Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/22/2006 - Regular August 22, 2006 679 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 August22,2006 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 August, 2006. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wray called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael A. Wray, Vice-Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. "Butch" Church, 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 Father Dean Nastos, Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. 680 August 22, 2006 IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS .1:. Proclamation in remembrance of the five-year anniversary of Seotember it. 2001. and declarina Seotember it. 2006. as "Patriot Dav" in the County of Roanoke Chairman Wray presented the proclamation to Donna Furrow, Assistant Chief of Police; Daryell Sexton, Fire and Rescue Battalion Chief; Gerald Holt, Sheriff; and Captain Chuck Hart, Sheriff's Office. Ms. Hall advised that the regional memorial service will be held September 10, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in front of the Roanoke City market building. 2. Proclamation declarina Fridav. AUQust 25. 2006. as the seventh annual Hokie Pride Dav in the County of Roanoke Chairman Wray presented the proclamation to Brian Wilson, President of the Roanoke Valley Hokie Club, and Pat Green, Chairman of the Hokie Pride Day Committee. 3. Recoanition of the Information Technoloav Deoartment for achievina first olace in the Too 10 Diaital Counties Survey for county aovernments in the oooulation cateaorv of 150.000 - 249.999 for the third consecutive year Chairman Wray presented the award to Elaine Carver, Director of Information Technology. August 22, 2006 681 PUBLIC HEARING 1: Public hearina to receive citizen comments reaardina proposed amendment to the fiscal year 2006-2007 budaet in accordance with Section 15.2-2507. Code of Virainia. (Diane D. Hvatt. Chief Financial Officer) Ms. Hyatt stated that this time is set aside for a public hearing to receive citizen comments concerning amending the 2006-2007 budget. She advised that the Code of Virginia requires that a public hearing be held when budget amendments exceed 1 % of total expenditures or $500,000. She outlined the following appropriations that will be heard during the meeting today: (1) Request from the schools to accept and appropriate reimbursements and state funds in the amount of $253,335.19; (2) Request to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $142,719 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for a juvenile and delinquency prevention program; (3) Request to appropriate lease purchase proceeds and expenditure of .$3,564,057 for school energy management equipment; and (4) Request from the Library Department to appropriate state funds in the amount of $11,048 for fiscal year 2006-2007. Ms. Hyatt advised that no action is required at this time; action on each of these items will be taken later in the meeting. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. IN RE: 682 August 22, 2006 IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1.:. Reauest to aDDroDriate lease Durchase Droceeds and eXDenditure of ,$3.564.057 for school enerav manaaement eauiDment. (Pennv A. Hodae. Assistant SUDerintendent of Finance : Schools: Dr. Martin W. Misicko. Director of ODerations : Schools) A-082206-1 Ms. Hodge reported that the School Board acted on this request at their meeting on August 16 approving a CO:1tract to enter into an agreement with Pepco Energy Services to install energy efficient equipment throughout the school division. At that time, the School Board also approved the financing of the contract through a 10- year lease purchase agreement. Ms. Hodge stated that school staff is presently working with the attorneys to draft a final contract with Pepco, as well as the lease purchase agreement with CitiMortgage, Inc. She stated that to implement the energy conservation project, the company will evaluate the school system needs and guarantee a specific level of savings that will be received by using the equipment. She stated that the guarantee extends for the full ten years of the lease and if energy savings equivalent to the guaranteed levels are not reached in any year, the company pays the shortfall. Ms. Hodge advised that the guaranteed savings are sufficient to cover the annual lease payment; therefore, it is a win-win situation for the schools. She stated that staff is requesting that the Board record the proceeds of $3,564,057 with a corresponding budget to purchase the equipment that will be installed under this August 22, 2006 683 contract. She advised that Dr. Misicko is present to provide information regarding the type of equipment to be installed under this contract. Dr. Misicko stated that when the schools entered into the Request for Proposal (RFP) with Pepco, they requested that Pepco conduct a complete audit of all County schools' existing equipment and make recommendations for improvements. He indicated that improvements to be mad~ !'1clude the installation of new lights to reduce energy consumption; installation of water conservation measures; upgrade of HV AC control system to a web-based ap~Ji"OaCh that will allow for climate control via the internet; and installation of vending machine monitors that will turn off vending machines when they are not in use. Dr. Misicko advised that these improvements are fiscally sound, they will be visibly seen by students, and they will help with energy conservation measures in the schools. Supervisor McNamara inquired about the type of lighting that will be installed. Dr. Misicko stated that "f8 lights will be installed and many of the ballasts will be changed to T12's. He indicated that these improvements will most noticeably affect the cafeterias and libraries. Supervisor McNamara recommended that the County investigate similar energy efficiency programs. Mr. Hodge advised that the County installed similar equipment approximately two years ago. Supervisor Wray inquired about the difference between the current HV AC system and the new system being installed. Dr. Misicko stated that the schools currently have a metasis system that was installed by Johnson Controls approximately 684 August 22, 2006 14 years ago and it has a limited ability to control the temperature settings in the buildings. He indicated that the current system is a dial-up system that can accommodate up to a maximum of three users and it is not web-based. He noted that the new system can be changed from any location via the web and allows more than the current three users to make these changes. Supervisor Wray stated that the savings are guaranteed and the improvements will pay for themselves over time. Supervisor Flora advised that in his capacity as the former Director of Operations for Roanoke County Schools, he has had experience in dealing with this issue. He indicated that the controls that were installed fourteen years ago were metasis and they were proprietary, meaning that they had to be sold by Johnson Controls. He stated that although this technology was available from other sources, it had to be obtained from Johnson Controls until recently. He stated that open protocol means that they are generic, they can be purchased on a more competitive basis, and they will work within the system. He stated that what is occurring is that the schools are moving from proprietary metasis controls to open protocol. He indicated that this allows for more competitive purchases and will allow for operation on more than one system, thereby increasing the versatility of the system. He stated that when he performed this function for the schools, he was surprised to learn that there was equipment on the market that could be purchased at a lower cost that would perform the same function without having to be purchased by a single vendor. He stated that staff had always August 22, 2006 685 been informed by Johnson Controls that only their equipment would work on the system. Supervisor Church referenced the cost involved in replacing a ballast when it is goes bad, and he requested that Dr. Misicko provide additional information regarding the cost efficiency of the new system. Dr. Misicko stated that the current lighting system consists of a physical fixture which contains a ballast within the fixture, as well as the light bulbs. He indicated that many of the schools have a T12 light which is larger in diameter than a T8, which results in the fixture drawing in more energy. He advised that to change the bulbs from a T12 to a T8 often involves changing the ballast in order to provide a more efficient lighting system. Supervisor Church noted that a ballast can be damaged simply by trying to install a new bulb without the power being turned off. Supervisor Flora moved to approve the staff recommendation (appropriate the lease purchase proceeds and expenditure of $3,564,057 for school energy management equipment). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 2. Reauest to adopt the stormwater manaaement proiect list for fiscal year 2006-2007. (Arnold Covey. Director of Community Development) A-082206-2 686 August 22, 2006 Mr. Covey reported that this is a request to adopt the stormwater management priority list for fiscal year 2006-2007. He indicated that on August 8, staff conducted a work session with the Board wherein they provided an overview of the County's stormwater management program. At that time, staff reviewed the history of the stormwater program since its inception in 1987; discussed the flood plain prevention efforts that have been undertaken by the County; provided an overview of the grants and the County's community classification, which assists in reducing the flood insurance rates for residents; status of the environmental compliance with the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit; outlined the routine maintenance responsibilities which includes covering 200 miles of storm sewers and channels; and discussion regarding emergency projects handled through this program. Mr. Covey stated that the Department of Community Development is now submitting 23 new projects for inclusion into the stormwater management program. He advised that Butch Workman, Stormwater Operations Manager, was present to answer any questions regarding the projects. Supervisor McNamara stated that the process that has been established is a good one and he commended the department for their performance. He noted that more projects have been completed since this system was implemented, the County is less reactive than in the past and is planning for long-term solutions to problems. August 22, 2006 687 Supervisor Wray expressed appreciation to the staff and noted the quality service they provide to citizens. He stated that citizens have indicated to him that staff listens to their concerns, and he thanked the staff for their efforts. Supervisor Church noted that he had a meeting with Mr. Covey earlier today regarding stormwater management concerns. He stated that the County needs to get serious about this and to take steps to be proactive. He stated that we are seeing problems being eliminated by preventive measures; however, there are also situations where in hindsight, we wish more had been done. He stated that he believes the County should stay on top of this and do the right thing regarding erosion and stormwater management. He further stated that the County should take the necessary steps regarding slope and indicated that the citizens insist on this level of service and the County owes it to them to not put them in a downstream situation where it is too late to do anything to help them. He requested that Mr. Covey make a more concerted effort to communicate with citizens and stated that many problems can be averted through improved communication. Supervisor Altizer stated that when you review the project list, the level of funding being directed to stormwater management is evidence of the Board's commitment to addressing these concerns. He noted that the Board has seen before and after photos of work that staff has done to address drainage problems, and he commended the staff for the quality of work and level of service being provided. He further indicated that it is nice to see developers participating in these projects. 688 August 22, 2006 Supervisor Flora stated that he is not sure there is enough money in the world to correct all these problems; however, the success of the program serves to reinforce the steps that have been taken to improve the County's stormwater management regulations. However, he stated that it is unfortunate that these regulations were not in place 20 to 30 years ago when the problems were created. He indicated that if the development had been handled properly the first time, we would not have to address these problems now. He advised that there is justification for proceeding with this program and the Board must continue to fund these projects. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation. Mr. Mahoney noted that this item is not scheduled as a public hearing; however, a citizen has submitted a request to address the Board regarding this matter. He advised that it is within the discretion of the Board to decide whether to hear the comments at this time or under the citizen comments portion of the agenda. Chairman Wray advised that the Board will allow the citizen to address his comments at this time. Supervisor McNamara withdrew the motion to approve staff recommendation. The following citizen spoke regarding this item: Steve Noble, 5376 Canter Drive, stated that the County's stormwater management program needs to be better communicated to the citizenry. He questioned what criteria distinguishes projects included on the A list versus the B list; does the County pay for projects over $3,000; are these projects handled through a competitive August 22, 2006 689 bid process; are the projects built to code standards and if not, are they now being corrected at the expense of taxpayers. Mr. Noble questioned why the developer does not have to pay these costs instead of only participating in the cost of the repairs. He stated that many of the projects are for business owners who should know better. He stated that the overall program is a good concept and the County needs a better stormwater management system. He requested that cost information be provided for each project in the future. Supervisor Altizer advised that Exhibit A consists of projects previously approved by the Board and outlines the status of those projects; Exhibit B is the listing of new projects being presented to the Board for inclusion in the program. Supervisor Wray stated that the Board examined these projects in detail at an earlier work session. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the staff recommendation (approval of the additional drainage projects for inclusion into the stormwater management program). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA 1.: First readina of an ordinance to obtain .! soecial .y.!! oermit for the construction of .! mini-warehouse facilitv on 14.76 acres 690 August 22, 2006 located at 5627 Williamson Road. Hollins Maaisterial District. uoon the oetition of Wayne Fralin. 2. First readina of an ordinance to rezone 8.829 acres from R-1. Low Density Residential. to PRO. Planned Residential Develooment. with ~ maximum density of 1.13 houses oer acre located at 5815 Bent Mountain Road. Windsor Hills Maaisterial District. uoon the oetition of Qwiz Construction and Investments. LLC. 3. First readina of !!l ordinance to rezone 1.26 acres from R-1. Low Density Residential. to C-1. Office. in order to construct two aeneral office buildinas located at 2404 Electric Road. Windsor Hills Maaisterial District. uoon the oetition of R. Fralin Develooment Corooration. Supervisor Wray moved to approve the first readings and set the second readings and public hearings for September 26, 2006. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None August 22, 2006 691 IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1:. Second readina of an ordinance amendina ChaDter 8.1 "Erosion and Sediment Control" of the Roanoke County Code to address steeD sloDe develoDment and other technical amendments. (Arnold Covey. Director of Community DeveloDment) 0-082206-3 Mr. Covey advised that this is the second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 8.1, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance of Roanoke County, to address steep slope development and certain technical amendments identified as part of a planned review with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (OCR). He advised that the first reading of the ordinance was held on August 8 and there have been no changes since that time. Mr. Covey advised that the amendment which deals with steep slope development was identified as a result of the adopted comprehensive plan update for Roanoke County; the technical amendments were identified as a result of the County's program review with OCR. He stated that the steep slope amendments establish slope angle and height thresholds of constructed slopes; any proposed slopes or thresholds higher than the proposed thresholds will require additional geotechnical engineering investigation, design criteria, and reporting. He advised that Community Development staff researched slope development ordinances across the United States and interviewed experts in the field of geology, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering, and urban planning to develop the proposed amendments. Staff 692 August 22, 2006 conducted six work sessions with the Planning Commission, worked with a committee of experts in the field of construction, grading contractors, civil engineers and designers, geotechnical engineers, and County engineers and planning staff. Mr. Covey stated that on July 10, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution in support of these amendments. He indicated that on July 25, 2006, a work session was held with the Board of Supervisors and staff presented the proposed steep slope development amendments, as well as those amendments required by the OCR. He stated that staff is requesting approval of the second reading of the ordinance and noted that David Holladay, Senior Planner, was present to answer any questions. Chairman Wray noted that a citizen was present who wished to speak regarding this matter. Steve Noble, 5376 Canter Drive, stated that this ordinance will develop unintended consequences. He indicated that by placing restrictions on slopes but not on ridgelines, property owners will move to the path of least resistance and build along the ridgelines where there are no restrictions. He stated that there will be a surge of construction on ridgelines until the County realizes that this is only one part of a two-part regulation and at present, the County ordinance only addresses development on slopes below the ridgeline. He noted that the Planning Department indicated that they wanted to protect property owner rights and stated that if this is the case, the County should review all ordinances that place restrictions on where you can build. He recommended August 22, 2006 693 that the County examine existing State ordinances which define ridgelines and use these as a model for developing County regulations. There was no discussion regarding this item. Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ORDINANCE 082206-3 AMENDING CHAPTER 8.1 "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO ADDRESS STEEP SLOPE DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, in 2005 the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors adopted revisions to the Roanoke County Community Plan which suggest developing guidelines and regulations for steep slope development; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County Community Development staff researched slope development ordinances from across the United States and interviewed experts in the fields of geology, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering and urban planning; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2006, the Roanoke County Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt these amendments to Chapter 8.1 of the Roanoke County Code; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006, the Roanoke County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors met in work session with County staff to review the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 8, 2006, and the second reading was held on August 22,2006. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as follows: 1. That Chapter 8.1 "Erosion and Sediment Control" be amended to read and provide as follows: 694 August 22, 2006 [NOTE: Slope Amendments: Yellow Highlight DCR Required Amendments: Strikothrough and red text] Chapter 8.1 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND STEEP SLOPE DEVELOPMENT Sec. 8.1-1. Title, purpose and authority. This chapter shall be known as the "Erosion and Sediment Control and Steep Slope Development Ordinance of the County of Roanoke, Virginia." The purpose of this chapter is to conserve the land, water, air and other natural resources of the county by establishing requirements for the control of erosion and sedimentation, and by establishing requirements for development of steep slopes, and by establishing procedures whereby these requirements shall be administered and enforced. This Chapter is authorized by the Code of Virqinia, Title 10.1, Chapter 5, Article 4 (Sec. 10.1-560 et seq.), known as the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law. * * * * Sec. 8.1-3. Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning: Agreement in lieu of a plan means a contract between the plan-approving authority and the owner which specifies conservation measures which must be implemented in all construction disturbing between two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet and five thousand (5,000) square feet and/or two hundred fifty (250) to five hundred (500) cubic yards; this contract may be executed by the plan-approving authority in lieu of a formal site plan. Applicant means any person submitting an erosion and sediment control plan for approval or requesting the issuance of a permit, when required, authorizing land- disturbing activities to commence. Board means the state soil and water conservation board. Certified inspector means an employee or agent of a program authority who holds a certificate of competence from the board in the area of project inspection. Certified plan reviewer means an employee or agent of a program authority who: August 22, 2006 695 (1) Holds a certificate of competence from the board in the area of plan review; (2) Is licensed as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to article 1 (Code of Virginia, 9 54.1- 400 et seq.) of chapter 4 of title 54.1. Certified program administrator means an employee or agent of a program authority who holds a certificate of competence from the board in the area of program administration. Clearing means any activity which removes the vegetative ground cover including, but not limited to, root mat removal or top soil removal. Conservation plan, erosion and sediment control plan or plan means a document containing material for the conservation of soil and water resources of a unit or group of units of land. It may include appropriate maps, an appropriate soil and water plan inventory, and management information with needed interpretations and a record of decisions contributing to conservation treatment. The plan shall contain all major conservation decisions to assure that the entire unit or units of land will be so treated to achieve the conservation objectives. County means the County of Roanoke. Denuded means a term applied to land that has been physically disturbed and no longer supports vegetative cover. Department means the department of conservation and recreation. Development means a tract of land developed or to be developed as a single unit under single ownership or unified control which is to be used for any business or industrial purpose or is to contain three (3) or more residential dwelling units. Director means the director of community development or his assignee. District or soil and water conservation district refers to the Blue Ridge Soil and Water Conservation District. Dormant refers to denuded land that is not actively being brought to a desired grade or condition. 696 August 22, 2006 Erosion impact area means an area of land not associated with current land disturbing activity but subject to persistent soil erosion resulting in the delivery of sediment onto neighboring properties or into state waters. This definition shall not apply to any lot or parcel of land of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less used for residential purposes. Excavating means any digging, scooping or other methods of removing earth materials. Filling means any depositing or stockpiling of earth materials. Geotechnical Report means a report provided at the applicant's expense, prepared and stamped by a Professional Engineer, that communicates site conditions, and recommends design and construction methods. (1) The Geotechnical Report shall include any or all of the following basic information, as determined by the Professional Engineer: a) Summary of all subsurface exploration data, including subsurface soil profile, exploration logs, laboratory or in situ test results, and ground water information; b) Interpretation and analysis of the subsurface data; c) Specific engineering recommendations for design; d) Discussion of conditions for solution of anticipated problems; and e) Recommended geotechnical special provisions. (2) For guidance in investigating site conditions and preparing geotechnical reports, the Professional Engineer may refer to all applicable sections of: "Checklist and Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical Reports and Preliminary Plans and Specifications", US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Publication No. FHWA ED-88-053, as amended. (3) The Geotechnical Report shall be submitted to the plan-approving authority and included in site development files prior to issuance of a land disturbing permit. Grading means any excavating or filling of earth material or any combination thereof, including the land in its excavated or filled conditions. Land-disturbing activity means any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters or onto lands in August 22, 2006 697 the commonwealth, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land, except that the term shall not include: (1) Minor land-disturbing activities such as home gardens and individual home landscaping, repairs and maintenance work; (2) Individual service connections; (3) Installation, maintenance, or repairs of any underground public utility lines when such activity occurs on an existing hard-surfaced road, street or sidewalk provided such land-disturbing activity is confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk which is hard-surfaced; (4) Septic tank lines or drainage fields unless included in an overall plan for land-disturbing activity relating to construction of the building to be served by the septic tank system; (5) Surface or deep mining; (6) Exploration or drilling for oil and gas including the well site, roads, feeder lines, and off-site disposal areas; (7) Tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops, or livestock feedlot operations; including engineering operations as follows: construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation; however, this exception shall not apply to harvesting of forest crops unless the area on which harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in accordance with the provisions of chapter 11 (Code of Virginia 9 10.1- 1100 et seq.) of this title or is converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture use as described in subsection B of Code of Virginia 9 10.1-1163; (8) Repair or rebuilding of the tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of a railroad company; (9) Agricultural engineering operations including but not limited to the construction of terraces, terrace outlets, check dams, desilting basins, dikes, ponds not required to comply with the Dam Safety Act, article 2 (9 10.1-604 et seq.) of chapter 6 of the Code of Virginia, ditches, strip 698 August 22, 2006 cropping, lister furrowing, contour cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation; (10) Disturbed land areas for all uses of less than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet and/or less than two hundred fifty (250) cubic yards in size; (11) Installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; (12) Emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency repairs; provided that if the land- disturbing activity would have required an approved erosion and sediment control plan, if the activity were not an emergency, then the land area disturbed shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirements of the plan-approving authority. Land disturbing permit means a permit issued by the county for the clearing, filling, excavating, grading, transporting of land or for any combination thereof or for any purpose set forth herein. Local erosion and sediment control program or program means an outline of the various methods employed by the county to regulate land-disturbing activities and thereby minimize erosion and sedimentation in compliance with the state program and may include such items as local ordinances, policies and guidelines, technical materials, inspection, enforcement, and evaluation. Owner means the owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee or other person, firm or corporation in control of a property. Permittee means the person to whom the permit authorizing land-disturbing activities is issued or the person who certifies that the approved erosion and sed iment control plan will be followed. Person means any individual, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, cooperative, county, city, town or other political subdivision of the commonwealth, any interstate body, or any other legal entity. Plan-approving authority means the department of community development which is responsible for determining the adequacy of a conservation plan submitted for land-disturbing activities on a unit or units of lands and for approving plans. August 22, 2006 699 Post-development refers to conditions that may be reasonably expected or anticipated to exist after completion of the land development activity on a specific site or tract of land. Pre-development refers to conditions at the time the erosion and sediment control plan is submitted to the plan-approving authority. Where phased development or plan approval occurs (preliminary grading, roads and utilities, etc.), the existing conditions at the time the erosion and sediment control plan for the initial phase is submitted for approval shall establish pre-development conditions. Program authority means the county which has adopted a soil erosion and sediment control program approved by the board. Responsible land disturber means an individual from the project or development team, who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out a land-disturbing activity covered by an approved plan or agreement in lieu of a plan, who: (1) Holds a responsible land disturber certificate of competence; (2) Holds a current certificate of competence from the board in the areas of combined administration, program administration, inspection or plan review; (3) Holds a current contractor certificate of competence for erosion and sediment control; or (4) Is licensed in state as a professional engineer, architect, certified landscape architect or land surveyor pursuant to article 1 (~ 54.1-400 et seq.) of chapter 4 of title 54.1. Single-family residence means a noncommercial dwelling that is occupied exclusively by one family. Steep slope means a slope greater than 3:1, or 33.3%. Stabilized means an area that can be expected to withstand normal exposure to atmospheric conditions without incurring erosion damage. State waters means all waters on the surface and under the ground wholly or partially within or bordering the commonwealth or within its jurisdictions. 700 August 22, 2006 Town means the incorporated Town of Vinton. Transporting means any moving of earth materials from one place to another place other than such movement incidental to grading, when such movement results in destroying the vegetative ground cover either by tracking or the buildup of earth materials to the extent that erosion and sedimentation will result from the soil or earth materials over which such transporting occurs. (Ord. No. 012704-9, ~ 2, 1-27-04) * * * * Sec. 8.1-6. Regulated land-disturbing activities; submission and approval of plans; contents of plans. (a) Exoept 3S pro'.'ided herein, no person sh311 eng3ge in 3ny I3nd disturbing 3ctivity until he h3s submitted to the dep3rtment of oommunity development for the county one (1) of the following for the 13nd disturbing 3ctivity 3nd it h3s been 3pproved by the plan approving authority. Except as provided herein, no person may engage in any land-disturbing activity until he or she has submitted to the Department of Community Development an erosion and sediment control plan for the land-disturbing activity and such plan has been approved by the plan-approving authority. Where land- disturbing activities involve lands under the jurisdiction of more than one local control program, an erosion and sediment control plan, at the option of the applicant, may be submitted to the Board for review and approval rather than to each jurisdiction concerned. (1) Where the land-disturbing activity results in between two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet and five thousand (5,000) square feet and/or two hundred fifty (250) to five hundred (500) cubic yards of disturbed area, an "agreement in lieu of a plan" may be substituted for an erosion and sediment control plan if executed by the plan-approving authority. (2) Where the land-disturbing activity results in between five thousand (5,000) square feet and ten thousand (10,000) square feet and/or five hundred (500) to seven hundred fifty (750) cubic yards of disturbed area, either a plot plan prepared by a certified responsible land disturber or an engineered plan prepared by a professional engineer showing the erosion and sediment control measures must be submitted and executed by the plan-approving authority. A certified responsible land disturber must be named. August 22, 2006 701 (3) Where the land-disturbing activity results in ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more and/or seven hundred fifty (750) cubic yards or more of disturbed area, an erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted which has been prepared by a professional engineer. For disturbed areas of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, refer to the chart below to determine requirements for the site. Square Feet And/Or Cubic Yards Requirements <2,500 0 Exempt from E&S Plan; *building permit plot plan required 2,500--5,000 250--500 "Agreement in Lieu" of a plan; permit fee; *building permit plot plan required 5,000--10,000 500--750 Certified RLO, *building permit plot plan by a certified RLO or a P.E.; oermit fee >10,000 >750 RLO, Erosion and sediment control plan prepared by a P.E.; agreement; surety; a *building permit plot plan, if required by the building commissioner (b) *Refer to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code for Building Permit Plot Plan Requirements. (c) If lots in a subdivision are sold to another owner, that person is responsible for obtaining a certified responsible land disturber and submitting a plot plan for each lot to obtain an erosion and sediment control permit. (d) The standards contained with the "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations," and The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and those more stringent local stormwater management criteria which the Board of Supervisors of the County, may adopt by resolution and incorporate into the manual of regulations and policies entitled "Design and Construction Standards Manual" are to be used by the applicant when making a submittal under the provisions of this chapter and in the preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan. In cases where one standard conflicts with another, the more stringent applies. The plan approving authority, in considering the adequacy of a submitted plan, shall be guided by the same standards, regulations and guidelines. The plan approving authority may waive or modify any of the regulations that are deemed inappropriate or too restrictive for site conditions by granting a variance under the conditions noted in 4VAC50-30-50 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. (e) The plan approving authority shall grant written approval within 45 days of the receipt of the plan, if it is determined that the plan meets the requirements of the local control program, and if the person responsible for carrying out the plan certifies 702 August 22, 2006 that he or she will properly perform the erosion and sediment control measures included in the plan and will conform to the provisions of this chapter. When the plan is determined to be inadequate, written notice of disapproval stating the specific reasons for disapproval shall be communicated to the applicant within forty-five (45) days. The notice shall specify the modifications, terms and conditions that will permit approval of the plan. If no action is taken by the plan-approving authority within the time specified above, the plan shall be deemed approved and the person authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. (f) Responsible land disturber requirement. As a prerequisite to engaging in the land-disturbing activities shown on the approved plan, the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence, to the program authority, as provided by section 10.1-561, of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, who will be in charge of and responsible for carrying out the land-disturbing activity (the responsible land disturber). Failure to provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence prior to engaging in land-disturbing activities may result in revocation of the approval of the plan and the person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be subject to the penalties provided in this chapter. However, the plan-approving authority may waive the certificate of competence for an "Agreement in Lieu of a Plan" for construction of a single-family residence meeting the requirements in 8.1-3(t)(10) of this chapter. If a violation occurs during the land- disturbing activity, then the person responsible for carrying out the "Agreement in Lieu of a Plan" shall correct the violation and provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence, as provided by section 10.1-561 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Failure to provide the name of an individual holding a certificate of competence shall be a violation of this chapter and may result in penalties provided in this chapter. (g) An approved plan may be changed by the plan approving authority when: (1) The inspection reveals that the plan is inadequate to satisfy applicable regulations; or (2) The person responsible for carrying out the plan finds that because of changed circumstances or for other reasons the approved plan cannot be effectively carried out, and proposed amendments to the plan, consistent with the requirements of this chapter, are agreed to by the plan approving authority and the person responsible for carrying out the plan. August 22, 2006 703 (h) In order to prevent further erosion, the county may require approval of a conservation plan for any land identified in the local program as an erosion impact area. (i) When land-disturbing activity will be required of a contractor performing construction work pursuant to a construction contract, the preparation, submission, and approval of an erosion control plan shall be the responsibility of the owner. U) '.A/hono'/or oloctrio and tolophono utility comp3nios or r3ilr03d comp::mios undort3ko 3ny of tho 3ctivitios includod in subdivisions (1) and (2) of thic subsootion, thoy sh311 bo oonsidorod oxompt from tho provisions of this ohaptor. Electric, natural gas and telephone utility companies, interstate and intrastate natural gas pipeline companies and railroad companies shall file general erosion and sediment control specifications annually with the Board for review and written comments. The specifications shall apply to: (1) Construction, installation or maintenance of electric transmission, natural gas and telephone utility lines, and pipelines; and (2) Construction of the tracks, rights-of-way, bridges, communication facilities and other related structures and facilities of the railroad company. Tho b03rd shall have 60 days in whioh to appro'/o tho spocific3tions. If not 3ction is t3kon by tho bO~lrd within 60 d3Ys, tho spooifioations shall bo doomod 3pprovod. Individual appro'J31 of soparate pr:ojeott~ within subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsoction is not nooossary \\'hon 3pprovod spocific3tions 3ro follo'NOd. Projoots not includod in subdivisions (1) 3nd (2) of this subsoction shall oomply 'J./ith tho roquiromonts of tho 3pproprinte local orosion 3nd sodimont oontrol progr3m. Tho board sh311 havo tho 3uthority to onforco 3pprovod spocific3tions. Individual approval of separate projects within subdivisions 1 and 2 of this subsection is not necessary when Board approved specifications are followed, however, projects included in subdivisions 1 and 2 must comply with Board approved specifications. Projects not included in subdivisions 1 and 2 of this subsection shall comply with the requirements of the Roanoke County erosion and sediment control ordinance. The Board shall have 60 days in which to approve the specifications. If no action is taken by the Board within 60 days, the specifications shall be deemed approved. The Board shall have the authority to enforce approved specifications. (k) State agency projects are exempt from the provisions of this chapter, pursuant to Code of Virginia, 9 10.1-564. 