arrangements and expectations to ensure the visiting delegation had the opportunity to explore and enjoy the Roanoke College campus, including dining with the Shushok family at their home, the Fishwick House; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke looks forward to future partnerships, projects, and an ever-growing relationship with Roanoke College. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County a sincere, and well-deserved, expression of appreciation and gratitude to Roanoke College President Dr. Frank Shushok, Jr. and Roanoke College. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 22, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution to recognize a Roanoke County Employee for exemplary service to Roanoke County. SUBMITTED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Resolution recognizing a Roanoke County employee for exemplary service to Roanoke County. DISCUSSION: This time has been set aside to recognize a Roanoke County employee for exemplary service to Roanoke County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the resolution. Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 22, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of Deputy Joe Mullins and Officer Justin Hubbard as recipients of awards this past summer at the annual YOVASO (Youth of Virginia Speak Out About Traffic Safety) Awards SUBMITTED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator This time has been set aside to recognize Deputy Joe Mullins and Officer Justin Hubbard as recipients of awards this past summer at the annual YOVASO (Youth of Virginia Speak Out About Traffic Safety) Awards. Also being recognized is Leslie Jordan, William Byrd Middle School Counselor, for her participation in developing the "Terrier Safety Squad" with Deputy Mullins which was recognized by the state for Best New Middle School Prevention Program of the Year. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: October 22, 2024 Resolution congratulating Lindsey Arnold for 50 years of service with the Cave Spring Rescue Squad Rhonda Perdue Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors APPROVED BY: ISSUE: This time has been set aside to congratulate Lindsey Arnold for 50 years of service with the Cave Spring Rescue Squad. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the resolution. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2024 RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING LINDSEY ARNOLD WITH THE CAVE SPRING RESCUE SQUAD FOR HIS 50 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CAVE SPRING COMMUNITY WHEREAS, There is one name that seems to be synonymous with Cave Spring Rescue Squad and that is Lindsey Arnold. When previous members are hired by other agencies in the area and they run across former members of Cave Spring Rescue Squad, they frequently ask if Lindsey still runs; and WHEREAS, Lindsey first became interested in Cave Spring Rescue Squad when he was dating his future wife, Vicki, who he married in 1972. She told him about the good things the squad did including the training and fundraising. Lindsey joined the organization on March 6, 1973; and WHEREAS, Lindsey took an advanced first aid course in 1973 and completed his EMT in 1974. He took the second EMT-Cardiac Tech course offered in Roanoke in 1977 and transitioned to an EMT-Intermediate in 1998; and WHEREAS, Lindsey served as Equipment Lieutenant from 1975 through 1982 where he was responsible for the squad’s fleet of vehicles. He served as Chief of the squad from 1982 to 1987. Since 1987 he has served as the Equipment Lieutenant where he continues to be responsible for the squad’s fleet of vehicles; and WHEREAS, Lindsey is a professional mechanic by trade who has extensive experience repairing and maintaining both gas and diesel cars and trucks. He frequently performs repairs to the squad’s vehicles himself. It’s common knowledge around the station that if a piece of equipment breaks you need to call Lindsey so he can fix it; and Page 1 of 3 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, Lindsey has been deeply involved with the squad’s vehicle replacement committee since 1975. He has been a major contributor to the design, selection and purchase of numerous squad vehicles through the years. Lindsey has used his deep knowledge of emergency vehicles to assist other agencies with vehicle challenges and he has participated in several Roanoke County Fire and Rescue vehicle selection committees through the years; and WHEREAS, Lindsey’s vast experience has also allowed him to serve on the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department Accident Review Board where he frequently provides feedback on ways that safety can be improved; and WHEREAS, Lindsey has always set a positive example for others through his humble personality, strong work ethic, passion for helping others and love for Cave Spring Rescue Squad. Lindsey can always be counted on to show up for his duty shift and very seldom needs someone else to cover for him; and WHEREAS, Lindsey is a great historian and advisor. He freely shares why certain actions were taken historically or shares things that have worked well and those that haven’t been as successful. He is open to new ideas while attempting to prevent the same mistake twice; and WHEREAS, Linsdey has helped grow several generations of EMS providers. He has helped train probationary members, assisted with EMT training classes, precepted AIC candidates, and spent countless hours in the cab of vehicles trying to teach new drivers. We even have had junior members who are children of former junior members; and WHEREAS, Lindsey has touched the lives of and influenced many squad members to move on to serve in the military or work professionally as firefighters, paramedics, Page 3 of 3 nurses, physicians, dentists, and leaders in their field. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to LINDSEY ARNOLD for his dedicated service to the Cave Spring Community and Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for continued success in the future. Qlountu of �nanok.e t���!!1t ia110 . � � � i" . .-..--""'. � ::) ?, CONGRATULATING LINDSEY ARNOLD WITH THE CAVE SPRING RESCUE SQUAD FOR HIS 50 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CAVE SPRING COMMUNITY WHEREAS, There is one name that seems to be synonymous with Cave Spring Rescue Squad and that is Lindsey Arnold. When previous members are hired by other agencies in the area and they run across former members of Cave Spring Rescue Squad, they frequently ask if Lindsey still runs; and WHEREAS, Lindsey first became interested in Cave Spring Rescue Squad when he was dating his future wife, Vicki, who he married in 1972. She told him about the good things the squad did including the training and fund raising. Lindsey joined the organization on March 6, 1973; and WHEREAS, Lindsey took an advanced first aid course in 1973 and completed his EMT in 1974. He took the second EMT-Cardiac Tech course offered in Roanoke in 1977 and transitioned to an EMT-Intermediate in 1998; and WHEREAS, Lindsey served as Equipment Lieutenant from 1975 through 1982 where he was responsible for the squad's fleet of vehicles. He served as Chief of the squad from 1982 to 1987. Since 1987 he has served as the Equipment Lieutenant where he continues to be responsible for the squad's fleet of vehicles; and WHEREAS, Lindsey is a professional mechanic by trade who has extensive experience repairing and maintaining both gas and diesel cars and trucks. He frequently performs repairs to the squad's vehicles himself. It's common knowledge around the station that if a piece of equipment breaks you need to call Lindsey so he can fix it; and WHEREAS, Lindsey has been deeply involved with the squad's vehicle replacement committee since 1975. He has been a major contributor to the design, selection and purchase of numerous squad vehicles through the years. Lindsey has used his deep knowledge of emergency vehicles to assist other agencies with vehicle challenges and he has participated in several Roanoke County Fire and Rescue vehicle selection committees through the years; and WHEREAS, Lindsey's vast experience has also allowed him to serve on the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department Accident Review Board where he frequently provides feedback on ways that safety can be improved; and WHEREAS, Lindsey has always set a positive example for others through his humble personality, strong work ethic, passion for helping others and love for Cave Spring Rescue Squad. Lindsey can always be counted on to show up for his duty shift and very seldom needs someone else to cover for him; and WHEREAS, Lindsey is a great historian and advisor. He freely shares why certain actions were taken historically or shares things that have worked well and those that haven't been as successful. He is open to new ideas while attempting to prevent the same mistake twice; and WHEREAS, Linsdey has helped grow several generations of EMS providers. He has helped train probationary members, assisted with EMT training classes, precepted AIC candidates, and spent countless hours in the cab of vehicles trying to teach new drivers. We even have had junior members who are children of former junior members; and WHEREAS, Lindsey has touched the lives of and influenced many squad members to move on to serve in the military or work professionally as firefighters, paramedics, nurses, physicians, dentists, and leaders in their field. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. D.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 22, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Briefing on Route 460 Corridor Improvements SUBMITTED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Briefing by Ken King, VDOT Salem District Engineer, on Route 460 Corridor Improvements. DISCUSSION: This time has been set aside for Ken King, VDOT Salem District Engineer, to brief the Board of Supervisors on Route 460 Corridor Improvements. Page 1 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 22, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 (ANIMALS AND FOWL), ARTICLE II (DOGS, CATS AND OTHER ANIMALS), DIVISION 2 (LICENSE) AND DIVISION 3 (RABIES CONTROL) TO PROVIDE FOR A LIFETIME LICENSING TAX ON THE OWNERSHIP OF DOGS AND CATS IN ROANOKE COUNTY SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Hutchins Treasurer APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Ordinance eliminating annual and three -year dog and cat licenses, and establishing lifetime licenses. BACKGROUND: The General Assembly first enacted an animal tag licensing requirement in 1984 to help control the spread of rabies with household pets, provide a funding source for locality rabies clinics, and to offer a mechanism to identify animal owners. In 2007, the General Assembly amended the Code of Virginia to require veterinarians to report, every 30 days, to their local treasurers, owner and animal information for all dogs which had been inoculated during the preceding 30 days. After 90 days, if the animal owners have not purchased the required license, the treasurer is required to send a notice to the owner, prompting the owner to purchase the license. This statutory requirement has created an administrative burden for localities in the Commonwealth both in staff time as well as monetary impact; localities incur monthly mailing costs and annual renewal notification costs. It may be argued that such costs do not justify the low revenue-generating license program. Page 2 of 3 In Roanoke County, ongoing administrative costs have increased to more than $8,000, annually, while generating an average annual revenue of just $43,000 (as calculated over the past 3 years). Additionally, over time, Roanoke County has seen annual license issuance decrease from approximately 5,500 to just 2,500 licenses. This corresponds with a 2016 statewide study which concluded that only 60% of animal owners comply with the licensure requirement. Roanoke County also has a corresponding cat license requirement, which maintains the same pricing points as for dogs. It is estimated that compliance by cat owners is less than 20%. Most individual cat owners assert that their pet is an indoor pet and that they therefore do not perceive a need to either inoculate the cat against rabies or comply with the licensing requirement. In 2017, the General Assembly enacted legislation (now codified as Section 3.2 -6528 of the Code of Virginia) authorizing localities to issue lifetime dog license for individual dogs and cats. (Please note, this process will have no impact on the issuance of licenses to dog kennels or for dogs adjudicated to be “dangerous dogs”). DISCUSSION: There are perceived benefits to the imposition of lifetime licenses. By converting to a lifetime license, an animal is licensed just one time, reducing the administrative burden of county staff. Additionally, citizens will not be inconvenienced by making multiple trips to the Treasurer’s office and paying and annual fees. Such lifetime licenses will still, however, maintain the integrity of the licensing process and rabies control. While administrative costs have continued to rise, the state has not increased the original maximum fee allowed for annual licenses (still allowing localities to charge only $10.00). When establishing the lifetime license provision, the state set a maximum fee of $50.00. However, research has shown that the imposition of higher license prices have been counterproductive to the goal of increased inoculations and licensing compliance. The goal of the program is to maintain proper control and spread of rabies with responsible pet ownership, with minimum government oversight; the main purpose of this program is not revenue generation. Based upon the adoption of lifetime licenses by other localities and a review of surrounding localities’ licensing requirements, the Roanoke County Treasurer recommends that the Board amend the County Code to provide for lifetime dog and cat licenses, and to impose corresponding fee amounts of $20.00 for lifetime dog licenses, and $15.00 for lifetime cat licenses. Animal control enforcement would not be affected by a conversion to a lifetime license, and the burden would be on individual pet owners to maintain current inoculations on Page 3 of 3 their pets for the health and welfare of their animals and the public at large. FISCAL IMPACT: It is anticipated that if the proposed ordinance amendments are adopted, there will be an increase in revenue over the next several years (as more pet owners purchase lifetime licenses), but that revenues will eventually decrease. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the first reading and scheduling a second reading for November 19, 2024. Page 1 of 4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 (ANIMALS AND FOWL), ARTICLE II (DOGS, CATS AND OTHER ANIMALS), DIVISION 2 (LICENSE) AND DIVISION 3 (RABIES CONTROL) TO PROVIDE FOR A LIFETIME LICENSING TAX ON THE OWNERSHIP OF DOGS AND CATS IN ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, Virginia, has authority pursuant to Section 3.2-6524, et. seq. of the Code of Virginia, as amended, to fix and set a license tax for all dogs and cats, to be imposed in Roanoke County, and to adopt an ordinance for the enforcement thereof; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this matter was held on October 22, 2024, and the second reading was held on November 19, 2024. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows, 1. That Chapter 5 (Animals and Fowl), Article II (Dogs, Cats and Other Animals), Division 2 (License) and Division 3 (Rabies Control), is hereby amended as set forth below; all sections not set forth below shall remain unchanged. 2. That this amendment shall be effective on January 1, 2025. DIVISION 2. LICENSE Sec. 5-41. Required. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, keep, hold, or harborown a dog or cat four (4) months old or over in this county, unless such dog or cat is currently licensed under the provisions of this division. Such a license shall be valid only as long as the animal’s owner resides in Roanoke County and the animal’s rabies vaccination is kept current. (Code 1971, § 5-14; Ord. No. 2135, 9-26-78; Ord. No. 72688-11, § 1, 7-26-88; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94, 11-19- 24; Ord No. _______)(State Code authority: Section 3.2-6530) Page 2 of 4 Sec. 5-42. License year. (a) Dog and cat licenses shall run by the calendar year, namely from January 1 to December 31, inclusive. kennel and dangerous dog licenses shall be issued for each calendar year, from January 1st through December 31st. (b) The owner of a dog or cat may apply for a license not to exceed a three-year period of time, so long as this period does not exceed the period that the rabies inoculation for such animal is effective as certified by a veterinarian.All other animal licenses issued on or after January 1, 2025, shall be “lifetime” licenses. (Code 1971, § 5-14; Ord. No. 2135, 9-26-78; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94, 11-19-24; Ord No. _______ ) Sec. 5-44. Tax imposed. (a) Commencing on January 1, 2025, a “lifetime” license tax is hereby imposed on dogs or cats required to be licensed under this division in the following amounts (prior to January 1, 2025, licenses were issued for each animal on an annual or three-year basis): 1) (a) The license tax on dogs, for as long as the owner owns the dog, shall be $20. 2) The license tax on cats, for as long as the owner owns the cat, shall be $15. Upon transfer of a dog or a cat to a new owner, the new owner shall likewise pay the license tax. (b) An annual license tax is hereby imposed on kennels and dangerous dogs or cats required to be licensed under this division in the following amounts: (1) Male dog or cat: Ten dollars ($10.00). (2) Female dog or cat: Ten dollars ($10.00). (3) Neutered or spayed dog or cat: Five dollars ($5.00) with a veterinarian's certificate that the dog or cat has been neutered or spayed. 1) (4) Kennel for up to twenty (20) dogs: Twenty-five dollars ($25.00). 2) (5) Kennel for up to fifty (50) dogs: Thirty-five dollars ($35.00). 3) (6) Dangerous dog, as declared by any general district court or circuit court of this commonwealth or by a community service officer pursuant to section 5-26.1(c)(2) above: one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) (in addition to the other applicable fees herein). All certificates shall be updated and renewed for a fee of eighty-five dollars ($85.00) and in the same manner as the initial certificate was obtained (in addition to the other applicable fees herein). (b) A three-year license tax is hereby imposed on dogs or cats required to be licensed under this division in the following amounts: Three (3) times the rate specified in (a)(1), (2) and (3) above, less ten (10) percent. (c) No license tax shall be levied under this section on any dog that is trained and serves as a guide dog for a blind person or that is trained and serves as a hearing dog for a deaf or hearing- impaired person. As used herein, the term "hearing dog" means a dog trained to alert its owner, by touch, to sounds of danger and sounds to which the owner should respond. (d) In no event shall the treasurer pay any refund of the license tax imposed by this section. (Code 1971, § 5-14; Ord. No. 2135, 9-26-78; Ord. No. 52290-7, § 1, 5-22-90; Ord. No. 72793-7, § 1, 7-27-93; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94; Ord. No. 060998-7, 6-23-98; Ord. No. 042313-7, § 1, 4-23-13, 11-19-24; Ord No. ________) Formatted: Superscript Formatted: Superscript Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.33", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.33" Formatted: List 1 Formatted: List 1, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.75" Formatted: List 1, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.75" Page 3 of 4 Sec. 5-45. When and where tax due and payable. The license tax on dogs or cats shall be due and payable at the office of the county treasurer as follows: (1) On or before January 1 and not later than January 31 of each year, the owner of any dog or cat four (4) months old or older shall pay such tax, or within thirty (30) days of the expiration of the three-year license.Within thirty (30) days after the dog or cat reaches four (4) months of age or within thirty (30) days of acquiring a dog or cat four (4) months of age. (2) If a dog or cat shall become four (4) months of age or if a dog or cat over four (4) months of age unlicensed by this county shall come into the possession of any person in this county between January 1 and October 31 of any year, the license tax for the current calendar year shall be paid forthwith by the owner. (3) If a dog or cat shall become four (4) months of age or if a dog or cat over four (4) months of age unlicensed by this county shall come into the possession of any person in this county between November 1 and December 31 of any year, the license tax for the succeeding calendar year shall be paid forthwith by the owner and such license shall protect the dog or cat from the date of payment of the license tax. (4) For the period from July 1, 1994, to December 31, 1994, the tax for a cat license shall be fifty (50) percent of the amount stated in section 5-44. (Code 1971, §§ 5-14, 5-15; Ord. No. 2135, 9-26-78; Ord. No. 72688-11, § 1, 7-26-88; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94, 11-19-24; Ord No._______) Sec. 5-48. Issuance, composition and contents. (a) Upon receipt of a proper application and the prescribed license tax, the county treasurer shall issue a dog or cat license; provided, however, that such license shall not be issued unless the applicant presents a certificate meeting the requirements of section 5-67 and showing that the dog or cat in question has been vaccinated against rabies as required by section 5-66. When the license is issued, such certificate shall be so marked and returned to the dog's or cat's owner. (b) A dog or cat license shall consist of a license tax receipt and a tag made of twenty-gauge metal or other suitable material in a rectangular shape one-half inch in width and two (2) inches in length, with a one-eighth inch hole at each end. (c) The receipt issued pursuant to this section shall have recorded thereon the name and address of the owner or custodian of the dog or cat, the date of payment, the year for which the license is issued, the serial number of the tag and whether the license is for a male, female, neutered or spayed dog or cat, or for a kennel or a dangerous dog. (d) The license tag for a dog or cat shall be stamped or otherwise permanently marked, showing: "Roanoke County, Va. Dog Tag," or "Roanoke County, Va. Cat Tag," the sex of the dog or cat, the calendar year for which issued and a serial number. (e) The license tag for a kennel shall consist of a license receipt and a tag made of twenty-gauge metal or other suitable material two and one-half (2½) inches in diameter, stamped or otherwise permanently marked, showing "Roanoke County, Va. Kennel Tag," the calendar year, or such longer period, for which issued, the number of dogs and a serial number. (Code 1971, §§ 5-16, 5-18; Ord. No. 2135, 9-26-78; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94, 11-19-24; Ord No.______) Page 4 of 4 DIVISION 3. RABIES CONTROL1 Sec. 5-66. Vaccination required. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to own, keep, hold or harbor any dog or cat over the age of four (4) months within the county, unless the dog or cat has been vaccinated with a vaccine licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture for use in that species within a period of the immediately preceding thirty - six (36) months. Such animals shall continue to receive rabies vaccinations so as to not allow their immunity to expire. If a license has been issued to any dog or cat pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, and the dog’s or cat’s immunity to rabies expires, the animal’s license shall become void within thirty (30) days of the expiration of immunity. Following such invalidation, the animal’s owner or keeper must thereafter provide proof of current vaccination to the Treasurer and again pay the tax amount in order to reinstate the license. (b) Any person transporting a dog or cat four (4) months of age or over into the county from some other jurisdiction shall be required to comply with this section within thirty (30) days after bringing the dog or cat into the county. (Code 1971, §§ 5-28, 5-29; Ord. No. 51287-4, § 1, 5-12-87; Ord. No. 72688-11, § 1, 7-26-88, 11-19-24; Ord No.______) 1State law reference(s)—Rabies inoculation of dogs and domesticated cats, Code of Virginia, § 3.1-796.97:1. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 22, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding the issuance of not to exceed $75,000,000 General Obligation School Bonds of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and providing for the form and details thereof in accordance with Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2606. SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding the issuance of not to exceed $75,000,000 General Obligation School Bonds of the County of Roanoke, Virginia BACKGROUND: This is a public hearing to secure citizen’s comments regarding the issuance of not to exceed $75,000,000 General Obligation School Bonds of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and providing for the form and details thereof DISCUSSION: Section 15.2-2606 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that before the final authorization of the issuance of any bonds by a locality, the governing body of the locality shall hold a public hearing on the proposed bond issue. This notice was published on October 8, 2024 and on October 15, 2024. Page 2 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of the public hearing. Requests for the approval of the ordinance will occur later on in this agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board hold the required public hearing. Board action approving the bond issuance, as provided in this notice, will occur later during this meeting. Conducting the public hearing does not guarantee the requested bond issuance will be approved. Page 1 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2024 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM G - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for October 22, 2024, designated as Item G - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 9 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – October 8, 2024 2. Proclamation recognizing November 2024 as National Adoption Month and November 23, 2024, as National Adoption Day in the County of Roanoke. 3. Ordinance authorizing the granting of new public drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, on property owned by the following: 1) Kerry L. Hall (Tax Map 036.20-01-02.00), located at 2731 Tully Drive; 2) Robert W. & Patrica A. Martin (Tax Map # 036.20-01-03.00), located at 2737 Tully Drive; and 3) Michael R. & Linda M. Walker (Tax Map # 036.20-01-04.00), located at 2801 Neil Drive in Catawba Magisterial District for the purpose of constructing drainage improvements. (Second Reading) 4. Ordinance to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $455,452 from the Virginia Department of Fire Programs for the Aid to Localities Funds (VDFP) (Second Reading) 5. Ordinance amending Article III (District Regulations) and Article IV (Use and Design Standards) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to regulate tobacco, nicotine, and hemp product retail sale locations pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-912.4. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) Page 2 of 2 6. Ordinance amending Chapter 21 (Taxation), Article III (Real Estate Taxes), Division 3 (Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons) of the Roanoke County code. (Second Reading) 7. Ordinance authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $75,000,000 General Obligation School Bonds of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and providing for the form and details thereof. (Second Reading) 8. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to accept a portion of Appletree Drive extension of Plantation Grove Subdivisions Sections 1 & 3 in Hollins Magisterial District into the VDOT Secondary Road System. 9. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to accept a portion of South Gala Drive tension of Orchard Park Section 2 in the Hollins Magisterial District into the VDOT Secondary Road System. Page 1 of 7 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of October 2024. 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. Before the meeting was called to order, an invocation/a moment of silence was observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. A.OPENING CEREMONIES 1.Roll Call Present: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Absent: None Staff Present: Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator; Rebecca Owens, Deputy County Administrator; Madeline Hanlon, Community Engagement Director; Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and Rhonda D. Perdue, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Staff Absent: Doug Blount, Assistant County Administrator B.REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C.PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS Action No. 100824-1 Item C.1 1.Proclamation expressing the appreciation of the County of Roanoke, Virginia to its Sister City, Opole, Poland, for thirty years of Sister City relationship. (Kristine Bulas and Mary Jo Fassie, Roanoke Valley Sister Cities) Supervisor Hooker moved to adopt the proclamation. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Minutes October 8, 2024 – 3:00 p.m. Page 2 of 7 Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None Action No. 100824-2 Item C.2 2. Proclamation declaring October 20-26, 2024 as Red Ribbon Week in the County of Roanoke. (Adam T. Neal, Director, Roanoke Area Youth Substance Abuse Coalition) Supervisor Shepherd moved to adopt the proclamation. Supervisor Mahoney seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None D. NEW BUSINESS Action No. 100824-3 Item D.1 1. Resolution of support for kidney transplant services provided by Carilion Clinic at Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital. (Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator) Supervisor North moved to adopt the resolution. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None E. FIRST READINGS OF ORDINANCES Action No. 100824-4 Item E.1 1. Ordinance amending Chapter 21 (Taxation), Article III (Real Estate Taxes), Division 3 (Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons) of the Roanoke County code. (P. Jason Peters, Commissioner of Revenue) (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) Supervisor Shepherd moved to approve the first reading of this ordinance and scheduling the second reading for October 22, 2024. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None Page 3 of 7 Action No. 100824-5 Item E.2 2. Ordinance authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $75,000,000 General Obligation School Bonds of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and providing for the form and details thereof. (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services) (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) Supervisor Hooker moved to approve the first reading of this ordinance and scheduling the second reading for October 22, 2024. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None F. PUBLIC HEARING Action No. 100824-6 Item F.1 1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding the refinancing of lease transactions that originally financed various capital projects for the county and authorizing the continued leasing of certain county-owned property, the execution and delivery of prime leases and local lease acquisition agreement and financing leases, and other related actions in accordance with Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2606. (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services) No speakers present. G. APPOINTMENTS Action No. 100824-7 Item G.1-2 1. Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) (District) Charlotte Moore - Cave Spring Magisterial District - Expires October 8, 2029. 2. Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Advisory Commission Larry Peterson – Catawba Magisterial District – Expires October 8, 2027. Supervisor Radford made a recommendation to appoint Rick Pevarski to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, term expires October 8, 2029. Supervisor Radford moved to approve all appointments. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None Page 4 of 7 H. CONSENT AGENDA Action No. 100824-8.a-j Item H.1-10 ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY Action No. 100824-8.a Item H.1 1. Approval of minutes – September 24, 2024 Action No. 100824-8.b Item H.2 2. Ordinance authorizing the granting of new public drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, on property owned by the following: 1) Kerry L. Hall (Tax Map 036.20-01-02.00), located at 2731 Tully Drive; 2) Robert W. & Patrica A. Martin (Tax Map # 036.20-01-03.00), located at 2737 Tully Drive; and 3) Michael R. & Linda M. Walker (Tax Map # 036.20-01-04.00), located at 2801 Neil Drive in Catawba Magisterial District for the purpose of constructing drainage improvements. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) Action No. 100824-8.c Item H.3 3. Ordinance approving a Second Site Use Agreement between Craig Botetourt Electric Cooperative and the County of Roanoke for use of space in a shelter and on a tower located on Fort Lewis Mountain and accepting and appropriating $6,000.00 per year for the term of the agreement. (Second Reading) Action No. 100824-8.d Item H.4 4. Ordinance authorizing the granting of new public drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, on property owned by the following: 1) David L. Bratton (Tax Map 079.01-01-62.00-0000), located at 3006 Pebble Drive; 2) Leonard W. & Rebecca G. Stiff (Tax Map 079.01-01-63.00-0000), located at 3012 Pebble Drive; 3) Roy M. Carpenter (Tax Map 079.01-01-61.00- 0000), located at 3017 Woodway Rd; and 4) Alice B. Kefauver (Tax Map 079.01- 01-64.00-0000), located at 3020 Pebble Drive in Vinton Magisterial District for the purpose of constructing drainage improvements in various magisterial districts. (Second Reading) Action No. 100824-8.e Item H.5 5. Request to approve the Board of Supervisors budget development calendar for fiscal year 2025-2026. Page 5 of 7 Action No. 100824-8.f Item H.6 6. Resolution accepting and approving recommended changes to the Comprehensive Financial Policy. Action No. 100824-8.g Item H.7 7. Ordinance to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $455,452 from the Virginia Department of Fire Programs for the Aid to Localities Funds (VDFP). (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) Action No. 100824-8.h Item H.8 8. Resolution to Support the Virginia America 250 Commission. Action No. 100824-8.i Item H.9 9. Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia approving the refinancing of lease transactions that originally financed various capital projects for the County and authorizing the continued leasing of certain County-owned property, the execution and delivery of prime leases and local lease acquisition agreement and financing leases, and other related actions. (Second Reading) Action No. 100824-8.j Item H.10 10. Resolution authorizing the County of Roanoke to enter a memorandum of Understanding with the Town of Vinton, for the County of Roanoke to act as the Virginia Erosion and Stormwater Management Program (VESMP) Authority for the Town of Vinton. Supervisor Mahoney moved to adopt all matters on the consent agenda. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None I. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None J. REPORTS Action No. 100824-9 Item J.1-2 1. Unappropriated Balance, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report Page 6 of 7 Supervisor Mahoney moved to receive and file the reports that have been included with the agenda under Item J. Supervisor Hooker seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None K. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Paul M. Mahoney 2. David Radford 3. Tammy Shepherd 4. Martha Hooker 5. Phil C. North Supervisors were offered the opportunity to share comments and provide updates to their peers and the public on items of interest to them. L. WORK SESSION 1. Work session to update the Board of Supervisors on the status of Broadband projects within Roanoke County. (Madeline Hanlon, Community Engagement Director) M. CLOSED MEETING, pursuant to the Code of Virginia as follows: Action No. 100824-10 1. Section 2.2-3711(A)(5) of the Code of Virginia, for discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business’ or industry’s interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the community. Specifically, the Board will discuss potential business location or expansion in each of the five magisterial districts. Supervisor North moved to go to closed session. Supervisor Mahoney seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None N. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION Action No. 100824-11 Page 7 of 7 In the closed session just concluded, nothing was discussed except the matter which was identified in the motion to convene in closed session. Only those matters lawfully permitted to be discussed under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act were discussed. Supervisor Hooker moved to adopt the certification resolution. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None O. ADJOURNMENT Action No. 100824-12 Supervisor Hooker moved to adjourn the meeting. Supervisor Mahoney seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Radford, Hooker, Mahoney, Shepherd, North Nays: None Submitted by: Approved by: __________________________ __________________________ Richard L. Caywood Phil C. North Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Chairman Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.2 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: DECLARING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2024 AS NATIONAL ADOPTION MONTH IN THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE WHEREAS, families can provide love and security for children and many children wait for forever families; and WHEREAS, children who need forever families may be young or young adults of any heritage and may have special needs; and WHEREAS, adoption gives children a loving family in which to grow; and WHEREAS, many families in the Roanoke Valley have chosen adoption as a way to create or enlarge their families; and WHEREAS, adoptive families in the Roanoke Valley are recognized and congratulated for their commitment to children and to children's rights to loving and secure homes; and WHEREAS, National Adoption Day, which will be held on November 23, 2024, is sponsored by a coalition of national partners to draw special attention to foster children waiting for forever families and to celebrate all loving families who adopt. NOW, THEREFORE, We, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim and recognize the month of November 2024 as NATIONAL ADOPTION MONTH throughout the County of Roanoke; and FURTHER, by this proclamation, we give notice to our citizens to celebrate the important role adoption plays in our society and call upon the citizens of Roanoke County to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities that honor adoptive families. Presented this 22nd day of October 2024 Phil C. North Martha B. Hooker David F. Radford Paul M. Mahoney Tammy E. Shepherd Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.3 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: Page 2 of 2 The subject parcels were developed in the early 1960s, and the drainage system consists of old corrugated metal pipe that is cracking and separating at the joints. Total failure of the pipe could result in significant flooding and property damage to the homes in the area. The owners of the impacted parcels (see "Attachment A") have agreed to donate public drainage easements to Roanoke County for construction and maintenance of the proposed improvements. A plat indicating the location of each proposed easement, and the locations of each existing easement to be vacated, are also attached to this report. The easements are necessary for the installation and maintenance of a new drainage system which will be designed and constructed to provide adequate drainage and positive drainage. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no cost to Roanoke County for preparation of the easement deeds as they have been prepared by Roanoke County staff. Roanoke County will advertise for bids for construction of the drainage improvements. The estimated cost of approximately $450,000 for this project is covered by the American Rescue Plan Act known as ARPA funding available for the Department of Development Services and approved by the Board of Supervisors. The plat was prepared by consultants as part of the project and the costs thereof are covered by the same ARPA funding. Future maintenance of the proposed easements will be covered by routine maintenance efforts by Department of Development Services. There have been no changes to this Board Report since the first reading of this ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this ordinance. PREPARED BY: Rachel W. Lower, Deputy County Attorney VSB # 88094 Office of the County Attorney 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke , VA 24018 This instrum ent is exempt from th e imposition of f ees and taxes pursuant to § 58.1-811(A)(3) and § 1 7.1-2 66 of th e Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. R oano ke Cou nty Tax Map No: 036 .20-01-02.00-0000 Property Owner: Keny L. Hall THIS DEED OF EASEMENT AND VACATION OF EASEMENT is entered into this ____ day of ______ , 20_, by and b etween KERRY L. HALL , Grantor, and the ' BO ARD OF SU PERV I SORS OF RO AN OKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a political subdi vision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee . WITNESS ETH That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1 .00), paid in hand at and with the execution and de l ivery of this Deed, and other good and v aluable consideration , the receipt , adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged , Grantor does hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto the Grantee , its successors and assigns , the following described real estate for drai n age purposes: A new public drainage easement , approximatel y 715 square feet, more or less , to construct , install , improve , operate , inspect , use , maintain , and repair or replace a drainage system , together with related impro v ements , including slope(s), if applicable , together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road , upon, over, under, and acros s a tract or parcel of land belonging to Kerry L. Hall , Grantor, shown and de signated as ''NEW 715 SQ. FT. (0.0164 AC.) DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 6, BOUNDED BY CORNERS 3 to 4 to 5 to 6 to 3" upon the plat entitled "EASEMENT PLAT FOR ROANOKE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SHOWING NEW STORM DRAIN EASEMENT ACROSS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 2, AN D PARTIAL VACATION OF AN EXISTING 15 ' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT ACROSS LOTS 4 , 5, AND 6, BLOCK 2 GLEN COVE (PB 5. PG 4) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF ROANOKE , VIRGINIA prepared by Caldwell White Associates , dated March 26 , 2024 . The location of said easement Page 1 of 5 is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and by reference incorporated herein. The existing fifteen (15) foot drainage easement upon, over, under, and across the tract or parcel of land belonging to Kerry L. Hall , Grantor, shown and designated as "15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT" upon the plat entitled "MAP OF GLEN COVE PROPERTY OF ELECTRIC DEVELOPERS , INC. ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA" prepared by T .P. Parker, State Certified Engineer, dated April 14, 1961 , and recorded in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office at Plat Book 5, Page 4 is hereby vacated . The new public drainage easement being for the installation and maintenance of a drainage system , and to allow for necessary grading and storage during any phase of construction , reconstruction , repair or replacements of the impro v ements to the drainage system , the location of which is set forth on the plat. The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantor 's property that may be directly caused by the construction , reconstruction , or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter pro vided. The Grantor agrees that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable , and that the Grantor will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remov e all trees , shrubbery , undergrowth , obstructions , or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper u se of the same . The Grantor agrees that no building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible . In the ev ent that this co venant is violated , Page 2 ofS the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace , or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantor acknowledges that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect Grantor's property have been fully explained to Grantor. The fixtures , facilities , lines , utilities , and any other improvements placed upon , under, or across the easement by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee . The easement herein granted is in addition to , and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future . The Grantor agrees for him or herself, and for Grantor's successors and assigns , that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location , construction , operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement area . The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee , its successors and assigns forever. Richard L. Caywood , County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of the interest in the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Action No. --------adopted day of by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the --------,2 0_. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: [Signatur es and notary acknowledg emen ts continu ed on th e next page} Page 3 ofS State of Virginia ~/City of ~c.tioc, , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 17+1\ day of J\9i, l 20 t'I , by Kerry L. Hall. ABIGAIL KNOUFF NOTARY PUBLIC REG# 7964543 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA My Commission Expires : O':tLlalao,r My commission expires: o'4/Jo }2.oz,5 [Signatur es and notary ackno w ledgem ents continu ed on th e next page} Page 4 of 5 State of Virginia County of Roanoke, to-wit: BOARD OF SU PERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY , VIRGINIA By _______________ _ Richard L. Caywood , County Administrator The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of _____ _ 20 _, by Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia . Notary Public M y commission expires: ------- Appro ved as to form: County Attorney 's Office Page 5 of5 Page 1 of 6 PREPARED BY: Rachel W. Lower, Deputy County Attorney VSB # 88094 Office of the County Attorney 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 This instrument is exempt from the imposition of fees and taxes pursuant to § 58.1-811(A)(3) and § 17.1-266 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Roanoke County Tax Map No: 036.20-01-03.00-0000 Property Owners: Robert W. Martin & Patricia A. Martin THIS DEED OF EASEMENT AND VACATION OF EASEMENT is entered into this ________ day of ______________, 20__, by and between ROBERT W. MARTIN and PATRICIA A. MARTIN, Grantors, and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Grantee. W I T N E S S E T H That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), paid in hand at and with the execution and delivery of this Deed, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantors do hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described real estate for drainage purposes: A new public drainage easement, approximately 1,427 square feet, more or less, to construct, install, improve, operate, inspect, use, maintain, and repair or replace a drainage system, together with related improvements, including slope(s), if applicable, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto from a public road, upon, over, under, and across a tract or parcel of land belonging to Robert W. Martin and Patricia A. Martin, Grantors, shown and designated as “NEW 1,427 SQ. FT. (0.0328 AC.) DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 5, BOUNDED BY CORNERS 1 to 2 to 3 to 6 to 7 to 1” upon the plat entitled “EASEMENT PLAT FOR ROANOKE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SHOWING NEW STORM DRAIN EASEMENT ACROSS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 2, AND PARTIAL VACATION OF AN EXISTING 15’ STORM DRAIN EASEMENT ACROSS LOTS 4, 5, AND 6, BLOCK 2 GLEN COVE (PB 5. PG 4) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA prepared by Caldwell White Associates, dated March Page 2 of 6 26, 2024. The location of said easement is more particularly described on the plat attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and by reference incorporated herein. The existing fifteen (15) foot drainage easement upon, over, under, and across the tract or parcel of land belonging to Robert W. Martin and Patricia A. Martin, Grantors, shown and designated as “15’ DRAINAGE EASEMENT” upon the plat entitled “MAP OF GLEN COVE PROPERTY OF ELECTRIC DEVELOPERS, INC. ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA” prepared by T.P. Parker, State Certified Engineer, dated April 14, 1961, and recorded in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office at Plat Book 5, Page 4 is hereby partially vacated, as shown on the attached Exhibit A. Roanoke County releases all ownership interest in and to the easement area to be vacated, and ownership of the easement area to be vacated shall vest by operation of law. The new public drainage easement being for the installation and maintenance of a drainage system, and to allow for necessary grading and storage during any phase of construction, reconstruction, repair or replacements of the improvements to the drainage system, the location of which is set forth on the plat. The Grantee agrees to restore and repair any actual damage to Grantors’ property that may be directly caused by the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of said project except as hereinafter provided. The Grantors agree that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the property to the identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as is practicable, and that the Grantors will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration. It is expressly agreed between the parties hereto that the Grantee and its agents have the right to inspect the easement herein granted and to cut, clear, and remove all trees, shrubbery, undergrowth, obstructions, or improvements lying within, upon, or adjacent to said easement that in any way endanger or interfere with the proper use of the same. The Grantor s agree that no Page 3 of 6 building or structure shall be erected upon or within the easement herein granted or placed in such location as to render said easement inaccessible. In the event that this covenant is violated, the Grantee shall not be obligated to repair, replace, or otherwise be responsible for such improvements if damaged or removed. The Grantors acknowledge that the plans for the aforesaid project as they affect Grantors’ property have been fully explained to Grantors. The fixtures, facilities, lines, utilities, and any other improvements placed upon, under, or across the easement by the Grantee shall remain the property of the Grantee. The easement herein granted is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any easement or right-of-way now in existence or which may be acquired in the future. The Grantors agree for themselves, and for their successors and assigns that the consideration aforementioned and the covenants herein shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation and damages by reason of the location, construction, operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of or within the easement area. The grant and provision of this Deed of Easement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby joins in the execution of this instrument to signify the acceptance by the Board of Supervisors of the interest in the real estate conveyed herein pursuant to Action No. _________________ adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on the _______ day of __________________, 20__. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: [Signatures and notary acknowledgements continued on the next page] Page 4 of 6 By____________________________________ ROBERT W. MARTIN State of Virginia County/City of , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ______________ 20__, by Robert W. Martin. _______________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: _______________ [Signatures and notary acknowledgements continued on the next page] Page 5 of 6 By____________________________________ PATRICIA A. MARTIN State of Virginia County/City of , to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ______________ 20__, by Patricia A. Martin. _______________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: _______________ [Signatures and notary acknowledgements continued on the next page] Page 6 of 6 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By____________________________________ Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator State of Virginia County of Roanoke, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ______________ 20__, by Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. _______________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: _______________ Approved as to form: _______________________________ County Attorney’s Office DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOP MENT SERVICES 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018 (540)772-2080 180' SCALE: 1 "=60' TULLY DRIVE & NEIL DRIVE PARCELS NEEDING DRAINAGE EASEMENTS Attachment "A" March 26, 2024 Page 1 of 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2024 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF NEW PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF VACATIONS OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF EXISTING DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON PROPERTY OWNED BY 1) KERRY L. HALL (TAX MAP #036.20-01-02.00-0000), LOCATED AT 2731 TULLY DRIVE, 2) MICHAEL R. & LINDA M. WALKER (TAX MAP #036.20-01-04.00- 0000), LOCATED AT 2801 NEIL DRIVE, AND 3) ROBERT W. & PATRICIA A. MARTIN (TAX MAP #036.20-01- 03.00-0000), LOCATED AT 2737 TULLY DRIVE, IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, it is proposed that Kerry L. Hall and Robert W. and Patricia A. Martin, who own properties located on Tully Drive, grant drainage easements to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to enable the Board to assist in correcting long-standing drainage problems; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors vacate certain portions of existing drainage easements that are no longer necessary to assist in correcting long-standing drainage problems on property owned by Kerry L. Hall, Michael R. and Linda M. Walker, and Robert W. and Patricia A. Martin on Tully Drive and Neil Drive; and WHEREAS, the owners of the impacted parcels have agreed to donate public drainage easements to Roanoke County for construction and maintenance of the proposed improvements on the following parcels, all of which are depicted on the attached “Exhibit A”: 1) Property owned by Kerry L. Hall (Tax Map #036.20-01-02.00-0000), located at 2731 Tully Drive, and Page 2 of 3 2) Property owned by Robert W. and Patricia A. Martin (Tax Map #036.20 -01- 03.00-0000), located at 2737 Tully Drive, and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors has agreed to vacate portions of existing public drainage easements on the following parcels, all of which are depicted on the attached “Exhibit A”: 1) Property owned by Kerry L. Hall (Tax Map #036.20-01-02.00-0000), located at 2731 Tully Drive, 2) Property owned by Robert W. and Patricia A. Martin (Tax Map #036.20 -01- 03.00-0000), located at 2737 Tully Drive, and 3) Property owned by Michael R. & Linda M. Walker (Tax Map #036.20-01-04.00- 0000), located at 2801 Neil Drive, and WHEREAS, receipt of the proposed easements and vacation of portions of the existing easements is necessary to enable the County to assist with the installation and maintenance of a new drainage system; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost for this project is proposed to be funded with distributions received by the County under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA); such funding was previously allocated by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors for use by the Department of Development Services; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 8, 2024, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on October 22, 2024. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: Page 3 of 3 1. That the conveyance of new public drainage easements by 1) Kerry L. Hall and 2) Robert W. and Patricia A. Martin to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, as depicted on the attached Exhibit A, all of which are located in the Catawba Magisterial District, are hereby approved. 2. That the vacation of portions of existing public drainage easements by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors on property owned by 1) Kerry L. Hall, 2) Robert W. and Patricia A. Martin, and 3) Michael R. and Linda M. Walker, as depicted on the attached Exhibit A, all of which are located in the Catawba Magisterial District, are hereby approved. 3. That the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, any of whom may act, are authorized to execute, deliver, and record the deeds, and any other documents, on behalf of the County, and to take such further actions as any of them may deem necessary or desirable in connection with this project. The form of the deeds is hereby approved with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as the County Administrator may approve, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery thereof, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 22, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $455,452 from the Virginia Department of Fire Programs for the Aid to Localities Funds (VDFP) SUBMITTED BY: C. Travis Griffith Chief of Fire and Rescue APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Second reading of an ordinance to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $455,452 from the Virginia Department of Fire Program--Aid to Localities funds (VDFP). BACKGROUND: Section § 38.2-401 provides for the collection of an annual levy from the insurance industry. Such levy is collected by the State Corporation Commission (SCC) on March 1 of each year. The amounts collected in accordance with the Code are transferred into the Fire Programs Fund during June of the same year. The Fund is derived from an annual assessment against all licensed insurance companies doing business in the Commonwealth writing a Code-defined type of insurance. The Fund is used to provide an annual population-based allocation to qualifying jurisdictions within the Commonwealth. The allocation may only be used for fire service purposes and may not supplant or replace locally appropriated funds. This grant awarded to the Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department will be utilized to purchase fire equipment, supplies, and training that meet state guidelines. Approval of this grant funding from the VDFP depends on the appropriate and timely submission of required annual reporting. The Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department continues to meet those annual requirements to remain eligible for grant funding. Page 1 of 2 Page 2 of 2 There have been no changes since the first reading of the ordinance held on October 8, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: The grant funds awarded from the VDFP program totals $455,452. No county match is required for the acceptance of this grant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Fire Programs FY-20 25 FIRE PROGRAMS FUND DISBURSEMENT AGREEMENT Statutocy Authority; §38.2-401 of the Code qfVirgioig This Agreement, made effective as of the 1st day of July, 202 5 , by the DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROGRAMS (the "Agency") and the LOCALTIY noted below (the "Receiving Locality"), governs the distribution and use of the Receiving Locality's annual entitlement from the Fire Programs Fund ("the Fund"), as provided for in §38.2-401 of the Code of Virginia as amended (the "Statute"). WHEREAS, the Statute in effect as of the date first written above is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Receiving Locality is thereunder required to execute a "Fire Programs Fund Disbursement Agreement" and forward same to the Agency as a condition of receiving any allocation or disbursement from the Fund; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants herein set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Representations of the Agency. The Agency represents that the Agency is duly organized and the Executive Director duly appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the General Assembly as provided for by the Code of Virginia, and that the Executive Director or his designee i s duly authorized to enter into this agreement. 2. Representations of the Receiving Locality. The Receiving Locality representsthat (a) its authorized representative whose signature appears below has read and understands the referenced sections of the Statute and any Policies & Definitions adopted thereunder, (b) it agrees to comply with all applicable provisions of the Statute and any Policies & Definitions adopted thereunder, including the use of such funds and all reporting and audit requirements and (c) it is duly authorized to execute this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder and has taken all necessary action to authorize such execution and performance. 3.Availability of Fwids. It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that theAGENCY shall be bound hereunder only to the extent of the funds available or which may hereafter become available for the purposes of this Agreement. The Recipient shall deposit funds in an interestbearing account or normal risk and with a demand restriction, if any, not exceeding 30 calendar days until they are needed. The Recipient must be able to account for both the principal and the interest amounts. 7/2011 Page 1 of 2 Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Fire Programs Fire Programs Fund - Aid to Localities FY2025 Allocations and Payments Prepared by: Grants Section 6/24/2024 FY2025 Allocation ACTUAL 2025 Allocation Allocation Payments Made INVOICE# Vendor ID Allocation Allocation FIPS Code Description EFT Amount at 100% 0000062868 124,561$ $124,561 001 Accomack Co. 0000055787 573,525$ $573,525 003 Albemarle Co. 0000050451 75,111$ $75,111 005 Alleghany Co. 0000050352 67,982$ $67,982 007 Amelia Co. 0000050709 149,632$ $149,632 009 Amherst Co. 0000070541 72,179$ $72,179 011 Appomattox Co. 0000055179 1,223,027$ $1,223,027 013 Arlington Co. 0000053514 392,492$ $392,492 015 Augusta Co. 0000054962 30,000$ $30,000 017 Bath Co. 0000053192 373,120$ $373,120 019 Bedford Co. 0000049994 32,133$ $32,133 021 Bland Co. 0000059429 159,831$ $159,831 023 Botetourt Co. 0000052074 73,266$ $73,266 025 Brunswick Co. 0000058371 99,834$ $99,834 027 Buchanan Co. 0000050819 83,987$ $83,987 029 Buckingham Co. 0000053925 262,540$ $262,540 031 Campbell Co. 0000050384 151,303$ $151,303 033 Caroline Co. 0000050477 134,637$ $134,637 035 Carroll Co. 0000101865 34,711$ $34,711 036 Charles City Co. 0000087842 48,441$ $48,441 037 Charlotte Co. 0000055186 1,868,281$ $1,868,281 041 Chesterfield Co. 0000065373 48,482$ $48,482 043 Clarke Co. 0000054437 30,000$ $30,000 045 Craig Co. 0000052065 166,509$ $166,509 047 Culpeper Co. 0000050267 46,914$ $46,914 049 Cumberland Co. 0000032598 61,596$ $61,596 051 Dickenson Co. 0000053747 140,884$ $140,884 053 Dinwiddie Co. 0000111456 43,080$ $43,080 057 Essex Co. 0000056645 5,666,249$ $5,666,249 059 Fairfax Co. 0000053804 317,973$ $317,973 061 Fauquier Co. 0000111457 77,017$ $77,017 063 Floyd Co. 0000053940 139,454$ $139,454 065 Fluvanna Co. 0000054829 252,736$ $252,736 067 Franklin Co. 0000046246 451,239$ $451,239 069 Frederick Co. 0000055332 50,168$ $50,168 071 Giles Co. 0000050435 198,391$ $198,391 073 Gloucester Co. 0000050207 126,724$ $126,724 075 Goochland Co. 0000053275 70,350$ $70,350 077 Grayson Co. 0000050255 103,539$ $103,539 079 Greene Co. 0000050198 55,723$ $55,723 081 Greensville Co. 0000056801 126,509$ $126,509 083 Halifax Co. 0000046248 524,864$ $524,864 085 Hanover Co. 0000046249 1,713,718$ $1,713,718 087 Henrico Co. 0000053938 257,251$ $257,251 089 Henry Co. 0000050955 30,000$ $30,000 091 Highland Co. 0000055532 140,049$ $140,049 093 Isle of Wight Co. 0000055943 401,046$ $401,046 095 James City Co. 0000054590 33,866$ $33,866 097 King & Queen Co. 0000052252 136,953$ $136,953 099 King George Co. 0000051259 73,778$ $73,778 101 King William Co. 0000053598 44,551$ $44,551 103 Lancaster Co. 0000054484 100,843$ $100,843 105 Lee Co. 0000053614 1,839,802$ $1,839,802 107 Loudoun Co. 0000053902 180,085$ $180,085 109 Louisa Co. 0000053227 46,586$ $46,586 111 Lunenburg Co. 0000065252 69,863$ $69,863 113 Madison Co. 0000052038 43,731$ $43,731 115 Mathews Co. 0000050100 109,233$ $109,233 117 Mecklenburg Co. 0000111460 51,931$ $51,931 119 Middlesex Co. 0000050705 161,676$ $161,676 121 Montgomery Co. 0000053203 75,721$ $75,721 125 Nelson Co. 0000052040 117,591$ $117,591 127 New Kent Co. ATL Payments FY25.xlsx Quarterly Payments Update Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Fire Programs Fire Programs Fund - Aid to Localities FY2025 Allocations and Payments Prepared by: Grants Section 6/24/2024 FY2025 Allocation ACTUAL 2025 Allocation Allocation Payments Made INVOICE# Vendor ID Allocation Allocation FIPS Code Description EFT Amount at 100% 0000052041 42,183$ $42,183 131 Northampton Co. 0000052042 60,300$ $60,300 133 Northumberland Co. 0000053332 49,256$ $49,256 135 Nottoway Co. 0000050424 153,604$ $153,604 137 Orange Co. 0000054904 75,280$ $75,280 139 Page Co. 0000052044 82,906$ $82,906 141 Patrick Co. 0000050289 290,542$ $290,542 143 Pittsylvania Co. 0000053856 155,454$ $155,454 145 Powhatan Co. 0000050662 76,233$ $76,233 147 Prince Edward Co. 0000053261 220,423$ $220,423 149 Prince George Co. 0000055571 2,425,970$ $2,425,970 153 Prince William Co. 0000054816 113,430$ $113,430 155 Pulaski Co. 0000111465 37,217$ $37,217 157 Rappahannock Co. 0000106394 37,340$ $37,340 159 Richmond Co. 0000050429 455,452$ $455,452 161 Roanoke Co. 0000065811 108,956$ $108,956 163 Rockbridge Co. 0000054078 318,073$ $318,073 165 Rockingham Co. 0000054782 108,167$ $108,167 167 Russell Co. 0000053650 89,743$ $89,743 169 Scott Co. 0000052023 131,844$ $131,844 171 Shenandoah Co. 0000050759 106,276$ $106,276 173 Smyth Co. 0000050178 78,555$ $78,555 175 Southampton Co. 0000055945 717,653$ $717,653 177 Spotsylvania Co. 0000054931 804,239$ $804,239 179 Stafford Co. 0000055792 30,000$ $30,000 181 Surry Co. 0000050427 39,831$ $39,831 183 Sussex Co. 0000060489 124,274$ $124,274 185 Tazewell Co. 0000050002 131,793$ $131,793 187 Warren Co. 0000057281 221,591$ $221,591 191 Washington Co. 0000070476 72,958$ $72,958 193 Westmoreland Co. 0000046254 119,385$ $119,385 195 Wise Co. 0000053846 94,703$ $94,703 197 Wythe Co. 0000053349 358,975$ $358,975 199 York Co. 0000050760 42,926$ $42,926 300 Abingdon (Town) 0000111328 15,000$ $15,000 301 Accomac (Town) 0000062562 15,000$ $15,000 302 Alberta (Town) 0000050230 17,311$ $17,311 303 Altavista (Town) 0000052076 15,000$ $15,000 304 Amherst (Town) 0000052066 15,000$ $15,000 305 Appalachia (Town) 0000052067 15,000$ $15,000 306 Appomattox (Town) 0000052068 38,770$ $38,770 307 Ashland (Town) 0001344273 15,000$ $15,000 308 Belle Haven (Town) 0000052070 23,441$ $23,441 309 Berryville (Town) 0000052071 26,926$ $26,926 310 Big Stone Gap (Town) 0000050234 229,730$ $229,730 311 Blacksburg (Town) 0000052072 17,179$ $17,179 312 Blackstone (Town) 0000118657 15,000$ $15,000 313 Bloxom (Town) 0000052073 26,117$ $26,117 314 Bluefield (Town) 0000111471 15,000$ $15,000 315 Boones Mill (Town) 0000050445 15,000$ $15,000 316 Bowling Green (Town) 0000058960 15,000$ $15,000 317 Boyce (Town) 0000055979 15,000$ $15,000 318 Boydton (Town) 0000111470 15,000$ $15,000 319 Boykins (Town) 0000111300 15,000$ $15,000 320 Branchville (Town) 0000050232 33,804$ $33,804 321 Bridgewater (Town) 0000052256 21,371$ $21,371 322 Broadway (Town) 0000056906 15,000$ $15,000 323 Brodnax (Town) 0000058607 15,000$ $15,000 324 Brookneal (Town) 0000050152 15,000$ $15,000 325 Buchanan (Town) 0000091067 15,000$ $15,000 326 Burkeville (Town) 0000055292 15,000$ $15,000 327 Cape Charles (Town) 0000052230 15,000$ $15,000 328 Capron (Town) ATL Payments FY25.xlsx Quarterly Payments Update Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Fire Programs Fire Programs Fund - Aid to Localities FY2025 Allocations and Payments Prepared by: Grants Section 6/24/2024 FY2025 Allocation ACTUAL 2025 Allocation Allocation Payments Made INVOICE# Vendor ID Allocation Allocation FIPS Code Description EFT Amount at 100% 0000056679 15,000$ $15,000 329 Cedar Bluff (Town) 0000111331 15,000$ $15,000 330 Charlotte C. H. (Town) 0000052060 15,000$ $15,000 331 Chase City (Town) 0000050412 15,000$ $15,000 332 Chatham (Town) 0000057896 15,000$ $15,000 333 Cheriton (Town) 0000050786 15,000$ $15,000 334 Chilhowie (Town) 0000053359 17,138$ $17,138 335 Chincoteague (Town) 0000052061 119,657$ $119,657 336 Christiansburg (Town) 0000111224 15,000$ $15,000 337 Claremont (Town) 0000050195 15,000$ $15,000 338 Clarksville (Town) 0000111481 15,000$ $15,000 339 Cleveland (Town) 0000052608 15,000$ $15,000 340 Clifton (Town) 0000111390 15,000$ $15,000 341 Clinchport (Town) 0000111454 15,000$ $15,000 342 Clintwood (Town) 0000052062 15,000$ $15,000 344 Coeburn (Town) 0000046245 20,028$ $20,028 345 Colonial Beach (Town) 0000056971 15,000$ $15,000 347 Courtland (Town) 0000069397 15,000$ $15,000 348 Craigsville (Town) 0000053028 15,000$ $15,000 349 Crewe (Town) 0000052064 102,816$ $102,816 350 Culpeper (Town) 0000063733 15,000$ $15,000 351 Damascus (Town) 0000052251 15,000$ $15,000 352 Dayton (Town) 0000111484 15,000$ $15,000 353 Dendron (Town) 0000053236 15,000$ $15,000 354 Dillwyn (Town) 0000111476 15,000$ $15,000 355 Drakes Branch (Town) 0000050353 15,000$ $15,000 357 Dublin (Town) 0000111000 15,000$ $15,000 358 Duffield (Town) 0000052219 29,104$ $29,104 359 Dumfries (Town) 0000091830 15,000$ $15,000 360 Dungannon (Town) 0000111482 15,000$ $15,000 361 Eastville (Town) 0000052050 15,000$ $15,000 362 Edinburg (Town) 0000053030 15,072$ $15,072 363 Elkton (Town) 0000055950 15,000$ $15,000 364 Exmore (Town) 0000052052 38,299$ $38,299 365 Farmville (Town) 0000052141 15,000$ $15,000 366 Fincastle (Town) 0000059083 15,000$ $15,000 367 Floyd (Town) 0000055522 15,000$ $15,000 368 Fries (Town) 0000052056 76,930$ $76,930 369 Front Royal (Town) 0000051481 15,000$ $15,000 370 Gate City (Town) 0000111477 15,000$ $15,000 371 Glade Spring (Town) 0000050956 15,000$ $15,000 372 Glasgow (Town) 0000060236 15,000$ $15,000 373 Glen Lyn (Town) 0000056153 15,000$ $15,000 374 Gordonsville (Town) 0000111330 15,000$ $15,000 375 Goshen (Town) 0000052009 15,000$ $15,000 376 Gretna (Town) 0000050222 15,000$ $15,000 377 Grottoes (Town) 0000050983 15,000$ $15,000 378 Grundy (Town) 0000052058 15,000$ $15,000 379 Halifax (Town) 0000111336 15,000$ $15,000 380 Hallwood (Town) 0000054672 15,000$ $15,000 381 Hamilton (Town) 0000050019 15,000$ $15,000 382 Haymarket (Town) 0000111475 15,000$ $15,000 383 Haysi (Town) 0000050223 126,355$ $126,355 384 Herndon (Town) 0000065319 15,000$ $15,000 385 Hillsboro (Town) 0000050027 15,000$ $15,000 386 Hillsville (Town) 0000111478 15,000$ $15,000 387 Honaker (Town) 0000111282 15,000$ $15,000 388 Hurt (Town) 0000052004 15,000$ $15,000 389 Independence (Town) 0000111458 15,000$ $15,000 390 Iron Gate (Town) 0000100896 15,000$ $15,000 391 Irvington (Town) 0000111319 15,000$ $15,000 392 Ivor (Town) 0000111459 15,000$ $15,000 393 Jarratt (Town) ATL Payments FY25.xlsx Quarterly Payments Update Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Fire Programs Fire Programs Fund - Aid to Localities FY2025 Allocations and Payments Prepared by: Grants Section 6/24/2024 FY2025 Allocation ACTUAL 2025 Allocation Allocation Payments Made INVOICE# Vendor ID Allocation Allocation FIPS Code Description EFT Amount at 100% 0000052010 15,000$ $15,000 394 Jonesville (Town) 0000111345 15,000$ $15,000 395 Keller (Town) 0000092309 15,000$ $15,000 396 Kenbridge (Town) 0000091031 15,000$ $15,000 397 Keysville (Town) 0000053758 15,000$ $15,000 398 Kilmarnock (Town) 0000055136 15,000$ $15,000 399 La Crosse (Town) 0000052046 15,000$ $15,000 400 Lawrenceville (Town) 0000052005 16,190$ $16,190 401 Lebanon (Town) 0000052047 247,278$ $247,278 402 Leesburg (Town) 0000107402 15,000$ $15,000 403 Louisa (Town) 0000054794 15,000$ $15,000 404 Lovettsville (Town) 0000052048 24,759$ $24,759 405 Luray (Town) 0000111293 15,000$ $15,000 406 Madison (town) 0000052036 29,473$ $29,473 407 Marion (Town) 0000111473 15,000$ $15,000 408 McKenney (Town) 0000111381 15,000$ $15,000 409 Melfa (Town) 0000096053 15,000$ $15,000 410 Middleburg (Town) 0000052012 15,000$ $15,000 411 Middletown (Town) 0000111273 15,000$ $15,000 412 Mineral (Town) 0000050454 15,000$ $15,000 413 Monterey (Town) 0000111469 15,000$ $15,000 414 Montross (Town) 0000111399 15,000$ $15,000 415 Mount Crawford (Town) 0000053647 15,000$ $15,000 416 Mount Jackson (Town) 0000050228 15,000$ $15,000 417 Narrows (Town) 0000111317 15,000$ $15,000 418 Nassawadox (Town) 0000106014 15,000$ $15,000 419 New Castle (Town) 0000050311 15,000$ $15,000 420 New Market (Town) 0000111347 15,000$ $15,000 421 Newsoms (Town) 0000052140 15,000$ $15,000 422 Nickelsville (Town) 0000111286 15,000$ $15,000 423 Occoquan (Town) 0000052043 15,000$ $15,000 424 Onancock (Town) 0000111489 15,000$ $15,000 425 Onley (Town) 0000050235 25,010$ $25,010 426 Orange (Town) 0000111333 15,000$ $15,000 427 Painter (Town) 0000053869 15,000$ $15,000 428 Pamplin (Town) 0000111462 15,000$ $15,000 429 Parksley (Town) 0000052030 15,000$ $15,000 430 Pearisburg (Town) 0000111468 15,000$ $15,000 431 Pembroke (Town) 0000055680 15,000$ $15,000 432 Pennington Gap (Town) 0000111332 15,000$ $15,000 433 Phenix (Town) 0000111463 15,000$ $15,000 434 Pocahontas (Town) 0000111391 15,000$ $15,000 435 Port Royal (Town) 0000111464 15,000$ $15,000 436 Pound (Town) 0000050229 46,048$ $46,048 437 Pulaski (Town) 0000052031 45,760$ $45,760 438 Purcellville (Town) 0000056489 15,000$ $15,000 439 Quantico (Town) 0000111280 15,000$ $15,000 440 Remington (Town) 0000058547 15,000$ $15,000 441 Rich Creek (Town) 0000052032 26,962$ $26,962 442 Richlands (Town) 0000111316 15,000$ $15,000 443 Ridgeway (Town) 0000052035 25,128$ $25,128 444 Rocky Mount (Town) 0000111271 15,000$ $15,000 445 Round Hill (Town) 0000052021 15,000$ $15,000 446 Rural Retreat (Town) 0000053216 15,000$ $15,000 448 Saint Paul (Town) 0000050226 15,000$ $15,000 449 Saltville (Town) 0000111325 15,000$ $15,000 450 Saxis (Town) 0000111323 15,000$ $15,000 451 Scottsburg (Town) 0000053340 15,000$ $15,000 452 Scottsville (Town) 0000052022 15,000$ $15,000 453 Shenandoah (Town) 0000054953 43,731$ $43,731 454 Smithfield (Town) 0000052024 24,036$ $24,036 455 South Hill (Town) 