HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/25/2025 - RegularPage 1 of 5
Invocation: Pastor Jesse Jackson, Hope Bible Church
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
February 25, 2025
Page 2 of 5
Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for February 25, 2025. Regular meetings
are held on the second and fourth Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at
6:00 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 Friday 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. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Emergency Ordinance Accepting And Appropriating Funds In The Amount Of
$208,862 From The Virginia Brownfields Restoration And Economic
Redevelopment Assistance Fund Program And Authorizing Execution Of A
Performance Agreement With The Virginia Economic Development Partnership
For Professional Park, Located In The Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Doug
Blount, Assistant County Administrator) (Due to time constraints for the
project, it is requested that the second reading be dispensed with upon an
affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the members of the Board, and that this matter
be deemed an emergency measure pursuant to Section 18.04 of the
Roanoke County Charter)
2. Ordinance authorizing the execution of a lease agreement with .Com Properties
IV, LLC for thirty-five (35) parking spaces located at 210 South Colorado Street,
Salem, Virginia. (Ashley King, Director of General Services and Rachel Lower,
Deputy County Attorney) (First Reading and Request for Second Reading)
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
Agenda
February 25, 2025
Page 3 of 5
D. APPOINTMENTS
1. Roanoke County Economic Development
Sherry Lawrence – Catawba District – Expiration 9-26-2027
E. 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 – February 13, 2025
2. The petition of LovABLE Services, Inc. to obtain a special use permit to
operate a drive-in or fast-food restaurant on approximately 0.7 acre zoned
C-1, Low Intensity Commercial District, located at 6426 Merriman Road,
Cave Spring Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second
Reading and Public Hearing)
3. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
to accept Cobble Trail in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District into the
VDOT Secondary Road System.
4. Ordinance to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of
$209,300 and the required local match of $209,300 for an ambulance and
stretcher/load system from the Virginia Department of Health (VDH).
(Second Reading)
5. Proclamation– Multiple Sclerosis Education Awareness Month
6. Resolution approving a new template for the Board’s contracts with its
County Administrator and County Attorney and authorizing re -execution of
the contracts upon such form.
F. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
This time has been set aside for Roanoke County citizens, County property owners,
and County business owners to address the Board on matters of interest or concern.
While the Board desires to hear from all who desire to speak, this agenda item is
limited to a duration of 30 minutes, Each individual speaker shall be afforded 3
minutes to speak.
G. REPORTS
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
Page 4 of 5
2. Outstanding Debt Report
3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of January 31,
2025
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of January 31, 2025
5. Accounts Paid – January 2025
6. Statement of the Treasurer’s Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy,
as of January 31, 2025
H. WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors fiscal year 2025 -2026
employee compensation and benefits. (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance
and Management Services and Steve Elliott, Budget Administrator, Elijah Daly,
Director of Human Resources)
2. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the County Administrator's
Proposed Fiscal Year 2026 - 2035 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (Laurie
Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services and Steve Elliott,
Budget Administrator)
I. 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.
Specifically, the Board will discuss potential business location or expansion in the
five magisterial districts.
EVENING SESSION – 6:00 PM
J. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
K. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution Adopting An Amendment To The Roanoke County 200 Plan To
Incorporate The Roanoke County Safe Streets And Roads For All
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Into The Roanoke County 200 Plan. (Megan
Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning)
Page 5 of 5
L. SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. The petition of April Joyce Hernandez Lemus to rezone approximately 12.61
acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to AR, Agricultural/Residential
District, located at 1807 Mayfield Drive, Vinton Magisterial District. (Philip
Thompson, Director of Planning) (Second Reading and Public Hearing)
2. The petition of B2X Online, Inc., to obtain a special use permit to construct a
broadcasting tower approximately 80 feet tall on approximately 6.972 acres of
land zoned AR, Agricultural/ Residential District, located at 9731 Tinsley Lane,
Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning)
(Second Reading and Public Hearing)
M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
1. Martha B. Hooker
2. Paul M. Mahoney
3. Tammy E. Shepherd
4. Phil N. North
5. David F. Radford
N. ADJOURNMENT
Page 1 of 3
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: February 25, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $208,862
FROM THE VIRGINIA BROWNFIELDS RESTORATION
AND ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FUND
PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A
PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE VIRGINIA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP FOR
PROFESSIONAL PARK, LOCATED IN THE CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
SUBMITTED BY: Megan Baker
Director of Economic Development
APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Acceptance and appropriation of a $208,862 grant from the Virginia Brownfields
Restoration and Economic Redevelopment Assistance Fund Program to support the
redevelopment of property located at 4502 -4504 Starkey Road and 4034 Emma Lane,
Roanoke, VA 24018.
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Brownfields Restoration and Economic Redevelopment Assistance Fund
(the “VBAF”) was established pursuant to § 10.1 -1237 of the Code of Virginia of 1950,
as amended (the “Virginia Code”), to promote the restoration and redevelopment of
brownfield sites in the Commonwealth and to address environmental problems or
obstacles to reuse so that such sites can be effectively marketed to new economic
development prospects.
The VBAF is administered by the Virginia Resources Authority (“VRA”). The Virginia
Economic Development Partnership ("VEDP") directs the distribution of grants from the
Page 2 of 3
VBAF to the grant recipients. VEDP, in consultation with the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (“DEQ”).
VBAF Site Remediation Grants, in amounts of up to $500,000, are available to assist
with the costs of:
(i) remediation of a contaminated property to remove hazardous substances,
hazardous wastes, or solid wastes;
(ii) the necessary removal of human remains, the appropriate treatment of grave
sites, and the appropriate and necessary treatment of significant archaeological
resources, or the stabilization or restoration of structures listed on or eligible for
the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register; or
(iii) demolition and removal of existing structures, when necessary, to abate
hazardous material or other site work required to make a site or certain real
property usable for economic development.
Only political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including counties, cities,
towns, industrial/economic development authorities, planning district commissions, and
redevelopment and housing authorities, may apply for grants from the VBAF Program.
The property may be publicly or privately owned, as long as the property has public or
private redevelopment potential.
The County of Roanoke, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia (the "Grantee") was awarded a Site Remediation Grant (the “Grant”) for
asbestos remediation for property located at 4502 -4504 Starkey Road and 4034 Emma
Lane, Roanoke, VA, 24018 (the “Project”), identified as Tax Parcel ID Numbers: 087.07 -
01-29.00-0000, 087.07-01-30.00-0000, 087.07-01-31.00-0000, 087.07-01-36.00-0000,
087.07-01-31.01-0000, and 087.07-01-33.00-0000.
Recipients of the VBAF Site Remediation Grant are required to enter into a performance
agreement with VEDP, as acknowledged by VRA and DEQ.
DISCUSSION:
On December 23, 2024, Roanoke County was awarded $208,862 in VBAF for a Site
Remediation Grant (the “Grant”) for asbestos remediation for property located at 4502 -
4504 Starkey Road and 4034 Emma Lane, Roanoke, VA, 24018 (the “Project”).
The project site has been an office park since it was built in 1974. Real estate developer
Alexander Boone purchased the property in fall 2024. He plans to demolish the two
existing office buildings and redevelop the site into a retail/hotel use. This aligns with
Roanoke County’s strategy to reimagine the Route 419 corridor by focusing on
redevelopment opportunities.
Page 3 of 3
The project will require asbestos remediation to make the redevelopment of the site
successful.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The VBAF Performance Agreement requires no additional funds from Roanoke County.
The required local match for the $208,862 VBAF grant has been met by the private
purchase of the property. This project will be locally administered by Roanoke County,
necessitating acceptance and appropriation of this funding to facilitate project
reimbursement requests. Roanoke County will serve as the responsible entity and
grantee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the first reading of an ordinance to:
1. Accept and appropriate $208,862 for the Professional Park Redevelopment
Project to the Grant Fund; and
2. Grant signatory authority to the County Administrator, or his designee, to execute
the Performance Agreement with the Virginia Economic Development
Partnership (VEDP); and
3. That this ordinance be approved on an emergency basis, and that the second
reading be dispensed with upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the members of
the Board, as this is an emergency measure due to the timing of the project.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $208,862 FROM THE VIRGINIA
BROWNFIELDS RESTORATION AND ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT
ASSISTANCE FUND PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
A PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE VIRGINIA ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP FOR PROFESSIONAL PARK,
LOCATED IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Virginia Brownfields Restoration and Economic Redevelopment
Assistance Fund (“VBAF”) was established pursuant to § 10.1 -1237 of the Code of
Virginia to promote the restoration and redevelopment of brownfield sites in the
Commonwealth and to address environmental problems or obstacles to reuse so that
such sites can be effectively marketed to new economic development prospects; and
WHEREAS, VBAF is administered by the Virginia Resources Authority (“VRA”),
and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership ("VEDP") directs the distribution of
grants from the VBAF; and
WHEREAS, on December 23, 2024, Roanoke County was awarded a $208,862
Site Remediation Grant for asbestos remediation for the property located at 4502-4504
Starkey Road and 4034 Emma Lane, Roanoke, VA, 24018 (the “Project”), identified as
Tax Parcel ID Numbers: 087.07-01-29.00-0000, 087.07-01-30.00-0000, 087.07-01-
31.00-0000, 087.07-01-36.00-0000, 087.07-01-31.01-0000, and 087.07-01-33.00-0000;
and
WHEREAS, the project site has been an office park since it was built in 1974 , and
in fall 2024, real estate developer Alexander Boone purchased the property with plans to
demolish the two existing office buildings and redevelop the site into a retail/hotel use ,
aligning with Roanoke County’s strategy to reimagine the Route 419 corridor by focusing
on development opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the site will require asbestos remediation to make the redevelopment
of the site successful; and
WHEREAS, recipients of the VBAF Site Remediation Grant are required to enter
into a performance agreement with VEDP, as acknowledged by VRA and DEQ ; and
WHEREAS, the VBAF Performance Agreement requires no additional funds from
Roanoke County, as the required local match for the $208,862 VBAF grant has been met
by the private purchase of the property; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County will serve as the responsible entity and grantee, and
will administer this project locally, necessitating acceptance and appropriation of this
funding to facilitate project reimbursement requests; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 25, 2025, and
due to the timing of the project, the second reading has been dispensed with upon an
affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the members of the Board, this being deemed an emergency
measure pursuant to Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $208,862 for the Professional Park Redevelopment Project
is hereby accepted and appropriated to the Grant Fund.
2. The County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant
County Administrator, each of whom may act, are authorized to execute the
Performance Agreement with the Virginia Economic Development
Partnership (“VEDP”).
3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
Page 1 of 2
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: February 25, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH .COM PROPERTIES IV, LLC
FOR THIRTY-FIVE (35) PARKING SPACES LOCATED AT
210 SOUTH COLORADO STREET, SALEM, VIRGINIA
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood
County Administrator
ISSUE:
The County currently does not own nor lease sufficient parking spaces to offer parking
to all staff of the Roanoke County Department of Social Services. The County is in need
of additional parking spaces within walking distance to the Roanoke County Department
of Social Services Building (220 East Main Street) in order to provide parking for more
social services employees.
BACKGROUND:
The County operates its Department of Social Services in the City of Salem at 220 East
Main Street. Currently, there is not enough parking spaces for all social services staff.
DISCUSSION:
Staff have identified a parking lot within walking distance of the social services building
located at 210 South Colorado Street in the City of Salem, owned by .COM
PROPERTIES, IV, LLC, which has thirty-five (35) parking spaces currently available for
lease. Staff have worked with representatives of .COM PROPERTIES, IV, LLC, and
have negotiated for the lease of the thirty-five (35) parking spaces, for a period of three
years beginning on March 15, 2025 and ending on March 14, 2028, for a monthly rental
amount of $1,925.00.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Page 2 of 2
Should the County enter into the lease with .COM PROPERTIES, IV, LLC for the
parking spaces, the annual fiscal impact to the County would be $23,100.00, and the
three year term of the lease would cost the County $69,300.00. County staff with work
with the Commonwealth of Virginia in an effort to seek reimbursement of a portion of
these costs, pursuant to allowances for social services by the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the ordinance to authorize the
execution of the lease of a parking lot in the City of Salem, Virginia, and to schedule this
matter for a second reading on March 11, 2025.
Page 1 of 4
This LEASE AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ____ day of ______________,
2025, by and between .COM PROPERTIES, IV, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company,
Grantor, hereinafter referred to as “Landlord,” and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
its successors or assigns, Grantee, hereinafter referred to as “Tenant.”
W I T N E S S E T H:
That for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Leased Premises. Landlord hereby rents and leases to Tenant, in
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Lease Agreement, the
following real property, herein referred to as the “Premises,” to-wit:
A portion of that tract or parcel of real estate containing a parking lot
located at 210 South Colorado Street, Salem, Virginia, bounded by East
Burwell Street and South Colorado Street, said parking spaces being
designated specifically as space “1” consecutively to space “35” on the plat
titled “EXHIBIT “A” SHOWING 210 SOUTH COLORADO STREET PARKING
LOT SALEM TAX MAP PARCEL # 121-12-12”, dated September 24, 2024,
and prepared by the Roanoke County Planning Department (attached
hereto as Exhibit A).
2. Term of Lease. The term of this lease shall be for a period of three (3)
years, said term to commence on March 15, 2025, and continuing to March 14, 2028.
Either party may terminate this lease by providing six (6) months’ written notice as
provided in Section 10.
3. Rental. Tenant shall pay as rent the sum of One Thousand Nine Hundred
and Twenty-Five Dollars ($1,925.00) per month, payable each month in advance by
Tenant to Landlord at 1401 Coulter Drive, NW, Roanoke, Virginia 24012 without
demand therefor. Tenant’s obligation to pay is subject to annual appropriations being
made for such purpose by the governing body of the County of Roanoke.
4. Taxes. During the term of this Lease Agreement, Landlord shall remain
responsible for the payment of all taxes and assessments imposed on the Premises,
provided, however, that Tenant agrees to reimburse Landlord for actual taxes and
assessments paid within thirty (30) days of Landlord providing proof of payment of any
taxes and assessments actually paid.
5. Use and Possession. It is understood and agreed by the parties that the
Premises are to be used during the term of this Lease Agreement for the purpose of
Page 2 of 4
parking or storing motor vehicles, and may include the construction of certain
improvements by Tenant for any related purposes (including the installation of signage
on the Premises). Any structures or other improvements placed upon the Premises by
Tenant shall remain the property of Tenant and may be removed at any time prior to
the expiration of this Lease Agreement, but such removal shall not be deemed an
abandonment or waiver of Tenant’s rights under this Lease Agreement. Tenant agrees
not to install underground storage facilities for petroleum products on the Premises.
6. Condition. Tenant has examined and knows the condition of the
Premises and accepts same in its current condition. Tenant acknowledges that no
representation as to the condition or repair of the Premises thereof has been made by
Landlord, except as provided for herein. The Premises shall be returned to Landlord at
the expiration of this Lease Agreement in its current condition and state of repair, with
allowance for ordinary wear and tear. Tenant is allowed to perform, and is responsible
for, general maintenance on the Premises to keep the Premises in safe and working
order for the purpose of parking or storing motor vehicles, including but not limited to
parking lot maintenance, snow removal, sealing, and patching of the parking lot.
7. Liabilities. During the term of this Lease Agreement, Tenant will provide
and pay for all utilities which may be necessary to Tenant for the reasonable and proper
use and enjoyment of the Premises by Tenant. Landlord agrees to grant such approvals
to the utility companies as may be necessary for the installation of utility services.
8. Insurance. Tenant covenants that it shall, during the term of this Lease
Agreement, keep in full force and effect a policy of general liability insurance or such
comparable self-insurance as may be authorized by the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia with limits of at least $1,000,000.00 for personal injury to or death of any one
person and $2,000,000.00 for injury to or death of more than one person in any one
occurrence and $100,000.00 for property damage.
9. Landlord Covenants. Landlord covenants and represents that it has the
full and complete ownership of the Premises; that it has the full power and right to
execute this Lease Agreement and to perform the obligations hereunder; that no private
restrictions exist with respect to the said Premises or the use thereof; that no one,
exclusive of Landlord and Tenant and their respective successors in interest, has any
interest in or claim against the Premises; and that the proposed use of the Premises by
Tenant is lawful and permissible under all laws and regulations.
Page 3 of 4
10. Notices. All written notices required or permitted by this Lease
Agreement may be delivered in person or shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt
requested (postage prepaid) to Landlord or Tenant at the following addresses:
Landlord: Richard C. Bishop
.COM Properties, IV, LLC
1401 Coulter Drive, NW
Roanoke, VA 24012
Tenant: Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia
Attn: Ashley King, Director
Department of General Services
5235 Hollins Road
Roanoke, VA 24019
11. Agent. Landlord acknowledges that no real estate agent was involved in
this transaction and agrees to indemnify and hold Tenant harmless from any claim for a
commission by reason of any action on Landlord’s part.
12. Modification. This Lease Agreement represents the entire
understanding between the parties and may not be modified or changed except by
written instrument executed by the parties.
13. Governing Law. This Lease Agreement shall be construed pursuant to
the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and shall be binding upon the parties hereto,
their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns.
14. Authority. This Lease Agreement is executed by the County
Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator of
Roanoke County, Virginia by authority and on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, pursuant to Ordinance #__________________________ adopted by
the said Board on the ________ day of ________________________, 2025.
15. Indemnification. Landlord shall indemnify Tenant and hold Tenant
harmless from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, liability , and expense
(including without limitation, fees of attorneys, investigators and experts) in connection
with the loss of life, personal injury, or damage to property caused to any person in or
about the Premises or occasioned wholly or in part by any act or omission of Landlord,
its agents, contractors, employees, licensees or invitees; unless such loss, injury or
damage was caused solely by the negligence of Tenant, its agents, employees, licensees
or invitees. Tenant agrees that it maintains liability and other applicable insurance
Page 4 of 4
policies for any covered acts that may result from negligent acts or omissions of
Tenant’s employees, agents, invitees, and assigns.
16. Execution. This Lease Agreement shall be executed in duplicate, each of
which shall constitute an original.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
Page 5 of 4
.COM PROPERTIES, IV, LLC
By___________________________________________(Seal)
Title: ______________________________________________
State of Virginia,
City/County of _______________, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of
_____________________________, 2025, by ____________________________________________ on behalf of
.COM PROPERTIES, IV, LLC, Landlord.
_____________________________________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires: _____________________________________
Page 6 of 4
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA
By_______________________________________________(Seal)
Title: __________________________________________________
State of Virginia,
County of Roanoke, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of
_____________________________, 2025, by _______________________________________, on behalf of the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, Tenant.
_____________________________________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires: _____________________________________
Approved as to form:
_________________________________________
County Attorney
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, FEBRUARY 25, 2025
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH .COM PROPERTIES IV, LLC FOR THIRTY-FIVE
(35) PARKING SPACES LOCATED AT 210 SOUTH COLORADO
STREET, SALEM, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Department of Social Services (“DSS”)
employs more than 130 employees and provides services to the citizens of Roanoke
County, the Town of Vinton, and the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County currently does not own nor lease sufficient parking
spaces to offer parking to all staff of the Roanoke County Department of Social
Services; and
WHEREAS, the County is in need of additional parking spaces within walking
distance to the Roanoke County Department of Social Services Building (220 East Main
Street, Salem, Virginia) in order to provide parking for more social services employees;
and
WHEREAS, staff have identified a parking lot within walking distance of the
social services building located at 210 South Colorado Street, Salem, Virginia, owned
by .COM PROPERTIES, IV, LLC, which has thirty- five (35) parking spaces currently
available for lease; and
WHEREAS, staff have worked with representatives of .COM PROPERTIES, IV,
LLC, and have negotiated for the lease of the thirty -five (35) parking spaces, for a
period of three years beginning on March 15, 2025 and ending on March 14, 2028, for a
monthly rental amount of $1,925.00; and
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has
determined that it is in the public interest and that a public necessity exists to lease the
thirty-five (35) parking spaces at 210 South Colorado Street, Salem, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, § 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that the acquisition
and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading
of this ordinance was held on February 25, 2025, and the second reading was held on
March 11, 2025; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the execution of a Lease Agreement with .com Properties , IV, LLC for
thirty-five (35) parking spaces located at 210 South Colorado Street, Salem,
Virginia is hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant
County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents,
including but not limited to the Lease Agreement (with any changes as
approved by the County Attorney’s Office) and any other documents
necessary to accomplish this ordinance and to take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish this
ordinance, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
3. That this ordinance is to be in full force and effect upon its passage.
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: February 25, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of appointment to the Roanoke County
Economic Development Authority (EDA) (By District)
SUBMITTED BY: Rhonda Perdue
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Confirmation of appointment
BACKGROUND:
Roanoke County Economic Development Authority (EDA) (By District):
Supervisor Martha B. Hooker has recommended the appointment of Sherry Lawrence to
fill the unexpired term of Kyle M. Richardson representing the Catawba district whose
term expires September 26, 2027.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends confirmation of all appointments.
Page 1 of 1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET
FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE
DESIGNATED AS ITEM E - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for February 25,
2025, designated as Item E - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred
in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6
inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – February 13, 2025
2. The petition of LovABLE Services, Inc. to obtain a special use permit to operate a
drive-in or fast-food restaurant on approximately 0.7 acre zoned C-1, Low Intensity
Commercial District, located at 6426 Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial
District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading and Public Hearing)
3. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to accept
Cobble Trail in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District into the VDOT Secondary Road
System.
4. Ordinance to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $209,300 and the
required local match of $209,300 for an ambulance and stretcher/load system from
the Virginia Department of Health (VDH). (Second Reading)
5. Proclamation– Multiple Sclerosis Education Awareness Month
6. Resolution approving a new template for the Board’s contracts with its County
Administrator and County Attorney and authorizing re-execution of the contracts
upon such form.
Page 1 of 7
Welcome to the 9:00 a.m. special meeting for the Board of Supervisors for
February 13, 2025.
A. OPENING CEREMONIES
1. Roll Call
Present: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford
Absent: None
Staff Present: Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator; Rebecca Owens,
Deputy County Administrator; Doug Blount, Assistant 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
B. WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors fiscal year 2025-2026
projected General Government Fund operating budget revenues, review updates
to the County of Roanoke Fee Compendium and Outside Agency Funding.
(Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services and Steve
Elliott, Budget Administrator)
2. Work session with Board of Supervisors to provide a Community Engagement
Update. (Madeline Hanlon, Community Engagement Director)
C. CLOSED MEETING, pursuant to the Code of Virginia as follows:
Action No. 021325-1
1. Section 2.2-3711(A)(8) for the Board to consult with the County Attorney
regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice.
Specifically, the Board will receive legal advice regarding issues pertaining to the
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
Minutes
February 13, 2025 – 9:00 a.m.
Page 2 of 7
renegotiating of certain agreements, the disclosure of which could compromise
the negotiating strategy of the Board.
2. 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 the
five magisterial districts.
Supervisor Radford moved to go to closed session. Supervisor Hooker seconded
the motion. Motion approved.
Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford
Nays: None
The Board went into closed session, an upon its conclusion, Chairman Radford
recessed this meeting until 12:00 p.m. for the remaining scheduled Board of
Supervisors meeting.
Page 3 of 7
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke
County Administration Center, this being a special meeting due to inclement weather
and the cancellation of the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of February
2025. 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.
D. OPENING CEREMONIES
The Board returned to open session with all Board members and Administration
present.
E. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
Action No. 021325-2 Item C.1
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 North
seconded the motion. Motion approved.
Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford
Nays: None
F. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA
ITEMS
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
Minutes
February 13, 2025 – 12:00 p.m.
Page 4 of 7
G. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
Prior to moving to item G(1), Chairman Radford, noted that at the last meeting we
had the pleasure of congratulating the Hidden Valley High School Girls Volleyball
team for winning the 2024 Virginia High School League (VHSL) Class 3
Championship. As the resolution was read, the names of two students were
inadvertently missed. Today, with an apology for last meeting’s oversight, we would
like to recognize those who were missed - Juniors Bella Facciani and Sofia Jordan.
We again would like to congratulate these two players and their team mates.
1. Recognition of Roanoke County employees, Caitlin Gills and Justin Hubbard,
who have been recognized in The Roanoker magazine as a 40 under 40 Young
Professional. (Jim Blanton, Director of Library Services and Michael Poindexter,
Chief of Police)
Recognition given to Caitlin Gills and Justin Hubbard.
H. BRIEFING
1. Briefing by Roanoke Gas to provide a project update. (Paul Nester, President
and CEO of Roanoke Gas)
Briefing was given by Paul Nester.
I. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
Action No. 021325-3 Item I.1
1. Ordinance to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $209,300 and
the required local match of $209,300 for an ambulance and stretcher/load system
from the Virginia Department of Health (VDH). (C. Travis Griffith, Chief of Fire
and Rescue) (First Reading and Request for Second Reading)
Supervisor North moved to approve the first reading of this ordinance and
scheduling the second reading for February 25, 2025. Supervisor Hooker seconded
the motion. Motion approved.
Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford
Nays: None
J. APPOINTMENTS
Action No. 021325-4 Item J.1-2
1. Roanoke County Audit Committee (Board Appointments):
Phil C. North – Term expires 12/31/2025
Page 5 of 7
Paul M. Mahoney – Term expires 12/31/2025
2. Roanoke County Economic Development Authority (EDA) (appointed by District)
Barry W. Thompson – Hollins District - Term expires 9/26/2026
Supervisor North moved to approve all appointments. Supervisor Shepherd
seconded the motion. Motion approved.
Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford
Nays: None
K. CONSENT AGENDA
Action No. 021325-5.a-b Item K.1-2
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. 021325-5.a Item K.1
1. Approval of minutes – January 28, 2025
Action No. 021325-5.b Item K.2
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a donation from the Friends of the
Roanoke County Public Library in the amount of $30,000 for use by the Roanoke
County Library Department. (Second Reading)
Supervisor Mahoney moved to adopt all matters on the consent agenda. Supervisor
Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved.
Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford
Nays: None
L. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS - None
This time has been set aside for Roanoke County citizens, County property owners,
and County business owners to address the Board on matters of interest or concern.
While the Board desires to hear from all who desire to speak, this agenda item is
limited to a duration of 30 minutes, Each individual speaker shall be afforded 3
minutes to speak.
Page 6 of 7
M. REPORTS
Action No. 021325-6 Item M.1-2
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
Supervisor Shepherd moved to receive and file the reports that have been included
with the agenda under Item M. Supervisor Mahoney seconded the motion. Motion
approved.
Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Radford
Nays: None
N. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
1. Phil C. North
2. Martha B. Hooker
3. Paul M. Mahoney
4. Tammy E. Shepherd
5. David F. Radford
Supervisors were offered the opportunity to share comments and provide updates to
their peers and the public on items of interest to them.
With an unfinished closed meeting item. The Board would return to Closed Meeting and
complete closed session Item C.2.
Peter S. Lubeck, Count Attorney, read that the Board would go back into Closesd
Meeting, pursuant to 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 the five magisterial
districts.
Supervisor Hooker moved to go to closed session. Supervisor North seconded the
motion. Motion approved.
Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford
Nays: None
CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
Action No. 021325-8 Item C.2
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 Radford moved to adopt the certification resolution. Supervisor Hooker
seconded the motion. Motion approved.
Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford
Nays: None
O. ADJOURNMENT
Action No. 021325-9
Supervisor Mahoney moved to adjourn the meeting. Supervisor Hooker seconded
the motion. Motion approved.
Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford
Nays: None
Submitted by: Approved by:
__________________________ __________________________
Richard L. Caywood David F. Radford
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Chairman
Page 1 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. E.2
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
ISSUE:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
Page 2 of 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends as follows:
. That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of this ordinance for the
purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for March 25, 2025.
. That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as
to each item separately, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where
required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation
for any such item pursuant to this action.
County of Roanoke
Community Development
Planning & Zoning
For Staff Use Only
5204 Bernard Drive
PO Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018 Placards issued
(540)772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Case Number
All APPLICANTS
Check type of application filed (check all that apply)
o Rezoning i1l Special Use D Variance
Applicants name/address wlzip
LovABLE Services, Inc 1824 9th Street SE Suite B Roanoke, VA 24013
Owner's name/address w/zip
Paul and Nanct Rucker6707 Parkway rive Roanoke, VA 24018
Property Location
6426 Merriman Road Roanoke, VA 24018
Tax Map No.: 097.06-01-06.00
Size ofparcel(s): Acres: 0.7 acres
o Waiver o Administrative Appeal o Comp Plan 05.2-2232) Review
Phone: Same as cell
Cell#: 540.353.4750
Email: beth@lovableservices.org
Contact for Legal Ads Beth Woodrum
Phone#: Same as cell
Cell#: 540-520-7449
Email: n4259b@gmail.com
Magisterial District: Cave Spring
Community Planning area: Cave Spring
Existing Zoning: C-1 and FO
Existing Land Use: Vacant Building
REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WAIVER AND COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW APPLICANTS (RIS/W/CP)
Proposed Zoning: C-1 with Special Use Permit
Proposed Land Use: Resturant. Drive-IN or Fast Food & Personal Improvement Services s
Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district?
Yes x No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST (Rezoning).
Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type in Article IV (Special Use Permit)? Yes X No
IF NO, AV ARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST
If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No
VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADMINISTRA T/VE APPEAL APPLICANTS (V/W/AA)
Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to:
Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to
Appeal oflnterpretation ofSection(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance
Appeal oflnterpretation of Zoning Map to
ls the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE
ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE.
R/S/W/CP V/AA R/S/W/CP V/AA R/S/W/CP V/AA
Consultation X 8 l/2" x 11" concept plan
�
Application fee
Application x Metes and bounds description N\A Proffers. if applicable
Justification x Water and sewer application Adjoining properly owners
1 hereby certity that I am either the O\rner of the property or the owner's agen
/
t or contract purchaser and am acting with the kno wledge and
consent fthe owner. ,,/J ;f {) p_ . �.A/ 1 / L��., IY� /i,� Owner'sSignaturc
2
6426 Merriman Road - Aerial Map
Roanoke County, VA 2023, Roanoke County, Commonwealth of Virginia,
Maxar
1/17/2025, 12:50:27 PM
0 0.03 0.060.01 mi
0 0.05 0.10.03 km
1:2,330
C2S
C1
C2
I2 R1C
C2
R1 C2
R1
R1
I1
C2R1
C1
R1
R1
I2
R1
R1
C2
C1
R1
I2
C2
R1 C2
R1
R1C
R1C
C2
I2
6426 Merriman Road - Zoning Map
Roanoke County, Virginia 2019
Zoning
C1
C2
C2
I1
I1
I2
R1
R1
1/17/2025, 12:52:10 PM
0 0.03 0.060.01 mi
0 0.05 0.10.03 km
1:2,330
DE
NC
TR
PI
6426 Merriman Road - Future Land Use Map
Roanoke County, Virginia 2019
Future Land Use
Development
Neighborhood Conservation
Transition
Core
Principal Industrial
1/17/2025, 12:54:17 PM
0 0.03 0.060.01 mi
0 0.05 0.10.03 km
1:2,330
Page 1 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. E.3
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
ISSUE:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
Page 2 of 2
may have occurred by error, and it needs to be corrected in order for Cobble Trail to be
maintained by VDOT.
In coordination with VDOT, staff has determined that it would be appropriate to bring
Cobble Trail into the secondary system of state highways. During the discussion,
representatives from VDOT have stated there is a minimal risk of the County being held
responsible for repairs needed if surety by resolution is provided instead of requiring the
developer or homeowners association to post a surety bond as is typical.