704 August 22, 2006 (I) If the grade of a site is more than thirty-three and one-third (33.3) percent, refer to the International Building Code for steep slope development requirements. (Ord. No. 012704-9, 92, 1-27-04) (m) Cut slopes or fill slopes shall not be greater than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), unless a geotechnical report is provided for the proposed slopes. (n) Cut slopes or fill slopes shall not be greater than 25 vertical feet in height, unless a geotechnical report is provided for the proposed slopes. Cut slopes or fill slopes less than or equal to 3: 1 (horizontal:vertical) may exceed 25 vertical feet in height and shall not require a geotechnical report. (0) For any cut slopes or fill slopes greater than or equal to 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and greater than or equal to 25 vertical feet in height, as-built plans showing that the finished geometry is in substantial conformity with the design shall be provided to the plan-approving authority. (p) Fill materials, compaction methods and density specifications shall be indicated on the site development plans. Fill areas intended to support structures shall also be indicated on the site development plans. Compaction test results (per VDOT standards) shall be submitted to the plan approving authority. (q) Development plans for all new subdivisions shall show proposed lot grades to ensure positive drainage. Sec. 8.1-8. Monitoring, reports, and inspections. (a) The County may require the person responsible for carrying out the plan and/or the responsible land disturber to monitor and maintain the land-disturbing activity. The responsible land disturber will maintain records of these inspections and maintenance, to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation. (b) The department of community development shall periodically inspect the land-disturbing activity as required under the state program to ensure compliance with the approved plan and to determine whether the measures required in the plan are effective in controlling erosion and sedimentation. The owner, permittee, or person responsible for carrying out the plan shall be given notice of the inspection. If the director of community development or his assignee determines that there is a failure to comply with the plan or if the plan is determined to be inadequate, notice shall be served upon the permittee, person responsible for carrying out the plan or the August 22, 2006 705 responsible land disturber by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the permit application or in the plan certification, or by delivery at the site of the land- disturbing activities to the agent or employee supervising such activities. The notice shall specify the measures needed to comply with the plan and shall specify the time within which such measures shall be completed. Upon failure to comply within the specified time, the permit may be revoked and the permittee shall be deemed to be in violation of this chapter and, upon conviction, shall be subject to the penalties provided by this chapter. (c) Upon determination of a violation of this chapter, the Director of Community Development or his assignee may, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this chapter, issue an order requiring that all or part of the land-disturbing activities permitted on the site be stopped until the specified corrective measures have been taken. If land-disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan or proper permits, the director of community development or his assignee may, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in this chapter, issue an order requiring that all of the land-disturbing and/or construction activities be stopped until an approved plan or any required permits are obtained. Failure to comply will result in civil penalties as outlined in section 8.1-9 of this chapter. Where the alleged noncompliance is causing or IS In imminent danger of causing harmful erosion of lands or sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds of the commonwealth, or where the land-disturbing activities have commenced without an approved plan or any required permits, such an order may be issued without regard to whether the permittee has been issued a notice to comply as specified in this chapter. Otherwise, such an order may be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply with such a notice to comply. The order shall be served in the same manner as a notice to comply, and shall remain in effect for a period of seven (7) days from the date of service pending application by the enforcing authority or permit holder for appropriate relief to the Circuit Court. If the alleged violator has not obtained an approved plan or any required permits within seven (7) days from the date of service of the order, the Director of Community Development or his assignee may issue an order to the owner requiring that all construction and other work on the site, other than corrective measures, be stopped until an approved plan and any required permits have been obtained. Such an order shall be served upon the owner by registered or certified mail to the address specified in the permit application or the land records of the County. 706 August 22, 2006 The owner may appeal the issuance of an order to the Circuit Court of the County. Any person violating or failing, neglecting or refusing to obey an order issued by the director of community development or his assignee may be compelled in a proceeding instituted in the circuit court of the county to obey same and to comply therewith by injunction, mandamus or other appropriate remedy. Upon completion and approval of corrective action or obtaining an approved plan or any required permits, the order shall immediately be lifted. Nothing in this section shall prevent the director of community development or his assignee from taking any other action authorized by this chapter. * * * * 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after November 1, 2006, and that this effective date shall apply to development plans which have been accepted for review by the Community Development Department prior to November 1, 2006; provided said plans in the review process receive final approval by the County within sixty (60) days of November 1, 2006. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 2. Second readina of .!!! ordinance authorizina conveyance of an easement to Appalachian Power Company on property owned !;!y the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. "Goode Park". to provide electric service for KTP. LLC. Vinton Maaisterial District. {Pete Haislip. Director of Parks. Recreation and Tourism} 0-082206-4 Mr. Mahoney advised that he was presenting this item at the request of Mr. Haislip. He stated that this ordinance would grant an easement that will assist the neighbors in obtaining electric service. He indicated that there have been no changes since the first reading and he noted that a map of the proposed easement has been provided to the Board. He advised that there will be minimal impact to Goode Park if the easement is granted. August 22, 2006 707 In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Altizer, Mr. Mahoney confirmed that there have been no changes since the first reading. Supervisor Altizer noted that there will be minimal impact if the easement is granted and he indicated that it will do good things for the area. Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ORDINANCE 082206-4 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, "GOODE PARK" (TAX MAP NO. 61.01-1-3) TO PROVIDE ELECTRIC SERVICE FOR KTP, LLC, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, is the owner of a parcel of land containing 15.69 acres off Goode Park Road in the Town of Vinton designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 61.01-1-3 and known as "Goode Park"; and WHEREAS, KTP, LLC, a mini storage facility, has requested the conveyance of an easement across this property to provide for the extension of electrical service to their property which is adjacent Goode Park; 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 August 8, 2006; and the second reading was held on August 22,2006. 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 Appalachian Power Company for the extension of electric service to the mini storage facility of KTP, LLC. 2. That conveyance to Appalachian Power Company of the easement shown and described as "Proposed New Pole and Proposed 10' Easement" on a plat entitled 708 August 22, 2006 "Proposed Right of Way on the Property of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County" prepared by Appalachian Power Company, dated 5/15/06, 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 Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS .L Reauest to approve operational auidelines for the Capital Improvement Proaram (CIP) Review Committee. (Brent Robertson. Director of Manaaement and Budaet) A-082206-5 Mr. Robertson stated that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee was formed in September 2003 for the purpose of reviewing annual capital project requests with County staff and to make recommendations on capital planning priorities for the Board of Supervisors' consideration during the budget development process. He advised that at the time the committee was formed, operational guidelines were established to govern the committee. At the suggestion of the Board, staff has revised the operational guidelines for the CIP Review Committee to include a section that addresses appointments and terms, labeled Section E in the guidelines. Mr. Robertson outlined the following sections included in the guidelines: (1) Section A - Purpose; (2) Section B - Duties; (3) Section C - Meeting Schedule; and (4) Section D - August 22, 2006 709 Membership Requirements. He stated the revision includes the addition of Section E - Appointments and Terms. He advised that Section E states the following: Appointment is for a one-year term beginning September 1 and expiring on August 31 of each year. Members of the committee may be re-appointed to consecutive terms; however, 3 consecutive terms is deemed the maximum that can be served. It is the Board's intention to stagger terms to ensure operational continuity is maintained while adding fresh perspectives on a regular basis. Deviation from this understanding requires consensus agreement from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Robertson stated that staff recommends approval of the operational guidelines as outlined above. Supervisor Wray inquired if the terms will eventually be staggered. Mr. Robertson responded in the affirmative and noted that to accomplish staggered terms, since the length of the term is one year, Budget Department staff will work with departments to ensure a suitable mix of seasoned and new members. He noted that staff can supply the Board with a matrix regarding existing membership and their terms, and he indicated that he had this information available for the Board's review. Supervisor McNamara inquired if these are guidelines or rules, and he noted that it would be his preference that they be established as guidelines. Mr. Robertson advised that they are being presented as guidelines; however, it is at the discretion of the Board to determine how they prefer to handle it. Supervisor McNamara advised that he did not wish to complicate the process. Chairman Wray advised that it is the understanding of the Board that these are guidelines. 710 August 22, 2006 Supervisor Church stated that he is not certain that this action should be taken in the appointments section of the agenda. He stated that it might have been more appropriate to have listed this as a new business item. He indicated that he supported this action and that he would prefer that it be established as guidelines rather than rules. Supervisor Wray moved to approve the staff recommendation (approve the proposed CIP Review Committee operational guidelines). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 2. Caoital Imorovement Proaram (CIPl Review Committee (Aooointed !rl District) Supervisor Wray nominated James T. Anderson, Cave Spring Magisterial District, to serve an additional one-year term that will expire on August 31, 2007. He requested that confirmation of this appointment be placed on the consent agenda. Supervisor Altizer nominated Charles Wertalik, Vinton Magisterial District, to serve a one-year term that will expire on August 31, 2007. He requested that confirmation of this appointment be placed on the consent agenda. 3. Economic Develooment Authoritv Chairman Wray advised that appointments to the Economic Development Authority will be discussed in closed session today. August 22, 2006 711 4. Parks. Recreation. and Tourism Advisorv Commission (Appointed Jrl District) Supervisor Flora nominated Randy Smith, Hollins Magisterial District, to complete the unexpired portion of the term of Terry Harrington who resigned on May 18, 2006. This three-year term will expire on June 30, 2007. He requested that confirmation of this appointment be placed on the consent agenda. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-082206-6, R-082206-6.c Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None RESOLUTION 082206-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - 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 August 22, 2006, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes -August 8, 2006 2. Request from the schools to accept and appropriate reimbursements and state funds in the amount of $253,335.19 3. Request to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $142,719 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for a juvenile and delinquency prevention program 4. Resolution of appreciation to Sherman L. Hopkins, General Services, upon his retirement after seven years of service 712 August 22, 2006 5. Request from the Library Department to appropriate state funds in the amount of $11,048 for fiscal year 2006-2007 6. Request to accept the donation of a new variable width public drainage easement situated on Lots 6 through 10, Section 15, Samuel's Gate at The Orchards subdivision, from F&W Community Development Corp., Hollins Magisterial District 7. Confirmation of committee appointments 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, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None RESOLUTION 082206-6.c EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO SHERMAN L. HOPKINS, GENERAL SERVICES, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER SEVEN YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Sherman L. Hopkins was first employed by Roanoke County on October 1, 1998, as an automotive mechanic in the General Services Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hopkins retired from Roanoke County on August 1, 2006, as a solid waste equipment operator in the Solid Waste Division of the General Services Department after seven years and ten months of service; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hopkins was an outstanding employee and exemplified the highest standards of positive public service; and WHEREAS, Mr. Hopkins, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to SHERMAN L. HOPKINS for more than seven years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None August 22, 2006 713 IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS The following citizens spoke: Steve Noble, 5376 Canter Drive, stated that he attended the community meetings regarding the Parks, Recreation and Tourism master plan update and indicated that the difficult part of the process will be to obtain the necessary land. He questioned the wisdom of building a large recreation center that will cost millions of dollars to construct and operate, and he noted that there are several private businesses in the area who already provide these services. He noted the need for additional playing fields, open space, and parks. He indicated that Roanoke County has sufficient gymnasiums and buildings located in the schools, and he stated that the schools say they do not have sufficient funds to operate the existing facilities. He recommended that the County's Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department work with the schools to fund what is already built and not spend millions of dollars to fund something new. He also requested that construction costs for the new regional jail be made public. Frank Porter, 6529 Fairway Forest Drive, encouraged the Board to support the proposed Norfolk Southern intermodal facility as an enhancement to economic development in the greater Roanoke Valley. He stated that it will bring millions of dollars in industry, jobs, and ancillary businesses to the area. He referenced the Keagy Village development and stated that ordinances should require greater buffer areas around commercial developments. He voiced dissatisfaction with County procedures which allow developers to clear land for proposed developments when there 714 August 22, 2006 are no signed leases. He noted that Roanoke County Schools have indicated that they need funds for construction projects while the Board of Supervisors is traveling to St. Louis to view recreational facilities. He stated that there are private businesses that provide this type of service. He requested that the Board communicate with citizens on a common sense level and indicated that he feels that the only thing important to the residents in Roanoke County is educating our children. He stated that the Board needs to be realistic when spending taxpayer funds, and he further indicated that the Planning Department needs to better analyze the mix of retail versus industrial land uses. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 1:. General Fund Unaoorooriated Balance 2. Caoital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Continaency 4. Future Caoital Proiects 5. Accounts Paid = Julv 2006 6. Statement of exoenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended July 31. 2006 7. Public Safety Center Buildina Proiect Budaet Reoort August 22, 2006 715 IN RE: 8. Public Safety Center Buildina Proiect Chanae Order ReDort 9. Statement of the Treasurer's accountabilitv Der investment and Dortfolio Dolicv !!. of Julv 31.2006 CLOSED MEETING At 4:38 p.m., Supervisor Wray moved to go into closed meeting pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for public purposes; and Section 2.2-3711 A (1) discussion or consideration of the appointment of specific public officers, namely appointments to the Economic Development Authority. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: IN RE: IN RE: R-082206-7 Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray None CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 4:53 p.m. until 5:26 p.m. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Wray moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 716 August 22, 2006 RESOLUTION 082206-7 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES .h Withdrawn at the reQuest of the petitioner. Second readinQ of an ordinance to rezone .69 acres and .48 acres from R1. Low Densitv Residential. to C2. General Commercial District. in order to construct! retail sales facilitv located at 4065 Challenaer Avenue and 4053 ChallenQer Avenue. Vinton Maaisterial District. upon the petition of Vallev Gatewav. LLC. Chairman Wray advised that this item has been withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. August 22, 2006 717 2. Withdrawn at the reauest of the petitioner. Second readina of 2!l ordinance to obtain! special use permit for the construction of 2!l accessory apartment on .63 acres located at 6162 Steeplechase Drive. Windsor Hills Maaisterial District. upon the petition of Victor and Elmarie Myburah. Chairman Wray advised that this item has been withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. 