Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/28/2009 - RegularApril 28, 2009 26g County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 April 28, 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 April 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, Richard C. Flora, Charlotte A. Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman, III, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, 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 Rick Borton, Lay Leader, Rockingham Court United Methodist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. 270 April 28, 2009 IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Goodman requested the addition of a new business item to consider a resolution in response to the Kerr Lake Regional Water System's request for an Interbasin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation declaring Mav 3 through 9 2009, as Building Safetv Week and the month of Mav 2009 as Deck Safetv Awareness Month in the County of Roanoke Chairman Altizer presented the proclamation to Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development. Mr. Moneir expressed appreciation for the recognition and advised that this proclamation is an effort to raise citizens' awareness of the critical issues that impact safety in homes and work places. He advised that the following staff was present for the recognition: Joel Baker, Building Commissioner; Justin Biller, Assistant Building Commissioner; Brenda Harris, Community Service Coordinator; Randy Wimmer, Field Supervisor; Gary Huffman, Fire Marshal Supervisor; Randy Spencer, Fire Inspector; Brian Simmons, Fire Inspector; and Robyn Blankenship, Paramedic/FireFighter. Mr. Moneir suggested that citizens consider projects to improve building safety at home and in the community and acknowledge the essential services to protect lives and properties provided by the County and other local and State agencies. April 28, 2009 271 Mr. Baker expressed appreciation for the Board's support and advised that they work closely with the Fire Prevention Office since they use interrelated codes He advised that Deck Safety Awareness Month is a statewide initiative to educate citizens and offer the County's assistance to make decks safer. IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Presentation of the Concept Plan for Virginia's Explore Park Lar Vander Maten, President of Vir inia Livin Histories) Mr. Vander Maten advised that he appreciated the opportunity to give a report on his plans for Explore Park. He advised that he would show a video, which had been prepared for investors, and was a visualization of the character and ambiance of a family destination development. He commented that he had architectural renderings on display that had been used for a variety of concept planning purposes. Mr. Vander Maten advised that his associate Dale Wilkinson, who was present, initially contacted him almost four years ago about the possibility of developing Explore Park since the park had funding problems over a period of time and could not complete its original objectives and plan. He advised that he reviewed the site and his company spent approximately $1.5 million on development pre-planning. They basically divided the project into the following points of analysis which overlapped: (1) what the site offers and its suitability; (2) market analysis; and (3) financial feasibility and impact on the community. 272 April 28, 2009 Mr. Vander Maten stated that after entering into an agreement for the purpose of developing the site, they spent the first year reviewing and analyzing four or five items. Explore Park represents a significant investment with approximately $50 million invested in the infrastructure. After a careful review of the plans developed previously for Explore Park, he thought that approximately 70 percent of the original features were very good. He advised that Explore Park had a special zoning district and it was necessary to go through an approximately eight-month zoning process with Roanoke County and an eighteen-month zoning process with Bedford County. He commented on the concerns that they had to work through with other agencies including the Blue Ridge Parkway, Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA), Norfolk Southern and the Virginia Recreation Facilities Authority (VRFA). He advised that the mission statement of the VRFA was to encourage tourism in Western Virginia and they wanted to focus on that mission. Mr. Vander Maten advised that the project is now called "Blue Ridge America" and his plan is to preserve the natural attractiveness of the site and "brand" it based upon its being on the Blue Ridge Parkway, the National Park Service's most visited unit. He showed a 15-minute video in which the narrator advised that Blue Ridge America will be a resort intended to draw families for two to four-day vacations and there will be no theme parks and rides. The video advised that the following attractions are planned: luxury hotels, live theaters, movie theaters, restaurants, tree house cabins, the world's longest zip line, retail shops, golf course, conference center, spa and a April 28, 2009 273 system of overhead gondolas to transport visitors to every corner of the park. There are plans for sections named Blue Ridge Village, Blue Ridge Gardens and an 1890 Historical Village. Mr. Vander Maten advised that the project will probably have to be built in two stages with an estimated cost of $200 million. He advised that financing for the project has not been secured and that he will continue his efforts at raising funds. Chairman Altizer expressed appreciation to Mr. Vander Maten and Mr. Wilkinson for attending the meeting. He advised that the majority of the people who have seen the video have had positive comments and believe it is worth waiting for this development. He inquired if local citizens would be able to attend and experience the development. Mr. Vander Maten responded that it will be available for local citizens as day visitors; however, it was important to make sure that the financial feasibility did not depend upon day visitors. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of a resolution in response to Kerr Lake Regional Water System request for an Interbasin Transfer from the Roanoke River Basin ~ Clayton Goodman, III, County Administrator R-042809-1 Mr. Goodman advised that this resolution is presented for consideration because public comments are needed on this issue before the Board's next meeting in 274 April 28, 2009 May. The request from the Kerr Lake Regional Water System (KLRWS), which is the regional provider for drinking water for seven customers in North Carolina, was discussed at the most recent Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (Commission) meeting. The KLRWS has an existing grandfathered surface water transfer capacity of 10 MGD (Millions of Gallons per Day) and are allowed to move water from the Roanoke River basin to the Tar and Fishing Creek River basins. The KLRWS has asked to obtain approval to expand their withdrawal limit to 24 MGD and additionally requested a 2.4 MGD transfer from the Roanoke River basin to the Neuse River basin. These water projects are based on water use projections to the year 2040. Mr. Goodman continued that the Commission adopted a resolution opposing the withdrawal request due to future needs for the Roanoke Valley and other jurisdictions and, if the request is approved, it would possibly limit future withdrawals for the Roanoke Valley. Mr. Goodman asked that the Board consider adopting the resolution so it could be forwarded for public comment. He stated that the resolution being presented to the Board for approval has been approved by the Commission and similar resolutions have been approved by Henry and Franklin Counties. Supervisor Flora advised that if the resolution is approved, it would consume 100 percent of the water that could be taken out of the Roanoke River and the County would not be able to take water out of the Roanoke River in any greater quantities than they are already doing. He stated that this is a business activity and not a humanitarian issue since KLRWS wants to take water from the Roanoke River, move April 28, 2009 275 it into three drainage basins in North Carolina and sell the water to other jurisdictions. He advised that the Board should strongly oppose the request for very good reasons. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the resolution opposing the request. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 042809-1 OPPOSING KERR LAKE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM'S REQUEST TO INCREASE THEIR AUTHORIZED TRANSFER OF WATER FROM THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN (KERR LAKE) TO THE TAR AND FISHING CREEK RIVER BASINS, FROM THE CURRENT 10 MGD TO 24 MGD, AS WELL AS THEIR REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL 2.4 MGD TRANSFER FROM THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN TO THE NEUSE RIVER BASIN WHEREAS, the Kerr Lake Regional Water System, herein referred to as KLRWS, on February 18, 2009, submitted a Notice of Intent to Request an Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate to the Environmental Management Commission to increase their authorized transfer of water from the Roanoke River Basin (Kerr Lake) to the Tar and Fishing Creek River Basin, from the current 10 MGD to 24 MGD, and additionally requested a 2.4 MGD transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Neuse River Basin; and WHEREAS, the Virginia State Water Control Board's Local and Regional Water Supply Planning Regulation (9 VAC 25-780) requires that all localities in Virginia develop water supply plans to be completed by November 2011; and WHEREAS, the counties of Bedford, Botetourt, Franklin, and Roanoke; the cities of Bedford, Roanoke, and Salem and the towns of Boones Mill, Buchanan, Fincastle, Rocky Mount, Troutville, and Vinton are participating in the Greater Roanoke Regional Water Supply Plan to be completed and approved in 2010; and WHEREAS, Virginia's Local and Regional Water Supply Planning Regulation (9 VAC 25-780) requires development of future water demand projections through 2050 and possible alternatives to meet projected future demands in all approved water supply plans; and WHEREAS, water demand projections from the Greater Roanoke Regional Water Supply Plan, as well as previous water studies and plans, indicate possible future water supply deficits at the local and regional levels; and WHEREAS, potential water supply alternatives identified to meet projected future water demand include sources within the Roanoke River Basin, such as the Roanoke 276 April 28, 2009 River and tributaries, and Smith Mountain Lake; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, local governments, and other water supply planning partners have expressed concern that any additional withdrawal from the Roanoke River Basin for use outside of the Roanoke River watershed, as proposed by the KLRWS, could limit upstream withdrawals in the future, thereby limiting the region's ability to meet future water supply demand and address projected deficits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, opposes the Kerr Lake Regional Water System's request to increase their authorized transfer of water from the Roanoke River Basin (Kerr Lake) to the Tar and Fishing Creek River Basins, from the current 10 MGD to 24 MGD, as well as their request for an additional 2.4 MGD transfer from the Roanoke River Basin to the Neuse River Basin. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution opposing the request, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first readings and set the second readings and public hearings for May 26, 2009. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None 1. The etition of Anne Johnston to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R-1, Low Density Residential, District to ac uire a multiple doh ep rmit for four ~ dogs on 4.33 acres, located at 2287 West Riverside Drive, Catawba Magisterial District April 28, 2009 277 2. The etition of Shannon and Cameron Smith to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R-1, Low Density Residential, District to operate a rivate stable on 7.371 acres, located at 3847 Harborwood Road, Catawba Magisterial District 3. The etition of Timothy and Angela Ramsay to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R-1, Low Density Residential, District to operate a rivate stable on 8.16 acres, located at 1718 Mayfield Drive, Vinton Magisterial District 4. The etition of Sam L. Hardy, Jr. and Mercedes P. Hardy to rezone approximately 81.81 acres from PRD, Planned Residential Development, District to AR, Agricultural/Residential, District for the purpose of constructing single family residential dwellings on large acreage tracts of approximately 66.3 acres and 15.5 acres, located at the 7800 Block of Whistler Drive, Windsor Hills Magisterial District 5. The etition of the Roanoke County Public Schools to obtain a Special Use Permit in a AR' Agricultural Residential, District to construct an addition and renovation to the existing school on 9.4 acres, located at 3244 and 3250 Mount Pleasant Boulevard, Vinton Magisterial District 278 April 28, 2009 IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance approving a residential lease at the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology, Catawba Magisterial District Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services Ms. Green advised that this is the first reading of an ordinance to rent the cabin located on Glenvar Heights Boulevard at the Center for Research and Technology in West County. The property was advertised in the Roanoke Times and through email communication to County employees. Two applications were received and based on interviews one person was chosen to rent the property. The rent will be $750 per month, which is an increase of $50. She requested that the Board approve the first reading of the ordinance and hold the second reading on May 12, 2009. Supervisor Church advised that he was pleased that the cabin was being rented again. There was no discussion. Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for May 12, 2009. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None April 28, 2009 279 IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing conveyance of an easement to Western Vir inia Water Authority for a water line across property owned ~ the Board of Supervisors at the Roanoke County Fleet Services Building, Hollins Magisterial District Jose h Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorne 0-042809-2 Mr. Mahoney advised that there have been no changes in the ordinance from the first reading. He requested that the Board favorably consider adoption of the ordinance. There was no discussion. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 042809-2 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY FOR A WATER LINE ACROSS PROPERTY OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY FLEET SERVICES BUILDING, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Roanoke County is in the process of constructing a Fleet Services Building located on Hollins Road; and WHEREAS, the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) requires aright-of- way and easement for underground water line on the County's property to provide water service to the site as shown on the plat entitled "PLAT SHOWING RESERVE AREAS AND WATERLINE EASEMENT FOR TRACT 1 (9.179 AC.) (PLAT INSTUMENT 280 April 28, 2009 #200802243) PROPERTY OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, SITUATED ALONG HOLLINS ROAD, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA", dated April 18, 2008; and WHEREAS, the proposed right-of-way will serve the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on April 14, 2009, and a second reading was held on April 28, 2009. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the interest in real estate to be conveyed is hereby declared to be surplus, and is hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to WVWA for the provision of water service in connection with Roanoke County's Fleet Services Building. 3. That donation to WVWA of an easement and right-of-way for an underground water line and related improvements, within the easement area designated on the above-mentioned map, on the County's property (Tax Map No. 39.05-2-4) to provide water service to the Fleet Services Building is hereby authorized and approved. 4. 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. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing conveyance of an easement to Appalachian Power Company (AEP) for electrical service to a residence on Westward Lake Drive, a paper street, in the Catawba Magisterial District Jose h Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorne 0-042809-3 April 28, 2009 28 ~ Mr. Mahoney advised that there have been no changes in the ordinance since the first reading. He requested that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the ordinance to grant the easement. There was no discussion. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 042809-3 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO THE APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO A RESIDENCE ON WESTWARD LAKE DRIVE, A PAPER STREET, IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (AEP) desires to provide electric utility service by an underground electric line to a new residence located on a portion of Westward Lake Drive which was dedicated to public use in Plat Book 3, page 87, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the portion of Westward Lake Drive where this electric line will be located has not been accepted into the state Secondary Road System and therefore remains a "paper street" under the ownership and control of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (AEP) requires aright-of-way and easement from Roanoke County for their underground electric line on the County's property to provide electric service to the site, Tax Parcel, # 054.02-05-51, as shown on the plat entitled "PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY ON THE PROPERTY OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA,", dated 3/27/2009; and WHEREAS, the proposed easement will serve the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on April 14, 2009, and a second reading was held on April 28, 2009. 282 April 28, 2009 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the interest in real estate to be conveyed is hereby declared to be surplus, and is hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Appalachian Power Company (AEP) for the provision of electric service to a residence in the Catawba Magisterial District of Roanoke County. 3. That donation to (AEP) of an easement and right-of-way for an underground electric line and related improvements within the easement area designated on the above-mentioned map for utility service to property owners, designated as Tax Map No. 054.02-05-51, is hereby authorized and approved. 4. 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. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARING 1. Second reading and ublic hearing of an ordinance establishing a trust for the purpose of accumulating and investing assets to fund post-employment benefits other than pensions Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance 0-042809-4 Ms. Owens advised that this is the second reading and public hearing of an ordinance establishing a trust for the purpose of accumulating and investing assets to fund post-employment benefits other than pensions. The County would like to join the Virginia Association of Counties/Virginia Municipal League (VACo/VML) Other Post- Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust, which is the only pooled trust offered in Virginia. April 28, 2009 283 Ms. Owens advised that in order to join the trust, the Board must adopt a resolution to form a Local Finance Board to serve as trustee and execute a contract with the trust. It is suggested that the Finance Board be composed of Kevin Hutchins, Treasurer; Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Paul Mahoney, County Attorney; and Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance. The County's initial contribution into the trust will be $985,331, which represents the actuarial computed liability for both fiscal years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. This amount was appropriated in the respective budget years and no appropriation by the Board is required. Future amounts will be budgeted based on the actuarial reports. Ms. Owens advised that at the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends approving the second reading of the ordinance to establish the trust, establish the Local Finance Board as trustee, appoint its members and authorize joining the VACo/VML OPEB Pooled Trust. There have been no changes since the first reading, which was held on April 14, 2009. There were no citizens to speak on this item and there was no discussion. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None 284 April 28, 2009 ORDINANCE 042809-4 ESTABLISHING A TRUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATING AND INVESTING ASSETS TO FUND POST- EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OTHER THAN PENSIONS WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (herein the "Board") intends to establish a trust, trusts, or equivalent arrangements for the purpose of accumulating and investing assets to fund post-employment benefits other than pensions in accordance with section 15.2-1544 of the Virginia Code; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1500 of the Virginia Code provides, in part, that every locality shall provide for all the governmental functions of the locality, including, without limitation, the organization of all departments, offices, boards, commissions and agencies of government, and the organizational structure thereof, which are necessary and the employment of the officers and other employees needed to carry out the functions of government; and WHEREAS, in connection with the employment of the officers and other employees needed to carry out the functions of government, the County of Roanoke (herein the "County") has established certain plans to provide post-employment benefits other than pensions (herein "Other Post-Employment Benefits"), as defined in Section 15.2-1545 of the Virginia Code, to individuals who have terminated their service to the County of Roanoke and to the beneficiaries of such individuals; and WHEREAS, Article 8, Chapter 15, Subtitle II of Title 15.2 of the Virginia Code (§§ 15.2-1544 et seq.) provides that the governing body of a County may establish a trust for the purpose of accumulating and investing assets to fund Other Post- Employment Benefits; and WHEREAS, the Board may permit the Roanoke County School Board to participate in any trust established by it for the purpose of accumulating and investing assets to fund Other Post-Employment Benefits, and such participation may be evidenced by a separate agreement with the Roanoke County School Board; and, WHEREAS, the Board may permit the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority to participate in any trust established by it for the purpose of accumulating and investing assets to fund Other Post-Employment Benefits, and such participation may be evidenced by a separate agreement with the Authority; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1300 of the Virginia Code provides that any power, privilege or authority exercised or capable of exercise by any political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia may be exercised and enjoyed jointly with any other political subdivision of the Commonwealth having a similar power, privilege or authority pursuant to agreements with one another for joint action pursuant to the provisions of that section; and WHEREAS, any two or more political subdivisions may enter into agreements with one another for joint action pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-1300 of the Virginia Code provided that the participating political subdivisions shall approve such agreement before the agreement may enter into force; and April 28, 2009 28cJ WHEREAS, numerous localities in the Commonwealth of Virginia have determined to jointly establish and participate in the Virginia Pooled OPEB Trust Fund (the "Trust Fund")for each such locality; and WHEREAS, it appearing to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke that it is otherwise in the best interests of the County to become a participating employer in the Trust Fund; and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 14, 2009, and the second reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held on April 28, 2009. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AS FOLLOWS: § 1 That the County does hereby establish a trust pursuant to Section 15.2- 1544 of the Virginia Code for the purpose of accumulating and investing assets to fund Other Post-Employment Benefits, in the form set forth in the Virginia Pooled OPEB Trust Fund Agreement (the "Agreement"), a copy of which is attached here as Exhibit A. § 2 That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the County an agreement(s) with the Roanoke County School Board and/or the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority permitting it (them) to participate in any trust, trusts or equivalent arrangements for the purpose of accumulating and investing assets to fund post-employment benefits other than pensions in accordance with section 15.2- 1544 of the Virginia Code. Separate accounts will be established for each participating entity. § 3 That the County does hereby agree to become a "Participating Employer" in the "Virginia Pooled OPEB Trust Fund" (hereinafter, the "Trust Fund"), as further defined in the Agreement. § 4 That the County does hereby appoint the following individuals to the local finance board and for the terms of office pursuant to Section 15.2-1547 of the Virginia Code to serve as the trustee of the County with respect to the Trust Fund, and as the "Local Finance Board" as defined in the Agreement: Kevin Hutchins Diane Hyatt Rebecca Owens Paul M. Mahoney The finance board shall be composed of at least three members who shall include the chief financial officer of the County, the treasurer of the County, and at least one other additional person who shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth with proven integrity, business ability, and demonstrated experience in cash management and in