Staff has inspected this road along with representatives of VDOT and determined the
road 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 Cobble Trail into VDOT's secondary system of state highways.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Form AM 4.3
Form AM 4.3
(Rev 01/16/2025)
by Resolution of the governing body adopted 2/25/2025
In Roanoke County
ICR ID: 40514017
SSR
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. 1432 - Cobble
Trail
New subdivision
street §33.2-705
Intersection with
Cobble Lane,
Route 1351
End of Cul-de-sac 0.32 2 Instrument
#200213823
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: Cobble Trail Street Acceptence
Attachment A"
Description Length ROW Services
Cobble Trail; From: Int 1351 To: End of its cul‐de‐sac 0.32 mi 50 3/14 houses
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025
RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF COBBLE TRAIL IN
THE STONERIDGE AT BENT MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION IN THE
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT INTO THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (“VDOT”) SECONDARY
SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS
WHEREAS, Cobble Trail in the Stoneridge at Bent Mountain subdivision in the
County of Roanoke, as 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, representatives of VDOT have advised representatives of Roanoke
County that Cobble Trail in the Stoneridge at Bent Mountain subdivision meets the
requirements established by VDOT’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and
WHEREAS, the County and VDOT entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999
for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Roanoke, Virginia requests VDOT add Cobble Trail in the Stoneridge at Bent Mountain
subdivision in the County of Roanoke, as described on the attached Form AM-4.3, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.2-705 and VDOT’s
Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a copy of this Resolution and all
outstanding fees and documents required by VDOT.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described on the attached
Form AM-4.3, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills, and drainage.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this Resolution be forwarded
to the Residency Administrator for VDOT.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia guarantees the performance of Cobble Trail in the Stoneridge at Bent Mountain
subdivision in the County of Roanoke, as described on the attached Form AM-4.3, to
become part of the Secondary System of State Highways for a period of one year from
the date of the acceptance of the aforementioned street into the Secondary System of
State Highways (“the Guarantee Period”). During the Guarantee Period, the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia will completely reimburse all costs incurred by
VDOT, up to $14,000, to repair any faults in the workmanship or materials of the
aforementioned street and related drainage facilities as determined exclusively by VDOT.
Page 1 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. E.4
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
ISSUE:
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
Page 2 of 2
There have been no changes since the first reading of the ordinance on February 13,
2025.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The VDH grant funds total $209,300 with a required local match of fifty percent (50%)
by the County. There are project savings in the Bonsack Fire Station capital project
which can be reallocated to the grant fund for the required local match.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approving the ordinance for the acceptance and appropriation of
grant funds to the Fire and Rescue Department in the amount of $209,300 from the
Virginia Department of Health and the reallocation of $209,300 from the Bonsack Fire
Station project in the capital fund to the grant fund for the required local match.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Health
PO BOX 2448 TTY 7-1-1 OR
RICHMOND, VA 23218 1-800-828-1120
January 01, 2025
Charles Rucker
Roanoke County Fire & Rescue
5925 Cove Road
Roanoke, VA 24019
Dear Grant Administrator:
The Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS) is pleased to announce that your agency has been awarded funding
from the Financial Assistance for Emergency Medical Services Grant Program, known as the Rescue Squad Assistance
Fund (RSAF). The attached Award Page itemizes the actual dollar value, quantity, funding level and item(s) your agency
has been awarded under this program. The following documents can be completed and submitted via E-Gift:
Memorandum of Agreement: Must be submitted by February 28, 2025.
Instructions for Grant Reimbursement: All items must be submitted in order to process your reimbursement.
Equipment Status/Final Report Form: This form must be submitted sixty (60) days after the grant cycle deadline.
If your agency has had special conditions placed on your grant award, any and all conditions must be met in order to receive
reimbursement. Items awarded may be available by state contract, www.eva.virginia.gov, OEMS recommends your agency
purchase under state contract if applicable.
Any funding your agency receives through Return to Localities funding cannot be used as the matching share of Rescue
Squad Assistance Fund grants or any grants offered using Four-For-Life funds. "Any funds received from Section 16.2-694
by a non-state agency cannot be used to match any other funds derived from Section 46.2-691 by that same non-state agency".
All items awarded funding must be ordered from the vendor by February 28, 2025 invoices for all items awarded funding
must be submitted to OEMS by July 31, 2025. You must contact OEMS prior to the February 28, 2025 deadline if your
agency has encountered difficulties in meeting these deadlines.
If you have any questions, please contact Michael Berg, OEMS Grant Program Manager at (804)
888-9106, Michael.Berg@vdh.virginia.gov or Linwood P. Pulling, Grant Specialist at (804) 888-9105,
Linwood.Pulling@vdh.virginia.gov or 1-800-523-6019 for additional grant information.
Congratulations,
RACHEL STRADLING
Interim EMS Director
Office of Emergency Medical Services
Consolidated Grant Program
AWARD PAGE
January 1, 2025 - December 31, 2025 Grant Period
Agency Name: Roanoke County Fire & Rescue
Grant Number: WV-C01/12-24
Item Type (Item)Status Quantity
Funded
Funding
% Level
Amount Funded
Braun Ambulance FUNDED 1 50 / 50 $180,000.00
Conditions:
1: Vehicle must be available for service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
13: Acknowledgment must be provided on any printed material, equipment or vehicle as follows: "Funding was made
possible by a grant from the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services."
28: Agencies must remain compliant with EMS data submissions (Code of Virginia Section 32.1-116.1). This includes
documenting "No Runs to Submit" as applicable. The monthly Data Quality Report will be used to monitor compliance.
48: Funds may not be used for travel, contract, or purchase fees related to the purchase of this equipment.
Stryker Power Load System FUNDED 1 50 / 50 $15,300.00
Conditions:
13: Acknowledgment must be provided on any printed material, equipment or vehicle as follows: "Funding was made
possible by a grant from the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services."
28: Agencies must remain compliant with EMS data submissions (Code of Virginia Section 32.1-116.1). This includes
documenting "No Runs to Submit" as applicable. The monthly Data Quality Report will be used to monitor compliance.
Stryker Power Pro 2 Stretcher FUNDED 1 50 / 50 $14,000.00
Conditions:
13: Acknowledgment must be provided on any printed material, equipment or vehicle as follows: "Funding was made
possible by a grant from the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services."
28: Agencies must remain compliant with EMS data submissions (Code of Virginia Section 32.1-116.1). This includes
documenting "No Runs to Submit" as applicable. The monthly Data Quality Report will be used to monitor compliance.
Total:$209,300.00
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025
ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $209,300 AND THE REQUESTED LOCAL MATCH OF
$209,300 FOR AN AMBULANCE AND STRETCHER/LOAD SYSTEM
FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (VDH)
WHEREAS, the financial assistance for Emergency Medical Services Grants
Program, known as the Rescue Squad Assistance Fund (RSAF) Grant Program, is a
multi-million dollar grant program for Virginia non-profit EMS agencies and organizations,
funding eligible items including EMS equipment and vehicles, computers, EMS
management programs, courses/classes, and projects benefiting the recruitment and
retention of EMS members; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County continues to have fire and rescue fleet needs due to
aging equipment and increased repair costs; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Health Office of Emergency Services
through RSAF has awarded Roanoke County a grant in the amount of $209,300 for the
purchase of one ambulance and a stretcher/load system; and
WHEREAS, this grant requires a fifty percent (50%) local match of $209,300; and
WHEREAS, there are project savings in the Bonsack Fire Station capital project
which can be reallocated to the grant fund for the required local match ; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 13, 2025, and
the second reading was held on February 25, 2025.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the RSAF grant of $209,300 is hereby accepted and appropriated to
the Grant Fund.
2. That the County’s matching sum of $209,300 be allocated from the Capital
Fund to the Grant Fund.
3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
Page 1 of 1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. E.6
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
BOARD’S CONTRACTS WITH ITS COUNTY
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
ISSUE:
BACKGROUND:
FISCAL IMPACT:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Page 1 of 9
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND ITS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR / COUNTY ATTORNEY
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, desiring to have predominantly
uniform provisions in their contracts with its County Administrator and County
Attorney, developed this standard agreement for both positions.
This Agreement is made and dated this ______ day of _____________ 202__
by and between the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the “Board”),
and __________________________________ (the “Employee”), and sets forth the
terms and conditions of his employment.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board to (1) secure and retain the services of a
County Administrator/ County Attorney and to provide inducement for him to remain in
such employment and (2) to provide a just means for termination of the Employee’s
services at such time as he may be unable fully to discharge his duties or when the Board
may desire to otherwise terminate his employment; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to employ the services of Employee; and
WHEREAS, it is the further desire of the Board of Supervisors to (1) provide
inducement for the Employee to remain in such employment; (2) make possible full
work productivity by assuring the Employee’s morale and peace of mind with respect
to future security; (3) act as a deterrent against malfeasance or dishonesty for
personal gain on the part of the Employee; (4) establish an effective mechanism for the
regular review of the Employee’s performance by the Board; and, (4) provide a just
means for terminating the Employee’s services at such time as he may desire to
terminate his employment, be unable fully to discharge his duties due to age or
disability, or when the Board may desire to otherwise terminate his employment; and
WHEREAS, Employee desires to accept employment as the County Administrator
/ County Attorney.
Page 2 of 9
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained,
the Board and Employee hereto agree as follows:
SECTION I: DUTIES
The duties of both the County Administrator and County Attorney are set forth. Only those
duties applicable to the position to which the Employee is appointed are relevant to this
agreement.
A. County Administrator
a. The County Administrator shall perform the functions and duties
specified in § 15.2 -1541 of the Code of Virginia and Chapter 4 of
the County Charter and shall perform such other legally
permissible and proper duties and functions as the Board of
Supervisors shall from time-to-time assign. The Administrator
shall devote all necessary time, skill, labor, and attention to such
duties as the chief administrative officer of Roanoke County.
b. The County Administrator shall have charge of the administration of the
Roanoke County government under the direction of the Board. The
County Administrator shall fully and completely inform the Board of
Supervisors of any and all information that is relev ant and necessary to
the functioning of the Board. The County Administrator shall be the chief
executive for the Board; shall select, organize and assign all personnel,
as best serves Roanoke County government, subject to the policies of
the Board and the laws of the Commonwealth; shall oversee the
business affairs of Roanoke County; shall from time to time suggest
regulations, rules and procedures deemed necessary for the well
ordering of Roanoke County; and in general perform all duties incident
to the office of the County Administrator as prescribed by law and Board
policy.
c. The County Administrator shall perform any other legally permissible
duties or functions which the Board may see fit to assign at any time
Page 3 of 9
during the term of this Agreement consistent with the office of the County
Administrator.
B. County Attorney
a. The County Attorney serves as the chief legal officer and advisor of
Roanoke County.
b. The County Attorney shall perform the functions and duties of County
Attorney as prescribed by Chapter 7 of the Roanoke County Charter,
Section 15.2-1542 of the Code of Virginia, and those set forth in the
position description for the County Attorney approved by the Board and
attached hereto as Appendix A and as amended from time to time,
policies and regulations adopted by the Board, and the legal directives
of the Board, and shall be identified as the County Attorney. The County
Attorney shall devote all necessary time, skill, labor, and attention to
such duties as the chief legal officer and advisor of Roanoke County.
c. The County Attorney shall have charge of the administration of the
Roanoke County Attorney’s office under the direction of the Board. The
County Attorney shall fully and completely inform the Board of
Supervisors of any and all legal issues and information that is relevant
to the functioning of the Board and the County. The County Attorney
shall be the chief legal officer and advisor for the Board; shall select,
organize and assign all his personnel, as best serves Roanoke County
government, subject to the policies of the Board and the laws of the
Commonwealth; shall represent the County in all civil matters and
business affairs of the County; shall from time to time suggest
ordinances, resolutions, regulations, rules and procedures deemed
necessary for the well ordering of Roanoke County; and in general
perform all duties incident to the office of the County Attorney as
prescribed by law and Board policy.
Page 4 of 9
d. The County Attorney shall perform any other legally permissible duties
or functions which the Board may see fit to assign at any time during the
term of this Agreement consistent with the office of the County Attorney.
SECTION II: TERM
A. The Employee agrees to remain in the exclusive employ of the
County until this Agreement is terminated as provided herein. The term
“employed” shall not be construed to preclude occasional teaching, writing,
or consulting service performed on the Employee’s own time.
B. As provided in §15.2-1503 of the Code of Virginia and § 4.04
of the County Charter, the Employee’s employment shall be without a
definite term and shall continue until terminated as provided in this
Agreement.
C. Nothing in this agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise
interfere with the right of the Board to terminate the services of the
Employee at any time, subject only to the provisions set forth in Section III,
paragraphs A and B, of this agreement.
D. Nothing in this agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise
interfere with the right of the Employee to resign at any time from his position
with the County, subject only to the provision set forth in Section III, paragraph
C, of this agreement.
SECTION III: NOTICE AND SEVERENCE
A. If the Employee is terminated by the Board during such time that
the Employee is willing and able to perform the duties of the Employee, then, in
that event, the Board agrees to pay the Employee ____________ months of
the then current salary in a lump sum, subject to tax withholdings within thirty
(30) days of the date of termination and to continue applicable benefits,
including health benefits, for a period of ________________ months by
Page 5 of 9
acceptance of which the Employee shall constitute a full and final release of the
Board of all claims of any kind for salaries, money and damages.
B. The Employee may be terminated by the Board for sufficient cause
which shall include material breach of this Agreement, willful non-compliance with
laws and regulations or Board policies, conviction of any felony or any crime
involving moral turpitude, loss of any license that is necessary to perform
applicable to the Employee’s position, conviction of a crime in volving his
employment with Roanoke County, or an act involving gross and willful negligence
pertaining to the execution of responsibilities of the Employee’s position. In the
event of such termination for cause, all salary and benefits shall cease as of the
effective date of such termination. The Employee shall be entitled to payment for
accrued flexible leave and holiday leave. In the event the Board, at any time
during the employment term, (1) reduces the salary or other financial benefits
of the Employee in a greater percentage than an applicable across-the-board
reduction for all County employees; (2) refuses, following written notice, to
comply with any other provision benefiting the Employee herein; or (3) induces
the Employee’s resignation by suggesting, whether formally or informally, that
he resign, then, in that event, the Employee may at his option, be deemed to be
“terminated” as of the date of such reduction, refusal, or suggestion within the
meaning and context of the aforesaid severance provisions.
C. In the event the Employee voluntarily resigns his position with the
County, then the Employee shall give the Board ninety (90) days’ notice in
advance, and shall forfeit the pay and benefits provided for in Section III,
paragraph A. The ninety (90) day notice may be waived by the Board of
Supervisors.
SECTION IV: SALARY
A. The Board agrees to pay the Employee for his services at the rate
of _____________ annually, to be paid in accordance with the standard policy
of the Board governing payment of full-time Roanoke County employees.
Page 6 of 9
B. The Board agrees to award the Employee cost of living increases,
or average compensation adjustment, if any, in the same amount as awarded
to Roanoke County employees generally.
C. The annual salary of the Employee may be adjusted or increased
for any subsequent fiscal year, during the term of this Agreement, based on an
annual performance review prior to the end of the fiscal year. In lieu of or in
addition to a salary increase, the Board may provide a bonus to the Employee
based on his annual performance review. Any adjustments for subsequent
years shall be in writing and shall be in the form of an amendment or
addendum, except for the above-mentioned cost of living increases or
compensation adjustments as provided in paragraph “B” above . Thereafter,
unless the Board of Supervisors indicates otherwise, pay adjustments shall be
governed by the same pay increase conditions as all other County employees.
SECTION V: HOURS OF WORK
A. The Employee is expected to observe office hours similar to those
of other administration employees. It is recognized that the Employee will
frequently be required to work beyond normal office hours for night or weekend
meetings and related duties. In recognition of the fact that the Employee is
expected to devote a significant amount of time outside of normal office hours
to the business of Roanoke County, the Employee may, to the extent that his
duties permit, take reasonable discretion in varying observance of offic e hours;
however, no accumulation of compensatory time or monetary compensation is
granted.
B. Any on-going, formal commitment to teach classes, beyond
occasional invitations to be a guest speaker, or to provide outside consulting,
requires the prior approval of Board of Supervisors. Such approval shall not
be unreasonably denied after the first anniversary of the Employee’s
employment.
Page 7 of 9
SECTION VI: PERFORMANCE REVIEW
The Board shall review and evaluate the performance of the Employee at
least once annually before July 1st. This review shall be in accordance with specific
criteria developed by the Board. These criteria can be amended from time to time
based on changes to the expectations of the Board. The Board shall provide the
Employee with a written statement of the evaluation and provide the opportunity
for the Employee to discuss the criteria and evaluation with the Board.
SECTION VII: OTHER POLICIES, BENEFITS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS
OF EMPLOYMENT
A. All policies and procedures applicable to all full-time employees of
Roanoke County shall apply to the Employee, including, but not limited to, policies
pertaining to smart phones, flexible and holiday leave, and travel reimbursement.
B. All benefits provided to full-time employees of Roanoke County
government shall be provided in the same manner to the Employee, including, but
not limited to, the accrual of flexible and holiday leave; health, dental, and vision
insurance coverage for the Employee and his dependents; short- and long-term
disability coverage for the Employee and his dependents; and retirement benefits.
Additionally, insofar as the Employee has elected to enroll in the County’s Deferred
Compensation Plan, the County will pay on his behalf into such plan ___________
per 26 pay periods each year.
C. The Board of Supervisors shall fix any such other terms and
conditions of employment, as it may determine from time to time, relating to the
performance of the Employee, provided such terms and conditions are not
inconsistent with or in conflict with the provisions of this agreement, the County
Code, or any other law.
D. The County will pay the Employee’s professional dues and
subscriptions related to membership in professional organizations, his
Page 8 of 9
expenses for attending professional meetings, institutes, and/or profe ssional
development and leadership programs , and will reimburse the Employee for
out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the performance of his duties in
accordance with County policies. Additionally, the County will pay a reasonable
amount for the professional dues, continuing education, and subscriptions of
the Employee necessary for him to retain any professional licenses that he
presently holds.
E. The Employee shall maintain his residence within the boundaries of
the County.
SECTION VIII: GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. The text herein shall constitute the entire agreement between the
parties.
B. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the heirs at law and executors of the Employee.
C. This agreement shall become effective on ______________,
following approval of the Board of Supervisors and execution by both parties.
D. If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained in this
agreement is held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable, the
remainder of this agreement or portion thereof shall be deemed severable,
shall not be affected, and shall remain in full f orce and effect.
E. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
has caused this agreement to be signed and executed on its behalf by its Chair,
and duly attested by its Clerk, and the Employee has signed and executed this
agreement, both in duplicate.
Page 9 of 9
Executed this _______ day of ____________ 202__.
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia
By: _____________________________
_____________________, Chairman
ATTEST:
___________________________
Chief Deputy Clerk
Employee
By: ____________________________
____________________________
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, FEBRUARY 25, 2025
RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEW TEMPLATE FOR THE BOARD’S
CONTRACTS WITH ITS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND COUNTY
ATTORNEY, AND AUTHORIZING RE-EXECUTION OF THE
CONTRACTS UPON SUCH FORM
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors first entered into a contract with its County
Attorney, Peter Lubeck, on January 14, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Board likewise first entered into a contract with its County
Administrator, Richard Caywood, on December 14, 2021; and
WHEREAS, questions and concerns regarding the interpretation and application
of certain contractual provisions have arisen. The Board, the County Attorney, and the
County Administrator desire to resolve such ambiguities; and
WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the Board approve a new contract
template that generally contains identical provisions (excepting salary amounts and
certain other specific benefits) for both the County Attorney and County Administrator;
and
WHEREAS, a template has accordingly been prepared, reviewed and endorsed
(as providing clarity for the administration of such contracts) by the Director of Human
Resources, and is attached hereto as Attachment A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, as follows:
1. The Board of Supervisors approves Attachment A as a desirable general
template for its contracts with its County Administrator and County
Attorney.
Page 2 of 2
2. The Board authorizes its Chair or Vice Chair to re-execute its contracts
with its County Administrator and County Attorney using Attachment A,
which will be appropriately supplemented with the current salary,
additional deferred compensation contributions, and severance pay for
each employee, respectively.
3. The Board, desiring to provide the County Attorney with the same deferred
compensation contribution benefits that have been available to all other
full-time County employees (including the County Administrator),
authorizes and directs the Department of Human Resources and Payroll
staff to retroactively, in a lump sum, provide the County Attorney with any
deferred compensation match contributions to which he would have been
entitled as a full-time County employee (in addition to the additional
specific amount stated in his contract), since he assumed his role on
January 14, 2021.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Capital
Unappropriated % of Board Expenditure
Balance Revenues Contingency Contingency Reserves
Audited 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
Addition from 2024‐25 close out of completed projects 63,322
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 February 25, 2025 31,213,980$ 12.0% 50,000$ 650,291$ 620,594$
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:
Audited
Outstanding Outstanding
June 30, 2024 Additions Deletions February 25, 2025
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 $58,643,260 49.08% $129,080,327 $63,075,616 48.87% $4,432,356 7.03%
Personal Property Taxes 44,500,000 2,683,164 6.03% 44,500,000 3,240,056 7.28% 556,892 17.19%
Public Service Corp Base 4,220,000 5,214,084 123.56% 5,500,000 5,812,954 105.69% 598,870 10.30%
Penalties & Interest on Property Taxes 1,130,000 601,661 53.24% 1,350,000 689,085 51.04% 87,425 12.69%
Payment In Lieu Of Taxes 210,000 90,922 43.30% 225,000 44,775 19.90% (46,147) -103.06%
Total General Property Taxes 169,552,000 67,233,091 39.65% 180,655,327 72,862,486 40.33% 5,629,395 7.73%
Communication Taxes 2,550,000 1,291,827 50.66% 2,625,000 1,265,521 48.21% (26,305) -2.08%
Local Sales Tax 15,800,000 7,725,984 48.90% 17,000,000 7,936,881 46.69% 210,897 2.66%
Consumer Utility Tax 3,750,000 1,557,785 41.54% 3,750,000 2,028,694 54.10% 470,908 23.21%
Business License Tax 7,800,000 1,276,153 16.36% 9,100,000 1,018,911 11.20% (257,242) -25.25%
Franchise Tax 690,000 0 0.00% 750,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Motor Vehicle License Fees 2,450,000 384,789 15.71% 2,450,000 396,389 16.18% 11,599 2.93%
Taxes On Recordation & Wills 1,650,000 641,086 38.85% 1,550,000 722,072 46.59% 80,986 11.22%
Utility License Tax 575,000 138,447 24.08% 565,000 184,856 32.72% 46,409 25.11%
Hotel & Motel Room Taxes 1,650,000 1,077,965 65.33% 2,050,000 1,142,238 55.72% 64,274 5.63%
Taxes - Prepared Foods 6,100,000 3,183,572 52.19% 6,450,000 3,193,931 49.52% 10,359 0.32%
Other Taxes 1,345,000 666,741 49.57% 1,355,000 494,328 36.48% (172,413) -34.88%
Total Other Local Taxes 44,360,000 17,944,349 40.45% 47,645,000 18,383,822 38.58% 439,473 2.39%
Animal Control Fees 42,500 20,039 47.15% 42,500 29,482 69.37% 9,443 32.03%
Land and Building Fees 15,850 7,054 44.51% 18,000 6,278 34.88% (776) -12.36%
Permits 924,107 324,386 35.10% 1,112,872 473,722 42.57% 149,335 31.52%
Fees 64,600 17,812 27.57% 64,600 61,091 94.57% 43,278 70.84%
Clerk of Court Fees 127,000 67,708 53.31% 127,000 76,000 59.84% 8,293 10.91%
COUNTY OF ROANOKE
Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues
General Fund - C100
For the Seven Months Ending Friday, January 31, 2025
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 Seven Months Ending Friday, January 31, 2025
Prior Year Current Year Variances
Photocopy Charges 210 0 0.00% 210 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total Permits, Fees and Licenses 1,174,267 437,000 37.21% 1,365,182 646,574 47.36% 209,574 32.41%
Fines and Forfeitures 558,500 212,540 38.06% 558,500 237,703 42.56% 25,163 10.59%
Total Fines and Forfeitures 558,500 212,540 38.06% 558,500 237,703 42.56% 25,163 10.59%
Revenues from Use of Money 500,000 915,546 183.11% 1,229,586 784,275 63.78% (131,271) -16.74%
Revenues From Use of Property 185,014 85,977 46.47% 185,014 96,780 52.31% 10,803 11.16%
Total Use of Money and Property 685,014 1,001,523 146.20% 1,414,600 881,055 62.28% (120,468) -13.67%
Charges for Services 3,750,400 2,129,604 56.78% 4,145,100 2,531,919 61.08% 402,315 15.89%
Charges for Public Services 70,000 (123) -0.18% 80,000 80 0.10% 203 253.75%
Education Aid-State 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total Charges for Services 3,820,400 2,129,481 55.74% 4,225,100 2,531,999 59.93% 402,518 15.90%
Reimb-Shared Programs Salem 1,124,084 386,338 34.37% 1,396,800 439,652 31.48% 53,314 12.13%
Miscellaneous Revenue 298,536 234,374 78.51% 304,200 221,232 72.73% (13,142) -5.94%
Recovered Costs 950,000 593,742 62.50% 1,050,000 655,404 62.42% 61,662 9.41%
Total Miscellaneous 2,372,620 1,214,455 51.19% 2,751,000 1,316,288 47.85% 101,834 7.74%
Non-Categorical Aid 418,000 1,025,552 245.35% 418,000 1,057,013 252.87% 31,461 2.98%
Shared Expenses 6,219,572 2,565,325 41.25% 6,371,084 3,438,488 53.97% 873,163 25.39%
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 Seven Months Ending Friday, January 31, 2025
Prior Year Current Year Variances
Welfare & Social Services-Categorical 4,786,943 2,309,046 48.24% 5,425,000 2,433,641 44.86% 124,595 5.12%
Other State Categorical Aid 2,468,805 1,480,387 59.96% 2,523,710 1,403,371 55.61% (77,015) -5.49%
Welfare & Social Services 6,550,000 3,545,653 54.13% 6,765,000 3,804,877 56.24% 259,224 6.81%
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 20,443,320 10,925,963 53.45% 21,502,794 12,137,390 56.45% 1,211,427 9.98%
Other Financing Sources 35,285,442 0 0.00% 33,487,987 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total Other Financing Sources 35,285,442 0 0.00% 33,487,987 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 278,251,563 101,098,401 36.33% 293,605,490 108,997,318 37.12% 7,898,917 7.25%
Expenditures Exp & Encum Expenditures Exp & Encum % of
Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Budget & Encumbrances % of Budget Actuals Variance
Legislative 498,070 235,232 47.23% 275,874 205,258 74.40% (29,862) -14.55%
General & Financial Administration 9,757,935 5,560,156 56.98% 10,707,832 6,369,090 59.48% 872,699 13.74%
Electoral Board & Officials 878,412 445,366 50.70% 1,038,250 557,993 53.74% 112,058 20.10%
General Government Administration 11,134,417 6,240,754 56.05% 12,021,956 7,132,341 59.33% 954,895 13.42%
Courts 1,827,653 898,164 49.14% 1,937,153 1,020,734 52.69% 122,570 12.01%
Other Judicial Support 1,571,959 935,288 59.50% 1,821,753 1,119,065 61.43% 183,425 16.40%
Judicial 3,399,612 1,833,452 53.93% 3,758,906 2,139,799 56.93% 305,996 14.30%
Law Enforcement & Traffic Cont 19,336,290 11,778,085 60.91% 20,591,508 12,909,529 62.69% 1,110,424 8.62%
Fire and Rescue 23,102,403 13,892,865 60.14% 25,972,455 16,284,861 62.70% 2,271,959 14.08%
Correction & Detention 12,301,166 6,797,410 55.26% 12,868,428 7,002,964 54.42% 219,487 3.14%
Animal Control 1,368,078 760,299 55.57% 1,307,776 753,529 57.62% (6,770) -0.90%
Public Safety 56,107,937 33,228,659 59.22% 60,740,167 36,950,882 60.83% 3,595,100 9.78%
General Services Administration 1,110,762 639,841 57.60% 1,431,285 894,897 62.52% 248,624 27.98%
Refuse Disposal 5,841,569 3,423,726 58.61% 6,233,165 3,746,758 60.11% 317,116 8.48%
Maint Buildings & Grounds 5,298,561 3,628,787 68.49% 5,884,371 3,503,860 59.55% (147,410) -4.24%
Engineering 2,599,144 1,655,033 63.68% 2,862,027 1,525,819 53.31% (118,651) -7.78%
Inspections 1,195,396 643,030 53.79% 1,135,510 727,671 64.08% 84,640 11.63%
Garage Complex 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Public Works 16,045,432 9,990,417 62.26% 17,546,358 10,399,004 59.27% 384,319 3.71%
Mental Health 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Public Health 579,181 434,386 75.00% 767,419 551,276 71.84% 116,890 21.20%
Social Services Administration 9,678,936 5,314,149 54.90% 10,890,884 6,213,979 57.06% 910,385 14.65%
Comprehensive Services Act 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Public Assistance 4,918,666 2,592,680 52.71% 4,918,666 2,787,684 56.68% 195,004 7.00%
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 Seven Months Ending Friday, January 31, 2025
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 Seven Months Ending Friday, January 31, 2025
Prior Year Current Year Variances
Health and Welfare 15,176,783 8,341,215 54.96% 16,576,969 9,552,938 57.63% 1,222,280 12.80%
Parks & Recreation 3,176,882 1,574,169 49.55% 3,099,387 1,917,137 61.86% 331,718 17.40%
Library 4,879,066 2,720,205 55.75% 5,230,613 2,925,939 55.94% 208,430 7.15%
Cultural Enrichment 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Parks, Recreation & Cultural 8,055,948 4,294,374 53.31% 8,330,000 4,843,076 58.14% 540,148 11.21%
Planning & Zoning 1,973,508 1,019,078 51.64% 2,007,941 1,038,088 51.70% 23,406 2.36%
Cooperative Extension Program 115,391 30,206 26.18% 145,391 23,237 15.98% (6,968) -29.99%
Economic Development 743,290 435,397 58.58% 718,907 475,796 66.18% 72,725 15.83%
Public Transportation 510,000 371,823 72.91% 510,000 202,999 39.80% (168,825) -83.17%
Contribution to Human Service Organizations 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Planning 3,342,189 1,856,504 55.55% 3,382,239 1,740,120 51.45% (79,662) -4.74%
Employee Benefits 3,439,985 954,765 27.75% 2,925,437 945,946 32.34% (32,096) -3.48%
Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup 62,700 50,884 81.15% 62,700 31,651 50.48% (15,142) -47.84%
Miscellaneous 10,273,856 6,618,112 64.42% 10,683,516 7,261,839 67.97% 643,727 8.86%
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 225,000 112,500 50.00% 225,000 112,500 50.00% 0 0.00%
Board Contingency 30,952,084 0 0.00% 32,542,525 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Unappropriated Balance 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Non-Departmental 46,063,625 8,683,580 18.85% 48,133,238 9,443,469 19.62% 740,702 7.86%
Interfund Transfers Out 112,850,443 73,579,180 65.20% 116,861,844 74,600,420 63.84% 1,021,240 1.37%
Intrafund Transfers Out 6,075,177 4,511,301 74.26% 6,253,812 4,742,037 75.83% 230,736 4.87%
Transfers Out 118,925,620 78,090,482 65.66% 123,115,656 79,342,457 64.45% 1,251,975 1.58%
Grand Totals 278,251,563 152,559,436 54.83% 293,605,489 161,544,087 55.02% 8,915,754 5.53%
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: February 25, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid – January 2025
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 -$ -$ 15,190,665.76$
Payroll 01/03/25 2,249,202.17 14,483.47 2,263,685.64
Payroll 01/17/25 1,999,623.97 9,127.84 2,008,751.81
Payroll 01/31/25 2,494,014.12 12,531.98 2,506,546.10
Manual Checks - 3,702.58 3,702.58
Grand Total 21,973,351.89$
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.
: February 25, 2025
: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of
31-Jan-25
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
CASH INVESTMENT:
TRUIST CONCENTRATION 2,443,591.74
JP MORGAN 7,775,239.56
HOMETRUST 3,278,796.32 13,497,627.62
GOVERNMENT:
TRUIST ROA CONTRA (2,140.00)
TRUIST ROA 3,000,000.00
ROCKEFELLER CONTRA (14,160.00)
ROCKEFELLER 12,000,000.00
14,983,700.00
LOCAL GOV'T INVESTMENT POOL:
GENERAL OPERATION 20,787,641.37
ROCO EMA PORTFOLIO 1,096,818.69
ROCO EMA PORTFOLIO CONTRA 20,210.18
21,904,670.24
MONEY MARKET:
ATLANTIC UNION BANK 4,874,512.73
HOMETRUST BANK 4,362,776.62
TRUIST ROA 2,806,610.98
ROCKEFELLER 18,621,501.42
PUBLIC FUNDS:30,665,401.75
BANK OF BOTETOURT 7,683,738.77
7,683,738.77
TOTAL
88,735,138.38
02/25/2025
Page 1 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. H.1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: February 25, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors fiscal
year 2025-2026 employee compensation and benefits
SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Gearheart
Director of Finance and Management Services
APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Review fiscal year 2025-2026 employee compensation and benefits funding
BACKGROUND:
As part of the annual operating budget development, staff provides the Board of
Supervisors information for the upcoming fiscal year in advance of the County
Administrator's proposal of the operating budget.