0000111488 15,000$ $15,000 456 Stanardsville (Town) ATL Payments FY25.xlsx Quarterly Payments Update Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Fire Programs Fire Programs Fund - Aid to Localities FY2025 Allocations and Payments Prepared by: Grants Section 6/24/2024 FY2025 Allocation ACTUAL 2025 Allocation Allocation Payments Made INVOICE# Vendor ID Allocation Allocation FIPS Code Description EFT Amount at 100% 0000050351 15,000$ $15,000 457 Stanley (Town) 0000052027 15,000$ $15,000 458 Stephens City (Town) 0000111272 15,000$ $15,000 459 Stony Creek (Town) 0000052028 36,300$ $36,300 460 Strasburg (Town) 0000055053 15,000$ $15,000 461 Stuart (Town) 0000111304 15,000$ $15,000 462 Surry (Town) 0000056407 15,000$ $15,000 463 Tangier (Town) 0000050444 15,000$ $15,000 464 Tappahannock (Town) 0000052029 22,990$ $22,990 465 Tazewell (Town) 0000056846 15,000$ $15,000 466 The Plains (Town) 0000052011 15,185$ $15,185 467 Timberville (Town) 0000111363 15,000$ $15,000 468 Toms Brook (Town) 0000111413 15,000$ $15,000 469 Troutdale (Town) 0000050418 15,000$ $15,000 470 Troutville (Town) 0000052014 15,000$ $15,000 471 Urbanna (Town) 0000053029 15,000$ $15,000 472 Victoria (Town) 0000051010 84,423$ $84,423 473 Vienna (Town) 0000057902 41,302$ $41,302 474 Vinton (Town) 0000111466 15,000$ $15,000 475 Virgilina (Town) 0000085694 15,000$ $15,000 476 Wachapreague (Town) 0000050473 15,000$ $15,000 477 Wakefield (Town) 0000052015 51,541$ $51,541 478 Warrenton (Town) 0000052016 15,000$ $15,000 479 Warsaw (Town) 0000111297 15,000$ $15,000 480 Washington (Town) 0000050793 15,000$ $15,000 481 Waverly (Town) 0000063018 15,000$ $15,000 482 Weber City (Town) 0000050434 17,497$ $17,497 483 West Point (Town) 0000111303 15,000$ $15,000 484 White Stone (Town) 0000060689 15,000$ $15,000 485 Windsor (Town) 0000052018 15,226$ $15,226 486 Wise (Town) 0000046255 29,760$ $29,760 487 Woodstock (Town) 0000052019 42,358$ $42,358 488 W theville (Town) 0000111383 15,000$ $15,000 490 Clinchco (Town) 0000046252 40,825$ $40,825 492 South Boston (Town) 0000050233 18,219$ $18,219 493 Clifton Forge (Town) 0000052069 34,117$ $34,117 494 Bedford (Town) 0000054945 817,256$ $817,256 510 Alexandria (Cit ) 0000050112 88,246$ $88,246 520 Bristol (Cit ) 0000052059 34,035$ $34,035 530 Buena Vista (Cit ) 0000050812 238,581$ $238,581 540 Charlottesville (Cit ) 0000031867 1,278,269$ $1,278,269 550 Chesapeake (Cit ) 0000053600 93,120$ $93,120 570 Colonial Heights (Cit ) 0000052063 30,000$ $30,000 580 Covington (Cit ) 0000052049 218,271$ $218,271 590 Danville (Cit ) 0000052051 30,000$ $30,000 595 Emporia (Cit ) 0000051004 123,746$ $123,746 600 Fairfax (Cit ) 0000051011 75,121$ $75,121 610 Falls Church (Cit ) 0000052054 41,922$ $41,922 620 Franklin (Cit ) 0000050171 143,406$ $143,406 630 Fredericksburg (Cit ) 0000050227 34,440$ $34,440 640 Galax (Cit ) 0000046247 702,873$ $702,873 650 Hampton (Cit ) 0000050309 265,543$ $265,543 660 Harrisonburg (Cit ) 0000052045 118,042$ $118,042 670 Hopewell (Cit ) 0000050325 37,514$ $37,514 678 Lexington (Cit ) 0000046250 404,915$ $404,915 680 L nchburg (Cit ) 0000050857 219,203$ $219,203 683 Manassas (Cit ) 0000050224 88,246$ $88,246 685 Manassas Park (Cit ) 0000052037 69,110$ $69,110 690 Martinsville (Cit ) 0000050480 954,502$ $954,502 700 Newport News (Cit ) 0000050446 1,219,758$ $1,219,758 710 Norfolk (City) 0000050225 30,000$ $30,000 720 Norton (City) 0000046251 171,470$ $171,470 730 Petersburg (City) ATL Payments FY25.xlsx Quarterly Payments Update Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Fire Programs Fire Programs Fund - Aid to Localities FY2025 Allocations and Payments Prepared by: Grants Section 6/24/2024 FY2025 Allocation ACTUAL 2025 Allocation Allocation Payments Made INVOICE# Vendor ID Allocation Allocation FIPS Code Description EFT Amount at 100% 0000050231 63,857$ $63,857 735 Poquoson (City) 0000050162 501,807$ $501,807 740 Portsmouth (City) 0000054639 82,358$ $82,358 750 Radford (City) 0000058592 1,161,359$ $1,161,359 760 Richmond (City) 0000052033 512,549$ $512,549 770 Roanoke (City) 0000054643 129,896$ $129,896 775 Salem (City) 0000052026 131,967$ $131,967 790 Staunton (City) 0000053296 483,403$ $483,403 800 Suffolk (City) 0000050813 2,354,749$ $2,354,749 810 Virginia Beach (City) 0000052017 113,753$ $113,753 820 Waynesboro (City) 0000053210 79,052$ $79,052 830 Williamsburg (City) 0000051009 144,113$ $144,113 840 Winchester (City) $0 Pay Cycle Trans Date Amount % Funds # of Locallities % of Locallities 1 0 -$ 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0 -$ 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0 -$ 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 0 -$ 0.0% 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 0 0.0% $45,793,418 100.0% 322 100.0% ATL Total $45,793,418 100.0% 322 100.0% not et paid eligible for pa ment in next c cle paid documents received and pending review suspended payments until documentation is received Funds Released Total Funds Not Released ATL Payments FY25.xlsx Quarterly Payments Update AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2024 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $455,452 FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROGRAMS FOR THE AID TO LOCALITIES FUNDS WHEREAS, Section 38.2-401 in the Code of Virginia provides for the collection of an annual levy from the insurance industry to be collected by the State Corporation Commission each year and transferred into the Virginia Department of Fire Programs (“VDFP”) Fund that same year; and WHEREAS, the Fund is used to provide an annual population-based allocation to qualifying jurisdictions within the Commonwealth, to be used only for fire service purposes and may not supplant or replace locally appropriated funds; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department has been awarded $455,452 from this fund to purchase fire equipment, supplies, and training that meet state guidelines; and WHEREAS, approval of this grant funding from the VDFP depends on the appropriate and timely submission of required annual reporting which Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department continues to meet to remain eligible for grant funding ; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 8, 2024, and the second reading was held on October 22, 2024. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the sum of $455,452, made available to the Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department by VDFP, is accepted and hereby appropriated to the County’s grant fund. 2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption. Page 1 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.5 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: • • • Page 2 of 3 15.2-912.4. • • After the General Assembly passed this law, representatives of Roanoke County Public Schools requested that the Board of Supervisors consider regulating retail sales of these products in Roanoke County. • On June 11, 2024, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution directing the Planning Commission to study and provide a recommendation regarding whether to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to regulate the retail sale of these products as allowed under the new law. DISCUSSION: Staff reviewed draft amendments and maps with the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 6, 2024. The proposed amendments would add a use and design standard for the retail sales, convenience stores, fuel centers, and gasoline stations prohibiting the sale of tobacco products, vapor products, alternative nicotine products, or hemp products intended for smoking on properties located within 1,000 feet of a principal school building. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 3, 2024. One citizen spoke during the public hearing regarding his concerns on the proposed amendments impacting him locating a cigar/pipe tobacco store in West Village Shopping Center near North Cross private school. The Commission continued the public hearing until its meeting on October 1, 2024, due to recommended changes to the Zoning Ordinance amendments recommended by staff that were not advertised. At the Planning Commission's meeting on October 1, 2024, six (6) people representing Roanoke County Public Schools spoke during the public hearing in support of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Additional letters of support were also submitted for the public record. The Planning Commission discussed the benefits and challenges with the proposed ordinance amendments. The Planning Commission recommended that the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance be amended in order to regulate the sales of nicotine vapor products, alternate nicotine products, and hemp products intended for smoking on properties within 1,000 feet of the principal school building of public Roanoke County middle and high schools pursuant to the authority granted by Virginia Code § 15.2-912.4. The Planning Commission did not recommend changes to the regulation of the retail sale location of tobacco products. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. Page 3 of 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the first reading of an ordinance regulating the retail sale locations of nicotine vapor products, alternate nicotine products, and hemp products intended for smoking pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-912.4 and schedule the second reading of the ordinance and public hearing for the Board's November 19, 2024 meeting. Code of Virginia Title 15.2. Counties, Cities and Towns Subtitle II. Powers of Local Government Chapter 9. General Powers of Local Governments Article 1. Public Health and Safety; Nuisances § 15.2-912.4. Regulation of tobacco, nicotine, and hemp productretail sale locations Any locality may by ordinance regulate the retail sale locations of tobacco products, nicotine vapor products, alternative nicotine products, as such terms are defined in § 18.2-371.2, or hemp products intended for smoking, as such term is defined in § 3.2-4112, for any such retail sale location and may prohibit a retail sale location on property within 1,000 linear feet of a child day center as defined in § 22.1-289.02 or a public, private, or parochial school. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this section shall not affect (i) a licensee holding a valid license under § 4.1-206.3 or (ii) any retail sale location of tobacco products, nicotine vapor products, alternative nicotine products, or hemp products intended for smoking operating before July 1, 2024. 2024, c. 536. The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section(s) may not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired. 1 7/26/2024 12:00:00 AM MINNICKSCHOOL BLUE RIDGEAUTISM CENTER GLENVAR HIGH NORTHSIDE HIGH HIDDEN VALLEY HIGH CAVE SPRING HIGH NORTHSIDE MIDDLE MOUNTAINVIEW ELEM WILLIAM BYRD HIGH BONSACK ELEM OAK GROVE ELEM GLENVAR ELEM PENN FOREST ELEM CAVE SPRING ELEM CAVE SPRING MIDDLE HERMAN L HORN ELEM GREEN VALLEY ELEM FAITH CHRISTIAN GLEN COVE ELEM W. E. CUNDIFF ELEM MT PLEASANT ELEM FORT LEWIS ELEM BURLINGTON ELEM MASONS COVE ELEM NORTH CROSS CTECENTER BACK CREEK ELEM CLEARBROOK ELEM COMMUNITYSCHOOL WILLIAM BYRD MIDDLEGLENVAR MIDDLE I 81 I 581 220 BENT MOUNTAIN RD FRANKLIN RD CLOVERDALE RD LEE HWY W MAIN ST SHENANDOAH AVE NW ORANGE AVE NE E MAIN ST SALEM TPKE NW MELROSE AVE NW BLUE RIDGE BLVD PLANTATION RD PETERS CREEK RD NW COVE RD NW 10TH ST NW APPERSON DR PLANTATION RD NE N ELECTRIC RD ROANOKE BLVD BRANDON AVE SW CHALLENGER AVE WASHINGTON AVE COLONIAL AVE SW WILLIAMSON RD NW HOLLINS RD NE BRAMBLETON AVE SWMUD LICK RD SW ORANGE AVE NW RIVERLAND RD SE MEMORIAL AVE SW ELM AVE SW PATTERSON AVE SW DALE AVE SE 13TH ST SE W FOURTH ST WILLIAMSON RD NE TEXAS ST 24TH ST NW Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community 0 4,000 8,0002,000 ft §¨¦81 §¨¦81 !( BACK CREEK ELEM BENT MOUNTAIN RD Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 250 500 750125Feet ± BONSACK ELEM Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 250 500 750125Feet ± CAVE SPRING HIGH Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 250 500 750125Feet ± CAVE SPRING ELEM CAVE SPRING MIDDLE BRAMBLETON AVE Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet ± !(FAITH CHRISTIAN CLEARBROOK ELEM FRANKLIN RD BLUE RIDGE PKWY Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet ± COMMUNITY SCHOOL WILLIAMSON RD Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 250 500 750125Feet ± !( !( !( CTE CENTER BURLINGTON ELEM MINNICK SCHOOL BLUE RIDGE AUTISM PETERS CREEK RD WILLIAMSON RD Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet ± MarketSquareNorth FORT LEWIS ELEM I 81 Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet ± GLEN COVE ELEM I 81 COVE RD NORTH ELECTRIC RD Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community §¨¦81 Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet ± GLENVAR HIGH GLENVAR MIDDLE GLENVAR ELEM I 81 Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community §¨¦81 Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet ± GREEN VALLEY ELEMCOLONIAL AVE Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 250 500 750125Feet ± HIDDEN VALLEY HIGH Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 250 500 750125Feet ± Hidden Valley MiddleELECTRIC RD ELECTRIC RD SW Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 250 500 750125Feet ± MASONS COVE ELEM Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 250 500 750125Feet ± !( MT PLEASANT ELEM JAE VALLEY RD BLUE RIDGE PKWY Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 250 500 750125Feet ± MTN VIEW ELEM PLANTATION RD Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 250 500 750125Feet ± NORTH CROSS ELECTRIC RD COLONIAL AVE MANASSAS DR Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 250 500 750125Feet ± West VillageShopping Center PromenadePark NORTHSIDE HIGH NORTHSIDE MIDDLE I 581 I 81 PETERS CREEK RD Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community §¨¦81 Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet ± §¨¦581 !( !( !(OAK GROVE ELEM ELECTRIC RD ELECTRIC RD SW GRANDIN RD SW Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 250 500 750125Feet ± KeagyVillage SouthwestPlaza Oak GrovePlaza PENN FOREST ELEM Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 250 500 750125Feet ± StarkeyStation !( !(!( HERMAN L HORN ELEM W. E. CUNDIFF ELEM WASHINGTON AVE HARDY RD BYPASS RD Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet ± !( !( !(!( WILLIAM BYRD HIGH WILLIAM BYRD MIDDLE WASHINGTON AVE BLUE RIDGE PKWY STEWARTSVILLE RD Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Legend 1,000-Foot School Buffer I-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-2 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) C-1 District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) AV District (Incl. Conditions and SUPs) Tobacco/Vape Stores (Retail) 0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet ± EastVintonPlaza AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2024 ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III (DISTRICT REGULATIONS) AND ARTICLE IV (USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS) OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO REGULATE TOBACCO, NICOTINE, AND HEMP PRODUCT RETAIL SALE LOCATIONS PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE § 15.2-912.4 WHEREAS, on April 5, 2024, the General Assembly amended the Code of Virginia by adding § 15.2-912.4 which allows localities to regulate the retail sale locations of tobacco, nicotine, and hemp product sales near schools; and WHEREAS, after Virginia Code § 15.2-912.4 was enacted, representatives of Roanoke County Public Schools requested that the Board of Supervisors consider regulating certain retail sale locations of tobacco, nicotine, and hemp product sales near schools in Roanoke County as allowed under the new law; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution directing the Planning Commission to study and provide a recommendation regarding whether to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to regulate the retail sale locations of tobacco, nicotine, and hemp products near schools in Roanoke County as allowed under the new law; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County staff reviewed draft amendments pursuant to the new law and certain maps with the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 6, 2024, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter on September 3, 2024, which was continued to and resumed on October 1, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance be amended to regulate the sales of nicotine vapor products, alternate nicotine products, and hemp products intended for smoking on properties within 1,000 feet of the principal school Page 2 of 4 building of public Roanoke County middle and high schools pursuant to the authority granted by Virginia Code § 15.2-912.4; and WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice are valid public purposes for such recommendations by the Planning Commission and action by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 22, 2024, and the second reading and public hearing were held on November 19, 2024. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke as follows: 1. The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read and provide as follows: ARTICLE III – DISTRICT REGULATIONS SEC. 30-53. C-1 LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-53-2. Permitted Uses. (B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30 -19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 3. Commercial Uses Retail Sales * SEC. 30-54. C-2 HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-54-2. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those spec ific uses. Page 3 of 4 4. Commercial Uses Retail Sales * SEC. 30-61. I-1 LOW INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-61-2. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 4. Commercial Uses Retail Sales * ARTICLE IV – USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS SEC. 30-85. COMMERCIAL USES. Sec. 30-85-13. Convenience Store. (A) General standards: 4. The retail sale of nicotine vapor products, alternative nicotine products as defined in Sec. 18.2-371.2 of the Code of Virginia, or hemp products intended for smoking as defined in Sec. 3.2-4112 of the Code of Virginia shall be prohibited on properties located within 1,000 feet of a principal school building of any Roanoke County public high school or middle school. This shall not affect (i) a licensee holding a valid license under Sec. 4.1-206.3 of the Code of Virginia or (ii) any retail sale location of nicotine vapor products, alternative nicotine products, or hemp products intended for smoking operating before November 20, 2024. Sec. 30-85-14.5. Fuel Center. (A) General standards: 4. The retail sale of nicotine vapor products, alternative nicotine products as defined in Sec. 18.2-371.2 of the Code of Virginia, or hemp products intended for smoking as defined in Sec. 3.2-4112 of the Code of Virginia shall be prohibited on properties located within 1,000 feet of a principal school building of any Roanoke County public high school or middle school. This shall not affect (i) a licensee Page 4 of 4 holding a valid license under Sec. 4.1-206.3 of the Code of Virginia or (ii) any retail sale location of nicotine vapor products, alternative nicotine products, or hemp products intended for smoking operating before November 20, 2024. Sec. 30-85-16. Gasoline Station. (A) General standards: 4. The retail sale of nicotine vapor products, alternative nicotine products as defined in Sec. 18.2-371.2 of the Code of Virginia, or hemp products intended for smoking as defined in Sec. 3.2-4112 of the Code of Virginia shall be prohibited on properties located within 1,000 feet of a principal school building of any Roanoke County public high school or middle school. This shall not affect (i) a licensee holding a valid license under Sec. 4.1-206.3 of the Code of Virginia or (ii) any retail sale location of nicotine vapor products, alternative nicotine products, or hemp products intended for smoking operating before November 20, 2024. Sec. 30-85-24.5. Retail Sales. (D) General standards: 1. The retail sale of nicotine vapor products, alternative nicotine products as defined in Sec. 18.2-371.2 of the Code of Virginia, or hemp products intended for smoking as defined in Sec. 3.2-4112 of the Code of Virginia shall be prohibited on properties located within 1,000 feet of a principal school building of any Roanoke County public high school or middle school. This shall not affect (i) a licensee holding a valid license under Sec. 4.1-206.3 of the Code of Virginia or (ii) any retail sale location of nicotine vapor products, alternative nicotine products, or hemp products intended for smoking operating before November 20, 2024. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.6 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: Page 2 of 2 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: For tax year 2024, the expanding of eligibility by raising the allowable income limit (which is anticipated to affect approximately 837 parcels) will result in a loss of revenue of approximately $50,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this ordinance. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2024 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 (TAXATION), ARTICLE III (REAL ESTATE TAXES), DIVISION 3 (EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS) OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE WHEREAS, it is proposed that Chapter 21 (Taxation), Article III (Real Estate Taxes), Division 3 (Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons) of the Roanoke County Code be amended in order to expand the eligibility for such tax benefits by increasing taxpayers’ allowable income limit from $56,566 to $60,000; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 8, 2024, and the second reading was held on October 22, 2024. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 21 (Taxation), Article III (Real Estate Taxes), Division 3 (Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons) of the Roanoke County Code be amended as follows, which amendments shall become effective on January 1, 2025: DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS1 Sec. 21-71. Administration of division. (a) The commissioner of the revenue, with the approval of the board of supervisors, shall develop such rules and regulations, consistent with the provisions of this division, as are determined necessary for the proper administration of this division. (b) This division shall be construed to allow county personnel administering the program provided for herein all authority granted to the county by section 58.1-3210 of the Code of Virginia. (c) This division shall be construed to allow county personnel administering the program provided for herein all authority granted to the county by sections 58.1-3219.5 and 58.1-3219.6 of the Code of Virginia. 1State law reference(s)—Authority of county to adopt ordinance from which this division is derived, Code of Virginia, § 58.1-3210. (Code 1971, § 19-8(c); Ord. No. 2736, 12-9-80; Ord. No. 061411-5, § 1, 5-24-11) Sec. 21-72. Authorized. (a) Exemption for elderly or disabled persons. The commissioner of the revenue shall, upon application made and within the limits provided in this division, grant an exemption of the tax on real property occupied as the sole dwelling house and principal place of residence of a person holding title or partial title thereto who is not less than sixty-five (65) years of age or totally and permanently disabled. A dwelling unit jointly owned by a husband and wife may qualify, if either spouse is over sixty-five (65) years of age or is permanently and totally disabled. Persons qualifying for an exemption under this division are deemed to be bearing an extraordinary real estate tax burden in relation to their income and financial worth. (b) Exemption for disabled veterans. The commissioner of the revenue shall, upon application made and within the limits provided in this division and section 21-81, grant an exemption of one hundred (100) percent of the tax on real property occupied as the sole dwelling house and principal place of residence of a disabled veteran holding title or partial title thereto. A surviving spouse of a veteran eligible for this exemption shall also qualify for the exemption so long as the death of the veteran occurs on or after January 1, 2011, the surviving spouse does not remarry and the surviving spouse continues to occupy the real property as his or her sole dwelling house and principal place of residence. (Code 1971, § 19-8(a); Ord. No. 2235, 1-23-79; Ord. No. 2736, 12-9-80; Ord. No. 061411-5, § 1, 5-24-11; Ord. No. ________, 10-22-24) Sec. 21-73. General prerequisites to grant of exemption. Exemptions provided for in this division shall be granted only if the following conditions are met: (1) That the total combined income, during the immediately preceding calendar year, from all sources, of the owner of the dwelling and his relatives living therein did not exceed fifty sixsixty thousand five hundred sixty-six dollars ($60,00056,566.00); provided, however, that the first ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) of income of each relative, other than the spouse of the owner, who is living in the dwelling shall not be included in such total. "Income" shall include only those sources of gross income that are subject to tax under federal income tax laws, regulations, rules or policies. (2) That the owner and his spouse did not have a total combined net worth, including the present value of all equitable interests, exceeding two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) as of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year. The amount of net worth specified herein shall not include the value of the sole dwelling house and up to one (1) acre of land. (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above if a person qualifies for an exemption and if that person can prove by clear and convincing evidence that his or her physical or mental health has deteriorated to the point that the only alternative to permanently residing in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility or physical or mental care is to have a relative move in and provide care for that person, and if a relative does then move in for that purpose, then none of the income of the relative or of the relatives spouse shall be counted towards the income limit, provided the owner of the residence has not transferred assets in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) without adequate consideration within a three-year period prior to or after the relative moves into such residence. (Code 1971, § 19-8(a); Ord. No. 2235, 1-23-79; Ord. No. 2736, 12-9-80; Ord. No. 84-232, § 1, 12-18-84; Ord. No. 22388-9, § 1, 2-23-88; Ord. No. 82791-10, § 1, 8-27-91; Ord. No. 062497, § 1, 6-24-97; Ord. No. 052201-14, § 1, 5- 22-01; Ord. No. 101204-2, § 1, 10-12-04; Ord. No. 032896-7, § 1, 3-28-06; Ord. No. 032707-11, § 1, 3-27-07; Ord. No. 061411-5 , § 1, 5-24-11; Ord. No. 092711-3 , § 1, 9-27-11; Ord. No. ________, 10-22-24) Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold Sec. 21-74. Application and certificate of disability. (a) A person seeking an exemption under this division shall file an application for exemption, in affidavit form, with the commissioner of the revenue, between JanuaryFebruary 1 and March 15 of the year for which exemption is claimed. Such application shall set forth the names of any related persons occupying the property for which the exemption is claimed and that the total combined net worth, including equitable interests, and the combined income from all sources of the persons specified in Section 21-73 does not exceed the limits prescribed in such section. Such application shall include, as an attachment, the applicant’s certified federal tax return for the preceding year. The Commissioner may additionally request any other documents of the applicant that may be necessary, as determined by the Commissioner, to establish the income or financial worth of the applicant. (b) A person claiming an exemption because he or she has attained the age of sixty-five (65) years shall be required to file an initial application and make affidavit thereof pursuant to subsection (a) above. This initial application will be valid for a period of three (3) years and in intervening years, once the exemption is granted, such person shall be required only to make an annual certification, on forms to be supplied by the commissioner of the revenue, that the information on the last preceding affidavit filed has not changed so as to violate the limitations and conditions provided in this division. Such annual certification shall likewise include, as an attachment, the applicant’s certified federal tax return for the preceding year. The Commissioner may additionally request any other documents of the applicant that may be necessary, as determined by the Commissioner, to establish the income or financial worth of the applicant. (c) If a person applying for an exemption under this division is under sixty-five (65) years of age, he or she shall be required to submit annually, the application referred to in subsection (a) above and each such annual application shall have attached to it a certification by the social security administration, the veterans administration, the railroad retirement board or the civil service commission which shall indicate that the applicant has been determined to be permanently and totally disabled such that he is unable to engage in any substantially gainful activities by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to last for the duration of such person's life. If such person is not eligible for such certification by any of the above- mentioned agencies, a sworn affidavit, by two (2) medical doctors licensed to practice medicine in the commonwealth, to the effect that such person is so totally and permanently disabled is acceptable, so long as the affidavit of at least one such doctor is based upon a physical examination of such person by such doctor. (Code 1971, § 19-8(a); Ord. No. 2235, 1-23-79; Ord. No. 2736, 12-9-80; Ord. No. 092413-8, § 1, 9-24-13; Ord. No. ________, 10-22-24) Sec. 21-75. Inquiries by commissioner of revenue; confidentiality of information received under division. (a) The commissioner of the revenue shall make such inquiry of persons seeking an exemption under this division as may be reasonably necessary to determine their qualifications therefor. All such inquiries shall be answered under oath. (b) All information received by the commissioner of the revenue in connection with any application for an exemption under this division is deemed to be confidential and shall be used by county personnel only in the official administration of this division. (Code 1971, § 19-8(a); Ord. No. 2235, 1-23-79; Ord. No. 2736, 12-9-80) Sec. 21-76. Mobile homes as real estate for purposes of division. For the purposes of this division, a mobile home shall be deemed to be real estate, if the owner's intention is that it be permanently affixed, as shown by the following: (1) The owner of the mobile home, or his spouse, parent or child, has some interest, in whole or in part, in the land upon which the mobile home is situated and the mobile home is connected to permanent water and sewer lines or other facilities, such as a well and septic system; or (2) Regardless of the ownership of the land upon which the mobile home rests, it rests on a permanent foundation and consists of two (2) or more mobile units which are connected in such a manner that they cannot be towed together on a highway or consists of a mobile unit and other connected rooms or additions which must be removed before the mobile unit can be towed on a highway. (Ord. No. 2736, 12-9-80) Sec. 21-77. Amount of exemption. (a) (a) Exemption for elderly or disabled persons. The amount of the exemption provided for in this division is that portion of the tax which represents an increase in tax liability since the year the taxpayer reached age sixty-five (65) years or became disabled or the year ordinances authorizing the exemption became effective, whichever is later. The tax exemption for the elderly became effective, for those who reached age sixty-five (65) on or before December 31, 1974, in 1974. The tax exemption for those who became totally and permanently disabled on or before December 31, 1977, became effective for the 1977 tax year. Subsequent amendments to these ordinances do not affect the effective dates for purposes of eligibility. (b) (b) Exemption for Disabled Veterans. Disabled veterans are exempt from all real property taxes on the qualifying dwelling and land not exceeding one (1) acre. (Code 1971, § 19-8(b); Ord. No. 2736, 12-9-80; Ord. No. 061411-5, § 1, 5-24-11; Ord. No. ________, 10-22-24) Sec. 21-78. Land book entry. The commissioner of the revenue shall indicate on the land books of the county the amountvalue of tax exemptions granted pursuant to the provisions of this division. (Code 1971, § 19-8(c); Ord. No. 2736, 12-9-80; Ord. No. ________, 10-22-24) Sec. 21-79. Nullification or proration upon change in status. Changes in respect to income, financial worth, ownership of property or other factors occurring during the taxable year for which an affidavit or certification is filed pursuant to section 21-74, and having the effect of exceeding or violating the limitations and conditions provided in this division, shall result in a prorated exemption for the portion of the year during which the taxpayer qualified and in loss of the exemption only for the remainder of the year and the taxable year immediately following; provided, however, that a change in ownership to a spouse who is less than sixty-five (65) years of age or who is not permanently and totally disabled, which results solely from the death of his or her qualified spouse, shall result in a prorated exemption for the then current taxable year. Such prorated portion shall be determined by multiplying the amount of the exemption by a fraction wherein the number of complete months of the year such property was properly eligible for such exemption is the numerator and the number twelve (12) is the denominator. (Ord. No. 2736, 12-9-80; Ord. No. 071498-10, § 1, 7-14-98) Sec. 21-80. False claims. Any false statement made in connection with the filing of an application under this division shall constitute a Class 4 misdemeanor. (Code 1971, § 19-8(a); Ord. No. 2235, 1-23-79; Ord. No. 2736, 12-9-80) Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.75" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Font: Bold Cross reference(s)—Penalty for Class 4 misdemeanor, § 1-10. Sec. 21-81. Property tax exemption for qualifying disabled veterans. (a) The principal place of residence is the place at which a person's habitation is fixed and to which that person, when absent, has the intention of returning. (1) A person can have only one (1) principal place of residence. (2) If the veteran is confined to a hospital, nursing home or assisted living facility, the real estate can still be considered the veteran's principle of residence if: a. It is occupied by the veteran's spouse or minor child, b. It is not rented or leased to third parties, or c. The property is unoccupied. (b) A principal place of residence includes the following: (1) The dwelling, the dwelling site, the surrounding land, not exceeding one (1) acre and related improvements located on the one (1) acre of real estate, such as garages, carports, storage buildings, swimming pools, tennis courts, and similar non-agricultural facilities. If the surrounding land exceeds one (1) acre, the exemption will only be granted to one (1) acre of the surrounding land. If the surrounding land exceeds one (1) acre, the tax due will be calculated by applying a residual value to the real property in excess of one acre (per square foot). (2) The dwelling may be a single-family residence, a unit in a multi-family complex, a condominium, a unit in a cooperative housing project or a manufactured home. (c) The principal place of residence does not include land on which agricultural facilities such as barns, pig pens, corrals, bunk houses, farm equipment, sheds and other outdoor buildings are located. (d) To be eligible for the exemption: (1) The real estate must be owned and occupied by a disabled veteran or an unremarried surviving spouse. a. The veteran's ownership of the property can be limited to a fractional, joint, or life estate interest. If the veteran owns a multiple dwelling unit property, the exemption will only be granted to the unit occupied by the veteran as his or her primary residence. b. The veteran's real estate may be owned by a trust, corporate partnership, or other legal entity and the veteran will meet the ownership requirement if each of the following items is true: 1. The veteran or spouse is a maker of the trust or a principal of the corporate partnership or legal entity; 2. The property was transferred solely for estate planning purposes; and 3. The veteran or spouse would otherwise be the owner of record. c. Property held in a grantor trust, established by the IRS code, by a disabled veteran or the veteran's surviving spouse can also be exempt from the property tax providing the property meets all other requirements for exemption. The power to revoke the trust, terminate (the trust or any conveyance of property to the trust), alter or amend the trust itself, or appoint a new trustee must be present. (2) If the veteran's spouse is an owner and the veteran is not, the veteran can meet the ownership requirement if the couple was married on or before January 1 and both have occupied the property as their primary residence since January 1. (e) A "disabled veteran" is an individual who: (1) Has been honorably discharged from membership in the armed forces of the United States or has received a discharge certificate from a branch of the armed forces of the United States for civilian service recognized pursuant to federal law as service in the armed forces of the United States; and (2) Has been rated by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs or its successor agency pursuant to federal law to have a one hundred (100) percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability, or (3) Has a determination of individual unemployability from the Veterans Administration. a. Individual unemployability is a part of VA's disability compensation program that allows VA to pay certain veterans compensation at the one hundred (100) percent rate, even though VA has not rated their service-connected disabilities at the total level. b. With a determination of individual unemployability, a veteran must be unable to maintain substantially gainful employment as a result of his/her service-connected disabilities. (4) "Honorably discharged" means discharged from the armed forces pursuant to a discharge other than a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge. (f) Claims for exemption. (1) The deadline for filing claims for a disabled veteran's exemption is between January 1 and March 31 of the tax year for which the exemption is requested. (2) For the 2011 calendar tax year claims for exemption may be filed up to December 31, 2011 for a full one hundred (100) percent of the exemption. (13) Claims for exemption and refunds of real estate taxes previously paid may be retroactive to the effective date of the rating determination by the United States Department of Veteran Affairs or its successor agency if the claim is filed with the commissioner of the revenue within thirty (30) days of the receipt by the applicant of the rating determination. (Ord. No. 061411-5, § 1, 5-24-11, 10-22-24) Secs. 21-82—21-89. Reserved. Page 1 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.7 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: Page 2 of 3 The Virginia Board of Education (VBOE) accepted the final plans and specifications for the two elementary schools and on September 26, 2024 approved the loan applications. The loan application has been accepted by the VBOE for the Career & Technical Education Center and they are waiting to receive the final plans and specifications for this project. We anticipate this application will be added to their October 24 VBOE meeting agenda for action. Following board approval, County staff will coordinate with the Virginia Board of Education and a representative from the State Treasurer’s office on the closing and initial draw against the two elementary school loans after the October 22, 2024 Board meeting. County staff will also coordinate with the VBOE and a representative from the State Treasurer’s office on the closing and initial draw against the Career & Technical Education Center once the application receives final approval from the VBOE later this fall. There have been no changes since the first reading of this ordinance held on October 8, 2024. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for these school projects was included in the fiscal year 2025 -2034 Capital Improvement Program and appropriated by the Board of Supervisors. Budgets for the three projects were revised as part of the amended MOU between the County and Schools regarding Joint Capital Funding. The annual interest rate shall be equal to the amount approved by the Virginia Board of Education which should not exceed 3% and the final maturity shall be not more than 21 years from the date of issuance of the bonds. The County's obligation to make payments on the State Literary Loans is subject to annual appropriations by the Board, and does not constitute a pledge of the full faith and credit or taxing power of the County. The County's debt policies established parameters for issuing debt and managing outstanding debt. The County does not have any Constitutional or Statutory Debt Limits. The County does abide by Board of Supervisors-imposed debt limits. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Page 3 of 3 Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Page 1 of 8 194651589.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON OCTOBER 22, 2024 ORDINANCE _____ AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $75,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County"), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow an amount not to exceed $75,000,000 and to issue from time to time in one or more series from the authorization under this ordinance its general obligation school bonds (as more specifically defined below, the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing (a) the construction of a modern facility for the Career & Technical Education Center to allow expansion of the programs to better meet the needs of the business community and provide greater access to high-quality programs for students, (b) the renovation of Glen Cove and W. E. Cundiff Elementary Schools and (c) costs of issuing the Bonds (collectively, the "Project"); WHEREAS, the Project constitutes a capital project for public school purposes; WHEREAS, the issuance of the Bonds will be subject to the terms and conditions in this Ordinance, including the conditions that the maximum aggregate principal amount of the Bonds not exceed $75,000,000 (the "Maximum Principal Amount"); WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Board adopted an ordinance authorizing the submissions of applications to the Virginia Board of Education (collectively, the "Applications") for the purpose of borrowing an amount not to exceed $75,000,000 from the Commonwealth of Virginia's Literary Fund (the "Literary Fund") to finance, along with other available funds, the Project; Page 2 of 9 WHEREAS, after adoption of that ordinance, the School Board of the County (the "School Board") and the County submitted the Applications; WHEREAS, the Applications were approved by the Virginia Board of Education; WHEREAS, the Board intends to effect the financing of all or a portion of the Project (the "Authorized Purposes") by issuing the Bonds in the form of general obligation school bonds in one or more series from time to time and in a principal amount not to exceed $75,000,000 payable to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the benefit of the Literary Fund; WHEREAS, the County will issue the Bonds pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Chapter 10 of Title 22.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Literary Fund Chapter") and Chapter 26 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Public Finance Act"); WHEREAS, the School Board adopted a resolution that, among other things, requested the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds and consented to the issuance and sale of the Bonds to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the benefit of the Literary Fund; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been duly noticed and held pursuant to the Public Finance Act; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 8, 2024, and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on October 22, 2024. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of the Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general obligation school bond s in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $75,000,000 for the purpose of Page 3 of 9 financing the Project. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds, in one or more series from time to time, in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Ordinance. 2. Issuance and Sale of the Bonds; Details of the Bonds. (a) The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in one or more series in a principal amount not to exceed $75,000,000 to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the benefit of the Literary Fund for the Authorized Purposes. The Chairman, the County Administrator, the Clerk of the Board, the Chairman of the School Board and the Clerk of the School Board are authorized and dir ected or requested, as appropriate, to execute and deliver any appropriate documents (the "Loan Documents") with the School Board, the State Treasurer, the Board of Education or any other officer, agent, office, agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as appropriate, providing for the sale and delivery of the Bonds. (b) The annual interest rate of the Bonds shall be equal to the amount approved by the Virginia Board of Education and the final maturity of the Bonds shall be not more than 21 years from the date of issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds may be prepayable or redeemable (or not) as determined by the Chairman and the County Administrator, either of whom may act. The approval of the final terms and conditions of the Bonds subject to the foregoing parameters shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Bonds by the Chairman. The Chairman and the Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto, and the Chairman of the School Board and the Clerk of the School Board are authorized and requested to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the School Board thereto. Page 4 of 9 3. Details of the Bonds. The annual interest rate of the Bonds shall be equal to the amount approved by the Virginia Board of Education and the final maturity of the Bonds shall be not more than 21 years from the date of issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds may be prepayable or redeemable (or not) as determined by the Chairman and the County Administrator, either of whom may act. The approval of the final terms and conditions of the Bonds subject to the foregoing parameters shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Bonds by the Chairman. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto, and the Chairman of the School Board and the Clerk of the School Board are authorized and requested to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the School Board thereto. 4. Form of the Bond. The Bond shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, as applicable, with such appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted or required by this Ordinance, the Literary Fund Chapter and the Public Finance Act. There may be endorsed on the Bonds such legend or text as may be necessary or appropriate to conform to any applicable rules and regulations of any governmental authority or any usage or requirement of law with respect thereto. 5. Payment; Paving Agent and Bond Registrar. The Treasurer of the County ("County Treasurer") is appointed as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. The Board or the County Treasurer may appoint successor Bond Registrars and/or Paying Agents for the Bonds upon giving written notice to the owners of the Bonds specifying the name and location of the principal office of any such successor Bond Registrar or Paying Agent. 6. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and Page 5 of 9 credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any portion of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. 7. Filing of Ordinance. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Ordinance to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County. 8. Election to Proceed under Public Finance Act. In accordance with Section 15.2- 2601 of the Virginia Code, the Board elects to issue the Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Public Finance Act. 9. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and otherwise in furtherance of this Ordinance and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately. On motion of Supervisor __________ to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor __________ and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: ________________ Page 6 of 9 NAYS: ________________ ABSTAIN: ________________ ABSENT: _________________ A COPY TESTE: Rhonda D. Perdue Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Page 7 of 9 * * * The undersigned Chief Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on October 22, 2024, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing obligation, a quorum was present. Members present at the meeting were: ________________. Members absent from the meeting were: ______________. Members voting in favor of the foregoing ordinance were: _________________. Members abstaining from voting on the foregoing ordinance were: _____________. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, this 22nd day of October, 2024. Rhonda D. Perdue Chief Deputy Clerk to Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia [SEAL] Page 8 of 9 EXHIBIT A COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA LITERARY FUND PERMANENT BOND Name of Locality: «Loc_name» «Loc_type» Project / School: «Purpose» Account Number: «litkey» Amount: «auth_amt» The «council» and the School Board of the «Loc_type» of «Loc_name», Virginia, (the “issuer”), for value received from the Literary Fund hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the benefit of the Literary Fund the principal amount of «authtext» dollars («auth_amt»), with interest, at an interest rate of «int_rate» per annum in annual installments of principal and interest in the amounts and on the dates as set forth on Schedule 1 attached hereto. This bond is registered in the name of the Commonwealth of Virginia for the benefit of the Literary Fund on the books of the «council» and the School Board. This bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and resolutions duly adopted by the «council» and the School Board to provide funds for capital projects for school purposes. Literary Fund loans are general obligation debt of the issuer and thereby subject to the provisions of state aid intercept under §22.1-168 of the Code of Virginia. All acts, conditions and things required or contemplated by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including but not limited to §§ 22.1-142 through 22.1-161 of the Code of Virginia, to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this bond have happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and manner as so required. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the «council» and the School Board of the «Loc_type» of «Loc_name», Virginia, have caused this bond to be issued in the name of the «council» and the School Board, to be signed by the Chairmen of the «council» and the School Board and attested by the signatures of their Clerks, and this bond to be dated «Perm_date». ____________________________________ __________________________________ Chairman, «council», «Loc_type» of «Loc_name» Chairman, «Loc_type» of «Loc_name» School Board Attested: ___________________________________ __________________________________ Clerk, «council», «Loc_type» of «Loc_name» Clerk, «Loc_type» of «Loc_name» School Board Date:___/____/______ Date:___/____/______ Page 9 of 9 Literary Schedule Report Schedule 1 Department of the Treasury Locality Name: Account Number Locality Type: School: Loan Rate: Amount Issued: Issue Date: Date Due Principal Interest Payment Outstanding Balance 1 Agenda Item: F Date: September 26, 2024 Title: First and Final Review of Recommendations Regarding Literary Fund Loan Applications Approval for Release of Loan Funds Presenter: Kent C. Dickey, Deputy Superintendent of Operations Purpose of Presentation Action required by state or federal law or regulation and Board of Education regulation. Executive Summary The Literary Fund provides low-interest loans for new school construction and for additions or permanent improvements to existing schools to help provide students with a safe and secure environment in which to learn. In accordance with the provisions § 22.1-142 of the Code of Virginia, the Board of Education (“Board”) is responsible for the management of the Literary Fund. The State Treasurer serves as accountant of the Fund. This item aligns with Priority 1 of the Board’s Comprehensive Plan: Provide high-quality, effective learning environments for all students. Item 137, Paragraph C.11.c of the Chapter 1 state budget authorized $200 million from the Literary Fund for school construction loans in both fiscal years 2023 and 2024: The Board of Education may offer up to $200,000,000 the first year and up to $200,000,000 the second year from the Literary Fund in school construction loans, subject to the availability of funds. Amounts designated for school construction loans that are not obligated in the first year may be obligated in the second year. In addition, the Department of Education may offer Literary Fund loans from the uncommitted balances of the Literary Fund after meeting the obligations of the interest rate subsidy sales and the amounts set aside from the Literary Fund for Debt Service Payments for Education Technology and Security Equipment in this Item. 2 The Department of Education (VDOE) conducted one loan application process in fiscal year 2023 and two loan application processes during fiscal year 2024 for school divisions to apply for construction loans from the Literary Fund. Four school divisions - Campbell, Giles, Pittsylvania, and Roanoke Counties (the “four applicant school divisions”) - that applied for loans during the three applications periods have now submitted all the required documentation needed for their requested loans to be released by the Board. This item requests the Board to approve the release of nine Literary Fund loans requested by the four applicant school divisions as follows: 1. A loan requested by Campbell County for an addition and renovations at Brookville High School. Campbell County is requesting a Literary Fund loan for the project in the amount of $25,000,000 payable over 30 years and is eligible for a two percent annual loan interest rate. The project application is shown in Attachment 1. 2. A loan requested by Giles County for roof, HVAC, windows, lighting replacement, and adding a secure school entranceway at Giles County High School. Giles County is requesting a Literary Fund loan for the project in the amount of 13,318,930 payable over 30 years and is eligible for a two percent annual loan interest rate. The project application is shown in Attachment 2. 3. A loan requested by Giles County for roof, HVAC, windows, lighting replacement, and adding a secure school entranceway at Narrows High School. Giles County is requesting a Literary Fund loan for the project in the amount of 9,628,528 payable over 30 years and is eligible for a two percent annual loan interest rate. The project application is shown in Attachment 3. 4. A loan requested by Giles County for roof replacement at Giles County Technology Center. Giles County is requesting a Literary Fund loan for the project in the amount of 1,814,699 payable over 30 years and is eligible for a two percent annual loan interest rate. The project application is shown in Attachment 4. 5. A loan requested by Pittsylvania County to replace the building HVAC system and windows at Union Hall Elementary School. Pittsylvania County is requesting a Literary Fund loan for the project in the amount of 6,305,404 payable over 19 years and is eligible for a two percent annual loan interest rate. The project application is shown in Attachment 5. 6. A loan requested by Pittsylvania County to replace the building HVAC system and windows at Southside Elementary School. Pittsylvania County is requesting a Literary Fund loan for the project in the amount of 9,388,584 payable over 19 years and is eligible for a two percent annual loan interest rate. The project application is shown in Attachment 6. 7. A loan requested by Pittsylvania County for a 12-classroom addition to remove mobile classroom units and basement classrooms at Kentuck Elementary School. Pittsylvania 3 County is requesting a Literary Fund loan for the project in the amount of 10,792,290 payable over 19 years and is eligible for a two percent annual loan interest rate. The project application is shown in Attachment 7. 8. A loan requested by Roanoke County for building renovations and modernization of instructional areas and safety features at Glen Cove Elementary School. Roanoke County is requesting a Literary Fund loan for the project in the amount of $25,000,000 payable over 20 years and is eligible for a three percent annual loan interest rate. The project application is shown in Attachment 8. 9. A loan requested by Roanoke County for building renovations and modernization of instructional areas and safety features at W.E. Cundiff Elementary School. Roanoke County is requesting a Literary Fund loan for the project in the amount of $25,000,000 payable over 20 years and is eligible for a three percent annual loan interest rate. The project application is shown in Attachment 9. Action Requested Final review: Action requested at this meeting. Superintendent’s Recommendation The Superintendent of Public Instruction recommends that the Board waive first review and approve the release of the nine Literary Fund loans requested by the four applicant school divisions based on the loan amounts, terms, and eligible annual interest rates requested in their loan applications, as indicated above in the Executive Summary section. Rationale for Action All application and documentation requirements have been met by the four applicant school divisions for release of the Literary Fund loans for their nine school projects, including submission of the division superintendent and architect approval letters and final project plans and specifications pursuant to § 22.1-140 of the Code of Virginia. Sufficient funding from the Literary Fund is authorized and available for the Board to approve the release of these loans. Previous Review or Action No previous review or action. Background Information and Statutory Authority The Literary Fund is governed by §§ 22.1-142 through 22.1-161 of the Code of Virginia and Item 137, Paragraph C.11.a. through c. of Chapter 1 (for loan applications received during the 2022- 2024 biennium). These provisions include (1) a maximum Literary Fund loan amount per project of $25.0 million; (2) in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, establishing loan 4 interest rates that are benchmarked to a market index on an annual basis, not to exceed two percent for the tier of localities with a school division local composite index between 0.0000 and 0.2999, and with the Board using a sliding scale based on the sch ool division's composite index to determine the interest rate on loans; (3) replacing the existing First Priority and Second Priority waiting lists with an annual open application process to apply for loans, with priority for release of loans based on the local composite index; and (4) offering a loan add-on not to exceed $5.0 million per loan for projects that will result in school consolidation and the net reduction of at least one existing school. The Board adopted guidelines in September 2022 written to help implement the appropriation act and statutory provisions. The four applicant school divisions have met all application and documentation requirements for release of the requested Literary Fund loans for their nine school projects. They will use the proceeds from the loans to pay construction and renovation costs on the projects. As these loan applications were submitted during the application periods conducted in fiscal years 2023 and 2024, the amounts of the requested loans were encumbered against the $400 million in Literary Fund loans authorized in the Chapter 1 budget for the 2022-2024 biennium. A Literary Fund loan constitutes general obligation debt of the locality evidenced by bonds or notes payable to the Commonwealth for the benefit of the Literary Fund. Stakeholder Engagement All the local school boards and boards of supervisors associated with the four applicant school divisions passed authorizing resolutions approving the Literary Fund applications for these projects and the repayment of the loans if approved for release. VDOE staff worked with representatives from both the school divisions and the local governments in the application review and approval process. Implementation and Communication VDOE will notify the four applicant school divisions of the Board’s approval to release their nine requested Literary Fund loans. The four applicant school divisions will proceed with the local processes to close on the loans, which will be serviced by the state Department of the Treasury, at which time the loan proceeds will be available for reimbursement of qualifying construction and renovation costs incurred on the projects. Literary Fund loan proceeds are provided on a cost reimbursement basis for qualifying capital costs on funded projects. As additional Literary Fund loan applications received during previous application periods are approved by staff, recommendations will be made to the Board at subsequent monthly business meetings to approve the release of requested loan funds for those projects, with the Literary Fund cash balance reduced as loan releases are approved by the Board. 5 Impact on Fiscal and Human Resources Current Board policy provides that, upon initial release of loan funds, Literary Fund cash is encumbered in the total amount of the approved loan to assure that cash is available as required for project completion or for refinancing of a previous local bor rowing. The disbursement of funds is based on actual invoices or other evidence of bills due and payable from the Literary Fund for the project. VDOE staff will approve invoices submitted by the four applicant school divisions for reimbursement of project costs and send vouchers to the Department of the Treasury requesting payment to them from their Literary Fund loan proceeds. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.8 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: Page 2 of 2 DISCUSSION: Roanoke County staff coordinated with VDOT staff on how to proceed with this project. It was determined that the Board of Supervisors should consider a resolution requesting the acceptance of this subdivision street into the Secondary System. VDOT also requested that the Board of Supervisors guarantee the performance of the streets requested to become part of the Secondary System for a period of one year from the date of the acceptance of the referenced street(s) by VDOT. The language is inserted into the standard format for the County resolution in order to be added into the VDOT Secondary System. As you are aware, this extension of the road has been in place for many years and currently was examined by County Staff and Virginia Department of Transportation and deemed to be in acceptable condition. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached resolution requesting that VDOT accept Appletree Drive extension of Plantation Grove subdivisions sections 1 & 3 into the Secondary Road System. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Form AM 4.3 Form AM 4.3 (Rev 10/10/2024) by Resolution of the governing body adopted 10/22/2024 In Roanoke County ICR ID: 40312720 NONE Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways CHANGE TYPE RTE NUM & STREET NAME CHANGE DESCRIPTION FROM TERMINI TO TERMINI LENGTH NUMBER OF LANES RECORDAT ION REFERENC E ROW WIDTH Addition Rt. 1085 - Appletree Drive New subdivision street §33.2-705 Intersection with Plantation Grove Lane / Route 1242 End of Cul-de-sac 0.0550 2 50 The following VDOT Form AM-4.3 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes to the secondary system of state highways. A Copy Testee Signed (County Official):__________________________________________________________ Project/Subdivision: Appletree Drive Extension 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2024 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF A PORTION OF APPLETREE DRIVE EXTENSION OF PLANTATION GROVE SUBDIVISIONS SECTIONS 1 & 3 IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (“VDOT”) SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Form AM-4.3, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, a representative of the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the street meets the requirements established by the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1) The Board hereby requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street described on the attached Form AM-4.3 to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.2-705. 2) The Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills, and drainage. 3) The Board guarantees the performance of the street requested herein to become part of the Secondary System of State Highways for a period of one year from the date of the acceptance of the 2 referenced street by the Virginia Department of Transportation into the Secondary System of State Highways. The Board will completely reimburse all costs incurred by the Virginia Department of Transportation, up to $2,500.00, to repair any faults in the workmanship or materials of the referenced street and related drainage facilities as determined exclusively by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 4) A certified copy of this resolution shall be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.9 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: Page 2 of 2 Roanoke County staff coordinated with VDOT staff on how to proceed with this project. It was determined that the Board of Supervisors should consider a resolution requesting the acceptance of this subdivision street into the Secondary System. VDOT also requested that the Board of Supervisors guarantee the performance of the streets requested to become part of the Secondary System for a period of one year from the date of the acceptance of the referenced street(s) by VDOT. The language is inserted into the standard format for the County resolution in order to be added into the VDOT Secondary System. As you are aware, this extension of the road has been in place for many years and currently was examined by County Staff and Virginia Department of Transportation and deemed to be in acceptable condition. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached resolution requesting that VDOT accept South Gala Drive of Orchard Park Section 2 into the Secondary Road System. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Form AM 4.3 Form AM 4.3 (Rev 10/09/2024) by Resolution of the governing body adopted 10/22/2024 In Roanoke County ICR ID: 40317410 NONE Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways CHANGE TYPE RTE NUM & STREET NAME CHANGE DESCRIPTION FROM TERMINI TO TERMINI LENGTH NUMBER OF LANES RECORDAT ION REFERENC E ROW WIDTH Addition Rt. 1025 - South Gala Drive New subdivision street §33.2-705 Intersection with Cortland Road / Route 1003 Intersection with Huntridge Road / Route 1220 0.14 2 50 The following VDOT Form AM-4.3 is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes to the secondary system of state highways. A Copy Testee Signed (County Official):__________________________________________________________ Project/Subdivision: South Gala Drive Extension 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2024 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF A PORTION OF SOUTH GALA DRIVE EXTENSION OF ORCHARD PARK SECTION 2 IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (“VDOT”) SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Form AM-4.3, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, a representative of the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the street meets the requirements established by the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1) The Board hereby requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street described on the attached Form AM-4.3 to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.2-705. 2) The Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills, and drainage. 3) The Board guarantees the performance of the street requested herein to become part of the Secondary System of State Highways for a period of one year from the date of the acceptance of the referenced street by the Virginia Department of Transportation into 2 the Secondary System of State Highways. The Board will completely reimburse all costs incurred by the Virginia Department of Transportation, up to $2,500.00, to repair any faults in the workmanship or materials of the referenced street and related drainage facilities as determined exclusively by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 4) A certified copy of this resolution shall be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Capital Unappropriated % of Board Expenditure Balance Revenues Contingency Contingency Reserves Unaudited balance as of June 30, 2024 29,191,800$ ‐$ ‐$ 9,058,432$ Approved Sources: Appropriated from 2024‐25 budget (Ordinance 052824‐3.a)‐ 50,000 ‐ 93,647 Appropriated from 2023‐24 budget amendment (Ordinance 072324‐6) 2,022,180 ‐ 650,291 1,500,000 Addition of 2023‐24 operations and close out of completed projects ‐ ‐ ‐ 158,263 Approved Uses: Appropriated for 2024‐25 budget (Ordinance 052824‐3.b)‐ ‐ ‐ (5,159,423) Appropriated for 2024‐25 budget (Ordinance 052824‐3.b)‐ ‐ ‐ (93,647) MOU regarding the joint capital funding approved on April 11, 2023 ‐ ‐ ‐ (5,000,000) Balance at October 22, 2024 31,213,980$ 12.0% 50,000$ 650,291$ 557,272$ County of Roanoke Unappropriated Balance, Board Contingency, and Capital Reserves Fiscal Year 2024‐2025 General Government Changes in outstanding debt for the fiscal year to date were as follows: Unaudited Outstanding Outstanding June 30, 2024 Additions Deletions October 22, 2024 VPSA School Bonds 69,781,182$ -$ 7,019,794$ 62,761,388$ Lease Revenue Bonds 78,395,000 - 4,630,000 73,765,000 Subtotal 148,176,182 - 11,649,794 136,526,388 Premiums 11,056,810 - - 11,056,810 159,232,992$ -$ 11,649,794$ 147,583,198$ Submitted By Laurie L. Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services Approved By Richard L. Caywood County Administrator Revenues Revenues Budget Revenues % of Budget Budget Revenues % of Budget Actuals % of Variance Real Estate Taxes $119,492,000 $4,150,141 3.47% $129,080,327 $4,459,731 3.46% $309,590 6.94% Personal Property Taxes 44,500,000 1,354,199 3.04% 44,500,000 1,515,424 3.41% 161,226 10.64% Public Service Corp Base 4,220,000 0 0.00% 5,500,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Penalties & Interest on Property Taxes 1,130,000 208,052 18.41% 1,350,000 213,230 15.79% 5,179 2.43% Payment In Lieu Of Taxes 210,000 0 0.00% 225,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total General Property Taxes 169,552,000 5,712,392 3.37% 180,655,327 6,188,386 3.43% 475,995 7.69% Communication Taxes 2,550,000 416,027 16.31% 2,625,000 411,077 15.66% (4,951) -1.20% Local Sales Tax 15,800,000 2,583,515 16.35% 17,000,000 2,711,184 15.95% 127,669 4.71% Consumer Utility Tax 3,750,000 592,135 15.79% 3,750,000 786,429 20.97% 194,295 24.71% Business License Tax 7,800,000 186,776 2.39% 9,100,000 259,402 2.85% 72,626 28.00% Franchise Tax 690,000 0 0.00% 750,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Motor Vehicle License Fees 2,450,000 160,525 6.55% 2,450,000 169,085 6.90% 8,560 5.06% Taxes On Recordation & Wills 1,650,000 217,797 13.20% 1,550,000 284,630 18.36% 66,832 23.48% Utility License Tax 575,000 50,551 8.79% 565,000 75,783 13.41% 25,233 33.30% Hotel & Motel Room Taxes 1,650,000 130,924 7.93% 2,050,000 147,005 7.17% 16,081 10.94% Taxes - Prepared Foods 6,100,000 1,041,626 17.08% 6,450,000 1,039,636 16.12% (1,990) -0.19% Other Taxes 1,345,000 226,391 16.83% 1,355,000 179,887 13.28% (46,504) -25.85% Total Other Local Taxes 44,360,000 5,606,267 12.64% 47,645,000 6,064,118 12.73% 457,851 7.55% Animal Control Fees 42,500 6,553 15.42% 42,500 7,677 18.06% 1,124 14.64% Land and Building Fees 15,850 3,244 20.47% 18,000 1,614 8.97% (1,630) -101.02% Permits 924,107 128,935 13.95% 1,112,872 173,706 15.61% 44,771 25.77% Fees 64,600 12,625 19.54% 64,600 7,754 12.00% (4,871) -62.82% Clerk of Court Fees 127,000 24,856 19.57% 127,000 28,998 22.83% 4,142 14.28% COUNTY OF ROANOKE Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues General Fund - C100 For the Three Months Ending Monday, September 30, 2024 Prior Year Current Year Variances Revenues Revenues Budget Revenues % of Budget Budget Revenues % of Budget Actuals % of Variance COUNTY OF ROANOKE Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues General Fund - C100 For the Three Months Ending Monday, September 30, 2024 Prior Year Current Year Variances Photocopy Charges 210 0 0.00% 210 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Permits, Fees and Licenses 1,174,267 176,212 15.01% 1,365,182 219,748 16.10% 43,536 19.81% Fines and Forfeitures 558,500 79,278 14.19% 558,500 96,062 17.20% 16,784 17.47% Total Fines and Forfeitures 558,500 79,278 14.19% 558,500 96,062 17.20% 16,784 17.47% Revenues from Use of Money 500,000 329,183 65.84% 1,229,586 338,714 27.55% 9,531 2.81% Revenues From Use of Property 185,014 36,096 19.51% 185,014 51,886 28.04% 15,790 30.43% Total Use of Money and Property 685,014 365,279 53.32% 1,414,600 390,600 27.61% 25,321 6.48% Charges for Services 3,750,400 750,631 20.01% 4,145,100 550,310 13.28% (200,321) -36.40% Charges for Public Services 70,000 535 0.76% 80,000 345 0.43% (190) -55.07% Education Aid-State 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Charges for Services 3,820,400 751,166 19.66% 4,225,100 550,655 13.03% (200,511) -36.41% Reimb-Shared Programs Salem 1,124,084 77,473 6.89% 1,396,800 94,855 6.79% 17,382 18.32% Miscellaneous Revenue 298,536 61,036 20.45% 303,200 60,471 19.94% (566) -0.94% Recovered Costs 950,000 318,257 33.50% 1,050,000 333,574 31.77% 15,317 4.59% Total Miscellaneous 2,372,620 456,766 19.25% 2,750,000 488,899 17.78% 32,133 6.57% Non-Categorical Aid 418,000 403,237 96.47% 418,000 458,141 109.60% 54,904 11.98% Shared Expenses 6,199,847 964,542 15.56% 6,371,084 1,046,357 16.42% 81,816 7.82% Revenues Revenues Budget Revenues % of Budget Budget Revenues % of Budget Actuals % of Variance COUNTY OF ROANOKE Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues General Fund - C100 For the Three Months Ending Monday, September 30, 2024 Prior Year Current Year Variances Welfare & Social Services-Categorical 4,786,943 2,002,947 41.84% 5,425,000 979,392 18.05% (1,023,555) -104.51% Other State Categorical Aid 2,468,805 52,478 2.13% 2,523,710 663,535 26.29% 611,057 92.09% Welfare & Social Services 6,550,000 0 0.00% 6,765,000 1,495,063 22.10% 1,495,063 100.00% Education Aid-Federal 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Other Categorical Aid 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total State and Federal Revenue 20,423,595 3,423,204 16.76% 21,502,794 4,642,489 21.59% 1,219,285 26.26% Other Financing Sources 3,900,878 0 0.00% 365,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Other Financing Sources 3,900,878 0 0.00% 365,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Transfers 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Transfers 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Grand Totals 246,847,274 16,570,564 6.71% 260,481,503 18,640,957 7.16% 2,070,393 11.11% Expenditures Exp & Encum Expenditures Exp & Encum % of Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Actuals Variance Legislative 496,434 94,035 18.94% 274,494 71,433 26.02% (22,602) -31.64% General & Financial Administration 9,686,100 2,478,783 25.59% 10,632,225 2,660,495 25.02% 249,318 9.38% Electoral Board & Officials 878,412 138,507 15.77% 1,038,250 176,953 17.04% (2,448) -1.80% General Government Administration 11,060,946 2,711,325 24.51% 11,944,969 2,908,881 24.35% 224,268 7.83% Courts 1,824,442 429,286 23.53% 1,911,992 487,671 25.51% 67,423 13.83% Other Judicial Support 1,567,615 418,900 26.72% 1,819,030 476,957 26.22% 58,057 12.17% Judicial 3,392,057 848,186 25.01% 3,731,022 964,628 25.85% 125,480 13.01% Law Enforcement & Traffic Cont 19,147,546 5,361,496 28.00% 20,485,586 5,586,253 27.27% 292,659 5.27% Fire and Rescue 23,049,523 6,164,846 26.75% 25,510,476 6,637,251 26.02% 449,352 6.93% Correction & Detention 12,260,647 2,629,412 21.45% 12,827,609 2,739,538 21.36% 108,036 3.96% Animal Control 1,365,488 331,352 24.27% 1,305,828 332,212 25.44% 860 0.26% Public Safety 55,823,204 14,487,105 25.95% 60,129,499 15,295,253 25.44% 850,906 5.64% General Services Administration 1,104,225 255,730 23.16% 1,424,992 369,827 25.95% 106,352 29.37% Refuse Disposal 5,830,467 1,399,907 24.01% 6,228,560 1,455,894 23.37% 23,914 1.74% Maint Buildings & Grounds 5,286,786 1,709,008 32.33% 5,875,468 1,527,734 26.00% (187,062) -12.39% Engineering 2,582,251 745,161 28.86% 2,851,962 643,589 22.57% (59,730) -9.30% Inspections 1,193,331 277,516 23.26% 1,132,091 309,518 27.34% 32,001 10.34% Garage Complex 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Public Works 15,997,060 4,387,324 27.43% 17,513,073 4,306,561 24.59% (84,525) -2.01% Mental Health 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Public Health 579,181 144,795 25.00% 767,419 355,210 46.29% 210,414 59.24% Social Services Administration 9,642,017 2,341,442 24.28% 10,856,721 2,614,429 24.08% 272,987 10.44% Comprehensive Services Act 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Public Assistance 4,918,666 1,072,545 21.81% 4,918,666 1,202,888 24.46% 130,343 10.84% Social Services Organizations 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% COUNTY OF ROANOKE Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances General Fund - C100 For the Three Months Ending Monday, September 30, 2024 Prior Year Current Year Variances Expenditures Exp & Encum Expenditures Exp & Encum % of Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Actuals Variance COUNTY OF ROANOKE Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances General Fund - C100 For the Three Months Ending Monday, September 30, 2024 Prior Year Current Year Variances Health and Welfare 15,139,864 3,558,782 23.51% 16,542,806 4,172,526 25.22% 613,744 14.71% Parks & Recreation 3,166,375 756,820 23.90% 3,048,494 823,091 27.00% 66,271 8.05% Library 4,865,913 1,217,090 25.01% 5,221,194 1,267,184 24.27% 33,885 2.71% Cultural Enrichment 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Parks, Recreation & Cultural 8,032,288 1,973,911 24.57% 8,269,688 2,090,275 25.28% 100,156 4.83% Planning & Zoning 1,874,396 526,485 28.09% 1,922,932 488,842 25.42% (23,684) -5.35% Cooperative Extension Program 115,391 73 0.06% 145,391 51 0.03% (22) -42.89% Economic Development 590,862 333,380 56.42% 680,371 241,661 35.52% 48,975 21.30% Public Transportation 510,000 48,429 9.50% 510,000 156,479 30.68% 108,049 69.05% Contribution to Human Service Organizations 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Planning 3,090,649 908,366 29.39% 3,258,694 887,033 27.22% 133,318 16.08% Employee Benefits 2,458,302 658,864 26.80% 3,260,820 516,741 15.85% (142,122) -27.50% Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup 62,700 23,414 37.34% 62,700 9,169 14.62% (14,246) -155.37% Miscellaneous 10,946,943 3,158,400 28.85% 10,683,516 2,977,169 27.87% (181,231) -6.09% Tax Relief/Elderly & Handicapp 1,110,000 947,319 85.34% 1,694,060 1,091,533 64.43% 144,214 13.21% Refuse Credit Vinton 225,000 0 0.00% 225,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Board Contingency 3,632,275 0 0.00% 50,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Unappropriated Balance 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Non-Departmental 18,435,220 4,787,997 25.97% 15,976,096 4,594,612 28.76% (193,385) -4.21% Interfund Transfers Out 109,800,809 38,873,654 35.40% 116,861,844 41,745,596 35.72% 2,871,943 6.88% Intrafund Transfers Out 6,075,177 3,260,201 53.66% 6,253,812 1,298,617 20.77% (1,961,584) -151.05% Transfers Out 115,875,986 42,133,854 36.36% 123,115,656 43,044,213 34.96% 910,359 2.11% Grand Totals 246,847,274 75,796,850 30.71% 260,481,503 78,263,980 30.05% 2,680,320 3.44% ACTION NO. _______________ ITEM NO. __________________ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 22, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid – September 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Laurie L. Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct Deposit Checks Total Payments to Vendors -$ -$ 19,937,478.39$ Payroll 09/13/24 2,161,016.36 17,579.78 2,178,596.14 Payroll 09/27/24 2,027,831.33 24,864.39 2,052,695.72 Manual Checks - 206.97 206.97 Grand Total 24,168,977.22$ A detailed listing of the payments to vendors is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. ACTION NO.___________________ ITEM NUMBER_______________ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. : October 22, 2024 : Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of 30-Sep-24 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: CASH INVESTMENT: TRUIST CONCENTRATION 3,890,360.58 JP MORGAN 2,912,225.98 HOMETRUST 3,397,722.70 10,200,309.26 GOVERNMENT: TRUIST ROA CONTRA (4,650.00) TRUIST ROA 3,000,000.00 ROCKEFELLER CONTRA 12,080.00 ROCKEFELLER 18,000,000.00 21,007,430.00 LOCAL GOV'T INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL OPERATION 21,607,748.68 ROCO EMA PORTFOLIO 1,081,765.32 ROCO EMA PORTFOLIO CONTRA 22,404.30 22,711,918.30 MONEY MARKET: ATLANTIC UNION BANK 4,813,524.01 HOMETRUST BANK 4,304,579.10 TRUIST ROA 2,742,138.27 ROCKEFELLER 20,125,506.00 PUBLIC FUNDS:31,985,747.38 BANK OF BOTETOURT 7,559,211.94 7,559,211.94 TOTAL 93,464,616.88 10/22/2024 Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 22, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the status of the County of Roanoke's ongoing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects as of June 30, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Provide the Board of Supervisors a summary status of completed and active capital projects as required by the Comprehensive Financial Policy BACKGROUND: Per Section 5-4 of the County of Roanoke's Comprehensive Financial Policy, County staff will provide a summary status of completed and active capital projects each year. This presentation provides an overview of the status and financial information of capital projects included in the Capital Improvement Program, along with information regarding the Capital Maintenance Programs. DISCUSSION: The presentation will provide information on recently completed and active capital projects. Financial information included is through fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, which is preliminary and unaudited. Additional information to be provided to the Board of Supervisors at the meeting includes fiscal year 2024 expenditures in the Capital Maintenance Program (CMP) for General Services and Parks, Recreation and Tourism. Page 2 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the receipt of the presentation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors receive information regarding the status of projects within the County's Capital Improvement Program. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 22, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Work Session to review with the Board of Supervisors the 2025 Board Meeting Calendar and Planning Commission Schedule SUBMITTED BY: Madeline Hanlon Assistant to County Administrator APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: This time has been set aside to the 2025 Board of Supervisors Meeting Calendar and the Planning Commission Meeting Calendar. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2024 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies; and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Page 1 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. M.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: October 22, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Dale Wilkinson to rezone approximately 21.39 acres of land zoned I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District, to R- 3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, in order to develop a 225-lot residential subdivision, located at 7812 Sanderson Drive, Hollins Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Agenda item for public hearing and second reading of ordinance to rezone property from industrial to residential. BACKGROUND: · The applicant is proposing a residential subdivision consisting of detached single-family dwellings and townhouses. · Single-family dwellings and townhouses are not permitted uses in the I -1 Low Intensity Industrial District, but both uses are permitted by-right in the R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District. · The original concept plan for the proposed development showed 225 lots. 176 of these lots would be in Roanoke County and 49 would be in Botetourt County. The portion of the development in Roanoke County would consist of 141 townhouses and 35 single family detached dwellings. · The revised concept plan for proposed development shows 161 lots. 147 of these lots would be in Roanoke County and 14 of these lots would be in Botetourt County. The portion of the development in Roanoke County would Page 2 of 3 consist of 117 townhouses and 30 single family detached dwellings with an internal road connecting to Stonegate, Phase 3. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on September 3, 2024. Twenty-two (22) written comments were completed at a community meeting on August 5, 2024 and shared with the Planning Commission, and an additional written comment was submitted before this public hearing. The written comments raised concerns with traffic and the density of the proposed development. Five (5) citizens spoke in opposition to the petition during this public hearing. Concerns and issues raised included: density of development; traffic generated from proposed development and other developments in the vicinity; need for amenities to handle additional housing; preference for single family homes over townhouses; and transportation improvements needed to handle new development. The Planning Commission discussed the unfunded transportation improvement, the traffic study, the proposed dedicated right-of-way along the applicant's frontage on Sanderson Drive, new road under construction in Stonegate, Phase 3, lack of proffered conditions associated with this application, the need for housing, types of homes and home prices, surrounding residential development, breaking up the 10 -unit townhouse sections into smaller sections of 5 to 6 townhouses, inconsistency with the Principal Industrial future land use designation, and a potential connector road from proposed development to Stongate, Phase 3. The Planning Commission voted to continue this public hearing until its October 1, 2024 meeting. At the Planning Commission's meeting on October 1, 2024, seven (7) citizens spoke during the continued public hearing. Concerns raised included: increased traffic; number of apartments being built in the area; funding for the left -turn lane; new subdivisions adding to current traffic issues; the railroad which creates challenges to any road improvement; inconsistency with future land use designation; and lack of green space within development. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed right-of-way dedication along the proposed development, the reduction in the number of lots from 225 to 161 with 147 being in Roanoke County, proposed connector road to Stonegate, Phase 3, traffic study, delay times at the Sanderson Drive/Shadwell Drive intersection, new entrances for proposed development needing to meet VDOT's sight distance requirements, number of notices sent to surrounding property owners, future land use, surrounding residential development, Sanderson Drive/Shadwell Drive is one of the intersections being studied as part of the Safe Streets and Road for All study, the limited amount of Page 3 of 3 industrial land available in the County, and the need for new housing. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the project with the following proffered conditions: 1. The property shall be developed in general conformance with the concept plan showing a maximum of 147 lots entitled "Beahm Property Botetourt County, VA Rezoning Concept" prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc., dated 9/24/24, subject to any changes required during the comprehensive site plan review process. 2. The residential dwelling units shall be constructed in general conformance to the elevation examples for townhomes and detached homes provided by the applicant as part of the rezoning application titled "Townhome Example Elevations" dated 9/24/24. 3. A road shall be constructed to connect to the road/public right-of-way in Stonegate Phase 3 as shown on the concept plan entitled “Beahm Property Botetourt County, VA Rezoning Concept” prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc., dated 9/24/24. Construction of this road shall begin upon the issuance of the 110th building permit for the lots in the development. 4. Right-of-way along Sanderson Drive shall be dedicated to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors as shown on the concept plan entitled "Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive Left Turn Lane" prepared by Roanoke County Department of Planning, dated 7/9/24 for intersection improvements at Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive. The right-of-way dedication shall take place upon execution of the subdivision plat. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not support the rezoning request due to the rezoning being inconsistent with the Principal Industrial Future Land Use Designation. However, staff recognizes the complications to develop this property as an industrial use, the surrounding properties being predominantly residential, and the length of time that the property has not been developed as industrial. STAFF REPORT Petitioner: Dale Wilkinson, Stonegate Properties LLC Request: Rezone approximately 21.39 acres from I-1, Low Intensity Industrial, to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential to develop a residential subdivision Location: Tax Parcel: 0 Sanderson Drive and 7812 Sanderson Drive #028.01-01-29.00-0000 and #028.01-01-30.00-0000 Proposed Proffered Conditions: 1. The property shall be developed in general conformance with the concept plan showing a maximum of 147 lots entitled "Beahm Property Botetourt County, VA Rezoning Concept" prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc., dated 9/24/24, subject to any changes required during the comprehensive site plan review process. 2. The residential dwelling units shall be constructed in general conformance to the elevation examples for townhomes and detached homes provided by the applicant as part of the rezoning application titled "Townhome Example Elevations" dated 9/24/24. 3. A road shall be constructed to connect to the road/public right-of-way in Stonegate Phase 3 as shown on the concept plan entitled “Beahm Property Botetourt County, VA Rezoning Concept” prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc., dated 9/24/24. Construction of this road shall begin upon the sale of seventy-five percent of the lots in the development. 4. Right-of-way along Sanderson Drive shall be dedicated to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors as shown on the concept plan entitled "Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive Left Turn Lane" prepared by Roanoke County Department of Planning, dated 7/9/24 for intersection improvements at Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive. The right-of-way dedication shall take place upon execution of the subdivision plat. Dale Wilkinson is petitioning to rezone approximately 21.39 acres from I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District, to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, located at 0 Sanderson Drive and 7812 Sanderson Drive, Hollins Magisterial District. The intention is to develop a 161-lot residential subdivision. This subdivision would be partially located in Roanoke County and partially in Botetourt County. The portion of the proposed subdivision located in Roanoke County would include 117 townhomes and 30 single family detached dwellings. The 2005 Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan indicates the future land use designations of this area as Principal Industrial. Principal Industrial is a future land use area where a variety of industry types are encouraged to locate. Principal Industrial areas are existing and planned regional employment centers and are distributed throughout the county, convenient to major residential areas and suitable highway access. Due to limited availability, areas designated as Principal Industrial are not appropriate for tax-exempt facilities. The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Principal Industrial future land use designation. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a single-family dwelling as “a site built or modular building designed for or used exclusively as one (1) dwelling unit for permanent occupancy.” The Zoning Ordinance defines a townhouse as “a grouping of three (3) or more attached single-family dwellings in a row in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one (1) or more common walls.” Both single family dwellings and townhouses are permitted by-right in the R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District. All development and use of the property must be in conformance with Section 30-45-3 (R-3 development standards) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Section 30-82-14 of the Zoning Ordinance provides use and design standards for townhouses (standards attached). If the rezoning was approved, comprehensive site plan and building plan reviews would be required before any construction could take place. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background – There are two parcels involved in this petition, the parcel to the north addressed 7812 Sanderson Drive is approximately 8.428 acres and the property to the south addressed 0 Sanderson Drive is approximately 12.894 acres. There is an existing unoccupied residential dwelling and approximately fifteen (15) agriculture related outbuildings of various sizes located on the northern parcel. The Roanoke County assessment records have estimated the residence was built around 1920. There is one (1) agriculture related building that exists partially on both parcels. Both properties have historically been used for agricultural purposes. This petition was previously heard at the Planning Commission public hearing held on September 3, 2024. Five (5) days prior to this public hearing, the applicant submitted a revised concept plan and sample elevations. These were not included in the staff report contained in the packet for the September 3, 2024, public hearing, however they were covered in the staff presentation at the public hearing. At the September 3, 2024, public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the public hearing in order for the applicant to consider proffered conditions to address concerns. bushes scattered around the existing residence toward the northeast corner of the property. There is an area of higher vegetation that takes up the middle of the southern parcel. The property is relatively flat with a slightly lower elevation along Sanderson Drive. the intersection of Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive. The Botetourt County line borders the property to the north. Adjacent agricultural uses zoned A-1 and residential uses (Altamira and Sanderson Ridge subdivisions) zoned R-3 exist in Botetourt County. Stonegate, Phase 3 is directly to the east of the parcels. This property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District and will consist of 35 single-family dwelling units. Directly to the south are single family homes and a club use (Melrose Lodge) on property zoned R-1 and across Shadwell Drive, past these homes is an industrial facility zoned I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District. To the west is property zoned R-1 that contains primarily single-family residences. which contained the request, information about the subject parcel, instructions for how to submit comments and contact information for staff. These letters also contained information for a community meeting which was held on Monday, August 5, 2024, at Hollins Library from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Representatives of the applicant were present at the meeting along with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Roanoke County Planning Department. Approximately eighty-eight (88) citizens attended the meeting, fifty- four (54) were residents of Botetourt County, twenty-nine (29) were residents of Roanoke County, and five (5) either did not sign in or left no address. Twenty-two (22) written comments were submitted. The main concerns addressed in these comments were traffic and the high density of the development. These comments are attached. There was one (1) additional written comment submitted by a citizen that was given to the Planning Commission at the September 3, 2024, public hearing. Five (5) citizens spoke at the September 3, 2024, public hearing, all speakers spoke in opposition of the petition. They raised concerns about traffic increases and current traffic issues, lack of amenities for the additional residents of the area, and the high density of the development even after the reduction in lots. Following the September 3rd public hearing, approximately 513 letters were mailed to adjoining property owners and tenants informing them of the continuation of the public hearing until October 1, 2024. These letters also included the revised concept plan that was submitted August 29, 2024. Three (3) comments were received by staff, all three (3) letters were in opposition of the petition. These letters addressed the preference for R-1 instead of R-3 zoning, traffic concerns, and the need for single-family homes instead of townhouses. 3.ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture – The concept plan submitted with the application indicated the proposed development of 225 lots. 176 of these lots would be located in Roanoke County and 49 of these lots would be located in Botetourt County. The portion of the development located in Roanoke County would consist of 141 townhouses and 35 single family detached dwellings The revised concept plan submitted August 29, 2024, indicated a proposed development of 161 lots. 147 of these lots would be located in Roanoke County and 14 of these lots would be located in Botetourt County. The portion of the development located in Roanoke County would consist of 117 townhouses and 30 single family detached dwellings. The final revised concept plan submitted September 24, 2024, indicates the same number and type of lots as the August 29, 2024, concept plan. The townhouses would be located towards the center of the subdivision with the single-family detached dwellings bordering the development. Representative home styles are included with this packet. The main difference with this concept plan is that lots 23, 24, and 25 have been adjusted to allow for the addition of a road connector from the internal roads of the subdivision to Stonegate, Phase 3. This concept plan also shows the right of way dedication that would be necessary for the construction of the conceptual left-turn lane. The applicant has proffered general conformance to this concept plan. Access/Traffic Circulation – There is currently one (1) existing access to the site off Sanderson Drive. The concept plan submitted September 24, 2024, indicates three (3) entrances to the site, two (2) would be located in Roanoke County and one (1) in Botetourt County. The entrance off of Sanderson Drive located in Roanoke County would be slightly south of the existing entrance to the site. There would be a second entrance to the site in Roanoke County in the southeast corner of the subdivision off the new road that is The provided concept plan also shows new internal streets to serve the subdivision. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted and submitted with the rezoning application. The TIA studied the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours of four unsignalized intersections for existing conditions (2023), projected growth in traffic for 2028 without the project being constructed (2028 No-Build), projected growth in traffic for 2028 with Phase 1 (50 townhomes and 100 single-family dwellings) of the project constructed (2028 Phase 1 Build), projected growth in traffic for 2028 with Phase 1 of the project constructed with road improvements (2028 Phase 1 Build with Improvements), projected growth in traffic for 2030 without the project being constructed (2030 No-Build), projected growth in traffic for 2030 with the project built out (125 townhomes and 100 single-family dwellings) of the project constructed (2030 Full- Build), projected growth in traffic for 2030 with project built out with road improvements (2030 Full Build with Improvements). The four unsignalized intersections studied were: Shadwell Drive & Hollins Road; Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive; Sanderson Drive and Southern Driveway (access to the site); and Sanderson Drive and Northern Driveway (access to the site). The TIA analyzed the level of service (measured in delay at the intersections) of the various movements (right turn, left turn, or through movement) at each of the four unsignalized intersections (see Tables 4 & 5 of the TIA). Per the TIA, “the results of the traffic impact analysis indicate that while the project results in minor increases in delay at the study intersections the anticipated maximum queues will be accommodated and are not expected to spill back into adjacent intersections. It must be noted that project traffic is expected to increase delays at the southbound approach of Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive by 38 seconds during the 2028 Phase 1 PM peak hour and 80 seconds during the 2030 Full-Build PM peak hour. However, improving the approach to include exclusive southbound left and right-turn lanes improves the approach delays to better than no-build conditions. The applicant agrees to participate in a cooperative effort with Roanoke County and other parties to seek a solution to construct a southbound left-turn lane along Sanderson Drive. The applicant would agree to deed adequate right-of-way for a turn-lane over their existing property.” VDOT issued a letter of concurrence for the TIA on August 15, 2024 (attached). Screening & Buffering – The subject property adjoins property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District to the east, south, and west. Property zoned R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District that adjoins properties zoned R-1 will require a Type A buffer yard. Per section 30-92-6(A) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, a Type A buffer yard must meet one of the following options: Option 1 (Large Buffer, Minimal Landscaping) – 20’ wide buffer • For every 75 linear feet consisting of: o One row of large deciduous trees (3) o One row of large evergreen shrubs (12—14) o One row of large deciduous shrubs (16-18) Option 2 (Smaller Buffer with More Landscaping/Screening) – 15’ wide buffer • For every 75 linear feet consisting of: o One row of small deciduous trees (5) o One row of large evergreen shrubs (12—14) o Agencies Comments: The following agencies provided comments on this application: provide. Fire flow and access requirements will be addressed during the site plan review process. General Services – Do not see any issues, nor do I have comments, for General Services. Office of Building Safety – All construction will need to meet the requirements of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code in effect at time of permitting. VDOT – 1. The VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections must be adhered to where applicable for street connections. This includes, but is not limited to, street connection entrance spacing and intersection sight distance. The intersection sight distance must be field verified, and measures taken to ensure the minimum required distances can be met. 2. The VDOT Road Design Manual. Appendix B(l): Subdivision Street Design Guide and Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements Manual must be adhered to if streets in this proposed development are intended to be maintained by VDOT. 3. The traffic study for this proposed development is currently under review. Once concurred with, any design elements that can be required to facilitate traffic generated by this development, as specified in the conclusions and recommendations section of the traffic study, will need to be incorporated into the project design in order to obtain site plan approval. 4. A Land Use Permit will be required if a new entrance is needed from the VDOT right-of-way or for the change in use of an existing entrance. 5. The Department will not issue an approval of the plans or issue any necessary Land Use Permits until the locality approves this request. In addition, information regarding any changes to the existing drainage system should also be included for review. Roanoke County Transportation – 1. It is acknowledged that on August 15, 2024, VDOT issued a Letter of Concurrence with the updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted to VDOT on August 9, 2024. 2. It is understood that in the TIA, the applicant agrees to participate in a cooperative effort with Roanoke County and other parties to seek a solution to construct a southbound left turn lane along Sanderson Drive. The potential left turn lane should be shown on the concept plan with an accompanying note about the cooperative effort. 3. It is acknowledged that in the TIA, the applicant agrees to deed adequate right-of-way for a turn lane over their existing property. This proposed right-of-way dedication should be shown on the concept plan along with the 45 to 55-foot-wide utility easement currently present along Sanderson Drive in this location, per the Plat of the Property of Michael W. Beahm submitted with the rezoning application. 4. Bubble Diagram on page 28 of the TIA does not match the Rezoning Concept in the submitted rezoning application. These documents should more closely resemble each other. 5. It is unclear whether lots fronting on Sanderson Drive will have access off of the internal road network, off of Sanderson Drive, or both. Please clarify. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The 2005 Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan indicates the future land use designations of this area as Principal Industrial. Principal Industrial is a future land use area where a variety of industry types are encouraged to locate. Principal Industrial areas are existing and planned regional employment centers and are distributed throughout the county, convenient to major residential areas and suitable highway access. facilities. The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Principal Industrial future land use designation. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS Dale Wilkinson is petitioning to rezone approximately 21.39 acres from I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District, to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, located at 0 Sanderson Drive and 7812 Sanderson Drive, Hollins Magisterial District. The intention is to develop a 161-lot residential subdivision. This subdivision would be partially located in Roanoke County and partially in Botetourt County. The portion of the proposed subdivision located in Roanoke County would include 117 townhomes and 30 single family detached dwellings. The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Principal Industrial future land use designation. Due to the proposed rezoning being inconsistent with the Principal Industrial Future Land Use Designation, staff cannot support this request; however, staff recognizes the complications to develop this property as an industrial use, the surrounding properties being residentially zoned, and the lengthy period of time that the property has been zoned industrial and designated industrial in the County’s Comprehensive Plan without the property being developed as such. The applicant has proposed four (4) proffered conditions with the proposed rezoning which address general conformance with the concept plan, general conformance with the provided elevation examples, construction of a road to connect Stonegate, Phase 3 to the new development, and the dedication of right- of-way along Sanderson Drive for future traffic improvements. CASE NUMBER: #17-9/2024 PREPARED BY: Skylar Camerlinck HEARING DATES: PC: October 1, 2024 BOS: October 22, 2024 ATTACHMENTS: Application Materials Maps (Aerial, Zoning, Future Land Use) Traffic Impact Analysis – August 2024 VDOT Concurrence Letter Photographs Concept Plan – August 29th, 2024 Concept Plan – September 24th, 2024 Building Renderings Proffer Statement – 9-24-24 I-1 District Regulations R-3 District Regulations Townhouse Use and Design Standards Principal Industrial Future Land Use Designation Comment Forms Transmittal Letter – June 4th Planning Commission Public Hearing Citizen Comment – September 3rd Planning Commission Public Hearing Citizen Comment – Dale Brown Citizen Comment – Walter Jones Citizen Comment – Bob Riedford 8.428 ACRES OF 028.01-01-30.00-0000 IN ROANOKE COUNTY Roanoke County, Source : Es ri, Maxar, Earths tar Ge ographics , and the GIS Us e rCommunity Roanoke County, Virginia2019 0 Subject Parcels Aerial Map Dale Wilkinson 7812 & 0 Sanderson Drive Tax Map#'s 028.01-01-30.00-0000 & 028.01-01-29.00-0000 Magisterial District: Hollins Current Zoning: I-1 Proposed Zoning: R-3 I1I1 R1R1 I1SI1S R1SR1S R3R3 I2I2 Roanoke Cou nty, Virg inia 2019 Roanoke Cou nty, Virg inia2019 0 Zoning Zoning Map Dale Wilkinson 7812 & 0 Sanderson Drive Tax Map#'s 028.01-01-30.00-0000 & 028.01-01-29.00-0000 Magisterial District: Hollins Current Zoning: I-1 Proposed Zoning: R-3 Subject Parcels PIPI NCNC Roanoke County, Virginia 2019 Roanoke County, Virginia2019 0 Future Land Use Future Land Use Map Dale Wilkinson 7812 & 0 Sanderson Drive Tax Map#'s 028.01-01-30.00-0000 & 028.01-01-29.00-0000 Magisterial District: Hollins Current Zoning: I-1 Proposed Zoning: R-3 Subject Parcels TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS BEAHM PROPERTY ROANOKE COUNTY AND BOTETOURT COUNTY, VIRGINIA AUGUST 2024 Prepared By: 2035 Maywill Street, Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23230 (804) 673-3882 Copyright © 2024, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. i Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 3 2 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Project Area ................................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Development Information ................................................................................................ 6 3 Traffic Operational Analysis ............................................................................................. 6 3.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Key Assumptions ............................................................................................................ 7 4 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Existing Roadway Characteristics ................................................................................... 7 4.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 7 4.3 Existing Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis .......................................................... 9 4.4 Existing Conditions SimTraffic Queuing Analysis ............................................................ 9 5 Projected No-Build Conditions ......................................................................................... 9 5.1 Traffic Growth Rate ........................................................................................................ 9 5.2 2028 No-Build Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis .............................................. 12 5.3 2028 No-Build Conditions SimTraffic Queueing Analysis ............................................... 12 5.4 2030 No-Build Conditions Intersection Capacity Analyses ............................................. 12 5.5 2030 No-Build Conditions SimTraffic Queueing Analysis ............................................... 12 6 Projected Build Conditions ............................................................................................. 