Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2002 - RegularOF ROAN ,~.~ ti' ~ y ~ ~ °~ a ~'~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ rase ~Norking Document -Subject to 1~evision ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA NOVEMBER 19, 2002 ~~~~~ Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for November 19, 2002. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3. Today's meeting will be rebroadcast on Wednesday, November 20 at 7:00 p.m. and on Sunday, November 24 at 4:00 p.m. The meetings are now closed-captioned. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.) 1. Roll Call ROLL CALL AT 3:00 P.M. WITH HOM ABSENT HOM ARRIVED AT 3:15 P.M. 2. Invocation: Dr. Maurita J. Wiggins Valley Community Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS ECH REQUESTED THAT ITEMS E-3, COUNTY AGREEMENT WITH VDOT AND G- 1i FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE FOR EASEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDIAN GRAVE ROAD EXTENSION AND ROUTE 220 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, BE MOVED TO THE EVENING SESSION TO ALLOW CITIZEN GROUPS TO BE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD TO MOVE THE ITEMS TO R.1-1 AND R.2-1. ® Recycled Paper PMM ADDED THE FOLLOWING CLOSED MEETINGS: CLOSED MEETING PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2-3711 A (3) DISCUSSION OF THE DISPOSITION OF PUBLICLY-HELD REAL PROPERTY. NAMELY LONG-TERM LEASE AT VINYARD PARK; SECTION 2.2-3711 A (3) DISCUSSION OF THE ACQUISITION OF REAL ESTATE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. NAMELY ITEM G-1 INDIAN GRAVE ROAD AND U.S. ROUTE 220 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS NONE D. BRIEFINGS Briefing on recent Virginia Department of Health inspection report -Spring Hollow Water Treatment Facility. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) BRIEFING PRESENTED BY GARY ROBERTSON. UTILITY DIRECTOR. THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT WERE RECOGNIZED: JEFF BOOTH, MIKE DUFFY, DEAN WOOD, DAVID WHITE, GREG HONEYCUTT, RANDY SMITH, LISA SIGERICH, TOBY WISEMAN, DANNY FOSTER, CURTIS PUCKETT, COURTNEY OLD E. NEW BUSINESS Request to remove water conservation restrictions. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) A-111902-1 JBC MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION (TERMINATE WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES BUT ENCOURAGE VOLUNTARY CONSERVATION) URC 2. Request to approve agreement with American Electric Power for the purchase of surplus power at Spring Hollow Reservoir. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) A-111902-2 JBC MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION (APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT) URC 3. Request for approval of County-State agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation for the following projects: Extension of Indian Grave Road and intersection improvements and removal of the bridge and a portion of Clearbrook Lane. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) THIS ITEM WAS MOVED TO ITEM R.1-1 IN THE EVENING SESSION 4. Approval of a renewal amendment to an agreement with Bell Atlantic - Virginia, Inc. (now Verizon Virginia, Inc.) to sublease tower space and equipment building space for a repeater antenna on Poor Mountain as part of the E-911 communication system, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) R-111902-3 JPM MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION URC 5. Approval of Dental Plan Renewal - 2003. (Rebecca Owens, Finance Manager) A-111902-4 RCF MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION (CONTINUE WITH DELTA DENTAL AS GROUP DENTAL INSURANCE PLAN) URC 6. Request for approval of the 2003 Holiday Schedule. (Joe Sgroi, Director of Human Resources) A-111902-5 JBC MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION (ALTERNATIVE #3- CONTINUE WITH PRESIDENTS' DAY AND VETERANS' DAY AS TWO FLOATING HOLIDAYS AND DESIGNATE FRIDAY 12/26 THE DATE AFTER CHRISTMAS AS COUNTY HOLIDAY WHEN THE OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED RATHER THAN COLUMBUS DAY IN OCTOBER 2003). HE ALSO REQUESTED THAT THIS INFORMATION BE PUBLICIZED TO CITIZENS. URC 7. Additional Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Brent Robertson, Budget Director) MWA MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION (APPROPRIATING $156,779 OUT OF FY 2001-2002 YEAR-END BALANCE TO OFFSET REVENUE LOSS) WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT $70,000 WILL ALSO BE APPROPRIATED TO FUND PURCHASE OF NEW POLICE VEHICLES. 3 JPM MOTION TO AMEND MWA MOTION WITHOUT INCLUDING $70,000 FOR PURCHASE OF VEHICLES AND WITH THE STIPULATION THAT FUNDING BE TAKEN FROM CURRENT YEAR BUDGET. AYES: RCF, JPM NAYES: HOM, MWA, JBC A-111902-6 MWA MOTION TO APPROVE APPROPRIATION OF $156,779 PLUS $70,000 FOR PURCHASE OF POLICE VEHICLES WITH FUNDING FROM THE CURRENT YEAR BUDGET TO OFFSET REVENUE LOSS. U RC F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions but satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission. JPM MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READINGS 2 READINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS - 12/17/02 URC 1. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to conduct a home occupation for a beauty salon located at 3105 Davis Avenue upon the petition of Lois M. Atkins, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to operate a private aviation facility on 21.9 acres located at 2213 Zana Road upon the petition of Richard A. May, Catawba Magisterial District. 3. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 6.15 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to AR, Agricultural Residential District, at 7604 Mount Chestnut Road upon the petition of Joe & Melissa Lankford, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 4. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to operate a commercial kennel on 2.657 acres located at 3900 Carvins Cove Road upon the petition of Van B. & Teresa D. Johnson, Catawba Magisterial District. 5. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to operate a used automobile dealership located at 6422 Bent Mountain Road upon the petition of Back Creek Enterprises, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 4 G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of and dedication of certain real estate and necessary easements for the construction of the Indian Grave Road Extension and U.S. Route 220 intersection improvements. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) THIS ITEM WAS MOVED TO ITEM R.2-1 IN THE EVENING SESSION H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES NONE I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare 2. Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) RCF REQUESTED THAT THE CLERK CONTACT WILMORE T. LEFFELL. RICHARD L. WILLIAMS. AND LARRY W. DEGEN TO SEE IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE ADDITIONAL TERMS. 3. Disability Services Board 4. Grievance Panel 5. Library Board (Appointed by District) 6. Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission (Appointed by District) 7. Roanoke County Planning Commission (Appointed by District) 8. Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee 9. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 10. Virginia Western Community College Board 5 J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-111902-7 HOM MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION URC 1. Approval of minutes -July 9, October 31 and November 5, 2002 2. Request to accept Salisbury Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System R-111902-7.a K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS Request for joint work session with the Roanoke County Planning Commission on December 3, 2002 to discuss proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Section 30-93, Signs. (David Holladay, Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator) IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD TO SCHEDULE THE WORK SESSION FOR THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY 2003 (TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2003). L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS MS. ANNIE KROCHALIS SPOKE REGARDING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON COTTON HILL ROAD. SHE VOICED HER CONCERN FOR MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS, AND STATED THAT THIS ITEM HAD BEEN PUT ON THE AGENDA AND REMOVED SEVERAL TIMES. SHE REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD NOT REFER THIS MATTER BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SHE STATED THAT SHE IS NOT ANTI-DEVELOPMENT. BUT SHE SUPPORTS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. SHE STATED THAT CITIZENS HAD REQUESTED AND BEEN DENIED A TRAFFIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY. 6 N. REPORTS HOM MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE FOLLOWING REPORTS URC 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Future School Capital Reserve 5. Accounts Paid -October 2002 6. Statement of Expenditures and Estimated and Actual Revenues for the month ended October 31, 2002 O. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion of the disposition of publicly-held real property, namely long-term lease at Vinyard Park; Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion of the acquisition of real estate for public purposes, namely Item G-1, Indian Grave Road and U. S. Route 220 intersection improvements. JBC MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED MEETING FOLLOWED BY WORK SESSION AT 4:10 P.M. P. WORK SESSIONS (4th Floor Conference Room) Work session with citizen group to discuss draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) regarding I-73. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) TIME: 5:13 P.M. UNTIL 5:43 P.M. PRESENTED BY: KRIS PECKMAN. BOB PECKMAN AND JERRYANNE BIER REPRESENTING VIRGINIANS FOR APPROPRIATE ROADS: LOTS SLOTNICK AND GERRY SLOTNICK REPRESENTING FRIENDS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY. INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED I-73 ROUTE AND A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE KNOWN AS THE TSM (TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT). THE CITIZEN GROUPS PRESENT FAVOR THE TSM ALTERNATIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (1) THE CURRENT I-73 ROUTE IS SO EXPENSIVE THAT IT IS UNLIKELY TO BE BUILT WITHIN THE NEXT 2-4 7 DECADES. (2) THE RESIDENTS ALONG THE PROPOSED I-73 ROUTE REMAIN IN LIMBO AND THE MARKET VALUES OF THEIR HOMES HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY IMPACTED. (3) THERE IS NO PROVISION IN VDOT'S 6-YEAR PLAN TO IMPROVE THE EXISTING US ROUTE 220 TO GREENSBORO. (4) THE TSM ALTERNATIVE IS LESS DISRUPTIVE TO HOMES AND BUSINESSES THAN THE PROPOSED I-73 ROUTE. (5) THE TSM ALTERNATIVE IS LESS DESTRUCTIVE TO THE ENVIRONMENT. THE BOARD WAS ASKED TO FORMALLY REQUEST ONZLEE WARE, REPRESENTATIVE ON THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD, TO ASK THE CTB TO CHANGE THEIR PREFERRED ROUTING OF I-73 FROM THE CURRENT ROUTE TO THE TSM ALTERNATIVE. EVENING SESSION Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION CLOSED MEETING HELD FROM 4:30 P.M. UNTIL 5:05 P.M. R-111902-8 JBC MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION URC R. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Presentation from the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Unit and the Marine Corps League and appropriation of $7,000 proceeds from the 7th Annual Marine Mud Run A-111902-9 JBC MOTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE $7,000 TO CAMP ROANOKE FUND URC CHECK PRESENTED BY MARINE CORPS LEAGUE COMMANDANT MIKE SHEPHERD; CAPAIN KEVIN HARBISON, INSPECTOR INSTRUCTOR B COMPANY; STAFF SARGEANT GUZMAN, TOYS FOR TOTS COORDINATOR; FRED DOYLE, PAST COMMANDANT; AND JAMES STOKES, MARINE CORPS LEAGUE JBC PRESENTED CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION TO MARINE CORPS LEAGUE AND MARINE CORPS RESERVE UNIT. R.1 NEW BUSINESS Request for approval of County-State agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation for the following projects: Extension of Indian Grave Road and intersection improvements and removal of the bridge and a portion of Clearbrook Lane. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) THE FOLLOWING CITIZENS SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF ROANOKE COUNTY PROCEEDING WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC LIGHT ON INDIAN GRAVE ROAD: CLARENCE W. SIMMONS, MIKE WRAY, LEE BIBBS, ANNABELLE A. LAYMAN, AND AMY CRAMMER. R-111902-10 HOM MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION URC R.2 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES First reading of an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of and dedication of certain real estate and necessary easements for the construction of the Indian Grave Road Extension and U.S. Route 220 intersection improvements. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) HOM MOTION TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2 READING -12/3/02 URC S. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of ordinance to rezone 22.743 acres from AR Agricultural Residential District to R-1 Low Density Residential District for development of single family housing located at Virginia Secondary Route 688 (Cotton Hill Road) and Raintree Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Cotton Hill Land Company, LC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS MATTER BE REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO EVALUATE THEIR REQUEST FOR A RECONSIDERATION. THE FOLLOWING CITIZENS SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON COTTON HILL ROAD: DEIRDRE REA. AL TURNER, DOROTHY RUNION, ANNIE KROCHALIS, DALE HOPKINS, AND DIANE CAMPBELL. 9 A-111902-11 HOM MOTION TO DENY REQUEST TO RETURN THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION URC 2. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for .55 acres for a home occupation in an accessory structure located at 3564 Grandin Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Sheree and James Ringer. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 0-111902-12 JPM MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE URC 3. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 16.255 acres from C-2 General Commercial District to R-1 Low Density Residential District for the purpose of constructing a single family dwelling located at 6012 Cove Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Larry G. and Ida Jane E. Conner. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 0-111902-13 JBC MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE URC 4. Second reading of an ordinance to vacate a 15' access easement on Lot 8 and release a reservation for water storage tank on a Public Utility Lot, created by Subdivision Plat for Section 8, Falling Creek Estates, in Plat Book 21, Page 20, and combined into New Lot 8A in Plat Book 24, Page 5, Vinton Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WAS HELD AND THERE WERE NO CITIZENS PRESENT TO SPEAK CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD TO WITHHOLD ACTION ON THE SECOND READING OF THIS ITEM T. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public hearing for citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Charter. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) THERE WERE NO CITIZENS PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM 10 A-111902-14 JPM MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION URC NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to adopt 2003 Legislative Program. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) R-111902-15 HOM MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION WITH THE REVISION THAT ITEM 2 WILL ALSO INCLUDE A REQUEST FOR AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN EXPLORE PARK. URC V. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE W. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Flora: (1) He requested that the Board's economic development tour scheduled for December 3 be held at noon rather than following the 3:00 Board meeting. Supervisor Minnix: (1) He advised that he will be out of town from December 1-9 and asked citizens to please contact him after his return. (2) He indicated that he was sorry he was unable to attend the State of the County address this morning, but that he had heard very positive comments regardinq the event. Supervisor Church: (1) He asked Arnold Covey to investigate a citizen inquiry regardinq construction on Stonemill Drive. (2) He stated that he had attended the Roanoke County Education Association awards at Hidden Valley Junior High School. He thanked the volunteers who donate so much of their time at the schools. X. ADJOURNMENT JBC ADJOURNED MEETING AT 9:08 P.M. 11 ,~~~~,~ O~ AOAN ,5.~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ` 1838 / ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA NOVEMBER 19, 2002 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for November 19, 2002. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3. Today's meeting will be rebroadcast on Wednesday, November 20 at 7:00 p.m. and on Sunday, November 24 at 4:00 p.m. The meetings are now closed-captioned. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.) 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation: Dr. Maurita J. Wiggins Valley Community Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS . C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS D. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing on recent Virginia Department of Health inspection report -Spring Hollow Water Treatment Facility. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to remove water conservation restrictions. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 1 ® Recycled Paper 2. Request to approve agreement with American Electric Power for the purchase of surplus power at Spring Hollow Reservoir. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 3. Request for approval of County-State agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation for the following projects: Extension of Indian Grave Road and intersection improvements and removal of the bridge and a portion of Clearbrook Lane. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) 4. Approval of a renewal amendment to an agreement with Bell Atlantic - Virginia, Inc. (now Verizon Virginia, Inc.) to sublease tower space and equipment building space for a repeater antenna on Poor Mountain as part of the E-911 communication system, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) 5. Approval of Dental Plan Renewal - 2003. (Rebecca Owens, Finance Manager) 6. Request for approval of the 2003 Holiday Schedule. (Joe Sgroi, Director of Human Resources) 7. Additional Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. (Brent Robertson, Budget Director) F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions but satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission. 1. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to conduct a home occupation for a beauty salon located at 3105 Davis Avenue upon the petition of Lois M. Atkins, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to operate a private aviation facility on 21.9 acres located at 2213 Zana Road upon the petition of Richard A. May, Catawba Magisterial District. 3. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 6.15 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to AR, Agricultural Residential District, at 7604 Mount Chestnut Road upon the petition of Joe & Melissa Lankford, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 2 4. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to operate a commercial kennel on 2.657 acres located at 3900 Carvins Cove Road upon the petition of Van B. & Teresa D. Johnson, Catawba Magisterial District. 5. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to operate a used automobile dealership located at 6422 Bent Mountain Road upon the petition of Back Creek Enterprises, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of and dedication of certain real estate and necessary easements for the construction of the Indian Grave Road Extension and U.S. Route 220 intersection improvements. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES I. APPOINTMENTS 1. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare 2. Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) 3. Disability Services Board 4. Grievance Panel 5. Library Board (Appointed by District) 6. Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission (Appointed by District) 7. Roanoke County Planning Commission (Appointed by District) 8. Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee 9. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 10. Virginia Western Community College Board J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE 3 RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of minutes -July 9, October 31 and November 5, 2002 2. Request to accept Salisbury Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for joint work session with the Roanoke County Planning Commission on December 3, 2002 to discuss proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Section 30-93, Signs. (David Holladay, Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator) L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS N. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Future School Capital Reserve 5. Accounts Paid -October 2002 6. Statement of Expenditures and Estimated and Actual Revenues for the month ended October 31, 2002 O. CLOSED MEETING P. WORK SESSIONS (4th Floor Conference Room) 1. Work session with citizen group to discuss draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) regarding I-73. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) 4 EVENING SESSION Q. R. S. T CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Presentation from the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Unit and the Marine Corps League and appropriation of $7,000 proceeds from the 7th Annual Marine Mud Run PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of ordinance to rezone 22.743 acres from AR Agricultural Residential District to R-1 Low Density Residential District for development of single family housing located at Virginia Secondary Route 688 (Cotton-Hill Road) and Raintree Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Cotton Hill Land Company, LC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS MATTER BE REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO EVALUATE THEIR REQUEST FOR A RECONSIDERATION. 2. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for .55 acres for a home occupation in an accessory structure located at 3564 Grandin Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of Sheree and James Ringer. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 3. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 16.255 acres from C-2 General Commercial District to R-1 Low Density Residential District for the purpose of constructing a single family dwelling located at 6012 Cove Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Larry G. and Ida Jane E. Conner. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 4. Second reading of an ordinance to vacate a 15' access easement on Lot 8 and release a reservation for water storage tank on a Public Utility Lot, created by Subdivision Plat for Section 8, Falling Creek Estates, in Plat Book 21, Page 20, and combined into New Lot 8A in Plat Book 24, Page 5, Vinton Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public hearing for citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Charter. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 5 U. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to adopt 2003 Legislative Program. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) V. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS W. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS X. ADJOURNMENT 6 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: November 19, 2002 Briefing on Recent Virginia Department of Health Inspection Report -Spring Hollow Water Treatment Facility Gary L. Robertson, P.E. Utility Director APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~ l~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Spring Hollow water treatment facility (WTF) has been in operation since January 13, 1996. During that time daily water production has increased from an initial flow of approximately 300,000 gallons per day to the present average production of 4.5 MGD. In addition, Roanoke County has been supplying Roanoke City with up to 4 MGD since July 1, 2002 for a total daily production from the WTF of 8.5 million gallons. Attached for the Board's information is a summary of the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) report prepared as a result of the inspection conducted on October 23, 2002. VDH comments from this summary include: - "Spring Hollow WTF was found to be well maintained and in excellent operating condition" - "... obvious that the operators take great pride in their work and take (sic) their job seriously." - "Monthly operation reports ..... indicate superior operation and product quality." ~-1 - "..... filtered water turbidities never exceeded the 0.3 NTU compliance level. More impressively, filtered water turbidities never exceeded the health department goal of 0.1 NTU. Note: Turbidity (clarity of water) measurements are a key element in determining the effectiveness of a filtration system in removing particles and organisms and must therefore be controlled and closely monitored. Also noted in the VDH summary is the fact that nine (9) groundwater wells have been put back into production to supplement the water supply from the Spring Hollow WTF. These wells currently provide approximately 2 MGD of source capacity. The VDH has authorized Utility Department staff to proceed with a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of increasing the flow-through capacity of the treatment filters. As mentioned in the inspection summary, WTF operating staff personnel are currently installing monitoring equipment in conjunction with this pilot study. It is anticipated that the results of the study will justify a re-rating of the overall filtration capacity from 15 MGD to 18 MGD. This anticipated increase of 3 MGD in production capacity will be made possible at a cost of approximately $60,000 and is directly attributable to the exemplary level of operation provided by the WTF operating staff. Staff has presented the above information to make the Board aware of the excellent and conscientious employees who operate and maintain the Spring Hollow water treatment facility. They are to be commended for the professional manner in which they perform their duties and provide the finest quality drinking water possible. ~_i PWSID No. 21617000 Si TMMARY Problems Identified At Last Survey: none Comments/Recommendations/Necessary Actions: The Roanoke County Water Treatment Facility was found to be well maintained and in excellent operating condition. It was obvious that the operators take great pride in their work and their job seriously. Monthly operation reports for the previous six months (April -September, 2002) indicate superior operation and product quality. Finished water fluoride concentrations were outside the 0.8-1.2 ppm range only one of 183 operating days. Entry point chlorine concentrations were always above the prescribed plant minimum of 0.7 ppm. Applied water turbidities never exceeded the health department goal of 1.0 NTU. More significantly, filtered water turbidities never exceeded the 0.3 NTU compliance level. More impressively, filtered water turbidities never exceeded the health department goal of 0.1 NTU. A pilot study of filtration at 4.5 gpm per square foot will be conducted. Monitoring equipment installation for Unit 1 (with its two filters) is essentially complete. Recent security improvements include intruder detection devices with alarms on all exterior doors and security cameras that are monitored in the control room, Nine wells have been put back into production to supplement the water supply from the Water Treatment Facility. These wells will be surveyed at a later date. A source water assessment report was forwarded in May of 2002. This report covered the Spring Hollow Reservoir, Roanoke River and its tributaries. Wells associated with the 2161700 system were not evaluated. The wells are currently under study and a report will be forthcoming. Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) for calendar year 2001 were distributed before the deadline of June 30, 2002. CCRs for calendar year 2002 must be distributed by June 30, 2003. Significant Deficiencies -The following significant deficiencies were noted during the survey. You are required to respond by indicating how and on what schedule the deficiencies will be addressed: NONE Attachments: (X.) Par t A ( ) Part B ( )Part C cc/att: Jeff Booth Parts (X) A( ) B () C Scott Agner Parts (X) A( ) B () C Lexington Field Office Parts (X) A( ) B () C for Dental Health cc: Roanoke County Health Department -Molly L. O'Dell, M.D. VDH - DDW A-111902-1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002 AGENDA ITEM: Request to remove water conservation restrictions SUBMITTED BY: Gary L. Robertson, P.E. Utility Director APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~C~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Because of the conditions outlined below, we feel comfortable in recommending the removal of mandatory restrictions at this time. This item was originally scheduled as a second reading to amend the water ordinance. Due to the favorable conditions and at the request of Gary Robertson, Utility Director, we have chosen not to bring the amendment back to the Board at this time. We would like to schedule a work session with the Board in the next few months to refine the ordinance for implementation next summer. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: As a result of the Governor's imposition of state-wide conservation measures, existing drought conditions and the County's assistance in providing water to Roanoke City, the Board adopted an ordinance at its October 22 meeting which declared that a water supply emergency existed and implemented water conservation measures to restrict the use of water by citizens in Roanoke County. Since that time, the Governor has lifted the state mandatory restrictions, the Board has indicated an interest in removing the County's mandatory restrictions, and we have experienced relief from the drought conditions as a result of recent rainfall. In light of these changes, County staff has evaluated the advisability of lifting water restrictions on County residents. This evaluation takes into account the following information and considerations. What has been the impact on Roanoke County's water supplyfrom the recent rains? As stated in an earlier presentation to the Board, the County water supply remains sufficient for Roanoke County and City water needs into the foreseeable future. However, the Spring Hollow reservoir dropped to a low level of approximately 1373.0 on October 28, 2002 prior to the recent rains in October and early November. The National Weather Service reported that the Roanoke area received 5.31 inches of rain in October and 1.96 inches so far in November, which has decreased Virginia's drought status from severe to moderate. The attached graph references critical elevations of the reservoir and their respective significance. In addition, a graph depicting historical and projected levels in the Spring Hollow reservoir and Roanoke River is provided for the Board's information. With the benefit derived from the October and November rains Utility Department operating personnel have been able to pump approximately 468 million gallons of water from the Roanoke River into the reservoir, which has raised the water level to approximately 1388. This extends the reservoir capacity at present usage to sustain water needs for an additional two months. What measures does Roanoke County plan to continue? - Roanoke County plans to continue our program for placing standby wells in service. - Roanoke County staff is requesting that the Board of Supervisors continue the Voluntary Water Conservation Program at this time. There are several reasons we recommend that the Voluntary Water Conservation Program remain in effect. Considering the level of drought being experienced by the region, we believe that asking our citizens to use their resources wisely is still the responsible course of action. Continued conservation of water will serve purposes such as: - Extending the safe use of our water supplies. Even though Roanoke County still has a strong water system and recent rains have mitigated the effects of the severe drought, above average precipitation during the next 3 to 6 months is necessary to alleviate long-term drought conditions and replenish groundwater levels. - Roanoke County still maintains water systems that are totally dependent on groundwater. These systems are particularly vulnerable to drought. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: County staff will continue to monitor any further actions taken by the State of Virginia with respect to water conservation measures. The termination of water conservation measures is within the sound discretion of the Board of Supervisors. If the Board decides to terminate the water conservation measures, County staff recommends that the Board encourage County citizens to continue voluntary conservation measures as provided in Section 22-203. VOTE: Supervisor Church motion to approve staff recommendation. Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ cc: File Gary Robertson, Director, Utility ~w <;.~ •:` ~Anav ~4~0 - Fug Pavo (~cnx rrxuuE~ . .~ . ; . <: a~Anav ~,re8 - PRE.~vr~~z (max -TxuuE~ . ,~ ~ ~ , ; ~Anav ~~so - ~,so oAr.sr~ r~ (~sx rau,~) <,• ~Anav ~.~o - ~cn oAY sr~z r 3~x rrxuuE~ ; ~ ~. . ,~ . Y . .. ; ~. ,.. .t ~C <. ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~' s ~ ;~ ~~ .F~, .<~1-i • a~ ~f~ <'~~.• ~ ti ~n .1.. ~ • ' ~ . , < ,~.~ ,sr~ .c iL L~ry < .. j ~ ' 4' .•, 'c' ~ 'i .t ~. ~ .f .{ ; `i .l . • ~. .. <. ., .~ • ~., ~ ;.s * BASED ON 10 M/LL/ON GALLONS PER DAY USAGE lNG ROLL 0~ f~~S~i~l/0/F~ SPf~ L~I/A TIONS TO I/0~ ~~~ N01/EtiIBER ~9, 2002 • • -~ O 2 Z ~ ~ ~ _ ~ t i ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ t ~ l _ ~ r r ~ ~ ~ ~ / / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ' i ~ , ~ ~ i / ~ ~ / ~ J ~ u ~ . ~ o N Z z , ~ J ~ t I j , ~ , / LL ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I . ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ M o ~ o V M M C~ C7 c0 N N T T T T T T T T NOI1dA3~3 ~~ _ ~ O _ ~ ~^^O ~~ ~.L ++ L J -~ _ O~~ dO C~' ~~o °~i ti ~ G!~ ~~~J Q ~ 0 . s,,Jo `'O ~~ ~~~a ~ ~~ `~'oas`P a dad ~~~ S !4, O~X /,b o ~ ~6~b a'~ ~ - ~~ ~~ 7n 9~~~°~G,~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~dG G~i, l~ ~n v S ~ °o ~~' ~L ; 6'~~ c~,i ab S ~'~0~, c mob J ~ ~~~ ~`9! 8~ 9y 9~, s~ y ~~ ~o -~ `~. ~~ SGT ~ /~ O L a N O O T T A-111902-2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~- a~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: November 19, 2002 Request to Approve Agreement with American Electric Power for the Purchase of Surplus Power at Spring Hollow Gary Robertson Utility Director Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Since 1994, Roanoke County has had a special amendment to its contract with American Electric Power (AEP) relating to Spring Hollow. In the past, Spring Hollow operated under "public authority" rates with the exception of the months of December, January, and February. During those months, we could not operate any pumps during daytime hours without paying excessive demand charges. When our contract expired July 2, 2002, AEP did not offer the same condition for Spring Hollow. AEP proposed that we choose the maximum number of pumps we wished to operate during "on peak" times throughout the year. If we chose two pumps, then we could never operate the two pumps "on peak," but could operate all five pumps off peak, if we chose. Our demand rates would be based on that maximum demand. If we chose to operate more pumps "on peak," the base charges would increase approximately $20,000 per year for each additional pump. We did not like this proposal because we knew there would be times (the past two weeks are an example) when we would desire to operate more than two pumps during "on peak" periods. However, the few times throughout the year that more than two pumps could be operated would not justify the annual demand charge for operating these pumps. Oct-Z5-2002 03:27pm From-WILLIAMS MULLEN +18047838456 T-116 P.003/007 F-047 OCT-SS-2002 14:33 RF_P L..~G~ fi1a 223 2950 P~Q3~0'7 ~~ Spring ~3ollow Yteservair Agreeipent for the Purchase of Surplus Pvwex° TT-fIS AG1tEEMENT is catered into this day of -~. 2p42, by and between Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power {Company) and the Roanoke CoutYty f3oard of Supervisors (Customer). WITI ESS~7'~I'- Wk1.I;1i.EA5, The Cornpatsy supplies the electrical power tz~ds of th+a Customer under various rate schedules of public Authority TariffNo. 9, pursuant to the Customer's acceptance of a Company afi'er, to be rnemoriati~.ed once the status of certain Conditions in the Company's offer are known; and WHEREAS, one of Customer's accounts with the Camp$ay is for service to Spt~ing Hollo~uv Reservoir, a water purnpirig and storage facility located at Spring Z; It~11vw an tl~c Roanoke Diver ~SPriI~ Hollow); and WHEREAS, Spring Hollow's monthly maximum demand would be approximately 2,94a kW, assuming the Customer chase to operate all ofthe dive {Sy pumps located at the facility during cite on- peak period; and Wi~REAS, Spring Hallow will normally operate two (2) pumps during the an~peai€ period resulting in a monthly maximum demand of 1,24(1 k~V. NOW, THERJ/~CRB, in aansideratian of the promises and mutual covenants set forth herein, °, ~ ,, the Parties agree that dte Ct~mpany will supply the Customer with surplus power capacity artd energy (Surplus Pawar), when available from the Company and requested by the Custvmez, in excess ofthe Customers 1Vlanthly Base Demand as defined heroin, to meet temporary iuCraaSes in the Customer's normal art-peak requirements far Sprin;~ Hollow served under Schedule L.P.S: T.O.D. p.A., and the Customer will pay the Company far any such Surplus Power it reeeivcs, a1I in accordance with the Page 1 of 5 Oct-25-2002 03:27pm From-WILLIAI~S t4ULLEN +15047636456. T-116 P.006/007 F-047 ^CT-iB-2 14 34 ASP' LEGAL 614 X23 2950 P.O5~O7 ~" p~ G. If the sale of Surplus Power to tl~e Custoxne¢~ is recalled, the terms of this AgreGmertt shall .not apply during the ixtterruption period and the Customer shall be 'billed in acaardance with all ut'her provisions of Schedule Y..P"_S.-T.O.I. P,A. 1nauthorized h7ernand shall he the difference between the maximum ihirty~minute intcgraxed demand retarded after Suzplua Power is recalled and the Mcmthly Base Dem.dard. The Caznpany reserves the right to discanrinue service to the Ct~tomcrr wader this Agrecznextt if Unauthorized Demand occurs two (2) times during the term of this Agreement. H. No responsibility or liability of any kind shall attach io or be inGtxrred by the Company for, ar on account of, any less, cost, expense or damage caused by ar resulting from either directly or indirectly, a recall of Surplus Power service under this A~eernent. YTT. NY~11rITHLY CHARGEiS A. The Company in its sale judgement, shall deternrtine the I)aaly Demand and Energy Charges at which it will se11 Surplus Power. The Customer may contact the appropriate Company personnel and arrange to reserve Surplus 1'ower~ if available, at anytime prior to 4 p.m. (EST) of the day immediately prectdiag the reservation date. Such arrangarnerttts shall apeoil'y thg reservation date axtd iha Surplus Power Reservation in whale megawatts (MVI~. B. 1:f tlxc sale caf Surplus Power to the Customer is reGallcd, the Daily 17ernartd Charge steal l be reduced by an amount equal to 1/1~th of the 17ai1y1:7emand Charge £ar rich ktaur ar portion of an hour that the sale of Surplus Power to the Customer is recalled. C. For each 30-minute interval during the on-peakperiod, the Surplus Demand in kVV sha11 be derived by tla® fallt~wing formula: (Tntc~rval k'V1~ -Monthly Base Y7emand) Page ~ of 5 Oct-25-2002 03:27pm From-WILLIA~S 14ULLEN +16047636456- T-116 P.006/007 F-04T E3CT-38-2O~i2 14 ~ 34 i~EP ~~Gf~l.. 614 223 295p P . ~~'07 ~ '" in no event shall the calculated Surplus Demand in kV6~ in any 30-mirruic interval be Less than zero {0) nor greater tktan the Surplus Power Reservation. ]~. Sutpl4ts Billing Energy shall be the sum of the Surplus Demand in kW for each 30-minute interval during the an-peak period divided by two (2). Bi tlin$ energy under Schedule L.,P.S.-T',{7.D. P.A,, shall exclude Surplus ~fllng Energy. B. Surplus Demand in k1~V shall he deducted Pram the ~ttstomer<s 3Q-minute infiegrat$d demand in kW for billing purposes undar Schednic L.P.S.~T.p.D. P.A.. provided that the ~~-ininutd intagr~tkdd demand so adjusted shall not bo less than the Monthly 7Tiaae Demand. F. The Charges far Surplus Power purchased by the Cu~:tamcr shall be the sum of the fdllCwing; 1. The product cif t11c Suxplus Power ]<t.cseivazion and tba :Daily Demand charge; 2. 'The product ofthe Surplus Billing Energy and the T3aily Energy Charge; 3. The product of IJnautharized Demand and the Schedule L.P.S.-T.C.D. P.A. DeYnaud Ch~arga; ~. .Any applicable tax which is herein$ftcr eAaGtcd during tlac tarn of this Agraeznestt that inxpases a tax on the Customer that is to be collected by ~: the Company; and 5. Charges pursuant to any adjustment clauses, spplicalale to Schedule L.P.S.-T.{~.IJ. P.~. YV. 1FRM OF SY~[1'5 PC)tWEI~. AGREEMENT A. 'T`his Agreement shall become effective as aFthe daze first above written. The initial term Page 4 of S Oct-25-2002 03:28pm From-WILLIA~IS MULLEN +18047836456 T-116 P.007/007 F-047 L]CT-18-2r~02 14 ~ 34 AEp LEGAi_ }: " 6].4 223 2950 P, @7107 ~^' of the Agreement shall extend through Decembex 31,..2003, attd the Agra~uent sY-.all automatically terminate on that date nnlcss extended as provided in Item B, below, B. If, prior to Aecember 31, 2003, the conditions in the Comgany° s 4Cl'er (as refersrieed in the :6.rst V~'bIER.EAS clause al~iavc}have been met, aad, the Customer and Company havE entarac[ into a contract for firm service through 3u~e 30, ,2007, then the term of this Agreement shall automatically be extended thraugYt' Tune 30, 2007, whcr~ it shall tern'iinate. C. During eithex the initial tens ar at~y extension thereof, either the Customer or the Company may cancel this Surplus Power Agreement by providing ninety (90) days' written natiGe to the other party. ,D. Except as modified he'raixl, tlta Parties agreo that the terns and eonnditions contained in Schedule L.P.S.-T.Q.I. P.A. shall remain in full farce and affect. IN'U~"NESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this A~ement to be caceeuted by their respective corporate officers or agents, duly authorizEd, as of tkie day anal year 0rst wriixen above. APPALAC~ITAN PDWER COMPANY d~bla AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER (C~-rrrpany} By: FCfJANOKE C'JUNTY ]3QARD QF S~TPERVISC)RS (Customer) (pmt) ~'itle- {print) Tf1TRl P. Gl'7 4 '~° AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON NOVEMBER 19, 2002 RESOLUTION 111902-3 FOR APPROVAL OF A RENEWAL AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH BELL ATLANTIC -VIRGINIA, INC. (NOW VERIZON VIRGINIA, INC.) TO SUBLEASE TOWER SPACE AND EQUIPMENT BUILDING SPACE FOR A REPEATER ANTENNA ON POOR MOUNTAIN IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT AS PART OF THE E911 COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 012798-3 authorizing the execution of a sublease agreement with Bell Atlantic -Virginia, Inc. (now Verizon Virginia, Inc.) for tower and equipment building space for a repeater antenna as part of the E911 communication system at a tower site on Poor Mountain in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of Roanoke County, for an initial term of five years beginning January 1, 1998; and, WHEREAS, this site is critical to Roanoke County's public safety communications in that is serves as a backup system to the entire 800MHz radio system should a failure occur and has a secondary role of providing communications in areas not covered by the main system, such as on the back side of Poor Mountain and areas of Bent Mountain; and WHEREAS, this repeater site is necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the County Charter requires the adoption of an ordinance to acquire an interest in real estate; however, after such ordinance shall have taken effect, all subsequent proceedings incidental thereto may be taken by resolution of the Board, and WHEREAS, the County desires to enter into an amendment of the sublease agreement to extend the sublease for an additional five year term ending December 31, 2007. 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~'~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of a Renewal Amendment to an Agreement with Bell Atlantic -Virginia, Inc. (Now Verizon Virginia, Inc.) To Sublease Tower Space and Equipment Building Space for a Repeater Antenna on Poor Mountain in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District as part of the E911 Communication System. SUBMITTED BY: Anne Marie Green, Director Department of General Services APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~(~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: I would recommend that a future work session be scheduled to develop guidelines that would allow staff to act on items such as this without the need to bring the matter before the Board each time. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Bell Atlantic -Virginia, Inc. (now Verizon Virginia Inc.) leases a 5-acre site on Poor Mountain from Elizabeth T. Reynolds for a tower. In 1988, Roanoke County placed into service a conventional 800mhz repeater at this site, to provide a backup to the emergency communications system and to serve as a conventional repeater to reach the south side of Poor Mountain and the Bent Mountain area. This was an informal arrangement until 1997, when Bell Atlantic and the County entered into a sublease agreement for the placement of the antenna/repeater and some equipment space within their building. By Ordinance No. 012798-3, the Board of Supervisors approved the agreement (dated December 30, 1997) for an initial term of five years beginning January 1, 1998. ~-4 This site provides a conventional backup to the E911 communications system should a failure occur, and also provides communications in areas not covered by the main system. The need for this antenna site is significant and no reasonable alternative solution for an E911 tower site on Poor Mountain has been discovered. Staff recommends that the sublease be renewed for an additional five year term ending December 31, 2007, with annual renewals thereafter. FISCAL IMPACT: The sublease amendment continues to require no payment of rent, and the following provisions for payment by the County remain in effect: (i) labor costs, if necessary, associated with Verizon permitting access to the site after normal work hours; and (ii) Owners and Contractors Protective Insurance, naming Verizon Virginia Inc. as the insured. The approximate cost of this insurance has increased from $350.00 peryearto $1,200.00 - $1,500.00 per year, but staff is still negotiating with Verizon for a possible alternative at no cost. The funds are available in the budget of the Communications Division of the Information Technology Department. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the attached resolution to approve the amendment for extension of the current sublease. 2. Allow the sublease to expire without renewal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative one. ~y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON NOVEMBER 19, 2002 RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF A RENEWAL AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH BELL ATLANTIC -VIRGINIA, INC. (NOW VERIZON VIRGINIA, INC.) TO SUBLEASE TOWER SPACE AND EQUIPMENT BUILDING SPACE FOR A REPEATER ANTENNA ON POOR MOUNTAIN IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT AS PART OF THE E911 COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 012798-3 authorizing the execution of a sublease agreement with Bell Atlantic -Virginia, Inc. (now Verizon Virginia, Inc.) for tower and equipment building space for a repeater antenna as part of the E911 communication system at a tower site on Poor Mountain in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of Roanoke County, for an initial term of five years beginning January 1, 1998; and, WHEREAS, this site is critical to Roanoke County's public safety communications in that is serves as a backup system to the entire 800MHz radio system should a failure occur and has a secondary role of providing communications in areas not covered by the main system, such as on the back side of Poor Mountain and areas of Bent Mountain; and WHEREAS, this repeater site is necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the County Charter requires the adoption of an ordinance to acquire an interest in real estate; however, after such ordinance shall have taken effect, all subsequent proceedings incidental thereto may betaken by resolution of the Board, and WHEREAS, the County desires to enter into an amendment of the sublease agreement to extend the sublease for an additional five year term ending December 31, 2007. "-`~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County that the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute the necessary documents and/or agreements for renewal of the sublease, dated December 30, 1997, of the tower space and equipment building space at the Bell-Atlantic -Virginia, Inc. (now Verizon Virginia, Inc.) tower site on Poor Mountain, through the period ending December 31, 2007, with annuals renewals thereafter, and upon form approved by the County Attorney. 2 A-111902-4 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. Ey AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Dental Plan Renewal 2003 SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca Owens Finance Manager APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~N County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County of Roanoke and Roanoke County Schools participate in a fully insured group dental insurance program for their eligible employees and retirees. The provider is Delta Dental and the group includes members from the Roanoke Valley Regional Health Care Consortium. The Consortium contract with the present vendor began January 1, 1998 and ends on December 31, 2002. The Consortium, through Roanoke County Finance, issued a request for proposals to renew the dental insurance contract for Consortium members. Proposals were received from Delta Dental, MetLife, CIGNA and United Concordia. The Consortium members and Palmer & Cay Consulting Group evaluated the proposals. Consortium members voted to accept the proposal from Delta Dental. The proposal calls for an initial one-year term with a renewal option for each of two additional years. FISCAL IMPACT: Dental rates for employees are brought forward to the Board during the spring, along with group health insurance rates, for approval. The rate increases for the Delta Dental plan have averaged less than 4% annually since 1998 and did not change during 2002. Therefore there was no budget impact for the 2002-03 fiscal year. The plan renewal calls fora 3% increase in rates for 2003 and guarantees a rate increase for 2004 of less than 5%. ALTERNATIVES: Approval of Delta Dental as the service provider for the group dental insurance plan. 2. Do not approve use of the Consortium request for proposals group dental insurance plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of alternative number 1, continuing with Delta Dental as the service provider for the group dental insurance plan. VOTE: Supervisor Flora motion to approve staff recommendation. Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ cc: File Rebecca Owens, Finance Manager Joe Sgroi, Director, Human Resources ACTION NO. A-111902-5 ITEM NO. ~' CG AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: November 19, 2002 2003 Holiday Schedule Joe Sgroi Director of Human Resources Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In 2002, the Board designated two minor holidays in which the County would be open, but which would become floating holidays. Employees now have eight holiday hours earned for each of these two floating holidays when they occur that can be used in the same manner in which annual leave is scheduled. The nine holidays in which the County closed for the 2002 year were: New Year's Day Martin Luther King Day Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Thanksgiving Day Day after Thanksgiving Christmas Eve* Christmas Day Tuesday, January 1 Monday, January 21 Monday, May 27 Thursday, July 4 Monday, September 2 Thursday, November 28 Friday, November 29 Tuesday, December 24 Wednesday, December 25 *Note: For the year 2001 and 2002, Christmas Eve was designated as a holiday rather than the minor holiday of Columbus Day. G' un Below is a 2003 proposed calendar for your review: New Year's Day Wednesday, January 1 Martin Luther King Day Monday, January 20 President's Day Monday, February 17 (County open, floating holiday) Memorial Day Monday, May 26 Independence Day Friday, July 4 Labor Day Monday, September 1 Columbus Day Monday, October 13 Designate Christmas Eve Wednesday 12/24/03 or Day After Christmas Friday 12/26. Veteran's Day Tuesday, November 11 (County open, floating holiday) Thanksgiving Day Thursday, November 27 Day after Thanksgiving Friday, November 28 Christmas Day Thursday, December 25 SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT Possible Close Christmas Christmas instead of Eve Wednesday There is an operational benefit to considering closing Friday 12/26/03 the day after Christmas in that the citizens may find it easier to remember and take care of business in the first three days of the week. FISCAL IMPACT: None ALTERNATIVES: Alternative 1: Instead of 2 floating holidays (Presidents' Day and Veterans' Day) like this year, designate 3 floating holidays to include Presidents' Day, Veterans' Day and Columbus Day. Alternative 2: Continue with Presidents' Day and Veterans' Day as the 2 Floating Holidays and again, designate Christmas Eve Wednesday, 12/24/2003 as a holiday rather than Columbus Day in October 2003. Alternative 3: Continue with Presidents' Day and Veterans' Day as the 2 Floating Holidays and designate Friday 12/26 the day after Christmas as a County Holiday when the offices will be closed rather than Columbus Day in October 2003. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 3. VOTE: Supervisor Chuch motion to approve staff recommendation (Alternative #3). Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ cc: File Joe Sgroi, Director, Human Resources A-111902-6 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ "~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002 AGENDA ITEM: Additional Appropriations for FY 2002-2003 SUBMITTED BY: Brent Robertson Budget Director APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: It is my understanding as a result of the work session on November 5 that the Board is interested in making up these projected shortfalls. The Board instructed staff to bring this matter back at the next Board meeting, and I am accordingly requesting an appropriation to cover all but the $70,000 reduction to law enforcement. This amount will be handled through deferment of vehicle purchases. I recommend that this funding appropriation be taken from year-end funds. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At a work session held November 5, 2002 we reported on the latest state budget reductions. As of November 1, 2002, an additional $121,063 was being cut from four of the five Constitutional Officers, $70,448 from Law Enforcement, and $35,716 from the Library System. This second round of reductions brings the total reductions for this fiscal year to $483,507. The breakdowns of the reductions are as follows: Clerk of the Circuit Court 45,920 Commonwealth's Attorney 29,729 Commissioner of the Revenue 23,146 Treasurer 22,268 Library -Local Aid 35,716 Sheriff 0 Police 70,448 Total $227,227 FISCAL IMPACT: Constitutional Officers and department directors provided information as to how this latest round of cuts would adversely affect service to citizens (i.e., hours of service may be reduced or offices closed and library acquisitions reduced). There maybe possible means of minimizing the impact of reduced state funding in the Police Department and Sheriff's Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the Board's desire is to fund the state's reductions, staff recommends appropriating $156,779 out of the FY 2001-2002 year-end balance to offset the revenue loss. This appropriation does not include funding the reduction in law enforcement funds, as the Police Department will defer vehicle purchases to make up for the loss in revenue. VOTE: Supervisor Altizer motion to approve staff recommendation (appropriating $156,799 out of FY 2001-2002 year-end balance to offset revenue loss) with the modification that $70,000 will also be appropriated to fund purchase of new police vehicles. Supervisor McNamara motion to amend Supervisor Altizer's motion without including $70,000 for purchase of vehicles and with the stipulation that funding be taken from current year budget. Motion denied by the following vote. Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ^ ® ^ Mr. Altizer ^ ® ^ Mr. Church ^ ® ^ Supervisor Altizer motion to approve appropriation of $156,799 plus $70,000 for purchase of police vehicles with funding from current year budget to offset revenue loss Motion approved by following vote: Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ cc: File Brent Robertson, Director, Budget Danial Morris, Director, Finance Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~! ~rj AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002 AGENDA ITEM: Requests for Public Hearing and First Reading for Rezoning Ordinances; Consent Agenda COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by adoption of these ordinances in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions, rather approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on these ordinances is scheduled for December 17, 2002 The titles of these ordinances are as follows: The petition of Lois M. Atkins to obtain a Special Use Permit to conduct a home occupation for a beauty salon, located at 3105 Davis Avenue, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 2. The petition of Richard A. May to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a private aviation facility on 21.9 acres, located at 2213 Zana Road, Catawba Magisterial District. 3. The petition of Joe & Melissa Lankford to Rezone 6.15 acres from R-1 Low Density Residential District to AR Agricultural Residential District at 7604 Mount Chestnut Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. 4. The petition of Van B. & Teresa D. Johnson to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a commercial kennel on 2.657 acres, located at 3900 Carvins Cove Road, Catawba Magisterial District. ~i~ 5. The petition of Back Creek Enterprises to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a used automobile dealership, located at 6422 Bent Mountain Road, Windsor Hills District. MAPS ARE ATTACHED; MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: (1) That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for December 17. 2002. (2) That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Items 1-5, and that the Clerk is 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 action. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action No Yes Abs Approved () Motion by Church Denied () Flora Received () McNamara Referred Minnix to Nickens 2 County of Roanoke For Staff Use Only Community Development Date received: Received by: Planning & Zoning ~'~~ ~~~ ~ C` ~~ Application fee: PCB date: 5204 Bernard Drive > <'; ~ '~ 0 ~ P 0 Box 29800 Placards issued: BOS date: Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 1, ~"~ 1 G; ~ ~~ (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Case Number s' ALL. APPLICANTS Check type of application filed (check 1 that apply) Waiver Administrative Appeal ~ Variance Rezoning Special Use ;, Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: 1`3'9 - 3 7 ~ ~ rk: 9 ~' `~ - GAS W . o .P i`s ~ , 1g'~K~ KS ~ . 3!'~ ~.~ .~~r'S ,~ S~ Cell #' Fax No.: ~a2ria~~ ~rQ ~ /S Owner's name/address w/zip Phone #: Work: ~, yy, ~ Fax No. #: Property Location Magisterial District: ~ , ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~,~ s J~ ~ L~ ~ {°J~''""'' J`~`~ Community Planning area: ~~ Nf,~ s ~ ~ ~yj,¢ s Tax Map No.: ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ Existing Zoning: vize of parcel(s): Acres: Existing Land Use: S,',, , j ~, ; ; ~ :,,i,: ~~ r REZONING' SPECIAL USE PERIGII•TAIVLI WAIVER A'PFLICAiVTS (R/5/ Wj ~ L~ ,i t~ ~ e-,^~ ,~t Proposed Zoning: l~- ~ f S ~ ~-a/L ` Proposed Land Use: ~~w ~ ~ .~~-~ ~ ~i_.'~.~ Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQiTIItED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST N o If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes V.4I~IAItiCE, WAIVE'R'AI\'L? ADNIINISTRATlVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (V/Nr/AA) ~ Variance/Waiver of Section(s) /t.~ - of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to _ __ T,T,T Tn l R*rr17U txT7T T NnT RT. e ('rTi'.PTF.TI TF AW (~F TH f~ Is the application complete'! Please checx tr enclosea. arrL~~hjj~l~ ++~~ ~~~- ---~ •-~~--- --- _ __._ __ __ESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/SlV~1~- V/AA R/S/4V V/AA ~ R/S/~'-V/AA Consultation 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan Application fee :,/ Application ,a Metes and bounds description ~ f a Proffers, if applicable i./ Justification ~;/,/~' Water and sewer application ,/ Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. ~' ~~ ~ C~' I",x~.1~1•~.~ Owner's Signature 2 ~1 To whom it may concern at Roanoke County: I am a hairdresser with a problem that could be solved by Roanoke County. My daughter and Ishare-lease a station at a salon on Brambleton Avenue. She works it 3 days and I work it 2 days. We share all our expenses which works well for me due to the fact that I have foot problems that only allow me to stand and work afew hours at a time. I have developed peripheral entrapment neuropathy in both feet and ankles. I am under Dr. Donald Stefl:s care and am in constant pain. A letter from Dr. Stelf is attached. Now, on to the problem you can help me with. My daughter's husband has just been transferred to Northern Virginia with his work, so she no longer will be here to share expenses with me at our present location. I cannot afford, financially, to pay for a station by myself since my feet will not allow me to work full-time. Thus, I am asking you to permit me to have one chair in my home so I can afford to work a couple days per week as my feet will allow. As I have explained to Mr. David Holladay, I would appreciate the opportunity to continue to work, not being forced to retire, and to be able to help pay for my health insurance since I am also a diabetic. I am a 57 year old woman trying very hard to keep working and not give up. My husband and I have lived at the same address for over 28 years. We have asemi-circular driveway which would more than surface for the one, not more than two, client cars without interfering with neighboring houses. We would never do anything to change or harm our neighborhood. I would be working by appointment only, therefore having control of traffic. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. Lois M. (Judy) Atkins ~Ji ~.'v)CPI~:~ DONALD,J. STEEL, D.P.M. ~~° DIPLOMATE, AMERICAN BOARD OF PODIATRIC SURGERY :LLOW AMERICAN COLLEGE OF rOOT AND ANKLE SURGEONS 2705 BRAMBLETON AVE., S.W. ROANOKE, VA 24015 (540) 774-5585 October 9, 2002 RE: Judy Atkins To Whom It May Concern: Ms Atkins has been a patient of mine since July of 1996 and has been treated for a number of foot related problems. She is currently being treated for a peripheral entrapment neuropathy of both feet and ankles. This condition, combined with diabetic foot changes cause significant pain with prolonged standing or walking. Current treatment has been somewhat helpful but final treatment may involve surgery in the future. leis my understanding that Ms Atkins has requested that she be able to set up a hair dressing chair in her home. This work situation would be very helpful to her and would allow her to maintain her profession under more a controlled situation. I am requesting that you allow her request for medical reasons. This modification would allow her to work more years and minimize her pain. Sincerely yours, ~ ^1~}}C,,. ~~.. .tiJ 4 Doandl J. Stefl, DPM DS/df /' gd 1. NORTH 31cs '3 -~ 9 .. 3105 ~; ~'e 3110 ~ ~ ~. ©~~ J 1 ~JJ ~~ G k ~O V~ ee ~~ ROANOKE COUNTY Applicants Name: Lois M. Atkins DEPARTMENT OF Rezoning: Special Use COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Proposed Zoning: R- >, SUP ` Tax Map No. 77.06-02- > 9 Count of Roanoke For Staff Use Only Community Development Date received: Received by: Planning & Zoning ' ~ ~1t Gam. Application fee: G~ .had PC/B~4-date: 5204 Bernard Drive ~ (~ , ©C~ v' . 3 ~('?~-- P OBox 29800 Placards issued: ~ ' ~ BOS date: ~ ~ '~ G Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 1 ~ C_ ~ ~ 1 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Case Number ~ ALL APPLICANTS Check type of applic - eck all that apply) Rezoning pecial Use ~ Variance Waiver Administrative Appeal Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: 3k 7-~4'7q Work: 3$ 7 - ~ ~ 53 ~. g ' a aal3 ZA'vA ad Cell#• s~c-~5 Sc~LeM ~/A. 2~t153 FaxNo.: ~~Z-3s41 Owner's name/address w/zip Phone #: Work: 5~ L Fax No. #: Property Location Magisterial District: ~' ~, ..~,q w ~ A aai3 ~.~~~ ~. Community Planning area: C v, ~-"~a ~.., ~ 4 , Tax Map No.: y~.oa- I-1~ Existing Zoning: f~G- Size of parcel(s): Acres:.otl . 9 ,gcnes Existing Land Use: S%^~'S 1C -~'," """1 ~~ Dwe 11iNS REZONING SPECIAL LTSE PERtbIITAND WAIVER APPLICANTS. (R/S/V~ Proposed Zoning: ~ ~ 1 $pecr'v L u s 2 ~2.r!+1 ~ ~' Proposed Land Use: P,, ; sA ~ e ,,; A ~; a ~ F,q ~; ~; ~-~ Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? N Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No 'VARIANCE, Wf1IVER AND ADMINIS°T'RATIVE APPEAL fiPPLIGANTS (V/W/AA) Variance/Waiver of Section(s) /S/f{. of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Adnunistrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to ~~ Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WII.L NOT BE ACCEPTED IF AN'~'~ THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/S/W V/AA R/S/W V/AA R/S/W V/AA Consultation 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan ~,/ Application fee ~ Application ~/ a{. Metes and bounds description ,~,/~q Proffers, if applicabie / Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and rnncant of the nwnPr " Owner's Signature 2 -, JUSTIFIC AT;ION. FOR REZONING:. SPECIAL USE PERI~QT OR WAIVER REQUEST Applicant _~e Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. Lac .~+ 'F e c~ 7"J~, e IBS ~~ ~r .~ AG/ Zo~,~N~ kse pe~~..~~ !',~~Posc~ 1~~..d,:~ e is /,~~~f~ ~o AnicJ ~ ~ ~o w e~ /J ~ /,~~ /q t..~o c.c l~ 6 e Go M ~•4 ,/'4 b ~P '~e~u~~r ~~- Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. 1/e sigr,F~te.c~ ~ur~~ l'res,c~/e ! •~ c,ow.r-, ~~i ~ 1 JaN JJ , LAN,I.'ti ~ a ~ ~,~ : s : ~ •~ ~~~. o e la ~.4 -~ • o~ wo ~ ~ ,~ s,S ~ ~- o ~' ~a,/c~ o-~l.e~r ~o.,ses_ ~r'e.a ~.~.r ,S~,~arse ~^es;c%•.~~,•,q L c~C/t Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. .~ see .t..o ~~ ~ ~ i n+Pa c 7' o..~ 7`~ ~ ~a`v e ~ l~ a r ~ ~ e ,~J "; ,~+~' r,.o~,Q-- ~.es , /~~ ~.4~•',v~ ~~et~- weeds ~o ~+ ~~~ l~'~~eS aS ~ ;s ~ dA~ I,S~ ~ /g.~ ~ ~ N~ ~ yea T e /-,re%por ~- w,' ~~ c~~.~sis~- d~' ~ ~A~ ~ar~e ~pp.~oc , So ~~18a ~-a JiJSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE RE(2UE5T Applicant .ie of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a variance can be granted. Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describehow the request meets each factor. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. 1. The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. N~ 2. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would produce undue hardship; a hardship that approaches confiscation (as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience) and would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. /S/A. 3. The hardslip is not shared by other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. Such hardships should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors as amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Nq.. 4. The variance will not be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or the character of the district. N~ a,c 4 i `'JUSTIFICATION FOR ADLVTINISTR~TIVE APPE~IL REQiTEST Applicant Please respond to the following as thoroughly as possible. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. for appeal: /S/A~ 2. Evidence supporting claim: r-~ ~~ CONCEPT PLttN CHECKLIST' >oncept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the ~dnd use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other ', regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS / a. Applicant name and name of development v b. Date, scale and north arrow ~ c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions ~ d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties ~~ e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties ~/ g. All property lines and easements ,,~ h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights ~l i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development _S/ j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS NA•: k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site v 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers _ m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals ~ n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections P'H o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants r1A .. p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed -~t±6. q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule T certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. Signature of a licant Date F-~. 6 i ~~~ r 1 / , ~i j r O~ 0 ;,~'~ \ RR.AC1.wY VJ RNC G 3 iG~C~ PG ~~7 TAB P~1 r1+ P*~.- ct~1 Q ~ - (- i ('c FbHS~ lil `y ~1 s~ ~x ~. "_~' r` . `~ ~, ~ !~ Oy O !~i ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ `~ C' t~~ o '7' ~' ~' ,~ - f. . -/ --r7 ii . .~ 1. ;.~-.; ~'it ~ i _: - a~ ~'rve . v `~ ~s~ N 0 3 ~, '~ ril ,~(j raj; ~~ ~ ~s~ ~~! v J ,_ ~ ..Q ~a z~ ~ 3~,' '. ~; -- _ i~ G ~.. ~____ ~..~,~ ~~ _-,,F. ~I~~,~ ~~~_~>_ ~~ rc~~ ~ i_~~N~ ' I('~1E 1. ~fJ~ LI^~`E P~d *__ _ i !~d_. 1('_I -. 1,1r~ ~ ~ ~~ T. J Q ~ ^.1"F= ~ -- Vii: C"'<..~// ` ~ . ~~jk ~.. _~ - , - t~.t ; ~ " . ~ ~ .~ _, , .~ ; _ _.. k= L_ -: ~ ~ - , ~JS f-IpJ4l~rs~" ~CIS'C! ~. p ,.~-; ~' .. - ` ~ i - :. ~/ ~,L r I, E 1 ~ ;IJL~~ ~.- ~ .~~) °f. ~' `rr''0~_p_CL ,_: ~ ~*--'- ~ t~ ; t~ ~_ ~~^u ._ ~ ~ ~- 7Ax cv',>d+P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~7' a~ r' G`~~ LAw.o~i /~ ~re14 ~ y~ . rJ ~.--.` ~ -.. . ~ :\ ~ 1 :7 +~ yC3~i..o ~F2CM yl r' ~~ ?~ ~ i~ J(~,ic R~.GORUS Q ~ / '~ _ _ f ~ ~- ,_,_. ~~ ! ~ ~. r=.., ..~ -"~ ~ \ 23 ll) ~~~p„tiat~+- !~ a'.-~ -1 ~~y~.~~~ -,-^...~,,~, f, ~'` IL"7VV(_~`i<_1 -,r<rC i ~~ ~ -~ 3~_ ~ `1,~, ~rnl ; ~,~, '~ Y,`P ~- `' Pry t i~ , ~i ~ y'~ -` \ J ~ ~ irJ~7 r~r` ,~?~ i r ~. -~. `_ i~ ~~ ~ .._. -r r_ . moo/ Fort Wolter Helicopters F~ ~~c ~ Aircr~~f~ F®r ~~le X ~~~~~~~ ~i~~ ~~,~~~ ~{c~~ HILLER.. UH-12E.. N4029Z. http://www.fortwoltershelicopters.com/aircraft.htm 9/ 15/02 ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Appdicacnts Name: Ricky A. May Zoning: SUP Proposed Zoning: AGI, SUP Ta,~ Map No. 44.02-1-17 r..,,,.+~~ .,f u~~„~tiP For Staff Use Only trV 4114, Vl 1\V(AUVi~v Community Development - Date received: , Received by: Planning & Zoning ~ ~ z-~f ~~ ~- pplication fee• ~~"3~^ PC/BZA date: ~ ? 5204 Bernard Drive ~~ z 3 ~ P O Box 29800 Placards issued: BOS date: Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 yes f ~- t ~ o ~- (540} 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 case Number ~ _ j,~ f- ; ~ ~ ALL APPIICANTS • Check type of application filed (check all that apply) Rezoning Special Use Variance Waiver Administrative Appeal Ap l~ icants name/address w/zip Phone: `7 ~'7 "t - U a' ~:; ~7 I ` Work: ~ aS -- CI (~ ~ 0 ~., ~- +(Yl ~.~ 1 Sj (~ 1.., ~: t1 ~.~ ~ t~ "'7 (p CV ~ YYl ~ • C.,. h LS~YI vim- ~" `r C` Cell #• ~~ ~ - c3 ,~ --~ ' Fax No.:..7 7 ~--G'~ y 7 Owner's name/address w/zip Phone #: !_ ~ ~ ~ Work: ~J Q~ Fax No. #: (~'~ ~ GZ s Property Location ~- ~ ~ ~ Magisterial District: ~;n~~~OC ~~"j ~o~ h ~.S~w 7t~ ©~ ~ . /~ Community Planning area: 1:.)G~C ~ r Tax Map No.: $ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ ' ,~ Existing Zoning: maize of parcel(s): Acres: ~~c,~;,t'~~ Existing Land Use: rj;,~~~~ tam ~~y f~~('irly l ~~'~J~~ REZONING SPECIAL USE PERNIITAND WAIVER APPLICANTS (R/S/tip Proposed Zoning: ~ ~ ~ ClG ;-i C~.~~' (~.,~ ~'dS~C~~Yl ~~'`~ ~J Proposed Land Use: ~. f i C w ~-}t,t j`~, L ~ ~ ,~~ Does the parcel meet the minimum Iot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? es No II' NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. No ? Y e Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIltED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request ~ Yes No VARIANCE, WAIVER' AND ADNIItVISTRATIVE APPEAL .4PPLICA!V~'S (V/W/A'A) . Variance/Waiver of Section(s) / t' ~/~- of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to ~3 Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION VVII.L NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. Ivs/w v/AA R/s/w v/AA R/s/w v/AA v'~ Consultation / 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification n~ /~. Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the roperty or owner's a ent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature 2 +,TfJSTIFICATIONEOR REZONING, SPECI~iL USE PEl~'~IIT OR WAIVER REQUEST Applicant ~..~ ® ~. °r ~ ~~iS~ a~ ~ a,n ~ ~c ~-U i'he Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. hJtl`~ ~ro`\~e.~'~y i.~ ~,Y'Y~c'cic:~~';Zt~ p~S Cti ~J~,~~ ~o'v~3 elCaioS' 1 ~,r~i WY1+c,r1 I ~~~~p~;cs.1`.. C~ti'1'~'titL~ Ctftt'iCv~~'~Lt+Cry.,t t-tSGS }}l~iC] \e~ +nc~ c~ v~e1 e~'~. ~ S~~he ~ ~-s .c~.. -t-~ L iu ~ ~ to +~ Se vim/ ~ .G ~ Ct v~ ea.. ~ ~-~- r' ~c.> C' 2~ v„~ ; ;~'~--, r, --Fh ~ 5 ~ < ~c.~.-- ~ n ; ~- ~ 5 (`u r ~. ~ 5~=---~-z.- ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ "~ k~-~at- ~•~~ i v~ y1u~ -~ 5 ~ ~~.~ 2toQ~rne7 ~ ~- O~ G~-i ~' . c` ~' ~C~ O~ i ~ on ~ ~ u -~ ~ -~h~ '~ C c~C\ ~ v-~. -fin 2 ~~~ 5~~~~ ~ «a ~ 1~Uu;s ~c ho~rj~s ~~~ ~ `~~%i-bVi-- '{~ ~r,tc:~ b u f tl ~ c~." e- ~ ~L 15 ~~i ~ ~ r/)') rz t~ t~ l~' ~tt;f S a i'3 `~ ~ ~ Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. ~u~ p~ c~ ~~,~ C~~n ~ 5~- IQ e.._ c~.Q.sc.. ~ ,r~e~ GrS '~ ~c.~, cz~~ v ,, ` ~ 1i a.5 ~. ~c~nd~ ~~ ~~. h~ ~l ~v1 ti\t~c~ ct~e~v'nr ~~- Q.c,-fit J ~, . ~ ~~c ~~ ~~.~~~~t- ~ i n S ~ ~ I'~G~ ~~;, ~ ra.,\ Cc rr-t,mun, Cz +"~~ ~ c YY1 ~ r~ ~ ~e~~ 1~ ~~ ~c~\~S be;ltiv~e.~n `'`;~nkv~~ ~....b~:-c ~.n c~~rek,~m ~u ~~ ~ ~ ~ t ~~ t'' ~~- t~.~C'2y~s'.~ .'~. \~'u ~ a~ v ~ ~\ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S; y n c~-~ vr1 ~i~,~~cc~.~ ,, ~~,'~ •~h~ 4~~' ~ c~c a~~-^~~ W-v~ '~"~f~A- ~Jr.c,~" v~°~DR~ ~ '-r `zf L'9.` ,~ J ,~ e~~ r- ~~,~5 ~ no~~ o.r-, ~c~~cS, a\\cw u.s h o~~ e.., 1 a~~ 0 ~.Xi ~ ~ ~t;~ vtc~ A n c\ -~' r khe~-, ~ t,~s~. ~-~t- ~.~,i5~-i nr~ ~-~.,.b~.eS {~r~.~. bti ~ ~ ~ Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. ~ X--~-Y-r~ ~•~-~. r ~ ~- ~~ be ~ e ec(~cl -~ ~ ~. n ~ -~-~c~~5 ~ b ~,~- -~ huh ~~,~1. ~ ~p~p1 ~ ~ b~ ~~~; ~~-~-~- We~~ ~ . F3 3 ici~.~c~ -~~mm..~.~N - .-~_ _,-, , .,.... -_....- ..T~~ --- _ _ ,, _' _ -. - 4 :-~ ~ ~ f TAX iVIAP #: 85.04-1-12 THIS DEED, made and entered into this 12th day of March; 2002, by and between Charles E. HENDERSON and Judy I{. HENDERSON, husband and wife, parties of the first part (Grantors), and Joe R. LANKFORD and Melissa S. LANI{FORD, husband and wife, parties of the second part (Grantees); WITNESS THAT: In consideration of Ten ($10.00) Dollars, cash in hand paid by the parties of the second part unto the parties of the first part, and other valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties of the first part do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey, with General Warranty of title, unto said Joe R. Lankford and Melissa S. Lankford, husband and wife, as tenants by the entirety with the right of survivorship as at the common law, and not as tenants in common, their assigns and the heirs of the survivor forever, the following described property, lying and being in Roanoke County, Virginia, to-wit: All of that certain tract or parcel of land designated as Tract 2-A1, containing 6.159 acres, more or less, as more fully shown on that certain "Resubdivision Plat From Records and Partial Survey For Charles E. Henderson and Judy K. Henderson Being The Resubdivision Of Tracts A-1 & 2-A As Shown In Plat Book i6, Page 125 & Plat Book 24, Page 61 Creating Hereon Tract A-lA (12.723 Acres) Tract 2- Al (6.159 Acres)", dated February 14, 2002, prepared by Balzer & Associates, Inc., Planners-Architects-Engineers-Surveyors, a copy of which is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 25, Page 61. ~ ltor eye nt ut~e~ ~. AND BEING a portion of the property conveyed unto Charles E. Henderson and Judy K. Henderson, husband and wife, by R. E. Henderson and Mae L. Henderson, husband and wife, by deed dated December 12, 1973 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 988, Page 156. AND FURTHER BEING a portion of the property conveyed unto Charles E. ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Applicants Name: Joe & Melissa Lankford Zoning: Rezoning Proposed Zoning: AR Tax Map No. 85.04-1- > 2 County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive P O Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 For Staff Use Unly Date received: Received by: Applicatio f I PC/8Z7s date: t a ~ . ,~ Placards issued): BOS date: Case Number -- ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ errt,lt,Hivr~ Check type of application filed (chec all that apply) Rezoning Special Use Variance Waiver Administrative Appeal pjlicants name/address w/zip Phone: ~ ~^- ~ ~~ A ~ ' ' ' ~ v .., ~ f1 V.~r~ ~ ~~G3~e~,~~ ~'' Work: ,~ _ Cell #• ~~~~~~ .~ • °~ ~~~~ Fax No.: ~ o~ " 9t~~ Owner's name/address w/zip Phone #: ~~~ ~' '- ~' ~ ~J~p.! .~. ~ ~ n~9 ~ 3 a~~J-~~-~5c~ ~' Work: ,~ ~ ~' ,,G'',~ 9' ~y~'~' ~~•~~,~~~ ~~~ ~1,~. Fax No. #: ~`2J ° ~~~ "i Property Location I~ ~~~ ~~ Magisterial District:~'~,/~ ;y',c~ ~J~,.~ ~~~~~ ~Q-,,Q~VJti Community Planning area: Tax Map No.: ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ Existing Zoning: Size of parcel(s): Acres: '~. dt~,~ ~ Existing Land Use: ~~~'~c {~-,~ ,,~~.~~L~ ~'~J REZONING' SPECIAL. USE PER,~IITAND WAIVER. APPLICANTS fR/S1W} Proposed Zoning: ~~'I `~"~~'~"'°~ ~' °"~ ~''~ Proposed Land Use: ~~~ ~~~„~,,~~-~ ,,~~,~.t~'ot.~'.~~.- Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes ,/~ No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. ,1 Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes / No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADhIINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (Y/W/~4) Variance/Waiver of Section(s) ~~.~ of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/S/W V/AA R/S/W V/AA R/S/W V/AA Consultation 8 112" x 11" concept plan Application fee „~ Application a1~rHi Metes and bounds description 01°/i~ Proffers, if applicable / Justification ,~/ ~ Water and sewer application ~ Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. ,%'~ ~'°°~'', -~. '-'°'-'--~ Owner's Signature 2 .IUSTIFICATTON FOR REZONING,. SPECIAL USE PERMIT. OR' WAIVER REQti'EST Applicant ~,~i:~ ~ .~ ~ ~~~ .'~J,~ ~,J ~ ~~t,~~~,,ra.~ ,y --i"he Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. T~>~~-~ Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. (' ,~") p ,r~ ~r ~ ' ~ /~ ~f-a-ti.J'i.:" ~~~%~~-~r `+~'~~J+~yyL..r~y~~r/s~ Ve"° ~~':..IB~-~~^y~./ t'vr'?~c~'-'~.i./° ,J~ .~-.+v`~.~ ~ / /~N oi~.+r~ ~LJ Yl,d~ 1.w'r~ ~i Lai/~is~/~}ns:., i i,.~ ~ .~ f~'f~,.:Jal>r~~' a~~-=,.~iL/dd...:~ ~'~',/'~ ~~'iG.~c'r+ ~~~"~; -'d~/~~~'v'.y'~j, Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services/wand facilities, including water/sewer, roads}schools, parks/rec/r~eation and fire an, dj rescue. ~, ~ ~.s~ ,,/fdi~~~/'y~ ~~'L~~j r.~ w ~~ ~` ~. ,r i l t.~~` -kJ 'y'am ~+~ l~l~ `~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~•toJ~t'~,A ~113'•e.1c.. a~~~•°1~:~~-~ ~ ~i~ ~,va~~ ~~'5~:~7` ~i~'~'.T ~~~r~-"''~- -- ~~~ , .- F ~i _. _-___ ~.,.._. ______~.~_._,-.- __- -,, _ ~~_ i i i ~. i i i I i i I I II I' j ;I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I I~ ~ ~ ' ~ u' u i ~---' s ~____j I 1 1 s. ROANOKE COUNTY Applicants Name: Yan B. Johnson DEPARTMENT OF Zoning: SUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Proposed Zoning: AG- >, UPS Tax Map No. 16.00-1-12 3'x:5, i~ ~ i~ ll lil ~ ~~~ ~ 4 ~ ~ o ~ In i o d i~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ u ^ ,. ppp o 0 ~' ~ w c~ H ..,,, u ~ N {~ M P~ ~' C7 Q ul p Q ~~ W N '~-I ~ 00 H ~ C ~ ~ °hL13~„ ~ \ o. d O Q ~ ~ 1~ M o a H ~7 t~ •s~+ t~ M 4V ~ 4ti w ~V .os~..~ - ° ° o~ ~fw ",~. ~ a.; ~ _ .L a ~ ,; ~ ;. ~ . a 0 1'f~,n _I J~ ~ r \ ~ '~~p0f9iL9^d PRK` cv ~ ~ ~S-~£eB~S' Qt' ~ ~Q I15£Z ~~ •~ ao ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~~ N a , 6 i>= ,1 ~ "( C n 'n7ao O ~ V~` N ~\ cv y ~ °3.0, ~r o ~ 'Q 0.~ a' ! b' ~ = N~ ~ /~ 1a ca ~ 7 w F ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ z# 8 8 6 73 J III Il ,. 'yrrOJ ~ ~~ .~ ~ P a .. al ~`~ 3 9nlav \ ~P.i °R0. E~ ...__-.~~r -_ 6~ J/ 3 73/~VM9 U W ~'o-"~ 4 ~ ~'? ~O ~ , ~ OZ ~ yam,,. Q .c, ~' n ~ o ~ / ~ W 1 ~ ~' ~ '~ N ~~" qc ~ - ,`` ~ ~ ~, zoE _x oA p o d ~~!! ~ - ~ ~ ` R ~ q . r--1 ly ~ pl-~ c~` CO ~ 9, ~ p' 'w ~~-~~~- ~ No ~ ~ oQ 5G .13$ M ~ H /`~ ~ ~ ~ ,-~ z ~ ~ , W z° `q~w ~z~ ~ O 05~ QiZ-I-I ~O~ ~~a IIl ~ ~ ~ vl 0 ~"1 z .a Z H ~ ~~+ ~ W # v '~ .--i ~ r-~ / ~ Q 8 r~FC`3 [~ ~z a~o`°• ~ ~ ~ O y6cg~1~~~ O cn0 L]O /~ Q ~ U '~,rslr~oH~~~~~.aaa vw~~~ F"~6SpxH O ~ p 0 ~h• Hw~ ~zo a~ h ~ \q ~ ~ G]7 cn H O w O O ~ ~ ~~~~~ t ~~ H ~z~. HaQa ~ wf° ~ ~ ~. (z~ ~t ~ ~~ O ~ ~° C ~ O ~ V i-iW ;;!w!~~ U ~I R+.aHZw~ t-Iwc~w m¢~z, h ~~ zI tiNM~vi~ [~ w County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive P 0 Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 For Staff Use Unly Date received': t,L,' ~~,~ ~~„i.~G ~, Received b,};tT {~ ~. ~ l~ Application fee,:. ~~L PC(BZA date: Viz. f ~~, ~,v U ~ Placards issued: / *e ~ BOS date: ~i ~1 ~ ZG~'~ Case Number ~ + - 1 ~ lo~~ J~ I'~ ALL APPLICANTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) Rezoning Species se Variance Waiver Administrative Appeal Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: ~zl~M ~ ~7° ° ~ '~'~ ~'1 h ~ ~' ~', z ~~ ~" u t`a~ ~~,: ~ ~,~s _1 ~ ~ Work: ------~.. `"'-~` Cell #• Fax No. ~~ Owner's name/address w/zip Phone #: ;:;rilC? °`~' ~' `~ ~' ~ eJ ~=La L.~ s ~ . i= _ ,~ ~. ~ Work: -- -- ,,~~~ , Fax No. #: - _.. Property Location Magisterial District: ~ , ~~~~~ ;'~%,~' Community Planning area: ,~~ ~•~ C y Tax Map No.: (/,'j~, gyr L Existing Zoning: Size of parcel(s): Acres: , {v ~~ 7 Existing Land Use: ~'~ lr . ,~ REZONING: SPECIAL fSE PERtLIITAND WAIVER APPLICANTS (R/S/VY) Proposed Zoning: ... _ ~- Proposed Land Use: ~~~,~ ~'~~+~? ~~~.~~,; Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No VARIANCE;: WAIVER AND AD~tiIINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (Y/W/AA) Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to ~~~ Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WII,L NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/S1W Y/AA R/S/W Y/AA R/S/W V/AA Consultation 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan ,/ Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water and sewer application y/ Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the pr rty o the ner's gent or ontract purchaser and am acting with the lmowledge and consent of the owner. Owner's Signature (L. 2 JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING; SPECIAL USE PERNIIT OR WAVER REQUEST PPlicant ~~`a~ ~ ~ ~~~v ~ K r.= ~~ v The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. ~/i12 Gt ~ ~ rU v 4~ ~ ~ ~ °Ffi e, r' e ~ ec ~..5 f" ~ a ! 10 ~ ~~. c.l~- C re. ~. /c. ex~~n~i 9`~~ bcrsinz~~ .b~ ttdd,`»~ a Srr~r l! ~.~ .~~1~'~~Ie~ q~ m03f~ ubad Cdr' 1of w~`I1 ~`n ~a t~~~ e.h~r~~e ~~ C;l'~drac~~~'r- ~~ ~'~' ~~rnmun~fy, Thy. ~ p~+e~ran~e. a ~ `~, e, pr,~~~r~ ~:`1 I not Chang e I 1 no f ~~~n ~, ~s ~~- u~z t<s3~ of ~-f,e ~o~~r~ t?.53c"_n~-~`~11~ ~" J ine~recls~(~ ~,~r~ ~r~. ~~rruk.>d~:( ~-l,~r~ no~~ ~~ Gn 1y ~t~ar~~~ ~~' 1 b~ i nCcan~ ~ ~c r ~[JCx~k 1.~ t'e~~ ~n ~~Y~,r is e~, ~r~C, ~7r1c'i mc~r~- ~-~ re Derr u ~ ~ r 1~c~ghoK2.- ~~un `4-y . Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. J .~ ~~,ra~abiy ~, ~-~, ~~r-`~ir`.itn ~ ~ %, ~, arc! 3, TI1 ~ p ~~t n C1~1~ . v l" m G-uidel inie5 ~ `~rt~u~~ ~ Use it nv~ c:h~~n~~?, G-u~'a~~.l,`n~~ io rxn~/ >l ire.. nr~t ~v55; b/e. ~;.~ ~r-o(~o~~C ~X~ands ~~ r-ever~uz ~vnz! fa.,~ bc~~~ ~ f ~ ~ Q~p l,'cctr~~-' ;,t,,,'~©u f" im~trc-~-;~~~ Y~~ ~on~r~rrn~'~~ ( ~ l~ . J~ ~! 1'l ~ 3 Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parkslrecreation and fire and rescue. The, re~ue5~'- w,` 7i httv.e. ~~ ~rr,~ccc~f an -~"he. exr'.s~-;_ng ('p ~r~- c~~~oiriin ;o ~r'~- ~ or '~~ ~~trrvunc{ ~`n c~r~cz. ~her•~ u>~~1~ b Q. r7 ~ i m ~~ ~~ d n ~ ~ ~{-~ r d r' ~ ~~j~~-2m ~~ alrecd~ ~~, ~l~t~~>, ~., ire, pn i chin e ~;~, ~ ~ ~>v.. y ~ SC•~C~C?~5. Ccrk~ ~r ->- i re ~x~d ~-e~c.u ra'~ e r ~cr. r1 Jac ~ +- ~ ~ r^ k-~c~ . iC r' 3 JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST ^ pplicant The of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a variance can be granted. Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describehow the request meets each factor. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. 1. The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would pro distinguished from a special privilege or convenience) and 3. The hardship is not shared by other propertte uz by the Board of Supervisors as amendments t the 4. The variance will not be of a .due hardship; a hardship that approaches confiscation (as prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. e zoning district or vicinity. Such hardships Ordinance. be addressed detriment to the adjacent pra'~erties or the character of the district. F5 4 CONCEPT' PLAN EHECKLIST concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State-and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS _ a. Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north arrow c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. _ f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties g. All property lines and easements h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights _ i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development _ j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS _ k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals _ n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections _ o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed _ q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. Signature of applicant Date ~! 5 6 T2'88-898 (039) ~Xf~.~t 992'9-995 (039/ ~,?NOHd 6T032' t'I1VlJXLI :Ix '01I s .~.~rns - Qr~o~r xs.~x~ ~ tFld zr5s !!~~ AArrr r T ~uj S~JrO.(3i12//)SQ UNd ! ,4/l~L ~tia, r~/J~Y~ •~ ~IJ~~Q~~ •i ¢ rn Y~~o ¢a Q$o 4 ~WC~ ~~~ 3~~e¢Q mom j~~ tSt~~4~o~`° ~pj WWW o¢ ,Qa ~¢~ ~~~~~~ ~ W Zc~o ~i~m~~ h~ ~~Q ~to~~ o2WW~ NN`3 WQU J<~i (~U~OOUe Ip ~2 ~0 ~~ 'WWQ~~ ~om ~~~ ~20 ~~~mti4~4" h °y'~ am~~ ~0p~ m~~iih2y SOS Q~h4 ~ UQ W~~tiyv ~ ¢ m v'~Q2 ~u424 ~~~~ Qm2~~uj~ (J W ~~Q~ N¢2?~? 4~2$ Q~NW~~U y~0 4 ~~~J R~^~~ ~¢QR~~= 2 ~~i N "~i ,~.. W C c m o ~ E.".°w c o ma ~wu~ ~~ o" m~w,s, b E~ dF °' O E u ~ v v~ a , m 'c a'oa cv J ~a'o`ci $ $.~ d m~l,a `o o.w ~aooo m ~,O N a Rp o9 U ~ o `o. v `o- ~'o C .o ~ ~ 6 g' ~ E ad Ex{en 21 ~o~~ab eo ~ /w o v ~ -~ o ;,\ °' ~ // ~ \~ d .~Aw 0 LG•~ ~` ~ O• s ~ , ~ c -~ ~ I O ~11 ~ wW ~ ~N t ~ ~ O U~ v o ~ 1 ¢ ! m! ~ 1 p o Jbh 1 I o b 0 ~ Y OOH'] I D p w ~ O i V ~ 1 r N o p o r' 36.8 C 3 N ~ ~ ., ro m N a $ ~, N C y Woo '~ ~~'~ ~o0 9 _ ~: ,~, w ~ I 0 ~ ~rn a ~ a ~ m ~ °' ~ a i ^' .n E la iacy~4ol WOI~ I~p,Q 1 d w w ~ N m~O Oal!) ONn ~~~ w n~NM ~NNUnO O Mlle mnn i tl~~ n~~ (j ¢~o ¢¢_ U U Pe M R~ R~GO x P~~^ P G 1'91 9~~~ Q~~O l~o~ w .-' 1 ~ ~ a C7 '~ ~ o g Z °p 0 m ° .? °c ~ ~ o ~ v % o 0 0 3 n \ N Z ~ ' ~ ~ -7 ~ L w ~ uv o9 E ., y~ ~ I ""1h ~ah .~ :: r '°~ ~ Ev°3 I ~ Vh ~~~~ o ~°o a~ h ~ qQ ~ii~~~ e3O~ ~ o ~ o '_ ~ .. 8i 'tea ~ h ~ o o ~ ' o O 9 ~ C ~~ ._ q V ~ Yi h ~ •~ O M O ~n2 ~Q~ ~ ~ IQ. ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ Q Z f` y W~ ~ ~ h~ ~_ ~ j Q ti U ~M ~ O ~ ~Om ~ a q m b0 ~ ~p U Z Q ~ ~W 2 ~~ V ~ ~ Z ~l Q, b II ~1 v ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ { -1 b AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~r1" County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE The three-year term of Rita Gliniecki will expire December 31, 2002. Ms. Gliniecki has indicated that she would be willing to serve an additional term. The three-year term of Linda Banister, Member at Large, will expire December 31, 2002. The Member at Large appointment must be confirmed by the County, as well as the Cities of Salem and Roanoke. 2. BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS (FIRE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS) The four-year term of Wilmore T. Leffell, Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals, will expire December 12, 2002. The four-year term of Richard L. Williams, Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals, expired October 24, 2002. The four-year term of Larry W. Degen, Alternate, expired July 28, 2002. Sf -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 RESOLUTION 111902-7 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J -CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for November 19, 2002 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 2, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes -July 9, October 31 and November 5, 2002 2. Request to accept Salisbury Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required bylaw to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development November 5, 2002 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 November 5, 2002 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the first Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of November, 2002. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Vice Chairman Joseph McNamara, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Richard C. Flora, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Reverend Darryl Crim, North Roanoke Baptist Church, Roanoke, Virginia. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. November 5, 2002 3 IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution petitioning the Circuit Court for a Writ of Election to fill the vacancy in the constitutional office of the Commonwealth Attorney. Paul Mahoney, County Attorne Mr. Mahoney reported that under State Code, the County has 15 days to petition the Circuit Court to schedule a special election to fill the vacancy in the constitutional office of the Commonwealth Attorney due to the resignation of Francis "Skip" Burkart III. Mr. Burkart's term was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2003. State Code requires that the special election be held "promptly" and in discussions with the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court and the Roanoke County Registrar, Mr. Mahoney reported that a special election would cost approximately $25,000. It is staff's recommendation that the Board petition the Circuit Court to declare that the election be held in November 2003 to coincide with the next general election for this office. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None November 5, 2002rJ 2. Proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Charter. Paul Mahoney, County Attorne A-110502-2 Mr. Mahoney stated that at the October 22 meeting, a work session was held with Mr. Pete Giesen, Special Assistant for Legislative Relations, to discuss a variety of legislative initiatives that the County might wish to pursue in the upcoming session of the Virginia General Assembly. One of those items involved amending the Roanoke County Charter to authorize the levy and collection of a tax on tobacco products. In addition, there were two minor housekeeping amendments recommended by Mr. Mahoney: (1) Amend Chapter 11 "Department of Social Services" to bring it into compliance with State Code provisions and County practices. The social services board is now an advisory board. (2) Amend Chapter 12 "Department of Education" to reflect that the School Board is now elected by the citizens. Mr. Mahoney indicated that a position paper was submitted as part of the agenda packet to explain and justify the fiscal impact of imposing a tobacco tax. He stated that if the Board authorizes proceeding with these matters, State Code requires a public hearing and he is recommending that this be scheduled for November 19, 2002. At Supervisor Church's request, Mr. Mahoney indicated that under Virginia Law, cities, unlike counties, have been authorized to levy a tobacco tax. Under specific legislation in the State Code, the counties of Arlington and Fairfax have been granted November 5, 2002 7 IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First Reading of an ordinance amending Section 22-204 "Mandatory Water Conservation Measures" of the Roanoke County Code to clarify restrictions of the fillin of swimming pools and the watering of lawns, gardens and golf courses. Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) Mr. Hodge reported that this ordinance is to clarify three items that were contained in the ordinance adopted by the Board at the October 22 meeting. He stated that preparation in building Spring Hollow Reservoir has served the County well, and it has been sufficient throughout this summer despite the heavy demands placed on it. He indicated that the water conservation ordinance is also a preparation measure. A chart has been included in the agenda packet comparing the County's water conservation ordinance, as amended, with the Governor's Order 33. Mr. Hodge advised that the clarifications included are: (1) Allow the filling of new swimming pools, in addition to the replenishing of the water level in existing swimming pools. (2) Allow the watering of golf courses (tees and greens only) between 8:00 p.m. - 8:00 a.m. (3) Allow the watering of athletic fields when necessary. In response to Supervisor McNamara's question, Mr. Mahoney outlined the following changes that were included in the proposed ordinance: (1) Page 2, Item (c) Swimming Pools. Prohibit filling of outdoor swimming pools. Filling or replenishing November 5, 2002 9 trigger to implement mandatory conservation measures? (2) Where do we stand today relative to this trigger point? Mr. Hodge indicated that the trigger mechanism is based on a formula that evaluates the number of days of water supply remaining, the amount of rainfall that has been experienced, and what is occurring in the neighboring localities. He stated that in today's conditions, the County would not be under mandatory conservation. Supervisor McNamara asked what would be necessary to remove the conservation measures. Mr. Mahoney indicated that Board action is all that is required, and that this can be done even if the Governor's declaration is still in place. Mr. Hodge recommended that three levels of conservation be considered: voluntary, mandatory, and extreme. Supervisor Minnix recommended that the County's ordinance should not be more stringent than the Governor's order. He reported that citizens have raised valid concerns, but they do not always necessarily view these issues from an economic development perspective. He stated that the key to implementing these conservation measures is in knowing when to shift from one level to the next. He noted that approximately 7 feet of water has been pumped into Spring Hollow as a result of the recent rains. Supervisor Flora stated that he agrees with the proposal of adopting an ordinance that contains three levels, and would support refining our current ordinance. November 5, 2002 11 Mr. Jerry Green, owner of Aquarius Pools, spoke in opposition to restrictions on the filling of pools, particularly with regard to newly constructed pools. He emphasized the need to address the safety issues, and also stated that pools provide family togetherness and offer activities for kids during the summer months. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve first reading and set the second reading for November 19, 2002. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None 2. First reading of an ordinance to vacate a 15' access easement on Lot 8 and release a reservation for water storage tank on a Public Utility Lot' created ~ Subdivision Plat for Section 8 Falling Creek Estates, in Plat Book 21, Page 20, and combined into New Lot 8A in Plat Book 24• Page 5 Vinton Magisterial District. Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) Mr. Covey stated that in June 2000, Falling Creek Development, L.C. moved forward with the relocation of the water tank and access easement to Lots 17 and 18 of Section 8, Falling Creek Estates. At this time, the developer would like to remove the encumbrances that are presently on Lot 8A. Staff had no objections, and the developer has proceeded at his cost to remove this infrastructure and relocate it. November 5, 2002 13 AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None ORDINANCE 110502-3 AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF AND FINANCING FOR A LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, GLENVAR HEIGHTS BOULEVARD WATER LINE EXTENSION PROJECT WHEREAS, Ordinance 112288-7 authorizes the financing of local public works improvements and the imposition of special assessments upon abutting property owners upon the adoption of an appropriate ordinance by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the County Administration has negotiated the extension of the public water system to the Glenvar Heights community; and WHEREAS, the extension of the public water system and the creation of a special utility (water) service area will alleviate a critical public health and safety problem; and WHEREAS, several of the residents have requested that the County allow them to pay their portion of the costs of connection to the public water system over ten years at an interest rate of 8%; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this Ordinance was held on October 22, 2002, and the second reading was held November 5, 2002; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the authority of Ordinance 112288-7, the Board authorizes and approves a local public works improvement project, namely, public water extension for the Glenvar Heights community. The total construction cost of this public water project is estimated to be $146,000 to be initially financed as follows: Citizen Participation (23 at $3,555 each) $81,765 Advance from the Public Works Participation Fund $64,235 TOTAL $.146,000 November 5, 2002 15 4. That the payment by citizens in the project service area, in excess of those anticipated in this ordinance, who elect to participate shall be made to the various funds as follows: The off-site facility fee shall be returned to the Water Fund, and payment of the construction costs shall be returned to the Public Works Participation Fund until such time as the advance has been repaid; any further payment of construction costs shall be returned to the Water Fund. 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None 2. Second reading of an ordinance to authorize the acquisition of the necessary easements to construct Phase 5 of the North LOOP Water Transmission Line Project, Catawba Magisterial District. Ga Robertson, Utility Director 0-110502-4 Mr. Robertson reported that this ordinance would be for the purpose of acquiring the easements necessary for the water line project, and that there have been no changes since the first reading. There were no citizens present to speak and there was no discussion on this matter. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: November 5, 2002 17 AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-110502-5 Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the Consent Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None RESOLUTION 110502-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I -CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for November 5, 2002 designated as Item I -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 9, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes -May 14, June 11 and October 22, 2002 2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) 3. Request to accept water and sewer facilities serving Cresthill Commons, Cave Spring Magisterial District. 4. Request to accept a Virginia Department of Health grant in the amount of $33,012.50 to purchase an ambulance. 5. Request from to accept a Virginia Department of Health grant in the amount of $12,315 to purchase new cardiac heart monitors 6. Request to accept a Virginia Department of Health grant in the amount of $6,242 to purchase extrication equipment (jaws of life) 7. Nomination of a section of Bottom Creek as Exceptional State Waters November 5, 2002 19 4. Future School Ca ital Reserve 5. Clean Valley Council IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Minnix: (1) He inquired about the status of a traffic signal on Indian Grave Road. Mr. Hodge reported that due to the state funding reductions, the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office at this intersection will not be built and approximately $150,000 - $200,000 from the contractor's funds is no longer available. He stated that calls from citizens indicate there is a need for a traffic signal. The engineering plans have been completed, the project is ready to bid, and the Board has appropriated the County's share of the funding. The next step is to secure the necessary right-of-ways and easements and VDOT needs to approve the plans. At the next meeting, Mr. Hodge indicated that the Board would need to authorize the acquisition of the right-of-ways and easements and also authorize the County to administer the project. Supervisor Minnix stated it is essential that at least athree-way traffic signal be installed at this intersection. He stated that problems may be encountered with VDOT, but he is putting them on notice that the possibility of an accident strongly exists at this intersection. He stated there is a serious problem here, and that Route 220 South has as much traffic as many interstates. November 5, 2002 21 announcement has been made; Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members regarding a specific legal matter requiring the provision of legal advice, namely water agreement with the City of Roanoke. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None IN RE: WORK SESSIONS (4th FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM) 1. Work session with Real Estate Valuation and Community Development to demonstrate GIS internet capabilities. Todd Booth, Engineering/GIS Supervisor; Myra Williamson. Real Estate Technology Support; G r Coleman. GIS Coordinator) The work session was presented by Todd Booth, Engineering/GIS Supervisor; Myra Williamson, Real Estate Technology Support; and Gary Coleman, GIS Coordinator. The work session was held from 4:45 p.m. until 5:12 p.m. A demonstration of the GIS Internet data base system was made to the Board. 2. Work session to discuss ear-end financial re orts and impact of state budget reductions. Diane Hyatt. Chief Financial Officer: Brent Robertson, Budget Director The work session was presented by Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer, and Brent Robertson, Budget Director, and was held from 5:13 p.m. until 6:45 p.m. November 5, 2002 23 (3) Nancy Horn, Commissioner of the Revenue, reported that her budget is scheduled to be reduced by $23,000. She will be unable to perform all of the services that her office currently handles, which in turn means a loss of revenue to the County. Elimination of this funding could result in a loss of two positions in her office. She stated that if she loses any additional staff, she does not know if she would be able to process DMV reports. She requested that she be allowed to keep the departmental rollover money for this fiscal year. (4) Randy Leach, Commonwealth Attorney, reported that reductions in this department will necessitate eliminating one attorney's position. At present, this office maintains one less attorney than the Compensation Board recommends. If elimination of this position becomes necessary, the Commonwealth Attorney's Office will no longer be able to handle traffic cases. He anticipates he could possibly generate $10,000 savings in the current fiscal year as a result of internal personnel changes. If this office does not handle traffic cases, either the Police Department or the County Attorney's Office will have to take over prosecution of these cases. (5) Diana Rosapepe, Library Director, reported that the libraries are a public service department and their budget has been reduced $35,700 or 15% of their current allotment from the State. She stated that 100% of the state aid is used to purchase books. She only has two alternatives: stop buying books or consider a reduction in services. (6) Ray Lavinder, Chief of Police, reported that of his approximately $7 million budget, less than 10% is for operating costs and 80% of the operating budget is November 5, 2002 25 RESOLUTION 110502-6 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 members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m. Submitted by: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Approved by: Joseph B. "Butch" Church Chairman R ,~ October 31, 2002 1 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 October 31, 2002 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Salem Civic Center, Salem, Virginia, this being an adjourned meeting from October 22, 2002 for the purpose of attending the Greater Roanoke Valley Leadership Summit meeting with area legislators. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 12:45 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Vice Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Supervisors Richard C. Flora and H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Harry C. Nickens STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Malfourd W. "Bo" Trumbo, Senator John S. Edwards, Delegate A. Victor "Vic" Thomas, Clifton A. "Chip" Woodrum, Delegate H. Morgan Griffith OTHERS PRESENT: Elected officials and staff from the City of Roanoke, City of Salem, Town of Vinton, County of Bedford, City of Covington, County of Botetourt; and representatives from the Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission. October 31, 2002 3 Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Chairman, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, reported that the General Assembly should require state agencies, such as the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, to use specific income data from towns when assessing grants-in-aid programs. Currently, data for counties are used when towns apply for grants and often the economic conditions in a town differ significantly from the economic conditions of the county in which they are located. This places the towns at a disadvantage when applying for competitive state grants. Mr. Church indicated that he was presenting this item on behalf of the Town of Vinton, and illustrated the discrepancy between the Town of Vinton's demographics and those of Roanoke County. Mr. Church indicated that he believes this concept has merit, and the County would like to assist the Town of Vinton in any way possible that would not adversely affect Roanoke County. He indicated that Paul Mahoney, County Attorney, would be willing to work with area legislators in this regard. ^ Education: Linda Wyatt, Roanoke City Council Member, reported that legislators who publicly support the importance of quality education, define what that quality education must look like, and require that local school boards carry out those mandates should be willing to fully fund these requirements. She emphasized that funding for public education is a State responsibility. October 31, 2002 5 attended numerous workshops pertaining to transportation, and indicated that one topic that has been consistently emphasized is the need to consider all modes of transportation, not just highway construction. He stated that it is time to evaluate the economic effectiveness of simply building additional highways and strive to achieve a better balance, particularly in the Roanoke area which celebrates 150 years of rail service tomorrow. Joe McNamara, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, stated that the VDOT six-year plan adopted in June 2002 encompasses $7.3 billion which is a 28% reduction from the $10.1 billion in the prior year. He stated that the Salem district is challenged to begin with due to the length of Routes 220 and 460 bisecting the area. Specifically, he voiced concerns regarding the 33% funding reduction to the Salem District, from which $36 million over the next six years must be allocated for the Smart Road. He stated that the Smart Road is a tremendous economic development asset for the entire Commonwealth and challenged the fairness of the Salem District bearing the financial responsibility to develop it. The Salem District has been reduced by 33% and over one-third of this amount is tied up in funding for the Smart Road, thus making the actual reduction significantly greater than 33%. Stated another way, Mr. McNamara reported that of the percentage of each district's program remaining for fiscal year 2002-2007 from last year, October 31, 2002 7 year 2000, the State of Virginia was ranked 32"d in education but 1St in prisons. (2) Public Safety - 599 funding reductions affect the amount of police protection that can be offered to citizens. (3) Tourism -localities need new businesses to generate tax revenues that can be used in providing essential services and offset the cost of state funding reductions. Mr. Davis stated that budgets at the local level do not contain excesses, and localities cannot continue to provide essential services to citizens if the State continues to implement funding reductions. The localities will call upon the legislators to consider implementing tax increases if that is what is needed to offset the current budget shortfall. The State of Virginia currently ranks 15th in per capita income, in the 40's in tax effort, and yet it has a bare bones budget. He emphasized that tough decisions need to be made, and local representatives are available to provide assistance in helping the legislators meet the citizens' needs. Possible recommendations for offsetting the shortfall included raising taxes, reducing the car tax relief, or relaxing the Dillon rule. IN RE: LEGISLATORS COMMENTS ^ Senator Malfourd W. "Bo" Trumbo: Senator Trumbo indicated that state representatives should be able to come together in the same manner as the local representatives have to address these issues in a global sense. He then addressed the following issues October 31, 2002 9 Virginia, he indicated that this is a massive undertaking that will take time and needs astate-wide approach. He also stated that he was not aware of the problems for towns with regard to applying for grants, and he supports these reforms in the guidelines. (3) Transportation: He indicated that I-81 is in limbo at the present time, but he agrees that it is an issue that must be addressed. He indicated that support for passenger rail service would involve significant costs and planning efforts. With regard to Smart Road funding, he agrees that the Salem District should not bear the cost of this project. He stated that perhaps revenues generated from the Smart Road technology should be distributed back to the Salem District. (4) Land Use Issues: He indicated concerns about defining "smart growth", and stated that in his view it is nothing more than a state-wide land use pattern. ^ Senator John S. Edwards: Senator Edwards emphasized that the budget situation is getting worse and most of the issues presented today require additional money. He stated that to resolve the problems facing us, we will need to continue to make reductions or enhance revenues. Citizens need to speak out to make legislators aware of their priorities. He also encouraged support for the bond referenda to support higher education and parks. r October 31, 2002 11 which local revenues are currently handled. He supports changing guidelines for towns applying for grants, and he supports improvements to I-81. He indicated that he favors the current proposal which would place tolls on trucks. Delegate Griffith stated that he did not favor rail service in the Roanoke to Bristol corridor as he did not think the population centers were large enough to get sufficient ridership to make the system functional. Regarding funding for the Smart Road, Delegate Griffith stated that if the Salem district is paying for the construction they should get the benefits from it. He stated that land use issues need to be evaluated and compromises worked out. He pointed out that the Administrative Rules Commission is a group in the legislature that can ask that regulations be placed on hold if the impact is too adverse or doesn't make sense for a locality. He encouraged local legislators to use this resource if needed. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 2:15 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Joseph B. "Butch" Church Chairman July 9, 2002 423 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 July 9, 2002 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of July, 2002. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Vice Chairman Joseph McNamara, Supervisors Richard C. Flora, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Dr. George Anderson, Second Presbyterian Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS July 9, 2002 425 WHEREAS, the public safety of Roanoke County citizens is assured by dedicated employees such as Master Deputy Morgan; and WHEREAS, Master Deputy Morgan is highly respected by his co-workers in the Sheriff's Office for his dedication and teamwork; and WHEREAS, Master Deputy Morgan, through his desire to be of service and do a good job for the citizens in his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to WILLIAM J. MORGAN, SR. for more than eighteen years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None 2. Recognition of the Finance Department for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2000-01. Chairman Church presented the award to Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer, Danial Morris, Finance Director, and other members of the Finance Department who were present: Margaret Bacon, Lisa Greer, Rebecca Owens, Rosemary Trussell, and Karen McMillan. Mr. Morris advised that last year twenty-four counties and six school districts received this award. He reported that this is the 18t" consecutive year that the County has won the award and that Penny Hodge, Director of Budget and Management for the Schools, won the award this year for the first time for the Schools' Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. July 9, 2002 427 expressed appreciation to the community and the users of the building for their patience during the work. Mr. Dell Ayer, President of the Catawba Civic League, expressed appreciation to Ms. Pitts and the Board for their support in renovating the Center which is the heartbeat of the community. Mr. Fletcher Hill, President of the Catawba Valley Ruritan Club, also expressed his appreciation to the Board for the funding of the renovations. The Center is a valuable asset to the community and he also expressed his thanks to Ms. Pitts for her efforts. Supervisor Church, on behalf of the citizens in the Catawba District, thanked Mr. Ayer, Mr. Hill and Ms. Pitts for their assistance. Supervisor Flora expressed thanks to the people of the Catawba District who were instrumental in getting the Center renovated while being guided by the County staff from the Parks, Recreation & Tourism Department. 2. NSA Girls Fastpitch Ciass B Wortd Series Mr. Hodge asked that Parks, Recreation & Tourism Director Pete Haislip update the Board on the National Softball Association (NSA) Girls Fastpitch Class B World Series. Mr. Haislip advised that participants will be arriving July 12 through July 14, 2002 and that the games will be held July 15 through July 20, 2002. They are anticipating 270 to 300 teams with approximately 5,500 players, and it will be the largest team sporting event in the history of the Roanoke Valley. This event, which will have a July 9, zoo2 429 system and are not color coded. These are used with six-inch pipes going into a stream or pond for the water source. Supervisor Nickens asked how the hydrants that are put in by the developers before the water is available are handled. Mr. Robertson advised that the staff removes the cap and puts a large tag on these hydrants that signifies that they are not in service. Chief Burch advised that the Town of Vinton does follow the County's color code system but not for privately owned water systems. Supervisor Nickens felt that this was valuable information for County citizens, and stated that he appreciated the staff briefing. Chief Burch advised that the color code system is taught to all of their staff through training classes and reviewed on a regular basis. He complimented Mr. Robertson and his staff for working so well with his department. The water system and design is handled by the Utility Department with the Fire Department cleaning and painting the hydrants. Chairman Church asked that this information be communicated to those citizens who may not be watching the Board meeting. Mr. Robertson advised that the state will not allow a fire hydrant to be installed unless the main water line is at least six inches in diameter and since 1987, the County has required eight inches as the minimum water line for residential subdivisions and twelve inches for commercial. New subdivisions have to be designed to provide at least 750 gallons per minute and commercial developments 1,500 to 2,000 gallons per minute. July 9, 2002 43 construction phase have funding to begin building over the next six fiscal years. Work on projects is prioritized as follows: (1) Complete construction projects already under construction. (2) Advance projects in latter stages of right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation. (3) Continue projects that address critical safety, mobility and environmental issues. Mr. Covey stated that the Six-Year Interstate and Primary Development Plan adopted for FY 2000 - 2006 had seven projects located in Roanoke County. These were the five interchanges on I-81 (Wildwood Road, Route 311, Route 419, I-581 and Hollins Road), Route 11/460 West Salem and Route 221. In the Interstate and Primary Construction Plan for FY 2003 - 2008, adopted in June 2002, the only projects in Roanoke County are several safety projects on I-81and TEA-21 projects for the Blue Ridge Parkway Interpretive Center. In the Interstate and Primary Development Plan for FY 2003 - 2008, there are six projects listed which are the five interchanges already listed on I-81 and Route 111460. Route 221, listed in the FY 2000 - 2006 plan has been removed. Mr. Covey reported that the Salem District Fiscal Year allocations for 2002 - 2008 for Interstate and Primary Projects have been reduced. The Interstate funding was approved at $53,451,000 which is approximately a 64% reduction in funding from the FY 2000 - 2006 Plan. Primary funding is $99,278,000 which is approximately a 33% reduction from the FY 2000 - 2006 Plan. Aiso, $36,356,000 (36%) of the $99,278,000 July 9, zoo2 433 receiving adequate representation and indicated his support the letter and resolution. In response to Supervisor Minnix's inquiry about the CTB re-appropriation of any portion of the $2.8 billion if the economy improves, Mr. Covey advised that each year they Took at the plan for the next six years and if there is a turnaround in the economy, the budget could change. Supervisor Church advised that he felt that one of the problems was that the costs for future projects were projected too low. Mr. Covey advised that low cost estimates for construction are fairly normal and this has been a source of concern over the years. Supervisor Nickens advised that he felt it probably was not possible for the Board to get this funding reversed but if they accept this with no opposition, next year the costs could go up and possibly rise even more the following year. He feels that the Smart Road is a state project and the costs should not be funded by the Salem District alone. Supervisor Flora advised that he felt that the message from the CTB by their actions, which resulted in cutting the funding for I-81, was that safety is not as important as saving money. He advised that the present situation has been caused by poor revenue and cost estimates. It is unfair that the Salem District pay for a project that has both state and nation-wide implications, and advised that he would support the motion. Chairman Church advised that Supervisor Nickens' motion was to adopt a July 9, 2002 435 to adopt similar resolutions expressing their opposition to this funding allocation or diversion plan of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. 4. That the Clerk to the Board is directed to send a certified copy of this Resolution to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, all the jurisdictions in the Saiem District, and the members of the Genera! Assembly from Salem District. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution and send with cover letter from the Chairman expressing the Board's concerns, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None 2. Reauest to amend the adopted Secondary System Six-Year Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 and the allocation of funds for Fiscal Year 2002-03. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) Mr. Covey advised that on December 11, 2001, staff presented the Six Year Secondary System Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2002 - 2008 to the Board. At that time, the County's budget for FY 2002 - 2003 was estimated to be approximately $4.0 million. Based on that estimate, these four projects were added to the Six-Year Plan: Hardy Road, Indian Grave Road, County Line Road and Montcap Trail. On June 20, 2002, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the funding for the Six Year Secondary System Construction Plan for FY 2002 - 2008. The funding approved for secondary roads in Roanoke County for FY 2002 - 2003 was reduced by approximately $1.5 million. Over the next six years, the plan was reduced from $25 million to $17 million for a total reduction of approximately 31 %. Because of the July 9, 2002 437 County but approval of the resolution would bring closure to the plan for this year and approval of projects on the list. By not approving the resolution, this leaves the County without an adopted and approved plan and places the VDOT Resident Engineer in a very unusual situation. Supervisor McNamara suggested that Supervisors Nickens move to table the item until the August 13, 2002 meeting so that the Board could send letters to express their concern. Mr. Covey recommended that the Board bring closure to the plan so that the allocations can be approved to the projects. Failure to approve will not stop the projects but it may create a roadblock that will have to be resolved. Mr. Hodge advised that the Board has never had to reduce the scope of work and he understands Supervisor Nickens' position that approving the resolution would be accepting and reinforcing the process. He preferred that the item be deferred until August 13 to give staff time to determine from VDOT if any of the funding for the projects would be jeopardized. Supervisor Nickens advised that he would withdraw his previous motion and moved to table this item until the August 13, 2002 meeting so that staff could meet with VDOT to resolve questions. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None July 9, Zoo2 439 with the update. The Commission held a public hearing, including a joint meeting with the Presidents' Council, to receive input and information from the community regarding the policies. From this meeting staff developed a first draft that was presented to the Commission for additional input. After this review, staff and the Commission presented an updated manual to the Board in a work session on May 28, 2002. After receiving input for the Board, the Commission finalized and approved the policy manual at their June 20 meeting for presentation to the Board at this meeting on July 9, 2002. He described several of the significant changes which were: established user fees for non- County participants in athletic programs, clarified boundaries and boundary exceptions, determined that use of facilities built, maintained and scheduled by the County Parks, Recreation & Tourism Department on School property are subject to this policy; established policies to protect premier athletic facilities, and established policies for partnership with non-sanctioned community or civic groups to make improvements to County facilities. He recommended that the Board approve the updated Public Use Manual for Sports Organizations and Community Users. Supervisor Nickens commended Mr. Haislip, the Parks, Recreation & Tourism Advisory Commission and booster groups from around the County for their participation. In response to Supervisor Nickens' inquiry, Mr. Haislip advised that the contribution by a bottling company to a score board is limited to five years for more flexibility and that these agreements are now handled by the department instead of the July 9, 2002 441 4. Request to accept additional state revenues and appropriate to the Sheriff's fiscal year 2001-2002 budget. (Brent Robertson, Budget Director) A-070902-4 Mr. Robertson reported that during Fiscal Year 2001-02, as in previous years, the inmate population at the Roanoke County Jail has remained above capacity. The average daily inmate population increased from 210 to 220 through FY 2002, an increase of 5% over the prior fiscal year. The average population for the final quarter for FY 2002 was 233 inmates. As a result, operational costs such as food, utilities, medical costs, etc. continue to consume a substantial portion of the Jail's budget. Due to the increased inmate population, the Sheriff is projecting expenditures related to inmate care to exceed original budget allocations by $217,988 for FY 2001-2002. Based on the revenue estimates versus the projected revenues anticipated to be collected from the state and from the City of Salem for the Sheriff's Department. for FY 01-02, revenues in excess of budget for these categories should total approximately $330,000. Mr. Robertson advised that staff is recommending an appropriation adjustment to recognize an additional $217,988 of state revenue for personnel and operations reimbursement and increasing the Care and Confinement budget within the Sheriffs department by an equal amount. Sheriff Holt could not be at the meeting today July 9, Zoo2 443 Chairman Church recognized Mr. Hodge, Director of Utilities Gary Robertson, Director of Finance Danial Morris and Finance Manager Rosemary Trusseli who were present for this item. Mr. Hodge advised that staff is asking for an increase in the sewer rates, the sewer off-site facility fee and adding a charge for connections that requires installation of County maintained sewage pump stations. These increased rates and fees are needed to expand the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant which is the only one in the Roanoke Valley. The maximum water capacity of the five participating localities which are Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Botetourt County, City of Salem and Town of Vinton is 60 million gallons per day (MGD) while at present, the plant has a capacity of 42 MGD. Before the plant was expanded in 1996, the water capacity was 35 MGD and it was hoped that the construction would increase the ability to treat wastewater to at least 63 MGD but it was only increased to 42 MGD. The plant is owned by Roanoke City while the other localities have contracts with the City. Much of the plant construction was done by Roanoke City with state grants that were available. The state has the authority to determine when the capacity of the plant has to be improved to meet its needs. During the years, the County has done a lot to reduce the inflow and infiltration of water and is using less capacity now than fifteen years ago. This is a tribute to the work done by the Utility department and the funding provided by the Board as a priority. The plant is now under a consent order of violation from the July 9, Zoo2 445 customer who uses 5,000 gallons of water per month. Their sewer bill would be $15.31 with the first rate increase going to $16.60 (average increase of $1.26 per month) and second increase $17.96 (average increase of $1.36 month). The total for the two increases would be $2.65 per month. These rates are still below the state average which was $21.69 for 5,000 gallons in 2001. To help minimize the rate increases, staff is proposing that new customers pay an additional connection fee of $2,000 which is a $500 increase, but still below the state average. There are three goals of the upgrade: (1) There is a mandatory need to minimize or eliminate overflows from the plant in wet weather conditions. (2) Outdated and inoperable equipment that has been at the plant since 1950 should be replaced. (3) There is a need to promote future capacity for new areas to provide sewage. In response to Supervisor Minnix's inquiry, Mr. Robertson advised that the County does allow a sewer subtraction meter to be installed that can be feasible if you use a considerable amount of water for gardens or lawns. The meter would measure all of the water that you are using, as well as the water that is not going into the sewer system. The water bill would be paid on the total amount of water, but the sewer bill would be based on the amount of water that goes into the sewer system. The customer has to pay the costs of installing the meter. and it has to be installed according to the County Code. He advised that the average cost for the sewer subtraction meter would be $200 to $300. July 9, 2002 447 Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for July 23, 2002. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None 1N RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of ordinance approving acquisition of easements and construction for Huntridge off-site sanitary sewer extension. Hollins Magisterial District. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director} 0-070902-5 Mr. Robertson advised that there have been no changes since the first reading of the ordinance. There was no discussion. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None ORDINANCE 070902-5 APPROVING CONSTRUCTION OF THE HUNTRIDGE OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROJECT, INCLUDING ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDS, AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AND ACQUISITION OF NECESSARY EASEMENTS, HOLLINS July 9, Zooz 449 40.13-1-9 Nancy Horn 40.13-1-8 Michael McGraw 40.13-1-7 Nancy Horn 40.13-1-6 Nancy Horn 40.13-1-4 Mary Ward 40.13-1-1.1 Ronald Lewis 40.13-1-1.2 Rebecca Lewis 40.13-1-1 Edward Rumbley III 40.13-1-13 Ray Bohon 3. That the consideration for each easement acquisition shall not exceed a value equal to 40% of the current tax assessment far the property to be acquired plus the cost of actual damages, if any; and 4. That the consideration for each easement shall be paid from the Capital Improvement Fund; and 5. That the 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. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None 2. Second reading of ordinance a~,proving acquisition of an easement for sanitary sewer extension at Mount Pleasant Fire Station, Vinton Magisterial District Gary Robertson, Utility Director 0-070902-6 Mr. Robertson advised that there have been no changes since the first reading. There was no discussion. Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by July 9, 2002 ~~~ Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the Consent Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Fiora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None RESOLUTION 070902-7 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I -CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for July 9, 2002 designated as Item I -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 2, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes for the March 12 and June 25, 2002 Board of Supervisors meetings. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Roanoke County Cable Television Committee and Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Minnix moved to receive and file the following reports after discussion of Item 7. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: July 9, 2002 453 Mr. Hodge asked that the Board designate an official representative from the Board, and advised that County staff on the subcommittee will include Director of Utilities Gary Robertson, Chief Financial Officer Diane Hyatt, County Attorney Paul Mahoney and himself. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Flora: (1) He commended the Economic Development Department for their efforts in working to resolve an existing noise issue on Hollins Road and asked that he be kept informed of future developments. Supervisor McNamara: (1) He asked that the revenues from the safe of water be reported on a quarterly basis and that any disposition of these revenues be subject to Board concurrence. Supervisor Minnix: (1 } He asked that the quarterly report of water revenues show the gross amount and the net amount. (2) He advised that Hidden Valley High School will open on time and thanked the Board members for having education as a priority. Supervisor Church: (1) He advised that Hidden Valley High School was also going to open on budget and thanked the School staff, Supervisor Flora and all those involved for their work on construction of the school. (2) He advised that he and Supervisor Flora attended the event at the Rescue Mission with the Miss Virginia July 9, Zoo2 455 incentives in the form of County funds or other assets. He described the proposed changes in the revised policy draft. It was the consensus of the Board for staff to move forward with the amendment and bring back the Public Private Partnership Policy for Board approval. b, Technology Zone Crea#ion Mr. Chittum explained that establishment of a technology zone allows localities to create special incentives for qualified businesses locating or expanding operations in a zone. These incentives may include: a reduction of user and permit fees, local tax incentives, special zoning treatment, exemption from local ordinances or other incentives adopted by ordinance. Localities that have established technology zones include Arlington County, the Cities of Charlottesville, Falls Church, Franklin, Hampton, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg, and Winchester. Staff is proposing that the Center for Research and Technology be considered a technology zone by ordinance. During the discussion, the Board members advised that several questions need to be answered. These include: (1) Could the entire County be a technology zone? (2) What are other possible technology zones? and (3) What are the costs of some of the incentives offered such as eliminating the Business and Professional Operators License (BPOL) tax? Staff was directed to provide the Board members with more information. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING July 9, 2002 IN RE:. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 6:34 p.m. Submitted by, Brenda J. Holton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Approved by, Joseph B. "Butch" Church Chairman 457 'HE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2002, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION 111902-7.a REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF SALISBURY DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form SR-5(A), fully corporated herein by reference are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of e Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation _~s advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Reauirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote Moved By: Supervisor Minnix Seconded By: None Required Yeas: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church Nays: None Absent: None A Copy Teste: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: Arnold Covey, Director, Department of Community Development Virginia Department of Transportation File Scale: 1 "=150' STEEPLEHUNT OF ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CANTERBURY PARK Acceptance of Salisbury Dr. into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COMMUNI TY DEVELOPMENT \• `J) J c m E s U Q t Q O 00 ~_ ~~ • ... ® ~ L E ~. ~ O f j!. i} O ~ w ~CC O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ w ¢ ,~ O ~ a m ~ a ~aq m ~ lid .~' N ~ `fib C>C CeC C O O `vOi Y j Cn z ~ Z ~ O s ~ F= ~ o O r ~ Q t Z a E ~ : t~ 6 ~ ~ v i ~ ~ m S O r z _~ s 3 = ` d 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ {v O O m a° a° d a° a° i a° a ` v c^ ~ ,-~ ~ ~ c ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ u 7 ~ `j O ^ ^ O ^ O ~ r / .a C O n ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ti T / F F A ~. ~ ° h _ i ~ O o G n • ~~~' 9 i n O o Y 0 0 0 0° o o° c ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a Y 8 0 ~~ Y 8 Y Y ~ ,• d _ 0 a b a b a ~ a ~ d 0 a ~ LL o F- d tL p. H S tL c H a 'LL c -' S LL o F- ~ IL o F- d lL o F- d U O O O `.• a ~ O b ~ N O ~, 9 F a ~ Z ...~~ V C L ~ .~ N'~ l7 f M O ti ~ `i j V 01. Y ..r O O 6 Y, ~ C K !n 2p F. U W :. O o Z U C iJ.! V 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~~ ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: November 18, 2002 Acceptance of Salisbury Drive into the State Secondary System Arnold Covey Director of Community Development Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Boone, Boone and Loeb, Inc., developers of Steeplehunt of Canterbury Park Section 14, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requesting that they accept 0.139 mi. of Salisbury Drive, from its intersection with Old Locke Court east to its cul-de-sac. Staff has inspected this road along with representatives from VDOT and finds the road acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No county funding is required. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the resolution requesting that VDOT accept Salisbury Drive into the State Secondary System 2. Do not approve the resolution and leave Salisbury Drive a private road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the resolution accepting Salisbury Drive into the State Secondary System. J ~'~ THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2002, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF SALISBURY DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form SR-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded Vote A Copy Teste: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: Diane Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors pc: Arnold Covey, Director, Department of Community Development Virginia Department of Transportation File Scale: 1 "=150' STEEPLEHUNT OF ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CANTERBURY PARK Acceptance of Salisbury Dr. into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4 C O F L V a as B 0 6 L E .. ~ O ~ C O ~ 'II Q ~ a o S ~ Q o ~ o ~ a ; Q f~S C C ~ s ~ t Z -- E Q U a < c O .~ `o Cm C m z i a 8 c ~ j . C ~ ~ ti M < U P _$ z 5 ' s ` ~ ~ ~ fJ i a° e a ~ a° ~ a° o d ii 4 o d m a a ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ P i J ~ ~ O ~ C O a n `~ ~ 9 a ~ ~ F E . J . c ~ m ~'~! e e o e o 0 o ~ n o 0 O 0 0 0 0 ~ a a ~ a ~ a a ~ o ~ "^~ Y K Y Y Y 8 ~ ~ C ¢ Q Q ~ - ° a ~ ~ ~ ~ ° a ~ ° om ~ ~ a ~ a ~ ° a ~ - r .. ~ - n . r ` - x 0 a 3 O ` ~ " L C ~. .r + y z b C S' h c ~ e ~ F a ~ a 2 ~ ~ c C N ` t7 'Y to O P. CL Z 7 V~ M a Y N O 0 Q c ~ ~ ~ r:: 22 ~ ~ U V O o o O 0 u c U o ~ O <~ u- a ~ C 2 ~ ~ Q4 L Y U C ~ n U L ~ 9 n ~ D r 2 4 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002 AGENDA ITEM: Request for joint Work Session with the Roanoke County Planning Commission on December 3, 2002, to discuss proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Section 30-93, Signs SUBMITTED BY: David Holladay Senior Planner, Zoning Administrator APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~Ckl- County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Planning Commission has prepared amendments to the sections of the zoning ordinance that regulate signs. These amendments are the result of meetings throughout 2002 between staff, the Planning Commission and sign industry representatives. Some of the amendments are intended to clarify sections of the ordinance that did not offer clear guidance for interpretation. Other amendments are proposed to help make enforcement more efficient and equitable. Some amendments are a response to Planning Commission inquiry and guidance. A draft copy of the proposed amendments is attached for reference. Text to be removed is struck through, and text to be added is shaded. Major amendments to the sign ordinance include: • Allowing temporary signs (banners) by annual permit, but in exchange, reducing the number of banners allowed from two to one. (page 7) • Prohibiting roof and portable signs. (pages 4, 7, & 9) i<-i • Offering a reduced setback option for freestanding signs in commercial and industrial zoning districts, in exchange for reduced sign height. (pages 13, 14, 15, & 16) • Amending the off-premises (billboard) regulations by placing a cap on the number of billboards currently existing in Roanoke County. Construction of new billboards would still be allowed, but only after removing an existing billboard. Billboards that do not conform to current standards would be removed first. (pages 16 & 17) • Amending definitions to support the proposed regulatory changes. (page 19) FISCAL IMPACT: None ALTERNATIVES: Schedule a joint work session with the Roanoke County Planning Commission on December 3, 2002 to discuss the proposed amendments. 2. Do not schedule the joint work session. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 1 K-i DRAFT #2 Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments November 19, 2002 SEC. 30-93. SIGNS. Sec. 30-93-1. Purpose. (A) These regulations are intended to define, permit and control the use of signs. They have been established by the board to achieve the following community goals and objectives: 1. Protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. 2. Promote the economic growth of Roanoke County by creating a community image that is conducive to attracting new business and industrial development. 3. Distribute equitably the privilege of using the public environs to communicate private information. 4. Permit reasonable legibility and effectiveness of signs and to prevent their over-concentration, improper placement and excessive height, bulk, density, and area. 5. Promote the safety of persons and property by requiring that signs not create a hazard due to collapse, fire, decay, or abandonment. 6. Ensure that signs do not obstruct fire-fighting efforts, and do not create traffic hazards by confusing or distracting motorists or by impairing drivers' ability to see pedestrians, obstacles, or other vehicles or to read traffic signs. 7. Provide for the reasonable advertising of business and civic products and services, with recognition of the effects of signage on the character of the community. 8. Control visual clutter, and encourage high professional standards in sign design and display. 9. Establish clear procedures for the administration and enforcement of this ordinance. K- Sec. 30-93-2. Permitted Signs. (A) Any sign displayed in Roanoke County shall be comply with: All provisions of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; and, 2. All applicable provisions of the Uniform Statewide Building Code and all amendments thereto; and 3. All state and federal regulations pertaining to the display of signage. (B) If any two (2) or more sections of the above referenced regulations are in conflict, the provision that provides the most restrictive standard shall apply. Sec. 30-93-3. Exempted Signs. (A) The following signs shall be exempted from regulation, and may be displayed within Roanoke County without obtaining a sign permit. However, an electrical permit shall be required for any sign requiring or incorporating electrical service: Official traffic signs or similar regulatory devices, identification, directional or any other signs owned, erected and maintained by a duly constituted governmental body. 2. Signs required to be displayed or maintained by law or governmental order, rule or regulation. 3. Memorial tablets or signs, provided they are displayed by a public orquasi-public agency. 4. Directional signs provided that each such sign does not exceed #+ve {~ three (3) square feet per sign, 5. Street address signs, not exceeding ten (10) square feet in size. 6. Non-illuminated signs, not more than three (3) square feet in area warning trespassers or announcing property as posted. 7. Signs displayed on a truck, bus, or other vehicle while in use in the normal conduct of business. This section shall not be interpreted to permit the parking for display purposes a vehicle to which a sign is attached or the use of such a vehicle as a portable sign. 2 K- 8. Flags and insignias of any government except when displayed in connection with commercial purposes. 9. On-premises real estate signs in residential or agricultural zoning districts not exceeding five (5) square feet in area, or on-premises real estate signs in commercial or industrial zoning districts not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet in area. On-premises real estate signs larger than these exempted allowances may be installed as temporary signs in accordance with Section 30-93-8(B). 10. Clocks that display time and temperature through the use of mechanical means or the controlled display of lights, provided these devices do not display any other message. 11. Political campaign signs provided that they are located outside of the public right-of-way, and are removed within fourteen (14) days after the campaign. 12. Signs displayed between Thanksgiving and Christmas associated with the sale of Christmas trees and wreaths. 13. Signs on the inside of establishments, except those signs specified in Sections 30-93-4(A)5. and 7., which shall not be excluded. 14. On-premises agricultural product signs associated with the seasonal and/or incidental sale of such products on property where the primary land use is residential or agricultural, provided such signs do not exceed four (4) square feet in area. 15. Signs that are displayed by or promote civic, religious, educational or charitable organizations or causes, provided such signs are displayed no longer than thirty (30) days per calendar year. Sec. 30-93-4. Prohibited Signs. (A) The following signs are prohibited within Roanoke County: 1. Any sign that due to its size, location, color, or illumination obscures a sign displayed by a public authority for the purpose of giving traffic or safety instructions or directions. 2. Any sign that contains or consists of pennants, ribbons, spinners, or other similar moving devices. 3. Any sign, except an official public notice, which is nailed, tacked, 3 k- posted, or in any other manner attached to any utility pole, or structure supporting wire, cable, or pipe; or to public property of any description. 4. Any sign located within a public right-of-way, except for signs displayed by a duly constituted governmental authority. 5. Flashing or revolving lights, or beacons intended to direct attention to a location, building or service, or any similar device otherwise displayed that imitates by its design or use, emergency service vehicles or equipment. 6. Any sign that simulates an official traffic sign or signal, and which contains the words "STOP," "GO," "SLOW," "CAUTION," "DANGER," "WARNING," or similar words. 7. Any sign or portion thereof that rotates, or otherwise moves through the use of electrical or wind power. This prohibition does not include the changing of messages on electronic message boards. 8. Signs advertising activities or products that are illegal under federal, state, or county law. 9. Any sign that obstructs any building door, window, or other means of egress. 10. Any electrical sign that does not display the UL, ETL, CSA, or ULC label, unless such sign is constructed, installed, and inspected in accordance with Section 30-93-9(B). 11. Signs or sign structures that are erected on, or extend over, a piece of property without the expressed written permission of the property owner or the owner's agent. 12. Any sign that due to its size, location or height obstructs the vision of motorists or pedestrians at any intersection, or similarly obstructs the vision of motorists entering a public right-of-way from private property. 13. Portable signs. 14. Roof signs. Sec. 30-93-5. Sign Permits. 4 K-~ (A) Except as provided in Section 30-93-3, no sign may be erected or displayed in Roanoke County without an approved sign permit. Applications for a sign permit may be obtained from the Roanoke County Department of community development. Signs that are not visible from a public right-of- way do not have to conform to the provisions of Section 30-93-13, District Regulations, and the square footage of such signs shall not be included when calculating allowable signage on a lot. (B) Any owner of a parcel of land upon which a sign is to be displayed, or any authorized agent of such owner may apply for a sign permit. (C) Every application for a sign permit shall include a sketch of the property indicating the lot frontage. The application shall also indicate the square footage of all existing signs on the property, and the area, size, structure, design, location, lighting, and materials for the proposed signs. In addition, the administrator may require that the application contain any other information that is necessary to ensure compliance with, or effectively administer, these regulations. (D) Anon-refundable sign permit fee is due and payable with the filing of a sign permit application. More than one sign on one building or group of buildings located on the same parcel of land may be included on one application provided that all such signs be applied for at one time. fnme~c~.~~r~c~~,~p,gy,yp~}orl nrn fnr ~h~amn h~ ~~inoc•~n. (E) After the issuance of an approved sign permit, the applicant may install and display any such sign or signs approved. Once installed, the administrator may inspect the sign(s) for conformance with the approved sign permit and this ordinance. If the displayed sign(s), due to size, location, height, or number do not conform to the information on the approved sign permit, or the applicable standards of this ordinance, the administrator shall notify the applicant in accordance with Section 30-21. (F) Any sign permit issued shall be null and void if any sign for which the permit was issued is not installed in accordance with the permit within six (6) months of the date the permit was approved. (G) Maintenance, repair, or restoration of nonconforming signs shall be in accordance with Section 30-93-11. If the value of such work exceeds fifty (50) percent of its replacement value, it shall only be authorized after the approval of a sign permit application. (Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1 d., 4-27-99) ~~ Sec. 30-93-6. Measurement of Sign Area and Distances. (A) Sign area shall be calculated as follows: 1. The area of a suspended, attached, or projecting sign, where the letters, numerals, or symbols are on a sign surface which is hung or affixed to a structure, shall be the total area of the hung or affixed surfaces. 2. The area of an attached sign where the sign consists of words, symbols, or numerals painted on or affixed to a wall, fence, or other building element shall be the entire area within a continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits of each word, group of words, symbol, numeral, groups of symbols, or groups of numerals, where the symbols or numbers are meant to be read as a unit. 3. The area of a freestanding sign shall be the total area of all surfaces (excluding poles or other support structures) visible from the public right-of-way. For double or multi-faced signs, only the area of surfaces visible at any one time, at any one point on the public right-of-way shall be measured when calculating sign area. 4. The area of monument-type freestanding signs shall be determined by (1) the size of the copy area, (2) visual breaks in the structural components of the sign, and/or (3) variation in the monuments color scheme. (B) The minimum separation between freestanding signs shall be the shortest distance between two (2) signs, measured in a straight line. (C) In situations where these criteria do not provide guidance in determining sign area or minimum separation the administrator shall make the determination. Sec. 30-93-7. Calculation of Allowable Sign Area on Corner Lots. (A) On corner lots, the front shall be either (a) the side fronting the street providing major access, or (b) the side which the main entrance of the structure faces. In situations where neither of these methods clearly distinguishes the front, the administrator shall make a determination. (B) For commercial or industrial uses, the front shall not be a primarily residential street. (C) On corner lots where a building or buildings face more than one street, sign area shall be allowed for front lineal footage as indicated in the district 6 K- regulations, and for one-half the side street frontage, provided: The side street does not front on a primarily residential area; 2. Sign area as determined by each frontage is placed only on the frontage from which it is determined. Sec. 30-93-8. Temporary Signs. (A) Any person wishing to display a temporary sign must apply for a sign permit pursuant to Section 30-93-5. Except as provided in subsections (B) and (C) below, pertaining to real estate and construction signs, temporary signs shall comply with the following standards: Each business or use on a lot shall be allowed to display a one (1) temporary sign ~ ^vim~ ~m of fni ~r /~ ~ +imoo nor at any time during a calendar year. Each business or use wishing to display a temporary sign must apply for a temporary sign permit. Temporary sign permits shall expire at the end of each calendar year. ~e hl4nrlror! fi~ien}~i /17/1\ rlnvc~ nor n~lenrl.+r vo•+r R~ ~~ino~c~°`~-th•~}rTt7rvri~n .....~~TCO-raayT~~-vaTCncrui~~ hM~io ~ mi s nima im cinn c~ofhnnL of fnr~~i /il/1\ foo4 frnm Fho nnn~orline Imo ~~ihinh o~ior is nre r+}o r. ~2, !Vn blMl`;4nncc nr n_+u~li~hm~nF c~hnll i-lic~nl~+~i mnrn +h~+n +~~in /7\ °^~ ~~. In commercial zoning districts, the total square footage of any temporary sign shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet. In all other zoning districts, the total square footage of any temporary sign shall not exceed fifteen (15) square feet. (B) Real estate signs greater than sixteen (16) square feet in commercial or industrial zoning districts or greater than five (5) square feet in agricultural or residential zoning districts may be installed on a lot provided that each such sign does not exceed ninety-six (96) square feet in area, and has a minimum sign setback of fifteen (15) feet from any public right-of-way. All real estate signs must be removed within fourteen (14) days after the property has been sold or leased. 7 I<- (C) On premises construction signs may be installed on active construction sites. No construction sign shall exceed ninety-six (96) square feet in area. Any such sign must have a minimum sign setback of fifteen (15) feet from any public right-of-way. All construction signs must be removed from a construction site prior to the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance for the building or project. Sec. 30-93-9. Illuminated Signs. (A) Signs may be illuminated either through the use of backlighting or direct lighting provided the following standards are met: 1. Information on any illumination proposed as part of a sign must be provided by the applicant on the sign permit application. 2. No light from any illuminated sign shall cause direct glare into or upon any building other than the building to which the sign is related. 3. No light from any illuminated sign shall cause direct glare on to any adjoining piece of property, or any adjoining right-of-way. (B) Any sign containing electrical components shall conform to current UL, ETL, CSA, or ULC standards and display a label from one of these recognized testing labs; or as an alternative, shall be designed and constructed to standards that would allow one of the above referenced labels to be affixed and thereafter inspected by Roanoke County to insure compliance with these standards. Sec. 30-93-10. Projecting and Suspended Signs. (A) No projecting or suspended sign shall extend more than six (6) feet from any wall or other structure to which it is affixed, nor shall any such sign have a setback of less than fifteen (15) feet from the nearest public right-of-way. (B) The bottom edge of any projecting or suspended sign must be at least seven (7) feet above the ground if located above any publicly accessible walkway or driveway. (C) No projecting or suspended sign shall project or suspend over an adjoining lot, without the expressed written consent of the adjoining property owner. Sec. 30-93-11. Nonconforming Signs. (A) Any sign which was lawfully in existence at the time of the effective date of 8 K~~ this ordinance which does not conform to the provisions herein, and any sign which is accessory to a nonconforming use, shall be deemed a nonconforming sign and may remain except as qualified in subsection (C), below. No nonconforming sign shall be enlarged, extended, structurally reconstructed, or altered in any manner; except a sign head may be changed so long as the new head is equal to, or reduced in height, sign area, and/or projection, and so long as the sign is not changed from an on-premises sign to an off-premises sign. (B) The addition of lighting or illumination to a nonconforming sign, shall constitute an expansion of a nonconforming structure, and shall not be permitted under these regulations. (C) Nonconforming signs may remain, provided they are kept in good repair, except for the following: 1. A nonconforming sign which is destroyed or damaged to the extent exceeding fifty (50) percent of its replacement value shall not be altered, replaced or reinstalled unless it is in conformance with these sign regulations. If the damage or destruction is fifty (50) percent or less of its replacement value, the sign may be restored within ninety (90) days of the damage or destruction, but shall not be enlarged in any manner. 2. A nonconforming on-premises sign shall be removed if the structure or use to which it is accessory is destroyed or demolished to the extent exceeding fifty (50) percent of the principal structure's value. 3. Whenever a change of zoning occurs by petition of the owner, contract purchaser with the owner's consent, or the owner's agent upon a lot which contains a nonconforming on-premises sign, such sign shall not be permitted without being modified in such a manner as to be in full compliance with these sign regulations. Sec. 30-93-12. Damaged or Neglected Signs. (A) The Building Commissioner of Roanoke County shall have the authority to order the removal, without compensation, of any sign or sign structure that due to neglect or damage poses a clear danger to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Sec. 30-93-13. District Regulations. (A) AG-3 and AG-1 Zoning Districts. 1. Lots within an AG-3 and AG-1 districts shall be allowed a maximum 9 K~ signage allocation not to exceed one-quarter (0.25) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the AG-3 and AG-1 districts subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business shall be allowed a maximum of fifty (50) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. A maximum of thirty (30) square feet shall be allowed per use. Home Occupation Signs. A maximum of two (2) square feet shall be allowed per home occupation, or group of home occupations within one (1) home. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 3. No freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. 4. hnv frne~+Mnrlinn ~inr, ornn+niJ m~ ~c+ h~.in n minims ~.,, ci.Yn ce+h~+nL fifFoon /1 C.\ ~ ~ frnm ~n~i frnn~ nr orF~i lino ~~ihinhn~inr i~ rvrc•+~or. ar~y-~r°nrPr~crc7-Trrr , Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet 5. IVES f~-noo~~nrlinn oinr~ c•holl ovnnni-I fif~oon /'1 C.\ food in hninh+ vvw~ ...~~ ~.J v~y~ ~ v~ gun vwvvar ~~ . Maximum sign height: fifteen (15) feet. 6. No establishment shall be allowed more than four (4) signs. (B)AR, R-7, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-MH Zoning District Regulations. 10 K-~ 1. Lots within AR, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-MH districts shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one-quarter (0.25) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the AR, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-MH districts subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business in a residential district shall be allowed a maximum of thirty (30) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. A maximum of thirty (30) square feet shall be allowed per use. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8~oepr+h~+ ^nr+^hl° ciyrniv~iuri be-~ek~+b+ted. 3. No freestanding business sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for all freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. L~, /1ny fr°°~+onM?ny v~yii °vr°vvwv ~m~ + h~+v° •+ minim~im Ginn c°+hr+nL ~~on /1 C.\ {~ + frnm nn~i f~n+~nTpn°~~in°~ ~~ihinhn~i°r i nr°~++°r. Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet 5. No frno~+Mnrlinn Ginn e•holl °vn°°r! +°n /1 (1\ fn°+ in h°inh+ Maximum ~ ~~ v~y, , v~ ~u~~ v,.vvv sign height: ten (10) feet. 6. No establishment shall be allowed more than two (2) signs. (C) AV Village Center and NC Neighborhood Commercial District Regulations. 1. Lots within AV and NC districts shall be allowed a maximum 11 K- signage allocation not to exceed one (1) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in AV and NC districts subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business in AV and NC districts shall be allowed a maximum of four hundred (400) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. Identification signs shall be subject to the same regulations as business signs within this district. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 3. No on-premises freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. (~ f~n1/ frnoc ~~nrlinn oinn oren~er! m~ ~e•} hwo ~+ minims ~m oinn ~o+h~+nL Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet 5. Maximum sign height: fifteen (15) feet 6. No establishment shall be allowed more than four (4) signs. (D) C-1 Office District Regulations. Lots within a C-1 district shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one-half (0.5) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 12 k- 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the C-1 Office District subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business in a C-1 district shall be allowed a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. Identification signs shall be subject to the same regulations as business signs within this district. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 3. No on-premises freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. 4 . f+ft~~'a~u_~__~/__A~_~ e°+°+ f~ ~n.i frfrp~~q~'nnorhi lin ihin ho~i er ie~ nr~~}or e ~~ ~ Options for sign setbacks and height shall be as follows: Option 1 Minimum sign setback from front property line: ten (10) feet Maximum sign height: ten (10) feet Option 2 Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet Maximum sign height: fifteen (15) feet ~. 65. No establishment shall be allowed more than four (4) signs. 13 <- (E) C-2 General Commercial District Regulations. Lots within a C-2 district shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one and one-half (1.50) square feet of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the C-2 General Commercial District subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business in a C-2 district shall be allowed a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. Identification signs shall be subject to the same regulations as business signs within this district. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 3. No on-premises freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. Notwithstanding the above, the administrator may waive, in writing, the two hundred fifty-foot separation requirement between freestanding signs provided the administrator finds the following standards are met: a. No more than one (1) freestanding sign shall be allowed for each two fifty (250) feet of lot frontage, or portion thereof, under single ownership or control. b. The new freestanding sign is a monument sign with a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet and a maximum width of 14 it-i ten (10) feet. c. The placement of the sign in the desired location does not promote visual sign clutter on the property or surrounding area. d. In exchange for the placement of the new freestanding sign in the desired location, the applicant or property owner proposes, and agrees in writing to undertake, significant improvements to existing signage on the property. These improvements shall be designed to reduce existing sign clutter, enhance sign design, and promote the overall visual appearance of the property. e. All other sign ordinance requirements regarding the placement and size of the sign are met. f~nV {rooms+onrlinn c inn oron+erl m~ ic+ ho~io n minima im 4 c inn ~o+h•+nl~ . ~,F} ~~ino n ~~ihinho~i ~fcc n~i f~n+ e°^-n^--/1 or i nro.+~.+. ~ ~ ~ r tttt . Options for sign setbacks and height shall be as follows: Option 1 Minimum sign setback from front property line: ten (10) feet Maximum sign height: ten (10) feet Option 2 Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet Maximum sign height: twenty-five (25) feet ~. No frPec+unrlinn Ginn ~hnll ovnoe.~1 +~uen+v_fi~ie M~\ feo+ in hoinh+ 65. No establishment shall be allowed more than five (5) signs. (F) I-7 and 1-2 Industrial Zoning District Regulations. Lots within I-1 and I-2 districts shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one and one-half (1.5) square feet of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the I-1 and I-2 districts subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each business in an industrial zoning 15 ~_ i district shall be allowed a maximum of three hundred (300) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Identification Signs. Identification signs shall be subject to the same regulations as business signs within this district. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 3. No on-premises freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. 4 . Options for sign setbacks and height shall be as follows: Option 1 Minimum sign setback from front property line: ten (10) feet Maximum sign height: ten (10) feet Option 2 Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet Maximum sign height: twenty-five (25) feet s. 65. No establishment shall be allowed more than five (5) signs. Sec. 30-93-14. Special Signage Districts and Regulations. (A) Off-Premises Signs. No new off-premises signs shall be allowed. Existing off-premises signs may be allowed to relocate if the new site is approved based on the standards set forth in this section. For purposes of this 16 section, existing off-premises signs shall be those existing on or before jdate of ordinance passage). Applications to relocate an existing off-premises sign shall be accompanied by a demolition permit for an existing off-premises sign. 2. No permit for a relocated off-premises sign shall be issued until an existing off-premises sign, or combination of off-premises signs, of at least equal square footage are removed. 3. Existing non-conforming off-premises signs shall be removed first. When all non-conforming off-premises signs are removed, then existing conforming off-premises signs may be relocated pursuant to the standards set forth in this section. Legally established existing off-premises signs located within the C-2, I-1 and I-1 zoning districts that meet the location and design standards in Section 30-93-14 (A) 4. a-f. shall be considered conforming off- premises signs. 4. Relocated off-premises signs shall be allowed in the C-2, I-1, and I- 2 Districts provided the following location and design standards are met: 4a. No off-premises sign shall be located within a five hundred- foot radius of an existing off-premises sign, or an off- premises sign for which a valid permit has been obtained, but has not yet been erected. fib. No off-premises sign shall be located within two hundred (200) feet of any residential zoning district, public square, park, school, library, or religious assembly property. ~c. No off-premises sign shall be allowed to be installed on any roof structure, nor shall any such sign exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height above the abutting road. 4d. Side by side, double and multi-decker off-premises signs shall not be permitted. fie. Any off-premises sign must have a minimum sign setback of forty (40) feet from the centerline of any public right-of-way, or fifteen (15) feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. Any off-premises sign shall have a minimum side and/or rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet. 17 K- 6f. The maximum size of any off-premises sign on a lot shall be three hundred seventy-eight (378) square feet plus ten (10) percent for embellishments. (B) Shopping Centers. Within shopping center square footage that existed prior to the adoption of this ordinance, new or existing businesses may modify or replace their existing attached signs provided the area of the modified or new signage is equal to or less than the original displayed signage. Modifications to freestanding signs shall be in accord with the district regulations. In addition, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 30-93-13(E)2., within enclosed shopping centers exceeding two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) gross floor area, businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet of signage, provided the business has a minimum gross floor area of thirty-two thousand (32,000) square feet, and the sign displayed shall be located a minimum of three hundred (300) feet from the closest public right-of-way. (C) Planned Developments. A signage plan shall be submitted as part of any proposal for a Planned Residential Development (PRD), Planned Commercial Development (PCD), or Planned Technology Development (PTD) as authorized elsewhere in this ordinance. The signage plan shall be part of the required preliminary development plan. All signage plans shall be of sufficient detail to allow the commission and board to judge the compatibility of the proposed signage with the character of the proposed PRD, PCD or PTD. At a minimum, all signage plans shall provide information on the general size, location, style, color, and materials of all signs proposed. In evaluating the PRD, PCD or PTD proposal, the commission and board shall consider the appropriateness of the proposed signage plan in relation to the character of the proposed development, and the surrounding area. (D) Airport Overlay District. The allowable height of signs within any established Airport Overlay District shall be governed by the height restriction for that district, or the height restriction imposed by the applicable district regulation, whichever is more restrictive. (E) Lots without Public Street Fronfage. Lots without public street frontage that existed upon the effective date of this ordinance shall be allowed signage based upon the applicable district regulations as provided for in Section 30-93-13 of this ordinance. Permitted signage shall be calculated based upon the frontage width of the lot that parallels the nearest public street. (F) C/earbrook village overlay district. signage within the Clearbrook village 18 ,<-i overlay district should be planned, designed and installed to complement a buildings architectural style. All signage within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall comply with C-1 office district regulations with the following exceptions: Lots within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one (1) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. signage placed on a building wall shall occupy less than five (5) percent of the facade of that wall. 3. All freestanding signs shall be of a monument design and shall meet the following criteria: a. Monument signs, including their structure, shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height, or ten (10) feet in width. b. Signs shall be channel lit, ground lit, or top lit with a shielded light source so as not cast light onto the path of traffic or on any adjacent road or property. 4. No establishment shall be allowed more than three (3) signs. 5. A maximum of two (2) directional signs shall be allowed per lot, and no directional sign shall exceed two (2) square feet in size. 6. The following signs shall be prohibited in the Clearbrook village overlay district: a. Off-premises signs. b. Temporary signs. c. Portable signs. d. Roof signs. (Ord. No. 42694-12, § 25, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 72595-9, § 1, 7-25-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1 d., 4-27-99) Sec. 30-93-15. Variances. (A) Requests for variances to these sign regulations shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 30-24 of the Zoning Ordinance. The board of zoning appeals, in considering any variance request, shall follow the guidelines of 19 ~- i this section, and section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended. The power to grant variances does not extend to an economic hardship related to the cost, size or location of a new sign, or to the convenience of an applicant, nor should it be extended to the convenience of regional or national businesses which propose to use a standard sign when it does not conform to the provisions of this section. (Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1 a., 4-27-99) Sec. 30-28, Definitions Freestanding sign: A sign which is supported by structures or supports ifl-er d, and is permanently affixed to the ground, and is independent of any support from any building. Portable sign: A self-supported sign that is designed to be moved easily, and is not permanently affixed to the ground, including but not limited to portable changeable message cabinets and sandwich signs. Roof sign: A sign attached to a building, wall, or the roof of a building in which the sign height exceeds the highest point of the building. Temporary sign: Any sign ,other than a portable sign, which is temporarily affixed to the ground, a building or other structure, including, but not limited to banners and flags, and/or an on-premise sign applying to a seasonal or brief activity such as, but not limited to, summer camps, horse shows, yard sales, Christmas tree sales, business promotions, auctions and carnivals. For the purposes of these regulations, on-premises real estate signs and sings displayed on active construction projects shall be considered temporary when displayed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 20 I GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA of General Amount Fund Revenues Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2002 $9,070,656 6.93% July 1, 2002 Explore Park Loan Repayment Unaudited balance at November 19, 2002 Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. Balance from above $25,000 $9,095,656 6.95 $9,095,656 $9,095,656 6.95 Note: On December 18, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted a goal statement to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance at 6.25% of General Fund Revenues 2002 - 2003 General Fund Revenues $130,889,561 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $8,180,598 Submitted By: Danial Morris Director of Finance Approved By: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator N -a CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Unaudited balance at June 30, 2002 Transfer from Dept. Savings 2001-02 Unaudited balance at November 19, 2002 Amount $1,380,050.5 (to be determined) $1,380,050.57 Submitted By: Danial Morris Director of Finance Approved By: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator N -3 RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount From 2002-2003 Original Budget $100,000. August 13, 2002 Special Assistant for Legislative Relations (18,000.00; Balance at November 19, 2002 $82 Submitted By: Danial Morris Director of Finance Approved By: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator N-y FUTURE SCHOOL CAPITAL RESERVE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Savings from 1996-1997 debt budget $670,000.00 Transfer from County Capital Projects Fund 1,113,043.00 FY1997-1998 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000.00 June 23, 1998 Savings from 1997-1998 debt fund 321,772.00 FY1998-1999 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000.00 FY1999-2000 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,219,855) 780,145.00 Nov 9, 1999 Savings from 1998-1999 debt fund 495,363.00 FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,801,579) 198,421.00 FY 2001-2002 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (465,400) 1,534,600.00 FY 2002-2003 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (2,592,125) (592,125.00) Unaudited Balance at November 19, 2002 $8,521,219.00 Reserved for Future School Operations FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriation $1,500,000.00 July 11, 2000 SW Co Regional Stormwater (290,000.00) FY2001-2002 Original budget appropriation 1,500,000.00 July 1, 2001 School Budgeted Start-Up Costs HVHS/Glenvar Middle (1,858,135.00) July 1, 2002 One-Time Transfer to Operating Budget (566,818.00) Unaudited Balance at November 19, 2002 285,047.00 * Of this amount $197,280 is currently being used for the lease purchase of refuse vehicles and will be repaid within one year. Budgets for Future School Operations have been transferred to the School Submitted By: Danial Morris Director of Finance Approved By: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION # ITEM NUMBER~rJ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGII~TIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 19 2002 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid -October 2002 COUNTY ADMII~IISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Si;fMMARY OF INFORMATION: Direct Deposit Checks Payments to Vendors: $3,855,821.40 Payroll 10/11/02 $744,855.34 $157,552.81 902,408.15 Payroll 10/25/02 $727,389.31 $155,025.71 882,415.02 0.00 Manual Checks $666.38 666.38 Voids 0.00 0.00 $5,641,310.95 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY: ~~ Danial Moms Director of Finance -' `.~ N O O N M e°~o °~ a A C~ L7 ~D O b O w O b "~ O U ~ a o ~ o tip 0 O ce ~ a ~ ~ y ~ N C~ ~ O ~ '" ~ ,.,~/ M W O RS y v v d o ,d c W ~ o ~ v ~ a .~ a y o W '~ br ~, O C w o ~ ~ L y,, O CC ~ ~+ ~ ~ u C ~ ~ Q v 7 ~ b L ~ ~ ~ i~ Q ~ ~Or ~ /-. Qi v CD .fl 7 ~Q v c 0 v V 0 0 o 7 ~ N ~ vi ° r "' z O w O ~ O a0 O ~ ~ DD ~ N ~ N M N [~ ~ V' D\ N V' oo Q\ ~ ~--~ M ~ ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ O ~--~ O [~ ~ M O ~n O ~n l~ ~-+ ~D O~ oo v~ O O~ M oo O o0 h I~ ~ ~O 7 ~n M O~ ~ V' ~O a, ~ D\ M ~ O M O ~ v~ .-~ .~ ~ ~ M ~D ~ ~O O~ M ~D O ~O ~D N l~ vl ~O ~ -~ O ~--~ ~ O M l~ ~--~ ~--~ N ao M ~--~ ~ N N N ~--~ N ~--~ N N M ~--~ M M~ M N N ^~ O~ v7 O~ ~--~ v'i ~O N v~ ~--~ N N ~ ~--~ O O~ O ~ O M -~ O~ v1 l~ a\ o0 0o t~ a\ N [~ D\ 00 ~n o0 N V1 l~ d' ~O M M ~O O O~ l~ N l~ O ~O oo N ~ ~' O I~ O M O v7 ~--~ N o0 N V1 l~ vl ~ ~--~ ~O l~ ~O ~!1 l~ 00 M M .-. N ~ ~ ~ v'~ O vl ~O O ~D ~ O M 'n O M O M N ~O ~--~ 00 DD O~~ V1 D\ \O O M I T ~D N V1 N N 7 On M O N o0 'ct M~ M~~ ct' 00 M O [~ O~ l~ a\ ~ O vi '~t oo O~ 00 M d' M O [~ ~O ~O ~-+ vi ~ ~D O ~ oo N oo ~ O ~ N O [~ ~ M 00 O N V') ~O ~--~ ~D .~-. N 00 M ~--~ ~--~ DD N ~ V'1 ~--~ N M M DD ~ N O ~-+ ~t ~--~ l~ M O M Ul ~ ~ ~O N M ~ .--~ ~O O~ O O ~O o0 M ~/1 O~ .--~ .--~ et DD N [~ M N N a0 ~ ~--~ O~ ~--~ v1 N O r+ ~O l~ ~--~ ~~ M ~--~ N N M~ DD M ~--~ N M N 00 ~ M 00 N (~ l~ lp O N M M M [~ ~O V1 N ~C .--~ 7 DD [~ .--~ ~ ~ N V V') oo M N o0 ~ N N ~O ~ ~--~ l~ N a\ ~ ~ a\ ~ 00 N ~ ~O ~ ~D ~D l~ M W .--~ .~. D\ ~ vl ~ O ~-+ vl ~ oo M .--~ l ~ N l~ v1 O ~D ~ ~n O v'~ N N 00 ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ O~ M ~--~ ~ V1 .-~ V7 \p ~O ~ N M M ~f M 01 ~' N O 00 ~/'~ [~ V1 v~ O~ O l~ M O l~ . -i M O o0 N 00 N O M 41 ~ N ~--~ ~--~ ~ ~ DD ~ M ~-+ ~ ~ ~ O Q\ ~ ti' I~ O M ~-+ Vl ~O ~--~ N M ~--~ l~ ~-+ ~--i N oo ~n O ~O ~O vl ~--~ [~ d\ ~ ~ M O~ N v~ O [~ ~D l~ ~O ,--~ ao ~ ~--~ M ~ ~ ~ 01 00 I~ l~ O~ 00 ~O .-~ O\ M M ~--~ O o0 0o M l~ [~ [~ O .--~ O ~ N O .--~ N O a1 v'i oo O~ D\ [~ •--~ ~ ~ o0 0o O O~ oo N O N N M o0 ~n ~O O~ O~ 00 O O a\ oo ~ I~ M l~ l~ O ~ l~ N ~O M O '-+ o0 0o Oi M a\ v'i oo O~ ~--~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O et N M ~ ~ ~--~ Q\ ~ v'~ ~t ~ O ~ v'i M v'~ N c1' O~ M ~ N ~ O M ~ V'1 M O O N ~--~ ~ Vl 00 M ~--~ N ~ .~-i ~ ~ ~' '-+ M M \O [~ ~ O 'c1' ~ ^~ N ~--~ ~t N M '~h ~-' oo ~--~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O O O O O O O oo O O ~O O N ~D O O N O~ O M O O O~ oo O 0 0 0 0 0 0 .--~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O V' O O O O oo a, O O~ O N O .-~ ~n O oo ~n v~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ~O ~--~ ~O O E M v7 D\ O O O N O D\ O~ N M~~ 00 O O O V~ O~ vi oo O N O O O ~n v-i O O ~n M ~-+ ~--' O O O N cl' N ~O M M M l~ v~ t~ oo vi ~--~ (~ M O O O ~ Vl 00 M O .-+ ~--~ ~--~ N l~ N N M v~ N ~ ~ ~n o0 O Q~ N M M O~ ~ V1 M O~ N D\ ~ ~ l~ ~O M v1 ~--+ .-y h N N ~ N 'cl' ~O ~O ~ N N ~ O ~ ~+ M v'~ M O~ ~--~ t~ V1 ~--~ ~ ~ ~O M N ~O ~D ~ ~--~ ~--~ ~ N ~--~ N ~ ~--~ M N ~--~ M ~ N ~ ~ ~. "" ~ N ~ ~ o~ ~ 3 ~ o o ~~ U b ~ ~ ~ a X w °~ C° ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ p., a~i ~ '""' °~ y ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~" k o ~ U ~, w ~ ~ ~ w ,~ ~ ^d ooo k. ~ ;? ~ a~~i ~ ~ iV ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~~" ; j A"' cd U ~ ~ 4., o Q N N ~ y v~ ~c sue. °~ w :~ `~ o ~ .~'. N w o ~ ~ a~ `~ ~ a~ ..~ ~ O o~j E-' ~ ~ ... o ~ cv ~ ~ y y a> ~ ,b ~ ~ ~ '~. U f~ w ' ~ ~ N . ~ ~ o ~ ~' ~ ~ y ^O ~ w ° y a~i a~i ~° ~ ~ ~ o U °; .`'"'-~. aFi ~ c~i a~i a~i ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ as o O ~ ~`~. o ~ ~ o ckv '~ ~ c~a ~ a~i .°: ,~ . ~ N a~i .~ ~ ~ a~ ' ~ a~i O ~ a~ .~ c~ ,b ,~ ,~ ~ c~' a a a a. a U as w~ E-' ~ x H O d a w w U a w a: rx U U r~; ~ n; Z~ 3 0 3 w O O H O ~ ~ .M-~ ~ ON N N N N N N N N N OM M M M M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vl vii X00 ~O ~ ~ 000 oN0 0~0 ON1 OM1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-~ N N O O N t+l ~ '. ~ ~ G> O ~+ '. ~ ~ o d0 ~ v °D ~ O ~' i ~ eC O a A ~ 6! LYr ~ pa ~" b N ~ u C C ~ ~ ~ a~ A a 0 ~ C L ~ >" Q~i 6~ ~ G1 N ~ ~ ~ CO ~I M O ie s y ,a ~ .~ RS ~ r'q ~ O >y ..~ V Q 'C 'O ~ ~ W ~ ~ o O ~ ~ 0, w O ~ 'r'"+ h W '+ o ~ y b ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ o .~. o U ~ v 6~ r + L O . C~ + ~ LLB . '~ C 7 GL eC C V O O ~ ~ 'O Q C O 7 N) N ~ O r M O H rl O~ r ., o~ r R ~--i 1%! O O~ 7 O~ 00 N M y r+ O F c L V N O M N V O O ~ O ~--~ N ~ v ~ ~ a" W W W ~ ~ ~ c 0 c A ~ ~ o W ti v v w ~ ~" v w N N M _~ ~ 0 :: a R b E o A ~ ~ ~ ~ a~+ d C ° 9 ~ W W ~ CC ~" ~ 9 v L v ~ V 7 R u R u 0a e -'~. u y C u L L Cd ~_ ~ Q b 7 .~. °' c ~ a W ~ W ~ ~' N O M 0 v v W O O .~ 0. O C O O O r+ ~. 0 Gr C R L R ~' u 7 w O L a, o s 'O O v ~ a W d bo 9 O 07 b C L a U 0 0 ti b C 7 Gir N-b ~O ~O oo O M o0 1n N M ~n ~--~ p~ ~O O ~--~ ~h l~ V'1 r O O ~ N ~ ~ N ~ d' ~O ~O O ~ M ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ tt ~ ~ ^" N ~O ~/1 ~ O O N ~ O N ~O r ~ V' N ~ N o0 O p~ M O~ O~ O~ ~--i oo v~ M ~O N N .ti M O M ~--~ ~--~ 00 N M M N M N M N M N N N M N N M ~h M N M M N~ O ~--~ N M 01 01 O 00 v1 l~ N M DD O ~ 00 M ~O .-+ a0 O N O ~ O ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ r ~ O~ ~O v1 .ti O ~ N v'~ O ~n N M v7 ~O ~ ~ ~O ~O ~ ~O O O l~ O~ O N M l~ .~ ~ ~ ~ O vl ~ ~--~ [~ N ~ O N O\ ~--~ O~ vl ~ M ~--~ M ~ M v1 O~ vl N N ~ 0 M _ O N O 0 0 ~ M ~ O v'i l p O M 00 O l~ N Q~ ~ M N I~ ~' O~ ~ ~t ~ ~ O ct ~-+ v~i O M ~ [~ N CT O N 7 l~ Oi N O~ 00 l~ V'i O~ M ~O ri t~ 00 ~--~ 00 ~ ao ~--i M N V'i O ~O o0 00 M '~!' ~D o0 M N O [~ N ~n N ~D ~--~ ~ 00 N ~--~ M ~--~ I ~ I~ vl N t+l N ~ ~--~ N N ~--~ O O ~ N ~--~ ~ ~--~ ~--~ O ~ ~--~ N vi V i ~--i [~ vi M ~O M N ~--~ [~ N N '-+ ~O N M [~ l~ r N ~ O~ ~O N M o0 O~ ~ [~ O M O oo C~ O~ O .-.i ~ ~--~ ~ O O M ~ O\ Vl CT er O~ M .--~ l~ M l~ ~ O~ M N N M M M \p O M N O O ~ ~ a0 O~ ~fl O~ ~' N ~!1 00 v~ v~ O ~' ~ N ~O l~ N ~O o0 M .-. O M N ~ ~--~ l~ ~ O 00 M N ~ ~--~ v1 ~D M N l~ v'~ 00 cf' Do ~ ~ N ~ 00 ~--~ N ~ O ~--~ l~ ~ M ~D N ~ M O O~ CT ~ l~ O~ M '~? O O oo ~D ~--~ M ~--i ~ oo .-~ N O oo ~ ~--~ l~ O O~ [~ O O~ CT ~n Oi l~ l~ O O O~ O M o0 O N .-+ ~O O\ ~O M o0 ~ ~O O~ O~ ~ M O~ N ~ ~O N oo t~ ~O O [~ M O~ O ~D r N M ~ ~ M ~ O~ l~ ~ r N N ~ ~ N~ '~7 ~--~ O O o0 N M O V~ l~ ~ O N N M N ~--~ [~ .~ ~--~ M ~-+ N .--~ O l~ O [~ O O O ~O N v~ O M O~ v7 O M O O h O O~ O O O O ~ ~ O~ ~--~ O O N O N l~ v~ N O 1n l~ oo O~ v1 O O O O O N 0 0 0 0 N N O~ ~O O ~G N O N vl N N O O ~O Vl M l~ O O et O O N 0 0 0 0 N ~ O~ ~ ~ I~ [~ l~ 00 M O~ O M V'1 ~--~ rl M M N 00 00 M M ~ DD M M M 01 ~ ~ ^'i N N ~O 00 1f1 l~ N H N M .-ti .-~ lp ~-+ 00 l~ M O O~ Vl ~ ,--. .--i [~ O N O M DD O O O ~ 'a' ~ O O ~--i O M N [~ N N O~ N N oo ~--~ ~O O~ N ~n O~ N ~O o0 O l~ O M 'ct ~+ O O l~ M ao M u1 [~ N N In .~-i O ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ vl oo .~ ~ N ~ O O ~ ~ O O ~ ~h O~ O~ [~ ~O l~ ~n N l oo N .--~ O~ ~--~ ~D ~O O O~ N ~ ~-+ O O~ O~ O ~--~ ~n CT ~--~ ~ ~O ~ ~ O O V o0 00 N M oo ~--~ ~O M ~O O M ~ ~t vi N vi N M o0 .-i v~ oo ~O O\ O~ [~ vl v'i M ~O O~ ~--i vl .-. ~ M vi N ~O -~ O l ~n M ~n ~D O~ ,--~ M N oo O ~ ~--~ 00 v~ ~t O O [~ ~n ~O ~--i ~ ~/'~ M r N M ~ N M N 00 .-. r-i N ~O l~ V i t~ ~ .-+ O\ O M vi P ~ M ~--~ ~--~ 0 0 CT O O o0 O O O O~ h o0 ~ ~O O ~--i ~ .--+ ~ ~ o0 0o O M ~ O ~D oo O~ O h O O M O O O t~ .~ ~n ~ ~--~ ~ O N ~--~ M ~O N N ~ \O ~ ~D o0 ~--~ .-r M ~O O M oo ~D O N N N M M O N ~O ~-+ V' V i O o0 O ~n ~ .--~ oo M M O O~ ~O O N M O O ~D M ~O 00 00 v~ ~--i ~ M O~ Vl N ~O ~ 00 O~ -~ ~D O~ ~--~ l~ In ~' oo d' O ~ oo .-i •-+ •--~ •-~ ~t 00 M ~ l~ ~ t~ O~ 00 O~ ~ tt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ a0 M N ~ ~ r O O~ U1 O N ~D ~ (~ DD M M tt N v'1 [~ \O 01 \O v~ 01 ~ ~ ~ M M ~ 7 v'~ ~ N o0 M O 00 O~ N O~ N ~ O l~ [~ O~ 7 O~ N ~O M N ~--~ O~ ~O N ~ ~' ~-+ l~ l~ vl ~O N l~ 00 ~--~ ri O ~ ~ M ~ M ~--~ O M N ~--~ 00 M ~--~ N .-ti H .~ .~ y.., ~ ~+ '~ d w y ~ ~ O U o~ ~a .>. °~ ~ G~ o ~ °° ~ ~ °o ac7w c ^~ N M O_ O O_ .--~ O O O +.+ U U w ~ ~ O ~ H O N ~ ~ ~ ~ a-+ 3 ~ .U. ^p ~ U ~ O u' ~ N ~ ~ `~' O ' o w, oU a: ~q~ ~.oU a ~,~ ° w~~ ° ~~~,,~~~ ~ ° o y UO o ~ , ~ o o ~ ~" ~ a~i ~ ~ ~~ o c awUd c t7a w. t7 c ~--+ N ~--~ N M 'cr ~--~ N M ~ ~ ~O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N M M M M ~~~~~ ~}' O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ .~ ~ Q ~ ~ }fir `~ N ~ ~ N ~ F• N Q ~ U ~ ~ 'b ~ 'O 'J .y °~'•~ ~U ~ ~ w N x x Q ~r i ~ N •Y U] M+ti '~ ~. •,:, 0 o .~ ~a;v°~Ua~.~Sv°~ c a ~--~ M ~ ~ ~O l~ 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~--~ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O v a ` R ~ E o y q c c o O ~O N Np Y a C e .0 p N L K W W R 7 Ca M ~ ~ ~ ~ /^ 'fl N ro .N. ~ L ~ a. ~ ca a E d c 7 cC u ~ u W C C~ .~ ..w bD it O b CC O ai O r..+ b O I U N N M ~D 7 o u V y ~ u 3 L R ~, a q .o ~ ~ C ~ W W ~ o~ N O_ H M O ti 'L7 K W b O .~ L1w s C O 7 0 ai +. L 0 Gri v C eCc a R E H = V W u ~ ~ t 9 C C o u ~ a W v b0 9 0 Cq 'O c 0 w sue. d a C7 0 0 C 0 f~ N oo pp O ~--~ O N O O l~ ~° O O ~n ,.ti [~ ~--~ •-+ O O •--~ l~ N N ~° l~ l~ O O l~ N ~ N ~ M M 00 M N 'ch l~ M .-~ M •-1 ~-~+ ~--i ~D O .-~ 7 °~ °~ O N ~n N M 0 0 0 O ~• O 7 N l~ O ~ M oo .--~ O ~ N ~n O O O O o0 O O O M l~ ~--~ ~ ~-+ v'~ °~ O ~O M .~ M O O O l~ V1 00 M Ui O ~t 00 Vl M vl \° O O 00 ~--~ O O N M ~ OO M Vi ~n ~ Q^ O O N ~ O~ _ °~ ~ O~ O O N ~O o0 ~ 00 ~ ~O M O M l~ M l~ O ~° °~ I~ O ~--~ ~° .ti ~h l~ N M N N l~ ~O o0 00 •-+ Vl ct N~ O~ °~ b N O M O ~ ~D ct' N 00 ~ ~ ~ .--~ ~ ~ v1 N O ~--~ M ~--~ ^~ M ~° [~ N ~° ~D ~--i .~ ~--~ O ~ oo .--~ O~ O ~ v1 0o M O O O ~ ~° v'~ .~ ~° O ~ .--~ .--~ v~ O o0 ~t ~ •--~ O O O O °~ ~ l~ ~ M l~ ~ 00 O ~ O N v1 00 l~ O O O ~ v'~ °~ ~ M V1 [~ ~O ~' N O Vl N M ~-+ l~ vl 00 N N 00 .ti °~ l~ 00 .--~ ~ Vl °~ O o0 v1 N (~ M ~ .--~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ N N N ~D 'fit ~-+ v~ M M ~ 00 ~ N .~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ O N ~° O~ 'ct oo M M ~ N ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ M r" ~ O N O O O~ O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O .~ O O N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O ~ rno er oo~o r 000000 0 00 0 ~o N ~ ~ ~ v l M H r O '~, l~ O t~ 00 v1 O O M ~ ~' 7 0 0 0 M '~'~ ~n O M ', °~ O N N ~--~ M O l~ M ~° °~ O O O O~ N l~ O O N l~ ~ '~t H M O .-~ N M O O O O ~O •--~ °~ .-i O\ N ~D O O ~--~ l~ O~ 00 °~ ~--~ vl M ~ ~ rr N 00 O oo O 00 ~D o0 ~D [~ O i ~ 0 0 M ~ .--. ^ ~' V' ~O M M ~D °\ ~-r N 00 O O ^~ M ~--~ N ~--~ N 00 l~ O ~ N O oo O O O O ~° O O O ~O O vl ~ V i M O O\ v'~ O [~ O M h 0 ~--~ O O O 00 O l~ h ~ ~--~ 00 N °~ ~° M O O\ 00 O O O O O 00 ,--i ~ 00 00 ~° ~--~ ~ O~ ~ ~ ~--~ N N O °~ O O O ~--i O ~--~ ~ ~ ~ N 00 ~--~ ~ l~ ~n O~ 00 O .-. O O O O M •-+ ~ 00 ^~ l~ ~ ~n °~ v~ ~' ~ 00 ~n .--i O O ~O M N ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 M 00 V 00 ~f! l° M 00 O (~ O In l~ O~ ~C .--~ N try .-i ~--~ N ~ [~ [~ N ~° ~O M ~--i ceS t. ~+ ~ U C d E ~ ~ °~ s.1 ~ qy ~ v o ~ P ~ o ~ y "d U ~ CS ..' , ~ ~ o o x ~ ~ ~ o ° ' + A ~ y ~, ~ r ~. ~ ~ N ~ N ~ cC ~ . y „ •" F y ° ° N W ~ Y ~ E a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A n ~ ~ ~ o ~ Q Pa ~ O W '~ >, i r, ~. C ~' ~ o ~ O a~ '~ ° ' ° o ~ o a~ o ° ~ ss. • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ; ~ o . .-1U o c ~ Q,UWU c WCa~E~~U o ~~ c N M O O N M ~n 0 0 0 0 N M ch ~° [~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ rn O O 0 F '~ O V ACTION NO. ITEM NO. """' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002 AGENDA ITEM: Work session with citizen group to discuss draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) regarding I-73 APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for a work session as requested by a citizen group to discuss the Environmental Statement from VDOT. It was the consensus of the Board at the November 5, 2002 meeting to schedule this work session. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 RESOLUTION 111902-8 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Closed Meeting File A-111902-9 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 1~ - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002 AGENDA ITEM: Presentation from the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Unit and the Marine Corps League and appropriation of $7,000 proceeds from the 7th Annual Marine Mud Run SUBMITTED BY: Pete Haislip Director -Parks, Recreation & Tourism APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~Cl~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: For the past seven years the Marine Corps Reserve Unit, Company B, 4th Combat Engineer Battalion and the Marine Corps League, in cooperation with the Roanoke County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism and many other corporate sponsors, have sponsored the Mud Run in Green Hill Park. The event is designed to raise funds for the Toys for Tots program and Camp Roanoke. This event continues to be one of the largest and most successful running events in the Valley and has received wonderful media support from around the state. It is a family event that includes runners from ages three years old to the 70's. This year the contribution to Camp Roanoke from the Marines was $7,000, which brings the total amount contributed to $34,200. Attending the meeting to make the presentation of the check will be Marine Corp League Commandant Mike Shepherd; Captain Kevin Harbison, Inspector Instructor B Company; Staff Sargeant Guzman, Toys for Tots Coordinator; Fred Doyle, Past Commandant; and James Stokes, Marine Corps League. The County is deeply grateful to the Marine Corps League and the U. S. Marine Corps Reserve Unit for their financial support of Camp Roanoke over the years and will present to them Certificates of Recognition expressing our appreciation. FISCAL IMPACT: The funds will be added to the Camp Roanoke renovation fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board accept the $7,000 check and appropriate the funds to the Camp Roanoke renovation fund, and that the Marine Corps Reserve Unit and Marine Corps League be presented Certificates of Recognition for their financial support of Camp Roanoke for seven years. VOTE: Supervisor Church motion to approve staff recommendation. Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ cc: File Pete Haislip, Director, Parks, Recreation & Tourism, Danial Morris, Director, Finance a .~ R- CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION AON~4R®ED T® LJ. S. MAI~II`IE C~I~PS KESEKYE I~I~IIT In appreciation of their continued support of Camp Roanoke ^ For the past seven years, the Marine Corps Reserve Unit, Company B, 4cn Combat Engineer Battalion, and the Marine Corps League, in cooperation with the Roanoke County Department of Parks, Recreation L~ Tourism and other corporate sponsors, have hosted the Marine Mud Run in Green riill Park. ^ This event is designed to raise funds for the Toys for Tots Program and Camp Roanoke. ^ This event continues to be one of the largest and most successful running events in the Valley, receiving media support from around the state and includes rtmners from ages three years to the 70's. ^ The contribution from the Marines this year was $7,000 and brings the total amount contributed to $34,200 °~~°~~}ed this a.0`" day of November, 2002. ~3. ~~~~ ~ '~~ oseph B. "Butch" Church, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator .~ ~A~~~~1 Q~ ~i?~2-tom C~ K ~- CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION AwAR®E® To lyiAl~II~E C(1KP~ LE.~,C~j.JE In appreciation of their continued support of Camp Roanoke ^ For the past seven years, the Marine Corps Reserve Unit, Company B, 4`" Combat Engineer Battalion, and the Marine Corps League, in cooperation with the Roanoke County Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism and other corporate sponsors, have hosted the Marine Mud Run in Green Hill Park. ^ This event is designed to raise funds for the Toys far Tots Program and Camp Roanoke. ^ This event continues to be one of the largest and most successful running events in the Valley, receiving media support from around the state and includes runners from ages three years to the 70's. ^ The contribution from the Marines this year was $7,000 and brings the total amount contributed to $34,200. °~~~~~`.ed this 19`" day of lYovember, 2002. ~3. ~~~~ ~~~~~~ sep B. "Butch" Church, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (~~~+'rii/ "' ~ Elmer C. Bodge, County Administrator vy ~,i ~~l a;. ~a~" ~~ f _ ~ ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 RESOLUTION 111902-10 FOR APPROVAL OF COUNTY-STATE AGREEMENT WITH THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS -EXTENSION OF INDIAN GRAVE ROAD AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND REMOVAL OF THE BRIDGE AND A PORTION OF CLEARBROOK LANE WHEREAS, Title 33.1 of the Code of Virginia provides for the availability of funds for implementing approved improvements to public streets to enhance and promote economic and industrial development and continued public safety along public streets; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County is desirous of developing the Clearbrook/Indian Grave Road area of Roanoke County for the purpose of job creation for the citizens of the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has approved this project; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has estimated the cost of these projects to be $1.6 million; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Administrator or his designee to enter into a County-State agreement allowing the County to advertise, bid, award, and administer the construction contract for certain road improvements to Indian Grave Road (Project #0675-080-320, C501) for the extension of Indian Grave Road and for intersection improvements, and for removal of the bridge and a portion of Clearbook Lane (Project #0674-080-319, N501, B689), said contract to be on a form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None A OPY TESTE: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Virginia Department of Transportation Paul M Mahoney, County Attorney 2 2 -_ _ ~ l ~ ~~ -~ ~• ~ ~• ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~' w / v. ~ r = ~ c j ~ / °~n~ ~ ! x L~ /f `~/ ~ ~~°S~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S -'''`rte ~~ *~ a ~''t ~ r'' \ ~,~ j `O~ ~ f~ N / / f ~ F ~./ ~ ~ 0 /f \ / ~~/ ~' .~ 1 A w L / ~ yC ,~ -';i` ~ m INDIAN GRAVE & ROUTE 220 i 0 i1,.~~~i~ ';,~ p INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ,~'` r ~ a ,s } >iO /1/ 1 't` m i 1 m !/'' i O ~s~~`s / / ~ ~" r i ,,1 .. ~ .. ~ ~ ,.i_ ~ ~ 1ti ~.~ D~1'C NOVi103~ !4.200@ SC~I,L 1'200' ~ ~ _ -- is -~~- ~ ~ ,` ~-~ a •\ -- ~ o> ~ / ~ ~-• ~ 4~ - O ' ~~ ~ ~ ~. _ ~g _, ~ _ =Z . ~ ''~" ,mow. _ ~ g o -: _- ~`~m~, ~ pDO Z _~.k. m b` ~ ~ a. g ~ i / / a~s° ~ ; ~ . , \ ~ Qa~* Q Z ~ A , O ` o ~ ~ ~ :" ~ ~! ~~ -~ ~ t. ~~ ;~ i ~ 0 a r ~ ~ ' A ~ ,~ ~ ~~ , a ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.:~ J` A ~ ~~ ~~ ~- m ~ • ~ ~ ~ •~• ' \ m y. O ~ ~' , s ~ w V / `' ~ D O ~O ~ m m c a r ~~ ~ ~.. .., ~ ^~ ~. ~ •' '' -~~ ;r,,,,r .: _- • • - INDIAN GRAVE & ROUTE 220 O ~..\-• - - ~\ INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS •\ ~\ :/ •' 0 1~ O ~~_ __~ __n 1` DATC NOV~i®LR 1,8008 8CAi1 1'800' ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ "~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: November 19, 2002 Request for a resolution approving an agreement between the County of Roanoke and the Virginia Department of Transportation for the following projects: Extension of Indian Grave Road and Intersection Improvements (Project No. 0675- 080-320,0501, B690) and removal of the Bridge and a portion of Clearbrook Lane (Project No. 0674-080-319,M501,B689). Arnold Covey Director of Community Development Elmer C. Hodge ~Cla County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: This agenda item will authorize the Community Development staff to obtain bids, administer the project, and proceed with the project if it is within the funding already appropriated. Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, will be asking the Board for approval of the first reading of an ordinance to obtain the necessary easements and rights-of-way later in the agenda. In the past, Vine & Branch and Mike Wray and Ron Jackson have agreed to donate rights-of-way for the project. Currently we have not been able to reach agreement with the third party, Dr. Resk. If we are unsuccessful in getting the properties donated by the time the project is ready to be awarded, I am asking permission to install the light as a three-way intersection and allow the property owners to add to the light and the road when they have an economic development project. BACKGROUND: This project began as an economic development opportunity when the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was going to construct a new office. However, this project also improved the safety of the intersection and the existing Indian Grave Road for Clearbrook Elementary School, Clearbrook Fire & Rescue Station, and a Roanoke County park. In the last few weeks, DMV has notified us that the project will not be built due to budgetary constraints. It is desirable to proceed with this project anyway because of the safety issues, increased traffic, and the opportunity to open the land for economic development. ~" The Board of Supervisors approved the Indian Grave Road and Route 220 intersection improvement as part of Roanoke County's Six Year Secondary Construction Plan for Fiscal Year 2002-2008 on December 19, 2001. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In order for the County to expedite this project and receive reimbursement of project costs from VDOT, it is necessary for the County to enter into an "Agreement for Highway Project Administration by County of Roanoke" with the Virginia Department of Transportation. This agreement will allow the County to advertise, bid, award, and administer the construction contract. If this project were to go through the normal six-year secondary road process, it would take anywhere from five to ten years before all the necessary plans, specifications and funding would be available to proceed with construction. As we have done with several other projects, staff is requesting that the Board of Supervisors approve the attached resolution authorizing the County Administrator to enter into an agreement for County project administration of Indian Grave Road and Route 220 intersection improvements (Project No. 0675-080-320,C501,B690) and removal of the bridge and a portion of Clearbrook Lane (Project No. 0675-080-319,M501,B689). Hayes, Seay, Mattern &Mattern have completed the construction plans and Roanoke County is now ready to send the construction plans out for bids. As stated earlier, the Board has already appropriated $450,000 in revenue sharing funds which has been matched by the State for this project. The Board also appropriated $300,000 for a total of $1.2 million. According to our consultant and based on the current economic conditions, it may be possible to construct the entire project for the budgeted amount. Staff is currently working with seven property owners (excluding the County properties) to obtain the necessary easements and rights-of-way for this project. Because of the benefit the adjacent property owners will receive from these improvements, Roanoke County is requiring that all easements and rights-of-way be donated. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt the attached resolution, approving the resolution and agreement so that the project may move forward to construction. 2. Do not approve the agreement and defer construction of the project at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the attached resolution and authorize the County Administrator to enter into an agreement for County Project Administration of this project. ~~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF COUNTY-STATE AGREEMENT WITH THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS -EXTENSION OF INDIAN GRAVE ROAD AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND REMOVAL OF THE BRIDGE AND A PORTION OF CLEARBROOK LANE WHEREAS, Title 33.1 of the Code of Virginia provides for the availability of funds for implementing approved improvements to public streets to enhance and promote economic and industrial development and continued public safety along public streets; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County is desirous of developing the Clearbrook/Indian Grave Road area of Roanoke County for the purpose of job creation for the citizens of the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has approved this project; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has estimated the cost of these projects to be $1.6 million; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Administrator or his designee to enter into a County-State agreement allowing the County to advertise, bid, award, and administer the construction contract for certain road improvements to Indian Grave Road (Project #0675-080-320, C501) for the extension of Indian Grave Road and for intersection improvements, and for removal of the bridge and a portion of Clearbook Lane (Project 1 r #0674-080-319, N501, 6689), said contract to be on a form approved by the County Attorney. ~~ ''~ .~ ~~ ~ ~~ A , . . ~~ ~ o ~g - - ; ~ g \... ~ ~ / ~ - _ ~$ ~~ N o ~ a.., ~ ~ ; ~, ~- ~ , i' ~ ~ _ .~' ~' o~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ' m e ~ `o Q. ~. ~ . ~' a ~, any z ~ 4`:. 9 F~ l~ /^\ O -.. ~ " ~i ~ ~ r`~:'` n ~ - r ~ ~W3B O • ~ a x`NN~W . / . . tp~ ~M ~ O x !' rodoi Q - ydN ~ O~ ! d~ ~ / / a`0o o ~\ i'~ ;~ g ~ ~~ 0 P y 70 w ~ !~ ~ ~ /• m~ _ ~ J~ i A ',. P \ / \ ~ ~ w / n 0 \ m ~ o ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ ~. a o~ m . r ~ /' .. _ .\ C O / _. _.._ L.J . • , _ • ' ' _ • ' -- _ _ .: - INDIAN GRAVE & ROUTE 220 ~ . •\ "~• ~ - ~' "~ ~ \ INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ~4 a Oo~ ~~~ ~ ~~ O / \ ~ -~ DATE MOVLC103LR 14,E008 8CAI7: 1•~E00~ ~ _ o ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~" ' ~-' ~' a AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of and dedication of certain real estate and necessary easements for the construction of the Indian Grave Road Extension and U.S. Route 220 Intersection Improvements SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~Cl-~' County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This ordinance will allow staff to authorize the documents and take necessary actions to acquire the following properties for the Indian Grave Road Extension and Intersection Improvements project. Tax Ma Number Owner 088.03-01-06 Mod-Kraf Homes Inc. 088.03-01-01.02 James R. Jackson & Michael A. Wra 088.03-01-01.01 Vine & Branch Inc. 088.03-01-01 Joan M. Resk 098.02-02-01.01 Indian Grave Partnershi 098.01-01-75 Milton J. Miller 098.02-02-01 Joel R. & Ann Claire She erd 098.01-01-75.01 Roanoke Count School Board 098.01-01-74 Roanoke Co. Board of Su ervisors 098.01-01-01 Roanoke Co. Board of Su ervisors G-~ FISCAL IMPACT: Staff is currently pursuing the donation of right-of-way and easements for the project. Should right-of-way or easements have to be purchased, additional Board action will be required at that time. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the ordinance authorizing acquisition of the above properties. 2. Decline the ordinance at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1. ~~i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF AND DEDICATION OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE AND NECESSARY EASEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDIAN GRAVE ROAD EXTENSION AND U.S. ROUTE 220 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, plans for the extension of and improvements to Indian Grave Road at its intersection with U.S. Route 220 have been completed and the project will require acquisition of and dedication of certain real estate and necessary easements across certain properties; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition of or dedication of any interest in real estate be accomplished by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors declares this real estate to be surplus, and is available for other public purposes, namely, for public highway purposes; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 19, 2002; and the second reading was held on December 3, 2002; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition of certain real estate and necessary easements for the construction of the Indian Grave Road Extension and U. S. Route 220 intersection improvements is hereby authorized across the following properties, referenced by tax map number, from the property owners, their successors or assigns: 1 ~-i Tax Map No. Owner 88.03-1-6 Mod-U-Kraf Homes, Inc. 88.03-1-1.2 James R. Jackson & Michael A. Wray 88.03-1-1.1 Vine & Branch, Inc. 88.03-1-1 Joan M. Resk 98.02-2-1.1 Indian Grave Partnership 98.01-1-75 Milton J. Miller 98.02-2-1 Joel R. & Ann Claire Sheperd 98.0101-75.1 Roanoke County School Board 2. That the acquisition of the real estate described in paragraph 1, either by acceptance of donations of the real estate or upon the payment of nominal consideration, is hereby approved and authorized. 3. That the consideration for each real estate and easement acquisition shall be the payment of nominal consideration of $10.00 cash and the promise of Board of Supervisors to construct a new street and related improvements on the property; and 4. That the dedication of the real estate described in paragraph 1, as well as a portion of certain real estate owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, referenced by tax map number set out below, to the Commonwealth of Virginia, is hereby authorized: Tax Map No. 98.01-1-74 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Tax Map No. 98.01-1-1 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 5. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such 2 G-i 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. 3 A-1 1 1 902-1 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. S - 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: November 19, 2002 Second reading of ordinance to rezone 22.743 acres from AR Agricultural Residential District to R-1 Low Density Residential District for development of single family housing located at Virginia Secondary Route 688 (Cotton Hill Road) and Raintree Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Cotton Hill Land Company, LC. Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community Development Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Applicant has requested that this matter be referred back to the Planning Commission to evaluate their request for a reconsideration. VOTE: Supervisor Minnix motion to deny request to return the matter to the Planning Commission. Motion approved by following vote: Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Janet Scheid, Chief Planner Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney • Lew OXV[OrtH OSTERFIOi7DT, FRYY.T~AMA:r~, MATT, HELSC~IER, YOST, MAXwF.L z. & FERGL'SON, PI.C EdNrard A. Natt Please reply to: P, 0. Box 20487 Roanoke, VA 24018 direct: (540) 725-8180 Fax: (540)772-0126 E-mall: enatt(~opnlaw,corc~ 391 LLEO'IHIU ROAD, S,~V. P. 0. Bow ~0~~87 RO,aNOKE, V1xu1NIa..'.~L01A • On4.A (64U) HSA-C7Of10 November 13, 2002 Janet Scheid, ChiE:f Planner Department of Community Development Planning and Zoning Division County of Roanoke P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Re: Rezoning Request -Cotton Hill Land Company Dear Ms. Scheid: S-f Sea.sxi, V7Rf:TN1A •.<5163 P. (1. AOx 27D ton N. CVLVIUDV Srnaar (.5•iot 39o-esoo F~.R (510! 390-OObi) This letter is written to request that the Roanoke County Planning Commission reconsider the application of Cotton Hill Land Company to rezone 22.743 acres on Cotton Hill Road firom Agricultural Residential AR to Low Density Residential R-1. The matter was heard by the Roanoke County Planning Commission at its meeting on November 5, 2002. The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the request. Several concerns and issues were raised at the Planning Commission meeting which were not addressed in the Staff Report and had not been considered by the applicant at and cluring the time of its application. Normally, when this happens, the applicant is given an opportunity to continue the public hearing for a month in order to attempt to addres:~ the concerns. My clients were not afforded that opportunity at the public hearing on November 5th. Therefore, we would respectfully request that the Planning Commis:~ion, at its December 2002 meeting, vote to reconsider the request of Cotton Hill Land Company. It would be my understanding that if the Planning Commission so acts, the matter would be rescheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commis:>ion at its January 2003 meeting and that the Board of Supervisors would then consider the matter at its January 28, 2003 meeting. Pursuant to my earlier conversations with David Holladay in your office, we have requested that thE; legal notice for the public hearing scheduled before the Board of Supervisors on December 19t" be cancelled and that the matter not be heard at that time. He indicatelj to me that he would take the necessary steps to see that the legal NOU-13-2002 a8~36 O~TERHOUDI Janet Scheid, Chi~af Planner Department of Community Development ~"` Planning and Zoning Division J` County of Roanoke Page 2 November 13, 2002 ad was withdrawn. Based upon this request, we will not appear at the December 19~' Board of Supervisors m®eting, as no action can be taken since the matter was not completely advertised. It is my further understanding that if the Board of Supervisors does not refer the matter back to they Planning Commission and/or the Planning Commission does not vote to reconsider, my clients could still proceed with advertising the public hearing before the Board of SupE~rvisors at the January 28, 2003 meeting. Should you need further information or have additional questions, please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, OSTERHOUDT, PRILLAMAN, NATT, HELSCHER, YOST, MAXWELL & FERGUSON, P.L.C. (~ ~~ r ~1 ~~v" Edward A. Natt EAN/csb pc: VIA FAGSIMILE: 772-2108 Mr. David Holladay Zoning Adirinistrator, Chief Planner Department of Planning and Zoning County of I~oanoke TOTAL P.03 PETITIONER: Cotton Hill Land Company, LC ~.- CASE NUMBER: 23-1012002 Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 5, 2002 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: November 19, 2002 A. REQUEST The petition of Cotton Hill Land Company, LC to Rezone 22.743 acres from AR Agricultural Residential District to R-1 Low Density Residential District for a development of single family housing located at Virginia Secondary Route 688 (Cotton Hill Road) and Raintree Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Approximately 15 citizens expressed concerns regarding increased traffic, the status of improvements to Cotton Hill Road, conflicts with the Community Plan, decrease of wildlife habitat, overcrowded schools, and possible damage to current wells near the proposed development. Several citizens also expressed concerns regarding the future of the nearby Roanoke Wildlife Rescue facility. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Chris Lowe presented the staff report. Mr. Witt began the discussion among the Planning Commission by stating that a line had to be drawn somewhere concerning approving higher density developments within areas that are not designated so and do not have the public facilities and infrastructure to support them. Mr. Witt declared that Cotton Hill would be a good start. Mr. Witt said that the other side of Cotton Hill was primarily zoned R-1 and had higher density development occurring. Mr. Witt then said that this side of Cotton Hill was exclusively AR and this rezoning would set a precedent for the other properties along this side of the road. Mr. Witt made a motion to forward a unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Hooker stated that the proffers submitted by the applicant provide some control on the way this development can occur, specifically concerning entrances and driveways. Mr. Robinson concurred with Ms. Hooker. Mr. Ross had concerns about incompatibility with the surrounding AR zoning and incompatibility with the Community Plan. D. CONDITIONS 1. There will be no driveways from Cotton Hill Road. 2. There will be one entrance to the subdivision from Cotton Hill Road. 3. The property will be developed to a maximum extent of 2.75 lots per acre. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt made a motion to deny the request. Motion carried 4-1. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission STAFF REPORT Petitioner: Cotton Hill Land Company, LC C/O Steve Strauss, P.O. Box 20287 Roanoke, VA 24018 Request: Rezoning from AR to R-1 Location: Va. Sec. Rt. 688 (Cotton Hill Road} and Raintree Road Magisterial District: Cave Spring Proffers: 1. There will be no driveways from Cotton Hill Road. 2. There will be one entrance to the subdivision from Cotton Hill Road. 3. The property will be developed to a maximum extent of 2.751ots per ac. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a rezoning request from AR to R-1 for 22.743 acres, at Cotton Hill Road. The property is zoned AR, Agriculture Residential and is designated as Development in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The petitioner requests to rezone the entire tract. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Building Permit for Single Family Home Required. V DOT Entrance Approval Required. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS United States Department of Interior -The petitioned property lies to the north and down slope from the Parkway. Between the Parkway road and the petitioned property there is a fairly dense wooded area and Raintree Road, all within the Parkway's property. This provides a substantial visual buffer for travelers using both the Parkway motor road and Parkway overlook. Utility rights-of--way will not be required of the National Park Service, so there will be no direct or secondary impacts from that use. The Parkway requests that the Parkway boundary be clearly surveyed and marked by the developers on proposed lots, which share a common property line with the Parkway. The National Park Service's major concern is the continued growth on Cotton Hill Road and the inevitable need to improve this secondary road. With that eventual improvement will come the need to remove and rebuild the parkway overpass. Topog_raph~~etation -The property has a ridge, which runs from south to north down the center of the property. The property drops 100' from the top of this ridge in the south east corner to the northwest corner. Swales run along both sides of the ridge following Cotton Hill Road to the north and Sylvan Brook Road to the south. East Tennessee Natural Gas has a 50' easement ~ from the northwest portion of the property to the western edge of the property. The property is ~' mostly open field with sporadic bushes and a tree line to the rear of the property. Surrounding Neighborhood -This property adjoins AR zoned residential properties to the Southeast, Southwest, West, and Northwest ranging from 3-acre lots to'/4 acre lots. Across Cotton Hill Road are R-1 zoned residential properties ranging from 1/3-acre lots to 1-acre lots. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Background -Current conceptual plans show a subdivision ranging from 44 to 57 lots. Anticipated use is asingle-family neighborhood, which will fit into the existing community. The proffered condition allows a maximum of 62 lots. Site Layout/Architecture -The conceptual plans show two different possible layouts. One has a main arterial drive with lots placed along this road. The second conceptual plan shows one main arterial drive with multiple cul-de-sacs accessed off this arterial. Both plans access Cotton Hill and are aligned with Monet Drive. Most lots show approximately 85' of frontage. No architecture plans have been submitted. Access/Traffic Circulation - V DOT states that the development of this single-family residential subdivision will have an impact on the peak hour traffic. Traffic on Cotton Hill Road is 2,300 VPD. Increased traffic as a result of this development would be approximately 440-620 additional vehicle trips per day. As a minimum a right turn lane will be required for the new entrance. Additional right of way will be needed for construction of this turn lane. The development of the proposed entrance will need to include the development potential for the property south of the Parkway. A left turn may also be required. Fire & Rescue/LTtilities -Fire and rescue services will continue, as they currently exist. Public water and sanitary sewer is currently available. This petition does not affect the existing public water and sanitary sewer systems. Department of Economic Development -The Department of Economic does not object to the rezoning request from the petitioners to rezone from AR to R-l. Long-Range Impacts -Cumulative long-range impacts of this proposed subdivision as well as others, include impacts on school populations and attendance zones, road improvements, parks and recreation facilities, emergency services and other general services such as trash collection and libraries. The Park Service has noted in their comments their concern about road improvements and the subsequent impacts on Blue Ridge Parkway facilities; the school administration has recently dealt, at least in the short-run, with overcrowding at Back Creek Elementary by shifting school attendance zones. There is the recognition on the part of staff that continued residential growth has a direct impact on school capacities and other capital improvement needs such as roads and park facilities. These capital improvement needs must be met in order to maintain a high quality of life in Roanoke County. 2 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN S-' The site is designated as Development in the 1998 Community Plan. Development designated land use areas are where most new neighborhood development will occur, including large-scale planned developments which mix residential, retail and office uses. Innovation in housing design, environmental sensitivity by incorporating natural features and resources within the developed area, greenways and bike and pedestrian trails are all key objectives of the Development designation. Clustered developments are also encouraged. Without additional information from the petitioner it is not possible to determine whether or not this proposed development meets these objectives or not. Land use types, which fall under the designation of Development, are Conventional Residential, Cluster Residential, Multi-Family, Planned Residential Development, Planned Community Development, and Community Activity Centers. The proposed petition would fall under the land use type designation of Conventional Residential. This would include single-family developments in conventional lots, which include attached, detached, and zero lot line housing options. This petition is consistent with the Development designation of the Roanoke County Community Plan. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS This is a request to obtain a rezoning from AR to R-l. The request involves a 22.743 acre tract off of Cotton Hill Road. The petitioner's request is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Roanoke County Community Plan. The site has ample space to conform to all applicable development standards. No negative impacts are anticipated. CASE NUMBER: 23-10/2002 PREPARED BY: Chris Lowe HEARING PC: October 1, 2002 BOS: October 22, 2002 DATES: A County of Roanoke . Community Development .Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive P O Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 Fur Staff Use Onlv Date received: Received by: ~,~ Application lee: PC!BZA date: Placards issued: I BOS date: Case number i 1~'LL ,4~PPLICAiti I'S Check type of application filed (check all that apply) Q Rezoning O Special Use O Variance ~fYfA~CT : FTJWARD A. NATI", 3 912 ELECTRIC R(l~D, RQMI01(~ VA 2 4018 72 5- 818 0 Applicants name/address w/zip one' Cotton Hill Land Company, l.lC 772-0126 c/o Steve Strauss, P. O. Box 20287 Fax No. Roanoke VA 24018 Owner's name/address w/zip Phone: Same as above Fax No. Property Location Magisterial District: Cave S r i Va. Sec. Rte. 688 and Ra i nt ree Road Community Planning area: .Back Creek ~Iap No.: - 096.02-01-33 Existing Zoning: AR (Airy i cu ! tuna I . Res i den Size of parcel(s): Acres: 22, 743 Existing Land Use: vacant 1 ;. , _ I~'E`ZONING;~.VD SPECK L'SE PERYIIT ~iPPLI~'.=1:~VTS (RD'S) Proposed Zoning: R1 (Low Density Res i dent i a I ) Proposed Land Use: residential - s i l e-fami I Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes ~ No Q IF NO, A VARIANCE iS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes ~ No ~ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes ~' No O _ .: k:4RIAIVCE .~PPLIC~ti'Z'S Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: I Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WII,L NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE iVIISSING OR INCOMPLETE. i V R/ V V X Consultation 8 1!2" x 11" concept plan Application fee X ~ Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable X justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners reby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner s agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and sent of the owner. , ~~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~°~ ~ ~"~y ~, ~.~-C..W~~ Owner's Signature .iusTIrI,e~TIC~N port ~zc~~~~~U,oR.s>?~caA~,.s~ P~Rn~~ R~Qu~sT Applicant Cotton Hill Land Company, L.C. Th~- nning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit requests to determine the need and justification for the chali5.: in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. The zoning of land in the subject area is basically single family residential. The entire area has been developed as a close-knit com~-xariity of single family homes. The proposed zoning adds to this existing use in this area. Please explain how the project conforms to the general gsidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. The guidelines and policies in the County's Comprehensive Plan call for appropriate uses of property so that they fit into a com~riunity. The use of the subject property as single family residential will continue the development of the subject area as single family residential. Appropriate utilities are available for the development. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County designates this property as development. Single family residential development, i.n a variety of formats, is strongly recommended in the development area. Thus, the single family residential zoning is a most appropriate zoning for this use. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. The physical impact on the adjoining properties will be minimal as the development will continue the single family residential growth in the area. Public utilities and facilities in the area have been and are being developed to serve the property. Therefore, no negative impact is expected from the development of the property as sirx,~le family residential. ~' ~1 1 w _ j F _ ' ~ ~ N~ ~ ~ Ua :7 W ~ ~-. ~, ~r Z ~z ~~~ m U o ~;~ ~~ Y ~ ~ < ° ~ a W ~ r~ " "W ~ ~ ~ CJos a as ~ ° Ca ~ a w=`.~ <~ NZ c pw a a _ ~ ~~ ~, cn >z ~o x J ~ N d ~ W ~ OQ Z Y N Qi V] z ~ ~~~ ° d `~ ~ v U U ~ o< az Z~o¢ a a~°~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~c7 W ~~ O rW W Z. ~z ~ ~~_a Q z z a w ~~~ Yips ~ w m=~~~qq ~~ ~ ~S- 1 ~ Z Zr~W,'~~~~O ~a ~ p' ~ !^?a~ WW (,~Wy~ya ad y3 n m ~ ~ ,~]F~ O << p°WyW~ ^ U~°< ~ <~ O i-IAm 3 O K r ~ ~m~~~~ ~1~<g a~ ~~Z~Z g??~yy~~~~~~~~~~ na ~W1 Fr~gvit~s~y? ~wiZlyJ~~<~W~~~$~~ a _ r€~~=0~~2~Z`d'~ZSW ~~ ~m hnoNpS Ymnmb Mmm^mpmp y>~1'm~nn ~~UrIW~<~<F-O~~C1~r Un (!~ N =nYf mp,p Q^,~NCON VIm Om.-,O ip ~~ xyaj0 OW < f YmOm,mnnOnO^b m mmn Z d O'~~`/'N~Np m•~m~xMq~mnY ~~~ 2m26~. g~~m~>.~ H~ I„~8 ~n~^r^~bmO~N ~~Nm Wpm W --~~ ci o ~ .- .- ~ .- .. ~ .- < fag°?~$z~~a~i'g'~~ oN Cm n 4a~Nte Q ~ i` ~. o~ °~~<zW`^~$F~~mz~a ~m Oz o°mH~^e~~Hmm~mOmiO,^~o N ° m« ~ 1~ aaO p, Z< p~ V° z^$mmommn'g&mm~inor~~ ~ m ''~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~~~CZ>=RUp~002'~O°zx~n ~~ ~n4p Oi ~GW^f~~,p l~(J /1 IG „f .~Oi lV M1 W (• 0w q 5_ O• ° ~ ~jmm ntpptpp I~pp~NYNnn ~OpI•NwNNmm ~ ,d W Z Vt ya aao~aa~a ~U. ~,N=]W~^ C~ zapmm~m?WO, O,Om~mmmomDmm J '{'0 2 F'~ZF~~~}~~ia=FK€~m=~~~a =z~ ro MRR'0~ O 2_:cJ Niv vi u O~ g {{!!~~ y WW G~G S~ ri 0yyy~~~~ UyN~~mIM~ N W8U1 ~Ua Y,~f ~ ^ ~°m~~maY~OKm~3E ~ i~ ~r< ~ F_ ~~~~Z€im~eZ ~F~w~ ~N OF W~FB- =FF ~ ~ w z z j a c~ m~~ ~ 8 am o '^ $ ~ Z x~IO_zi5 _.. 8~6<3 ~ °z °og° i°o~w r r S Gw~~uniiWnWir1 ~,~~<~ q ~ ~~uri2S a ~ o`~?i a o ~ ~ 0. ~€~~m~~<~m <~~~5 LS r °z< °N z ~13~ ~ Y rmZMYg ~m ~<ZF~4~~ <~~~t~i ®Q ~Z ~ i ~~~ z ~ ~a ~a ~y < W F Q4~O ~ ,: ~ F m 200 O<~~' WT~~yW W IF/1 WW 41~ _ ~ Z ~W~ y v ~~ ~~ ~Om y~ !`~`~,,,~~~, O 1~ ~ ~ x O y W ° m O W 'Soo~g~~m~oi ~~3~a O d ~3 y d ~ z < ~O zz F~ ~_Z <Z ~7s ~ _~~~ c~a<an ~l~itrc mw~ _ µ~yyi~~FQ ~ JF ~ > ~;ro 7W~ W 5<~8 cue ~S pB J 3~j~Om~~W~a Z~Q°~ ~~ ~ t`,G8 ~~ Q J ~ O~ yl~~< yf W ya~ ~~ ~U Q >~m~=a W p~ o~.IrrZ z '' < wxo W c~k' ~ to `C <~a °l~ 3 z°~WIF/IW~~Y ~x~o~ ~~ FW- ~_~ ~ ~ ~~g~ ~ w _ ri M Y ~ac~<d~~C=~~ ~F~ia~1~ ?z2 0 o to :~i`~~ ~ rA _~'i's< s ~~ .~ Z W ~ w ` w a J Z a ~ z vai a a c~ C T~ e° t 1~?~V3 Q ~r U / / f, ~ a 5~ 8 g ~ 8 ~ 8 f O N O r~I n " b n ~ h h Y p p N n 0 n qg i.S ~ N ~ 1pp 1 O O K ~n N v1 0 N o m OO N Y ~ 4 S r c3 2 6 V ...1 ; W W w W w W 3 W W 3 3 ; ~ ; ; ; m ~ ~O Zp F p O pp O S p O N N N N O O ~mn H N VI ' h ° N %1 h N Q~"' W ro Y {~ $ f m ~V f p p p ~ n ~ X ~ n ,g , } yn y~ u~ I Z K g N n I~ Y IO m n p m ~ in n n u~ n n g m o m ~ ~ ~ ~+ io e n m J = O Z 2 Z Z VI YI N N N N IA YI N 2 2 V1 2 ~ ~ m W ~ N ~ M N Y11 e~l N ~ ~IOI N r m a0 l~ 0 IN ~ ~ ~1 ~+ ~ N ~ ! ~ n .~ N ~ Y ~ ~ ~ in ~ ~ ~ e ~ h ~ r ~ ~O ~ ~ I ~ F- ap C C ~ n u ~ ~ ~~" %~~ ~` ~ \$ w ~ _ ~ o ~ w < a ,~ W .-. ^ ~.. ~, ~-? x ~ ~ ~ ^ U a a.z ~a Z Wz ~~d ~ " 5 z ~w d ~ O ~ Z F th o (~ ~ ~ In ~ ~ ¢ ~_ a 3 ~ Z ¢ ~°' ~ F"~ ~ d° O 9 ~ w 5 c0 N . ~ w Z ' ,,.., q ~ '~ K O W ' v a w ` ~ a W = `~ c~ ~ ~ N w <~ ~ N z ri C[x U o oWs C7 m ¢ c~ ~ >z t3 - N ~ W U ~ ~ w daio ~ a o ~C - ~ O F-' ~ ~ ~ II Q Y ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ o W Z 2 ` ~n ' W ~ Q z Z ¢ ~z a w n W U rn ~~ s ~ ~~ . ~~ ~ 1 .. ~ r ° ~~ _ ~~ ~< YS F ~ 3 ~ @ S~ ry~ ~2 \ o'' ~ ~ a s~ ~ ~F` ~, t3 m~wN m ar z C o I~\ g33_a_0~0 ~ a$ o d s ~- 5 a ~ ~ o\ ~' m ~ a - 4 ~ A QQQy < ~q !` \~9Y ¢p~ u ~< lON i m ~~ tl~ o g n ~ `` ~~ 1` o ~ 8 gg 1 a n 5~ ~ \ ~ G~NIA ~4 ~~ b d 1 ~ ~ ~o o mo ~ ~ ~R ~~ w 1 y x x ~ ~ OMYO~ a H,y ~ i ~y¢5~ Y 4 4 ¢ y tll 3 ~ U 4e W6~ K~dg ~~' ~ 1 W ~~ ~ g~ ~ ~~~~i ~ ~ ~ , J ~~~ ~~sd'~ ~~g g ~ is ,.. y ~~ /~ 1 1 '~ ~, ROANOKE COUNTY Applicants Name: Ctton Hill Land Co. LC DEPARTMENT OF Zoning: Existing C2, Proposed Zoning R 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tax Map No. 96.02-1-33 S~ I / / _ I I zs. zz. r ~ ~-- - ~ ~L ` ~t ;1 ~~- ~~v~ ~~; ~,,/ ~~ /' r ~' ~ -~ i ` ~ .,~` ~~ ~` % ,~• ! / / ~--- ~~- ,:,( ~ i -- i, in % /y~,~ :` r ~~~~~ ~ ~~~1 ~`~ , ~ r Q ~f V1 '~C1 Or ~, 1 /,r ,=' ~ ~, ~. ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ <~ ,~~ ' 1 :~ ~~ +1 V Y` .~ ~ Pi`s v/ vCi y ®.u~ ---~- f, ~'~ , tC~'.a{r ~ ,1 j ~ 41~ 3 (i 4i a~ ~t ~ ~ ..1 ti'. n,~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ °,i : ~ ~.l ~. IL ' y 1t ~ 3~< i. i t ~ ~ ~ ° ;J 1 ~ i' W ~ ~ i~. y:. . ,~ii,.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -' F ~~i.~'~ ,:u~ i~ ~ -i ~ I A~ ..> . c~-- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 ORDINANCE 111902-12 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO SHEREE AND JAMES RINGER FOR A HOME OCCUPATION IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED AT 3564 GRANDIN ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 68.17- 2-16), WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Sheree and James Ringer have filed a petition for a special use permit for a home occupation in an accessory structure to be located at 3564 Grandin Raod (Tax Map No. 68.17-2-16) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 5, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on October 22, 2002; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on November 19, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Sheree and James Ringer for a home occupation in an accessory structure to be located at 3564 Grandin Road (Tax Map No. 68.17-2-16) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved. 2. That this ordinance shall, be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this 1 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 McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Janet Scheid, Chief Planner William E. Driver, Director, Real Estate Valuation Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 2 NORTH ~~1\/~_ ~~\ ~`,~~ ~ `,i L~ O~ / `/ .use °_ 42. J 5 r0a.2~ l~ ROANOKE COUNTY Applicants Name: Shelce & James Ringer DEPARTMENT OF Zoning: Extisting R1, Proposed SUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tax Map No. 68.17-2-16 gt_ 886 City Grandin Rd too too .u2a ~' ke too ,zso Rpon gt.37 18.23 Oa 24 ~~ ,x1f6 N 10. use 11. o - ~~56F - - N 1~. 14. 13. o o ~ 1~. o FJ 18 > 5 ".w,..~.. w B ~ t0o 8 ~~ g f6 70 100 f5 +~ 100 100 7J 14 f2 N fva f~ N 22. 23. o 21. o - 0 20. R.CB.S 1g. N 17. 18. ~~ ,ua~ ° - ~ too _ ~~ .3t~ too '~9 ~~ t00 pverbrook too .,.,, S-a PETITIONER: Sheree & James Ringer CASE NUMBER: 25-11/2002 Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 5, 2002 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: November 19, 2002 A. REQUEST The petition of Sheree & James Ringer for a Special Use Permit for a home occupation in an accessory structure, located at 3564 Grandin Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizens spoke. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. David Holladay presented the staff report. Mr. Thomason asked about the petitioner's occupation. Mr. Witt asked about allowable lot coverage for accessory structures. Mr. Ringer explained his business activity and proposed home office. D. CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Thomason made a motion to approve the request. Motion carried 5-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission 2 ~' `.` a a~, , ~r Y.: ~ ~ s ~ etitioner: Shelee & James Ringer request: Special Use Permit to conduct Home Occupation in accessory structure Location: 3564 Grandin Road Magisterial District: Windsor Hills Proffered/Suggested None Conditions: BACKGROUND Section 30-82-3 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance provides standards for home occupations. These standards control the size, scale and type of home occupations, in order to remain consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood, and to not create an unfair advantage over businesses located in commercial zoning districts. The standards also require a Special Use Permit to operate a home occupation from an accessory structure in the R-1 zoning district. A copy of Section 30-82-3 is attached for your reference. The Ringers plan to construct a 1,090 square foot accessory structure in their back yard. A 10' X 12' office would occupy one corner of the building. A small bathroom with sink and toilet would also be constructed. The remainder of the building would be used for exercise equipment, and for storage of the :finger's parent's furniture when the parent moves into the Ringers' home. Some of the Ringers' furniture may also be stored as they make room for the parent to live in their home. The Ringer's properly, and all adjoining property are zoned Rl, Residential. Property across the street, in the City of Roanoke, is zoned RS 1, a single family residential zoning district. Mr. Ringer would relocate his business to his home, using the new office space. He does not anticipate any visitation from clients, as most of his work involves travel to insurance agents' offices in other cities. Any training or other group functions that he organizes are held at hotel conference rooms, and would not take place at the proposed new office. No additional vehicle traffic would be generated as a result of the business. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed home occupation, as described by Mr. Ringer, would comply with the zoning ordinance use and design standards for home occupations. The only question before the Planning Commission is whether or not to recommend that the home occupation be allowed to operate in the new accessory structure. The proposed building, which is allowed by right, would be designed to resemble the architecture of the petitioners' existing home. No negative impacts are anticipated. CASE NUMBER: 25-11/2002 PREPARED BY: David Holladay HEARING PC: 11/5/OZ BOS: 11/19/02 DATES: S-~ Sec. 30-82-3. Home Occupations, Type I and Type II. (A) Intent. These provisions are adopted in recognition that certain small-scaled commercial activities may be appropriate accessory uses within residential dwellings. The character and scale of such commercial activities must be subordinate and incidental to the principal use of the premises for dwelling purposes, and must be consistent with the predominant residential character of the property and/or surrounding neighborhood. In addition, these provisions are intended to limit the size of such home occupations so as to not create an unfair competitive advantage over businesses located in commercially zoned areas. (B) General standards: 1. More than one home occupation may be permitted provided the total floor area used for all home occupations do not exceed the applicable Type I or Type II standard. 2. No dwelling or structure shall be altered, occupied or used in a manner which would cause the premises to differ from a character consistent with a residential use. The use of colors, materials, construction, lighting, or other means inconsistent with a residential use shall be prohibited. 3. There shall be no outside storage of goods, products, equipment, or other materials associated with the home occupation. No toxic, explosive, flammable, radioactive, or other hazardous materials used in conjunction with the home occupation shall be used, sold, or stored on the site. The sale of firearms as a home occupation shall be prohibited. 4. There shall be no sale of goods or products not produced on the premises. 5. The type and volume of traffic generated by a home occupation shall be consistent with the traffic generation characteristics of other dwellings in the area. In addition, the lot or property on which the home occupation is conducted shall not have any parking spaces added to it during the time the home occupation is being conducted, nor shall any parking space be used that was not customarily or regularly used prior to that time. 6. The home occupation shall not involve the commercial delivery of materials or products to or from the premises. 7. The home occupation shall not increase demand on water, sewer, or garbage collection services to the extent that the combined demand for the dwelling and home occupation is significantly more than is normal to the use of the property for residential purposes. 8. No equipment or process shall be used in a home occupation which creates noise in excess of 60d6(A) measured at the property line, or vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable to the normal senses off the premises or through common walls. In the case of electrical interference, no equipment or process shall be used which creates visual or audible interference in any radio or television receivers off the premises or through common walls. 9. No activity in conjunction with a home occupation shall be conducted before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. that adversely impacts or disturbs adjoining property owners. s-a (C) Additional standards for all Type I home occupations: 1. The maximum floor area permitted for a home occupation shall be ten (10) percent of the finished floor area of the dwelling unit. Storage of goods or products shall not exceed five (5) percent of the finished floor area. 2. Home occupations shall be confined to the primary dwelling. To conduct a home occupation in an accessory building, a special use permit shall be obtained from the board of supervisors pursuant to Section 30-19. 3. No one other than permanent residents of the dwelling shall be engaged or employed in such occupation. 4. There shall be no display or storage of goods or products visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent property. 5. The sale of goods or products produced on the premises, or providing services which involve the consumer coming to the premises shall be limited to no more than ten (10) customers or clients in any one week period. Baby sitting for five (5) or less children shall be permitted. 6. Lessons in the applied arts shall be permitted, provided the class size for any lesson does not exceed five (5) students at any one time and shall not exceed ten (10) students in any one week period. 7. No sign may be placed on the property advertising the home occupation. 8. No advertising through local media, including telephone books, and flyers shall call attention to the residential address of the home occupation. r,..._.~_, ..F D`.n»nlrn For Staff Use Only \. V LL11L,' V 1 1\VGauva~v Community Development - Date received: Received by: Planning & Zoning `~ ~ S ,~= Z ~~ '!~ 5204 Bernard Drive App icadon fee: `t o - ~ ~ PC/BZA date: (~ ~ rl o z P O Box 29800 Placards issued: BOS date: Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ~/-~'{ .=~_ ~~ ~ r /~ 't- (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Case Number .2 ~ - // ~' Z, ~; o z ALL ABPEICt1NTS Check type of ap ication filed (check all that apply) Rezoning , Special Used Variance Waiver Administrative Appeal Applicants name/add'~ss w/zip ~ ~ Phone: ~~ /~ G ~ ~~ s Work: ~~~b ~ . - _`~.L~~~ ti' ~-1r~~r,~ S ;~ /''' .~(~ f r,~~.%~ ~.c~ Cell #' ~wti~ N~ D/ Coj/'i?,e~o~~a ~- ,~.-~c ~ ~ o~ G / Fax No.: : y 1 ~ ~,r w ~ tY~L'G Owner's name/address w/zip Phone #: Work: =~,.-~ ~ G S G=~~'~ e- Fax No. #: Property Location ~~ Magisterial District: ~~--f5~~ ~ ~ ~~s ~~- ~ (~ej l~ ~ .-. ~ Community Planning area: (~ ,rs c~SO ~~ ~~S ~~ j, ~C ~ Tax Map No.: ~ _ ~ ~ ~~. 1 ~7~- Existing Zoning: J~ f Size of parcel(s): Acres: ~ ~ ~ ~ " Existing Land User.-,~ ~~ ~z-, ~ ~ Gft-~/~- ~~~ ~ i REZUNI~VG SPECIAL LTSE PERhfITf1ND tYgIYER APPLICANTS fR/Sr'W) ~ `'r'' ~, S~~'t'~i- L L~~. ~~ Proposed Zoning: ~ , Proposed Land Use: ~ til,~ (/ ~C ~Lp~ 7~ ~°~ ~ ~'Ll'~5 ~ ~p ~~ ~~~ Does the cel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes ~ No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No ~ ;' YARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADNIINTSTRATIVE APPEAL, APPLICANTS (V/W/AA) Vaziance/Waiver of Section(s) j~,l~- of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of 5ection(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/S/W V/AA R/S/W V/AA R/S/W V/AA Consultation 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan Application fee Application ,~ Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification ~ Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. ~ p z.- Owner's Signature 2 S-~ ~ JUSTIFIC~ITION FOR REZONLNG; SPECT~L USE PERNIIT OR WAIVER REQUEST ') Applicant ~ GLL-~-~-~ ~` Sl~i.r.~~.~ ~o dV _.a Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit or waiver requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. ~~~ Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guider es and policies conramea In plc nv~l~~~ L ~ u~ ~~•~ `..u~.-~~ Plan. ("' l ~y j f j ~ d CG, ~~~~~~' j/~ ~~ st1 " ~ ~vr' o` C~ Z ~~G-lact~ ~~,1 ~~ t ~ ~ ~-~~ S~~ ~~ ~y~ t~ ,~~ f ~ ~~ ~~ o- ,l { ~G ~~ ~ l ~r, !t, ~i~,r' Qi~ ~/~'v~~~+rL~ ,~-dt'~t V ~rt- ~ 4. ~ ~~ '~~~''~ ~ L?~- ~ou~ ~- ~ ~ ~~~ `~ ~- ~ f ~/ C ~~ ~~ f ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~b~tr g~.~a,jra.~G i~ ~ ~- ~ ~~( ~6° S"G-,~,,t.oLtN~~ ~ /~°+'~j ~ t ~ ~ j~firC'~ t S 'Ti%~ ~' ~''~y ,L S'~.l+JS ~ ~~C~~ LJt ~i( ftlD T -~'cy/ ~ /~ ,~c.n. ~i -S'.zt? t~ ~`S' ~ S ~ -~~ ~ ,, p ~ ~t-o v~tz- ~Z~tt- ~'o •~ rt.-`{~s~ Sl- Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as weir as the im acts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, r ads, sch ls, parks/recreafion and fire an`d rescue. ~ -~ ~ ~ IJ ~-~'- ~~ '~ J'~ ~c~C' ~ ~ s,~ t'i da r. G'~ ~, h~f ~'~ /CIc! 1'~ Jd~-~- ~ ~~ a~ j''h tit-Gi ~*jrw. ~t ~ ~`t ~srv ~7..~.~.- ~" .~Gr t~ ! i ~r'Y-S ~~"'' ~f' ,,(~ r JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST Applicant _ne of Zoning Appeals is required by Section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia to consider the following factors before a variance can be granted. Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describehow the request meets each factor. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. 1. The variance shall not be contrary to the public interest and shall be in harmony with the inte~fded spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. '\ 2. The strict application of the zoning ordinance would produce w distinguished from a special privilege or convem ce) and would .ship; a hardship that approaches confiscation (as or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. 3. The hardship is not shared by other properties in the s zoning district or vicinity. Such hardships should be addressed by the Board of Supervisors as amendments ~ the Zoning rdinance. 4. The variance will not be o a substantial detriment to the adjacent operties or the character of the district. 4 `CONCEPT PLAN. CFIECKLIST concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALI, APPLICANTS ~% a. Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north arrow c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties !~ g. All property lines and easements +'~ h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights ~ i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development °' j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site ~/ 1. Any driveways, entranceslexits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals _ n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants _ p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed _ q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule ' .certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. Si re of applicant Date 6 ~~~ NORTH s8s City ndin Rd gt, Gra too ,p0 337d too ~~ ~` ke Roan 1g23 81.37 . ~~ t.pp.24 .~31 N 10. .TSB 11. o _ .uss 1~. N 14. N 1~. - N 1~. N ~ 1 6 F O ~ - .5 ~... u N J g 6 ,00 g >0 100 J6 l0a ` - 100 13 J4 IS " 23. o J1A N 22. 21 . o - 20. R. C.B. S. l g. N 17. 18. ° ~~ .zsz~ - - ,zs zT too ,zsRS .z73y too ~y .use ,oo pverbrook too too 100 .574 ' .x41d .~SYB ,~! IO ~, 4a. N ~p -44. 43 N tP . 42. - - ~ 4 B 7 27g 6 - 100.08 73.3 104.29 5 ~Oa,2~ G{ S~ - Q~t o°~^~ ROANOKE COUNTY Applicants Name: Shedce & James Ranger DEPARTMENT OF Zoning: Extisting R >, Proposed SUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tax Map No. 68.17-2-16 ~S/13r ~aP~2 9°: 28 7~1486a CCRNE~CYON= CCS~ph.1 H P~~GE 81 .~'~ OF R~~ ~o~,~ --~''~ ~ ~N~R >s r~ ®~~ ~~~ r o~~ ~ ~ 0 P/N #~. F~~~ f' ~ ~ ~ '~. ~, 0 ~ a v ~ 3 ~~' Y a ~. Ld~d ~• 3*.a ~ ~' -'r-~ ~ gyp' .d' 't~'~;~. '"~ ~ J a ~ ~ `y -~ BR ~ ~ „ ~ ° V ~ OwLb. to ±~ Q J ~ •~ Al _° 3SG4 ~ ~ ~ v N ~ ~ r ~ ~~~"' H~ ® ,~ - ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ $ ~' ~ ~ +t1 w ~ Y . Dr' ~ e ~~' ~ ,114 - ~ ~. _ ~~~~ ~' 1~ DcI( MRJti4 ' I! ~. i+E' ._.~-~--- ~e.o' RacK iYl L t. -f / ~'~' ~ - ~ ~ ~~- y K ,S ~ ~ ~ S,+1fiA (i ~~. Z M ` ~ ~~ ~-~flC v ~ ~ ~ Jr_!'C' , ~ ~- ~ ~ .~- 1 ~_ AWL=! ~ 1 ~ K ~C ~ Pirr //-,~t Jr ~~~AC R~FE~~~~~ P No j€ f,'~v~ 5vrs~,a cr I-'~'nv~R~~ ~ ~ o c.~ rc~ /~I ~ ®o~ lax - id tT•2'-/G /,v'vt"~t~G~' ~nk/a .x ~~ ~~~i~~.~ ~~ f3~ J~~ 114~rfi ~ R~ /! 6 1 /'1 Y !/6 . A Jul. 4 /1 i° r./ B .r~8ff d' Yl19 ~ ~ J /= A R~ eH ~ /T 6' s-a ~~ ,~ f ..~. t o~ ~Q } n ~. :~ ~....~. sa O' ,~ 9 j a et^ j `~ I~ (,~„ .e ~i~ ~~ o~Z: - __ 5... -- _:z , ~ : ,~ ~ z ~ _ ,, ~ ~ a~ X v T ~J ' ti '} u. _ ~ v ~f i i ,r.. u -- - t~/ _ ~ ~1` ~ ~ ~ _ ~ 1 ~ Y ~~~st. h :~: ~ e~ r, I ce }~r ~ ~ . .9r p~~ _ /i .y C ~1 l !~F ~y~,}~ yRr a~~ ~~ ~r { .~~+ ~ +~'.'~ ~ ~ .... ~ a i. .... ~ _. ,. __ ~ .i.~--. f ~' - ,,,~ 3 _:-;~ i i _'~ ':,UE L~~ ~) 'i c4 ~~.:~ ,'~_ a~~~r-~-. t; '~, - -- H. ~~ 7, ~:'_ X ~~ " ~ j - ~.,~ ~. ~ 7 3+ ~` ~ ., y y~ ~~ ~d.a ~ r .zwa o ., . / ti t~ * ~~ gip, ~ '~ -i,. ~Sdh _ - L_.L L ~ i _ _ __- .-...1 j~f! - "- - - ~~ _ _ ~.,,y _ -. a Jr'~ ~~ .Y t? r i ~ _ai - T :~ r ~ .~oc?~u rns _ .,. -~ -'= ~ _ ~. _ f,~p f ~ aary.~ t _ - j~ f W~1 ~i 1~" _~ ~~~ fem. ~tl £~AS ~ _ ~a C- G'-1,: 7.. ~ I - . ~~ 11~ ~F~~ -,. 1 ~ . ~ `~ r a ~ 3~ -_ ~ I ~ .. a Lffir~,-F~o- ~ ~ ~ _ _ , t.= :.;~'.:: lprv -.nit..-"r'.sm~:Yw,'9~U'fTp !F L~:~C1~ ..-. CP',F+iC ..ate ' ~ ~' ~,I~~ ~ . ry '1 ~a r' ~ ~ nt $ 4 L ~~~~~~~ C t 3 ~~ do k- } _ i _ ~ ~ r a _ . -- 7,y - ~ . ~ - - .. ~i ...+rx~ ` - - _ .. ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO SHEREE AND JAMES RINGER FOR A HOME OCCUPATION IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED AT 3564 GRANDIN ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 68.17-2-16), WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Sheree and James Ringer have filed a petition for a special use permit for a home occupation in an accessory structure to be located at 3564 Grandin Raod (Tax Map No. 68.17-2-16) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 5, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on October 22, 2002; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on November 19, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Sheree and James Ringer for a home occupation in an accessory structure to be located at 3564 Grandin Road (Tax Map No. 68.17-2-16) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special Use Permit is hereby approved. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ~~ ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. .' S-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 ORDINANCE 111902-13 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 16.255-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 6000 BLOCK OF COVE ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 36.15-1-2) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 UPON THE APPLICATION OF LARRY G. AND IDA JANE E. CONNER WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 22, 2002, and the second reading and public hearing were held November 19, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 5, 2002; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. 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 16.255 acres, as described herein, and located in the 6000 block of Cove Road (Tax Map Number 36.15-1-2) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District, to the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Larry G. and Ida Jane E. Conner. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: 1 1 BEGINNING at an iron pin found at the northerly corner of the property of Charles C. Harris (DB 1314, page 414) and being shown as Corner No. 10 on Plat for Larry G. Conner and Ida Jane E. Conner showing the Subdivision of Tax Parcel 36.15-2-10, Creating New Parcel A (16.255 acres) and New Parcel B. (21,690 acres) by Balzer & Associates dated 11 October 1989 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, in Plat Book 12, page 28; thence with the northerly line of New Parcel B of the aforesaid plat and the property of Charles C. Harris, S. 12 deg. 48 min. 37 sec. W. 741.46 feet to Corner No. 6 on the aforesaid plat; thence leaving the Harris property and with the easterly line of Section 9, Montclair Estates (PB 9, page 279) S. 85 deg. 15 min. 15 sec. W. 356.02 feet to Corner No. 7 on the aforesaid plat; thence leaving Montclair Estates and with the easterly line of Pinkerton Properties, LLC (DB 1521, page 143), N. 34 deg. 10 min. 10 sec. W. 803.21 feet to Corner No. 8 on the aforesaid plat; thence laveing the property of Pinkerton Properties, LLC, and with the southerly line of the Levi Huffman Estate (DB 204, page 276) N. 48 deg. 23 min. 25 deg. E. 749.62 feet to Corner No. 9 on the aforesaid plat; thence leaving the Huffman property and with the property of Jack C. Garst, et ux, S. 60 deg. 58 min. 15 sec. E. 289.94 feet to a point; thence leaving the Garst property and with the property of Larry G. Conner and Ida Jane E. Conner (DB 948, page 235) S. 30 deg. 08 min. 35 sec. E. 311.29 feet to Corner No. 10, the Point of Beginning and containing 16.255 acres, and being all of New Parcel A as shown on the aforesaid plat. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None 2 2 A COPY TESTE: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Janet Scheid, Chief Planner William E. Driver, Director, Real Estate Valuation Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney ~~ i ~~~ d ~ a ~ s .n~~-~. •s i 0 c w riu p 4 1 n ... i ~~~ S ~~ ~~ a ~~ n p4 ROANOKE COUNTY Applicants name: Larry G.Conner ' & Ida Jane E. Conner DEPARTMENT OF Zoning: Rezoning COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Proposed Zoning: R-1 Tax Map No. 36.15-01-02 ~ S-3 PETITIONER: Larry G. & Ida Jane E. Conner CASE NUMBER: 26-11/2002 Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 5, 2002 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: November 19, 2002 A. REQUEST The petition of Larry G. & Ida Jane E. Conner to Rezone 16.255 acres from C-2 General Commercial District to R-1 Low Density Residential District for the purpose of constructing a single family dwelling, located in the 6000 block of Cove Road, Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizens spoke. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. John Murphy presented the staff report. Ms. Hooker apologized for Roanoke County designating his property C-2 in 1992. D. CONDITIONS None. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Hooker made a motion to approve the request. Motion carried 5-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission 3 STAFF REPORT Petitioner: Larry G. and Ida E. Conner 'Request: Request for a rezoning from C-2, General Commercial to R-1, Low Density Residential District. Location: 6012 Cove Road Magisterial District: Catawba EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Requesting a rezoning from C-2, General Commercial to R-1, Single-Family Residential, for the purpose of creating afamily-exempt parcel and to construct one single family home for his son. The existing parcel contains 26.65 acres and has a split zoning with 16.25 acres zoned C-2 and 10.40 acres zoned R-1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance allows for a family exempt parcel to be created for an immediate family member in all agricultural and residential zoning districts, outside of planned residential subdivisions. The rear portion of the subject parcel is zoned C-2, General Commercial, excluding the family exemption possibility. The C-2 zoning does not allow for the construction of asingle-family residence. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background -The applicant intended to use the family exempt regulations to subdivide a 4.995 acre parcel for his son and daughter-in-law to construct a house for their use. The surveying firm conducted the field work and submitted the subdivision plat to Roanoke County for review when it was determined that the portion of the property involved was zoned C-2. In 1992, as part of the county's comprehensive rezoning, the rear portion of the property was rezoned from R-1 to C-2. In 1997 the applicant cooperated with regional officials to allow a portion of this property to be used for the development of a regional storm water management basin. A Special Use Permit was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1997 for a major utility service (regional storm water management basin) on this and adjoining parcels. Topography/Vegetation -The portion of the property to be rezoned is thickly wooded with mature and scrub vegetation. The rear portion of the property in encumbered by a 60 foot American Electric Power easement for above ground power lines. There is also a three (3) acre easement, on the subject property, for storm water back up from the Montclair Regional Storm water management facility which is located on the adjoining parcel to the east. The property drops to a low area along the creek and sewer easement and then climbs to a plateau near the southwest corner of the property. This is the area where the proposed house is to be constructed. There is a significant drop from the rear of the Pinkerton Chevrolet site along the common property line with the subject parcel. Surrounding Neighborhood -The parcels on Cove Road are large acreage parcels zoned R-1. The corridor along Electric Road including the rear portion of this parcel is zoned C-2. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT s_ ~ AccesslTraffic Circulation -Access is proposed from Cove Road. VDOT indicated that if a new entrance is proposed an entrance permit would be required. Traffic generation for a single family residence is not an issue. The development of a road to be publicly owned and maintained serving the rear of the property is not possible due to the easements and topography. Fire & Rescue/Utilities -Fire and Rescue services will continue as presently served. Public water and sewer can be made available. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The subject property has a combination of Transition and Neighborhood Conservation future land use designations. The Transition area is along the rear of the Pinkerton Chevrolet site and the Neighborhood Conservation area is generally along the creek on the subject property to Cove Road. The site is not suitable for access from Electric Road due to the steep topography. Neighborhood Conservation encourages residential development and the conservation of existing neighborhood development patterns. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The subject property is not suitable for high intensity commercial development due to the multiple encumbrances by AEP easements, storm water easements and public sewer easements. In addition the steep topography makes access from a commercial corridor unlikely and to develop the rear portion of this property would require the construction of commercial access from Cove Road. Encouraging heavy commercial traffic through an established residential neighborhood to access a high intensity site is not consistent with the Community Plan. The Department of Economic Development recognizes that the commercial aspects of this property are not ideal for future commercial development. The Economic Development Department is not opposed to this rezoning. Planning staff supports this request for the rezoning from C-2 to R-1, for the creation of a family exempt parcel for the development of a residential building lot for Mr. & Mrs. Conner's son. CASE NUMBER: # 26-11/2002 PREPARED BY: J. Murphy HEARING DATES: PC: November 5, 2002 BOS: November 19, 2002 2 County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning ` 5204 Bernard Drive P 0 Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 ALL APPLICANTS Check e of application filed (check all that apply) ezomng Special Use Variance Applicants name/address w/zip Lcst'Y'V ~ ~(>tllaC r t~ ~ Ci"> .a~#~E i:. , '.~%rarlE.;' ., Owner's name/address w/zip Property Location 1 ~'. _;U;;o i= . ,~~ ran,,;-~ For Staff Use Date received: Application Placards issued: as S ~,~- Case Number ~ ~~ - Received by. ~'~ ~r~ PC/BZA date: ll .r/~ BOS date: l ~ l~~© L .-,, ~'!~r ~ Waiver Administrative Appeal Phone: '~~~.~i5~2-095 Work: f~~~;;43`~.?-391 Cell #• Fax No.: Phone#: (~~")~~2-1~.:~f~ Work: i~;~n ;3 •?7-~ a~:~ Fax No. #: Magisterial District: *~ ~ ~ ~ _ '~' ~~ Community Planning area: Tax Map No.: _n~_n Existing Zoning: U-~ 3 size of parcel(s)• Acres• i(r, ~5'~ ~-, L Existing Land Use: 'J ~ r:~nt;' -~ ;; r i c u t t :~Y' ~+201VING' SPECIAL USE PER:~IITAc~ID WAVER ~iPFLICt:VTS (R;~S/W) Proposed Zoning: '~-1 s~; ~ s i c; e; ; ~ ~ a 1 Proposed Land Use: '~ ; n <, 1 e f~ ~ rr~ 3 ! y ~ ~ti ~ i i ~ ~ ~;a D the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? es No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? es No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIItST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No VA:RIAIYCE, • WA.I~ER ~-1ND AD~YII11FlS-Z'~1Z'IVE APPEAL ~PLIC~NZ'S (TF/tiVff1A)' Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Ntap to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WII,L NOT BE ACCEPTED IF Ai~iY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/S~W V/AA R/S/W V/AA R!S/W VIAA Consultation ~ 8 1I2" x 11" concept plan Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable ]ustification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the roperty or the owner's agent or contraci purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. ~ ~„/ Owner's Signature ...L.2/ 2 s-3 Rezoning Application of Larry G. Conner, Sr. and Ida Jane E. Conner The applicant requests that 16.255 acres designated as a portion of Tax Parcel Number 36.15-1-2 be rezoned from C-2 General Commercial District To R-1 Residential District. The area to be rezoned is shown as New Parcel A on a plat by Balzer & Associates dated 11 Oct. 89 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Court of Roanoke County in Plat Book 12 Page 28. Tax Parcel 36.15-1-2 currently contains 26.658 acres and is split zoned with 16.255 acres being zoned C-2 and 10.403 acres zoned R-1. Investigation of the conditions of the split zoning revealed that the 16.255 acre parcel was zoned C-2 as part of the 1992 Comprehensive Plan. The development of this plan was two dimensional in nature and did not look at topography and utility issues. The petitioner was not notified of the change in zoning of this property by the Comprehensive Plan in 1992 and was unaware of this designation. The petitioner desires to convey a 4.995 acres parcel to their son and daughter-in-law for the construction of a single family dwelling under the family exemption provisions of the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance. This residential site is located on a hill bounded by a small creek on the southeast, a sanitary sewer easement and a flowage easement for a regional stormwater management pond to the west and remaining property of the petitioner on the north. The 16.255 acres requested to be rezoned under this request are not suitable for development as C-2 General Commercial District. This parcel does not have any access due to topography except through property currently zoned R-1. It appears that the 1992 plan intended to provide for the development of this land as an extension of commercial land along Route 419 in the vicinity of Pinkerton Chevrolet. However, the average elevation of this parcel is considerably below the elevation of the properties along Route 419. This parcel is effectively divided into thirds by an overhead power line and a sanitary sewer line. In addition to these utilities, the petitioner conveyed a flowage easement to the public benefit for the operation of a regional stormwater management pond. The combination of these constraints make it impossible to develop this property as C-2 property. The current Community Plan shows this property to be neighborhood conservation compatible with Montclair Estates, the Glen cove Elementary School, and the current character of Cove Road. Development of this parcel as R-1 will advance the current community plan. Granting of this request will result in the following actions; • Remove the split zoning of a current parcel of land. • Correct a zoning anomaly which resulted from a two dimensional County wide revision to the comprehensive plan. • Advance the goals of the current Community Plan for the area by maintaining the character of the site with the current land uses surrounding the parcel. cel talon into account the im act of to ra hic, utility line, and • Zone the par g p pog p flowage easements on the development of the property. A copy of the Balzer Plat recorded in PB 12 Pg 28 showing the 16.255 acre parcel to be rezoned is attached. Also attached is a copy of the plat prepared by CWA dated 16 Sept. 02 showing the creation of a 4.995 acres parcel to be conveyed to Larry G. Cornier Jr. under the Family Exemption provisions of the subdivision Ordinance. V O 9~ s O s~` ~d r~r 8O H b~p~~ x ~" o rn C~ W 1 n O U vn r!`~n^,~a ~w ~'nvri N. ¢ i DO aVxm Fm y~o N CC~~ ¢ h 7 a N ,~ d ~w U _~ O UZ W N A Q N 3~a~ WmV~O ~~_a•- ~~~~ W Z ¢ V N ~ ~ ~ C 2wg~~ 'b'o~j<~ ~o~a~' r7i¢a~o¢ m rx- c°1 K' g ~~_~~ ~~~~~ wa~~'¢S ~U<GOQ ~ =m m C W W~ N ~N~o<~ w?a~T6o x~~N~o i biz Td x`7' Z Z$ QSa>3Om a ~¢Ox~ <aocl ~n in ~g r g an I O ~ O ~ ~ I V ~UW^.a r V 1 ~WZ I a L7 W n n ('~' ~'J ^~ ~+ f s ~~x m ° I~ « ~ ~ fo ~ ~Zw IN off: / w~< I ~ ~ t ~ ~! w I ~g W~ gZZn <a 1 OOn w~ I ZZ ~~ I ~ u~a ¢< UUIp NU ! ¢ 4l^.~ c7a / ~VWn~ ~w / d' i Z f O p a~`~o ~~ Il arm ~~ Z ~ I eJ O _Z f ~ N m r Zo 1 I ~`__ I I ' I I I 1 I wa I _ o ~ 1 O ~ N ~ ¢~ V I Wif ~' I o~ z~m I. M ~ I m i C m I O <~ I~~ H f f w'~ r~J~ a. v a I W Z I a a ~.. I 3.Sf,ggOFS fl .00'00! a O .6Z'!tf 1 .sz•!!z z°~ ~ 1 K I '~ W ~ I n N U N < O O"~ Z t~ p ON iM Z I ` ~ oQ"-'m S ~ G l a r ~. >'a m y¢ X Q: 1 V w~naN W ~.1 W= H O Z ~ a w 3 ~~ N n wW 2 iG N J a"1nz ~ Oi 'Y ~' o I w aS m ~o ~>- ~~O b N w o ~< ro ~ ~''W~ s ~U N ~ I W~ O~ ' ' < 2 ~U JJ T CCVV a Y Z Z ^ VN ~ m`+ 0~ N ~ ~ ~ \ \ S ° fn aW ~ 3z~aN ~ Zm.- ~ \M b~ . c c OS g ~~ ~<9 ',' J g~ [N~ ~ ~ ~ ~~q~ / \ \ ~ 8 O ~ WO ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ 9 ~< F ~N ~o~~ ~~V~aaw~k'Z3ti =~ rw ~i o c \~0 x ~ ZN~ s W WO~ <O ~NWW ~ W n W {"~ V9' Z Zp61`C ~SWOq ~W`~~.~< p Cs U lry !et ~d ~ ~IO N KN WTvOrn `~ I O =O ti >. 1 a .-~~, ~Nn~ i a ~X m ~a o H rn ~o m =0 U la zU , ~ ~y~^ a ~x m ~~ a m W O ~Z Q Q W ~ V h Z '? < ~ ~ S W a o naQO a ~~'I n I ~ f N(n L ~ W ~W~3O WW C o RV ~ 7 W ° a ~ f G O ~ .. .. Oj m~ d m ~ N A 2 3 m o o? U Y Z nm~'~V ~? ~ g g e y°_:~ oln~ Ul 6 i :•• ~ mil I ~W <as aw 0 W Z< Up U7 ~ : °q ~°n'. s y `' ~~ j 7 W e~ ~d E / iaa ~wZ 11 a~c a s "' W ° :e v~< F aa~N WV~ V F i. ~ 5 YOi om> N 3 K «la. W~wZV OO W m mY ~l yy Z V of WW3 f- ~ a m i ° O m~Z aZ ao~a~ <~ Svw a W M Z p Ca ~ • ~ ~. ~W WU O N= w~ ~ ° Z e ~ O j¢~zz Q Y ~ I t W<F~- a Z m W Q N d v ~~czin3 ~° w 'c ,`91333 ~ ~ oioZ V N Z~ <N . O?i' O U O ~ e- iO ~ q U U g u G~N~A- >>¢ ~ n ~- 8 W Y, m= ~ ~ U ~ ~ `.y a v ~~YO~ q O ph O N ~ S o 0 ~ h !U Mf 'P W '~ C1 f° pa 3'w993 Q ~ ~ i~ i~ i~ ~ m ~ N N N N w ~ IU n N N 2 2 2 2 2 2 J I i a m u o f7 ~ 4I m U ~mC ~=~Na U~- oNdnn ~ '~ a W_x m ~ ~o Y~E ~~~. z ~ Sir ~ ~~a~ N a ~~+ W < rn Vf N m N O ~ (/ H < z~ o w z 3 ~iaa zJOq ~ViN rw Wd'ry4 O~~U ZZ a<o a Z w v iw~ J $ OOZ~ rpz< O ~~N~ wa j~il t~ 211 I W I Z'ln-^ il < W ;~ w aivl~ ~ ._ tjj ~~`So `-'m~'c'So ~"^~< N 3WON~OdWW ~ 3 a 01 W WW ~3 w0Z W!y.Z, Y N W ~ w ~`~ W<30 Woc~<i o Z~ a ~~ ~ ~ z 30b~4y~ o ~ m: a ~N ¢~-~i V ~<O ~ WYa ~ -. N 1 ~ N </ <U~~¢ W° 9<ow5 rm ~o~ c 1 0 d alp~w~.i W~N^O < 1 - ~ ~ 4 W 1 ~ 0~.. Z ap ~ ow°¢ v` ~I-pCJ o~°-'6 i ~~ _2~ ^` W 6 ~~~°~ oaaWm~ ~~a~~8 ~s~~a ~ 'i ~:>~g go~a ~~~~ } N ~ M3 ~ =7 ~~ i ~ ~~~ a b ~ moo, ~~o ~~ ~ -' ~ ~ _ ~+ 3 ~ ~ ~ a gm ~~ ~~ 2Ci 4 N Ci j c [q ~m ]C I +~ ~~ V W U] d Z ip N < "1 n e.• ~~ w a ^ ~ m ~ 0 ~4 N O n Z ao ~ aw z °z 3~ V ~ W ~m~°~ oa>Wm~ ~4UZ ~`+UO 4~N 2>~'a ~~~~o zxa,~ go~~ ~~~~ N 4~ O N2 =N a < F<=~~gOC1 ~OV~n >>~ tW<~ 1O- #p mmw W~Hn Wr~UK ~p <=0 ~ < ~ ~ ~~ w z ZQ ~ ~ I~~O ~ W O y 6 Nor ~ ~ '`°z u W~ ~ ~~ a wNa `^ ~ ~ _ Z =,r< 1'QN ~~~ zzm ~~ W < ~ UNO /~i~/ N ti2~ pia-, ~W a~ 8~ i / a v a {y ~~/6~~ 'Um< ~ Ti! 9 i q j JON 2.-:~O b Z U TW ~ ~mv2Z OW WV ~WC 1.1~Y Y<~I~~jZ U~ W7 C~ 1-¢a Wm ZI<• V~ N¢¢ w O U K wm Z m U Z r w< yZj W<` Zx U`~~'!pG ~^<~V ¢= OJT ~InU O¢wpwn ) WmO_ ~(~ ~m9_ N~ f ~ ¢ W Z W O ~ W 1 2 S 2~2~w ~a°a <SN¢V1 WW i5n C~Z~ ~WgOm ~OmYO O~ D¢¢ W yWO aO? ~"Z «WO g~zza ~~~~Z <~ ~Zo 3 z r,~ W_ ¢¢< ti U 2 2¢ V~<W Y<ZZ < o~«a~«~~d m9<a~ z~ a~3 z= N ri ~ n e w U 0 ~~ °za Y ~~ <~ ¢W ~W U ~ W_ o~< s r ~ ~ ¢ u ~~WCi ~ ° ~ < ~Z~~ Z ~a~ I ~ U<< 43 a~ <_ N Z U YNF<. 1. uF<o O ~j W Z w F ~c3W i F 3SFZ .w- •- ~,> ~ACCRCO erverROCeT; INC. OJ. /2?2 IC. 2J7 rw. T3•.n- I-Y/ / / ~ _ cos lr _ -` LO T J7 c \ cot se ./e ]1t8aB i yy ~\~ l~ ~ ~~~ _ ( ~ ~/~ t J 0 {~ ~ {t I '.J CEV/ /, NUFFMAN ~ . ..__. ._., nit( ~iY SIIN:i YRL!'SNfi.TLMZS: O.B. 20Y PC.2TG / TN'. J6.A9-/-// N. Y8'2J 25' E - ~ l'Dat Larry C. conn•r +nd xda 7saL. C M•r arf CDa (w fimpl• ovnan o[ !h• tang .horn h•raeellwdY OY eorn•ts 1 tltru 3 to 1, lncluf lV•, n^ r].Ir ardlvldw, Yld land YvtmT Ofan ~ ., ~ oo,~:,... ~ ... ~ s.ecy Te 9arun, nary xaov.n. rnf In D.tl soot 5113. Paq. 1]oa , -~i Y9. 62~ ~ j~ 2G7 :fY' _ L / ~, rl ( ,., ,~ < .. .•~.n_.,. otete. of en. ct:e~le coure os .,zL ~Km tr- :i1x antl urf ne >r,: ."• ~i• ! 'aa4,kM.~m ral9nad on and :n ace ~ .. ~ ` ~ // ~p ~ /^A A C l0 '~~ il~ '--------. ~ u T (~ ? " err ~ ill. , "n .'.kT~,¢rI <qf 1930 Cea•, of Vlr9lnla, ~_~ a .. s am. M~ s' ncsa.dnco d+<+, a[M i m•PLIMRA.ifI• !tt• pievialona of cD• IoM ~~bd iv isi0n 0[dln•nc.. ,c[ AoaMfRailtrY. Vlrylnlr. Y YfMW tm alto. r . tut t, and= •iq+tu[Y on cnif /3 ^'~ d.Y dt `" 't l0 L _...`~ • terry pu411e In am for rD• / /0' '-- Gev1B/N~lTiarAG 2 4 ~ 5-~/'~!J«~ ie Sa y~rt~~rw >~- «. esh.r•-Y wrilry we l.rrr d. ua Iaa T•n.~6±COtIf. VDOw .atr e1gaM to tLe targOlrq /~ NE~/ f~t,S~L 'qB r ~~ ..leln0•thl+•„~ aaY-n/tn{~ .v~~//r lutl_aelawlfdytl tM ~~ /G. ZSS,9CRES ._._____-~.`'~~', ~~~ NOG enWbllC ~ !/{Y..A'- ~~ ~- (/+ 1V9 ry ~~-~__._ ~ ~~ ,I. ~h~j Ry Cm.,laUlun CRplr.. ~~^ •Y' ~9 3~ ~~ ~. 995: V p p}t w . ~Aj `~Qe 4~~i ~ clrr<• o/tlc. ee tw cir~uu owrc er nu cernty, O ,r...ne.d etif Y ee ~P, SAM SEWER /a ~ ~ l.(, ~V• 5 ' ' v y, cnla pl•< ,~v ~ if •. ~ u[d rlth tta a•rt t•yi er 2 1 u ~, 20 f lO.e. 129Y, M 720) ESM , i f 0~ •M aFi,.,.. deer e• t p rfcera at (( ~i, , ..,ea en.z•<o •ee.aW i. •41tt.d w N BLAR/NC.! a 0/Bn9NC8S IRS FROM AeoNC sfwfR _ l l j N Jy S9 j . ~ S E e ~'~y~,a~ n.er_._ ~~ `' A D.c• ;:r. cereey ~ I• { . AMNNOCF 7b MANNOCE' / ~ ~/( S~ y /3 dg• ~ R rl•r nv cor•SaatOn I a ~ . ,;i,t I !U ~ ~' .w u , ---__ \ \ ~ \ \ ~~m.\\~ \``~ \ N ----_.__ ~N\\ ~ ~ ~~ / \ 1 LOT 39 ' ~ 30 .339 ~ ~ cot vo ~\ N ' 0 ~ t ; / u j L •Y~ GOT 4/ ~ A~eAUA ~~ Ord n,. ~ ~ 4 R q P ~' e ` ~ ~ a yy ~ } R.. a ,t: N ?3 b y LOT Y2 0 ~ 2 r a v N ~ / O• f y " 0 [!~ V COT Y3 O' U 1. LteA4 A8I8A8RCNt OCiD f00R 1333, rAOr 1]01 r N ]. tAt MN MI•LiR: 16.13-1-10 1. A10PtRTY Rot ix x. u. n. DsrxxeD nnou IUZAND ~ ~ ~ soru A oA a. ~. RtR PAtCiL •A^ I8 'i9 BY CUMt1xNU A n MAUC IARt OP tAt MRCCI. 16.35- ] AMD 18N:IpT TO LOT Y Y Y lltlplVtYtD Y A e[PAAAIC PAOCYL. PUT 70R t.~~~ v ~ cc+d/~,- ~ Sl•LI Ti1A/E E Garb'L/l 1 SNONIN6 '!EI SUBDIVISION O7 TAX PAACEL 18.1E-1-10 coT YS f CREATING NEM PARCEL A (18.75! ACRES) 1 AND LIEN PARCEL D (]1.890 ACRES) SITUATED ON DIPLOMAT DRIVE \ GTAMSA MA028TZAZAL DISTRICT \ ~ ROAMOEE COUMT:, VIRCINaA cot SDRVEYED OC103ER 11, 1989 Y4 Joe NDMe~t 121/-1 V ~ ~ l9 LL:LIO sutveyw Horan 1T9R --~-D[t7 LIAL TexCi -9wa/utu ~ RIStIAO IlW rDUMO • 3[7 Ie011 1LA4 ^ wxc. xox0~rxr a ® rssce coaxn nAtxau PARCEC A ~ OfTENTION ~' 1 e6JIN ~.,_ -l J'ORA /MACE E 'a. s, IEOT Pc r / 5~ ~ i, s • (~ i ~ ,~ ~~ ' % 3~- ,~ ~. / ~~ '~ d ` i 11 r ,s /o. / of Ac,ves ~``1 ~~ ,, u l TRIM` Q qa/~ r•'--J- ~fu-R ~ ~• ro' o/AT ORIVE C~ ' ~~/ -'~N` `//. Yq'tAl:17LS7 'Y 1 1 •, T1f.T991 a.961.0f3t 1f.Tf 1.Ta39 9, SSi.3T1] ' - / ~ N3o sS 3S~ 1 ~9•~ 4 10 3 i 9 s, ]63.fvo s; sii. sa~~ •, J09. )1t9 f,n3.lfu ~. i; iii. ~usn t, Ya. Y9T - p 1 { ~ 1 9 lJ 1] i,1N.03]6 3; 9ff -83i) • lOf T•f] t,?31. YfT f, 00].933T f,ffG.l]a9 1 1 _ 33 S, 110.313) 9r 961.1]33 ,; 1 1~t N t". N a 1 ~• t ~r 1. .' '~ l~r ~~ /' '~ ~~ ' 1~(a rI'l c07 J I COT G 1 I <CTT Ivor e ]l 3, 3]9.106] 10, Y9.•:SIf ,, S,,l,. u.n] ni.g3 ].Oy90. / BETTY JO NARK/3 ~~ O.B. A72 Ps7. /29 TAI. JL..tT-/-8 ~YJ2'_ 7tY I.I. RI. J.'R. TIO ~~ LIrST JO~ BM' _ _~~ O.B. X32 /'C:. /29 / JYJ9 35 ~ ~ ~_ 139.9/" ~ ~a1 /T d~{.T$ ppY ~~~ ~~ ao~~r s arc ; i ~. r ~ ENO 3UAV4 J J ~ h t c ? \ D. 4~. V~ M `` V M~~ a„N, U< 740 ~ ~ 1 ~ 40. ~ y b~ r/~ % ~v /MOCLNc NARRLf ere. /ova / ~ Pc. N/a TM. 3G.IG- 2-/ 2 ~ ~~ fX/STiIlG ~-J. YI'YY'OO~~W. tpT9 ~ GOT /O /LOT/! I COT IY I Bcocx /S, JECTlON `/ MC].v TCCA/R EJTATf3 fi 7'A£/O r COT / I COT !! e4,r. ~ /4 SfC. 4 pM/fCLA/A di/. stcAC e r•. /oo ~.r~~ p' .xti 5100 30q ~ /a ~r~~ ~p~PN ~ ~ N w !-'~ ~] I ZZNI O ~ U7 v (~ -- a. ~ CjW~M w d- ~zrno ~~ Z QQ m J U o Q ~ i ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C7 r ~~ O v ~? x U ~ ~ d P~'N~ S~P~F, pad .IP- NP F-- Z W ~ ~ ~ Z W w W (~ ~ Q aW z o Z (~ d Nw N I cr ~ Q S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w U a 0 0 N m r] ~-- z w w Z 0 z 0 Q z_ a~ a a z W w z Z W ~- I-- U 0 w U O w Y O Z Q O S. c ~ ~ Z ~ W Z W Q ~ Z ~ rc w W Z ~ U r Z a ~w w ~ w~ (n ~'-~ Y Z ww p~Q ~I-~ a°Q o w ~ W r ~ ~ ~ O O W' Q_ _ ~ ~ O ~ `~ a Z~'(o o p d Z ~ ~o~ ~°-W ~ ~t,.. - VOZ o o ~ rn m I p ~ z _ ~ N ~ w O i- ~ II ~ co as ~ ~ f- Z V ~ ~ ~ U- W Y O w ~~ J w ~ ! z v cn ¢ o ~ ~ ~ W ww ~ U Z ~zQ~ 1p11A 0 0 ~ N~ ~aa_w ~w ~G J\ ~w W W Z ~ ww wwa~ F• ~ O~ Ul O ` 3 ~ ~ Q N ~ -ti O v~ v Z z Z p¢ cn W E Z ~• a w ap z `~ to J ' O z ~ V l ~~ p U ` O F- ~ W ~.. U ,-~• Q CT~ y '`~ O ~ ~ w Nma~ U ~ O~ ~ U ~ ~ J "~1~ x~ ~ oo 3 F- m ~ ry ~ ~ j ~ 4 ryo~ ~ O w Uo M O A ~ O ~'1 1 v 19~ N 6 c 3 . V N tih i i ~g ~~ - ~ ! O ~ :O ~/ / ~~ / N N O ~ 'yrO' / / / O ~, I~ ~ ~ O ,_ W ~ ~ ~ / / ~ cal N r) Z V / ~/ r.~ ~ z ~ 0 w ~ - cv~ W r U M I ~ ~ L ~ ¢ J o S m ~~ X Z cn U ~ FQ- 1- V) Z W Q i ~~ w ~ / Y / ~ N ~~ /~ / /u~ .. ~ N a W ~ I Z Z N ( z O ~ O U ~ ,- U ~ Q. ~ C7 W ~ M O a4~Z ~ ~ m x ~oo~ z~ ~sb (D Q N LWi ~ `- N w = d- ~ N a w - NO ~'W ~ aN o j Z W ~X ~ ~ ~ ~n J O -p ~ i ~ z I zw ~ O Q ~ ~ .; ~ M ~ U ~~ ~ co z L- ~ tii U y ~T, 0o O°`t ~ e ca ~ ~ I ~ ~, 9 z I ~ ~~rn G;= ~w_ • ~e j., ~ W ap ~ ~ F ~ x O 1 d ~+ ~~o M Z U ~~ ---~ o 0 0 1'r7 ~ U n K N ~ ~ ~X ~ I ~o~. W ~ Y i Z ,. W (U(~~ Yl 0 4 o ~~ ... ~CWA S_3 CALDWELL WHITE ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS FRANK B. CALDWELL, III, P.E., L.S. Description of 16.255 Acre Tract Property of Larry G. Conner and Ida Jane E. Conner Being a portion of Tax Parcel No. 36.15-O1-02 Situate off Cove Road County of Roanoke, VA CORBIN L. WHITE, P.E. BEGINNING at an iron pin found at the northerly corner of the property of Charles C. Harris (DB 1314 PG 414) and being shown as Corner No. 10 on Plat for Larry G. Conner and Ida Jane E. Conner showing the Subdivision of Tax Parce136.15-1-10, Creating New Parcel A (16.255 Acres) and New Parcel B (21.690 Acres) by Balzer & Associates dated 11 October 1989 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia in PB 12 PG 28; Thence with the northerly line of New Parcel "B" of the aforesaid plat and the property of Charles C. Harris, S. 12° 48' 37" W. 741.46 feet to Corner No. 6 on the aforesaid plat; Thence leaving the Harris property and with the easterly line of Section 9, Montclair Estates (PB 9 PG 279) S. 85° 15' 15" W. 356.02 feet to Corner No. 7 on the aforesaid plat; Thence leaving Montclair Estates and with the easterly line of Pinkerton Properties, LLC (DB 1521 PG 143), N. 34° 10' 10" W. 803.21 feet to Corner No. 8 on the aforesaid plat; Thence leaving the property of Pinkerton Properties, LLC, and with the southerly line of the Levi Huffman Estate (DB 204 PG 276) N. 48° 23' 25" E. 749.62 feet to Corner No. 9 on the aforesaid plat; Thence leaving the Huffman property and with the property of Jack C. Garst, et ux, S. 60° 58' 15" E. 289.94 feet to a point; Thence leaving the Garst property and with the property of Larry G. Conner and Ida Jane E. Conner (DB 948 PG 235) S. 30° 08' 35" E. 311.29 feet to Corner No. 10, the Point of Beginning, containing 16.255 acres, and being all of New Parcel "A" as shown on the aforesaid plat. 4203 MELROSE AVENUE, NW, P.O. BOX 6260, ROANOKE, VA 24017-0260 (540) 366-3400 FAX (540) 366-8702 S3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 16.255-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 6000 BLOCK OF COVE ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 36.15-1-2) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 UPON THE APPLICATION OF LARRY G. AND IDA JANE E. CONNER WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 22, 2002, and the second reading and public hearing were held November 19, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on November 5, 2002; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. 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 16.255 acres, as described herein, and located in the 6000 block of Cove Road (Tax Map Number 36.15-1-2) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District, to the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Larry G. and Ida Jane E. Conner. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: 1 r. S- 3 BEGINNING at an iron pin found at the northerly corner of the property of Charles C. Harris (DB 1314, page 414) and being shown as Corner No. 10 on Plat for Larry G. Conner and Ida Jane E. Conner showing the Subdivision of Tax Parcel 36.15-2-10, Creating New Parcel A (16.255 acres) and New Parcel B. (21,690 acres) by Balzer & Associates dated 11 October 1989 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, in Plat Book 12, page 28; thence with the northerly line of New Parcel B of the aforesaid plat and the property of Charles C. Harris, S. 12 deg. 48 min. 37 sec. W. 741.46 feet to Corner No. 6 on the aforesaid plat; thence leaving the Harris property and with the easterly line of Section 9, Montclair Estates (PB 9, page 279) S. 85 deg. 15 min. 15 sec. W. 356.02 feet to Corner No. 7 on the aforesaid plat; thence leaving Montclair Estates and with the easterly line of Pinkerton Properties, LLC (DB 1521, page 143), N. 34 deg. 10 min. 10 sec. W. 803.21 feet to Corner No. 8 on the aforesaid plat; thence laveing the property of Pinkerton Properties, LLC, and with the southerly line of the Levi Huffman Estate (DB 204, page 276) N. 48 deg. 23 min. 25 deg. E. 749.62 feet to Corner No. 9 on the aforesaid plat; thence leaving the Huffman property and with the property of Jack C. Garst, et ux, S. 60 deg. 58 min. 15 sec. E. 289.94 feet to a point; thence leaving the Garst property and with the property of Larry G. Conner and Ida Jane E. Conner (DB 948, page 235) S. 30 deg. 08 min. 35 sec. E. 311.29 feet to Corner No. 10, the Point of Beginning and containing 16.255 acres, and being all of New Parcel A as shown on the aforesaid plat. 4. 