Roanoke County staff annually evaluates funding required for employee salaries and
benefits with the development of each operating budget. Information on compensation
and benefits considered for fiscal year 2025-2026 will be discussed.
DISCUSSION:
The work session provides the Board of Supervisors information on compensation and
benefit updates for the upcoming fiscal year in advance of the County Administrator's
proposal of the fiscal year 2025-2026 operating budget.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with receipt of this information.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Page 2 of 2
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors receive information regarding County
of Roanoke fiscal year 2025-2026 employee compensation and benefits.
Page 1 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. H.2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: February 25, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the
County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2026 - 2035
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
SUBMITTED BY: Laurie Gearheart
Director of Finance and Management Services
APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Review of the proposed fiscal year 2026 - 2035 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
with the Board of Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
As part of the annual budget development process, County staff conducts a series of
work sessions with the Board of Supervisors to discuss the capital and operating
budgets. This work session will provide information on the fiscal year 2026 - 2035
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which will be proposed by the County Administrator
to the Board of Supervisors on March 25, 2025.
DISCUSSION:
This work session will provide information to the Board of Supervisors on the capital
requests made for the fiscal year 2026 - 2035 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and
specifically, those projects which will be proposed for fiscal year 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the receipt of this information.
Page 2 of 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors receive information on the fiscal year 2026
- 2035 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025
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 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. K.1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: February 25, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ROANOKE COUNTY 200 PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE
ROANOKE COUNTY SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR
ALL COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN INTO THE
ROANOKE COUNTY 200 PLAN
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood
County Administrator
ISSUE:
A public hearing must be held prior to considering adoption of the Safe Streets and
Roads For All (SS4A) Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (Plan) as part of the Roanoke
County 200 Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law established the SS4A Discretionary Grant Program to
fund initiatives to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. The U.S. Department of
Transportation has appropriated $5 billion for the SS4A program with funds split
between Planning and Implementation grants.
The SS4A program provides eighty percent (80%) federal funding for a twenty percent
(20%) local match. Applicants must first have an eligible Safety Action Plan in place in
order to apply for Implementation Grants in subsequent grant rounds.
Staff requested and were awarded an Action Plan Grant for development of a plan in
partnership with the Town of Vinton and Botetourt County. Events and milestones to
date include:
· September 13, 2022: Board of Supervisors approved a resolution of support and
funding commitment for the grant
Page 2 of 2
· September 15, 2022: Application submitted
· January 31, 2023: Award notification
· April 27, 2023: Grant agreement executed with the U.S. Department of
Transportation
· July 11, 2023: Board of Supervisors accepted and appropriated funding
· November 17, 2023: Notice to Proceed issued to Timmons Group
· April/May 2024: First round of Roanoke County community meetings
· August 2024: Updates to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
· September 2024: Second round of Roanoke County community meetings to
review and comment on draft safety improvement recommendations
· December 2024: Presentations to the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors on the draft Plan
• January 2025: Draft Plan released for public comment and Planning Commission
work session held on comments received
• February 4, 2025: The Planning Commission held a public hearing and
recommended adoption of the Plan as part of the Roanoke County 200 Plan
The Botetourt County Board of Supervisors and the Town of Vinton Town Council
adopted plans for their respective localities on January 28, 2025, and on February 4,
2025.
DISCUSSION:
All Safe Streets and Roads For All Plans must be adopted by the end of February 2025
to meet Federal Highway Administration grant agreement requirements.
After the Plan is adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the top prioritized project will be
designed and estimated for submission as an Implementation Project in mid-2025. A
resolution of support and match commitment would be requested from the Board of
Supervisors prior to submission of an Implementation Grant application.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution incorporating the Safe Streets and Roads
For All Comprehensive Safety Action Plan as part of the Roanoke County 200 Plan.
Safe Streets and Roads For All
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing
February 25, 2025
Overview
•Project Schedule
•High Crash Areas
•Community Engagement
•Board of Supervisors Engagement
•Draft Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Changes
•Next Steps
•Questions
2
Project Schedule
3
High Crash Areas:Corridors
4
High Crash Areas:Intersections
5
Community Engagement
•April/May 2024: Two meetings held to review and
comment on high crash areas
•Meeting Attendees: 23
•Survey Responses: 121
•September 2024: Two meetings held to review and
comment on potential solutions for high crash areas
•Meeting Attendees: 17
•Survey Responses: 113
•January 2025: Review and comment on the draft
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
•Survey Responses/Comments: 16
6
31%
31%
13%
25%
0%
What are your thoughts on the draft Plan?
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Board of Supervisors Engagement
•September 13, 2022: Approved a resolution of support and funding commitment
for a Safe Streets and Roads For All grant application
•July 11, 2023: Accepted and appropriated grant funding awarded by the U.S.
Department of Transportation
•August 20, 2024: Reviewed high crash locations, Spring community meeting
feedback and previewed potential solutions for high crash areas
•December 17, 2024: Reviewed September community meetings and the draft
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
•February 25, 2025: Holding a public hearing and considering adoption of the draft
Plan as part of the Roanoke County 200 Plan
7
Draft Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Changes
The Planning Commission approved the following changes to the draft Plan resulting from January comments:
1.Extending the Plantation Road High Crash Corridor from Williamson Road to the City of Roanoke boundary instead of stopping at Hershberger Road.
2.Considering pedestrian and bicycle accommodations as part of potential improvements in the Shadwell Road/Hollins Road/Sanderson Road area.
3.Encouraging application of shoulder or centerline rumble strips in areas where there are significant roadway departure crashes and little, if any,bicycle traffic.
8
Next Steps
Summer 2025: Anticipated submission of a Safe Streets and Roads For
All Implementation Project application which requires a 20 percent local
match
9
Questions
10
Roanoke County |
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Prepared by Timmons Group
February 2025
Safe Streets andRoads for All
2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................3
I. Introduction .........................................................................................................................4
1. Commitment to Safety .......................................................................................................6
2. Planning Structure (Stakeholders) ...................................................................................7
3. Safety Review ....................................................................................................................8
4. Network Analysis ..............................................................................................................16
High Injury Network ..................................................................................................................18
Priority Locations ......................................................................................................................20
Spring Community Engagement ..............................................................................................24
5. Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles ..........................................................34
Fall Community Engagement ..................................................................................................38
Corridor Profiles........................................................................................................................ 51
Intersection Profiles ................................................................................................................69
6. Equity Considerations .....................................................................................................82
7. Policy and Process Changes ............................................................................................90
8.Strategy and Project Selections ......................................................................................94
Potential Improvements Summary Matrix .............................................................................96
Supplemental Planning & Demonstration Activities .............................................................102
Funding Options .....................................................................................................................104
9.Progress and Transparency ............................................................................................110
Appendix A - Project Exhibits ............................................................................................112
3 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
A special thank you to all our partners who contributed to this
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan:
Roanoke County
Philip Thompson, Director of Planning
Megan Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning
Isaac Henry, Principal Planner
Nathan Grim, Transportation Planner
The Town of Vinton
Botetourt County
Timmons Group
Thomas Ruff
Lauren Delmare
Zachary Holder
Rachel Moon
Emily Routman
Acknowledgments
4Introduction
Between 2015 and 2023, there were 47 fatal non-interstate traffic
crashes in Roanoke County. In the same nine-year time-frame, there
were 494 serious injury crashes on our transportation network. That
represents an average of five fatal and 55 serious injury crashes
each year. These severe crashes are preventable tragedies that
can be reduced or eliminated through innovative design, strategic
policies, and committed local leadership.
This Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is part of Roanoke County’s
commitment to enhancing roadway safety under the Federal Safe
Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program. The plan outlines targeted
strategies to improve road safety, reduce crashes, and promote a
culture of responsible driving. Fatal and serious injury (FSI) crashes
are analyzed due to their severity. Fatal crashes result in one or more
deaths and serious injury crashes involve incapacitating injuries,
beyond visible injuries such as bruising, abrasions, swelling, or
limping; serious injury crashes may be life-altering. By implementing
engineering solutions, enhancing enforcement measures, and
fostering community education, Roanoke County can create a safer,
more reliable roadway system for all.
Summer 2024:
Draft
Recommendations
for Priority
Locations
Winter 2025:
Adoption of Action
Plan
Fall 2024:
Community
Engagement &
Draft Action Plan
Spring 2024:
Safety Analysis
& Community
Engagement
Spring/Summer 2025:
Apply for SS4A
Implementation Grants
and/or other funding
Plan Development Timeline
2024 2025
IntroductionI
5 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Program Overview
Safe Streets and Roads for All Program (SS4A)
In 2022, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) awarded $280,000 to Roanoke
County, Botetourt County, and the Town of Vinton. With a $70,000 match from the
localities, these funds were used to develop a comprehensive safety action plan as part
of the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program. The SS4A program funds
regional, local, and Tribal initiatives throughout the country through grants to prevent
roadway deaths and serious injuries. The program focuses on the development of a
comprehensive safety action plan and its implementation for all users of a jurisdiction’s
highways, streets, and roadways, including motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and
more.
According to USDOT, an Action Plan is required to have the following aspects:
1. Leadership and goal setting: A high-ranking official and/or governing body in
the jurisdiction publicly committed to an eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities
and serious injuries
2. Planning structure: committee, task force or implementation group
3. Safety analysis
4. Engagement and collaboration
5. Equity Considerations
6. Policy and process changes
7. Strategy and project selections
8. Progress and transparency
6Commitment to Safety
“The greatest benefit of the Safe Streets and Roads For All Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan has been highlighting the roadway intersections and
corridors where our worst crashes are occurring. With additional insight
into why the crashes are taking place, we can now focus on leveraging
our limited County resources to improve safety and save lives in these
high crash areas.”
-Richard Caywood, County Administrator
Our goal is to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries by 50 percent
by the year 2045.
Commitment to Safety1
7 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
The Roanoke County Planning Department led the SS4A Action Plan process and development, in close partnership with the Town of Vinton
and Botetourt County. The creation of this action plan could not have been possible without the guidance and collaboration provided by
stakeholders including elected officials, the Planning Commission, Police, Fire and EMS, Engineering and Public Works staff, Public Schools
staff, the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC), and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).
Planning Structure (Stakeholders)2
SMART SCALE Funded Diverging Diamond Interchange Project
See page 114 for more details
8Safety Review
The Safe System Approach
The Safe System approach, developed and adopted by the USDOT,
is a framework that guides safety efforts. It works by building and
reinforcing multiple layers of protection to both prevent crashes from
happening in the first place and minimize the harm caused to those
involved when crashes do occur. It is a holistic and comprehensive
approach that provides a guiding framework to make places safer
for people.
This is a shift from a conventional safety approach because it focuses
on both human mistakes AND human vulnerability and designs a
system with many redundancies in place to protect everyone.
The Safe System Approach is arranged around five complementary
objectives: safe road users, safe roads, safe vehicles, safe speeds,
and post-crash care. Together, these objectives help steer safety
programs to a future with reduced roadway fatalities and serious
injuries in Roanoke County, Botetourt County, and the Town of
Vinton.
Safe System Approach. Source: FHWA
Safety Review3
9 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Historical Crash Analysis
The safety analysis is informed by a historical crash analysis within
Roanoke County. Historical crash data, from January 1, 2015, to
December 31, 2023, was reviewed to evaluate patterns and trends
within the crash data such as crash types, crash locations, and
contributing circumstances. Crashes on interstates I-81 and I-581
were excluded from the analysis in order to focus improvements
on roads where Roanoke County is most able to affect change;
interstates fall wholly under Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) purview. Crashes within the City of Roanoke, the City of
Salem, and the Town of Vinton were also removed from the dataset.
The scope of this Safety Action Plan is non-interstate crashes
located within Roanoke County.
This analysis focused primarily on the 541 non-interstate severe
crashes in the nine-year time period that resulted in fatal and serious
injuries. Within Roanoke County, there were 47 fatal crashes and
494 serious injury (FSI) crashes reported during the study period.
Figure 1 illustrates the non-interstate severe (fatal and serious)
crashes reported by year within the county. Though some variation
occurred year-to-year, the number of fatal and serious crashes in
the county remained relatively steady.
47 46 50
61
46 47
85
51
61
7 3 5 2 7 6 2 8 7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
Serious Injuries Fatalities
Figure 1. Severe Crashes by Year, Roanoke County (2015-2023)
Roanoke County
47
severe crashes resulting
in fatality
494
severe crashes resulting
in serious injury
60.1
average annual severe
crashes
10Safety Review
Crash Types
The most common crash type among the fatal and serious injury
(FSI) crashes reported in the nine-year analysis period was fixed
object off-road crashes, which accounted for approximately 37
percent (37%) of all fatal and serious injury crashes in Roanoke
County. Angle crashes (28%), rear-end crashes (13%), and head-
on crashes (7%) were the next most common crash types reported.
Figure 2 summarizes the fatal and serious injury (FSI) crashes
reported during the nine-year analysis period by crash type.
The vast majority of severe fixed object off-road crashes occurred
during clear weather conditions (87%), and most commonly occurred
during the day.
5%
7%
13%
37%
28%
Rear End
Head On
Angle
Pedestrian
MOST COMMON CRASH TYPES
Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Only
Roanoke County (2015-2023)
Fixed Object
Off-Road
Figure 2. Severe Crashes by Crash Type, Roanoke County (2015-2023)
Figure 3. Severe Crashes by Weather Conditions
Figure 4. Severe Fixed Object Off-Road Crashes by Lighting Conditions
11 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
31%
of severe crashes
happened at night
Environmental Conditions
The environmental factors contributing to crashes can highlight
potential areas for improvement in the roadway network to better
serve the traveling public. Factors such as lighting and weather
were analyzed for the 541 crashes reported in Roanoke County.
Figure 5 illustrates the impact of changing lighting conditions on
roadway safety. When fatal and serious injury (FSI) crashes occur
at night, they are significantly more likely to occur when the road is
not lit, compared to when it is lighted.
Overall the environmental factors contributing to crashes were
consistent with statewide trends. 31% of Roanoke County’s severe
crashes occurred at night compared to 38% in all of Virginia, 9% of
Roanoke County’s severe crash occurred during rain compared to
10% in all of Virginia, and 14% occurred during wet roadway surface
conditions compared to 14% statewide.
3% 3%
71%
62%
59%
3%
4%
11%
8%
10%
4%
15%
21%
26%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Non-Severe
Crashes
Serious Injuries Fatalities
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
Dawn Daylight Dusk Dark - Road Lighted Dark- Road Not Lighted
9%
of severe crashes
occurred during rain
14%
of severe crashes
happened during wet
surface conditions
Figure 5. Crash Types by Lighting Conditions, Roanoke County (2015-2023)
3% 3%
71%
62%
59%
3%
4%
11%
8%
10%
4%
15%
21%
26%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Non-Severe
Crashes
Serious Injuries Fatalities
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
12Safety Review
Driver Behavior
Speed
Higher driving speeds lead to higher collision speeds. Higher driving speeds also make crashes more difficult
to avoid because high speeds provide less time to process information and to act on it, and require longer
break distance. 56% of fatal and serious injury crashes occurred on roads with speed limits of 45 mph or
higher. High speeds are especially dangerous for road users outside of a vehicle. According to the FHWA,
pedestrians have a 90% chance of surviving a crash involving a vehicle traveling 20 mph or below, and less
than a 50% chance of surviving a crash with a vehicle traveling 30 mph or above
Exceeding the posted speed limit further heightens the risk of a severe crash. In Roanoke County, 29% of fatal
and serious injury crashes involved speeding, similar to the 32% of crashes statewide.
29%
of cars in severe crashes
were speeding
Drugs or Alcohol
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), every day, about 37 people in the
United States die in drunk-driving crashes. In 2022, 13,524 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic
collisions.
Drivers with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) .08 (the legal limit) are approximately 4 times more likely to
crash than drivers with a BAC of zero. At a BAC of .15, drivers are at least 12 times more likely to crash than
drivers with a BAC of zero.
In Roanoke County, 24% of fatal and serious injury crashes involved drugs or alcohol, compared to only 17%
statewide.
24%24%
of severe crashes of severe crashes
involved drugs or alcohol
Distraction
Distracted driving is defined as any activity that diverts attention from driving. According to the NHTSA, in
2022, 3,308 people died in traffic collisions that involved distracted drivers. Such distractions may include
talking or texting on the phone, eating or drinking, or adjusting the audio navigation system. Sending or
reading a text takes a driver’s eyes off the road for 5 seconds. At 55 mph, that is equivalent to driving the
length of an entire football field.
In Roanoke County, 17% of fatal and serious injury crashes involved distracted driving, compared to 19%
statewide. Note that distracted driving is often underreported and the actual number may be higher.
17%17%
of severe crashes involved of severe crashes involved
distracted driving
Seatbelts
One of the safest and simplest choices drivers and passengers can make is to buckle up. Research on
passenger cars has shown that seatbelts reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat occupants by 45 percent
and the risk of injury by 50 percent. However, according to the NHTSA 2022 report on seat belt use, Virginia
has the lowest use rate of any state in the U.S. at 75.6%.
In Roanoke County, severe crashes are twice as likely to be fatal if the occupants are not buckled up. 18%
of serious injury crashes involved unbelted occupants, but in 40% of fatal crashes the occupants were not
wearing seatbelts
40%40%
of fatal crashes involved of fatal crashes involved
not wearing a seatbelt
13 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Drivers aged 65 and older were involved in 21% of all severe
crashes in Roanoke County. Residents that are 65 years or
older make up 22% of the County population (2022 American
Community Survey 5-year Estimates). Of all crashes on Principal
Arterials, seniors were involved in one-third of crashes. Principal
arterials are major highways intended to serve large amounts
of traffic traveling relatively long distances at higher speeds.
The most common collision type for senior drivers was angle
crashes (42%).
Crash Age Profiles
Crashes involving seniors (age 65+) and young drivers (ages 15-20) were analyzed due
to the unique challenges and risk factors associated with each group.
Drivers aged 15 to 20 were involved in 20% of all severe
crashes. Residents that are 15 to 20 years of age make up 6%
of the County population (2022 American Community Survey
5-year Estimates). Young drivers were 50% more likely to be in
a severe crash when speeding was a factor. The most common
collision type for young drivers was with a fixed object off the
road (35%)
Senior drivers in
severe crashes on
all roadways
Senior drivers in
severe crashes on
Principal Arterials
Young drivers in
severe crashes
Young drivers in severe
crashes when speeding
was a factor
Severe Crashes by Age and Crash Type
Senior
Young
Speeding
Senior
Non-Senior
Not Young
Not Speeding
Non-Senior
14Safety Review
Crash Severity by Mode
Although motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians represent a small minority of overall road users, they are overrepresented in fatal and
serious crashes. The figure below illustrates the relative risk of a crash resulting in serious or fatal injury for different roadway users. Less
than 6% of car crashes cause severe harm, but 43% of motorcycle crashes and 46% of bicycle or pedestrian crashes result in a serious or
fatal injury. Motorcyclists are 12 times more likely to be killed in a crash compared to motorists, and pedestrians and bicyclists are 18 times
more likely to be killed in a crash compared to motorists.
94%
5% <1% (Fatal)
Motorist
53% 38%
8%
Bicyclist or Pedestrian
58%
37%
6%
Motorcyclist
Figure 6. Crash Severity by Mode of Travel
Crash Severity of
Motorists
Crash Severity of
Motorcyclists Crash Severity of
Bicyclists & Pedestrians
15 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes
Among the 541 fatal and serious injury (FSI) crashes, there were 25 pedestrian crashes and three bicycle crashes recorded within Roanoke
County during the nine-year analysis period. Among these incidents, five of the pedestrian crashes resulted in a fatality; all three of the
bicycle crashes resulted in serious injury.
A majority of the pedestrian crashes (56%), occurred
during the night time under dark conditions. Eight of
the bicycle and pedestrian crashes (32%) involved
drugs or alcohol. Almost half of the pedestrian crashes
(44%) occurred on 45 mph roads. Most of the bicycle
and pedestrian crashes occurred where bicycle or
pedestrian facilities are not present.
Figure 7 shows these crashes throughout the region.
Hotspot locations include Brambleton Avenue in
the vicinity of Cave Spring Middle and Elementary
School, Peters Creek Road in the vicinity of Burlington
Elementary School, and Williamson Road.
25
pedestrians killed or
injured in crashes
3
bicyclists injured in
crashes
Figure 7. Roanoke County Bicycle & Pedestrian Crashes Heat Map
16Network Analysis
In addition to understanding historical trends, it is important to
locate the places where people are most likely to be injured in a
crash. This effort utilized the ESRI Traffic Crash Analysis Solution to
better understand and map out the areas with the highest incidence
of serious injury and fatal crashes – along with crashes of other
severity types.
The Traffic Crash Analysis solution provides a range of capabilities
designed to analyze crash data using methodologies outlined by the
United States Road Assessment Program (usRAP) and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). usRAP uses a risk-mapping
protocol to create maps that show variations in the level of crash
risk across a road network. These maps can guide the prioritization
of highway infrastructure improvements and targeted enforcement
strategies. The tool creates roadway segments, assigns crashes to
the segments, and creates risk maps.
For Roanoke County, the usRAP Analysis was used to generate the following maps:
1. Crash Density: Crashes per mile of road. Emphasizes road segments that are associated with the highest rate of severe crashes.
These segments represent areas where there may be the greatest opportunity to reduce crashes.
2. Crash Rate: Crashes per 100 million vehicle miles of travel. Illustrates the risk to an individual motorist while traveling through a given
road segment.
3. Crash Rate Ratio: Risk expressed as the ratio of the crash rate for a particular analysis segment to the average crash rate for all
segments of the same roadway type. Emphasizes segments that have above average crash rates for their roadway type.
4. Potential Crash Savings: Estimate of the number of crashes per mile that would be reduced if the crash rate for the road segment
could be reduced to the average crash rate for similar road segments.
Each map includes five color coded risk levels. The risk categories include Highest Risk (top 5 percent of system), Medium-High Risk (10
percent of system), Medium Risk (20 percent of system), Medium-Low Risk (25 percent of system), and Lowest Risk (bottom 40 percent
of system). Click on each map to launch a detailed map viewer in a new browser.
Note that only corridors with 3 crashes or more in the 9-year study period were placed in the two highest risk categories.
Network Analysis4
17 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Crash Density
Crash Rate Ratio
Crash Rate
Potential Crash Savings
Figure 8. Roanoke County Severe Crashes Risk Maps
18Network Analysis
High-Injury Network
The crash risk data from the four maps generated by the usRAP
analysis was combined to assign each roadway a single risk score.
The result is a High-Injury Network ranking every roadway in
Roanoke County.
The High-Injury Network (HIN) is a collection of streets and roadways
where a disproportionate number of severe car crashes, resulting
in fatalities or serious injuries, occur. While increasing safety is
important on every street, identifying a HIN assists local leaders in
focusing their efforts on improvements on areas that will have the
greatest impact and save the most lives.
The HIN in Figure 9 shows areas where the risk score is the highest
and most in need of transportation investment in red, lower scoring
areas are shown in orange, and places with lowest risk score are
shown in yellow.
The corridors scoring in the highest 10% of Roanoke County’s entire
roadway network are highlighted and shown in a bold red. The
corridors account for almost 60% of all fatal and serious crashes in
Roanoke County. A few notable findings about these corridors are
summarized below:
• 40% are in rural areas
• 50% are along 40-45 mph roadways
• The two most common crash types are:
• Fixed Object Off Road: 31%
• Angle Crash: 30%
)( ✗⌅ȏẛ⌅ṋȏṋ🄯îṋʨɇṝŝʨắʨɇ⌅ṝȏắɗẓ ắΏŝ
Aççȏǔṋʨ⌅ẛȏṝ⌅{ [ ✗⌅ȏẛ⌅
ắḻḻ⌅ẛắʨắḻ⌅ắṋɗ⌅ŝɇṝîȏǔŝ⌅
çṝắŝħɇŝ
10% of County roads
experience FSI crashes
(shown in bold red in
Figure 9)
59% of FSI crashes have
occurred on only 10% of
County roads
(non-interstate roadways)
41% of FSI crashes
on other County
roads
(non-interstate
roadways)
Roanoke County
Roadways
Fatal & Serious
Injury Crashes
All Other County Roads
19 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Figure 9. Roanoke County High Injury Network
20Network Analysis
Figure 10. Roanoke County Priority Corridors Priority Corridors
Map LabelsA
21 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Table 1. Roanoke County Priority Corridors
Map Label Corridor Location Serious Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
1 Challenger Avenue
(From Roanoke City Line to
Botetourt County Line)
29 4
2 Electric Road East
(From Brambleton Avenue to
Roanoke City Line)
27 1
3 Electric Road West
(From Brambleton Avenue to
Glen Heather Drive)
17 1
4 Plantation Road
(From Williamson Road to
Roanoke City Line)
20 2
5 West Main Street
(From West River Road to
Pleasant Run Drive (East))
14 2
6 Starkey Road
(From Benois Road to
Merriman Road)
7 0
7 Garst Mill Road
(From Brambleton Avenue to
Roanoke City Line)
7 1
8 Bent Mountain Road
(From Tinsley Lane to Back
Creek Orchard Road)
10 2
9 Jae Valley Road
(From Blue Ridge Parkway to
Franklin County Line)
11 1
10 Bradshaw Road
(From Catawba Valley Drive to
Montgomery County Line)
11 1
Priority Corridors
The overall high injury network was further refined to include only the
top 10 corridors. These 10 corridors represent less than 30 miles of
roadway, approximately 7% of Roanoke’s non-interstate roadways,
but account for 30% of all severe crashes in Roanoke County.
Refining the High Injury Network to the top 10 priority corridors
ensures that Roanoke County can focus its limited resources on
the areas with the greatest potential for reducing severe crashes.
This approach not only enhances road safety but also improves
the quality of life for all road users. By using data-driven strategies,
community input, and proven safety measures, Roanoke County can
make measurable progress toward the goal of zero fatalities.
These ten corridors established a preliminary list that was reviewed
by elected officials, locality staff, and the public to ensure the
selection aligned with broader safety and mobility goals.
Figure 10 shows the locations of the 10 highest crash corridors.
Table 1 lists each corridor’s road name(s) and number of crashes.
30%
of severe crashes in
Roanoke County between
2015-2023 occurred on the
Top 10 Priority Corridors
22Network Analysis
Figure 11. Roanoke County Priority Intersections Map LabelsA
23 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Map Label Intersection Serious Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes
1 Challenger Avenue and Valley
Gateway Boulevard 3 1
2 Williamson Road and Plantation
Road 3 0
3 N Electric Road and I-81
Southbound Ramps at Exit 141 5 0
4 Washington Avenue and Food
Lion Access (East Vinton Plaza
Shopping Center)
6 0
5 Hardy Road and Feather Road 5 1*
6 West Main Street and Dow
Hollow Road 9 1
7 Peters Creek Road and Barrens
Road 3 0
8 Plantation Road and
McDonald’s/Days Inn Access 4 0
9 Shadwell Drive and Sanderson
Drive 4 0
10 Shadwell Drive and Hollins
Road 4 0
Table 2. Roanoke County Priority Intersections Hot-Spot Priority Intersections
In addition to the systemic corridor analysis preformed for all
Roanoke County roadways, individual intersections were analyzed to
find hot spots. All intersections with fatal and serious injury crashes
within 250 feet of the intersection were compiled and ranked by
the number of crashes. The 10 intersections with the most severe
crashes were selected for further review.
Figure 11 shows the location of the 10 highest crash intersections.
Table 2 lists each intersection’s road names and number of crashes.
16%
of severe intersection
crashes in Roanoke County
between 2015-2023
occurred at the Top 10
Priority Intersections
* Fatality occurred in 2024
24Network Analysis
Community Engagement
Community engagement and feedback played a critical role in
ensuring the development of this Action Plan was done using an
inclusive and representative process. Community engagement
for the initiative included holding community meetings, gathering
survey responses, and distributing project information through local
news campaigns, social media marketing, and online resources
(such as StoryMaps and interactive dashboards). The project team
also routinely collaborated with an identified stakeholder group,
that consisted of representatives from the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT), local police, fire, and emergency response,
the Town of Vinton, Roanoke County Public Schools, and other
Roanoke County departments.
The first round of community meetings took place in April/May
2024. The April/May community meetings were an opportunity
to introduce the project and its goals to County residents, as
well as gather feedback on the identified fatal and serious injury
crash locations. With feedback from the community, the project
team moved forward in developing both location-specific and
systemic recommendations. The September meetings presented
these findings to the community and collected their thoughts and
comments (see page 38 for Fall 2024 community responses).
Following each of the meetings, community members could share
their on-road observations and experiences, as well as their
comments on the recommendations by attending the in-person
meetings or completing a paper or online survey.
The meetings were held in a variety of different locations across
Roanoke County to ensure more people had an opportunity to
contribute to the plan and to better target those less likely to attend
meetings.
• Monday, April 29th from 5-7 pm:
Roanoke County (South) at the
Brambleton Center Gymnasium
• Thursday, May 2nd from 5-7 pm:
Roanoke County (North) at the Hollins
Library
• Thursday, September 5th: Roanoke
County (North) at the Hollins Library
• Monday, September 9th: Roanoke
County (South) at the South County
Library
235
survey
responses
recorded
33
total attendees
at in-person
meetings
1,000
total community
members
reached*
Over
Spring 2024 Meetings Fall 2024 Meetings
* Includes Roanoke County, Botetourt County, and Town of Vinton Spring and Fall
survey respondents and meeting attendees, observation app respondents, AGOL
Dashboard views, and AGOL StoryMap views
25 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Spring 2024 Engagement Summary
Public outreach and participation have added a much-needed component to the evaluation and decision-making process for this project.
Residents provide invaluable first-hand experiences with transportation safety issues.
To ensure that Roanoke County staff and the project team had the benefit of the public knowledge and support, a website and survey
were presented to local residents to understand where they believe targeted transportation investment is needed most. The website was
available for public access and comment from April 25 to May 25, 2024. Roanoke County staff worked to initiate outreach efforts on social
media and other resources to share the website and survey links.
There were a total of 121 responses to the on-line survey as part of the public outreach. The survey asked respondents to rank the priority
locations in order of their level of concern, and provided an opportunity to comment on the location.
Figure 12. Roanoke County Spring
2024 Community Survey Results
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Challenger Avenue & Valley Gateway Boulevard
Williamson Road & Plantation Road
Electric Road & I-81 Southbound Ramps at Exit 141
Washington Avenue & Food Lion Access (East Vinton Plaza Shopping Center)
Hardy Road & Feather Road
West Main Street & Dow Hollow Road
Peters Creek Road & Barrens Road
Plantation Road & McDonald's/Days Inn Access
Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive
Shadwell Drive & Hollins Road
Please Rate the Top Crash Intersections:(by level of concern)
AVERAGE SCORE:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Challenger AvenueRoanoke City Line to Botetourt County Line
Brambleton Avenue to Roanoke City Line
Brambleton Avenue to Glen Heather Drive
Williamson Road to Roanoke City Line
West River Road to Pleasant Run Drive
Benois Road to Merriman Road
Brambleton Avenue to Roanoke City Line
Tinsley Lane to Back Creek Orchard Road
Blue Ridge Parkway to Franklin County Line
Catawba Valley Drive to Montgomery County Line
Electric Road East
Electric Road West
Plantation Road
West Main Street
Starkey Road
Garst Mill Road
Bent Mountain Road
Jae Valley Road
Bradshaw Road
Please Rate the Top Crash Corridors:(by level of concern)
AVERAGE SCORE:
26Network Analysis
Spring 2024 Engagement Summary
The responses from the community survey can be grouped into
several categories based on the concerns and suggestions provided
by the respondents. Below is a detailed summary of each category:
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
Many respondents expressed concerns about the lack of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in the county. Key
points include:
• Need for more sidewalks and bike lanes on a variety of roads. Specific roads mentioned include Brambleton
Avenue, Electric Road, Garst Mill Road, Stoneybrook Road, Feather Road, Hardy Road, Plantation Road,
Washington Avenue, Williamson Road, Hershberger Road and Blacksburg Road
• Importance of prioritizing pedestrian access to commercial and community services
• Desire for improved pedestrian crossings near public facilities, such as Burlington Elementary and the Roanoke
County Hollins Library on Peters Creek Road. Improvements could include installing high-visibility crosswalks
or rectangular rapid flashing beacons
• Concerns about the safety of cyclists on roads with rural character such as Route 311, Twelve O’ Clock Knob
Road, Carvins Cove Road, and Roselawn Road
Intersection Safety and Traffic Flow
Respondents identified several intersections of concern:
• Colonial Avenue and Electric Road near North Cross School: Speeding concerns
• Electric Road between Chaparral Drive and Colonial Avenue: Speeding concerns; Access concerns to/from
Promenade Park and Electric Road
• West Main Street and Dow Hollow Road: Speeding concerns; Driver behavior concerns
• Challenger Avenue and W. Ruritan Road: Flashing yellow left turn light concerns
• Peters Creek Road and Barrens Road: Pedestrian access concerns, specifically connections to the school and
library
27 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Road Design and Maintenance
Some respondents provided suggestions for road design improvements, both system-wide and for specific
locations:
• Washington Avenue in Vinton: Convert four-lane road to two lanes with a tree-lined median to reduce congestion
• Ramp from Route 419 onto US-220 North: Reconfigure to eliminate the need for merging traffic to shift left
• Implement more traffic circles and traffic calming measures to reduce speeds on residential streets
• Improve street repairs as respondents feel that degraded streets contribute to accidents
Driver Behavior and Enforcement
Many respondents attributed safety issues to driver behavior rather than road design. Suggestions include
increased enforcement and education measures.