12 6.1 Site Trip Generation ..................................................................................................... 12 6.2 Site Trip Distribution and Assignment ........................................................................... 13 6.3 2028 Phase 1 Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis .............................................. 19 6.4 2028 Phase 1 Conditions SimTraffic Queueing Analysis ............................................... 19 6.5 2030 Full-Build Conditions Intersection Capacity Analysis ............................................. 19 6.6 2030 Full-Build Conditions SimTraffic Queueing Analysis.............................................. 19 7 Projected Build With Improvements Conditions ............................................................. 20 7.1 2028 Phase 1 w/ Improvements Int. Capacity Analysis........................................... 20 7.2 2028 Phase 1 w/ Improvements SimTraffic Queueing Analysis ..................................... 20 7.3 2030 Build w/ Improvements Intersection Capacity Analysis ......................................... 20 7.4 2030 Build w/ Improvements SimTraffic Queueing Analysis .......................................... 20 8 Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................... 25 ii Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Study Area ...................................................................................................................5 Figure 2: Existing 2023 Turning Movement Volumes ..................................................................8 Figure 3: Projected 2028 No-Build Turning Movement Volumes ...............................................10 Figure 4: Projected 2030 No-Build Turning Movement Volumes ...............................................11 Figure 5: Trip Distribution ..........................................................................................................14 Figure 6: 2028 Trip Assignment ................................................................................................15 Figure 7: 2030 Trip Assignment ................................................................................................16 Figure 8: Projected 2028 Build Turning Movement Volumes .....................................................17 Figure 9: Projected 2030 Full-Build Turning Movement Volumes ..............................................18 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Criteria .....................................................6 Table 2: Existing Roadway Characteristics .................................................................................7 Table 3: Trip Generation Summary ...........................................................................................13 Table 4: AM Peak Hour Control Delay and LOS Summary........................................................21 Table 5: PM Peak Hour Control Delay and LOS Summary........................................................22 Table 6: AM Peak Hour Queueing Analysis ..............................................................................23 Table 7: PM Peak Hour Queueing Analysis ..............................................................................24 APPENDICES Appendix A: Conceptual Site Plan Appendix B: Trip Generation Appendix C:Traffic Count Data Appendix D: Intersection Capacity Analysis Appendix E: SimTraffic Queuing Analysis 3 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The traffic impact analysis (TIA) documented in this report evaluates the anticipated traffic impacts of the proposed development to be generally located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive within both Roanoke County and Botetourt County. Currently, the site proposed for development is occupied and used primarily as farmland. The proposed development consists of up to 125 townhomes and 100 single-family residential units with Phase 1 consisting of 50 townhomes and 100 single-family residential units. A site plan is included in Appendix A. Access to the proposed development will be provided via two full-access driveways along Sanderson Drive. Traffic operations were analyzed at the intersections identified below during the AM and PM peak hours using Synchro 12TM software for the Existing 2023, projected 2028 No-Build, projected 2028 Phase 1 Build, projected 2028 Phase 1 Build with Improvements, projected 2030 No-Build, projected 2030 Full-Build, and projected 2030 Full-Build with Improvements conditions. Based on historic growth trends developed from VDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) publications along Sanderson Drive, Shadwell Drive, and Hollins Road, a linear growth rate of 1.0% was established for Sanderson Drive and a linear growth rate of 1.5% was established for Shadwell Drive and Hollins Road to project future traffic volumes for the no-build and build conditions. The following unsignalized intersections were analyzed in this traffic impact analysis: 1. Shadwell Drive & Hollins Road 2. Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive 3. Sanderson Drive and Southern Driveway 4. Sanderson Drive and Northern Driveway The results of the traffic impact analysis indicate that while the project results in minor increases in delay at the study intersections the anticipated maximum queues will be accommodated and are not expected to spill back into adjacent intersections. It must be noted that project traffic is expected to increase delays at the southbound approach of Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive by 38 seconds during the 2028 Phase 1 PM peak hour and 80 seconds during the 2030 Full-Build PM peak hour. However, improving the approach to include exclusive southbound left and right-turn lanes improves the approach delays to better than no- build conditions. The applicant agrees to participate in a cooperative effort with Roanoke County and other parties to seek a solution to construct a southbound left-turn lane along Sanderson Drive. The applicant would agree to deed adequate right-of-way for a turn-lane over their existing property. 4 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 PURPOSE Kimley-Horn has performed a traffic impact analysis (TIA) to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed Beahm Property development generally located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive within both Roanoke County and Botetourt County. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the future impacts of the proposed development traffic on the surrounding roadway network and to identify mitigation measures to accommodate the proposed development, if needed. 2.2 METHODOLOGY In preparation of the TIA, Kimley-Horn coordinated with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Roanoke County to receive concurrence on the scope of the study, the limits of the study area, and the proposed analysis methodology. As determined through coordination, study area intersections included the following: 1. Shadwell Drive & Hollins Road 2. Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive 3. Sanderson Drive and Southern Driveway 4. Sanderson Drive and Northern Driveway Intersection analyses were performed using Synchro 12TM software which applied the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition, methodology and included an evaluation of the Existing 2023, projected 2028 No-Build, projected 2028 Phase 1 Build, projected 2028 Phase 1 Build with Improvements, projected 2030 No-Build, projected 2030 Full-Build, and projected 2030 Full-Build with Improvements conditions. Existing conditions represent the roadway network geometry and traffic volumes at the time of this study. No-build conditions represent the future roadway network prior to the completion of the proposed project and include estimated traffic attributable to approved but unbuilt developments in the study area. Build conditions represent the future roadway network with the proposed project, and Build with Improvements Conditions include a southbound left-turn lane with 200 ft of storage at the Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive intersection. 2.3 PROJECT AREA The proposed project is generally located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive within both Roanoke County and Botetourt County, as shown in Figure 1. 5 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 Figure 1: Study Area 6 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 2.4 DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION The site proposed for development is currently occupied and generally used as farmland. The proposed development consists of up to 125 townhomes and 100 single-family residential units with Phase 1 consisting of 50 townhomes and 100-single family residential units. 3 TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS 3.1 METHODOLOGY The traffic operational analysis performed for this study using Synchro 12TM was conducted in accordance with VDOT’s Traffic Operations Safety Analysis Manual (TOSAM) for deterministic, intersection capacity analyses. Consistent with coordination with VDOT, SimTraffic maximum queue analyses were also performed. The evaluation of traffic operations within the study area was comprised of an intersection capacity level of service (LOS) analysis and a queueing analysis for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the traffic operational analysis, the projected future year no-build conditions served as the baseline for evaluating intersection delays and identifying mitigation measures under the build conditions. Intersection capacity defines the volume of traffic that can be accommodated by an intersection at a specified LOS. Capacity is affected by various geometric factors including roadway type (e.g., divided or undivided), number of lanes, lane widths, and grades. LOS, which is a measure of the degree of congestion, ranges from LOS A (free flowing) to LOS F (a congested, forced flow condition). Delay, measured in seconds per vehicle, and the associated LOS thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections based on HCM methodologies are presented in Table 1. Table 1: Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Criteria Level of Service (LOS) Average Control Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh)Description of Traffic Conditions Signalized Unsignalized A £ 10 £ 10 No delays at intersections with continuous flow traffic. Uncongested operations; high frequency of long gaps available for all left and right-turning traffic; no observable queues.B > 10 and £ 20 > 10 and £ 15 C > 20 and £ 35 > 15 and £ 25 Moderate delays at intersections with satisfactory to good traffic flow. Light congestion; infrequent backups on critical approaches. D > 35 and £ 55 > 25 and £ 35 Increased probability of delays along every approach. Significant congestionon critical approaches, but intersection functional. No long-standing lines formed. E > 55 and £ 80 > 35 and £ 50 Heavy traffic flow condition. Heavy delays probable. No available gaps for cross-street traffic or main street turning traffic. Limit of stable flow. F > 80 > 50 Unstable traffic flow. Heavy congestion. Traffic moves in forced flow condition. Average delays greater than one minute highly probable. Total breakdown. 7 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 3.2 KEY ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were made as part of the traffic operational analysis: §All intersections used the collected peak hour factor (PHF) data for the existing condition. For the future year no-build and build conditions, all intersections, in accordance with TOSAM, used the higher of the measured PHF or 0.92. §All intersections were analyzed with the collected heavy vehicle percentages at each individual movement for the existing, no-build, and build conditions. 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Roadway characteristics including geometry and posted speed limits for roadway facilities adjacent to the proposed development are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Existing Roadway Characteristics Road Lanes Posted Speed (mph) Functional Classification Hollins Road 2 Lanes Undivided 40 Major Collector Shadwell Drive (west of Sanderson Drive)2 Lanes Undivided 40 Major Collector Shadwell Drive (east of Sanderson Drive)2 Lanes Undivided 45 Major Collector Sanderson Drive 2 Lanes Undivided 40 Major Collector 4.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were collected on August 15, 2023 (Tuesday) at the following identified study area intersections: 1. Shadwell Drive & Hollins Road 2. Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive Existing turning movement counts are shown in Figure 2. The systemwide A.M. peak hour was determined to be 7:15 – 8:15 A.M. and the systemwide PM peak hour was determined to be 5:00 – 6:00 PM. Traffic count data is provided in Appendix C. 1 'Int 1'!2 'Int 2'! (179) (69) 212 102 203 (145) (123)71 51 (106) 155 (139)146 (105) (101) (205) (242)85 (324) 100 (100)92 83 86 © 2024 N NOT TO SCALE Figure 2 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Beahm Property Roanoke County and Botetourt County, Virginia Legend Study Roadway Study Intersection XX A.M. Peak Hour Traffic (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Shadwell Drive Hollins Road Sanderson Drive 9 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 4.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS During the AM and PM peak hours, all intersection approaches operate at LOS C or better. The control delay and LOS results are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5 following the analysis sections. The intersection capacity analysis results are included in Appendix D. 4.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS SIMTRAFFIC QUEUING ANALYSIS Existing maximum queue lengths were reported for all intersection approaches at the study intersections. Based on the queue analysis results, all movement queues are expected to have adequate storage space between adjacent intersections. The queue results are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7 following the analysis sections. The queueing analysis results are included in Appendix E. 5 PROJECTED NO-BUILD CONDITIONS The projected no-build conditions represent the future roadway network and background traffic growth without the addition of the proposed development traffic. Stonegate Phase III was identified as a background development within the project area and was included in all future year analyses. This project is located along Shadwell Drive to the east of the proposed development and consists of 40 single-family residential units. Trip generation estimates for this development are located in Appendix B. Trip distribution and assignment followed the approved distribution for the proposed development. 5.1 TRAFFIC GROWTH RATE To project future traffic volumes for the Existing 2023, 2028 No-Build, 2028 Phase 1 Build, 2028 Phase 1 Build with Improvements, 2030 No-Build, 2030 Full-Build, and 2030 Full-Build with Improvements conditions, a linear growth rate of 1.0% was established for Sanderson Drive, and a linear growth rate of 1.50% was established for Shadwell Drive and Hollins Road to reflect historic growth trends from VDOT- published Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data. No-Build 2028 and 2030 traffic volumes are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4. 1 'Int 1'!2 'Int 2'! (188) (80) 223 109 (147)81 173 (154) 225 (160) (268)94 (349) 108 (228) (109) (108)99 89 95 175 (126) 61 (118) © 2024 N NOT TO SCALE Figure 3 2028 Future Background Peak Hour Traffic Beahm Property Roanoke County and Botetourt County, Virginia Legend Study Roadway Study Intersection XX A.M. Peak Hour Traffic (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Shadwell Drive Hollins Road Sanderson Drive 1 'Int 1'!2 'Int 2'! (235) (112) (111) 102 92 97 (192) (81) 227 111 (151)83 178 (158)182 (131) 231 (165)63 (122) (276)97 (360) 111 © 2024 N NOT TO SCALE Figure 4 2030 Future Background Peak Hour Traffic Beahm Property Roanoke County and Botetourt County, Virginia Legend Study Roadway Study Intersection XX A.M. Peak Hour Traffic (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Shadwell Drive Hollins Road Sanderson Drive 12 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 5.2 2028 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS During the AM and PM peak hours, all intersection approaches operate at LOS E or better. The control delay and LOS results are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5 following the analysis sections. The intersection capacity analysis results are included in Appendix D. 5.3 2028 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS SIMTRAFFIC QUEUEING ANALYSIS Future year No-Build maximum queue lengths were reported for all intersection approaches at the study intersections. Based on the queue analysis results, all movement queues are expected to have adequate storage space between adjacent intersections. The queue results are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7 following the analysis sections. The queueing analysis results are included in Appendix E. 5.4 2030 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES During the AM and PM peak hours, all intersection approaches operate at LOS E or better. The control delay and LOS results are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5 following the analysis sections. The intersection capacity analysis results are included in Appendix D. 5.5 2030 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS SIMTRAFFIC QUEUEING ANALYSIS Future year No-Build maximum queue lengths were reported for all intersection approaches at the study intersections. Based on the queue analysis results, all movement queues are expected to have adequate storage space between adjacent intersections. The queue results are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7 following the analysis sections. The queueing analysis results are included in Appendix E. 6 PROJECTED BUILD CONDITIONS The 2028 Phase 1 and 2030 Build conditions represent the future roadway network with the addition of background traffic growth, surrounding development traffic, and traffic attributable to the proposed project. Access to the proposed development will be provided along Sanderson Drive via two full-access driveways. 6.1 SITE TRIP GENERATION Traffic projections were estimated for the proposed development based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.Table 3 summarizes the expected project trip generation during the AM and PM peak hours. The total trips represent the estimated number of vehicles entering and exiting the proposed development to and from the adjacent roadway network. The expected net new project trips presented in Table 3 represent the gross project trips attributable to the proposed land uses. Detailed trip generation calculations have been included in Appendix C. 13 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 Table 3: Trip Generation Summary Description ITE Code Intensity Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Phase 1 Single-Family Attached Housing 215 50 units 20 5 15 26 15 11 Single-Family Detached Housing 210 100 units 74 19 55 99 62 37 Net New Trips 94 24 70 125 77 48 Full-Build Single-Family Attached Housing 215 125 units 59 15 44 71 42 29 Single-Family Detached Housing 210 100 units 74 19 55 99 62 37 Net New Trips 133 34 99 170 104 66 6.2 SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of traffic at study area intersections, including proposed access locations, was established based on existing traffic patterns, and anticipated future traffic patterns, and was agreed upon by VDOT staff. The trip distribution is shown in Figure 5. The assignment of traffic generated by the site was calculated by applying the distribution percentage for a specific turning movement to the total number of inbound or outbound trips generated to establish the turning movement volume at that location. 2028 trip assignment based on the trip distribution is shown in Figure 6.2030 trip assignment based on the trip distribution is shown in Figure 7. The resulting 2028 Phase 1 Build volumes for the AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figure 8 and the resulting 2030 Full- Build volumes for the AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figure 9.The 2028 Phase 1 Build and 2030 Full-Build condition traffic volumes were calculated by adding the site-generated trips to the projected No- Build 2028 traffic volumes. 4 'Int 4'! 3 'Int 3'! 1 'Int 1'!2 'Int 2'! 28%57% 29% (28%)14% (29%) (48%) 23% 48% (57%) (14%) (23%) 23% (10%) (23%) 10% (10%) 10% 19% (19%) © 2024 N NOT TO SCALE Figure 5 Trip Distribution Beahm Property Roanoke County and Botetourt County, Virginia Legend Study Roadway Study Intersection XX% Entering Distribution (XX%) Exiting Distribution Shadwell Drive SITE Southern Driveway Northern Driveway Hollins Road Sanderson Drive 4 'Int 4'! 3 'Int 3'! 1 'Int 1'!2 'Int 2'! (22) (22)7 (44)14 7 20 (13)3 (11) 20 (14) 34 (23) 6 12 (18) (37) (27) (7) 40 10 16 (11) 7 6 (5) (18) (11) (8) 16 2 7 (5) (8) (15) 2 5 13 (9) © 2024 N NOT TO SCALE Figure 6 2028 Trip Assignment Beahm Property Roanoke County and Botetourt County, Virginia Legend Study Roadway Study Intersection XX A.M. Peak Hour Trip Assignment (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Trip Assignment Shadwell Drive SITE Southern Driveway Northern Driveway Hollins Road Sanderson Drive 4 'Int 4'! 3 'Int 3'! 1 'Int 1'!2 'Int 2'! (10) (20) 3 6 19 (13) 23 (15) 10 8 (7) (24) (15) (10) 23 3 10 (7) 48 (32) 8 16 (24) (50) (38) (9) 56 1428(18)5 (15) 29 (19) (30) (29)10 (59)19 10 © 2024 N NOT TO SCALE Figure 7 2030 Full-Build Trip Assignment Beahm Property Roanoke County and Botetourt County, Virginia Legend Study Roadway Study Intersection XX A.M. Peak Hour Trip Assignment (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Trip Assignment Shadwell Drive SITE Southern Driveway Northern Driveway Hollins Road Sanderson Drive 4 'Int 4'! 3 'Int 3'! 1 'Int 1'!2 'Int 2'! (250) (109) (485) 101 122 348 2 34 175 (129) (9) (23) (87) (215) (5) 245 193 175 (126) 16 176 6 (18) (11) (14) 334 5 13 (8) 11 (37) 7 (276) (472) (279) (108)99 89 102 (147)81 263 119 64 (290)(393) (173) (168) © 2024 N NOT TO SCALE Figure 8 2028 Phase 1 Future Total Peak Hour Traffic Beahm Property Roanoke County and Botetourt County, Virginia Legend Study Roadway Study Intersection XX A.M. Peak Hour Traffic (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Shadwell Drive SITE Southern Driveway Northern Driveway Hollins Road Sanderson Drive 4 'Int 4'! 3 'Int 3'! 1 'Int 1'!2 'Int 2'! (111) 102 92 107 (151)83 283 125 68 (305)(419) (184) (177) (90) (230) (7) 259 206 182 (131) 23 184 8 (24) (15) (20) 341 6 19 (10) 17 (50) 10 (283) (489) (288) 47 182 (137) (12) (32) (265) (112) (506) 107 131 361 3 © 2024 N NOT TO SCALE Figure 9 2030 Full-Build Future Total Peak Hour Traffic Beahm Property Roanoke County and Botetourt County, Virginia Legend Study Roadway Study Intersection XX A.M. Peak Hour Traffic (XX) P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Shadwell Drive SITE Southern Driveway Northern Driveway Hollins Road Sanderson Drive 19 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 6.3 2028 PHASE 1 CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS During the AM and PM peak hours, all intersection approaches operate at LOS E or better with the exception of the southbound approach at the intersection of Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive. It is anticipated that project traffic will increase delays at the southbound approach of Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive by 3 seconds during the AM peak hour and 38 seconds during the PM peak hour. Note that these results are typical where a high volume, free-flow, roadway intersects a low volume, stop- controlled, roadway. Further note that the delay is driven by the southbound left-turning volumes which the project adds fewer than 10 trips to during the PM peak hour. The control delay and LOS results are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5 following the analysis sections. The intersection capacity analysis results are included in Appendix D. 6.4 2028 PHASE 1 CONDITIONS SIMTRAFFIC QUEUEING ANALYSIS Phase 1 maximum queue lengths were reported for all intersection approaches at the study intersections. Based on the queue analysis results, all movement queues are expected to have adequate storage space between adjacent intersections. The queue results are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7 following the analysis sections. The queueing analysis results are included in Appendix E. 6.5 2030 FULL-BUILD CONDITIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS During the AM and PM peak hours, all intersection approaches operate at LOS E or better with the exception of the northbound approach at the intersection of Shadwell Drive and Hollins Road and the southbound approach at the intersection of Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive. It is anticipated that project traffic will increase delays at the northbound approach of Shadwell Drive and Hollins Road by 5 seconds during the AM peak hour and 21 seconds during the PM peak hour. Similarly, it is anticipated that project traffic will increase delays at the southbound approach of Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive by 6 seconds during the AM peak hour and 80 seconds during the PM peak hour. Note that these results are typical where a high volume, free-flow, roadway intersects a low volume, stop- controlled, roadway. Further note that the delay is driven by the southbound left-turning volumes which the project adds fewer than 10 trips to during the PM peak hour. The control delay and LOS results are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5 following the analysis sections. The intersection capacity analysis results are included in Appendix D. 6.6 2030 FULL-BUILD CONDITIONS SIMTRAFFIC QUEUEING ANALYSIS 2030 Full-Build maximum queue lengths were reported for all intersection approaches at the study intersections. Based on the queue analysis results, all movement queues are expected to have adequate storage space between adjacent intersections. The queue results are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7 following the analysis sections. The queueing analysis results are included in Appendix E. 20 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 7 PROJECTED BUILD WITH IMPROVEMENTS CONDITIONS The 2028 Phase 1 and 2030 Build with Improvements conditions represent the project Build Conditions with the addition of a southbound left turn lane with 200 ft of storage at the intersection of Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive. 7.1 2028 PHASE 1 W/ IMPROVEMENTS CAPACITY ANALYSIS During the AM and PM peak hours, all intersection approaches operate at LOS E or better. The control delay and LOS results are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5 following the analysis sections. The intersection capacity analysis results are included in Appendix D. 7.2 2028 PHASE 1 W/ IMPROVEMENTS SIMTRAFFIC QUEUEING ANALYSIS Phase 1 maximum queue lengths were reported for all intersection approaches at the study intersections. Based on the queue analysis results, all movement queues are expected to have adequate storage space between adjacent intersections. The queue results are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7 following the analysis sections. The queueing analysis results are included in Appendix E. 7.3 2030 BUILD W/ IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS During the AM and PM peak hours, all intersection approaches operate at LOS E or better with the exception of the northbound approach at the intersection of Shadwell Drive and Hollins Road. Note that these results are typical where a high volume, free-flow, roadway intersects a low volume, stop-controlled, roadway. It is anticipated that project traffic will increase delays at the northbound approach of Shadwell Drive and Hollins Road by 5 seconds during the AM peak hour and 21 seconds during the PM peak hour. The control delay and LOS results are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5 following the analysis sections. The intersection capacity analysis results are included in Appendix D. 7.4 2030 BUILD W/ IMPROVEMENTS SIMTRAFFIC QUEUEING ANALYSIS 2030 Full-Build maximum queue lengths were reported for all intersection approaches at the study intersections. Based on the queue analysis results, all movement queues are expected to have adequate storage space between adjacent intersections. The queue results are summarized in Table 6 and Table 7 following the analysis sections. The queueing analysis results are included in Appendix E. . 21 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 Table 4: AM Peak Hour Control Delay and LOS Summary Intersection Approach Movement AM Peak 2023 2028 2028 2028 2030 2030 2030 Existing No-Build Phase 1 Phase 1 w/ Imp No-Build Build Build w/ Imp Delay (LOS) 1. Shadwell Drive & Hollins Road Eastbound T (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)R Approach (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) Westbound L 8.0 (A)8.1 (A)8.2 (A)8.2 (A)8.1 (A)8.2 (A)8.2 (A)T Approach (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) Northbound L 17.6 (C)19.1 (C)21.8 (C)21.8 (C)20.3 (C)25.1 (D)25.1 (D)R Approach 17.6 (C)19.1 (C)21.8 (C)21.8 (C)20.3 (C)25.1 (D)25.1 (D) Overall Intersection (2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2) 2. Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive Eastbound L 7.9 (A)8.0 (A)8.0 (A)8.0 (A)8.0 (A)8.1 (A)8.1 (A)T Approach (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) Westbound T (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)R Approach (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) Southbound L 14.9 (B)17.1 (C)20.2 (C)16.9 (C)17.8 (C)23.4 (C)18.1 (C) R 11.7 (B)12.1 (B) Approach 14.9 (B)17.1 (C)20.2 (C)13.3 (B)17.8 (C)23.4 (C)13.9 (B) Overall Intersection (2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2) 3. Sanderson Drive & Southern Driveway Westbound L (3)(3)12.7 (B)12.7 (B)(3)13.2 (B)13.2 (B)R Approach (3)(3)12.7 (B)12.7 (B)(3)13.2 (B)13.2 (B) Northbound T (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1)R Approach (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1) Southbound L (3)(3)7.6 (A)7.6 (A)(3)7.7 (A)7.7 (A)T Approach (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1) Overall Intersection (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1) 4. Sanderson Drive & Northern Driveway Westbound L (3)(3)11.4 (B)11.3 (B)(3)11.7 (B)11.7 (B)R Approach (3)(3)11.4 (B)11.3 (B)(3)11.7 (B)11.7 (B) Northbound T (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1)R Approach (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1) Southbound L (3)(3)7.6 (A)7.6 (A)(3)7.7 (A)7.7 (A)T Approach (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1) Overall Intersection (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1) Notes:(1) Approach/movement operates under free-flow conditions; therefore, no LOS is reported. (2)Intersection operates under two-way stop-control conditions; therefore, no LOS is reported. (3)Intersection does not exist; therefore, no LOS is reported. (4) For uncontrolled shared lane approaches, reported delays are for the interrupted movement. 22 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 Table 5: PM Peak Hour Control Delay and LOS Summary Intersection Approach Movement PM Peak 2023 2028 2028 2028 2030 2030 2030 Existing No-Build Phase 1 Phase 1 w/ Imp No-Build Build Build w/ Imp Delay (LOS) 1. Shadwell Drive & Hollins Road Eastbound T (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)R Approach (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) Westbound L 8.4 (A)8.6 (A)8.7 (A)8.7 (A)8.6 (A)8.8 (A)8.8 (A)T Approach (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) Northbound L 22.5 (C)30.9 (D)41.2 (E)41.2 (E)35.2 (D)56.0 (F)56.0 (F)R Approach 22.5 (C)30.9 (D)41.2 (E)41.2 (E)35.2 (D)56.0 (F)56.0 (F) Overall Intersection (2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2) 2. Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive Eastbound L 8.6 (A)8.8 (A)9.1 (A)9.1 (A)8.9 (A)9.3 (A)9.3 (A)T Approach (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) Westbound T (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)R Approach (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) Southbound L 23.8 (C)38.5 (E)76.0 (F)77.1 (F)45.8 (E)125.6 (F)111.1 (F) R 10.9 (B)11.1 (B) Approach 23.8 (C)38.5 (E)76.0 (F)30.0 (D)45.8 (E)125.6 (F)39.2 (E) Overall Intersection (2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2) 3. Sanderson Drive & Southern Driveway Westbound L (3)(3)16.5 (C)16.4 (C)(3)17.8 (C)17.8 (C)R Approach (3)(3)16.5 (C)16.4 (C)(3)17.8 (C)17.8 (C) Northbound T (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1)R Approach (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1) Southbound L (3)(3)8.6 (A)8.6 (A)(3)8.7 (A)8.7 (A)T Approach (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1) Overall Intersection (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1) 4. Sanderson Drive & Northern Driveway Westbound L (3)(3)14.6 (B)14.6 (B)(3)15.4 (C)15.4 (C)R Approach (3)(3)14.6 (B)14.6 (B)(3)15.4 (C)15.4 (C) Northbound T (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1)R Approach (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1) Southbound L (3)(3)8.5 (A)8.5 (A)(3)8.6 (A)8.6 (A)T Approach (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1) Overall Intersection (3)(3)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1) Notes:(1) Approach/movement operates under free-flow conditions; therefore, no LOS is reported. (2)Intersection operates under two-way stop-control conditions; therefore, no LOS is reported. (3)Intersection does not exist; therefore, no LOS is reported. (4)For uncontrolled shared lane approaches, reported delays are for the interrupted movement. 23 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 Table 6: AM Peak Hour Queueing Analysis Intersection Approach Movement Storage AM Peak Hour 2023 2028 2028 2028 2030 2030 2030 Existing No-Build Phase 1 Phase 1 w/Improvements No-Build Build Build w/Improvements Maximum Queue (ft) 1. Shadwell Drive & Hollins Road Eastbound T -(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)R Westbound L 120(3)92 93 98 96 90 106 97T Northbound L -113 130 148 142 125 153 151R 2. Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive Eastbound L 105(3)60 74 78 79 73 77 83T Westbound T -(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)R Southbound L -173 150 224 88 184 211 94 R 104 133 3. Sanderson Drive & Southern Driveway Westbound L -(2)(2)62 62 (2)58 59R Northbound T -(2)(2)(1)(1)(2)(1)(1)R Southbound L -(2)(2)<25 <25 (2)<25 <25T 4. Sanderson Drive & Northern Driveway Westbound L -(2)(2)40 43 (2)51 51R Northbound T -(2)(2)(1)(1)(2)(1)(1)R Southbound L -(2)(2)<25 27 (2)25 28T Notes:(1) Intersection approach operates under free-flow conditions, no queue is reported. (2)Intersection/approach does not exist; therefore, no queue is reported. (3)Available storage distance accounts for location of railroad tracks. 24 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3 Beahm Property August 2024 Table 7: PM Peak Hour Queueing Analysis Intersection Approach Movement Storage PM Peak Hour 2023 2028 2028 2028 2030 2030 2030 Existing No-Build Phase 1 Phase 1 w/Improvements No-Build Build Build w/Improvements Maximum Queue (ft) 1. Shadwell Drive & Hollins Road Eastbound T -(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)R Westbound L 120(3)98 114 112 96 108 120 101T Northbound L -227 350 414 408 381 523 505R 2. Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive Eastbound L 105(3)110 117 119 103 116 119 103T Westbound T -(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)R Southbound L -173 254 360 118 238 527 155 R 96 134 3. Sanderson Drive & Southern Driveway Westbound L -(2)(2)51 53 (2)68 62R Northbound T -(2)(2)(1)(1)(2)(1)(1)R Southbound L -(2)(2)57 45 (2)103 56T 4. Sanderson Drive & Northern Driveway Westbound L -(2)(2)42 42 (2)42 44R Northbound T -(2)(2)(1)(1)(2)(1)(1)R Southbound L -(2)(2)51 52 (2)63 69T Notes:(1) Intersection approach operates under free-flow conditions, no queue is reported. (2)Intersection/approach does not exist; therefore, no queue is reported. (3)Available storage distance accounts for location of railroad tracks. 25 Traffic Impact Analysis Version 3Beahm Property August 2024 8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The traffic impact analysis (TIA) documented in this report evaluates the anticipated traffic impacts of the proposed development to be generally located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive within both Roanoke County and Botetourt County. Currently, the site proposed for development is occupied and used primarily as farmland. The proposed development consists of up to 125 townhomes and 100 single-family residential units with Phase 1 consisting of 50 townhomes and 100 single-family residential units. Access to the proposed development will be provided via two full-access driveways along Sanderson Drive. The results of the traffic impact analysis indicate that while the project results in minor increases in delay at the study intersections the anticipated maximum queues will be accommodated and are not expected to spill back into adjacent intersections. It must be noted that project traffic is expected to increase delays at the southbound approach of Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive by 38 seconds during the 2028 Phase 1 PM peak hour and 80 seconds during the 2030 Full-Build PM peak hour. However, improving the approach to include exclusive southbound left and right-turn lanes improves the approach delays to better than no- build conditions. The applicant agrees to participate in a cooperative effort with Roanoke County and other parties to seek a solution to construct a southbound left-turn lane along Sanderson Drive. The applicant would agree to deed adequate right-of-way for a turn-lane over their existing property. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 731 Harrison Ave. Salem, VA 24153-0560 August 15, 2024 Ms. Denise Sowder Development Review Coordinator County of Roanoke P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 RE: Beahm Property at Sanderson TIA Route 601, 601, 605-- Shadwell Drive, Hollins Road, Sanderson Drive Roanoke County 3rd Review – Traffic Impact Analysis Denise: The traffic impact analysis for the above-mentioned development, received by our office on August 9, 2024, has been reviewed and it appears that all applicable standards and specifications have been met as the Virginia Licensed Professional Engineer has acknowledged by signing and stamping the analysis. This concurrence is based on the proposed land use covered in the submitted Traffic Study. Any future changes to these proposed land uses will require review and approval of a revised Traffic Study. Please be aware this concurrence does not constitute approval of the required site plan for the development which would include entrance location/spacing, intersection sight distance, proposed drainage, etc. Please call if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Steven B. Mullins, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer VDOT, Salem Residency ckb/ cc: Omar Kanaan, P.E.—Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. STEPHEN C. BRICH, P.E. COMMISSIONER © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS © 2024 TMAP MOBILITY Earthstar Geographics SIO x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO x x x x x 3: 1 3: 1 3:1 3:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 CO 3 4 11 6 7 8 9 10 12 5 34 105 106 107 100 101 108 103 102 104 110 109 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 1 2 2. 0 % 1220 1220 1210 1210 12 1 0 1200 12 0 0 11 9 2 11 9 2 11 9 2 12 0 0 1200 120 2 1210 1210 1220 12 2 0 12 2 0 12 2 0 12 1 0 12 0 0 1220 1220 1210 1220 120 0 120 0 119 0 1200 1190 119 0 12 1 0 1200 1174 1230 ST O N E G A T E D R . RT E . 1 2 9 5 5 0 ' R / W SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS BOTETOURT COUNTY ROANOKE COUNTY 11 8 0 1190 119 0 119 0 120 0 120 0 119 0 11 9 0 11901190 12 0 0 12 0 0 1200 1200 1210 1210 121 0 12 1 0 1220 122 0 11 7 0 11 8 0 11 8 0 119 0 11 9 0 TH-2 TH-3 TH-4 4 1 2 3 5 8 212019 7 10 9 24 6 TH-1 22 14 17 1312 16 23 18 2515 11 SWM 30 ROW 43 31 32333435363738394041 26 27 28 29 42 44 N S W E ROANOKE COUNTY PORTION ONLY R-3 ZONING PROPOSAL TOWNHOMES - 117 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED - 30 TOTAL UNITS IN ROANOKE COUNTY= 147 BOTETOURT COUNTY ROANOKE COUNTY BOTETOURT COUNTY LAYOUT SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT PART OF REZONING REQUEST SITE TABULATION CONTRACT OWNER/DEVELOPER:STONEGATE PROPERTIES, LLC PO BOX 450 FINCASTLE, VIRGINIA 24090 ENGINEER:ENGINEERING CONCEPTS 94 GREENFIELD STREET DALEVILLE, VIRGINIA 24083 Ph: (540) 473-1253 TAX PARCEL NO'S: 028.01-01-29.00-0000 & 028.01-01-30.00-0000 AREA OF DEVELOPMENT:26.99± ACRES CURRENT ZONING:I1 - INDUSTRIAL (LIGHT) PROPOSED ZONING:R3 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CURRENT USE:AGRICULTURAL / SINGLE FAMILY HOME PROPOSED USE:RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM LOT AREA SHOWN:7,400 S.F. MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIRED:7,200 S.F. MINIMUM FRONTAGE SHOWN: 62 FEET MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIRED:60 FEET YARDS MINIMUM FRONT: 30 FEET MINIMUM SIDE: 10 FEET MINIMUM REAR: 25 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES 35 FEET UTILITIES WATER:W.V.W.A. (VIA EXTENSION) SEWER:W.V.W.A. (VIA EXTENSION) ELECTRIC: AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER NATURAL GAS:ROANOKE GAS ROADWAYS 1.TWO ROAD CONNECTIONS PLANNED FOR SANDERSON DRIVE. 2.SIGHT DISTANCE AT EACH INTERSECTION TO BE FIELD VERIFIED TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. ADJOINERS A.SPRADLIN JAMES GARVIN ; SPRADLIN CAMARYON HUDDLESTON (TM# 028.01-01-28.00-0000) - ZONED R1S B.MAJKOWSKI MICHAEL D JR ; MAJKOWSKI TIFFANY F (TM# 028.01-01-26.00-0000) - ZONED R1S C.MELROSE LODGE NO 139 AF & AM (TM# 028.01-01-25.00-0000) - ZONED R1S D.SWEET CARL D (TM# 028.01-01-24.00-0000) - ZONED R1S E.ROANOKE VALLEY SPCA INC (TM# 028.01-01-23.00-0000) - ZONED R1S F.DAVIS STEWART A ; DAVIS CINDY J (TM# 028.01-01-22.00-0000) - ZONED R1S G.STONEGATE PROPERTIES LLC (TM# 028.01-01-21.01-0000) H.BEAHM FAMILY LLC (BOTETOURT TM# 107-1A) - ZONED A-1 SAN D E R S O N D R I V E ( R T 6 0 5 ) SHADWELL D R I V E ( R T 6 0 1 ) A B C D E F G H RA I L R O A D R O W EX FIRE HYDRANT ON SHADWELL DRIVE EX. FIRE HYDRANT ON STONELEDGE DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRES OF PARCEL 028.01-01-30.00-0000 IS LOCATED IN BOTETOURT COUNTY 10 10 1010 1010 10 10 9 9 9 10 BE A H M P R O P E R T Y BO T E T O U R T C O U N T Y , V A 1 © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS © 2024 TMAP MOBILITY Earthstar Geographics SIO x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO x x x x x 3: 1 3:1 ??? ??? 2:1 2:1 2:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 CO 3 4 11 6 7 8 9 10 12 5 34 105 106 107 100 101 108 103 102 104 110 109 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 1 2 2. 0 % 1220 1220 1210 1210 12 1 0 1200 12 0 0 11 9 2 11 9 2 11 9 2 12 0 0 1200 120 2 1210 1210 1220 12 2 0 12 2 0 12 2 0 12 1 0 12 0 0 1220 1212 12 1 0 120 0 120 0 119 0 1202 1192 118 8 121 4 122 0 1174 1230 ST O N E G A T E D R . RT E . 1 2 9 5 5 0 ' R / W SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS BOTETOURT COUNTY ROANOKE COUNTY TH-2 TH-3 TH-4 4 1 2 3 5 8 212019 7 10 9 6 TH-1 22 14 17 1312 16 25 18 15 11 30 ROW 43 31 32333435363738394041 26 27 28 29 42 44 23 24 N S W E ROANOKE COUNTY PORTION ONLY R-3 ZONING PROPOSAL TOWNHOMES - 117 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED - 30 TOTAL UNITS IN ROANOKE COUNTY= 147 BOTETOURT COUNTY ROANOKE COUNTY BOTETOURT COUNTY LAYOUT SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT PART OF REZONING REQUEST SITE TABULATION CONTRACT OWNER/DEVELOPER:STONEGATE PROPERTIES, LLC PO BOX 450 FINCASTLE, VIRGINIA 24090 ENGINEER:ENGINEERING CONCEPTS 94 GREENFIELD STREET DALEVILLE, VIRGINIA 24083 Ph: (540) 473-1253 TAX PARCEL NO'S: 028.01-01-29.00-0000 & 028.01-01-30.00-0000 AREA OF DEVELOPMENT:26.99± ACRES CURRENT ZONING:I1 - INDUSTRIAL (LIGHT) PROPOSED ZONING:R3 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CURRENT USE:AGRICULTURAL / SINGLE FAMILY HOME PROPOSED USE:RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM LOT AREA SHOWN:7,400 S.F. MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIRED:7,200 S.F. MINIMUM FRONTAGE SHOWN: 62 FEET MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIRED:60 FEET YARDS MINIMUM FRONT: 30 FEET MINIMUM SIDE: 10 FEET MINIMUM REAR: 25 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES 35 FEET UTILITIES WATER:W.V.W.A. (VIA EXTENSION) SEWER:W.V.W.A. (VIA EXTENSION) ELECTRIC: AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER NATURAL GAS:ROANOKE GAS ROADWAYS 1.TWO ROAD CONNECTIONS PLANNED FOR SANDERSON DRIVE. 2.SIGHT DISTANCE AT EACH INTERSECTION TO BE FIELD VERIFIED TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. ADJOINERS A.SPRADLIN JAMES GARVIN ; SPRADLIN CAMARYON HUDDLESTON (TM# 028.01-01-28.00-0000) - ZONED R1S B.MAJKOWSKI MICHAEL D JR ; MAJKOWSKI TIFFANY F (TM# 028.01-01-26.00-0000) - ZONED R1S C.MELROSE LODGE NO 139 AF & AM (TM# 028.01-01-25.00-0000) - ZONED R1S D.SWEET CARL D (TM# 028.01-01-24.00-0000) - ZONED R1S E.ROANOKE VALLEY SPCA INC (TM# 028.01-01-23.00-0000) - ZONED R1S F.DAVIS STEWART A ; DAVIS CINDY J (TM# 028.01-01-22.00-0000) - ZONED R1S G.STONEGATE PROPERTIES LLC (TM# 028.01-01-21.01-0000) H.BEAHM FAMILY LLC (BOTETOURT TM# 107-1A) - ZONED A-1 SAN D E R S O N D R I V E ( R T 6 0 5 ) SHADWELL D R I V E ( R T 6 0 1 ) A B C D E F G H RA I L R O A D R O W EX FIRE HYDRANT ON SHADWELL DRIVE EX. FIRE HYDRANT ON STONELEDGE DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRES OF PARCEL 028.01-01-30.00-0000 IS LOCATED IN BOTETOURT COUNTY 10 10 1010 1010 10 10 9 9 9 10 BE A H M P R O P E R T Y BO T E T O U R T C O U N T Y , V A 1 PROPOSED ROAD CONNECTION TO STONEGATE PHASE 3. EXACT CONFIGURATION TO BE DETERMINED DURING FINAL DESIGN AND TECHNICAL REVIEWS. PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION. PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TOWNHOME EXAMPLE ELEVATIONS ELEVATIONS REPRESENT SCALE AND FORM ONLY NOT FOR ARCHITECTURAL REFERENCE TOWNHOME EXAMPLE ELEVATIONS TOWNHOME EXAMPLE ELEVATIONS TOWNHOME EXAMPLE ELEVATIONS TOWNHOME EXAMPLE ELEVATIONS TOWNHOME EXAMPLE ELEVATIONS DETACHED HOME EXAMPLE ELEVATIONS ELEVATIONS REPRESENT SCALE AND FORM ONLY NOT FOR ARCHITECTURAL REFERENCE DETACHED HOME EXAMPLE ELEVATION DETACHED HOME EXAMPLE ELEVATION DETACHED HOME EXAMPLE ELEVATION DETACHED HOME EXAMPLE ELEVATION DETACHED HOME EXAMPLE ELEVATION DETACHED HOME EXAMPLE ELEVATIONS (A) (A) 1. 2. SEC. 30-61. - I-1 LOW INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-61-1. - Purpose. The purpose of the I-1, low intensity industrial district is to provide areas within the urban service area which are suitable for less intensive industrial activities. These areas are primarily designated based on the suitability of the land in terms of slope and freedom from flooding, as well as the availability of adequate sewer and water capacity, access to arterial road network, and proximity to rail and airport facilities or the interstate highway system. This district generally coincides with the recommendations for the principal industrial land use category contained in the comprehensive plan, and particularly those areas unsuitable for more intensive or potentially hazardous industrial uses. Distributing these areas around the county in a planned manner to create employment centers within close proximity to residential growth areas and reduce heavy traffic generation of industrial uses is encouraged. Since land with suitable characteristics for less intensive industrial development is limited in the county, a high degree of protection is promoted where industrial development is located adjacent to existing or future residential areas. The conversion and/or redevelopment of existing non- conforming uses in this district which are unrelated to industrial needs is also encouraged. (Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1f., 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08) Sec. 30-61-2. - Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. Agricultural and Forestry Uses Agriculture Agritourism * Civic Uses Administrative Services Day Care Center * Halfway House * Park and Ride Facility Post Office 3. 4. Public Maintenance and Service Facilities Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Safety Services Utility Services, Major * Utility Services, Minor Guidance Services Office Uses Financial Institutions * General Office Laboratories Medical Office Commercial Uses Agricultural Services * Automobile Parts/Supply, Retail * Automobile Repair Services, Major * Automobile Repair Services, Minor * Business Support Services Business or Trade Schools * Communication Services Construction Sales and Services * Consumer Repair Services Equipment Sales and Rental * Garden Center * Laundry Personal Improvement Services Restaurant, General 5. 6. (B) 1. Retail Sales Veterinary Hospital/Clinic Industrial Uses Custom Manufacturing * Industry, Type I Landfill, Rubble * Recycling Centers and Stations * Transportation Terminal Truck Terminal Warehousing and Distribution Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower * Parking Facility * Wind Energy System, Small * The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. Commercial Uses Automobile Dealership * Automobile Rental/Leasing Commercial Indoor Sports and Recreation Convenience Store * Fuel Center * Gasoline Station * Manufactured Home Sales * Mini-warehouse * Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service * 2. 3. (A) 1. a. b. 2. a. b. (B) Surplus Sales Truck Stop * Industrial Uses Composting * Construction Yards * Resource Extraction * Transfer Station * Miscellaneous Uses Aviation Facilities, Private * Broadcasting Tower * Outdoor Gatherings * Wind Energy System, Large * Wind Energy System, Utility * (Ord. No. 82493-8, § 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 042297, § 1, 4-22-97; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 082807-18, § 1, 8-28-07; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08; Ord. No. 030811-1 , § 1, 3-8-11; Ord. No. 052411-9 , § 1, 5-24-11; Ord. No. 091311-7 , § 1, 9-13-11; Ord. No. 111213-15 , § 1, 11-12-13; Ord No. 092215-9 , § 1, 9- 22-15; Ord. No. 062816-4 , § 1, 6-28-16; Ord. No. 062717-4 , § 1, 6-27-17; Ord. No. 072721-8 , § 1, 7-27-21; Ord. No. 011023-4 , § 1, 1-10-23) Sec. 30-61-3. - Site Development Regulations. General Standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see Article IV, Use and Design Standards. Minimum lot requirements. Lots served by private well and sewage disposal system; Area: 1 acre (43,560 square feet). Frontage: 100 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. Lots served by either public sewer or water, or both: Area: 15,000 square feet. Frontage: 75 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. Minimum setback requirements. 1. 2. a. b. 3. a. b. 4. (C) 1. a. (D) 1. 2. Front yard: 30 feet, or 20 feet when all parking is located behind the front building line. Side yard: Principal structures: 10 feet. Accessory structures: behind front building line and 3 feet from side line. Rear yard: Principal structures: 15 feet. Accessory structures: 3 feet. Where a lot fronts on more than one street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all streets. Maximum height of structures. Height limitations: All structures: When adjoining property zoned residential, forty-five (45) feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased provided each required side and/or rear yard adjoining a residential district is increased two (2) feet for each foot in height over forty-five (45) feet. This distance shall be measured from the portion of the structure which exceeds forty-five (45) feet. In all other locations the height is unlimited. Maximum coverage. Building coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. Lot coverage: 90 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 42694-12, § 9, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08) (A) (A) 1. SEC. 30-45. - R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-45-1. - Purpose. The purpose of the R-3, medium density multi-family residential district is to provide areas in the county within the urban service area where existing middle-high density residential development (six (6) to twelve (12) units per acre) has been established and land areas which generally appear to be appropriate for such development. This district is intended to coincide with the development and transition land use categories contained in the comprehensive plan. They are designated based on access to major streets, sewer and water, and schools with suitable capacity to accommodate development at the stated density, and where parcel sizes allow for well- planned residential development. The areas designated in this district are also intended to serve as a buffer between less intensive residential areas and more intensive office, commercial and industrial areas and districts. A variety of housing densities and styles is encouraged in order to permit a diversity and flexibility in design and layout. Additional standards are established to provide for amenities in higher density developments. (Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1f., 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08) Sec. 30-45-2. - Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. Residential Uses Accessory Apartment * Home Beauty/Barber Salon * Home Occupation, Type I * Manufactured Home * Manufactured Home, Emergency * Multi-family Dwelling * Residential Human Care Facility Single Family Dwelling, Attached * Single Family Dwelling, Attached (Cluster Subdivision Option) * Single Family Dwelling, Detached 2. 3. 4. (B) 1. Single Family Dwelling, Detached (Cluster Subdivision Option) * Single Family Dwelling, Detached (Zero Lot Line Option) * Townhouse * Two Family Dwelling * Civic Uses Community Recreation * Family Day Care Home * Park and Ride Facility * Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Religious Assembly * Utility Services, Minor Commercial Uses Boarding House Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower * The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. Civic Uses Adult Care Residences Cemetery * Crisis Center Cultural Services Day Care Center * Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary * Halfway House * Safety Services * 2. 3. 1. a. b. 2. a. b. 3. a. b. 4. 1. a. b. 2. a. Utility Services, Major * Industrial Uses Landfill, Rubble * Miscellaneous Uses Outdoor Gatherings * Wind Energy System, Small* (Ord. No. 62293-12, § 9, 6-22-93; Ord. No. 82493-8, § 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042500-9, § II, 4-25-00; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08; Ord. No. 052609- 22 , § 1, 5-26-09; Ord. No. 030811-1 , § 1, 3-8-11; Ord. No. 111213-15 , § 1, 11-12-13; Ord. No. 011023-4 , § 1, 1-10-23) Sec. 30-45-3. - Site Development Regulations. General Standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see Article IV, Use and Design Standards. (A) Minimum lot requirements. All lots served by private well and sewage disposal systems: Area: 0.75 acre (32,670 square feet). Frontage: 90 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. Lots served by either public sewer or water: Area: 20,000 square feet. Frontage: 75 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. All lots served by both public sewer and water: Area: 7,200 square feet. Frontage: 60 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. For minimum lot size and permitted densities for multi-family dwellings and townhouses refer to Article IV, Use and Design Standards. (B) Minimum setback requirements. Front yard: Principal structures: 30 feet. Accessory structures: Behind the front building line. Side yard: Principal structures: 10 feet. b. 3. a. b. 4. 1. a. i. ii. (a) (b) b. 1. 2. Accessory structures: 10 feet behind front building line or 3 feet behind rear building line. Rear yard: Principal structures: 25 feet. Accessory structures: 3 feet. Where a lot fronts on more than one street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all streets. (C) Maximum height of structures. Height limitations: Principal structures: When adjoining property zoned R-1 or R-2, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased, provided each required side and rear yard adjoining the R-1 or R-2 district is increased two (2) feet for each foot in height over forty-five (45) feet to a maximum height of sixty (60) feet. In all other locations, the maximum height is sixty (60) feet (including rooftop mechanical equipment). In the study areas of the 419 Town Center Plan, the Hollins Center Plan, and the Oak Grove Center Plan: Seventy-five (75) feet (including rooftop mechanical equipment); or Sixty-five (65) feet (including rooftop mechanical equipment) above the top of structured parking, whichever is greater. The maximum height may be increased if a special use permit is granted by the board of supervisors. Accessory structures: Fifteen (15) feet, or twenty-five (25) feet provided they comply with the setback requirements for principal structures. (D) Maximum coverage. Building coverage: Thirty-five (35) percent of the total lot area for all buildings and seven (7) percent for accessory buildings. Lot coverage: Sixty (60) percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12, § 10, 6-22-93; Ord. No. 072721-8 , § 1, 7-27-21) (A) (B) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. (C) 1. 2. 3. Sec. 30-82-14. - Townhouses. Intent. It is the intent of this section that townhouses be allowed in areas where they are or may be appropriately intermingled with other compatible types of housing. The purpose of the following design standards is to ensure the efficient, economical, comfortable and convenient use of land and open space and serve the public purposes of zoning by providing an alternative to conventional arrangements of yards and buildable areas. General standards: All townhouse developments shall be served by public sewer and water. The facades of townhouses in a group shall be varied by changed front yards and variations in design so that no more than four (4) abutting townhouses will have the same front yard setback and the same or essentially the same architectural treatment of facades and roof lines. The minimum separation between townhouse buildings shall be twenty (20) feet. The height of all townhouses shall be limited to forty-five (45) feet. Accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet. Accessory structures for townhouse units shall be permitted only in rear yard areas and shall be no larger than ten (10) feet by ten (10) feet in area. Only one yard, either the front yard or the rear yard, or in the case of an end unit, the side yard, shall be improved with a driveway or other impermeable surface intended for the storage of motor vehicles or for access to a garage, or other parking areas. The maximum building and lot coverage requirements applying to townhouses shall be computed for the site of the entire development. Public street frontage shall not be required for any proposed lot of record platted for townhouse development within R-3 and R-4 districts. In the AV and R-2 districts, the applicant shall designate as part of the special use permit application, the location of any lot that is not proposed to front on a public street. If utilized, private roads shall be constructed in accordance with the private road standards specified in the Roanoke County Design Handbook. Additional standards in the AV district: Maximum gross density: Eight (8) townhouse units per acre. Minimum parcel size: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet for the first dwelling unit, plus five thousand four hundred forty-five (5,445) square feet for each additional unit. Front yard setbacks for each group of townhouse units: an average of fifteen (15) feet, and not be less than ten (10) feet for any individual townhouse unit. No common parking area, common driveway or street right-of-way shall be permitted within the required front yard 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. (D) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. a. area. A side yard setback of fifteen (15) feet shall be provided for each end residence in any group of townhouses adjoining a property boundary of the development, or a street right-of-way, private drive, parking area or walkway intended for the common use of townhouse occupants. Minimum rear yard setback: Twenty-five (25) feet. Minimum lot size for individual townhouse lots: Two thousand (2,000) square feet for interior lots and two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet for end lots. Minimum width for individual townhouse lots: Twenty (20) feet, measured from center of wall to center of wall, or outside of end wall. Maximum number in a group or block of townhouses: Four (4) townhouse units. The maximum building and lot coverage shall comply with the requirements for the AV district. When a townhouse development adjoins a single family dwelling, a Type C buffer yard as described more fully in section 30-92 shall be provided. Additional standards in the R-2 district: Maximum gross density: Twelve (12) townhouse units per acre. Minimum parcel size: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet for the first dwelling unit, plus three thousand six hundred thirty (3,630) square feet for each additional unit. Front yard setbacks for each group of townhouse units: an average of fifteen (15) feet, and not be less than ten (10) feet for any individual townhouse unit. No common parking area, common driveway or street right-of-way shall be permitted within the required front yard area. A side yard setback of fifteen (15) feet shall be provided for each end residence in any group of townhouses adjoining a property boundary of the development. Where a group of townhouses adjoin a private drive or parking area or walkway intended for the common use of townhouse occupants, the side yard setback shall be ten (10) feet. Minimum rear yard setback: Twenty-five (25) feet. Minimum lot size for individual townhouse lots: Two thousand (2,000) square feet for interior lots and two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet for end lots. Minimum width for individual townhouse lots: Eighteen (18) feet, measured from center of wall to center of wall or outside end wall. Maximum number in a group or block of townhouses: Ten (10) townhouse units. Maximum coverage for townhouse developments: Building coverage: Thirty-five (35) percent. b. (E) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. a. b. (F) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Lot coverage: Sixty (60) percent. Additional standards in the R-3 district: Maximum gross density: Twelve (12) townhouse units per acre. Minimum parcel size: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet for the first dwelling unit, plus three thousand six hundred thirty (3,630) square feet for each additional unit. Front yard setbacks for each group of townhouse units: an average of fifteen (15) feet, and not be less than ten (10) feet for any individual townhouse unit. No common parking area, common driveway or street right-of-way shall be permitted within the required front yard area. A side yard setback of fifteen (15) feet shall be provided for each end residence in any group of townhouses adjoining a property boundary of the development. Where a group of townhouses adjoin a private drive or parking area or walkway intended for the common use of townhouse occupants, the side yard setback shall be ten (10) feet. Minimum rear yard setback: Twenty-five (25) feet. Minimum lot size for individual townhouse lots: One thousand eight hundred (1,800) square feet for interior lots and two thousand three hundred (2,300) square feet for end lots. Minimum width for individual townhouse lots: Eighteen (18) feet, measured from center of wall to center of wall or outside end wall. Maximum number in a group or block of townhouses: Ten (10) townhouse units. Maximum coverage for townhouse developments: Building coverage: Forty (40) percent. Lot coverage: Sixty-five (65) percent. Additional standards in the R-4 district: Maximum gross density: Eighteen (18) townhouse units per acre. Minimum parcel size: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet for the first dwelling unit, plus two thousand four hundred twenty (2,420) square feet for each additional unit. Front yard setback for each group of townhouse units: an average of fifteen (15) feet, and not less than ten (10) feet for any individual townhouse unit. Common parking areas, driveways, and rights-of-way may be permitted within the front yard setback. A side yard setback of fifteen (15) feet shall be provided for each end residence in any group of townhouses adjoining a property boundary of the development. Where a group of townhouses adjoin a private drive or parking area or walkway intended for the common use of townhouse occupants, the side yard setback shall be ten (10) feet. Minimum rear yard setback: Twenty-five (25) feet. 6. 7. 8. 9. a. b. Minimum lot size for individual townhouse lots: One thousand six hundred (1,600) square feet for interior lots and two thousand one hundred (2,100) square feet for end lots. Fifty (50) percent of the individual townhouse lots shall be allowed to have a minimum width of fourteen (14) feet, measured from center of wall to center of wall. The remaining lots shall have a width greater than fourteen (14) feet. Maximum number in a group or block of townhouses: Ten (10) townhouse units. Maximum coverage for townhouse developments: Building coverage: Forty-five (45) percent. Lot coverage: Seventy (70) percent. (Ord. No. 42694-12, § 16, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 052411-9 , § 1, 5-24-11; Ord. No. 111213-15 , § 1, 11-12-13) Principal Industrial: A future land use area where a variety of industry types are encouraged to locate. Principal Industrial areas are existing and planned regional employment centers and are distributed throughout the county, convenient to major residential areas and suitable highway access. Due to limited availability, areas designated as Principal Industrial are not appropriate for tax-exempt facilities. Land Use Types: Agricultural - Industries which involve the manufacturing, storage, marketing and wholesaling of agricultural products. These industries may also be located outside of the Principal Industrial areas, within the rural designations, where agricultural skills may be found. Small Industries and Custom Manufacturing - These industries typically serve a local market and may involve the on-site production of goods by hand manufacturing. Mining and Extraction - These facilities locate according to the availability of natural resources. Industrial - Conventional freestanding industrial uses, warehouses, wholesalers, storage yards. Industrial Parks - Large tracts of land that are subdivided, developed and designed according to a unified plan. These parks are employment centers and may include mixed land uses including supporting retail services. These types of industries are encouraged to develop in Principal Industrial areas. Planned industrial parks should incorporate greenways, bike and pedestrian paths into their designs and link these features to surrounding neighborhoods where appropriate. Land Use Determinants: EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN - Locations where industry has historically developed. EXISTING ZONING - Locations zoned industrial. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AREAS - Locations identified by Roanoke County as an economic opportunity area. EMPLOYMENT CENTERS - Locations where labor-intensive industries exist. TOPOGRAPHY - Locations that can be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner and that are outside of the designated floodplain. RESOURCE PROTECTION - Locations that can be developed in such a way as not to threaten valuable natural resources. WATER AND SEWER SERVICE AND SUPPLY - Locations where water and sewer service exist or can be provided in the near future. ACCESS - Locations served by an adequate public street system that does not direct traffic through existing residential neighborhoods. TRANSPORTATION CENTERS - Locations within close proximity to rail, airport and major street systems. URBAN SECTOR - Locations served by, or in close proximity to urban services. PETITIONER: Roanoke Valley Holdings, LLC CASE NUMBER: #17-9/2024 Board of Supervisors Consent 1st Reading Date: 8/20/2024 1st Planning Commission Hearing Date: 9/3/2024 2nd Planning Commission Hearing Date: 10/1/2024 A. REQUEST To rezone approximately 21.39 acres from I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District, to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, located at 0 Sanderson Drive and 7812 Sanderson Drive. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Twenty-two (22) written comments were completed at the community meeting and one (1) additional written comment was submitted before the public hearing. Five (5) citizens spoke at the public hearing. The first, Rebecca Clark, noted she was appreciative of the applicant considering the input of citizens and reducing the number of lots shown on the concept plan. She explained that she sees a need for more housing but is still concerned about the density of this development. She expressed concern about additional developments including Stonegate Phase 3 and housing on Old Mountain Road that will also add to traffic. She added that she is concerned about the amenities needed for these additional people including schooling, walking area, childcare, and public transportation. James Norris spoke about the existing traffic problem in the area and the fact that this development would add to this problem. He explained that he believes the only way to alleviate this would be traffic signals at both ends of Sanderson Drive or a mass transit system that people could use. The third speaker Carol Leonard explained that she echoes the concerns about traffic already presented. She then expressed concern about the density of the development and traffic increases associated with it even with the reduction in lots. She further explained that this would include service vehicles, postal service, and school buses. She added that Sanderson Drive is a cut through for many areas including along Reed Mountain Road. She included that turn lanes would be helpful but would not totally resolve the issues. Ms. Leanord added that there are many people who would live in Stonegate Phase 3 that would likely still use the entrance from Sanderson Drive. She admitted she is aware that the property will not continue as a farm and residential would be preferable to industrial. She questioned how industry could be located there with Sanderson Drive being labeled “no through trucks”. She included that accidents on Interstate 81 sometimes lead traffic to be diverted through Sanderson Drive. She explained she would rather see single family homes on larger lots rather than townhouses. Barbara Fitzhugh spoke to the traffic conditions on Sanderson Drive and asked what time of day the TIA was based on as she sees the poor traffic conditions on the road firsthand. She explains the new development would have a large impact on the area without significant road improvements. She explained that she learned at the community meeting that there would be a 2000 car increase in the area. She details incidents of cars driving into her front yard after running the stop sign on Hollins Road. She asked for the traffic conditions to be reconsidered and for more times of the day and night to be considered. Jim Spradlin lives at 7623 Sanderson Drive and expressed concerns about the front half of his property becoming right of way for a left turn lane. He also expressed concern about how close the homes would be to his property line. Mr. Spradlin reiterated concerns about accidents on Interstate 81 diverting traffic to Sanderson Drive and general issues of traffic at the intersection. Mr. Spradlin explained he was unaware of the possibility of a portion of his property being right of way for a left turn lane until he attended the community meeting. There was also a letter submitted by Millie and Philip Stewart that raised concerns about density of the development, current and future traffic, and large trucks on Sanderson Drive that make the intersection dangerous. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Skylar Camerlinck presented the staff report. Chairman Rick James asked for clarification on the unfunded road improvements that the traffic impact analysis was based on. Ms. Camerlinck explained that there is a conceptual left turn lane that is a part of the conditions that were used for the traffic study. This left turn lane has not been funded at any level and at this point there are no plans to move forward with this project. No further questions were asked of staff. Dale Wilkinson spoke as the applicant. Also present were Seth Wilkinson and Bobby Wampler with Engineering Concepts. Mr. Wilkinson gave examples of several projects that he has been involved with to demonstrate his contributions to the community. Mr. Wampler added that the developer is also involved in Stonegate Phase 3 which will create a road connection from Stonegate Drive to Shadwell Drive. Mr. Wampler explained that this may help relieve some traffic. Mr. Wampler explained that the subject parcels are surrounded by residential area and the applicant is looking for the best use. He eluded that the citizens will not want an industrial use and explained these parcels will not continue to be used for agriculture. Mr. Wampler added that currently industrial development can be done by right, therefore there would be no input from the Planning Commission or the public and no traffic study would be required under a certain level of traffic. Mr. Wampler added that this project does not meet traffic requirements to require a TIA from VDOT, this was instead a request from Roanoke County due to existing traffic concerns for the area. Mr. Wampler described the process behind the original 225-lot concept plan. The single-family detached homes are similar to surrounding neighborhoods and there is a need for workforce housing which would be satisfied by townhouses. Mr. Wampler explained that the TIA was performed by Kimley Horn and showed that the Shadwell intersection is an area of concern and would still be an area of concern if this development were not built. He added that it is one of the top ten (10) worst intersections in Roanoke County and is an intersection of study. Mr. Wampler noted that traffic studies account for future growth unrelated to the subject development. He added that traffic conditions will be worse without this development than with this development with road improvements. Mr. Wampler stated that the developer agrees to participate to make this intersection better. Mr. Wilkinson explained that they are willing to deed the portion of the necessary right of way for a left turn lane that would exist on the subject parcels. Mr. Wilkinson reiterated that this development would lead to better traffic conditions if improvements were made. Mr. James asked for clarification on the left turn lane and whether the deeded right of way would only be on the property that they were developing. Mr. Wilkinson confirmed this and further explained that there were not many options for improvements to be made. He added that they want to take away the possibility of a negative use. Mr. James asked for clarification on how far the parcels were from the intersection. Mr. Wilkinson explained where they were and said that he had talked to the property owners of one of the parcels nearer to the intersection and they seemed reasonable. Mr. Wampler explained that the new concept plan reduces density by about 28% and this was done after input from the community meeting. Mr. Wampler reiterated that the concept plan has not been proffered but this is something they are willing to do. Mr. Wilkinson agreed that this is something they would do, and they were unfamiliar with the process. Mr. Wampler explained the new concept plan is still bordered by single-family residential and still has two (2) connections to Sanderson Drive. Mr. Wampler added that the best use for the area is residential, and this has been agreed with by the citizens. Mr. Wilkinson noted the high attendance at the community meeting. He explained that the main concerns were traffic and density, he explained that they took this input and reduced the number of units to the lowest possible amount economically feasible. Mr. Wilkinson explained the possibility of connecting Stonegate Phase 3 and this new development to relieve pressure from the Shadwell intersection. He added that he asked the traffic engineer how this connection would impact conditions and the engineer told him it would decrease impacts by 14%. Mr. James asked Brian Blevins, the resident engineer for the Salem Residency for The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to discuss traffic. Mr. Blevins explained that VDOT concurred with the traffic study recently based on the 225-lots. He added that it did show some impact to the Shadwell intersection, mostly in delay. Improvements to the intersection could reduce this to close to current conditions. Mr. Blevins noted interconnectivity would be good however this was not a part of the study. He explained that VDOT can only require improvements to the frontage of the subject parcels, and these were not warranted. Mr. James clarified that the traffic study is based on the 225-lot concept plan and now that the concept plan shows 161-lots this will lessen the impact. Mr. Blevins confirmed this and explained that this would be based on peak hours and there would be a reduction in the daily trips. Mr. James clarified that VDOT could require a commercial entrance for an I-1 use. Mr. Blevins explained that they would require a commercial entrance for light industrial use, and this may require onsite improvements. Commissioner Wayne Bower asked if the new road being built in Stonegate Phase 3 that may lessen impact to the intersection was considered in the traffic study. Mr. Blevins explained it is possible that this road will improve conditions but likely was not considered as the data used was from 2023. Mr. Bower asked if the earlier mentioned 14% decrease was in reference to a connection being put in between the new development and Stonegate Phase 3. Mr. Blevins said that there would likely be people who would utilize the new road and decrease the impacts to the Shadwell intersection. Commissioner Troy Henderson clarified that if this TIA did not warrant traffic improvements it was likely that an industrial use would also not require traffic improvements. Mr. Blevins explained that it would depend on the use and the number of trucks or employees, however he agreed it is likely that traffic improvements would not be required. Mr. Henderson asked if employees starting and ending work in shifts would create similar traffic to a residential use and Mr. Blevins agreed and added it depends on when the shifts are. Mr. James asked Mr. Blevins to elaborate on the left-turn lane project. Mr. Blevins explained that the left lane is a concept, it was created while looking for something that would fit. It would relieve some of the pressure at the intersection. He clarified that it is unfunded and there are no plans to move forward with it at this time. It is something that Roanoke County Planning and VDOT could work together on in the future, however improvements at this intersection could end up being something completely different. Mr. Bower asked Mr. Blevins to give an overview of how traffic studies are done for clarification purposes. Mr. Blevins explained that traffic is counted during the peaks (morning, midday, and evenings). This means that they had counted every car that came through. The counts for this study were done by VDOT previously and were provided to the developer to use as they were less than two (2) years old. Mr. Blevins added that the 2000 trips that the citizens heard about at the community meeting is the total in a 24-hour day. He added that dropping from 225-lots to 161-lots would be about 72% of the traffic, he clarified that this is not exact. Mr. Bower asked for clarification on where the 2000 trips come from. Mr. Blevins explained that the 2000 trips is how many total trips this project would generate in and out per day. He added that this would drop to roughly 1600 with the reduction in density on the new concept plan. Mr. James explained that he has concerns with the lack of proffered conditions as this means that anything shown by the applicant is not something that they will be held to. Mr. James added that in the packet it indicates that conformance with the concept plan has not been proffered however it seems that the applicant indicated differently earlier in his presentation. Mr. Wilkinson explained that he will proffer general conformance to the plan. He added that he does not mean to mislead anyone, and he wants the ability to change small details like roof lines or front porches. He also explained that he could proffer putting all mail in one place to address a citizen comment. Mr. James explains that if this were to pass, there would be nothing stopping the landowner from selling the property to someone that has a completely different plan. Mr. James explained he is aware there is a general need for housing in the area and asked if Mr. Wilkinson would care to elaborate on this. Mr. Wilkinson detailed some of the developments that he is already a part of and explained that even with these developments, there is still a need for more. He added that the Roanoke Valley is over 1000 units short every year. He stated that there is a specific need for workforce housing and while other developers have avoided this, he plans to integrate it. Mr. Wilkinson also added that he has added amenities to Stonegate over time that were not required. Mr. Wilkinson added that this project is very expensive, but this is important as he already has an investment in Stonegate, both financially and his reputation. Commissioner Jim Woltz stated that they were provided with examples of homes yet since there have not been any proffers offered, there is no assurance that this is what the homes will look like. Mr. Wilkinson offered that he would proffer these types of homes to be built. Mr. Woltz asked if projections have been done for profitability based on the housing designs and this layout. Mr. Wilkinson confirmed that this has been done. Mr. Wilkinson detailed the homes will be $400,000 homes at a minimum and building homes cheaper than this is not realistic. Mr. Woltz explained that his questions are in reference to the need for some proof that Mr. Wilkinson is going to do what he states he will. He explains that this is currently a blanket rezoning. Mr. Wampler explains that since Mr. Wilkinson stated that he will proffer general conformance tonight, this will be signed and notarized by the Board of Supervisors meeting. He asked if there was something else that was needed tonight. Mr. James explained that coming to the public hearing without proffers creates challenges. Philip Thompson explained that the property owner must sign proffered conditions. Mr. James clarified that Mr. Wilkinson is not the property owner. Mr. Wilkinson confirmed this and added that Mike Beahm is the property owner. Mr. Wilkinson explained he is offering proffers, and he was unaware that there was a process to have this done. Mr. Thompson questioned if Mike Beahm was the only member of Beahm Family LLC and Mr. Wilkinson explained that there are three members but only one must sign. Rachel Lower advised that there would need to be proof of this. There would need to be someone from the LLC to sign the proffered conditions and sign that they have the authority to bind the LLC. Mr. James explained that the offered proffers cannot be considered at this public hearing as they have not been signed by the property owner and are not a part of this presentation. Mr. Bower questioned why Mr. Wilkinson could not develop this similarly to other nearby residential subdivisions that consist only of single-family homes. Mr. Wilkinson explained that all the homes he is building are single-family detached and attached. Mr. Thompson clarified that R-1 would allow single-family attached and detached. Mr. Wilkinson offered that as a developer he could break up rows of townhomes to keep it from looking like a huge structure. Mr. Wilkinson explained that he believes that the role of the Planning Commission is advisory, and he believes they are looking at this from a long-term perspective so that it fits in with the surrounding neighborhood. He would like to deal with technicalities at the Board of Supervisors level so that the project is not held up. He notes he would like the Planning Commission to send this to the Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation and explain their concerns. Mr. James noted that there is also the issue of the rezoning being inconsistent with the future land use designation. He further explained that it is especially important due to this that the Planning Commission ensures all due diligence is done and that the project is right and complete. Mr. Bower reiterated his question about why this project cannot be developed like other nearby subdivisions like Sanderson Ridge. Mr. Wilkinson said that he believes that this project is like Sanderson Ridge since there are single-family detached homes surrounding it. He further explained that from an economic perspective making this exclusively single-family is impossible. Mr. James noted that there has been communication about potential proffers with the applicant. Mr. Wilkinson said that this is not the case. Mr. James referenced an email dated August 9th that was sent to Mr. Wampler, Mr. Wilkinson, and other members of their team where Rebecca James asked them to let her know if they would like to discuss potential proffers. Mr. Wampler explained that he is aware of the existence of proffers and that usually he does not come to a meeting with proffers unless there is a specific concern to address. Mr. Wampler asked the Planning Commission once again to send the project to the Board of Supervisors with the developer’s word that there will be proffers at that time. Mr. Bower asked for clarification on the possibility of a connector road from the new development to Stonegate Phase 3. Mr. Wampler showed a concept plan with the connector road shown and explained that they had considered stormwater and grades and found somewhere to incorporate this road. Mr. James asked for guidance on moving forward and noted that there were still several boxes to check before the project goes to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Thompson explained that proffers must be present by the Board of Supervisors hearing and can be tweaked then but not added. Mr. Bower noted this is a difficult project as housing is needed. He explained that he heard two concerns at the community meeting: transportation and density. Mr. Bower added that he understands that the low density that the community would like to see may not be feasible from an economic standpoint. He explained that he believes there is not enough information to make a motion on this petition. Mr. Bower commended Mr. Wilkinson for lowering the density of the development and noted that he had spoken to Mr. Wilkinson about the connector road. Mr. Woltz added that he understands that compromises reduce the profitability. Mr. Woltz echoed Mr. Bower in saying that he believes more information is needed before sending this project to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. James explained that the property is not zoned for agriculture, and he wanted to make sure the citizens knew this. Mr. Bower added that this property was zoned industrial 32 years ago and this was likely an attempt to bring industry into the area. Mr. Henderson asked what information would be needed besides general conformance and a signature. Mr. James explained this is the main issue. He added that the new concept plan has not been shared with the public. Mr. Thompson added that the renderings were also something that could be proffered and that there is no deeded right of way or connector road shown on the new concept plan. Mr. Wampler noted that the developer is willing to continue this for up to 30 days to work on proffers for general conformance with the site plan, dedication of right of way, general conformance with the renderings, and the connector road. Mr. Woltz added that he would like to see the rows of townhouses split up. Mr. Wampler explained it likely would be split up anyways, but they will work on showing this. Mr. Bower suggested that the applicant reach out to the Board of Supervisors in the same way they reached out to the Planning Commission. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION Wayne Bower made the motion to continue the public hearing to the October 1st, 2024, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to consider proffered conditions. The motion carried 5-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: X Concept Plan X Vicinity Map X Staff Report X Other Philip Thompson, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission September 3, 2024 Dear Members of the Roanoke County Planning Commission: My name is Millie Stewart, and my husband and I reside in the Altamira subdivision off Sanderson Drive, Roanoke, VA 24019. We are very concerned about the proposed large subdivision across Sanderson from our neighborhood. Sanderson Drive is already like a main highway with people cutting through to connect to Shadwell Drive and Read Mountain Road. Sometimes large trucks come down Sanderson Drive ignoring the no through truck signs making it very dangerous for people to be able to pull out of their residences and subdivisions. The entrance to our neighborhood is very close to a curve in Sanderson Drive which makes it very difficult to see to pull out from our road onto Sanderson. A new development as large as this one is proposed to be will make it even more dangerous due to the tremendous amount of traffic it is likely to generate in this area. There is also the problem of the railroad track on Shadwell Drive that causes backups on both Sanderson and Shadwell already when long trains go by. With the added amount of traffic this subdivision will add to them, these roads aren't going to be able to support the added traffic. We respectfully ask that you recommend denial of this request to rezone this property to allow such a large 225-lot development. Sincerely, Millie and Phillip Stewart 24 Encina Court Roanoke, VA 24019 Planning Commission 10-1-2024 on Sanderson Drive. My name is Dale Brown, and I live at 430 Stoneledge Drive, 24019 in the Stonegate neighborhood, which is off of Sanderson Drive. I am President of Stonegate HOA, Inc. The Density of the proposed new development on Sanderson Drive is s�ll a problem. We are opposed to the rezoning of R3. We feel like this property should be Zoned R-1 which is consistent with the neighboring developments like Altamira, Sanderson Ridge, Stonegate, The Village at Stonegate and the new Wilkinson development on Shadwell Drive which is now called “The Foothills.” All of these are Single Family Homes, not Townhomes. There are too many Townhouses proposed on this property. If this development is approved for rezoning by Roanoke County, it should be R-1 and be all single-family homes. According to the recent study by *MGT Consul�ng and released by Roanoke County, we need single Family Homes. Our public schools have the capacity to absorb the increased enrollment. We already have problems with rush hour traffic at the intersec�on of Shadwell and Sanderson. The biggest issue is there is not a le� turn lane from Sanderson onto Shadwell. Vehicles sit at this intersec�on for prolonged periods of �me, not able to turn le� from Sanderson to Shadwell. This prevents traffic from turning right off Sanderson on Shadwell and it is not unusual for traffic to back up to the county line wai�ng to get out onto Shadwell. The plan should provide for an exit through “The Foothills” (the other Wilkinson Development) onto Shadwell. That would relieve some of the traffic conges�on on Sanderson Drive. The addition of several thousand vehicle trips a day will create gridlock at rush hour in morning and afternoon. Afternoons tend to be worse than mornings. We have met with VDOT and Roanoke County several �mes since 2019 to try to resolve this issue and Several traffic studies were done but nothing has happened yet. If you consider approving this development, the developer, VDOT and Roanoke County should be required to add a third lane ( a right and le� turn lane) from Sanderson to Shadwell before this development is completed. VDOT says there is only a conceptual Plan to fix these problems and NO FUNDING is available. Thank you for your considera�on. Dale Brown Roanoke County Planning Commission Meeting Oct. 1, 2024 I am Walter Jones and my wife and I live at 215 Stoneledge Drive. We moved here from Salem 20 years ago. I have been active in the Stonegate HOA and am presently the Vice President. It was to be expected 20 years ago that the Beahm farm would continue to be developed as happened for the Stonegate Development. In the past few years Altimira and Sanderson Ridge have been developed. There was little outcry relative to these developments as they were in keeping with the existing neighborhoods. There was concern with the traffic and that has borne out to be true. Now we are faced with Stonegate 3 which will dump traffic directly onto Stonegate Road rather than onto the main roads of Sanderson and Shadwell. This is not a desirable situation. Much of the traffic we experience on Sanderson and Shadwell is not because of the developments but due to traffic going to and from Roanoke city and we are forced to experience this thru traffic which is not local traffic. In the near future it is proposed that 147 single family and townhouse homes be built on the Beahm farm in close proximity with the existing neighborhoods. I was at the Roanoke County Planning Commission meeting held September 4th and was impressed that the Commission did not “railroad” thru a proposal from the Developer. However, I understand the developer still wants to put 147 units on the Beahm farm and have the property rezoned to R-3. The Roanoke County Zoning District Guide states that R-3 is for an Urban Service Area. This was a farm ! It is definitely not a Urban Service Area. Considering the increase in traffic and the type of homes in close proximity I suggest that the Beahm should be zoned for R-1. This would be consistent with the surrounding areas. The developer seemed to imply that unless the higher density of R-3 was not approved then it would not be profitable to develop the area. I would like to point out that the recent developments of Altimira and Sanderson had no problems selling the single family homes in those areas, so higher density is not required for a successful development. I urge you to not approve the rezoning to R-3 and furthermore to have the developer contribute to the improvement of the roads such as left and right turn lanes which will be needed in the future. Respectfully submitted Walter V. Jones 215 Stoneledge Drive Roanoke, VA 24019 Board Of Supervisors Hearing on Sanderson Drive Rezoning on October 22, 2024 My name is Dale Brown, and I live at 430 Stoneledge Drive, 24019 in the Stonegate neighborhood, which is off of Sanderson Drive. I am President of Stonegate HOA, Inc. and I am writing this letter on behalf of the Stonegate HOA, Inc. Board of Directors. The Density of the proposed new development on Sanderson Drive is a problem. We are opposed to the rezoning of R3. We feel like this property should be Zoned R-1, which is consistent with the neighboring developments like Altamira , Sanderson Ridge, Stonegate, The Village at Stonegate, and the new development on Shadwell Drive which is now called “The Foothills.” All of the homes in these surrounding neighborhoods are Single Family Homes, not Townhomes. According to the recent study by *MGT Consulting and released by Roanoke County, we need single Family Homes. Our public schools have the capacity to support the increased student enrollment in North County. Stonegate Properties, LLC. has not published size or pricing on the proposed homes, only picture examples of what could be built there. There are too many Townhouses proposed on this property. If this development is approved for rezoning by Roanoke County, it should be R-1 and be all single-family homes. We believe the Traffic Study (TIA) presented at the Planning Commission Meeting on behalf of Stonegate Properties is not accurate. The presented data showed minimal wait time turning onto Shadwell Drive from Sanderson Drive. I can tell you that it is not unusual to wait 3 -5 minutes to turn right or left onto Shadwell from Sanderson in the afternoons. The volume of traffic on Shadwell is so heavy that you cannot turn left onto Shadwell from Sanderson, therefore no one can turn right onto Shadwell from Sanderson. We have traffic coming up Hollins Road turning onto Shadwell, traffic coming up Shadwell from Route 11 and traffic coming up Old Mountain Road from Roanoke. A lot of this traffic is then turning onto Sanderson Drive. The addition of several thousand vehicle trips a day will create gridlock at rush hour in morning and afternoon at this intersection. If you consider approving this development, the developer, VDOT and Roanoke County should be required to add a third lane (right and left turn lane) from Sanderson to Shadwell before this development is completed. Thank you for your consideration. Dale Brown Dale Wilkinson, Stonegate Properties LLC Request to rezone approximately 21.39 acres from I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District, to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District Board of Supervisors Public Hearing October 22, 2024 Location Map2 Project Site •7812 Sanderson Drive and 0 Sanderson Drive •21.39 acres •Current Use: Agriculture •Request to rezone from I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District for a 161-lot residential subdivision 3 Community Outreach •Approximately 513 letters mailed to adjoining property owners and tenants containing information about the request and the community meeting prior to the September 3rd, 2024, public hearing •Community meeting was held Monday, August 5th at Hollins Library from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. •Approximately 88 citizens in attendance •22 submitted written comments •Main concerns included traffic and density of development 4 Community Outreach •One (1) additional written comment was submitted prior to the public hearing •Planning Commission public hearing held September 3rd, 2024 •Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing until October 1st, 2024 •Approximately 513 letters mailed to adjoining property owners and tenants containing information about the continuation of the public hearing and the revised concept plan 5 Community Outreach •Three (3) additional written comments submitted •All were in opposition of the petition •Addressed the preference for R-1 instead of R-3 zoning, traffic concerns, and the need for single-family homes instead of townhouses 6 Photographs7 Photographs8 Photographs9 Photographs10 Photographs11 12 Property Background •The property currently contains a single-family dwelling and multiple accessory structures of varying sizes •Roanoke County tax assessment records estimate the residence was built around 1920 •The property has historically been used for agricultural activity 13 Zoning Background •The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a single family dwelling as “a site built or modular building designed for or used exclusively as one (1) dwelling unit for permanent occupancy.” •Single family dwellings are permitted by-right in the R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District. •The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a townhouse as “a grouping of three (3) or more attached single-family dwellings in a row in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one (1) or more common walls.” •Townhouses are permitted by-right in the R-3 District. •All development and use of the property would be in conformance with Section 30-45 (R-3 development standards) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. •Comprehensive site plan and building plan reviews would be required before any construction could take place. 14 Zoning Background A Type A buffer would be required at the southern, eastern, and western property lines which all adjoin property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District There are two options for Type A buffers: When possible, existing vegetation can be used to meet buffer requirements with approval from the Zoning Administrator. The need for a buffer at the northern property line will be determined during the site plan review process. Option 1 Option 2 20′ buffer For every 75′ consisting of: One row of large deciduous trees (3) One row of large evergreen shrubs (12—14) One row of large deciduous shrubs (16-18) 15′ buffer For every 75′ consisting of: One row of small deciduous trees (5) One row of large evergreen shrubs (12—14) 6′ tall opaque screening 15 Original Concept Plan 16 Revised Concept Plan 17 Final Revised Concept Plan 18 Concept Renderings 19 Concept Renderings 20 Traffic Impact Analysis •A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted and submitted with the application. •“The results of the traffic impact analysis indicate that while the project results in minor increases in delay at the study intersections the anticipated maximum queues will be accommodated and are not expected to spill back into adjacent intersections.” •The TIA was concurred with by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). •The main area of concern was the southbound approach of Shadwell Drive and Sanderson Drive. •The TIA was conducted based on road improvements that have not yet been funded. Zoning Existing Zoning •I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District 21 Surrounding Zoning •North: Botetourt County •East: R-1, Low Density Residential District •South: R-1, R-1C, and I-1S •West: R-1 Future Land Use22 Principal Industrial •A future land use area where a variety of industry types are encouraged to locate. •Existing and planned regional employment centers. •Distributed throughout the County, convenient to major residential areas and suitable highway access. •The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Principal Industrial future land use designation. Planning Commission Public Hearing – September 3, 2024 •Five (5) citizens spoke in opposition during the public hearing. •Their issues and concerns included: •Density of development; •Traffic generated from proposed development and other developments in the vicinity; •Need for amenities to handle additional housing; •Preference for single family homes over townhouses; and •Transportation improvements needed to handle new development. 23 Planning Commission •The Planning Commission discussed: •The unfunded transportation improvement; •Traffic study; •Proposed dedicated right-of-way along the applicant's frontage on Sanderson Drive; •New road under construction in Stonegate, Phase 3; •Lack of proffered conditions associated with this application; •The need for housing; •Types of homes being proposed and home prices; •Surrounding residential development; •Breaking up the 10-unit townhouse sections into smaller sections of 5 to 6 townhouses; •Inconsistency with the Principal Industrial future land use designation;and •A potential connector road from proposed development to Stongeate, Phase 3. •The Planning Commission voted to continue this public hearing until its October 1, 2024, meeting. 24 Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing – October 1, 2024 •Seven (7) citizens spoke during the public hearing. •Their issues and concerns included: •Increased traffic; •Number of apartments being built in the area; •Funding for the left-turn lane; •New subdivisions adding to current traffic issues; •Railroad creates challenges to any road improvement; •Inconsistency with future land use designation; and •Lack of green space within development. 25 Planning Commission •The Planning Commission discussed: •The proposed right-of-way dedication along the proposed development; •The reduction in the number of lots from 225 to 161 with 147 being in Roanoke County: •Proposed connector road to Stonegate, Phase 3, •Traffic study; •Delay times at the Sanderson Drive/Shadwell Drive intersection; •New entrances for proposed development needing to meet VDOT's sight distance requirements; •Number of notices sent to surrounding property owners; •Future land use; •Surrounding residential development; •Sanderson Drive/Shadwell Drive is one of the intersections being studied as part of the Safe Streets and Road for All study: •Limited amount of industrial land available in the County; and •The need for new housing. 26 Planning Commission The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning with four (4) proffered conditions: 1. The property shall be developed in general conformance with the concept plan showing a maximum of 147 lots entitled "Beahm Property Botetourt County, VA Rezoning Concept" prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc., dated 9/24/24, subject to any changes required during the comprehensive site plan review process. 2. The residential dwelling units shall be constructed in general conformance to the elevation examples for townhomes and detached homes provided by the applicant as part of the rezoning application titled "Townhome Example Elevations" dated 9/24/24. 27 Planning Commission 3. A road shall be constructed to connect to the road/public right-of- way in Stonegate Phase 3 as shown on the concept plan entitled “Beahm Property Botetourt County, VA Rezoning Concept” prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc., dated 9/24/24. Construction of this road shall begin upon the issuance of the 110th building permit for the lots in the development. 4. Right-of-way along Sanderson Drive shall be dedicated to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors as shown on the concept plan entitled "Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive Left Turn Lane" prepared by Roanoke County Department of Planning, dated 7/9/24 for intersection improvements at Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive. The right-of-way dedication shall take place upon execution of the subdivision plat. 28 Questions? 29 ROANOKE COUNTY OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 TEL: (540) 772-2071 FAX: (540) 772-2089 COUNTY ATTORNEY DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY Marta J. Anderson Douglas P. Barber, Jr. SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS SAMPLE MOTIONS The petition of Dale Wilkinson to rezone approximately 21.39 acres from I-1 (Low Intensity Industrial) District to R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) District to develop a residential subdivision. MOTION TO APPROVE I find that the proposed rezoning request: 1. Is inconsistent with the future land use designation of “Principal Industrial” included in the County’s adopted comprehensive plan, but the proposed residential use is in line with adjacent properties currently zoned for residential use and will assist with the current need for available housing in Roanoke County. 2. Is good zoning practice, and 3. Will not result in substantial detriment to the community. I therefore MOVE THAT WE APPROVE the rezoning request as it has been requested, including the following four proffered conditions: a. The property shall be developed in general conformance with the concept plan showing a maximum of 147 lots entitled "Beahm Property Botetourt County, VA Rezoning Concept" prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc., dated 9/24/24, subject to any changes required during the comprehensive site plan review process. b. The residential dwelling units shall be constructed in general conformance to the elevation examples for townhomes and detached homes provided by the applicant as part of the rezoning application titled "Townhome Example Elevations" dated 9/24/24. c. A road shall be constructed to connect to the road/public right-of-way in Stonegate Phase 3 as shown on the concept plan entitled “Beahm Property Botetourt County, VA Rezoning Concept” prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc., dated 9/24/24. Construction of this road shall begin upon the issuance of the 110th building permit for the lots in the development. d. Right-of-way along Sanderson Drive shall be dedicated to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors as shown on the concept plan entitled OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 "Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive Left Turn Lane" prepared by Roanoke County Department of Planning, dated 7/9/24 for intersection improvements at Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive. The right-of-way dedication shall take place upon execution of the subdivision plat. MOTION TO DENY I find that the proposed rezoning request: 1. Is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive plan, 2. Is inconsistent with good zoning practice, and/or 3. Will result in substantial detriment to the community. I therefore MOVE THAT WE DENY the rezoning request as it has been requested. MOTION TO DELAY ACTION I find that the required information for the submitted proposal is incomplete. I therefore MOVE TO DELAY action until additional necessary materials are submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Page 1 of 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2024 ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 21.39 ACRES FROM I-1 (LOW INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT TO R-3C (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS TO DEVELOP A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 0 SANDERSON DRIVE AND 7812 SANDERSON DRIVE, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Dale Wilkinson with Stonegate Properties, LLC is requesting to rezone approximately 21.39 acres from I-1 (Low Intensity Industrial) District to R-3C (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) District with conditions in order to develop a residential subdivision on property located at 0 Sanderson Drive (Roanoke County Tax Map Number 028.01-01-29.00-0000) and 7812 Sanderson Drive (Roanoke County Tax Map Number 028.01-01-30.00-0000); and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 20, 2024, and the second reading and public hearing were held on October 22, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 3, 2024, which was continued to and resumed on October 1, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition as requested, with four (4) conditions proffered by the applicant; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. The Board finds that the request as submitted by Dale Wilkinson with Stonegate Properties, LLC is inconsistent with the future land use designation of “Principal Industrial” included in the County’s adopted Page 2 of 3 comprehensive plan, but the proposed residential use is in line with adjacent properties currently zoned for residential use and will assist with the current need for available housing in Roanoke County. 2. The Board further finds that the request as submitted by Dale Wilkinson with Stonegate Properties, LLC is good zoning practice, and will not result in substantial detriment to the community. 3. The petition of Dale Wilkinson with Stonegate Properties, LLC to rezone approximately 21.39 acres from I-1 (Low Intensity Industrial) District to R- 3C (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) District with conditions in order to develop a residential subdivision on property located at 0 Sanderson Drive (Roanoke County Tax Map Number 028.01 -01-29.00- 0000) and 7812 Sanderson Drive (Roanoke County Tax Map Number 028.01-01-30.00-0000) is hereby approved, with the following four (4) proffered conditions: a. The property shall be developed in general conformance with the concept plan showing a maximum of 147 lots entitled "Beahm Property Botetourt County, VA Rezoning Concept" prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc., dated 9/24/24, subject to any changes required during the comprehensive site plan review process. b. The residential dwelling units shall be constructed in general conformance to the elevation examples for townhomes and detached homes provided by the applicant as part of the rezoning application titled "Townhome Example Elevations" dated 9/24/24. c. A road shall be constructed to connect to the road/public right-of-way in Stonegate Phase 3 as shown on the concept plan entitled “Beahm Property Botetourt County, VA Rezoning Concept” prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc., dated 9/24/24. Construction of this road shall begin upon the issuance of the 110th building permit for the lots in the development. Page 3 of 3 d. Right-of-way along Sanderson Drive shall be dedicated to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors as shown on the concept plan entitled "Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive Left Turn Lane" prepared by Roanoke County Department of Planning, dated 7/9/24 for intersection improvements at Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive. The right-of-way dedication shall take place upon execution of the subdivision plat. 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance.