Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2025 - RegularPage 1 of 5 a:anokeCounty INVOCATION: Pastor Bruce Gardner, Hollins Church of the Nazarene 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 November 18, 2025 Page 2 of 5 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for November 18, 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. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of Deputy Joe Mullins as the YOVASO (Youth of Virginia Speak Out About Traffic Safety) Officer of the Year. (Eric Orange, Sheriff) D. APPOINTMENTS 1. Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority: Richard Caywood – Term to expire December 31, 2025 2. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority: Ashley King – Term to expire December 31, 2026 3. Roanoke County Local Finance Board: Richard Caywood – Term to expire July 26, 2026 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda November 18, 2025 Page 3 of 5 4. South Peak Community Development Authority: Megan Baker – Term to expire October 25, 2026 5. Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority: Alex Jones – Term to expire February 4, 2026 6. Community Policy & Management Team: Madeline Hanlon – No term limit for this appointment 7. Court Community Corrections Regional Drug Court Advisory Board: Madeline Hanlon – No term limit for this appointment 8. Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board: Madeline Hanlon – No term limit for this appointment 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 – October 28, 2025 2. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) accept Om Lane in the Catawba Magisterial District into the VDOT Secondary Road System. 3. The petition of the Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County to rezone approximately 36.501 acres from PTD, Planned Technology Development District, to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to construct townhouses located at 2111, 2112, 2121 and 2351 Cardinal Park Drive, Vinton Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) 4. The petition of the Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County and Cardinal IG Company to rezone approximately 60.704 acres of land zoned PTD, Planned Technology Development District, to amend the master plan for the Vinton Business Center located at 2131 and 2132 Cardinal Park Drive and 2411 Hardy Road, Vinton Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) Page 4 of 5 5. Resolution recognizing the Honorable Christopher T. Head, State Senator, Commonwealth of Virginia. 6. Resolution recognizing the Honorable Will P. Davis, Member, Virginia House of Delegates. 7. Ordinance amending Chapter 5 (Animals and Fowl) of the Roanoke County Code. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 8. Resolution authorizing the Audit Committee and County Administrator to effectuate amendments to the Internal Audit Charter. 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 Balance, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of October 31, 2025 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of October 31, 2025 5. Accounts Paid – October 2025 H. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to discuss Public Safety Staffing. (Travis Griffith, Chief of Fire & Rescue, Brian Holohan, Commonwealth Attorney, Eric Orange, Sheriff, Michael Poindexter, Chief of Police, Susan Slough, Director of Emergency Communications) 2. Work session to discuss Speeding and Traffic Calming on Huntridge Road. (Megan Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning, Jeff Johnson, Assistant Chief of Police, and Mark Banks, Sergeant, Police Department) Page 5 of 5 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 West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study into the Roanoke County 200 Plan. (Isaac Henry, Principal Planner) L.SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING 1.The petition of T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC to rezone approximately 9.355 acres of land zoned C-2CS, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and special use permit, to R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions to construct multi-family dwelling units, located at 5050 Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) (Second Reading and Public Hearing) M.REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1.Paul M. Mahoney2.Tammy E. Shepherd3.Phil C. North 4.Martha B. Hooker 5.David F. Radford N.ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 1 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: November 18, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of Deputy Joe Mullins as the YOVASO (Youth of Virginia Speak Out About Traffic Safety) Officer of the Year SUBMITTED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator This time has been set aside to recognize Deputy Joe Mullins as the YOVASO (Youth of Virginia Speak Out About Traffic Safety) Officer of the Year. Page 1 of 3 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: November 18, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation of appointments to the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority, Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, Roanoke County Local Finance Board, South Peak Community Development Authority, Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority, Community Policy & Management Team, Court Community Corrections Regional Drug Court Advisory Board, and Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board SUBMITTED BY: Rhonda Perdue Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Confirmation of appointments BACKGROUND: Due to changes in staff, appointments needed to be made to several Board and Commissions. DISCUSSION: With the retirement of Rebecca Owens, Deputy County Administrator, on December 1, 2025, it is the consensus of the Board to recommend the following appointments and terms: Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority: Richard Caywood will fill the unexpired term of Rebecca Owens. This term will expire December 31, 2025. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority: Ashley King will fill the unexpired term of Rebecca Owens. This term will expire December 31, 2026. Roanoke County Local Finance Board: Richard Caywood will fill the unexpired term of Rebecca Owens. This term will expire July 26, 2026. South Peak Community Development Authority: Megan Baker will fill the unexpired term of Rebecca Owens. This term will expire October 25, 2026. Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority: Alex Jones will fill the unexpired term of Rebecca Owens. This term will expire February 4, 2026. Community Policy & Management Team: Madeline Hanlon will fill the unexpired term of Rebecca Owens. There is no term date to this appointment. Court Community Corrections Regional Drug Court Advisory Board: Madeline Hanlon will fill the unexpired term of Rebecca Owens. There is no term date to this appointment. Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board: Madeline Hanlon will fill the unexpired term of Rebecca Owens. There is no term date to this appointment. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3 Staff recommends approval of these appointments. Page 1 of 2 A T A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 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 November 18, 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 8 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – October 28, 2025 2. Department of Transportation (VDOT) accept Om Lane in the Catawba Magisterial District into the VDOT Secondary Road System. 3. The petition of the Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County to rezone approximately 36.501 acres from PTD, Planned Technology Development District, to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, to construct townhouses located at 2111, 2112, 2121 and 2351 Cardinal Park Drive, Vinton Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) 4. The petition of the Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County and Cardinal IG Company to rezone approximately 60.704 acres of land zoned PTD, Planned Technology Development District, to amend the master plan for the Vinton Business Center located at 2131 and 2132 Cardinal Park Drive and 2411 Hardy Road, Vinton Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) 5. Resolution recognizing the Honorable Christopher T. Head, State Senator, Commonwealth of Virginia. 6. Resolution recognizing the Honorable Will P. Davis, Member, Virginia House of Delegates. Page 2 of 2 7. Ordinance amending Chapter 5 (Animals and Fowl) of the Roanoke County Code. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading) 8. Resolution authorizing the Audit Committee and County Administrator to effectuate amendments to the Internal Audit Charter. Page 1 of 9 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of October 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. 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; Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and Rhonda D. Perdue, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Staff Absent: Madeline Hanlon, Community Engagement Director B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Caywood proposed to remove New Business Item D.1 Resolution supporting funding for repairs and strategic implementation of the Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation Strategic Plan “Blue Ridge Rising” along the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina and Virginia. No objections were made to the item removal; the agenda was amended as requested. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS Action No. 102825-1 Item C.1 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Minutes October 28, 2025 – 2:00 p.m. Page 2 of 9 1. Recognition of Information Technology staff for protecting the County of Roanoke from a Cybersecurity Threat. (Uma Marques, Information Technology Director) Recognition given to Information Technology staff. D. APPOINTMENTS Action No. 102825-2 Item D.1 1. Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Advisory Committee (At-Large and by District) Jacob Gruse – Cave Spring Magisterial District – Expires October 28, 2028 Ranny Grubb – Hollins Magisterial District – Expires October 28, 2028 Murray Cook – Windsor Hills Magisterial District - Expires October 28, 2028 Carter Turner, At-Large – Expires October 28, 2028 Supervisor Mahoney moved to approve all appointments. Supervisor North seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford Nays: None E. CONSENT AGENDA Action No. 102825-3.a-f Item E.1-6 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. 102825-3.a Item E.1 1. Approval of minutes – October 14, 2025 Action No. 102825-3.b Item E.2 2. Proclamation declaring November 2025 as National Adoption Month and November 22, 2025, as National Adoption Day in the County of Roanoke. Action No. 102825-3.c Item E.3 3. Ordinance to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $150,000 from Virginia 9-1-1 Services Board for NG911 costs. (Second Reading) Page 3 of 9 Action No. 102825-3.d Item E.4 4. Ordinance to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $340,857.02 from Virginia 9-1-1 Services Board for regional enhancements to improve operational efficiencies. (Second Reading) Action No. 102825-3.e Item E.5 5. The petition of T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC to rezone approximately 9.355 acres of land zoned C-2CS, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and special use permit, to R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions to construct multi-family dwelling units, located at 5050 Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (First Reading and Request for Second Reading and Public Hearing) Action No. 102825-3.f Item E.6 6. Request to accept and allocate $10,000 from the Department of State Police, Help Eliminate Auto Theft (HEAT) Program. Supervisor Hooker moved to adopt all matters on the consent agenda. Supervisor North seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford Nays: None 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. No citizens were present. G. REPORTS Action No. 102825-4 Item H.1-6 1. Unappropriated Balance, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of September 30, 2025 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of September 30, 2025 Page 4 of 9 5. Accounts Paid – September 2025 6. Statement of the Treasurer’s Accountability per Investment and Portfolio as of September 30, 2025 Supervisor Mahoney moved to receive and file the reports that have been included with the agenda under Item G. Supervisor Shepherd seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford Nays: None H. WORK SESSION 1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the status of the County of Roanoke's ongoing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects as of June 30, 2025. (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services and Steve Elliott, Budget Administrator) I. CLOSED MEETING, pursuant to the Code of Virginia as follows: Action No. 102825-5 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. Supervisor Radford moved to go to closed session. Supervisor North seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford Nays: None EVENING SESSION – 6:00 PM J. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION Action No. 102825-6 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 North moved to adopt the certification resolution. Supervisor Radford seconded the motion. Motion approved. Page 5 of 9 Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford Nays: None K. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS Action No. 102825-7 Item K.1 1. The petition of Aila Boyd to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.5 acre of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 3352 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) (Second Reading and Public Hearing) Supervisor Mahoney found that the proposed special use permit: 1. Meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; 2. Is in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; and 3. Will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. Therefore, moved that the Board approve the petition to obtain a special use permit, with the following seven (7) conditions: 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the lower level of the existing residential dwelling (approximately 1,305 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed four (4) people. 3. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking spaces required for the principal dwelling. All parking shall be provided on-site and shall be located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. Supervisor North seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford Page 6 of 9 Nays: None Action No. 102825-8 Item K.2 2. The petition of Hotel Shift Capital, LLC to obtain a special use permit to construct 100+ multi-family dwelling units on approximately 3.35 acres of land zoned C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, located at 6510 and 6520 Thirlane Road, Catawba Magisterial District. (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) (Second Reading and Public Hearing) Supervisor Hooker found that the proposed special use permit: 1. Meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; 2. Is in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan; and 3. Will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. Therefore, moved that the Board approve the petition to obtain a special use permit, with the following three (3) conditions: 1. The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the concept plan entitled “6520 Thirlane Road – Multi-Family Redevelopment Concept Plan” prepared by Balzer & Associates dated 9/8/2025 subject to any changes required by the comprehensive site plan review process. 2. The proposed buildings shall be renovated in general conformance to the schematic renderings, exterior elevations, and schematic floor plans (Exhibits B, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, and B6) prepared by Balzer & Associates dated 9/8/2025 subject to any changes required by the building plan review process. 3. The maximum number of multi-family dwelling units shall be 105. Supervisor North seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford Nays: None Action No. 102825-9 Item K.3 3. The petition of WRV Properties, LLC, to rezone approximately 25.3 acres from ARS, Agricultural/Residential District with special use permit, to I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District, and to obtain a special use permit to operate a construction yard located at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) (Second Reading and Public Hearing) Page 7 of 9 One citizen was spoke in favor of this item. Supervisor Hooker found that the proposed rezoning request: 1. Is not consistent with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan’s future land use designation of Rural Village, however there are similar outlying industrial properties in the area near the proposed rezoning, 2. Is good zoning practice, and 3. Will not result in substantial detriment to the community. Therefore, moved that the Board approve the rezoning request as it has been requested, with the following one (1) proffer: 1. The development of the property shall be in substantial conformance with the concept plan entitled “WRV Properties, LLC” dated 8/26/2025, prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. subject to those changes required by Roanoke County during its comprehensive site plan review. Supervisor Hooker also found that the proposed special use permit: 1. Meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, 2. Is not in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan’s future land use designation of Rural Village, however the continuation of any club activities on the property could be in line with the desired land use types in Rural Village areas, and 3. Will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. Therefore, also moved that the Board approve the petition to obtain a special use permit to operate a construction yard. Supervisor North seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford Nays: None Action No. 102825-10 Item K.4 4. The petition of Hamlar Properties, LLC, to rezone approximately 3.8 acres from AR, Agricultural/Residential District, to AV, Agricultural/Village Center District, and obtain a special use permit to construct a multi-family development located at 3037 and 3133 Rutrough Road, Vinton Magisterial District. (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning) (Second Reading and Public Hearing) Page 8 of 9 One citizen was spoke in favor of this item. Supervisor Shepherd found that the proposed rezoning request: 1. Is partly consistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive plan, 2. Is good zoning practice, and 3. Will not result in substantial detriment to the community. Therefore, moved that the Board approve the rezoning request as it has been requested. Supervisor Shepherd also found that the proposed special use permit: 1. Meets the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, 2. Is partly in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, and 3. Will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. Therefore, also moved the Board to approve the petition to obtain a special use permit with the following two (2) conditions: 1. The properties shall be developed in substantial conformance with the concept plans entitled “Conceptual Site Plan – 3133 Rutrough Road” and “Conceptual Site Plan – 3037 Rutrough Road” both prepared by Jones & Jones Associates and both dated August 28, 2025, subject to any changes required during the comprehensive site plan review process. 2. The buildings shall be constructed in general conformance to the elevation drawings entitled “Ballyhack Luxury Apartments Hamlar Properties, LLC” prepared by Jones & Jones Associates, dated June 6, 2025, subject to any changes required during the building plan review process. Supervisor North seconded the motion. Motion approved. Ayes: Supervisors Hooker, North, Mahoney, Shepherd, Radford Nays: None M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Martha B. Hooker 2. Paul M. Mahoney 3. Tammy E. Shepherd 4. Phil C. North Page 9 of 9 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. N. ADJOURNMENT Action No. 102825-11 Supervisor Hooker moved to adjourn the meeting. Supervisor Radford 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: FISCAL IMPACT: Page 2 of 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached resolution requesting that VDOT accept Om Lane into the Secondary Road System. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Form AM 4.3 Form AM 4.3 (Rev 09/03/2025) by Resolution of the governing body adopted 10/14/2025 In Roanoke County ICR ID: 42964157 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. 1449 - Om Lane New subdivision street §33.2-705 Intersection with Millwheel Drive / Route 1167 End of Cul-de-sac 0.0990 2 40 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: River Oaks Section 3 Street Acceptance Description Length ROW Services Om Lane; From: Int 1167 To: End of its cul-de-sac 0.099 mi 40 ft 4/4 houses ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ACCEPTANCE OF OM LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM Exhibit “A” AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2025 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF OM LANE IN THE RIVER OAKS SUBDIVISION INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Form AM-4.3, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, a representative of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has advised Roanoke County staff that the street meets the requirements established by VDOT’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County and VDOT entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to the street being requested for addition into the Secondary System of State Highways; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. The Board hereby requests VDOT to add the street described on the attached Form AM-4.3 to the Secondary System of State Highways pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.2-705. 2. The Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills, and drainage. 3. The Board guarantees the performance of the street requested herein to become part of the Secondary System of State Highways for a period of one (1) year from the date of the acceptance of the referenced street by VDOT into the Secondary System of State Highways. The Board will completely reimburse all costs incurred by VDOT, up to $2,500.00, to repair any faults in the workmanship or materials of the referenced street and related drainage facilities as determined exclusively by VDOT. 4. That a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for VDOT. 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 There is no discussion on this item. 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 December 16, 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. 1 Application Requirements Consultation with the County Planning staff to review the feasibility of the proposal and to obtain recommended procedures and technical assistance. Applicant is encouraged to contact adjoining property owners to inform them of the proposal. Application must be legible and signed by property owner, contract purchaser, or owner’s agent. Justification stating in general terms the change in use of the property, the effect of the changes on the surrounding area, the reasons for the request, the consistency of the request with the Community Plan, and the consistency of the request with the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose stated at the beginning of the applicable district regulations. Concept Plan of the proposed project and the concept plan checklist must be submitted with the applications. Plan must be 8.5” x 11”. Metes and bounds description must accompany rezoning application. Water and sewer application and planimetric maps must accompany rezoning and special use permit application, if applicable. List of adjoining property owners including owner’s names, addresses (mailing address including zip code) and tax map numbers of all adjoining properties and those directly across any public right-of-way must accompany application, including those in adjacent jurisdictions. Refer to tax records in the County Assessor’s office. Application fees must accompany application and are as follows: Rezoning  Agri/Single/Two $415 + $20/acre or portion thereof Rezoning  Multi-family $860 + $25/acre or portion thereof Rezoning  Industrial $840 + $30/acre or portion thereof Rezoning  Commercial $945 + $32/acre or portion thereof Land Use Plan Amendment $710 Special Use  Landfill $1,875 Special Use  Other $150 Variance $190 Waiver $190 Administrative Appeal $275 Technology Fee 5% fee on all permit issuing fees In addition, the applicant must pay legal advertisement fees. Staff will prepare ad for the applicant and deliver ad to The Roanoke Times. The applicant will be billed by The Roanoke Times for the ad. Please include email and phone number Public Hearing Notices must be posted at clearly visible locations along the street frontage or property lines of the subject property. Notices will be issued by Planning & Zoning following receipt of the completed application. For further information or assistance, please contact: Department of Planning 5204 Bernard Drive, SW P O Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Phone (540) 772-2068 - Fax (540)776-7155 E-Mail: planning@roanokecountyva.gov All required items must be submitted before the application deadline. 2 County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Only 5204 Bernard Drive P O Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540)772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 ALL APPLICANTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) □Rezoning □ Special Use □ Variance □ Waiver □ Administrative Appeal □Comp Plan (15.2-2232) Review Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: Cell #: Email: Contact for Legal Ads Owner’s name/address w/zip REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WAIVER AND COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW APPLICANTS (R/S/W/CP) IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST (Rezoning). IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (V/W/AA) Appeal of Zoning Administrator’s decision to 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 I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner’s agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent f the owner. Owner’s Signature Consultation 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners Date received: Received by: Application fee: PC/BZA date: Placards issued: BOS date: Case Number R. James 12/2/2025 12/16/2025 RZ-2505014 10/10/2025 1,165.00 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. 6 ALL APPLICANTS a. Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north arrow c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties g. All property lines and easements 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 adjacent 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 l. 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. Signature of applicant Date 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 are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted 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: 10/17/2025 7 Community Development Planning & Zoning Division 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 more than 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 roadway classified 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 is more 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 of the 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 8 Community Development Planning & Zoning Division NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, 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. Effective date: April 19, 2005 Name of Petition Petitioner’s Signature Date 10/17/2025 REZONING NARRATIVE On behalf of the applicant, The Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County, we are providing this narrative as supplemental information to support the attached rezoning application. This request is to rezone Roanoke County Tax Parcels #071.07-03-01.00-0000, 071.07-03-02.00-0000, 071.07-03-03.00- 0000, and 071.07-03-04.00-0000 (the Rezoned Area) from PTD, Planned Technology Development District, to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District to allow for a new residential development consisting of a mix of single-family dwellings and townhouses on the property. Existing Zoning: PTD – Planned Technology Development District Proposed Zoning: 36.501 acres to be rezoned to R-3 High Density Multi-Family Residential District 60.704 acres to remain PTD (Master Plan to be amended by separate request) Proposed Use: Townhouses Property History & Vision The Vinton Business Center property was originally acquired by the Town of Vinton in 1986. In 1999, the property was rezoned to PTD, Planned Technology Development District, to allow for the property to be prepared and marketed for industrial development (Ordinance #102699-7). The County also entered into a gain sharing agreement with the Town of Vinton. Several proffered conditions were placed on the property as part of this rezoning action. In 2003, a second rezoning action was approved to amend the proffered conditions (Ordinance #102803- 14). In 2011, an additional rezoning action was approved that repealed the previous proffered conditions and adopted an amended Master Plan (Ordinance #062811-10). This Master Plan is entitled “Vinton Business Center Master Plan,” prepared by Mattern & Craig, Inc., and dated April 8, 2010. Despite substantial efforts to market this property for industrial development, Cardinal Glass remains as the only business currently within the Center. The pad sites on Lots 1 and 2 as well as the smaller Lots 5 and 6 have remained undeveloped for the last 20 years. The current plan is to reimagine a portion of this property as a mixed-use residential development. The proposed rezoning request will allow this property to realize its potential and meet the needs of the community in 2025. Roanoke County will have the ability to work with a reputable builder to create a new residential community to help address the current local and national housing shortage. The proposed residential uses will blend well with the existing residential to the north and west and provide a transition between these single-family developments and the remaining industrial development area. A separate rezoning action is being filed in conjunction with this request to amend the Master Plan for the property remaining PTD zoning. Existing Conditions The Rezoned Area is vacant land in the current condition. The Rezoned Area is bounded to the north by Hardy Road (Route 634) and existing single-family residential homes. It is bounded on the west by existing single-family residential homes. The land is bordered to the south by Blue Ridge Parkway property and the remaining land in the VBC. Cardinal Park Drive bisects the Rezoned Area from north to south and provides access to the proposed development. There are overhead electrical distribution lines that traverse the property from southwest to northeast across Lot 1 and the corner of the Detention Lot. There is an existing stream and wetlands located on Lot 5 and the Detention Lot. It is expected that these jurisdictional areas will remain undisturbed with the proposed development. The Detention Lot also includes a stormwater management facility that was installed to serve the existing development. Concept Plan A Residential Concept Plan (Exhibit A) is included with this rezoning application. This plan outlines the proposed development pattern for the Rezoned Area. It is expected that townhomes will be developed on the Rezoned Area. A total of 175 townhomes are shown on the Concept Plan. The townhomes will be served internally by private drives. It is expected that each unit will include a garage and exterior driveway parking space. Additional guest parking areas will be provided throughout the development as well. Other amenities that may be provided include exterior trails and park areas to serve the residents of this community. The proposed townhome buildings are expected to be either two-story or three-story buildings depending on the topography. Square footage is expected to range from 1,440 to 2,000 finished square feet per unit. Price points are anticipated to be in the low to upper $300,000s. The proposed rezoning request will provide for a less intense zoning classification and development pattern adjacent to the existing residential neighborhoods than the current industrial zoning. Appropriate buffer yards and landscaping will be provided adjacent to R-1 zoned property as required in the Zoning Ordinance. Access & Transportation Vehicular access will primarily be from existing Cardinal Park Drive (Route 2075) via Hardy Road (Route 634). New private access points will be constructed from Cardinal Park Drive to serve the new townhome development areas. These are shown directly across from each other on the Concept Plan in order to minimize the number of potential conflict points. The Concept Plan also shows a possible vehicular connection from the internal development to Muse Drive to the west. This vehicular connection would provide an additional access point between the existing residential development and the proposed development if constructed. Traffic utilizes Hardy Road to access Cardinal Park Drive. Full turn lanes and tapers were installed when Cardinal Park Drive was constructed to serve the Business Park and will continue to serve the proposed development. A Traffic Narrative is included with this Application to provide background traffic information and evaluate traffic impacts of this request. As part of the included Traffic Narrative, trip generation calculations were provided for the proposed residential development as well as a reasonable volume of traffic that would be expected if the property were developed under the current PTD zoning. As shown in the Traffic Narrative, the proposed residential development will generate significantly less traffic than would be expected with by-right PTD development. Therefore, this request is expected to result in less traffic impact than what is expected with the current Master Plan and the existing roadway infrastructure will be sufficient to serve the new development. VDOT has reviewed the traffic narrative and concurs with the conclusions. Public Services This project will be served by public water and sanitary sewer utilities owned and maintained by the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA). According to WVWA GIS, there is an existing 8” public sanitary sewer main located along Cardinal Park Drive that the development will connect to. Based on WVWA GIS, there is an existing 8” public water main located along Cardinal Park Drive that the development will utilize for domestic water and fire protection needs. Stormwater Management There is an existing above-ground detention pond located on the Detention Lot. This detention pond was installed with the development of Cardinal Glass and grading of Lot 2. It is expected that the new development will provide stand-alone stormwater management facilities. The project will be designed in accordance with all local and state stormwater management requirements, including quantity and quality requirements. Comprehensive Development Plan Roanoke County’s Comprehensive Plan currently identifies the Future Land Use of this property as Principal Industrial. However, it should also be noted that the future land use for this property was recently updated from Transition to Principal Industrial in 2024. Residential uses, such as those that are proposed with this request, are an important component of Transition land use areas. In addition, the property has been targeted for industrial development since 1999 with very little activity. Cardinal Glass developed in the park in 2004, and the other parcels have remained vacant. The market has demonstrated that a new vision is needed, which further supports the request to rezone a portion of the park as a residential development. The proposed residential zoning designation will allow this property that has remained vacant for many years to finally realize its potential. The proposed residential development will expand and diversify an existing residential area of Roanoke County and will provide additional customer base for the existing businesses located in and around the Hardy Road corridor. The proposed rezoning request will further the goals of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan by allowing for development of a vacant property in an appropriate location of the County. The proposed mix of residential uses will provide additional housing options in an important area of the County, which is of utmost importance due to the current shortage of housing. This property is also located within the Bonsack/Vinton Planning Area. The proposed request is consistent with many of the goals and initiatives of the Comprehensive Plan and of the Bonsack/Vinton Planning Area: • Encourage a diverse housing stock meeting the demands of current and future residents. • Protect steep slope areas. The proposed development preserves the steep slopes closest to the existing creek and to the Blue Ridge Parkway land to the south. • Remove outdated proffer conditions on certain properties to promote redevelopment and expedite the development process. • Encourage the provision of open space and park facilities with new development. Open space areas to be preserved along the existing creek/wetlands area and adjacent to Blue Ridge Parkway property. • Expand housing options. The proposed townhome units will provide additional options to a currently underserved area of the market. The location of this site will also help to further the Economic Development initiatives of Roanoke County by adding to the customer base that supports businesses on and around the Hardy Road corridor. The proposed project reacts to the changing market conditions from the original development efforts that began in the 1990s. Summary In summary, we respectfully request approval of this rezoning request. This project is consistent with the goals and initiatives of Roanoke County and will address a need for additional housing options in the Roanoke Valley. This request will allow for vacant property to be developed with an active residential use along the Hardy Road corridor, while being sensitive to the surrounding residential, industrial, and recreational areas. HARDY R D ( R O U T E 6 3 4 ) LOT 2 (18.538 AC.) CA R D I N A L P A R K D R (R O U T E 2 0 8 0 ) PE D I G O L N PE D I G O L N CAMBRID G E D R LOT 4 (16.866 AC.) CARDINAL GLASS POSSIBLE SWM FACILITY LOT 1 (121 UNITS) LOT 6 (54 UNITS) PE D I G O C I R PEMBROO K DR POSSIBLE TRAIL POSSIBLE SWM FACILITY POSSIBLE PARKWETLANDS LOT 5 DETENTION LOT APPROX. EX. 100' AEP UTILITY EASEMENT WETLANDS APPROX. EX. AEP UTILITY TOWER WETLANDS COMMON PARKING AREA (TYPICAL) MUSE D R POSSIBLE CONNECTION TO MUSE DR LOT 3 (25.300 AC.) POSSIBLE PARK AREA 20 ' T Y P E - A B U F F E R 20 ' T Y P E - A B U F F E R 20' TY P E - A B U F F E R PROJECT NO. REVISIONS SCALE DATE CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY www.balzer.cc Roanoke / Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley PLANNE RS / A R C HITE C TS ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 PR E L I M I N A R Y NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N KPG KPG CPB 10/15/2025 1" = 100' VI N T O N B U S I N E S S C E N T E R RE S I D E N T I A L C O N C E P T P L A N 21 3 1 C A R D I N A L P A R K D R I V E RO A N O K E C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A EX-A R0070888.00 WPS Job #R0070888.00 Dated 10-15-2025 a Westwood Company 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 www.balzer.cc Roanoke Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE REZONED BEING ALL OF LOT 1 & DETENTION LOT PER PLAT RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 27, PAGE 55 IN THE CLERK’S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF HARDY ROAD – VA ROUTE 634, SAID POINT BEING +/- 322’ FROM THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH FINNEY DRIVE – VA RTE 1043, AND BEING THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF HARDY ROAD, S49°28'45"E A DISTANCE OF 144.50' TO A POINT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF HARDY ROAD WITH A CURVE TURNING TO THE LEFT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 422.39', A RADIUS OF 1934.88', A CHORD BEARING OF S55°43'59"E, A CHORD LENGTH OF 421.55', TO A POINT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF HARDY ROAD S57°27'36"E A DISTANCE OF 404.77' TO A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF CARDINAL PARK DRIVE; THENCE DEPARTING THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF HARDY ROAD ALONG THE WEST LINE OF CARDINAL PARK DRIVE, S20°51'15"W A DISTANCE OF 133.39' TO A POINT; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE WEST LINE OF CARDINAL PARK DRIVE WITH A CURVE TURNING TO THE RIGHT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 187.60', A RADIUS OF 415.00', A CHORD BEARING OF S33°48'15"W, A CHORD LENGTH OF 186.00', TO A POINT; THENCE WITH A REVERSE CURVE TURNING TO THE LEFT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 446.62', A RADIUS OF 485.00', A CHORD BEARING OF S20°22'27"W, A CHORD LENGTH OF 431.01', TO A POINT; THENCE WITH A COMPOUND CURVE TURNING TO THE LEFT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 41.13’, A RADIUS OF 65.00', A CHORD BEARING OF S29°58'52"W, WITH A CHORD LENGTH OF 40.44', TO A POINT IN A CUL-DE-SAC; THENCE LEAVING THE CUL-DE-SAC OF CARDINAL PARK DRIVE, THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: S87°30'40"W A DISTANCE OF 92.19' TO A POINT; S62°15'13"W A DISTANCE OF 142.53' TO A POINT; S84°38'35"W A DISTANCE OF 657.30' TO A POINT; THENCE THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: N00°17'59"W A DISTANCE OF 355.47' TO A POINT; N18°45'21"E A DISTANCE OF 488.34' TO A POINT; N22°22'55"E A DISTANCE OF 628.43' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOTAL AREA TO BE REZONED: 23.476 ACRES (1,022,598 SQ. FT.), MORE OR LESS. WPS Job #R0070888.00 Dated 09-08-2025 a Westwood Company 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 www.balzer.cc Roanoke Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley En v i s i o n i n g T o m o r r o w , D e s i g n i n g T o d a y METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE REZONED BEING ALL OF LOT 5 & LOT 6 PER PLAT RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 27, PAGE 55 IN THE CLERK’S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF CARDINAL PARK DRIVE, SAID POINT BEING +/- 331’ FROM THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH HARDY ROAD – VA ROUTE 634, AND BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6; THENCE LEAVING THE EASTERLY LINE OF CARDINAL PARK DRIVE, THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES: N88°29’46”E A DISTANCE OF 232.78' TO A POINT; S75°30’14”E A DISTANCE OF 120.94' TO A POINT; S69°08’14”E A DISTANCE OF 720.00' TO A POINT; N20°51’46”E A DISTANCE OF 200.14' TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF HARDY ROAD – VA ROUTE 634; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF HARDY ROAD, THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: S69°08’45”E A DISTANCE OF 3.34' TO A POINT; S68°55’32”E A DISTANCE OF 145.24' TO A POINT; S75°52’27”E A DISTANCE OF 203.27' TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF HARDY ROAD, THE FOLLOWING SEVEN COURSES: S49°01’03”E A DISTANCE OF 126.61' TO A POINT; S05°57’52”W A DISTANCE OF 80.99’ TO A POINT; A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 125.96', A RADIUS OF 415.00', A CHORD BEARING OF S14°39'36"W, A CHORD LENGTH OF 125.48’; N83°46’37”W A DISTANCE OF 213.73’ TO A POINT; N40°36’57”W A DISTANCE OF 149.19’ TO A POINT; S72°04’45”W A DISTANCE OF 423.37’ TO A POINT; WEST A DISTANCE OF 938.75’ TO A POINT IN THE CUL-DE-SAC LINE OF CARDINAL PARK DRIVE; THENCE ALONG THE CUL-DE-SAC LINE OF CARDINAL PARK DRIVE WITH A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 59.95', A RADIUS OF 65.00', A CHORD BEARING OF N40°10'58"W, A CHORD LENGTH OF 57.84', TO A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF CARDINAL PARK DRIVE; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF CARDINAL PARK DRIVE, THE FOLLOWING TWO CURVES: A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 378.20, A RADIUS OF 415.00', A CHORD BEARING OF N20°38'52"E, A CHORD LENGTH OF 365.25', TO A POINT; A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 116.79, A RADIUS OF 485.00', A CHORD BEARING OF N39°51'20"E, A CHORD LENGTH OF 116.51', TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOTAL AREA TO BE REZONED: 13.025 ACRES (567,354 SQ. FT.), MORE OR LESS. October 17, 2025 County of Roanoke Planning Department 5204 Bernard Dr. Roanoke, VA 24018 Attn: Philip Thompson, Director RE: Vinton Business Center – Traffic Narrative B&A, Inc. Job #R0070888.00 Mr. Thompson, The purpose of this narrative is to provide background traffic information and address potential traffic impacts related to the proposed rezoning request for a portion of the Vinton Business Center (VBC) property located on Cardinal Park Drive (Route 2080) in the County of Roanoke. Cardinal Park Drive accesses from Hardy Road (Route 634) just west of the Roanoke County/Bedford County line. The property is currently part of the Vinton Business Center industrial park. The VBC was originally rezoned to PTD, Planned Technology District on October 26, 1999. An additional rezoning was completed on June 28, 2011 to amend the PTD requirements, including an update to the Master Plan. The property is currently governed by the “Vinton Business Center Master Plan,” dated April 8, 2010 and prepared by Mattern & Craig, Inc. as well as the “Vinton Business Center Development Guidelines and Protective Covenants,” recorded at the Roanoke County Courthouse under Instrument #201107207. As outlined in these documents, currently permitted uses on this property include the following: a. General manufacturing, processing or assembly operations where processes, fabrication, and products are environmentally clean and efficient. b. Commercial, office or industrial flex space (office/warehouse combination). c. Science, research and technology businesses, services, or laboratories where processes are environmentally clean and efficient. d. Business services incidental to any of the foregoing. e. Accessory uses associated with a principal permitted use in accordance with any established County standards. Since the creation of the industrial park, only one of the industrial parcels has been developed. Roanoke County Tax Parcel 071.11-01-01.01-0000 is owned and operated by Cardinal Glass. The other parcels within the park are vacant. Due to this property’s ideal location, as well as the increasing shortage of residential housing, this park has been identified as an opportunity for residential development. This rezoning request is to rezone approximately 36 acres of land from PTD, Planned Technology District, to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District. The parcels that are included in the proposed rezoning request are Roanoke County Tax Parcels 071.07-03-01.00-0000, 071.07-03-02.00-0000, 071.07-03-03.00- 0000, and 071.07-03-04.00-0000. It should be noted that portions of the property are impacted by wetlands, slopes, and overhead utility lines, with the developable area totaling approximately 20 acres. The rezoning request, if approved, will allow for this portion of the property to be developed with single-family attached (townhome) dwellings. Access for the proposed development will primarily be from Cardinal Park Drive (Route 2075). A possible private, internal connection from the townhome development to Muse Drive is shown on the proposed Development Plan. Full right and left turn lanes are available on Hardy Road to serve vehicles turning into the development. Cardinal Park Drive currently consists of two exiting lanes to facilitate right and left turning vehicles leaving the development. Trip generation calculations were performed to provide a comparison between current by-right development and the proposed residential development. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the proposed residential uses are expected to generate a significantly lower overall volume of traffic than could be generated by by-right uses on the property. In addition, the types of traffic being generated will be much less intense with the proposed residential development not expected to generate any large truck traffic. Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Proposed Development ITE Code Independent Variable Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Single-Family Attached Housing 215 175 Dwelling Units 21 64 85 60 41 101 1,283 Table 1: Site-Generated Traffic (Proposed R-3 zoning) Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Proposed Development ITE Code Independent Variable Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Manufacturing 140 120,000 s.f. 63 20 83 27 60 87 654 General Office 710 60,000 s.f. 95 13 108 18 91 109 744 Research and Development Center 760 120,000 s.f. 108 23 131 20 106 126 1,412 Total 266 56 322 65 257 322 2,810 Table 2: Site-Generated Trips (Possible development pattern under current PTD zoning) As shown in the tables, the proposed rezoning is expected to result in a lower volume of traffic in and out of Cardinal Park Drive. Full right and left turn lanes are in place along Hardy Road and will adequately serve this development. No additional study is warranted or recommended as a result of the current request. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Balzer and Associates, Inc., a Westwood Company Christopher Burns, P.E. Engineering Manager Tax P o R-3 Roanoke County, VA 2023, Roanoke County, Maxar 10/23/2025, 1:43:26 PM 0 0.15 0.30.07 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:10,895 Tax Parcels #071.07-03-01.00-0000, 071.07-03-02.00-0000, 071.07-03-03.00-0000, and 071.07-03-04.00-0000 Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County - Aerial Map Request to Rezone from PTD to R-3 R1S PCD R3C R1 C2 AG3 PTD R3C AG3 R1 C2C I2C EP R1 R1 RB Roanoke County Zoning AG3 EP C2 C2 I2 PCD PTD R1 R1 R3 RB 10/23/2025, 1:59:22 PM 0 0.15 0.30.07 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:10,895 Tax Parcels #071.07-03-01.00-0000, 071.07-03-02.00-0000, 071.07-03-03.00-0000, and 071.07-03-04.00-0000 Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County - Zoning Map Request to Rezone from PTD to R-3 TR COS PI RBS LDR CMF NC CN Roanoke County Future Land Use Conservation Residential Business Community Facilities Low Density Residential Conservation Open Space Neighborhood Conservation Transition Principal Industrial 10/23/2025, 1:56:09 PM 0 0.15 0.30.07 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:10,895 Tax Parcels #071.07-03-01.00-0000, 071.07-03-02.00-0000, 071.07-03-03.00-0000, and 071.07-03-04.00-0000 Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County - Future Land Use Map Request to Rezone from PTD to R-3 Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E.4 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: Page 2 of 2 DISCUSSION: There is no discussion on this item. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: . That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of this ordinance for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for December 16, 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. 