investments. The finance board may be expanded by the Board of Supervisors to provide representation for any other political subdivision that may, in the future, agree to participate in the Trust Fund with the County. Subsequent appointments to the finance board may be made by resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors. 286 April 28, 2009 § 5 That the County does hereby direct the Local Finance Board to execute and deliver the Trust Joinder Agreement for Participating Employers under Virginia Pooled OPEB Trust Fund ("Trust Joinder Agreement"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. § 6 That the County does hereby designate the following benefits provided to individuals who have terminated their service to the County and to the dependents of such individuals as Other Post-Employment Benefits: Retiree Health Insurance Benefits § 7 That this ordinance shall be in force and effect immediately upon its adoption. Exhibits: Virginia Pooled OPEB Trust Fund Agreement ("Exhibit A") Trust Joinder Agreement for Participating Employers under Virginia Pooled OPEB Trust Fund ("Exhibit B") On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. League of Older Americans Advisory Council Chairman Altizer advised that the one-year term of Beverly Eyerly expired on March 31, 2009. Chairman Altizer asked the Clerk to contact Ms. Eyerly to determine if she would be willing to serve an additional term. 2. Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission Chairman Altizer advised that the three-year term of Charles Blankenship expired on April 8, 2009. Chairman Altizer requested that the Clerk contact Mr. Blankenship to determine if he would be willing to serve an additional term. April 28, 2009 287 IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-042809-5, R-042809-5.b Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 042809-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K -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 April 28, 2009 designated as Item K -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 2 inclusive, as follows: 1. Request from the schools to accept and appropriate dual enrollment program funds in the amount of $50,297.17 2. Request to adopt a resolution to reconfirm support for rail alternatives to complement planned improvements to I-81 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 Flora to adopt the consent resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 042809-5.b TO RECONFIRM SUPPORT FOR RAIL ALTERNATIVES TO COMPLEMENT PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO I- 81 WHEREAS, the I-81 corridor is increasingly the route of choice for trucks traveling between the northeast and the south/southwest because of congestion on I-95 and expanding shipments generated by the North American Free Trade Act; and WHEREAS, roadway improvements alone are not projected to adequately address 288 April 28, 2009 forecasted congestion levels on I-81 during the time horizon of the current Long-Range Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, improvements to rail infrastructure near the I-81 corridor may be thought of as investing in a "Steel Interstate" that would provide additional freight capacity to complement I-81; and WHEREAS, various technologies including but not limited to: tractor trailer on rail car, trailer on rail car, double stack intermodal container, and other strategies or technologies would benefit from increased freight rail capacity in or near the I-81 corridor; and WHEREAS, rail improvements can complement existing national policy initiatives by reducing dependence on imported fuel, providing modal redundancy, enhancing national security, and-when electrified offering the U.S. opportunity to employ domestic renewable energy sources and efficiency to drive transportation; and WHEREAS, rail improvements offer positive advantages for communities, the Commonwealth, neighboring I-81 states, and the United States relating to cost, safety, economic growth, tourism development, decreased fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, improved air quality and public health, and varied freight and passenger service options; and WHEREAS, rail improvements offer added capacity potential for possible future passenger rail service in the I-81 corridor; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, strongly petitions for the development of rail improvements, which benefit both freight and passenger rail service options, parallel to I-81, to complement highway-widening and to move a large volume of the long-distance freight traffic from trucks on I-81 to freight trains parallel to I-81. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Steve Noble, 5376 Canter Drive, advised that the County has funded Explore Park for many years and spent time rezoning the park and he suggested that the presentation from Mr. Vander Maten should have been made at the evening session so more people could have attended and reviewed the renderings. He suggested that the County ask Mr. Vander Maten to provide the video in a pdf file or through a County April 28, 2009 289 departmental web link and make it available to citizens. He commented that, since this project may be delayed for two years, the emphasis should be kept up and providing the presentation would help. Chairman Altizer advised that this meeting, which is broadcast live by Roanoke Valley Television (RVTV), will be rebroadcast on Thursday and Saturday. He requested that Ms. Hall find out if RVTV could make a video of the presentation and put it on the website. Suzanne Nicewonder, 5459 Whispering Wind Drive, advised that she has been a professional engineer in Roanoke County for more than twenty years and has spoken to the Board previously about the growth of industry in West County. She believes that recent rezoning requests and future plans for industrial growth have not provided accurate information to the Board about the daily school bus travel along West Main Street in the Glenvar area. She presented the Board with a statement containing information that she feels is accurate and requested that the Board address school bus travel and road safety as they plan and develop West County for industrial growth. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 290 April 28, 2009 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Accounts Paid -March 2009 5. Analysis of Comparative Schedule of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances for the month ended March 31, 2009 6. Analysis of Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues for the month ended March 31, 2009 7. Proclamation signed ~ the Chairman 8. Report of claims activity for the Self-Insurance Program IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:45 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meetings following the work session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A, as follows: (1) Section 2.2-3711.A.3. to discuss or consider the acquisition of real property for future public use where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County; (2) Section 2.2-3711.A.5. to discuss a prospective business or industry, or the expansion of an existing business or industry, where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the County; and (3) Section 2.2-3711.A.29. to discuss the award of a public contract with private developers and the Western Virginia Water Authority for the extension of public sewer in the Hanging Rock April 28, 2009 291 area, involving the expenditure of public funds and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to discuss the Budget for fiscal year 2009-2010 Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Bud et At 4:49 p.m., Chairman Altizer advised that it was the consensus of the Board that it would not be necessary to hold the work session and that the Board would go into the closed meeting. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 4:50 p.m. to 5:38 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-042809-6 At 6:09 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, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None 292 April 28, 2009 RESOLUTION 042809-6 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, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING 1. Second reading of an ordinance upon the etition of Wolf Creek, Inc., Circle C Consultants, Inc., Wolf Creek Homeowners Association, Inc., Front Street Construction, Inc., and Old Towne Development, LLC to amend the Planned Residential Development Master Plan for Wolf Creek, which measures 38.384 acres and includes the communities of Wolf Run, Wolf Crest, Beech Cove, Richard's Wood, Village at Stone Creek and Rockbridge, Vinton Magisterial District Me an Cronise, Principal Planner April 28, 2009 Zg3 0-042809-7 Ms. Cronise advised that the County's first Planned Residential Development (PRD) is a 38-acre parcel near the Blue Ridge Parkway known as Wolf Creek, which was rezoned from R-1 to PRD with a proffered master plan in 1995. Construction began shortly thereafter on the first of approximately 100 single-family homes and the first amendment to the master plan was adopted in 1997 to incorporate minor changes. While many amenities and special features were required by the master plan, most amenities have not been constructed and several features, such as brown pebble paving, were replaced with alternative materials not permitted by the master plan. The petitioners are requesting a master plan amendment to reconcile the built conditions at Wolf Creek with the master plan, determine which of the amenities not constructed the citizens want to be completed and to remain in the master plan, and set clear requirements for the development of the remaining lots. Ms. Cronise advised that the Wolf Creek development meets the requirements of the PRD for a maximum of five dwelling units per acre gross density and provides 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The Wolf Creek development also exceeds the minimum 15 percent open space requirement with 16.2 percent common open space. The development is two-thirds complete with approximately 68 percent of the homes completed. Two houses are under construction and, except for the Rockbridge neighborhood, all public and private roads have been constructed and all lots have been sub-divided. She referred to a map displayed and pointed out the neighborhoods of 294 April 28, 2009 Wolf Run, Wolf Crest, Village at Stone Creek, Richard's Wood, Beech Cove and Rockbridge, which comprise the Wolf Creek Development, the common areas and landscaping plans. She displayed an existing amenities map from the 1995 and 1997 plans, which had been updated to show the houses constructed and the planned amenities. She advised that the Board had been provided with a sheet that references the changes to the amenities since the work session was held with the Planning Commission in March 2009. Ms. Cronise advised that both public and private roads are permitted in PRD's and that Wolf Run and Wolf Crest are public roads, while the remaining roads are private. The Virginia Department of Transportation has no concerns because the number of residential units and buildable lots proposed has dropped from 101 in the 1997 master plan to 96 in the draft amended master plan and the majority of the changes affect amenities and improvements outside the public right-of-way. Ms. Cronise advised that several community meetings were held since the application was submitted in July 2007, and a Wolf Creek Committee comprised of 16 residents was formed. She advised that the purpose of the 2007 meetings was to inform the community about the requirements of the master plan, to determine which amenities and features were missing and to achieve a consensus of which amenities and features the residents wanted completed. County staff negotiated with the developers in late 2007 and early 2008 on amenity commitments and potential master plan amendments. The community meetings communicated this progress and, while a settlement April 28, 2009 2g5 agreement itemizing the amenities to be completed was finalized with Wolf Creek, Inc. and Circle C Consultants, Inc. and signed on June 17, 2008, communication with Front Street Construction, Inc. and Old Towne Development, Inc. failed. As a result, the County Attorney filed a complaint against the two companies and others on April 3, 2008, to compel compliance with the master plan. Contact with the developers resumed shortly thereafter and a settlement agreement was negotiated that would essentially pay the Village at Stone Creek Homeowners Association (HOA) in exchange for all amenities and features not constructed. The settlement agreement was finalized and the complaint was dismissed on October 28, 2008. Ms. Cronise continued that on March 4, 2009, a community meeting was held to review the amended master draft plan that was formally submitted with a revised application in February 2009. County staff requested that residents carefully review the draft master plan to ensure that they agreed with the amenities that remain, that were deleted and that were changed in the new master plan. Once adopted, the master plan will govern all future development to include home construction, amenities and other community features. Ms. Cronise advised that the County's Comprehensive Plan designates the property as a mixture of neighborhood conservation and development on the future land use map. Both designations are appropriate for single-family residential development. The proposed draft amended Wolf Creek master plan complies with both the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. 296 April 28, 2009 While many amenities and features have been deleted or simplified, the components that remain have been approved by the Wolf Creek residents through extensive public outreach efforts. The resulting draft amended master plan is more concise and gives much clearer direction than the previous edition. Coupled with the settlement agreement, County staff anticipates that if the master plan is adopted, most of the amenities will be constructed and installed by the end of the calendar year. Ms. Cronise continued that, despite the resolution achieved, the Wolf Creek Inc. developers have requested a last minute change. In exchange for eliminating both a heavily landscaped allee and a large overlook in Beech Cove, the residents requested an arbor or trellis be placed across from the entrance to the neighborhood prior to receiving notice of a $5,000 settlement to reimburse the Beech Cove HOA for these features and for their failing private road. The arbor or trellis was added to lists and maps in 2007 as part of the developer negotiations that took place during October and November. This feature should have been included in the settlement agreement and it was inadvertently overlooked. However, text referencing the arbor or trellis was added to the draft amended master plan and the feature was also added to the accompanying amenities map for the recent February 2009 submission. In the last few weeks since the community meeting, the developer decided to change the text on the map to reflect an optional arbor or trellis in the latest draft master plan dated March 31, 2009. Because the feature was included in several documents received by the developers and by Wolf Creek residents since October 2007, it was staff's request that April 28, 2009 297 the optional text be removed from the draft amended master plan to require installation of an arbor or trellis as the Beech Cove residents requested. At the Planning Commission public hearing, two citizens spoke and the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the petition to the Board of Supervisors without any changes. Daniel Barnes, Osterhoudt, Prillaman and Natt, advised that he was speaking on behalf of Wolf Creek Inc. and Circle C Consultants, Inc. concerning the application to amend the PRD master plan for the greater Wolf Creek Community. He stated that he was not appearing on behalf of Front Street Construction, Inc., developer of the Village at Stone Creek, or Rockbridge. The Wolf Creek PRD was proposed and adopted in 1995, and the master plan contained goals and guidelines for the development of the greater Wolf Creek Community. He stated that the original master plan lacked clear direction or precision as to certain aspects of that community and over time there was a desire to add clarity and certainty to the amenities to be included and the design guidelines to be followed either in construction or improvement of residences in the community. Wolf Creek, Inc. and Circle C Consultants, Inc. entered into an agreement with the County in June 2008 to clarify their responsibilities with respect to the PRD. The amended PRD application is a continuation of that agreement and sets forth the exact design guidelines for the residences in the community to ensure compliance and harmony in the development and clarifies the amenities that will be the responsibility of the developers of this parcel. There has been a series of meetings with 298 April 28, 2009 staff and public hearings and the master plan has been reviewed and revised significantly to match the concerns of County staff for greater clarity and precision. Mr. Barnes reported that the developers agree with the staff report with the exception of the arbor or trellis in Beech Cove. In 2008, there were certain discussions and a series of negotiations between the developers and the County concerning the inclusion of amenities at the Wolf Creek Development. Mr. Barnes stated that it was the developer's position, and has been their position, that they were in compliance with the then existing master plan until the action being requested at this meeting. He advised that on June 17, 2008, a settlement agreement was executed, which identified specific amenities to be installed either by Wolf Creek, Inc. or by Circle C Consultants, Inc. and set aside funds for Beech Cove, Richard's Wood and the greater Wolf Creek. The settlement agreement was executed by all parties, including this Board, and it is the settlement agreement and not the amended master plan which sets the developers' obligations to the Wolf Creek Community. The construction of an arbor or trellis is not in the settlement agreement; however, the developers have continued to leave the potential for such an amenity within the revised master plan. He stated that should the Beech Cove HOA desire to use a portion of the $5,000 that has been provided for this amenity, that would be their decision, and it is not the obligation of the developer. He advised that County staff has requested that the text be amended in the master plan to not include this optional language, however, it is the opinion of the developers that without the inclusion of this optional language, the master plan will not April 28, 2009 299 match the settlement agreement executed a year ago. Mr. Barnes advised that steps have already been taken to implement the settlement agreement and the checking account has already been turned over to the residents at Wolf Creek. Mr. Barnes concluded by thanking staff for their work in getting the revised master plan prepared and for the input received at public hearings from residents, developers, staff and Board members. He stated that the revised master plan is an accurate representation of the settlement agreement that was reached. He thanked the Board for their consideration of the amended master plan. Joe Sailor, 2445 Sweet Bay Circle, advised that they probably spent more in lawyer fees talking about a $200 trellis than anything else. He advised that County staff has worked hard to obtain certain amenities from the developers for the community and he wanted to get things back on track. He advised that they have three or four entities under the umbrella of an HOA, which has created some problems. He has requested that the Board or legislators tell the developers to treat their clients better instead of stalling while maintaining control. He reported that because of this agreement, the residents have control of Stone Creek. He advised that Elmer Hodge has some ideas on how to combine the various communities under the HOA to make it work better. Mr. Sailor advised that the Board has no authority over private roads; however, he felt that control and specifications of private roads is needed. He reported that he thought it was a bad thing to leave the HOA's in the hands of developers for 300 April 28, 2009 years. He encouraged the Board to move forward with approval of the agreement and expressed appreciation to Supervisor Altizer, Mr. Mahoney and Ms. Cronise for their efforts on behalf of the community. Glen Walls, 2409 Sweet Bay Circle, advised that his concern was the Wolf Creek stormwater detention ponds, which according to a County report need many improvements to bring them up to County specifications. As President of the Village at Stone Creek HOA, he has been asked to assist in starting the Wolf Creek HOA and he wants to ensure that responsibility for the ponds will not go to the HOA because they have no funds. If the responsibility does go to the HOA, he would be against approval of the agreement at this time, and if that responsibility does not go to the HOA, he would be in agreement with moving forward. Mr. Walls further stated that there was an email received from the County concerning the landscaping projects and it states how long they have to spend the money, that all amenities must be completed by December 31, 2009, and that funds will be reimbursed after all work has been completed and inspected by Roanoke County. He stated that this means that the HOA will pay for the work and then be reimbursed and that the HOA does not have that kind of money. He stated that he has questioned before what will happen to any funds remaining and has never received an answer. He also questioned who would decide what company would be contracted to do the work at the Village at Stone Creek. He advised that everyone in the community wants to have things done properly and they put forth a lot of effort to be involved in the HOA. He April 28, 2009 301 stated that perhaps the County should get the estimates if they are going to decide which company will do the work. Deedy Runyon, 2307 Green Knoll Lane, Village at Stone Creek, advised that she knows that the PRD and the settlement agreement are two separate issues and it is her understanding that acceptance of the $30,000 from the developer of Front Street could hinge on the acceptance of this agreement. She fears that if the Board votes `no' that money will go back to the developer and they are left with no funds to finish improving the neighborhood. She asked that the Board accept the petition to amend the PRD amendment so they can move forward and make the neighborhood look like the place it should. She thanked the County for all of their efforts on behalf of the community. Elmer Hodge, 2452 Wolf Crest, expressed appreciation to the Board members and especially to Supervisor Altizer, Mr. Mahoney, Ms. Cronise, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Covey for their assistance and to the residents who have worked hard to resolve this matter. He advised that they have put together a new HOA for the transition period and while he has a checkbook, there are no funds to pay the bills. He agreed that the maintenance and upgrading of the stormwater ponds should be the responsibility of the developers and he requested that the ponds be passed to the HOA in good condition. He requested that the Board answer Mr. Wall's questions. He commented that the first effort that established guidelines and not conditions for the PRD caused confusion. He stated that the leaning process had made the project better 302 April 28, 2009 and that the Wolf Creek area is a beautiful area. He stated that these matters need to be resolved so the HOA's can pay their bills and send documentation to the State Corporation Commission. He urged the Board to move forward with approval. Supervisor Altizer advised that he would try to address all questions from the citizens. He advised that things that are written can be misunderstood; however, he thought that the County procurement system, which is designed for protection by having County approval, had been discussed in detail with the citizens. He advised that the County wanted to look at the estimates before ordering the work to be done to ensure that the estimates do not have hidden costs involved. He asked Mr. Mahoney to comment on the protection of the County procurement system and if there was a way to streamline it for the citizens. Mr. Mahoney responded that staff had the goals of transparency and integrity in the process of ensuring that the provisions of the amended PRD were fulfilled. He stated that using the Public Procurement Act will achieve the lowest and most responsible bid or estimate received; however, they look at a variety of things and do not necessarily have to select the lowest bidder. He stated, for example, many of the funds will be spent for landscaping and one of the requirements would be that any landscaping should be able to survive for a year. He explained that this is why staff put in the settlement agreement that the County wanted to see three estimates and review and approve the plans. He reported that staff understands that the HOA's do not have the funds to pay upfront for the landscaping. Staff indicated at the community meeting in April 28, 2009 303 January 2009 that the HOA's should specify to vendors that Roanoke County is holding funds in escrow and ask those vendors to send the invoice to the County. The County would then inspect to determine whether or not the landscaping was installed as required under the PRD and send a check directly to the vendor. Mr. Mahoney also advised that if the HOA would rather pay upfront the County could reimburse the HOA and, although that alternative was not set out in the settlement agreement, staff described this to the citizens at the community meeting in January. Mr. Mahoney advised that the County has a responsibility to see that the amenities as called for in the PRD are installed and they want to streamline the process so it will be done with integrity and transparency and satisfy the Public Procurement Act. In response to Mr. Walls' inquiry, Mr. Mahoney stated that if vendors have additional requirements or need funds up front, those vendors could contact the County for assurance that the HOA has the necessary funds. This is something that could be worked out between the vendor and the County. The vendor could also meet with County staff for assistance and suggestions on what is needed for the landscaping to satisfy the PRD. Supervisor Altizer advised that the settlement agreement for the Village at Stone Creek HOA states that they will receive $10,000 to reimburse the property owners for amenities not constructed and $20,000 to pay for installation of amenities as listed in the complaint. If the citizens in Village at Stone Creek elect to do the labor and 304 April 28, 2009 save some of the funds, he would suggest that any funds remaining go back to the H OA. Mr. Mahoney replied that if there is a small amount of money remaining after fulfilling all of the amenities on the list, his recommendation would be to transfer those funds back to the HOA. However, he advised that if there is a substantial amount of money left it could lead to litigation by the developers. He commented that, in his opinion, if a small amount of funds remain, the County would not want to hold those dollars in an escrow account and he would rather turn the funds to the HOA because the HOA will have significant future responsibilities to maintain private streets, the landscaping and the other amenities. If there is a large amount of funds remaining, this would be a greater incentive for the developer to ask that the funds be returned to them. He commented that this is not the answer that the citizens want to hear and he cannot give them an exact answer. He cannot tell them at what point that sum of money becomes so great that the developer is going to demand that it be returned. He stated that it is his view as well as Ms. Cronise's that there are more amenities to be installed than funds available. He stated that if the County is in the position that amenities have been installed and funds remaining, his suggestion would be to ask the County to make a check payable to the Village at Stone Creek HOA. He reiterated that there is not a clear-cut solution about what to do with the remaining funds because, per the agreement, the funds were to be used for amenities and if the amenities were installed April 28, 2009 305 for a lesser amount, the developer would have a good argument that they would be entitled to the remaining funds. Chairman Altizer advised that the big issue in the coming years for him and the Board is that there are many stormwater detention ponds in the County that are in disrepair, dysfunctional and will need to be addressed. He stated that there is a maintenance agreement with the developers of Wolf Creek, Inc. that obligates them to repair and maintain to County standards the two stormwater detention ponds and the developers have received certified service to respond within 90 days to bring those ponds up to County standards. Mr. Mahoney advised that this was correct and if the developers do not bring the ponds up to County standards, the County has the power and authority under the 1996 maintenance agreement to do the work with its own staff or hire an outside contractor. Supervisor Altizer advised that part of the agreement entails the common area being transferred to Roanoke County, then immediately being transferred to the umbrella HOA which is Wolf Creek, Inc. He asked Mr. Mahoney if it would be his legal opinion that when those detention ponds are transferred to the HOA, the responsibility still remains and Roanoke County would ask for the detention ponds to be brought to County standards by Wolf Creek, Inc., the company and not the umbrella HOA. Mr. Mahoney replied in the affirmative and advised that this is a discussion he would like to have with the Board as to whether or not the Board would want to accept a conveyance of the common area because it includes one of the stormwater 306 April 28, 2009 detention ponds. He advised that there is a maintenance agreement, which stands apart from the legal title of ownership to the land. The County could accept the conveyance and still pursue its remedies under the maintenance agreement against the developer, Wolf Creek, Inc. and not the Wolf Creek HOA. Supervisor Altizer advised that $10,000 goes to the Village at Stone Creek HOA, $5,000 to Beech Cove HOA, another $1,250 to Village at Stone Creek HOA and $3,700 to Wolf Creek HOA to be held in escrow with the County until such time as the HOA has been legally transferred to the residents. He asked Mr. Mahoney if these figures were correct. Mr. Mahoney confirmed that the figures were correct and, with respect to the $10,000, he believes that Mr. Barnes' law firm is holding those funds in escrow and would turn those funds over pursuant to the settlement agreement when the Wolf Creek HOA is turned over to the residents. With respect to Beech Cove, Mr. Mahoney stated that the HOA has already been turned over to the residents and, since it is no longer under the power of the developer, those funds could be turned over to them immediately. Supervisor Church stated that he had questions about the funds and at what amount and when would any remaining funds be returned. Mr. Mahoney responded that in the settlement agreement approved by the Board in 2008 with Front Street Construction, developer of Village at Stone Creek, there were two sums of money. He stated that $10,000 would go directly to the HOA to compensate for April 28, 2009 307 amenities that were not constructed and a second payment of $20,000 was designed to pay for certain amenities that were identified in the law suit filed against the developer- installed amenities, primarily landscaping. His concern is that if they do not use the $20,000 for the landscaping and use it for other items that the intent of the agreement between the County, the developer and the HOA would not be fulfilled. He remarked that he could not answer how much might be left over and he believed that the developer would say that if any funds remain, they should go back to the developer. Mr. Mahoney advised that the County's view is that the $20,000 should be spent on the amenities, and if a small amount remains, he would send it to the HOA. If the developer sues the County, Mr. Mahoney believes he could defend his action. There is no way to answer the question to everyone's satisfaction. Supervisor Church replied that he agrees that the amount is hard to determine and it would be better if all of the funds could be used to complete the amenities as required. Mr. Walls advised that he had problems with having to send a contractor to the County if the contractor required a deposit upfront to buy supplies. They need an option if the contractor requests a 26 percent deposit and want a contract completed. If they have to send the contractor to the County, why not send the contractor to the County first? Supervisor Altizer responded that being able to give the citizens choices about the process has created some inconveniences. He suggested that the citizens try the process and see how it works and they may find a contractor who can do the whole 308 April 28, 2009 project because there has to be oversight of the estimate and what it includes. Supervisor Altizer commented that if the citizens encounter problems, County staff will work with them on a solution. Mr. Walls asked for clarification that the Wolf Creek HOA Board of Directors would not inherit the two detention ponds in their present condition. Supervisor Altizer advised that the County will continue to pursue the developer to clean up and fix the ponds and the whole object is not to put that liability on the HOA. Mr. Sailor advised that there is a misconception by citizens that the HOA will not be reimbursed until the total project of $20,000 is completed. He thinks the misconception is wrong and he hoped that Mr. Mahoney would address it. Supervisor Altizer advised that it was his belief that the County will pay as the individual projects are completed. Mr. Sailor replied that this clarified the issue for him. Madlyn Alvaro, 2302 Stone Creek Path, expressed that she understands that the money will not be reimbursed until all of the work is completed and inspected by Roanoke County, which means that they will not get any of the money from the County until everything is complete at Stone Creek. Chairman Altizer advised that the Village at Stone Creek HOA will receive $10,000 and that the citizens have to remember that the County has to inspect the projects. He advised that lack of inspections years ago caused some of the problems now and that the citizens should understand that when they take over completing the projects they become the developer and that inspections are necessary. April 28, 2009 309 Ms. Alvaro stated that they understand about the inspections. She feels that the citizens have done all of the work and now that the process is coming to fruition, everything has to be checked out and done the County's way. Supervisor Altizer explained that the County has taken legal action to adopt the new PRD and they want to make sure that everything is done according to the PRD and for the neighborhood's protection. In response to Ms. Alvaro's inquiry about landscaping not being done by the developer previously, Supervisor Altizer related that the landscaping was being done now with the developer's funds and would be the responsibility of the HOA in the future. Ms. Alvaro advised that they would feel much better if they had some written statement that in the future, they are not responsible for the repair of the ponds. Supervisor Altizer advised when a PRD development has stormwater ponds, at some point in time, the HOA will own and maintain them. He advised that Mr. Mahoney's intention is to have the developer get the detention ponds repaired before transferring them to the HOA. Ms. Alvaro made a request for a postponement of action because she and the citizens were uncomfortable with what has happened in the past two weeks. Supervisor Altizer responded that he did not think they should try to negotiate the agreement further since it has already been negotiated and signed. He advised that Mr. Mahoney has given him his legal opinion that the citizens are protected concerning the stormwater detention ponds. 310 April 28, 2009 Supervisor Altizer asked Mr. Mahoney if he wanted to speak to the Board concerning stormwater ponds as he indicated earlier. Mr. Mahoney advised that he has discussed several times with the Board of how to handle stormwater detention ponds for the older subdivisions. He advised that George Simpson, Mr. Covey and other staff have discussed that issue with the Board. He advised that the Board is focused on Wolf Creek and the stormwater ponds there, which is very important. He would like to have a discussion with the Board of the other developments and residential subdivisions in the County that have older stormwater detention facilities. He wanted to make sure that the Board is comfortable with this kind of approach in terms of enforcement and addressing those issues. He understands that the Board has discussed this in work session; however, he does not believe the Board has established a policy for handling the older ponds. He explained that how the Board wants to address these stormwater ponds in Wolf Creek will have a bearing on how to handle other existing residential developments with older, failing or substandard ponds. The older ponds were built under old regulations and standards and the Department of Environmental Quality is changing the rules. He requested that the Board think about what to do about the older ponds and advised that this is a discussion beyond tonight's meeting. Bill Wimmer, 2475 Wolf Run, advised that he was a volunteer on the Wolf Creek, Inc. umbrella HOA and he understands that the issue of responsibility for the retention ponds is outside of the agreement that the Board has before them at this meeting. He is concerned that the HOA not inherit the liabilities from the developers for April 28, 2009 311 the maintenance and upgrading of the stormwater detentions ponds. He explained that the HOA Board has not been installed, that Mr. Hodge has agreed to help and there are no funds to take care of the responsibilities of managing the HOA. The HOA has a fiduciary responsibility for funds that are taken in and for the way they are spent. He wants to be sure that the HOA inherits no liability for the two ponds and common areas. He advised that there is some confusion about which common areas will be deeded over to which subdivisions. Mr. Mahoney answered that the common areas will be deeded to the umbrella HOA. Mr. Wimmer stated that he wanted to be sure that the tax liability on the common areas will be brought to zero before it passes to the HOA. He expressed appreciation to everyone involved in this project for their work, especially Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Hodge. He stated that he would never recommend having a parent HOA with other HOA's carved out of it. Supervisor Altizer agreed while advising that the HOA's are set up by the developer and are not regulated by the County. Supervisor Church advised that this is a role model that they do not want to follow in the future, even though it was done with good intentions. He asserted that the County will deal with the situation concerning stormwater detention ponds later. He advised that the decision tonight is on record and the County pledges to back up the agreement. He surmises that some of the same things may not happen in the future, but the Board is setting a precedent and all five districts should be treated with the same consideration that has been put into this process. 312 April 28, 2009 Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance amending the Wolf Creek PRD and he re-emphasized that the money held in escrow for the Wolf Creek Home Owners Association (HOA) would not be paid until the developer turns over control of the HOA to the residents. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None Before voting Supervisor Altizer commented that this process has lasted twenty months and he wanted to thank the citizens and staff for their participation and hard work to negotiate the contract. He advised that the community is a beautiful place and will be even better when the other amenities are completed. ORDINANCE 042809-7 AMENDING THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN FOR WOLF CREEK, WHICH MEASURES 38.384 ACRES AND INCLUDES THE COMMUNITIES OF WOLF RUN, WOLF CREST, BEECH COVE, RICHARD'S WOOD, VILLAGE AT STONE CREEK AND ROCKBRIDGE, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE APPLICATION OF WOLF CREEK, INC., CIRCLE C CONSULTANTS, INC., WOLF CREEK HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., FRONT STREET CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND OLD TOWNE DEVELOPMENT, LLC WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 24, 2009, and the second reading and public hearing were held April 28, 2009; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 7, 2009; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by I aw. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing approximately 38.384 acres, as described herein, and located at the intersection of Mountain View Road and Wolf Run (Tax Map Numbers attached as Exhibit A) in the Vinton Magisterial District, is hereby amended as set out in the Wolf Creek Master Plan April 28, 2009 313 titled "A Rezoning Application: Planning and Design Documents for Wolf Creek Planned Community, County of Roanoke, Virginia, Roanoke County's First Planned Residential Development (PRD)" updated through March 31, 2009, attached hereto as Exhibit B. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Wolf Creek, Inc., Circle C Consultants, Inc., Wolf Creek Homeowners Association, Inc., Front Street Construction, Inc., and Old Towne Development, LLC. 3. That the owners of the property have voluntarily proffered in writing the above-mentioned amended conditions which are set out in Exhibit B and which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts. 4. That said real estate is more fully described on the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit C. 5. 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 Altizer to adopt the ordinance amending the Wolf Creek PRD and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 24, 2009, THIS PETITION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) Second reading of an ordinance upon the etition of Foxhall Properties, LLC to rezone 12.237 acres from I.1, Low Intensity Industrial District, to I-2CS, High Intensity Industrial District with Conditions and Special Use Permit, for the purpose of operating an asphalt Ip ant and construction yard located at 4127 West Main Street, Salem, Catawba Magisterial District Phili Thompson, Deputy Director of Plannin 314 April 28, 2009 Chairman Altizer advised that this petition had been withdrawn at the request of the petitioner, Foxhall Properties, LLC. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES of BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Moore: She expressed appreciation to the Virgir~ia Department of Transportation for installing the right turn only sign in front of Shell Park on Merriman Road . Supervisor Church: He expressed appreciation to Arnold Covey, Tarek Moneir and the staff in the Community Development Department for their assistance in handling the concerns of citizens who phone or email him. He advised that it is very important for staff contacting citizens to use a proactive approach and he wanted to publicly thank stafffor their interaction with citizens. Supervisor McNamara: He requested that Arnold Covey provide him with the status of Ivy Ridge Road, which is on the Rural Additions list. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 1:45 p.m. Submitted by: Yv~ ~ Brenda J. Ho ton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Approved by: ~ . r i ~J ~. Michael W. Altizer Chairman