HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/1998 - Regular
October 27,1998
695
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
October 27, 1998
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of October, 1998.
N RE: CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Nickens called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Harry C. Nickens, Supervisors Fenton F.
"Spike" Harrison, Joseph McNamara, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Bob L. Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk; John M.
Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Don C. Myers,
Assistant County Administrator; Anne Marie Green, Director,
Community Relations
IN RE:
OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County
Administrator. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
INRE:
REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
696
October 27, 1998
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Mahoney added an Executive Session item pursuant to Section 2.1-344
A (5) to discuss the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous
announcement has been made of expanding the facilities
IN RE:
PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS
1... Proclamation declarina the Week of October 25 - 31. 1998 as Red
Ribbon Week in Roanoke County.
Vice Chairman Nickens presented the proclamation to Ms. Gia Koehler, Co-
Chair of the Roanoke Area Youth Substance Abuse Coalition (RA YSAC). She distributed
red ribbons which are designated as a symbol of intolerance of illegal drug use and a
commitment to a drug-free life style to the Supervisors and County staff.
Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the proclamation. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
2.. Presentation of Compass Award to County Administrator.
Ms. Anne Marie Green, Director, Community Relations, presented the award
from the Blue Ridge Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America to Mr. Hodge. She
explained that the Compass Award is given to a Chief Executive Officer who believes in
October 27, 1998
697
-
and supports public relations within his or her organization, and Mr. Hodge was chosen
to receive the award this year based on his commitment to two-way communications with
the citizens of Roanoke County and his support of the Blue Ridge Chapter of PRSA.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1... Annual Report from Blue Ridge Communi tv Services (BRCS)
Board. (Rita Gliniecki. Roanoke County representative)
Ms. Gliniecki advised that a report was provided previously to the members
of the Board listing services the BRCS provided during 1998. She emphasized several
points in the report including that the Mental Heath, Mental Retardation and Substance
Abuse Divisions provided 2,435 units of prevention and 49,805 units of treatment services
to the County residents. She also updated the Board on three recent mandated legislative
actions, and advised that the five participating localities have adopted resolutions
designating the BRCS as an operating board rather than an advisory board. Also. all
localities have approved the Performance Contract, and the ratio of consumers and family
members on the BRCS will be addressed as the terms expire.
INRE:
NEW BUSINESS
1... Request to apDropriate refund from Virginia Public School
Authority on Refunding of Series 1994B VPSA Bond Issue.
(Diane Hyatt. Director. Finance)
~
October 27, 1998
-
R-102798-1
Ms. Hyatt advised that the County was notified by the Department of the
Treasury that the Virginia Public School Authority refunded the Series 1994B School VPSA
Bonds during the spring and that $42,209.54 has been allocated to the County as its
savings refund. She has been advised that these proceeds must be used for school
capital projects, and they must be spent within six months of the scheduled closing date
of November 12, 1998. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Harrison moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
RESOLUTION 102798-1 TO APPROPRIATE REFUND FROM THE
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY ON REFUNDING OF SERIES
1994B VPSA BOND ISSUE
WHEREAS, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (THE "BOARD") OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (THE "COUNTY") AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, USE OF PROCEEDS
CERTIFICATE AND ANY OTHER NECESSARY OR USEFUL TAX LAW DOCUMENTS
IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISTRIBUTION BY THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL
AUTHORITY OF THE NET SAVINGS REALIZED BY THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL
AUTHORITY THROUGH THE ISSUANCE BY THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL
AUTHORITY OF ITS SCHOOL FINANCING AND REFUNDING BONDS (1997
RESOLUTION) SERIES 1998 A, CERTAIN OF THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH REFUNDED
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BOND, SERIES 1994 A;
AND AUTHORIZING ANY OTHER ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE
OBJECTIVES CONTEMPLATED HEREBY
October 27, 1998
699
-
WHEREAS, the Virginia Public School Authority (the "Authority") pursuant
a resolution duly adopted on June 26, 1991, as amended, supplemented and restated (the
"1991 Resolution") issued, amongst other series, two certain series of bonds designated
as "Virginia Public School Authority School Financing Bonds (1991 Resolution) Series
1992" and 'Virginia Public School Authority School Financing Bonds (1991 Resolution)
Series 1994 B" (the "1991 Resolution Bonds") for the purpose of purchasing general
obligation school bonds of certain cities and counties within the Commonwealth of Virginia;
WHEREAS, the Authority used a portion of the proceeds of the 1991
Resolution Bonds to purchase certain duly authorized and issued general obligation
school bonds of the County of Roanoke, Virginia designated County of Roanoke, General
Obligation School Bond, Series 1994 A ("Local School Bonds");
WHEREAS, the Authority refunded certain of the 1991 Resolution bonds (the
"Refunded Bonds") from a portion of the proceeds of its Virginia Public School Authority
School Financing and Refunding Bonds (1997 Resolution) Series 1998 A (the "Refunding
Bonds") issued pursuant to a resolution duly adopted by the Authority on October 23, 1997
(the "1997 Resolution");
WHEREAS, the Authority anticipates delivering to the County of Roanoke,
its allocable share of the savings realized from the refunding of the Refunded Bonds;
WHEREAS, the Authority in effecting the refunding has pledged the Local
School Bonds for the benefit of the holders of Bonds issued under its 1997 Resolution;
WHEREAS, the Authority is required to assist the underwriters (the
"Underwriters") of the Refunding Bonds with their duty to comply with Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule");
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the County of Roanoke, Virginia to
execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement in order for the Authority to assist the
Underwriters in complying with the Rule, and;
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the County of Roanoke, Virginia to
execute a Use of Proceeds Certificate and any other instruments necessary or useful to
evidence compliance with the requirements for maintaining the tax-exempt status of the
Virginia Public School Authority's bonds;
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia
considers it to be advisable for the County to fulfill the request of the Authority to execute
a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, Use of Proceeds Certificate and other instruments
necessary or useful to comply with requirements for maintaining said tax exempt status;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
1. Continuina Disclosure Agreement.
The County Administrator and such officers as he may designate are
hereby authorized to enter into a Continuing Disclosure Agreement in the form presented
at this meeting as Exhibit A hereto, containing such covenants as may be necessary in
order for compliance with the provisions of the Rule.
700
October 27, 1998
-
2. Documentation Reauired for Tax Law PurDoses.
The officers of the County of Roanoke Virginia are hereby authorized
and directed to execute a Use of Proceeds Certificate and any other instruments, including
an 8038-G form, (collectively, the ''Tax Documents") necessary and useful for evidencing
compliance with the requirements for maintaining the tax-exempt status of the Virginia
Public School Authority's bonds.
3. Further Actions.
The members of the Board and all other officers, employees and
agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or anyone of them
may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the execution and delivery of the
Continuing Disclosure Agreement end the Tax Documents and any such action previously
taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
4. Effective Date.
This resolution shall take effect immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
2.. Resolution of support for "Proiect Impact" sponsored by the
Federal EmerQency Management AQencv. (Anne Marie Green.