1 Application Requirements Consultation with the County Planning staff to review the feasibility of the proposal and to obtain recommended procedures and technical assistance. Applicant is encouraged to contact adjoining property owners to inform them of the proposal. Application must be legible and signed by property owner, contract purchaser, or owner’s agent. Justification stating in general terms the change in use of the property, the effect of the changes on the surrounding area, the reasons for the request, the consistency of the request with the Community Plan, and the consistency of the request with the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose stated at the beginning of the applicable district regulations. Concept Plan of the proposed project and the concept plan checklist must be submitted with the applications. Plan must be 8.5” x 11”. Metes and bounds description must accompany rezoning application. Water and sewer application and planimetric maps must accompany rezoning and special use permit application, if applicable. List of adjoining property owners including owner’s names, addresses (mailing address including zip code) and tax map numbers of all adjoining properties and those directly across any public right-of-way must accompany application, including those in adjacent jurisdictions. Refer to tax records in the County Assessor’s office. Application fees must accompany application and are as follows: Rezoning  Agri/Single/Two $415 + $20/acre or portion thereof Rezoning  Multi-family $860 + $25/acre or portion thereof Rezoning  Industrial $840 + $30/acre or portion thereof Rezoning  Commercial $945 + $32/acre or portion thereof Land Use Plan Amendment $710 Special Use  Landfill $1,875 Special Use  Other $150 Variance $190 Waiver $190 Administrative Appeal $275 Technology Fee 5% fee on all permit issuing fees In addition, the applicant must pay legal advertisement fees. Staff will prepare ad for the applicant and deliver ad to The Roanoke Times. The applicant will be billed by The Roanoke Times for the ad. Please include email and phone number Public Hearing Notices must be posted at clearly visible locations along the street frontage or property lines of the subject property. Notices will be issued by Planning & Zoning following receipt of the completed application. For further information or assistance, please contact: Department of Planning 5204 Bernard Drive, SW P O Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Phone (540) 772-2068 - Fax (540)776-7155 E-Mail: planning@roanokecountyva.gov All required items must be submitted before the application deadline. 2 County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning For Staff Use Only 5204 Bernard Drive P O Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540)772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 ALL APPLICANTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) □Rezoning □ Special Use □ Variance □ Waiver □ Administrative Appeal □Comp Plan (15.2-2232) Review Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: Cell #: Email: Contact for Legal Ads Owner’s name/address w/zip REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WAIVER AND COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW APPLICANTS (R/S/W/CP) IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST (Rezoning). IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (V/W/AA) Appeal of Zoning Administrator’s decision to 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 I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner’s agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent f the owner. Owner’s Signature Consultation 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners Date received: Received by: Application fee: PC/BZA date: Placards issued: BOS date: Case Number 10/10/2025 R. James 12/2/2025 12/16/2025 2,803.50 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. 6 ALL APPLICANTS a. Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north arrow c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties g. All property lines and easements 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 adjacent 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 l. 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. Signature of applicant Date 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 are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted 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: 10/17/2025 7 Community Development Planning & Zoning Division 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 more than 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 roadway classified 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 is more 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 of the 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 8 Community Development Planning & Zoning Division NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, 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. Effective date: April 19, 2005 Name of Petition Petitioner’s Signature Date 10/17/2025 REZONING NARRATIVE On behalf of the applicant, The Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County, we are providing this narrative as supplemental information to support the attached rezoning application. This request is to amend the existing Master Plan as it pertains to Roanoke County Tax Parcels #071.11-01-01.00-0000, 071.11-01-01.01-0000 and 071.11-01-01.02-0000 (the Rezoned Area) in conjunction with another request to rezone a portion of the Vinton Business Center industrial park for residential development. Existing Zoning: PTD – Planned Technology Development District Proposed Zoning: 60.704 acres to remain PTD (Master Plan to be amended) 36.501 acres to be rezoned to R-3 High Density Multi-Family Residential District by separate request Property History & Vision The Vinton Business Center (VBC) property was originally acquired by the Town of Vinton in 1986. In 1999, the property was rezoned to PTD, Planned Technology Development District, to allow for the property to be prepared and marketed for industrial development (Ordinance #102699-7). The County also entered into a gain sharing agreement with the Town of Vinton. Several proffered conditions were placed on the property as part of this rezoning action. In 2003, a second rezoning action was approved to amend the proffered conditions (Ordinance #102803- 14). In 2011, an additional rezoning action was approved that repealed the previous proffered conditions and adopted an amended Master Plan (Ordinance #062811-10). This Master Plan is entitled “Vinton Business Center Master Plan,” prepared by Mattern & Craig, Inc., and dated April 8, 2010. Despite substantial efforts to market the overall Vinton Business Center property for industrial development, Cardinal Glass remains as the only business currently within the Center. The pad sites on Lots 1 and 2 as well as the smaller Lots 5 and 6 have remained undeveloped for the last 20 years. The current plan is to remove a portion of this property from the overall business center and develop this land as a new townhome community. This proposed request to amend the VBC Master Plan will allow the remaining property to be developed in this way and finally realize its potential to meet the changing needs of the community in 2025. Roanoke County will have the ability to work with a reputable builder to create a new residential community to help address the current local and national housing shortage. The proposed townhomes will blend well with the existing residential to the north and west and provide a transition between the existing single-family developments and the remaining industrial development area. Lot 2 (vacant), Lot 3 (Cardinal Glass), and Lot 4 (vacant) will remain part of the Planned Technology Development District. The preservation of Lots 2 and 4 within the PTD will maintain two available industrial sites that can still be leveraged to attract new business to Roanoke County. The development of the remaining property as residential will add new life to this area and hopefully make this site more attractive to businesses as a location for future investment and development. A separate rezoning action is being filed in conjunction with this request to rezone 36.501 acres of land from PTD, Planned Technology Development District, to R-3, High Density Multi-Family Residential District. Existing Conditions The Rezoned Area contains the existing Cardinal Glass development on Lot 3 as well as Lots 2 and 4, which are currently vacant lots. The Rezoned Area is bounded to the north by Hardy Road (Route 634), Cardinal Park Drive (Route 2075), and VBC land proposed to be rezoned to R-3. It is bounded on the west by existing single-family residential property. The land is bordered to the south by Blue Ridge Parkway property. There is an existing stream and wetlands located outside of the Rezoned Area just to the north. Master Plan An amended Master Plan (Exhibit A) is included with this rezoning application. This plan outlines the updated development pattern for the Vinton Business Center. The overall development pattern remains unchanged for the Rezoned Area. Future development will need to meet all applicable requirements in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Access & Transportation The Master Plan amendment does not impact expected traffic patterns or access locations for the VBC. Access to the Cardinal Glass property is provided by Cardinal Park Drive (Route 2075). Future access to Lot 2 will be from Cardinal Park Drive. Future access to Lot 4 could be provided through the Cardinal Glass property or by separate entrance on Hardy Road. If a separate access point is proposed, this would be subject to VDOT approval and would need to meet all VDOT requirements for sight distance, turn lanes, etc. Existing traffic entering the park utilizes Hardy Road to access Cardinal Park Drive. Full turn lanes and tapers are in place and no further improvements to this intersection are warranted. A Traffic Narrative is included with the R-3 Rezoning Application indicating that the residential development represents a significant reduction in expected vehicle trips at this intersection. Public Services The Rezoned Area will be served by public water and sanitary sewer utilities owned and maintained by the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA). Cardinal Glass is currently connected to public water and sewer. This existing infrastructure could easily be extended to serve Lot 2. According to WVWA GIS, there is an existing 8” public sewer main and an existing 8” public water main extended across the Cardinal Glass property to the western property line of Lot 4. Future development of Lot 4 is anticipated to connect to these, although there are also public utility lines in Hardy Road that could be extended to Lot 4 if needed. This Master Plan amendment is not expected to have any negative impacts to public schools, parks/recreation, or fire and rescue. Stormwater Management There is an existing above-ground detention pond located on the Detention Lot that serves the existing Cardinal Glass development. It is anticipated that future development of Lots 2 and 4 will provide stand- alone stormwater management facilities. Future development will need to be designed in accordance with all local and state stormwater management requirements, including quantity and quality requirements. Comprehensive Development Plan Roanoke County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the Future Land Use of this property as Principal Industrial. The Rezoned Area is, and will remain, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Master Plan amendment (and separate R-3 rezoning request) will further the goals of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan by allowing for development of vacant property in an appropriate location of the County. The proposed townhomes will provide additional housing options in an important area of the County, which is of utmost importance due to the current shortage of housing. This property is also located within the Bonsack/Vinton Planning Area. The proposed request is consistent with many of the goals and initiatives of the Comprehensive Plan and of the Bonsack/Vinton Planning Area: • Encourage a diverse housing stock meeting the demands of current and future residents. • Protect steep slope areas. The proposed development preserves the steep slopes closest to the existing creek and to the Blue Ridge Parkway land to the south within the proposed R-3 zoning area. • Remove outdated proffer conditions on certain properties to promote redevelopment and expedite the development process. • Encourage the provision of open space and park facilities with new development. Open space areas to be preserved along the existing creek/wetlands area and adjacent to Blue Ridge Parkway property within the proposed R-3 zoning area. • Expand housing options. The proposed townhomes will provide additional options to a currently underserved area of the market. The location of this site will also further the Economic Development initiatives of Roanoke County by adding to the customer base that supports businesses on and around the Hardy Road corridor. This will help attract and retain businesses in this area that will benefit all residents of Roanoke County. Summary In summary, we respectfully request approval of this request to amend the Master Plan at the Vinton Business Center. This request is consistent with the goals and initiatives of Roanoke County and will allow for additional property within the park to be developed in a way that addresses the need for additional housing options in the Roanoke Valley. This request will facilitate development of vacant property along the important Hardy Road corridor, while being sensitive to the surrounding residential, industrial, and recreational areas. HARDY R D LOT 6 LOT 2 LOT 1 CA R D I N A L P A R K D R LOT 5DETENTION LOT PE D I G O L N PE D I G O L N CAMBRID G E D R LOT 4 PE D I G O C I R PEMBROO K D R MUSE D R LOT 3 CARDINAL GLASS AREA #1 TO BE REMOVED FROM AMENDED PTD MASTER PLAN 23.476 Ac. AREA TO REMAIN IN AMENDED PTD MASTER PLAN 60.704 Ac. AREA #2 TO BE REMOVED FROM AMENDED PTD MASTER PLAN 13.025 Ac. PROJECT NO. REVISIONS SCALE DATE CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY www.balzer.cc Roanoke / Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley PLANNE RS / A R C HITE C TS ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS N: \ 0 0 7 0 8 8 8 . 0 0 \ 0 6 C A D \ D W G \ S i t e D e s i g n \ D e s i g n \ R 0 0 7 0 8 8 8 . 0 0 A m e n d e d M a s t e r P l a n - w o L o t 2 . d w g P L O T T E D : 10 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 1 0 : 3 7 P M 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 PR E L I M I N A R Y NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N KPG KPG CPB 10/15/2025 1" = 150' VI N T O N B U S I N E S S C E N T E R AM E N D E D M A S T E R P L A N 21 3 1 C A R D I N A L P A R K D R I V E RO A N O K E C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A EX-A R0070888.00 LEGEND PARCELS TO REMAIN IN AMENDED PTD MASTER PLAN PARCELS REMOVED FROM PTD MASTER PLAN WPS Job #R0070888.00 Dated 10-15-2025 a Westwood Company 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 www.balzer.cc Roanoke Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE REZONED BEING ALL OF LOT 2, LOT 3, & LOT 4 PER PLAT RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 27, PAGE 55 IN THE CLERK’S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CUL-DE-SAC LINE OF CARDINAL PARK DRIVE, SAID POINT BEING +/- 886’ FROM THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH HARDY ROAD – VA ROUTE 634, AND BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5; THENCE LEAVING THE CUL-DE-SAC LINE OF CARDINAL PARK DRIVE, THE FOLLOWING SEVEN COURSES: EAST A DISTANCE OF 938.75' TO A POINT; N72°04’45”E A DISTANCE OF 423.37' TO A POINT; S40°36’57”E A DISTANCE OF 149.19' TO A POINT; S83°46’37”E A DISTANCE OF 213.73' TO A POINT; A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 125.96’, A RADIUS OF 415.00’, A CHORD BEARING OF N14°39'36"E, A CHORD LENGTH OF 125.48', TO A POINT; N05°57’52”E A DISTANCE OF 80.99' TO A POINT; N49°01’03”W A DISTANCE OF 126.61' TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF HARDY ROAD – VA ROUTE 634; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF HARDY ROAD, THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES: S80°22’28”E A DISTANCE OF 101.75' TO A POINT; S87°00’56”E A DISTANCE OF 116.32' TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF HARDY ROAD, THE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES: S08°36’21”W A DISTANCE OF 238.43' TO A POINT; S84°42’46”W A DISTANCE OF 33.00’ TO A POINT; S07°40’23”W A DISTANCE OF 255.41’ TO A POINT; N88°21’13”E A DISTANCE OF 261.16’ TO A POINT; S24°24’17”E A DISTANCE OF 119.08’ TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY, THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: S49°05’23”W A DISTANCE OF 616.63' TO A POINT; S80°15’58”W A DISTANCE OF 1349.87' TO A POINT; S77°32’33”W A DISTANCE OF 1160.32' TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY, THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES: N37°57'52"W A DISTANCE OF 137.72' TO A POINT; N00°17'59"W A DISTANCE OF 977.01' TO A POINT; THENCE THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: N84°38'35"E A DISTANCE OF 657.30' TO A POINT; N62°15'13"E A DISTANCE OF 142.53' TO A POINT; N87°30'40"E A DISTANCE OF 92.19' TO A POINT IN A CUL-DE-SAC; THENCE WITH A COMPOUND CURVE TURNING TO THE LEFT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 233.27’, A RADIUS OF 65.00', A CHORD BEARING OF N89°02'35"E, WITH A CHORD LENGTH OF 126.78', TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOTAL AREA TO BE REZONED: 60.704 ACRES (2,644,250 SQ. FT.), MORE OR LESS. Roanoke County, VA 2023, Roanoke County, Maxar 10/23/2025, 2:14:26 PM 0 0.15 0.30.07 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:10,895 Tax Parcels #071.11-01-01.00-0000, 071.11-01-01.01-0000 and 071.11-01-01.02-0000 Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County and Cardinal IG Company - Aerial Map Request to Rezone to Amend the PTD Master Plan R1S PCD R1 R3C C2 AG3 R1 PTD AG3R1 C2C I2C R1 EP R3CRB Roanoke County Zoning AG3 EP C2 C2 I2 PCD PTD R1 R1 R3 RB 10/23/2025, 2:04:04 PM 0 0.15 0.30.07 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:10,895 Tax Parcels #071.11-01-01.00-0000, 071.11-01-01.01-0000 and 071.11-01-01.02-0000 Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County and Cardinal IG Company - Zoning Map Request to Rezone to Amend the PTD Master Plan TR COS PI RBS LDR CMF NC CN Roanoke County Future Land Use Conservation Residential Business Community Facilities Low Density Residential Conservation Open Space Neighborhood Conservation Transition Principal Industrial High : 254 - Low : 2 10/23/2025, 2:08:38 PM 0 0.15 0.30.07 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:10,895 Tax Parcels #071.11-01-01.00-0000, 071.11-01-01.01-0000 and 071.11-01-01.02-0000 Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County and Cardinal IG Company- Future Land Use Map Request to Rezone to Amend the PTD Master Plan Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E.5 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE DISCUSSION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E.6 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: DISCUSSION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E.7 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND: “community services officers” to “animal control police officers” to more accurately DISCUSSION: FISCAL IMPACT: Page 2 of 2 There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the ordinance and requests scheduling the second reading for December 16, 2025. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2025 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 (ANIMALS AND FOWL) OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE WHEREAS, Roanoke County police officers responsible for animal control were originally anticipated to also be involved with community service and thus were given the title of community service officers; and WHEREAS, over the last few years, animal control issues and responsibilities have taken up all the time of currently assigned community services officers; and WHEREAS, the Police Department is planning on creating a unit exclusively dedicated to community problem solving; and WHEREAS, the Police Department would like to change the name of the “community services officers” to “animal control police officers” to more accurately reflect their duties and to deconflict the community services title for future use; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 18, 2025, and the second reading was held on December 16, 2025. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors as follows: 1. That Chapter 5 (Animals and Fowl) of the Roanoke County Code is hereby amended as follows (sections not set forth below shall remain without amendment): Chapter 5 ANIMALS AND FOWL1 ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 5-1. Animal control officer generally. (a) There is hereby created the position of community service animal control police officers for the county. Such officers shall be appointed by the chief of police. (b) The community service animal control police officers are sworn police officers who shall enforce the provisions of this chapter relating to dogs and other domestic animals, all other ordinances of the county, the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and perform such other duties as prescribed by the chief of police. (c) Such number of community service animal control police officers as are authorized by the board of supervisors shall be appointed by the chief of police. (d) The community service animal control police officers shall be deemed to be the county's animal control officer, within the meaning of section 3.1-796.104 3.2-6555 of the Code of Virginia. (Code 1971, § 5-4; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96; Ord. No. 120506-2, § 1, 12-5-06) * * * Sec. 5-23. Dogs and cats deemed personal property; rights relating thereto. (a) All dogs and cats in this county shall be deemed personal property and may be the subject of larceny and malicious or unlawful trespass and the owners thereof may maintain any action for the killing of any such dogs or cats, or injury thereto, or unlawful detention or use thereof, as in the case of other personal property. The owner of any dog or cat which is injured or killed contrary to the provisions of this article by any person shall be entitled to recover the value thereof or the damage done thereto in an appropriate action at law from such person. (b) The community service animal control police officers or other officer finding a stolen dog or cat or a dog or cat held or detained contrary to law shall have authority to seize and hold such dog or cat pending action before a general district court or other court. If no such action is instituted within seven (7) days, such officer shall deliver the dog or cat to its owner. The presence of a dog or cat on the premises of a person other than its legal owner shall raise no presumption of theft against the owner of such premises, and the community service animal control police officers may take such dog or cat in charge and notify its legal owner to remove him. The legal owner of the dog or cat shall pay the normal boarding fee established by section 5-29 for the keep of such dog or cat while in the possession of the community service animal control police officers or other authorized agent of the county. (Code 1971, § 5-6; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96) * * * 1Cross reference(s)—Farm animals exempt from taxation, § 21-20. State law reference(s)—Comprehensive animal care laws, Code of Virginia, § 3.1-796.66 3.2-6500 et seq.; authority for local animal control ordinances, Code of Virginia, § 3.1-796.94. 3.2-6543. Sec. 5-26.1. Dangerous dogs; vicious dog; penalties; procedures. (a) Dangerous dog. It shall be unlawful and a class 1 misdemeanor to own, keep, harbor, act as custodian of or permit to remain on or about any premises any dog that the owner knew or reasonably should have known to be a dangerous dog, as defined by section 5-21, except in strict compliance with section 5-26.3 of this Code. If any dog previously declared to be a dangerous dog bites a human being or attacks a human being causing bodily injury, such owner shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (b) Vicious dog. It shall be unlawful and a class 1 misdemeanor to own, keep, harbor, act as custodian of or permit to remain on or about any premises any dog that the owner knew or reasonably should have known to be a vicious dog, as defined by section 5-21. If, after hearing evidence, the court finds any dog to be a vicious dog, the court shall, in addition to any other penalties imposed, order the community service animal control police officer to euthanize the dog. (c) Procedures. (1) Any community service animal control police and/or police officer who has reason to believe that a canine or canine crossbreed within the county is a dangerous dog or vicious dog shall apply to a magistrate within the county for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before the county general district court at a specified time. The summons shall advise the owner or custodian of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. When a summons issued pursuant to this section, the community service animal control police officer and/or police officer may, in his discretion, confine the dog until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. Otherwise, the owner or custodian shall confine the dog until the evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. The court may, through its contempt power, compel the owner, custodian or harborer of any dog to produce it for the community service animal control police officer and/or police officer. In the event any dog is found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog, the owner or custodian of such dog shall be responsible for payment to the county of any expenses of impounding and keeping the dog pending disposition of the case at the rate prescribed by the county board of supervisors. (2) If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a dangerous dog, the court shall order the animal's owner to comply with sections 5-26.2 and 5.26.3 of the county code. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a vicious dog, the court shall order the animal euthanized in accordance with state law. (d) If the owner or custodian of an animal found to be a dangerous dog is a minor, the custodial parent or legal guardian shall be responsible for complying with all requirements of this chapter. (e) All fees collected pursuant to this section, less the costs incurred by the county in producing and distributing the licenses and tags required by ordinance, shall be paid into a special dedicated fund for the purpose of paying the expenses of any training courses required by community service animal control police officers under § 3.1-796.104 3.2-6556 of the Code of Virginia or its successor. (Ord. No. 72793-7, § 1, 7-27-93; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96; Ord. No. 060998-7, 6-23-98; Ord. No. 120506-2, § 1, 12-5-06) Sec. 5-26.2. Licensure of dangerous dog. (a) The owner or custodian of any dog found by a court to be a dangerous dog shall, within forty-five (45) days of such finding, obtain a dangerous dog registration certificate or license from the treasurer by paying the fee required by section 5-44 of this Code. The treasurer shall provide the owner or custodian with a uniformly designed tag which identifies the dog as a dangerous dog. The owner or custodian shall affix the tag to the dog's collar and ensure that the dog wears collar and tag at all times. All certificates or licenses issued pursuant to this section shall be renewed annually as required by section 5-44 of this Code. The community service animal control police officer shall provide a copy of the dangerous dog registration certificate or license and verification of the owner's compliance with the requirements of this article to the state veterinarian. (b) No dangerous dog license shall be issued until the applicant has filed with the treasurer the insurance certificate required by section 5-26.3(c). The treasurer shall immediately forward a copy of such certificate to the police department and the county's risk manager for review and filing. The risk manager shall immediately notify the community service animal control police officer and/or police officer of any noncompliance with the provisions of section 5-26.3(c) of which the risk manager becomes aware. (c) Any license or renewal required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons eighteen (18) years of age or older who present satisfactory evidence: (1) Of the dog's current rabies vaccination; (2) That the provisions of subsections (a), (b) and (d) of section 5-26.3 have been complied with; and (3) That the animal has been neutered or spayed. (Ord. No. 72793-7, § 1, 7-27-93; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96; Ord. No. 060998-7, 6-23-98; Ord. No. 120506-2, § 1, 12-5-06; Ord. No. 092413-6, § 1, 9-24-13) Sec. 5-26.3. Keeping dangerous dogs; conditions. It shall be unlawful for any owner of any dangerous dog to own, keep, or harbor any such dog within the county except in compliance with each of the following conditions and specifications: (a) Any dangerous dog shall be securely confined indoors or, if kept outdoors, shall be kept in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure adequate to confine the dog and located upon the premises of the owner of the dog. Any such pen or structure shall have secure sides and a secure top and, if it has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides shall be imbedded into the ground no less than two (2) feet. Such pen or structures shall provide any such dog with adequate space and protection from the elements and shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. (b) The owner of any dangerous dog shall display two (2) signs on his property stating: "Dangerous Dog on Premises." One sign shall be posted at the front of the property, and the second sign shall be posted at the rear of the property. Each sign shall be capable of being read from a distance of fifty (50) feet. (c) The owner of any dangerous dog shall procure and maintain public liability insurance in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) insuring the owner for any injury or damage caused by such dog. The owner shall maintain a valid policy and certificate of insurance issued by the insurance carrier or agent as to the coverage required by this subsection at the premises where such dog is kept and shall, upon request, display such policy and certificate to any community service animal control police officer or police officer. (d) The owner of any dangerous dog shall have such dog permanently identified by means of a tatoo on an inside thigh, and the owner of any dangerous dog shall provide the community service animal control police officer with a color photograph of the dog taken within the last twelve (12) months, suitable for use in identifying the dog. (e) If any dangerous dog is taken off the property of its owner, such dog shall be muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash not exceeding six (6) feet in length, and such dog shall at all times be kept under the control of a responsible person. Such muzzle shall be constructed in such a manner that it will prevent the dog from biting any person or animal, but such that it will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration. (f) The owner of any dangerous dog shall notify the police department immediately once such dog is discovered to be loose or missing; if such dog has attacked or wounded a human being or another animal; or if such dog has been sold, leased, given away, died, or custody has been transferred to another person for more than forty-eight (48) hours. If such dog has been sold, leased, given away, or custody has been so transferred, the owner shall provide the police department with the name, address, and telephone number of the new owner, lessee, or custodian who shall be required to comply with the conditions of this section if the dog is kept within the county. If the owner of a dangerous dog moves such dog to a different address, such owner shall notify the police department of such fact and the new address within twenty-four (24) hours. (g) The community service animal control police officer and/or police officer shall be permitted the right to inspect the enclosure in which any dangerous dog is kept at any time. (h) In addition to the conditions and specifications established by this section with respect to dangerous dogs, the owner of any dangerous dog shall meet all other requirements established by this article for keeping any dog. (i) The community service animal control police officer and/or police officer shall have the right to seize and impound the dog if any of the conditions and specifications established by this section for the keeping of a dangerous dog are not being met. (Ord. No. 72793-7, § 1, 7-27-93; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96; Ord. No. 120506-2, § 1, 12-5-06) Sec. 5-26.4. Violations. It shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor for the owner of any dog which has caused a wound to any person to conceal or cause to be concealed such dog from any community service animal control police officer or police officer. (Ord. No. 72793-7, § 1, 7-27-93; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96) * * * Sec. 5-27. Barking or howling dogs. (a) The harboring or keeping of any dog that causes any sound or noise such that it is plainly audible at least once a minute for ten (10) consecutive minutes: (1) Inside the confines of the dwelling unit, house or apartment of another; or (2) At fifty (50) or more feet from the animal; is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be unlawful. (b) A dog that is in violation of subsection (a) may be impounded by a community service animal control police officer or other law enforcement officer under the following circumstances: (1) If, after reasonable efforts by the officer, the keeper of the animal cannot be located and the noise in violation of this section persists, (2) If, after being advised by an officer that the dog is in violation of this Section, the keeper of the dog is unwilling or unable to take steps to stop the dog from barking, or (3) The keeper of a specific dog has been notified on three (3) or more separate occasions that the dog was in violation of this section, and the officer again observes the dog to be in violation of this section. The disposition of any such dog shall be in accordance with section 5-29. (c) It is requested, upon the first instance that a specific dog creates a public nuisance (as set forth in subsection (a) above), that the affected citizen first contact the dog's keeper, prior to contacting the county police department, to attempt to resolve objections with the keeper. (d) A community service animal control police officer or other law enforcement officer may institute civil proceedings against any person that is in violation of this section. Citizens may also institute their own civil proceedings to resolve barking dog problems. (Code 1971, § 5-10.2; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96; Ord. No. 092822-5, § 1, 9-28-22) Cross reference(s)—Noise generally, § 13-3. * * * Sec. 5-29. Same—Impoundment. (a) It shall be the duty of the community service animal control police officer or other officer to cause any dog or animal found running at large in violation of section 5-28 or any dog or cat creating an animal nuisance in the presence of the officer as defined by section 5-21 to be caught and confined in the county animal shelter. Every reasonable effort shall be made on the part of the community service animal control police officer or other officer to determine the ownership of an animal so confined if the animal has an identifying collar, tag, license or tattooed identification or electronic implant and to notify the owner of its whereabouts. Such officer shall make a reasonable effort within forty-eight (48) hours of the animal's confinement to notify any owner who may be readily identified of such confinement. (b) A dog or cat or other domestic animal or companion animal confined under this section or other lawful authority may be claimed by the rightful owner after displaying proof of ownership, a current dog or cat license and proof of current rabies inoculation of the animal. No dog, cat, or companion animal shall be released to any person claiming ownership, unless such license and proof have been displayed. (c) An owner claiming his animal pursuant to subsection (b) above shall be required to pay the actual expense incurred by the county in keeping the animal confined. Such payment shall be made to the custodial officer at the time of the release of the animal. It shall be the duty of the custodial officer to furnish the owner with a written receipt for such payment, in a form and manner approved by the board of supervisors. Such officer shall keep a carbon copy of all such receipts in a bound book, which shall be turned over to the county treasurer when the book is filled and shall be subject to audit by representatives of the board of supervisors whenever requested. In the event any domestic animal confined at county expense is sold, an amount equal to the actual expense incurred by the county in keeping the animal confined shall be deducted from the sale proceeds as funds payable pursuant to this subsection. Any funds collected pursuant to this subsection shall be remitted to the police department's animal impoundment account. No payment made under this subsection shall relieve the owner from prosecution for violating section 5-28. (d) Any animal confined pursuant to this section shall be kept for a period of not less than five (5) days, commencing on the day immediately following the day such animal is initially confined, unless sooner claimed by its rightful owner or such owner has surrendered all property rights in such animal, before it may be disposed of. Any animal whose identity may be readily identified shall be kept for an additional period of five (5) days, or a total of ten (10) days, before it may be disposed of or delivered to an individual for adoption and payment of all required fees. (e) A pickup fee of twenty dollars ($20.00) for the first offense, thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for the second offense, and fifty dollars ($50.00) for the third offense shall be imposed in addition to the normal board fee of eight and three quarters dollars ($8.75) per day when any dog or cat or domestic animal is claimed by its owner or custodian. All such fees shall constitute a civil debt owning to the county and may be enforced against such owner or custodian by civil warrant, suit or action at law or other legal proceeding. (f) Feral dogs or cats not bearing identification which exhibits behavior that poses a risk of physical injury to any person confining the animal will be confined for a period of not less than three (3) day before being euthanized in accordance with Section 3.1-796.96 3.2-6546 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. (Code 1971, §§ 5-11, 5-26; Ord. No. 2135, 9-26-78; Ord. No. 52290-7, § 1, 5-22-90; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96; Ord. No. 012699-14, § 1, 1-26-99; Ord. No. 120506-2, § 1, 12-5-06) * * * Sec. 5-31. Killing, injuring, etc., livestock or poultry—Generally. (a) It shall be the duty of the community service animal control police officer or other officer, if he finds a dog in the act of killing, injuring, worrying or chasing livestock or poultry, to kill such dog forthwith, whether such dog bears a tag or not, and any person finding a dog committing any of the depredations mentioned in this section shall have the right to kill such dog on sight. (b) The general district court or any other court shall have the power to order the community service animal control police officer or other officer to kill any dog known to be a confirmed livestock or poultry killer, and any dog killing poultry for the third time shall be considered a confirmed poultry killer. (c) If any person, including the community service animal control police officer, has reason to believe that any dog is killing livestock or committing any of the depredations mentioned in this section, he shall apply to a magistrate of the county, who shall issue a warrant requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before the judge of the general district court at the time and place named therein, at which time evidence shall be heard, and if it shall appear that such dog is a livestock killer or has committed any of the depredations mentioned in this section, the dog shall be ordered killed immediately, which the community service animal control police officer or other officer designated by the judge of the general district court to act, shall do. (Code 1971, § 5-7; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96) State law reference(s)—Dogs killing, injuring, etc., other animals, Code of Virginia, §§ 3.1-796.116 3.2-6552, 3.1- 796.117. Sec. 5-32. Same—Investigation of claims against county. (a) The community service animal control police officer shall conduct an investigation into any claim made pursuant to section 3.1-796.118 3.2-6553 of the Code of Virginia for livestock or poultry killed or injured by a dog prior to the payment of such claim, to determine if the claimant has exhausted all legal remedies available to him against the owner of the dog, if known, prior to making such claim to the board of supervisors. (b) For the purposes of this section, "exhaustion" shall mean a judgment against the owner of the dog upon which an execution has been returned unsatisfied. (Code 1971, § 5-13.1; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-27-96) Sec. 5-33. Disposal of dead companion animal. The owner of any companion animal, poultry, or livestock which has died from disease or other cause shall forthwith cremate or bury the same. If, after notice, the owner fails to do so, any judge of the general district court shall direct the community service animal control police officer or other officer to bury or cremate the companion animal, poultry or livestock and he may recover, on behalf of the county, from the owner his actual cost for the cremation or burial and a reasonable fee for this service. All sums recovered under this section shall be deposited to the community service animal impoundment account. In addition to recovery of costs and fees, any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 4 misdemeanor. (Code 1971, § 5-8; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96; Ord. No. 120506-2, § 1, 12-5-06; Ord. No. 092711-2, § 1, 9- 27-11) Cross reference(s)—County solid waste collectors not to pick up dead animals, § 20-27. * * * Sec. 5-36. Community service Animal control police officers; duties and responsibilities. There is hereby created the position of community service animal control police officer within the county police department. The community service animal control police officer or his agent or any law enforcement officer shall have the following powers: (1) May enter upon private property to apprehend any domestic animal which is in violation of any provision of this chapter or to apprehend any animal which presents an immediate threat to the safety, health or welfare of any person, including an animal suspected of being infected with rabies; (2) May enter upon private property to investigate complaints of inhumane or lack of responsible animal care; (3) May seize, impound or dispose of any vicious or dangerous animal of any kind when necessary for the protection of any person or animal; and (4) May perform all other acts necessary to carry out the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96) * * * Sec. 5-44. Tax imposed. (a) Commencing on January 1, 2025, a "lifetime" license tax is hereby imposed on dogs or cats required to be licensed under this division in the following amounts (prior to January 1, 2025, licenses were issued for each animal on an annual or three-year basis): (1) The license tax on dogs, for as long as the owner owns the dog, shall be twenty dollars ($20.00). (2) The license tax on cats, for as long as the owner owns the cat, shall be fifteen dollars ($15.00). Upon transfer of a dog or a cat to a new owner, the new owner shall likewise pay the license tax. (b) An annual license tax is hereby imposed on kennels and dangerous dogs required to be licensed under this division in the following amounts: (1) Kennel for up to twenty (20) dogs: Twenty-five dollars ($25.00). (2) Kennel for up to fifty (50) dogs: Thirty-five dollars ($35.00). (3) Dangerous dog, as declared by any general district court or circuit court of this commonwealth or by a community service animal control police officer pursuant to section 5-26.1(c)(2) above: one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) (in addition to the other applicable fees herein). All certificates shall be updated and renewed for a fee of eighty-five dollars ($85.00) and in the same manner as the initial certificate was obtained (in addition to the other applicable fees herein). (c) No license tax shall be levied under this section on any dog that is trained and serves as a guide dog for a blind person or that is trained and serves as a hearing dog for a deaf or hearing impaired person. As used herein, the term "hearing dog" means a dog trained to alert its owner, by touch, to sounds of danger and sounds to which the owner should respond. (d) In no event shall the treasurer pay any refund of the license tax imposed by this section. (Code 1971, § 5-14; Ord. No. 2135, 9-26-78; Ord. No. 52290-7, § 1, 5-22-90; Ord. No. 72793-7, § 1, 7-27-93; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94; Ord. No. 060998-7, 6-23-98; Ord. No. 042313-7, § 1, 4-23-13; Ord. No. 111924-3.c, § 1, 11-19-24) * * * Sec. 5-49. Preservation and exhibition of license receipt. A dog or cat license receipt shall be carefully preserved by the person to whom it is issued and exhibited promptly on request for inspection by the community service animal control police officer or any other officer. (Code 1971, § 5-25; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96) * * * Sec. 5-53. Records of licenses sold. A list of all dog or cat licenses and kennel licenses sold shall be made in triplicate, consecutively numbered, and showing to whom issued; residence address; magisterial district; tag number; year ending; day, month and year issued; and the signature of the county treasurer. The original copy shall be delivered to the dog or cat owner, the second copy shall be retained by the treasurer and the third copy shall be delivered to the community service animal control police officer unit of the police department. (Code 1971, § 5-19; Ord. No. 41294-7, § 1, 4-12-94; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96) * * * Sec. 5-55. Special provisions as to kennel licenses. (a) The owner of a kennel shall securely fasten the license tag issued under this division to the kennel enclosure in full view and keep one of the identification plates provided therewith attached to the collar of each dog authorized to be kept enclosed in the kennel. Any identification plates not so in use shall be kept by the owner or custodian and promptly shown to any community service animal control police officer or other officer upon request. A kennel dog shall not be permitted to stray beyond the limits of the enclosure, but this shall not prohibit removing dogs therefrom temporarily while under the control of the owner or custodian for the purpose of exercising, hunting, breeding, trial or show. A kennel shall not be operated in such manner as to defraud the county of the license tax applying to dogs which cannot be legally covered thereunder or to in any manner violate other provisions of this article. (b) If a kennel dog is found running and roaming at large at any time of the year in violation of any provision of this article, the kennel license may be revoked, if the violation appears to the trial court to have resulted from carelessness or negligence on the part of the owner, who shall thereupon be required to secure an individual license for each dog. (Code 1971, § 5-27; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96) * * * DIVISION 3. RABIES CONTROL2 * * * Sec. 5-68. Impoundment of unvaccinated dogs or cats. (a) Any dog or cat found in the county which is not vaccinated as required in division shall be impounded by the community service animal control police officer or other officer. The dog or cat may be returned to its 2State law reference(s)—Rabies inoculation of dogs and domesticated cats, Code of Virginia, § 3.1-796.97:1. 3.2- 6521. owner, upon proof of ownership, vaccination of the dog or cat, and payment of the cost of impounding the dog or cat. Such payment shall not relieve the owner from prosecution for violating section 5-66. (b) Any animal so impounded shall be held for the number of days required by subsection (d) of section 5-29 above and disposed of in accordance with that section if not claimed by its owner. (Code 1971, § 5-30; Ord. No. 2135, 9-26-78; Ord. No. 51287-4, § 1, 5-12-87; Ord. No. 72688-11, § 1, 7-26-88; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96) Sec. 5-69. Vaccination clinics. The board of supervisors may provide for clinics for the vaccination of dogs and cats under the supervision of the community service animal control police officer and the health director and fix fees to be charged for services rendered at such clinics. (Code 1971, § 5-31; Ord. No. 51287-4, § 1, 5-12-87; Ord. No. 121796-12.a, § 1, 12-17-96) * * * Sec. 5-71. Quarantine in event of animal bites. At the discretion of the director of a local health department, any animal which has bitten a person shall be confined under competent observation for ten (10) days, unless the animal develops active symptoms of rabies or expires before that time. A seriously injured or sick animal may be humanely euthanized as provided in section 3.1- 796.96 3.2-6546 of the Code of Virginia and its head sent to the Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services of the Department of General Services, or the local health department, for evaluation. (Ord. No. 11988-7, § 1, 11-9-88) Secs. 5-72—5-90. Reserved. * * * 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage. Page 1 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E.8 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: 2 (the “Resolution”), the Board which include advising “the Internal Auditor and County Administrator on responsibilities and obligations for the Internal Auditor as defined by the Internal Audit Charter.” Page 2 of 2 The Resolution further stated that “audit committee members appointed by the Board may not act for the Board unless authorized by specific Board action.” It is proposed that the Board adopt this resolution to resolve any ambiguity regarding the Audit Committee’s authority to adopt and amend the Internal Audit Charter, granting such authority to the Audit Committee, together with the County Administrator. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the proposed resolution. 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, NOVEMBER 18, 2025 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EFFECTUATE AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL AUDIT CHARTER WHEREAS, on January 26, 2016, by Resolution 012616-2 (the “Resolution”), the Board established the Audit Committee of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, in the Resolution, the Board set forth the duties and responsibilities of the Audit Committee, which include advising “the Internal Auditor and County Administrator on responsibilities and obligations for the Internal Auditor as defined by the Internal Audit Charter”; and WHEREAS, an Internal Audit Charter was thereafter established and made effective on March 8, 2016, and was approved by the Internal Auditor, the County Administrator, and the two members of the Board who had been appointed to the Audit Committee; and WHEREAS, the Internal Audit Charter was updated and amended on March 22, 2022 and was again approved by the Internal Auditor, the County Administrator, and the members of the Audit Committee; and WHEREAS, the Resolution further stated that “audit committee members appointed by the Board may not act for the Board unless authorized by specific Board action”; and Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, the Board desires to adopt this resolution to resolve any ambiguity regarding the Audit Committee’s authority to adopt and amend the Internal Audit Charter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows: 1. The Board ratifies the adoption and approval of the Internal Audit Charter, as first adopted on March 8, 2016 and as subsequently amended on March 22, 2022. 2. The Audit Committee, together with the County Administrator, are authorized to amend the Internal Audit Charter as may be necessary and desirable, from time to time; such amendments shall be by unanimous approval of the two members of the Audit Committee and the County Administrator. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Capital Unappropriated % of Board Expenditure Balance Revenues Contingency Contingency Reserves Unaudited balance as of June 30, 2025 31,213,980$ -$ -$ 613,094$ Approved Sources: Appropriated from 2025-26 budget (Ordinance 052725-2) - 50,000 - 1,420,700 Addition from 2024-25 close out and reimbursemnts of completed projects - - - 147,219 Approved Uses: Appropriated from 2025-26 budget (Ordinance 052725-2) - - - (1,746,047) Items for Brian Epperley memorial - (1,282) - - Balance at November 18, 2025 31,213,980$ 11.5% 48,718$ -$ 434,966$ County of Roanoke Unappropriated Balance, Board Contingency, and Capital Reserves Fiscal Year 2025-2026 General Government Changes in outstanding debt for the fiscal year to date were as follows: Unaudited Outstanding Outstanding June 30, 2025 Additions Deletions November 18, 2025 Debt type: VPSA School Bonds 109,321,388$ -$ 7,026,556$ 102,294,832$ Lease Revenue Bonds 72,515,000 - 4,715,000 67,800,000 Temporary Literary Loans*31,674,051 19,865,211 - 51,539,262 Subtotal 213,510,439 19,865,211 11,741,556 221,634,094 Premiums 13,244,796 - - 13,244,796 226,755,235$ 19,865,211$ 11,741,556$ 234,878,890$ Summary by entity: County 77,345,868$ -$ 4,715,000$ 72,630,868$ Schools 149,409,367 19,865,211 7,026,556 162,248,022 226,755,235$ 19,865,211$ 11,741,556$ 234,878,890$ * The County has been approved for $75 million in Literary Loans. This amount will not be turned into permanent loans until all monies are drawn down for the three school projects approved for funding which are: Glen Cove and W.E. Cundiff Elementary Schools and the Roanoke County Career and Technology Center Submitted By Laurie L. Gearheart Director of Finance and Management Services Approved By Richard L. Caywood County Administrator Real Estate Taxes $129,080,327 $8,220,255 6.37% $135,025,000 $5,319,257 3.94% ($2,900,998) -54.54% Personal Property Taxes 44,500,000 2,027,101 4.56% 48,000,000 2,246,118 4.68% 219,017 9.75% Public Service Corp Base 5,500,000 555,649 10.10% 6,000,000 25,580 0.43% (530,069) -2072.23% Penalties & Interest on Property Taxes 1,350,000 279,970 20.74% 1,330,000 298,752 22.46% 18,782 6.29% Payment In Lieu Of Taxes 225,000 0 0.00% 170,000 0 0.00%0 0.00% Communication Taxes 2,625,000 626,680 23.87% 2,500,000 629,435 25.18% 2,755 0.44% Local Sales Tax 17,000,000 4,015,216 23.62% 17,242,500 4,214,778 24.44% 199,562 4.73% Consumer Utility Tax 3,750,000 1,035,896 27.62% 3,750,000 915,784 24.42% (120,112) -13.12% Business License Tax 9,100,000 290,311 3.19% 9,614,000 282,560 2.94% (7,751) -2.74% Franchise Tax 750,000 0 0.00% 850,000 0 0.00%0 0.00% Motor Vehicle License Fees 2,450,000 229,898 9.38% 2,475,000 261,389 10.56% 31,491 12.05% Taxes On Recordation & Wills 1,550,000 381,953 24.64% 1,450,000 430,804 29.71% 48,851 11.34% Utility License Tax 565,000 98,408 17.42% 555,000 130,361 23.49% 31,953 24.51% Hotel & Motel Room Taxes 2,050,000 581,829 28.38% 2,250,000 623,462 27.71% 41,633 6.68% Taxes - Prepared Foods 6,450,000 1,553,452 24.08% 6,700,000 1,776,345 26.51% 222,892 12.55% Other Taxes 1,355,000 264,181 19.50% 1,180,000 218,711 18.53% (45,470) -20.79% Animal Control Fees 42,500 9,591 22.57% 42,500 19,162 45.09% 9,571 49.95% Land and Building Fees 18,000 2,223 12.35% 18,650 4,629 24.82% 2,407 51.99% Permits 1,112,872 306,852 27.57% 1,119,040 298,236 26.65% (8,616) -2.89% Fees 64,600 13,293 20.58% 64,600 27,105 41.96% 13,812 50.96% Clerk of Court Fees 127,000 42,322 33.32% 155,000 36,121 23.30% (6,201) -17.17% Photocopy Charges 210 0 0.00% 210 0 0.00%0 0.00% Fines and Forfeitures 558,500 130,813 23.42% 500,000 98,112 19.62% (32,701) -33.33% Revenues from Use of Money 1,229,586 422,159 34.33% 1,184,745 272,986 23.04% (149,173) -54.65% Revenues From Use of Property 185,014 68,625 37.09% 165,254 43,733 26.46% (24,891) -56.92% General Fund - C100 For the Four Months Ending Friday, October 31, 2025 Charges for Services 4,145,100 861,740 20.79% 4,725,100 1,264,217 26.76% 402,477 31.84% Charges for Public Services 80,000 340 0.43% 80,000 (1,847) -2.31% (2,187) 118.41% Education Aid-State 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Reimb-Shared Programs Salem 1,396,800 135,292 9.69% 1,663,301 168,345 10.12% 33,053 19.63% Miscellaneous Revenue 303,200 84,376 27.83% 308,700 139,887 45.31% 55,511 39.68% Recovered Costs 1,050,000 368,831 35.13% 975,000 342,542 35.13% (26,289) -7.67% Non-Categorical Aid 418,000 499,049 119.39% 418,000 507,722 121.46% 8,673 1.71% Shared Expenses 6,371,084 1,666,714 26.16% 7,058,115 1,830,400 25.93% 163,686 8.94% Welfare & Social Services-Categorical 5,425,000 1,404,983 25.90% 5,035,263 1,524,033 30.27% 119,051 7.81% Other State Categorical Aid 2,523,710 747,373 29.61% 2,659,630 728,561 27.39% (18,812) -2.58% Welfare & Social Services 6,765,000 2,133,216 31.53% 6,950,000 2,452,257 35.28% 319,041 13.01% 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% Other Financing Sources 365,000 0 0.00% 250,000 0 0.00%0 0.00% Transfers 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% General Fund - C100 For the Four Months Ending Friday, October 31, 2025 Legislative 274,494 89,248 32.51% 304,690 66,903 21.96% (22,346) -33.40%General & Financial Administration 10,632,225 3,484,757 32.78% 11,168,979 3,873,097 34.68% 342,129 8.94% Electoral Board & Officials 1,038,250 245,607 23.66% 1,060,637 264,099 24.90% 20,967 7.94% Courts 1,911,992 613,026 32.06% 1,966,887 641,363 32.61% 28,302 4.41%Other Judicial Support 1,819,030 625,211 34.37% 1,879,594 683,098 36.34% 58,023 8.49% Law Enforcement & Traffic Cont 20,485,586 7,273,682 35.51% 22,109,931 7,600,764 34.38% 331,996 4.39% Fire and Rescue 25,510,476 8,755,049 34.32% 27,775,560 9,843,732 35.44% 1,155,190 11.77%Correction & Detention 12,827,609 3,970,407 30.95% 12,883,301 3,936,923 30.56% (13,726) -0.35% Animal Control 1,305,828 436,397 33.42% 1,404,865 401,160 28.56% (35,237) -8.78% General Services Administration 1,424,992 487,702 34.22% 1,515,310 516,032 34.05% 41,570 8.09%Refuse Disposal 6,228,560 1,966,205 31.57% 6,373,525 2,068,587 32.46% 65,873 3.27% Maint Buildings & Grounds 5,875,468 2,004,346 34.11% 6,227,176 2,124,814 34.12% 121,151 5.74% Engineering 2,851,962 843,204 29.57% 2,930,099 1,013,451 34.59% 162,968 16.22%Inspections 1,132,091 404,556 35.74% 1,196,983 386,613 32.30% (17,942) -4.64% Garage Complex 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Mental Health 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%Public Health 767,419 355,210 46.29% 805,790 383,710 47.62% 28,500 7.43% Social Services Administration 10,856,721 3,429,441 31.59% 11,020,185 4,034,299 36.61% 576,155 14.39% Comprehensive Services Act 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00%Public Assistance 4,918,666 1,616,944 32.87% 5,187,550 1,547,517 29.83% (69,427) -4.49% Social Services Organizations 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Parks & Recreation 3,048,494 1,110,539 36.43% 3,060,184 1,218,549 39.82% 111,546 9.24%Library 5,221,194 1,645,428 31.51% 5,323,836 1,802,499 33.86% 161,208 8.98% Cultural Enrichment 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Planning & Zoning 1,922,932 621,202 32.30% 1,940,583 620,400 31.97% 1,065 0.18%Cooperative Extension Program 145,391 23,188 15.95% 145,391 21,512 14.80% (1,676) -7.79% Economic Development 680,371 288,830 42.45% 734,453 318,359 43.35% 33,143 10.93% Public Transportation 510,000 202,759 39.76% 510,000 53,125 10.42% (149,634) -281.67%Contribution to Human Service Organizations 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% General Fund - C100For the Four Months Ending Friday, October 31, 2025 Employee Benefits 3,260,820 592,172 18.16% 3,406,743 649,497 19.07% 57,325 8.83%Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup 62,700 12,100 19.30% 62,700 15,907 25.37% 3,808 23.94% Miscellaneous 10,683,516 3,984,504 37.30% 11,324,859 3,606,250 31.84% (378,254) -10.49% Tax Relief/Elderly & Handicapp 1,694,060 1,091,533 64.43%0 0 0.00% (1,091,533) 0.00%Refuse Credit Vinton 225,000 56,250 25.00% 225,000 60,665 26.96% 4,415 7.28% Board Contingency 50,000 0 0.00% 48,718 0 0.00%0 0.00% Unappropriated Balance 0 0 0.00%0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Interfund Transfers Out 116,861,844 49,457,584 42.32% 122,558,134 51,248,471 41.82% 1,790,887 3.49% Intrafund Transfers Out 6,253,812 1,600,972 25.60% 7,312,945 5,052,616 69.09% 3,451,645 68.31% General Fund - C100For the Four Months Ending Friday, October 31, 2025 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: November 18, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid – October 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 -$ -$ 17,701,742.25$ Payroll 10/10/25 2,349,011.28 13,326.75 2,362,338.03 Payroll 10/24/25 2,135,841.07 16,492.08 2,152,333.15 Manual Checks - - - Grand Total 22,216,413.43$ A detailed listing of the payments to vendors is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Page 1 of 1 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: November 18, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss Public Safety Staffing SUBMITTED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: This time has been set aside to receive a presentation on Public Safety staffing. 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: AGENDA ITEM: November 18, 2025 Work Session to discuss Speeding and Traffic Calming on Huntridge Road SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: This time has been set aside to review past and current traffic calming efforts, as well as speeding concerns and potential solutions on Huntridge Road. 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, NOVEMBER 18, 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: November 18, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution adopting an amendment to the Roanoke County 200 Plan to incorporate the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study into the Roanoke County 200 Plan SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Agenda item for a public hearing and adoption of a resolution incorporating the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study into the Roanoke County 200 Plan BACKGROUND: Over the past several years, County staff have been working to develop the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study. The purpose of the study is to identify multiple realistic alignments for the Roanoke River Greenway from Green Hill Park to Montgomery County. The feasibility study was developed with input from the study’s Steering Committee, citizen input from two (2) sets of community meetings held in the Fall of 2022 and the Summer of 2023, and stakeholders which included Montgomery County, Western Virginia Regional Jail, Appalachian Power, Western Virginia Water Authority, Virginia Passenger Jail Authority, and the local chapter of Trout Unlimited. The feasibility study is a preliminary step in the planning process to assess the corridor’s constraints and opportunities and identify general routes that are potentially viable. Potentially viable routes were split into twenty (20) conceptual segments for evaluation. After the initial evaluation, five (5) segments were eliminated for future consideration. Of the fifteen (15) potentially viable segments, three (3) are identified priorities for further study. These include: Page 2 of 2 • North bank of the Roanoke River between Peaceful Drive at Joyce Lane and West River Road • South bank of the Roanoke River on Western Virginia Regional Jail property, including a bridge to Wayside Park • North bank of the Roanoke River between Barley Drive (at Railroad Bridge) and Green Hill Park Further study of the three (3) priority segments would only be done if funding becomes available. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing to incorporate the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study into the Roanoke County 200 Plan on November 3, 2025. Six (6) citizens spoke during the public hearing. They had concerns regarding a variety of issues on certain segments and potential impacts to their properties in the future. The County also received two emails on the proposed study. One email had concerns with a possible greenway near the owner's property. The other email encouraged all route options be included in the final plan. The Planning Commission discussed: the development of the study over the past three (3) years; that this study is an initial planning study; further analysis and evaluation would be needed to determine any future greenway location; the County has not used eminent domain for greenway projects; and construction of any greenway segment would be many years in the future since current greenway priorities are to complete missing pieces from Green Hill Park to Explore Park. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to incorporate the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study into the Roanoke County 200 Plan. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the resolution incorporating the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study into the Roanoke County 200 Plan. West Roanoke River GreenwayWest Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study DRAFTDRAFT September 2025 | Adopted: ____________________ 4444 Table of ContentsTable of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1 Study Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2 Study Area Description . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3 Study Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.4 Study Steering Committee . . . . . . . . . 9 2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.1 Previous Studies and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2 Benefits of Greenways . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152.2 Benefits of Greenways . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.3 Current Trail System Status . . . . . . . . . . . 202.3 Current Trail System Status . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3. Existing Conditions Inventory and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2 Constraints and Opportunites Findings . . . . 22 4. Potential Route Analysis and Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . 39 4.1 First Round of Community Meetings - Fall 2022 . . . 394.1 First Round of Community Meetings - Fall 2022 . . . 39 4.2 Development of Potential Routes . . . . . . . . . 41 4.4 Potentially Viable Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . 504.4 Potentially Viable Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5. Next Steps & Implementation . . . . . . . 74 5.5 Design Standards . . . . . . . . . . . 84 5.4 Potential Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . 78 5.1 Study Recap . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 5.2 Adoption Process . . . . . . . . . . . 75 5.6 Post-Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855.6 Post-Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 5.3 Selection of Areas to Study in Greater Detail . . 75 6. Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906. Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6.1 September 2022 Site Visit Summary . . . . . . . . 91 6.2 Fall 2022 Community Meeting Exhibits and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Fall 2022 Survey and Survey Results . . . . . . . . 126 6.4 Decision Matrix and Decision Matrix Results . . .139 6.5 Summer 2023 Community Meeting Exhibits and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Summer 2023 Survey and Survey Results . . . . . . .153 6.7 Comments Received in Adoption Process . . . 163 105 141 Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Drone imagery courtesy of 4.3 Second Round of Community Meetings - Summer 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summer 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of MapsList of Maps Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Roanoke River Greenway Status . . . . . . . . . 21 Site Visit Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Parcel Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Environmental Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Topographical Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Topographical Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Public Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Community Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Potential Railroad Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Annual Average Daily Traffic, 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . 38Annual Average Daily Traffic, 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Draw Your Own Greenway Results . . . . . . . . . . 40Draw Your Own Greenway Results . . . . . . . . . . 40 Area A Conceptual Route Alternatives . . . . . . 45 Area B Conceptual Route Alternatives . . . . . . . 46 Area C Conceptual Route Alternatives . . . . . . . . 47 Summer 2023 Survey Results - Total “Yes” . . . . . . 48Summer 2023 Survey Results - Total “Yes” . . . . . . 48 Summer 2023 Survey Results - Weighted Net Score . . . 49 Segment 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Segment 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Segment 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Segment 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Segment 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Segment 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Segment 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Segment 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Segment 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Segment 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Segment 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Segment 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Segment 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Segment 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Segment 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Segment 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Drone imagery courtesy of List of Graphics, Tables,List of Graphics, Tables, and Charts Destination Exercise Results . . . . . . . . . . . 39Destination Exercise Results . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Amenity Visual Preference Survey Results . . . . . . 41 Fall 2022 Survey Results (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Corridor Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Steering Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1995 Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan . . . 11 2007 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan . . . . . 12 Valley to Valley Trail Concept Map . . . . . . . . . 12 Roanoke County 200 Plan . . . . . . . . . . 12 2012 Glenvar Community Plan . . . . . . . . . . 13 2007 Roanoke County Parks, Recreation & TourismDepartment Comprehensive Master Plan for Parksand Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2015 Regional Pedestrian Vision Plan . . . . . . . 14 2012 Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley AreaMetropolitan Planning Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Regional Study on Transportation Project Prioritizationfor Economic Development and Growth . . . . . . 14 Cross Section of a Two-Way Shared Use Path . . . 85 Fall 2022 Survey Results (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Drone imagery courtesy of AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments Special thanks to all citizens, stakeholder representatives, and organizations who contributed to the development of this study. Additional thanks to Fort Lewis Elementary School, Spring Hollow Water Treatment Plant, Fort Lewis Baptist Church, and their staffs for use of their facilities during the planning process. Roanoke County Board of SupervisorsRoanoke County Board of Supervisors David Radford, Chairman, Windsor Hills District Phil North, Vice Chairman, Hollins District Martha Hooker, Catawba DistrictPaul Mahoney, Cave Sping DistrictTammy Shepherd, Vinton District Roanoke County Planning CommissionRoanoke County Planning Commission Wayne Bower, Chairman, Hollins District Kelly McMurray, Vice Chairman, Cave Sping District Troy Henderson, Catawba DistrictRick James, Vinton DistrictJim Woltz, Windsor Hills District Roanoke County StaffRoanoke County Staff Richard Caywood, County AdministratorRebecca Owens, Deputy County AdministratorDoug Blount, Assistant County AdministratorPhilip Thompson, Director of PlanningMegan Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning Isaac Henry, Principal PlannerSarah Gilmore, Planner IIRoss Hammes, Planner IILindsay Webb, Assistant Director of Economic Development, Business Retention and Operations Regional, State, and Federal Agency StaffRegional, State, and Federal Agency Staff Nathan Hilbert, Community Planner,National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Amanda McGee, Director of Community Development,Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Michael Gray, Salem District Planning Manager,Virginia Department of Transportation Carol Moneymaker, Salem District Strategic Planner, Virginia Department of Transportation Frank Maguire, Former Greenway Coordinator, Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission 5West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Western Roanoke County, looking east toward Glenvar and SalemWestern Roanoke County, looking east toward Glenvar and Salem Introduction 1.1 Study Purpose The purpose of the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study is to identify multiple realistic alignments for the Roanoke River Greenway between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County. This potential extension of the Roanoke River Greenway from its current western terminus in Green Hill Park could eventually connect to a future greenway or trail in Montgomery County to form part of the Valley to Valley Trail, a concept long discussed by Roanoke Valley and New River Valley leaders that would connect the Roanoke River Greenway to the Huckleberry Trail in Christiansburg or Credit: Roanoke Valley Television Blacksburg, the Riverway Trail in Radford, and the New River Trail in Pulaski. The West Roanoke River Greenway would provide a new amenity to a rural part of Roanoke County and would be equally useful for both long bike rides across the Roanoke Valley and short walks to visit a neighbor. It would improve quality of life by providing recreation opportunities, serving as a transportation corridor, and conserving sensitive ecological areas. This feasibility study is a preliminary step in the planning process to assess the corridor’s constraints and opportunities and identify general routes that are potentially viable. Once complete, the highest-priority segments identified in this study will be selected for further study. Alignments identified through this study could change depending on findings uncovered later in the process. 1.2 Study Area Description Since the goal of this study is to identify potential alignments for a future section of the Roanoke River Greenway, the Roanoke River served as the anchor location of the study area. However, due to challenging conditions in the Roanoke River corridor between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County including steep topography, a winding river path, two active rail lines, and land that is held in small parcels by many different landowners, it was necessary to consider the Route 11/460/West Main Street corridor west of Technology Drive as well. The final study area identified by the steering committee is a contiguous area 6West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 7West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Department of Transportation (VDOT) agreed to serve as partners in the study. After receiving notification that the NPS-RTCA application was successful, Roanoke County staff assembled a steering committee consisting of staff from Roanoke County, NPS-RTCA, and the three partner organizations (see Section 1.4). Roanoke County, in collaboration with NPS- RTCA and the partner organizations, kicked off the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study with the first steering committee meeting in June 2022. In the first stage of the study, Roanoke County staff, with input consisting of all territory in Roanoke County that meets at least one of the following five criteria: • Is within ¼ mile of the Roanoke River between Montgomery County and Green Hill Park, excluding territory north of Interstate 81 • Is within the area bounded by the Roanoke River, Barley Drive, Technology Drive, Route 11/460/West Main Street, and Montgomery County • Is within ¼ mile north of Route 11/460/ West Main Street west of Technology Drive, excluding territory north of Interstate 81 • Is between the Roanoke River and West River Road • Is between the Roanoke River and Virginian Line railroad tracks (now owned by Norfolk Southern) west of Green Hill Park A map of the study area can be viewed on page 6. 1.3 Study Process In early 2022, Roanoke County applied for and was awarded Technical Assistance through the National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (NPS-RTCA) to study potential routes for the Roanoke River Greenway between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County. NPS-RTCA staff aided Roanoke County staff in undertaking this study from beginning to end. During the NPS-RTCA application process, the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC), and Virginia from the steering committee, inventoried and assessed the existing conditions of the study area (See Chapter 3). At the end of the existing conditions assessment, introductory meetings were held with the following corridor stakeholders: • Western Virginia Regional Jail • Western Virginia Water Authority • Virginia Passenger Rail Authority • Appalachian Power • Montgomery County Norfolk Southern Railway, the owner of both sets of railroad tracks that run through the study area, was also offered the option Corridor Stakeholders Existing Roanoke River Greenwayin Green Hill Park Credit: Ryan Hunt 8West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft of a face-to-face meeting but their staff indicated that they preferred to correspond by email until a specific construction project that would potentially impact Norfolk Southern right-of-way is proposed. This study considered potential routes for the Roanoke River Greenway within Virginian Line right- of-way, as the Virginian Line was owned by the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority (VPRA) between August 2022 and September 2024. These routes were removed from consideration when VPRA sold the Virginian Line back to Norfolk Southern in September 2024. In Fall 2022, Roanoke County conducted the first round of public outreach for the study, consisting of two open-house community meetings in the study area and a survey (See Section 4.1). Following the first round of community meetings, the steering committee developed conceptual route alternatives for the West Roanoke River Greenway based on feedback received from community members and corridor stakeholders, constraints and opportunities uncovered in the existing conditions assessment, and a decision matrix developed by the steering committee (See Section 4.2). For the purpose of public outreach, these routes were separated into twenty shorter segments with logical endpoints. In Spring 2023, Roanoke County staff met with corridor stakeholders a second time to share takeaways from the first round of public outreach and present the conceptual route alternatives developed by the steering committee. This round of stakeholder outreach included meetings with all five organizations included in the first round of stakeholder outreach, as well as a meeting Fall 2022 Community Meeting, Fall 2022 Community Meeting, Fort Lewis Baptist Church Summer 2023 Community Meeting,Spring Hollow Water Treatment Plant with the Roanoke Valley chapter of Trout Unlimited, a non-profit organization that works to conserve freshwater rivers and streams. In Summer 2023, Roanoke County conducted a second round of public outreach, again consisting of two open-house community meetings and a survey, to receive feedback on the conceptual route alternatives (See Section 4.3). Following the second round of public outreach, the steering committee selected “potentially viable segments” from the conceptual route alternatives to be included in the final study, based on feedback received from the public and stakeholders (See Section 4.4). In the final stage of the study, Roanoke County staff began initial discussions of segments to study in greater detail after the conclusion of the study (See Section 5.3). Summer 2023 Community Meeting,Summer 2023 Community Meeting,Fort Lewis Elementary School 9West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft See Section 5.2 for an overview of the public hearing and adoption process. 1.4 Study Steering Committee The steering committee for the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study was composed of seven individuals - three Roanoke County staff from two different departments, along with one staff member each from NPS-RTCA, the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, and RVARC, and two staff members from VDOT. The committee met on a regular basis throughout the study to brainstorm, refine materials, and analyze information. Each organization and Roanoke County department with representation on the steering committee is described in this section. Steering Committee Representatives: Isaac Henry, Principal Planner (Project Manager) Megan Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism The Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department manages and maintains all Roanoke County parks, including greenways and trails. The Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Department provides a wide variety of community programming at Roanoke County’s parks and recreation centers. The Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Department identifies, secures funding for, and manages greenway and trail projects in Roanoke County. Steering Committee Representative: Lindsay Webb, Former Parks, Planning & Development Manager National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance The National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (NPS-RTCA) provides technical planning assistance to communities looking to enhance outdoor recreation, public health, and conservation. The program is separate from the traditional land management role of NPS. Roanoke County was awarded a Technical Assistance grant in April 2022 for assistance with this study. Steering Committee Representative: Nathan Hilbert, Community Planner Roanoke County Planning The Roanoke County Planning Department serves the citizens of Roanoke County by facilitating land use decisions and transportation improvements that improve quality of life. The Planning Department administers Roanoke County’s Zoning Ordinance and land use codes, and keeps Roanoke County citizens informed about land use and planning initiatives. The Planning Department prepares planning studies for neighborhoods, community planning areas, transportation corridors, and other special study areas. The Planning Department also identifies, secures funding for, and manages multimodal transportation projects in Roanoke County. Mudlick Creek Greenway in Garst Mill ParkMudlick Creek Greenway in Garst Mill Park Steering Committee 10West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Existing western terminus of the Roanoke River Greenway in Green Hill ParkExisting western terminus of the Roanoke River Greenway in Green Hill Park Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission The Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission was formed in 1997 to promote greenways in the Roanoke Valley. It is made up of representatives from the five member jurisdictions (Botetourt County, Roanoke County, City of Roanoke, City of Salem, Town of Vinton), the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization (RVTPO), and Pathfinders for Greenways. In addition, the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC), Western Virginia Water Authority, Roanoke Regional Partnership, and Virginia Tourism Corporation all provide ex officio (non-voting) representatives. The purpose of the Greenway Commission is to facilitate coordination, direction and guidance in the planning, development, and maintenance of a system of greenways throughout the Roanoke Valley. Steering Committee Representative: Frank Maguire, Former Greenway Coordinator Western trailhead, Roanoke River Greenway Western trailhead, Roanoke River Greenway in Green Hill Park Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC) is a state-established regional planning organization. RVARC aids local governments in land use planning, transportation planning, mapping, project management, and grant applications. RVARC provides greenway services, including mapping, web assistance, use counts, bicycle route assessment and planning, and open space planning. In addition, RVARC staffs and administers the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization (RVTPO), the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the urbanized area of the Roanoke Valley. Steering Committee Representative: Amanda McGee, Director of Community Development Virginia Department of Transportation The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) owns and maintains all public roads in Roanoke County. VDOT also owns and maintains the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in Roanoke County that is located within public right-of-way. VDOT identifies, secures funding for, and manages transportation projects throughout the state of Virginia. Additionally, VDOT provides support for localities by helping localities understand grant requirements, comply with federal and state regulations, and meet environmental regulations. Steering Committee Representative: Michael Gray, Salem District Planning Manager Carol Moneymaker, Salem District Strategic Planner 11West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Background 2.1 Previous Studies and Plans The studies and plans discussed in this section guide the development of greenways, trails, and other bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in western Roanoke County and beyond. These studies and plans have all played a role in advancing greenways or other bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in western Roanoke County. 1995 Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan The 1995 Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan was the first joint greenway planning effort among the localities of the Roanoke Valley. This plan was prepared by Greenways Incorporated, a consultant, under the direction of the Roanoke Valley Greenways/Open Space Steering Committee, a committee of the Fifth Planning District (the precursor to RVARC) that quickly evolved into the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission. The 1995 Plan laid the foundation for all future greenway planning and development in the Roanoke Valley by establishing regional goals, developing conceptual routes, outlining the greenway development process, offering potential funding sources, and providing guidelines for design, maintenance, and management. In the 1995 Plan, the Roanoke River is described as the future “spine” and “backbone” of the greenway system, and the Roanoke River Greenway is recommended to run through western Roanoke County to the Montgomery County line. The 1995 Plan was adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors as an element of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, as were the 2007 and 2018 updates to it. 2007 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan The 2007 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan, prepared by the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission and RVARC, provided an update on the progress of the Roanoke Valley greenway system since the adoption of the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan in 1995, and built upon the 1995 Plan by creating a prioritized list of potential Roanoke Valley greenway projects. The Roanoke River Greenway was identified as the top regional priority, the only greenway in the Priority #1 category, and was again recommended to run through western Roanoke County to the Montgomery County line. The 2007 Update reaffirmed the goals and implementations strategies of the 1995 Plan and added additional goals and implementation strategies informed by the decade-plus of regional greenway collaboration that had taken place since the adoption of the 1995 Plan. 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan The 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan is the most recent regional greenway plan update to be completed, and as of 2024 is an active component of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. Like the 2007 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan, the 2018 Plan was prepared by the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission and RVARC. The 2018 Plan was the first regional greenway plan developed 12West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft with Botetourt County as a member of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission. The 2018 Plan incorporated Botetourt County into the regional greenway vision, added new potential greenway corridors to the regional greenway vision, documented progress since the 2007 Update, and offered consideration of additional issues that had arisen since the 2007 Update. In the 2018 Plan, the Roanoke River Greenway is again identified as the top regional priority and is again recommended to run through western Roanoke County to the Montgomery County line. In 2025, the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission adopted a Five-Year Update to the 2018 Plan, which consists mostly of an updated recommendation map that reflects the greenway construction and planning that has taken place since 2018. VDOT Valley to Valley Trail Study (Ongoing) The VDOT Valley to Valley Trail Study was initiated in 2020 to study potential routes for the Valley to Valley Trail between the existing western terminus of the Roanoke River Greenway (Green Hill Park in Roanoke County) and the existing eastern terminus of the New River Trail (in the City of Pulaski), with an aim of connecting to the Huckleberry Trail (in Christiansburg or Blacksburg) and Riverway Trail (in Radford) as well. The Valley to Valley Trail Study, which has not yet concluded, aims to provide a high-level overview of potential Valley to Valley Trail corridors. The West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study builds upon this high-level overview to refine conceptual alignments, provide additional route alternatives, and identify challenges to, and opportunities for, greenway construction in western Roanoke County. Roanoke County 200 Plan Adopted by the Board of Supervisors in September 2024, the Roanoke County 200 Plan (200 Plan) is the first major update to the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan since 2005. The 200 Plan expresses an overarching vision for Roanoke County in 2038, the year of the County’s bicentennial, and outlines unique goals for each of Roanoke County’s eleven Community Planning Areas (CPAs). The 200 Plan provides guidance for public policies about land development, public services and resource protection, and provides recommendations of specific transportation projects for the County to pursue. In the 200 Plan, completion of the Roanoke River Valley to Valley Trail Concept MapValley to Valley Trail Concept Map Credit: VDOT 13West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Greenway between Montgomery County and Franklin County is identified as a countywide transportation priority. A more specific, but less ambitious, recommendation is offered for the Glenvar CPA: to determine alignments for the Roanoke River Greenway between Green Hill Pak and Montgomery County. The 200 Plan also recommends that Roanoke County support efforts to construct the Valley to Valley Trail. 2012 Glenvar Community Plan Roanoke County’s Glenvar Community Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2012, was initiated in response to increased development in Glenvar (the unincorporated community centered around Route 11/460/ West Main Street immediately west of the City of Salem) and the upcoming (at the time) widening of Route 11/460/West Main Street that was completed in 2015. The Glenvar Community Plan offers analysis of, and recommendations for, the entirety of the Glenvar Community Planning Area (CPA). The Glenvar CPA is bounded roughly by (clockwise from east) the City of Salem, the ridgeline of Poor Mountain, Montgomery County, the ridgeline of Fort Lewis Mountain, and East Dry Branch Creek. The entirety of the study area for the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study is within the Glenvar CPA. The Glenvar Community Plan focuses primarily on land use and resulted in the implementation of the Glenvar Village future land use designation, a mixed-use designation covering the Route 11/460/West Main Street corridor between the City of Salem and Technology Drive. The Glenvar Community Plan includes transportation and outdoor recreation recommendations as well, one of which is to construct the Roanoke River Greenway between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County. 2007 Roanoke County Parks, Recreation & Tourism Department Comprehensive Master Plan for Parks and Facilities The Roanoke County Parks, Recreation & Tourism Department Comprehensive Master Plan for Parks and Facilities is a long-range planning document that sets forth a vision for the future of Roanoke County’s parks and recreation system. The Comprehensive Master Plan offers an assessment of existing programs and facilities, recommends maintenance standards, and provides goals, strategies, tactics, and performance measures to guide decision-making about parks, recreation, and tourism in Roanoke County. As Roanoke County-owned greenways are maintained by the Parks, Recreation, & Tourism Department, the Comprehensive Master Plan contains an inventory of existing greenways (as of 2007) and outlines maintenance standards for Roanoke County greenways. The Comprehensive Master Plan identifies greenways as one of the three highest-priority facility needs and recommends continued development of greenways throughout the County. It recommends that greenways constructed outside of existing parks “link or connect parks with resources such as schools, neighborhoods, playgrounds and other parks, forests, rivers and other natural areas, historic sites and businesses,”1 as the West Roanoke River Greenway would. During public outreach for this plan, survey respondents identified greenways as the parks and recreation facilities that are most important to their households and identified renovation or development of greenways as their most desired facility improvement. 14West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 2015 Regional Pedestrian Vision Plan The 2015 Regional Pedestrian Vision Plan, prepared and adopted by RVTPO, 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 urbanized area based on the potential for residents, employees, shoppers, diners, and other visitors to access nearby destinations. The Pedestrian Vision Plan recommends construction of the Roanoke River Greenway between Green Hill Park and Poor Mountain Road, with a connection to West Main Street (Route 11/460) near Fort Lewis Church Road. 2012 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 urbanized area, with a focus on infrastructure on or adjacent to roadways. 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. West Main Street (Route 11/460) between Technology Drive and Montgomery County is identified as a Vision List Corridor in the Bikeway Plan. Regional Study on Transportation Project Prioritization for Economic Development and Growth In 2018, RVTPO prepared and adopted the Regional Study on Transportation Project Prioritization for Economic Development and Growth (TED Study) to identify how the region’s economic vitality can be supported through transportation projects. In the 2018 TED Study, completion of the Roanoke River Greenway is identified as a top priority. In 2021, the TED Study was updated, with a greater focus on engaging local businesses and economic development stakeholders, and a new list of transportation project recommendations. 15West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 2024 Virginia Outdoors Plan The 2024 Virginia Outdoor Plan (VOP) is the current iteration of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s plan for outdoor recreation and land conservation across the Commonwealth, superseding the 2018 Virginia Outdoors Plan. It fulfills the National Park Service requirements for Virginia to participate in the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) program, which provides matching grants to state agencies and localities for the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation resources. The VOP outlines outdoor recreation trends and needs across the Commonwealth and provides general recommendations for the development of outdoor recreation resources. The development of greenways and safe multi-use and shared-use trails is supported by the VOP. The VOP also recommends expanding access to outdoor recreation opportunities, promoting healthier communities, and providing safer bicycle and pedestrian paths, all of which could be accomplished by constructing the West Roanoke River Greenway. 2.2 Benefits of Greenways Trails and greenways are known to have a positive impact on health, the economy, and quality of life in communities in which they are located. The West Roanoke River Greenway would bring significant health, economic, and quality of life benefits to western Roanoke County. These benefits would ultimately extend throughout the Roanoke Valley, as the greenway would provide Roanoke Valley residents and visitors with an additional recreation destination. If the Valley to Valley Trail is constructed, the West Roanoke River Greenway would serve as one segment of a contiguous greenway and trail network running from eastern Roanoke County to the City of Galax, and would bring health, economic, and quality of life benefits to a large swath of southwest Virginia. Health Benefits Greenways are active transportation infrastructure; people must move their bodies in some way to use them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the benefits of regular physical activity include improved sleep, reduced anxiety, reduced blood pressure, reduced risk of dementia, reduced risk of depression, reduced risk of weight gain, improved bone health, improved balance and coordination, lower risk of heart disease, and lower risk of eight cancers.2 However, only about 1 in 4 adults and 1 in 6 high school students get the amount of physical activity that the CDC recommends, and this means that approximately $117 billion is spent every year in the United States on health care costs associated with insufficient physical activity.3 The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimates that approximately 10 percent of premature deaths in the United States are associated with insufficient physical activity.4 New River Trail in Pulaski CountyNew River Trail in Pulaski County Barnhardt Creek Bridge, Roanoke River Greenway Mudlick Creek Greenway in Garst Mill ParkCredit: TrailLink 16West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft In addition to its physical health benefits, it is widely accepted that physical activity, even small amounts of it, also improves mental health.5 6 Physical activity has been shown to improve symptoms in those suffering from anxiety,7 8 9 depression,10 11 or ADHD.12 13 It has been shown to improve sleep,14 15 improve memory,16 17 relieve stress,18 19 and boost one’s mood.20 21 These compound benefits mean that participation in physical activity tends to improve one’s overall self-esteem, often before one sees any improvements to their physical fitness.22 23 Studies have shown that the closer one lives to a park, the more likely one is to engage in physical activity.24 25 Due to this fact, the CDC advises state and local governments to prioritize community design that promotes physical activity, including greenways.26 Over 21,000 people would live within a ten-minute drive of the West Roanoke River Greenway if its full length is constructed between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County.27 The construction of the West Roanoke River Greenway would likely increase rates of participation in physical activity among those who live within a ten-minute drive of the greenway, and in doing so would provide physical and mental health benefits for this population. Economic Benefits Greenways benefit the economies of communities in which they are located by increasing property values, generating tourism, catalyzing community events, and creating new transportation corridors on which businesses can locate. A survey conducted by the National Association of Home Builders indicates that walking and jogging trails are among the top five community amenities desired by homebuyers,28 while a National Association of Realtors survey indicates that most homebuyers are willing to spend more on houses located in walkable communities.29 Homebuyers’ positive perception of trails and walkable communities means that properties located near greenways or trails generally sell for higher prices, spend less time on the market, and receive higher assessed values.30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Many people are willing to travel to enjoy safe, user-friendly outdoor recreation amenities like paved greenways, especially amenities in scenic areas (like western Roanoke County) and amenities that are part of larger contiguous networks (like the potential Valley to Valley Trail). When an out-of-towner patronizes a local business during a trip to a greenway, they insert new money Barrows Office Furniture on the Roanoke River Greenway in the City of RoanokeBarrows Office Furniture on the Roanoke River Greenway in the City of Roanoke Credit: City of Roanoke Roanoke River Greenway in the City of Roanoke Credit: Roanoke College 17West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft into that community that would not have otherwise circulated there, whereas a local resident would spend their money within their community whether they visited a greenway or not. On top of that, out-of-towners spend more money in absolute terms per greenway visit than local residents, as out-of-towners are more likely to patronize hotels and restaurants in conjunction with their greenway visit.38 39 Greenways, as public gathering spaces for outdoor recreation, can help foster a sense of place and community centered around outdoor recreation.40 41 42 In fact, greenways are ideal for this purpose, as smaller-feeling natural areas for walking tend to foster a greater sense of place than large open spaces.43 44 Since the first greenway was built in the Roanoke Valley (Mudlick Creek Greenway at Garst Mill Park in Roanoke County, completed in 1997), the Valley and surrounding mountain communities have developed a sense of place and community centered around outdoor recreation. This has catalyzed the formation of Roanoke Outside, a nonprofit organization - funded by eight localities in the Roanoke Valley, Blue Ridge mountains, and Alleghany Highlands (including Roanoke County) and an ever- growing roster of Roanoke area businesses - that works to leverage the region’s natural assets to grow the regional economy. In the last 20 years, Roanoke Outside has founded three annual, large-scale, outdoor recreation-focused community events that provide significant benefit to the economy of the Roanoke region: GO Outside Festival, Go Cross Cyclocross Race, and the Blue Ridge Marathon. In 2022, it is estimated that the out-of-town visitors who attended these three events spent a combined $3.7 million while visiting the Roanoke Valley.45 In addition, these events serve to promote the Roanoke region to businesses, families, and individuals who may be looking to relocate, or expand to this region. The Blue Ridge Marathon uses segments of the Roanoke River Greenway on its marathon, half marathon, and double marathon routes, and multiple races and tours utilizing the Roanoke River Greenway are hosted as part of GO Outside Festival. In addition, Roanoke hosted a Half Ironman triathlon event, the IRONMAN 70.3 Virginia’s Blue Ridge, each summer from 2021 to 2023. This event, like the events managed by Roanoke Outside, added multiple millions of dollars annually to the regional economy.46 47 The bike course of the IRONMAN 70.3 Virginia’s Blue Ridge finished on the Roanoke River Wasena Park in the City of RoanokeWasena Park in the City of Roanoke GO Outside Festival, Downtown Roanoke Credit: Get2KnowNoke 18West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Greenway, and the triathlon’s concluding half-marathon took place entirely on the Roanoke River Greenway. This race was held over the course of a three-year agreement, which has concluded, but opportunities remain open for future IRONMAN events in Roanoke, and the publicity the race brought to Roanoke during its initial three-year run continues to positively impact the regional economy. Greenways also create new transportation corridors on which businesses can locate and from which they can attract customers. Localities throughout the United States have reported increases in new business development in areas where greenways are constructed.48 In the Roanoke Valley, greenways have provided opportunities for commercial businesses in locations where there would not otherwise be foot traffic. In the City of Roanoke, the Wasena neighborhood has seen rapid revitalization in the decade- plus since a section of the Roanoke River Greenway was constructed through Wasena The West Roanoke River Greenway would provide a new public gathering place for outdoor recreation and would strengthen social bonds not only in the communities that surround it, but in the Roanoke Valley as a whole. Improved relationships, both within existing social groups and between separate social groups, are believed to improve quality of life for residents of rural communities.49 However, improved relationships between separate social groups are believed to improve quality of life more dramatically than improved relationships within existing social groups.50 As greenways are used by both those who live nearby them and those who live farther away, they provide an ideal venue for strengthening social relationships between separate social groups, and thus a means of improving quality of life, in western Roanoke County and the Roanoke Valley as a whole. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) estimates that about one-quarter of all trips taken in the United States are less than one mile long.51 Additional research indicates that Park. Numerous new businesses have opened in Wasena, both directly adjacent to the greenway and on Wasena’s historic Main Street, to serve the new foot traffic generated by the greenway. In 2016, Blue Cow Ice Cream Company opened at the corner of Piedmont Street Southeast and Walnut Avenue Southeast in the City of Roanoke, just a few years after the Roanoke River Greenway was completed parallel to and in between Piedmont Street Southeast and the Roanoke River. Despite the previous lack of established retail uses or foot traffic in that location, Blue Cow Ice Cream Company quickly became one of the busiest ice cream shops in the Roanoke Valley due to the new foot traffic generated by the Roanoke River Greenway. In the City of Salem, the Parkway Brewing Company Taproom, which opened in 2013 at the point where the Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail intersects Kessler Mill Road, has been extremely successful in a residential and industrial area with no other commercial destinations. Foot traffic is not the only benefit that greenways provide to Roanoke Valley restaurants and breweries, though, as several hold weekly pub runs on greenways that draw dozens of participants to their establishments on what would otherwise be slow weeknights. Quality of Life Benefits The health and economic benefits of greenways contribute to overall quality of life in communities in which greenways are located. Greenways also bring additional quality of life benefits to the communities in which they are located, in the form of improved social bonds, additional transportation options, and environmental preservation. Parkway Brewing Company in SalemParkway Brewing Company in Salem Credit: Visit Virginia’s Blue Ridge Mudlick Creek Greenway in Garst Mill Park 19West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft automobiles are used for over half of these short trips.52 This is largely out of necessity, as many residential neighborhoods in the United States are not equipped with safe pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure. Greenways are safe travel corridors for pedestrians and bicyclists and provide those who live near them with the option of walking or bicycling to nearby destinations. Each car trip requires gasoline, so each time someone walks or rides a bike instead of driving a car, they save money. If one is interested in saving money on gasoline, it is especially beneficial to replace short car trips with walking or biking as fuel economy is generally worse on short trips than longer trips.53 Greenways are linear parks that, when designed well, include natural buffer areas on either side of the trail. In Roanoke County, the width of these linear parks is typically around 50 feet: A ten-foot-wide paved trail with around twenty feet of buffer area on either side. These natural buffer areas provide contiguous wildlife habitat, even in densely developed areas, which allows for safer, healthier movement of wild animals for both the animals and humans.54 The wildlife preservation benefits of greenways are compounded when greenways are located adjacent to rivers or creeks, as riparian ecosystems are among both the most diverse and critical, and degraded and vulnerable, ecosystem types on earth.55 When greenways are located on the banks of rivers or creeks, they protect those banks from intensive development in perpetuity. Greenways adjacent to rivers or creeks usually also include a natural buffer area between the trail and waterway to protect Roanoke River Greenway Connection to Roanoke River Greenway Connection to Highland Road, Completed in 2023 Roanoke River as viewed from the Roanoke River Greenway in Green Hill Park the waterway and its banks from pollution or degradation stemming from human overuse. The natural buffer areas created by greenways have a positive impact on air quality, as they provide protected space for plants to grow and flourish. Plants convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and filter out air pollutants like ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and airborne heavy metal particles.56 57 As greenways provide infrastructure for walking and biking, they also inevitably reduce car 20West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft trips by some degree and thus improve air quality by reducing exhaust emissions.58 2.3 Current Trail System Status As of August 2025, approximately 16 miles of the Roanoke River Greenway have been constructed, including 1.2 miles in Roanoke County. If the Roanoke River Greenway is completed between Explore Park and Montgomery County, it will likely be over 30 miles in length, including over 16 miles in Roanoke County. The map on page 21 shows the construction statuses of all existing and future sections of the Roanoke River Greenway. One existing section of the Roanoke River Greenway in Roanoke County is a 0.4-mile segment just west of the Blue Ridge Parkway that was recently completed in 2023. This section represents the easternmost existing section of the Roanoke River Greenway. The other existing section in Roanoke County is the 0.8-mile segment in Green Hill Park that was completed in 2008. This section serves as the westernmost existing section of the Roanoke River Greenway and the launching point for the potential greenway corridors examined in this study. As of August 2025, an additional 4 miles of the Roanoke River Greenway are currently under construction in Roanoke County. In the eastern part of the County, 3.4 miles of contiguous greenway are currently under construction. In December 2023, construction began on a two-mile section running from the eastern (southern) terminus of the existing 0.4-mile section west of the Blue Ridge Parkway to the northern end of Explore Park. In November 2024, construction began on a 1.4-mile section running through Explore Construction of the Roanoke River GreenwayConstruction of the Roanoke River GreenwayBetween the Blue Ridge Parkway andExplore Park Park from the northern end of the park (eastern terminus of two-mile section under construction) to Rutrough Point. The sections under construction in the eastern part of the County are anticipated to be complete by Spring 2026. In western Roanoke County, a 0.6-mile section known officially as West Roanoke River Greenway, Phase 1 is under construction between Riverside Nursery and Kingsmill Drive in the City of Salem. This section is anticipated West Roanoke River GreenwayWest Roanoke River GreenwayPhase 1 Construction 21West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 22West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Route 11/460/West Main Street andRoute 11/460/West Main Street andRailroad Tracks to be complete by the end of 2025. The completion of the three sections currently under construction will bring the total length of Roanoke River Greenway in Roanoke County to 5.2 miles. Small gaps in the greenway will remain in the eastern and western parts of the County, as will the section evaluated in this study. Existing Conditions Inventory and Assessment 3.1 Methodology Currently, a majority of the existing Roanoke River Greenway in Roanoke County is constructed adjacent to the Roanoke River, which is how the section between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County is depicted in the 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan. Although constructing the Greenway on flat land adjacent to the Roanoke River would be ideal, the characteristics of the landscape will influence the actual location of the future West Roanoke River Greenway. To assess the existing conditions of the landscape, Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis was performed to better understand potential physical constraints. This analysis involved creating an inventory of spatial data to help visualize the characteristics of the study area and included data collection for the following landscape characteristics: land cover; current and future land uses; existing networks of roads, trails and sidewalks; public land; rivers and reservoirs; business locations; community facilities; topography; cultural resources; and zoning districts. Maps were created from the spatial data to identify opportunities and constraints for greenway construction. Following the GIS inventory and analysis, the steering committee visited key areas of interest to assess these locations in person. In addition, land managers and property owners associated with key areas of interest were identified as stakeholders and were engaged in conversations regarding the landscape analysis. The information gathered from site visits and stakeholder meetings complemented the GIS-based analysis resulting in a comprehensive list of opportunities, barriers, and challenges specific to the study area that are outlined below. 3.2 Constraints and Opportunities Findings In this section, challenges and opportunities identified in the existing conditions analysis are discussed. Key challenges to constructing a greenway in the Study Area include challenging topography, land that is divided into small parcels and owned by many different parties, narrow roadways, the presence of Route 11/460/West Main Street, and the presence of two railroad tracks. Key opportunities include potential collaboration with the Western Virginia Regional Jail, Appalachian Power, Western Virginia Water Authority, and Montgomery County. The presence of multiple County parks in or immediately adjacent to the Study Area, and the presence of the Roanoke River Blueway, represent opportunities to connect to these recreational assets. Route 11/460/West Main Street represents a physical barrier for this potential greenway, and the cars that travel Credit: Roanoke Valley Television 23West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 24West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 25West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft PEACEFUL TECHNOLOGY WESTMAIN TREETOPCAMP BOHONHOLLOW CAMPBELL SWRIVER WEST RIVER Roanoke CountyWEST RIVER GARTH YALE JOYCE WEST MAIN BEASON YATEMAN PEACEFUL PLEASANTRUN STONESKEEP GROVER BARLEY BYDAWYLE MAYFAIR HILLCREST VINTAGE GETTY POOR MOUNTAIN ROGER DOGWOODVIEWPOINT NWRIVER 0 0.5 10.25 mi ¯ Existing Land Use §¨¦81 §¨¦81 Study Area Boundary Green HillPark £¤11460 £¤11460 £¤11460 Agriculture/Forest Civic Commercial Industrial Multi-family Residential Office Rural Residential Single Family Residential Vacant Montgomery County City ofSalem 26West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft PEACEFUL TECHNOLOGY WESTMAIN TREETOPCAMP BOHONHOLLOW CAMPBELL SWRIVER WEST RIVER Roanoke CountyWEST RIVER GARTH YALE JOYCE WEST MAIN BEASON YATEMAN PEACEFUL PLEASANTRUN STONESKEEP GROVER BARLEY BYDAWYLE MAYFAIR HILLCREST VINTAGE GETTY POOR MOUNTAIN ROGER DOGWOODVIEWPOINT NWRIVER 0 0.5 10.25 mi ¯ Zoning §¨¦81 §¨¦81 Green HillParkAG1 (Agricultural/Rural Low Density) AR (Agricultural/Residential) AV (Agricultural/Village Center) C1 (Low Intensity Commercial) C2 (High Intensity Commercial) I1 (Low Intensity Industrial) I2 (High Intensity Industrial) R1 (Low Density Residential) AG3 (Agricultural/Rural Preserve) Study Area Boundary £¤11460 £¤11460 £¤11460 MontgomeryCounty City ofSalem 27West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft PEACEFUL TECHNOLOGY WESTMAIN TREETOPCAMP BOHONHOLLOW CAMPBELL SWRIVER WEST RIVER Roanoke CountyWEST RIVER GARTH YALE JOYCE WEST MAIN BEASON YATEMAN PEACEFUL PLEASANTRUN STONESKEEP GROVER BARLEY BYDAWYLE MAYFAIR HILLCREST VINTAGE GETTY POOR MOUNTAIN ROGER DOGWOODVIEWPOINT NWRIVER 0 0.5 10.25 mi ¯ Future Land Use §¨¦81 §¨¦81 Study Area Boundary Green HillPark Conservation Rural Preserve Neighborhood Conservation Rural Village Development Principal Industrial Transition Core Mixed Use Glenvar Village £¤11460 £¤11460 £¤11460 Montgomery County City ofSalem 28West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft PEACEFUL TECHNOLOGY WESTMAIN TREETOPCAMP BOHONHOLLOW CAMPBELL SWRIVER WEST RIVER RoanokeRiver RoanokeRiver Roanoke CountyWEST RIVER GARTH YALE JOYCE WEST MAIN BEASON YATEMAN PEACEFUL PLEASANTRUN STONESKEEP GROVER BARLEY BYDAWYLE MAYFAIR HILLCREST VINTAGE GETTY POOR MOUNTAIN ROGER DOGWOODVIEWPOINT NWRIVER 0 0.5 10.25 mi ¯ §¨¦81 §¨¦81 Green HillPark Study Area Boundary Environmental Characteristics Existing Sidewalk/Trail Railroad Tracks Existing Greenway Streets Waterbodies State or Local RecreationalFacilities Floodway 100-Year Floodplain 500-Year Floodplain £¤11460 £¤11460 £¤11460 20-foot Contour Lines 100-foot Contour Lines MontgomeryCounty City ofSalem 29West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft PEACEFUL TECHNOLOGY WESTMAIN TREETOPCAMP BOHONHOLLOW CAMPBELL SWRIVER WEST RIVER RoanokeRiver RoanokeRiver Roanoke CountyWEST RIVER GARTH YALE JOYCE WEST MAIN BEASON YATEMAN PEACEFUL PLEASANTRUN STONESKEEP GROVER BARLEY BYDAWYLE MAYFAIR HILLCREST VINTAGE GETTY POOR MOUNTAIN ROGER DOGWOODVIEWPOINT NWRIVER 0 0.5 10.25 mi ¯ §¨¦81 §¨¦81 Green HillPark £¤11460 £¤11460 £¤11460 Study Area Boundary Topographical Relief Existing Sidewalk/Trail Railroad Tracks Existing Greenway Streets Waterbodies State or Local Recreational Facilities Low Elevation High Elevation MontgomeryCounty City of Salem 30West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft PEACEFUL TECHNOLOGY WESTMAIN TREETOPCAMP BOHONHOLLOW CAMPBELL SWRIVER WEST RIVER Roanoke CountyWEST RIVER GARTH YALE JOYCE WEST MAIN BEASON YATEMAN PEACEFUL PLEASANTRUN STONESKEEP GROVER BARLEY BYDAWYLE MAYFAIR HILLCREST VINTAGE GETTY POOR MOUNTAIN ROGER DOGWOODVIEWPOINT NWRIVER 0 0.5 10.25 mi ¯ §¨¦81 §¨¦81 Green HillPark £¤11460 £¤11460 £¤11460 Study Area Boundary Slope Existing Sidewalk/Trail Railroad Tracks Existing Greenway Streets State or Local Recreational Facilities MontgomeryCounty City ofSalem >100% Slope 50% - 100% Slope 25% - 50% Slope 15% - 25% Slope <5% Slope 5% - 15% Slope 31West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Railroad Tracks, Peaceful Drive, and Route 11/460/West Main StreetRailroad Tracks, Peaceful Drive, and Route 11/460/West Main Street on it represent a safety hazard for potential greenway users, but Route 11/460/West Main Street also provides the opportunity for this potential greenway to connect to local businesses and community facilities. Terrain Challenge To make the Greenway accessible to all potential users, the U.S. Access Board recommends keeping the majority of the Greenway surface to less than a 5% grade (1 foot rise for every 20 feet of trail length). The areas of the Glenvar area that conform to this standard are mostly found adjacent to the Roanoke River, along existing railroad lines, and partially along Route 11/460 as shown on the map on page 30. In addition to not meeting the standards of the U.S. Access Board, construction of greenways on steep slopes is often prohibitively expensive. The ubiquity of steep slopes in the study area prompted the steering committee to focus on potential routes that follow the river, rail lines, and road. Private Land Challenge Seven hundred and forty-seven (747) parcels are located completely or partially within the Study Area. As of December 2024, these parcels are owned by 482 different owners. The division of land in the Study Area into many small parcels owned by many different owners will make right-of-way negotiations difficult, as acquiring right-of-way will require many parties to agree to the same thing at the same time. If one property owner along a proposed greenway route refuses to sell land or an easement for the greenway, that potential greenway route must be redesigned to avoid that person’s property or scrapped altogether. Additionally, if one person is strongly against the greenway project, neighbors of theirs who may be neutral or slightly in favor of the project will likely refuse to support the project publicly and refuse to grant-right-of-way for it, to avoid making an enemy out of their neighbor. Thus far in the Roanoke Valley, greenways have generally been constructed on land that is owned by only one party, or a small handful of separate owners. The unconstructed segments of high-priority greenways like the Roanoke River Greenway and the Tinker Creek Greenway remain unconstructed due to the difficulty of getting a large number of property owners to agree to the project at the same time. Narrow Road Infrastructure Challenge West River Road travels through a majority of the study area along the Roanoke River. Although a main thoroughfare through the study area, the road is roughly twenty (20) feet wide with bi-directional traffic and no striping (see photos of West River Road on pages 53-55). The right-of-way for West River Road is roughly thirty (30) feet in width, allowing for an average of five (5) extra feet on either side of the pavement. In addition to a narrow right- of-way width, many sections of the road have steep terrain or buildings close to the road. While it is common practice in greenway development to widen roads and/or create a separate path for pedestrians within public right-of-way, this may not be viable due to the narrow width of the West River Road right- of-way. The average daily traffic count for this road is low at approximately 250 cars a day but any re-configuration of the roadway will require a VDOT-led traffic study. Route 11/460 (West Main Street) One potentially simpler location to construct the West Roanoke River Greenway is alongside Route 11/460 (West Main Street). Route 11/460 has a significantly wider right-of- way than West River Road and contains four travel lanes. Between Boone Tractor (5264 West Main Street) and West River Road, Route 11/460 also has a bi-directional turning lane between the eastbound and westbound lanes. Although this roadway provides more public right-of-way to work within when designing a greenway, it experiences lots of traffic, with 2023 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts ranging from 8,825 at Credit: Roanoke Valley Television 32West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Route 11/460/West Main Street, Railroad Tracks, Roanoke River, and Barley DriveRoute 11/460/West Main Street, Railroad Tracks, Roanoke River, and Barley Drive the western end of the study area to 14,964 at the eastern end of the study area (see map on page 38). This volume of traffic poses safety concerns for potential greenway users and any safe greenway crossing of Route 11/460 would require a stoplight at the intersection, which would increase the cost of the project and slow traffic on an already-congested roadway. Additionally, constructing a greenway adjacent to Route 11/460 would potentially require altering or adding to existing stormwater infrastructure, which would further increase construction costs. Although the challenges of Route 11/460 are substantial, the construction of a greenway adjacent to this thoroughfare would provide an opportunity to connect more businesses and residential areas than a greenway adjacent to the Roanoke River. Each edition of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan adopted since 1995 envisions the Roanoke River Greenway as a continuous, functional non-motorized transportation route. This goal must be balanced with the natural experience sought after by most greenway users, environmental conservation benefits, and overall safety considerations. Rail and River Crossing Challenges Any crossings of the greenway that would be needed across the Roanoke River or existing at-grade rail lines would pose significant cost burdens due to requiring either a bridge or elevated walkway. Any crossing of a rail line would need to have a clearance of at least 23 feet over the center of the rail line. For the Roanoke River, the design of crossings is more site-dependent and contingent on the location of the floodplain, as bridge footings cannot be constructed in floodplain. Although these types of crossings are not impossible, their design and construction is extremely costly both financially and in the length of time required to secure approval and permits. There is potential to incorporate greenway infrastructure into existing bridges, but doing so would in most cases require retrofitting the bridge – another expensive and time-consuming endeavor. The construction of any new crossings over the Roanoke River or rail lines, or retrofitting of existing bridges to incorporate new greenway infrastructure, will need to be closely evaluated to determine if simpler, more cost-effective options exist. A map of potential locations where the West Roanoke River Greenway may need to cross railroad tracks is shown on page 37. Credit: Roanoke Valley Television 33West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft ValleyTech Park Western VirginiaRegional Jail DixieCaverns KoppersRoanokePlant PEACEFUL TECHNOLOGY WESTMAIN TREETOPCAMP BOHONHOLLOW CAMPBELL SWRIVER WEST RIVER RoanokeRiver RoanokeRiver Roanoke CountyWEST RIVER GARTH YALE JOYCE WEST MAIN BEASON YATEMAN PEACEFUL PLEASANTRUN STONESKEEP GROVER BARLEY BYDAWYLE MAYFAIR HILLCREST VINTAGE GETTY POOR MOUNTAIN ROGER DOGWOODVIEWPOINT NWRIVER 0 0.5 10.25 mi ¯ §¨¦81 §¨¦81 Green HillPark WaysidePark £¤11460 £¤11460 £¤11460 Study Area Boundary Public Utilities Existing Sidewalk/Trail Railroad Tracks Existing Greenway Streets Waterbodies State or Local Recreational Facilities Public Water Lines Public Sewer Lines MontgomeryCounty City ofSalem 34West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( ValleyTech Park DixieCaverns KoppersRoanokePlant PEACEFUL TECHNOLOGY WESTMAIN TREETOPCAMP BOHONHOLLOW CAMPBELL SWRIVER WEST RIVER RoanokeRiver RoanokeRiver Roanoke County Adams ConstructionAsphalt Plant BooneTractor WEST RIVER GARTH YALE JOYCE WEST MAIN BEASON YATEMAN PEACEFUL PLEASANTRUN STONESKEEP GROVER BARLEY BYDAWYLE MAYFAIR HILLCREST VINTAGE GETTY POOR MOUNTAIN VIEWPOINT NWRIVER 0 0.5 10.25 mi ¯ §¨¦81 §¨¦81 Green HillPark WaysidePark Study Area Boundary Businesses Existing Sidewalk/Trail Railroad Tracks Existing Greenway Streets Waterbodies State or Local RecreationalFacilities £¤11460 £¤11460 £¤11460 Commercial Business Industrial Business!( !( Montgomery County City of Salem 35West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 36West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( ValleyTech Park Western VirginiaRegional Jail DixieCaverns KoppersRoanokePlant PEACEFUL TECHNOLOGY WESTMAIN TREETOPCAMP BOHONHOLLOW CAMPBELL SWRIVER WEST RIVER RoanokeRiver RoanokeRiver Roanoke CountyWEST RIVER GARTH YALE JOYCE WEST MAIN BEASON YATEMAN PEACEFUL PLEASANTRUN STONESKEEP GROVER BARLEY BYDAWYLE MAYFAIR HILLCREST VINTAGE GETTY POOR MOUNTAIN ROGER DOGWOODVIEWPOINT NWRIVER 0 0.5 10.25 mi ¯ §¨¦81 §¨¦81 Green HillPark WaysidePark £¤11460 £¤11460 £¤11460 Study Area Boundary Community Facilities Existing Sidewalk/Trail Railroad Tracks Existing Greenway Streets Waterbodies State or Local Recreational Facilities General Services!( Public Library!( Public Safety!( Public School!( MontgomeryCounty City ofSalem 37West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF ValleyTech Park Western VirginiaRegional Jail DixieCaverns KoppersRoanokePlant PEACEFUL TECHNOLOGY WESTMAIN TREETOPCAMP BOHONHOLLOW CAMPBELL SWRIVER WEST RIVER RoanokeRiver RoanokeRiver Roanoke CountyWEST RIVER GARTH YALE JOYCE WEST MAIN BEASON YATEMAN PEACEFUL PLEASANTRUN STONESKEEP GROVER BARLEY BYDAWYLE MAYFAIR HILLCREST VINTAGE GETTY POOR MOUNTAIN ROGER DOGWOODVIEWPOINT NWRIVER 0 0.5 10.25 mi ¯ §¨¦81 §¨¦81 Green HillPark WaysidePark £¤11460 £¤11460 £¤11460 Study Area Boundary Potential Railroad Crossings Existing Sidewalk/Trail Railroad Tracks Existing Greenway Streets Potential Crossing Under Existing Rail BridgeGF Potential Crossing of On-Ground Railroad Tracks: At-Grade, or via New Bridge or TunnelGF Waterbodies State or Local Recreational Facilities MontgomeryCounty City of Salem 38West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 39West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Destination Fort Lewis Baptist Church 10-19-22 Spring Hollow Water Treatment Plant 10-20-22 Total Spring Hollow Reservoir 3 5 8 Wayside Park 1 3 4 Route 11/460 at Montgomery County line 1 1 2 West River Road at Yateman Lane 2 0 2 West River Road at Poor Mountain Road 2 0 2 I-81 immediately north of Vintage Lane 2 0 2 Barley Drive bridge over Roanoke River 2 0 2 Living Well Church of the Nazarene 0 1 1 Green Hill Park 0 1 1 "Goat Rock" (rock face across the river from Western Virginia Regional Jail)0 1 1 Rt. 11/460 halfway between Pleasant Run Drive and Yale Drive 0 1 1 End of Stones Keep Lane in Montgomery County (across railroad tracks from 6670 Stones Keep Lane) 1 0 1 Western Virginia Regional Jail 1 0 1 Roanoke River Tributary at Roanoke River (just north of Dry Hollow Road)1 0 1 West River Road bridge immediately east of Northwest River Road 1 0 1 Friendship Richfield Living 1 0 1 Glenvar Library 1 0 1 Destination Exercise Results Respondents identified locations on a map they would like to see this greenway connect to. Potential Route Analysis and Public Participation 4.1 First Round of Community Meetings – Fall 2022 In the fall of 2022, two (2) community meetings were held to gain local knowledge about the study corridor and learn about the surrounding community’s preferences for this section of the West Roanoke River Greenway. Meetings were held in an open house format and included history exhibits, status updates on the Roanoke River Greenway completion efforts, and exercises to gain citizen feedback. The first community meeting on October 19, 2022, at Fort Lewis Baptist Church had 56 attendees and the second community meeting on October 20, 2022, at the Spring Hollow Water Treatment Plant had 44 attendees. Exercises featured at these two community meetings included identifying potential destinations on a map (results summarized on page 39), an amenity visual preference survey (results summarized on page 41), an activity where attendees could draw their own preferred greenway route (results summarized on page 40), and documenting what attendees love about the existing Roanoke Valley Greenway network. In addition to the community meetings, a survey was disseminated and 198 people responded to it. The survey gathered information regarding peoples’ general relationship with the Glenvar area and their Bench on the Roanoke River Greenway in Green Hill ParkBench on the Roanoke River Greenway in Green Hill Park 40West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 41West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft preferences regarding use of the Greenway, location of Greenway, and type of Greenway. Fall 2022 survey results are summarized on pages 42-43. Complete results from the Fall 2022 community meetings and survey can be found in Appendix 6.2. 4.2 Development of Potential Routes Following the first round of community meetings, Roanoke County staff compiled and summarized the survey results and feedback and distributed this information to the Steering Committee to review. In January 2023, the Steering Committee met to develop potential routes for the West Roanoke River Greenway to present to stakeholders. Potential routes were selected based on feedback received in the community meetings and survey, a free-form discussion within the Steering Committee about the strengths and weaknesses of each hypothetical route, and a decision matrix developed by NPS-RTCA staff. The decision matrix included five criteria: • Serving the residents of western Roanoke County • Potential to become a recreation destination that attracts visitors from other communities • Promotion of environmental services • Safety • Cost Steering Committee members assigned each hypothetical route a score of Low, Medium, or High for each criterion. Routes that had a relatively high ratio of strengths to Amenity Fort Lewis Baptist Church 10-19-22 Spring Hollow Water Treatment Plant 10-20-22 Total Benches 10 9 19 Viewing/Fishing Platforms 7 6 13 Mutt Mitt Stations 6 6 12 Boat Access 8 4 12 Rest Rooms 6 4 10 Picnic Areas 6 3 9 Playgrounds 5 3 8 Swimming Access 4 3 7 Vineyards/Breweries/Tasting Rooms 3 0 3 Bike Repair/Maintenance Stations 0 2 2 Access to schools, libraries, government buildings (i.e. police, jail). For visitors, workers, and idea of connecting community) 1 0 1 No steep grades 1 0 1 Healthy air quality 1 0 1 Water fountains 1 0 1 Parking trailheads 1 0 1 Equestrian trails 1 0 1 Bike trails 1 0 1 Keep it simple and basic 1 0 1 Amenity Visual Preference Survey Results Respondents placed stickers next to photos of amenities they would like to see on this greenway. *Italicized and indented amenities were written in. Looking west from Stoneskeep Lane bridge over the Roanoke RiverLooking west from Stoneskeep Lane bridge over the Roanoke River 42West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Corridor StakeholdersFall 2022 Survey Results 43West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Corridor StakeholdersFall 2022 Survey Results 44West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft weaknesses, had potential to garner public support, and didn’t score too poorly on the decision matrix remained in consideration and were presented to corridor stakeholders in Spring 2023. Routes that were not objected to by corridor stakeholders remained in consideration and were presented to the public as conceptual route alternatives in Summer 2023. Due to terrain and land ownership constraints, almost all conceptual route alternatives presented to the public were directly adjacent to the Roanoke River, a public road, or the set of railroad tracks that at that time was owned by the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority. 4.3 Second Round of Community Meetings – Summer 2023 In the summer of 2023, two (2) additional community meetings were held to review conceptual route alternatives that were developed based on community feedback from the initial community meetings and additional input provided by stakeholders. An informational video was also shown highlighting the work that had been done since the initial round of community meetings. The first meeting was held on July 10, 2023, at the Western Virginia Water Authority’s Spring Hollow Water Treatment Plant and had 38 attendees. The second meeting was held on July 13, 2023, at Fort Lewis Elementary School and had 36 attendees. The focus of the second round of community meetings was to gather feedback on the conceptual route alternatives developed by the Steering Committee. Unlike the first round of community meetings, there were no standalone exercises at the community meetings that were different than the survey. Feedback at the community meetings was collected via the exact same survey that was mailed to study area residents and property owners, as at this point Steering Committee simply needed to know what the public thought of the conceptual route alternatives. For the purposes of the survey, the study area was divided into three subareas (A, B & C), and the conceptual route alternatives were divided into twenty (20) short segments with logical endpoints. Attendees were asked to select their preferred segments in each subarea. The maps on pages 45-47 are the exhibits that were used for this exercise. Ninety-three (93) responses to the Summer 2023 survey were received. The map on page 48 shows the number of people who responded in support of each segment. The map on page 49 attempts to paint a comprehensive picture of the survey results via a “weighted net score.” The weighting is helpful because for Areas A and C, survey respondents were asked to select their top Fall 2022 Community Meeting,Fall 2022 Community Meeting,Spring Hollow Water Treatment PlantFall 2022 Community Meeting,Fort Lewis Baptist Church Summer 2023 Community Meeting,Spring Hollow Water Treatment Plant 45West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Corridor StakeholdersSummer 2023 Community Meeting and Survey Exhibits 46West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Corridor StakeholdersSummer 2023 Community Meeting and Survey Exhibits 47West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Corridor StakeholdersSummer 2023 Community Meeting and Survey Exhibits 48West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 49West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 50West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft three (3) preferred segments out of five (5) potential segments, which means they could select 60% of the available segments, but for Area B they were asked to select their top five (5) preferred segments out of ten (10) potential segments, so they could only select 50% of the available segments. Thus, a segment in Area A or Area C had 20% more opportunities to be selected than a segment in Area B. So, to get closer to an “apples to apples” comparison, the number of “yes” responses to each Area B segment was multiplied by 1.2 before the net score was calculated. Since no cap was set on the number of “no” responses in each subarea – respondents could oppose every segment in each subarea if they wanted to – the raw number of “no” responses was subtracted from the raw number of “yes” responses to Area A and Area C segments, and from the weighted “yes” responses to Area B segments to create the weighted net score map on page 49. Complete Summer 2023 survey results can be found in Appendix 6.6. 4.4 Potentially Viable Segments The segments discussed in this section are fifteen (15) of the twenty (20) conceptual route alternatives presented to the public in Summer 2023. These conceptual routes are general, not exact: they have not been ground-truthed or developed by an engineer. The five (5) conceptual route alternatives that were eliminated from consideration are discussed in the following sub-section, and subsections discussing each of the fourteen potentially viable segments follow. Both the non-viable segments and the potentially viable segments are referred to with the number they were assigned during the Summer 2023 public outreach process, these numbers do not connote a ranking or priority level. Non-Viable Segments Considered in Study Process •Segment 3: Virginia Passenger Rail Authority right-of-way betweenMontgomery County and West River Road o Eliminated due to the saleof this right-of-way to Norfolk Southern in September 2024 •Segment 6: Through the woodsbetween West Main Street and the Mack Trucks property, alongsideTechnology Drive between the Mack Trucks property and Barley Drive o Eliminated due to terrainchallenges and property owner opposition •Segment 10: Virginia Passenger RailAuthority right-of-way between West River Road (at Western Virginia Regional Jail) and West River Road(east of Northwest River Road) o Eliminated due to the sale of this right-of-way to NorfolkSouthern in September 2024 •Segment 13: Virginia Passenger Rail Authority right-of-way betweenYateman Lane and Beason Lane o Eliminated due to the sale of this right-of-way to NorfolkSouthern in September 2024 •Segment 16: Virginia Passenger Rail Authority-owned land betweenBeason Lane and Barley Drive o Eliminated due to the sale of this right-of-way to NorfolkSouthern in September 2024 Segment 1: North Bank of the Roanoke River Between Montgomery County and Stoneskeep Lane This is a short segment (approximately 0.3 mile) that represents one of only two potentially viable options for connecting the West Roanoke River, looking east from Roanoke River, looking east from Stoneskeep Lane bridge 51West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Intersection of Peaceful Drive and Intersection of Peaceful Drive and Joyce Lane Roanoke River Greenway to the Montgomery County line. This segment would cross three (3) parcels, each of which has a different owner. These are relatively flat parcels with minimal topographic challenges relative to other segments. This segment would cross beneath the Route 11/460/West Main Street bridge over the Roanoke River and would either need to make an at-grade crossing of Stoneskeep Lane or cross beneath the Stoneskeep Lane bridge over the Roanoke River. The eastern end of this segment would likely need to be tweaked significantly if it were to be constructed, as the conceptual route it was imagined connecting to, Segment 3, has been eliminated from consideration. Instead of connecting to Segment 3, Segment 1 could connect to Stoneskeep Lane south of the railroad tracks, or a bridge could be constructed to connect to Joyce Lane north of the railroad tracks. The map on page 59 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Segment 2: North Bank of the Roanoke River between Peaceful Drive at Joyce Lane and West River Road This is a longer segment (approximately 1.4 miles) that would provide a scenic user experience adjacent to the Roanoke River and away from residential neighborhoods. Despite its length, this segment would cross only two (2) parcels, one of which is owned by Appalachian Power, and the other of which is owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, so right-of- way acquisition would likely not be difficult compared to other potentially viable segments. This segment is mostly flat, but there is a pinch point in the VDOT right-of- way between the Roanoke County-owned parcel and the Appalachian Power-owned parcel, where there is only approximately 30 feet between the edge of the pavement on Peaceful Drive and the bank of the Roanoke River. Additionally, the elevation of the Roanoke River is approximately 15 feet lower than the elevation of Peaceful Drive at this location, so the average slope on this piece of land is approximately 50%. This means that construction of Segment 2 would require extensive grading and landscaping at this location, and potentially a retaining wall. Another challenge presented by this segment is the need to cross the railroad tracks twice – once just north of the Adams Construction Asphalt Plant and again at the western end of the segment near the intersection of Peaceful Drive and Joyce Lane. North of the Adams Asphalt Plant, the greenway could cross the railroad tracks underneath the existing bridge over the Roanoke River, or via a new greenway bridge over the railroad tracks south of the Roanoke River bridge. Near Peaceful Drive at Joyce Lane, a new bridge over the railroad tracks or a new tunnel underneath them could provide passage across the railroad tracks. The map on page 60 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Peaceful DrivePeaceful Drive 52West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Route 11/460/West Main Street bridge over the Roanoke RiverRoute 11/460/West Main Street bridge over the Roanoke River Segment 4: Stoneskeep Lane, Peaceful Drive, and Joyce Lane between the Roanoke River and Route 11/460/West Main Street This segment is approximately 1.3 miles long and would consist of a greenway adjacent to Peaceful Drive (a public road), Joyce Lane (a private road), and Stoneskeep Lane (a public road). The railroad tracks would need to be crossed between Joyce Lane and Stoneskeep Lane, likely with a bridge. The section adjacent to Peaceful Drive and Stoneskeep Lane could likely be constructed within existing VDOT right-of-way, but the section adjacent to Joyce Lane may present a challenge from a right-of-way perspective, as all property owners who contribute to the maintenance of Joyce Lane would likely need to sign off on the greenway. The map on page 61 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Segment 5: Route 11/460/West Main Street, Montgomery County to West River Road This 1.2-mile segment follows the path of Route 11/460/West Main Street between Montgomery County and West River Road. A greenway could be constructed adjacent to Route 11/460/West Main Street completely within existing VDOT right-of-way, or with minimal right-of-way acquisition needed. Though right-of-way would likely not be a challenge for this segment, it would provide a subpar user experience due to the high speed of traffic on Route 11/460/West Main Street and the continuous uphill grade between Montgomery County and the entrance to the Spring Hollow Water Treatment Plant. Some grading would likely be needed as there are steep rises or falls at the edges of the existing right-of-way throughout much of this section. Additionally, a physical barrier would likely be needed to separate the greenway from the fast-moving Route 11/460/West Main Street traffic. The map on page 62 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Segment 7: Route 11/460/West Main Street between West River Road and Technology Drive, Technology Drive between Route 11/460/West Main Street and Barley Drive At approximately 2.6 miles, this is the longest segment considered in this study. Like Segment 5, this greenway would be constructed alongside Route 11/460/West Main Street within existing VDOT right-of-way or with minimal right-of-way acquisitions needed. A brief section of this segment (approximately 350 feet) follows the path of Technology Drive between Route 11/460/West Main Street and Barley Drive, and the eastern terminus of this segment is the intersection of Technology Route 11/460/West Main St, looking east from Route 11/460/West Main St, looking east from West River Road intersection 53West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Western Virginia Regional Jail property and Western Virginia Regional Jail property and access road Drive and Barley Drive. The western terminus of this segment the intersection of Route 11/460/West Main Street and West River Road – the eastern terminus of Segment 5. Like Segment 5, right-of-way acquisition for this segment would be relatively simple, but the user experience would not be ideal. A physical barrier would likely need to be constructed between the greenway and the roadway to provide a safe environment for greenway users, which could prompt a need for additional right-of-way acquisition and grading outside the existing right-of-way. The map on page 63 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Segment 8: South Bank of the Roanoke River on Western Virginia Regional Jail Property, Including a Bridge to Wayside Park This horseshoe-shaped segment is just under one mile in length (approximately 5,235 feet) and is entirely on Western Virginia Regional Jail property, save for a potential bridge across the Roanoke River to Roanoke County’s Wayside Park. It follows the south bank of the Roanoke River around a 180-degree bend opposite Goat Rock, which rises approximately 300 feet at near-vertical grade from the north bank of the river. The beauty of Goat Rock and this bend in the Roanoke River mean that a greenway constructed on this path would provide a pleasant, scenic user experience. The fact that the only landowner on this segment aside from Roanoke County is a quasi- public entity (Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority) that is, under its current leadership, open to collaborating with Roanoke County on a greenway, means that right-of-way acquisition would likely not be a challenge. The combination of these two factors – top- notch user experience and simple right-of- way acquisition – is very rare among the segments considered in this study. Trailhead parking could be constructed at Wayside Park, and a bridge could connect across the Roanoke River to the Jail property. If barriers exist to expanding parking at Wayside, trailhead parking could be constructed in the southern part of Jail property. Security would present a challenge on this segment, though, as fencing of adequate height would be required between the Jail and the greenway along the entire length of the greenway. Ample signage would also be required to communicate to greenway users that leaving the greenway corridor and crossing the fence onto Jail property is prohibited and would bring significant consequences. The map on page 64 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Segment 9: North Bank of the Roanoke River between Western Virginia Regional Jail and West River Road West of Getty Lane Like Segment 8, this segment is just under one mile long (approximately 5,160 feet). The vast majority of this segment is on the north bank of the Roanoke River, but it starts and ends on the south bank of the river and would thus require two bridges. This potentially viable segment does not follow any existing transportation infrastructure, save for the easternmost 250 feet, which follows the path of West River Road just west of Getty Lane. This segment instead follows the path of the Roanoke River – the goal would be to build the greenway as closely as possible to the river on the north bank of the river. A greenway following this path would provide a scenic and pleasant user experience, but this would be a challenging segment to construct. Challenges include right-of-way acquisition, topography, the need for two bridges - which are very expensive to construct, and the need to cross the railroad tracks – either under the existing bridge over the Roanoke River or via a new greenway bridge over the railroad tracks. This segment crosses ten parcels owned by seven different owners, and a few of these owners have expressed that they are not interested in having a greenway on their property. Roanoke County must prepare for all potential scenarios, West River Road, just west of Getty LaneWest River Road, just west of Getty Lane 54West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft West River Road, looking west from Southwest River Road intersectionWest River Road, looking west from Southwest River Road intersection though, including those in which land ownership changes. Topography presents a challenge just west of the segment’s midpoint where the railroad tracks are closest to the Roanoke River – steep cross slopes, ranging in grade from just under 15% to just over 60%, exist in this area that could not be avoided due to the proximity of the railroad tracks to the river. Constructing a greenway on this cross slope would require retaining walls and extensive grading, which would add up to a very expensive project when combined with the two bridges required for this segment. The map on page 65 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Segment 11: West River Road between Route 11/460/West Main Street and Southwest River Road This 1.9-mile segment follows the path of West River Road from its intersection with Route 11/460/West Main Street to its intersection with Southwest River Road. West River Road is a paved road, but this section is narrow and winding with frequent hills. The area it travels through is sparsely populated, and automobile traffic is light, with 2023 annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 677 west of Dry Hollow Road (which serves many homes) and 2023 AADT of 286 east of Dry Hollow Road. A greenway on this segment would likely be constructed directly adjacent to the roadway. Physical separation and/or barriers between the greenway and roadway would be desirable, but may not be feasible across the entire segment, as existing right-of-way is narrow and some houses sit just outside of the existing right-of-way. If this segment is selected for greenway construction, as much of it as possible would be constructed within the existing right-of-way, but it is likely that some additional right-of-way would need to be obtained because, as previously mentioned, the existing right-of-way is not much wider than the existing roadway. Additional right- of-way acquisition for a greenway on this segment may potentially present challenges because, as previously mentioned, there are houses along the corridor that sit just outside the public right-of-way. A greenway on this segment would provide a superior user experience to a greenway alongside Route 11/460/West Main Street, but an inferior user experience to a greenway that follows the Roanoke River instead of existing transportation infrastructure. This section of West River Road includes two bridges over the Roanoke River – one just east of Route 11/460/West Main Street and Peaceful Drive and another just east of Northwest River Road. The bridge east of Northwest River Road is approximately 33 feet wide and could potentially be altered to accommodate a greenway at its current size through re-striping and the installation of barriers. However, the bridge east of Route 11/460/West Main Street and Peaceful Drive, at approximately 27 feet wide, would certainly need to be rebuilt to accommodate a greenway. Either that, or a new greenway-only bridge would need to be constructed alongside it. There is also 55West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft West River Road between Southwest River Road West River Road between Southwest River Road and Poor Mountain Road an at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks just east of Route 11/460/West Main Street, Peaceful Drive, and the Roanoke River and infrastructure and/or signage would need to be installed to ensure that greenway users do not attempt to cross the railroad tracks at the wrong time. The map on page 66 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Segment 12: West River Road between Southwest River Road and Poor Mountain Road Like Segment 11, this segment follows the path of West River Road. Like Segments 8 and 9, it is just under one mile in length (approximately 5,120 feet). Vehicular traffic is slightly lighter on this stretch of West River Road, with 2023 AADT of 286 south of Bohon Hollow Road and 2023 AADT of 462 north of Bohon Hollow Road, than on Segment 11, and there are fewer bends and hills than Segment 11, so a greenway on this segment would provide a pleasant user experience. Additionally, there are a number of vacant, County-owned parcels that front on this stretch of West River Road. However, this segment also presents many of the same challenges as Segment 11, as the existing roadway and right-of-way are narrow and there are numerous structures standing just outside the existing right-of- way. As with Segment 11, a greenway would likely be constructed directly adjacent to the roadway, ideally with some sort of barrier between it and the roadway, but could have some sections with no barrier between the greenway and roadway. A 32-foot-wide bridge carries West River Road over the Roanoke River just east of Southwest River Road, and it is possible that this bridge could be altered with striping and barriers to carry the greenway, but more likely that it would need to be rebuilt or a new greenway-only bridge would need to be constructed. West River Road passes underneath a railroad bridge just west of its intersection with Poor Mountain Road, and this location represents a pinch point as the existing roadway occupies almost all of the land between the Roanoke River and the retaining wall that supports the bridge. The map on page 67 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Segment 14: Poor Mountain Road between West River Road and Barley Drive This 0.9-mile segment follows the path of Poor Mountain Road between Barley Drive and West River Road. A greenway constructed on this segment would likely be constructed immediately adjacent to the roadway, and it would be difficult to provide separation between the greenway and roadway because the existing right-of-way is very narrow and many houses sit just outside of the right-of-way. A narrow bridge carries Poor Mountain Road over a stream in the middle of the segment, and this represents a challenge for the greenway as the bridge would either need to be demolished and rebuilt wider, or a standalone greenway bridge would need to be built alongside it. Luckily, this stream is not particularly wide, so the bridge wouldn’t need to be very long. This segment was the least popular of all conceptual segments presented to the public in Summer 2023, but Roanoke County owns a number of parcels that front on this section of Poor Mountain Road, though, and this fact increases the likelihood that a greenway could be Poor Mountain Road, looking south from Poor Mountain Road, looking south from Barley Drive intersection 56West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Roanoke River, looking south from Barley Drive bridgeRoanoke River, looking south from Barley Drive bridge constructed on this segment, so this segment has been determined to be potentially viable. The map on page 68 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Segment 15: South Bank of the Roanoke River between West River Road and Barley Drive Aside from the southernmost 250 feet which follow the path of Beason Lane, a narrow gravel road, this segment follows the path of the Roanoke River instead of existing transportation infrastructure (like Segment 9). Unlike Segment 9, this segment is entirely on one side of the river – the south side (though this segment runs north-south more than east-west due to the orientation of the river in this location). At approximately 5,030 feet in length (0.95 mile) it is one of four potentially viable segments between 5,000 feet and one mile in length, along with Segments 8, 9, and 12. The land this segment traverses is relatively flat, and – if the southern end of the greenway were constructed completely within the existing public right-of-way for Beason Lane - it only crosses six parcels, the largest of which is owned by the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA). WVWA staff have indicated potential willingness to collaborate with Roanoke County on a greenway at this location. Despite these opportunities, this segment does not represent “low hanging fruit,” as numerous challenges are also present. First off, the existing public right-of-way for Beason Lane is very narrow (28-30 feet), so it is unlikely that a greenway could be constructed without edging into one of the four parcels (each owned by a separate owner) that front on the public portion the road. Additionally, land drops off steeply from Beason Lane to the Roanoke River, so retaining walls and extensive grading would be required if the greenway were to be constructed between Beason Lane and the river. North of the public portion of Beason Lane, this segment continues to follow the private portion of Beason Lane. The southernmost 150 feet of the private section pass through two parcels (one of which also fronts partly on the public section), but the remainder of the private section is located on right-of-way owned by Norfolk Southern Railway. Regulations governing private railroads like Norfolk Southern do not incentivize the development of public recreation spaces on private railroad property, so convincing Norfolk Southern to allow a greenway to be constructed across this right-of-way could be challenging despite the fact that it would never be closer than 100 feet away from the railroad tracks. At the northern end of the segment, private residences (or accompanying accessory structures) sit close to the potential greenway path, and the current owners of these properties have not indicated that they are willing to provide right-of-way for a greenway. Despite these challenges, this segment is potentially viable due to its aforementioned flat topography and the fact that it crosses a large parcel owned by the Western Virginia 57West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Barley DriveBarley Drive Water Authority. The map on page 69 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Segment 17: Barley Drive between Technology Drive and the Railroad Bridge This 0.8-mile segment follows the path of Barley Drive from its western terminus to the point where it crosses underneath the railroad bridge over the Roanoke River. A major challenge presented by this segment is the narrow crossing underneath the railroad bridge that represents this segment’s eastern terminus. Most of the dry land underneath the railroad bridge is occupied by Barley Drive and a pillar supporting the bridge, so a separated greenway at this location would likely need to be elevated off of the ground and routed around the east side of the pillar. Another solution, like on the bridge over the Roanoke River, would be to reduce automotive traffic underneath the bridge to one lane and install a stop sign on either side. Right-of-way for Barley Drive ranges from 30 feet to 50 feet in width and is wide enough relative to the roadway width to accommodate a separated greenway within it for most of its length. Current owners of some of the large parcels that front on Barley Drive have indicated that they are not opposed to the project so, if the greenway is well-designed, right-of-way acquisition on this segment could be relatively simple. However, Barley Drive crosses the Roanoke River, and the existing bridge, at 28 feet wide, is not wide enough to accommodate a greenway unless it was reconfigured to hold only one lane of vehicular traffic. In all likelihood, a new standalone greenway bridge would be required, which would drive up the cost of the project. The map on page 70 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Segment 18: South Bank of the Roanoke River between Barley Drive (at Roanoke River) and Barley Drive (at Railroad Bridge). This 0.8-mile segment follows a 180-degree bend in the Roanoke River from the south bank, like Segment 8. Like Segment 17, its eastern terminus is the point where Barley Drive crosses underneath the railroad bridge over the Roanoke River. Its western terminus is immediately east of the bridge that carries Barley Drive over the Roanoke River. This segment crosses six parcels owned by five different owners. The two large parcels at the eastern end of the segment are agricultural fields, so there is potential to promote the development of agritourism uses, but three of the four parcels at the western end house single-family homes near the river, which could complicate right-of-way negotiations. This segment would provide a scenic, pleasant user experience, but would likely be complex from a right-of-way standpoint. Roanoke River, looking north from Roanoke River, looking north from Barley Drive bridge Railroad bridge over the Roanoke River and Barley Drive Open fields on Barley Drive with Fort Open fields on Barley Drive with Fort Lewis Mountain in the distanceLewis Mountain in the distance 58West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Hiking trails meet the Roanoke River Greenway Hiking trails meet the Roanoke River Greenway at the western end of Green Hill Park Additionally, industrial uses lie across the Roanoke River from this segment, which would somewhat mute its scenic value. The map on page 71 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Segment 19: South Bank of the Roanoke River between Barley Drive (at Railroad Bridge) and Green Hill Park This 0.8-mile segment represents the shortest path between the existing western terminus of the Roanoke River Greenway and the first major pinch point as the greenway is expanded westward – the railroad bridge over the Roanoke River and Barley Drive. Despite the simplicity of this segment “on paper,” this segment would likely be more difficult to construct than Segment 20, which covers the same distance on the north bank of the Roanoke River. Along the eastern two-thirds of this segment, land rises at near-vertical grade from the riverbank, so extensive grading and retaining walls would be required to construct a greenway along this segment. The western third of this segment runs along flatter land, but two single-family homes sit near to the Roanoke River at this location. This segment only crosses three parcels (each with a different owner), but right-of-way negotiations would likely be complex due to the presence of these single-family homes and the mixed responses the project has received from the current owners of these parcels. Any money saved by staying on the south side of the river would likely be negated by the landscaping required to construct a stable greenway on such steep land. This segment would likely provide a scenic, pleasant user experience despite the industrial uses across the river, due to the sense of immersion in the forest one would feel traveling along such a steep forested hillside. The map on page 72 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Segment 20: North Bank of the Roanoke River between Barley Drive (at Railroad Bridge) and Green Hil Park This segment, also 0.8 mile long, travels along the north bank of the Roanoke River between the same termini as Segment 19. It would require two bridges to be constructed – one to cross the river at the western end of Green Hill Park, and one to cross back to the south bank adjacent to the existing railroad bridge over the Roanoke River. This segment crosses four parcels owned by three different owners, and approximately 500 feet of the segment crosses Norfolk Southern right-of-way just east of the railroad bridge over the Roanoke River. It may be challenging to gain permission to utilize Norfolk Southern right-of-way, but other than that this segment would likely be simple from a right-of-way acquisition standpoint, as these four parcels are either vacant or occupied by industrial uses, and none have residences on them. Additionally, none of the land on the riverbank that this segment crosses is currently utilized in any way, and current property owners have signaled openness to constructing a greenway in this location. The need for two bridges would drive up the cost of this segment, but the section on the north bank should be relatively simple from an engineering standpoint as the land is fairly flat. The map on page 73 shows a detailed view of this potentially viable segment. Roanoke River, as viewed from the western end of Green Hill Park Roanoke River, as viewed from the western end of Green Hill Park 59West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 0 0 6488 69606964 6661 6410 0 6553 6273 6591 6621 6219 6406 6276 Montgomery County 1300 1320 1240 RoanokeRiver 1180 1200 1220 1240 1260 1280 1300 1320 13 128 1260 1220 80 1180 1240 1200 1200 1240 1180 1200 1260 1280 ROUTE11/460/WESTMAIN JOYCE CAMPBELL STONES KEEP ¯0 200 400100ft Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment Segment 1 Roanoke River (North Bank), Montgomery County to Stoneskeep Lane 60West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft RoanokeRiver 0 0 0 00 0 5780 0 0 6090 0 6200 5832 0 0 6090 5900 0 6461 0 0 6090 5820 5832 0 0 0 0 0 0 6305 6553 0 6740 6229 0 0 6131 5802 6488 6121 0 69606964 6141 6202 6298 0 0 6315 6410 0 6335 6197 0 6205 6126 0 5647 6585 6226 62196273 6232 5839 6230 6163 6357 0 6392 6368 6411 6276 6360 6406 5932 5857 6219 6367 6347 5802 5840 6393 6877 6324 5956 5842 5768 0 0 0 6266 0 5890 6301 5791 0 6831 5748 5910 5766 5892PEACEFUL WESTRIVER ROUTE 11/460/WEST MAIN JOYCE CAMPBELL SPRINGHOLLOWACCESS STONESKEEP 1160 1180 1320 1220 1360 1260 1280 1380 1300 1400 1240 1440 1340 1460 1480 1200 1500 1520 1540 1420 1560 1580 1600 114 1620 340 1180 1600 320 12401200 1280 1460 1440 1400 1260 1220 1180 1180 1440 1300 1340 1200 1180 1580 1220 1320 120 124 1300 1 1360 20 1 1280 1160 1380 1180 1180 1260 1380 1220 260 400 300 1200 1360 1360 1240 1380 1340 1320 1460 1420 ¯ 0 600 1,200300ft Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment Segment 2 Roanoke River (North Bank), Peaceful Drive to West River Road 61West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft PEACEFUL ROUTE 11/460/WEST MAIN JOYCE CAMPBELL STONESKEEP WEST RIVER MARSHALL 1220 1160 1240 12601280 1300 1320 1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 1460 1480 150015201540 1560 1180 1580 1600 16201640 660 1140 1200 1180 11801400 1620 1260 1580 1200 1280 1340 1600 1360 1380 1240 1340 1300 1380 1180 1220 1160 1180 1220 1200 1300 1320 1360 1180 1240 1360 1280 1320 1420 RoanokeRiver 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 6090 6200 5832 00 5780 6090 0 5900 0 0 0 0 6461 6090 5820 5832 6740 0 0 0 0 6488 0 0 6305 0 0 6618 6553 6229 0 6872 6131 0 6121 0 6854 69646960 6893 6886 6141 6832 6202 6844 6298 6831 6661 6849 6877 6861 6315 6410 7011 6335 6911 6197 0 6006 6205 6884 5932 6960 6226 62196273 6915 5857 5839 6591 6911 6621 6912 6971 6939 6995 6957 6163 6357 6392 6411938 6126 6946 6232 6230 5956 0 6978 6932 6368 6219 6367 6347 5840 6276 6360 6406 6393 6927 6324 5842 952 0 6953 0 6266 0 6626 6301 002 5791 0 928 ¯ 0 600 1,200300ft Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment Segment 4 Joyce Lane and Peaceful Drive, Stoneskeep Lane to West River Road 62West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft PEAC E F U L ROUT E 1 1 / 4 6 0 / W E S T M A I N JOYCE CAMPBELL SPRINGHOLLOWA STONESK WEST RIVER MARSHALL 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 6090 6200 5832 00 6090 5900 0 0 0 0 0 6461 6090 5820 5832 6740 0 0 6488 0 6305 0 0 6618 6229 0 6872 6131 6121 0 6854 6893 6141 6832 6886 6202 6844 6298 6831 6849 6877 6861 6315 6410 6335 6911 6197 0 6006 6205 6884 6126 5932 6661 6226 6219 6960 6273 6915 5857 6946 5839 6591 6232 6621 6912 6230 5956 6163 6357 6392 6411 6939 6406 0 6932 6368 6219 6367 6347 5840 6276 6360 6393 6927 6324 6957 5842 69356945 0 6953 6266 0 6626 6301 6971 6995 0 7011 6911 0 RoanokeRiver 12 2 0 1240 1280 1300 1160 13 2 0 11 8 0 1340 1360 1380 1400 1420 1440 146 0 14 8 0 12 0 0 1500 520 1540 1560 1580 126 0 1600 16201640 11401660 1360 240 1260 12 2 0 1200 1580 0 1360 1620 15 1220 1220 128 0 12 12 0 0 1600 1180 11 6 0 1360 11 8 0 1280 1300 340 1300 1380 1300 1320 1320 1340 12 4 0 1240 1400 132 1180 120 1260 ¯ 0 500 1,000250ft Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment Segment 5 Route 11/460, Montgomery County to West 1 River Road 63West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft §¨¦81 WESTRIVER YALE ROUTE11/460/WESTMAIN INDIANHEAD PLEASANTRUN HILLCREST STARTER DOGWOOD VINTAGE MAYWOOD TECHNOLOGY GETTY PINE 00 0 0 0 0 6450 0 4958 0 0 0 0 0 00 5182 0 0 0 0 0 5495 5885 0 0 5753 0 0 0 0 0 4786 0 0 5556 5647 0 53745415 5624 0 0 5400 5938 0 5760 4730 4875 4874 0 0 48084800 0 4655 6025 0 0 0 0 0 4915 0 5488 59215971 0 0 00 0 0 6039 0 0 5731 5857 0 0 0 4774 4791 4860 5780 4800 5487 0 0 6250 4959 0 4741 5641 6410 55080 0 5306 0 0 5475 0 5948 05636 5487 4991 5264 5932 0 0 0 6230 0 0 0 5543 0 5829 0 5959 0 4733 4920 0 4923 5588 5883 5595 5774 0 4901 0 5588 0 0 0 5721 4809 6211 5832 0 0 5460 0 0 0 5818 0 0 5517 0 5820 5642 0 0 0 0 4736 0 0 5481 0 0 0 0 0 0 59715921 5816 5150 0 4780 0 0 0 5724 4789 0 4646 0 00 0 4562 0 0 5256 53855383 5297 5490 4753 5555 4715 6217 5651 5217 6231 0 4883 0 0 5539 0 5812 0 5005 5610 5010 0 5167 5247 5829 4644 0 4840 5266 6223 5758 4736 5808 5506 4767 05057 0 4701 4562 5009 5822 6245 0 5872 6006 5090 5282 4929 5550 0 0 0 5477 4725 0 5389 5517 5558 6214 5466 0 4930 5066 5839 5442 5291 0 5900 5832 5590 6214 5279 5916 0 5815 5922 5538 0 5071 5316 5440 5925 5405 5620 0 5263 05326 5628 5860 4757 5939 5626 5293 5934 5836 0 5441 4713 5842 5832 5030 0 5428 5664 4632 5610 00 5349 0 5604 4909 5615 0 5241 0 4914 5250 5234 5939 0 5591 5478 5869 0 5251 0 4493 5803 5412 5091 4729 5598 4709 5510 0 4672 5928 5656 5331 5346 5830 5555 4900 0 5520 4693 5868 5545 5565 5269 4902 0 4721 5491 5761 5530 5352 0 0 0 5598 5585 5754 5473 5605 5570 5057 5548 0 5802 5821 4673 5001 4624 5842 5945 5558 5437 4679 5453 5413 5709 5822 4763 0 5906 5755 5948 5814 4652 0 5339 5400 4717 4697 5944 5346 0 4743 4689 5844 4755 5638 5812 4660 0 5791 0 0 RoanokeRiver 1200 1260 1240 1180 1120 1280 1300 1160 1140 1360 1400 1420 1100 13201340 10801380 1460 14401220 14801500 1520 1540 1500 1540 480 1140 1340 1200 1120 0 1260 1120 1380 1140 1180 1280 1200 1200 1400 1200 1160 1480 520 1240 1300 1200 1440 1240 108 1420 1080 180 12 1400 1400 1480 1300 1440 1120 1140 1180 1160 1400 1200 1300 1360 1280 1260 1100 1460 1200 1300 1220 1180 1480 240 1160 1320 260 1360 1240 1200 1520 1240 1140 1500 1240 1120 1400 1160 160 1120 1360 1200 1300 118 1180 1240 1160 1340 1320 1140 1360 1120 1220 1320 1380 1460 1420 280 1440 1220 400 1200 1220 1260 180 1300 1260 1360 1320 1200 1500 1220 1320 1520 1320 1100 1460 1220 1440 1180 1220 1220 1100 1260 1300 80 1460 1260 60 118011401160 1180 1160 1260 1340 1220¯ 0 925 1,850462.5 ft Segment 7 Route 11/460, West River Road to Technology Drive Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment 64West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft HARWICK ROUTE11/460/WESTMAIN RoanokeRiver WEST RIVER 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 1240 1260 1340 1360 1380 1280 1320 1300 1400 1420 14401460 1480 1500 1520 1540 1560 1220 1200 1400 126 1280 1240 1420 1240 1360 1200 1240 1200 1180 1160 1320 1200 1200 1140 1180 1220 1180 1240 1260 1160 1380 1180 1200 1260 1220 1220 1340 11801360 1300 0 0 0 0 5885 0 5753 5647 0 0 6025 6039 5857 0 0 5624 5932 5724 5994 5758 0 5956 5880 5839 57806006 5898 5842 5944 558¯0 400 800200ft Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment Segment 8 Western Virginia Regional Jail Property 65West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft RoanokeRiver WESTRIVER INDIANHEAD00 00 5182 0 0 5780 5647 5390 5508 5346 5487 5442 5460 0 5490 5885 0 5150 5588 5588 5638 0 5352 0 0 5217 5517 5167 55505558 5676 5441 5316 5256 5297 5660 5250 5352 5400 5652 5558 5550 5400 5642 56805682 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 1120 1240 0 1300 132013401360 138000 1420 1460 1500 1140 1300 1220 1320 1300 1140 1140 1160 116 1160 1200 1260 1180 1120 1180 1260 1160 1240 1160 1180 1160 1260 1240 1300 1200 1200 1220 1160 1320 ¯ 0 400 800200ft Segment 9 Roanoke River (North and South Banks), Western Virginia Regional Jail Property to West River Road Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment 66West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft STARTER BOHONHOLLOW INDIANHEAD NORTHWESTRIVERGARTH ROUTE11/460/WESTMAIN OKE WESTRIVER DRY HOLLOW RoanokeRiver ING HOLLOW ACCESS SOUTHWESTRIVER 00 0 0 0 0 0 5780 4730 00 5182 0 0 0 0 5885 5848 4693 0 4786 5802 0 0 5647 5832 5753 0 4712 5766 5624 4928 0 0 5938 5900 4874 6090 0 0 0 4730 0 5390 5466 0 6025 5832 6090 4680 4690 4875 4691 5087 5820 4800 6090 5857 4648 0 5508 5346 4915 5005 4848 4741 5838 5487 5442 4959 5460 0 4974 0 4670 5464 5948 0 4991 6230 0 5150 5057 6039 0 4733 4920 4923 5588 5724 4646 5588 5638 4664 5326 48095005 5182 4816 5352 0 52560 5297 0 4753 5217 5517 5167 4805 0 54545462 5282 5490 50765080 52665234 0 0 6006 4883 0 5090 5247 5758 5550 0 5858 0 5956 5558 622 4725 5880 5839 5291 5279 4838 5184 5676 5293 4713 4829 5170 5241 5250 473 51805660 5290 5251 485 4709 0 485 0 0 4693 5269 5898 621 5748 58905892 5768 5642 4703 4741 5722 5944 5680 5316 0 1160 1140 1180 1200 1220 1240 1360 1380 1120 1400 1260 1280 1420 1300 1320 1440 1340 1460 14801500 1520 1540 1160 1320 1180 1400 1300 1260 13401360 116 1280 160 1220 1380 1340 1380 1420 1240 1160 1420 1380 1180 1360 1180 00 1300 1360 1160 1220 1180 1200 1220 1400 1320 1 1380 1200 1380 1280 1160 138 1380 1140 320 1220 1200 1200 15 1320 1140 1360 1360 1160 1160 1400 1360 1340 1360 1300 1260 1320 1400 1320 1300 1360 1340 1180 1220 134 1260 1440 1180 1460 1200 1540 1280 1340 1160 1300 1160 1400 1280 1300 1240 0 1100 1300 1400 1520 1260 1300 1340 1420 420 1220 340 1340 1160 1180 1380 1300 1380 1180 1380 1260 1400 13201280 1120 1300 1320 ¯0 800 1,600400ft Segment 11 West River Road, Route 11/460 to Southwest River Road Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment 67West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 1100 SOUTHWESTRIVER POOR MOUNTAIN RoanokeRiver 00 0 0 0 0 4858 0 0 0 4786 0 0 0 00 0 5364 4730 5370 4874 0 0 4875 0 0 5185 0 4915 4800 5132 0 4774 0 0 4741 0 5281 5365 4959 4562 5350 5359 0 0 0 0 4673 5131 5193 5005 4644 0 0 5451 6230 0 6250 4809 0 0 4733 4920 0 4686 4923 0 5266 0 5326 5234 5005 4784 5200 0 4663 5601 0 6211 0 5297 5256 0 4424 4753 5346 6217 6231 5185 5149 4883 0 0 5323 4751 5247 5182 0 4805 6223 0 4736 4974 6245 5359 05282 5190 4725 6214 0 5291 5192 6214 5279 4672 5168 4816 5184 6242 5263 4670 5293 4713 5118 4653 4458 5297 6328 6222 5275 4632 4468 5255 5409 0 5241 4661 5250 0 4860 5290 5251 4493 5305 4729 4709 46874721 4763 0 0 0 0 0 5316 0 4991 51415120 0 0 5128 0 00 5180 0 0 4693 5269 5162 5184 0 5167 5248 4624 5190 4703 5150 5178 5140 4741 0 0 5169 47174713 0 4743 0 5180 4755 5165 5170 0 5183 5316 1120 1140 1180 1200 1220 12401260 128013001320 1160 1340 1360 138014001420 10801440 1460 1180 1120 1280 1220 1260 1200 1300 1140 1120 1140 1220 1180 1320 1200 1120 1300 1120 1100 1440 1200 1160 1160 1420 1180 1300 1300 1140 1160 1140 1140 1280 1180 1140 1160 1260 1320 1400 1160 1300 1460 1300 1120 1240 1320 1100 1180 1200 1400 1120 1100 1200 1220 1100 1120 1180 1120 1320 1100 1160 1140 1140 1180 1200 1260 1260 1160 1140 1180 1280 1180 1220 1320 1120 1320 WEST RIVER HILLCREST SALLIE GARTH BOHONHOLLOWINDIANHEAD YATEMAN STARTER GROVER ROGER ¯0 550 1,100275ft Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment Segment 12 West River Road, Southwest River Road to Poor Mountain Road 68West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft WESTRIVER RoanokeRiver 0 6450 0 0 0 0 4518 0 0 0 4446 5242 0 48004808 4655 0 0 0 6250 5488 0 4041 0 0 4875 6410 00 4915 4791 4921 50295057 4911 0 0 0 4736 0 5198 4051 54875481 0 0 0 0 0 4835 4857 4646 4200 4780 45414571 4879 4789 4860 4729 4821 5149 0 4461 4437 0 4715 44246231 0 4787 0 0 4767 0 4701 6245 4761 4999 0 4457 437746965009 5466 4432 5132 4625 4773 0 6242 4488 4757 4805 5118 4963 0 4985 6328 6222 4713 6217 0 4840 0 0 5477 04455 0 5478 5046 0 5120 4747 4626 0 5491 0 5473 4709 5131 5047 0 51406214 47190 5057 46964612 4379 40710 4458 4830 5162 4081 81 MAYFAIR TECHNOLOGY YALE ROUTE11/460/WESTMAIN HILLCREST VINTAGE POOR MOUNTAIN BARLEYBARLEY 1100 1080 1140 1160 1180 1120 1200 12801300 1320 1340 1360 1380 1260 14001420 1240 1220 1440 1460 1260 1220 1180 1240 1200 1240 1380 1340 1200 1120 1280 1220 1260 1140 1260 1100 1200 11001380 1160 1260 1180 1440 1220 1240 1080 1260 1240 1220 1340 1080 1180 1240 1320 1300 1220 1080 1100 1280 12601200 1200 1400 1300 1300 1240 1160 1180 1200 1280 1340 1240 11201360 1200 1260 1140 1220 ¯0 500 1,000250ft Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment Segment 14 Poor Mountain Road, West River Road to Barley Drive 69West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft WESTRIVER RoanokeRiver 0 6450 0 0 0 0 4518 0 0 0 4446 5242 0 48004808 4655 0 0 0 6250 5488 0 4041 0 0 4875 6410 00 4915 4791 4921 50295057 4911 0 0 0 4736 0 5198 4051 54875481 0 0 0 0 0 4835 4857 4646 4200 4780 45414571 4879 4789 0 4860 4729 4821 5149 0 4461 4437 0 4715 44246231 0 4787 0 0 4767 0 4701 0 6245 4761 0 4457 437746965009 5466 4432 5132 0 4625 4773 0 6242 4488 4757 4805 5118 0 4963 0 4985 6328 6222 4713 6217 0 4840 0 0 5477 04455 0 5478 5046 0 5120 4747 4626 0 0 5491 0 5473 4709 0 5131 0 5047 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5140 0 6214 0 0 0 0 4719 0 0 0 0 0 00 5057 0 0 4696 0 0 4796 4612 4379 40710 4754 4742 4458 4830 5162 4081 81 MAYFAIR TECHNOLOGY YALE ROUTE11/460/WESTMAIN ILLCREST VINTAGE POOR MOUNTAIN BARLEYBARLEY 1100 1080 1140 1160 1180 1120 1200 12801300 1320 1340 1360 1380 1260 14001420 1240 1220 14401460 1260 1220 1180 1240 1200 1240 1380 1340 1200 1120 1280 1220 1260 1140 1260 1100 1200 11001380 1160 1260 1180 1440 1220 1240 1080 1260 1240 1220 1340 1080 1180 1240 1320 1300 1220 1080 1100 1280 12601200 1200 1400 1300 1300 1240 1160 1180 1200 1280 1340 1240 11201360 1200 1260 1140 1220 ¯0 500 1,000250ft Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment Segment 15 Roanoke River (South Bank), West River Road to Barley Drive 70West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 8 BARLEY ROUTE11/460/WESTMAIN MAYFAIRTECHNOLOGY POORMOUNTAIN ELMWOOD 0 0 0 4283 4446 40404020 0 0 4518 00 4655 4051 4071 4041 4335 4377 4200 4695 0 4377 0 0 4081 0 4505 4729 4457 4461 4437 4170 0 4091 4379 4761 4450 4696 4488 4801 4432 4773 4328 4081 4802 4220 4206 4180 0 4713 4190 4747 4626 0 625 4709 0 4090 4411 4809 4612 0 4506 0 0 0 0 4412 4414 4300 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 4719 0 0 4479 4485 410 4732 4754 4742 104 RoanokeRiver 1100 1080 1060 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 1240 1220 220 1160 1 1200 240 1120 1120 1080 1080 60 1100 1200 1180 1100 1140 1140 1160 1160 1180 1080 1200 1140 1080 1180 1140 1160 1180 1200 ¯0 400 800200ft Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment Segment 17 Barley Drive, Technology Drive to Railroad Bridge 71West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft ROUTE 11/460/WEST MAIN BARLEY BARLEY 0 0 0 4283 40404020 0 0 4335 4200 4695 4377 0 42154163 4457 4170 4126 4091 4379 4696 4328 4081 4220 4206 4180 4190 41164124 4709 4145 4090 4008 4300 4106 4173 4127 3980 RoanokeRiver 1080 1060 1100 1080 1100 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1080 1100 ¯ 0 300 600150ft Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment Segment 18 Roanoke River (South Bank), Barley Drive to Barley Drive 72West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft RoanokeRiver BARLEY GARMAN 1080 1060 1100 1120 1140 1160 1220 1180 1200 1260 1240 1040 1060 1240 1300 12 1060 1080 1080 1100 1140 1180 1260 1080 1220 1060 1200 1280 0 0 0 4060 3878 0 0 0 4091 4105 4115 3683 40404020 29613050 4081 0 4081 0 4090 930 200 ¯ 0 400 800200ft Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment Segment 19 Roanoke River (South Bank), Barley Drive to Green Hill Park 73West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft RoanokeRiver BARLEY GARMAN 1080 1060 1100 1120 1140 1160 1220 1180 1200 1260 1240 1040 1060 1240 1300 12 1060 1080 1080 1100 1140 1180 1260 1080 1220 1060 1200 1280 0 0 0 4060 3878 0 0 0 4091 4105 4115 3683 40404020 29613050 4081 0 4081 0 4090 930 200 ¯0 400 800200 Legend 20ft Contours 500-Year Floodplain 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Waterbodies Parcel Boundaries Railroad Tracks Streets Segment Segment 20 Roanoke River (North Bank), Barley Drive to Green Hill Park 74West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Existing eastern terminus of the Roanoke River Existing eastern terminus of the Roanoke River Greenway in Green Hill Park Next Steps & Implementation 5.1 Study Recap From this study’s launch in June 2022 to its adoption nearly three years later, Roanoke County staff spent countless hours exploring potential routes for the West Roanoke River Greenway. Staff from the National Park Service, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, and Virginia Department of Transportation made up the rest of the Steering Committee and also contributed many hours of their time toward this study. Each of these organizations had staff present at the October 2022 and July 2023 community meetings, and in attendance for the September 2022 tour of the study area. At various points, staff from each of these organizations were present at Roanoke County’s meetings with the corridor stakeholders: Western Virginia Regional Jail, Western Virginia Water Authority, Virginia Passenger Rail Authority, Appalachian Power, Montgomery County, and Trout Unlimited. National Park Service staff helped write many sections of the final study document. Though the study was led and adopted by Roanoke County, it was a true team effort that would not have had any chance of success without the expertise and labor contributed by the members of the Steering Committee. Though this section of the Roanoke River Greenway would be completely within the boundaries of Roanoke County, the Roanoke River Greenway is a regional resource, so it was critically important that more regionally-minded voices were consulted constantly throughout the process. This study represents the very first step toward constructing the Roanoke River Greenway between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County. The potential routes identified in this study are intended to be general, not exact, and more planning will be required to establish the exact location of this greenway. Given the myriad challenges of constructing a greenway between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County, it is imperative that Roanoke County approach this planning process patiently and start with a high-level, exploratory approach. The potentially viable routes identified in this study are fairly close to one another at the edges of the study area but diverge significantly in the middle of the study area, so each segment of the West Roanoke River Greenway that is constructed must be considered in the context of the other segments that would need to be constructed to create a continuous path between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County. Given the right-of-way challenges in the study area, the segments are not likely to be constructed sequentially, and some segments may be isolated from the rest of the Roanoke River Greenway for many years before they are connected. This study ensures that the corridor is considered as a whole before individual segments are constructed, which will decrease the likelihood of building segments that end up “stranded” and never become connected to the rest of the Roanoke River Greenway. Minimizing the risk of this will minimize the funding and time needed to construct the Roanoke River Greenway between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County. It is highly unlikely that the Roanoke River Greenway will be constructed on the riverbanks for the entire distance between Eastern trailhead, Roanoke River Greenway in Eastern trailhead, Roanoke River Greenway in Green Hill Park 75West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Peaceful Drive, as viewed from West Peaceful Drive, as viewed from West River Road intersection Green Hill Park and Montgomery County. This is due mostly to right-of-way challenges, but topography and infrastructure (i.e. roads and railroad tracks) are obstacles in certain locations as well. The West Roanoke River Greenway will likely be constructed along the riverbank in some points and adjacent to a public road in other points. Despite the constraints of the study area, Roanoke County will strive to construct a greenway that provides a top-notch user experience. Construction of this greenway would have major regional implications, as it would greatly increase the length of the Roanoke River Greenway and therefore raise its profile as a tourist destination. Ideally, it will one day connect to a trail in Montgomery County that will run all the way to Christiansburg, Blacksburg, and Radford, to create the Valley-to-Valley Trail. 5.2 Adoption Process On ________ 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to incorporate the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study into the Roanoke County 200 Plan. ____ citizens spoke during the public hearing and the Planning Commission voted to recommend adoption of the West Roanoke River Feasibility Study to the Board of Supervisors. On ________ 2025, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the adoption of the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study into the Roanoke County 200 Plan. ____ citizens spoke during the public hearing and the Board of Supervisors voted to approve through resolution the adoption of the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study as an element of the Roanoke County 200 Plan. The Feasibility Study will also be presented to the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission for consideration of the study and its adoption into the 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan. 5.3 Selection of Areas to Study in Greater Detail Segments identified in this study will need to be studied further before construction funding is sought. This study provides a high-level overview of potential West Roanoke River Greenway routes, but does not identify exact locations that would work for these routes. Additional planning studies will be required to identify exactly where on the ground these routes will sit. Ideally, these studies will also include preliminary design plans. The following potentially viable routes are those that face the fewest barriers to construction and are thus the first segments for which Roanoke County should seek funding to study in greater detail. These segments are listed in order of the numbers used to identify them in Summer 2023 public outreach. They are not ranked against one another. The map on page 77 shows the locations of the three segments selected for further study in the context of the entire study area. Segment 2: North Bank of the Roanoke River between Peaceful Drive at Joyce Lane and West River Road This segment only crosses two parcels, one of which is owned by Roanoke County and the other of which is owned by Appalachian Power, so right-of-way acquisition would likely be simpler than almost every other segment considered in this study. On top of that, this segment would provide a scenic, enjoyable user experience alongside the Roanoke River, and would bring the Roanoke River Greenway within 3,000 feet of the Montgomery County line. If a greenway were constructed here, it would likely be scenic enough, and close enough to residential areas that are not currently served by any bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure, to draw consistent traffic, even if it remains isolated from the rest of the Roanoke River Greenway for a number of years. This segment’s scenic value, simple current land ownership, and strategic location make it one of the first segments for which Roanoke County should pursue funding to study in greater detail and/ or develop preliminary design plans. There is potential for this segment to connect to Segment 8 (next subsection), creating an uninterrupted nature-oriented section of the Roanoke River Greenway between 2 and 2.5 miles in length, in a part of Roanoke County 76West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Goat RockGoat Rock that is not currently served by any bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure. Segment 8: South Bank of the Roanoke River on Western Virginia Regional Jail Property, Including a Bridge to Wayside Park All parcels crossed by this segment are owned by one entity: the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority. Current Jail leaders have expressed openness to siting a greenway along the south bank of the Roanoke River on Jail property, provided the greenway is constructed with sufficient security measures in place. These security measures would likely take the form of a tall, unbroken fence between the greenway and the Jail building, with ample signage to communicate to greenway users that they are not to climb over the fence onto Jail property. Like Segment 2, a greenway at this location would provide beautiful views of the Roanoke River and a top-notch user experience. A rock formation known as Goat Rock rises steeply from the north bank of the river opposite the potential greenway location, adding to the scenic potential of this segment. Additionally, there is potential for this segment to connect to Roanoke County’s Wayside Park, already a popular launching point for canoe and tubing trips on the Roanoke River. As mentioned in the previous subsection, there is also potential for Segment 8 to connect to Segment 2, creating a long, scenic section of the Roanoke River Greenway in rural western Roanoke County. Segment 20: North Bank of the Roanoke River between Barley Drive (at Railroad Bridge) and Green Hill Park. As this segment connects to the current western terminus of the Roanoke River Greenway and a greenway in this location would represent an extension of the existing Roanoke River Greenway, it is a logical segment for Roanoke County to focus on after the adoption of this study. This segment would be simpler from a right-of-way and engineering standpoint than Segment 19, which also connects to the current western terminus of the Roanoke River Greenway. The land on the north bank of the Roanoke River between Green Hill Park and Barley Drive is relatively flat and is occupied by compatible non-residential uses. However, two bridges would be required for this greenway segment, which means that it would likely be expensive to construct despite its other advantages. Still, in an area as challenging for greenway construction as western Roanoke County, this segment represents low-hanging fruit. Roanoke River, looking east from railroad Roanoke River, looking east from railroad bridge over Barley Drive Western Virginia Regional Jail property 77West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 78West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Construction of West Roanoke River Greenway, Phase 1 Construction of West Roanoke River Greenway, Phase 1 Trailhead Parking Lot on West Riverside Drive, Spring 2025 5.4 Potential Funding Sources The development and construction of greenways has been funded through a variety of federal, state, local and private sources. Although Roanoke County officials can guide public investment and Greenway development decisions, a majority of the funds used for the construction of greenways in Roanoke County have been secured from outside sources. The following are funding sources that can aid in the future planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the West Roanoke River Greenway. VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program The VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP) is the mechanism by which the Commonwealth Transportation Board funds projects over a six-year timeframe. Funding is first allocated to maintenance of assets, including special structures and bridges. Projects in the Fiscal Years 2025-2030 SYIP include improvements to the interstate, primary, secondary and urban highway systems, public transit, ports, airports, and other programs. Improvements funded through the other programs outlined in this section are included in the SYIP. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a federal grant program that provides funding to all 50 states to implement safety improvements on roadways. This funding is distributed in Virginia through the Virginia Highway Safety Improvements Program (VHSIP), which is administered by VDOT. VHSIP is guided by the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), a five-year plan that provides direction and focus to programs and projects that will provide a transportation system for residents and visitors to arrive safely at their destinations. This plan includes recommendations for improving travel for all modes of transportation, including those who walk, bicycle, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes. As of the adoption of this study, Roanoke County has received more VHSIP funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects than roadway projects (Virginia 2022-2026 Strategic Highway Safety Plan). VDOT Revenue Sharing Program The VDOT Revenue Sharing Program provides a 50 percent funding match to localities on a biennial basis for projects that construct, maintain, or reconstruct highway systems. The Revenue Sharing Program may be used to finance sidewalks, trails, and other facilities that accommodate pedestrian and/or bicycle access within the highway network. Projects are evaluated and prioritized for funding based on the following four priority tiers established by the Virginia Code: Priority 1: Construction Projects that have previously received Revenue Sharing funding as part of the Program application process Priority 2: Construction Projects that meet a transportation need identified in the Statewide Transportation Plan (VTRANS) or when funding will accelerate advertisement of a project in a locality’s capital improvement plan Priority 3: Projects that address deficient pavement resurfacing and bridge rehabilitation Priority 4: All other eligible projects As of May 2025, any construction of greenway between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County would be considered Priority 4. 79West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Construction of East Roanoke River Greenway in Construction of East Roanoke River Greenway in Explore Park, Spring 2025 SMART SCALE The SMART SCALE program is the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s process for distributing limited state dollars to projects that show the greatest benefit compared to their cost. Proposed projects are evaluated based on how they improve safety, reduce congestion, increase accessibility, contribute to economic development, encourage efficient land use, and impact the environment. Since project applications were first solicited in 2015, Roanoke County has been awarded over $55 million in SMART SCALE funding. Recent project applications have shifted from widening roads to analyzing roadway corridors and identifying solutions that may utilize a different set of tools to maximize available funding sources through competitive grant programs. Regional Surface Transportation Program / Surface Transportation Block Grant Since the 2010 Census, the Roanoke Urbanized Area has been designated as a Transportation Management Area by the U.S. Department of Transportation. This designation enabled the RVTPO, which is responsible for transportation planning and programming for the Roanoke Valley Urbanized Area, to be eligible for annual Federal Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funding. This funding is administered by RVTPO through its Transportation Technical Committee which has allocated over $35 million to Roanoke County for the construction of multimodal transportation projects since funding was first distributed in 2013. This funding source is now referred to as Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funding and new applications are solicited on a biennial basis. It has become common for localities to submit requests for STBG funding to leverage towards SMART SCALE project applications. This strategy has brought tens of millions of dollars of additional SMART SCALE funding to the Roanoke Valley. Transportation Alternatives Program The Transportation Alternatives Program is a federal reimbursement program to help localities and other project sponsors fund community-based projects that expand non-motorized travel choices and enhance the transportation experience by improving the cultural, historical, and environmental aspects of transportation infrastructure. This program focuses on providing pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and community improvements; it does not fund traditional roadway projects or maintenance. Funding for the Transportation Alternatives Program is provided by the federal government and distributed to states, which have some options for distributing amongst the Secretary of Transportation, CTB members, and the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) serving Transportation Management Areas. As the MPO for the Roanoke Valley region, RVTPO receives Transportation Alternatives funds to distribute on a biennial basis. The localities and public agencies served by RVTPO apply for Transportation Alternatives funding through VDOT, and projects in the RVTPO service area are usually funded with a mix of the funds distributed to RVTPO and the funds distributed to the CTB member for the Salem District. Through the Transportation Alternatives Program, Roanoke County has received funding for the Roanoke River Greenway, Glade Creek Greenway, sidewalks along Williamson Road, and a shared use path along Plantation Road. 80West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Green Hill ParkGreen Hill Park Bipartisan Infrastructure Law The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) was signed into law on November 15, 2021, and provides federal funding for transportation infrastructure, water infrastructure, resilience, and broadband. BIL, which provides $550 billion in new funding for Fiscal Years 2022 through 2026, expanded existing federal grant programs and created numerous new grant programs. Discretionary grant programs created or expanded by BIL that could fund further planning or construction of the West Roanoke River Greenway include the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program, the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant Program (formerly known as TIGER and RAISE), and the Safe Streets and Roads for All Program (SS4A). BIL also established the Carbon Reduction Program (CRP), a formula grant program which provides funds to VDOT and RVTPO for projects designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from transportation. At the time of this study’s adoption, RVTPO processes CRP and STBG applications concurrently during a defined biennial window, and awards CRP funding to eligible projects before awarding less restrictive STBG funding. The change in Presidential administrations that took place in January 2025 creates uncertainty around the funding sources created by BIL, so it will be necessary to stay abreast of developments at the federal level concerning these programs. Congressionally Directed Spending & Community Project Funding Colloquially called “earmarks,” Congressionally Directed Spending and Community Project Funding are the processes through which members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives can request funding for specific projects in their states or districts. Congressionally Directed Spending is the name for the Senate process, while Community Project Funding is the name for the House process. To receive funding through these processes, governments and non-profits submit funding requests to their Senators and House Representative, who select up to fifteen requests to submit to their respective Committees on Appropriations. These Committees then select projects from this pool to be included in annual federal appropriations bills. In Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023, Congress designated a total of $24.4 billion for 12,500 projects through Congressionally Directed Spending and Community Project Funding. In Spring 2024, Roanoke County submitted a Fiscal Year 2025 request to Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner for $5.5 million to improve the McAfee Knob Trailhead Parking Lot on Route 311 (Catawba Valley Drive). Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) Recreational Trail Program The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is a federal 80-20 matching reimbursement program for building and rehabilitating trails and trail-related facilities. RTP is made possible by funding through the Federal Highway Administration and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds and is administered by the DCR in the state of Virginia. RTP requirements mandate that funding is allocated among three categories: 30% for motorized trail uses, 30% for non-motorized trail uses, and 40% for multi-use/diversified trail uses. RTP funds can be used to construct natural surface trails and paved trails. RTP funding may be used for a variety of projects including constructing new recreational trails and linkages, development of trail facilities and amenities, and acquisition of easements and fee simple title to property for recreational trails or corridors. Construction of the West Roanoke River Greenway will likely involve all these activities, so RTP should be strongly considered as a potential source of funding for the West Roanoke River Greenway. Credit: Roanoke Valley Television 81West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Valley TechParkValley TechPark DCR Land and Water Conservation Fund The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was established as a federal reimbursement program for the acquisition and/or development of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities. To be eligible for LWCF assistance for acquisition and development grants, each State is required to prepare a Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) and update it at least once every five years. In Virginia, the DCR administers the LWCF on behalf of the National Park Service and has prepared the Virginia Outdoors Plan to meet the SCORP requirement. The LWCF is a 50-50 matching reimbursement program and grant recipients are required to be able to fund 100% of the project while seeking periodic reimbursements. The implementation of the Roanoke River Greenway Plan is identified in the Virginia Outdoors Plan as a featured project for the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany region. For this reason, the construction of the West Roanoke River Greenway is a strong candidate for future funding opportunities through the LWCF. DCR Land Conservation Foundation The Virginia Land Conservation Fund (VLCF) receives funding from the Commonwealth’s annual budget that is made available to state agencies, other public bodies, qualifying nonprofits and state- and federally-recognized Virginia Indian Tribes to fund costs associated with permanently conserving land. There are five grant categories that funding is available for: farmland preservation; forestland conversation; historic area preservation; natural area protection; and open spaces and parks. The Virginia DCR provides staff and administrative support to localities while an interagency taskforce reviews and recommends grant applications to the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation. Grants may be awarded for up to 50 percent of total project costs pursuant to specific criteria defined in each category of land use. In Roanoke County, funding available through the VLCF has recently been leveraged to purchase two areas for conservation. In 2018, Roanoke County received funding to conserve 242 acres of land that is now home to the Hinchee Trail which connects the Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail to the trails within Carvins Cove Nature Reserve under the Open Space and Parks category. In 2022, the Virginia DCR received funding to add 78 acres to the Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve under the Natural Area Preservation category.59 For purposes of constructing the West Roanoke River Greenway, funding may be sought through the category of Open Space and Parks, which accepts applications for the permanent protection and acquisition of public recreational lands or open-space lands. Application criteria for this category includes consideration for projects that provide public access to state waters, expand existing park systems or other recreational resources, and address needs identified in the Virginia Outdoors Plan. Construction of the West Roanoke River Greenway has the opportunity to meet these VLCF requirements making it a strong candidate for future grant rounds. Credit: Roanoke Valley Television 82West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Interstate 81 and Route 11/460/West Main StreetInterstate 81 and Route 11/460/West Main Street DCR Community Flood Preparedness Fund The Community Flood Preparedness Fund (CFPF) was established to provide support to regions and localities across Virginia to reduce the impacts of flooding. Funding is prioritized for projects that are in concert with local, state and federal floodplain management standards, local resilience plans and the Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan, and is available for the following three categories: •Capacity Building and Planning:Funding is awarded for foundationalefforts made toward developing and implementing comprehensiveapproaches to flooding, with priority given to the developmentof vulnerability assessments andresilience plans. •Studies: Funding is available for studiesthat are designed to help improve the long-term planning and effectivenessof resilience plans and projects. •Flood Prevention and ProtectionProjects: Funding is awarded foractivities that prevent loss of life and reduce property damage caused byflooding. Funding for these projects isprovided only if a locality has a DCR- approved resilience plan. The primary limitation associated with CFPF grant money is that applications for studies or project funding are required to be associated with flood prevention activities that have been identified in a resilience plan that has been approved by DCR and adopted by the locality. As of the date of this feasibility study, Roanoke County does not have a DCR-approved resilience plan adopted. Although this makes Roanoke County ineligible to apply for funding in the studies and projects categories, the County is eligible for apply for funding through the Capacity Building and Planning category for the development of a resilience plan. Developing a resilience plan would provide Roanoke County an opportunity to consider how potential flood prevention projects could be tied into the construction and maintenance of Greenway segments and amenities to make them eligible for additional funding through the CFPF. Pathfinders for Greenways Pathfinders for Greenways is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1997 for the purpose of involving citizens in, and raising funds for, the development of the Roanoke Valley greenway network. Pathfinders for Greenways facilitates volunteer participation, coordinates workdays, organizes promotional events, conducts fundraising, and provides funds to help the member localities of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission offset costs associated with greenway and trail projects. The organization has proven to be particularly effective in purchasing right-of-way for greenways and constructing and maintaining natural surface trails. Roanoke County Capital Improvement Program The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a detailed ten-year listing of projects that is submitted to the Board of Supervisors annually for approval. Projects that have been identified as having a county-wide benefit, a cost in excess of $100,000, and a long-term lifespan are eligible to be included in the CIP. These projects can include items such as assessments and studies and transportation projects, including construction of greenways. Roanoke County Operational Budget The County’s operational budget is a fiscal plan adopted on an annual basis that outlines the revenues and expenditures for each fiscal year. Each County department estimates their operational costs for the year Credit: Roanoke Valley Television 83West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Muralist John Murrill addresses the Roanoke Muralist John Murrill addresses the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, August 2024 for incorporation into the budget, including what amount of funds will be allocated to the construction and maintenance of the greenway projects. The operational budget also outlines how much funding will be allocated to the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission annually as established by the Intergovernmental Agreement signed between each participating locality. Though each member locality contributes funding, Roanoke County serves as the fiscal agent and provides salary, benefits, office space, and equipment for the Greenway Coordinator, the only paid position in the Commission. Partnerships The Roanoke River Greenway system is a huge benefit to residents and travelers within the Roanoke Valley region, and completion of the West Roanoke River Greenway to the Montgomery County line would extend benefits to all users of the potential Valley to Valley trail system. For this reason, it is important for Roanoke County to seek partnerships with other organizations and agencies that recognize the importance of improving the Roanoke River Greenway system. Creating partnerships may help to share the cost of funding additional studies and future projects and strengthen the region’s position as a competitive applicant for funding opportunities. There is a long history in the Roanoke Valley of partnerships between different organizations in the public, private, and/or non-profit sectors working together to advance greenway and trail development. Much of the existing Roanoke River Greenway in the City of Roanoke was made possible by the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project (RRFRP), a partnership between the City and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that bought out flood-prone properties along the Roanoke River and constructed flood walls, levees and, most importantly for the greenway network, the terraced “bench cut” flood storage areas adjacent to the river that now house much of the existing Roanoke River Greenway.60 Pathfinders for Greenways have periodically partnered with Roanoke County to purchase right-of-way for greenway projects and to build natural surface trails using volunteer labor. Another potential partner for right-of-way acquisition is the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy (BRLC), a nonprofit organization that protects over 6,000 acres of land in the Roanoke Valley - including large tracts in the Carvins Cove Natural Reserve, on Mill Mountain, and on Roanoke County’s own Read Mountain - via 7 conservation agreements.61 The birth of the Read Mountain Preserve, operated by the Roanoke County Parks, Recreation & Tourism Department in the Bonsack area of eastern Roanoke County, illustrates how the public sector, private sector, and nonprofits can pool their resources to create new public outdoor recreation resources. In 2001, Botetourt County resident Ron Crawford, with encouragement from Liz Belcher of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, Roanoke River Greenway bridge between Roanoke River Greenway bridge between Vic Thomas Park and Wasena Park in the City of Roanoke East Roanoke River Greenway, Blue Ridge Parkway crossing - construction nearly complete as of August 2025Credit: City of Roanoke 84West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft began fundraising efforts to conserve the Read Mountain ridgeline. Crawford soon joined forces with the Greenway Commission, BRLC, Virginia Outdoors Foundation, and the Roanoke County Parks, Recreation & Tourism Department to form the Read Mountain Alliance, and the Alliance’s work eventually paid off in 2005 when real estate company Fralin and Waldron and landowner Al Durham donated 243 acres on the ridgeline and south face of Read Mountain to Roanoke County for the development of public hiking trails.62 63 The Read Mountain Preserve has since grown to nearly 550 acres, and currently features approximately 4.5 miles of public hiking trails. Local utilities Appalachian Power and the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) each own multiple tracts of land within the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study Area and there may be opportunities for Roanoke County to partner with one or both of these groups to construct portions of the West Roanoke River Greenway. Years from now, the opportunity may arise for Roanoke County to partner with WVWA to develop recreational trails at Spring Hollow Reservoir, following in the footsteps of the City of Roanoke and WVWA partnership at the Carvins Cove Natural Reserve which now features over 60 miles of hiking and mountain biking trails. There is also potential to partner with Montgomery County on a cross-jurisdictional Valley-to-Valley Trail study at some point in the future, to build off the high-level planning of this Study and the VDOT Valley-to-Valley Trail Study. At the very least, Roanoke County staff will need to stay in contact with Montgomery County staff to ensure that the West Roanoke River Greenway and Montgomery County’s potential future portion of the Valley-to- Valley Trail will meet at the Roanoke County-Montgomery County line. Private Investment Although Roanoke County officials can guide public investment and County decisions related to greenway development, the construction and maintenance of some sections of the greenway network may require investment by private property owners and/or partnerships that facilitate greenway development on private land. 5.5 Design Standards Throughout the construction of the Roanoke Valley greenway network, much attention has been given to the design of the greenway system to ensure that it provides benefits of connectivity and safety to all users. To achieve these objectives, it is important for all regional actors to follow universal design and installation standards for all greenway segments. Although there are no formal design standards that have been adopted, VDOT has a Complete Streets policy that provides guidelines for the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Construction of previous greenways have generally followed these INSERT IMAGEINSERT IMAGEGlade Creek Greenway under West Virginia Avenue in the Town of Vinton West Roanoke River Greenway, Phase 1 under construction adjacent to West Riverside Drive Mudlick Creek Greenway in Garst Mill Park 85West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft construction guidelines, specifically that the width of a shared use path should be no less than ten (10) feet in width. The typical cross section of a two-way shared use path provided in the current edition of the VDOT Road Design Manual is shown on this page. In some instances, the best location for a greenway route may be adjacent to a roadway or other existing feature which prevents a standard shared use path from being constructed. For these instances, VDOT’s Complete Streets policy provides additional guidelines to help best design individual greenway segments that may need to be catered to fit unique surroundings. These additional design standards include best practices for buffers, signage, and the provision of other greenway features to ensure the safety of users when traveling between different greenway environments. In addition to VDOT’s Complete Streets policy, the 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan, which has been adopted as part of the Roanoke County 200 Plan, provides additional design recommendations for the greenway network. These recommendations include using national and state guidelines such as American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards to design safe and secure greenway networks. 5.6 Post-Construction Once segments of the West Roanoke River Greenway have been constructed, maintaining the condition and safety of the Greenway will be a continuous goal. Post-construction responsibilities associated with the greenway extension will include maintenance of the functional condition of the greenway, ensuring greenway amenities remain in good operation, and keeping the trail safe for all users. Once completed, the West Roanoke River Greenway is intended to become a Roanoke County facility under the management of the Parks, Recreation & Tourism Department (PR&T), which will handle the operations, upkeep, and long-term maintenance of the trail. As a park facility, PR&T staff will take on the responsibility of ensuring the functionality of the greenway in any weather conditions, including snow plowing, removal of debris, and general inspection of the greenway during all seasons to assess its usability. In addition to maintaining safe travel conditions, PR&T staff will be responsible for upkeep of Cross Section of a Two-Way Shared Use PathCross Section of a Two-Way Shared Use Path Credit: VDOT Road Design Manual, Revised 3/1/25 greenway amenities such as trashcans, bathrooms, lighting, and other amenity improvements made throughout time. In addition to maintenance, public safety is a common post-construction concern, considering the fact that greenways are open to all members of the public. Safety concerns raised during the Fall 2022 community meetings focused on crime, trespassing, and homeless camps. Although the West Roanoke River Greenway would not present more danger to the public than any other public facility, it will be important for PR&T staff to coordinate with public safety officials to monitor and assess the safety and security of the West Roanoke River Greenway and continuously work to maintain a safe and secure passage. 86West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft 1 Roanoke County, Pros Consulting. (2007). Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department Comprehensive Master Plan for Parks and Facili- ties. p. 7 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024, March 25). Health Benefits of Physical Activity for Adults. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/physi- cal-activity-basics/health-benefits/adults.html 3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024, January 10). Why Should People be Active? Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/active-peo- ple-healthy-nation/php/why-be-active/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/activepeoplehealthynation/why-should-people-be- active.html 4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, December 20). About Physical Activity. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/physical-activity/php/ about/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/about-physical-activity/why-it-matters.html 5 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). Retrieved from: https://health.gov/ sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf 6 Reed, Paul. (2021, Dec 15). “Physical Activity Is Good for the Mind and the Body.” Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, health. gov blog. Retrieved from: https://health.gov/news/202112/physical-activity-good-mind-and-body 7 Mahindru, Aditya, Pradeep Patil, and Varun Agrawal. (2023). Role of Physical Activity on Mental Health and Well-Being: A Review. Cureus (15:1). Re- trieved from: https://www.cureus.com/articles/121652-role-of-physical-activity-on-mental-health-and-well-being-a-review#!/ 8 Anderson Elizabeth, and Geetha Shivakumar. (2013). Effects of exercise and physical activity on anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology (4). Retrieved from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00027/full 9 Broman-Fulks, Joshua J., Mitchell E. Berman, Brian A. Rabian, Michael J. Webster, (2004). Effects of aerobic exercise on anxiety sensitivity. Behaviour Research and Therapy, (42:2), pp. 125-136. 10 North, T. Christian, Penny McCullagh, Zung Vu Tran. (1990). Effect of Exercise on depression. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews (18:1), pp. 379-416 11 Cooney, Gary M., Kerry Dwan, Carolyn A. Greig, Debbie A. Lawlor, Jane Rimer, Fiona R. Waugh, Marion McMurdo, and Gillian E. Mead. (2013). Exercise for depression. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (9). Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9721454/ 12 Silva, Alessandro P., Sueli OS Prado, Terigi A. Scardovelli, Silvia RMS Boschi, Luiz C. Campos, and Annie F. Frere. (2015). Measurement of the ef- fect of physical exercise on the concentration of individuals with ADHD. PloS one, (10:3), Retrieved from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/ file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0122119&type=printable 13 Vysniauske, Ruta, Lot Verburgh, Jaap Oosterlaan, and Marc L. Molendijk. (2020). “The effects of physical exercise on functional outcomes in the treat- ment of ADHD: a meta-analysis.” Journal of attention disorders (24:5), pp. 644-654. 14 Yang, Pei-Yu, Ka-Hou Ho, Hsi-Chung Chen, and Meng-Yueh Chien. (2012) Exercise training improves sleep quality in middle-aged and older adults with sleep problems: a systematic review. Journal of physiotherapy (58:3), pp. 157-163. 15 Banno, Masahiro, Yudai Harada, Masashi Taniguchi, Ryo Tobita, Hiraku Tsujimoto, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Yuki Kataoka, and Akiko Noda. (2018) Exercise can improve sleep quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ (6). Retrieved from: https://peerj.com/articles/5172/?fbclid=IwAR0LMECJQi- bRK-g3wN3mLIc4Eg4SjW0duz5KaF4-yK1L1gk3md79v61E3gQ&utm_source=TrendMD&utm_campaign=PeerJ_TrendMD_0&utm_medium=TrendMD Endnotes (1-15) 87West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Endnotes (16-30) 16 Erickson, Kirk I., Michelle W. Voss, Ruchika Shaurya Prakash, Chandramallika Basak, Amanda Szabo, Laura Chaddock, Jennifer S. Kim et al. (2011). Exer-cise training increases size of hippocampus and improves memory. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences (108:7), pp. 3017-3022. 17 Speisman, Rachel B., Ashok Kumar, Asha Rani, Thomas C. Foster, and Brandi K. Ormerod. (2013) Daily exercise improves memory, stimulates hippocam-pal neurogenesis and modulates immune and neuroimmune cytokines in aging rats. Brain, behavior, and immunity (28), pp. 25-43. 18 Childs, Emma, and Harriet De Wit. (2014) “Regular exercise is associated with emotional resilience to acute stress in healthy adults.” Frontiers in physiolo-gy (5). Retrieved from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2014.00161/full 19 Kim, Jong-Ho, and Larry A. McKenzie. (2014). “The impacts of physical exercise on stress coping and well-being in university students in the context of leisure.” Health (6:19), pp. 2570-2580. 20 Barton, Jo, Murray Griffin, and Jules Pretty. (2012). Exercise-, nature-and socially interactive-based initiatives improve mood and self-esteem in the clini-cal population. Perspectives in public health, (132:2), pp. 89-96. 21 Basso, Julia C., and Wendy A. Suzuki. (2017). The effects of acute exercise on mood, cognition, neurophysiology, and neurochemical pathways: a re-view. Brain Plasticity (2:2), pp. 127-152. 22 Barton, Griffin, and Pretty. (2012). 23 Zamani Sani, Seyed Hojjat, Zahra Fathirezaie, Serge Brand, Uwe Pühse, Edith Holsboer-Trachsler, Markus Gerber, and Siavash Talepasand. (2016) “Phys-ical activity and self-esteem: testing direct and indirect relationships associated with psychological and physical mechanisms.” Neuropsychiatric dis-ease and treatment (12), pp. 2617-2625. 24 Cohen, Deborah A., Thomas L. McKenzie, Amber Sehgal, Stephanie Williamson, Daniela Golinelli, and Nicole Lurie. (2007). Contribution of Public Parks to Physical Activity. American Journal of Public Health (97:3), pp. 509-514. 25 Babey, Susan H., Joelle Wolstein, Samuel Krumholz, Breece Robertson, and Allison L. Diamant. (2013). Health Policy Brief: Physical Activity, Park Access and Park Use among California Adolescents. UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. Retrieved from: https://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/publications/Doc-uments/PDF/parkaccesspb-mar2013.pdf 26 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024, February 8). Priority Strategy: Increasing Physical Activity Through Community Design. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/community-strategies/activity-friendly-routes-to-everyday-destinations.html 27 Email with Nathan Hilbert. September 29, 2023. 28 Quint, Rose. (2021). What Home Buyers Really Want. National Association of Home Builders Special Study for Housing Economics. Retrieved from: https://www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/news-and-economics/docs/housing-economics-plus/special-studies/2021/special-study-what-home-buyers-re-ally-want-march-2021.pdf 29 National Association of Realtors. (2023). NAR 2023 Community and Transportation Preferences Survey. Retrieved from: https://www.nar.realtor/reports/nar-community-and-transportation-preferences-surveys 30 Lindsey, Greg, Joyce Man, Seth Payton, and Kelly Dickson. (2004). Property Values, Recreation Values, and Urban Greenways. Journal of Park and Rec-reation Administration (22:3), pp. 69-90. 88West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Endnotes (31-45) 31 Asabere, Paul K., and Forrest E. Huffman. (2009). The Relative Impacts of Trails and Greenbelts on Home Price. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics (38), pp. 408-419. 32 Karadeniz, Duygu. (2008). The Impact of the Little Miami Scenic Trail on Single Family Residential Property Values [Master’s thesis, University of Cincinna- ti]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. Retrieved from: http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1211479716 33 Racca, David P., and Amardeep Dhanju. (2006). Property Value/Desirability Effects of Bike Paths Adjacent to Residential Areas. Report prepared for Delaware Center For Transportation and The State of Delaware Department of Transportation. Retrieved from: https://headwaterseconomics.org/ wp-content/uploads/Trail_Study_51-property-value-bike-paths-residential-areas.pdf 34 Resource Dimensions. (2005). Economic impacts of MVSTA Trails and Land Resources in the Methow Valley. Report prepared for the Methow Valley Sport Trails Association. Retrieved from: https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/Trail_Study_65-methow-valley-trails.pdf 35 Parent, Oliver, and Rainer vom Hofe. (2012). Understanding the impact of trails on residential property values in the presence of spatial dependence. The Annals of Regional Science (51:2), pp. 355-375. 36 Nicholls, Sarah, and John L. Crompton. (2005). The Impact of Greenways on Property Values: Evidence from Austin, Texas. Journal of Leisure Research (37:3), pp. 321-341. 37 Crompton, John L. (2020). The Impact of Trails and Greenways on Property Values. Parks & Recreation Magazine (May 2020), Retrieved from: https:// www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2020/may/the-impact-of-trails-and-greenways-on-property-values/ 38 Scipione, Paul A. (2014). The Economic Impact of the Erie Canalway Trail: An Assessment and User Profile of New York’s Longest Multi-Use Trail. Re- port prepared for Parks & Trails New York. Retrieved from: https://www.ptny.org/application/files/2714/4604/5359/Economic_Impact_of_the_Erie_ Canalway_Trail_Full_Document.pdf 39 McDonald, John. (2015). The Economic impact of Greenways and Multi-Use Trails. Report prepared for the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments. Retrieved from: https://cdn2.assets-servd.host/material-civet/production/images/documents/The-Economic-Impact-of-Greenways-and-Multi-Use-Trails. pdf?dm=1620062735 40 Reis, A.C., Jellum, C. (2012). Rail trails development: a conceptual model for sustainable tourism. Tourism Planning and Development (9:2), pp. 133-148. 41 Bergerson, Terry. (2008). Benefits of Trails & Greenways. Report prepared for the National Park Service Rivers, Trails & Conservation Assistance Program. Retrieved from: https://www.cdlandtrust.org/sites/default/files/publications/Benefits%20of%20Trails-NPS.pdf 42 Wood, Lisa, Lawrence D. Frank, Billie Giles-Corti. (2010). Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighborhood design. Social Science & Medicine (70:9), pp. 1381-1390. 43 Woolley, Helen, Sian Rose, Matthew Carmona, and Jonathan Freedman. (2004). The Value of Public Space. Report produced for the Commission for Architecture and Built Environment. Retrieved from: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/fileadmin/uploads/dc/Documents/the-value-of-public-space1. pdf 44 Kaplan, Rachel. (1985). Nature at the Doorstep: Residential Satisfaction and the Nearby Environment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research (2:2), pp. 115-127. 45 Email with Pete Eshelman. September 27, 2023. 89West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study - Draft Endnotes (46-63) 46 Sturgeon, Jeff. (2023, Jul 23). “Cost vs. benefit: what it cost to bring the Ironman 70.3 to Roanoke.” The Roanoke Times. Retrieved from: https://roanoke. com/news/local/business/ironman-virginias-blue-ridge-cost-contract-details-tourism-roanoke-valley/article_b1703ff2-2753-11ee-a72f-7f1e00d02b4e. html#:~:text=The%20Carilion%20Clinic%20Ironman%2070.3%20Virginia’s%20Blue%20Ridge%20Triathlon%20debuted,times%20the%20%2450%2C000%20 local%20fee. 47 City of Roanoke. (2023). About Our City. Retrieved from: https://www.roanokeva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18669/About-Our-City-FY23 48 Nadel, Rebecca Ellen. (2005). Economic Impacts of Parks, Rivers, Trails, and Greenways. Master of Science Practicum, University of Michigan. 49 Recker, Nicholas. (2012). Bonds, Bridges and Quality of Life in Small Towns. Applied Research in Quality of Life (8), pp. 63-75. 50 Recker (2012) 51 U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, University of Maryland. (2022). Share of Trips by Distance, 2021. U.S. Department of Energy, Vehicle Technologies Office, Fact of the Week #1230. Retrieved from: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-march-21-2022-more-half-all-daily-trips-were- less-three-miles-2021 52 U.S. Federal Highway Administration, League of American Bicyclists. (2010). National Household Travel Survey – Short Trips Analysis. League of American Bicyclists Blog. Retrieved from: https://bikeleague.org/national-household-travel-survey-short-trips-analysis/ 53 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. (2024). Planning and Combining Trips. Retrieved from: https://www.fuele- conomy.gov/feg/planning.shtml 54 Chester County (PA) Planning Commission. (2024). Greenways. Retrieved from: https://www.chescoplanning.org/MuniCorner/eTools/42-Greenways. cfm 55 Capon, Samantha J. (2020). Riparian Ecosystems. Encyclopedia of the World’s Biomes. Elsevier, pp. 170-176. 56 Bergerson, Terry. (2008). Benefits of Trails & Greenways. Report prepared for the National Park Service Rivers, Trails & Conservation Assistance Program. Retrieved from: https://www.cdlandtrust.org/sites/default/files/publications/Benefits%20of%20Trails-NPS.pdf 57 Greenways Inc. (2006). The Benefits of Greenways. Retrieved from: https://smokymountainsgreenways.org/docs/benefits_greenways.pdf 58 Greenways Inc. (2006) 59 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. (2024). VLCF Funded Projects. Retrieved from: https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/land-conservation/ vlcf-grant-list 60 City of Roanoke. (2024). Floodplain Revisions. Retrieved from: https://www.roanokeva.gov/2877/Floodplain-Revisions#:~:text=The%20project%20 was%20a%20partnership,the%20process%20of%20being%20notified. 61 Blue Ridge Land Conservancy. (2024). Where We Work: Roanoke Valley. Retrieved from: https://www.brlcva.org/roanoke-valley.html#/ 62 Virginia Outdoors Foundation. (2022, July 19). Read Mountain Preserve North, Roanoke County. Retrieved from: https://www.vof.org/2022/07/19/ read-mountain-preserve-north-roanoke-county/ 63 Blue Ridge Land Conservancy. (2024). Vic Thomas Environmental Stewardship Award. Retrieved from: https://www.brlcva.org/vic-thomas-environmen- tal-stewardship-award.html#/ Submitted via phone to Isaac Henry on 10/15/25 by: Henry Bryant 6585 Stoneskeep Lane Elliston, VA 24087 (540) 380-3469 I do not want the greenway in this part of the County. I don’t think it’s feasible and I don’t think it would be safe. It is an industrial area and I’ve had issues with transients and Mexican gangs near my house. Submitted via email to Isaac Henry on 11/2/25 by: Liz Belcher 8171 Bending Oak Drive Catawba, VA 24070 lizbretired@gmail.com My one comment is keep all alternatives on the map. While there may be an unwilling landowner today, landowners change - they may die, change their mind, sell the property, etc. I don’t object to what you have, but again encourage you to keep all options on the table. 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2025 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY 200 PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE WEST ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY 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, Roanoke County received technical assistance through the National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (NPS-RTCA) to study potential routes for the Roanoke River Greenway between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County; and WHEREAS, the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study was developed with input from the Study’s Steering Committee, citizen input from two (2) sets of community meetings in the Fall of 2022 and the Summer of 2023, and stakeholders; and 2 WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Roanoke County 200 Plan be amended to incorporate the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study 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 November 3, 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 West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study 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: McMurray Votes in favor: Woltz, James, Henderson, Bower Votes against: None Abstentions: None Board of Supervisors Public Hearing November 18, 2025 West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study 2 3 Study Recap 4 •In March 2022, Roanoke County applied for and was awarded technical assistance through the National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program •Study began in June 2022 •Goal is to develop multiple feasible routes for the Roanoke River Greenway between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County which will lay the groundwork for future funding requests. Study Recap 5 •Public outreach held in Fall 2022 and Summer 2023 •Fall 2022: 110 community meeting attendees, 198 survey responses •Summer 2023: 74 community meeting attendees, 93 survey responses •Twenty conceptual route alternatives considered in Summer 2023 •After Summer 2023 public outreach, staff narrowed this down to the 15 potentially viable segments included in the draft Study Steering Committee •Isaac Henry, Principal Planner, Roanoke County •Megan Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning, Roanoke County •Lindsay Webb, Assistant Director of Economic Development, Business Retention and Operations, Roanoke County •Nathan Hilbert, Community Planner, U.S. National Park Service •Amanda McGee, Director of Community Development, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission •Michael Gray, Salem District Planning Manager, VDOT •Carol Moneymaker, Salem District Strategic Planner, VDOT •Frank Maguire, Former Greenway Coordinator, Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission 6 Stakeholder Outreach •Meetings held with: •Western Virginia Regional Jail •Western Virginia Water Authority •Virginia Passenger Rail Authority •Montgomery County •Appalachian Power •Trout Unlimited 7 Constraints and Opportunities Identified 8 •Constraints: •Terrain •Land ownership pattern •Narrow roads •Rail and river crossings •Route 11/460 (West Main Street) •Opportunities: •Route 11/460 (West Main Street) 9 Routes Considered, Subarea A Segment 3 eliminated from consideration 10 Routes Considered, Subarea B Segments 6, 10, and 13 eliminated from consideration 11 Routes Considered, Subarea C Segment 16 eliminated from consideration 12 Areas toStudy inGreaterDetail Segment 2 Segment 8 Segment 20 Planning Commission Public Hearing – November 3, 2025 13 •Six (6) citizens spoke during the public hearing. They had concerns regarding a variety of issues on certain segments and potential impacts to their properties in the future. •The County also received two emails on the proposed study. One had concerns with a possible greenway near the owner’s property. The other email encouraged all route options be included in the final plan. •Planning Commission discussed: •the development of study over three (3) years; •that this study is an initial planning study; •further analysis and evaluation would be needed to determine any future greenway location; •County does not use eminent domain for greenway projects; and •Construction of any greenway segment would be many years in the future since current greenway priorities are to complete the missing pieces from Green Hill Park to Explore Park. Planning Commission Planning Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to incorporate the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study into the Roanoke County 200 Plan. 14 Questions? 15 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2025 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY 200 PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE WEST ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY INTO THE ROANOKE COUNTY 200 PLAN WHEREAS, § 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia requires that every jurisdiction adopt a comprehensive plan for the physical development of that jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, § 15.2-2230 of the Code of Virginia 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 of Roanoke County, Virginia adopted the Roanoke County 200 Plan as the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, in 2022, Roanoke County received technical assistance through the National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (NPS-RTCA) to study potential routes for the Roanoke River Greenway between Green Hill Park and Montgomery County; and WHEREAS, the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study was developed with input from the Study’s Steering Committee, citizen input from two (2) sets of community meetings in the Fall of 2022 and the Summer of 2023, and stakeholders; and 2 WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Roanoke County 200 Plan be amended to incorporate the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study 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 November 3, 2025, after posting, advertisement and notices as required by § 15.2-2225 and § 15.2- 2204 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors amend the Roanoke County 200 Plan to incorporate the West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study 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 November 18, 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 West Roanoke River Greenway Feasibility Study into the Roanoke County 200 Plan. 2) This Resolution is effective upon its adoption. Page 1 of 3 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: November 18, 2025 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC to rezone approximately 9.355 acres of land zoned C-2CS, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and special use permit, to R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions to construct multi-family dwelling units, located at 5050 Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Director of Planning APPROVED BY: Richard L. Caywood County Administrator ISSUE: Agenda item for public hearing and second reading of an ordinance to rezone 9.355 acres from commercial to high density multi-family residential to construct apartments. BACKGROUND: • The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a multi-family dwelling as “a building or portion thereof which contains three (3) or more dwelling units for permanent occupancy, regardless of the method of ownership. Included in the use type would be garden apartments, low- and high-rise apartments, apartments for elderly housing and condominiums.” This is a residential use type which is permitted by right in the R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential District, subject to use and design standards. • The use and design standards for multi-family dwellings address setbacks, separation between buildings, lot size, density, public utilities, and open space requirements. • In 2004, the subject parcel was rezoned from C-1, Office District, and R-1, Page 2 of 3 Residential District, to C-2C, General Commercial District with conditions, for the development of Keagy Village. This rezoning proffered approximately twelve conditions which addressed concept plan conformance, building design and materials, landscaping, architecture, site layout, lighting, signage, and permitted uses. • In 2006, a special use permit was approved for a drive-thru coffee shop on the property. • There are four main buildings on the property, built in 2009, which contain anywhere from six to fourteen units in each building. The current occupants of these units range from multiple restaurants, fitness gyms, retail spaces, offices, and a veterinary hospital. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this petition on November 3, 2025. One (1) citizen spoke during the public hearing. The concerns/issues raised included: commercial viability and success were raised as concerns during initial rezoning in 2004; number of apartments; height of apartments; visual impact of development to surrounding neighborhoods; and preference to original concept versus what is being proposed. The County also received emails on the proposed project. Emailed concerns included: buffers; fencing; update to traffic study from 2004; need to have a large green space between communities; preference for patio homes or townhouses over apartments; reduce number of buildings from 4 to 3 and reduce the number of stories in each building from 4 stories to 3 stories; traffic and safety concerns especially the Keagy Road/Sugarloaf Mountain intersection; impact to property values; compatibility of land uses; density is too high; stormwater and runoff issues; and noise and air pollution concerns during construction. The Planning Commission discussed: the future land use designation for this property over time; the Oak Grove Center Plan; the 2004 Traffic Study; the number of trips generated by the original commercial project versus the proposed multi-family development; decrease in proposed traffic; traffic improvements outlined in 2004 Traffic Study were constructed/installed; traffic decrease on Route 419 over time; fencing; buffers; existing commercial buildings; stormwater regulations (quality and quantity); site development process; height of apartment buildings; number of public notices sent out; site lighting; and current shortage of housing in Roanoke County. The Planning Commission recommends approval to rezone approximately 9.355 acres from C-2CS, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and special use permit, to R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential District, with the following proffered condition: Page 3 of 3 . The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the drawing entitled "KV Residential Community Development Plan," prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., a Westwood Company, dated 9/12/2025, subject to any revisions required by the review agencies during the site plan review process. 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 rezoning approximately 9.355 acres from C-2CS, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and special use permit, to R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential District, with the following proffered condition: . The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the drawing entitled "KV Residential Community Development Plan," prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., a Westwood Company, dated 9/12/2025, subject to any revisions required by the review agencies during the site plan review process. STAFF REPORT Petitioner: T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC Request: To rezone approximately 9.355 acres of land zoned C-2CS, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and special use permit, to R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions to construct multi-family dwelling Location: Tax Parcel: 5050 Keagy Road Portion of #067.18-02-01.01-0000 Proffered Condition: 1. The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the drawing entitled “KV Residential Community Development Plan,” prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., a Westwood Company, dated 9/12/2025, subject to any T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC is petitioning to rezone approximately 9.355 acres of land zoned C-2CS, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and special use permit, to R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions to construct multi-family dwelling units, located at 5050 Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. The Roanoke County 200 Plan indicates the future land use designations of this area as Core. Core is a future land use area where high intensity urban commercial and high-density residential developments are encouraged. Land uses within core areas may parallel the central business districts of Roanoke, Salem and Vinton. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger-scale highway-oriented retail uses and regionally based shopping facilities. Due to limited availability, areas designated as Core are not appropriate for tax-exempt facilities. Multi-family residential developments up to twenty-four units per acre are appropriate land use for Core areas. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Core future land use designation. This property is located within the Oak Grove Center Plan area. The Oak Grove Center Plan’s vision states: “Oak Grove is an attractive and vibrant village center. The area boasts thriving businesses, places to gather, housing options, and extensive parks and trails. Travel options are safe and accessible for all ages and abilities, and connect the center to adjacent neighborhoods, greenways and surrounding areas.” The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Oak Grove Center Plan’s vision, principles, and recommendations. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance defines a multi-family dwelling as “a building or portion thereof which contains three (3) or more dwelling units for permanent occupancy, regardless of the method of ownership. Included in the use type would be garden apartments, low- and high-rise apartments, apartments for elderly housing and condominiums.” This is a residential use type which is permitted by right The use and design standards are listed in Section 30-82-11 of the Roanoke County Zoning ordinance, which is attached to this report. These standards address setbacks, separation between buildings, lot size, density, public utilities, and open space requirements. A type A buffer is required wherever property zoned R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential District, meets properties zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, or R-2, Medium Density Residential District. There are two options for a type A buffer: option one is a twenty-foot buffer which must include, for every seventy-five feet of length: one row of three large deciduous trees, one row of twelve-to-fourteen large evergreen shrubs, and one row of sixteen-to-eighteen large deciduous shrubs. Option two is a fifteen-foot buffer which must include, for every seventy-five feet of length: one row of five small deciduous trees, one row of twelve-to-fourteen large evergreen shrubs, and a six-foot-tall screening. Modifications to buffer requirements may be approved by the Zoning Administrator in consideration of natural land characteristics such as topography or existing vegetation which achieve the intent of the buffer requirements. If the rezoning is approved, development of the site would require comprehensive site and building plan reviews. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background – In 2004, the subject parcel was rezoned from C-1, Office District, and R-1, Residential District, to C-2C, General Commercial District with conditions, for the development of Keagy Village. This rezoning proffered approximately twelve conditions which addressed concept plan conformance, building design and materials, landscaping, architecture, site layout, lighting, signage, and permitted uses. In 2006, a special use permit was approved for a drive-thru coffee shop on the property. There are four main buildings on the property, built in 2009, which contain anywhere from six to fourteen units in each building. The current occupants of these units range from multiple restaurants, fitness gyms, retail spaces, offices, and a veterinary hospital. According to the application, there has been difficulty in finding a developer for the “rear anchor tenant” site in the location of the proposed rezoning, as well as difficulty attracting and retaining tenants for the existing units. existing stormwater management facility- a detention pond. This site is flat and does not experience much elevation change as it was previously graded to be ready for development. There are mature evergreen and deciduous trees along the northern property lines. To the north there are large vacant parcels zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and C-1C, Low Intensity Commercial District with conditions. To the east, across Electric Road, are commercial and residential properties located within the City of Roanoke. To the south, across Keagy Road, is a commercial development (Metis Plaza) zoned C-1, Low Intensity Commercial District, as well as single family dwellings zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. To the west is a residential neighborhood zoned R-1 which contains single family attached dwellings (Townes at Hidden Valley). Community Outreach – Approximately 278 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. This letter also included the date, time, and location for the planned community meeting which was held on nd staff and Transportation staff were in attendance as well as the applicant and representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Approximately forty citizens were in attendance and expressed concerns regarding traffic, safety, buffers, fencing, density of the development, impact on property values, and stormwater runoff. 3.ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture – The concept plan submitted with the application shows four new multi-family dwelling buildings, a clubhouse, and a clubhouse amenity area. The four buildings will each be four stories tall with interior secured corridors and consist of approximately fifty-six units each, totaling 224 units on-site. It is anticipated that each building will include a mixture of one, two, and three-bedroom units. “Exhibit B” shows a proposed elevation of the multi-family buildings which will include design strategies such as facade transitions, mixed materials, and varying roof levels to break up each building. The clubhouse is proposed to include a gym, business center, co-working space, coffee bar, entertainment room, indoor bike storage, and a pool. “Exhibit C” shows a proposed elevation of the clubhouse building which is a cohesive design with the multi-family buildings. The application notes that included amenities in the development may include a pool, outdoor seating areas, pet park(s), and recreational open space. public roads owned and maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The property is currently served by two entrances on Keagy Road and one right-in entrance from Electric Road. There are no changes proposed to these entrances with this request. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was conducted in 2004 as part of the original rezoning application for the property. The improvement recommendations suggested by this TIA have been implemented including widening Keagy Road, new turn lanes, and signal timing improvements. The site for the proposed rezoning was originally shown to contain a supermarket, office supply store, specialty retail space, and general office space. For this rezoning proposal, the applicant submitted a traffic narrative comparing the site-generated traffic projections from the 2004 rezoning to the current proposal. This comparison concludes that the proposed residential development would generate a significantly lower volume of traffic than was accounted for in the 2004 TIA. It was also noted that the residential development would not include the significant large truck traffic that the previously approved Agencies Comments: The following agencies provided comments on this application: Office of Building Safety – No comments. Roanoke County Transportation – See attached document. Fire and Rescue – Fire and Rescue does not object to this project and the services we provide will be increased due to the addition of emergency medical and fi re responses. Fire flow and access requirements will be addressed in the site plan review process. General Services – General Services does not have any concerns or comments. VDOT – We have reviewed the above-mentioned rezoning request and have the following comments: 1. A Land Use Permit will be required if a new entrance is needed from the VDOT right-of-way or for the change in use of an existing entrance. 2. If any future modifications to existing entrances or installations of new entrances are planned, the VDOT Road Design Manual, Appendix F: Access Management Design Standards for Entrances and Intersections must be adhered to where applicable for commercial entrances. This includes, but is not limited to, entrance spacing and intersection sight distance. The intersection sight distance must be field verified, and measures taken to ensure the minimum required distances can be met. 3. Comparative trip generation calculations submitted with this rezoning request have been reviewed, however further analysis may be required during plan review. 4. VDOT will not issue approval of the plans, or any necessary Land Use Permits until the locality approves this request. In addition, information regarding any changes to the existing drainage system should also be included for review. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Roanoke County 200 Plan indicates the future land use designations of this area as Core. Core is a future land use area where high intensity urban commercial and high-density residential developments are encouraged. Land uses within core areas may parallel the central business districts of Roanoke, Salem and Vinton. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger-scale highway-oriented retail uses and regionally based shopping facilities. Due to limited availability, areas designated as Core are not appropriate for tax-exempt facilities. Multi-family residential developments up to twenty-four units per acre are appropriate land use for Core areas. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Core future land use designation. This property is located within the Oak Grove Center Plan area. The Oak Grove Center Plan’s vision states: “Oak Grove is an attractive and vibrant village center. The area boasts thriving businesses, places to gather, housing options, and extensive parks and trails. Travel options are safe and accessible for all ages and abilities, and connect the center to adjacent neighborhoods, greenways and surrounding areas.” The plan mentions the following visions, principles, and recommendations which the proposed rezoning is consistent with: • Encourage mixed-use development in a pedestrian-friendly environment • Create welcoming spaces • Provide accessible connectivity throughout the plan area • Establish a transitional area between commercial development and the existing residential neighborhoods • Encourage multiple housing types for different ages, incomes, and abilities 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC is petitioning to rezone approximately 9.355 acres of land zoned C-2CS, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and special use permit, to R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions to construct multi-family dwelling units, located at 5050 Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. The proposed rezoning is consistent with both the Core future land use designation as indicated in the Roanoke County 200 Plan as well as the Oak Grove Center Plan recommendations. The applicant has offered one proffer with the rezoning which is “the property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the drawing entitled “KV Residential Community Development Plan,” prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., a Westwood Company, dated 9/12/2025, subject to any revisions required CASE NUMBER: #16-11/2025 PREPARED BY: Alyssa Dunbar HEARING DATES: PC: November 3, 2025 BOS: November 18, 2025 ATTACHMENTS: Application Materials Maps (Aerial, Zoning, Future Land Use) Photographs R-4 District Regulations Sec. 30-82-11 Multi-family Dwelling Use and Design Standards Core Future Land Use Designation Roanoke County Transportation Review Comments Citizen Comments REZONING NARRATIVE On behalf of the applicant, T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC, we are providing this narrative as supplemental information to support the attached rezoning application. This request is to rezone a portion of existing Roanoke County Tax Parcel #067.18-02-01.01-0000 (the Rezoned Area) from C-2CS, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and special use permit, to R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with Conditions to allow for development of a proposed multi-family community on the property. Existing Zoning: C2CS – High Intensity Commercial District with Conditions & Special Use Permit Proposed Zoning: 9.355 acres to be rezoned to R-4 High Density Multi-Family Residential District with Conditions 5.262 acres to remain C2CS Proposed Rezoning Use: Multi-Family Dwellings Property History & Vision The Keagy Village property was originally rezoned from C-1 and R-1 zoning to C-2C zoning in 2004 to allow for a commercial center to be developed. This rezoning included several proffered conditions that were placed on the property, including substantial conformance with the Master Plan that was established. A special use permit was granted in 2006 to allow for a proposed coffee shop with drive-thru at the southeast corner of the property. An additional proffered condition was placed on the property at that time requiring substantial conformance with an updated Master Plan. Despite substantial efforts to market the property, Keagy Village has had limited success in attracting and retaining tenants. The rear ‘anchor tenant’ pad site has remained as an undeveloped pad for many years. This has led to the property changing ownership multiple times since the original development group. The current plan is to reimagine this property as a true mixed-use development center to create a success story for this property by meeting the needs of the community in 2025. The property will be developed with market rate luxury apartments that will blend into the neighborhood and complement and support the commercial center. The existing proffered conditions from 2004 and 2006 will be repealed as they apply to the Rezoned Area. The applicant is placing a proffered condition on the Rezoned Area to ensure substantial conformance with the Development Plan submitted with this request. Existing Conditions The overall property is partially developed with the existing Keagy Village mixed-use commercial center. The Rezoned Area is mostly vacant in the current condition. There is existing parking on the east side that serves the existing commercial development. The northern corner is a pad that was graded for additional commercial development that has not occurred. A detention pond facility is located near the middle of the site that provides stormwater management for Keagy Village. The property is bounded by Electric Road (Route 419) to the east and Keagy Road (Route 685) to the south. Existing residential development borders the site to the west and vacant residentially zoned property borders the site to the north. Access to Keagy Village is from a right-in, right-out entrance from Electric Road and two full access entrances from Keagy Road. Development Plan A proffered Development Plan (Exhibit A) is included with this rezoning application. This plan outlines the proposed overall site improvements associated with the project. The Development Plan includes four new multi-family buildings with associated parking areas to serve each building. A clubhouse building will be constructed as well as other amenities which may include Pool, Outdoor Seating Areas, Pet Park Area, Recreational Open Space, etc. to serve the residents of this community. The buildings will be high-quality design and construction. Exhibit B within the rezoning application package provides a representative elevation of the proposed multi-family buildings and Exhibit C provides a representative elevation of the proposed clubhouse building. The multi-family buildings will be 4 stories and consist of 56 units each for a total of 224 total units on-site. It is anticipated that there will be a fairly even mix of 1, 2, and 3-bedroom units in each building. Each building will include interior secured corridors with elevator access to each floor. The proposed project will provide a transition between the existing commercial uses and the adjacent residential areas to the north and west. The addition of these residential units will complement and support the existing Keagy Village commercial center while also respecting and maintaining the transitional nature of its location within the existing community. Adequate parking will be provided on-site for residents and visitors. Additional parking spaces will replace and supplement the Keagy Village parking that is being removed with the project. The community will feature sidewalks to provide pedestrian connectivity throughout the development provide connections between multi-family buildings and amenity areas as well as provide connections to the adjacent Keagy Village commercial center to create a cohesive, walkable community. The clubhouse will be high-quality construction and will include a large gym, business center and co-working space, coffee bar, entertainment room, indoor bike storage, as well as a pool. The community will also feature parks and green space throughout, as well as a dog park. The community will be heavily landscaped, not only appealing to residents of the community, but also providing perimeter buffering along the northern and western property boundaries where the development is adjacent to residentially zoned areas. In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, a minimum of 10% of the property (0.94 acres) will be common open space areas. Architecture The upscale multifamily buildings will be four stories tall as shown on Exhibit B. The buildings have been located and designed with an architectural quality to provide a positive and inviting community. The design hierarchy will provide an appropriate transition between the Keagy Village commercial area and the residential property to the north and west. The architectural designs of the proposed buildings are shown to provide appropriate building patterns, materials, and styles to ensure an attractive development that complements the surrounding community. Design strategies such as façade transitions, material changes, and flat roofs are utilized to break up the massing of the buildings. Entry features and sidewalk connections are shown for each building to improve the curb appeal and pedestrian connectivity within the community. Each building is designed with a primary entry and elevator lobby with resident corridors for individual apartment access. Access & Transportation Vehicular access will be from new interior connections to existing access drives internal to Keagy Village. Keagy Village is currently served by a right-in, right-out entrance from Electric Road (Route 419) and two full access entrances on Keagy Road (Route 685). These existing entrances will remain unchanged with the proposed development. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared in 2004 as part of the original planning efforts for the Keagy Village project. Traffic improvements were recommended and have been previously implemented in accordance with this study. These improvements included widening of Keagy Road, as well as new turn lanes and signal timing improvements. A Traffic Narrative is included with the Rezoning Application. As shown in the Traffic Narrative, the proposed residential development will generate significantly less traffic than the previously approved commercial development that is shown on the current Keagy Village Master Plan. Therefore, the improvements identified in the previous TIA are sufficient to serve the new Development Plan and no additional study or improvements warranted. Public Services This project will be served by public water and sanitary sewer utilities owned and maintained by the Western Virginia Water Authority. There are existing public water and sanitary sewer utilities serving Keagy Village that the project will connect to. The development of the property is not expected to have a significant impact on public schools, parks/recreation, or fire and rescue. Stormwater Management The existing above-ground detention pond on-site will be removed with this project. A new stormwater management facility will be installed with this project to account for the new and existing development. It is anticipated that this will be an underground facility located under the parking area and away from public view. The project will be designed in accordance with all local and state stormwater management requirements, including quantity and quality requirements. Comprehensive Development Plan Roanoke County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the Future Land Use of this property as Core. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Core as “a future land use area where high intensity urban commercial and high-density residential development is encouraged. The proposed rezoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with this definition. The proposed multi-family residential zoning designation will allow this property that has remained vacant for many years to realize its potential. The proposed multi- family buildings will provide additional customer base for the existing businesses and also help to attract new businesses to Keagy Village, adding new life to this important node along the Route 419 corridor. The proposed rezoning request will further the goals of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance by allowing for development of a vacant property in an appropriate location of Roanoke County that is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. The proposed multi-family use will provide additional housing options in an important area of the County, which is of utmost importance due to the current shortage of housing. The proposed request is consistent with many of the goals and initiatives of the Comprehensive Plan: • Remove outdated proffer conditions on certain properties to promote redevelopment and expedite the development process. • Encourage a diverse housing stock meeting the demands of current and future residents. • Encourage the provision of open space and park facilities with new development. This property is also located within the Oak Grove Center Plan area. The proposed request is also consistent with many of the goals and initiatives of the Oak Grove Center Plan: • Create a place where people and businesses want to be. • Increase mobility and connectivity. • Expand housing options. The location of this site along Route 419 will also further the Economic Development initiatives of Roanoke County by directly supporting the existing Keagy Village commercial area. This will help attract and retain businesses in this area that will benefit all residents of Roanoke County. Summary We are requesting approval of this proposed rezoning request. This project is consistent with the goals and initiatives of Roanoke County and consistent with the Future Land Use of this property. This request will allow for existing vacant property to be developed with an active residential use while creating an appropriate transition between the Route 419 commercial corridor and existing nearby residential uses. KEA G Y R O A D (RO U T E 6 8 5 ) EL E C T R I C R O A D (R O U T E 4 1 9 ) LARYN LANE TO W N E D R I V E LEIGH L A N E BU I L D I N G " A " BUIL D I N G " B " BU I L D I N G " C " BU I L D I N G " D " COMPACTOR (TYP. FOR 2 LOCATIONS) PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE & ZONING LINE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE & ZONING LINE EXISTING SIGN PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE & ZONING LINE NEW LOT "A" ± 9.355 AC. EX ZONE: C-2CS PROPOSED ZONE: R-4 EXISTING KEAGY VILLAGE COMMERCIAL AREA: ± 5.262 AC. TO REMAIN C-2CS ZONING CLUBHOUSE CLUBHOUSE AMENITY AREA AMENITY AREA EX I S T I N G C - 2 C S Z O N I N G PR O P O S E D R - 4 Z O N I N G PR O P O S E D R - 4 Z O N I N G EXI S T I N G C - 2 C S Z O N I N G EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 42 ' S . Y . S . 47 ' R . Y . S . 15' TYPE "A" BUFFER YARD 15' TYPE "A" BUFFER YARD 15' TYPE "A" BUFFER YARD SU G A R L O A F MO U N T A I N R O A D (R O U T E 6 9 2 ) EX. ACCESS B EX. ACCESS A EX. ACCESS C EX. BUILDING A EX. BUILDING B EX. BUILDING C EX. BUILDING D N: \ _ B A L \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 5 \ 0 0 \ 0 4 \ R 0 0 6 8 4 5 9 . 0 0 K E A G Y V I L L A G E \ C I V I L \ d w g \ R 0 0 6 8 4 5 9 . 0 0 C o n c e p t B a s e 2 0 2 5 - 0 9 - 0 9 . d w g P L O T T E D : 9/ 1 1 / 2 0 2 5 3 : 1 7 : 0 3 P M 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 KPG CPB BTC 09/12/2025 1" = 50' KV R E S I D E N T I A L C O M M U N I T Y DE V E L O P M E N T P L A N 50 5 0 K E A G Y R O A D RO A N O K E C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A EX-A R0068459.00 PR E L I M I N A R Y NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N PROJECT NO. REVISIONS SCALE DATE CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY Roanoke / Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley a Westwood Company balzer.cc | westwoodps.com Colors represented here are affected by the type and amount of light in which they are viewed, as well as the method of printing. Slight differences may exist between the actual color of the materials illustrated. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Roanoke, Virginia © 2022 Balzer & Associates, Inc. R0068459.00 KV RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY EXHIBIT B - REPRESENTATIVE MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING ELEVATIONKEAGY ROAD, ROANOKE COUNTY, VA 09/11/2025 0'32'16'8'4' 64' 1/16" Colors represented here are affected by the type and amount of light in which they are viewed, as well as the method of printing. Slight differences may exist between the actual color of the materials illustrated. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Roanoke Office © 2024 Balzer & Associates, Inc. R0068459.00 KV RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY EXHIBIT C - REPRESENTATIVE CLUBHOUSE BUILDING ELEVATIONKEAGY ROAD, ROANOKE COUNTY, VA 09/11/2025 0'8' 16' 32' 3/32" WPS Job #R0070888.00 Dated 09-09-2025 a Westwood Company 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 540.772.9580 www.balzer.cc Roanoke Richmond New River Valley Shenandoah Valley En v i sion i ng To m o r row , De s i gn i ng To d a y METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE REZONED BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL “A”, AS SHOWN ON PLAT RECORDED AT INSTRUMENT #200715980 IN THE CLERK’S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF KEAGY ROAD – VA ROUTE 685, BEING THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT; THENCE LEAVING THE NORTHWEST LINE OF KEAGY ROAD, N30°30'21"W A DISTANCE OF 389.15' TO A POINT; THENCE N33°04'19"E A DISTANCE OF 883.34', TO A POINT; THENCE S56°04'10"E A DISTANCE OF 433.80' TO A POINT; THENCE S83°52'10"E A DISTANCE OF 30.76' TO A POINT; THENCE THE FOLLOWING SIXTEEN COURSES: S01°53'31"W A DISTANCE OF 47.93' TO A POINT; N88°06'29"W A DISTANCE OF 29.00' TO A POINT; S01°53'31"W A DISTANCE OF 30.83' TO A POINT; WITH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH AN ARC LENGTH OF 36.77', A RADIUS OF 61.00', A CHORD BEARING OF S19°09'37"W, WITH A CHORD LENGTH OF 36.22', TO A POINT; S36°51'41"W A DISTANCE OF 141.50' TO A POINT; S45°58'24"W A DISTANCE OF 31.13' TO A POINT; S59°08'05"W A DISTANCE OF 40.77' TO A POINT; S30°45'45"E A DISTANCE OF 28.00' TO A POINT; S59°15'36"W A DISTANCE OF 139.07' TO A POINT; S59°14'15"W A DISTANCE OF 45.21' TO A POINT; S30°45'45"E A DISTANCE OF 13.97' TO A POINT; S59°14'15"W A DISTANCE OF 85.79' TO A POINT; S57°19'51"W A DISTANCE OF 165.29' TO A POINT; S29°48'50"E A DISTANCE OF 142.85' TO A POINT; S62°48'50"W A DISTANCE OF 89.54' TO A POINT; S27°11'10"E A DISTANCE OF 48.00' TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF KEAGY ROAD; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF KEAGY ROAD, THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES: S62°48'52"W A DISTANCE OF 113.60' TO A POINT; S52°37'24"W A DISTANCE OF 65.14' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOTAL AREA TO BE REZONED: 9.355 ACRES (407,495 SQ. FT.), MORE OR LESS. Proffered Conditions to be Repealed: Ordinance #062204-10 The applicant hereby requests that the following proffered conditions in effect from Ordinance #062204-10 be repealed as they pertain to a portion of Official Tax Number 067.18-02-01.01-0000 being rezoned to R- 4, High Density Multi-Family Residential District. The area being rezoned is 9.355 acres. 1. Concept Plan: a. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the concept plan dated January 22, 2004, revised February 26, 2004, and revised June 4, 2004, made by DMR Architecture, P.L.L.C., subject to those changes that are required by the County during comprehensive site plan review and subject to petitioner’s right to relocate or reconfigure the buildings, service areas and parking layouts shown on the concept plan. Building relocation, however, shall not change the overall concept of retail and commercial uses oriented toward Route 419 and Keagy Road, and office or residential uses buffering the retail and commercial uses from the adjacent residential properties along Keagy Road. The entire site will include sidewalks connecting all buildings to encourage pedestrian connectivity between all uses and parking areas. b. A walking trail shall be incorporated into the design of the center and will provide walking opportunities for users of Keagy Village as well as neighbors by connecting to on-site sidewalks and street crosswalks. c. Except for removing existing structures, grading, installing the road serving the development, installing a portion of the detention facility serving the development, and landscaping, tax map parcels 67.18-2-3 and 67.18-2-4 shall be undeveloped and serve as a landscape buffer between the development and the adjoining residential property. 2. All buildings shall be designed to be compatible with one another. All facades of buildings shall be of similar design, compatible materials and similar detailing. 3. Plazas, hardscape, landscaped areas and site amenities shall also be compatible to the established building character and shall include outdoor seating areas, varied paving materials to add contrast and texture, and decorative containers with seasonal landscape. Restaurant tenants will be encouraged to provide outdoor dining areas with tables, chairs and umbrellas. 4. Roofline treatment shall be of compatible design on all buildings. 5. Single, large building masses without articulated facades shall not be permitted. Large building walls shall be required to incorporate multidimensional design features, such as, changes in plane, canopies, awnings, dimensional signage, windows, doors, facias, arcades, and changes in texture, material and color or vary in height to add interest. Retaining walls shall be subject to proffers 7 and 8 relating to construction materials or be composed of textured keystone blocks. 6. Required screening of service and trash areas shall be with finish materials compatible with the adjacent building. The loading area at the northwest side of the proposed grocery store shall be screened with a freestanding wall with similar finish as the adjacent building. P a g e 2 | 3 7. Acceptable building finishes include: a. Brick b. Wood, vinyl or composite wood substitute lap siding and trim c. Glass, with clear glass required in retail storefronts d. Stucco or exterior insulated finish system (EIFS) e. Stone face colored concrete block f. Stone or cast stone g. Standing seam metal, copper, composite slate tile or asphalt shingle roof 8. The following building finishes are prohibited: a. Unpainted or bare metal panels b. 4 x 8 plywood or composite panels c. Bare exposed concrete that is not exposed aggregate, hammered, sandblasted or covered with a cement-based acrylic coating d. Unfinished wood other than cedar, mahogany, teak, or redwood 9. Site Lighting: a. All lighting near the property lines shall be shielded “cut off” types to internalize illumination and avoid spillover to adjacent sites and public roads. b. Sidewalks shall be illuminated with decorative pedestrian-scaled pole or building mounted luminaries. c. Plazas may be illuminated similar to sidewalks but may include additional feature lighting for attractions and outdoor dining. d. Landscape lighting may be employed to enhance site entrance and feature areas. e. No exposed neon or fluorescent lighting shall be permitted. f. The maximum height of freestanding light fixtures shall be 30 feet. 10. Site Signage: a. Off premises signs (billboards) shall not be allowed on the property. b. The main freestanding multi-sided project identification sign shall be at the corner of Keagy Road and Route 419 and shall be monument style utilizing materials approved as acceptable building materials and shall not exceed 25 feet in height. c. Minor freestanding entrance signs shall be multi-sided monument style and shall not exceed 10 feet in height. d. Tenant signage visible to off-site shall be encouraged to be creative in order to add interest and texture and, in addition to letters, may include logos and images. Projecting blade signs and projecting three-dimensional signs are also encouraged. Box signs, exposed raceways and exposed neon are also prohibited. Signage may be internally or externally illuminated. 11. Non-specialty drive-in or fast food restaurants and gasoline stations shall not be permitted. Establishments primarily serving specialty foods (such as coffee, baked goods, e.g.) with drive- through windows are not included within this prohibition but would require a special use permit in accordance with the requirements of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Drive-through windows are not permitted directly facing the street unless they are completely screened. 12. The developer shall comply with all VDOT requirements for improvements to adjoining Route 419 and Keagy Road including any required easements for sight distance as well as the donation of any additional right-of-way along Keagy Road and Route 419. P a g e 3 | 3 Proffered Condition to be Repealed: Ordinance #032806-12 The applicant hereby requests that the following proffered condition in effect from Ordinance #032806-12 be repealed as it pertains to a portion of Official Tax Number 067.18-02-01.01-0000 being rezoned to R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential District. The area being rezoned is 9.355 acres. 1. The development will be constructed in substantial conformity with the “Keagy Village Preliminary Site Development Plan,” prepared by Gary and Neel, Inc. and dated January 17, 2006. Proffered Condition to be Adopted: Portion of Tax Map #067.18-02-01.01-0000 The applicant hereby requests that the following proffered condition be adopted as it pertains to a portion of Official Tax Number 067.18-02-01.01-0000 being rezoned to R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential District. The area being rezoned is 9.355 acres. 1. The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the drawing entitled “KV Residential Community Development Plan,” prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., a Westwood Company, dated 9/12/2025, subject to any revisions required by the review agencies during the site plan review process. October 21, 2025 County of Roanoke Planning Department 5204 Bernard Dr. Roanoke, VA 24018 Attn: Philip Thompson, Director RE: KV Residential Community – Transportation Narrative B&A, Inc. Job #R0068459.00 Mr. Thompson, The purpose of this narrative is to provide background traffic information and address potential traffic impacts related to the proposed rezoning request for a portion of the Keagy Village property located near the intersection of Electric Road (Route 419) and Keagy Road (Route 685) in the County of Roanoke. This property was originally rezoned in 2004 to allow for the mixed-use commercial development known as Keagy Village. Since the original rezoning, the southern and eastern portions of the site along the frontages of Electric Road and Keagy Road have been developed and generally conforms to the original Master Plan. The northern portion of the site has remained undeveloped. The proposed request is to revise the northern portion of the development plan from commercial uses to multi-family dwellings. The proposed multi-family development consists of four apartment buildings totaling 224 units, as well as a new clubhouse building. Vehicular access to the new buildings and parking areas will be from new connections to existing access drives internal to Keagy Village. Keagy Village is currently served by a right-in, right-out entrance from Electric Road (Route 419) and two full access entrances on Keagy Road (Route 685). These existing entrances will remain unchanged with the proposed development. The “Keagy Village Traffic Impact Analysis” was prepared by HSMM and dated June 21, 2004. This TIA evaluated potential site-generated traffic and improvements were proposed to accommodate the proposed development. It appears that all required improvements were constructed, including widening of Keagy Road, proposed turn lanes, and proposed modifications to the traffic signal at Electric Road and Keagy Road. Trip generation calculations were performed to provide a comparison between the commercial uses that are currently shown in the northern portion of the property on the Master Plan and the proposed residential multi- family development. Based on the original TIA, the northern portion of the property was proposed to include the following development: • 26,000 s.f. Supermarket • 18,000 s.f. Office Supply Store • 12,000 s.f. Specialty Retail • 13,000 s.f. General Office The portion of projected vehicle trips attributed to the northern portion of the site is shown in Table 1. These trips were derived from the trip generation calculations in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 from the original TIA. The projected vehicle trips generated by the proposed multi-family development is shown in Table 2. These trips were calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Proposed Development ITE Code Independent Variable Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total General Office Building 710 13,000 s.f. 18 3 21 3 16 19 197 Specialty Retail Center 814 12,000 s.f. 14 18 32 14 18 32 736 Supermarket 850 26,000 s.f. 52 33 85 139 133 272 2,707 Office Supply Store 867 18,000 s.f. 32 29 61 32 29 61 900 Total 116 83 199 188 196 384 4,540 Table 1: Site-Generated Traffic (Existing Master Plan) Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Proposed Development ITE Code Independent Variable Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Mid-Rise Multi-Family 221 224 Dwelling Units 20 67 87 53 35 88 1,022 Table 2: Site-Generated Traffic (Proposed R-4 Development Plan) It should be noted that an internal capture reduction has not been applied to the proposed development even though it would be appropriate to assume a 15% reduction for this mixed-use development. Therefore, these calculations are conservative in nature. As shown in the Tables, the proposed residential development is expected to generate a significantly lower overall volume of traffic than was accounted for in the original TIA. In addition, the types of traffic being generated will be less intense with the proposed residential development not expected to generate significant truck traffic that would be expected to come with a commercial development. In summary, the proposed residential development will generate much less traffic than the commercial uses shown on the approved Master Plan. The roadway improvements that were installed with the original development are expected to be adequate to serve the proposed residential development. and no additional study is warranted or recommended as a result of the current request. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Balzer and Associates, Inc., a Westwood Company Christopher Burns, P.E. Engineering Manager 5050 Keagy Road Aerial Map Roanoke County, VA 2023, Roanoke County, Maxar 9/22/2025, 9:46:32 AM 0 0.07 0.150.04 mi 0 0.1 0.20.05 km 1:5,631 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1R1 R1R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 C1C R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 C1 R1 R1 C1 C1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1R1R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1S R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R2 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 C1 R1 R1 C2C R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 C1 R1 R1 R1 C2C R1 R1 R1 C1R1 R1 R1 C1 R1 R1 R1R1 C1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 C1 R1 R1 R1 C1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R2R1R1 R1 C1 C1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 C2CS R1 R1 R1 R1 5050 Keagy Road Zoning Map Roanoke County Zoning C1 C1 C2 C2 R1 R1 R2 9/22/2025, 9:49:34 AM 0 0.07 0.150.04 mi 0 0.1 0.20.05 km 1:5,631 TR NC CO 5050 Keagy Road Future Land Use Map Roanoke County Future Land Use Neighborhood Conservation Transition 9/22/2025, 9:50:43 AM 0 0.07 0.150.04 mi 0 0.1 0.20.05 km 1:5,631 Core (A) (A) 1. 2. 3. SEC. 30-46. - R-4 HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-46-1. - Purpose. The purpose of the R-4, high density multi-family residential district is to provide areas in the county within the urban service area where existing high density residential development (twelve (12) to twenty-four (24) units per acre) has been established and land areas which generally appear to be appropriate for such development. These areas should serve as a buffer between less intensive and more intensive districts. This district coincides with the recommendations for the transition and core land use categories contained in the comprehensive plan where residential development appears to be appropriate. These areas are designated based on direct access to major streets, and where sewer, water, and schools and other public services have suitable capacity to accommodate development at the stated density. An additional consideration is that the parcel sizes allow for well planned residential development. A variety of housing densities and styles is encouraged in order to permit a diversity and flexibility in design and layout. Additional standards are established to provide for amenities in higher density developments. (Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1f., 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08) Sec. 30-46-2. - Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. Residential Uses. Accessory Apartment * Home Beauty/Barber Salon * Home Occupation, Type I * Manufactured Home * Manufactured Home, Emergency * Multi-Family Dwelling * Residential Human Care Facility Single-Family Dwelling, Attached * Single-Family Dwelling, Attached (Cluster Subdivision Option) * Single-Family Dwelling, Detached Single-Family Dwelling, Detached (Cluster Subdivision Option) * Single-Family Dwelling, Detached (Zero Lot Line Option) * Townhouse * Two-Family Dwelling * Civic Uses. Community Recreation * Family Day Care Home * Park and Ride Facility Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Religious Assembly * Utility Services, Minor Commercial Uses. Boarding House 4. (B) 1. 2. 3. 1. a. b. 2. a. b. 3. a. b. 4. 1. a. b. Miscellaneous Uses. Amateur Radio Tower * Wireless Communication Facility, Class 1* The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. Civic Uses. Cemetery * Crisis Center Cultural Services Day Care Center * Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary * Halfway House * Safety Services * Utility Services, Major * Industrial Uses. Landfill, Rubble * Miscellaneous Uses. Outdoor Gatherings * Wind Energy System, Small* Wireless Communication Facility, Class 2* (Ord. No. 62293-12, § 9, 6-22-93; Ord. No. 82493-8, § 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 042500-9, § II, 4-25-00; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4- 22-08; Ord. No. 052609-22, § 1, 5-26-09; Ord. No. 030811-1, § 1, 3-8-11; Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13; Ord. No. 011023-4, § 1, 1-10-23; Ord. No. 072225-9, § 1, 7-22-25) Sec. 30-46-3. - Site Development Regulations. General Standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see Article IV, Use and Design Standards. (A) Minimum lot requirements. Lots served by private well and sewage disposal system; Area: 0.75 acre (32,670 square feet). Frontage: 90 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. Lots served by either public sewer or water: Area: 20,000 square feet. Frontage: 75 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. Lots served by both public sewer and water: Area: 7,200 square feet. Frontage: 60 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. For minimum lot size and permitted densities for multi-family dwellings and townhouses refer to Article IV, Use and Design Standards. (B) Minimum setback requirements. Front yard: Principal structures: 30 feet. Accessory structures: Behind the front building line. 2. a. b. 3. a. b. 4. 1. a. b. 1. 2. Side yard: Principal structures: 10 feet. Accessory structures: 10 feet behind front building line or 3 feet behind rear building line. Rear yard: Principal structures: 10 feet. Accessory structures: 3 feet. Where a lot fronts on more than one street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all streets. (C) Maximum height of structures. Height limitations: Principal structures: When adjoining property zoned R-1 or R-2, 45 feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased, provided each required side and rear yard adjoining the R-1 or R-2 district is increased 2 feet for each foot in height over 45 feet. In all locations the height is unlimited unless otherwise restricted by this ordinance. Accessory structures: 15 feet, or 25 feet provided they comply with the setback requirements for principal structures. (D) Maximum coverage. Building coverage: 35 percent of the total lot area for all buildings and 7 percent for accessory buildings. Lot coverage: 75 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12, § 10, 6-22-93) (A) (B) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a. b. c. d. e. 8. (C) 1. 2. (D) 1. 2. 3. 4. (E) 1. 2. 3. 4. (F) 1. 2. 3. Sec. 30-82-11. - Multi-family Dwelling. Intent. The following minimum standards are intended to accommodate multi-family dwellings, ensuring adequate separation and other design characteristics to create a safe and healthy residential environment while protecting adjoining uses which are less intensive. General standards: Minimum front yard setback: Thirty (30) feet from any street right-of-way for all structures. Minimum side yard setback: Twenty (20) feet for principal structures. Minimum rear yard setback: Twenty-five (25) feet for principal structures. Additional setbacks in the form of a buffer yard shall be required in accordance with Section 30-92 where the property adjoins a less intensive zoning district. The minimum separation between multi-family buildings shall be twenty (20) feet. Reserved. Standards for open space and recreational areas required below: Shall be in addition to any buffer yard required under Section 30-92 of this ordinance; Shall be in addition to and not be located in any required front, side or rear yard setback; Shall have a horizontal dimension of at least fifty (50) feet, except that areas with a horizontal distance of not less than twenty (20) feet shall be counted as open space provided such areas contain facilities such as, but not limited to, bikeways, exercise trails, tot lots, gazebos, picnic tables, etc.; Shall not include proposed street rights-of-way, open parking areas, driveways, or sites reserved for other specific uses; and, Shall be of an appropriate nature and location to serve the residents of the multi-family development. Provisions must be made for vehicular access and turn around for regularly scheduled public service vehicles such as trash collection. Additional standards in the AV district: Minimum lot size: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet for the first dwelling unit, plus five thousand (5,000) square feet for each additional unit. When adjoining a lot containing a single family dwelling, a Type C buffer yard as described in Section 30-92 shall be provided. Additional standards in the R-3 district: Minimum lot size: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet for the first dwelling unit, plus two thousand four hundred twenty (2,420) square feet for each additional unit. Maximum density: Eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre. The property shall be served by public sewer and water. Common open space and recreational areas required: Five (5) percent of the total lot area for parcels of two (2) to five (5) acres, and ten (10) percent for parcels over five (5) acres. No open space is required for parcels under two (2) acres. Additional standards in the R-4 district: Minimum lot size: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet for the first dwelling unit, plus one thousand eight hundred fifteen (1,815) square feet for each additional unit. Maximum density: Twenty-four (24) dwelling units per acre. The property shall be served by public sewer and water. Common open space and recreational areas required: Five (5) percent of the total lot area for parcels of two (2) to five (5) acres, and ten (10) percent for parcels over five (5) acres. No open space is required for parcels under two (2) acres. General standards in the C-1 and C-2 districts, independent of the general standards above: The multi-family use shall be allowed in conjunction with a civic, office or commercial use type or as a stand-alone residential project. The multi-family use may account for up to fifty (50) percent of the gross floor area on the site. A special use permit shall be required if the multi-family use accounts for more than fifty (50) percent of the gross floor area on the site. In the study areas of the 419 Town Center Plan, the Hollins Center Plan, and the Oak Grove Center Plan, the multi-family use may account for up to seventy-five (75) percent of the gross floor area on the site. A special use permit shall be required if the multi-family use accounts for more than seventy-five (75) percent of the gross floor area on the site. Appendices A future land use area where high intensity urban commercial and high-density residential developments are encouraged. Land uses within core areas may parallel the central business districts of Roanoke, Salem and Vinton. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger-scale highway-oriented retail uses and regionally based shopping facilities. Due to limited availability, areas designated as Core are not appropriate for tax-exempt facilities. Land Use Types General Retail Shops, Restaurants and Personal Services - Planned shopping centers and clustered retail uses are encouraged. These centers should incorporate greenways, bike and pedestrian trails into their designs and link them to surrounding neighborhoods. Office and Institutional - Planned office parks and independent facilities in park-like settings are encouraged. Limited Industrial – Low intensity industrial uses that should not have an adverse impact on air or water quality. Multi-Family Residential – Multi-family residential developments up to 24 units per acre. Mixed-Use – Developments that combine retail, service and other commercial uses with office and/or residential uses in the same building or on the same site. Land Use Determinants Existing Land Use Pattern - Locations where commercial uses have been developed or will likely be developed. Existing Zoning - Locations where commercial zoning exists. Access - Locations served by an arterial street system. Population Center - Locations within close proximity to the projected population concentrations. Urban Sector - Locations served by urban services. CORE Roanoke County Planning/Transportation Comments October 13, 2025 T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC Rezoning 1. Please provide documentation from the VDOT Salem Residency concurring with the KV Residential Community – Transportation Narrative. 2. The entrance from Route 419 is marked as a one-way roadway, is identified in the 2004 Keagy Village TIA as a right-in entrance only (page 2) and is currently signed as a “Service Entrance”. This access point is referenced in the Transportation Narrative and in the Rezoning Narrative as a right-in, right-out entrance. Please show how this entrance is proposed to be modified to allow for two-way traffic and indicate proposed changes for the “Service Entrance” signage. 3. The second (western) entrance from Keagy Road is marked as a “Service Entrance”. Please indicate proposed changes for the “Service Entrance” signage if this will be the primary entrance to the apartments. 4. If the “Existing Keagy Village Commercial Area” and the “New Lot A” are intended to be owned by different entities, cross-access easements will be needed for all shared access points. 5. Conformance with the 2021 Oak Grove Center Plan – as referenced in the Rezoning Narrative, one of the principles of the Oak Grove Center Plan is to “Increase Mobility and Connectivity” as shown in the excerpt at right (Oak Grove Center Plan Summary, page 15). The following comments propose facilities to implement the Plan and principle: a. Provide sidewalk connections with ADA ramps and continental- style crosswalks between the apartment buildings, clubhouse and Keagy Village to facilitate safe pedestrian accommodations between all residential and commercial structures, which conforms to the Rezoning Narrative text that indicates, “The community will feature sidewalks to provide pedestrian connectivity throughout the development [to] provide connections between multi-family buildings and amenity areas as well as provide connections to the adjacent Keagy Village commercial center to create a cohesive, walkable community.” Roanoke County Planning/Transportation Comments October 13, 2025 T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC Rezoning b. What are the plans for the existing ten-foot-wide, asphalt, shared use path that runs from Keagy Road to the stub-out near Famous Toastery? This path is not shown on the concept plan and should be extended to and through the new apartment complex for multimodal access. c. Consider formalizing the mowed grass pedestrian connection between the Laryn Lane cul-de-sac sidewalk and the shared use path with a sidewalk or shared use path. Megan G. Cronise, AICP | Assistant Director of Planning Planning Department5204 Bernard Drive | Roanoke, VA 24018 (O) 540-772-2106 www.roanokecountyva.gov/planning WARNING: This Message Is From an External Sender, Use Caution! This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. Report Suspicious Outlook FW: Ben Crew - Balzer From Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov> Date Fri 10/24/2025 1:19 PM To Philip G. Thompson <PTHOMPSON@roanokecountyva.gov>; Rebecca James <RJAMES@roanokecountyva.gov>; Alyssa Dunbar<ADUNBAR@roanokecountyva.gov> FYI, Megan From: Ben Crew <ben.crew@westwoodps.com> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2025 10:58 AM To: James Walters <jwalters0322@gmail.com> Cc: Garrett Zechman <gzechman@thomasbuildersofva.com>; Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov>; Tammy Walters <thwrdh@cox.net> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - RE: Ben Crew - Balzer Michael – Responses to your outstanding questions in your email. 5. The parking lot will be within +/-2’ of the finished floor elevation of Building A 6. There is a wall proposed on the southern portion of the parking lot. Wall is expected to ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEndMichael – Responses to your outstanding questions in your email. 5. The parking lot will be within +/-2’ of the finished floor elevation of Building A6. There is a wall proposed on the southern portion of the parking lot. Wall is expected to be between 8-12’ tall. The wall will not be visible from THV. It will be visible from the apartments and parking lot as the elevation is lower than the THV.17. The parking shown is the minimum allowable for the overall mixed use development. The parking spaces will serve both the apartments projectand keagy village commercial users. 18. This shift is challenging without losing parking or being able to transition the pads and grading across the site.21. Construction process once permitted would E&S Measures, Overall parcel grading, Utility Infrastructure to include storm, sanitary, water, otherdry utilities and then building construction. Some of these processes will likely overlap as some of the site is already pad graded. Hope this helps wrap up your questions. Thank you for participating in the neighborhood meeting this week. Ben Crew Director, Land Development 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke, VA 24018 Roanoke / Richmond / New River Valley / Shenandoah Valley main 540.772.9580 direct 540.527.7268 balzer.cc westwoodps.com Please note this email address has changed. New email addresses for Balzer and Associates, a Westwood company, are now in effect. Emails sent to our previous addresses will be forwarded to the new ones. During our transition to Westwood Professional Services, you may receive emails from either address. Thank you for your understanding! From: James Walters <jwalters0322@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 11:04 AM To: Ben Crew <ben.crew@westwoodps.com> Cc: Garrett Zechman <gzechman@thomasbuildersofva.com>; mcronise@roanokecountyva.gov; Tammy Walters <thwrdh@cox.net> Subject: Re: Ben Crew - Balzer CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do not trust. Good morning Ben, Attached are the questions I brought up last night, and the ones I still have. I have included in red the answers provided by you andGarrett and notated in red to provide the additional answers to unasked questions. I have copied Megan Cronise from Roanoke County on the email as she requested as well. I do want to thank the 3 of you for taking the time to answer, and discuss as needed, my questions and I am very encouraged by the noted responses provided. Thank you and I look forward to hearing back from you soon. Have a good day, Michael Walters On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 6:55 PM Ben Crew <ben.crew@westwoodps.com> wrote: Ben Crew Director, Land Development main540.772.9580 direct 540.527.7268 balzer.cc westwoodps.com WARNING: This Message Is From an External Sender, Use Caution! This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system.Report Suspicious Outlook [EXTERNAL] - Re: FW: Rezoning of 9.355 acres adjacent to Townes Hidden Valley for multifamily development From Garrett Zechman <gzechman@thomasbuildersofva.com> Date Mon 10/27/2025 3:15 PM To Alyssa Dunbar <ADUNBAR@roanokecountyva.gov> Cc Ben Crew <ben.crew@westwoodps.com>; Chris Burns <chris.burns@westwoodps.com>; Luther Hunter <lhunter@thomasbuildersofva.com> Alyssa, Thank you for sending over. Please see our responses in red below: Questions: 1) What is the process to rezone this property, and why is it necessary? When Keagy Village was built, this land was supposedly designated for a grocery store. We currently have a Publix grocery to be built within 1/2 mile of two large existing Kroger grocery stores on Brambleton Ave. How can the county justify that expansion there, rather than the original plan for the land off Keagy Road? Rezoning is required because the property is currently zoned for Commercial use, consistent with the original Keagy Village master plan, which envisioned retail and a grocery store anchor. However, that retail concept has proven economically unviable—the market already supports multiple grocery stores within a half-mile radius. The rezoning would change the property to a R-4C - High Density Multi-Family Residential District with Conditions, aligning with the current market demand for high- quality housing rather than more commercial space. Process summary: 1. Pre-application meeting with County Planning staff. 2. Formal zoning application (with plans, proffers, and studies such as traffic, drainage, etc.). 3. Public hearings with the Planning Commission and then the Board of Supervisors, where the public can comment. 4. Final Board vote approving, denying, or modifying the rezoning. This process ensures full transparency and community input. The rezoning is necessary simply because the property’s most viable, sustainable, and community- compatible use has shifted since the original approval. 2) This area of the county is primarily residential, single family housing. Why does the County wish to use this land for four large apartment buildings ?Howwill this impact the neighborhood's property values? Although the area is primarily residential, that actually makes this proposal a better land-use fit than the previously approved retail center. The apartments would provide a residential transition between the higher-intensity commercial along Route 419 and the single-family neighborhoods behind it. High-quality, professionally managed apartment communities such as this typically enhance nearby property values by: Removing the potential for heavy retail traffic, lighting, and delivery truck noise; Improving aesthetics and landscaping on a property that might otherwise remain vacant; Supporting nearby retail and restaurant businesses through new local residents; and Being architecturally compatible with the Keagy Village style and surrounding homes. In contrast, a large grocery store and associated retail could have introduced five times the traffic volume and more late-night activity. 3) There is a huge detention area on about a third of this property. How can you propose these multistory buildings on a tract with obvious depressions, very deep ones? The existing low area on this tract is currently a stormwater detention pond that was constructed to serve the original commercial development plans. As part of this rezoning and redevelopment, we are proposing to replace the open detention basin with a modern underground stormwater management system. This new system will be designed to accommodate runoff from both the existing Keagy Village commercial area and the new residential buildings, ensuring all stormwater is managed safely and efficiently in accordance with current DEQ and Roanoke County standards. By moving the stormwater infrastructure underground, the site becomes fully buildable while maintaining equal or better stormwater performance compared to the existing condition. This approach also improves the aesthetics and functionality of the property—eliminating the large visible pond, providing a more continuouslandscape, and allowing for new housing and green space on a previously underutilized pad. 4) What is the plan, if any, to preserve green space between Townes Hidden Valley and this project? The plan includes preserved green space and landscaped buffers between the apartments and adjacent neighborhoods, including Townes at Hidden Valley. Conceptually, this will include: Alyssa Dunbar, CZA  |  Planner IIPlanning Department5204 Bernard Drive  |  Roanoke, VA  24018(O) 540-772-2078 www.roanokecountyva.gov/planning A minimum 15-foot vegetated buffer where possible, Retained mature trees along the property edges, and Enhanced plantings and fencing as part of the site plan. Additionally, on-site amenities and open spaces—such as walking paths and a clubhouse courtyard—will create attractive and accessible green areas within the development itself. 5) What is the plan for handling a substantially larger amount of traffic onto Keagy Rd & Rt 419, especially construction traffic? Independent traffic engineering studies show that the proposed residential development will generate only about 22% of the traffic that the previously approved commercial center would have produced. That’s a significant reduction in: Peak hour congestion on Route 419, Turning movements at Keagy Road, and Heavy truck and delivery traffic. Construction traffic will be temporarily managed with County-approved access routes and hours to minimize neighborhood impact. The long-term effect will be a net decrease in traffic intensity versus the “by-right” retail plan. 6) What needs to happen to change this proposal into a reasonable, positive project for our community, such as patio homes OR the aforementioned grocery store which would be a positive change for this tract of land? This proposal is the positive evolution of the original plan. The grocery store and commercial concept no longer match the market or community needs, whereas high- quality apartments: Reduce traffic and noise, Create local housing options for professionals, teachers, and first responders, Increase County tax revenue without overburdening infrastructure, and Support the vitality of Keagy Village and surrounding businesses. The County’s comprehensive plan and housing goals increasingly emphasize mixed-use and infill residential development in existing corridors—exactly what this proposal delivers. Thank You, Garrett Zechman Cell: 919.815.2392 Thomas Builders Of VA On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 11:19 AM Alyssa Dunbar <ADUNBAR@roanokecountyva.gov> wrote: Good morning,   I am sending along questions / concerns we received from citizens regarding the rezoning application. Will you please respond to Mrs. and Mr. Swope on any items which you are able to provide answers for?   Thank you,     Megan G. Cronise, AICP  |  Assistant Director of Planning Planning Department 5204 Bernard Drive  |  Roanoke, VA  24018 (O) 540-772-2106 www.roanokecountyva.gov/planning   From: Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 10:32 AM To: Emily Swope Swope <webe3swope@gmail.com> Cc: Doris Kooch <dk315511@gmail.com>; Elmer Hodge <ehodge7@gmail.com>; Philip G. Thompson <PTHOMPSON@roanokecountyva.gov>; Rebecca James <RJAMES@roanokecountyva.gov>; Alyssa Dunbar <ADUNBAR@roanokecountyva.gov> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] - Rezoning of 9.355 acres adjacent to Townes Hidden Valley for multifamily development   Good morning Mrs. Swope,   Thank you for your questions and I added your question sent later and only to me at the bottom of the list. I have copied our Planning staff who are working on the application on this email. Alyssa will forward these questions to the applicant.   Megan Cronise       From: Emily Swope Swope <webe3swope@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2025 2:13 PM To: Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov> Cc: Doris Kooch <dk315511@gmail.com>; Elmer Hodge <ehodge7@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Rezoning of 9.355 acres adjacent to Townes Hidden Valley for multifamily development   Questions: 1)What is the process to rezone this property and why is it necessary? When Keagy Village was built, this land was supposedly designated for a grocery store. We currently have a Publix grocery to be built within 1/2 mile of two large Questions: 1)What is the process to rezone this property and why is it necessary? When Keagy Village was built, this land was supposedly designated for a grocery store. We currently have a Publix grocery to be built within 1/2 mile of two large existing Kroger grocery stores on Brambleton Ave. How can the county justify that expansion there, rather than the original plan for the land off Keagy Road?   2)This area of the county is primarily residential, single family housing. Why does the County wish to use this land for four large apartment buildings ?How will this impact the neighborhood's property values?   3) There is a huge detention area on about a third of this property. How can you propose these multistory buildings on a tract with obvious depressions, very deep ones??   4)What is the plan, if any, to preserve green space between Townes Hidden Valley and this project?   5) What is the plan for handling a substantially larger amount of traffic  onto Keagy Rd & Rt 419, especially construction traffic?   6) What needs to happen to change this proposal into a reasonable, positive project for our community, such as patio homes OR the aforementioned grocery store which would be a positive change for this tract of land?   Additional.concerns: Over crowding of Oak Grove Elementary School and Hidden Valley Middle School, and resulting additional traffic and safety issues      We, along with other residents of our community, respectfully request Roanoke County to reconsider this proposed project. The impact of 4 apartment buildings will negatively affect our community and the surrounding area.   Sincerely,  Dr.John Swope Emily P.Swope 4760 Leigh Lane Roanoke,Va 24018         WARNING: This Message Is From an External Sender, Use Caution! This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system.Report Suspicious Outlook [EXTERNAL] - Planning Commission Meeting November 3rd - Electric (Route 419) and Keagy (685) parcel From Ann Johnson <asjjah@aol.com> Date Tue 10/28/2025 12:04 PM To Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov> Cc Alyssa Dunbar <ADUNBAR@roanokecountyva.gov> Dear Ms. Cronise, I am writing as a resident of The Townes of Hidden Valley (Leigh Lane) to express my concerns regarding the proposed development of a four-building apartment complex containing approximately 225 residential units on the property adjacent to our community. When this site was originally zoned for commercial use, plans called for a small retail establishment—such as a neighborhood grocery store similar in scale to a Trader Joe’s and some additional stores. That type of use would have provided convenient services to nearby residents while generating a manageable and predictable level of traffic. The current proposal for a large multi-building residential complex represents a substantial change in both the type and intensity of use envisioned for this parcel. A development of this scale will significantly increase the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site each day. Unlike a small grocery store, which would generate shorter and more distributed trips throughout the day, an apartment complex will create concentrated traffic during peak morning and evening hours. This is particularly concerning given that the site has only one access point connecting to Keagy Road—a two-lane roadway that already experiences congestion and safety challenges during rush hours. While there is an entrance to the adjacent shopping center off Keagy Road, most residents of the proposed apartments would not use that route to access their homes. Instead, they would rely on the single access point directly on Keagy Road. This intersection is already complex and hazardous, with three roads converging—Keagy Road, Sugar Loaf Mountain Road, and the proposed entrance—without the benefit of a traffic light or roundabout. Current traffic volumes already create safety risks, and additional traffic from this development would only worsen those conditions. Before any approval is granted, I respectfully urge the Commission to: 1. Require a comprehensive traffic impact study evaluating the effect of approximately 225–250 new residential units on Keagy Road and nearby intersections. (The last study, to my knowledge, was conducted in 2004—well before the significant residential and commercial growth that has since occurred in this area.) 2. Assess emergency access and safety concerns related to the proposed single-entry design of the development. 3. Reconsider the zoning designation, as the shift from commercial to high-density residential use represents a major change that will affect the character, safety, and livability of the surrounding neighborhood. Our community supports responsible growth, but it should be balanced, well-planned, and compatible with existing infrastructure and traffic conditions. I respectfully ask that you consider these issues carefully when reviewing this proposal. Thank you for your time and for your ongoing commitment to thoughtful and responsible development in Roanoke County. Sincerely, Ann Johnson 4724 Leigh Lane, Roanoke VA 24018 The Townes of Hidden Valley cc: Alyssa Dunbar, Planner II Megan G. Cronise, AICP | Assistant Director of Planning Planning Department 5204 Bernard Drive | Roanoke, VA 24018 (O) 540-772-2106 www.roanokecountyva.gov/planning WARNING: This Message Is From an External Sender, Use Caution! This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. Report Suspicious Outlook RE: [EXTERNAL] - Public Comment on Rezoning Request – Keagy Village From Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov> Date Wed 10/29/2025 8:13 AM To Dave Porter <dlporter777@gmail.com> Cc Philip G. Thompson <PTHOMPSON@roanokecountyva.gov>; Alyssa Dunbar <ADUNBAR@roanokecountyva.gov>; Rebecca James <RJAMES@roanokecountyva.gov> Mr. Porter, I am copying the staff working on this application to include your email as part of the project file and to share with the Planning Commission. You are welcome to attend the Planning Commission Public Hearing on November 3rd at 7 p.m. and the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing on November 18th at 6 p.m. to express your concerns as well. Both hearings will be held in the first floor Board of Supervisors meeting room at the Roanoke County Administration Center. Megan Cronise From: Dave Porter <dlporter777@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 7:58 AM To: Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Public Comment on Rezoning Request – Keagy Village Dear Members of the Roanoke County Planning Commission, I am writing as a resident of The Townes at Hidden Valley, adjacent to the property of the proposed rezoning located in the Keagy Village area. I respectfully submit this letter in advance ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Dear Members of the Roanoke County Planning Commission, I am writing as a resident of The Townes at Hidden Valley, adjacent to the property of the proposed rezoning located in the Keagy Village area. I respectfully submit this letter in advance of the upcoming public hearing before the Planning Commission and the subsequent hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Overview of Concern The rezoning application proposes the redevelopment of the subject parcel from a commercial zoning district to permit a multi-unit apartment complex. As a neighboring homeowner and stakeholder in the community, I have serious concerns regarding traffic safety, land-use compatibility, and impacts on existing property values. Traffic & Safety Impacts The intersection of Sugar Loaf Mountain Road and Keagy Road is already a heavily used and congested thoroughfare for residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. Increasing the density of residential units at that node—without the installation of a signalized intersection or other substantial traffic mitigation—will increase the volume of vehicles entering and exiting onto Keagy Road, particularly eastbound toward Route 419. The absence of a traffic light at this intersection heightens the risk of traffic incidents and conflicts with pedestrian and family-oriented usage in the nearby residential areas (including families with young children). From a land-use planning perspective, prior to approval of a rezoning it is reasonable to expect a traffic impact analysis and consideration of infrastructure upgrades (signalization, turning-lanes, pedestrian safety measures) as part of the public review and the justification of compatibility with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Property Value and Compatibility with Adjacent Uses My community, The Townes at Hidden Valley, is located directly adjacent to the proposed site. Homeowners chose this location in part because of the mixed-use commercial amenities nearby and the residential character of the neighborhood. The introduction of a large apartment complex immediately adjoining townhomes risks altering the established character of the area, increasing noise, reducing privacy, and thereby potentially diminishing property values. Changes in zoning that significantly increase intensity of use can raise legitimate concerns under the principles of “neighborhood protection” and “reasonable use” as recognized in Virginia land-use jurisprudence. Though property devaluation is not typically a stand-alone legal ground for denial, its potential is a relevant factor in assessing the compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the surrounding neighborhood. Land Use and Community Benefit Considerations The current commercial zoning of the property supports development that could directly serve the local residential community—such as a neighborhood grocery store, café, or other retail services. Such uses align with the County’s goals of creating pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use nodes and sustaining economic vitality of nearby shops and businesses. Permitting high-density apartments instead may reduce the availability of commercial space and diminish the benefit to surrounding residents, while placing additional burdens on infrastructure (roads, parking, traffic) rather than enhancing the community’s service offerings. In reviewing rezoning applications, the Commission and Board should consider whether the proposed new use is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance’s purpose statements, and the intent to maintain orderly transitions between land uses. Request to the Commission In view of the foregoing, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors evaluate the rezoning application with careful attention to the following: Require a thorough traffic and safety study and ensure that adequate mitigation measures (signalization, additional turning lanes, pedestrian controls) are secured prior to approval. Assess the compatibility of higher-density residential use with the adjacent townhome development in terms of scale, density, access, and impact on character and property values. Consider whether maintaining commercial zoning provides a more appropriate use for the site—one that better serves neighbors and enhances the community without imposing disproportionate infrastructure burden. If the applicant moves forward, consider requiring proffered conditions (such as traffic improvements, landscaping buffers, noise mitigation, parking management) to ensure the project is compatible with adjacent uses. Thank you for your careful consideration of my comments and for your service to our community. I appreciate the opportunity to provide input and urge you to act in the interests of maintaining safe, compatible and well-planned growth in Roanoke County. Sincerely, David & Allison Porter 4903 Laryn Lane Roanoke, VA 24018 WARNING: This Message Is From an External Sender, Use Caution! This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system.Report Suspicious Megan G. Cronise, AICP  |  Assistant Director of Planning Planning Department 5204 Bernard Drive  |  Roanoke, VA  24018 (O) 540-772-2106 www.roanokecountyva.gov/planning   Outlook [EXTERNAL] - Re: Planned apart complex/Keagy Village From Gay Walstrum <gwalstrum55@gmail.com> Date Tue 10/28/2025 11:38 AM To Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov> Cc Philip G. Thompson <PTHOMPSON@roanokecountyva.gov>; Rebecca James <RJAMES@roanokecountyva.gov>; Alyssa Dunbar <ADUNBAR@roanokecountyva.gov> Thank you so much for your prompt response.  I will certainly attend the meetings you mentioned. Gay Walstrum On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 11:36 AM Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov> wrote: Mrs. Walstrum,   I am copying Planning staff working on this application so that your comments can be included in the public record. You are welcome to attend the Planning Commission Public Hearing on November 3rd at 7 p.m. and the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing on November 18th at 6 p.m. to also express your concerns.   Megan Cronise       From: Gay Walstrum <gwalstrum55@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 11:00 AM To: Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Planned apart complex/Keagy Village   Dear Ms. Cronise, I am writing to you regarding the proposed development by TPB Enterprises, LLC at 5050 Keagy Road. I am a resident of the Townes at Hidden Valley neighborhood and have concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development Dear Ms. Cronise, I am writing to you regarding the proposed development by TPB Enterprises, LLC at 5050 Keagy Road. I am a resident of the Townes at Hidden Valley neighborhood and have concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on my neighborhood.  I am a widow who has invested a major part of my savings into my home and, as such, am seriously concerned about the following issues: 1.  Our properties will suffer devaluation  2.  There is no way to keep residents of the apartment complex out of our neighborhood.  We have sidewalks which we own that make walking in our neighborhood very attractive and safe.  As there are already signs proclaiming the neighborhood as Private Property which are ignored by non-residents I am quite sure this will be a bigger problem. 3.  The traffic study presented is woefully outdated.  This neighborhood was not in existence when it was perfomed.  All the apartment residents exiting from the Keagy Village parking lot onto Keagy Road is too heavy a burden for this area.  Visibility exiting is not good. 4.  The demographic of my neighborhood is that of retired, elderly and well-to-do residents.  We would be seen as easy prey for those wishing to commit robbery.  We have all worked hard during our lifetimes to achieve the ability to live here and would wish for that to be respected.  Please remind your Board of Supervisors that we all vote regularly in local elections.   Thank you for your time. Gay Walstrum 4787 Laryn Lane Megan G. Cronise, AICP | Assistant Director of Planning Planning Department 5204 Bernard Drive | Roanoke, VA 24018 (O) 540-772-2106 www.roanokecountyva.gov/planning WARNING: This Message Is From an External Sender, Use Caution! This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. Report Suspicious Outlook FW: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Ben Crew - Balzer From Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov> Date Thu 10/30/2025 9:47 AM To Philip G. Thompson <PTHOMPSON@roanokecountyva.gov>; Rebecca James <RJAMES@roanokecountyva.gov>; Alyssa Dunbar<ADUNBAR@roanokecountyva.gov> From: James Walters <jwalters0322@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 9:35 AM To: Ben Crew <ben.crew@westwoodps.com>; EC Hodge <ehodge7@gmail.com>; Doris Kooch <dk315511@gmail.com>; pthompson@roanokecountyva.com Cc: Garrett Zechman <gzechman@thomasbuildersofva.com>; Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov>; Tammy Walters <thwrdh@cox.net> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Ben Crew - Balzer Ben, Thank you for the answers to the additional questions I had, pursuant to your responses I still have some questions based on your answers and additional thought I have put into this situation. In talks with many people in our neighborhood ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEndBen, Thank you for the answers to the additional questions I had, pursuant to your responses I still have some questions based on your answers and additional thought I have put into this situation. In talks with many people in our neighborhood some other concerns were raised that need answers in my opinion. Nearly every household we talked to said additional foot traffic and pets walking in our neighborhood were key items to address in their opinions and I brought that up in the meeting with y'all and was told that topic had been brought up repeatedly that evening. A key item the 5 of us talked about last Wednesday was the potential issue with the property line between THV and Keagy Village and you advised your survey crew would be on site to set stake along the line which they did today, the stakes confirm the property line isadjacent to the Wright's patio. At the same discussion referenced above we discussed the potential impact to the Wright's and THV in general if the line indeed invaded the Wright's patio and Garrett emphatically stated that TPB had no intention and would NOT want to create undue duress to the Wright's or anyone else in the neighborhood and were committed to build a berm, if necessary, and a fence and plant trees to separate the 2 properties. As you stated at that point Ben, things could be adjusted to address this issue. The only way to accomplish paragraph 4 is to shift, in some manner, Building A and/or the associative parking for the building and the current, and future, Keagy Village businesses. In one of your responses to me you stated deleting parking spaces was not an option but did not mention an alternative that would allow paragraph 4 to become a reality. As a neighborhood, we discussed and agreed that having a pre-meeting with County officials before the November 3rd meeting would be beneficial and Mr. Hodge was tasked with trying to get this meeting scheduled. I spoke with Mr Hodge earlier this evening and was both shocked and disappointed to hear he was unsuccessful in his efforts to do so. As I understand it from our conversation he wasadvised by the County representative that it was too late and we should have done this earlier. It has only been 1 week since the meeting was held and the survey issue was confirmed this afternoon as valid. There are serious questions to be answered from these circumstances, outstanding questions yet to be sent to and answered by TPB and Balzer, much less discussions with any of the principles of how to move forward in the best interests of all parties involved. Another serious issue that has popped up from the survey is accessibility for emergency personnel, as well as maintenance and potential future construction work on THV properties along the property line. I noted above there are other questions still to be asked, new and those from your responses, and then answered, but I am holding on to them based on the very disappointing information I have heard this evening. I truly hoped that some further discussions could be scheduled and take place in the near future. Ben, if I am misunderstanding or there is some information or anything you or anyone else can provide please feel free to do so. Michael Walters On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 10:58 AM Ben Crew <ben.crew@westwoodps.com> wrote: Michael – Responses to your outstanding questions in your email. 5. The parking lot will be within +/-2’ of the finished floor elevation of Building A 6. There is a wall proposed on the southern portion of the parking lot. Wall is expected to be between 8-12’ tall. The wall will not be visible from THV. It will be visible from the apartments and parking lot as the elevation is lower than the THV. 17. The parking shown is the minimum allowable for the overall mixed use development. The parking spaces will serve both the apartments project and keagy village commercial users. 18. This shift is challenging without losing parking or being able to transition the pads and grading across the site. 21. Construction process once permitted would E&S Measures, Overall parcel grading, Utility Infrastructure to include storm, sanitary, water, other dry utilities and then building construction. Some of these processes will likely overlap as some of the site is already pad graded. Hope this helps wrap up your questions. Thank you for participating in the neighborhood meeting this week. Ben Crew Director, Land Development 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke, VA 24018 Roanoke / Richmond / New River Valley / Shenandoah Valley main 540.772.9580 direct 540.527.7268 balzer.cc westwoodps.com Please note this email address has changed. New email addresses for Balzer and Associates, a Westwood company, are now in effect. Emails sent to our previous addresses will be forwarded to the new ones. During our transition to Westwood Professional Services, you may receive emails from either address. Thank you for your understanding! From: James Walters <jwalters0322@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 11:04 AM To: Ben Crew <ben.crew@westwoodps.com> Cc: Garrett Zechman <gzechman@thomasbuildersofva.com>; mcronise@roanokecountyva.gov; Tammy Walters <thwrdh@cox.net> Subject: Re: Ben Crew - Balzer CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders you do not trust. Good morning Ben, Attached are the questions I brought up last night, and the ones I still have. I have included in red the answers provided by you and Garrett and notated in red to provide the additional answers to unasked questions. I have copied Megan Cronise from Roanoke County on the email as she requested as well. I do want to thank the 3 of you for taking the time to answer, and discuss as needed, my questions and I am very encouraged by the noted responses provided. Thank you and I look forward to hearing back from you soon. Have a good day, Michael Walters On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 6:55 PM Ben Crew <ben.crew@westwoodps.com> wrote: Ben Crew Director, Land Development main540.772.9580 direct 540.527.7268 WARNING: This Message Is From an External Sender, Use Caution! This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. Report Suspicious ‌ Megan G. Cronise, AICP | Assistant Director of Planning Planning Department 5204 Bernard Drive | Roanoke, VA 24018 (O) 540-772-2106 www.roanokecountyva.gov/planning From:Megan Cronise To:Philip G. Thompson; Alyssa Dunbar; Rebecca James Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 9:10:46 AM Attachments:icon.pngimage001.png From: James Walters <jwalters0322@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 3:50 PM To: Ben Crew <ben.crew@westwoodps.com>; Garrett Zechman <gzechman@thomasbuildersofva.com>; Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov>; Tammy Walters <thwrdh@cox.net>; Doris Kooch <dk315511@gmail.com>; EC Hodge <ehodge7@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Ben and Garrett, There is quite a lot of distress within the THV neighborhood that has been relayed to me over the last few days while I have been gone, pursuant to that I have a question for the 2 of you. Please understand that I am speakingZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Ben and Garrett, There is quite a lot of distress within the THV neighborhood that has been relayed to me over the last few days while I have been gone, pursuant to that I have a question for the 2 of you. Please understand that I am speaking only for myself by sending this email to you and I cannot attend the meeting tomorrow night in person. In the attachment in my 10/23 email I noted the responses from you and Garrett regarding the survey line issue that has since been confirmed by Balzer. I was pleased with the responses provided from both of you on the Wright's potential issue, as you both noted during our talk accommodating the Wright issue, placing variations of the buffer zone shown on the rendering and building a fence, which Garrett noted TPB was committed to doing, was feasible. I did send a follow up email questioning the answer you provided about deleting parking spaces was not an option, but, accommodating the 3 items would require an adjustment or a deletion to accomplish as I see it, if I am wrong please advise such. Garrett, is TPB willing to provide a proffer to address the 3 items noted that would be included and recorded in the official planning commission meeting minutes and report to be sent to the Board of Supervisors and become part of the County approval if it is granted to TPB in the future? Thank you both for your time and I look forward to hearing back from you soon, Michael Walters 540-354-4222 On Sun, Nov 2, 2025 at 1:21 PM Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer- daemon@googlemail.com> wrote: Message not delivered There was a problem delivering your message to pthompson@roanokecountyva.com. See the technical details below. LEARN MORE The response was: The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. For moreinformation, go to https://support.google.com/mail/answer/7720[roanokecountyva.com 208.91.197.27: timed out] WARNING: This Message Is From an External Sender, Use Caution! This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. Report Suspicious ‌ Megan G. Cronise, AICP | Assistant Director of Planning Planning Department 5204 Bernard Drive | Roanoke, VA 24018 (O) 540-772-2106 www.roanokecountyva.gov/planning From:Megan Cronise To:Philip G. Thompson; Rebecca James; Alyssa Dunbar Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 9:11:33 AM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage001.png From: James Walters <jwalters0322@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 7:33 AM To: Ben Crew <ben.crew@westwoodps.com> Cc: Garrett Zechman <gzechman@thomasbuildersofva.com>; Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov>; Tammy Walters <thwrdh@cox.net>; Doris Kooch <dk315511@gmail.com>; EC Hodge <ehodge7@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Good morning Ben, Thank you for the quick response sir. I will clarify the 3 items: 1- the rendering shows construction activities taking place into the Wrights patio by ~6" (and the 15' buffer zone beginning there as well with a wallZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Good morning Ben, Thank you for the quick response sir. I will clarify the 3 items: 1- the rendering shows construction activities taking place into the Wrights patio by ~6" (and the 15' buffer zone beginning there as well with a wall running along this line at the corner nearest their property) When we discussed this y'all said TPB had no intention or desire to work that closely to their property and/or denying them and the neighbor access to the rear of their respective properties. 2- the 15' buffer zone starting at the same point and wiping out the existing buffer bushes. Y'all stated that the buffer zone could be amended to alleviate this issue and a berm built raising the zone vertically as well. Nothing concrete but when Balzer and TPB had all the facts yu felt something could be done to avoid this. 3- as we discussed and apparently several other THV people brought up people coming from the apartments and using our neighborhood to walk, run and walk their pets, etcetera. We discussed, and Garrett stated, that TPB is committed to building a fence along this line, albeit in some sort of amended configuration based on # 's 1 and 2 above. A combo of the berm and the fence together would basically separate the 2 properties as much as possible and would greatly reduce, or alleviate, the concern many people have voiced. As I said in the email above I am only speaking for myself on these issues. I will also add that I expect the amenities noted on the rendering will include a pool and dog specific areas, etc, as seen at other TPB properties. Thank you again for the quick response, Michael Walters On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 6:11 AM Ben Crew <ben.crew@westwoodps.com> wrote: Michael – Can you please clarify directly the 3 items that you note below. I want to ensure we are aligned on what these are and consist of – Thank you. Ben CrewDirector, Land Development 1208 Corporate Circle, Roanoke, VA 24018 Roanoke / Richmond / New River Valley / Shenandoah Valley main 540.772.9580 direct 540.527.7268 balzer.cc westwoodps.com Please note this email address has changed. New email addresses for Balzer and Associates, a Westwood company, are now in effect. Emails sent to our previous addresses will be forwarded to the new ones. During our transition to Westwood Professional Services, you may receive emails from either address. Thank you for your understanding! From: James Walters <jwalters0322@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 3:50 PM To: Ben Crew <ben.crew@westwoodps.com>; Garrett Zechman <gzechman@thomasbuildersofva.com>; mcronise@roanokecountyva.gov; Tammy Walters <thwrdh@cox.net>; Doris Kooch <dk315511@gmail.com>; EC Hodge <ehodge7@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) CAUTION: External Sender. Please do not click on links or open attachments from senders youdo not trust. Ben and Garrett, There is quite a lot of distress within the THV neighborhood that has been relayed to me over the last few days while I have been gone, pursuant to that I have a question for the 2 of you. Please understand that I am speaking only for myself by sending this email to you and I cannot attend the meeting tomorrow night in person. In the attachment in my 10/23 email I noted the responses from you and Garrett regarding the survey line issue that has since been confirmed by Balzer. I was pleased with the responses provided from both of you on the Wright's potential issue, as you both noted during our talk accommodating the Wright issue, placing variations of the buffer zone shown on the rendering and building a fence, which Garrett noted TPB was committed to doing, was feasible. I did send a follow up email questioning the answer you provided about deleting parking spaces was not an option, but, accommodating the 3 items would require an adjustment or a deletion to accomplish as I see it, if I am wrong please advise such. Garrett, is TPB willing to provide a proffer to address the 3 items noted that would be included and recorded in the official planning commission meeting minutes and report to be sent to the Board of Supervisors and become part of the County approval if it is granted to TPB in the future? Thank you both for your time and I look forward to hearing back from you soon, Michael Walters 540-354-4222 On Sun, Nov 2, 2025 at 1:21 PM Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer- daemon@googlemail.com> wrote: Message not delivered There was a problem delivering your message to pthompson@roanokecountyva.com. See the technical details below. LEARN MORE The response was: The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. For moreinformation, go to https://support.google.com/mail/answer/7720[roanokecountyva.com 208.91.197.27: timed out] WARNING: This Message Is From an External Sender, Use Caution! This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. Report Suspicious ‌ Megan G. Cronise, AICP | Assistant Director of Planning Planning Department 5204 Bernard Drive | Roanoke, VA 24018 (O) 540-772-2106 www.roanokecountyva.gov/planning From:Megan Cronise To:Colleen Conlee Cc:Philip G. Thompson; Alyssa Dunbar; Rebecca James Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] - Apartment complex Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 9:12:56 AM Attachments:image001.png Mr. and Mrs. Conlee, Thank you for your email. I am copying staff members working on this case and they will save in thefile and share with the Planning Commission. You are welcome to attend the Planning Commission Public Hearing tonight, November 3rd at 7 p.m. and the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing on November 18th at 6 p.m. to express your concerns as well. Both hearings will be held in the firstfloor Board of Supervisors meeting room at the Roanoke County Administration Center. Megan Cronise From: Colleen Conlee <conlee49@aol.com> Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 7:57 AM To: Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Apartment complex If approved we would like a fence as well as the buffer to be installed by the builder/developer separating our properties. Collleen and Steve Conlee Sent from my iPad ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEndIf approved we would like a fence as well as the buffer to be installed by the builder/developer separating our properties. Collleen and Steve Conlee Sent from my iPad WARNING: This Message Is From an External Sender, Use Caution! This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. Report Suspicious From:Alyssa Dunbar To:Rebecca James; Philip G. Thompson Subject:Fw: [EXTERNAL] - Comment For Re-zoning Application 5050 Keagy Road Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 11:11:25 AM From: dian edmisten <dedmisten66@aol.com> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 5:56:09 PM To: Alyssa Dunbar <ADUNBAR@roanokecountyva.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Comment For Re-zoning Application 5050 Keagy Road Attention: Alyssa Dunbar Planner II Reason: Opposing the requested zoning change by T.P.B Enterprises, LLC to R-4C High Density Multi=family Residential District with conditions to construct muli-family dwelling units, located at 5050 Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Dear Mrs. Dunbar, The zoning changes requested for the development proposed by T.P.B Enterprises for High Density Multi-Family Residential District at 5050 Keagy Road will have multiple short- and long-term negative impacts to adjacent residents in the Townes of Hidden Valley and specifically my residence located at 4921 Towne Drive. Stormwater – There will be a high potential for sediment and erosion discharges to residences and natural habitats downgrade from the construction site. These discharges will be difficult if not impossible to mitigate. Current stormwater systems directly connected and downstream of the proposed development were not designed to accommodate such a large-scale development upstream. Noise pollution - Construction equipment will be a disturbance that will occur daily as part of long-term construction. Long term noise pollution will greatly reduce the quality of life for residents adjacent to the proposed high density residential development site. Long term occupation will permanently and negatively impact baseline decibel levels and will not be possible to mitigate. Air Pollution - Fugitive dust and air pollution will be a constant negative impact to all residents located in vicinity of the construction site. Safety – Construction personnel will greatly increase traffic to the residential road system that is not designed for the large-scale needs of a high-density development construction site. The long-term increase in population due to the development will severely impact first responder times (fire, medical, first aid, and infrastructure support). This development will require major upgrades to support services and road systems. These were not planned for by current zoning standards. Please continue to inform me and other residents regarding this process and status of this proposed re-zoning application so that we may provide comments. Best Regards, Dian Edmisten 4921 Towne Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 540-655-9032 dedmisten66@aol.com WARNING: This Message Is From an External Sender, Use Caution! This message was sent from outside the Roanoke County email system. Report Suspicious ‌ Megan G. Cronise, AICP | Assistant Director of Planning Planning Department 5204 Bernard Drive | Roanoke, VA 24018 (O) 540-772-2106 www.roanokecountyva.gov/planning From:Megan Cronise To:Donna Greene Cc:Philip G. Thompson; Alyssa Dunbar; Rebecca James Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] - Keagy Village Rezoning Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 9:09:04 AM Attachments:image001.png Mr. and Mrs. Fix, Thank you for your email. I am copying staff members working on this case and they will save in the file and share with the Planning Commission. You are welcome to attend the Planning Commission Public Hearing tonight, November 3rd at 7 p.m. and the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing on November 18th at 6 p.m. to express your concerns as well. Both hearings will be held in the first floor Board of Supervisors meeting room at the Roanoke County Administration Center. Megan Cronise From: Donna Greene <2467drummer@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2025 2:56 PM To: Megan Cronise <MCRONISE@roanokecountyva.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Keagy Village Rezoning We are current residents of the Townes at Hidden Valley on Laryn ln. Our concerns are as follows about the “rezoning”. 1. An up to date traffic study needs to be done for this area and not one that was conducted 20 yrs ago before making a decision. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEndWe are current residents of the Townes at Hidden Valley on Laryn ln. Our concerns are as follows about the “rezoning”. 1. An up to date traffic study needs to be done for this area and not one that was conducted 20 yrs ago before making a decision. 2. Environmental concerns:Consider a larger green space between properties be developed and our property so not to interfere with the current established community. 3. Consider homeowner development with patio/condos instead of rentals like apartments. 4. Reduce number of buildings from 4 to 3 as well as number of stories from 4 to 3 as not to compromise the beauty of the area.5. There should be a definite separation between communities as we are paying HOA fees that support 86 homes and cannot support the stress of another community having the advantage of our amenities. We understand that the property was purchased for commercial development. This is such an eco-friendly and beautiful area of the county. In making your decisions, we ask you to consider the above suggestions to contribute to the future positive growth of this area. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely,Robert and Donna Fix 4786 Laryn ln Roanoke, Va 24018 Sent from my iPhone T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC Rezone approximately 9.355 acres of land zoned C-2CS, High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and special use permit, to R-4C, High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions to construct multi-family dwelling units Board of Supervisors Public Hearing November 18, 2025 Location Map2 Project Site •5050 Keagy Road •14.617-acre property •9.355 acres to be rezoned to R-4C •5.262 acres to remain C-2CS •Petition is for a multi-family dwelling unit development 3 4 Community Outreach •278 mailers sent to adjoining property owners and tenants •Community meeting held Wednesday, October 22, 2025, at the Brambleton Center (Gymnasium) •Approximately 40 citizens attended •Representatives of the applicant, Planning staff, and VDOT all in attendance •6 comment forms received •Emails sent in by citizens with issues and concerns Photographs5 Photographs6 Photographs7 Photographs8 Photographs9 Photographs10 11 Concept Plan 12 Concept Elevations 13 Concept Elevations Zoning Existing Zoning C2CS, High Intensity Commercial with Special Use Permit 14 Surrounding Zoning North- C1C, R2 South- C1, R1 East- City of Roanoke Commercial and Residential West- R1 Future Land Use15 Core •A future land use area where high intensity urban commercial and high-density residential developments are encouraged. • Land uses within core areas may parallel the central business districts of Roanoke, Salem and Vinton. Core areas may also be appropriate for larger-scale highway-oriented retail uses and regionally based shopping facilities. •The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Core future land use designation Comprehensive Plan Cont.16 Oak Grove Center Plan •This property is located within the Oak Grove Center Plan area. •The Oak Grove Center Plan’s vision states: “Oak Grove is an attractive and vibrant village center. The area boasts thriving businesses, places to gather, housing options, and extensive parks and trails. Travel options are safe and accessible for all ages and abilities, and connect the center to adjacent neighborhoods, greenways and surrounding areas.” •The plan mentions the following visions, principles, and recommendations which the proposed rezoning is consistent with: •Encourage mixed-use development in a pedestrian-friendly environment •Create welcoming spaces •Provide accessible connectivity throughout the plan area •Establish a transitional area between commercial development and the existing residential neighborhoods •Encourage multiple housing types for different ages, incomes, and abilities Planning Commission Public Hearing – November 3, 2025 17 •One (1) citizen spoke during the public hearing. The concerns/issues raised included: •commercial viability and success were raised as concerns during initial rezoning in 2004; •number of apartments; •height of apartments; •visual impact of development to surrounding neighborhoods; and •preference to original concept versus what is being proposed. Planning Commission18 •The County also received emails on the proposed project. Concerns included: •buffers and fencing; •update traffic study from 2004; •Include a large green space between communities; •prefer patio homes or townhouses over apartments; •reduce number of buildings from 4 to 3 and reduce the number of stories in each building from 4 stories to 3 stories; •traffic and safety concerns especially the Keagy Road/Sugarloaf Mountain intersection; •property values; •compatibility of land uses; •density is too high; •stormwater and runoff issues; and •noise and air pollution concerns during construction. Planning Commission19 •Planning Commission discussed: •the future land use designation for this property over time; •the Oak Grove Center Plan; •the 2004 Traffic Study; •the number of trips generated by the original commercial project versus the proposed multi- family development; •decrease in proposed traffic; •traffic improvements outlined in 2004 Traffic Study were constructed/installed; •traffic decrease on Route 419 over time; •fencing and buffers; •existing commercial buildings; •stormwater regulations (quality and quantity); •site development process; •height of apartment buildings; •number of public notices sent out; •site lighting; and •shortage of housing in the County. Planning Commission Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning request from C-2 to R-4 with the following proffered condition: 20 1.The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the drawing entitled “KV Residential Community Development Plan,” prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., a Westwood Company, dated 9/12/2025, subject to any revisions required by the review agencies during the site plan review process. Questions? 21 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 Douglas P. Barber, Jr. Kathryn Thomas SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS SAMPLE MOTIONS The petition of T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC to rezone approximately 9.355 acres of land zoned C-2CS (High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and a special use permit) to R- 4C (High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions) to construct multi- family dwelling units at 5050 Keagy Road, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District MOTION TO APPROVE I find that the proposed rezoning request: 1. Is consistent with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan and the Oak Grove Center Plan’s vision, principles, and recommendations, 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, removing all existing proffers attached to the property, and imposing the following one (1) proffer: 1. The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the drawing entitled “KV Residential Community Development Plan,” prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., a Westwood Company, dated 9/12/2025, subject to any revisions required by the review agencies during the site plan review process. 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 2. Is not good zoning practice, and/or 3. Will result in substantial detriment to the community. I therefore MOVE THAT WE DENY the rezoning request as it has been requested. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 5204 Bernard Drive, P.O. Box 29800  Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 MOTION TO DELAY ACTION I find that the required information for the submitted proposal is incomplete. I therefore MOVE TO DELAY action until additional necessary materials are submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Page 1 of 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2025 ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 9.355 ACRES OF LAND ZONED C-2CS (HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS AND A SPECIAL USE PERMIT) TO R-4C (HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS) TO CONSTRUCT MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AT 5050 KEAGY ROAD, IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC is requesting to rezone approximately 9.355 acres from C-2CS (High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and a special use permit) to R-4C (High Density Multi-Family Residential District with conditions) to construct multi-family dwelling units at 5050 Keagy Road (a portion of Roanoke County Tax Map #067.18-02-01.01-0000), in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 28, 2025, and the second reading and public hearing were held on November 18, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 3, 2025; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition as it has been requested, removing all existing proffers attached to the subject property (an approximately 9.355 acre portion of Roanoke County Tax Map #067.18-02-01.01-0000) and imposing one (1) new proffer; 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 T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC to rezone approximately 9.355 acres from C-2CS (High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and a special use permit) to R-4C (High Density Multi-Family Residential District Page 2 of 3 with conditions) to construct multi-family dwelling units at 5050 Keagy Road (a portion of Roanoke County Tax Map #067.18-02-01.01-0000), in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, is hereby approved with the following one (1) proffer: a. The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the drawing entitled “KV Residential Community Development Plan,” prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc., a Westwood Company, dated 9/12/2025, subject to any revisions required by the review agencies during the site plan review process. 2. All existing proffers attached to the subject property (an approximately 9.355 acre portion of Roanoke County Tax Map # 067.18-02-01.01-0000) are hereby removed. 3. The Board finds that the request, as submitted by T.P.B. Enterprises, LLC, is consistent with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan and the Oak Grove Center Plan’s vision, principles, and recommendations. 4. The Board further finds that approval of the request is good zoning practice and will not result in substantial detriment to the community. 5. The proffers attached to the remaining portion of Roanoke County Tax Map #067.18-02-01.01-0000 that are not subject to this request shall remain in effect, pursuant to Ordinance #062204-10. The special use permit attached to the remaining portion of Roanoke County Tax Map #067.18-02-01.01- 0000, that is not subject to this request, shall remain in effect pursuant to Ordinance #032806-12. Page 3 of 3 6. 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.