Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/27/2009 - RegularJanuary 27, 2009 37 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 January 27, 2009 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 January 2009. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Supervisors Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Charlotte A. Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Richard C. Flora STAFF PRESENT: John M. Chambliss, Jr., County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Pastor Keith Beasley, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Supervisor Church advised that he had spoken with Mr. Mahoney in reference to the work session scheduled for this meeting to consider how the public is to 3$ January 27, 2009 be notified concerning petitions for special use permits or rezonings. He stated that a public meeting was held recently in his area and he had received significant input from citizens on this subject. He stated that since Mr. Mahoney had requested information from the Community Development department for the work session, he wanted to move forward with the work session today with the understanding that the issue could be revisited before any decisions were made. IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing ~ Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Executive Director Tim Steller Mr. O'Donnell advised that he was appointed by the Board to serve on the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare (BRBH) Board of Directors and that he had been elected as its chairman. He reported that Keith Beasley, who was also appointed by the Board of Supervisors to the BRBH, was present at the meeting. He advised that he had requested that the BRBH staff ensure that the community is informed of the services they provide. He introduced Mr. Steller, Executive Director, who was present to make the briefing. Mr. Steller thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. He advised that BRBH is a community service board under Virginia law, which requires municipalities and counties to establish such a board to perform the mandates required to provide services for those citizens in their area who are mentally ill, alcohol and substances abusers or have intellectual disabilities. He advised that the County, in January 27, 2009 39 collaboration with the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Counties of Botetourt and Craig, established BRBH several years ago. He advised that the Board of Supervisors appoints members to serve on the Board of Directors and recently appointed Reverend Keith Beasley to replace Rita Gtiniecki. He also reported that Linda Manns was appointed by the Board of Supervisors to serve as a member at large from Roanoke County. He advised that the sole purpose of BRBH is to work with people with a severe illness or disability, who would have been relegated to a life in an institution in years past; however, by virtue of modern medications, techniques and therapy, those people can now successfully live within the community. Mr. Steller advised that last year they assisted 1,279 residents of Roanoke County with a mental illness, 477 residents with a substance use disorder and 237 persons with an intellectual disability, which is the current term for mental retardation. He advised that 831 individuals from the County were seen by Emergency Services, which covers the preliminary assessments and evaluations before further services are provided. He advised that they provide a variety of local community based treatments and support services and work with local schools on prevention programs to try to alleviate the need for these issues in younger citizens. He advised that the financial allocation by the County is $175,000 and they were able to leverage these funds so that every dollar contributed by the County resulted in $36.04 of services for a total value of more than $6,306,000 in actual services to the residents of Roanoke County. 4,~ January 27, 2009 Mr. Steller advised that, in a few weeks, they will move the regional crisis stabilization program and residential treatment program for substance abuse to new quarters at the Blue Ridge Recovery Center, located at 3003 Hollins Road in the City of Roanoke, with the new building financed by municipal bonding. He advised that the capacity for each of these major programs will be 20 beds each, which will be an increase from the current 16 beds. He advised that other accomplishments for the County include the following: (1) services in the schools for special education students funded under the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), which has grown to include elementary center-based programs, (2) school-based programs in five elementary schools, (3) therapists working in two middle schools and (4) a request to adopt a program in 2009 that would be appropriate for high schools. He is also pleased to report that a new service was established in reaction to the needs of the CSA, which will employ Intensive Case Management services to support and maintain youth transitioning back home from a residential facility and to prevent those at risk of such placement from having to leave their community. He advised that he was proud of the work they are doing and expressed his appreciation to the Board for their support. Chairman Altizer thanked Mr. Steller for the briefing and BRBH for the services they provide to the community. He congratulated him on moving into their new facility. January 27, 2009 41 IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution to amend and modi the authorization for the abandonment of right-of-way shown as a ortion of Brentwood Court on Plat of Section No. 3 of Kingston Court, in Plat Book 11" page 39, and the acceptance of the extension of Brenfinrood Court into the State Secondary System, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Joe Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorne R-012709-1 Mr. Obenshain advised that he was working with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Community Development department to bring the County procedures into sync with the new VDOT procedures. He reported that VDOT has specific procedures for determining the length of new streets in subdivisions. He stated that when County staff previously requested that Brentwood Court be accepted into the State system, the length of the street was very carefully measured from a stub street when the subdivision was first created and the distance was 0.07 of a mile. He stated that VDOT measured the distance from a node of point in the intersection of two streets and their distance was 0.08 of a mile. He advised that VDOT has requested that the County's resolution incorporate their form AM-4.3 to be consistent with standard procedures for road extensions. He stated that once the resolution is adopted and forwarded to VDOT, the County should receive notification from the Transportation Commissioner that the property, which was part of the original cul-de-sac of Brentwood 42 January 27, 2009 Court, is surplus for any future road use and may be vacated and returned to the adjoining owners at some point in the future. There was no discussion. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer, NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora RESOLUTION 012709-1 TO AMEND AND MODIFY THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOWN AS A PORTION OF BRENTWOOD COURT ON PLAT OF SECTION NO. 3 OF KINGSTON COURT, IN PLAT BOOK 11, PAGE 39, OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE, AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXTENSION OF BRENTWOOD COURT INTO THE STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM, SAID RIGHT-OF- WAY LOCATED IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, on September 9, 2008, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors adopted resolution # 090908-3 abandoning the portion of Brentwood Court, VA Secondary Route 1983, as previously dedicated to public use in Plat Book 11, page 39, the acceptance of the entire length of Brentwood Court from Chippenham Drive as shown in Plat Book 27, page 156, and requesting permission from the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner for the vacation or "quit" of those portions of the original cul-de-sac of Brentwood Court which no longer serve public convenience as to warrant their maintenance at public expense; and WHEREAS, questions have risen as to the exact distance measurement for the total distance of the street identified as Brentwood Court, State Route Number 1983, from the center line of its intersection with Chippenham Drive and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has requested that this Board's resolution incorporate the information to be submitted on VDOT Form AM-4.3 for acceptance of this street into the state secondary road system; and WHEREAS, all other provisions of the Resolution # 090908-3 shall remain in full force and effect. January 27, 2009 43 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1) That pursuant to § 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, this Board hereby abandons from the secondary system of state highways so much of Brentwood Court, State Route Number 1983, as denoted in the attached VDOT Form AM-4.3. 2) That pursuant to § 33.1-299 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, this Board hereby requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add this street, Brentwood Court, State Route Number 1983, as described on the attached VDOT form AM 4.3 to the secondary systems of highways. 3) That upon the County's receipt of notification from the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner as required by Section 33.1-154, Code of Virginia, (1950 as amended) that any remaining public right of way is no longer deemed necessary for public use, such property may be deemed vacated and may be returned to adjoining landowners by subsequent action of this Board. 4) That this resolution shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. 5) That a certified copy of this resolution shall be forwarded to the Salem Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA 1. The etp ition of Foxhall Properties, LLC to rezone 12.237 acres from I-1' Low Intensi Industrial District, to I-2CS, High Intensi Industrial District with Conditions and S ecial Use Permit, for the purpose of operating an asphalt Ip ant and construction yard located at 4127 West Main Street, Salem, Catawba Magisterial District 44 .January 27, 2009 Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for February 24, 2009. The vote on the motion resulted in the following tie vote with Supervisor Flora being absent: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, NAYS: Supervisors Moore, Church ABSENT: Supervisor Flora Chairman Altizer asked Mr. Mahoney to brief the Board on the process to be followed when there is a tie vote and one member is absent. Mr. Mahoney reported that when there is a tie vote and a Supervisor is absent, the agenda item would be carried to the next Board meeting, which in this instance would be on February 10, 2009. He stated that the tie vote does not automatically defeat the motion; however, it would defeat the motion if the Board member had to abstain due to a conflict of interest. He advised that the Board's action does not affect the advertised public hearing scheduled by the Planning Commission for its meeting on February 3, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. at the Roanoke County Administration Building. He advised that if the Board approves the first reading at its meeting on February 10th, the date and time of the Board's public hearing would be determined at that time; however, he observed that there may not be sufficient time to schedule a public hearing at the Board's February 24, 2009, meeting due to statutory requirements for advertising the public hearing once a week for two consecutive weeks, with six days between the first and second publication. He also stated that if the Board does not January 27, 2009 45 approve the request at the meeting on February 10th, this action would create additional problems because a petitioner is entitled by State Code to have the application heard before the governing body. Chairman Altizer advised that he wanted to be sure that citizens understand that the non-action being taken on this item does not affect the Planning Commission's public hearing that will be held at their meeting on February 3, 2009. He advised that this item will be placed on the Board's agenda for their meeting on February 10, 2009. IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance 091107-8 approving the West Roanoke River Flood Mitigation Project' Phase II and authorizing the acquisition of additional real estate, and providing for an emergency, Catawba Magisterial District. Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) 0-012709-2 Mr. Tarek Moneir advised that in September 2007, the Board adopted an ordinance accepting a flood mitigation grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and authorized acquisition of real estate for these purposes. He reported that one of the properties, owned by Lois Spigle, consisted of four parcels, instead of two, as previously authorized and that there was a clerical error when the ordinance was first presented for Board approval. He advised that it is necessary at this 46 January 27, 2009 time for the Board to amend this ordinance to authorize the acquisition of the additional two parcels. He stated that the State has approved the grant; Ms. Spigle has already vacated the property and is anxiously waiting for the closing of this transaction. He reported that this ordinance has no additional cost associated with it. He advised that staff recommends the Board approve the first reading of this ordinance and authorize the waiver of the second reading to expedite the closing of the property. Supervisor Church expressed appreciation to Mr. Moneir for his efforts in this matter. He advised that this program has been very important to the affected areas and properties and it is a proactive effort on behalf of the County. There was no discussion. Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading, waive the second reading upon afour-fifths (4/5th) vote of the Board and adopt the ordinance as an emergency measure. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer, NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora ORDINANCE 012709-2 AMENDING ORDINANCE 091107-8 APPROVING THE WEST ROANOKE RIVER FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECT, PHASE II, AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL REAL ESTATE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007 the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County adopted Ordinance 091107-8 accepting a flood mitigation grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to purchase flood-prone homes along the Roanoke River in west Roanoke County; and 1 1 January 27, 2009 47 WHEREAS, this ordinance also authorized the acquisition of real estate for these purposes; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the West Roanoke River Flood Mitigation Grant (the Grant) is to reduce the number of structures located in the flood plain and subject to repetitive flooding damages; and WHEREAS, staff had identified three properties for acquisition, based upon the severity of flooding and flooding depths; and WHEREAS, the real estate to be acquired is located within the Roanoke River flood plain and this area has been identified in the Federal Emergency Management Agency Repetitive Loss List of Properties for acquisition based on severity of flooding; and WHEREAS, one of these properties consisted of four parcels instead of the two parcels identified in this ordinance, and it is necessary to amend this ordinance to authorize the acquisition of these additional parcels; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter authorizes the waiver of the second reading of an ordinance in an emergency upon a 4/5ths vote of the Board of Supervisors. Time is of the essence in closing of the acquisition of this real estate; therefore, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 27, 2009, and the second reading was dispensed with due to the emergency. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition of real estate, referenced by tax map number, from the following property owner, their successors or assigns, is hereby authorized: Tax Map No. Property Address Owner 64.04-2-30 4697 West River Road Lois Spigle 64.04-2-31 4697 West River Road Lois Spigle 64.04-2-29 4697 West River Road Lois Spigle 64.04-2-32 4697 West River Road Lois Spigle 2. The consideration for each real estate acquisition shall not exceed a value to be determined by an independent fair market value appraisal; and 3. That the consideration for each real estate acquisition shall be paid from the West Roanoke River Flood Mitigation Project, Phase II, Grant funds and County's match, not to exceed and subject to the amount of funds available; and 4. That in order to accomplish the provisions of the Grant and ordinance, the Board previously adopted on December 18, 2001, by reference the "County of Roanoke Hazard Mitigation Grant Program - Acquisition Policy," which established the procedures and requirements by which acquisition of all real estate shall be accomplished. The Board may amend this policy from time to time by resolution; and 5. That time being of the essence, an emergency exists, the second reading of this ordinance has been dispensed with in accordance with the provisions of the Roanoke County Charter. 4,$ January 27, 2009 6. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish these acquisitions, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney's office. On motion of Supervisor Church to approve the first reading, waive the second reading upon afour-fifths vote of the Board, and adopt the ordinance as an emergency measure, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance to accept the conveyance of two ap rcels of unimproved real estate for the extension of Chestnut Mountain Circle, Rte 1034, and authorize the addition thereof to the State Secondary System of Highways, Vinton Magisterial District. Paul Mahoney, Coun Attorney). 0-012709-3 Mr. Mahoney advised there have been no changes since the first reading of the ordinance and requested that the Board approve the ordinance. There was no discussion. Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer, NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora January 27, 2009 4,9 ORDINANCE 012709-3 TO ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF TWO PARCELS OF UNIMPROVED REAL ESTATE FOR THE EXTENSION OF CHESTNUT MOUNTAIN CIRCLE, ROUTE 1034, TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND TO AUTHORIZE THE ADDITION THEREOF TO THE STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS WHEREAS, as part of the extension of Chestnut Mountain Circle, State Route 1034, as part of a Roanoke County's Rural Addition project funded in partnership with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), two adjacent land owners desired to donate portions of their property in fee simple to Roanoke for right-of-way purposes to permit the construction of a cul-de-sac at the terminus of Chestnut Mountain Circle; and WHEREAS, Jeffrey W. Thomas and Rhonda L. Thomas and Patricia Rush Williamson have freely and voluntarily entered into deeds to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia to thus allow the Board of Supervisors to obtain ownership of the each property for purposes road construction upon approval of this ordinance and recordation of a deed; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests to the County of Roanoke be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 2009, and the second reading and public hearing was held on January 27, 2009. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition from Patricia Rush Williamson of approximately 0.0155 acres of real estate for purposes of location and construction of extensions and improvements of Chestnut Mountain Circle, Route 1034, as shown on a plat entitled "Plat showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by PATRICIA RUSH WILLIAMSON Roanoke County Tax Map Parcel #61.04-02-78.00 situated along CHESTNUT MOUNTAIN CIRCLE, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia" dated July 9, 2008, (Exhibit "A") is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the acquisition from Jeffrey W. Thomas and Rhonda L. Thomas of approximately 0.0155 acres of real estate for purposes of location and construction of extensions and improvements of Chestnut Mountain Circle, Route 1034, as shown on a plat entitled "Plat showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by JEFFREY W. THOMAS & RHONDA L. THOMAS Roanoke County Tax Map Parcel #61.04-02-80.00 situated along CHESTNUT MOUNTAIN CIRCLE, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia" dated July 9, 2008, (Exhibit "B") is hereby authorized and approved. 3. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. rJ~ January 27, 2009 On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora IN RE: APPOINTMENTS Chairman Altizer advised that there were no appointments to be made at this time by the members of the Board. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-012709-4 Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer, NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora RESOLUTION 012709-4 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: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January 27, 2008 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 4 inclusive, as follows: 1. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Health Grant in the amount of $1,000 for the Bike Smart Virginia Bicycle Helmet/Rodeo 2. Request from the schools to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $64,200 for fiscal year 2008-2009 for services rendered to Medicaid eligible students January 27, 2009 51 3. Request from the schools to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $30,000 for incentive from the Commonwealth of Virginia for Nationally Board Certified Teachers 4. Confirmation of Board member appointments to committees, commissions, and boards for 2009 That the Cterk 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 McNamara to adopt the consent resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports, with Item 5 removed for discussion. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer, NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Accounts Paid -December 2008 5. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended December 31.2008 52 January 27, 2009 Supervisor Altizer requested that Ms. Owens, Director of Finance, include information from the previous year with this report for future agendas. Ms. Owens advised that she would be glad to provide the information as requested. Supervisor Altizer moved to receive and file Item 5. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer, NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora 6. Report of claims activity for the self-insurance proctram for the ep riod ended December 31' 2008 IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 3:32 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meeting, following the work sessions, pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel and briefing by staff regarding a specific legal matter, namely, the Integrity Windows performance agreement. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer, NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora January 27, 2009 53 IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session on the Route 221 Area Plan. Phili Thompson, De u Director of Planning; David Holladay, Planning Administrator; Nicole Gilkeson, Planner I~ The work session was held from 3:44 p.m. to 4:40 p.m. County staff present included Mr. Thompson, Mr. Holladay, Ms. Gilkeson, Lindsay Blankenship, Planner II, and Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development. Mr. Holladay gave a PowerPoint presentation of the Route 221 Area Plan, which identifies implementation strategies dealing with community identity, natural resources, public services, transportation facilities and development pressures to be implemented over the next 15 years. He advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Scenario 4, which included a modified future land use Scenario 2 and modified utility phasing plan Scenario 2. He advised that staff will request that the Board adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the Route 221 Area Ptan after the public hearing at the evening session. 2. Work session to discuss naming the new Multi-Generational Recreation Center. Pete Haislip, Director, Parks, Recreation and Tourism The work session was held from 4:45 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. County staff present included Mr. Haislip, Marcus Ordonez, Assistant Director of Recreation and the following members of the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission: Fred 54 January 27, 2009 Corbett, Cave Spring District; Jerry Williams, At-Large Member from the Windsor Hills District; Paul Bailey, Windsor Hills District; and Roger Falls, Vinton District. It was the consensus of the Board that "Green Ridge" and "Splash Valley at Green Ridge" could be used for marketing purposes and that Mr. Haislip would bring final recommendations for approval at the next Board meeting. Although there was discussion about the name "Green Ridge" being followed by Recreation Center, Family Center, Community Center or Fitness and Aquatics Center, the Supervisors reached no consensus on the official name. 3. Work session to consider the adoption of a Policy for Neighborhood Informational Meetings for Rezoning and/or Special Use Permit Applications. Paul Mahoney, Coun Attorne The work session was held from 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board as follows: (1) that adoption of a policy is not necessary and (2) that any notice distributed on County letterhead of a neighborhood meeting should include a disclaimer stating that the meeting is sponsored by the petitioner and is not endorsed by the County. 4. Scheduling of additional Board meetings After a previously scheduled work session, there was discussion concerning the need to schedule additional Board meetings. Mr. Mahoney advised that he was concerned that significant notice had already been given that a public hearing January 27, 2009 55 on the Adams Construction Company rezoning request was going to be held at the February 24, 2009, meeting. He advised that the tie vote, which carried the first reading of the ordinance to the February 10, 2009, meeting, may not give staff sufficient time to provide the public with notice of a public hearing on February 24tH Chairman Altizer advised that, if necessary, the Board could hold an 1 evening session at the March 10, 2009, meeting to accommodate a public hearing for the Adams Constructions rezoning request. He also suggested that an additional evening meeting in March would be necessary for budget funding requests. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 5:47 p.m. to 6:02 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-012709-5 At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer, NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora rJ6 January 27, 2009 RESOLUTION 012709-5 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public hearing to receive comments on an administrative appeal requested ~ Brian Perkins from the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of proffered zonin conditions from a rezoning dated July 28, 1987, regarding truck repairs and storage, 6190 Twine Hollow Road. Catawba Magisterial District. Joe Obenshain, Senior Assistant Coun Attorne A-012709-6 January 27, 2009 57 Mr. Obenshain advised that he would make a few comments concerning the procedure for this public hearing before giving Mr. Perkins and his attorney, Lance Hale, the opportunity to speak. Mr. Obenshain advised that this item concerns the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's ruling to the terms of proffered conditions adopted by the Board of Supervisors in a 1987 rezoning application. He stated that, according to the County's zoning ordinance, when an interpretation is appealed, the matter has to come before the Board of Supervisors. He advised that the Board is acting in a judicial capacity to rule upon the merits of the objection to the ruling. He advised that the petitioner is present; Mr. Hale will speak first; John Murphy, Zoning Administrator, will speak next; and Mr. Hale will have the opportunity to make concluding remarks. He advised that if there are citizens requesting to speak they could speak at the Board's discretion. Mr. Hale advised that he was speaking on behalf of the petitioner, Brian Perkins, and that B. Perkins, Inc. is a tenant on the property located on Twine Hollow Road. He stated that the property is deeded to Mr. Bandurski, who has given him his consent and approval to move forward. He reported that Mr. Perkins had received a copy of the violation report prepared by Mr. Richardson and he understood that each of the Board members received a copy. He advised that the issue centers around a 1987 determination, when this property was zoned for commercial or industrial use, and on a provision that was attached as a proffer. He stated that the language on the proffered condition is "this parcel shall only be used for truck repairs and storage." He advised rJB January 27, 2009 that, looking at the conditions for the property as it is zoned, it seems to fit within a High Intensity Industrial District; the permitted use would fit within several categories that would include truck repair and storage; and it even complies with more stringent site development regulations that are attached to it as permitted uses under Section 30.62- 2. He advised that the only real question is whether the interpretation of this proffered condition somehow limits Mr. Perkins' usage of the property. He advised that there has been truck storage and repairs on the property and that particular usage has not been alleviated. He advised that the question is how you determine the meaning of the words "and storage" of the proffer. Mr. Hale advised that they disagree with the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator, which seems to limit "and storage" to only "and storage of truck repairs or truck issues." He stated that there was no indication of the language on the proffer that determines that it refers back to the truck and it was simply truck repairs and storage in a broader sense. Mr. Hale advised that they maintain that storage of the truck parts and truck issues, in a broader sense, includes automobiles because that would also fit the definition of truck repairs and would be included in the permissible activity there. He stated that in looking at trucks, tires are certainly parts of trucks, such as cars, and are certainly able to be stored there; however, the belief that tires can certainly be stored there does not become an infamous use as far as zoning issues. He stated that they were references in the material provided and that Mr. Perkins had indicated that he was trying to do away with the truck tires and there was some confusion or misinformation January 27, 2009 rJ9 received. He reported that, on the site at this moment, there is a machine capable of taking the tires and reducing them down to some type of shred of a larger size between 6 to 12 inches, which would either become part of the landfill or stored in piles and would no longer have the character of tires. He stated that there is some concern about the information that Mr. Ferguson received as to whether the machine was actually used on the site. He advised that Mr. Perkins was told that he could not use the machine on site. He displayed a picture and described the operation of the mobile machine. He advised that there was another machine on the site to deal with the tires and he displayed a picture of that second machine. He advised that using both of these machines could resolve the issue of having the tires on the site. He advised that the problem seems to be the issuance of a permit to run the machine and that Mr. Perkins was advised by Mr. Richardson that he could not operate the shredder and was told that he could not move the tires that were already there since there was a zoning violation. Mr. Hale advised that, at that point, Mr. Perkins contested the zoning ordinance violation because he felt the tires are truck parts and not storage or an accumulation of non- usable tires. He advised that there was a liquidation of Mr. Perkins' truck repair center, which resulted in these tires being accumulated and stacked for the purpose of dealing with storage and the ultimate dissolution of the tires. He stated there had been some problems with timing in trying to get the machines operational. He would argue that the language that limited this zoning does not limit storage to truck parts only, but would also include the tires that are part of trucks and that their storage is an appropriate use 60 January 27, 2009 of the property and is well within the County's zoning ordinance on a temporary basis as dissolution of these tires is done. He reported that dissolution of the tires would not be something that could be done overnight and would take some time to do; however, it would not be an impermissible zoning issue. He advised that, due to the reasons he stated, the appeal was noted and it is not a violation of the storage. Supervisor Church inquired as to what will happen to the accumulation of tires. Mr. Hale displayed another picture showing the type of shreds of the tires that would be generated by the machine. Supervisor Church asked about the approximate time-frame when the accumulation of tires occurred. Mr. Hale advised that it occurred from approximately April through June 2008. Supervisor Church inquired as to where the tires came from. Mr. Hale advised that it was his understanding that they came from liquidation of Mr. Perkins' closed truck operations. He stated that Mr. Perkins is trying to start a new business generating crumb rubber from recycled tires and he was liquidating his truck repair and storage businesses at other location. He was looking at this location, where he would ultimately assemble a potential crumb rubber manufacturing unit. He advised that, although the plans have been drawn up, they were not brought to fruition and this is not the use at this time. Mr. Hale advised that he wanted to address Supervisor Church's questions of what could ultimately be done with the accumulation of tires and whether they could be sold for use as crumb rubber. Mr. Hale advised that the picture he gave the Board showed shreds of rubber and not crumb rubber. Mr. Hale advised that Mr January 27, 2009 61 Perkins has located a buyer for rubber shreds from Florida and was negotiating with them to sell these rubber shreds for approximately $70 per ton and was also negotiating the issue of transportation and delivery. He advised that Mr. Perkins will be unable to move forward with the buyer unless he can run the tires through the mobile shredder to generate the type of shreds necessary. He advised that if they are reduced to shreds, they can be removed from the property and sold. Supervisor McNamara advised that he was interested in what Mr. Perkins planned to do with the tires and his question had been answered. Mr. Murphy advised that this situation has been ongoing since January 2008 when his office received multiple complaints from neighbors on Twine Hollow Road. He notified the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and joint observations of the site with DEQ personnel, including aerial photos, occurred over the next six weeks. He displayed a series of photographs from September 2008. He advised that they were concerned that the tire accumulation continued to grow. He reported that staff communicated with the property owner, DEQ contacted him and sent warning letters and subsequently there was a meeting with Mr. Perkins at the request of County staff, which included DEQ representatives and staff from the fire marshal's office. He reported that, at that time, Mr. Perkins indicated that he was in the process of securing the property and indicated a series of things that would take place; however, none of these things came to fruition. Mr. Murphy advised that DEQ became quite concerned because the process is on an escalating-type scale; they have to do certain 62 January 27, 2009 things to bring it to the next level; and the ideal situation from past experiences would be entering into a consent agreement with the individual operating the tire facility, the property owners and DEQ. He advised that part of that agreement would be to post a bond to ensure that the site will be brought into compliance; however, in order to do that through state issues, they also need local zoning approval. The petitioner indicated to DEQ that he would take steps to come into compliance with local zoning and then communicated to the County that he was still working through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEQ, which make the process a moving target. The County staff escalated the level of enforcement and sent a notice of violation, which is the subject of this appeal. He advised that the July 28, 1987, rezoning, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors, has the specific proffer "this parcel shall only be used for truck repairs and storage." He advised that in 1987 there was a different zoning ordinance in place than today's zoning ordinance and in 1987 there was a separate use type for used tire storage, which required a special use exception that was never applied for, nor granted. He stated that the special use exception is today called a special use permit. He stated that in 1992, a new zoning ordinance was adopted with new regulations and the definition of major automobile repair service outlined exactly what can be done on that type of property. He advised that, for clarification purposes, the storage component deals with the vehicles brought to the site prior to being repaired and after being repaired. He stated that the original applicant for this rezoning was a construction business and they wanted to have a place to repair the dump trucks and January 27, 2009 63 bulldozers. He stated that, taking into consideration the minutes from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors' meetings, the application filed at that time and the intent of the truck repair and storage component, he felt that it was not storage of any type of product and it was storage of the vehicles that were going to be repaired and post-repair. He advised that DEQ is estimating anywhere in the neighborhood of 4,000 to 5,000 tires on the property and state regulations assert that anytime more than 100 tires are stored on a property, you must have a state permit. He advised that the consensus is that if no zoning permit has been issued by the County, it is the opinion of the Zoning Administrator that the operation of the storage of tires on this property does not mesh with the proffered conditions from 1987; therefore, it is a zoning violation. Supervisor Altizer inquired if a business license was issued. Mr. Murphy advises that there was not. Supervisor Altizer advised that, since a business was operating without a license, there is no way to determine the full extent of what he intended to do on the property. Supervisor Altizer stated that in 1987 there was a separate special use that spoke directly to tires and he felt that this indicated that tires would be segregated from automobile parts. Supervisor Altizer advised that currently the zoning ordinance segregates tires out as a special use permit. He asked Mr. Obenshain if a special use permit would have followed the land all the way through any change of going from manufacturing to industrial. Mr. Obenshain advised that this was correct and he thinks that it is significant that the current owner of the property, from whom Mr. Perkins is leasing, purchased and entered into the deed to his property just a 64 January 27, 2009 few months after the 1987 Board action; therefore, he would have knowledge of the condition that was placed on the property at that time. Supervisor Church asked Mr. Murphy why the County and the State agencies are concerned about the tires. Mr. Murphy advised that they are a hazard for a number of reasons and unfortunately, a number of years ago, the County had a large tire fire and they want to make sure that does not occur again. He also advised that, during the spring and summer, the tires are mosquito havens. He stated that the County has worked diligently to clear up quite a few tire dumps in the County through the use of state DEQ removal funds, transportation funds and has even commissioned the use of inmate labor through the Sheriff's Office to abate these locations. He advised that this is one of the most significant tire accumulations since the large tire fire. Supervisor Church advised that the tire fire was in 2002. Supervisor Altizer advised that Mr. Hale made reference to a tire being part of a car; therefore it is part of a truck. He requested an explanation since the zoning ordinance has a separate listing for special uses, such as tire storage, and a special use permit is required for tire storage. Mr. Hale advised that he did not think that Mr. Perkins started off with the intention of storing tires and this happened as he liquidated