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. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ -~1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: November 19, 2002 AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Vacate a 15' Access Easement on Lot 8, and Release a Reservation for Water Storage Tank on a Public Utility Lot, Created by Subdivision Plat for Section 8, Falling Creek Estates, in Plat Book 21, Page 20, and Combined into New Lot 8A (Tax Map No. 51.03- 2-9) in Plat Book 24, Page 5, in the Vinton Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: By subdivision plat for Section 8, Falling Creek Estates, recorded in Plat Book 21, page 20, Falling Creek Development, L.C. (the Developer) created Lot 8 and an adjoining "Public Utility Lot Reserved for Water Storage Tank". A "15' Access Easement" was dedicated across Lot 8 for access to the tank lot. In June 2000, the Developer relocated the water tank lot and access easement to Lots 17 and 18. By combination plat recorded in Plat Book 24, page 5, Lot 8 and the Public Utility Lot were combined to create New Lot 8A, currently identified on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #51.03-2-9. The 15' access easement remains across the front portion of New Lot 8A. Falling Creek Development, L.C., is in the process of selling New Lot 8A to a contract purchaser, who has requested that the referenced encumbrances be removed from the property. The owner/developer is therefore petitioning for vacation of the 15' access easement as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, and for release of the `public ~y utility lot' restriction to the extent that any exists. Staff has no objection to the proposed vacation and release. FISCAL IMPACT: All costs associated with this vacation and release will be the responsibility of the Petitioner. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed ordinance to vacate the 15' access easement and release the public utility lot reservation on New Lot 8A. S-4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 ORDINANCE TO VACATE A 15' ACCESS EASEMENT ON LOT 8, AND TO RELEASE A RESERVATION FOR WATER STORAGE TANK ON A PUBLIC UTILITY LOT, CREATED BY SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR SECTION 8, FALLING CREEK ESTATES, IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 20, AND COMBINED INTO NEW LOT 8A (TAX MAP NO. 51-03-2-9) IN PLAT BOOK 24, PAGES, IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat for Section 8, Falling Creek Estates, recorded in Plat Book 21, page 20, Falling Creek Development, L.C. (the Developer) created Lot 8 and an adjoining "Public Utility Lot Reserved for Water Storage Tank"; and, WHEREAS, a "15' Access Easement" was dedicated across Lot 8 for access to the public utility lot; and, WHEREAS, the water tank lot has been relocated to Lots 17 and 18, and the "Public Utility Lot" has been combined with Lot 8 to create New Lot 8A (Tax Map #51.03-2-9), by plat recorded in Plat Book 24, page 5; and, WHEREAS, Petitioner/Developerhri requested that the 15' access easement be vacated and that the reservation of the public utility lot for water storage tank be released, to the extent that such reservation constitutes a restriction upon the property; and, WHEREAS, the public utility lot and the 15' access easement are no longer required and staff has no objection to the Petitioner's request; and, WHEREAS, § 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended) requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, 1 S-4 WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), and the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 5, 2002; the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance were held on November 19, 2002. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the existing "15' Access Easement" and the "Public Utility Lot Reserved for Water Storage Tank", as shown and created on the subdivision plat for Section 8, Falling Creek Estates, recorded in Plat Book 21, page 20, and further shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, be, and hereby are, vacated and released pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), subject to the conditions specified in this ordinance. 2. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner ,Falling Creek Development, L.C. 2. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 2 METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON THIS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF OF DEEDS, PLATS, AND CALCULATED INFORMATION AND DO NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY. ~ 0~ ~' ~ '0 1 , J + w X6 36 21 ~ ~ura~ c~r~r~ ~ (4r~ 7ia4 ~ TO~~ v ~Il~t~fi RESTRICTION TO BE RELEASED LO! L~~'d~. Vi~C.~ TED tt v -Ei Z ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ -Q -p Vi ~, v (Jl ~ o ~ .-- ~ ~•-- ,%° LOT 9 NEW LOT ~ T SA e LO _ G~ ~' ~1~ 4r Yi i s,. ~ r t r s rsf X44 '•'~~~>~ ~ ./` 75 ACCESS EASEMENT ~, 8. ~ . a ~ . TO BE VACATED {~~,80~ ~~°~ .>a .~ ~, 20' P.U.E. r ._.~,. -~-- , 6,.W~ ---. -~--- S85'04 1 125.00' TODDSBURY DRIVE " ' (50' R/w) = 100 TAX MAP N0. TAX, 51.03-02-09.00 SCALE: 1 MAP SHOW/NG l/ACA T/ON OF 15' ACCESS EASEMENT AND RELEASE OF RESERI/.4 T/ON OF PUBLIC UT/L/TY LOT EXHIBIT A FOR WA TER STORAGE TANK PREPARED BY.• ROANOKE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: 10/30/02 G.•/CAD/EPPERLEY/FALL_CREEK_ TANK.OWG A-111902-14 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: November 19, 2002 Public hearing on proposed charter amendments to Roanoke County Charter Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On November 5, 2002, the Board of Supervisors authorized the publication of a legal notice scheduling a public hearing for 7:00 p.m. on November 19, 2002, seeking citizen comment on several proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Charter. This notice was published on November 9, 2002. Sec. 15.2-2-2 of the State Code sets out the procedure for a locality to request an amendment to its existing Charter. The locality must publish in a newspaper of general circulation the text or an informative summary of the charter amendment. This publication must also provide at least ten days notice of the time and place of a hearing on this charter amendment. Upon completion of the public hearing and adoption of the amendments the locality may request the General Assembly to grant it an amendment to its existing charter. The full text of the proposed amendments is attached to this report. A summary of the proposed Charter amendments is as follows: Sec. 2.02 -Taxing powers. - In addition to the powers granted by other sections of the charter and general law, the county shall have the additional power to levy and collect taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products, pursuant to Section 58.1-3832 of the Code of Virginia. Sec. 11.04 -Social Services Board. -The title of the social services board shall be changed to social services advisory board and the membership on the board shall be increased from three to at least seven members to be appointed by the board of supervisors to serve terms of four years, one representing each election or magisterial district, and one representative from the City of Salem. Sec. 12.02 -School Board. -The county school board shall be composed of the same number of members as there are members of the board of supervisors and shall be elected by the voters from each magisterial district rather than appointed by the school board selection commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board hold the public hearing as scheduled. The next item on your agenda is the consideration of a resolution adopting the County's legislative program for the 2003 session of the Virginia General Assembly. This resolution includes the adoption of the proposed Charter amendments. VOTE: Supervisor McNamara motion to approve staff recommendation. Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ cc: File Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney § 2.02. Taxing powers. --In addition to the powers granted by other sections of this Charter and general law, the county shall have the power to raise annually by taxes and assessments, as permitted and limited by general law, in the county such sums of money as the board of supervisors shall deem necessary to pay the debts and defray the expenses of the county in such manner as the board of supervisors shall deem expedient. In addition to, but not as a limitation upon, this general grant of power the county shall have power to levy and collect ad valorum taxes on real estate and tangible personal property and machinery and tools; to levy and collect taxes for admission to or other charge for any public amusement, entertainment, performance, exhibition, sport or athletic event in the county, which taxes may be added to and collected with the price of such admission or other charge; to levy and collect taxes on hotel and motel rooms not to exceed five percent of the amount charged for the occupancy thereof; to levy and collect taxes on the sale of meals, including nonalcoholic beverages, only as provided for by general law and such tax shall apply also to food prepared on premises and sold to take out, such tax is subject to limitations as may be imposed by general law; to levy and collect taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products, pursuant to Section 58.1- 3832; to levy and collect privilege taxes, local general retail sales and use taxes as provided by law; unless prohibited by law, to require licenses, prohibit the conduct of any business, profession, vocation or calling without such license, require taxes to be paid on such licenses in respect of all businesses, professions, vocations and callings not exempted by prohibition of general law; to franchise any business or calling so as to protect the public interest; and to require licenses of all owners of vehicles of all kinds for the privilege of using the streets and other public places in the county, require taxes to be paid on such licenses and prohibit the use of streets, alleys and other public places in the county without such license; ~e~e~ In addition to the other powers conferred by law, the County of Roanoke shall have the power to impose, levy, and collect, in such manner as its board may deed expedient, a consumer or subscriber tax at a rate or rates not exceeding those authorized by general law upon the amount paid for the use of gas, electricity, telephone, and any other public utility service within the county, or upon the amount paid for any one or more of such public utility services, and may provide that such tax shall be added to and collected with bills rendered consumers and subscribers for such services. T- (Acts of Assembly, 1989 session, Ch. 119, approved 3-6-89; Acts of Assembly, 1993 session, Ch. 3, approved 2-9-93) T- ~ Sec. 11.04. Social Services Advisory Board. -The social services advisory board shall consist of tree at least seven existing members appointed by the board of supervisors to serve terms of four years, one representing each election or magisterial district, and one representative from the City of Salem. One member shall also be a member of the board of supervisors. The board shall elect its own chairman and shall meet bi-monthly. In addition to regularly scheduled meetings, it may meet at the call of the chairman or on the petition of at least two of the members. The social services advisory board shall have the authority to adopt necessary rules and regulations not in conflict with this charter or general law concerning such department. Sec. 12.02. School board. -The county school board shall be composed of the same number of members as there are members of the board of supervisors, who shall be elected by the voters from each magisterial or election district of the county, wbe for four-year terms. The school board shall elect its own chairman. The chairman of the school board shall be considered head of this department for the purpose of appearing before the board of supervisors, unless some other person in the department shall be designated by the school board for such purpose. -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002 RESOLUTION 111902-15 ADOPTING A LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE 2003 SESSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND PETITIONING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO FAVORABLY CONSIDER THE TOPICS AND ISSUES ADDRESSED HEREIN WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has identified major legislative issues of state-wide concern to be considered by the 2003 session of the Virginia General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the Board adopts this resolution as its Legislative Program for the 2003 session of the Virginia General Assembly. NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the following legislative initiatives are submitted for its legislative program for the 2003 session of the Virginia General Assembly for its favorable consideration and adoption. 1) Approve amendments to the Roanoke County Charter as follows: Sec. 2.02 -Taxing powers. - In addition to the powers granted by other sections of the charter and general law, the county shall have the additional power to levy and collect taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products, pursuant to Section 58.1-3832 of the Code of Virginia. Sec. 11.04 -Social Services Board. -The title of the social services board shall be changed to social services advisory board and the membership on the board shall be increased from three to at least seven members to be appointed by the board of supervisors to serve terms of four years, one representing each election or magisterial 1 of a~AN~'fF ti 'A ~ z ~ z J a 1838 DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us C~n~xr~~ u~ ~v~t~oC~e P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 November 20, 2002 Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council Roanoke City Council, Members Forest Jones, Salem City Manager Salem City Council, Members Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Vinton Town Council Vinton Town Council, Members BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission James D. Campbell, Executive Director, Virginia Association of Counties Attached is a certified copy of Resolution No. 111902-15 adopting a Legislative Program for the 2003 Session of the Virginia General Assembly. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, November 19, 2002. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Attachment cc: Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney The Honorable Bruce F. Jamerson, Clerk of the House of Delegates The Honorable Susan Clarke Schaar, Clerk of the Senate of aoaruo,~~ '« ^ A 2 ~ rags Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Chairman Michael W. Altizer Catawba Magisterial District Vinton Magisterial District Joseph McNamara, Vice-Chairman Richard C. Flora Windsor Hills Magisterial District Hollins Magisterial District H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix Cave Spring Magisterial District November 22, 2002 Dr. Maurits J. Wiggins Valley Community Church 5000 Carriage Drive, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Dr. Wiggins: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you for offering the invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, November 19, 2002. We believe it is most important to ask for divine guidance at these meetings, and the Board is very grateful for your contribution. Thank you again for sharing your time and your words with us. It was good to have you with us. With kindest regards, Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors OFFICE: FAX: VOICE MAIL: (540) 772-2005 (540) 772-2193 (540) 772-2170 E-MAIL: bos ~ co.roanoke.va. us ~tan~~:hilders -Marine Mud Run Page 1 ~N t~ ~~ `~c~;,a~ J From: Brenda Holton t.ar~r~ ~ :M ! C,~;`~( To: Diane Childers ! Date: 10/10/02 4:31 PM Subject: Marine Mud Run Mike Shepherd from the Marine Mud Run called to ask when he could come to Board meeting and made their donation. He wants to come November 19 but has to check with superiors to see when they can come, at 3 p.m. or 7 p.m. He will call us back later with more information. ID phone number was 343-6746 Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors E-mail: bholton@co.roanoke.va.us. Phone: (540) 772-2005 Fax: (540) 772-2193 ~•:31ane~~hilders Marine Mud Run donation- 11/19 meeting at 7 p m. _ ~ ~ ____ ~~ Page_1~ From: Brenda Holton To: Diane Childers Date: 10/11/02 3:22PM Subject: Marine Mud Run donation - 11/19 meeting at 7 p.m. Mike Shepherd, 343-6746, called to say that they want to come to Nov 19 meeting at 7 p.m. to present donation from Marine Mud Run. He will be present and his title is Commandant for Marine Corp League of Roanoke Valley. Also present will be Captain Harbinson, Inspector Instructor for Company B Fourth Combat Engineer Battalion. ~~0, ,~ ' They may have others come also and he will let me know the week before. This is the 7th year for the Mud Run and proceeds go to Camp Roanoke and Toys for Tots. They hope to donate at least $8,000 to Camp Roanoke. Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors E-mail: bholton@co.roanoke.va.us. Phone: (540) 772-2005 Fax: (540) 772-2193 ~ 7 ~ ~OC~ CC: Elmer Hodge ..... ~Ciane hilders Re: Marine Mud Run donation - 11/19 meeting at 7 p.m. Page 1 From: Elmer Hodge To: BHOLTON@co.roanoke.va.us,DCHILDERS@co.roanoke.va.us Date: 10/12/02 6:54PM Subject: Re: Marine Mud Run donation - 11/19 meeting at 7 p.m. Sounds great to me. We can use the money. Thanks Elmer Hodge Roanoke County Administrator 540-772-2004 »> Brenda Holton 10/11/02 15:22 PM »> Mike Shepherd, 343-6746, called to say that they want to come to Nov 19 meeting at 7 p.m. to present donation from Marine Mud Run. He will be present and his title is Commandant for Marine Corp League of Roanoke Valley. Also present will be Captain Harbinson, Inspector Instructor for Company B Fourth Combat Engineer Battalion. They may have others come also and he will let me know the week before. This is the 7th year for the Mud Run and proceeds go to Camp Roanoke and Toys for Tots. They hope to donate at least $8,000 to Camp Roanoke. Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors E-mail: bholton@co.roanoke.va.us. Phone: (540) 772-2005 Fax: (540) 772-2193 CC: EHODGE@co.roanoke.va.us sv Please coordinate. -°~" ,,~ ~~ „s,.~ ~ t ~ ` Elmer Hodge Roanoke County Administrator ~`y~~G~ ~~~.C~~ 540-772-2004 »> <kristin.peckman@wachovia.com> 11/05/02 01:41PM »> ~U~- ~ 9 1~ ~ ~ ~ Dear Mr. Hodge: We have decided that Dec. 3 will be the best date for us. Realizing that you can't be sure exactly how long the earlier items on the agenda for that meeting may take, at what time should we be ready with our presentation? ~~,^~ ~;~~- ~/ Can you tell~rne: - ~ ~,~ a) Do you have a copy of VDOT's Draft Environmental Impact Statement ~`' G'~~'~'G~'-G~"" C~~~~~ for I-73, issued in October 2000? -_,- b}-Has the-Board previously been presented with any information about I-73 from other citizen groups? (We just don't want to duplicate information you have already received and which is fresh in the `~ ~~• Supervisors' minds.) Thank you for providing us this opportunity. Sincerely yours, Kristin Peckman ---------------------- Forwarded by Kristin Peckman/AO/USR/FTU on 11-05-2002 01:35 PM --------------------------- Kristin Peckman 11-05-2002 09:57 AM To: ehodgeCc~co.roanoke.va.us cc: rcflora(a~rev.net Subject: Request for a work session Dear Mr. Hodge: 11-7-03- 1-- 7~ . ~.LC'.~/n~Rm Ci/I~cL~o~ ~.el~-~ `-~a-v-. [ ~ ~ ~ - 30 My name is Kristin Peckman. I am a Roanoke County resident and a member of Virginians for Appropriate Roads, an organization which for the past four years has been devoted to finding an appropriate solution to the I-73 question. Yesterday evening I spoke with my Supervisor, Mr. Richard Flora, about our recommendation that, in light of the very slim chance that the present routing of I-73 will become a reality in the next 20 years, Roanoke County ask Mr. Onzlee Ware to ask the Commonwealth Transportation Board to revisit their choice of a route for I-73 and select an upgrade of US 220 instead. Such an upgrade would have a much greater chance of actually being completed, since it would cost 10-15% of what the present route would cost, and would still qualify for the 80% federal dollars. We would end up `~- `mod _._._._.-- _-- y _-- _.___q...___.___ _ ..~ _ ........ .... . . _ _....___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ . _ _.. , Wanda Rile Fwd: Re uest for a work session Page 2 . '~ with a safer route from Roanoke to Greensboro, without the devastation that is already being visited on Roanoke County residents by the uncertainty around I-73. Mr. Flora suggested that we ask you to have our organization make a presentation to the Board, preferably in a work session to give the supervisors an opportunity to ask questions and discuss the issue with us, We request that this session be arranged soon, because VDOT is currently preparing its Final Environmental Impact Statement for the present route. You may respond by email or by phoning me at 540-563-7901 (daytimes Tuesday-Friday) or 540-366-7780 (evenings and daytime Monday). Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely yours, Kristin B. Peckman 8131 Webster Dr. Roanoke, VA 24019 ---- -- Di~~Childers -Legal Ad Charter Amendment Page 1 -_ _. - ~_. - --- --- -- . - -- . __ _ W ~_ ~ _ _.__ _...._ ___ __ ~ _ _ _._ ~-~-.. From: Sue Bane To: Legals@Roanoke.com Date: 11/6/02 2:45PM Subject: Legal Ad-Charter Amendment Martha, Please see the attached notice of public hearing regarding amendments to the Roanoke County Charter. Please publish this notice on November 9, 2002. Let me know if you have questions. Thanks, Sue Bane Legal Assistant sbane@co.roanoke.va.us 772-2007 772-2089 (fax) CC: Diane Childers; Paul Mahoney ~Diu~Childers - public.notice charter.amendments.doc Page 1 r•. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENTS TO ROANOKE COUNTY CHARTER Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and specifically Section 15.2-202, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby gives notice of a pubic hearing to be held on November 19, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive ,Roanoke, Virginia, so that the citizens of Roanoke County shall have an opportunity to comment upon the County's request that the General Assembly amend its existing charter. A summary of the text of the proposed charter amendments follows: Sec. 2.02 -Taxing powers. - In addition to the powers granted by other sections of the charter and general law, the county shall have the additional power to levy and collect taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products, pursuant to Section 58.1-3832 of the Code of Virginia. Sec. 11.04 -Social Services Board. -The title of the social services board shall be changed to social services advisory board and the membership on the board shall be increased from three to at least seven members to be appointed by the board of supervisors to serve terms of four years, one representing each election or magisterial district, and one representative from the City of Salem. Sec. 12.02 -School Board. -The county school board shall be composed of the same number of members as there are members of the board of supervisors and shall be elected by the voters from each magisterial district rather than appointed by the school board selection commission. The Roanoke County Charter and a copy of the text of the proposed amendment are available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Paul M. Mahoney Roanoke County Attorney Please publish on November 9, 2002. Please send bill to: Diane Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 - ---- - _ _._ tDiar-~Childers RE: Legal Ad-Charter Amendment Page 1 ~ From: Martha Plank <Martha.Plank@Roanoke.com> To: 'Sue Bane' <SBANE@co.roanoke.va.us> Date: 11/6/02 3:58PM Subject: RE: Legal Ad-Charter Amendment thanks Sue. I have your ad scheduled for Saturday, Nov. 9 -cost is 186.30.... have a good evening! NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING~~AMENDMENTS TO~~ROANOKE COUNTY CHARTERS Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and specifically Section 15.2-202, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby gives notice of a pubic hearing to be held on November 19, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive ,Roanoke, Virginia, so that the citizens of Roanoke County shall have an opportunity to comment upon the County's request that the General Assembly amend its existing charter. A summary of the text of the proposed charter amendments follows: Sec. 2.02 -Taxing powers. - In addition to the powers granted by other sections of the charter and general law, the county shall have the additional power to levy and collect taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products, pursuant to Section 58.1-3832 of the Code of Virginia. Sec. 11.04 -Social Services Board. -The title of the social services board shall be changed to social services advisory board and the membership on the board shall be increased from three to at least seven members to be appointed by the board of supervisors to serve terms of four years, one representing each election or magisterial district, and one representative from the City of Salem. Sec. 12.02 -School Board. -The county school board shall be composed of the same number of members as there are members of the board of supervisors and shall be elected by the voters from each magisterial district rather than appointed by the school board selection commission. The Roanoke County Charter and a copy of the text of the proposed amendment are available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Paul M. Mahoney~Roanoke County Attorney (2021493) Martha F. Plank The Roanoke Times Legal Advertising Rep. Phone 540.981.3440 Fax 540.981.3415 Email: legals@roanoke.com > From: Sue Bane > Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2002 2:45 PM > To: Legals@Roanoke.com > Cc: Diane Childers; Paul Mahoney > Subject: Legal Ad-Charter Amendment > «File: public.notice.charter.amendments.doc» d IN REPUBLIC HEARING 1.Public Hearing for citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Roanoke County Charter, Section 18.10 concerning annexation: No part of the territory of the county may be annexed by any city or town unless the whole county be annexed, and the question of annexation shall first be submitted to a referendum and approved by a majority of citizens voting (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorne R-010296-3 Mr. Mahoneyexplained that the charter amendment is being considered because of hints and threats of annexation by the Town of Vinton and the Urban Partnership's report on recommending changes to the structure of local governments. The proposed charter amendment would prohibit any territory of the County to be annexed by any city or town unless the whole county was annexed and the issue must first be brought to the voters by a referendum. Clay Goodman, Vinton Town Manager, spoke in opposition to the amendment because of the potential negative affect to the Town of Vinton and all towns in the state. He also advised that the Vinton Town Council was not informed in advance that this issue would be brought to the Board at this meeting, and were not aware of it until they read the legal notice in the newspaper. Supervisor Eddy advised that he had mixed feelings about the amendment; Supervisors Johnson and Minnix expressed support for the amendment and also for investigating the possibility of city status for the County. Supervisor Nickens asked if there could be an advisory question on the next referendum to ascertain the feelings of citizens in east County to being annexed by the Town of Vinton. Mr. Mahoney responded that advisory questions are not allowed on referendums. Supervisor Nickens also requested that in the future the Town of Vinton be informed of any issue considered by the County that would affect them. Supervisor Eddy moved to adopt the charter amendment with the deletion of the word "Town" in the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Minnix, Harrison, Eddy, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None RESOLUTION 010296-3 REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO AMEND THE ROANOKE COUNTY CHARTER WHEREAS, on January 2,1996, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a public r hearing after proper legal notice on a proposal to amend the Roanoke County Charter, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-835, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the following amendment to the Roanoke County Charter is submitted to the 1996 session of the Virginia General Assembly for its favorable consideration and adoption: Section 18.10. Annexation. - No part of the territory of the county may be annexed by any city er-ta~rort unless the whole county be annexed. In such case the county shall not be annexed until the question of annexation has been first submitted to a referendum of the voters of the county and approved by a majority of those voting thereon. The Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to the members of the General Assembly representing the Roanoke Valley, to the Clerks of the House of Delegates and the Senate of the General Assembly, and to the Town Council of the Town of Vinton, City Councils of the City of Salem and the City of Roanoke, and the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Bedford, Botetourt, Craig, Floyd, Franklin, and Montgomery counties. On motion of Supervisor Eddy to adopt the resolution with the deletion of the word "Town" in the charter amendment, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Nickens, Johnson NAYS: None ^ , November 19 Agenda: Cotton Hill Land Co.: Add wording: APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS MATTER BE REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO EVALUATE THEIR REQUEST FOR A RECONSIDERATION. Diane Childers -Fwd: RE: Concealed Page 1 J .. From: Susan Carter To: Diane Childers Date: 11/8/02 9:10AM Subject: Fwd: RE: Concealed FYI Diane, according to David Holladay and Janet Scheid, Ed Natt has asked to pull the BOS -Cotton Hill Land Co ad which is to be published again on 11/12/02. I have notified Martha @ Roanoke Times of this. If you haven't been notified about about the status of this petition, Janet or David can explain it. It is rather complicated. It is my understanding this was discussed with the County Attorney also. -., _ -, Pa e1' Diane Childers RE: Concealed __ ____ _,_ _ 9 ... __ From: Martha Plank <Martha.Plank@Roanoke.com> To: 'Susan Carter' <SCARTER@co.roanoke.va.us> Date: 11/8/02 8:55AM Subject: RE: Concealed Susan, is this the one that is billed to Ed Natt? If so, what you have e-mailed is all I need to cancel the ad..... Martha F. Plank The Roanoke Times Legal Advertising Rep. Phone 540.981.3440 Fax 540.981.3415 Email: legals@roanoke.com > From: Susan Carter > Sent: Friday, November 8, 2002 8:49 AM > To: legals@roanoke.com > Subject: Concealed > Subject: Roanoke Co BOS Ad > The petitioner has asked to pull the ad for Cotton Hill Land Co which is > to be > publish on 11/12/02. Please tell me the steps I need to take in order tc > do > this. Thanks, Martha. LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on November 19, 2002, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, will hold a public hearing and second reading on the following matter, to-wit: ORDINANCE TO VACATE A 15' ACCESS EASEMENT ON LOT 8, AND TO RELEASE A RESERVATION FOR WATER STORAGE TANK ON A PUBLIC UTILITY LOT, CREATED BY SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR SECTION 8, FALLING CREEK ESTATES, IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 20, AND COMBINED INTO NEW LOT 8A (TAX MAP NO. 51-03-2-9) IN PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE 5, IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT A copy of this ordinance is available for inspection in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors at 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. All members of the public interested in this matter may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. Dated: November 1, 2002 Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Please publish on the following dates: Tuesday, November 5, 2002 Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Please send the invoice to: W. Ben Snead, Jr., P.C. 5220 F Williamson Road Roanoke, VA 24012 563-2861 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: Diane S. Childers, Clerk Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County P.O. BOX 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 August 30, 2002 Dr. Harry C. Nickens 4179 Toddsbury Drive Vinton, VA 24179 Dr. Nickens: I take this opportunity to express my appreciation to you and the supervisors of Roanoke County for the honor and privilege of serving on its Planning Commission since July of 1988. My greatest joy is in participating in working to make Roanoke County the standard for quality of life by which others may determine their degree of success. Since my retirement and having served 13 '/z years on the Commission and considering the qualifications, commitment and objective rational judgement of the remaining members, I wish to withdraw my name for consideration for re-appointment to the Roanoke County Planning Commission. This will provide the county the opportunity to appoint someone with new energy, ideas and vision who will benefit from his or her efforts in the future. I will be happy to assist any new appointee in preparing for service and answer any questions in order to make their transition as smooth as possible. With best wishes and kindest regards, I am, ~~ l~ ~ A. Kyle Robinson, Jr. Diane Childers - RE: Legal Ads Page 1 ,pa From: Martha Plank <Martha.Plank@Roanoke.com> ~~~pd ~'~~ To: 'Diane Childers' <DCHILDERS@co.roanoke.va.us> ~~W` n~,('~ Date: 11 /4/02 10:23AM +~,~_ Subject: RE: Legal Ads here is the other one - to run Nov. 5 and 12 -cost is165.60... thanks, martha LEGAL NOTICE~~ROANOKE COUNTY~~BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 19, 2002, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Cotton Hill Land Company, LC to rezone 22.743 acres from AR Agricultural Residential District to R-1 Low Density Residential District for a development of single family housing located at Virginia Secondary Route 688 (Cotton Hill Road) and Raintree Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA.Dated: November 1, 2002Diane S. Childers, Clerk (2119579) Martha F. Plank The Roanoke Times Legal Advertising Rep. Phone 540.981.3440 Fax 540.981.3415 Email: legals@roanoke.com > From: Diane Childers > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:02 AM > To: legals@roanoke.com > Subject: Legal Ads > «File: 11-19-Comm. Dev. Ads.doc» > Martha, > Please publish the attached legal ads on November 5 and November 12, 2002. > If > you have any questions, please contact me. > Diane S. Childers > Clerk to the Board > County of Roanoke > E-mail: dchilders@co.roanoke.va.us > Phone: (540) 772-2003 > Fax: (540) 772-2193 Diane Childers RE: _egal Ads Page 1 ,~~2- ~1 From: Martha Plank <Martha.Plank@Roanoke.com> To: 'Diane Childers' <DCHILDERS@co.roanoke.va.us> Date: 11 /4/02 10:12AM Subject: RE: Legal Ads Hi Diane, here is one of your ads.....to run Nov. 5 and 12 -cost is $161.00... thanks LEGAL NOTICE~~ROANOKE COUNTY~~BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 19, 2002, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Larry G. & Ida Jane E. Conner to rezone 16.255 acres from C-2 General Commercial District to R-1 Low Density Residential District for the purpose of constructing a single family dwelling located at 6012 Cove Road, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 1, 2002Diane S. Childers, Clerk (2019522) Martha F. Plank The Roanoke Times Legal Advertising Rep. Phone 540.981.3440 Fax 540.981.3415 Email: legals@roanoke.com > From: Diane Childers > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:02 AM > To: legals@roanoke.com > Subject: Legal Ads > «File: 11-19-Comm. Dev. Ads.doc» > Martha, > Please publish the attached legal ads on November 5 and November 12, 2002. > If > you have any questions, please contact me. > Diane S. Childers > Clerk to the Board > County of Roanoke > E-mail: dchilders@co.roanoke.va.us > Phone: (540) 772-2003 > Fax: (540) 772-2193 Diane Childers - RE: Legal Ads From: Martha Plank <Martha.Plank@Roanoke.com> To: 'Diane Childers' <DCHILDERS@co.roanoke.va.us> Date: 11 /4/02 10:13AM Subject: RE: Legal Ads here is another one -runs Nov. 5 and 12 -cost is 147.20-- thanks Page_1~j a~`'~A~ LEGAL NOTICE~~ROANOKE COUNTY~~BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 19, 2002, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Sheree & James Ringer for a Special Use Permit for .55 acres for a home occupation in an accessory structure, located at 3564 Grandin Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 1, 2002Diane S. Childers, Clerk (2019539) Martha F. Plank The Roanoke Times Legal Advertising Rep. Phone 540.981.3440 Fax 540.981.3415 Email: legals@roanoke.com > From: Diane Childers > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:02 AM > To: legals@roanoke.com > Subject: Legal Ads > «File: 11-19-Comm. Dev. Ads.doc» > Martha, > Please publish the attached legal ads on November 5 and November 12, 2002. > If > you have any questions, please contact me. > Diane S. Childers > Clerk to the Board > County of Roanoke > E-mail: dchilders@co.roanoke.va.us > Phone: (540) 772-2003 > Fax: (540) 772-2193 _- - Diane Childers -Legal Ads From: Diane Childers To: legals@roanoke.com Date: 10/30/02 11:02AM Subject: Legal Ads Martha, _- ---- , Page 1 Please publish the attached legal ads on November 5 and November 12, 2002. If you have any questions, please contact me. Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke E-mail: dchilders@co.roanoke.va.us Phone: (540) 772-2003 Fax: (540) 772-2193 _..__ ^_~ Diane Childers - 11-19-Comm. Dev. Ads.doc Page 1 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 19, 2002, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Sheree & James Ringer for a Special Use Permit for .55 acres for a home occupation in an accessory structure, located at 3564 Grandin Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 1, 2002, Diane S. Childers, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times: Tuesday, November 5, 2002 Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Direct the bill for publication to: Cornerstone Custom Homes 85 Surber Drive Moneta, VA 24121 (540) 721-1348 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: Diane Childers Clerk to the Board P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ', Diane Childers - 11-19-Comm. Dev. Ads.doc page 2 r~ LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 19, 2002, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Larry G. & Ida Jane E. Conner to rezone 16.255 acres from C-2 General Commercial District to R- 1 Low Density Residential District for the purpose of constructing a single family dwelling located at 6012 Cove Road, Catawba Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 1, 2002 Diane S. Childers, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, November 5, 2002 Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Direct the bill for publication to: Larry G. & Ida Jane E. Conner 6012 Cove Road Roanoke, VA 24019 (540) 562-1098 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: Diane Childers Clerk to the Board P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 2 ~ Diane Childers 11-19-Comm. Dev. Ads.doc Page 3 .• LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 19, 2002, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Cotton Hill Land Company, LC to rezone 22.743 acres from AR Agricultural Residential District to R-1 Low Density Residential District for a development of single family housing located at Virginia Secondary Route 688 (Cotton Hill Road) and Raintree Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 1, 2002 Diane S. Childers, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times Tuesday, November 5, 2002 ', Tuesday, November 12, 2002 ', Direct the bill for publication to: Edward A. Natt, Esquire Osterhoudt, Prillaman & Natt 3912 Electric Road Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 725-8180 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: Diane Childers Clerk to the Board P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 3 Diane Childers -Ministers From: To: Date: Subject: Elizabeth Atkinson Brenda Holton; Diane Childers 11 /6/02 9:16AM Ministers Following are the ministers for the rest of the year. Nov. 19 -Rev. Dr. Maurita J. Wiggins Valley Community Church Dec. 3 -Rev. Ed Woodard Oak Grove Church of the Brethren Dec. 17 -Rev. Edward Creel Lynn Haven Baptist Church Elizabeth J. Atkinson Office of Management & Budget County of Roanoke (540) 772-2178 eatkinson@co.roanoke.va.us -- _ Page 1._ Attached are the petitions for road improvements and installation of a traffic signal at Indian Grave Road in the Clearbrook area of Roanoke County. Noy. [q ~~io, ~;, . RESIDENT ADDRESS House No. & Street Name or SOCIAL SECURITY SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED VOTER Rural Route & Box No. & Cit (Town NUMBER PRINT NAME IN SPACE BELOW SIGNATURE DATE ~ ~ ` ~ • SIGNED * SEE NOTE BELOW 1 . SIGN /~ P M ~~ ~ D ~ ~~^ ' ~ T L- PRINT P~,~e..i / I ~~'~'L D n , ~ I~ ~II IQ~ ~~ i _b~-V ~~si J ph_~ ` ~ ; ~ V~, ~ Uf.7/! 111 PRINT ~~` Ci U(~° OV eS ~~ Y GTOIj/ - ~1-(,~~ ~ .. ~°S .. St~~~ v SIG 3. C ~ D IcSOt~c~ ~r /'~~~/'~~ PRINT ~~1 WII:JV~ ', /n~ n /~~ ^I WVnL.S ~ " '`I ~ ~ ~~ f ~l7 ~ t~~l'VC~ ^/ 7 J/.~/ / /+^ G--li~(J ~~V`V l l(i Y • V [ SIGN / ~ 1 !T cr~~ ~.J V ~(~ J / Q 61c ~; ~ PRINT/V /~ /( ~/ d d CK~ l!~ ~`f U~y ~l'~1~~~~ ~~~._ ~~~.S~U~ SIGN !~ cTC/'~~ 5. ~ ~ lJt-~ ~ l.~l~ ~ ~~ ' PRINT ~ `°"'V v~. ~ 1 ~ l V ~ ~ L I l ~ D .. ~'-~G U I ~~J L/~ 81GN ~ / D 'f PRINT I ~~~~ I'~ Q~ ~.~ I /^i /~ SIGN '. \ Al / ~7~ ~. vvv vvvvGGG .~S ~ ~ •• -- PRINT L /~ ~~ • t/`•'~ ..- U/,-~7 ~^/r~1 ~' ~ ~ ~I l/ O~ ~'1 / ~~I - V ~ f ~~F' ~~ SIGN ~ aa.tir ~ „^^„ ~ /I , ! ~/ ~JI ~ i / i l f o ~ 22 S 2 ~ ~7 ~ SIGN 9. a / ~a~~ _ '.~.' Cam' C,~ ~^ _ PAINT j' 1 / ~/ ~/,~// / ~/ l r O ~~l l.Y~ SIGN - • p ~~-~. 1 / 9 `/~~ 7 PRINT ~ • ~ '~ ~ L I~~/1~~ ~~ / ~~ / / ,,. SIGN 1~ '~ Lti~-(,~ ih-rv~s 2~-f - " ~t ~ ~ k (r `~ ~ ,~ ~~ - _ PRINT ~ I i 1 ~~. ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~'~. f ~' ~~ 7 ~-S ~ L. ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ^~ 1 ~~ E) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~(_ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~~~ - 3 •~ CONTINUE ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES AND COMPLETE AFFIDAVIT ON REVERSE SIDE. "The social security number Is part of each voter's official record and is requested only to make it possible to check this petition more quickly and with greater accuracy. It is not mandatory that it be provided. The State Board of Elections or the General Registrar, when copying this document for public Inspection, must cover the column containing social security numbers. All signatures required by law need not be on the same page of the petition. Numerous pages may be circulated. The circulator of each page must be a person who Is, or who Is eligible to be, registered and qualified to vote for the office for which this petition Is circulated. If the office is a statewide office, the circulator also must be a resident of either the same congressional district as the voter who is signing the petition or of a congressional district contiguous to the district of the voter. The circulator also must swear or affirm in the affidavit that he personally witnessed the signature of each voter. SBE•5061521 REV 12/01 1. RESIDENT ADDRESS House No. & Street Name or SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED VOTER Rural Route & Box No. & Ci /Town SOCIAL SECURITY PRINT NAME IN SPACE BELOW SIGNATURE . DATE NUMBER • • • • SIGNED * SEE NOTE BELUW ~ 5 'HINT ar ~~ ~` ~ac~ / ~!/' I ~~ ~~ / . M~ I' PRI ~ ~ / f //f `V J s. SIGN ~6~~~ / / 5. 9. ~r ~~~ lN~~'i1 ~Y ill/Z ~ (-/i, ~ ~~ x'36 S ~ ~~ aA Ca ~~~ ~~~ .. ~~ tt. SIGN ~, ~ • ~~ ~ ~~ V~ n-C1 ~!' fl ~ 0~ PRINT , I i /~ ~ ?n va "l v ~- a~ ~ ~ CONTINUE ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES AND COMPLETE AFFIDAVIT ON REVERSE SIDE. "The social security number is part of each voter's official record and Is requested only to make it possible to check this etition more greater accuracy. It is not mandatory that it be provided. The State Board of Elections or the General Registrar, when copying this do ument for publ c Inspection, must cover the column containing social security numbers. Ali signatures required bylaw need not be on the same page of the petition. Numerous pages may be circulated. The circulator of each page must be a person who is, or who Is eligible to be, registered and qualified to vote for the office for which this petition Is circulated. If the office is a statewide office, the circulator also must be a resident of either the same congressional district as the voter who is signing the petition or of a congressional district contiguous to the district of the voter. The circulator also must swear or affirm In the affidavit that he personally witnessed the signature of each voter. SBE-5061521 REV 12101 RESIDENT ADDRESS SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED VOTER House No. & Street Name or Rural Route & Box No. & Ci /Town DATE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER PRINT NAME IN SPACE BELOW SIGNATURE • • • :. • SIGNED * SEE NOTE BELOW 1 SIGN ~ . PRINT Vr - q, - ~o~.g-`~~-saa5 8b PRINT ~ ~ i / 3. SIG / ' PRINT ~ ,. O Q ~O/ %~ii oa ~3-ga-~a9 SIGN ~ q ` I/ ~"1 / LJ1/ PRINT ~~ - `'] 77 <~_L.+~ - ~ 3~~ s. SIGN ~ / 3 ~ ~~',. N C! ~ V , y ~ ~ 1 ~~ ( ~ ~f 3 ~ PRINT ~ ~132o I~"~NQ !`c.._ ~ 0~-.7 /o~ 7 Y" I ~ a SIGN D ~ J/ / PiiINT ~ ~~ D~ /~~ ~~ ~~~W U ! ~V 7. r SIGN PRINT ~V ~~V / ~ / SIGN . C ~ ~~ (~Q. C Z f ~~~ ~--~~~~ f 1 PRINT ~ ' ~ ~'., 9. SIGN .~ ~ S ~ ~JY~U~ v ,t Q~/` l/ c PRINT ~-`r 0ti W~ U `J ^\ ` ' \ ' ' ~O ~ NtiO V C.~-~ W ~ ( ~L LI _ ~ \ I r7 ^ C Z `~ ~ V~'- ~v C.--."lJ ' SIGN // (/ ~ / ~ 2 '~ //~-jJ~/ PRINT J~-' ~ V 'GL ~ ~/ ~~p~J ~~~rl~~it~`,*'vL~ ~ _ ~ ~~ l ttt J h ~ ~ ~ 1 !lJ Z J / /~// ~(~ ~! ~/ l ~ / 't SIGN ^/~/{fin --~) PRINY V / ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~lll-off ~d~~~sS/ ~ {~ CONTINUE ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES AND COMPLETE AFFIDAVIT ON REVERSE SIDE. "The social security number is part of each voter's official record and is requested only to make it possible to check this petition more quickly and with greater accuracy. It is not mandatory that it be provided. The State Board of Elections or the General Registrar, when copying this document for public Inspection, must cover the column containing social security numbers. All signatures required by law need not be on the same page of the petition. Numerous pages may be circulated. The circulator of each page must be a person who is, or who is eligible to be, registered and qualified to vote for the office for which this petition Is circulated. If the office is a statewide office, the arculator also must be a resident of either the same congressional district as the voter who is signing the petition or of a congressional district contiguous to the district of the voter. The circulator also must swear or affirm in the affidavit that he personally witnessed the signature.of~each voter. SBE-5061521 REV 12101 - CONTINUE ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES AND COMPLETE AFFIDAVIT ON REVERSE SIDE. '`The social security number Is part of each voter's official record and Is requested only to make (t possible to check this petition more quickly and with greater accuracy. It is not mandatory that it be provided. The State Board of Elections or the General Registrar, when copying this document for public Inspection, must cover the column containing social security numbers. All signatures required bylaw need not be on the same page of the petition. Numerous pages may be circulated. The circulator of each page must be a person who is, or who Is eligible to be, registered and qualified to vote for the office for which this petition Is circulated. If the office is a statewide office, the circulator also must be a resident of either the same congressional district as the voter who is signing the petition or of a congressional district conttguous to the district of the voter. The circulator also must swear or affirm in the affidavit that he personally witnessed the signature of each voter. SBE-5061521 REV 12101 RESIDENT ADDRESS SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED VOTER House No. & Street Name or Rural Route & Box No. & Ci /Town DATE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER PRINT NAME IN SPACE BELOW SIGNATURE ~ • • . : • • SIGNED * SEE NOTE BELOW ~ 1. SIGN ~ V li, / ~ i PRINT ~ I1 ~ ~ I - ty,. I ~\ r I 1~( ~ i~ I ~ ., SIGN ~ q /7~,~ ~~ // ~~( ~,~ ~~~ / ~1/ lr ., /j ~'.. ~ ~; .~s~ ~ 1 ~ ~' ~ ~ PRINT ~~ . ~ ,J ~ _ ~' K.~ ~ ~~ / ~ - ~~ ~ ~ `~ 2 ,~• SIGN ~a!'. ~ 1 PRINT W~ ~ tJ ~~ '~ •~l. ~1 I `~C `~-l~ ~ Li I IIV SIGN ~ b Q ~, \ ~~~ ~e® `/}~~ , T) ^ /; r PRINT F-~. l lam- tl \ V~~ S [ I ~ ~ ~ T ~P (~-lI ~Q~ /J rJ. SIGN ~~ ~/1,.6'~L a~`~ `„'~"_ l.~ l.s. J'~''I'!L~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ 7 V (~ / ~ V G ~ ~ PRINT l / SIGN ~ ~ ~-, C\ 1 ~ ~J ~ ~ {~J~-l`- \ c ~ LL~.~ J/,~ {, PRINT ~ V L ~' V~ ~ 1 ~{~ / ~_ c ~ C ne ~ ~~~~ V ~ ~ ~U l1_~ 7. J SIGN 1 y~~/ b / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ I I--~ ~ 1 ~ PRINT G 1 \ i ~ t! 1/ 1 ~ ~1~~ j / 11, I I / 1 i ~ 1 V~ S /'[, I I `~~' llli SIGN ~ ~- 1~ ~~ / / ~ I~. CO V // ~~ ~~ ~ ~ /~ ~ Y-C) ~ ~ ~j // / =X / PRINT /' S S i l' I~Q. ~ a /~ U U h O /~ ~ U~ ((// 9. SIGN - ~ ~ a ~ ~j ~ ~ ~~ ~V l ~ . ~. `~~ (i ~ I I " C-~Z- r /fit PRINT L~ -~Q C ~4 Q [~ 1Y/I /'~ l~ 1`-V. ~\..t ~j ~ d ( 1 SIGN ~ / ~/\ \ O V V ~ PRINT ~ r ~ w 1 //r y^ ~` ^/ Q ~G. r ' V G.~ ~\ t V , ~ ~~ ~ O ' 1 SIGN PRINT CONTINUE ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES AND COMPLETE AFFIDAVIT ON REVERSE SIDE. 'The social security number Is part of each voter's official record and is requested only to make it possible to check this petition more quickly anti with greater accuracy. It is not mandatory that it be provided. The State Board of Elections or the General Registrar, when copying this document for public Inspection, must cover the column containing social security numbers. All signatures required by law need not be on the same page of the petition. Numerous pages may be circulated. The circulator of each page must be a person who is, or who is eligible to be, registered and qualified to vote for the office for which this petition is circulated. I(ihe office is a statewide office, the circulator also must be a resident of either the same congressional district as the voter who is signing the petition or of a congressional district contiguous to the district of the voter. The circulator also must swear or affirm in the affidavit that he personally witnessed the signature of each voter. SBE-5061521 REV 12101 SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED VOTER PRfNT'17~MF~d SPACE BELOW SIGNATURE] ~ .r 1 3. 5. 1 c c. ~ 5k,1, e -~ P. Vesf r ~~~an~~ ~ Lt • ~./ ~ J~. ~i. SIGN '~ 9. PRINT ~ t h SN3N ~ ~r- PRINT l./l•~z~` ' 1 SIGN rf RESIDENT ADDRESS House No. & Street Name or Rural Route & Box No. & Ci /Town .~ ~ :~ ~~ A2~ j ~1~~ Lr~ une~ `>>1 ll~ a~e~5 - 3 ~~ ~ ~~~~-cam ~r ooh of i ~' V ~.~yU~ 3s' ~ t3~-ck C.rl~ ~.~ ~~~,U~~t (( I~ . 'a~..~,_._._ ~..C/ -_~~ ~~~ /rC.~ Yi~ 7 c..l I 3s1 c L~Reel2 R v Ones ~ LC • ~ D sy o c~e~-~6,~~~~ , oa~rake.l//~~yo/~ ,. ;~I la~e~ '~-~ _ ~"~ 1 ~ 1. r: ~ r7-~%- .~f SOCIAL SECURITY DATE NUMBER SIGNED '~ SEE NOTE BELOW i~~11~b /~~~~~ r~ rrl(1/1~Z /~ ~~ oz // /~~ /l//!~ d' ~l„l ~'~J ~~'(~S jtlll ~ r~ll.1('ST ~Pi (PRINT Y • I (~1~.~ n Rev 2~.n ~ V~ ~ ~-rn -~ ~( ~l ~ `~ ~"7 ~ t t ~~ t ~ ~~ I CONTINUE ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES AND COMPLETE AFFIDAVIT ON REVERSE SIDE. 'The social security number Is part of each voter's official record and Is requested only to make it possible to check this petition more quickly and with greater accuracy. It Is not mandatory that it be provided. The State Board of Elections or fire General Registrar, when copying this document for public inspection, must cover the column containing social security numbers. All signatures required bylaw need not be on the same page of the petition. Numerous pages may be circulated. The circulator of each page must be a person who Is, or who Is eligible to be, registered and qualified to vote for the office for which this petition is circulated. If the office is a statewide office, the circulator also must be a resident of either the same congressional district as the voter who is signing the petition or of a congressional district contiguous to the district of the voter. The circulator also must swear or affirm in the affidavit that he personally witnessed the signature of each voter. SBE•5061521 REV 12101 RESIDENT ADDRESS SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED VOTER House No. & Street Name or Rural Route & Box No. & Cit (Town DATE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER PRINT NAME I SPAC BELOW SIGNATURE • • • : • • SIGNED * SEE NOTE BELOW 1 . SIGN /~/-~jQ ~ ( ~•(/ ~ ~~ `^•/4 PRINT ~O~ / LG '/ C,~ ~ ~`~ ~j~ f~` BIGN K . PRINT 3. sIGN ~. ~.~ C..~~OfAI~, IKCY. ~a~( W h,~`~e4t ~ PRINT ~' ~'Lli c <<~t11 ~a a a~ -fit - ~i g ~ , ,a , a UQ• ~ oZ~O l SK3N ' ~~ G ~/ J (/r ~.1/ ,1 PRINT VR~' tN O ~ o~s T Y q ~ (~ f7tJ (' I~ p y 5. SIGN / c ~ ~~ //~ PRINT G- J~~ / ~/ "- " O/~ L ~~ ~ 0~~ /~ ~~/4 0c' SIGN ~-~t~y ~'~ ~C A ~ ~` G `-' / ~/4 1~f'- ~ PRIN C (~/A~ ` / / s Y~l • //I~ {~~Z yo ~/ ~~ ~r~v~ ~~~ z~T6Y ~ 7 1 SIGN / ~ /~ .+~/'.'~!'LJ/%~f ( / ~ ~ PRIN ! 91G ~ ~~ a ~ ~ PRIN ~ "~ 9 SIGN q/i 0"\ ~~ Y/ ~/ CC[.777 t11i~~~L Z3t-~I ~ k PLAINT r C• -fiS er j/ • 1 /i ~a 7 67 ,6 '/r /~/ // PRINT ~l T ~ ~ ~ e 5 ~ ~ ~1~~ ~ (/` T / !/ tt. SIGN '~ [/ Y ~ PRINT ` [/ ~~' IIIL), ~~ ~ 41 ~V ~ ~ •I/ _ CONTINUE ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES AND COMPLETE AFFIDAVIT ON REVERSE SIDE. `The social security number is part of each voter's official record and is requested only to make it possible to check this petition more quickly and with greater accuracy. It is not mandatory that it be provided. The State Board of Elections or the General Registrar, when copying this document for public Inspection, must cover the column containing social security numbers. All signatures required by law need not be on the same page of the petition. Numerolas pages may be circulated. Tho circulator of each page rrwst ba a person who Is, or who is eligible to be, registered and qualified to vote for the office for which this petition Is circulated. It the office is a statewide office, the circulator also must be a resident of either the same congressional district as the voter who is signing the petition or of a congressional district contiguous to the district of the voter. The circulator also must swear or affirm in the affidavit that he personally witnessed the signature of each voter. SBE-50ti1521 REV 12101 71NUE0 FROM REVERSE SIDE _ ` ) J `'~ `~ rd RESIDENT ADDRESS House No. & Street Name or SOCIAL SECURITY SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED VOTER Rural Route & Box No. & Cit /Town DATE NUMBER PRINT NAME IN SPACE BELOW SIGNATURE • • • : • • ~ SIGNED * SEE NOTE BELOW .+*"'"~ r ~,..... , °~4 •--. ^5 .~' ~. .,.. ~ i ~ ~ . , ~ ~ . ~. ./' F~ art. .... xy; .g SIGN ~.. ~~ i i .? PRINT Jv GCG /// ~ S /~} 41 ~ f~~ V~~ /V ~ /" 17 7 Z G 1~~ / "] / ~b~ - ~dl ~~ (.~ /~ Q F.+ /a.~ /Y/. 'n . / //'// ~ y / /y ~~i ! ~• / ~~~ SIGN ~ 13. PRINT 7 SM,N ~~ ` '~ PRINT '\... (. ~ . ~ f~ ~• II ~- / , ~C.~~T- 'Z.. 'L ., .. ,~ ylf ~..-L Sic' ~ ~ , -L ~ ~ SIGN . ~C3 . ~d/~/ 15. n PRINT Y ~ _, ~ ~P ~ ~ _ ~ sled ~ _ ~ I ln~ ' PRINT ~ V ~ ,~ ~,. (i ~ ~ l ~~ T ~ ~ I t (JC ~~j~ l //~/I I 1~~ ~' ~ ~-~ ~ a~~,~-Us,~~ ~ , ' /~ ~/~-i `~~ ~/ ! ~'~'1 PRINT I , .. \ '~4 SIGN ~' W ~ ~ .G Y~C-.~...- 3 83 ~/ / lam- l;~ e PRINT ~' ~ ~o a % ~ //-/7-trj SIGN ~~ 19. r 1 / /~ PRINT ` ` Lf . / • ~P 1 SIG 21. PRINT ~ / SIG I . I~' PRINT SIGN 23. PRINT SIGN PRIM SIGN 2` . J PRINT . ~'~ o Uv~~r~,~ raVe.r~'.wr,~y ~- S ; ~,,`n,~ ~~ e~~-fi ~ -!~-~~ ~ ~~, G rave 1~ , NTINUED FROM REVERSE SIDE ~ ~ L'~ ~b r~p RESIDENT ADDRESS HousA No. & Street Name or SOCIAL SECURITY SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED VOTER Rural Route & Box No. & Cit /Town DATE NUMBER PRINT NA ME IN SPACE BEL O W SIGNATURE • • . :. - . •• SIGNED * SEE NOTE BELO W // E ~ j SIGN ~!N ~ [•'/i' ~ / ~ ~'-iZ ~~ ~CL/"/1.~~ ._. /~/~~/ / ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~( ~ l~ PRINT ~ r~? r' y/~b~,.(~~ SIGN,-~, v ~,/- P 13. T -~ I I ~ 1 3 ~ 0~ . PRIN SIGN ~ I~'3 Z `~'~ ~'C-r `~ Qr` , ~ ~KO~ PRINT W ~ l~ / 'err ~~'IiC/~\ L7 fiV C. ~ J D SIGN ~~CtT' 1. / rfiL/~C[. ~ 15 G~~~ ~1~G~Q'~iS f/ / /~!4 /7~d.~ . /, PRINT~~ •~ ~ / y' C~ r'a hre~~y IifQE >//f~~ SIGN ~ V ~ y' ~M I- ~/ / 17. J PRINT sC IV C ~ / ~/ / v V C 7 SIGN C_-+ a,,. - r _ un i n \\) ,! t r~ ~I// / 1 1 /~ l / `/,/, (f1 PRINT ~ C ~` ~~ f' SIGN ~ `(~ ~ ~ J 1 V ?~~~~~ / /~'~ 19. PRINT ' /mss ` Q ~ ~. SIGN ~3 ~ 4 V~~, c ~-'NLI~ ~~ 1 . , 13 \~O \ ~~'I"~~ PRINT SIGN ~' Gt i r t 1~ ` 1 ~~~~ 21. ~ `1\ I ^ ~e ~ PRINT ` r sI ~ ~GI , IG I PRINT ~~ i~ ~ t ~f~ l / ~, ? SIGN, ~.. u. ~r. t:. r_ - /.I r /~. L~/ `C~YY/~rc~'1- I ~I• ~~ { ~~t / 23. PRINT .'~ ~ •' ~, '~ / I / G ~ / \ h ~ N 1-..~ C /'iwl.G"..+~~~ 1 ~ , ~'/I i, 1 SIGN ~" ~ r`~ ~, j /t ~ L. V `~• / ` f / / < ~~ PRINT / .(_rs ~/ y ~. ~ -~ !G'1 SIGN r ~ r .~ 25 ~, - ~ ~ i b:.~~~~. ~ ~ . c r ~Yl~` ~ . PRINT ~,. `S• ~ ~ ~ '` (y n _ \-1 O Q`d~ Md Y~~J2~-+4n~.fig ~- ~ ~ ~v.a,\ ~~ ~~~ C~ --~1~ t c,~-, G `~, V Q ~ , TINUEO FROM R`~VERSE SIDE ` , J `'~ `"~ '"d RESIDENT ADDRESS House No. & Street Name or SOCIAL SECURITY SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED VOTER Rural Route & Box No. & Cit !Town ~ • DATE SIGNED NUMBER * SEE NOTE BELOW PRINT NAME IN SPACE BELOW SIGNATURE • • : • • SIGN / c ~ ~ ~~ ~ I I -~4-~~ ~ ~ ~~ PRINT t v'im'" SIGN ~'--~ r;- ,~7,r' L , - i? __ I3. '~ / PRINT v ' / ~ ~ ~ ` ~ / / ////%~~i..~2 SIGN rr 1 ` I `J 1 ~'(=. r, C E~. ~ C~.~I~~I~ l.~ 1 • -T~ j~ l ~~CC ~~' ~~V 1. Z: 1C- S~ ~h1n s S ~' ~ ~ /^M~ ti`s ~~1 .. ' C~ \ ~~- ~+~-~ Z ~~ c;,~ ~`~ t/ ~ PRINT ~ - ~t. V~,\/~~ l ~A ~ ~~ T .~ `w "' ~ ~?~, ~~ ~ U ~ T ~2'V ~. SIGN Y U . K•r t 5. PRINT ~ rC ~ ~~'I ~"~ Q `t ~• ,` l/~ V ~ L ~ ~ _~y_~ ~ SIG / ~ 9° ~o~~ ' ~~~ ~• PRIN ` ~ ~~~ I ` //v ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SIGN ~ ~.. / s jU C~1 J ~ h ,/,rL = 17. ~ C h') PRINT ~ fi T A ~ ~ ~~ / ' '~ S r' d ~ ~.l 7 7 ~~jj ~ ~ ,,~~ Y - ` ~ /~-/j U ~ i SIGN ` G • G 7..~ f ~: ~~ l ./ 1 ~ . <. / PRINT SIGN ~ ~/Yl- ~ ~~~_ S ~s '7 ~3 ~~~~~~~;~ _ 1 s. /7~/32~ ~7~vrs PRIN f ~ ~`~' / 5~ ~ //-~S SIGN~Ames ~ ~eT! h~vd e s 57 $"~Nc~ NIeo4 ~ r/ ~~- /5.0 PRINT SIGN 5'1 ~ ~ ~---~ ~ ~-15- ~a 21. PRINT Q~YI '~.J t-` 4 nu a 1 Ul SIGN ~~~L~ u~-~'~ 5~ `" ~ A ~-n. ~~_i5-c~ PRINT ~~~ -n~ ~'''~ - 1 V ~ / V A~~ n ~ ~ SIGN ,. ~/ tY.~''v r `~ ~ ~~ ~" ~ ~ ~' I) _ i5 Q~ 23. PRINT z~ ~ n ~~ ~~~~-ke ~ ~~-a~~ r SIGN J! ~ f ~ V"~ / /~ IJ~ PRI d ~ ' Fa ~l ~ 62-~ ~~ D! V (~ 25. wiv Y PRINT ~~ y' ~f D lQ//c~~F U~, ~~ l y ED FROM REVERSE SIDE ~ ~ `C,~~~~~~ SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED VOTER ~P~T NAME IN SPgGE~BELOW SIGNATURE] ~~ ~ ~~ . i 3. SIGN PRINT / 1 fL SIG~i 15. .- PRINT SIGN ~ PRINT SIGN 17. ' PRINT SIGN PRINT L SIGN ~ ~' 19. ~v~ ~ // 1 f ~~~~~ SIGN ~tru - - - - T /7/ ///}~'//~I PRINT ~~"(~ " G SIGN r 21„ PRINT /~ /~ ~ U ! V` ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ SIGN / ~ ~~`~' b6 V ~-- " PRINT A ~ IC '1 A ~ ~ ~•" 4 SIGN 23. PRINT SIGH 25. SIGN PRINT RESIDENT ADDRESS House No. & Street Name or Rural Route & Box No. & Cit (Town DATE . ~ ,~ SIGNED ~i/'y,~ p~~ n ~j ~j i1-~5-U~ ~~4r?~`L~ ~~ ~ ~~U/ 'T ~~ ~~`~~ ~ r..r ~ ~~- ~~-o j ~ ~~ Jam- a.y~r~-I ~pk~nlD~~ ~ Ps- ~ `~C ~'-~ ,SSS6 -~ l~i~i~ ~A-~E ~ i ~s/. Z f' ~~~5~~ ~ ~ ~'~~5~°Z ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f 1 / (l ~~/ ~~ 1/~7~z ~~~ ~~~~ ~l `,AlU~~ucl ~ ~l r~/o- OJ l ~1..+ 11 /~y/o;~ SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER * SEE NOTE BELOW Roanoke County Board of Supervisors November 19, 2002 Presentation by Virginians for Appropriate Roads Introductory Remarks Problem Statement Background Presentation of the TSM Alternative Request: that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of the residents of Roanoke County, formally request Mr. Onzlee Ware, the Salem District representative on the Commonwealth Transportation Board, that he ask the CTB to change its preferred routing of I-73 to the TSM alternative. Gerald H. Slotnick 660 Maggodee Creek Drive Boones Mill, VA 24065 540-334-2997 g.slotnick@att.net Much misinformation and misunderstanding has developed over the I-73 project. The attached excerpts from VDOT's Environmental Impact Statement provide a summary of the significant issues relevant to the need, and the method of satisfying that need, for a safe and efficient road from Roanoke to North Carolina. Tab 1: VDOT defines the purpose of the I-73 location study on this page. VDOT's justification for highway construction in the 220 corridor is based largely on what VDOT describes as the unsafe condition of US 220. A secondary justification, to support the Virginia portion of a Detroit to Charleston interstate highway, is no longer valid as Michigan and Ohio have opted not to participate and, the justification that a new road would support economic growth and vitality is factually unsupported. Originally proposed to follow a relatively straightforward southerly route through Virginia on I-77, the I-73 route was modified to follow the "smart road" from West Virginia to a dogleg detour north over I-81 in order to pass through the City of Roanoke. Tab 2: VDOT presents statistical material to support the VDOT claim that 220 is unsafe. Note that the high accident rates occur only at very specific locations on the roadway-locations where known hazards exist. This material does not support the position that the entire roadway is unsafe. Tab 3: The table presents the number of crossovers by county. Most of these are designated as unsafe by VDOT. Note that Roanoke County with only six of the 52 miles of the road has 44 such crossovers. The text explains that "In a half mile long portion of US Route 220 just below the Blue Ridge Parkway, 11 separate crossovers are found. Four of these crossings are within 105 feet of each other and the rest are no farther than 580 feet". The text also explains that speeding on 220 is a major accident factor and recommends greater enforcement of the speed limit. Tab 4: VDOT presents a table comparing truck traffic on "selected routes". Note that they compare only three spots on 220 and all three of these are adjacent to facilities such as the Rockydale Quarry where heavy, but local, trucking is to be expected. VDOT's claim of extraordinary truck traffic, and the expectation of greatly increased traffic is greatly exaggerated. Tab 5: VDOT forecasts average daily traffic volumes in 2020 as compared to 1997. Note that most traffic increases will occur at Wonju Street and in the southernmost portions of 220 in Henry County. The volume from 419 south to the Martinsville bypass will remain essentially the same or with only minor increases Tab 6: The level of service analysis summary presented here reaffirms the forecasted traffic volume with the level of service staying the same in 2020 as in 1997 from 419 to "north of Ridgeway". Service will, however, according to this analysis, deteriorate seriously along 581 from Orange Avenue to Wonju Street_ It is important to note that this level of service is based on the existing, unimproved, 220 roadway. Tab 7: VDOT presents text here that defines the difference between interstate (limited access) standards and principal arterial (controlled access) standards. It also describes how VDOT • arrived at the conclusion that they should design an interstate standard highway and admits that "this does not rule out other design standards such as that for other principal arterials as in the case in West Virginia... ". The second page goes onto detail the differences between the two standards and the third page shows a schematic comparing the two standards. Tab 8: VDOT presents a detailed description of its so-called No Build alternative. The title "no build" is misleading in that it is made up of 37 specific construction projects that, according to VDOT, are currently funded and, in many cases, already underway along the proposed I-73 corridor. Several of these projects are already completed including the new entrance ramp to Valley View, the new bridge over the Norfolk-Southern tracks in Roanoke County and the widening of route 40 in Franklin County. It is important to note that all of these projects will probably be done, regardless of any decisions regarding I-73. Tab 9: VDOT presents a detailed description of its TSM alternative. They say that "This alternative would include all of the improvements in the No-Build Alternative plus improvements to upgrade US Route 220 to design standards, for a rural principal arterial system.... " (Italics mine). On the second page, VDOT shows what they define in the text as the "minimum geometric standards for this type of road" although they label the drawing as being a "typical section". Note that the primary difference is in the width of the median and shoulders. The travel lanes are the same as for an interstate standard road. On subsequent pages, VDOT goes on to detail 32 projects to correct "deficient" or "hazardous" conditions on 220. These projects extend from just north of the Blue Ridge Parkway to the State Line and include actual rebuilding of much of the roadway. It is far more than just a series of patches. Steep grades would be significantly reduced, miles of median and shoulder widened and many of those dangerous crossovers eliminated. Tab 10: This data is taken from the VDOT Environmental Impact Statement and shows a factual comparison of the cost and destructive potential of the currently chosen new-terrain route that VDOT endorses versus the TSM alternative. As part of the Congressionally approved National Highway System, Virginia has to provide 20% of the cost of building the roadway. At a current estimate of $1.2 billion, it is very questionable that Virginia can afford to fund its two hundred and forty million-dollar share of the VDOT proposal. There are more critical demands, including improvements to I-81, a new bridge over the Potomac and solutions to the near gridlock conditions of northern Virginia. The TSM alternative, however, at $146 million is within the realm of the possible with Virginia having to put up only about $30 million. Spread over five, six or more years, the burden on Virginia could be less than $5 million a year. This is the approach West Virginia has chosen in upgrading its US 52 to "principal arterial standards" and is what North Carolina is doing to the portion of US 220 adjacent to Virginia in Rockingham County. If VDOT persists in its $1.2 billion new- terrain, interstate standard highway, there is a good chance that it will never happen and we will lose all of the federal funds. Even worse is that the unsafe conditions on US 220 will continue to exist. If we follow the lead of North Carolina and West Virginia, and upgrade US 220 to principle arterial standards, we can do it under the I-73 program and get the federal government to cover 80% of the cost. An upgrade of 220 is not a "patch job" as some VDOT officials would lead you to believe, nor is it terribly destructive to homes, businesses or the environment. In summary: • The only remaining and valid justification for I-73 is to correct the unsafe conditions of US 220 as the primary route between Roanoke and North Carolina. These unsafe conditions are defined by VDOT and VDOT presents a clear plan to eliminate them. • VDOT's traffic-volume forecasts, as compared to 19971evels, do not reflect a substantial increase in traffic on US 220 through the year 2020 except within the City of Roanoke. • Upgrading US 220 to "principal arterial standards" would greatly enhance safety and use of the highway while meeting Congressional requirements for I-73 and qualifying for Federal assistance. • An upgrade of US 220 to principal arterial standards would result in far less social and environmental destruction, would cost orders-of-magnitude less than building a new terrain highway and could be accomplished much more quickly. I hope that not only will this material be helpful to you personally, but that you will be able to bring these facts to others who can help focus VDOT on the socially and fiscally responsible approach of upgrading US 220 to principal arterial standards. nd ECJ I."~I~ ~i(IS T. 0 P i I.Bm) (3 .Om) -p2m)--. - ___.___.. i~nm) __- __ __---(7 .2m) Bm DITCH SHOULDER TF, 4VEL LP11E5 TRAVEL lAHES ,HO UIDER 59i ~ ~ 3' IIDL I 's' ~~-CP 2m)-~. B -~ ' PAVEDISTAPILIZED SHOULDER `\\ TSM ALTERNATIVE TYPICAL SECTION._ PJOT 7-0 SCALE IA barrier may he required for median widths less than 40 feet (12 meters). I-73 Location Study FIGURE 2.5-1 T: M ALTERNATIVE TYPICAL SECTION 1-73 Location Sf~dy ~_2~~ Drafi Envirormenfall,mpaef Statemenf ~'. TABLE 2.5-1 RURAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS Im rovement Characteristic Variable Distance Minimum width of lane 12 feet 3.6 meters Minimum width of grade shoulders -fill 13 feet 3.9 meters - cut 10 feet 3.0 meters Paved/stabilized shoulder widtf~ -right 8 feet 2.4 meters - left 3 feet 0.9 meters Width of ditch front sloe 6 feet 1.8 meters Minimum degree of curvature En lish 7 degrees 30 minutes Minimum radius of curvature 755 feet 230 meters Stopping sight distance -desirable 475 feet 140 meters -minimum 400 feet 113 meters _ Maximum Grades - rollin terrain 5 ercent - mountainous: terrain 7 percent Source: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Princpal Arterial (GS-1 ). TABLE 2.5-2 TSM ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS C~ Number Location Deficiency Improvement 1 Roanoke County - 0.08 miles Sight distance 325 feet Rebuild approximately 2,000 feet (600 (0.13 kilometers) north of (100 meters). meters) roadway to increase sight distance Route 789 South (north of to 475 feet (140 meters). Blue Ridge Parkway crossin From 1 to 2 Roanoke County - 0.08 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.13 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 789 South (north of width. Blue Ridge Parkway crossing) to Route 679 2 Clearbrook Roanoke County -Route 679 High Accident Rate. Remove raised median and widen pavement (Clearbrook) to Route 930 enough to introduce a 12-16 feet (3.6-4.9 meters wide center turnip lane. 3 Roanoke County -Route 930 Narrow median and Close all median openings and widen to Route 668 inadequate crossover median to 20 feet (6 meters). s acin . 4 Roanoke County -Route 668 Narrow median and Close all median openings except at Route to Back Creek inadequate crossover 676 and Route 668 and widen median to 20 s acin feet 6 meters . 5 Roanoke County -Back Narrow median and Close all median openings except at Route Creek to Route 715 North inadequate crossover 657 and widen median to 20 feet (6 meters). s acin . From 5 to 6 Roanoke County -Route 715 Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. North to Intersection Route substandard shoulder 677 North and South width. _ ___ -- Source: U.S. Route 220 Safety Report, VDOT, Traffic Engineering Division, September 27, 1994. Notes: 'Locations that were identified with high accident rates and corresponding primary roadway deficiencies. Assumes: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Principal Arterial System (GS-1) - Other Principal Arterials, Rolling Terrain, 50 mph design spee~.i. ~~ I-73 Location Study 2-23 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Oclooer, 2000 ~~ ~~ TABLE 2.5-2 (Continu~:d) TSM ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS Number Location t - C Deficient High accident rate - Im rovement Rebuild southbound lane to raise lane to 6 y oun Roanoke Intersection Route 677 steep crossover with level of northbound lane and increase sight (North and South) inadequate sight distance on bosh approaches to 475 feet distance. (140 meters) minimum. Adjust grade on Route 677 west as re wired, From 6 to 7 Roanoke 8 Franklin counties _ _____ Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. - Intersection Route 677 substandard shoulder (North and South) to Route width. 613 000 feet (1520 5 ximatel ild 7 Franklin County -Route 613 High accident rate - ntal and h i y , appro Rebu meters) of northbound lane with alignment to Maggodee Creek zo or inadequate vertical geometry, and grade adjacent and parallel to northbound lane. southbound lane. Close all median openings except at Route 824 and Route 613. dian and outside shoulder. d From 7 to 8 Franklin County -Maggodee Narrow median and en me Wi Creek to Route 919 substandard shoulder width . 100 feet (1250 roximately 4 ild 8 Franklin County -Route 919 High accident rate - 7 d , app Rebu meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 6 to Route 691 North percent grade an inadequate sight percent and increase sight distance on crest distance. of rade to 475 feet 140 meters minimum. dian and outside shoulder. From 8 to 9 Franklin County -Route 691 Narrow median and Widen me North to Route 691 South substandard shoulder width . __ _ 200 feel (975 3 roximatel ild g Franklin County -Route 691 7 percent grade and i ht y , app Rebu meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 6 South to Route 693 g inadequate s i percent and increase sight distance to 475 stance. d feet 140 meters minimum. From 9 to 10 Franklin County -Route 693 Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. to Intersection Route 697 substandard shoulder 10 North Franklin County - width. 6 percent grade and Rebuild approximately 1,700 feet (520 th lanes to increase sight distance b Intersection Route 697 North inadequate sight o meters) on crest of grade to 475 feet (140 meters) distance. inimum Rebuild Route 697 north to west as m re wired. From 10 to 11 Franklin County - Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. Intersection Route 697 North substandard shoulder to Intersection Route 697 width. South 800 feet (850 roximately 2 ild 11 Franklin County - High accident rate - 7 , app Rebu 6 Intersection Route 697 South percent grade, meters both lanes to reduce grade to inadequate sight ercent and to increase sight distance on p distance, con ested area. crest of rade to 650 feet 200 meters . dian and outside shoulder. From 11 to 12 Franklin County - Narrow median and Widen me Intersection Route 697 South substandard shoulder to 0.4 miles (0.65 kilometers) width. south of Blackwater River __ Source: U S Route 220 Safety Report, VDOT, Traffic Engineering Division, September 27, 1994. Notes: 'Locations that were identified with high accident rates and co~7esponding primary roadway deficiencies. Assumes: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Prin~:ipal Arterial System (GS-1) - Other Principal Arterials, Rolling Terrain, 50 mph design speed. •~ /-73 Locution Study 2-24 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Ck:roDCr. 2000 TABLE 2.5-2 (Continued) TSM ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS C~ Number Location Deficiency Improvement 12 Franklin County - 0.4 miles High accident rate, steet~ Rebuild approximately 4,700 feet (1430 (0.65 kilometers) south of grades, inadequate sigh' meters) both lanes to reduce grades to 5 Blackwater River to 1.5 miles distance, congested area. percent maximum and increase sight (2.4 kilometers) south of distance to 475 feet (140 meters) minimum, Blackwater River except at crest of grade in southbound lane at 0.6 miles (0.97 kilometers) from Blackwater River sight distance should be increased to 650 feet 200 meters . From 12 to 13 Franklin County - 1.5 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (2.4 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Blackwater River to 0.03 width. miles (0.05 kilometers) south of Raute 619 South 850 feet (1170 3 imatel 13 Franklin County - 0.86 miles Steep grades. y , Rebuild approx (1.38 kilometers) south of meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 5 Route 40 to 0.79 miles (1.27 percent maximum. kilometers) south of Pigg From 13 to 14 River Franklin County - 0.79 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (1.27 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Pigg River to 0.03 miles width. (0.05 kilometers) south of 14 Route 619 South Franklin County - 0.03 miles Steep grades. Rebuild approximately 4,000 feet (1200 (0.05 kilometers) south of meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 5 Route 619 South to 0.79 percent maximum. miles (1.27 kilometers) south From 14 to 15 of Route 619 South Franklin County - 0.79 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (1.27 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 619 South to 0.56 width. miles (0.90 kilometers) south of Route 755 000 feet (1200 4 oximatel i d 15 Franklin County - 0.56 miles Steep grades. , y appr Rebu l meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 5 (0.90 kilometers) south of Route 755 to 1.31 mites percent maximum. (2.10 kilometers) south of From 15 to 16 Route 755 Franklin County - 1.31 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (2.10 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 755 to 0.31 miles width. (0.50 kilometers) north of Route 827 900 feet (1190 3 roximatel ild 16 Franklin County - 0.31 miles Steep grades. y , app Rebu meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 5 (0.50 kilometers) north of Route 827 to 0.42 miles percent maximum. (0.68 kilometers) south of Route 827 Source: U S Route 220 Safety Report, VDOT, Traffic Engineering Division, September 27, 1994. Notes: `Locations that were identified with high accident rates and corresponding primary roadway deficiencies. Assumes: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Prirn;ipal Arterial System (GS-1) - Other Principal Arterials, Rolling Terrain, 50 mph design speed. ~~ I-73 Location Study 2.-25 Draft Environmental Impact Statement OcfDDcr. 2000 TABLE 2.5-2 (Continued) TSM I~LTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS • Number From 16 to 17 Location Franklin County - 0.42 miles Deficient Narrow median and Im rovement Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.68 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 827 to 0.39 miles width. (0.63 kilometers) north of 17 Route 724 Franklin County - 0.39 miles _ Steep grade and ht i Rebuild approximately 1,500 feet (450 meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 5 (0.63 kilometers) north of g inadequate s percent maximum and increase sight Route 724 to 0.02 miles distance. distance on crest of grade to 475 feet (140 (0.03 kilometers) north of From 17 to 18 Route 724 Franklin County - 0.02 miles Narrow median and meters minimum. Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.03 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 724 to 0.31 miles width. (0.50 kilometers) north of Biy Chestnut Creek 000 feet (600 2 roximatel ild R b 18 Franklin County - 0.31 miles Steep grade, inadequate y , app u e 50 kilometers) north of Big (0 sight distance, and meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to 5 . 91 miles Chestnut Creek to 0 narrow crossover width. percent maximum, increase sight distance . 46 kilometers) north of (1 on crest of grade to 475 feet (140 meters) . minimum and eliminate crossover located Route 618 0.31 miles (0.50 kilometers) north of Big Chestnut Creek. From 18 to 19 Franklin County - 0.91 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (1.46 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 618 to 0.61 miles width. (0.98 kilometers) north of 19 Route 618 Franklin County - 0.61 miles Steep grades. Rebuild approximately 7,000 feet (2100 (0.98 kilometers) north of meters) of both lanes to reduce grades to 5 Route 618 to 0.21 miles percent max. (0.34 kilometers) south of Route 608 From 19 to 20 Franklin County - 0.21 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.34 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 608 to 0.34 miles width. , (0.55 kilometers) south of Route 605 From 20 to 21 Franklin 8 Henry counties - Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. 0.18 miles (0.29 kilometers) substandard shoulder south of Route 609 to 0.24 width. miles (0.39 kilometers) north of Mountain To Court 21 Henry County - 0.24 miles .Hazardous location. Close median opening. (0.39 kilometers) north of Mountain To Court 11 From 21 to 22 Henry County - 0.24 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.39 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Mountain Top Court to 0.25 width. miles (0.40 kilometers) north of Route 987 Source: U S. Route 220 Safety Report, VDC>T, Traffc Engineering Division, September 27, 1994. Notes: 'Locations that were identifed with High accident rates and corresponding primary roadway deficiencies. Assumes: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Principal Arterial System (GS-1) - Other Principal Arterials, Rolling Terrain, 50 mph design speed. i-73 Location Study ?_-26 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Oc(oDcr, 2000 TABLE 2.5-2 (Continued) TSM ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS Number Location Deficient Im rovement 22 Henry County - 0.25 miles Inadequate crossover Close median opening. (0.40 kilometers) north of spacing. From 22 to 23 Route 987 _ __ Henry County - 0.25 miles __ Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.40 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 987 to 0.16 miles width. (0.26 kilometers) south of Route 987 23 Henry County - 0.16 miles Hazardous location. Close median opening. (0.26 kilometers) south of From 23 to 24 Route 987 Henry County - 0.16 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.26 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 987 to 0.21 miles width. (0.34 kilometers) north of 24 Route 657 Henry County - 0.21 miles 6 percent grade. Rebuild approximately 1,000 feet (300 (0.34 kilometers) north of meters) of both lanes to reduce grade and Route 657 increase si ht distance at crest of rade. From 24 to 25 Henry County - 0.21 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.34 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder 25 Route 657 to Route 657 _ Henry County -Route 657 to width. __ High accident rate, 7 Rebuild approximately 3,100 feet (950 0.63 miles (1.01 kilometers) percent grade and meters) of both lanes to reduce grade and south of Route 657 inadequate horizontal increase sight distance on crest of grade. geometry. Rebuild approximately 3,100 feet (950 meters) of southbound lane with alignment arallel to northbound lane. From 25 to 26 Henry County - 0.63 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (1.01 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 657 to 0.79 miles Iwidth. (1.27 kilometers) north of Route 669 North 26 Henry County - 0.79 to 0.45 Inadequate horizontal Rebuild approximately 1,500 feet (450 miles (1.27 kilometers to geometry. meters) of northbound lane with alignment 0.72 kilometers) north of adjacent and parallel to southbound lane. Route 669 North From 26 to 27 Henry County - 0.79 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.45 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 669 North to 0.10 width. miles (0.16 kilometers) north of Route 699 North 27 Henry County - 0.10 miles Inadequate horizontal Rebuild approximately 700 feet (215 meters) (0.16 kilometers) north of geometry. of northbound lane with alignment parallel to Route 699 North southbound lane. From 27 to 28 Henry County - 0.10 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.16 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 699 north to Route width. 669 South ______________ Source: U S. Route 220 Safetv Report, VDnT, Traffic Engineering Division, September 27, 1994. Notes: 'Locations that were identified with high accident rates and corresponding primary roadway deficiencies. Assumes: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Principal Arterial System (GS-1) - Other Principal Arterials, Rolling Terrain, 50 mph design speed. I-73 Location Study 2-27 Draft Environmental Impact Statement OrteDDr, 2000 TABLE 2.5-2 (Continued) TSM E~LTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS Im rovement N~rmber 28 Loc~~,~,,,,,,o County -Route 669 Hen Deticienc Inadequate horizontal and Rebuild appraxlmatety 800 feet (Z40 meters) . ry 03 miles (0.05 South to 0 vertical geometry, of northbound lane with alignment parallel to . kilometers) south of Route northbound lane. l i southbound lane. Rebuild approximately 000 feet (300 meters) both lanes to reduce 1 669 South ca Inadequate vert geometry, southbound , grade and improve sight distance. From 28 to 29 Henry County - 0.03 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.05 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Route 669 South to 0.08 width. miles (0.13 kilometers) south of Reed Creek 29 Henry County - 0.08 miles Hazardous location. Close median opening. (0.13 kilometers) south of From 29 l0 30 Reed Creek Henry County - 0.08 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.13 kilometers) south of substandard shoulder Reed Creek to Route 1310 width. 900 feet (580 1 roximatel ild R b 30 Henry County -Route 1310 High accident rate, 6 y , app e u 5 to Route 1301 percent grade and meters) of both lanes to reduce grade to inadequate crossover percent max. and increase sight distance on spacing. crest of grade. Add right tum lane to Drewry Mason High School to provide safe entry for buses. Close median openings at 0.10 and 0.24 miles (0.16 and 0.39 kilometers) north • of Route 1310. From 30 to 31 Henry County -Route 1301 Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. to 0.10 miles (0.16 substandard shoulder kilometers) north of Route width. 902 31 Henry County - 0.10 miles Inadequate crossover Close median opening. (0.16 kilometers) north of spacing. Route 902 From 31 to 32 Henry County - 0.10 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. (0.16 kilometers) north of substandard shoulder Route 902 to 2.52 miles width. (4.05 kilometers) north of the VirginiatNorth Carolina State line 32 Henry County - 2.52 miles Steep crossover. Close median opening. (4.05 kilometers) north of the Virginia/North Carolina State line From 32 to Henry County - 2.52 miles Narrow median and Widen median and outside shoulder. State Line (4.05 kilometers) north of the substandard shoulder Virginia/North Carolina State width. line to the Virginia/North Carolina State line Source: U S Route 220 Safety Report, VDOT, Traffic Engineering Division, September 27, 1994. Notes: "Locations that were identified with high accident rates and corresponding primary roadway deficiencies. Assumes: VDOT Geometric Design Standards for Rural Principal Arterial System (GS-1) - Other Principal Arterials, Rolling Terrain, 50 mph design speed. 1-73 Location Study 2-2F3 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Clcro~er. 2000 Introd Hand out agenda and presentation materials. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak with you today. Bob & I: Hollins district. Bob, Jerryanne, & I represent Virginians for Appropriate Roads. Lois and Gerry Slotnick represent Friends of Franklin County. Both groups have, since about 1999, been trying to help steer the I-73 project toward an appropriate solution, one which would provide safe and efficient travel between Roanoke and Greensboro without the destructive impacts of an interstate highway on the residents, without destroying our air quality and scenic vistas, and one which can and will be built, rather than a pipe dream. Problem Statement Here are the problems as we see them. I-73, as presently designed and routed, is so expensive that it is unlikely to actually be built within the next 2, 3, or even 4 decades, if at all. Meanwhile, the residents along its path are in limbo, not knowing how long they will be able to stay in their homes, or whether they will be able to sell them for a fair price if they should need to move. Meanwhile, too, there is nothing in VDOT's 6-year plan to improve the present route to Greensboro, US 220. Background information: VDOT issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in October 2000 outlining a number of possible routes (and combinations of routes) for a new Interstate. In addition, the DEIS offered the No-Build Alternative and the TSM (Transportation System Management) alternative. However, they did not actively promote either of those two alternatives, and concentrated all their efforts on the new Interstate alternatives. In response to the DEIS, VDOT received 8669 comments from the public (interested citizens, businesses, public officials, and Federal agencies). Of those who expressed a preference for a particular route, more than half chose TSM. Among those who favored a US 220 upgrade or seriously questioned the need to build I-73 as anew-terrain highway, were the US Environmental Protection Agency, the VA Dept of Environmental Quality, the US Department of the Interior, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. (2610 in our database as COM, PCOM, or p). Nevertheless, the Commonwealth Transportation Board selected the current route in June 2001. Once the CTB selected that route, VDOT began preparing its Final Environmental Impact Statement, which will focus on the selected route. Late this year or early next year, when VDOT completes the FEIS, they will forward it to the Federal Highway • • Jc-~r~asi~~ ~i~~ Loy s ~1~--~r~ ~~" t_.~ ! s~ 1 ~. ~~ ~ 5 ~~~ ~13 ~1~ ~e c.~. w~c~ ~ oti ROANO~~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. /~ ,a ~ _ c~ ov.,~ ''a .~ ~ APPEARAI~fCE REQUEST 1838 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT:C ~~1~1`~ S ,~-z, ~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN C.AiLLED TO THE LECTERN, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME A116D ADDRRSS FOR THE RECORD. /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/A/ES L/STED I~[~7 A ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk writfen authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ,~' /~ ~ Wiz-- ~ ~' ~ /7 ~2-~ ADDRESS: Cj~ d~~ ~~~ Y'SG, ~~ ,~ rr j ~'~-~- ;~ `~ PHONE: ~I~~ ~~ ~~.~ o~ P°A"0`~F~, AGENDA ITEM NO. - ~ 0. `,,. 44rt . 9 z ~ ~ ,:F , ? OJ . -.„s. a .a 838 Ai- ~~A C~ R~QUi~ST PUEiLiC BEARING OR®INANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUGJECT: I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. Wa`fEA/ C.41 LLRD T!y THE LECTERN, / W/LL G/VE MY KAME A/!AD ADDRESS F®R THE RECdaR®. ! ~1 faREE T® AR/DE' BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ® The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ® Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ® Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ~ lndividua/s speaking on behalf of an organized group shall fife with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them, PLEASE PRINT LEGIELY AN® GIVE TO TI.1 NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: L°R~ THE B-4ARD D GGf-r~ ~ ~~ oz~Ol ~ S9 O~ QOANpk.~` ADEN®A ITEIM N®^ _~~~, ~ . d` .,. 9 z - ~ ~ z ~~ „ 1838 PUBLIC HEARING ORQINANICE CITIZEN COIVIIItIENTS SUBJECT: r'~L, ~,f/~ ~4 ? T-~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~;~-~;~ ~~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. Wff~N C.`ELLRO T® TffE lE~: TER/i/, / f~/LL G/to,E MY /1~A/f~E AAfD ADDRESS FOR Th!'~ REC4d~®. I ~i 6~I;tEL~ TO ~4B/®E B!~ T'HE G6!/®EL//10ES L/S~'ED B~LCI-Ms'e ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEAaE PRINT LEGIBLY AIV® GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOAR® NAME: ~ ~ ~2~~~'~2. ADDRESS: ~ ~7~~r ~~ Z,~iv~~ ~ ~ PHONE: `7 ~x ~ ~'~ ~~/ o~ ROANO~F` AGENDA ITEM NO^ ,a 9 ~ ~ z u.. ~ z OJ `~a~~~. a A~~~A NC~ R~~~~~T 183$ PIJE~LiC ~ RING OR®INANCE SUBJECT': .-. ~ _/_ _ ~-~~i ~r ,!t_ ~.~'r~' CIT1~~ COMMENTS I would like he Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me ring the meeting on th bove matter so that I may comment. ~fiEN C~I~,GE® ro rh-E A/AME.4/VD .etD®RESS Fo~//a r~~ ~~c®R®. a ~o~~,~ ro.a~eoE ~~ rr~r~ oui®EC®~oES ~`sr~® ~~i.®/ia ® Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GI!/E TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ADDRESS:~J/..~~ t~ r P H 0 N E: ~:-}~~~C/ /J-5~: ~-~1e P°A"0'~F AGENDA ITEM NO. J - I ~~ ~ ,~' ', 9 Z - i. ~ c, ~ ~ ~ Z o~ „a Aig38 1",PP~A~~CE R~~i UST .r PUBLIC HEARING ®RDINANCE __' ''1TIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: 7 ' ~ '~, ,.~-~ .:: _ ~ t; ~, l~~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED T® THE LECTERN, / W/LL G/VLF' MY A/AME.4ND .~I DDRESS FOR THE REC®RD. /AGREE TO AB/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND G1~/E TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~~)~~~~ ~ ~/C~ ~r~ ADDRESS. ~ ~ ~ ~ PHONE: ~~' `~C~y S LG 3 of ?°ANO~FG AGENDA ITEM NO. S' . ., Z , Z 1838 A~~~A~~C~ R~QU~ST ~~PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ~-- CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: C/~G ~~"M~ ~~~Eit/T,~~ Ems` ~, P L ~. I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, / W/LL G/VE MY N~tME AND ,~I DDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO .4B/DE BY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED BELOW; ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE B®ARD NAME: _ ~RL.E' f-~o~'K ~ [~!S ADDRESS: ~~ gs' R~~x/~r-,~ ~D. PHONE: ,~`ym-9~9-9~7 O~ ROANp,Y~` ADENDA ITEM NO^ ~ r >a' •.~ ~ _ o ~ ~' z O '.:b.: s J . ~ rSPi- EA CE RE~UEST 1838 PUBLIC HEARING OR®INANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /u I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. 1~hlElV CALLED TO THE LEl:'TERa1/, /WILL G/V,E MY /1~AME AND ADDRESS FOt,a THE RECOR®. ! .AGREE TO AB/,t?E BY PHE GU/DEL/l1/ES L/STED ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking an an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLI( AN® GIBE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: { ADDRESS: 7~ l ~' _- _ ~, PHONE: ~~ ~,~ ~`~ ~ o~ PoaNO~~G AGENDA ITEIIA NO. +~. " z h 2 OJ ^. n= h .n ,~..,~. R~~r APP~A NCE RE~UEST 1838 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN CONI1111ENTS SUBJECT: ~_~~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. 6~irf~EN CALLED TO THE B.ECTERA/, / W/LL GII~,~ MY l1!•~l ME AND ADDRESS F4R THE' REC®R®. !.4 FREE T~ .~B/DE E~' THE GU/DEL/A/ES LIS~'ED ~~5~]: A ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Glerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIYIE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~ Z ~~ ~ ~l C f ~~ ~ ~1 ~J~v t~~' ADDRESS: ~1~05 ~" ~'~iy N~,~ ~,r 1 ~Ca, PHONE: y~l /"-,~ ~1.~ o~ ROANO~F` AGENDA ITEM NO. j`~ ~ ~~ <:~ ~ x z 1838 A~~~ANC~ R~Q~~ST '~ PUBLIC HEARING OR®INANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: _I~i1 c~ ~ ~Y. Gar I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. bi/HEA/ CALLED T4 THE LECPERN, ! W®LL f~iVE MY /VAMP Al1®D ,~!®®RESS FE?R THE REC®RD. I ,~tG/i'EL~ T® ABd'®E BY ThfE fsU/DEL/IVES LfSTED I3~~C~] ~ A ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIELY AND GI\/E TO THE CLERK TO THE F30ARD NAME: `~1 ~~ ADDRESS: ~~ S © V~~(~w PHONE: ~ g~- ~ ®S G ROANp~~ O~ 6 ~ . ~' 9 z :r~ ~ z v u ''a AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ . (- ;838 APPEARANCE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS suB~ECT: ~ ~ n,- ,a ~-,A r;_ ~ A-~2 I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ~4DDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AE/DE /3Y THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED /3ELONl; ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: _~~~- ~~ 5 ~ IAA u2 ~~~~ ~ ADDRESS: ~ ~~~/1, PHONE: _~ - /~ O ~ of ~°a"0'~F~, AGENDA ITEM NO. - '~' < ~' Z o~ '~ .a M1T838 APP~A~~C~ R~QU~ST PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS tc ~~ SUBJECT: _ jra Ffic L!~q ~. ~" -~~ c~r'un Gta ~e„ R.d I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, / W/LL G/VE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, /AGREE TO AB/DE DY THE GU/DEL/NES L/STED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: ~ nnabel le A. L~,~ man ~,~,~/y' p ~~~. ADDRESS: _5ud~ Ert6nnfecF L•4 ~~ PHONE: 77~-' y7~ 3 ~-1 ~~ ~,oaNO,~F~ AGENDA ITEIIA NO. I~~` ~ ~' ~~ i~ >~ Z Z 838 A~~EA~CE RE~~ES ~,- i ~u 1 I ~ `~ y~'.. ~ ~..''.' I. ~ $ ~,_PURLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS ~~~~ 1 ~ I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the meeting on the above matter so that I may comment. WIYEN Ci4LL~® PO THE LE~CTERA/, / W/LL Gito~ MY /I/A/f~lE ANO .~D®RESS FOR THE' RE~'C~RLJ, ! ~LGREE TO AB/DE BY THE Gl!/®EL/A6ES LlS'~E® BEL ®f7/: ® Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman will decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to do otherwise. ^ The speaker will be limited to a presentation of his/her point of view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. ^ All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. ^ Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. ^ Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the Clerk to the Board. ^ Individuals speaking on behalf of an organized group shall file with the Clerk written authorization from the Group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE 64AR® NAME: ADDRESS: ~ ~t~ ~~ PHONE: `~ `~~ - C~ "7s~-(~ ~s c. NOV-19-2002 12 03 OSTERHOUDT PRILLAMAN NATT 15407740961 P. 01102 LAW UFFICIIS OSTERHOUDT, PRILLAMAN, NATT, HELSCHER, POST, MAXWELL & FERGUSON, PLC Edward A. Nett Please reply to: P. O, Sox 20487 Roanoke, VA 240'18 oirect: (5aoy rz5-s~eo Fex: (540) nz-o~ zr, E-mail: enatt(~opnlaw.~;om ViA FACSTMrLE 772-2193 :~At~ ELEGTItIC Roan, S.W. P. U. 130X 20487 RUaNOB:E, VIRGINId'.34Ulfi •0049 (;~r..LA~ AAA•OCJOO FAX (5=~0) 772-0120 November 19, 2002 GhairYnan anal Members Roanoke County Board of Supervisors PO Box 29$00 Roanoke, VA 240 i $ Re: Rezoning Request -Cotton Hill Land Company Dear Chairman and Members: ~.-.. SA.LI'SM, ~laiCilNlA ~$15i3 P. O. Box 87[. IOb N. Coxoawao 3:aaaT (aw) uso.ecsa,r 1rA7C (64U~ L1 {f M•4lStlU The above rezoning matter was originally scheduled for public hearing this evening. The Petitioner has requested that the rr~atter not be advertised for public hearing tonight and that the matter be returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. The basis for this request is that the Petitioner is developing significant additional information to provide a significantly revised plan far the development. The Petitioner is addressing a number of trle factors that were important considerations to the opponents of the rezoning request. On behalf of the Petitioner, 1 would once again request that the referred back to the Planning Gornrnission. The basis for this request is that traditionally, if the applicant comes to the Board of Supervisors after the planning commission recommends denial with significant additional information regarding the rezoning request, the Board of Supervisors has the option and, in many cases, has returned the matter to the planning commission :for further consideration. That would have been the position of the applicant: tonight. NOV-19-2002 12 03 OSTERHOUDT PRILLAMAN NATT 15407740961 P.02i02 ~ Page 2 November 19, 2002 Therefore, we would respectfully request that the mattered be returned to she Planning Cornn~issian so that this additional information may be presented. In our opinion, this significantly changes the rezoning request because of the additional documentation which would be provided and submitted as potential proffers with the rezoning xequest. We have been verbally advised that several members of the Planning Comnnission have agreed to recansider this matter, Respectfully, OSTERHOUDT, PRILLAMAN, NATT, HELSCHER, YOST, MA~~W'ELL & FERGUSON, PLC ~`u.~, fl Qt~;Fk~ Edward A. Natt EAN/ df cc: Steve Str,3uss (via facsimile 989-7062) Janet Scheid {via facsimile 772-2108) Paul Mahoney (via facsimile 772-2089) ~C November 19, 2002 County staff requests the Board to adopt a motion to enter into closed session within the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act as follows: To discuss the disposition of publicly-held real property, namely long term lease at Vinyard Park pursuant to Sec. 2.2-6711 A.3. of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2. To discuss the acquisition of real estate for public purposes, namely Item G.1. (Indian Grave Road and U. S. Route 220 intersection improvements) pursuant to Sec. 2.2-3711 A.3. of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. ROANOKE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W. -Room 431 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Phone 772-2007 -Fax 772-2089 MEMORANDUM To: Board of Supervisors ~~~~ From: Paul M. Mahoney Date: November 8, 2002 Subject: Cotton Hill Land Company Request for reconsideration The Cotton Hill Land Company through its counsel, Mr. Natt, is requesting the Board to refer this rezoning application back to the Planning Commission. On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to recommend denial to you of this rezoning application of 22.743 acres on the south side of Cotton Hill Road from AR to R-1. The applicant now wants to ask the Planning Commission to reconsider its recommendation. Once the Planning Commission has acted it no longer has any jurisdiction over this application. It is within the discretion of the Board to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission. Therefore, the applicant must request your approval to refer it back to the Planning Commission for an opportunity to convince it to reconsider its prior action. At this time, I am unaware of any member of the Planning Commission who voted on the prevailing side who is willing to make a motion to reconsider. The applicant has canceled the legal advertisement for the public hearing scheduled before the Board of Supervisors for November 19, 2002. Therefore, the Board cannot vote to approve or deny this rezoning at this time since the statutory notice requirements have not been satisfied. Ifthe Board grants this request, then it is within the discretion ofthe Planning Commission to determine whether or not it will reconsider its denial recommendation. If the Planning Commission votes to reconsider its decision on December 3, 2002, then it will have to schedule an advertised public hearing on this matter for January 7, 2003. This matter could then be on the Board's public hearing agenda for January 28, 2003. If the Board denies this request then this matter will be advertised for a public hearing at your December 17, 2002 meeting. If the applicant withdraws this rezoning request the County "shall not consider substantially the same application for the same property within one year of the application's withdrawal." County staffwill be notifying the citizens who spoke in opposition to this application at the Planning Commission public hearing held on November 5, 2002 of this request, and the postponement of any final decision. Elmer C. Hodge IVUV-l.`-G'UL'JG YJO • JO u~ i GnnuuV i ~ ~~ i t_~-ni ini ~ ~ ,n ~ ~ _- ..- , ~ .---_ _- _ _ LAw OxuwxH t)STERHOUDT, PFtI]"~T~AMA~', N3TT, HELSC7KER, l OST, MAXWEL L ~ FERGIUSON, PLG Edward A. Platt Please reply to: P. 0. Box 20487 Roanoke, VA 2401 B Direot: (54fl) 725-8180 Fax: (540)772-0126 E-mall: enatt(~opnlaw.corrl 3A1`2 L'LT•.OTttIU ROAD, S.V. P. 0. Boz no~~87 I20i.1YOKL, ~~ 112C11NIa.'=b018 - nC>%!,A (54U) H&A-OAQO November 13, 2002 SALEM. VIRQTNiA '.'/i163 N. f). Rox 2~0 ,vn N. (;•a)LVMaU Srnaar F+x 1310! X90-oD6t) Janet Scheid, ChiE:f Planner ~. Department of Community Development Planning and Zoning Division County of Roanoke P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Re: Rezcming Request -Cotton Hill Land Company Dear Ms. Scheid: This letter is written to request that the Roanoke County Planning Commission reconsider the application of Cotton Hi11 Land Company to rezone 22.743 acres on Cotton Hill Road firom Agricultural Residential AR to Low Density Residential R-1. The matter was heard by the Roanoke County Planning Commission at its meeting on November 5, 2002. The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the request. Several concerns and issues were raised at the Planning Commission meeting which were not addressed in the Staff Report and had not been considered by the applicant at and cluring the time ofi its application. Normally, when this happens, the applicant is given an opportunity to continue the public hearing for a month in order to attempt to addres:~ the concerns. My clients were not afforded that opportunity at the public hearing on November 5`~. Therefore, we would respectfully request that the Planning Commis:~ion, at its December 2002 meeting, vote to reconsider the request of Cotton Hill Land Company. It would be my understanding that 'rf the Pianning Commission so sots, the matter would be rescheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commis:>ion at its January 2003 meeting and that the Board of Supervisors would then consider the matter at its January 28, 2003 meeting. Pursuant to my earlier conversations with- David Holladay in your office, we have requested that thE< legal notice for the public hearing scheduled before the Board of Supervisors on December 19th be cancelled and that the matter. not be heard at that time. He indicate+~ to me that he would take the necessary steps to see that the legal NO~~-13-2002 88 ~ 36 OSTERHOUDT PR I LLAMAN NATT 158"('(4t~y61 r. b.5ib.5 Janet Scheid, Chi~sf Planner Department of Community Developmerst Planning and Zoning Division County of Roanoke Page 2 November 13, 2002 ad was withdrawn. Based upon this request, we will not appear at the December 19~' Board of Supervisors meeting, as no action can be taken since the matter was not completely advertised. It is my further understanding that if the Board of Supervisors does not refer the matter back to the: Planning Commission and/or the Planning Commission does not vote to reconsider, my clients could still proceed with advQrtising the public hearing before the Board of SupE~rvisors at the January 280 2003 meeting. Should you need further information or have additional questions, please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, OSTERHOUDT, PRILLAMAN, NATT, HELSCHER, YOST, MAXWELL & FERGUSON, P.L.C. ~~~ l ~- '~1 ~C'C~ Edward A. Nett EAN/csb pc: VtA FACSIMILE: 7'12-218 Mr. David Holladay Zoning Administrator, Chief Planner Department of Planning and Zoning County of Roanoke TOTAL P.03 ROANOKE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive, S.W. -Room 431 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 Phone 772-2007 -Fax 772-2089 MEMORANDUM To: Board of Superviso From: Paul M. Mahone Date: November 1, 2002 Subject: Cash Proffers Executive Summary and Recommendation The purpose of this memorandum is to determine if the Board wants to pursue the development of a cash proffer policy for Roanoke County. It will require a significant amount of staff time to develop this policy. It may trigger significant opposition from the Roanoke Regional Homebuilder's Association and the local development community. Does the Board want staff to pursue the development of a cash proffer policy for Roanoke County? For over a decade Roanoke County has had the authority to accept voluntary proffers of cash or real estate as part of the reasonable conditions attached to a rezoning ordinance. The Board has not had occasion to accept proffered conditions for the dedication of real property of substantial value or substantial cash payments for the construction ofpublic improvements. It is not the practice of the local development community to proffer cash or land, although it is routinely done in the high growth localities in Northern Virginia and the counties surrounding Richmond. I am recommending that the Board consider adopting a policy accepting such proffers. The acceptance of cash payments for the construction of substantial public improvements will alleviate some of the pressure on your capital improvements program (CIP) budget and will help address the need for the new public facilities (schools, parks, libraries, fire and rescue stations, roads, etc.) required as a result of new development. Background In 1992 with the option ofthe new zoning ordinance the Board engaged in a comprehensive rezoning of the entire County. It rezoned large areas of the County to R-1 (single-family residential) to facilitate and allow development in those portions of the County where adequate public facilities were available to support that development. Since that time much of this land has been developed. The development community is now exploring rezonings to substantially increase density of development in those portions of the County zoned agricultural. It is anticipated that the cumulative effect of these anticipated rezonings will place a tremendous stress upon existing public facilities and will require the Board to fund the construction of new public facilities in an era of State and local budgetary pressures. At this time, we are unable to predict with any accuracy the number of new residential units requested from future rezonings, or the amount of the recommended cash proffer, or the amount ofvoluntary cash proffers by developers. Some numbers for your consideration: last year Roanoke County issued 435 single-family residential building permits; revenue bonds covenants for Spring Hollow Reservoir water treatment plant and transmission lines anticipated 300 equivalent residential units annually. A proposal to rezone 22 acres from AR to R1 on Cotton Hill Road was heard by the Planning Commission on November 5, 2002. A development of 300 acres in Poages Valley is under consideration. An average of 60 residential units per year were rezoned over the past four years (although individual year statistics fluctuate between one and one hundred). Such requests could be considered under a cash proffer policy. The Board cannot accept proffers for cash or land unless it has adopted a Capital Improvement Program. The Board routinely adopts a CIP as part of its annual budget approval process. If the proffered conditions include the dedication of real property or the payment of cash, the property shall not transfer to the County or the payment of cash shall not be made until the facilities for which the property is dedicated or the cash is paid are included in the CIP. The County may accept the proffered conditions and then include those facilities in its amended CIP. The proffered conditions shall provide for the return of the property or the cash payment in the event that the property or cash is not used for the purpose for which it was proffered. These proffered conditions maybe made a part of the rezoning if the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions, and if the conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning and are in conformity with the comprehensive plan. In general, local tax revenue generated by commercial and industrial development is expected to cover the capital costs for local public services. No capital contribution for schools, parks or libraries is expected for commercial and industrial development. New residential development generates a need for the construction of new capital facilities. The new local tax revenue generated by residential development rarely cover the demands for new capital facilities generated by such development. The voluntary proffer of real property or cash will help alleviate these demands and needs for new capital facilities. Ms. Hyatt, Ms. Scheid, and I are reviewing cash proffer policies of other jurisdictions in Virginia, and examining .the methodology used by those localities to guide the application of conditional zoning proffers. These localities have adopted "guidelines" for the consideration and acceptance of cash proffers by the Board of Supervisors. These policies include a financial methodology to calculate a recommended dollar amount for each residential unit based upon that locality's comprehensive plan, CIP, and the costs of needed public facilities generated by the development. The following localities have recently accepted cash~proffers: The Counties of Albemarle, Caroline, Chesterfield, Clarke, Fairfax, Faugwer, Frederick, Goochland, Greene, Hanover, Isle of Wight, King William, Loudoun, Louisa, New Kent, Powhatan, Prince William, Spotsylvania, Stafford, and Warren. The Cities of Chesapeake, Fairfax, Fredericksburg, Manassas, Manassas Park, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach. The Towns of Ashland, Haymarket, Herndon, Leesburg, Purcellville, Mount Jackson, and Warrenton. For example, Hanover County by resolution has adopted its "2002 Cash Proffer Policy" and recommends a total cash proffer of $7,866 for each typical residential unit, as follows: Public 2 i' schools - $8,837; Community parks - $876; Libraries - $287; Fire stations - $560; Rescue squads - $121; Roads - $2,685. Even though the County has the power and authority to accept voluntary cash proffers now, we believe that it would be very beneficial to prepare a "cash proffer policy" for consideration and adoption by the Board of Supervisors. This policy would establish a methodology to fairly and uniformly apply cash proffers to new developments requiring favorably zoning action and approval by the Board of Supervisors. The development of the cash proffer policy for Roanoke County will demand a significant amount of staffwork, and it will require a significant change in the Board's philosophy with respect to not only the consideration of whether or not to approve a rezoning application, but also the development of the annual CIP. We can incorporate the Roanoke County School Board's CIP for future construction of new schools or renovation of existing schools into the County's CIP for purposes of accepting cash proffers. We will also have to incorporate the future road improvements as identified in the adopted Six Year Plan. We recommend considering modifying the CIP to recognize the capital costs of major equipment purchases such as fire engines and trash trucks. The development of a cash proffer policy, and its application to future rezonings will probably generate opposition from the development community. It may also trigger litigation challenging the denial of rezoning requests by the Board of Supervisors. In 1995, the Board of Supervisors of Powhatan County denied a rezoning request because a developer refused to make a cash proffer. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the Board had imposed an unlawful condition on the developer. The Court emphasized that the proffer must be "voluntary." The Court also found that the sole reason for denial of the rezoning request was its failure or refusal to proffer $2,439 per lot. In 1999, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County denied a rezoning that included proffers ofmonetary conditions substantially lower in amount than those recommended under the County's written policy ($1,500 vs. $5,156 per unit). The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the Board's denial. Although the absence of the maximum cash proffer "played a key factor" in the Board's decision, and that cash proffers were "expected," the Court also found ample evidence supporting-the denial based on health, safety and welfare concerns. If we follow the precedent established by the Virginia Supreme Court in the Chesterfield County case, I am confident that the County could prevail in any legal challenge, so long as the Board consistently and uniformly applied the policy to all rezonings. Conclusion Does the Board want staff to pursue the development of a cash proffer policy for Roanoke County? c: Elmer C. Hodge U:\WPDOCS\ZONING\cash.proffers.memo.wpd ~ CSC Memo To: Board of Supervisor ~~ From: Elmer Hodge ~~~ Date: November 19, 2002 Subject: Resignation of Danial Morris I regret to inform you that Danial Morris is resigning from his position of Director of Finance effective Friday, November 22, 2002. He leaves us reluctantly, but he and his wife are relocating to Durham, North Carolina in order to me near their son and daughter-in-law. We wish him well in his new position. We have begun the process to search for a new Director of Finance on a regional basis. We have several impressive internal candidates who will be applying for the position. With the major projects pending (such as GASB 34, financing of the new school capital projects, financing and rate setting for the wastewater treatment plant upgrade, and major technology system conversions), it is important that we fill the position as soon as possible. However, we want to take the time to ensure that we have the best candidate for the position. I will keep you informed of the progress as we fill this position. ,r Nov-19-02 01:19P STRAUSS CONSTRUCTION facsimile transmittal ~S ~ 989 7062 ,~,.~.~pp~ P . O 1 COTTON HILL LAND COMPANY, LC PO Box 20287 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Phone: 540-989-7060 Fax: 540-989-7062 To: Fuzzy Minnix Fax: 772-2193 From: Steven S. Strauss Date: 11/19/02 Re: Rezoning Pages: 3 CC: Butch Church Michael Altizer Richard Flora Joseph McNamara D Urgent ^ Far Review ^ Please Comment ^ Please Reply O Please Recycle • PLEASE READ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~' Nov-19-02 01:19P STRAUSS CONSTRUCTION 989 7062 P.02 Cotton Hill Land Company, LC PO Box 20287 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Phone: 540-989-7060 Fax: 540-989-7062 November 19, 2002 Mr. H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix Roanoke County Board of Supervisors PO Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Fax: 772-2193 ~;a rax Re: Cotton Hill Road Rezoning Dear Mr. Minnix, On behalf of Cotton Hill Land Company, I would like to request the Board of Supervisors return the pending rezoning request to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. The Planning Commission ("PC"} considered this rezoning request on November 5 and has forwarded same to the Board of Supervisor ("B of S"}. The reason that this request is being made is I would like to address the concerns and comments that were expressed during the PC public hearing in a more public format than if these issues were addressed only at the B of S level. During the PC public hearing, members of the PC as well as citizens expressed issues that were not considered in the initial zoning application. As a result of those comments, Cotton Hill Land Company ("GREG") will be making major modifications in it's zoning request and felt that the County and it's citizens would be best served if these modifications were presented to the PC during a new public hearing. In that way, the PC as well as citizens would have an opportunity to review and comment on the revised application through a much more public process. If these modifications were presented during a B of S public hearing only, the public would have less an opportunity to review and comment on the revised application. I have been told by staff that the B of S has in the past sent back applications for reconsideration when the petitioner has made modifications to the application between the time when the PC hearing occurred and the B of S hearing. i"' 'iVc~v-19-02 01:19P STRAUSS CONSTRUCTION 989 7062 P.03 The major modifications that are to be made include: 1) a re-evaluation of the site plan so that the lot layout is more defined, 2} to define the areas where existing trees will remain so as to serve as natural buffers, and 3) reduce the initial requested density of the site to a smaller number of lots. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I will be at tonight's Board meeting if I may answer any questions in regards to this matter Sincere , ~-u` St ven S. Strau C: Joseph B. "Butch" Church -Chairman Michael W. Altizer Richard C. Flora Joseph P. McNamara Janet Scheid Fax: 772-2068 Len Boone Fax; 989-7076 Ed Natt Fax: 772-0216 i~ October 31, 2002 1 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 October 31, 2002 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Salem Civic Center, Salem, Virginia, this being an adjourned meeting from October 22, 2002 for the purpose of attending the Greater Roanoke Valley Leadership Summit meeting with area legislators. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 12:45 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Vice Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Supervisors Richard C. Flora and H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Harry C. Nickens STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Malfourd W. "Bo" Trumbo, Senator John S. Edwards, Delegate A. Victor "Vic" Thomas, Clifton A. "Chip" Woodrum, Delegate H. Morgan Griffith OTHERS PRESENT: Elected officials and staff from the City of Roanoke, City of Salem, Town of Vinton, County of Bedford, City of Covington, County of Botetourt; and representatives from the Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission. I V October 31, 2002 3 Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Chairman, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, reported that the General Assembly should require state agencies, such as the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, to use specific income data from towns when assessing grants-in-aid programs. Currently, data for counties are used when towns apply for grants and often the economic conditions in a town differ significantly from the economic conditions of the county in which they are located. This places the towns at a disadvantage when applying for competitive state grants. Mr. Church indicated that he was presenting this item on behalf of the Town of Vinton, and illustrated the discrepancy between the Town of Vinton's demographics and those of Roanoke County. Mr. Church indicated that he believes this concept has merit, and the County would like to assist the Town of Vinton in any way possible that would not adversely affect Roanoke County. He indicated that Paul Mahoney, County Attorney, would be willing to work with area legislators in this regard. ^ Frli~r_atinn• Linda Wyatt, Roanoke City Council Member, reported that legislators who publicly support the importance of quality education, define what that quality education must look like, and require that local school boards carry out those mandates should be willing to fully fund these requirements. She emphasized that funding for public education is a State responsibility. i~ October 31, 2002 5 attended numerous workshops pertaining to transportation, and indicated that one topic that has been consistently emphasized is the need to consider all modes of transportation, not just highway construction. He stated that it is time to evaluate the economic effectiveness of simply building additional highways and strive to achieve a better balance, particularly in the Roanoke area which celebrates 150 years of rail service tomorrow. Joe McNamara, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, stated that the VDOT six-year plan adopted in June 2002 encompasses $7.3 billion which is a 28% reduction from the $10.1 billion in the prior year. He stated that the Salem district is challenged to begin with due to the length of Routes 220 and 460 bisecting the area. Specifically, he voiced concerns regarding the 33% funding reduction to the Salem District, from which $36 million over the next six years must be allocated for the Smart Road. He stated that the Smart Road is a tremendous economic development asset for the entire Commonwealth and challenged the fairness of the Salem District bearing the financial responsibility to develop it. The Salem District has been reduced by 33% and over one-third of this amount is tied up in funding for the Smart Road, thus making the actual reduction significantly greater than 33%. Stated another way, Mr. McNamara reported that of the percentage of each district's program remaining for fiscal year 2002-2007 from last year, October 31, 2002 7 ' year 2000, the State of Virginia was ranked 32"d in education but 15t in prisons. (2) Public Safety - 599 funding reductions affect the amount of police protection that can be offered to citizens. (3) Tourism -localities need new businesses to generate tax revenues that can be used in providing essential services and offset the cost of state funding reductions. Mr. Davis stated that budgets at the local level do not contain excesses, and localities cannot continue to provide essential services to citizens if the State continues to implement funding reductions. The localities will call upon the legislators to consider implementing tax increases if that is what is needed to offset the current budget shortfall. The State of Virginia currently ranks 15th in per capita income, in the 40's in tax effort, and yet it has a bare bones budget. He emphasized that tough decisions need to be made, and local representatives are available to provide assistance in helping the legislators meet the citizens' needs. Possible recommendations for offsetting the shortfall included raising taxes, reducing the car tax relief, or relaxing the Dillon rule. IN RE: LEGISLATORS COMMENTS ^ Senator Malfourd W. "Bo" Trumbo: Senator Trumbo indicated that state representatives should be able to come together in the same manner as the local representatives have to address these issues in a global sense. He then addressed the following issues J October 31, 2002 9 Virginia, he indicated that this is a massive undertaking that will take time and needs astate-wide approach. He also stated that he was not aware of the problems for towns with regard to applying for grants, and he supports these reforms in the guidelines. (3) Transportation: He indicated that I-81 is in limbo at the present time, but he agrees that it is an issue that must be addressed. He indicated that support for passenger rail service would involve significant costs and planning efforts. With regard to Smart Road funding, he agrees that the Salem District should not bear the cost of this project. He stated that perhaps revenues generated from the Smart Road technology should be distributed back to the Salem District. (4) Land Use Issues: He indicated concerns about defining "smart growth", and stated that in his view it is nothing more than a state-wide land use pattern. ^ Senator John S. Edwards: Senator Edwards emphasized that the budget situation is getting worse and most of the issues presented today require additional money. He stated that to resolve the problems facing us, we will need to continue to make reductions or enhance revenues. Citizens need to speak out to make legislators aware of their priorities. He also encouraged support for the bond referenda to support higher education and parks. October 31, 2002 11 which local revenues are currently handled. He supports changing guidelines for towns applying for grants, and he supports improvements to I-81. He indicated that he favors the current proposal which would place tolls on trucks. Delegate Griffith stated that he did not favor rail service in the Roanoke to Bristol corridor as he did not think the population centers were large enough to get sufficient ridership to make the system functional. Regarding funding for the Smart Road, Delegate Griffith stated that if the Salem district is paying for the construction they should get the benefits from it. He stated that land use issues need to be evaluated and compromises worked out. He pointed out that the Administrative Rules Commission is a group in the legislature that can ask that regulations be placed on hold if the impact is too adverse or doesn't make sense for a locality. He encouraged local legislators to use this resource if needed. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 2:15 p.m. Submitted by: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Approved by: Joseph B. "Butch" Church Chairman ~ 4 November 5, 2002 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 November 5, 2002 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the first Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of November, 2002. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Vice Chairman Joseph McNamara, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Richard C. Flora, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Reverend Darryl Crim, North Roanoke Baptist Church, Roanoke, Virginia. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. November 5, 2002 3 IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution petitioning the Circuit Court for a Writ of Election to fill the vacancy in the constitutional office of the Commonwealth Attorney. Paul Mahoney, County Attorne R-110502-1 Mr. Mahoney reported that under State Code, the County has 15 days to petition the Circuit Court to schedule a special election to fill the vacancy in the constitutional office of the Commonwealth Attorney due to the resignation of Francis "Skip" Burkart III. Mr. Burkart's term was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2003. State Code requires that the special election be held "promptly" and in discussions with the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court and the Roanoke County Registrar, Mr. Mahoney reported that a special election would cost approximately $25,000. It is staff's recommendation that the Board petition the Circuit Court to declare that the election be held in November 2003 to coincide with the next general election for this office. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None November 5, 2002rJ 2. Proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Charter. Paul Mahoney, County Attorne A-110502-2 Mr. Mahoney stated that at the October 22 meeting, a work session was held with Mr. Pete Giesen, Special Assistant for Legislative Relations, to discuss a variety of legislative initiatives that the County might wish to pursue in the upcoming session of the Virginia General Assembly. One of those items involved amending the Roanoke County Charter to authorize the levy and collection of a tax on tobacco products. In addition, there were two minor housekeeping amendments recommended by Mr. Mahoney: (1) Amend Chapter 11 "Department of Social Services" to bring it into compliance with State Code provisions and County practices. The social services board is now an advisory board. (2) Amend Chapter 12 "Department of Education" to reflect that the School Board is now elected by the citizens. Mr. Mahoney indicated that a position paper was submitted as part of the agenda packet to explain and justify the fiscal impact of imposing a tobacco tax. He stated that if the Board authorizes proceeding with these matters, State Code requires a public hearing and he is recommending that this be scheduled for November 19, 2002. At Supervisor Church's request, Mr. Mahoney indicated that under Virginia Law, cities, unlike counties, have been authorized to levy a tobacco tax. Under specific legislation in the State Code, the counties of Arlington and Fairfax have been granted November 5, 2002 7 IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First Reading of an ordinance amending Section 22-204 "Mandatory Water Conservation Measures" of the Roanoke County Code to clarify restrictions of the filling of swimming pools and the watering of lawns, gardens and golf courses. Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) Mr. Hodge reported that this ordinance is to clarify three items that were contained in the ordinance adopted by the Board at the October 22 meeting. He stated that preparation in building Spring Hollow Reservoir has served the County well, and it has been sufficient throughout this summer despite the heavy demands placed on it. He indicated that the water conservation ordinance is also a preparation measure. A chart has been included in the agenda packet comparing the County's water conservation ordinance, as amended, with the Governor's Order 33. Mr. Hodge advised that the clarifications included are: (1) Allow the filling of new swimming pools, in addition to the replenishing of the water level in existing swimming pools. (2) Allow the watering of golf courses (tees and greens only) between 8:00 p.m. - 8:00 a.m. (3) Allow the watering of athletic fields when necessary. In response to Supervisor McNamara's question, Mr. Mahoney outlined the following changes that were included in the proposed ordinance: (1) Page 2, Item (c) Swimming Pools. Prohibit filling of outdoor swimming pools. Filling or replenishing November 5, 2002 9 trigger to implement mandatory conservation measures? (2) Where do we stand today relative to this trigger point? Mr. Hodge indicated that the trigger mechanism is based on a formula that evaluates the number of days of water supply remaining, the amount of rainfall that has been experienced, and what is occurring in the neighboring localities. He stated that in today's conditions, the County would not be under mandatory conservation. Supervisor McNamara asked what would be necessary to remove the conservation measures. Mr. Mahoney indicated that Board action is all that is required, and that this can be done even if the Governor's declaration is still in place. Mr. Hodge recommended that three levels of conservation be considered: voluntary, mandatory, and extreme. Supervisor Minnix recommended that the County's ordinance should not be more stringent than the Governor's order. He reported that citizens have raised valid concerns, but they do not always necessarily view these issues from an economic development perspective. He stated that the key to implementing these conservation measures is in knowing when to shift from one level to the next. He noted that approximately 7 feet of water has been pumped into Spring Hollow as a result of the recent rains. Supervisor Flora stated that he agrees with the proposal of adopting an ordinance that contains three levels, and would support refining our current ordinance. November 5, 2002 11 Mr. Jerry Green, owner of Aquarius Pools, spoke in opposition to restrictions on the filling of pools, particularly with regard to newly constructed pools. He emphasized the need to address the safety issues, and also stated that pools provide family togetherness and offer activities for kids during the summer months. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve first reading and set the second reading for November 19, 2002. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None 2. First readin of an ordinance to vacate a 15' access easement on Lot 8 and release a reservation for water stora a tank on a Pubfic Utility Lot' created ~ Subdivision Plat for Section 8 Fallin Creek Estates, in Plat Book 21, Page 20, and combined into New Lot 8A in Plat Book 24, Page 5 Vinton Magisterial District. Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) Mr. Covey stated that in June 2000, Falling Creek Development, L.C. moved forward with the relocation of the water tank and access easement to Lots 17 and 18 of Section 8, Falling Creek Estates. At this time, the developer would like to remove the encumbrances that are presently on Lot 8A. Staff had no objections, and the developer has proceeded at his cost to remove this infrastructure and relocate it. November 5, 2002 13 AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None ORDINANCE 110502-3 AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF AND FINANCING FOR A LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, GLENVAR HEIGHTS BOULEVARD WATER LINE EXTENSION PROJECT WHEREAS, Ordinance 112288-7 authorizes the financing of local public works improvements and the imposition of special assessments upon abutting property owners upon the adoption of an appropriate ordinance by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the County Administration has negotiated the extension of the public water system to the Glenvar Heights community; and WHEREAS, the extension of the public water system and the creation of a special utility (water) service area will alleviate a critical public health and safety problem; and WHEREAS, several of the residents have requested that the County allow them to pay their portion of the costs of connection to the public water system over ten years at an interest rate of 8%; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this Ordinance was held on October 22, 2002, and the second reading was held November 5, 2002; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the authority of Ordinance 112288-7, the Board authorizes and approves a local public works improvement project, namely, public water extension for the Glenvar Heights community. The total construction cost of this public water project is estimated to be $146,000 to be initially financed as follows: Citizen Participation (23 at $3,555 each) $81,765 Advance from the Public Works Participation Fund $64,235 TOTAL $146,000 November 5, 2002 15 4. That the payment by citizens in the project service area, in excess of those anticipated in this ordinance, who elect to participate shall be made to the various funds as follows: The off-site facility fee shall be returned to the Water Fund, and payment of the construction costs shall be returned to the Public Works Participation Fund until such time as the advance has been repaid; any further payment of construction costs shall be returned to the Water Fund. 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this transaction, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None 2. Second reading of an ordinance to authorize the acquisition of the necessary easements to construct Phase 5 of the North LOOP Water Transmission Line Project, Catawba Magisterial District. Ga Robertson, Utility Director 0-110502-4 Mr. Robertson reported that this ordinance would be for the purpose of acquiring the easements necessary for the water line project, and that there have been no changes since the first reading. There were no citizens present to speak and there was no discussion on this matter. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: November 5, 2002 ~ 7 AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-110502-5 Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the Consent Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None RESOLUTION 110502-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I -CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for November 5, 2002 designated as Item I -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 9, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes -May 14, June 11 and October 22, 2002 2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) 3. Request to accept water and sewer facilities serving Cresthill Commons, Cave Spring Magisterial District. 4. Request to accept a Virginia Department of Health grant in the amount of $33,012.50 to purchase an ambulance. 5. Request from to accept a Virginia Department of Health grant in the amount of $12,315 to purchase new cardiac heart monitors 6. Request to accept a Virginia Department of Health grant in the amount of $6,242 to purchase extrication equipment (jaws of life) 7. Nomination of a section of Bottom Creek as Exceptional State Waters November 5, 2002 19 4. Future School Capital Reserve 5. Clean Valley Council IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Minnix: (1) He inquired about the status of a traffic signal on Indian Grave Road. Mr. Hodge reported that due to the state funding reductions, the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office at this intersection will not be built and approximately $150,000 - $200,000 from the contractor's funds is no longer available. He stated that calls from citizens indicate there is a need for a traffic signal. The engineering plans have been completed, the project is ready to bid, and the Board has appropriated the County's share of the funding. The next step is to secure the necessary right-of-ways and easements and VDOT needs to approve the plans. At the next meeting, Mr. Hodge indicated that the Board would need to authorize the acquisition of the right-of-ways and easements and also authorize the County to administer the project. Supervisor Minnix stated it is essential that at least athree-way traffic signal be installed at this intersection. He stated that problems may be encountered with VDOT, but he is putting them on notice that the possibility of an accident strongly exists at this intersection. He stated there is a serious problem here, and that Route 220 South has as much traffic as many interstates. November 5, 2002 21 announcement has been made; Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members regarding a specific legal matter requiring the provision of legal advice, namely water agreement with the City of Roanoke. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None IN RE: WORK SESSIONS (4th FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM) 1. Work session with Real Estate Valuation and Community Development to demonstrate GIS Internet capabilities. Todd Booth, Engineering/GIS Supervisor; Myra Williamson. Real Estate Technology Support; G r Coleman. GIS Coordinator) The work session was presented by Todd Booth, Engineering/GIS Supervisor; Myra Williamson, Real Estate Technology Support; and Gary Coleman, GIS Coordinator. The work session was held from 4:45 p.m. until 5:12 p.m. A demonstration of the GIS Internet data base system was made to the Board. 2. Work session to discuss year-end financial re orts and impact of state budget reductions. Diane Hyatt" Chief Financial Officer; Brent Robertson. Budget Director The work session was presented by Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer, and Brent Robertson, Budget Director, and was held from 5:13 p.m. until 6:45 p.m. November 5, 2002 23 (3) Nancy Horn, Commissioner of the Revenue, reported that her budget is scheduled to be reduced by $23,000. She will be unable to perform all of the services that her office currently handles, which in turn means a loss of revenue to the County. Elimination of this funding could result in a loss of two positions in her office. She stated that if she loses any additional staff, she does not know if she would be able to process DMV reports. She requested that she be allowed to keep the departmental rollover money for this fiscal year. (4) Randy Leach, Commonwealth Attorney, reported that reductions in this department will necessitate eliminating one attorney's position. At present, this office maintains one less attorney than the Compensation Board recommends. If elimination of this position becomes necessary, the Commonwealth Attorney's Office will no longer be able to handle traffic cases. He anticipates he could possibly generate $10,000 savings in the current fiscal year as a result of internal personnel changes. If this office does not handle traffic cases, either the Police Department or the County Attorney's Office will have to take over prosecution of these cases. (5) Diana Rosapepe, Library Director, reported that the libraries are a public service department and their budget has been reduced $35,700 or 15% of their current allotment from the State. She stated that 100% of the state aid is used to purchase books. She only has two alternatives: stop buying books or consider a reduction in services. (6) Ray Lavinder, Chief of Police, reported that of his approximately $7 million budget, less than 10% is for operating costs and 80% of the operating budget is November 5, 2002 25 RESOLUTION 110502-6 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 members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Altizer, Church NAYS: None IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m. Submitted by: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Approved by: Joseph B. "Butch" Church Chairman July 9, 2002 423 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 July 9, 2002 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of July, 2002. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Vice Chairman Joseph McNamara, Supervisors Richard C. Flora, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Dr. George Anderson, Second Presbyterian Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS July 9, 2002 425 WHEREAS, the public safety of Roanoke County citizens is assured by dedicated employees such as Master Deputy Morgan; and WHEREAS, Master Deputy Morgan is highly respected by his co-workers in the Sheriff's Office for his dedication and teamwork; and WHEREAS, Master Deputy Morgan, through his desire to be of service and do a good job for the citizens in his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to WILLIAM J. MORGAN, SR. for more than eighteen years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Ffora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None 2. Recognition of the Finance Department for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2000-01. Chairman Church presented the award #o Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer, Danial Morris, Finance Director, and other members of the Finance Department who were present: Margaret Bacon, Lisa Greer, Rebecca Owens, Rosemary Trussell, and Karen McMillan. Mr. Morris advised that last year twenty-four counties and six school districts received this award. He reported that this is the 18t" consecutive year that the County has won the award and that Penny Hodge, Director of Budget and Management for the Schools, won the award this year for the first time for the Schools' Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. July 9, 2002 427 expressed appreciation to the community and the users of the building for their patience during the work. Mr. Deil Ayer, President of tfie Catawba Civic League, expressed appreciation to Ms. Pitts and the Board for their support in renovating the Center which is the heartbeat of the community. Mr. Fletcher Hill, President of the Catawba Valley Ruritan Club, also expressed his appreciation to the Board for the funding of the renovations. The Center is a valuable asset to the community and he also expressed his thanks to Ms. Pitts for her efforts. Supervisor Church, on behalf of the citizens in the Catawba District, thanked Mr. Ayer, Mr. Hill and Ms. Pitts for their assistance. Supervisor Flora expressed thanks to the people of the Catawba District who were instrumental in getting the Center renovated while being guided by the County staff from the Parks, Recreation & Tourism Department. 2. NSA Girls Fast itch Class B World Series Mr. Hodge asked that Parks, Recreation & Tourism Director Pete Haislip update the Board on the National Softball Association (NSA) Girls Fastpitch Class B World Series. Mr. Haislip advised that participants will be arriving July 12 through July 14, 2002 and that the games will be held July 15 through July 20, 2002. They are anticipating 270 to 300 teams with approximately 5,500 players, and it will be the largest team sporting event in the history of the Roanoke Valley. This event, which will have a July 9, Zoo2 429 system and are not color coded. These are used with six-inch pipes going into a stream or pond for the water source. Supervisor Nickens asked how the hydrants that are put in by the developers before the water is available are handled. Mr. Robertson advised that the staff removes the cap and puts a large tag on these hydrants that signifies that they are not in service. Chief Burch advised that the Town of Vinton does follow the County's color code system but not for privately owned water systems. Supervisor Nickens felt that this was valuable information for County citizens, and stated that he appreciated the staff briefing. Chief Burch advised that the color code system is taught to all of their staff through training classes and reviewed on a regular basis. He complimented Mr. Robertson and his staff for working so well with his department. The water system and design is handled by the Utility Department with the Fire Department cleaning and painting the hydrants. Chairman Church asked that this information be communicated to those citizens who may not be watching the Board meeting. Mr. Robertson advised that the state will not allow a fire hydrant to be installed unless the main water line is at least six inches in diameter and since 1987, the County has required eight inches as the minimum water line for residential subdivisions and twelve inches for commercial. New subdivisions have to be .designed to provide at least 750 gallons per minute and commercial developments 1,500 to 2,000 gallons per minute. July 9, Zoo2 431 construction phase have funding to begin building over the next six fiscal years. Work on projects is prioritized as follows: (1 } Complete construction projects already under construction. (2) Advance projects in latter stages of right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation. (3) Continue projects that address critical safety, mobility and environmental issues. Mr. Covey stated that the Six-Year Interstate and Primary Development Plan adopted for FY 2000 - 2006 had seven projects located in Roanoke County. These were the five interchanges on I-81 (Wildwood Road, Route 311, Route 419, I-581 and Hollins Road), Route 11/460 West Salem and Route 221. In the Interstate and Primary Construction Plan for FY 2003 - 2008, adopted in June 2002, the only projects in Roanoke County are several safety projects on I-81and TEA-21 projects for the Blue Ridge Parkway interpretive Center. In the Interstate and Primary Development Plan for FY 2003 - 2008, there are six projects listed which are the five interchanges already listed on I-81 and Route 11/460. Route 221, listed in the FY 2000 - 2006 plan has been removed. Mr. Covey reported that the Salem District Fiscal Year allocations for 2002 - 2008 for Interstate and Primary Projects have been reduced. The Interstate funding was approved at $53,451,000 which is approximately a 64% reduction in funding from the FY 2000 - 2006 Plan. Primary funding is $99,278,000 which is approximately a 33% reduction from the FY 2000 - 2006 Plan. Also, $36,356,000 (36%) of the $99,278,000 July 9, zooz 433 receiving adequate representation and indicated his support the letter and resolution. In response to Supervisor Minnix's inquiry about the CTB re-appropriation of any portion of the $2.8 billion if the economy improves, Mr. Covey advised that each year they look at the plan for the next six years and if there is a turnaround in the economy, the budget could change. Supervisor Church advised that he felt that one of the problems was that the costs for future projects were projected too low. Mr. Covey advised that low cost estimates for construction are fairly normal and this has been a source of concern over the years. Supervisor Nickens advised that he felt it probably was not possible for the Board to get this funding reversed but if they accept this with no opposition, next year the costs could go up and possibly rise even more the following year. He feels that the Smart Road is a state project and the costs should not be funded by the Salem District alone. Supervisor Flora advised that he felt that the message from the CTB by their actions, which resulted in cutting the funding for I-81, was that safety is not as important as saving money. He advised that the present situation has been caused by poor revenue and cost estimates. It is unfair that the Salem District pay for a project that has both state and nation-wide implications, and advised that he would support the motion. Chairman Church advised that Supervisor Nickens' motion was to adopt a July 9, 2002 435 to adopt similar resolutions expressing their opposition to this funding allocation or diversion plan of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. 4. That the Clerk to the Board is directed to send a certified copy of this Resolution to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, all the jurisdictions in the Salem District, and the members of the General Assembly from Salem District. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution and send with cover letter from the Chairman expressing the Board's concerns, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None 2. Request to amend the adopted Secondary System Six-Year Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2008 and the allocation of funds for Fiscal Year 2002-03. (Arnold Coven, Director of Community Development) Mr. Covey advised that on December 11, 2001, staff presented the Six Year Secondary System Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2002 - 2008 to the Board. At that time, the County's budget for FY 2002 - 2003 was estimated to be approximately $4.0 million. Based on that estimate, these four projects were added to the Six-Year Plan: Hardy Road, Indian Grave Road, County Line Road and Montcap Trail. On June 20, 2002, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the funding for the Six Year Secondary System Construction Plan for FY 2002 - 2008. The funding approved for secondary roads in Roanoke County for FY 2002 - 2003 was reduced by approximately $1.5 million. Over the next six years, the plan was reduced from $25 million to $17 million for a total reduction of approximately 31%. Because of the July 9, 2002 437 County but approval of the resolution would bring closure to the plan for this year and approval of projects on the list. By not approving the resolution, this leaves the County without an adopted and approved plan and places the VDOT Resident Engineer in a very unusual situation. Supervisor McNamara suggested that Supervisors Nickens move to table the item until the August 13, 2002 meeting so that the Board could send letters to express their concern. Mr. Covey recommended that the Board bring closure to the plan so that the allocations can be approved to the projects. Failure to approve wi{I not stop the projects but it may create a roadblock that will have to be resolved. Mr. Hodge advised that the Board has never had to reduce the scope of work and he understands Supervisor Nickens' position that approving the resolution would be accepting and reinforcing the process. He preferred that the item be deferred until August 13 to give staff time to determine from VDOT if any of the funding for the projects would be jeopardized. Supervisor Nickens advised that he would withdraw his previous motion and moved to table this item until the August 13, 2002 meeting so that staff could meet with VDOT to resolve questions. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None July 9, 2002 439 with the update. The Commission held a public hearing, including a joint meeting with the Presidents' Council, to receive input and information from the community regarding the policies. From this meeting staff developed a first draft that was presented to the Commission for additional input. After this review, staff and the Commission presented an updated manual to the Board in a work session on May 28, 2002. After receiving input for the Board, the Commission finalized and approved the policy manual at their June 20 meeting for presentation to the Board at this meeting on July 9, 2002. He described several of the significant changes which were: established user fees for non- County participants in athletic programs, clarified boundaries and boundary exceptions, determined that use of facilities built, maintained and scheduled by the County Parks, Recreation & Tourism Department on School property are subject to this policy; established policies to protect premier athletic facilities, and established policies for partnership with non-sanctioned community or civic groups to make improvements to County facilities. He recommended that the Board approve the updated Public Use Manual for Sports Organizations and Community Users. Supervisor Nickens commended Mr. Haislip, the Parks, Recreation & Tourism Advisory Commission and booster groups from around the County for their participation. In response to Supervisor Nickens' inquiry, Mr. Haislip advised that the contribution by a bottling company to a score board is limited to five years for more flexibility and that these agreements are now handfed by the department instead of the July 9, Zoo2 441 4. Request to accept additional state revenues and appropriate to the Sheriff's fiscal year 2001-2002 budget. (Brent Robertson, Budget Director) A-070902-4 Mr. Robertson reported that during Fiscal Year 2001-02, as in previous years, the inmate population at the Roanoke County Jail has remained above capacity. The average daily inmate population increased from 210 to 220 through FY 2002, an increase of 5% over the prior fiscal year. The average population for the final quarter for FY 2002 was 233 inmates. As a result, operational costs such as food, utilities, medical costs, etc. continue to consume a substantial portion of the Jail's budget. Due to the increased inmate population, the Sheriff is projecting expenditures related to inmate care to exceed original budget allocations by $217,988 for FY 2001-2002. Based on the revenue estimates versus the projected revenues anticipated to be collected from the state and from the City of Salem for the Sheriff's Department for FY 01-02, revenues in excess of budget for these categories should total approximately $330,000. Mr. Robertson advised that staff is recommending an appropriation adjustment to recognize an additional $217,988 of state revenue for personnel and operations reimbursement and increasing the Care and Confinement budget within the Sheriffs department by an equal amount. Sheriff Holt could not be at the meeting today ~uiy s, zoos 443 Chairman Church recognized Mr. Hodge, Director of Utilities Gary Robertson, Director of Finance Danial Morris and Finance Manager Rosemary Trussell who were present for this item. Mr. Hodge advised that staff is asking for an increase in the sewer rates, the sewer off-site facility fee and adding a charge for connections that requires installation of County maintained sewage pump stations. These increased rates and fees are needed to expand the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant which is the only one in the Roanoke Valley. The maximum water capacity of the five participating localities which are Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Botetourt County, City of Salem and Town of Vinton is 60 million gallons per day (MGD) while at present, the plant has a capacity of 42 MGD. Before the plant was expanded in 1996, the water capacity was 35 MGD and it was hoped that the construction would increase the ability to treat wastewater to at least 63 MGD but it was only increased to 42 MGD. The plant is owned by Roanoke City while the other localities have contracts with the City. Much of the plant construction was done by Roanoke City with state grants that were available. The state has the authority to determine when the capacity of the plant has to be improved to meet its needs. During the years, the County has done a lot to reduce the inflow and infiltration of water and is using less capacity now than fifteen years ago. This is a tribute to the work done by the Utility department and the funding provided by the Board as a priority. The plant is now under a consent order of violation from the July 9, 2002 445 customer who uses 5,000 gallons of water per month. Their sewer bill would be $15.31 with the first rate increase going to $16.60 (average increase of $1.26 per month) and second increase $17.96 (average increase of $1.36 month}. The total for the two increases would be $2.65 per month. These rates are still below the state average which was $21.69 for 5,000 gallons in 2001. To help minimize the rate increases, staff is proposing that new customers pay an additional connection fee of $2,000 which is a $500 increase, but still below the state average. There are three goals of the upgrade: (1) There is a mandatory need to minimize or eliminate overflows from the plant in wet weather conditions. (2) Outdated and inoperable equipment that has been at the plant since 1950 should be replaced. (3) There is a need to promote future capacity for new areas to provide sewage. In response to Supervisor Minnix's inquiry, Mr. Robertson advised that the County does allow a sewer subtraction meter to be installed that can be feasible if you use a considerable amount of water for gardens or lawns. The meter would measure all of the water that you are using, as well as the water that is not going into the sewer system. The water bill would be paid on the total amount of water, but the sewer bill would be based on the amount of water that goes into the sewer system. The customer has to pay the costs of installing the meter and it has to be installed according to the County Code. He advised that the average cost for the sewer subtraction meter would be $200 to $300. July 9, 2002 447 Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for July 23, 2002 The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of ordinance approving acquisition of easements and construction for Huntridge off-site sanitary sewer extension, Hollins Magisterial District. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director) 0-070902-5 Mr. Robertson advised that there have been no changes since the first reading of the ordinance. There was no discussion. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None ORDINANCE 070902-5 APPROVING CONSTRUCTION OF THE HUNTRIDGE OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROJECT, INCLUDING ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDS, AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AND ACQUISITION OF NECESSARY EASEMENTS, HOLLINS July 9, 2002 40.13-1-9 40.13-1-8 40.13-1-7 40.13-1-6 40.13-1-4 40.13-1-1.1 40.13-1-1.2 40.13-1-1 40 13-1-13 Nancy Horn Michael McGraw Nancy Horn Nancy Horn Mary Ward Ronald Lewis Rebecca Lewis Edward Rumbley III Roy Bohon 449 3. That the consideration for each easement acquisition shall not exceed a value equal to 40% of the current tax assessment for the property to be acquired plus the cost of actual damages, if any; and 4. That the consideration for each easement shall be paid from the Capital Improvement Fund; and 5. That the 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. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None 2. Second reading of ordinance approving acquisition of an easement for sanitatar sewer extension at Mount Pleasant Fire Station, Vinton Magisterial District (Gary Robertson, Utility Director 0-070902-6 Mr. Robertson advised that there have been no changes since the first reading. There was no discussion. Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by July 9, 2002 4rJ1 Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the Consent Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None RESOLUTION 070902-7 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I -CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for July 9, 2002 designated as Item I -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 2, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes for the March 12 and June 25, 2002 Board of Supervisors meetings. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Roanoke County Cable Television Committee and Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, McNamara, Minnix, Nickens, Church NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Minnix moved to receive and file the following reports after discussion of Item 7. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: July 9, Zoo2 453 Mr. Hodge asked that the Board designate an official representative from the Board, and advised that County staff on the subcommittee will include Director of Utilities Gary Robertson, Chief Financial Officer Diane Hyatt, County Attorney Paul Mahoney and himself. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Flora: (1) He commended the Economic Development Department for their efforts in working to resolve an existing noise issue on Hollins Road and asked that he be kept informed of future developments. Supervisor McNamara: (1) He asked that the revenues from the sale of water be reported on a quarterly basis and that any disposition of these revenues be subject to Board concurrence. Supervisor Minnix: (1) He asked that the quarterly report of water revenues show the gross amount and the net amount. (2) He advised that Hidden Valley High School will open on time and thanked the Board members for having education as a priority. Supervisor Church: (1) He advised that Hidden Valley High School was also going to open on budget and thanked the School staff, Supervisor Flora and all those involved for their work on construction of the school. (2) He advised that he and Supervisor Flora attended the event at the Rescue Mission with the Miss Virginia July 9, 2002 455 incentives in the form of County funds or other assets. He described the proposed changes in the revised policy draft. It was the consensus of the Board for staff to move forward with the amendment and bring back the Public Private Partnership Policy for Board approval. b. Technology Zone Creation Mr. Chittum explained that establishment of a technology zone allows localities to create special incentives for qualified businesses locating or expanding operations in a zone. These incentives may include: a reduction of user and permit fees, local tax incentives, special zoning treatment, exemption from local ordinances or other incentives adopted by ordinance. Localities that have established technology zones include Arlington County, the Cities of Charlottesville, Falls Church, Franklin, Hampton, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg, and Winchester. Staff is proposing that the Center for Research and Technology be considered a technology zone by ordinance. During the discussion, the Board members advised that several questions need to be answered. These include: (1) Could the entire County be a technology zone? (2) What are other possible technology zones? and (3) What are the costs of some of the incentives offered such as eliminating the Business and Professional Operators License (BPOL) tax? Staff was directed to provide the Board members with more information. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING July 9, 2002 IN RE:. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 6:34 p.m. Submitted by, Approved by, Brenda J. Holton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board Joseph B. "Butch" Church Chairman 457