Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/8/2005 - Regular February 8, 2005 139 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 February 8, 2005 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of February, 2005. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Michael A. Wray, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Joseph McNamara, Richard C. Flora MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Reverend Bob McAden, Cave Spring United Methodist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS February 8, 2005 140 Mr. Hodge requested that a briefing be added as Item D-1. Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, will brief the Board regarding the Roanoke County Erosion and Sediment Control Program Review by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). There was consensus of the Board to add this item. Mr. Mahoney requested that the Board remove Item F-2 from the agenda. He advised that he has had communications from Charlie Osterhoudt, Attorney, regarding this item. County staff is working to resolve problems with respect to this matter. He advised that the County would proceed with the first reading and public hearing on February 22. Supervisor Church inquired if it is routine for a citizen to request that a first reading of an ordinance be moved to a later date. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative and stated that in this particular instance, Mr. Osterhoudt is acting as the representative for the Homeowners Association and he has been working with County staff for a period of approximately three months to resolve issues pertaining to this matter. There was a consensus of the Board to schedule the first reading and public hearing of this matter on February 22, 2005. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Certificate of recognition to Stacey Craighead, Cave Spring High School, for being named First Team All State – Volleyball by the Virginia High School Coaches Association Chairman Altizer presented the certificate of recognition to Ms. Craighead who was accompanied by her parents. Also present were Dr. Linda Weber, February 8, 2005 141 Superintendent; Dr. Martha Cobble; Cave Spring High School Principal; and Mark Tanis, Coach. 2. Recognition of the Budget Department for receiving the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Chairman Altizer presented the award to Brent Robertson, Budget Director; Chad Sweeney, Budget Administrator; and Cathy Tomlin, Budget Analyst. 3. Recognition of Boy Scouts Chairman Altizer recognized Tim Rowe, Assistant Scout Master - Troop 7, and the following scouts who were working on their citizenship badges: Tim Rowe, Hidden Valley Middle School, and Daniel Rowe, Green Valley Elementary School. IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing regarding the Erosion and Sediment Control Program Review recently conducted by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) Mr. Covey briefed the Board on the results of the Erosion and Sediment Control Program Review recently conducted by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). He stated that for the past 15 years, the Department of Community Development has maintained a strong Erosion and Sediment Control (E&S) program. He noted that the state often conducts periodic audits to see how these programs are February 8, 2005 142 being carried out, as required by Virginia E&S law and regulations. The DCR staff review local E&S programs to assess their effectiveness in controlling soil erosion, sediment deposition and non-agricultural run-off. The most recent review of the Community Development Department took place in October. Since the DCR started program reviews, Roanoke County’s program has been reviewed four times with the last review occurring in November, 1997. At that time, the DCR commented that Roanoke County’s E&S program was being implemented in a very effective manner. All components of the County’s program were operating at or above the “consistent” level. Mr. Covey advised that there are currently 170 local E&S programs throughout Virginia. According to the DCR website, out of the 43 programs reviewed in 2001 and 2002, as of 2003, 33 programs were either rated “Provisionally Consistent” or “Inconsistent”. In other words, these localities have been asked to make changes to strengthen their program. Mr. Covey stated that areas examined in the review which received a score of 70 or greater meet the minimum established standards. Roanoke County’s scores were outlined as follows: (1) Program Administration – 75; (2) Review of Approved Plans – 65; (3) Inspections – 60; (4) Enforcement – 70. Mr. Covey advised that some areas of weakness were noted and steps have been taken to address these issues. As a result of these corrective actions, Roanoke County is now deemed “Provisionally Consistent” with the regulations. The DCR reported further noted that Roanoke County has a strong E&S program that is well administered, and the County’s civil fines procedure has long been a model for other localities. February 8, 2005 143 Supervisor Church inquired how Roanoke County’s E&S program compares with other localities of similar size. Mr. Covey responded that since the program was implemented, Roanoke County has been contacted by most localities in the state of Virginia regarding our process; in addition, he has made presentations to other localities regarding Roanoke County’s process. Supervisor Wray questioned how the County could go from being acceptable in 1997 to unacceptable in 2003. Mr. Covey responded that the review process currently utilized is more detailed; in addition, since 1997, there has been a higher rate of turnover among the inspection staff and plan reviewers. Supervisor Wray requested that he be provided with a copy of the DCR report. Supervisor Wray inquired how many inspectors are on staff in the department. Mr. Covey advised that there are five construction inspectors and four building inspectors. He noted that a career path has been created to provide for cross training inspectors, thereby allowing them to conduct both types of inspections. He stated that technically, there are currently nine E&S inspectors. Supervisor Wray inquired when the follow-up review will occur. Mr. Covey advised that this will occur in May or June 2005, at which time the County will provide documentation for review by the DCR. Supervisor Wray asked for the name of the County’s Development Review Coordinator. Mr. Covey advised that it is Denise Sowder. February 8, 2005 144 Supervisor Altizer inquired whether Roanoke County was one of the first localities to go through this new process. Mr. Covey responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Altizer noted that this was an unfamiliar and new process and that Roanoke County may be ranked at the top or