Community Relations Director)
R-102798-2
Ms. Green advised that the Roanoke Valley was chosen by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a Project Impact community and is eligible
to apply for a grant to support this project. The Fifth Planning District Commission is
serving as the coordinating agency for the local governments. FEMA requires a resolution
of support from the local governments since a match, split on a 75/25% basis, is necessary
to obtain the funding. The match can include staff time as well as contributions from area
October 27, 1998
701
-
businesses and individuals. Project Impact was created by FEMA to aid in creating
disaster resistant communities. It is a public-private partnership involving the federal
government, the state and local governments, along with the private sector and individual
citizens. The Roanoke Valley was chosen as the Project Impact community for the State
of Virginia because of its past experience with disasters, particularly flooding and the
mutual response which the localities use in reacting to those situations. The
interjurisdictional Stormwater Master Plan was also a deciding factor in choosing the
Valley for this designation. She asked that the Board approve the resolution so that it
could be included in the grant application and Roanoke County can continue to participate
in Project Impact. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
RESOLUTION 102798-2 EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR PROJECT
IMPACT AND AGREEMENT TO COMMIT STAFF AND RESOURCES TO
THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, millions of dollars are spent every year by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency on disaster relief and clean-up; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley has experienced several natural disasters
over the past fifteen years, including flooding, hurricanes and severe winter storms; and
WHEREAS, FEMA has created Project Impact to assist communities across
the United States in becoming disaster resistant, thereby identifying and preventing
potential damage, saving money, lives and property; and
702
October 27, 1998
-
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley has been chosen as the first Project Impact
community in the Commonwealth of Virginia, which will allow the Valley to obtain federal
funding to serve as a catalyst for working with other governmental entities and the private
sector to create a disaster-resistant community; and
WHEREAS, the grant available from FEMA requires a match from the local
governments, which can be met through staff time and donations from private sources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors does hereby extend its support for Project Impact, and agrees to commit staff
time and resources to making the project a success in the Roanoke Valley and to meet the
match required to obtain the funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
IN RE:
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF REZONING
ORDINANCE - CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for November 17, 1998. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
1... Ordinance to rezone aDproximately 0.75 acre from R-1 to C-1 to
allow an accounting office in an existina house. located at 3716
Colonial Avenue. Cave Spring Magisterial District. UDon the
Detition of Mark Harrell.
IN RE:
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
-
Oet6h~r'7 1398
763
1... Second readim;¡ of ordinance authorizinQ auitclaim and release
of a water and sanitarv sewer easement within the cul-de-sac of
Otter Park Court and located between Lot 8. Block 2, Section 3
and Tract A-1. Block 2. Section 3 of the Groves. in the Cave
Spring Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey. Director of
Communitv Development)
0-102798-3
Mr. Covey advised that there have been no changes since the first reading
of the ordinance. There was no discussion and no citizens to speak on this issue.
Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Johnson
ORDINANCE 102798-3 AUTHORIZING QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE OF
WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT WITHIN THE CUL-DE-SAC
OF OTTER PARK COURT AND LOCATED BETWEEN LOT 8, BLOCK 2,
SECTION 3, AND TRACT A-1, BLOCK 2, SECTION 3, OF THE GROVES
IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, in order for Otter Park Court to be accepted into the state
secondary road system, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requires that
the right-of-way be free and clear of any third party rights or encumbrances; and,
WHEREAS, VDOT has requested quit-claim and release of an existing water
and sanitary sewer easement, twenty feet (20') in width, within the cul-de-sac of Otter Park
Court and located between Lot 8, Block 2, Section 3, and Tract A-1, Block 2, Section 3, of
the Groves, being a portion of the easement acquired by deed recorded in Deed Book
704
October 27, 1998
-
1412, page 364, and shown on plat recorded in Plat Book 15, page 150, to the
Commonwealth of Virginia, subject to certain conditions; and,
WHEREAS, it will serve the interests of the public to have Otter Park Court
accepted into the state secondary road system and the release, subject to the issuance
of a permit and other conditions, will not interfere with other public services and is
acceptable to the Roanoke County Utility Department.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke
County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by
ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on October 13, 1998; and a second
reading was held on October 27, 1998.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be released are hereby made available for
other public uses by conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia for acceptance of Otter
Park Court into the state secondary road system by the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT).
3. That quit-claim and release of the water and sanitary sewer easement
within the cul-de-sac of Otter Park Court and located between Lot 8, Block 2, Section 3
and Tract A-1, Block 2, Section 3 of the Groves, to the Commonwealth of Virginia, is
hereby authorized subject to the following conditions:
a. VDOT issuance of a permit for the water and sanitary sewer
lines or facilities.
b. The facilities located within the 50-foot right-of-way, between
Lot 8, Block 2, Section 3, and Tract A-1, Block 2, Section 3, of the
Groves, may continue to occupy the street or highway in the existing
condition and location.
c. The release would be for so long as the subject section of
Otter Park Court is used as part of the public street or highway
system.
4. That the subject easement is not vacated hereby and shall revert to
the County in the event of abandonment of the street or highway.
5. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator
is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be
necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the
County Attorney.
6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its
adoption.
O~tOhAP"7 4GGA
.
705
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
fOllowing recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
IN RE:
APPOINTMENTS
1... Blue RidQe Alliance for Oraan and Tissue Donation
Supervisor Nickens reappointed Mary Allen for another two year term.
1.. Building Code Board of Adjustment and Aopeals
Supervisor Nickens asked the Clerk to see if the members would be willing
to serve another term.
~ Grievance Panel
Supervisor Nickens asked the Clerk to see if the members would be willing
to serve another term.
4. New Century Venture Center Board of Directors
Supervisor Nickens asked that a staff member or citizen be appointed at the
next meeting.
§.. VirQinia's First Regional Industrial Facilities Authority
Roanoke County representatives were appointed at the beginning of the
evening session.
IN RE:
CONSENT AGENDA
706
October 27, 1998
-
R·102798-5. R·102798- 5.b
Supervisor McNamara advised that he endorsed Vice Chairman Nickens to
serve on the Virginia Association of Counties Board of Directors, and Supervisor Minnix
concurred.
Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the Consent Resolution. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
RESOLUTION 102798-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN
ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I -CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for
October 13, 1998 designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved
and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 6, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes for September 8, 1998, September 22, 1998,
and October 7, 1998.
2. Request for endorsement of Supervisor Harry C. Nickens to serve
as Region Nine representative on the Virginia Association of
Counties Board of Directors.
3. Resolution requesting acceptance of Belmont Court and a portion
of Derby Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation
Secondary Road System.
4. Acceptance of water and sanitary sewer facilities serving
Winterberry Point, Section 2.
October 27, 1998
707
-
5. Acceptance of off-site sanitary sewer facilities serving Winnbrook,
Section 1.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby 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 resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Consent Resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
RESOLUTION 102798-5.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF BELMONT
COURT AND A PORTION OF DERBY DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(a),
fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by
the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form
SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements. and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Recorded Vote
Moved By:
Seconded By:
Yeas:
Nays:
Absent:
Supervisor Minnix
None Required
SUDervisors McNamara. Minnix Harrison. and Nickens
None
SUDervisor Johnson
708
October 27, 1998
~
INRE:
REPORTS
Supervisor Minnix moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by a unanimous voice vote with Supervisor Johnson absent.
1. General Fund Unaooropriated Balance
Z. Caoital Fund Unappropriated Balance
¡, Board Continaency Fund
4. Future School Capital Reserve
~ Proclamation sic;aned by the Chairman
§... Report on history of Roanoke County Woman's Club during its
75th Anniversary
L. Report of Claims Activity for the Self-Insurance ProQram
INRE:
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 3:30 p.m., Supervisor Nickens moved to go into Executive Session
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A. (3)
acquisition of real estate for public purposes for: (a) water transmission line easement and
(b) library; and Section 2.1-344 A (S) to discuss the expansion of an existing business or
industry where no previous announcement has been made of expanding the facilities. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
None
October 27, 1998
709
=
ABSENT:
Supervisor Johnson
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1... Long Range Development Planning (Brent Robertson. Budget
Manaaer)
The work session was held from 3:30 p.m., until 4:25 p.m. and presented by
Brent Robertson and Steve Kleiber. Mr. Robertson explained that at the E-Team's
direction (a group comprised of departmental directors, assistant county administrators,
and constitutional officers), a team was formed to examine possible long range planning
needs of the county and to develop a proposal to addresses those needs. On October 2,
1998, a report was made to the E-Team, and it was decided to make this same
presentation to the Board members. Mr. Robertson advised that successful organizations
have a unity of purpose, a clear sense of direction, a map for where they are headed, and
a plan to get there, and that is what this team is attempting to accomplish.
2.. Discussion on the Community Plan (Janet Scheid. Senior
Planner)
The work session was held from 4:25 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. and was presented
by Janet Scheid, David Holladay, Terry Harrington, and Don Witt, Chairman, Planning
Commission. Supervisor Nickens presented his list of possible changes to the document
and several were discussed. It was the consensus of the Board that: (1) a work session
710
October 27, 1998
~
=
will be held on December 1, 1998 with the revised document; (2) all comments are due in
writing to the staff by November 20, 1998; (3) the second reading and public hearing are
being delayed from November 27, 1998 until January 12, 1999; and (4) the Board
members will submit their additional comments to staff.