Public Transportation and Land Use
A few respondents touched on broader issues related to public transportation and land use:
• Limit further development along congested corridors like Route 460, as existing infrastructure cannot handle
increased traffic
• Improve public transportation options to reduce reliance on personal vehicles
28Network Analysis
Observation Reporting App
In addition to the public survey questions, participants were also provided with the opportunity to share their experiences by marking
locations on a map where they had encountered specific transportation safety concerns. The observations clustered around two areas,
summarized below.
1. Washington Avenue
Most observations clustered along Washington Avenue from the
Town of Vinton to Spring Grove Drive, near the East Vinton Plaza
Shopping Center. Respondents reported instances of near-misses,
speeding, and the need for pedestrian infrastructure.
In addition, respondents expressed a desire for more sidewalks on
the routes that connect to the corridor, such as Feather Road.
2. Green Ridge Road and Wood Haven Road Intersection
The second grouping of observations clustered around the
intersection of Green Ridge Road and Wood Haven Road.
Respondents reported issues with speeding and poor sight distance.
These concerns, coupled with the lack of pedestrian facilities, have
raised concerns about pedestrian safety.
Figure 13. Washington Avenue Observations Figure 14. Green Ridge Road & Wood Have Road Observations
29 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Figure 15. Roanoke County Observation Reporting App
30Network Analysis
Crash Patterns of Top Fatal and Serious Injury Corridors
Following the first round of community meetings, the locations of the highest fatal and serious injury crashes were finalized to study
further. Locations that currently have an existing process to pursue funding or design were removed from analysis. Project exhibits for
the areas already being addressed by the County are viewable in the appendix at the end of this document. The remaining locations were
examined to determine why crashes were occurring and what kinds of crashes were taking place.
31 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
1. Mixture of lit/unlit roadway 2. 60% of FSI crashes at night occurred on unlit roadway 3. Only two night crashes occurred on unlit roadway
Map
Label Corridor Location Serious Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes Prevalent Crash Characteristics
1 Challenger Avenue
(From Roanoke City Line to
Botetourt County Line)
29 4
2 Electric Road East
(From Brambleton Avenue to
Roanoke City Line)
27 1
3 Electric Road West
(From Brambleton Avenue to
Glen Heather Drive)
17 1
4 Plantation Road
(From Williamson Road to
Roanoke City Line)
20 2
5 West Main Street
(From West River Road to
Pleasant Run Drive (East))
14 2
6 Starkey Road
(From Benois Road to
Merriman Road)
7 0
7 Garst Mill Road
(From Brambleton Avenue to
Roanoke City Line)
7 1
8 Bent Mountain Road
(From Tinsley Lane to Back
Creek Orchard Road)
10 2
9 Jae Valley Road
(From Blue Ridge Parkway to
Franklin County Line)
11 1
10 Bradshaw Road
(From Catawba Valley Drive to
Montgomery County Line)
11 1
Rear End
Rear End
Angle
Angle
Angle
Angle
Angle
FOOR
FOOR
FOOR
FOOR
FOOR
Rain
Alcohol
Alcohol
Alcohol
Senior Driver
Senior Driver
Senior Driver Pedestrian
Pedestrian
Pedestrian
Pedestrian
Pedestrian
Night1
Night2
Night3
Unbelted
Unbelted
Unbelted
Motorcycle Speeding
Speeding
Speeding
Speeding
Distracted
Distracted
Distracted
High Speeds
High Speeds
High Speeds
High Speeds
High Speeds
High Speeds
32Network Analysis
Crash Patterns of Top Fatal and Serious Injury Intersections
Following the first round of community meetings, the locations of the highest fatal and serious injury crashes were finalized to study
further. Locations that currently have an existing process to pursue funding or design were removed from analysis. Project exhibits for
the areas already being addressed by the County are viewable in the appendix at the end of this document. The remaining locations were
examined to determine why crashes were occurring and what kinds of crashes were taking place.
33 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Map Label Intersection Serious Injury
Crashes
Fatal
Crashes Prevalent Crash Characteristics
1 Challenger Avenue and Valley
Gateway Boulevard 3 1
2 Williamson Road and
Plantation Road 3 0
3 North Electric Road and I-81
Southbound Ramps at Exit 141 5 0
4 Washington Avenue and Food
Lion Access (East Vinton
Plaza Shopping Center)
6 0
5 Hardy Road and Feather Road 5 11
6 West Main Street and Dow
Hollow Road 9 1
7 Peters Creek Road and
Barrens Road 3 0
8 Plantation Road and
McDonald’s/Days Inn Access 4 0
9 Shadwell Drive and
Sanderson Drive 4 0
10 Shadwell Drive and Hollins
Road 4 0
1. Fatal crash occurred in 2024 2. Both pedestrian crashes occurred at night - one indicates lit roadway, the other indicates unlit roadway 3. Mixture of lit/unlit roadway
High Speeds
High Speeds
High Speeds
High Speeds
High Speeds
High Speeds
Angle
Angle
Angle
Angle
Angle
Angle
Angle
Angle
Distracted
Senior Driver
Young Driver
FOOR Night3
Night2
Speeding
Pedestrian
34Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
A key outcome of the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is a set of projects and strategies to address specific safety needs that can be
implemented to reduce the frequency of fatalities and serious injuries. This section of the Plan highlights proven safety countermeasures
and develops potential priority projects from the High Injury Network (HIN) that can positively impact roadway safety. The Safe System
Approach encourages designing transportation systems with a multi-layered safety net. If one countermeasure fails, another will help
prevent a crash or, in the event of a crash, reduce the likelihood of serious injury or death. The safety net utilizes proven countermeasures
designed to protect all road users.
Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles5
Appropriate Speed
Limits for All Road
Users
Variable Speed
Limits Speed Safety
Cameras
Speed Management
Safety Countermeasures Toolkit
Addressing safety in Roanoke County will require the deployment of
proven safety countermeasures across the transportation network,
starting with the HIN. To assist communities in taking action, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) designed the Proven
Safety Countermeasures initiative (PCSi). The PCSi is a toolbox of 28
treatments and strategies that have been proven to reduce roadway
fatalities and serious injuries nationwide. Each countermeasure
addresses at least one safety focus area – speed management,
intersections, roadway departures, or pedestrians/bicyclists – while
others are crosscutting strategies that address multiple safety
focus areas. Implementing these proven safety countermeasures
within Roanoke County’s top locations for fatal and serious injury
crashes can work towards reducing crash incidents as well as crash
severity. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) owns
and maintains public roads in Roanoke County, therefore County
staff will collaborate with VDOT on selecting and implementing any
of these countermeasures.
The FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures are listed below
along with hyperlinks to provide a more detailed description
of the effectiveness of the full safety countermeasure. The
countermeasures represent a menu of possible safety
improvements, and not all measures may be recommended for
implementation.
35 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Roadway Departure
Bicycle Lanes Crosswalk Visibility
Enhancements
Leading Pedestrian
Interval
Medians and
Pedestrian Refuge
Islands
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacons
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons
Road Diets (Roadway
Reconfiguration)Sidewalks
Enhanced
Delineation for
Horizontal Curves
Longitudinal Rumble
Strips and Stripes on
Two-Lane Roads
Median Barriers
Roadside Design
Improvements at
Curves
SafetyEdge℠Wider Edge Lines
36Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
Intersections
Crosscutting
Backplates with
Retroreflective
Borders
Corridor Access
Management
Dedicated Left- and
Right-Turn Lanes
Reduced Left-
Turn Conflict
Intersections
Roundabouts
Systemic Application
of Multiple Low-Cost
Countermeasures
at Stop-Controlled
Intersections
Yellow Change
Intervals
Lighting Local Road Safety
Plans
Pavement Friction
Management
Road Safety Audit
37 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
38Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% 100%
Starkey Road (1.71)
Bradshaw Road (2.22)
Garst Mill Road (2.23)
Electric Road West (2.28)
Plantation Road (2.30)
Jae Valley Road (2.34)
Bent Mountain Road (2.45)
Electric Road East (2.52)
$$$$$$$$$$
Table 3. Fall Community Engagement Corridor Spending
Fall 2024 Engagement Summary
In September 2024, public outreach was directed towards collecting
comments on the location-specific and systemic recommendations
for the intersections and corridors with the highest number of fatal
and serious injury crashes.
An online survey was available from September 3 to September
30, 2024. There were a total of 114 responses as part of the public
outreach. Respondents were asked how much they would be willing
to spend to improve each of the priority locations, and were then
asked to rank and comment on a set of potential improvements for
each priority location.
The table below shows the spending prioritization for each corridor
in order of their average score. The mapped ranking is shown in
Figure 16.
A detailed summary of the responses to each corridor is provided
on the following pages.
39 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Figure 16. Fall Community Engagement: Corridor Spending Map
40Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
Corridor Recommendations & Community Input
Plantation Road
Electric Road East
Free responses included support for more bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along this corridor and suggested a deeper
analysis on the crash patterns along this corridor. Respondents also suggested traffic calming measures to slow down
traffic.
Free responses describe that as a high-volume commercial corridor, attention should be focused in this area to improve
traffic flow and access to businesses while discouraging undesirable or illegal driving behavior. The intersection of Electric
Road and Colonial Avenue is noted as an area of interest among respondents that warrants a focused study.
Conduct a multimodal
corridor study
Conduct an intersection
study at Colonial Avenue
Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization
per September 2024 survey I agree with this
recommendation
I’m not sure how I feel about
this recommendation
I disagree with this
recommendation
No
response
ENFORCEMENT AND POLICIES INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES
INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES
1 2
1
X
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
Plantation - investment
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
Elec E - investment
Plantation - enforcement
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
64%
Shadwell - speed study
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
61%
Elect E - Intersection study
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
71%
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
Consider increasing
enforcement
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
Evaluate Restricted Crossing
U-Turn (RCUT) improvements
east of Colonial Avenue
Evaluate Thru-Cut
improvements east of
Colonial Avenue
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
2 3
Electr E - RCUT
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
68%
Electr E - Thrucut
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
59%
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
41 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Corridor Recommendations & Community Input
Electric Road West
Bent Mountain Road
Free responses and community meeting attendees expressed support for the rumble strips; however, both in-person and
online feedback indicates that shoulder rumble strips prohibits bicyclists from utilizing the shoulder and noise generated
by centerline rumble strips startles cyclists and prevents drivers from crossing them. Shoulder and centerline rumble strips
are most effective in areas with significant roadway departure crashes and little bicycle traffic.
Free responses echoed concerns about specific intersections and access along the Electric Road corridor. Some commented
about the curvature of the roadway and challenging sight distance contributing to the difficulty of these intersections.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
Elec W - investment
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
Bent Mtn - investment
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES
1 SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
Elect E - Intersection study
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
68%
Evaluate Restricted
Crossing U-Turn (RCUT)
improvements at select
intersections
Evaluate Thru-Cut
improvements at
select intersections
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
2
1
3
Electr E - RCUT
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
60%
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
Consider tree cutting
at select curves,
where possible
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
2
Bent Mtn - tree cutting
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
69%
Bent Mtn - rumble strips
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
73%
Electr E - Thrucut
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
54%
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
Evaluate condition and
spacing of existing chevrons;
consider signage upgrades
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
3
Bent Mtn - signage
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
71%
Conduct a corridor study or a
road safety audit for Electric
Road (from Bower Road to
Brambleton Avenue)
Consider installing centerline
or shoulder rumble strips
See corridor profile for additional
discussion about rumble strips
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization
per September 2024 survey I agree with this
recommendation
I’m not sure how I feel about
this recommendation
I disagree with this
recommendation
No
responseX
42Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
Corridor Recommendations & Community Input
Jae Valley Road
Starkey Road
While the free responses generally supported the recommendations, others reported speeding along these corridors;
because of this observation, some respondents expressed hesitation against the installation of HFST along the corridor as
this may inadvertently encourage more speeding along curves.
Although the free responses agreed with pursuing a multimodal corridor study, respondents suggest allocating less funding
towards this corridor, likely due to the recent completion of the Starkey Road & Buck Mountain Road roundabout. Commenters
describe seeing speeding along this corridor, which could be discouraged with bicycle-pedestrian infrastructure, reducing
lane widths, or increased enforcement.
Conduct a multimodal
corridor study
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
1 SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
Jae - investment
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
Starkey - investment
Starkey - study
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
56%
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
Evaluate condition and
spacing of existing chevrons;
consider signage upgrades
Consider installation of high
friction surface treatment
(HFST) at select curves
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
1 2
Jae - signage
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
62%
Jae - HFST
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
56%
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization
per September 2024 survey I agree with this
recommendation
I’m not sure how I feel about
this recommendation
I disagree with this
recommendation
No
responseX
43 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Corridor Recommendations & Community Input
Garst Mill Road
Bradshaw Road
Similar to comments on the Bent Mountain Road corridor, free responses and community meeting attendees expressed
support for centerline rumble strips, but not for shoulder rumble strips. Responses describe that shoulder rumble strips
prohibits bicyclists from utilizing the shoulder and noise generated by centerline rumble strips startles cyclists and prevents
drivers from crossing them. Shoulder and centerline rumble strips are most effective in areas with significant roadway
departure crashes and little bicycle traffic.
Free responses predominately expressed a desire for pedestrian infrastructure along this corridor, especially for access to
the Cave Spring Corners Shopping Center.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
Garst - investment
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
Bradshaw - investment
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
1
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOPGarst - ped
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
65%
SPEEDLIMIT35Evaluate potential
upgrades to existing
advisory speed signage
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
1
Bradshaw - signage
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
58%
Evaluate and install pedestrian
improvements, specifically
to the Brambleton Avenue
commercial corridor
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
2
Bradshaw - rumble strips
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
62%
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
Consider installing centerline
or shoulder rumble strips
Conduct a multimodal
corridor study
INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES
3
Bradshaw - study
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
47%
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization
per September 2024 survey I agree with this
recommendation
I’m not sure how I feel about
this recommendation
I disagree with this
recommendation
No
responseX
INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES
See corridor profile for additional
discussion about rumble strips
44Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
Table 4. Fall Community Engagement Intersection Spending
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% 100%
North Electric Road & I-81 Ramps at Exit 141 (2.04)
Plantation Road & McDonald's/Days Inn Access (2.04)
Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive/Hollins Road (2.18)
Challenger Avenue & Valley Gateway Boulevard (2.31)
Washington Avenue & East Vinton Plaza (2.38)
Hardy Road & Feather Road (2.40)
$$$$$$$$$$
Intersection Recommendations & Community Input
The September 2024 survey additionally sought information about
the priority intersections. Respondents were asked how much they
would be willing to spend to improve each intersection, and then
were asked to rank and comment on a set of potential improvements.
Understanding the public’s willingness to spend on improving
specific intersections is important in highlighting the community’s
priorities and the perceived value of these improvements. This
information can guide decision-makers in prioritizing projects,
allocating budgets effectively, and focusing resources on the
intersections that matter most to the public. It also helps identify
areas with the greatest perceived safety risks, allowing for targeted
interventions that align with community needs.
The table below shows the summary of the responses for each
intersection, provided on the following pages.Intersection of Electric Road & Ogden Road
45 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Figure 17. Fall Community Engagement: Intersection Spending Map
46Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
Intersection Recommendations & Community Input
Washington Avenue &
East Vinton Plaza
Hardy Road &
Feather Road
Free responses called for (1) adding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure; (2) extending turn lane storage into East Vinton
Plaza; and (3) increased enforcement. Notably, with the close proximity to William Byrd Middle and High School, any
interventions should account for school zone safety and encouraging safe driving practices by young drivers.
Free responses voiced (1) both support and opposition to roundabouts; (2) speed limit reductions; (3) increased
enforcement; (4) adding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure; and (5) improving sight distance.
Conduct a speed study
Improve sight distance
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
LAND USE INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES
1
1
2
2
3
3
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR SPEED
STOP
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR SPEED
STOP
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
$
$$
$$$
$$$
No response
Washington Intersection
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
Hardy - investment
Washington - Left Turn Offset
I agree Not sure Disagree No response
62%
Hardy - roundabout
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
51%
Washington - Access Mgmt
I agree Not sure Disagree No response
58%
Hardy - signs
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
57%
Washington - Speed
I agree Not sure Disagree No response
50%
Hardy - sight distance
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
58%
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
Consider left-turn
offset
Consider access
management
Evaluate a
roundabout
Consider install of advance
warning signage
Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization
per September 2024 survey I agree with this
recommendation
I’m not sure how I feel about
this recommendation
I disagree with this
recommendation
No
responseX
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
47 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Intersection Recommendations & Community Input
North Electric Road &
I-81 Ramps at Exit 141
Plantation Road & McDonald’s/Days Inn Access
Evaluate intersection reconfiguration
to reduce I-81 median, shortening the
turning distance for northbound left turns
Free responses included that the three signals along North Electric Road (including the signal at the I-81 ramps) need to
be reviewed and coordinated, especially for peak hour volumes; moreover, potentially removing one of the southbound
through lanes could further exacerbate driver frustration and aggressive behavior.
Free responses included that the intersection could benefit from a speed study and traffic calming measures. Additionally,
commenters suggested exploring ways to minimize distracted driving.
Evaluate extending the
existing two-way left-
turn lane
Evaluate reducing southbound
approach to one through lane
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN LAND USE
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
1
1
2
2
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
Elec 81 - investment
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
Plantation - investment
Elec - reconfig
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
47%
Plantation - TWLTL
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
53%
Elec - remove SB
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
46%
Plantation - access mgmt
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
51%
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
Consider access
management
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization
per September 2024 survey I agree with this
recommendation
I’m not sure how I feel about
this recommendation
I disagree with this
recommendation
No
responseX
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
48Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
Intersection Recommendations & Community Input
Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Road/Hollins Road
Free responses expressed concern about development projects in the pipeline that will create more volume at this
intersection. Respondents were generally supportive of the recommendations.
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
1
5
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
Shadwell - investment
Shadwell - sight distance
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
60%
Shadwell - peanut
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
36%
Shadwell - guardrail
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
54%
Conduct a speed study
INTERSECTION AND CORRIDOR STUDIES
3
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
Shadwell - speed study
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
47%
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
Improve sight distance
Evaluate a peanut
roundabout
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
4
Shadwell - left turn lane
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
49%
Evaluate a left-turn lane
on Shadwell Drive onto
Sanderson Drive
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
Consider installation of
guardrail at SW corner
of Hollins Road
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
22%
Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization
per September 2024 survey I agree with this
recommendation
I’m not sure how I feel about
this recommendation
I disagree with this
recommendation
No
responseX
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
49 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Intersection Recommendations & Community Input
Challenger Avenue & Valley Gateway Boulevard
Many responses described risky driving behavior due to driver frustration; coordinating timings between nearby signals and
increasing all-red times could improve flow of through traffic and discourage running red lights.
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
1
SPEEDLIMIT35 YOUR SPEED
STOP
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
Challenger - investment
Challenger - signal
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
58%
$
$$
$$$
$$$$
No response
IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE, HOW
MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU BE
WILLING TO SPEND TO IMPROVE THIS
INTERSECTION?
Consider lowering speed
limit from City boundary
to this intersection
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
2
Challenger - speed
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
47%
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
Evaluate moving existing stop
bar and extend existing concrete
median closer to intersection
ROAD AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
3
Challenger - move stop bar
I agree I'm not sure I disagree No response
54%
SPEEDLIMIT35
YOUR
SPEED
STOP
Review signal timings;
potentially longer all-
red times
Recommendations are ordered by community prioritization
per September 2024 survey I agree with this
recommendation
I’m not sure how I feel about
this recommendation
I disagree with this
recommendation
No
responseX
How would you rank the proposed improvements?
50Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
51 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Corridor
Profiles
52Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
West Village
Shopping Center
Promenade Park
Shopping Center
Tanglewood
Shopping Center
Portion of Electric
Road with planned
improvements
West Village
Shopping Center
Promenade Park
Shopping Center
Tanglewood
Shopping Center
Portion of Electric
Road with planned
improvements
ELECTRIC ROAD EAST |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Brambleton Avenue to
Roanoke City Line
53 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
Electric Road is a major commercial corridor on the southern edge of the
City of Roanoke. Electric Road provides an important connection between
the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County. The corridor provides access
to multiple shopping centers including Tanglewood, Promenade Park, and
West Village, as well as industrial sites off of Starkey Road.
Several improvements have recently been completed along this eastern
portion of Electric Road, between Ogden Road and the Route 220
interchange in 2021; a third lane was added between Ogden Road and
Route 220 Southbound, with sidewalks and bicycle lanes on both sides of
the road. Pedestrian signals and crosswalks were also installed on Electric
Road, at South Peak Boulevard/Tanglewood Center Entrance, Elm View
Road/Tanglewood Center Entrance, and Ogden Road.
In addition to the recently completed projects, a Diverging Diamond
Interchange improvement at Route 220 is currently in progress.
There was one pedestrian crash at Atlantis Boulevard. The crash injured 2
pedestrians.
Prevalent Crash Characteristics
ELECTRIC ROAD EAST |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Average Daily Traffic: 27,000-39,000 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 35 mph / 45 mph
Angle
Crashes Read End Senior
Driver
Severe Injury Crashes: 27
Fatal Crashes: 1
2015-2023
Number of Lanes:
4 lanes / 6 lanes
Community
Survey Rank: #2
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
The severe crashes are predominately
angle crashes on this roadway and
indicate a pattern of conflicts arising from
drivers turning to and from the commercial
accesses and side streets along the
corridor.
Evaluate Restricted Crossing U-Turns (RCUT) or Thru-Cut improvements east of Colonial Avenue
• Because of the pattern of angle crashes at unsignalized intersections, RCUTs or thru-cuts east of the
Colonial Avenue intersection could improve traffic safety and efficiency by reducing the number of
conflict points.
• Additional study is required and should be evaluated following the construction and installation of the
proposed improvements east of Starkey Road.
Consider an intersection study of Electric Road and Colonial Avenue
• The Electric Road and Colonial Avenue intersection has experienced a cluster of severe crashes. Due
to the existing grade, the existing intersection angle, nearby school operations, and the proximity to
the Manassas Drive intersection, a focused intersection study is required to provide comprehensive
improvement recommendations at this location.
Brambleton Avenue to
Roanoke City Line
54Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
ELECTRIC ROAD WEST |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Glen Heather Drive to
Brambleton Avenue
City of
Roanoke
ramb
le
ton
Ave
Garst
MillRd
Electric
Rd
GlenHeatherDr
Sto
n
e
y
b
r
o
o
k
D
r
Bower Rd
Wentworth Rd
Postal D
r
Planned RCUTs at
Glen Heather Drive &
Stoneybrook Drive
Kroger & Cave Spring
Corners Shopping
Center
SMART SCALE
funded sidewalk
improvements
Oak Grove
McVitty Rd
Cordell Dr
Planned RCUTs at
Glen Heather Drive &
Stoneybrook Drive
Oak Grove
Plaza
Kroger & Cave Spring
Corners Shopping
Center
SMART SCALE funded
pedestrian intersection
improvements
SMART SCALE
funded sidewalk
improvements
McVitty Rd
Cordell Dr
Severe Injury Crash
Fatal Crash
Legend
0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200400
Feet
55 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
Electric Road is a major commercial corridor on the southern edge of the
City of Roanoke. Electric Road provides an important connection between
the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, and Roanoke County. The corridor
provides access to multiple shopping centers, including the Cave Spring
Corners Shopping Center and Oak Grove Plaza, and connects to many
residential communities.
Several improvements are already funded along the corridor, including
pedestrian improvements at Postal Drive and Brambleton Avenue, and
Restricted Crossing U-Turns at Glen Heather Drive and Stoneybrook Drive.
Additionally, a SMART SCALE funded sidewalk project is in progress,
from Glen Heather Drive to Grandin Road Extension, which will provide
pedestrian access to Oak Grove Plaza.
Prevalent Crash Characteristics
ELECTRIC ROAD WEST |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Average Daily Traffic: 23,000 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 45 mph
Angle
Crashes Pedestrian1 Senior
Driver
Severe Injury Crashes: 17
Fatal Crashes: 1
2015-2023
Number of Lanes:
4 lanes
Community
Survey Rank: #3
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
The severe crashes are predominately
angle crashes on this roadway and
indicate a pattern of conflicts arising from
drivers turning to and from the commercial
accesses and side streets along the
corridor.
Conduct a corridor study or a road safety audit for Electric Road (from Bower Road to Brambleton
Avenue)
• A corridor study or Road Safety Audit (RSA) could be performed, south of the proposed RCUT
improvements at Glen Heather Drive and Stoneybrook Drive. A study may be utilized to gather
additional information, especially for hotspot locations that have experienced a cluster of serious
crashes, for example, Cordell Drive and McVitty Road.
Evaluate Restricted Crossing U-Turns or Thru-Cut improvements
• This corridor currently has planned Restricted Crossing U-Turns to be installed at Glen Heather Drive
and Stoneybrook Drive. Following construction, if crash severity and frequency is improved, similar
implementations could be pursued at other intersections with additional study.
Glen Heather Drive to
Brambleton Avenue
1. (1) pedestrian crash at Glen Heather Drive
56Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
(1 Fatal, 1 Severe Injury)
(2)
PLANTATION ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Williamson Road to
Roanoke City Line
57 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
Plantation Road is a minor north-south arterial in Roanoke County. This
corridor serves a primarily residential area lined by homes and churches.
Plantation Road also provides access to Mountain View Elementary on
Plantation Circle. There have been 20 serious crashes and 2 fatalities
since 2015. The associated crashes are a mix of angle crashes, rear end
collisions, and run off-road crashes; one third of the crashes occurred at
night. Two of the serious crashes were bicycle or pedestrian collisions.
Additionally, 6 of the 22 fatal and serious injury crashes involved drugs or
alcohol, and 5 involved speeding.
Prevalent Crash Characteristics
PLANTATION ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Average Daily Traffic: 8,400-9,700 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 40 mph
Angle
Crashes Pedestrian1 Speeding
Severe Injury Crashes: 20
Fatal Crashes: 2
2015-2023
Number of Lanes:
2 lanes
Community
Survey Rank: #4
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
Given the varied nature of the crash
patterns, a more focused corridor study is
necessary for this segment of Plantation
Road.
Conduct a multimodal corridor study
• Considering the residential surroundings, presence of Mountain View Elementary School, and an
existing lack of bicycle/pedestrian facilities along Plantation Road, there could be an opportunity to
promote active transportation in the corridor. Installing these facilities and associated traffic calming
could eliminate bicycle and pedestrian collisions in this location and improve overall roadway safety.
A future corridor study is required to specifically evaluate Plantation Road, as well as residents’
experiences, priorities, and overall vision for this segment.
Consider increasing enforcement along the corridor
• There is a prevalent pattern of crashes related to drugs, alcohol, or speeding. Increasing traffic
enforcement along the corridor may help alleviate this issue.
Williamson Road to
Roanoke City Line
Fixed Object
Off Road Alcohol/Drugs
1. (1) pedestrian crash at Orlando Avenue
58Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
Penn Forest
Elementary
School
Darrell Shell
Park
Cave Spring
High School
Completed roundabout
at Starkey Road & Buck
Mountain Road
Penn Forest
Elementary
School
Darrell Shell
Park
Completed roundabout
at Starkey Road & Buck
Mountain Road
Cave Spring
High School
STARKEY ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Benois Road to
Merriman Road
59 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
Starkey Road is a major north-south collector in southern Roanoke County.
This section of Starkey Road is predominately surrounded by a mixture
of residential and industrial uses, with few commercial businesses; many
residences have driveway access directly on Starkey Road. A roundabout
was recently completed at the intersection of Starkey Road and Buck
Mountain Road.
Given that the type of severe injury crashes are varied and do not cluster in
any particular locations along the Starkey Road segment, a corridor study
is needed to examine the existing conditions of Starkey Road and develop
specific safety opportunities. There is potential to implement multimodal
transportation through this corridor with traffic calming measures, if
desired by the surrounding communities.
Prevalent Crash Characteristics
STARKEY ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Average Daily Traffic: 7,000-8,500 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 35 mph
Angle
Crashes
Severe Injury Crashes: 7
2015-2023
Number of Lanes:
2 lanes
Community
Survey Rank: #6
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
Crashes along this corridor are typically
angle crashes, rear end crashes, and
involve senior drivers. Crashes do not
cluster at a specific location and instead,
are dispersed along the roadway.
Conduct a multimodal corridor study
• Given that the type of severe injury crashes are varied and do not cluster in any particular locations along
the Starkey Road segment, a corridor study is needed to examine the existing conditions of Starkey
Road and develop specific safety opportunities. Particularly with the recent completion of the Starkey
Road and Buck Mountain Road roundabout, a corridor study would establish the existing conditions of
Starkey Road, inclusive of the new roundabout, and other complementary implementations to improve
the number and severity of crashes.
• A corridor study would provide an opportunity to collect user experiences along Starkey Road,
determine commercial and industrial businesses’ operational needs, and compile residents’ goals for
transportation in this area.
Benois Road to
Merriman Road
Senior
DriverRear End
60Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
GARST MILL ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Roanoke City Line to
Brambleton Avenue
City of
Roanoke
Wille
t
t
a
D
r
Garst MillRd
Fleetwood
Ave
CharingCross D
r
Gra
n
d
i
n
R
d
Pinevale R
d
Br
a
m
b
l
e
t
o
n
A
v
e
Halevan
Rd
Kroger & Cave
Spring Corners
Shopping Center
Garst Mill
Park
Kroger & Cave
Spring Corners
Shopping Center
Garst Mill
Park
Severe Injury Crash
Fatal Crash
Legend
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250
Feet
61 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
Garst Mill Road is a major north-south collector in Roanoke County, leading
into the City of Roanoke. The corridor runs through a predominantly
residential area, with single-family detached and attached homes, as well
as apartments. Garst Mill Road provides access to Garst Mill Park, the Cave
Spring Corners Shopping Center, and the Brambleton Avenue commercial
corridor.
There is a present demand for a sidewalk connection from the surrounding
multifamily communities to the Cave Spring Corners Shopping Center and
Brambleton Avenue.Prevalent Crash Characteristics
GARST MILL ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Average Daily Traffic: 6,800 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 35 mph
Fixed Object
Off Road
Severe Injury Crashes: 7
2015-2023
Number of Lanes:
2 lanes
Community
Survey Rank: #7
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
With the surrounding residences and
existing lack of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities along Garst Mill Road, there
is an opportunity to create multimodal
connections along this corridor.
Evaluate and install pedestrian improvements, specifically for a pedestrian connection to the Brambleton
Avenue commercial corridor
• At a future time, additional sidepaths, bike lanes, or similar facilities could be considered as well, with
complementary traffic calming interventions. Providing multimodal infrastructure along Garst Mill
Road could prevent bicycle and pedestrian collisions in the future and promote active transportation
options for these neighborhoods.
Roanoke City Line to
Brambleton Avenue
Fatal Crashes: 1
Night Pedestrian1
1. (1) pedestrian crash near Brambleton Avenue
62Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Back Creek Orchard Road
to Tinsley Lane
63 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
Bent Mountain Road is a mountainous north-south corridor in southwestern
Roanoke County. The roadway has sharp curves and steep elevation
changes. The corridor experienced 47 total crashes from 2015 to 2023
and over 25% resulted in a fatal or serious injury. The fatal and serious
injury crashes are predominately single-vehicle run off-road crashes, and
all occurred at curves in the roadway.
Prevalent Crash Characteristics
BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Average Daily Traffic: 7,000 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 55 mph
Severe Injury Crashes: 10
2015-2023
Number of Lanes:
2 lanes / 3 lanes
Community
Survey Rank: #8Fatal Crashes: 2
Back Creek Orchard Road
to Tinsley Lane
Fixed Object
Off Road Speeding Motorcycle
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
The severe crashes on this roadway
are predominately the result of vehicles
leaving the roadway.
Evaluate condition and spacing of existing chevrons; consider upgrades (such as reflective yellow strips)
as necessary
• According to the VDOT Preferred CMF List, upgrading chevrons with fluorescent sheeting has a
Crash Modification Factor of 0.65. Chevrons are present along much of the roadway, however, their
condition should be evaluated in dim or dark conditions, and they may not be spaced to optimally
delineate curves.
Consider shoulder or centerline rumble strips
• Installing shoulder or centerline rumble strips have associated CMFs of 0.83 and 0.55, respectively
and could prevent run off-road collisions.
• Application of shoulder or centerline rumble strips should be limited to locations where there are
significant roadway departure crashes and little, if any, bicycle traffic
Consider tree cutting at select curves, where possible (existing steep topography adjacent to roadway)
• Some of the curves are surrounded by thick foliage which may obscure the road ahead. Select tree
cutting may help drivers better judge the severity of upcoming changes in roadway alignment and
adjust their speed accordingly.
64Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
Jae Valley ParkJae Valley Park
JAE VALLEY ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Blue Ridge Parkway to
Franklin County Line
65 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
Jae Valley Road is a mountainous north-south corridor with steep elevation
changes and sharp curves in southeastern Roanoke County. The fatal
and serious injury crashes are predominately single-vehicle run off-road
crashes. While these crashes are somewhat distributed along the corridor,
three of the 12 serious crashes occurred at one sharp curve, near Jae
Valley Park.
Prevalent Crash Characteristics
JAE VALLEY ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Average Daily Traffic: 7,900 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 55 mph
Severe Injury Crashes: 11
2015-2023
Number of Lanes:
2 lanes
Community
Survey Rank: #9Fatal Crashes: 1
Blue Ridge Parkway to
Franklin County Line
Fixed Object
Off Road Speeding Rain
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
The severe crashes on this roadway
are predominately the result of vehicles
leaving the roadway.
Evaluate condition and spacing of existing chevrons; consider upgrades (such as reflective yellow strips)
as necessary
• According to the VDOT Preferred CMF List, upgrading chevrons with fluorescent sheeting has a Crash
Modification Factor of 0.65. Chevrons are currently present along some of the roadway, however it
does not appear that the current signage has fluorescent sheeting.
Consider installation of high friction surface treatment (HFST) at select curves
• High friction surface treatments (HFST) are pavement treatments that directly address crashes
associated with friction demand issues, such as wet conditions or sharp roadway curves. FHWA
reports show that HFST is estimated to reduce wet crashes by 83 percent and total crashes by 57
percent. HFST involves the application of high quality aggregate to the pavement using a polymer
binder to restore and/or maintain pavement friction at high crash areas. The higher pavement friction
helps motorists maintain better control in both dry and wet driving conditions. This corridor should
be further studied to evaluate whether HFST would be an appropriate countermeasure; where over
70% of the 11 fatal/serious injury crashes were fixed object, run off-road collisions, improving driver
control and braking capacity could reduce overall crash severity.
66Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
School
Masons Cove
Fire & Rescue
Masons Cove
Elementary
School
5.5 mi. toMontgomery County
BRADSHAW ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Catawba Valley Drive to
Montgomery County Line
67 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
Bradshaw Road is a rural corridor in the northwestern portion of the county.
The roadway is narrow and lacks a shoulder. The road is typically straight
which may encourage speeding, and crashes tend to cluster around
curves.
Prevalent Crash Characteristics
BRADSHAW ROAD |LOCATION PROFILES | CORRIDOR
Average Daily Traffic: 2,700 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 40 mph / 55 mph
Severe Injury Crashes: 11
2015-2023
Number of Lanes:
2 lanes
Community
Survey Rank: #10Fatal Crashes: 1
Catawba Valley Drive to
Montgomery County Line
Fixed Object
Off Road Speeding Pedestrian1
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
Crashes are predominately the result of
vehicles leaving the roadway.
Evaluate condition and spacing of existing chevrons; consider upgrades (such as reflective yellow
strips) as necessary
• The most common severe injury crashes along this corridor are from colliding with a fixed object, off
road. If existing signage is in need of improvement, upgrades could better alert drivers of changing
road conditions.
Consider installing centerline or shoulder rumble strips
• At the community meetings, several residents noted that bicyclists frequently travel on this corridor.
Because they use the shoulder to allow vehicles to pass, bicyclists recommended against shoulder
rumble strips. If shoulder rumble strips are considered, additional shoulder width beyond the rumble
strip could accommodate bicycle travel.
• If additional shoulder width beyond the rumble strip cannot be achieved, application of shoulder or
centerline rumble strips should be limited to locations where there are significant roadway departure
crashes and little, if any, bicycle traffic.
Conduct a multimodal corridor study
• At the community meetings, several residents noted that bicyclists frequently travel on this corridor.
Due to the length of the corridor, the use of bicyclists, and the pedestrian collision, this roadway
would benefit from a corridor study to better understand the existing conditions and appropriate
implementations for Bradshaw Road.
1. (1) pedestrian crash at Fire Station #10
68Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
69 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Intersection
Profiles
70Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
Challenger Avenue
Challenger Avenue
Valley Gateway
Boulevard
Valley Gateway Boulevard
W R
uritan
Road
Challenger Avenue
Challenger Avenue
Valley Gateway
Boulevard
Valley Gateway Boulevard
W R
uritan
Roa
d
Severe Injury Crash
Fatal Crash
Legend
Evaluate moving
stop bar closer to
intersection
Thru-cut in design phase
at Challenger Avenue & W
Ruritan Road intersection
Evaluate extending
existing concrete
median closer to
intersection
Google
0 150 300 450 60075
Feet
30 60 90 12015
Feet
Challenger Avenue & Valley Gateway BoulevardLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION
71 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
Challenger Avenue (Route 460) is a principal arterial in the northeastern
portion of Roanoke County. Challenger Avenue provides an important
connection between the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, Botetourt
County, and other locations to the east and west across the state.
From Challenger Avenue, Valley Gateway Boulevard provides access to
the Kroger Shopping Center, as well as industrial businesses off of Integrity
Drive. Since 2015, there have been 86 crashes at the Valley Gateway
Boulevard intersection, including 3 severe injury crash and 1 fatal crash;
three of the four severe injury crashes involved drivers running the red
light.Prevalent Crash Characteristics
Challenger Avenue & Valley Gateway BoulevardLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION
Average Daily Traffic: 34,000 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 45 mph
Angle
Crashes Distracted Red-Light
Running
Severe Injury Crashes: 3
Fatal Crashes: 1
2015-2023
Number of Lanes:
4 lanes
Community
Survey Rank: #1
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
Three of the four crashes involved red-
light running, including the fatal crash
Review signal timings for Challenger Avenue corridor for potentially longer all-red times
• The crash data indicates a pattern of red-light running at this intersection. Increasing the all-red
time at a signalized intersection provides safety benefits by creating a buffer period during which all
approaches to the intersection display a red signal. This reduces the likelihood of collisions caused by
red-light-running, as it gives drivers who inadvertently enter the intersection late additional time to
clear it before cross-traffic starts
Conduct a speed study to evaluate lowering the speed limit from the city boundary to this intersection
• Conducting a speed study on a corridor provides safety benefits by identifying prevailing vehicle
speeds and patterns of speeding behavior. This data helps determine whether speed limits are
appropriately set, promoting uniform travel speeds and reducing crash risks. The study also highlights
areas requiring interventions, such as traffic calming measures or enforcement strategies, to enhance
safety for all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists
Evaluate moving the existing Valley Gateway Boulevard stop bar and extending the existing concrete
median closer to the Challenger Avenue intersection
• Moving the stop bar and median further into the intersection would reduce the distance to turn left
from Valley Gateway Boulevard onto Challenger Avenue, which may reduce crashes
72Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
North Electric Road
Loch Haven Drive
Exit 141 Southbound On-Ram Exit 141 Southbound Off-Ramp
North Electric Road
Loch Haven Drive
Evaluate signal operations at
Loch Haven Drive and Exit 141
when evaluating the possible
reduction of SB lane from two
thru lanes to one thru lane
Evaluate reducing
size of median
Exit 141 Southbound On-Ram Exit 141 Southbound Off-Ramp
Severe Injury Crash
Legend
0 100 200 300 40050
Feet
North Electric Road & I-81 Ramps at Exit 141LOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION
73 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
North Electric Road is a major corridor and principal arterial that
serves much of Roanoke County. The signalized intersection has
seen 33 crashes since 2015, including 4 serious injury crashes.
The serious injury crashes are from angle crashes associated with
northbound vehicles on Electric Road, making the left-turn maneuver
onto I-81.
Prevalent Crash Characteristics
North Electric Road & I-81 Ramps at Exit 141LOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION
Average Daily Traffic: 7,800 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 45 mph
Severe Injury Crashes: 5
Fatal Crashes: 0
2015-2023
Number of Lanes:
3 lanes
Community
Survey Rank: #3
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
All four severe injury crashes were angle
collisions
Consider reconfiguration of the intersection to reduce the width of the I-81 median, shortening the turning
distance of NB left-turning movements
• Existing intersection configuration is excessively wide with long crossing distances and times, which
is likely a contributing factor to angle crashes
• Northbound vehicles making the left turn may not fully account for the median length in addition to
crossing the southbound lanes
Evaluate reduction of southbound approach to one through lane
• Further north, beyond the Loch Haven Drive intersection, a second through lane is added to the
southbound approach
• Maintaining only one through lane would reduce size of the intersection and allow drivers to more
quickly clear the intersection
• Feedback from the Fall 2024 community meeting describes high peak hour volumes in this area and
that the signal timings for the Loch Haven intersection and the Exit 141 intersection should be reviewed
(especially if reducing southbound approach is studied)
Angle
Crashes
74Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
Google
0 400 800 1,200 1,600200
Feet
0 30 60 90 12015
Feet
Severe Injury Crash
Legend
Town of Vinton Washington Avenue
William Byrd
Middle & High
School
East Vinton Plaza
Shopping Center
Town of Vinton Washington Avenue
William Byrd
Middle & High
School
East Vinton Plaza
Shopping CenterSpeed limit
reduces to 35 mph
westbound into the
Town of Vinton
Washington Avenue & Food Lion Access (East Vinton Plaza Shopping Center)
LOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION
Google
Google
0 400 800 1,200 1,600200
Feet
0 30 60 90 12015
Feet
Severe Injury Crash
Legend
Town of Vinton Washington Avenue
Washington AvenueEast Vinton Plaza
Shopping Center
Town of Vinton
Washington Avenue
Washington AvenueEast Vinton Plaza
Shopping Center
Speed limit
reduces to 35 mph
westbound into the
Town of Vinton
Consider left-turn lane
offset for improved visibility
(existing grass median)
75 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
Washington Avenue is as a major east/west corridor that serves as
a primary entrance and thoroughfare for the Town of Vinton. The
signalized intersection with the East Vinton Plaza shopping center
has seen 51 crashes since 2015. The crashes are mostly angle
crashes associated with left-turning movements, predominately
from eastbound vehicles turning into the shopping center.
Prevalent Crash Characteristics
Washington Avenue & Food Lion Access (East Vinton Plaza Shopping Center)
LOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION
Average Daily Traffic: 19,000 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 45 mph
Severe Injury Crashes: 6
Fatal Crashes: 0
2015-2023
Number of Lanes:
4 lanes
Community
Survey Rank: #4
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
Five out of six severe injury crashes were
angle collisions
Consider increasing left-turn lane offset to improve visibility for eastbound vehicles turning left into the
East Vinton Plaza
• According to the VDOT Preferred CMF List, increasing the left-turn lane offset has a Crash Modification
Factor of 0.644 across all crash types
• Increasing the offset improves driver visibility of oncoming traffic and reduces the time and distance
a turning vehicle spends in the intersection
Consider access management improvements of commercial parcel on south leg of intersection
• There are three driveways to commercial properties in close proximity of the intersection. Access
management improvement enhance safety by reducing conflict points, such as left-turns and
driveways near the intersection, which lowers the risk of crashes. These changes also improve
traffic flow by minimizing disruptions, reducing delays, and enhancing overall operational efficiency.
Additionally, better access management can support safer pedestrian and cyclist movements and
create a more predictable driving environment
Conduct a speed study of the Washington Avenue corridor
• Conducting a speed study on a corridor provides safety benefits by identifying prevailing vehicle
speeds and patterns of speeding behavior. This data helps determine whether speed limits are
appropriately set, promoting uniform travel speeds and reducing crash risks. The study also highlights
areas requiring interventions, such as traffic calming measures or enforcement strategies, to enhance
safety for all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists
Angle
Crashes
76Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
Hardy Road & Feather RoadLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION
Feather Road
Blue R
idge P
arkway
Hardy Road
Bedford County
0 60 120 180 24030
Feet Fe
a
t
h
er Road
Bl
ue
R
id
ge
P
ark
w
ay
Hardy Road
Bedfor
d
Count
y
Blue Ridge Parkway bridge
may be obstructing view of
upcoming intersection
Add advanced
warning signage
Sight distance
improvements
Severe Injury Crash
Fatal Crash
Legend
0 90 18045
Feet
1 INCH = 25 FEET
¯
77 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
Hardy Road is as a major east/west corridor that serves as a primary
entrance and thoroughfare for the Town of Vinton. The unsignalized
intersection has seen 21 crashes since 2015. The associated crash
profiles indicate a pattern of drivers turning onto Hardy Road from
Feather Road without yielding to oncoming traffic.
Prevalent Crash Characteristics
Hardy Road & Feather RoadLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION
Average Daily Traffic: 11,000 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 45 mph
Angle
Crashes Rear End
Crashes
Young
Driver
Severe Injury Crashes: 5
Fatal Crashes: 1*
*1 fatal crash in 2024
2015-2023*
Number of Lanes:
2 lanes
Community
Survey Rank: #5
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
Four of the six crashes were angle
collisions from drivers traveling south on
Feather Road disregarding the stop sign
or not appropriately yielding and colliding
with a vehicle on Hardy Road.
Install sight distance improvements
• At the NE corner, the existing trees are present on an upward slope that could inhibit sight distance of
westbound traffic on Hardy Road
• Addressing this issue by trimming the obstructive trees or regrading the slope is crucial to improving
safety at this busy intersection
Add advanced warning signage
• Advanced warning signage could be installed to alert oncoming traffic on Hardy Road about the
upcoming intersection and traffic entering the roadway from Feather Road
• This advanced warning helps drivers prepare to slow down, stop, or yield, reducing the likelihood of
crashes caused by sudden braking or failure to notice the intersection. It enhances awareness and
reaction time, benefiting all road users
Evaluate a roundabout improvement
• A roundabout would provide a reduction in necessary sight distance, a traffic calming measure through
the intersection, and the ability to alert drivers in all directions to the presence of the intersection
• The circular design of a roundabout forces vehicles to slow down, lowering the likelihood of high-
speed collisions. Roundabouts also reduce the potential for severe crashes, such as T-bone and
head-on collisions, and improve pedestrian safety by shortening crossing distances and providing
refuge islands
78Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
Plantation Road & McDonald’s / Days Inn AccessLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION
Google
0 50 100 150 20025
Feet
Severe Injury Crash
Legend
Plantation Road
I-81 Exit 146 Northbound On-RampI-81 Exit 146 Northbound Off-Ramp
Days Inn
McDonald’s
BP
Exxon
Pla
ntati
o
n
Road
I-81 Exit 146 Northbound On-RampI-81 Exit 146 Northbound Off-Ramp
Consider extending
the existing
two-way left-turn
lane (TWLTL)Days Inn
McDonald’s
BP
Exxon
79 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
Plantation Road is a principal arterial and major connection between
I-81 and northern Roanoke County. The unsignalized intersection
has seen 33 crashes since 2015, including 4 serious injury crashes.
The associated crash profiles indicate a pattern of conflicts arising
from drivers turning to and from the multiple commercial entrances.
Prevalent Crash Characteristics
Plantation Road & McDonald’s / Days Inn AccessLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION
Average Daily Traffic: 12,000 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 45 mph
Angle
Crashes
Severe Injury Crashes: 4
2015-2023
Number of Lanes:
4 lanes with a Two-Way Left-Turn Lane
Community
Survey Rank: #8
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
Three of the four severe injury crashes
were angle collisions from drivers turning
into a commercial entrance
Evaluate extension of the existing two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) further north
• There is an existing TWLTL on Plantation Road that begins to taper off 150’ from the intersection.
Extending the TWLTL will remove left-turning vehicles from the through lanes and store those vehicles
in the median area until a safe gap in opposing traffic is available to complete the turn.
• According to the VDOT Preferred CMF List, the addition of a TWLTL on a four lane road has a Crash
Reduction Factor of 55%.
Consider opportunities for access management
• There are currently 6 full-access commercial driveways in close proximity in the vicinity of the
intersection. The abundance of access points introduces undue opportunities for crashes and creates
excessive conflict points.
• In addition, the existing driveways do not meet VDOT access management design standards which
mandate a minimum distance of 1,320’ between the end of an interchange off-ramp and four-
legged intersections. Limiting the number of commercial driveways will improve safety and bring the
intersection closer to current VDOT standards.
80Countermeasures, Strategies & Location Profiles
Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive / Hollins RoadLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION
Google
0 50 100 150 20025
Feet
Sanderson
Shadwell DrivHollins Road
Drive
Shad
well Driv
Sa
n
de
rson
Drive
Hollin
s
Roa
d
Sight distance
improvements
Consider left-turn
lane on Shadwell
Drive
Consider guardrail
improvement
Severe Injury Crash
Legend
Drive
Drive
0 100 20050
Feet
1 INCH = 100 FEET
¯
SHA
D
W
E
L
L
D
R
SA
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
D
R
HO
L
L
I
N
S
R
D
81 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Context
Shadwell Drive, Sanderson Drive, and Hollins Road are major collectors
that serve the north end of Roanoke County. The unsignalized
intersections have seen 35 crashes since 2015, including 4 serious injury
crashes. The 4 severe crashes were angle crashes and collisions with
fixed-objects, off-road. Both angle crashes occurred on Shadwell Drive,
with vehicles turning out of Hollins Road or Sanderson Drive; collisions
with a fixed object occurred on each side of the railroad crossing.
A nearby October 2024 rezoning included a proffered condition
indicating the developer would work with Roanoke County to construct a
left turn lane from Sanderson Drive onto Shadwell Drive to help mitigate
additional traffic that the new development will generate. A plan, timeline
and funding for this improvement has not yet been determined.
Prevalent Crash Characteristics
Shadwell Drive & Sanderson Drive / Hollins RoadLOCATION PROFILES | INTERSECTION
Average Daily Traffic
Shadwell Drive: 7,200 vehicles/day
Sanderson Drive: 5,600 vehicles/day
Hollins Road: 5,300 vehicles/day
Speed Limit: 40 mph
Angle
Crashes
Fixed Object
Off Road Night
Severe Injury Crashes: 4
2015-2023
Number of Lanes:
2 lanes
Community
Survey Rank: #9
Safety Analysis Potential Strategies
Two of the four severe
injury crashes were
angle collisions
Consider installation of a left-turn lane on Shadwell Drive onto Sanderson Drive
• The installation of a left-turn lane could reduce collisions by providing a designated space for vehicles waiting to turn.
Sight distance improvements
• Hollins Road and Sanderson Drive would both benefit from tree cutting to improve driver visibility when turning onto Shadwell Drive.
Two of the four severe
injury crashes involved
hitting a fixed object, off
road
Consider guardrail installation
• Guardrails act as a barrier to shield motorists from more severe outcomes in the event of a crash, reducing the risk of collisions with
fixed objects. They also provide a visual cue to guide drivers and improve awareness of potential hazards.
Angle & fixed object - off
road crashes
Evaluate a peanut roundabout installation
• A peanut roundabout would directly address angle collisions while providing a traffic calming effect to this intersection.
Conduct a speed study and evaluate a speed limit reduction
• Lowering the speed limit to 35 mph can lead to fewer and less severe crashes, as lower speeds provide drivers with more time to
respond to road conditions and other vehicles. Currently the speed limit drops from 45 to 40 mph as drivers travel west through the
intersections.
Variety of crash types
Consider bicycle and pedestrian accommodations as part of improvement projects at this intersection
• A variety of crash types occur at this intersection. With future development, existing and new residents will be served by this
intersection. Incorporating bike-ped infrastructure as part of the intersection improvement could contribute to traffic calming and
slow down approaching vehicular traffic, as well as provide alternative transportation means.
82Equity Considerations
Equity Considerations6
The Safe Streets and Roads for All Notice of Funding Opportunity
(NOFO) defines equity as:
Equity is the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial
treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong
to underserved communities that have been denied such
treatment, such as Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native
Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and other
persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons;
persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and
persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality.
Several federal tools are available to help identify disadvantaged
communities, including the USDOT’s Equitable Transportation
Community (ETC) Disadvantaged Areas dataset and the Council on
Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening
Tool (CEJST).
Method 1: Equitable Transportation Community
Explorer
The ETC dataset, managed by USDOT, uses census tracts to
identify communities facing transportation insecurity and other
transportation-related disadvantages. This tool provides insights
into how limited access to transportation impacts marginalized
communities, helping guide decisions toward more equitable
solutions. According to USDOT, transportation insecurity occurs
when “people are unable to get to where they need to go to meet the
needs of their daily life regularly, reliably, and safely.” The dataset
incorporates data from the 2020 Census to assess the effects of
transportation underinvestment on communities. Indicators from
five areas of disadvantage serve as the basis of the ETC. The
indicators include:
• Transportation Insecurity
• Environmental Burden
• Social Vulnerability
• Health Vulnerability
• Climate and Disaster Risk Burden
Each census tract is given an overall index score based on these
indicators. A community is considered disadvantaged if the overall
index score places it in the 65th percentile of all census tracts.
Figure 18 highlights disadvantaged communities in Roanoke County
in blue, according to the ETC. The Plantation Road corridor and
associated intersections fall in the highlighted area.
According to the explorer, there are 6,600 people in Roanoke
County living in a disadvantaged census tract, approximately 7% of
Roanoke County’s 96,929 residents.
83 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Figure 18. Roanoke County ETC Disadvantaged Areas
84Equity Considerations
Method 2: Climate and Economic Justice Screening
Tool
The CEJST is an alternative tool utilized to define disadvantaged
populations. Developed by the Council on Environmental Quality,
the dataset also uses 2020 Census data and census tracts to find
indicators of overburdened or underserved communities. These
communities are either located on Federally Recognized Tribal
Lands or meet at least one of the eight burden categories, which
include:
• Climate Change
• Energy
• Health
• Housing
• Legacy Pollution
• Transportation
• Water and Wastewater
• Workforce Development
Figure 19 highlights areas considered underserved by CEJST. In this
instance, the ETC and CEJST areas overlap. Approximately 6,600
of the 96,929 residents in Roanoke County live in disadvantaged
Census tracts, approximately 7%.
85 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Figure 19. Roanoke County CEJST Underserved Communities
86Equity Considerations
Method 3: Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Defined Rural Areas
The Safe Streets and Roads For All NOFO includes people living in
rural areas as individuals who belong to underserved communities. A
rural area is defined as located outside of a U.S. Census-designated
urban area with a population of 200,000 or more.
Figure 20 highlights the areas that do not fall into the U.S. Census
urban areas, thus are defined as rural areas. Many of the High-Injury
Network corridors and the priority project locations are located in
rural areas. Approximately 19,000 of the 96,929 people in Roanoke
County (or 20%) live in rural areas, according to the 2020 American
Community Survey.
87 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Figure 20. Roanoke County Rural Areas
88Equity Considerations
Equity and Needs Areas
Figure 21 shows the intersection of the priority project locations
based on this Safety Action Plan, feedback from the community
surveys, and underserved communities. Three priority locations
target areas identified by the Equitable Transportation Community
Explorer and the Council on Environmental Quality’s Climate and
Economic Justice Screening Tool. Seven priority locations are in or
closely border rural areas.
89 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Figure 21. Priority Locations and Underserved Communities
90Policy and Process Changes
Policy and Process Changes7
As part of the Safe Streets and Roads For All (SS4A) process, it
is important for Roanoke County to review its current plans and
policies to identify opportunities for improvements. There are
several regional plans that contribute to the development of Roanoke
County’s transportation system.
Roanoke County 200 Plan
Adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in September
2024, the Roanoke County 200 Plan represents the first significant
update to the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan since 2005.
The 200 Plan provides recommendations to guide natural and
cultural resources, community facilities, land use and housing,
and transportation in Roanoke County through the County’s
bicentennial anniversary in 2038. The 200 Plan contains numerous
formal recommendations for improving the safety and functioning
of Roanoke County’s transportation system, including specific
recommendations for each of Roanoke County’s eleven (11)
Community Planning Areas. These recommendations come in the
form of both broad strategies and specific projects.
Roanoke Valley Transportation Plan
Prepared and adopted by the RVTPO with significant input from
localities, the Roanoke Valley Transportation Plan serves as the
federally required Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for the
RVTPO service area. The latest version of the Roanoke Valley
Transportation Plan was adopted in 2023, with a plan horizon of
2045. This plan outlines regional transportation needs and priorities
and serves as the foundation for the development of the RVTPO’s
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Safety is discussed throughout the RVTP. Safety data trends since
2017 are shown with a focus on fatal and serious crashes as well as
bicycle and pedestrian crashes. The Roanoke Valley Transportation
Plan also includes a list of all transportation projects currently
funded in the RVTPO service area, and a list of short-term and long-
term priority projects for localities and public agencies to pursue
in the future. The plan identifies over 100 projects that align with
the goal of SS4A to eliminate fatalities and reduce injuries on a
multimodal transportation system. An opportunity is available to
supplement this list with projects found in the SS4A Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan.
Regional Pedestrian Vision Plan
RVTPO’s 2015 Regional Pedestrian Vision Plan provides a
coordinated and strategic approach for advancing walking as a
means of transportation in the Roanoke Valley. This plan identifies
where pedestrian infrastructure is most needed in the RVTPO
service area based on the potential for residents, employees,
shoppers, diners, and other visitors to access nearby destinations.
The primary goal of the Pedestrian Vision Plan is listed as improving
safety for pedestrians, and projects are provided that work towards
this goal. The studies and projects recommended by this Action
Plan can expand upon the Pedestrian Vision Plan and move Roanoke
County towards a safer transportation network.
Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization
The 2012 Bikeway Plan was prepared and adopted by the Roanoke
Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVAMPO), the
precursor to RVTPO. This plan provides a coordinated and strategic
approach to developing a regional bicycle network in the RVTPO
service area. The Bikeway Plan provides recommendations for
bicycle infrastructure that would advance bicycling as a means of
transportation in the Roanoke Valley by enhancing connectivity
between activity centers, cultural resources, and other points of
interest.
91 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
In addition to their existing plans, Roanoke County may look towards
implementing additional policy and process changes to gather
focused data at specific locations, encourage appropriate driver
behavior, and initiating changes to land use.
Enforcement and Policies
Goal: Discourage undesirable or illegal behaviors that are not
necessarily addressed through engineering countermeasures.
1.A: Increase Law Enforcement Patrol
Increasing law enforcement patrol would discourage or address
dangerous or illegal driver behaviors. However, local law
enforcement is constrained (with staffing shortages, budget,
etc.) and additional collaboration is needed to identify feasibility
and limitations.
1.B: Implement Speed Cameras
Based on survey responses and discussions with community
meeting attendees, there is a high concern for speeding on
County roadways. At the time of this report, Virginia legislation
only permits speed cameras in school zones and work zones. The
installation of speed cameras in these locations would provide
enforcement without the physical presence of law enforcement
and could encourage drivers to be more aware of their speeds
elsewhere. Additional budget will need to be allocated to review
and process violations. This recommendation will necessitate
Rural Bikeway Plan
The 2020 Rural Bikeway Plan was prepared and adopted by the
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC), as
RVTPO only serves the urbanized area of the Roanoke Valley. This
plan identifies bicycle infrastructure improvements for localities
to consider in the rural parts of the RVARC service area. The Rural
Bikeway Plan also identifies why people bicycle in these rural areas,
where exactly they are bicycling, and the quality of existing bicycle
facilities.
changes to County Code and will require discussion with
Roanoke County Police before adopting.
1.C: Implement Red Light Cameras
As described with reviewing signal timings, Roanoke County
residents are very concerned with red-light running behavior
at intersections. Red light cameras are permitted in Virginia
localities, however, the quantity of cameras is restricted by
population. Additional budget will need to be allocated to review
and process violations. This recommendation will necessitate
changes to County Code and will require discussion with
Roanoke County Police before adopting.
Intersection and Corridor Studies
Goal: Dedicate time and budget for a focused and nuanced study of
a specific intersection or corridor.
2.A: Conduct an Intersection or Corridor Study
Where an intersection or corridor experienced a high number of
fatal and serious injury crashes without a clear crash pattern,
further study is needed for developing recommendations. A
specific intersection or corridor study would gather additional
information about roadway conditions and learn about resident
experiences, priorities, and future goals for that particular
location.
2.B: Conduct a Speed Study
Speeding is a top concern for Roanoke County residents, and
high vehicle speeds lead to more severe crashes. A speed
study in select locations could identify areas where drivers tend
to excessively exceed the posted speed limit and could serve
as an element of project prioritization for design solutions.
Changes to the roadway design and the implementation of
traffic calming measures can also be used to facilitate lower
speeds where speed limit reductions are needed.
92Policy and Process Changes
Land Use
Goal: Coordinate with property owners to create safer conditions
around high-priority intersections
3.A: Improve Access Management
Where several entrances are present near an intersection,
there is an opportunity to consolidate these access driveways
to reduce the number of conflict points. Ease of access would
improve traffic flow of nearby intersections. Better access
management would benefit not only drivers, but adjacent
property owners and businesses. Implementation would require
ongoing coordination and negotiation with private property
owners.
93 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Route 460 Challenger Avenue
94Strategy and Project Selections
Strategy and Project Selections8
The built environment plays a major role in roadway safety. This
chapter highlights potential improvements to road and intersection
design in Roanoke County, and provides a list of potential projects
to address safety concerns at locations identified in this study.
Road and Intersection Design
Goal: Improve roads and intersections to increase driver visibility,
encourage drivers to slow down and be aware of their surroundings,
and facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian movement.
1.A: Add New Signage or Improve Existing Signage
Installation of new signage or improving existing signage
may alert drivers of upcoming road conditions. Signage
improvements could include increasing the size of existing
signs, adding flashing lights, or adding reflectivity to improve
visibility to drivers.
1.B: Improve Sight Distance
Adequate sight distance is vitally important in creating safe
intersections and entrances. In certain locations, there are
short-term opportunities for improving sight distance by cutting
back trees and landscaping. Improving sight distance through
grading or other design interventions would require further
study and additional coordination with involved parties.
1.C: Intersection Redesign
Intersections are often hotspots for collisions, as an area
of changing traffic conditions. Safety can be improved at
intersections through smaller projects (such as adding sidewalk,
curb bumpouts, etc.) or larger projects (such as reducing the
size of the intersection, installing a roundabout/Restricted
Crossing U-Turn (RCUT)/Thru-Cut, etc.). Redesigning an
intersection may vary in scope but should ultimately slow down
drivers, improve visibility, and accommodate different modes
of transportation, as applicable.
1.D: Add a Turn Lane or Improve Existing Turn Lane
Adding a turn lane or improving an existing turn lane could
improve traffic flow and reduce collisions. Where there is not
currently a turn lane, adding a turn lane would allow a vehicle
to wait in a designated location before turning when there is
adequate time to clear an intersection. An existing turn lane
could be improved with the installation of a left-turn offset,
which could improve visibility at intersections where the turning
vehicle must yield to oncoming through traffic.
1.E: Install Guardrail and/or Rumble Strips
Where the majority of the fatal and serious injury crashes were
run off-road incidents, the installation of a guardrail would be a
direct solution for preventing future crashes at key locations.
Similarly, the installation of centerline or shoulder rumble strips
would alert drivers of lane departure and promote correction.
Rumble strips should only be applied in areas where there are
significant roadway departure crashes and little, if any, bicycle
traffic. If bicycle traffic is present, additional shoulder width
beyond the rumble strip should be considered.