3. Continued until September 26. 2006. Second readina of 2!l ordinance amendina Section 5-29. "Same-Impoundment" of Article !!.:. "Doas. Cats and Other Animals" of Chapter 5. "Animals and Fowl" to increase the daily impoundment fee charaed !rl Roanoke County from Ja.75 to J10.00 per day per animal. (John M. Chambliss. Assistant County Administrator) Chairman Wray advised that this item has been continued until September 22, 2006. He requested that Mr. Mahoney provide information regarding the continuation of this item. Mr. Mahoney stated that he requested the continuance of this matter in order to correct a problem with the legal advertisement so that the County could fulfill all the statutory and due process requirements. He advised that when an ordinance will impose fees, there are statutory notices which must occur and he noted that the ordinance will be increasing some of the fees in the animal control area. 718 August 22, 2006 4. Second readina of an ordinance to obtain .! special ~ permit for the construction of an accessorv apartment Q!l .387 acres located at 2923 Embassy Drive. Catawba Maaisterial District. upon the petition of Amina AI-Hindi. a/k/a Amina AI-Habashy. (Philip Thompson. Deputy Director of Plannina) 0-082206-8 Mr. Thompson reported that this is a request by Amina AI-Hindi to obtain a special use permit (SUP) to construct an accessory apartment in an R-1 low density residential district. He stated that the property is located at 2923 Embassy Drive in the Catawba Magisterial District. He advised that in September 2005, the petitioner's house was destroyed by fire and that Ms. AI-Hindi now plans to build a new home on the property with an accessory apartment in the basement. He advised that the proposed accessory apartment will total approximately 740 square feet and will contain one bedroom, a study, one bathroom, a living room, and a kitchen. The accessory apartment will be for Ms. AI-Hindi's daughter and possibly her mother in the future. Mr. Thompson stated that access to the apartment will be through the basement at the rear of the house. He reported that the surrounding zoning is R-1 low density residential and R-3 medium density multi-family residential. The surrounding land uses are single family homes and the future land use map and the community plan designate the property as neighborhood conservation. He indicated that the proposal is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the community plan. Mr. Thompson advised that the August 22, 2006 719 property has ample space to meet all applicable development regulations and no adverse impacts are anticipated. He indicated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 1 and one citizen spoke in favor of the request. He noted that the Planning Commissioners has questions regarding a timeline for rebuilding the house and they recommended approval of the SUP with a vote of 4-0 with the following two conditions: (1) The location of the accessory apartment shall be limited to the basement of the principal structure; and (2) This special use permit shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the approval date. Supervisor Church requested clarification regarding condition #2. Mr. Thompson advised that this condition was placed on the SUP by the Planning Commission and the intent was to allow them to revisit the issue. He stated that the Planning Commission had concerns that if the house was sold, someone else would occupy the home and they would want to revisit the SUP at that time. He noted that this condition will be difficult to enforce. Ms. AI-Hindi was present at the meeting and advised that she is the owner of the property. She noted that she was formerly Ms. AI-Hindi; however, she now goes by the name Amina AI-Habashy. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Church regarding the five-year limitation on the issuance of the SUP, Ms. AI-Habashy advised that her home is located on this property and she does not intend to use the property for any other purpose. She noted that she provided the Board with a letter stating that she does not understand the need for condition #2 in light of the fact that there is a 720 August 22, 2006 condominium development currently being built in her neighborhood. She requested clarification regarding whether condition #2 limiting the SUP to a five-year period is necessary. She also stated that she was advised by a County employee that at times, conditions are recommended by the Planning Commission which are not included when the matter is approved by the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Church advised that he has concerns regarding the five-year stipulation; however, he noted that he has not received any negative comments from the community. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Church asked Mr. Mahoney to clarify how the five-year limit on the SUP will be enforced at the end of this time period. Mr. Mahoney stated that this condition will present problems with respect to enforcement. He indicated that the zoning staff will be responsible for the enforcement of this condition and he is not certain how this would be handled. He further noted that if the applicant is successful in securing Board approval for the SUP and a family member is utilizing the structure, if a future Board decides not to renew the SUP at the end of the five-year term, it will present a problem with respect to enforcement. Supervisor Church stated that he is inclined to recommend approval with the removal of condition #2. Supervisor Wray concurred with this recommendation since the condition will be difficult to enforce. Mr. Mahoney advised that in the past, the Board has placed a time limit on special use permits where there are concerns about public, commercial activities that could August 22, 2006 721 potentially pose a public nuisance to the neighborhood. This limitation allows the Board an opportunity to revisit the action at a later date. He advised that he is not, however, aware of a situation where the Board has applied a time limit on an SUP for an accessory apartment. Supervisor Altizer inquired if time limits are typically attached to a SUP. Mr. Mahoney advised that it is not a typical condition. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance with condition #2 removed. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ORDINANCE 082206-8 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT LOCATED ON .387 ACRE AT 2923 EMBASSY DRIVE (TAX MAP NO. 36.19-1-23) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF AMINA AL-HINDI AKA AMINA AL-HABASHY WHEREAS, Amina AI-Hindi aka Amina AI-Habashy has filed a petition for a special use permit for construction of an accessory apartment located on .387 acre located at 2923 Embassy Drive (Tax Map No. 39.19-1-23) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 1,2006; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on June 27, 2006; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on August 22,2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 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 Amina AI- Hindi aka Amina AI-Habashy for construction of an accessory apartment located at 2923 Embassy Drive in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 722 August 22, 2006 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 location of the accessory apartment shall be limited to the basement of the principal structure. (2) This Specbl Use Permit shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the approval date. 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 Church to adopt the ordinance with Condition #2 removed, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 5. Second readina of i!!l ordinance revokina ! soecial !:!!! oermit and removina the conditions Q!l aooroximatelv 1.9 acres located at 6044 Peters Creek Road. Hollins Maaisterial District. uoon the oetition of Jesse Jones. (Philio Thomoson. Deoutv Director of Plannina) 0-082206-9 Mr. Thompson advised that Mr. Jones is requesting the removal of a SUP, with associated conditions from a C-2 General Commercial zoning district. He stated that the 1.9 acre parcel is located at 6044 Peters Creek Road, northwest of the intersection of Peters Creek Road and Airport Road. He reported that in August 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved a SUP for a convenience store with 17 conditions. The conditions addressed several issues including building materials and design, signage, lighting, screening and buffering, noise, hours of operation, and road access. August 22, 2006 723 Mr. Thompson stated that while Mr. Jones was the owner of the property, the petitioner for the SUP was Vision Builders, LLC, who was negotiating with Sheetz to build a convenience store with gasoline pumps. He noted that these negotiations were unsuccessful and Mr. Jones would now like to remove the SUP and associated conditions in order to make the property more marketable. Mr. Thompson advised that the SUP becomes void after two years if the use is not commenced; therefore if nothing occurs on this site, the SUP will be void at the end of August 2007. Mr. Thompson stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 1 and one citizen spoke. The citizen voiced concerns that the petitioner would come back with a new request for a SUP. The Planning Commissioners had questions regarding the procedures for re-submitting a request for a SUP. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the revocation of the SUP with a vote of 4-0. Supervisor Flora referenced condition #17 which stated that "no access shall be allowed from Nover Avenue and Vivian Avenue", and stated that his only concern is that by removing all the conditions of the SUP, it would allow the developer to use these roads for ingress and egress for a commercial activity. Mr. Thompson stated that these conditions are associated with the convenience store SUP; for any other proposed use, this condition does not apply. Mr. Mahoney concurred and stated that any use that is permitted by right does not fall under these conditions. The conditions are only attached to a convenience store use. 724 August 22, 2006 Supervisor McNamara requested clarification regarding the advantages to the petitioner of going through the process to remove the SUP. Mr. Thompson stated that the petitioner feels that it will allow him to better market the property. Supervisor McNamara inquired if the use was C-2 at the time the SUP was originally issued. Mr. Thompson responded in the affirmative. Supervisor McNamara inquired if any use other than a convenience store is proposed, will the conditions of the SUP apply. Mr. Thompson advised that the SUP conditions only apply to a convenience store use. Supervisor McNamara advised that he would like to speak with the petitioner. Mr. Jones was present and advised that he was the owner of the property located at 6044 Peters Creek Road. Supervisor McNamara questioned how the removal of the SUP would benefit Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones stated that it has been difficult to market the property due to the restrictions on the SUP. He noted that if a convenience store use is proposed in the future, it will have to come back to the Board for approval. Supervisor Flora expressed concerns that this change does not make sense because the conditions only apply to a convenience store; any other C-2 use of the property does not fall under the restrictions of the SUP. He stated that there is no apparent benefit of removing the SUP. Mr. Jones stated that he feels the property will be more marketable if the conditions do not apply; further, he noted that the SUP will not be valid in another year. Supervisor Flora stated that the SUP was negotiated with August 22, 2006 725 a lot of give and take and advised that if the Board removes the SUP, the probability of having one approved in the future is significantly less. Supervisor Altizer remarked that he has driven by the property and that the sign on the site indicates that it is "under contract". Mr. Jones confirmed that the property is currently under contract with a developer. Supervisor Altizer stated that if the property is already under contract, he does not understand how removing the SUP will affect the marketability of the property. He inquired if Mr. Jones just wants to sell the property. Mr. Jones responded in the affirmative and indicated that he discussed this matter with the citizens who attended the Planning Commission meeting and they indicated that they did not have any problems with this change. Supervisor McNamara stated that if the petitioner wants the conditions removed, the Board should remove them. He indicated that if a request to issue a SUP comes back to the Board in the future, the same conditions should be applied. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ORDINANCE 082206-9 REVOKING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND REMOVING THE CONDITIONS ON APPROXIMATELY 1.9 ACRES LOCATED AT 6044 PETERS CREEK ROAD (PART OF TAX MAP NO. 26.16-2-14) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF JESSE JONES 726 August 22, 2006 WHEREAS, Vision Builders, LLC was granted a special use permit with conditions to operate a convenience store on approximately 1.9 acres located at 6044 Peters Creek Road (Part of Tax Map No. 26.16-2-14) in the Hollins Magisterial District by Ordinance 082305-6 adopted by the Board on August 23, 2005; and WHEREAS, Jesse Jones, the owner of this property, has filed a petition to remove the special use permit and the conditions placed on this property by Ordinance 082305-6; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 1,2006; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on July 25, 2006; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on August 22,2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board REVOKES the special use permit to operate a convenience store on 1.9 acres located at 6044 Peters Creek Road (Part of Tax Map No. 26.16-2-14) in the Hollins Magisterial District and REMOVE the following conditions: 1. All building, including gas island canopy, exterior walls shall be brick, horizontal slate or vertical board and batten siding (materials shall be either wood, fiber cement or vinyl material) from grade to eave. 2. The store roof will have articulation in the form of dormers, cupola or similar designs. 3. Colors used in all exterior building materials including the canopy will be subdued and will not be bright. 4. Canopy over gas pump island - Shall have a maximum clear, unobstructed height to its underside not to exceed fourteen (14) feet six (6) inches and a maximum overall height not to exceed sixteen (16) feet six (6) inches. 5. Canopy over gas pump island - There shall be no illumination of any portion of the fascia of the canopy. 6. Canopy over gas pump island - Any lighting fixtures or sources of light that are a part of the underside of the canopy shall be recessed into the underside of the canopy so as not to protrude below the canopy ceiling. All such lighting associated with the canopy shall be directed downward toward the pump islands and shall not be directed outward or away from the site. 7. Canopy over gas pump island - The vertical dimension of the fascia of such canopy shall be no more than two (2) feet. 8. Canopy over gas pump island - Signs attached to or on such canopy shall not be illuminated and shall not extend beyond the ends or extremities of the fascia of the canopy to which or on which they are attached. August 22, 2006 727 9. Site Signage - Freestanding signage shall be limited to monument style not exceeding eight (8) feet in height and ten (10) feet in width, and shall be constructed of material to match the buildings and canopy. Freestanding signs shall be ground lit or top lit with shielded lamps. Signage placed on the building(s) shall occupy less than 5% of the building fac;ade area. 10. Lighting - The top of any light fixture shall not exceed 15 feet. 11. Dumpster - The sides and rear of the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed of material to match the buildings and canopy. 12. Dumpster - Shall not be emptied between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am. 13. Screening and Buffering - Buffer yard shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet wide along the entire length of the northeast property boundary. 14. No outside speaker system shall be utilized on site. 15. Building(s) height shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet. 16. Hours of operation shall be between 6:00 a.m. and 11 :00 p.m. 17. No access shall be allowed from Nover Avenue or Vivian Avenue. 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 Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Jim Paschal, 5865 Salisbury Drive, voiced concerns regarding erosion in his back yard. He noted that the Board adopted an ordinance earlier today that is designed to address steep slope development. He indicated that he purchased a home built by Boone Homes and he advised that they are not addressing the erosion issues on his property. He stated that the County should be monitoring development on slopes and he indicated that there is a recurring problem with erosion in his neighborhood. 728 August 22, 2006 Mr. Hodge advised that County staff will meet with Mr. Paschal to discuss this issue further. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor McNamara: (1) He thanked Mr. Hodge for addressing the concerns expressed by Mr. Paschal under citizen comments. (2) He requested information regarding a potential fireworks display to be held at Green Hill Park on July 4, 2007. Mr. Hodge indicated that he did not have specific information available at this time other than the fact that a request has been made. Supervisor McNamara requested that the Board receive a briefing at the September 12 meeting regarding this matter. Supervisor Church: He stated that he was unaware of the request to hold a fireworks display in Green Hill Park which is in the Catawba District. He requested information regarding this matter. Mr. Hodge advised that staff received a request to hold a fireworks display at Green Hill Park on July 4 due to the fact that the City of Salem will no longer be allowing fireworks. He advised that staff is examining the issue and no decision has been reached at this time. Mr. Hodge stated that a full report will be provided at the September 12 meeting. Supervisor Church requested that he be kept informed regarding the request and he noted that citizens in the surrounding area will be concerned and likely opposed to this request. Supervisor Altizer: (1) He stated that last week was a difficult week in the Vinton District. He extended condolences to the family of Don Tarter, a volunteer August 22, 2006 729 firefighter at the Mount Pleasant Station, who passed away last week. He noted Mr. Tarter's record of service to the community. (2) He advised that there was a recent accident on Randall and Pitzer Road that took the life of a 16-year old young man. He extended his sympathies to the family. He advised that he has spoken with Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, who has contacted VDOT with a request to install signage warning drivers of dangerous road conditions in the area where this accident occurred. Supervisor Flora: He noted that he provided Mr. Hodge with a petition from citizens in Bonsack who are experiencing problems with a detention pond that is retaining rather than detaining water. He advised that this is causing a problem with mosquitoes and he asked that Mr. Covey address this issue. Supervisor Wrav: (1) He extended condolences to the family of Ernest Amos, Volunteer Fire Chief at the Clearbrook Station, who passed away on Monday. He stated that Mr. Amos was known for his wisdom, demeanor, and common sense approach to issues. (2) He noted that the five-year anniversary of September 11 is approaching, and advised that the regional memorial event honoring those who were killed on that day will be held on September 10, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. at the Market Square Building in downtown Roanoke. He extended an invitation to all citizens in the Roanoke Valley to attend this event. 730 August 22, 2006 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Wray adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ~ifl~Q )'~. (hllWJJ Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board ~~O.W,^_. \ Michael A. Wray . ~ Chairman