IN RE:
CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-102798-6
At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Minnix moved that the Executive Session was held
from 6:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m., and to adopt the Certification Resolution. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
RESOLUTION 102798-6 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS HELD
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has
convened an executive 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 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification
by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive 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 members knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this
certification resolution applies, and
October 27, 1998
7U
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion
convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Certification Resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
IN RE:
APPOINTMENTS
1... VirQinia's First Regional Industrial Facility Authority
A-102798-4
Supervisor Nickens advised that there will be a meeting of this Authority
before the next Board Meeting, and that Roanoke County representatives need to be
appointed at this meeting.
Supervisor Nickens moved to appoint Timothy W. Gubala, Economic
Development Director, and Supervisor Bob L. Johnson; and to appoint Joyce W. Waugh,
Economic Development Assistant Director, and Supervisor Fenton F. Harrison as
alternates. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
IN RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION
712
October 27, 1998
.
Vice Chairman Nickens advised that the Board would go into Executive
Session at the end of the evening session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344
A (3) acquisition of real estate for public purposes, with no action being anticipated
afterwards.
IN RE:
PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1.. Public Hearina and first reading of ordinance to adopt a new
Community (Comprehensive) Plan for Roanoke County. Virginia.
(Janet Scheid. Senior Planner)
Ms. Scheid advised that the draft Community Plan had its foundation in the
1995-96 visioning process, and she expressed appreciation to all of the citizens and to the
Board members and staff who were involved in this process. Over the past three years,
Roanoke County has been involved in an extensive outreach program to involve its
citizens in the development of the new Community Plan. The first component was the
visioning process which begin in February, 1995. Focus groups met and made a series
of recommendations to the Board in a public meeting. The second component was
neighborhood-based citizens participation. In August 1996, the Board appointed a
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) which developed a citizen participation process and
created 12 neighborhood councils. More than 100 citizen meetings were held, and the
CAC hosted a committee forum to present the results of the neighborhood councils. In
July, 1998, the draft Community Plan was presented to the Planning Commission.
October 27, 1998
713
-
Comments were received from many organizations, and staff prepared written responses.
The Planning Commission held a series of workshops to review the document, and
additional meetings were held with neighborhood councils. On October 6, 1998, the
Planning Commission held a public hearing when representatives from the Roanoke
Regional Homebuilders Association asked for more time for citizen input. This plan has
been developed in accordance with Section 1S.2 of the Code of Virginia and is a flexible
document and subject to interpretation. Amendments may be initiated by any County
landowner andlor the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Scheid asked for approval of the
Roanoke County Community Plan dated September 30, 1998, along with the following:
(1) Roanoke County Demographic and Economic Profile, dated September, 1996; (2)
Roanoke County Community Plan Citizen Participation Process, dated 1997; (3) Route
419 Frontage Development Plan, originally approved February, 1987; (4) Roanoke River
Corridor Study, adopted in December, 1990; (S) Conceptual Greenway Plan, adopted
April, 1997, and (6) Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan, adopted
March, 1998.
Mr. Don Witt, Chairman of the Roanoke County Planning Commission,
advised that the Planning Commission believes that this document reflects the values of
the community. He feels that the plan encourages industry. He highlighted features of the
plan that are unique and urged the Board to support the plan.
714
October 27, 1998
-
Vice Chairman Nickens, on behalf of the Board and the County citizens,
thanked Ms. Scheid, the planning staff, Mr. Witt and the Planning Commission members
for the work that they have done on this plan.
Director of Economic Development Tim Gubala advised that the economic
development chapter in the Community Plan is based on the strategy that the Board
adopted in April, 1998. Roanoke County has had an economic development strategy since
1985. The Community Plan provides a long range guidance and framework with which
economic development can occur in Roanoke County, and the economic development
strategy is a work plan that guides the daily operations.
Vice Chairman Nickens announced that members of Boy Scout Troop #39
from West Salem Baptist Church were in attendance to work on their merit badges for
communications, citizenship and community.
The following citizens spoke regarding the Community Plan:
~ Ruoert Cutler. 2685 South Jefferson Street. advised that he
supported adoption of the Community Plan as it appears now.
2. Elaine C. Bell. 5836 Old Locke Court. President-Elect, Roanoke
Valley Association of Realtors, asked that the Board vote on the plan in January, 1999;
and that they were not in favor or opposed but needed an opportunity to review it.
3. Liz Belcher. 5998 Grandin Road Ext. Roanoke Valley Greenways
Coordinator, congratulated the Board on the process used to create the plan, and the
October 27, 1998
715
-
inclusion of greenways in the plan, and advised that in May, 1999, the first Governor's
Conference on greenways and trails will be held in Roanoke.
~ Keith Austin. 5320 Twilight Rd. General Manager, Lamar
Advertising, advised that he believes that amortization of existing billboards is impractical
and unconstitutional, and that since 1991, only 4 billboards have been erected but 12
taken down.
5. Leon T. McGhee. P. O. Box 667. Vinton, advised that he was
concerned about individual property rights, and that areas east of 460 are being down
zoned.
6. Rick Phlegar. 5867 ChaQal Circle, asked if the plan dealt with Route
419 and warned that this could lead to situations found in Fairfax and northern Virginia.
1... David Radford. 5337 Longridge Dr, had concerns about land use
map; did not have sufficient time to study; asked for more information in the economic
development section and to identify quantative issues.
8. Joe Miller. 2812 Lonaview Ave. advised that the plan is based on the
vision process to the year 2010 without constraints, and would like for staff to supply the
data and a road map to get there.
9. Charles Blankenship. 5215 Suaar Loaf Dr. Roanoke Valley Urban
Forestry Council, advised that they have been working on greenways and trees, and that
he supports the plan and the protective measures.
716
October 27, 1998
-
1º'- Roger K. Egbert. 3571 Bradshaw Rd. advised that he supports the
plan; that the plan has balance, with provisions for economic development and
preservation.
11.. Paul Hicks. 1520 Penley Blvd. advised that he owns land on which
he has billboards, and he does not want to lose this source of income.
1.2.. Steve Strauss. 5100 Bernard Dr. representing the Roanoke Regional
Home Builders Association, advised that the plan should have been made available to the
public sooner; that they needed more information; apologized for the press conference
held earlier; asked that the second reading be delayed until January, 1999; and asked that
another work session be scheduled for group discussion.
ll.. Jim Woltz. 23 Franklin Rd. advised that he believes in property
rights; that there was not adequate notice; the conservation overlay needs refining; and
asked that conservation not be forced.
14. Rick Whitney. 200 Knollwood Dr. BlacksburQ. VA. advised that
there should be a delay until the first of the year to allow citizens to see the final document.
Vice Chairman Nickens announced that during the earlier work session on
this item, it was the consensus of the Board to have another work session with the revised
plan at their meeting on December 1, 1998; that the first reading will be approved tonight,
and that the second reading of the ordinance delayed until January 12, 1999. He asked
that comments from all interested citizens or organizations be given in writing to Ms.
Scheid or staff by November 20, 1998, and asked that the comments be specific.
October 27, 1998
717
-
Supervisor McNamara asked that these comments from interested groups also be copied
to the Board members. Supervisor Nickens advised that copies of the plan are already in
all of the County libraries and within the next few days, it will be on the Roanoke County
Home Page on the Internet.
Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for January 12, 1999. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
INRE:
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1.. Second readina of ordinance to vacate a 6·foot portion of a 60-
foot unimproved right-of-wav referred to as Thomas Drive as
recorded in Plat Book 9. Paae 179, located in the Catawba
Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey. Director of Community
Development)
0-102798-7
Mr. Covey advised that staff is recommending that the 6-foot portion of the
unimproved right-of-way be vacated on the condition that an additional 6-foot portion of
the new right-of-way be dedicated so that the new right- of-way for Thomas Drive remains
718
October 27, 1998
.-
60 feet in width. He reported that there had been no change since the first reading. There
was no discussion and no citizens to speak on this issue.
Supervisor Harrison moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
ORDINANCE 102798-7 VACATING A 6-FOOT PORTION OF A 60-FOOT
UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS THOMAS DRIVE, CREATED
ON MAP OF SECTION NO.3, CAMPBELL HILLS, PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE
179, AND FURTHER SHOWN ON RESUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THOMAS,
LTD., PLAT BOOK 19, PAGE 176, IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, by subdivision plat entitled "MAP OF SECTION NO.3,
CAMPBELL HILLS" dated May 28, 1980, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 9, page 179, the owner dedicated a 60-
foot right-of-way known as Thomas Drive; and,
WHEREAS, Thomas Drive is further shown on plat entitled
"RESUBDIVISION FOR THOMAS, LTD.", recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat
Book 19, page 176; and,
WHEREAS, the subject portion of Thomas Drive, along the southern property
line of Lot 18-A (P.B. 19, pg. 176), formerly Lot 18 (P.B. 9, pg. 179), Section 3, Campbell
Hills, is currently an unimproved right-of-way; and,
WHEREAS, the Petitioner, Thomas, Ltd., is the developer of Campbell Hills
subdivision and is the current owner of Lot 18-A and the remainder tract of land on the
opposite side of Thomas Drive, designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax
Map No. 63.03-01-04; and,
WHEREAS, as a result of a 5.2' encroachment of the house constructed on
Lot 18-A into the 30-foot building setback line, the Petitioner has requested that a portion
of Thomas Drive, 6 feet in width and extending along the southern property line of Lot 18-
A, be vacated pursuant to §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); and,
October 27, 1998
719
-
WHEREAS, in exchange, the Petitioner has agreed to dedicate additional
right-of-way on the opposite side of Thomas Drive to maintain the right-of-way at the same
width; and,
WHEREAS, this vacation, subject to the conditions herein, will not involve
any cost to the County and the affected County departments have raised no objection; and,
WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by §15.2-2204 of the Code
of Virginia (1950, as amended), and the first reading of this ordinance was held on October
13, 1998; the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on October
27, 1998.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That a portion of Thomas Drive, 6' in width and extending along the
southern boundary of Lot 18-A, being designated and shown as "0.040 ACRE BOUNDED BY
CORNERS 3, 8, 9, 10,6, 5, 4 TO 3 INCLUSIVE BEING VACATED BY COUNTY OF ROANOKE" on Exhibit
A attached hereto, said right-of-way having been dedicated on the subdivision plat entitled
"Map of Section No.3, Campbell Hills" dated May 28, 1980, and recorded in the aforesaid
Clerk's Office in Plat Book 9, page 179, and being further shown on plat entitled
"Resubdivision For Thomas, Ltd.", recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 19,
page 176, in the Catawba Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, be, and
hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as
amended), subject to the following conditions:
a. That the section of Thomas Drive which is located within the area
designated as '55 ft. radius temporary turnaround' shall be excepted
from this vacation and shall continue to constitute a portion of the
temporary turnaround until such time as Thomas Drive may be
extended and the temporary turnaround may be vacated.
b. That additional right-of-way, 6 feet in width, on the opposite side of
Thomas Drive, being designated and shown as "O.065± ACRE
BOUNDED BY CORNERS 11 THRU 17 TO 11 INCLUSIVE BEING DEDICATED TO
COUNTY OF ROANOKE BY THOMAS, LTC." on Exhibit A attached hereto, be
dedicated by subdivision plat as part of Thomas Drive.
c. That the vacated portion of Thomas Drive is hereby reserved and
retained as a public utility easement for a total easement width of 21'
when added to the existing 15' public utility easement along Thomas
Drive on Lot 18-A.
d. That fee simple title to the vacated portion of Thomas Drive shall vest
in the owner of the abutting property (Lot 18-A) as provided in §15.2-
2274 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), subject to the
720
October 27, 1998
-
above-described public utility easement and subject to the condition
that the vacated area of land shall be added and combined, by deed
or by plat, to said abutting property, in compliance with the Roanoke
County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, and other applicable
laws and regulations.
e. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not
limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the
responsibility of the Petitioner; and,
2. That the County Administrator, an Assistant County Administrator, or
any County Subdivision Agent is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take
such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of
which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney.
3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its
adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with §15.2-2272.2 of the
Code of Virginia (1950, as amended).
On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
2. Second reading of ordinance enacting Sections 10-9.1. 2. 3. and
4 in Article I of Chaoter 10 Licenses of the Roanoke County Code
to incolporate and conform with recent General Assembly
legislation regarding limitation on gross receipts for pari-mutuel
waaering. real estate brokers. providers of funeral services. and
staffing firms for business. professional and occupational
license tax pUlposes. (Paul Mahoney. Countv Attorney)
0-102798-8
October 27, 1998
721
-
Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the second reading and public hearing of
a proposed ordinance to incorporate recent legislation into the Roanoke County Code.
These state statutes contain special provisions for limitations on gross receipts in
determining business, professional and occupations license taxes due from the following
specific businesses: pari-mutuel wagering, real state brokers, providers of funeral services
and staffing firms. The ordinance will be effective as of January 1, 1999 to coordinate with
the County's license tax year of January 1 to December 31. He advised that there have
been no changes since the first reading and no citizens were present to speak on the
issue. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
ORDINANCE 102798-8 ENACTING SECTIONS 10-9.1,10-9.2,10-9.3 and
10-9.4 IN ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 10 LICENSES OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE TO INCORPORATE AND CONFORM WITH RECENT
LEGISLATION ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGARDING
LIMITATION ON GROSS RECEIPTS FOR PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING,
REAL ESTATE BROKERS, PROVIDERS OF FUNERAL SERVICES, AND
STAFFING FIRMS FOR BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL, AND
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX PURPOSES
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of Chapter 37 (Section 58.1-3700, et
seq.) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the County of Roanoke, Virginia, imposes
a business, professional, and occupational license (BPOL) tax through the adoption of an
ordinance codified in Chapter 10 of the Roanoke County Code; and,
722
October 27, 1998
WHEREAS, the 1998 General Assembly enacted §58.1-3732.3 to limit the
gross receipts of providers of funeral services and §58.1-3732.4 to limit the gross receipts
of staffing firms for BPOL tax purposes; and,
WHEREAS, §58.1-3732.1 related to limitation on gross receipts for pari-
mutuel wagering and §58.1-3732.2 related to limitation on gross receipts for real estate
brokers are similar, previously existing provision of the state code; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors deems it appropriate, for informational,
conformity and consistency purposes, to incorporate the cited state code provisions into
Chapter 10 of the Roanoke County Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of these uniform
provisions, by incorporation into the existing ordinance, will serve the public interest and
will benefit the citizens and taxpayers of Roanoke County; and,
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been published in a
newspaper of general circulation within Roanoke County on October 13, 1998, and
October 20, 1998; and,
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 13, 1998,
and the second reading and public hearing was held on October 27,1998.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Sections 10-9.1, 10-9.2, 10-9.3 and 10-9.4 in Chapter 10,
LICENSES of the Roanoke County Code be enacted as follows:
Chapter 10. LICENSES·
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
-
Sec. 10-9.1. Limitation on "gross receipts" - Pari-mutuel wagering. Gross receipts for
license tax purposes under this chapter and under Chapter 37 (§58.1-3700 et seq.) of the
Code of Virginia shall not include the license and admission taxes established under
§§59.1-392 and 59.1-393 of the Code of Virginia, respectively, nor shall it include pari-
mutuel wagering pools as established under §59.1-392 of the Code of Virginia.
Sec. 10-9.2 Limitation on "gross receipts" - Real estate brokers. Gross receipts of real
estate brokers for license tax purposes under this chapter and under Chapter 37 (§58.1-
3700 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia shall not include amounts received by any broker
which arise from real estate sales transactions to the extent that such amounts are paid
to a real estate agent as a commission on any real estate sales transaction and the agent
is subject to the business license tax on such receipts. The broker claiming the exclusion
shall identify on its license application each agent to whom the excluded receipts have
been paid, and the jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia to which the agent is
subject to business license taxes.
October 27, 1998
723
Sec. 10-9.3 Limitation on "gross receipts· - Providers of funeral services. Gross receipts
of providers of funeral services for license tax purposes under this chapter and under
Chapter 37 (§58.1-3700 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia shall not include amounts
collected by any provider of funeral services on behalf of, and paid to, another person
providing goods or services in connection with a funeral. The exclusion provided by this
section shall apply if the goods or services were contracted for by the provider of funeral
services or his customer. A provider of funeral services claiming the exclusion shall
identify on its license application each person to whom the excluded receipts have been
paid and the amount of the excluded receipts paid by the provider of funeral services to
such person. As used in this section, "provider of funeral services" means any person
engaged in the funeral service profession, operating a funeral service establishment, or
acting as a funeral director or embalmer.
Sec. 10-9.4 Limitation on "gross receipts· - Staffing Firms.
(a) Gross receipts for license tax purposes under this chapter and under
Chapter 37 (§58.1-3700 et seq.) shall not include employee benefits paid by a staffing firm
to, or for the benefit of, any contract employee for the period of time that the contract
employee is actually employed for the use of the client company pursuant to the terms of
a PEO services contract or temporary help services contract. The taxable gross receipts
of a staffing firm shall include any administrative fees received by such firm from a client
company, whether on a fee-for-service basis or as a percentage of total receipts from the
client company.
(b) F or the purpose of this section:
"Client company" means a person, as defined in §1-13.19, that enters into
a contract with a staffing form by which the staffing firm, for a fee, provides PEO services
or temporary help services.
"Contract employee" means an employee performing services under a PEO
services contract or temporary help services contract.
"Employee benefits" means wages, salaries, payroll taxes, payroll
deductions, workers' compensation costs, benefits, and similar expenses.
"PEO services" or "professional employer organization services" means an
arrangement whereby a staffing firm assumes employer responsibility for payroll, benefits,
and other human resources functions with respect to employees of a client company with
no restrictions or limitations on the duration of employment.
"PEO services contract" means a contract pursuant to which a staffing firm
provides PEO services for a client company.
"Staffing firm" means a person, as defined in §1-13.19, that provides PEO
services or temporary help services.
"Temporary help services" means an arrangement whereby a staffing firm
temporarily assigns employees to support or supplement a client company's workforce.
"Temporary help services contract" means a contract pursuant to which a
staffing firm provides temporary help services for a client company.
724
October 27, 1998
-
2. That the provisions contained in this ordinance shall be in effect on and
from January 1, 1999.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
-ª... Second reading of ordinance authorizina a Special Use Permit to
construct a 100 ft. cellular monooole tower and suooort buildimi!.
located on Catawba Valley Drive. 0.75 mile west of Oakey-Dol on
Rd.. Catawba Magisterial District. upon the petition of U. S.
Cellular. (TerrY Harrington. County Planner)
0-102798-9
Mr. Harrington advised that this is the request of U. S. Cellular to obtain a
special use permit to construct a 100 foot cellular monopole tower and support building.
The Planning Commission approved the petition with seven recommended conditions. Mr.
Harrington described each of the seven conditions, and asked that the Board approve the
special use permit. Supervisor Harrison asked several questions, but there was no
discussion and no citizens present to speak on the issue.
Supervisor Harrison moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
"
October 27, 1998
725
-
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
ORDINANCE 102798-9 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO UNITED
STATES CELLULAR TO CONSTRUCT A 100 FOOT CELLULAR
MONOPOLE TOWER AND SUPPORT BUILDING ON CATAWBA VALLEY
DRIVE. 0.75 MILE WEST OF OAKEY-COLON ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 8.04-
1-42), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, United States Cellular has filed a petition to construct a 100
foot cellular monopole tower and support building located on Catawba Valley Drive, 0.75
mile west of Oakey-Dolon Road (Tax Map No. 8.04-1-42) in the Catawba Magisterial
District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter
on October 6, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a
first reading on this matter on September 22, 1998; the second reading and public hearing
on this matter was held on October 27, 1998.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to United
States Cellular to construct a 100 foot cellular monopole tower and support building
located on Catawba Valley Drive, 0.75 mile west of Oakey-Dolon Road (Tax Map No. 8.04-
1-42) in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved with the following
conditions:
1) The height of the tower structure, including any antenna attached to
the structure, shall be no more than 87' or 20' above the surrounding
trees, whichever is higher. Only a monopole broadcasting tower
design with 7' whip antennas shall be permitted.
2) The final site development plan shall generally conform with the
"Concept Plan of Mason Cove Cellular Site" prepared by Engineering
Concepts, Inc. in July of 1998.
3) No grading or clearing shall be done outside of the 100' X 100' leased
lot except for what is necessary for the 12' access road at a 20
grade.
4) The tower structure, antenna, and all attached support hardware shall
be a brown flat matted color so as to better blend into the landscape
and reduce visibility and light reflection. In addition any other
726
October 27, 1998
=
accessory structures and fencing shall be of a material and color that
blends into the landscape, reducing visibility and light reflection.
5) No lighting shall be installed on the tower structure or equipment
building except for security lighting not to exceed a height of 25 feet
in height, except as may be required by the FAA or other
governmental or regulatory agency.
6) The tower shall be structurally designed to carry sufficient loading,
and the site shall have the potential to accommodate the additional
equipment necessary for at least one other vendorslproviders of
communications services, in order to minimize the proliferation of
towers in the vicinity of this site. In addition, by executing the special
use permit requested, the applicant agrees to make the tower
available for lease within the structural capacity of the tower and at
reasonable costs adequate to recover the capital, operating and
maintenance costs of the tower location required for the additional
capacity.
7) If the use of the tower structure for wireless communications is
discontinued, the tower structure shall be dismantled and removed
from the site within 30 days of notice by the County and the special
use permit shall become void.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is
directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification
authorized by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
4. Second reading of ordinance authorizing a Soecial Use Permit to
ooerate a bed and breakfast from an existing home. located at
5209 Catawba Valley Drive. Catawba Magisterial District. upon
October 27, 1998
727
-
the petition of David and Lucy Downs. (TerrY Harrington. County
Planner)
0-102798-10
Mr. Harrington advised that this is a request for a special use permit to
operate a bed and breakfast from an existing home, and is compatible with the rural village
land use designation. Staff anticipates that there will be no negative impacts on the rural
community. The Planning Commission recommended approval with one recommended
condition: signage will be limited to 3' by 4'. There was no discussion and no citizens
present to speak on the issue.
Supervisor Harrison moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
ORDINANCE 102798-10 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO DAVID
& LUCY DOWNS TO OPERATE A BED AND BREAKFAST FROM AN
EXISTING HOME AT 5209 CATAWBA VALLEY DRIVE (TAX MAP NO.
7.00-2-4.17), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, David and Lucy Downs have filed a petition to operate a bed
and breakfast from an existing home located at 5209 Catawba Valley Drive (Tax Map No.
7.00-2-4.17) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter
on October 6, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a
first reading on this matter on September 22, 1998; the second reading and public hearing
on this matter was held on October 27, 1998.
728
October 27, 1998
=
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to David
and Lucy Downs to operate a bed and breakfast from an existing home located at 5209
Catawba Valley Drive (Tax Map No. 7.00-2-4.17) in the Catawba Magisterial District is
substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the
provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use
Permit is hereby approved with the following condition:
(1) Signage will be limited to 3' x 4'.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions
of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is
directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification
authorized by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Harrison to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
5. Second reading of ordinance authorizing a Special Use Permit to
develop and ODerate a used automobile dealership. located in
the 3100 block of Brambleton Avenue. Cave Sprina Magisterial
District. upon the oetition of Mark Houah. (Terry Harrinaton.
County Planner)
0-102798-11 - DENIAL
Mr. Harrington advised that this is a request for a special use permit to
develop and operate a used automobile dealership on a vacant, C-2 zoned property on
Brambleton Avenue. The proposal includes a concrete block building for office space, a
detaillservice area for vehicles, and a display area for vehicles situated to the side and
October 27, 1998
729
-
offset from the immediate front of the building. The site is designated transition by the
1985 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission expressed concern about buffering
requirements, that there are no topography plans and no elevation is provided, building
material, stormwater detention, and parking areas. The Planning Commission
recommended approval with five recommended conditions: (1) Signage on the site shall
comply with all C-1 sign standards; (2) The display of portable signs shall be prohibited;
(3) There shall be no vehicles missing major mechanical or body parts or having
substantial damage maintained or stored on the site; (4) There shall be a 25-foot rear
setback for the buildings; (5)AII denuded embankments will be replanted or landscaped;
and (6) The service bay doors will be oriented to the side.
The following citizens were present and spoke on this issue:
1... Rudy Cox. Rudy Cox Realtors. 3512 Brambleton Ave. spoke in
favor of granting the special use permit and advised that he has been trying to sell the
property for six years. He related that there are 162 businesses from the County line to
Route 419 with 10 automobile related services.
2.. Horace McPherson. 3661 Forester Road, who lives directly behind
this property, asked that the special use permit be denied because it cannot be controlled,
and there is a safety problem with this location.
~ Ellen Holtzman. 3511 Forester Road. asked that the special use
permit be denied because she does not believe the .753 acre parcel of land can
accommodate the display and sale of vehicles.
730
October 27, 1998
=
4. Craig Baltzer. architect for the petitioner, responded to the concerns
of the citizens.
In response to Supervisor McNamara's inquiry about the discrepancy
between 35 cars parked on the lot as indicated by the architect at the Planning
Commission meeting, and 20 cars in the application, Mr. Harrington advised that there are
28 parking spaces.
Supervisor Minnix advised that since this is a transition area and not properly
zoned, he could not support the request. He asked Mr. Hodge and staff to help the
applicant look at other areas of the Cave Spring District to locate their business.
Supervisor Minnix moved to deny the ordinance. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: Supervisor McNamara
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
DENIAL OF ORDINANCE 102798-11 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
TO MARK HOUGH TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE A USED AUTOMOBILE
DEALERSHIP LOCATED IN THE 3100 BLOCK OF BRAMBLETON
AVENUE (TAX MAP NO. 77.10-2-5), CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Mark Hough has filed a petition to develop and operate a used
automobile dealership located in the 3100 block of Brambleton Avenue (Tax Map No.
77.10-2-5) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter
on October 6, 1998; and
~
October 27, 1998
731
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a
first reading on this matter on September 22, 1998; and the second reading and public
hearing on this matter was held on October 27, 1998.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to DENY the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: Supervisor McNamara
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
§. Second readina of ordinance on a oroposal of the Roanoke
Countv Plannina Commission to amend and re-enact Section 30-
28. 30-29-7 and 30-87-2 of the Roanoke County Zonina Ordinance
to adopt new standards pertainina to the development of
broadcastina towers within Roanoke County. (Terry Harrinc;Jton.
Countv Planner)
0-102798-12
Mr. Harrington advised that this is the final draft of an ordinance with
proposed changes to the zoning regulations pertaining to broadcasting towers, and the
ordinance was approved by the Planning Commission after holding a public hearing on
October 6, 1998. The draft reflects the work of the Citizens Advisory Committee and the
suggestions of the Commission. The proposed changes can be classified into three major
categories. First, the ordinance contains a series of policy statements and statements of
intent that layout Roanoke County's objectives regarding the siting of towers and the
provision of wireless communication services. Second, significant changes have been
732
October 27,1998
-
made to the current application process (and application materials required). If adopted,
increased information will be required with an application so that the staff, Commission,
the Board, and the general community can fairly evaluate a specific proposal. Third, the
ordinance contains an enhanced set of general standards and review policies that are tied
back to the policy statements and application process materials. These changes will give
the County an effective basis to review future tower requests and serve as a clear guide
for future applicants. There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on the
issue.
Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
ORDINANCE 102798-12 AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 30-
28, 30-29-7, AND 30-87-2 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE TO ADOPT NEW STANDARDS PERTAINING TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF BROADCASTING TOWERS WITHIN ROANOKE
COUNTY
WHEREAS, the United States Congress adopted the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 which imposed certain requirements on local governments with respect to
zoning regulation of telecommunications facilities; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 these
ordinance amendments will provide Roanoke County with an effective basis to review the
future tower applications, and will provide objective standards for the siting of new towers;
and
October 27, 1998
733
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for Roanoke County did hold its public
hearing on this amendment on October 6, 1998, and made a recommendation concerning
approval of the ordinance adopting these amendments to the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia; and,
WHEREAS, in the interest of public necessity, convenience, general welfare,
and good zoning practice, the Board of Supervisors hereby amends certain provisions
concerning broadcasting towers in the various zoning districts of the County; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required
by law, and that the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 22, 1998; and
the second reading and public hearing will be held on October 27, 1998.
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
that the Zoning Ordinance for Roanoke County, be, and hereby is, amended and
reenacted, as follows:
1. That Sections 30-28, 30-29-7, and 30-87-2 be amended and
reenacted as follows:
Amend Section 30-28 Definitions as follows:
Add the Following Definitions:
Antenna Any exterior apparatus designed for telephonic, radio, or television communications
through the sending and/or receiving of electromagnetic waves. Antenna types include, but are not
limited to; omni-directional "whip' antenna, directional panel antenna, parabolic antenna and other
ancillary antenna designs. An antenna does not include the broadcasting tower or other support
structure to which it is attached.
Stealth Design Any broadcasting tower that is designed so that all of its structural components
including associated antennas are camouflaged, disguised or otherwise hidden for the purpose of
making the tower and antennas unnoticeable to the casual observer, or otherwise unrecognizable
as a broadcasting tower.
Amend Section 30-29-7 Miscellaneous Use Types as follows:
Delete:
DFtOADCAGTINC TO'::I:R A 3trtlåtJrG OR ....hic.¡' an ant'R"e or di3h i3 ifl3tsllca fer the
tran3mi33ior'l. broadC83tiRC3 Of' r&eGi.,ing af radio, tGIc..,i3ien, radar, Of micron-aye.!, and 3imilaf' .,1'£3
af dc..ic.C.3. CXGltJeJc.d 8rG aMatc.t:lf radio tOnGP3, uRich 8~ dG3Cribc.d 3cparetGI~.
Add:
734
October 27, 1998
~
=
Broadcasting Tower Any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of
supporting one or more antennas. The tenn includes but need not be limited to radio and television
transmission towers, microwave towers, common-carrier towers, and cellular telephone and
wireless communication towers. Broadcasting tower types include, but are not limited to
monopoles, lattice towers, wooden poles, and guyed towers. Excluded from this definition are
amateur radio towers, which are described separately.
Amend Section 30-87-2 Broadcasting Tower as follows:
Delete:
Gee. 30...fl7 2 Droadea3tinG Tð..W'ar
fA} General 3tal'ldarcb.
1. Tnc. maximum height of a~ breadC83ting to...e.r 3"811 be. ""ad, 8 condition of
the 3peeial tl3e permit.
2. The. ",¡"¡mum 3c.tback rG~l::1irc.mG"t frðm the. 583G of t¡,c. tOnG!" to any
r£3idc.ntial 3trtlctl:Jrc. on an 8å:Ïoinina lot 3"811 be. at IC.S3t c.qtlsl to 40 pc.rGc.nt
ef the height of t¡,c. te...c,F, n.c.83t1red from the. e:;I03G3t 3tl'tlettlral membcr of
the. tOncr (c.x-ch::.lding gtl, linG!). Ctl~ linG! 3"811 be c.xc.mpt from the. miRimtlm
3c.tback reqtJiremc.nt3 in 3idc. and FeSf ~8rd! fer tRe. rG3pc.eti" Co zoning eli3triet,
but 3"811 compl) ';,;th the. 3c.tback rc.ql::1irc.mc.nt3 for the. front ~8rd. (Amended
Orc!. 82493 8)
3. The. miniffltlr'M 3et bael{ from any prepc.rt) ¡¡fiG abtltting 8 read right of na~ for
8n~ ether btlilding or .3trtlettlrc a33eGiat~d n~th a (,roadca!ting tOner 3hall be
50 kGt and in all ether in3tanec.3 31'\all be no le33 than 25 kct.
4. Morc than one to'h'cr 3hall bc permitted pNhideeJ all 3etbael{ rcqui~mGnt3
ha~:G bGGn Met.
S. TOutrs 3hall be iIIumin8t~d 83 fGqtlifGå by the radcrsl CommtJRieøtioFl3
COMmission (reC} and the redGra) Ayiation Administration (rM) btlt nc
lieJRtin§ 3Mall be incofl'orated if not rte tlircd b~ eithef 8gen~ other th8M
e33Gntial scctln!) ligl-lting. (AmGnelGd Ord. a2"~3 S)
B. An~ toner pmpo3cd .fithin 1\'.0 mile.! from an, gcneral ðr comn,ereial airport,
or located at a ground ~le'.8tion at or aboyc 2 ÐÐO ket, ayGrtlgc Mea" 3G8
IGyGl, 3hall be rcfcrre;d te the ðpel'8tor/managcf of the airport fer l'G'i'icn and
comment. Domn.crlb 3hall 8130 bc 3t1bn.ittcd fro". th~ reelersl P",iation
Administration (rAA) n"GrG rAA appro\81 is othc"yi3G rcqtlircd (" Ian.
(Arl'u!l'Ided Orc!. 82493 8)
7. All brðaåC83ting 10n&'3 3hall Gem"l, nit" any additional rc.quircmðnt!
c3tabli3hGd in l"c Airpert Oyerl8~ Di3t,ict in Oeetion 3072 and tRe
Cmtrgcn~ Domml1nication.! OyGrlð) Di3triet in Oðetion 3Ð '73.
October 27, 1998
735
Add:
30-87-2 Broadcasting Tower
A.
Intent.
The intent of these provisions is to regulate the placement of new and replacement
broadcasting towers within Roanoke County. These provisions provide broadcasting tower
applicants, property owners, and all other Roanoke County citizens clear guidance on the official
policies and standards of the County. These policies and standards shall be used by applicants as
a guide when selecting altemative broadcasting tower sites and broadcasting tower designs within
the County. In addition, the County staff, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall use
these policies and standards, the Roanoke County Community Plan and the general Special Use
Permit criteria found in Section 30-19 as a guide for evaluating any future requests for broadcasting
towers.
In the interest of preserving and enhancing the scenic and natural beauty of Roanoke
County it is the goal of the County to achieve a long term reduction in the number of broadcasting
towers within the County, and where possible, to achieve a reduction in the height of existing
broadcasting towers throughout the County, with special emphasis on towers located along or near
the ridgetops of major mountains and land forms. In addition, it is the goal of the County, where
possible, to achieve the relocation of existing broadcasting towers and associated utility and access
corridors which have a high visual impact on scenic resources_ To this end, the County will work
cooperatively with broadcasting tower owners and applicants and land owners to achieve these
goals.
It is the official policy of the County to encourage and promote the co-location of
antennas on existing public and private structures within the County. To achieve this end, the
County encourages all wireless communication providers to locate new antennas on existing
structures. Permits for new broadcasting towers should only be requested when no other
reasonable altemative exists for locating needed antennas.
When new broadcasting towers are proposed as a last altemative, the requested
broadcasting tower location, height and design should be chosen to protect and enhance the scenic
and natural beauty of Roanoke County. Broadcasting tower locations at elevations lower than
surrounding ridge lines are preferred. The use of stealth designs should be considered for any new
broadcasting tower. .
It is the intent of the County to fully comply with all of the applicable provisions of the
federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other applicable federal and state laws as said laws
address and preserve Roanoke County's zoning authority and provide to the communication
industry the right and responsibility to provide communication services within their service areas.
B.
Applicability:
1. These standards shall apply to all new and replacement broadcasting towers
within Roanoke County with the exception that new and replacement broadcasting towers and
associated antenna not exceeding thirty (30) feet in height and located within any commercial or
industrial zoning district shall be permitted by right provided:
736
October 27, 1998
-
a. The proposed tower is a monopole type design; and,
b. The general area of the proposed tower is currently served by above
ground utilities including electric power and telephone poles; and,
c. All other use and design standards for the construction of the
broadcasting tower and associated facilities are met.
2. No modification to increase the height, size, type or location of any existing
broadcasting tower or associated facilities, excluding antennas, shall be made unless such
modification results in the full compliance of the broadcasting tower and facilities with all of the
requirements of this ordinance.
3. Antennas may be installed on any existing structure within the County, without
the necessity of obtaining a special use permit, provided said antenna does not meet the definition
of a broadcasting tower, does not increase the height of the existing structure more than ten (10)
feet, and does not result in the structure and antenna exceeding the maximum structure height for
that zoning district.
4. These provisions shall not apply to any temporary broadcasting tower erected
for the purpose of system design or testing provided the temporary broadcasting tower is erected
for a period not to exceed twenty-one days. In addition, in declared local emergency situations, the
County Administrator shall be authorized to allow the temporary installation of a broadcasting tower
for the duration of the local emergency. A zoning permit pursuant to Section 30-9 of this ordinance
shall be applied for and approved prior to erecting any temporary or emergency tower.
C.
Application Requirements:
1. All potential applicants for broadcasting towers shall consult with County
planning staff at least 30 days prior to submitting an application for a proposed broadcasting tower.
During this consultation the applicant shall present information to the staff on system objectives,
proposed coverage areas, and altemative sites considered and rejected. The staff shall provide the
potential applicant information on Roanoke County policies and standards for broadcasting towers,
and shall discuss with the applicant possible altematives to broadcasting tower construction.
2. In addition to the application requirements contained in Section 30-19-2 of this
ordinance, all applicants for broadcasting towers shall provide the following at the time of application:
a. The location of all other proposed broadcasting tower sites
considered and rejected, and the specific technical, legal or other
reasons for the rejection.
b. The location of all other possible co-location sites considered and
rejected, and the specific technical, legal or other reasons for the
rejection.
October 27, 1998
737
c. Accurate, to scale, photographic simulations showing the relationship
of the proposed broadcasting tower and associated antenna to the
surroundings. Photographic simulations shall also be prepared
showing the relationship of any new or modified road, access or
utility corridors constructed or modified to serve the proposed
broadcasting tower site. The number of simulations and the
perspectives from which they are prepared, shall be established with
the staff at the consultation required in Section C.1. above.
d. A computerized terrain analysis showing the visibility of the proposed
broadcasting tower and antenna at the requested height and
location. If new or modified road, access or utility corridors are
proposed, the terrain analysis shall also show the visibility of these
new or modified features.
e. Information on how the proposed site relates to the applicants
existing communication system, including number of other sites within
the Roanoke Valley, and the location of the antenna at each site
f. All broadcasting tower applicants shall be required, at their expense
to conduct an on-site "balloon" or comparable test prior to the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings on the
Special Use Permit. The purpose of this test shall be to demonstrate
the potential visual impact of the proposed tower. The dates and
periods of these tests shall be established with the applicant at the
pre-application consultation.
g. Written verification that all required submittals to the FAA as required
by Section 30-87-2 D. 6 of this ordinance have been submitted.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees associated with the filing of the
application including the reasonable cost of any independent analysis deemed necessary by the
County to verify the need for the new broadcasting tower. The Board of Supervisors shall establish
these fees, which shall be discussed with the applicant at the pre-application conference.
D.
General Standards:
1. The maximum height of any proposed broadcasting tower and associated
antenna shall be made as a condition of the special use permit, but in no case shall any
broadcasting tower and antenna exceed 199 feet in height. Applicants shall request the lowest
broadcasting tower and antenna height necessary to accomplish their specific communication
objectives.
2. The setback for any proposed broadcasting tower shall, at a minimum,
conform to the requirements for principal structures for the proposed zoning district. However, in
no case shall the minimum setback from the base of the broadcasting tower to any residential
structure on an adjoining lot be less than 40 percent of the height of the tower, measured from the
closest structural member of the broadcasting tower (excluding guy lines). Guy lines shall be exempt
738
October 27, 1998
I
from the minimum setback requirements in side and rear yards for the respective zoning district, but
shall comply with the setback requirements for the front yard.
3. The minimum setback from any property line abutting a road right-of-way for any
other building or structure associated with a broadcasting tower shall be fifty feet. Such buildings
or structures shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any other property line.
4. More than one broadcasting tower shall be permitted on a lot provided all
applicable requirements have been met including setback requirements.
5. Broadcasting towers shall not be illuminated with any type of lighting
apparatus, unless such lighting is a requirement of the FAA or FCC. When lighting is proposed to
confonn to federal requirement, the County shall contact the federal agency to verify the necessity
of lighting, and to determine the minimal amount and type of lighting necessary to comply with
federal guidelines. Security lighting, or a "down lighting" design may be installed on buildings and
structures associated with a broadcasting tower. In no case shall any lighting violate Section 30-94
of this ordinance.
6. Any proposed broadcasting tower within two miles from any general or
commercial airport or located at a ground elevation at or above two thousand feet, average mean
sea level, shall be referred to the appropriate regional office of the FAA for review and comment prior
to filing an application for a special use penn it.
7. All broadcasting towers shall comply with any additional requirements
established in the Airport Overlay District in Section 30-72 of this ordinance, and the emergency
communications overlay district in Section 30-73.
8. Any broadcasting tower approved shall be structurally designed to carry
sufficient loading, and the site approved shall be sized to accommodate the additional equipment
necessary for at least three other vendors/providers of communications services in order to minimize
the proliferation of new broadcasting towers in the vicinity of the requested site. In addition, by
applying and being granted the special use permit, the applicant and the owner of the land agree to
make the broadcasting tower and tower site available for additional leases within the structural
capacity of the broadcasting tower and at reasonable costs adequate to recover the capital,
operating and maintenance costs of the broadcasting tower location required for the additional
capacity.
9. A monopole broadcasting tower design is recommended. The Board may
approve an altemative broadcasting tower design if it finds that an altemative type of structure has
less of a visual impact on the surrounding community and Roanoke County, and/or based upon
accepted technical and engineering data a monopole design is not technically feasible. Cost shall
not be a criteria for detennining broadcasting tower design.
10. No broadcasting towers shall be pennitted within the critical viewsheds of the
Blue Ridge Parkway or Appalachian Trail as shown on any official map designating these
viewsheds and pre-approved by the Board of Supervisors. In addition, no towers shall be proposed
within any other designated area of local scenic, historical, ecological and cultural importance as
designated and approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to the filing of a tower application.
,
October 27, 1998
739
11. By applying and being granted the special use permit, the applicant and the
owner of the land agree to dismantle and remove the broadcasting tower and associated facilities
from the site within ninety days of the broadcasting tower no longer being use for wireless
communications. Dismantling and removal from the site shall only be required after notice by the
County. If antennas on any approved tower are relocated to a lower elevation, the tower shall be
shortened to the height of the highest antenna. A bond or similar performance guarantee may be
required as part of the special use permit approval. Said guarantee will be in an amount sufficient
to ensure removal of the tower and all associated facilities and the reclamation of the property and
road, access and utility corridors to a condition that existed prior to tower construction.
12. All broadcasting tower structures and associated hardware, antennas, and
facilities shall be a flat matted finish so as to reduce visibility and light reflection unless otherwise
required by the FCC or FAA.
13. No business signs shall be allowed on the property identifying the name of,
or services offered by, any business associated with the broadcasting tower.
E.
General Review Policies
All special use permit requests for new broadcasting towers, including the
replacement or modification of existing broadcasting towers shall be reviewed by the staff, Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors on the basis of the following criteria:
1. The extent to which the broadcasting tower proposal conforms to the general
special use permit criteria in Section 30-19 of this ordinance, and the intent, application
requirements, and general standards for broadcasting towers found in these provisions.
2. The demonstrated willingness of the applicant to evaluate co-location
opportunnies within the proposed communication service area, and the demonstrated history of the
applicant choosing co-location sites within the Roanoke Valley.
3. The base and top elevation of the proposed broadcasting tower relative to
surrounding natural land forms. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, broadcasting
tower locations below surrounding ridge lines are preferred.
4. Broadcasting tower locations already served by existing roads and utilities
are preferred due to the potential detrimental environmental and visual impacts resulting from the
construction of new road and utility corridors.
5. Within the needed service area, the availability of other existing structures
that are, based upon independent analysis, of suitable height, design, and location for the needed
antenna.
6. The visibility of the broadcasting tower from the surrounding community and
neighborhood compatibility of the tower as determined by the submitted computer simulations,
terrain analysis and balloon or comparable test.
740
October 27, 1998
=
7. The degree to which the proposed tower location, site design and facilities
induding fencing, buildings and other ground mounted equipment and new or modified road, access
or utility corridors are located, designed and constructed to be compatible with the neighborhood.
2. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
IN RE:
CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens asked that the Board approve funding to proceed
immediately with additions and renovations so that the Glenvar Middle School and Glenvar
High School may operate as fully functional, independent facilities.
(1) Donna WooldridQe. 1675 Richland Hill Dr.. Board member at large
of Glenvar Youth Boosters: (2) Abbe F. Toler. 1475 Wabun Lane. Vice President.
Fort Lewis PTA: (3) Kris Hunter. 4815 Warrior Dr: (4) Lisa Yagle. 5024 Cherokee
Hills Dr.. President. Glenvar Elementary PTA. presented petitions: 15) Jay Huffman.
818 Shirley Rd.. President for 1998-99. Glenvar Middle School PTA. presented
petitions: (6) Linda Palmer. 3379 Bradshaw Rd: (71 Sherry Meredith. 1647 Millwood
Dr.. President. Fort Lewis PTA: 181 Debbie Crawford. 5005 Buffalo Cr.. President.
Glenvar High School PTSA: and 19) William J. Griffin. 1337 Pulaski St.. President.
Glenvar Sports Foundation.
Ms. Barbara Bushnell. 5204 Bearina Road. advised that she supported
the speakers about Glenvar Middle School and asked that everyone work together. She
October 27,1998
741
asked Supervisor Nickens if he received a copy of the contract; and asked the Board to
carefully consider the Special Use Permit for the new South County High School when it
is considered by them.
IN RE:
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor McNamara: (1) He suggested that the Police Department make
an extra effort to patrol the streets on Halloween. (2) He advised that he and Supervisor
Minnix attended the Governor's Class at Cave Spring High School and commended the
students for their excellent attitude and complimented the staff. (3) He asked for an update
on the South County Park from Pete Haislip.
Supervisor Minnix: (1) He advised that he attended a meeting with the
Clearbrook Civic League, and asked Mr. Hodge to contact the Police Chief to have the
area patrolled when the new speed limit signs are posted along Route 220.
Supervisor Harrison: (1) He made several supportive comments in relation
to the Glenvar speakers, and their request for full funding. He asked Ms. Toler if the bricks
that the Glenvar supporters used for their display tonight were those given at the grand
opening at Fort Lewis. He advised the Board members that the school has bricks with
their names on them. He advised that he signed one of the petitions presented in support
of the Glenvar Schools and invited the other supervisors to visit the schools to see the
situation for themselves.
742
October 27, 1998
-
Supervisor Nickens: (1) He advised that the Board received information
about the Virginians to Virginians program, and that they need to set a date for a meeting
with the City of Lynchburg officials. Mr. Hodge was asked to contact them and ask about
having a meeting on Saturday, November 21. (2) He received information from
Congressman Goodlatte that the Blue Ridge Interpretive Center can now utilize $250,000
that previously had restrictions.
INRE:
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 10:15 p.m., Supervisor Nickens moved to go into Executive Session
pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A. (3) acquisition of real estate for public
purposes. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-102798-13
At 10:29 p.m., Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the Certification Resolution.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
October 27,1998
743
ABSENT:
Supervisor Johnson
RESOLUTION 102798-13 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has
convened an executive 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 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification
by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such executive 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 members knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this
certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion
convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Certification Resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:30 p.m., Vice Chairman Nickens moved to adjourn the meeting. The
motion carried by a unanimous voice vote with Supervisor Johnson absent.
Submitted by,
Approved by,
&;-'¿~OIÅ-@; ~flk-
Brenda J. Holt ,CMC
Deputy Clerk to the Board
/ / /7 ,~, ' ,f
I~(i. /tc.e~4...'
Har . Nickens
Vice Chairman
744
October 27, 1998
-
This page left blank intentionally.