95 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
1.F: Review Signal Timings
Reviewing and revising signal timings could improve traffic
flow and alleviate pressure at certain intersections. Based on
community input, uncoordinated signals may be contributing to
driver frustration and potentially increasing risky and dangerous
behavior. Along corridors with coordinated signals such as
Challenger Avenue, the existing timing plan should be reviewed.
Additionally, many survey respondents and community meeting
attendees observed frequent red-light running behavior; longer
all red timings could improve crashes due to red-light running.
Enforcement and policy should additionally be considered to
discourage dangerous driver behavior.
96Strategy and Project Selections
Potential Project Improvements Summary | Corridors
Location Crashes Potential Project Community
Ranking
(Per Fall 2024
Survey)
Cost
Estimate Time Frame
Serious
Injury
Fatal
Electric Road East
(Brambleton Avenue to
Roanoke City Line)
27 1
Conduct an intersection study at Colonial Avenue 1 $Short Term
Evaluate Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT)
improvements east of Colonial Avenue 2 $$-$$$Long Term
Evaluate Thru-Cut improvements east of Colonial
Avenue 3 $$-$$$Long Term
Electric Road West
(Glen Heather Drive to
Brambleton Avenue)
17 1
Conduct a corridor study or a road safety audit for
Electric Road (from Bower Road to Brambleton Avenue)1 $Short Term
Evaluate Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT)
improvements at select intersections 2 $$-$$$Long Term
Evaluate Thru-Cut improvements at select
intersections 3 $$-$$$Long Term
Plantation Road
(Williamson Road to
Roanoke City)
20 2
Consider increasing enforcement 1 $$
TBD following
coordination with
Roanoke County
Police
Conduct a multimodal corridor study 2 $Short Term
Per the Equitable Transportation Community Explorer and the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, the Plantation
Road corridor is considered to be within a disadvantaged community.
97 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Potential Project Improvements Summary | Corridors
Location Crashes Potential Project Community
Ranking
(Per Fall 2024
Survey)
Cost
Estimate Time Frame
Serious
Injury
Fatal
Starkey Road
(Benois Road to
Merriman Road)
7 0 Conduct a multimodal corridor study 1 $Short Term
Garst Mill Road
(Roanoke City Line to
Brambleton Avenue)
7 1
Evaluate and install pedestrian improvements,
specifically to the Brambleton Avenue commercial
corridor
1 $Short Term
Bent Mountain
Road
(Back Creek Orchard
Road to Tinsley Lane)
10 2
Consider installing centerline or shoulder rumble strips
(Includes evaluating bicycle traffic and widening
shoulder width beyond rumble strip area)
1 $
Short Term
To be
coordinated
with repaving
schedule
Consider tree cutting at select curves, where possible 2 $Short Term
Evaluate condition and spacing of existing chevrons;
consider signage upgrades 3 $-$$Short Term
Jae Valley Road
(Blue Ridge Parkway to
Franklin County Line)
11 1
Evaluate condition and spacing of existing chevrons;
consider signage upgrades 1 $-$$Short Term
Consider installation of high friction surface treatment
(HFST) at select curves 2 $$Short Term
98Strategy and Project Selections
Potential Project Improvements Summary | Corridors
Location Crashes Potential Project Community
Ranking
(Per Fall 2024
Survey)
Cost
Estimate Time Frame
Serious
Injury
Fatal
Bradshaw Road
(Catawba Valley Drive
to Montgomery County
Line)
11 1
Evaluate potential upgrades to existing advisory speed
signage 1 $-$$Short Term
Consider installing centerline or shoulder rumble strips
(Includes evaluating bicycle traffic and widening
shoulder width beyond rumble strip area)
2 $
Short Term
To be
coordinated
with repaving
schedule
Conduct a multimodal corridor study 3 $Short Term
99 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Potential Project Improvements Summary | Intersections
Location Crashes Potential Project Community
Ranking
(Per Fall 2024
Survey)
Cost
Estimate Time Frame
Serious
Injury
Fatal
Challenger Avenue
& Valley Gateway
Boulevard
3 1
Review signal timings; potentially longer all-red times 1 $-$$
Short Term
Consider
potential
coordination with
City of Roanoke
Consider lowering speed limit from City boundary to
this intersection 2 $
Short Term
To be
coordinated
with repaving
schedule
Evaluate moving existing stop bar and extend existing
concrete median closer to intersection 3 $Short Term
North Electric Road
& I-81 Southbound
Ramps at Exit 141
5 0
Consider reconfiguration of the intersection to reduce
the width of the I-81 median, shortening the turning
distance of NB left-turning movements
1 $$-$$$Long Term
Evaluate reducing southbound approach to one through
lane 2 $-$$Long Term
Consider reviewing signal timings for the Loch Haven
intersection and the Exit 141 intersection, especially if
reducing the southbound approach is studied
Free response
feedback
from the
Fall 2024
community
meeting
describes
high peak
hour volumes
$-$$Short Term
100Strategy and Project Selections
Potential Project Improvements Summary | Corridors
Location Crashes Potential Project Community
Ranking
(Per Fall 2024
Survey)
Cost
Estimate Time Frame
Serious
Injury
Fatal
Washington
Avenue & Food
Lion Access (East
Vinton Plaza
Shopping Center)
6 0
Consider left-turn offset 1 $$Long Term
Consider access management 2
Varies
by
scope
Long Term
Requires
coordination and
agreements with
private property
owners
Conduct a speed study 3 $Short Term
Hardy Road &
Feather Road 5
1*Evaluate a roundabout 1 $$$-
$$$$Long Term
*1 fatal
crash
occurred
in 2024
Consider install of advance warning signage 2 $Short Term
Improve sight distance 3 $Short Term
Plantation Road &
McDonald’s/Days
Inn Access
4 0
Evaluate extending the existing two-way left-turn lane 1 $$Short Term
Consider access management 2
Varies
by
scope
Long Term
Requires
coordination and
agreements with
private property
owners
101 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Location Crashes Potential Project Community
Ranking
(Per Fall 2024
Survey)
Cost
Estimate Time Frame
Serious
Injury
Fatal
Shadwell Drive &
Sanderson Drive /
Hollins Road
4 0
Improve sight distance 1 $$Long Term
Consider installation of guardrail at SW corner of
Hollins Road 2 $$
Long Term
Requires
coordination and
agreements with
private property
owners
Conduct a speed study 3 $Short Term
Evaluate a left-turn lane on Shadwell Drive onto
Sanderson Drive 4 $$-$$$Long Term
Evaluate a peanut roundabout 5 $$$-
$$$$Long Term
Consider incorporating bicycle-pedestrian
accommodations as part of improvement projects
This
recommendation
was incorporated
after the January
2025 public
comment period
of the draft Safety
Action Plan
$$Long Term
Potential Project Improvements Summary | Intersections
102Strategy and Project Selections
Supplemental Planning & Demonstration Activities
Under the Safe Streets and Roads For All (SS4A) grant program, localities may apply for funding to explore supplemental planning and
demonstration activities. Planning activities aim to gather more information through studies, plans, or audits and demonstration activities
include implementations related to infrastructure, behavior, or technology. Infrastructure activities could include conducting temporary
‘quick-build’ projects, temporary street or lane closures (road diets), or MUTCD engineering studies. Localities that would like to address
driver behavior and education may pilot educational campaigns, provide training (such as focusing on bus drivers and bike-pedestrian
awareness), or develop projects around Safe Routes to School, encouraging best practices in student pick-up and drop-off. A variety
of technological implementations could be pursued, such as signal timings and upgrades for bike-pedestrian prioritization or signal
preemption for emergency vehicles, installation of red-light and speed cameras, and data collection.
Type Activity Location Cost Notes
Supplemental
Planning
Corridor/intersection
study or road safety
audit
Electric Road & Colonial Avenue
(intersection)
$$High incidences of crashes at this intersection, however, no
clear crash pattern. Intersection study required to collect
and analyze data
Electric Road
(From Bower Road to
Brambleton Avenue)
$$
Planned RCUTs towards City of Roanoke, however,
no current plans for Electric Road from Bower Road to
Brambleton Avenue
Plantation Road $$
Pattern of FSI crashes involve speeding as well as involving
a pedestrian. Corridor study to gather information on
bicycle-pedestrian needs of predominately residential area.
Starkey Road $$
Consider corridor study to evaluate if newly constructed
roundabout at Buck Mountain Road improved crashes along
this corridor
Bradshaw Road $$
Feedback from community members described bicyclists
frequenting this corridor. Corridor study to gather
information regarding this rural corridor, bicyclist routes,
and other challenges/opportunities (see sheet X for more
information).
Speed study
Washington Avenue
(Area around the East Vinton
Shopping Center and William
Byrd School campus)
$If warranted by speed study, consider speed limit reduction
in the area approaching intersection; see sheets 60-61 for
Washington Avenue and sheets 66-67 for Shadwell DriveShadwell Drive & Sanderson
Drive/Hollins Road (intersection)$
103 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Type Activity Location Cost Notes
Demonstration
Infrastructure Quick-Build Projects Challenger Avenue & Valley
Gateway Boulevard $
Use flex-post and/or temporary curb to extend existing
concrete median on Valley Gateway Boulevard closer to
intersection; see sheets 56-57
Requires coordination with and approval by VDOT
Demonstration
Behavioral
Educational or
Training Campaigns
Electric Road
(Both eastern and western
corridors)
$
Pattern of senior drivers involved in the FSI crashes
Opportunities include education, training and information on
the CORTRAN program which is a curb-to-curb rideshare
program for Roanoke County residents who are 65 or older
or who are disabled.Starkey Road $
Bent Mountain Road $Pattern of motorcyclists involved in the FSI crashes
Demonstration
Technology
Data Collection Plantation Road $$
Pattern of speeding in FSI crashes as well as involving
pedestrians
Collect data on vehicle speed and pedestrian counts/
location (only short segment of sidewalk on Plantation Road)
Signal timings
Challenger Avenue & Valley
Gateway Boulevard $$
Review signal timings at this intersection and adjacent
intersections (including southern intersections in City of
Roanoke)
Requires coordination with VDOT and the City of Roanoke
North Electric Road & I-81 Ramps
at Exit 141 $$
Review signal timings at this intersection & Loch Haven
Drive
Requires coordination with VDOT
104Funding Options
Funding Options
Administering
Agency
Program Name Description Eligible Projects Source of
Funds
Local Match
Required
Level of Funding
Available
VDOT SMART SCALE SMART SCALE evaluates
proposed transportation
projects based on certain
criteria (improving safety,
reducing congestion, increasing
accessibility, contributing
to economic development,
promoting efficient land use,
and affecting the environment).
The scored criteria determines
prioritization of funds.
• Highway improvements
• Transit- and rail-capacity
expansion
• Bicycle and pedestrian
improvements
• Transportation Demand
Management (Park & Ride
facilities)
Federal
and State
No Varies based upon
the application
year
Highway
Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)
The Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP)
is intended to facilitate the
goals of the Strategic Highway
Safety Plan. The purpose of
this plan is to implement safety
improvements in Virginia.
Roanoke County is ineligible to
apply directly for HSIP funds
and must work with VDOT to
request VDOT submit projects
on behalf of Roanoke County
• Projects consistent
with Virginia’s Strategic
Highway Safety Plan
• Correcting or improving a
hazardous road location
or feature, or address a
highway safety problem
• Projects based on crash
experience, crash potential,
crash rate, or other relevant
safety data
• Curve delineation
• Pedestrian Crossings
• Edge/centerline rumble
strips
Federal No No maximum, but
award amount
likely under $1M
105 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Administering
Agency
Program Name Description Eligible Projects Source of
Funds
Local Match
Required
Level of Funding
Available
VDOT HSIP (cont.)• Be listed under 23 U.S.C.
148(a)(4)(B) or (a)(11); and
• Comply with other Title 23
requirements
Transportation
Alternatives
Program (TAP)
Expanded under the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL), the
Transportation Alternatives
Program (TAP) is intended
to provide funding for non-
motorized transportation.
• Projects pertaining to non-
motorized transportation
• Expand travel choice for
daily needs, strengthens
local economy, improves
quality of life, and protects
the environment
Federal Yes, 20%Funding awards
between
$200,000 and
$600,000
106Funding Options
Administering
Agency
Program Name Description Eligible Projects Source of
Funds
Local Match
Required
Level of Funding
Available
VDOT Safe Routes to
School
(Part of TAP)
The Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) initiative is part of the
VDOT TAP program. SRTS
program’s purpose is to
encourage students, including
those with disabilities, to
walk or bike to school, by
establishing safer bike-ped
connections and reducing
traffic
• Walkabout mini-grants to
assess existing walking and
biking conditions
• Program grants
• Infrastructure grants
Federal The Virginia
SRTS Program
is a locally-
administered
reimbursement
program. For
new applicants,
provides 100%
of total funding
with no match
required.
However,
applicants are
still encouraged
to leverage
funding from
other sources.
Varies
Revenue
Sharing
VDOT’S Revenue Sharing
program enables localities
to match investment
with the state, in order to
fund construction and/or
improvement of highway
systems
• Bicycle and pedestrian
improvements
• Corridor widening and
stormwater management
improvements
• Traffic calming
• Green infrastructure
State Yes, 50%A locality
may apply for
a maximum
of $10M per
biennial cycle (or
$5M per fiscal
year) and the
maximum lifetime
matching per
project is $10M.
This limitation
includes any
allocations
transferred to the
project.
Up to $2.5M per
fiscal year of
these requested
funds may be
specified for
maintenance
projects.
107 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Administering
Agency
Program Name Description Eligible Projects Source of
Funds
Local Match
Required
Level of Funding
Available
DMV Virginia
Highway
Safety Office
(VAHSO)
The intent of the VAHSO grant
program is to reduce the
number of fatalities, injuries,
and related economic losses
from traffic collisions in
Virginia.
Initiatives to:
• Reduce alcohol/impaired
driving
• Promote occupant
protection
• Reduce aggressive driving
and speeding
• Collect and analyze traffic
records/data
• Promote bicycle-pedestrian
safety
• Promote motorcycle safety
• Promote roadway safety
State Yes, 25%Minimum award:
$5,000
No maximum award
USDOT &
Local MPO
Surface
Transportation
Block Grant
(STBG)
Program
As part of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL),
the Surface Transportation
Block Grant (STBG) program
provides flexible funding for
transportation improvement
needs.
• Installation/deployment
of current and emerging
intelligent transportation
technologies
• Protective features,
including natural
infrastructure, to improve
the experience of an eligible
facility
• Projects to enhance travel
and tourism
Federal No Funding is based
on population ratio
Carbon
Reduction
Program (CRP)
As part of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL), the
CRP provides funding to
develop carbon reduction
strategies and for projects
to reduce transportation
carbon dioxide emissions.
Strategies must be developed
in consultation with MPOs.
• Bike lanes
• Traffic management
• Public transportation
• Pedestrian facilities
• Alternative fueling/charging
infrastructure
Federal No Virginia is expected
to receive nearly
$166 million in C R P
funding from fiscal
year (F Y) 2022 to
F Y 2026.
Funds are awarded
in proportion to
population.
108Funding Options
Administering
Agency
Program Name Description Eligible Projects Source of
Funds
Local Match
Required
Level of Funding
Available
USDOT Rebuilding
American
Infrastructure
with
Sustainability
and Equity
(RAISE) Grant
As part of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL),
the Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with
Sustainability and Equity
(RAISE) program provides
investment towards
transportation initiatives that
create a significant local or
regional impact.
• Highway, bridge, or other
road projects
• Public transportation
projects
• Any other surface
transportation
infrastructure project that
the Secretary considers to
be necessary to advance
the goals of the program
Federal Yes, 20%Minimum award:
Capital projects
(urban) - $5M
Capital projects
(rural) - $1M
Planning projects -
no minimum
Maximum award:
$25M
Safe Streets
and Roads
For All (SS4A)
Supplemental
Planning and
Demonstration
Activities Grant
See sheets 100-101 for expanded description and possible
activities directly applicable to this Safety Action Plan
Federal Yes, 20%Varies significantly
Safe Streets
and Roads
For All (SS4A)
Implementation
Grant
The SS4A Implementation Grant provides funding towards
project and strategy implementation as outlined in this Action
Plan.
Federal Yes, 20%Varies significantly
109 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
110Progress and Transparency
Progress and Transparency9
The Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is a
commitment along with strategies and actions to reduce fatal and
serious injury crashes on roadways across the County. This Plan
can serve people across agencies, departments, organizations, and
interest groups to unite around the importance of roadway safety
and a positive traffic safety culture.
Action items identified by this plan should be used by the County
and partners on projects, policies, and programs. Additionally,
the County should consistently measure how actions are making
roadways safer and saving lives.
Performance Measures and Dashboard
Roanoke County should monitor the progress and impact of
individual actions related to each strategy. Evaluation is essential
for the data-driven approach of the Comprehensive Safety
Action Plan. There must be accountability to the commitment of
eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries. If certain actions are
not successful, not moving fast enough, or not working for another
reason, the County and partnering agencies should assess and
modify actions as needed. Measuring progress and success can
be accomplished using a data dashboard. Routine updates can be
made to the dashboard when new projects are funded, designed,
and implemented to highlight changes and mark milestone efforts
related to increasing roadway safety. This tool can provide insight
into a number of metrics, including, but not limited to:
• Number of fatal and serious injury crashes
• Total Crashes
• Crashes along the HIN and changes in crash rates over time
• Crashes involving bicycles and pedestrians
• Crashes resulting from high posted speeds
• Crashes occurring during particular weather conditions
• Crashes in each context area (Urban, Rural)
The dashboard is available for public viewing here, or by using the
following link:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/
a85a20fee3104a60b8355544a654578f
Annual Reporting
Along with tracking several performance measures and the use
of a data dashboard, annual reporting will provide the County an
opportunity to reflect on accomplishments and communicate steps
toward eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes.
Roanoke County will publish an annual report on the progress of
the SS4A Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. The report will be
published in January or February of each year and may include the
following:
• Updated crash statistics with a focus on fatal and serious injury
crashes
• Projects completed or beginning construction
• Proven Safety Countermeasures deployed
• Funding associated with safety projects
Transparency
Roanoke County has developed the Comprehensive Safety Action
Plan with the goal of full transparency. The Action Plan will be
publicly available on Roanoke County’s website. Interim documents
like the annual report will also be posted on the website.
https://www.roanokecountyva.gov/
111 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Route 220 & Franklin Road (220 Business)
112Appendix: County Project Exhibits
Appendix: County Project ExhibitsA
Priority Corridor #1
Challenger Avenue (Route 460) - Roanoke City Line to Botetourt County Line
Three projects along this corridor were funded in 2021:
1. Route 460 at West Ruritan Road Intersection Improvements: $7.5 million SMART SCALE/STBG award
2. Route 460 Intersections from Carson Road to Huntridge Road: $2.8 million SMART SCALE/STBG award
3. Route 460 and Alternate Route 220 Intersection Improvements: $21.8 million SMART SCALE/STBG award
Construction for all projects is anticipated in 2026 and 2027.
1
113 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
2
3
114Appendix: County Project Exhibits
Priority Corridor #2
Electric Road (Route 419) - Brambleton Avenue to the Roanoke City Line (East)
Three projects along this corridor were funded in 2019 and 2021:
1. Route 419/Route 220 Diverging Diamond Interchange: $17.5 million SMART SCALE/STBG
award
2. Route 419 Streetscape Improvements, Phase 2 (Ogden Road to Starkey Road): $18.5 million
SMART SCALE/STBG award
Construction for the Diverging Diamond Interchange is anticipated in early 2025 and construction
for the streetscape improvements is anticipated in 2026.
115 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
MAT
C
H
L
I
N
E
MAT
C
H
L
I
N
E
116Appendix: County Project Exhibits
Priority Corridor #3
Electric Road (Route 419) - Brambleton Avenue to
Glen Heather Drive (West)
Three projects along this corridor were funded in 2023:
1. Route 419/Electric Road Safety Improvements (Stoneybrook
Drive to Grandin Road Extension): $6.6 million SMART
SCALE award
2. Route 419 Pedestrian Crossing Improvements at Brambleton
Avenue and Postal Drive: $3.9 million SMART SCALE award
Construction for all projects is anticipated in 2027.
117 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
118Appendix: County Project Exhibits
Priority Corridor #10
Starkey Road - Benois Road to Merriman Road
Construction is completed on a project to convert the
previously existing “T” intersection at Starkey Road and Buck
Mountain Road to a roundabout.
Total project funding: $5.8 million in Surface Transportation
Block Grant, Revenue Sharing, Secondary Six-Year Program
and SMART SCALE funding
119 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
120Appendix: County Project Exhibits
Priority Intersection # 1/Corridor #5
West Main Street - West River Road to Pleasant
Run Drive
SMART SCALE application submitted in August 2024 for
West Main Street (Route 11/460) at Dow Hollow Road Safety
Improvements
STBG Leverage: $4 million | SMART SCALE Request: $36.1
million
Total Estimate: $40.1 million
121 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
122Appendix: County Project Exhibits
Priority Intersection # 9
Peters Creek Road at Barrens Road
123 Roanoke County Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
Priority Intersection # 10/Corridor #4
Plantation Road - Williamson Road to Hershberger Road
SMART SCALE Application submitted in August 2024 for Peters Creek Road/ Williamson Road Multimodal Safety
Improvements (Wood Haven Road to Plantation Road) including the Peters Creek Road/Barrens Road and Williamson Road/
Plantation Road intersections.
Total estimate: $107.7 million
1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2025
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY 200 PLAN TO
INCORPORATE THE ROANOKE COUNTY SAFE STREETS AND
ROADS FOR ALL COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN
INTO THE ROANOKE COUNTY 200 PLAN
WHEREAS, § 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning
Commission of every jurisdiction prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan
for the physical development of their jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, § 15.2-2230 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning
Commission shall review the comprehensive plan at least once every five years
to determine whether it is advisable to amend the plan; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, September 24, 2024, the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County, Virginia adopted the Roanoke County 200 Plan as the
Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, in 2022, the US Department of Transportation awarded
$280,000.00 to Roanoke County, Botetourt County, and the Town of Vinton, and
with a $70,000.00 match from the localities, these funds were used to develop a
comprehensive safety action plan as part of the Safe Streets and Roads for All
Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Roanoke County 200 Plan be amended
to incorporate the Roanoke County Safe Streets and Roads for All
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan into the Roanoke County 200 Plan; and
2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed amendment to the Roanoke County 200 Plan on February 4, 2025,
after posting, advertisement and notices as required by § 15.2-2225 and § 15.2-
2204 of the Code of Virginia.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1) The Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors
amend the Roanoke County 200 Plan by incorporating the
Roanoke County Safe Streets and Roads for All Comprehensive
Safety Action Plan into the Roanoke County 200 Plan.
2) Pursuant to § 15.2-2225 of the Code of Virginia, the Secretary to
the Planning Commission shall certify this Resolution to the Board
of Supervisors by providing a copy of it to the Clerk to the Board.
3) Pursuant to § 15.2-2225 of the Code of Virginia, the Secretary to
the Planning Commission shall also post this Resolution on the
Commission’s website.
Commissioners absent Henderson
Votes in favor McMurray, Woltz, James, Bower
Votes against None
Abstentions None
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned secretary of the Roanoke County Planning Commission
does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, complete and correct
Resolution adopted by a vote of the majority of the Roanoke County
Planning Commission held on February 4, 2025, at which a quorum was
present and acting throughout, and that the same has not been amended
1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ROANOKE
COUNTY 200 PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE ROANOKE
COUNTY SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL
COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN INTO THE
ROANOKE COUNTY 200 PLAN
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2-2223 requires that every jurisdiction
adopt a comprehensive plan for the physical development of that jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2-2230 requires that the Planning
Commission review the comprehensive plan at least once every five (5) years to
determine whether it is advisable to amend the plan; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, September 24, 2024, the Board of Supervisors
adopted the Roanoke County 200 Plan as the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke
County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, in 2022, the US Department of Transportation awarded
$280,000.00 to Roanoke County, Botetourt County, and the Town of Vinton, and
with a $70,000.00 match from the localities, these funds were used to develop a
comprehensive safety action plan as part of the Safe Streets and Roads for All
Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Roanoke County 200 Plan be amended
to incorporate the Roanoke County Safe Streets and Roads for All
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan into the Roanoke County 200 Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed amendment to the Roanoke County 200 Plan on February 4, 2025,
2
after posting, advertisement and notices as required by Virginia Code § 15.2-
2225 and § 15.2-2204; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board of
Supervisors amend the Roanoke County 200 Plan to incorporate the Roanoke
County Safe Streets and Roads for all Comprehensive Safety Action Plan into
the Roanoke County 200 Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this
proposed amendment to the Roanoke County 200 Plan on February 25, 2025.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1) The Roanoke County 200 Plan is hereby amended by incorporating
the Roanoke County Safe Streets and Roads for All
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan into the Roanoke County 200
Plan.
2) This Resolution is effective upon its adoption.
Page 1 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. L.1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: February 25, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: The petition of April Joyce Hernandez Lemus to rezone
approximately 12.61 acres from R-1, Low Density
Residential District, to AR, Agricultural/Residential District,
located at 1807 Mayfield Drive, Vinton Magisterial District.
SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson
Director of Planning
APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Second reading and public hearing to rezone approximately 12.61 acres of property
from residential to agricultural.
BACKGROUND:
• The applicant is petitioning to rezone property from R-1 to AR to use the property
for agriculture.
• The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines agriculture as “the use of land
for the production of food and fiber, including farming, dairying, pasturage,
agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, and animal and poultry husbandry. A garden
and residential chicken keeping, accessory to a residence, shall not be
considered agriculture.”
• Section 30-81-1 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance contains the following
use and design standards for agriculture:
() In the AR and AV districts, the keeping of swine for commercial purposes
shall be prohibited.
Page 2 of 2
(B) Commercial uses such as gift shops and restaurants associated with
viticulture operations shall be allowed only by special use permit.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on February 4,
2025. No citizens spoke during the public hearing. The Planning Commission
discussed: that the property was zoned Agricultural before the 1992 comprehensive
rezoning by the County; some agricultural uses have existed on the property since
1992; number and types of animals on the property; number of pastures; accessory
structures; vegetated buffer along the Blue Ridge Parkway; surrounding uses and
zoning; and the future land use designation.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning from R -1 to AR.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the second reading of an
ordinance to rezone approximately 12.61 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential
District, to AR, Agricultural/Residential District.
STAFF REPORT
Petitioner: April Joyce Hernandez Lemus
Request: Rezone approximately 12.61 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to
AR, Agricultural/Residential District
Location:
Tax Parcel:
1807 Mayfield Drive
#079.03-05-55.00-0000
Proposed Proffers:
None
April Joyce Hernandez Lemus is petitioning to rezone approximately 12.61 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential
District, to AR, Agricultural/Residential District, located at 1807 Mayfield Drive in the Vinton Magisterial District. The
intention is to use the property for agriculture.
The Roanoke County 200 Plan indicates the future land use designations of this area as Development.
Development is a future land use area where most new neighborhood development will occur, including large-scale
planned developments which mix residential with retail and office uses. Innovation in housing design and
environmental sensitivity in site development is a key objective. Clustered developments are encouraged as is the
use of greenways and bike and pedestrian trails. The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Development
future land use designation.
1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines agriculture as “the use of land for the production of food
and fiber, including farming, dairying, pasturage, agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, and animal and poultry
husbandry. A garden and residential chicken keeping, accessory to a residence, shall not be considered
agriculture.” Section 30-81-1 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance contains the following use and design
standards for agriculture:
(A) In the AR and AV districts, the keeping of swine for commercial purposes shall be prohibited.
(B) Commercial uses such as gift shops and restaurants associated with viticulture operations shall be
allowed only by special use permit.
The existing use of a single-family dwelling, detached, and the proposed use of agriculture are both
permitted by right in the AR, Agricultural/Residential District. All development and use of the property must
be in conformance with Section 30-34 (AR development standards) of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance.
2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Background – The existing site is comprised of 12.61 acres and contains one single family dwelling, and
three agriculture related accessory structures. Roanoke County Real Estate records indicate the single-
family dwelling was built in 2017. The existing property was previously comprised of two separate parcels. In
2019 the previous property owner purchased an 8.69-acre portion of the property addressed 1905 Mayfield
Drive, this was the southern portion of the parcel. A combination plat (included in application) was recorded
that conveyed the 8.69-acre southern portion of 1905 Mayfield Drive to the previous property owner and
vacated a 74-foot 6-inch lot line that separated this from the 3.920-acre lot addressed 1807 Mayfield Drive.
This boundary line adjustment created the existing 12.61-acre lot addressed 1807 Mayfield Drive that is the
subject of this petition. The current property owners purchased the property in March of 2024. The current
owners were renting the property and residing there prior to purchasing it.
A complaint was received February of 2024 that the property was being used for agriculture. An inspection
was conducted, and notices of violation were sent to the property owner. The applicant determined that it
could not be proven that the agricultural activity had been ongoing since 1992 when the property was
comprehensively rezoned by Roanoke County. The applicant met with staff in March and explained that the
property now belonged to her and several other related individuals and was given information on the
rezoning process. In June 2024, a new notice of violation with the new property owners listed was mailed as
there had been no further communication from the applicant. Since the certified letter was not signed for, the
property was posted in July 2024. The applicant reached out to request a meeting with staff to review the
rezoning application. The applicant met with staff in August of 2024. There was no further communication
from the applicant and therefore charges were filed in General District Court. Once the summons was
served to the property owners, the applicant reached out again to staff to review the rezoning application. A
complete application was submitted on November 18, 2024. The case was heard in General District Court
on November 21, 2024, and continued until after this petition has been heard by the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors.
deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubbery. There are several deciduous trees scattered throughout the
parcel, mostly towards the property lines. The first wooded section is located slightly to the north of the
center of the southern portion of the parcel and spans more than half of the width of this section. The
second wooded portion covers almost the entirety of the southern quarter of the southern portion of the
parcel. The northern portion of the parcel which contains the home is sloped down from Mayfield Drive to
the south of this portion with approximately forty (40) to fifty (50) feet of elevation drop from the northern
property line to the southwestern corner of the northern portion of the parcel. The southern portion of the
parcels has its highest point where the northern and southern portions connect. The elevation change from
this point to the southern property line is approximately sixty (60) to seventy (70) feet. The most dramatic
slope is from the highest point where the two portions connect to the eastern property line. This is an
elevation drop of forty (40) feet over approximately 250 linear feet.
from the intersection with Bandy Road to the west and less than half a mile from the intersection with Jae
Valley Road to the east. The boundary line that separates the County of Roanoke from the City of Roanoke
is approximately a quarter mile to the east of the parcel. The Blue Ridge Parkway directly adjoins the
property to the south, and is zoned AG-3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve District. Beyond the Parkway to the
south is property zoned AR, Agricultural/Residential District and AG-3 that consists of mostly large parcels,
some of which contain single family dwellings. The subject parcel also adjoins property zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential District to the north, east, and west. These areas consist of primarily single-family
are several parcels zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential that adjoin the subject property to the west. The
northern portion of the subject parcel directly adjoins a cemetery to the east.
Community Outreach – Approximately thirty-four (34) letters went out to adjoining property owners and
tenants which contained the request, information about the subject parcel, instructions for how to submit
comments and contact information for staff. No comments have been received to date.
3.ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Site Layout/Architecture – There are no proposed changes to the site. The existing single-family dwelling is
approximately 1,456 square feet in size. The concept plan shows a storage building used for agriculture
related storage adjacent to a building for pigs and the chicken enclosure south of the single-family dwelling.
In the northwest corner of the southern portion of the parcel is an accessory structure used for hay and
consists of a gravel parking area that is approximately 140 square feet in size. There is a twelve-foot
ingress/egress easement along the western property line of the southern portion of the parcel that consists
Agencies Comments: The following agencies provided comments on this application:
Office of Building Safety – No comments.
Fire and Rescue – Fire and Rescue does not object to this proposal, and it does not affect the
services we provide.
General Services – No comments.
Roanoke County Transportation – No comments.
Western Virginia Water Authority – There is no water or sewer available at this parcel. If the
property owner is interested in extending water or sewer service, then preliminary discussions
would need to be held to determine the feasibility of completing an extension project. All costs
associated with an extension project would be the responsibility of the homeowner.
4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Roanoke County 200 Plan indicates the future land use designations of this area as Development.
Development is a future land use area where most new neighborhood development will occur, including
large-scale planned developments which mix residential with retail and office uses. Innovation in housing
design and environmental sensitivity in site development is a key objective. Clustered developments are
encouraged as is the use of greenways and bike and pedestrian trails. The proposed rezoning is not
consistent with the Development land use designation.