ahead of many other localities. He stated that he is pleased with the timeliness of the response by the Community Development Department in correcting these deficiencies. IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance to accept the conveyance of approximately 9 acres of real estate located on Cove Road from the Roanoke County School Board to the Board of Supervisors for use as the site for the new public safety building. (Dan R. O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. O’Donnell distributed revised copies of the plat for the public safety building. He noted that the only changes are that the sewer easement extends through the School Board property and there is also slightly more road right-of-way to account for the turning lane. He advised that this is the first reading of an ordinance to accept approximately 9 acres of property from the School Board. He stated that action to declare the property as surplus is on the School Board agenda for tomorrow, February 9. Mr. O’Donnell stated that on July 27, 2004, the Board of Supervisors approved a memorandum of agreement with the School Board to accept up to ten acres of property February 8, 2005 145 adjacent to the Roanoke County School Board Administrative Offices at 5937 Cove Road to be used as the site of the new Roanoke County public safety building. In exchange for this property, the Board of Supervisors agreed to provide a replacement warehouse, the transfer of the current public safety building at 3568 Peter’s Creek Road upon its vacation by the County public safety agencies, and agreed to assist in obtaining funding for future renovations of the current public safety building. Mr. O’Donnell stated that in order to proceed with the timely development of the public safety building, it is necessary to have the property subdivided and transferred to the County Board of Supervisors. Hurt and Proffitt Incorporated, working under the auspices of Northrop-Grumman Corporation, has prepared the preliminary plat. The plat has been reviewed by School Board facilities staff, presented at a School Construction Committee meeting on January 21, 2005, discussed at the joint meeting between the County Board of Supervisors and the School Board held on January 24, 2005, and formally introduced to the School Board as an informational item at the January 26, 2005 School Board meeting. He stated that it is expected that the School Board will act at its February 9, 2005 meeting to declare the property surplus, thus allowing the Board of Supervisors to obtain ownership of the property upon approval of an ordinance, the first reading of which is this agenda item. The land transfer will be concluded upon a public hearing and second reading of the ordinance at the February 22, 2005 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. He further advised that he has just been February 8, 2005 146 th advised by the Community Development Department that a 1/100 acre error was discovered on this version of the plat and the final version will reflect this correction. Mr. O’Donnell reported that the Board of Supervisors appropriated a total of $28,269,073 for the public safety building project at the June 22, 2004 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. This amount includes $500,000 for the warehouse replacement. It was recognized at the joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board on January 24, 2005 that some additional funding for the warehouse may be needed depending upon bids to be received by the School Board for construction of the warehouse. Additional warehouse funding needs above the $500,000 previously appropriated are tentatively to be split evenly between the School Board and the Board of Supervisors. Funding for the renovation of the current public safety building for use by the School Board will need to be determined over the next two years as the new public safety building is scheduled to be completed in March 2007 and vacated by the County public safety agencies soon thereafter. Mr. O’Donnell advised that approval of this ordinance has no additional fiscal impact. He further stated that since the School Board will not consider the declaration of the property as surplus until their meeting on February 9, 2005, staff is recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve the first reading contingent upon the subsequent approval by the School Board for the declaration of the property as surplus. February 8, 2005 147 Supervisor McNamara inquired about the School Board’s plans for the current public safety building. Mr. O’Donnell advised that they have not specified at this point what the future plans are for the building. Supervisor Flora noted that the term “surplus” property gives the impression that the School Board had land that they did not require. He stated that in fact, the land was being used for warehousing purposes and in order for the Board of Supervisors to obtain the property back, the process stipulates that it must be declared surplus by the School Board. This is being done for the sole purpose of allowing the Board of Supervisors to construct a public safety building on the site. Supervisor McNamara expressed appreciation to the School Board for working with County staff and administration on this project. Supervisor Altizer noted that the process is working well and advised that community meetings have been held with the surrounding neighborhood. Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for February 22, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 1. First reading of an ordinance to vacate a portion of an existing stormwater management easement, The Cottages at Wexford, and vacation of a stormwater management easement, Wexford Place February 8, 2005 148 Townhomes, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) Chairman Altizer advised that this item was removed from the agenda. The first reading and public hearing will be rescheduled for February 22, 2005. 2. First reading of an ordinance authorizing the vacation, quitclaim and release of portions of various easements in Valley Gateway Business Park to the Commonwealth of Virginia in connection with providing clear title and an unrestricted right-of-way for Integrity Drive, Vinton Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) Mr. Covey advised that the various easements were dedicated to Roanoke County through multiple instruments and deeds. At this time, the County is ready to accept Integrity Drive into the state secondary road system; however in order to accomplish this, the County must quitclaim the underlying easements within the right- of-way. He noted that the Department of Highways requires the right-of-way to be unencumbered. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for February 22, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: February 8, 2005 149 AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 3. First reading of an ordinance to vacate a 20 foot waterline easement dedicated by subdivision plat of Stonegate, Phase 2-B, Lots 47-48, and creating a new waterline easement situated on lots 47 and 48, Hollins Magisterial District. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney ) Mr. Obenshain advised that this matter is being brought forward at the request of the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA). The requested action will move the waterline easement over approximately 10’ and will bring the easement in line with some adjoining property owners. Supervisor McNamara noted that the new easement is only 10’ and the old easement was 20’. Mr. Obenshain responded that the old easement was 20’ on Lot 48; the new easement will still be 20’ and includes 10’ on Lot 47 and 10’ on Lot 48. Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for February 22, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None February 8, 2005 150 IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the donation and conveyance of easements to the Western Virginia Water Authority to provide for the extension of sewer service in connection with the Crystal Creek sanitary sewer extension project, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation & Tourism) O-020805-1 Mr. Haislip advised that there have been no changes in this item since the first reading which was held on January 25, 2005. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 020805-1 AUTHORIZING DONATION AND CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTS TO THE WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY THROUGH PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP NOS. 97.05-1-25 AND 97.01-2-11) TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION OF SEWER SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRYSTAL CREEK SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROJECT IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, is the owner of a parcels of land, containing 7.78 acres and 14.17 acres, off Merriman Road and February 8, 2005 151 Crystal Creek Drive in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map Nos. 97.05-1-25 and 97.01-2-11, respectively; and, WHEREAS, the Western Virginia Water Authority has requested the donation and conveyance of easements across this property to provide for the extension of sewer service in connection with the Crystal Creek Sanitary Sewer Extension Project; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including easements, shall be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 25, 2005; and the second reading was held on February 8, 2005. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be conveyed are hereby declared to be surplus, and are hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to the Western Virginia Water Authority for the extension of sewer service in connection with the Crystal Creek Sewer Extension Project. 2. That donation and conveyance to the Western Virginia Water Authority of sewer easements as shown and described as “New 20’ Wide S.S.E. (0.3471 AC.) to be Conveyed to Western Virginia Water Authority” and “New 20’ Wide S. S. E. (0.0231 AC.) to be Conveyed to Western Virginia Water Authority” on a plat entitled “Easement Plat for Western Virginia Water Authority Showing 0.3471 Acre Sanitary Sewer Easement to be Conveyed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke (D.B. 1242, Pg. 1457) and 0.0231 Acre Sanitary Sewer Easement to be Conveyed by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (D.B. 1634, Pg. 1852), Situate Crystal Creek Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District” prepared by Caldwell White Associates, dated November 9, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby authorized and approved. 3. That the County Administrator, or any 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. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Second reading of an ordinance to vacate, quit-claim, and release a portion of an existing 15 foot and 100 foot drainage easement on property owned by F&W Community Development February 8, 2005 152 Corporation, Hollins Magisterial District. (Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) O-020805-2 Mr. Obenshain advised that this item and the item that follows are the second readings of ordinances to vacate existing drainage easements on property owned by F&W Community Development Corporation (F&W). He stated that F&W has an agreement to sell this property and this action was requested by the purchasers. He advised that counsel for F&W has reviewed the plats and is in agreement with the proposed action. Supervisor Flora noted that this easement also extends across a portion of property owned by the Roanoke County School Board. He advised that this matter has been reviewed by the School Board and they are in agreement with the proposed action. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 020805-2 AUTHORIZING THE VACATION, QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE OF A PORTION OF AN EXISTING 15-FOOT AND 100- FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON ‘PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE . . .’, PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 59, LOCATED ON PROPERTY OWNED BY F&W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT February 8, 2005 153 WHEREAS, by Deeds of Easement dated October 15, 1990, and recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1337, page 540, and Deed Book 1337, page 551, respectively, F&W Community Development Corporation, as owner of the property designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4, conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, a connected 100' and 15' drainage easement as depicted on ‘Plat Showing New Drainage Easement Being Granted To County of Roanoke . . .’ of record in the aforesaid Clerk’s Office in Plat Book 13, page 59; and, WHEREAS, F&W Community Development Corporation is the current owner of the said tract of land, and the subject property is located between Crumpacker Drive and Cortland Road in the Hollins Magisterial District and is now designated upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 40.01-1-4; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner, F&W Community Development Corporation, is the current owner of the property and has requested that the Board of Supervisors vacate, quit-claim and release the above-described existing 15' and 100' drainage easement on condition of the Petitioner deeding to the County a suitable replacement drainage easement acceptable to the County’s Department of Community Development (as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto); and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected County departments have raised no objection; and, NOW, 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 January 25, 2005, and a second reading was held on February 8, 2005. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject real estate (portion of drainage easement) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interest in real estate renders it unavailable for other public uses. 3. That, subject to the following conditions, the vacation, quit-claim and release of an existing 15' and 100' drainage easement across property of F&W Community Development Corporation, located between Crumpacker Drive and Cortland Road in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, cross-hatched and “ designated as 15’ WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED and 100’ WIDE ” DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement having been acquired by deeds of easement dated October 15, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 1337, page 540, and Deed Book 1337, page 551, respectively, shown and designated as “NEW 100’ DRAINAGE EASEMENT” on plat entitled ‘PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING February 8, 2005 154 GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE...’, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk’s Office in Plat Book 13, page 59, is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That Petitioner, F&W Community Development Corporation, shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to, all costs associated with the establishment of an alternative drainage system, surveys, publication, and recordation of documents; and, 5. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish this vacation, quit-claim, and release, 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, 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 Section 15.2-2272 (2) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 3. Second reading of an ordinance to vacate a portion of a 15 foot drainage easement on plat entitled “Subdivision of The Orchards, Section 2, Applewood”, Plat Book 9, Page 112, and further shown as “existing 15’ drainage easement” in Plat Book 13, Page 59, Hollins Magisterial District. (Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) O-020805-3 Mr. Obenshain advised that this easement was established when the original plat was recorded in the 1970’s. He noted that a public hearing was held at the January 25, 2005 Board of Supervisors Meeting. There was no discussion on this item. February 8, 2005 155 Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 020805-3 TO VACATE A PORTION OF A 15-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON PLAT ENTITLED ‘SUBDIVISION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD’, PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 112, AND FURTHER SHOWN AS “EXISTING 15’ DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.B. 9 PG. 112)” IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 59, AND LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat entitled ‘SUBDIVISION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD’, dated September 14, 1977, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 9, page 112, a fifteen-foot (15') drainage easement was shown and created on remaining property of F&W Community Development Corp., the subject easement being designated on said plat as “15’ DRAINAGE EASEMENT”; and, WHEREAS, the subject easement is further shown and designated as “EXISTING 15’ DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.B. 9 PG. 112)”, on plat entitled ‘PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE...’, dated July 31, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk’s Office in Plat Book 13, page 59; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner, F&W Community Development Corporation, is the current owner of the property designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as 40.01-1-4, and has requested that the remaining portion of the above-described existing 15’ drainage easement be vacated; and, WHEREAS, the construction of a proposed multi-family development will result in an encroachment on the subject drainage easement and the Petitioners have requested that it be vacated pursuant to § 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); and, WHEREAS, this vacation 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); the public hearing and first reading of this ordinance was held on January 25, 2005 and the second reading of this ordinance was held on February 8, 2005 February 8, 2005 156 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a portion of the existing drainage easement being designated and “15 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED” shown as on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement having been shown and designated as “15’ DRAINAGE EASEMENT” on the subdivision plat entitled ‘SUBDIVISION OF THE ORCHARDS, SECTION 2, APPLEWOOD’, dated September 14, 1977, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 9, page 112, and further shown and designated as “EXISTING 15’ DRAINAGE EASEMENT (P.B. 9 PG. 112)”, on plat entitled ‘PLAT SHOWING NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO COUNTY OF ROANOKE...’, dated July 31, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk’s Office in Plat Book 13, page 59, in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to § 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), subject to the conditions contained herein. 2. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners. 3. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, 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. 4. 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 Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. League of Older Americans Advisory Counci l The Clerk was directed to contact Beverly Eyerly to determine if she would be willing to serve an additional one-year term that will expire on March 31, 2006. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-020805-4; R-020805-4.b February 8, 2005 157 Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 020805-4 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 February 8, 2005, 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 3, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – January 24 and January 25, 2005 2. Request from schools to appropriate Medicaid funds in the amount of $81,300 3. Request to accept Millbridge Road and Stone Mill Drive into the state secondary system 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 Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 020805-4.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF MILLBRIDGE ROAD AND STONE MILL DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition 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 February 8, 2005 158 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, WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, 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. Moved by: Supervisor Altizer Seconded by None Required Yeas: Supervisors, McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer Nays: None IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Report from VDOT of changes to the secondary road system in December 2004 February 8, 2005 159 6. Building Permit Activity Report 7. Proclamation signed by the Chairman IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Wray: (1) He advised that he has received a news release from VDOT stating that they are drafting the purpose and needs portion of the I-81 project and information is available on the website at www.I-81.org. The document will be available to the public for review and comment through the end of March. (2) He requested that Mr. Hodge contact Darryl Branstetter to schedule a meeting regarding a private road on land owned by Mr. Branstetter in the Mallard Lake area. (3) He advised that he has received a report regarding rocks which fell on Route 220 on January 30. He stated that there have been no reports of injuries; however, VDOT is conducting an engineering study to examine the situation. Mr. Hodge noted that VDOT has been asked to address this concern at the work session scheduled later today. (4) He inquired if plans have been received for the flour mill. Mr. Hodge and Mr. Covey advised that they have not been received. With respect to the status of the land swap agreement, Mr. Hodge advised that the legislation passed in the House and Senate unanimously and it is expected to be received favorably. (5) He advised that he attended the VML/VACo Legislative Day in Richmond last week. (6) He advised that there will be a Hall of Fame dinner at the Salem Civic Center on Sunday, February 13 at 6:00 p.m. Persons interested in attending should contact Posey Oyler for tickets to the event. (7) He offered condolences to Chairman Altizer on the loss of his mother. February 8, 2005 160 Supervisor Flora: (1) He advised that last week, he accompanied representatives from the County and Roanoke City on site visits to a number of libraries outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He stated that this provided an opportunity to see unique interior library designs, and the participants on the tour gained ideas for improving construction of new libraries. He noted that there were 50-60 computers in most of the libraries visited and they were heavily used. Supervisor McNamara: He recognized Pete Haislip for following up with requests for handicapped equipment at Garst Mill Park. Supervisor Church: (1) He extended condolences to Chairman Altizer on the loss of his mother. (2) He referenced an email he received from Bob Hurt regarding the lack of public restrooms at Green Hill Park. Mr. Haislip advised that many restrooms are closed during the winter months to prevent freezing of pipes. He stated that staff would review the matter and determine if port-o-johns were available on site. (3) He complimented Mr. Haislip on securing the NSA Class B Girls Fast Pitch Softball World Series tournament for the Roanoke area. (4) He asked Mr. Covey to follow up on the request received regarding Tobey Road. Mr. Covey advised that staff has examined this issue and has requested state funding for safety improvements. If funding is not available from the state, the repairs will be considered as part of the County’s revenue sharing program. Supervisor Altizer: (1) He advised that in response to Mr. Massengill’s inquiry, he has spoken with Mr. Covey regarding the detention pond in Falling Creek. February 8, 2005 161 He further requested that when staff addresses this issue, that they also seed the high banks in this area to assist in holding back water flow. (3) He thanked the Board members, staff and citizens for the concerns expressed during the passing of his mother. IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Work session with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) representatives to discuss US 220 safety improvement projects and the Merriman Road, Route 613, improvement project. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) The work session was held from 4:28 p.m. until 5:25 p.m. Staff present included: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; George Simpson, Assistant Director of Community Development; and Anthony Ford, Traffic Engineer. VDOT staff present included: Jeff Echols, Resident Engineer; Richard Caywood, District Manager; and Rob Cary, Assistant District Engineer. Mr. Cary advised that $8.36 million has been allocated for Route 220 interim safety improvements. The process began in 1999 and VDOT staff worked with the Clearbrook Civic League to identify potential projects. In addition, information obtained in the I-73 study included an examination of the Route 220 corridor. He noted that the Route 220 corridor is approximately 70 miles long and handles an average of 26,000 vehicle trips per day with a projected growth rate of two to three percent. Mr. Cary stated that meetings were held in January to obtain input and 214 citizens February 8, 2005 162 attended the meetings, of which 155 were Roanoke County residents. To date, VDOT has identified projects totaling $3.5 million. Some of these projects would include: (1) installation of variable message signs; (2) installation of seven (7) miles of guardrail, upgrading of substandard guardrail, and extension of guardrails; (3) installation of turn lanes, closing of crossovers, and shoulder pavement to better facilitate U-turns. Supervisor Altizer requested clarification regarding how Route 220 is affected by the split between Roanoke City and Roanoke County and further, how funding is allocated based on this split. Mr. Echols responded that I-581 is a spur off the interstate which ends at Elm Avenue. Route 220 picks up from the intersection of Elm Avenue to Tanglewood Mall and is a primary road within the Roanoke City limits. Mr. Echols advised that this road is physically within the City limits until just past Hunting Hills; however it is maintained by VDOT as a primary road. Any funding for Route 220 comes out of the Salem District primary road funding. Mr. Caywood further advised that this road is not counted as inventory for Roanoke City in terms of funding; it is funded as though it is within the Salem District boundaries. In response to a further inquiry from Supervisor Altizer, Mr. Echols advised that if additional development occurs along Route 220 near the Save-X site, the cost of any necessary road improvements would be the responsibility of VDOT. There was discussion regarding the closing of crossovers in the Clearbrook area. Supervisor Wray requested that consideration be given to leaving some of these crossovers open and noted the presence of businesses, a church, the February 8, 2005 163 civic league building, and residences in the area. Mr. Cary stated that the amount remaining for Phase II improvements is $4.8 million and the challenge will be to prioritize the needs and optimize the benefit. Mr. Caywood further advised that there are underlying standards based on current utilization and spacing for determining placement of crossovers, and noted that it is not based on an arbitrary selection process. Mr. Cary stated that where crossovers are being eliminated, the purpose was to force traffic further down the road where they could perform a U-turn in a protected turn lane and eliminate instances of cars stopped in the flow of traffic. A meeting between representatives of VDOT, Mr. Hodge, Supervisor Wray, and County staff was scheduled for February 15, 2005 at 12:00 p.m. at the Roanoke County Administration Center to discuss the matter further. Supervisor Church requested that VDOT give consideration to the installation of guardrail along Tobey Road. With respect to the installation of sound barriers, Mr. Cary advised that if the noise exceeds established levels by more than 10 decibels, a wall must be installed to reduce the noise; however if the noise levels are not high enough, a wall will not be installed. With respect to noise barriers for Clearbrook Elementary School, it was noted that a means of surrounding the school would have to be evaluated. Mr. Cary stated that where multiple entrances exist, walls are not effective because every entrance is a “hole” in the wall and reduces the effectiveness of the noise barrier. In such cases, other methods such as the installation of air conditioning are sometimes utilized to February 8, 2005 164 reduce noise levels. Mr. Cary further stated that the policy for noise barriers is established to benefit residential properties, and he noted that schools and parks are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. With respect to rocks falling onto the road along Route 220, Mr. Caywood advised that these issues are being investigated state-wide and he noted that VDOT is working to identify places where mitigation procedures such as fencing can be implemented. Geotechnical engineers will be investigating this matter. Mr. Echols reported that improvements to Merriman Road will focus on several intersections and curve areas to improve visibility. He advised that there is no schedule for construction and noted that only funding for the design phase is included in the six-year road plan. At this point, this is an unscheduled project and there is not yet funding available in the six-year road plan. Mr. Covey noted that any future decisions made regarding schools in this area could also impact funding needs. Mr. Covey inquired about possible changes in the revenue sharing program. Mr. Echols responded that there is a proposal in the General Assembly to allow cities and towns to participate in revenue sharing. There is currently $15 million available state-wide for revenue sharing and only counties can participate. One of the proposed bills was to increase this amount to $50-$100 million and allow cities and towns to participate. Mr. Mahoney inquired about the source of the funding increase. Mr. Echols advised that it could be shifted from other areas such as the secondary road funding. February 8, 2005 165 Mr. Caywood stated that at a previous meeting, he was questioned regarding the Salem District debt resulting from the Smart Road and how it impacts the primary plan. He advised that all the transportation plans pending in the General Assembly call for covering the debt for projects as of the last planned update which went into effect in July 2004. For the Salem District, this totals just under $30 million, of which $20 million is Smart Road debt. If the legislation is approved, it will help with funding projects currently in the plans which are not fully funded. 2. Work session to discuss proposed changes to Section 19-4 of the Roanoke County Code to authorize a procedure for permits for street solicitation by qualified charitable organizations. (Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) The work session was held from 5:25 p.m. until 5:48 p.m. Staff present included: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney; and Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney. The following individuals were also present at the meeting: Danny Irvin, President of the Roanoke County Firefighters Association; and Robin Grayson, Program Coordinator with the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA). Mr. Irvin requested that the Board consider the proposed amendment to the solicitation ordinance in order to allow the firefighters association to conduct an annual fill-the-boot campaign to benefit the MDA. He noted that there has been no significant occurrence of major injuries or verbal complaints during this type of solicitation. He cited the success of this program in the City of Lynchburg, and noted February 8, 2005 166 provisions in the ordinance which would restrict the conditions under which solicitations could occur. There was general discussion regarding safety concerns and whether firefighters who would be conducting the solicitation would be doing so while on duty or as volunteers. Supervisor Church stated that nothing has changed since the Board enacted changes in 2001 to prohibit this type of solicitation. He noted that there have been no changes in traffic patterns or safety that would make this process more workable. He voiced concerns about the potential to cause accidents, and recommended that these types of solicitations be conduced in parking lots. Ms. Grayson advised that the MDA is not requesting a reversal of the Board’s earlier decision. Mr. Irvin stated that the problems that occurred before were due to the fact that the process was unrestricted. Supervisor Church inquired if the volunteer firefighters will be conducting the solicitations on their own time or will they be on duty. Mr. Irvin advised that this has not been decided yet. Supervisor Wray stated that although the organization will be posting bond, any litigation that might result puts the County at risk. He stated that this is a safety issue and the Board should not create additional problems. He noted that there are many busy intersections in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. February 8, 2005 167 Supervisor McNamara recommended that the draft ordinance be modified to include a sunset clause that would expire in one year and at that time, the Board could review the matter to determine if there have been any significant problems or complaints. Supervisor Altizer inquired whether the Board previously had no regulation on solicitations. Mr. Mahoney advised that the County’s solicitation ordinance is broken into two components: (1) classic commercial door-to-door solicitations; (2) non- profit/charitable solicitations. He stated that charitable solicitation rules are more relaxed and the primary focus was a public safety issue in that the County wanted to know who was conducting the solicitation. He stated that the Board began receiving complaints regarding solicitations, particularly at busy intersections. As a result of the volume of complaints, it was the decision of the Board to implement the prohibition. There was a consensus of the Board to place this item on the February 22 agenda and to modify the draft ordinance to include the one-year sunset clause and also a provision requiring any organization requesting a solicitation permit to file a safety plan outlining how they will provide for safe collections. 3. Work session to discuss Roanoke County Community (Comprehensive) Plan. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) The work session was held from 6:13 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. Staff present included: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Janet Scheid, Chief February 8, 2005 168 Planner; Anthony Ford, Traffic Engineer; David Holladay, Zoning Administrator; and Paul Mahoney, County Attorney. Planning Commission members present included: Martha Hooker, Chair; and Rodney McNeil. Supervisor Wray requested that staff define “adequate public facilities”. Mr. Mahoney stated that the term adequate public facilities is a lightning rod but if you look at Virginia Supreme Court decisions, a local government can take into consideration the existence, or lack thereof, of a variety of public facilities such as water and sewer, schools, fire and police, etc. He noted that other localities have been uncomfortable relying on these judicial decisions which are fact specific. Mr. Mahoney further advised that the homebuilders associations’ oppose this type of legislation. He stated that localities already have these types of powers in the state enabling legislation; however, the adoption of legislation by the General Assembly would provide a safer harbor. Mr. Mahoney stated that there are three components which must work together in order for a locality to successfully defend its positions with regard to adequate public facilities: the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), community (comprehensive) plan, and the zoning ordinance. He indicated that the underlying question is where the Board wants to encourage growth and whether adequate public facilities exist to support this growth. Following discussion, there was a consensus of the Board to remove any reference to adequate public facilities from the community plan. February 8, 2005 169 Supervisor Wray requested that a statement be added at the beginning of the community plan advising that only certain sections of the original 1998 community plan are being revised, and then include a listing of the sections which were reviewed and amended. Supervisor Wray inquired how changes in the future land use maps would influence growth in the County. Ms. Scheid advised that some of the proposed changes would encourage development, while others would discourage development. Mr. Mahoney further advised that even though the future land use map designation for a piece of property may change, this will not have any affect on the zoning for the property (i.e., a piece of property zoned C-2 Commercial will remain C-2 Commercial, even if the land use designation changes). All the same permitted rights and uses remain with the parcel of property. Where it may affect the property is if, in the future the owner wants to rezone the property, it should remain consistent with the community plan. Mr. Mahoney noted that if the land use designation is changed to encourage growth, some speculative activity may occur in anticipation of future zoning changes. Supervisor Wray inquired, with respect to transportation, how the County could insert terminology in the community plan that would address the six-year secondary road plan and any changes which might be made to this document. Mr. Covey stated that in the transportation section, staff has tried to lay the foundation for the roads that will be on the six-year road plan. Mr. Ford reported that the only reference to the six-year road system in the community plan is with respect to the February 8, 2005 170 pavement management program. He concurred that language to tie these documents together would be beneficial. Supervisor Wray requested that this change be addressed in the community plan. Supervisor Flora stated that the property off Plantation Road (Newbern site) is developing as commercial and it is adjacent to residential properties; therefore, he does not feel that industrial is an appropriate future land use. He recommended that this site be listed as core in the future land use map. Supervisor Altizer stated that the Board will need additional work sessions to address all the questions before a final vote to adopt the community plan. There was a consensus of the Board to schedule future work sessions and to delay the adoption of the community plan from the originally scheduled date of February 22, 2005. Supervisor Altizer requested that the Board be provided with a list of changes that have been made following each work session. Supervisor Wray requested that on Page 6, Item 1, staff should keep the first two sentences and remove the remainder of the paragraph which references the Western Virginia Land Trust. Following discussion of whether to include references to economic development incentives in the community plan, there was a consensus that this should be addressed in future revisions of the five-year economic development strategy. There was discussion regarding whether or not to include the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as part of the community plan. Supervisor Wray voiced February 8, 2005 171 support for incorporating the CIP as a supplement to the community plan and noted that it should be a working document. There was a consensus of the Board that this issue should be addressed in future joint work sessions with the Planning Commission. Mr. Mahoney stated that depending on how the Board wishes to see the CIP connected to the community plan, there may not be sufficient time for the Planning Commission to review and amend the community plan to include the CIP. He noted that this may need to come back as a supplement in June or July. Ms. Hooker voiced support for discussing the CIP. Mr. McNeil stated that the CIP is a stand alone document that can be revised at any point, regardless of the community plan. He stated that it does not need to be incorporated as part of the community plan. Supervisor Altizer stated that the School Board should be included in discussions pertaining to the CIP. Supervisor Church questioned what happens if the CIP is not included as part of the community plan since the regional jail was not in the previous community plan. He stated that you cannot just make up a rule to write in a jail, and he stated that he understood that this has been done by the Planning Department. He stated that he understood that wording was being put into the CIP related to the jail issue in order to incorporate it into the community plan. He stated that the jail cannot be put into the CIP, and the CIP then made a part of the community plan, which in turn puts the jail in the community plan. He stated that a correct, systematic method must be followed. Mr. McNeil noted that the community plan is not specific with respect to where to build facilities such as schools, jails, etc. He indicated that the community plan states the February 8, 2005 172 vision of the County; the CIP states what the County plans to build. He advised that the community plan will not specifically indicate that the County plans to build a jail, it will only indicate that the County plans to grow the population. This, in turn, will drive the need for facilities such as schools, roads, or a jail. Supervisor McNamara stated that he views the community plan as a broad vision for the County which should serve as the basis for making decisions with respect to other documents such as the CIP, six-year road plan, revenue sharing program, etc. He voiced concerns about being too specific and incorporating references to too many other documents. He questioned, for example, whether referencing school minor capital needs steps outside the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors. He stated that these documents are supporting documents to the community plan and the Board should not make the community plan all encompassing. He stated that the community plan is a guide to be used for making effective decisions when it comes to evaluating items on the CIP or revenue sharing. He recommended proceeding with adoption of the community plan. He further advised that discussion of the public private partnership policy should not be part of the community plan. Mr. Holladay advised that there are several plans included in the community plan by reference such as the regional stormwater plan, greenway plan, and the Colonial Avenue study. He stated that the six-year road plan and CIP are not specifically included in the community plan, and advised that staff could work on making additional connections with these types of plans. He stated that the best approach February 8, 2005 173 would be to better connect the two documents as opposed to making the CIP a part of the community plan. Mr. McNeil stated that the community plan is a vision for how the County will look in the future; it does not specify how it will be achieved. He advised that the ordinances dictate how the County makes this happen, and the CIP should be a separate document that is referenced in the community plan. Supervisor Church questioned where the jail comes into the picture, and noted that Ms. Scheid has admitted that there is not anything written into it by the Planning Department. Ms. Scheid questioned whether Supervisor Church was referring to inclusion of the jail in the community plan, and she advised that the jail is not referenced in the 1998 community plan or the proposed revisions currently being considered. Supervisor Church clarified that the CIP references the regional jail and stated that CIP committee members have indicated to him that Mr. Hodge has contacted them and indicated that he wants to make sure this incorporates into the community plan to include the jail. He questioned where we include the jail if the CIP is eliminated. Ms. Scheid requested clarification that Supervisor Church meant what occurs if the CIP is not adopted as part of the community plan. Supervisor Church stated that you cannot simply pick out a set of rules and incorporate something into it out of the blue; it must be done systematically or it will be challenged. Mr. Mahoney advised that the community plan will not specify which facilities are to be built because it is a general guide. He stated that under the public February 8, 2005 174 safety section of the community plan, a variety of goals and issues are discussed for police, fire and rescue, and the sheriff’s department and they encompass four pages. He noted that the community plan does not specify locations of any kind of facilities. It references delivery of public services, necessary resources to meet the needs of the citizens; but it does not say something as specific as where a fire station will be located. He stated that the two documents need to be linked in some manner, either as a part of the plan, by reference, or as a supplement. He indicated that it must be addressed in some fashion, at least under the Section 2232 review, to determine if it is consistent with the community plan. Mr. Mahoney stated that as Mr. McNeil had noted, growth will generate the need for construction of new facilities and can be deemed consistent with the community plan; however, he would like to see this addressed in a more specific manner. There was general discussion regarding how to address the CIP with respect to the community plan. There was not a consensus among the Board members regarding this matter. Supervisor Wray inquired about the goals in the community plan for protection of mountains, slopes, and ridgelines. He further requested a definition of the terms to be used. Ms. Scheid advised that ordinances need to be developed to address the issues of steep slopes and ridgetop protection. Following discussion, there was a consensus of the Board that this issue needs to be examined in future work sessions. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Mr. Mahoney advised that these zoning February 8, 2005 175 ordinance amendments would go to the Planning Commission prior to coming to the Board for approval. With respect to private roads, Supervisor Wray inquired whether VDOT encourages private roads. He questioned how the County will address private roads in the community plan. Ms. Scheid advised that the zoning ordinance allows private roads in certain circumstances. Mr. Ford stated that staff is still in discussions with VDOT regarding funding of private roads. Supervisor Wray also requested that stormwater management be treated as a regional issue to eventually be handfed by the Western Virginia W2Jer Authority (WVWA). There was a consensus to schedule a work session on February 22 to discuss further revisions to the community plan. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ~J/wJ\g. &ldW)) Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board ~. & Michael W. Altizer Chairman February 8, 2005 176 This page intentionally left blank.