businesses and the tires piled up. He advised that Mr. Perkins was not in the business of storing tires and he is trying to get rid of them and proposes a plan that would remove them by running the tires through machines to make shred to be hauled away. January 27, 2009 65 Supervisor Altizer asked if he would agree that the tires were segregated in the zoning ordinance by exception and really not considered parts. Mr. Hale would agree that there was segregation, but he would not go so far as to say that they are no longer a truck or car part. He advised that they would still maintain that characteristic. Mr. Hale advised that he would like to address the issue of fire and would note that the particular location is in close proximity to a fire hydrant and the fire marshal has been out there. He advised that Mr. Perkins just handed him a permit that set forth inspection of February 2009 dealing specifically with the fire issues of tires and from his quick review of it, it looks like they will be in compliance. Mr. Perkins advised that everyone has asked where the tires came from. He advised that he has been in the used parts business for 15 years and bought trucks and cars whenever the price of scrap parts of steel were up, and since he cannot take cars or junk trucks to the automobile recycler with the tires on, he removed the tires. He stated that these tires will not retain water so there is no mosquito issue. He stated that the fire marshal's issue is that every 5,000 square foot tire pile has to be within 500 feet of a hydrant to be in compliance and, if the tire pile is over 5,000 square feet, the pile has to be reduced in size to maintain 5,000 square feet or less and the piles have to be 40 feet apart. He stated that whenever they had a meeting with DEQ and the County, Mr. Richardson was there and advised him not to make an effort to resolve the problem since he was already in violation. Mr. Perkins advised that he was trying to solve the problem, that he has approximately $400,000 in two pieces of equipment to solve the 66 January 27, 2009 problem and Mr. Richardson will not let him. He stated that he is trying to solve the problem and asked the Board to let him shred the tires into a product that he can sell and generate money and proceed with the crumb rubber. Supervisor Altizer inquired if Mr. Perkins had purchased a business license for the facility. Mr. Perkins advised that his truck service had a business license and he closed it a year ago. Supervisor Altizer commented that Mr. Perkins has not operated a business on the property. Mr. Perkins advised that his intentions this year are to take care of the tire problem and move forward with the crumb rubber business; however, Mr. Richardson told him that he could not do anything. He stated that, in these economic times, he thought that generation of cash flow would be a good thing Supervisor Moore advised that on September 5, 2008, Mr. Hill wrote a letter on behalf of Mr. Perkins expressing that he planned to develop a green industry and had an interest in being environmentally friendly. She inquired how someone who encourages these business practices would let the property get in this condition. Mr. Perkins advised that you can clearly see that they have a huge amount of scrap tires. He stated that in trying to find out what can be done with scrap rubber, he found the crumb rubber operation and has visited several facilities. He advised that the shredding process is 100 percent environmentally friendly with no dust, chemicals or fire and turns it back into raw rubber. He advised that in order to do that, it costs a great deal of money and he is working on financing now. He did not intend for the tire pile to be there and is prepared to take care of the problem; however, Mr January 27, 2009 67 Richardson is telling him that he cannot run the tires through the shredder to reduce the pile size by at least 80 percent, which would cut down the size tremendously. Supervisor Moore advised that obviously this has been going on for some time and she was wondering why he would not come to the proper people and ask permission or request a permit in order to get rid of the tires. Mr. Perkins advised that he had the tires stored in trailers. He purchased a shredder, unloaded the tires from trailers and was getting ready to run them through the primary shredder and, at that point, they would be in compliance with the County, DEQ, and the fire code and be a salable product. He did not know he had to have a permit since the zoning ordinance indicated storage. He stated that he has been in the wreck and repair business for 15 years and the tires are not salable without tread and they were a scrap product. He advised that a tire mounted on a wheel is not illegal, has no environmental hazard and is no different than tires on a car; however, when you take tires off the wheel and they are outside, it turns into an environmental issue. He stated that DEQ told him to cut the tires off the wheel and he cut them off with a hydraulic slice and stacked them down so they would not retain water. He advised that if he could have a half day, he could be in 100 percent compliance with fire regulations but Mr. Richardson said he could not move one tire. Supervisor Church advised that the tire fire in 2002 was very prolific; it required all of the available fire equipment in the County and some from the State to fight the fire; and the fire threatened lives and homes. He advised that the reason he is 68 January 27, 2009 referring to that fire at this time is because, with those tires in Southwest County, not even a fire hydrant within 5 feet could have put out that fire. He advised that there is a dangerous potential of fire with the tires now. Mr. Perkins advised that he was making every attempt to clean up the tires and six months ago he was told not to move anything as he was in violation. He would like to clean up the site. Mr. Hale advised that he would like to offer a solution. He advised that he and Mr. Perkins share the concerns about the danger of fires and Mr. Perkins trying to spread the tires out in such a way as to be in different locations and have space between them to make them compliant and safe. He advised it would seem that using the equipment on site to actually reduce the tires to some sort of shred would be a good way to bring this issue into compliance, take care of the matter and reduce the perceived fire hazard. He advised that Mr. Perkins is showing his frustration of receiving conflicting directions and his inability to try and move forward in a cohesive, coherent manner. He referred to Supervisor Altizer's reference to segregation of the tires; advised that these were truck and car parts that have accumulated; and that Mr. Perkins had a plan to resolve the issue in a safe, simple and green manner. Mr. Obenshain advised that he wanted to comment on the impression that Mr. Perkins received a permit from the County fire marshal, which is not true. He provided the Board with a letter from Gary Huffman, Fire Marshal, issued to Mr. Perkins on January 14, 2009, informing him of the numerous violations of the state fire code, January 27, 2009 69 and he stated that the date of February 14, 2009, is the date that Mr. Huffman intends to go back to the property to see whether or not these violations have been resolved. Mr. Obenshain advised that Mr. Perkins has been aware since the meeting in April 2008 that he was in violation of the state fire code, that this is not something new that he has just learned and that he is not incompliance and there is a list of violations at issue. He advised that they are not here to try those fire related issues today, nor are they here to try the problems with DEQ. He advised that Mr. Perkins is aware of a letter from DEQ in April 2008 of things he has to do to get a permit and he has not done them. He advised that Mr. Perkins has had plenty of time and advice regarding what he can do and he has not followed through on the advice of County staff and other agencies to have the type of business that he wants. Supervisor Church advised that he would like for Mr. Murphy to chronologically set up the time line for the accumulation of tires. He inquired if the County contacted Mr. Perkins when he had 100 tires on the site and asked how the 5,000 tires accumulated. Mr. Murphy advised that, upon the first inspection in January 2008, there were approximately 1,500 to 2,000 tires. He requested additional information, asked for aerial photographs and set up a meeting with DEQ and Mr. Perkins. He advised that Mr. Perkins is the tenant so they notified the owner, who is out of the state. He reported that at the first meeting, there was discussion about potentially rezoning the property to amend that condition to bring it into compliance and the County offered zoning 70 January 27, 2009 applications and consultations; however, that never came to fruition. He advised that additional inspections by the County and DEQ showed an increase in the number of tires and DEQ sent an original warning letter. He advised that the tires continued to grow worse so DEQ, the County and the fire marshal stepped up their enforcement. He reported that DEQ sent an actual notice of violation in August 2008. He stated that there was continuous contact through emails, meetings and letters with the property owner and Mr. Perkins, and the County remained concerned about the number of growing tires. He advised that DEQ has not released its violations notice, the fire marshal's investigation continues and staff maintains that the property is in violation of proffer. Supervisor Church inquired how the 5,000 tires could be removed from the area depending upon the action taken tonight. Mr. Murphy advised that removal of the tires would have to be coordinated with the DEQ. He advised that the obvious and best solution would be for the property owner and Mr. Perkins to remove them immediately. He advised that he has an issue with setting up a processing activity on the site that is a different use than the proffer allows and the County has to be careful about granting approval when there are fire code and state issues. He stated that the tires were trucked in and DEQ has advised that there are recycling facilities, the closest one in Appomattox, VA, that are licensed to legally and properly depose of these tires. He advised that it would be the County's hope and recommendation that the tires be removed from the site. January 27, 2009 71 Supervisor Church advised that he did not believe that the Board has the authority tonight to change a use in this particular operation. He does not think this is the issue before the Board. Mr. Obenshain advised that the issue before the Board tonight is whether u the Zoning Administrator's opinion is correct or not. He stated that he does not think any facts presented tonight suggest that the interpretation by Mr. Murphy as the Zoning Administrator on that proffer is incorrect. He advised that the Board's role is that of judges to consider this type of appeal and whether or not the opinion is correct. He advised that the avenue for rezoning is still open and the Board's action would not preclude this; however, County staff advised Mr. Perkins concerning rezoning and he chose not to proceed. Supervisor Church advised that he understood that this Board could not change a rezoning or alter anything that pertains to what has been going on tonight. He stated that the Board has one issue to address tonight and that is whether to uphold the opinion of the Zoning Administrator. Chairman Altizer opened and closed the public hearing. There were no citizens present to speak. Supervisor McNamara advised that counsel for the petitioner said that he did not want to be in the business of accumulating tires; however, he did a pretty good business accumulating tires. He advised that the proffered condition states that the property shall be used for truck repair and storage and he did not see how any rational 72 January 27, 2009 person could perceive a connection between truck repairs and storage of 5,000 tires outside in trailers. He advised that the petitioner, who has been in the business for 15 years, should have known there are ways to dispose of tires as opposed to throwing them in the back of a trailer after liquidating a business. He advised that it is a fire hazard and is clearly in violation of the proffers that were agreed upon. He advised that if the petitioner wishes to have a business recycling tires, there are special use procedures to be followed. Supervisor Altizer advised that he was in the auto repair business for 25 years and is aware of how tires accumulate and the process for getting rid of them. He does believe that the Zoning Administrator's interpretation is correct and does not believe you can explain away the facts, even under an argument of automobile parts, when the zoning ordinance explicitly says that tires require a special use permit. He is very disturbed that this pile of tires continued to grow over time and to allow the shredding of tires on the property does nothing but allow a condition to occur further. He also remembers the fire in Southwest County and a tire recycling business in Franklin County that could not get rid of their tires and kept tires in a storage building until one night it burned. He stated that the language in the zoning ordinance regarding what you have to do to keep tires by special use permit is clear and concise. He advised that he intends to support the Zoning Administrator, that his ruling is correct and adequate time has been given to reconcile the problem. January 27, 2009 73 Supervisor Moore advised that laws and proffers are made for the betterment of the community and this is an obvious fire hazard. She feels that the petitioner has had ample opportunities to come to the County to ask what can be done about the situation. She advised that she supports upholding the Zoning Administrator's decision. Supervisor Church asked Mr. Murphy if one of the potential solutions offered to the petitioner was an offer to come before this Board for a rezoning. Mr. Murphy advised that this offer was made on two different occasions. Supervisor Church advised that he did not see any recourse but to ask for a motion to uphold the opinion of the Zoning Administrator and deny this appeal. He advised that there is still the recourse to come back for a rezoning. He advised that the Board must do what they feel is best for the citizens; the guidelines are explicit; and he does not feel they would be doing justice if they took another course. Supervisor Church moved to uphold the opinion of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer, NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora 74 January 27, 2009 IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS 1. Public hearing and request to adopt a resolution amending the Roanoke Coun Comprehensive Plan to include the Route 221 Area Plan. Phili Thompson, De u Director of Plannin R-012709-7 Mr. Thompson advised that the Board held a work session on this item earlier today. He advised that they have been working on the Route 221 Area Plan since March 2008. He advised that the study boundaries are from Cotton Hill Road to the base of Bent Mountain; the southern boundary is the Blue Ridge Parkway and a similar distance off Route 221 is the northern boundary. He advised that one of the reasons to undertake the study was due to development taking place in the Route 221 area, which includes the widening of Route 221, the School Board purchase of the Poage farm property and future utilities down Route 221. He advised that the plan inventories existing conditions of the area, such as environmental resources, cultural resources, land use, zoning, new developments, community facilities (schools, libraries, fire and rescue stations, police and parks) and infrastructure (utility lines and transportation facilities) in the Route 221 study area. He stated that Planning mailed 1,482 surveys and 448, or 30 percent, were returned. He advised that they held community meetings in April and September and the plan represents the results of the citizen surveys, as well as individual stakeholder interviews of property and business owners in the study area. He advised that the surveys and stakeholder interview January 27, 2009 75 results, along with citizen input at community meetings, shaped the development of goals and recommendations for the plan. He advised that there were three guiding principles for the study, which included (1) preserving the natural character of the Back Creek area; (2) implementing transportation improvements to support current and future development needs; and (3) enhancing public services and utilities and controlling expansion of public utilities. Mr. Thompson advised that staff presented three alternative future land use scenarios for consideration. He advised that Scenario 1 had very little change; Scenario 2 had more development and added conservation areas; Scenario 3 had more development potential, as well as permitting certain subdivisions as neighborhood conservation. He advised that they developed utility phasing plans in five year increments for each of the land use scenarios and development implementation strategies grouped by different characteristics, such as community identity, natural resources, public services, transportation facilities and development pressures. Mr. Thompson stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft plan on September 2, 2008, and four citizens spoke. He reported that the Back Creek Civic League sent a letter detailing their concerns, which deal with limiting the amount of development, preservation of different areas, water at Carriage Hills and needed safety and transportation improvements, which include the widening of Route 221. He advised that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the plan, which is a modified version of Scenario 2, designed as Scenario 4. 76 January 27, 2009 Mr. Thompson advised that he wanted to address the concern of Supervisor McNamara about the utility extension to include the Carriage Hills and Forest Edge Subdivisions. He advised that they tried to address this concern by the language in the document on page 17 without designating a year. He read the statement from the plan as follows: "When water and service is extended to the Poage Farm, studies should be undertaken to evaluate future extension of water to Carriage Hills and Forest Edge. Future planning studies coordinated with WVWA should be undertaken with the understanding that if a water supply emergency arises, quick action will be necessary to ensure potable water services for these residents." Mr. Thompson advised that, as part of the implementation strategies, it is designated to monitor the plan to able to address the issue. He advised that they did not want to put a specific five or ten year time line on this issue because there may be a need to develop plans sooner. Supervisor McNamara advised that, as he mentioned in the work session, he thought staff did a nice job with development of the plan and he approves of Scenario 4, which puts more of the area in conservation than previously designated. He advised that the comments he received from citizens at the meetings were very positive and he inquired of Chairman Altizer if it was time to adopt the plan. Chairman Altizer opened and closed the public hearing. There were no citizens present to speak on the item. January 27, 2009 77 Mr. Mahoney directed the Board's attention to the draft resolution which indicated that the Board would adopt the Route 221 plan, including a modified land use Scenario 2 and a modified Utility Phasing Plan Scenario 2. He advised that from the discussion at the work session, he understood that the Planning staff was now designating the modified Scenario 2 as Scenario 4. He inquired if the language in the resolution in paragraph 1 should be changed to designate modified future land use Scenario 2, referred to in the plan as Scenario 4, and the modified Utility Phasing Plan Scenario 2, referred to in the plan as Scenario 4. Mr. Thompson agreed that the resolution would be clarified by the insertion described by Mr. Mahoney in paragraph 1 of the resolution. Chairman Altizer agreed that the wording should be changed in order to clarify the intent of the motion. Mr. Mahoney requested that this language be added to the resolution Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the Route 221 Area Plan, Scenario 4, with the accompanying Scenario 4 Utility Phasing Plan. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer, NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora RESOLUTION 012709-7 APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, INCORPORATING THE ROUTE 221 AREA PLAN WHEREAS, on December 2, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the Route 221 7$ January 27, 2009 Area Plan, after advertisement and notice as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, and on December 15, 2008, adopted a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors review and adopt a revised Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2009, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the Route 221 Area Plan, after advertisement and notice as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County, Virginia, has a long and successful history of community planning that has emphasized citizen involvement and participation; and WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning Commission of every jurisdiction shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of their jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2229 of the Code of Virginia provides for amendments to the comprehensive plan by the Planning Commission if so directed by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County entitled "Route 221 Area Plan," and said plan has been prepared in accordance with Sections 15.2-2223, 2224, and 2229 of the Code of Virginia; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by the adoption of the Route 221 Area Plan, including a modified future land use scenario #2, referred to in the plan as scenario #4, and the modified utility phasing plan scenario #2, referred to in the plan as scenario #4, and incorporating this study into the Plan. 2. That this Resolution is effective from and after January 27, 2009. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution and approve the Route 221 Area Plan, Scenario 4, with the accompanying Scenario 4 Utility Phasing Plan, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora L January 27, 2009 79 IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Church: (1) He thanked Mr. and Mrs. Williams, who live in i Cherokee Hills, for reminding him about an issue pertaining to construction equipment, materials and storage. He advised that the Community Development department has assured him that staff will review the situation and address the issue quickly. He advised that he and County staff will be back in touch with Mr. and Mrs. Williams. (2) He advised that there is an issue on Garth Drive concerning trash collection and receptacles. He advised that the Board made a ruling recently pertaining to the removal of trash receptacles within a specific period of time. He advised that he has requested that Ms. Green, Director of General Services, bring the group together to determine what can be done to resolve the issues. (3) He advised that, due to the Board action at this meeting and the potential action by the Planning Commission regarding the rezoning for an asphalt plant, citizens in his area should keep aware of the dates and times of future meetings. He advised that citizens should stay in touch with him or County administration to receive information pertaining to the next course of action. Supervisor McNamara: He advised that he and Supervisor Moore attended the Good Samaritan Hospice grand opening and he welcomed them to the County. He advised that their facilities are greatly improved by the recent move, and he thanked them for the service they provide the community. 80 January 27, 2009 Supervisor Altizer: (1) He advised that the Board will hold three meetings in March due to the need for an extra meeting to receive funding requests from other agencies. Mr. Chambliss advised that staff plans to schedule an evening meeting on March 17tH, as well as an evening session for the regularly scheduled March 10tH meeting. (2) He advised that he wanted to make it clear that the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for February 3, 2009, regarding the asphalt plant, will be held. Mr. Mahoney stated that this was correct. (2) He advised that a section of the wall outside the Board meeting room has been disturbed and requested that Mr. Chambliss ask Ms. Green to get it repaired as quickly as possible. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Submitted by: Brenda J. H ton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Approved by: ~ r%~ Michael W. Altizer Chairman