5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS
April Joyce Hernandez Lemus is petitioning to rezone approximately 12.61 acres from R-1, Low Density
Residential District, to AR, Agricultural/Residential District, located at 1807 Mayfield Drive in the Vinton
The 2005 Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan indicates the future land use designations of this area as
Development. The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Development future land use designation.
CASE NUMBER: #1-2/2025
PREPARED BY: Skylar Camerlinck
HEARING DATES: PC: February 4, 2025 BOS: February 25, 2025
ATTACHMENTS: Application Materials
Maps (Aerial, Zoning, Future Land Use)
Combination Plat
Photographs
R-1 District Regulations
AR District Regulations
Development Future Land Use Designation
County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive PO Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540)772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155
ALL APPLICANTS
Check type of application filed (check all that apply)
For Staff Use Only
Received by:
Applicationft7Qf. 7 PC/BZA date:
Placards issued: BOS date:
Case Number -11201.s
,XRezoning □ Special Use □ Variance □ Waiver □ Administrative Appeal o Comp Plan (15.2-2232) Review
Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: {540}520-7119
April Joyce Hernandez Lemus Cell#: Same
1807 Mayfield Or. Email: apcilj}l!LOOdacd@gmail com Contact for Legal Ads Dn�nnkP VA ?A.014
Owner's name/address w/zip Phone#: (540)520-7119
April Joyce Hernandez Lemus Cell#: Same
1807 Mayfield Dr . Email: apriijwoodard@gmail.com
""-.�� VA ?4014
Property Location Magisterial District: Vinton1807 Mayfield Or. Community Planning area: Mount PleasantRoanoke VA 24014
Tax Map No.: 079.03-05-55.00-0000 Existing Zoning: R-1
Size of parcel(s): Acres: 12.61 Existing Land Use: Residential
REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WAIVER AND COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW APPLICANTS (R/S/W/CP)
Proposed Zoning: ARProposed Land Use: Aoriculture
Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district?
Yes� No 11 IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST (Rezoning).
Does e parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type in Article IV (Special Use Pennit)? Yes� No □
IF NO, AV ARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST
If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes Non
VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADMINISTRATNE APPEAL APPLICANTS (VIW/AA)
Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to:
Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to
Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance
Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to .
Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE
ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE.
R/S/W/CP V/AA R/S/W/CP V/AA R/S/W/CP V/AA
Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable
Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners
Consultation Eii 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan
�
Application fee
I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the prope y or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and
consent f the owner.
2
*Additional signature pages available in file
3
Applicant
The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit waiver or community plan (15.2 -2232) review requests to
determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the
following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary.
JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAIVER OR COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW
REQUESTS
Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the
beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance.
Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community
Plan.
Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well
as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue .
Our property, while close to Roanoke City, has been historically used for agriculture. We work very hard to keep and maintain
our property. We intend to keep this property in its rural state for the purpose of providing for our family. This aligns with the
purpose "provide for the preservation of historically agricultural lands" that is contained in the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance purpose statement.
Historically the property has been used for agriculture. The property backs up to the parkway. As the majority of our property
is land locked by property also used for agriculture it is unsuitable at this time for future development.
None - no impact on public services, facilities, roads, schools, parks, fire and rescue. There will be no additional impact to
any adjoining properties or public services as there are no intended changes. The property will continue to be used
agriculturally.
April Hernandez
I CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST
A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the
land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or
design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the
future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County
permitting regulations.
The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may
require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions arc proffered and accepted in a rezoning or impos ed
on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent perrnitted by the zoning district and other
regulations.
A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver, community plan (15.2-2232) review and variance
applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the
nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra
items, but the following are considered minimum:
AL_yAPPLICANTS
J/_ a. Applicant name and name of development
�b. Date, scale and north arrow
-zc. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions L d.Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties _.,j e.Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc .
..,t:._ f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties L g.All property lines and easements L h.All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights
� i.Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or ad1acent to the development
� j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces
Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS
k.Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site
I.Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers
m.Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals
n.Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections
o.Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants
p.Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed
q.If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule
I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete.
6
Commuo;ty Development • Planning & Zoning o;,�;on
POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
The following is a list of potentially high traffic-generating land uses and road network situations
that could elicit a more detailed analysis of the existing and proposed traffic pertinent to your
rezoning, subdivision waiver, public street waiver, or special use permit request. If your request
involves one of the items on the ensuing list, we recommend that you meet with a County planner,
the County traffic engineer, and/or Virginia Department of Transportation staff to discuss the
potential additional traffic related information that may need to be submitted with the application
in order to expedite your application process. (Note this list is not inclusive and the County staff and VDOT reserve the right to request a traffic study at any time, as deemed necessary.)
High Traffic-Generating Land Uses:
•Single-family residential subdivisions, Multi-family residential units, or Apartments with morethan 75 dwelling units•Restaurant (with or without drive-through windows)•Gas station/Convenience store/Car wash•Retail shop/Shopping center•Offices (including: financial institutions, general, medical, etc.)•Regional public facilities•Educational/Recreational facilities•Religious assemblies•Hotel/Motel•Golf course•Hospital/Nursing home/Clinic•Industrial site/Factory•Day care center•Bank•Non-specific use requests
Road Network Situations:
•Development adjacent to/with access onto/within 500-ft of intersection of a roadwayclassified as an arterial road (e.g., Rte 11, 24, 115, 117, 460, 11/460, 220, 221, 419, etc)•For new phases or changes to a development where a previously submitted traffic study ismore than two (2) years old and/or roadway conditions have changed significantly•When required to evaluate access issues•Development with ingress/egress on roads planned or scheduled for expansion, widening,improvements, etc. (i.e. on long Range Transportation Plan, Six-Yr Road Plan, etc.)•Development in an area where there is a known existing traffic and/or safety problem•Development would potentially negatively impact existing/planned traffic signal(s)•Substantial departure from the Community Plan•Any site that is expected to generate over one hundred (100) trips during the peak hour ofthe traffic generator or the peak hour on the adjacent streets, or over seven hundred fifty(750)trips in an average day
Effective date: April 19, 2005
7
Community Development Planning & Zoning Division NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION W AIYER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver,
Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if new or additional information is presented at the
public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled
public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to
adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional information
prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This
continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional
information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by
planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to
determine if a continuance may be warranted. POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver,
Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County Traffic Engineer or staff from the Virginia
Department of Transportation requests further traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be
beneficial in making a land use decision (Note: a list of potential land uses and situations that would
necessitate further study is provided as part of this application package).
This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the required
traffic analyses and/or traffic impact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to the
planning staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is warranted, the applicant will be notified
of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date.
Efft,ctlvo dat11: April 19, 2005
Name of Petition af1-<ll�
8/1'/ Lzy 1 date
8
VIRGINIA LAND RECORD COVER SHEET FORM A -COVER SHEET CONTENT
Instrument Oate: Instrument Type: Number of Parcels: ) City [X] County
·-·"·" 0..�/1.6{2024DC ............... �., ... , .. ···-··-. ...... , .. . _.;..L ....... Number of Pages:7
TAX EXEMPT'!
ROANOKE
VIRGINA/FEDERAL LAW
(X] Grantor: ��.'. �.��1.Q(J ) ... _ _ -······· .............. .
INSTRUMENT 202403583 RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF ROANOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ON MAY 16, 2024 AT 03:27 PM
(XJ Grantee: 58.1-810(1) ---·t-·· ..... •·· , ..... ·--.. ....... . .. ..
W MICHAEL GALLIHER, CLERK RECORDED BY: CGG Consideration: · $0.00 Existing Debt: ........... '-· ............ _ $0:00Actual Value/Assumed: $0.00
PRIOR INSTRUMENT UNDEi?°§JS:1-;fokD)(Al'l!a Abol'e Reserved For Deed Stamp Only) Original Principal: $0.00 Fair Market Value Increase: .. ,�-�OOriginal Book Number: Original Page Number: Original Instrument Number:
Prior Recording At: ( ) City. ( X) County
ROANOKE
llUSINESS / NAME
Percentage rn This Jurisdiction:
1 ( 1 Grantor: LEMUS, EDLJ.lt.1 YONf'N Vl�LATORO
2 [ I Grantor: LEMU�! �D�I� .Y9!'1�� VILLATORO
1 J grantee: VILL�!ORO LE�lJ.S, EDUI.N_'(ONAN
2 ] grantee:
GRANTEE ADDRESS:
VILLATORO LEM�S t E�.�ER MEDARDO
Name: Eduln Yonan Villatoro LemusAddress;·"-:f�9.jJ��Y!l!(ef°orive· :· :.... ..... ..... ....... . .' . . •
City: Roan oke State: VA Book N��b��i -.......... �,·-• · P·age Number:Instrument Number: .... .... -·"·y· .. ·····.• Parcel Identification Number/Tax Map Number: 97�.03-05-55.00-0000 Short Property Description: ��• .. 4At .1_2.61.0 ac��s
Current Property Address: :18-P1.'!1!i..Yfie!d ��_i_'!'e . . ..... , .. .
100%
r • •· •-_,._, Zip Code: 24014 ···-······-·--·
202401608
City: Roanoke ......................... --................... M_ - . ·-............. ·-. . -.. . . . . . .. ...... ·•·· ............. .State: VA Zip Code: 24014 Recording P�id-Rt··co'i"onial Title-·--..... _·····-•·--Instrument Prepared Ry: . .,�.�!!�Y-��.1�.Y. .. .. .... _. Recording Returned To: �.!l1.�.�i�.1 _Title .. .Address: �p .B_o_x_ �8 .......... -· _ ........ __ .. ...... . ..City: P.�.l�Jjl_l� .......... -...... :.-········ .... ······ ....... _ ... .............. .......... . ,.
FORM CC-1570 Rev:7/15 Page I of2
§§ 17 .1-223, 17.1-227.1, 17.1-249
State: . .... .V.� ...... Zip Code:
Co#yright -0 20 t 4 Office if !he Executive Sccrcl11ry. Supreme Court of Virgmi11. All rights reserved.
. ............. , .. � ········ .... .... 24083 ··········--.
Cover Sheet A
VIRGINIA LAND RECORD COVER SHEET
FORM B -ADDITIONAL GRANTORS/GRANTRRS
Instrument Date:
Instrument Type:
Number of Parcels:
I•
05/16/2024
DC
.,_. __ .. 4 -·
1 Number of Pages:
ROANOKE
GRANTOR BUSINESS/ NAME
7
3 J Grantor: Ll;MUS, ELDER MEDARDO VILLATORO
4 .. ,, .... . .....
5
-·•·•·······-·•····
] Grantor:
J Grantor:
] Grantor:
] Granlor:
J Grantor:
l Granlor:
] Grantor:
LEMUS, NELSON OMAR HERNANDEZ
LEMUS, APRIL JOYCE HERNANDEZ
GRANTEE BUSINESS/ NAME
3 l grantee:HERNANDEZ LEMUS, NELSON OMAR ··------
] grantee: HERNANDEZ LEMUS, APRIL JOYCE
--······� ........
., ....... , ....... -·
.,. .. -..
-··"··---·
-.... , .... '"""""
) grantee:
J grantee:
l grantee:
) grantee:
] grantee:
] grantee:
. .. ,. ...,. . '" ·• .... . ...... '
FORM CC-1570 Rev:7/15
§§ 17.1-223,17.1-227.l,17,l-249
Page 2 of2
( AI-C"a Abol'e Reserved F OI' Deed Sram p Only)
Cover Sheet B
Copyrighl O 20 I 4 Office if lhe Executive Sccrclary, Supreme Court of V1rgi111a. All ngllls reserved.
I Document Prepared By Return to:
Massey & Clay, PLC Michael B. Massey, Esquire
VSB #38677
Colonial Title and Settlement
P, o. Box 529
Fincastle, Virginia 24090
Title Insurance:
TAX MAP# 079.03-05-55.00-0000 THIS DEED OF CONFIRMATION, exempt from taxation pursuant to Section 58.1-810(1) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, made and entered into this 19th day of April, 2024, by and between Edu in Yonan VJLLA TO RO LEMUS, (errone.ously recited as Edwin Yonan Villatoro LEMUS in prior deed), Elder Medardo
VILLA TORO LEMUS, Nelson Omar HERNANDEZ LEMUS, and April Joyce
HERNANDEZ LEMUS, parties of the first part (Grantors), and Eduin Yonan VILLATORO LEMUS, Elder Medardo VILLATORO LEMUS, Nelson Omar
HERNANDEZ LEft,fUS, and April Joyce HERNANDEZ LEMUS, whose mailing address is I <gQ'.7 M°-4 -fi�ld Dr• 3,oa.oolu Vft cJI/{) If parties of the second part(Grant�e's); WITNESS THAT: .. WHEREAS, by Deed dated February 7, 2024 and recorded in the Clerk's Office f i_' the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, as Instrument Number 202401�08, John G. Mullins and Shirley V. Mull!ns conveyed the herein described property to the prnntees; and WHEREAS, the name Eduin Yonan Villatoro Lemus was erroneously speJled Edwin Yonan Villatoro Lemus; and , l
,.
. ... WHEREAS, the correct name of one of the Grantees should be Eduin YonanVillator9 Lemus; and��WHEREAS, the full last names of Grantees were not fully bold andt,underlin�d ; andWHEREAS, the Grantees desire to correct said error and confirm the correctnames of the Grantees.NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten ($10.00) Dollars, cash in handpaid by ;�e parties of the second part unto the parties of the first part, and other valuableconsideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties of the first part,, does hereby grant. bargain, confinn and convey, with General Warranty and EnglishCovenants of title, unto said Eduin Yonan VILLATORO LEMUS, Elder Medardo
VILLATORO LEMUS, Nelson Omar HERNANDEZ LEMUS, and April Joyce
HERNrf/VDEZ LEMUS, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship as at the commonlaw, amit not as tenants in common, the assigns and heirs of the survivor forever, thefollowµ% described property, lying and being in the County of Roanoke, State of Virginia,. . �to-Wlt.,,; ,.ALL that certain lot or parcel of land known as Lot 4A, containing 12.610bounded by Points B to 4�8 to 13-16 to 9 to A to B acres, more or less, as!:shown on a survey entitled "COMBINATION PLAT FROM SURVEY &RECORDS FOR COY LEE WEAVER & DEANNA H. WEA VER , 1905·:(1A YFIELD DR.,LOT 3A: 11.174, DB 1552 PG 1312; PB 19 PG 193 OMN079.03-05-59.00-0000: ZONED RIS, JOHN G. MULLINS & SHIRLEY V.''MULLINS, 1807 MAYFIELD DR., N. PART OF LOT 4: JH GEARHART,�AP, INST #201310490: 3.92 ACRES OM:-.J 079.03-05-55.00-00004ONED Rl, CREA TING HEREON T ,OT 3.Al: 2.487 ACRES, CREATING,HEREON LOT 4A: 12.610 ACRES VfNTON DISTRTCT-ROANOKE
r-COUNTY-VIRGINIA ... " created by Christopher N. McMurry, L.S., of McMurry Surveyors, Inc., Dated November 7, 2018, recorded March 22, 2-019, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, at Instrument Number 201902401. ,. f Being the same property conveyed unto John G. Mullins and Shirley V. Mullins, husband and wife, by Jennifer Coy Lee Weaver and Deanna H. Weaver, by deed dated March 26, 2019 and recorded in the Clerk's Office . of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia in Instrument Number 201902519. For further chain of title see Instrument No.20131040 in said Clerk's Office for the remainder of said property This conveyance is subject to all recorded restrictions, reservations, �asements and conditions affecting the property hereby conveyed. 'tHE PREPARER OF TillS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN ENGAGED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREPARING THIS INSTRUMENT, HAS PREPARED THE INSTRUMENT ONLY FROM 'IBE INFORMATION GIVEN AND HAS NOT BEEN REQUESTED ro PROVIDE, NOR HAS THE PREPARER PROVIDED, A TITLE $EARCH, AN EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AN OPINION ON TITLE OR ADVICE ON THE TAX, LEGAL OR NONI:,EGAL CONSEQUENCES THAT MAY ARISE AS A RESULT OF tHE CONVEYANCE.
i&,he remainder of this page has been left iotentiooally blank] S-·
't
:t
.( -i
' '
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
f-Jv;l'.'.1 :Jono--n v;111.--TcJ Yo t.£Mil§sEAL)Eduin Yonan VILLATORO LEMUS
STATE_()F VIRGINIA, COUNTY/� OF 'JyfefDIM--' , TO-WIT:
I, Ijl � Jo (.:.ll,___;' jf (J (\, a Notary Pub lie of and for the Stale of Virginia,
do hereby certify that Eduin Yonan VILLATORO LEMUS, whose name is signed to the
! foregoing Deed dated April 19, 2024, has acknowledged the same before me in my State and
County/City aforesaid.
Given under my hand this J'{ _ day of_/;._·1_•_k___._�----·• 2024.
My commission expires C] , 3 D -.JD�y
@ Deborah J. Aaron◄ Notary Public -ID 243321
commonwealth of VA
My Commission Expires 9130/2024
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
f/der M� ,-r1:2 b11&.1v /]2 L�JSEAL)Elder Medardo VILLA TORO LEMUS STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY/Q{'fY OF po/r/w_Lf , TO.WIT: , a Notary Public of and for the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that, Elder Mcdardo VILLATORO LEMUS, whose name is signed to the foregoing Deed dated April 19, 2024, has acknowledged the same before me in my State and County/City aforesaid. Given under my hand this If deyof�/}����-J--�•20�. f\•ty commission expires ___ q_,_,·----'-._y)=A'-·---�--+r_· ______ _,
ii
,,
Deborah J.AaronNotary Public· ID 243321 Commonwealth of VA
My Commission Expires 9130/2024
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:_l"\ -c�I _SQ_l\·�i I¾_. _o r�r\'_t/,_d_cyy_· __ (SEAL)Nelson Omar HERNANDEZ LEMUS STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY/c;rt"Y OF✓b-fe{t)lUL.f· , TO-WIT:J, ):.)hJtti.Jt ✓./}1._rN\ . l , a Notary Public of and for the State of Virginia,do hereby certify that, Nelson Omar HERNANDEZ LEMUS, whose name is signed to theforegoing Deed dated April 19, 2024, has acknowledged Lhe same before me in my State andCounty/City aforesaid.
, 2024. Given under my hand thisI'/ day of / YU(
My commission expiresq, 30 -30d</---�----,---------lf\ f la .u1-A .. c__/+ Notar
qt)
. Deborah J. Aaron . . -:-��%" Public -10 243321'1 M c monwea/th of VA -Y ommrssJo;, Expires 9/30/2024 j
WITNESS the following signatures and seals: @RiM p� ��EAL)A pl Joyce ERNANDEZ LE
STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY/� OF l;x)../tl:owd , TO-WIT:
I, .. ,/),_ ho f � Y\ 'Jjtl(U (\ , a Notary Pub Ii c of and forthe State of Virginia,do hereby certify that April Joyce HERNANDEZ LEMUS, whose name is signed to the foregoing Deed dated April 19, 2024, has acknowledged the same before me in my State and County/City aforesaid. Given under my hand this If; day of--1../..J.]....Jl,l<Ja-..:..,ff*, ----· 2024.My commission expires _ __,fj,_· -_3'...,d....,;"'\:....:· -�J�}::;:},,,,·,<_, 11-· _______ _
�
Deborah J. Aaron
Notary Public· ID 243321
Commonwealth of VA
My Commtsslori Expires 9/3012024
0 290 580145
Feet ²
Roanoke County,Virginia
2019
Concept Plan
1:4,514
Pastures
1807 Mayfield Drive
12.61 Acres
Hay and
Equipment
Care
Roanoke County, Virginia 2019
Pastures
Hay and
Equipment
Care
Pig Build
Chickens
Agriculture
Related
Storage
Roanoke Cou nty, Sou rce: Es ri, Maxar, Earths tar Geog raphics , and the GIS Us erCommu nity
Roanoke Cou nty, Virg inia2019
0
²Roanoke Co. Planning
(540) 772-2068
5204 Bernard Dr.
Roanoke VA 24018
Subject Site
Aerial Map
April Joyce
Hernandez Lemus
1807 Mayfield Drive
079.03-05-55.00-0000
Lot Size: 12.61 Acres
Current Zoning: R-1
Proposed Zoning: AR
Magisterial District:
Vinton
AG3AG3
R1R1
ARAR
AVAV
R2R2
R1SR1S
ARSARS
ARMHARMH
AVSAVS
Roanoke County, Virginia 2019
Roanoke County, Virginia2019
0
²
1:9,028
Zoning
AG3
AR
AV
R1
R2
Roanoke Co. Planning
(540) 772-2068
5204 Bernard Dr.
Roanoke VA 24018
Zoning Map
April Joyce
Hernandez Lemus
1807 Mayfield Drive
079.03-05-55.00-0000
Lot Size: 12.61 Acres
Current Zoning: R-1
Proposed Zoning: AR
Magisterial District:
Vinton
Subject Site
DEDE
CNCN
SVSV
NCNC
Roanoke Cou nty, Virginia 2019
Roanoke Cou nty, Virginia2019
0 ²
1:9,028
Conservation
Development
Neighborhood Conservation
Su bu rban Village
Future Land Use Map
April Joyce
Hernandez Lemus
1807 Mayfield Drive
079.03-05-55.00-0000
Lot Size: 12.61 Acres
Current Zoning: R-1
Proposed Zoning: AR
Magisterial District:
Vinton
)XWXUH/DQG8VH
Subject Site
Roanoke Co. Planning
(540) 772-2068
5204 Bernard Dr.
Roanoke VA 24018
!
" #
$% &'(
&$%'&)"
$& ' &'
&
')*"& $
+
) )
+
'
%'(
#&' &%
'
*)%
,&
) )
#&'
-& '&%.
" #
/&$$"
$% &'(
&$%'&)"
$," /%'!
#&'
)%
), ).
$% &'(
+
+ /
%
'
'
%&'
) !
)%$
")%$
# &
) )
) &)'
+
$," /%'
) )
)
.% )""(
% & '%'
#&'
'
%&. * $
% ,)'& %
")%$
)'. (
)
//%$$
&%
'
/ % &,
")%
%
)$$&'& %!
#
%$&%.
$," /%'
)%$
'
","
+
*"&
,&
#) )%'!
'
) )
&%&$
#&'
'
$," /%'
)'. (
//%$$
&%
'
")%
&
$& ' &'
&
&%'%$$
'
,&$
'
&. '
$.
+
''& %
+ /
'%'&)""(
&% / )'&*"
)%$
&$%'&)"
$," /%'
+
)
&.%&+&)%'"(
$&++ %'
$% &'(!
&0!
)"!
&%
$
'
/)&%')&%
'
)"' !
)+'(!
) ) )%
)%$
, )""
1)"&'(
+
"&+
+
-& '&%.
)%$
+'
%&. * $
%
)$$&'& %
'
&%."
+)/&"(
&$% !
%"(
+
)
//%&'(
%)'
# &
)
.% )""(
$/$
/ )'&*"
)
/&''$
&%
' &
$& ' &'
&
# "$
&%"$
) 2
)%$
")(. %$ !
"
)%$
'
&/&")
%&. * $
)'&,&'&
$
344
!
5
+!
3
446
$
7
8!
5
!
7
/&''$
+ "" #&%.
)
/&''$
*(
&. '
*9'
'
)""
'
) "&)*"
1& /%'
%')&%$
&%
' &
$&%)%
%
) ' & 2
:
&%$&)'
)$$&'& %)"!
/ $&+&$
/
' &%.%'
')%$) $
)
"& '$
&%
) '&"
;!
)%$
$ &.%
')%$) $ !
+
'
&+&
')*"!
&,)':
(
) '/%':
< /
=)'(>=) *
)" %
:
< /
)'& %!
(
:
?)%+)' $
< /
:
?)%+)' $
< /!
/ .%(
:
?"'& "
.
/&':
&$%'&)"
</)%
)
@)&"&'(
&%."
@)/&"(
#""&%.!
'') $
:
! " # $% # &
! " # $% # &
' #(#( $% # &
# ) # &
*#&
+ , ) &
+ ! + , ) # &
-
" . #
,/ &
# 01 ) &
) #1# &
2 3
&
1/##
# # ! % % % # # 405 ,
& # # / # #
67
/# # % /
"
&
&
&
3 # + 8
# &
*/*# &
!"#
$%!&
'
$%(
)* +
, -.. +
)+* /$%(0
* +
-- 1 0+
+* /$%(1
* +1 -
1+
+* /$%(
0
)*2+, 0+
)+*2/$%(,
)**+ -
+
)+**/$%(,
2,,+* -.. +
2+,,/$%(,)
0,2+) -
)+
0+,2/$%(,
,1+0 - +
+,1/$%(,2
0,*+
- 2+
0+,*/$%(, ,1+ - +1+/
$%(,2
+* - 2+
+/$%(
+2 - +
+ /$%(,
,*
+1 -
+*+
/$%(
,,
+ - +,+
,++ +
3
4
'
'
!
'
'%%5%%' %"
%
'
''%%"4
"
.6
'%3
''%%
% 4
7
'%
7
%4
8
8,)2
0),9
"
5'
8*,"
'4 7'
%'%''
%
:
%
&
4
7
7
8
8
, ,,,9
"
5'
8)2"
'4 7'
%'%''
%
% &4
7
'%7
8
8)
,,9
"
5'
80,"
'4 7'
%'%''
%
5'%8
;' 4
8 ,"
8
&'%&
"' %''
%
%8
;' 4
8,"
!
"
# $%
& !!
' $
!
"
"% "!(
$! )
&
*$!
!
+
( "!
,!
-
( "!
. /0 1 2 %3 %02 21 4. / 012 %35%2 0214. / 52 0%3 %2 254. /
2 "%3 % 2 2
(A)
(A)
1.
2.
SEC. 30-34. - AR AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-34-1. - Purpose.
These areas are generally characterized by very low density residential and institutional uses
mixed with smaller parcels that have historically contained agricultural uses, forest land and open
space outside the urban service area. These areas provide an opportunity for rural living in
convenient proximity to urban services and employment. Agricultural uses should be encouraged
to be maintained. Over time, however, these areas are expected to become increasingly
residential in character, with residential development becoming the dominant use over
agricultural and more rural type uses. The purpose of this district, consistent with the Rural
Village land use category in the comprehensive plan, is to maintain these areas essentially in their
rural state, consistent with the level of services anticipated by the county. These areas are
generally suitable for low density residential development and other compatible land uses.
(Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1f., 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08)
Sec. 30-34-2. - 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 *
Farm Brewery *
Farm Distillery *
Farm Winery *
Forestry Operations *
Stable, Commercial *
Stable, Private *
Wayside Stand *
Residential Uses
Accessory Apartment *
3.
4.
5.
(B)
Home Beauty/Barber Salon *
Home Occupation, Type II *
Manufactured Home *
Manufactured Home, Emergency *
Multiple Dog Permit *
Residential Human Care Facility
Single Family Dwelling, Attached (Cluster Subdivision Option) *
Single Family Dwelling, Detached (Cluster Subdivision Option) *
Single Family Dwelling, Detached
Single Family Dwelling, Detached (Zero Lot Line Option) *
Civic Uses
Community Recreation *
Family Day Care Home *
Park and Ride Facility *
Public Parks and Recreational Areas *
Religious Assembly *
Utility Services, Minor
Commercial Uses
Bed and Breakfast *
Short-Term Rental *
Veterinary Hospital/Clinic
Miscellaneous Uses
Amateur Radio Tower *
Wind Energy System, Small*
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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.
Residential Uses
Alternative Discharging Sewage Systems *
Civic Uses
Camps *
Cemetery *
Crisis Center
Day Care Center *
Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary *
Safety Services *
Utility Services, Major *
Commercial Uses
Antique Shops *
Golf Course
Kennel, Commercial *
Special Events Facility *
Studio, Fine Arts
Industrial Uses
Custom Manufacturing *
Resource Extraction *
Miscellaneous Uses
Broadcasting Tower *
Outdoor Gatherings *
(Ord. No. 42793-20, § II, 4-27-93; Ord. No. 82493-8, § 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 42694-12, § 7, 4-26-94; Ord. No.
62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 072605-7, § 1, 7-26-05; 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-
(A)
1.
a.
b.
2.
a.
b.
3.
a.
b.
(B)
1.
a.
b.
2.
a.
b.
3.
a.
b.
4.
5.
(C)
1.
(D)
13; Ord. No. 062816-4, § 1, 6-28-16; Ord. No. 082818-8, § 1, 8-28-18; Ord. No. 091019-4, § 1, 9-24-20; Ord. No.
020921-8, § 1, 2-9-21; Ord. No. 062723-3, § 1, 6-27-23)
Sec. 30-34-3. - 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: 110 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
Lots served by either public sewer or water:
Area: 30,000 square feet
Frontage: 100 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
Lots served by both public sewer and water:
Area: 25,000 square feet
Frontage: 90 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
Minimum setback requirements.
Front yard:
Principal structures: 30 feet.
Accessory structures: Behind the front building line.
Side yard:
Principal structures: 15 feet
Accessory structures: 15 feet behind front building line or 10 feet behind rear building
line.
Rear yard:
Principal structures: 25 feet
Accessory structures: 10 feet
Where a lot fronts on more than one street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all streets.
Where the principal structure is more than 150 feet from the street, accessory buildings
may be located 150 feet from the street and 20 feet from any side property line.
Maximum height of structures.
All structures: 45 feet
Maximum coverage.
1.
2.
Building coverage: 25 percent of the total lot area.
Lot coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area.
(Ord. No. 62293-12, § 10, 6-22-93; Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13)
Development: A future land use area where most new neighborhood development will occur,
including large-scale planned developments which mix residential with retail and office uses.
Innovation in housing design and environmental sensitivity in site development is a key
objective. Clustered developments are encouraged as is the use of greenways and bike and
pedestrian trails.
Land Use Types: Conventional Residential - Single-family developments in conventional
lots. Includes attached, detached and zero-lot line housing options.
Greenways and bike and pedestrian trails are encouraged.
Cluster Residential - Single family developments with similar gross
density of conventional subdivisions but individual lot sizes may be
reduced to accommodate the clustering of housing while allocating
common open space. Includes attached, detached and zero-lot line
housing options. Greenways and bike and pedestrian trails are
encouraged.
Multi-family - Developments of 6-12 units per acre. Clustering is
encouraged as are greenways and bike and pedestrian trails.
Planned Residential Development - Mixed housing types at a gross density
range of 4-8 units per acre. Includes conventional housing, cluster
housing, zero lot-line housing, townhouses and garden apartments.
Greenways and bike and pedestrian trails are encouraged.
Planned Community Development - Planned residential development
mixed with office parks, neighborhood shopping centers and supporting
retail development. The majority of the development is residential with a
maximum limit set on the retail land. Greenways and bike and pedestrian
trails are encouraged.
Community Activity Centers - Facilities which serve the neighboring
residents including parks, schools, religious assembly facilities, parks and
recreational facilities and community clubs and meeting areas. These
activity centers should be linked to residential areas by greenways, bike
and pedestrian trails.
Land Use Determinants: PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY - Locations where public
facilities are adequate to handle the increased population
concentration. This includes schools, parks and recreation
facilities and fire and rescue facilities.
UTILITY AVAILABILITY - Locations where water and sewer
services exist or are scheduled to serve the area.
ENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY - Locations where natural land
features, including topography, provide optimum opportunity for
urban residential development.
ACCESS - Locations which have or can provide direct access to a
major street.
URBAN SECTOR - Locations served by urban services.
April Joyce Hernandez Lemus
Rezone approximately 12.61 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential
District, to AR, Agricultural/Residential District
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing
February 25, 2025
Location Map2
Project Site
•1807 Mayfield Drive
•12.61 Acres
•Current Use: Single Family
Dwelling and Agriculture
•Request to rezone from R-1,
Low Density Residential to
AR, Agricultural/Residential
to allow for agriculture by
right
3
Photographs4
Photographs5
Photographs6
Photographs7
Photographs8
Photographs9
Photographs10
Photographs11
Concept Plan12
13 Property Background
•Originally two (2) parcels
•A combination plat was recorded in 2019
•The 8.69-acre south portion of the parcel
was formerly a part of the parcel addressed
1905 Mayfield Drive
14 Zoning Background
•A complaint was received February of 2024 that the property was being used for agriculture, the property was found to be in violation and notice was sent.
•The applicant determined that it could not be proven that the agricultural activity had been ongoing since 1992 when the property was comprehensively rezoned by Roanoke County.
•During the enforcement process, the property was sold to the applicant and several related individuals by the previous property owner.
•Due to communication difficulties, charges were filed in General District Court, the case has been continued until after this petition has been heard by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
15 Zoning Background
•The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines agriculture as “the use of
land for the production of food and fiber, including farming, dairying,
pasturage, agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, and animal and poultry
husbandry. A garden and residential chicken keeping, accessory to a
residence, shall not be considered agriculture.” Section 30-81-1 of the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance contains the following use and
design standards for agriculture:
A.In the AR and AV districts, the keeping of swine for commercial purposes shall be
prohibited.
B.Commercial uses such as gift shops and restaurants associated with viticulture operations shall be allowed only by special use permit.
•The existing use of a single family dwelling, detached, and the proposed
use of agriculture are both permitted by right in the AR,
Agricultural/Residential District. All development and use of the property
must be in conformance with Section 30-34 (AR development standards)
of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance
Zoning
Existing Zoning
•R-1
16
Surrounding Zoning
•North – R-1, R-1S, AV
•East – R-1, R-1S, AV, AG-3
•West – R-1, R-2, Roanoke
City
•South –AG-3, AR
Future Land Use17
Development
•Development is a future land use area where most new neighborhood development will occur, including large-scale planned developments which mix residential with retail and office uses.
•Innovation in housing design and environmental sensitivity in site development is a key objective.
•Clustered developments are encouraged as is the use of greenway and bike and pedestrian trails.
•The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Development future land use designation.
Planning Commission
Public Hearing – February 4, 2025
18
•No citizens spoke during the public hearing
•Planning Commission discussed:
•that the property was zoned Agricultural before the 1992
comprehensive rezoning by the County;
•some agricultural uses have existed on the property since 1992;
•number and types of animals on the property;
•number of pastures;
•accessory structures;
•vegetated buffer along the Blue Ridge Parkway;
•surrounding uses and zoning; and
•the future land use designation.
Planning Commission
Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning
request from R-1 to AR.
19
Questions?
20
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
Peter S. Lubeck
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Rachel W. Lower
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
Marta J. Anderson
Douglas P. Barber, Jr.
SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS
SAMPLE MOTIONS
The petition of April Joyce Hernandez Lemus to rezone approximately 12.61 acres from
R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to AR (Agricultural/Residential) District, in the
Vinton Magisterial District
MOTION TO APPROVE
I find that the proposed rezoning request:
1. Is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive
plan, but is consistent with the historical character of the property, and will not
result in a change in the current use of the property,
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.
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 and/or good zoning practice, and/or
2. 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 2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 12.61 ACRES FROM R-1 (LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) TO AR (AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL)
DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 1807 MAYFIELD DRIVE, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, April Joyce Hernandez Lemus is requesting to rezone approximately
12.61 acres from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to AR (Agricultural/Residential)
District located at 1807 Mayfield Drive (Roanoke County Tax Map Number 079.03 -05-
55.00-0000), in the Vinton Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 28, 2025, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on February 25, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on February 4, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition as
requested; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The petition of April Joyce Hernandez Lemus to rezone approximately 12.61
acres from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to AR
(Agricultural/Residential) District located at 1807 Mayfield Drive (Roanoke
County Tax Map Number 079.03-05-55.00-0000), in the Vinton Residential
District, is hereby approved.
2. The Board finds that the request as submitted by April Joyce Hernandez
Lemus is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s adopted
Page 2 of 2
comprehensive plan, but is consistent with the historical character of the
property, and will not result in a change in the current use of the property.
3. The Board further finds that approving the request as submitted by April
Joyce Hernandez Lemus is good zoning practice, and will not result in
substantial detriment to the community.
4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district
map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this
ordinance.
Page 1 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. L.2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: February 25, 2025
AGENDA ITEM: The petition of B2X Online, Inc., to obtain a special use
permit to construct a broadcasting tower approximately 80
feet tall on approximately 6.972 acres of land zoned AR,
Agricultural/ Residential District, located at 9731 Tinsley
Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District.
SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson
Director of Planning
APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood
County Administrator
ISSUE:
Second reading and public hearing for a special use permit to construct a broadcasting
tower in an agricultural zoning district.
BACKGROUND:
• The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a broadcasting tower as “any
structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting
one (1) or more antennas. The term includes but need not be limited to radio and
television transmission towers, microwave towers, common-carrier towers, and
cellular telephone and wireless communication towers. Broadcasting tower types
include, but are not limited to monopoles, lattice towers, wooden poles, and
guyed towers. Excluded from this definition are amateur radio towers, which are
described separately.”
• A broadcasting tower is only permitted in the AR, Agricultural/Residential District,
with an approved special use permit.
• This project would serve as a broadband transmission site to bring internet
availability to the Bent Mountain area. The transmitter site would consist of a
Page 2 of 2
wooden utility pole, approximately seventy-five feet tall, with four transmitters and
two microwave dishes. The base of the pole would have a small equipment
cabinet which would house the internet equipment.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application on February 4,
2025. No citizens spoke during the public hearing. The Planning Commission
discussed: proposed tower location; height of tower; existing tree height; need for
broadband on Bent Mountain; capacity and expansion of the service in the future; extent
of coverage on Bent Mountain; surrounding zoning and land uses; and future land use
designation.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the special use permit for a
broadcasting tower with the following condition:
1. The broadband transmitter pole shall not exceed 80 feet in height above ground
level.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the second reading of an
ordinance for a special use permit to construct a broadcasting tower on approximately
6.972 acres of land zoned AR, Agricultural/Residential District, with the following
condition:
1. The broadband transmitter pole shall not exceed 80 feet in height above ground
level.
STAFF REPORT
Petitioner: B2X Online, Inc.
Request: To obtain a special use permit to construct a broadcasting tower approximately 80
feet tall on approximately 6.972 acres of land zoned AR, Agricultural/ Residential
Location:
Tax Parcel:
9731 Tinsley Lane
#103.00-02019.03-0000
Suggested SUP
Conditions:
1. The broadband transmitter pole shall not exceed 80 feet in height.
B2X Online, Inc. is petitioning to obtain a special use permit to construct a broadcasting tower approximately 80 feet
tall on approximately 6.972 acres of land zoned AR, Agricultural/ Residential District, located at 9731 Tinsley Lane in
the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. This would serve as a broadband transmission site to bring internet availability
to the area. The transmitter site would consist of a wooden utility pole, approximately seventy-five feet tall, with four
transmitters and two microwave dishes. The base of the pole would have a small equipment cabinet which would
house the internet equipment.
The Roanoke County 200 Plan indicates the future land use designations of this area as Rural Village. Rural Village
is a future land use area where limited development activity has historically occurred and where suburban or urban
development patterns are discouraged. These rural community and farming areas are generally in between the
intense suburban development patterns already established in the County and the designated Conservation and
Rural Preserve areas. The proposed special use permit is consistent with the future land use designation of Rural
Village.
1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a broadcasting tower as “any structure that is designed and
constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one (1) or more antennas. The term includes but need
not be limited to radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common-carrier towers, and
cellular telephone and wireless communication towers. Broadcasting tower types include, but are not limited
to monopoles, lattice towers, wooden poles, and guyed towers. Excluded from this definition are amateur
radio towers, which are described separately.”
A broadcasting tower is only permitted in the AR, Agricultural/Residential District, with an approved special
use permit. The use is also subject to use and design standards as listed in Sec. 30-87-2 of Roanoke
County Code which is attached with this report.
building and site plan reviews.
2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Background – The property contains a single-family dwelling and a carport. The single-family dwelling was
constructed around 2001 and there are no proposed changes to the home or existing use with this proposal.
and shrubbery located west of the home. The parcel experiences a steady elevation increase of
approximately eighty feet from the lowest point at the driveway to the highest elevation west of the home.
Road. To the north, east, and west, the parcel directly adjoins residential and agricultural properties zoned
AR, Agricultural/Residential. Across Tinsley Lane to the south are residential and agricultural properties
zoned AV, Agricultural/Village Center.
Community Outreach – Approximately 26 letters went out to adjoining property owners and tenants which
contained the request, information about the subject parcel, instructions for how to submit comments and
contact information for staff. At the time of this report, no comments or questions have been received by
staff.
3.ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Site Layout/Architecture – The application packet indicates the transmitter site would consist of a wooden
utility pole, approximately seventy-five feet tall, with four transmitters and two microwave dishes. The base
of the pole would have a small equipment cabinet which would house the internet equipment. This pole
would be located approximately 440 feet west of the existing home on site.
Agencies Comments: The following agencies provided comments on this application:
Office of Building Safety – All construction on site will need to meet the requirements of the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code in effect at time of construction
Roanoke County Transportation - No comments.
Stormwater Operations - No comments.
Fire and Rescue – Fire and Rescue does not object to the project and it will not increase services.
General Services – General Services does not see any issues and has no comments.
WVWA – There is no water or sewer available at this parcel.
4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Roanoke County 200 Plan indicates the future land use designations of this area as Rural Village. Rural
Village is a future land use area where limited development activity has historically occurred and where
suburban or urban development patterns are discouraged. These rural community and farming areas are
generally in between the intense suburban development patterns already established in the County and the
designated Conservation and Rural Preserve areas. The proposed special use permit is consistent with the
future land use designation of Rural Village
The Roanoke County 200 Plan also includes the following Communication & Information Technology
recommendations:
• Expand and improve high-speed broadband access and cell phone service availability in
underserved areas.
• Explore opportunities to extend broadband service within universal availability and access to high-
speed internet in unserved and under-served areas.
• Explore alternative broadband and cell phone providers for choice and competition.
• Explore more public-private partnerships to implement more stages of Roanoke County’s Rural
Broadband Initiative to bring high-speed internet to homes without broadband access.
• Explore providing improved cell phone service in unserved and under-served areas.
5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS
B2X Online, Inc. is petitioning to obtain a special use permit to construct a broadcasting tower
approximately 80 feet tall on approximately 6.972 acres of land zoned AR, Agricultural/ Residential District,
located at 9731 Tinsley Lane in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. This would serve as a broadband
transmission site to bring internet availability to the area. The future land use designation of this parcel is
Rural Village, and the proposal is consistent with this designation.
Staff suggests one condition for the special use permit limiting height of the broadcasting tower.
CASE NUMBER: #2-2/2025
PREPARED BY: Alyssa Dunbar
HEARING DATES: PC: February 4, 2025 BOS: February 25, 2025
ATTACHMENTS: Application Materials
Maps (Aerial, Zoning, Future Land Use)
Photographs
AR District Regulations
Section 30-87-2 Broadcasting Tower
Rural Village Future Land Use Designation
9731 Tinsley Lane - Aerial Map
Roanoke County, VA 2023, Roanoke County, Commonwealth of Virginia,
Maxar
12/20/2024, 9:48:11 AM
0 0.06 0.110.03 mi
0 0.09 0.180.04 km
1:4,172
AR
AR
AR
AV
ARAG3
AV
AV
AV
ARS
AV
AV
AR
AR
AR
AV
AVAG3
AV
AV
AV
AR
AR
AV
AR
AV
AR
AV
AR
AV
AR
AR
AV
AR
9731 Tinsley Lane - Zoning Map
Roanoke County, Virginia 2019
Zoning
AG3
AR AR AV
12/20/2024, 9:49:51 AM
0 0.06 0.110.03 mi
0 0.09 0.180.04 km
1:4,172
RP CN
RV
VC
9731 Tinsley Lane - Future Land Use Map
Roanoke County, Virginia 2019
Future Land Use
Conservation
Rural Preserve
Rural Village
Village Center
12/20/2024, 9:51:06 AM
0 0.06 0.110.03 mi
0 0.09 0.180.04 km
1:4,172
(A)
(A)
1.
2.
3.
SEC. 30-34. - AR AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-34-1. - Purpose.
These areas are generally characterized by very low density residential and institutional uses mixed with smaller parcels that have historically
contained agricultural uses, forest land and open space outside the urban service area. These areas provide an opportunity for rural living in
convenient proximity to urban services and employment. Agricultural uses should be encouraged to be maintained. Over time, however,
these areas are expected to become increasingly residential in character, with residential development becoming the dominant use over
agricultural and more rural type uses. The purpose of this district, consistent with the Rural Village land use category in the comprehensive
plan, is to maintain these areas essentially in their rural state, consistent with the level of services anticipated by the county. These areas are
generally suitable for low density residential development and other compatible land uses.
(Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1f., 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08)
Sec. 30-34-2. - 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 *
Farm Brewery *
Farm Distillery *
Farm Winery *
Forestry Operations *
Stable, Commercial *
Stable, Private *
Wayside Stand *
Residential Uses
Accessory Apartment *
Home Beauty/Barber Salon *
Home Occupation, Type II *
Manufactured Home *
Manufactured Home, Emergency *
Multiple Dog Permit *
Residential Human Care Facility
Single Family Dwelling, Attached (Cluster Subdivision Option) *
Single Family Dwelling, Detached (Cluster Subdivision Option) *
Single Family Dwelling, Detached
Single Family Dwelling, Detached (Zero Lot Line Option) *
Civic Uses
Community Recreation *
Family Day Care Home *
4.
5.
(B)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Park and Ride Facility *
Public Parks and Recreational Areas *
Religious Assembly *
Utility Services, Minor
Commercial Uses
Bed and Breakfast *
Short-Term Rental *
Veterinary Hospital/Clinic
Miscellaneous Uses
Amateur Radio Tower *
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.
Residential Uses
Alternative Discharging Sewage Systems *
Civic Uses
Camps *
Cemetery *
Crisis Center
Day Care Center *
Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary *
Safety Services *
Utility Services, Major *
Commercial Uses
Antique Shops *
Golf Course
Kennel, Commercial *
Special Events Facility *
Studio, Fine Arts
Industrial Uses
Custom Manufacturing *
Resource Extraction *
Miscellaneous Uses
Broadcasting Tower *
Outdoor Gatherings *
(Ord. No. 42793-20, § II, 4-27-93; Ord. No. 82493-8, § 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 42694-12, § 7, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-
27-99; Ord. No. 072605-7, § 1, 7-26-05; 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. 062816-4 , § 1, 6-28-16; Ord. No. 082818-8 , § 1, 8-28-18; Ord. No. 091019-4 , § 1, 9-24-20; Ord. No. 020921-8 , § 1, 2-9-
(A)
1.
a.
b.
2.
a.
b.
3.
a.
b.
(B)
1.
a.
b.
2.
a.
b.
3.
a.
b.
4.
5.
(C)
1.
(D)
1.
2.
21; Ord. No. 062723-3 , § 1, 6-27-23)
Sec. 30-34-3. - 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: 110 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
Lots served by either public sewer or water:
Area: 30,000 square feet
Frontage: 100 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
Lots served by both public sewer and water:
Area: 25,000 square feet
Frontage: 90 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
Minimum setback requirements.
Front yard:
Principal structures: 30 feet.
Accessory structures: Behind the front building line.
Side yard:
Principal structures: 15 feet
Accessory structures: 15 feet behind front building line or 10 feet behind rear building line.
Rear yard:
Principal structures: 25 feet
Accessory structures: 10 feet
Where a lot fronts on more than one street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all streets.
Where the principal structure is more than 150 feet from the street, accessory buildings may be located 150 feet from the street and
20 feet from any side property line.
Maximum height of structures.
All structures: 45 feet
Maximum coverage.
Building coverage: 25 percent of the total lot area.
Lot coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area.
(Ord. No. 62293-12, § 10, 6-22-93; Ord. No. 111213-15 , § 1, 11-12-13)
1.
a.
b.
c.
2.
3.
4.
1.
Sec. 30-87-2. - Broadcasting Tower.
(A) Intent:
The intent of these provisions is to regulate the placement of new and replacement broadcasting towers within Roanoke County. These
provisions provide broadcasting tower applicants, property owners, and all other Roanoke County citizens clear guidance on the official
policies and standards of the County. These policies and standards shall be used by applicants as a guide when selecting alternative
broadcasting tower sites and broadcasting tower designs within the county. In addition, the county staff, planning commission and board of
supervisors shall use these policies and standards, the Roanoke County community plan and the general special use permit criteria found in
section 30-19 as a guide for evaluating any future requests for broadcasting towers.
In the interest of preserving and enhancing the scenic and natural beauty of Roanoke County it is the goal of the county to achieve a long
term reduction in the number of broadcasting towers within the county, and where possible, to achieve a reduction in the height of existing
broadcasting towers throughout the county, with special emphasis on towers located along or near the ridgetops of major mountains and
land forms. In addition, it is the goal of the county, where possible, to achieve the relocation of existing broadcasting towers and associated
utility and access corridors which have a high visual impact on scenic resources. To this end, the county will work cooperatively with
broadcasting tower owners and applicants and land owners to achieve these goals.
It is the official policy of the county to encourage and promote the collocation of antennas on existing public and private structures within the
county. To achieve this end, the county encourages all wireless communication providers to locate new antennas on existing structures.
Permits for new broadcasting towers should only be requested when no other reasonable alternative exists for locating needed antennas.
When new broadcasting towers are proposed as a last alternative, the requested broadcasting tower location, height and design should be
chosen to protect and enhance the scenic and natural beauty of Roanoke County. Broadcasting tower locations at elevations lower than
surrounding ridge lines are preferred. The use of stealth designs should be considered for any new broadcasting tower.
It is the intent of the county to fully comply with all of the applicable provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other
applicable federal and state laws as said laws address and preserve Roanoke County's zoning authority and provide to the communication
industry the right and responsibility to provide communication services within their service areas.
(B) Applicability:
These standards shall apply to all new and replacement broadcasting towers within Roanoke County with the exception that new and
replacement broadcasting towers and associated antenna not exceeding thirty (30) feet in height and located within any commercial or
industrial zoning district shall be permitted by right provided:
The proposed tower is a monopole type design;
The general area of the proposed tower is currently served by above ground utilities including electric power and telephone poles;
and
All other use and design standards for the construction of the broadcasting tower and associated facilities are met.
No modification to increase the height, size, type or location of any existing broadcasting tower or associated facilities, excluding
antennas, shall be made unless such modification results in the full compliance of the broadcasting tower and facilities with all of the
requirements of this ordinance.
Antennas may be installed on any existing structure within the county, without the necessity of obtaining a special use permit, provided
said antenna does not meet the definition of a broadcasting tower, does not increase the height of the existing structure more than ten
(10) feet, and does not result in the structure and antenna exceeding the maximum structure height for that zoning district.
These provisions shall not apply to any temporary broadcasting tower erected for the purpose of system design or testing provided the
temporary broadcasting tower is erected for a period not to exceed twenty-one (21) days. In addition, in declared local emergency
situations, the county administrator shall be authorized to allow the temporary installation of a broadcasting tower for the duration of
the local emergency. A zoning permit pursuant to section 30-9 of this ordinance shall be applied for and approved prior to erecting any
temporary or emergency tower.
(C) Application requirements:
All potential applicants for broadcasting towers shall consult with county planning staff at least thirty (30) days prior to submitting an
application for a proposed broadcasting tower. During this consultation the applicant shall present information to the staff on system
objectives, proposed coverage areas, and alternative sites considered and rejected. The staff shall provide the potential applicant
2.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
information on Roanoke County policies and standards for broadcasting towers, and shall discuss with the applicant possible alternatives to
broadcasting tower construction.
In addition to the application requirements contained in section 30-19-2 of this ordinance, all applicants for broadcasting towers shall
provide the following at the time of application:
The location of all other proposed broadcasting tower sites considered and rejected, and the specific technical, legal or other reasons
for the rejection.
The location of all other possible collocation sites considered and rejected, and the specific technical, legal or other reasons for the
rejection.
Accurate, to scale, photographic simulations showing the relationship of the proposed broadcasting tower and associated antenna to
the surroundings. Photographic simulations shall also be prepared showing the relationship of any new or modified road, access or
utility corridors constructed or modified to serve the proposed broadcasting tower site. The number of simulations and the
perspectives from which they are prepared, shall be established with the staff at the consultation required in section C.1. above.
A computerized terrain analysis showing the visibility of the proposed broadcasting tower and antenna at the requested height and
location. If new or modified road, access or utility corridors are proposed, the terrain analysis shall also show the visibility of these
new or modified features.
Information on how the proposed site relates to the applicants existing communication system, including number of other sites
within the Roanoke Valley, and the location of the antenna at each site.
All broadcasting tower applicants shall be required, at their expense to conduct an on-site "balloon" or comparable test prior to the
planning commission and board of supervisors hearings on the special use permit. The purpose of this test shall be to demonstrate
the potential visual impact of the proposed tower. The dates and periods of these tests shall be established with the applicant at the
pre-application consultation.
Written verification that all required submittals to the FAA as required by section 30-87-2(D)6 of this ordinance have been submitted.
The applicant shall be responsible for all fees associated with the filing of the application including the reasonable cost of any
independent analysis deemed necessary by the county to verify the need for the new broadcasting tower. The board of supervisors shall
establish these fees, which shall be discussed with the applicant at the pre-application conference.
(D) General standards:
The maximum height of any proposed broadcasting tower and associated antenna shall be made as a condition of the special use permit,
but in no case shall any broadcasting tower and antenna exceed one hundred ninety-nine (199) feet in height. Applicants shall request
the lowest broadcasting tower and antenna height necessary to accomplish their specific communication objectives.
The setback for any proposed broadcasting tower shall, at a minimum, conform to the requirements for principal structures for the
proposed zoning district. However, in no case shall the minimum setback from the base of the broadcasting tower to any residential
structure on an adjoining lot be less than forty (40) percent of the height of the tower, measured from the closest structural member of
the broadcasting tower (excluding guy lines). Guy lines shall be exempt from the minimum setback requirements in side and rear yards
for the respective zoning district, but shall comply with the setback requirements for the front yard.
The minimum setback from any property line abutting a road right-of-way for any other building or structure associated with a
broadcasting tower shall be fifty (50) feet. Such buildings or structures shall be located a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from any other
property line.
More than one (1) broadcasting tower shall be permitted on a lot provided all applicable requirements have been met including setback
requirements.
Broadcasting towers shall not be illuminated with any type of lighting apparatus, unless such lighting is a requirement of the FAA or FCC.
When lighting is proposed to conform to federal requirement, the county shall contact the federal agency to verify the necessity of
lighting, and to determine the minimal amount and type of lighting necessary to comply with federal guidelines. Security lighting, or a
"down lighting" design may be installed on buildings and structures associated with a broadcasting tower. In no case shall any lighting
violate section 30-94 of this ordinance.
Any proposed broadcasting tower within two (2) miles from any general or commercial airport or located at a ground elevation at or
above two thousand (2,000) feet, average mean sea level, shall be referred to the appropriate regional office of the FAA for review and
comment prior to filing an application for a special use permit.
All broadcasting towers shall comply with any additional requirements established in the airport overlay district in section 30-72 of this
ordinance, and the emergency communications overlay district in section 30-73.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
(E)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Any broadcasting tower approved shall be structurally designed to carry sufficient loading, and the site approved shall be sized to
accommodate the additional equipment necessary for at least three (3) other vendors/providers of communications services in order to
minimize the proliferation of new broadcasting towers in the vicinity of the requested site. In addition, by applying and being granted the
special use permit, the applicant and the owner of the land agree to make the broadcasting tower and tower site available for additional
leases within the structural capacity of the broadcasting tower and at reasonable costs adequate to recover the capital, operating and
maintenance costs of the broadcasting tower location required for the additional capacity.
A monopole broadcasting tower design is recommended. The board may approve an alternative broadcasting tower design if it finds that
an alternative type of structure has less of a visual impact on the surrounding community and Roanoke County, and/or based upon
accepted technical and engineering data a monopole design is not technically feasible. Cost shall not be a criteria for determining
broadcasting tower design.
No broadcasting towers shall be permitted within the critical viewsheds of the Blue Ridge Parkway or Appalachian Trail as shown on any
official map designating these viewsheds and pre-approved by the board of supervisors. In addition, no towers shall be proposed within
any other designated area of local scenic, historical, ecological and cultural importance as designated and approved by the board of
supervisors prior to the filing of a tower application.
By applying and being granted the special use permit, the applicant and the owner of the land agree to dismantle and remove the
broadcasting tower and associated facilities from the site within ninety days of the broadcasting tower no longer being use for wireless
communications. Dismantling and removal from the site shall only be required after notice by the County. If antennas on any approved
tower are relocated to a lower elevation, the tower shall be shortened to the height of the highest antenna. A bond or similar
performance guarantee may be required as part of the special use permit approval. Said guarantee will be in an amount sufficient to
ensure removal of the tower and all associated facilities and the reclamation of the property and road, access and utility corridors to a
condition that existed prior to tower construction.
All broadcasting tower structures and associated hardware, antennas, and facilities shall be a flat matted finish so as to reduce visibility
and light reflection unless otherwise required by the FCC or FAA.
No business signs shall be allowed on the property identifying the name of, or services offered by, any business associated with the
broadcasting tower.
General review policies:
All special use permit requests for new broadcasting towers, including the replacement or modification of existing broadcasting towers shall
be reviewed by the staff, planning commission and board of supervisors on the basis of the following criteria:
The extent to which the broadcasting tower proposal conforms to the general special use permit criteria in section 30-19 of this
ordinance, and the intent, application requirements, and general standards for broadcasting towers found in these provisions.
The demonstrated willingness of the applicant to evaluate collocation opportunities within the proposed communication service area,
and the demonstrated history of the applicant choosing collocation sites within the Roanoke Valley.
The base and top elevation of the proposed broadcasting tower relative to surrounding natural land forms. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, broadcasting tower locations below surrounding ridge lines are preferred.
Broadcasting tower locations already served by existing roads and utilities are preferred due to the potential detrimental environmental
and visual impacts resulting from the construction of new road and utility corridors.
Within the needed service area, the availability of other existing structures that are, based upon independent analysis, of suitable height,
design, and location for the needed antenna.
The visibility of the broadcasting tower from the surrounding community and neighborhood compatibility of the tower as determined by
the submitted computer simulations, terrain analysis and balloon or comparable test.
The degree to which the proposed tower location, site design and facilities including fencing, buildings and other ground mounted
equipment and new or modified road, access or utility corridors are located, designed and constructed to be compatible with the
neighborhood.
(Ord. No. 82493-8, § 4, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 102798-12, § 1, 10-27-98)
4
A future land use area where limited development activity has historically occurred and
where suburban or urban development patterns are discouraged. These rural community
and farming areas are generally in between the intense suburban development patterns
already established in the County and the designated Conservation and Rural Preserve areas.
Land Use Types
Rural Housing - Low-density single-family residential generally averaging one unit per acre.
Cluster developments are encouraged.
Rural Community Centers - Nonresidential uses which serve rural residents such as outdoor
recreation and park facilities, religious facilities, schools, fire and rescue stations and clubs.
Agricultural Production and Services - Livestock, orchards and crop productions, landscape
and horticultural services, veterinary services, farm labor and farm management services.
Generally including all activities that support land-based uses.
Forest and Wood Products - Includes the operation of timber tracts, tree farms, forest nurseries
and the gathering of forest products. Excludes sawmills and large-scale timber cutting
operations.
Small Scale Commercial - Limited commercial operations that serve the local, rural
community. Included would be personal services and retail convenience stores.
Rural Parks and Outdoor Recreation - Parks and recreational facilities that are designed to
preserve the environmentally sensitive character of the rural landscape.
Land Use Determinants
Existing Land Use Pattern - Locations where very low density residential, institutional and limited
agricultural uses have developed.
Existing Zoning - Locations where rural residential and agricultural zoning have been established.
Rural Residential Expansion Areas - Locations where small scale, very low density rural residential
housing is desirable.
Agricultural - Locations where existing agricultural uses and activities are present.
Access - Locations served by an existing improved rural road and, to a lesser extent, rural arterial
highways.
Rural Sector - Locations outside the urban service area.
RURAL VILLAGE
B2X Online, Inc.
Special use permit to construct a broadcasting tower approximately
80 feet tall on approximately 6.972 acres of land zoned AR,
Agricultural/ Residential District
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing
February 25, 2025
Location Map2
Project Site
•9731 Tinsley Lane
•6.972 acres
•Single-Family Dwelling (no
change proposed)
•Request to obtain a special use
permit for a broadcasting tower
•Broadband transmitter site
3
Photographs4
Photographs5
6 Zoning Background
•The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a broadcasting tower as
“any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting
one (1) or more antennas. The term includes but need not be limited to radio and
television transmission towers, microwave towers, common-carrier towers, and cellular
telephone and wireless communication towers. Broadcasting tower types include, but
are not limited to monopoles, lattice towers, wooden poles, and guyed towers. Excluded
from this definition are amateur radio towers, which are described separately.”
•A broadcasting tower is only permitted in the AR, Agricultural/Residential
District, with an approved special use permit. The use is also subject to use
and design standards as listed in Sec. 30-87-2 of Roanoke County Code
7 Concept Plan
8 Proposed Project
9 Coverage Maps
10 Coverage Maps
Zoning
Existing Zoning
•AR,
Agricultural/Residential
11
Surrounding Zoning
•North: AR
•East: AR and AV
•South: AR
•West: AR
Future Land Use12
Rural Village
•A future land use area where limited development activity has historically occurred and where suburban or urban development patterns are discouraged.
•These rural community and farming areas are generally in between the intense suburban development patterns already established in the County and the designated Conservation and Rural Preserve areas.
•The proposed special use permit is consistent with the future land use designation of Rural Village
Roanoke County 200 Plan13
The Roanoke County 200 Plan also includes the following Communication &
Information Technology recommendations:
•Expand and improve high-speed broadband access and cell phone
service availability in underserved areas.
•Explore opportunities to extend broadband service within universal
availability and access to high-speed internet in unserved and under-
served areas.
•Explore alternative broadband and cell phone providers for choice and
competition.
•Explore more public-private partnerships to implement more stages of
Roanoke County’s Rural Broadband Initiative to bring high-speed internet
to homes without broadband access.
•Explore providing improved cell phone service in unserved and under-
served areas.
Planning Commission
Public Hearing – February 4, 2025
14
•No citizens spoke during the public hearing
•Planning Commission discussed:
•proposed tower location;
•height of tower;
•existing tree height;
•need for broadband on Bent Mountain;
•capacity and expansion of the service in the future;
•extent of coverage on Bent Mountain;
•surrounding zoning and land uses; and
•future land use designation.
Planning Commission
Planning Commission recommends approval of the
broadcasting tower with the following condition:
1.The broadband transmitter pole shall not exceed 80 feet
in height above ground level.
15
Questions?
16
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
Peter S. Lubeck
COUNTY ATTORNEY
Rachel W. Lower
DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
Marta J. Anderson
Douglas P. Barber, Jr.
SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS
SAMPLE MOTIONS
The petition of B2X Online, Inc. to obtain a special use permit to construct a broadcasting
tower approximately 80 feet tall on approximately 6.972 acres of land zoned AR
(Agricultural/Residential) District.
MOTION TO APPROVE
I find that the proposed special use permit:
1. Meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that
the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use
and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance;
2. Is in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; and
3. Will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and
community.
I therefore MOVE THAT WE APPROVE the petition to obtain a special use permit, with
the following one (1) condition:
1. The broadband transmitter pole shall not exceed eighty (80) feet in height above
ground level.
MOTION TO DENY
I find that the proposed special use permit request:
1. Is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive
plan or good zoning practice, and/or
2. Will result in substantial detriment to the community.
I therefore MOVE THAT WE DENY the request.
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 2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025
ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
A BROADCASTING TOWER APPROXIMATELY EIGHTY (80) FEET
TALL ON APPROXIMATELY 6.972 ACRES OF LAND ZONED AR
(AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) LOCATED AT 9731
TINSLEY LANE, WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, B2X Online, Inc. has filed a petition to obtain a special use permit for
a broadcasting tower approximately eighty (80) feet in height, on approximately 6.972
acres of land zoned AR (Agricultural/Residential) District, located at 9731 Tinsley Lane
(Roanoke County Tax Map Number 103.00-02-10.03-0000), in the Windsor Hills
Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on February 4, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends approval of
the petition for a special use permit, with one condition; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 28, 2025, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on February 25, 2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The Board finds that the proposed special use meets the requirements of
Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use
conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance.
Page 2 of 2
2. The Board further finds that the proposed special use is in conformance
with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, and will have a minimum adverse
impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community.
3. The Board approves the special use permit with the following one (1)
condition:
a. The broadband transmitter pole shall not exceed eighty (80) feet in
height above ground level.
4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage.