Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/16/2003 - Regular (2)Working Document -Subject to Revision ,Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Action Agenda December 16, 2003 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for December 16, 2003. 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, and will be rebroadcast on Wednesdays at 7:00 p.m. and on Sundays 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 All present at 3:03 p.m. 2. Invocation: Rabbi Manes Kogan Beth Israel Synagogue 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS None C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of appreciation to H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix for twelve years of service on the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors R-121603-1 JPM motion to adopt resolution AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Minnix 1 2. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Thomas R. Walls, Social Services Department, after thirty years of service R-121603-2 JPM motion to adopt resolution URC 3. Recognition of the Roanoke County Police Department for receiving re- accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) The following members of the Police Department were present for the recognition: Chief Ray Lavinder, Captain Phil Patrone, Lieutenant Scott Smith, Officer Nancy Short, and Jimmy Chapman. Chief Lavinder also recognized Steve Short for his support. D. BRIEFINGS None E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to appropriate funds as a result of operations for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003. (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) A-121603-3 JBC motion to appropriate the fee for service in excess of budget of $396,483 to a fire and rescue reserve account until a needs assessment is complete URC 2. Resolution requesting the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) to establish mandatory regulations for the operation of remote control locomotives. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) R-121603-4 MWA motion to adopt resolution AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: Supervisor Flora 3. Request to approve position of Office Support Specialist in the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's office. (Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board) A-121603-5 JBC motion to approve staff recommendation (approve the addition of the Office Support Specialist position in the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office and appropriate $15,000 from the Board Contingency Fund to cover salary and benefit 2 costs for the remainder of the 2003-2004 fiscal year) URC 4. Request to ratify appointment to the Western Virginia Water Authority. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) A-121603-6 MWA motion to ratify the appointment URC 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. None G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of ordinance to vacate, quit-claim and release a 20' sanitary sewer easement conveyed to the Board of Supervisors in Deed Book 1321, Page 354, and 10` well lot access easement conveyed to the Board in Deed Book 1044, Page 816, on property owned by the Achievement Center Foundation (Tax Map Nos. 26.16-2-13 and 26.16-2-12), Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) RCF motion to approve 1St reading 2"d reading - 1/13/04 URC H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES None APPOINTMENTS 1. Building Code Board of Adjustments & Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) 2. Roanoke County Planning Commission (Appointed by District) 3. Southwest Development Financing, Inc. JPM nominated Wendi Schultz, Tourism and Event Coordinator, to serve an additional two-year term which will expire on January 1, 2006. 3 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-121603-7 HOM motion to adopt consent resolution with Item J-3 removed URC 1. Approval of minutes -November 14, November 19, and December 2, 2003 2. Confirmation and ratification of committee appointments to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, Grievance Panel, Library Board, Roanoke County Planning Commission, and Roanoke Valley Resource Authority A-121603-7.a 3. Approval of resolutions of appreciation upon the retirements of the following individuals: (a) Michael R. Morris, Fire & Rescue Department, after twenty-eight years of service A-121603-7.b HOM motion to adopt resolution URC (b) Charles W. Vaden, Real Estate Valuation Department, after fourteen years of service A-121603-7.c HOM motion to adopt resolution URC 4. Request to accept and appropriate grant in the amount of $10,000 from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for use in conducting DUI checkpoints, aggressive driving enforcement, injury accident reduction and safety and child seat enforcement A-121603-7.d 4 5. Request to approve and adopt the revised Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) for the County of Roanoke A-121603-7.e 6. Request to accept the remaining portion of Valley Stream Drive, located in the Vinton Magisterial District, into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System R-121603-7.f K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS None L. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS None M. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None N. REPORTS JPM motion to receive and file the following reports U RC 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Accounts Paid -November 2003 6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended November 30, 2003 7. Statement of the Treasurer's accountability per investment and portfolio policy as of November 30, 2003 5 O. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel regarding settlement with respect to pending litigation, namely Roanoke County vs. General Electric (Dixie Caverns Landfill) At 4:38 p.m., JPM moved to go into closed meeting following the work sessions URC P. WORK SESSIONS (4th Floor Conference Room) 1. Joint work session with the Planning Commission for the purpose of discussing the Comprehensive Plan. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Time: 5:37 p.m. until 6:13 p.m. The following Roanoke County staff was present at the meeting: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; David Holladay, Zoning Administrator. Planning Commission members who were present included: Don Witt, AI Thomason, Steve Azar, and Martha Hooker. Ms. Scheid presented an overview of the 1998 Community Plan. She identified goals in the following areas for inclusion in the updated plan: economic development, public utilities, stormwater management, transportation, and growth management. The process for implementation of the plan was presented, and Ms. Scheid advised that the revised plan will be presented to the Planning Commission in February 2004 and zoning ordinance amendments will be presented in April or May 2004. Mr. Holladay presented future land use maps which highlighted areas where R-1 zoning currently extends beyond the existing infrastructure. He also presented maps detailing slope data in the R-1 zoning district. Mr. Holladay advised that zoning changes will follow any adjustments made to the future land use maps. It was the consensus of the Board that staff should continue proceeding with the proposed revisions, and staff was directed to hold additional community meetings with the groups who will be most affected by the proposed changes. 2. Work session to discuss public safety building proposals under the Public- Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA). (Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator) Time: 6:16 p.m. until 6:36 p.m. Mr. O'Donnell reported that the following two proposer teams have decided to continue with Phase II of the PPEA process: Northrup-Grumman and Public Facility Consortium. Staff is ready to proceed with Phase II scope of services where the following information will be requested: (1) site-specific preliminary 6 drawings; (2) detailed equipment descriptions; (3) radio systems analysis; (4) list of all major subcontractors; and (5) cost breakdown by components and options with suggested financing plans. Mr. O'Donnell advised that possible sites for the facility include the School Board site on Cove Road as well as several possible sites near Wood Haven Road. Mr. Chambliss reported that technology upgrades are needed for the following: (1) replication of equipment at the Dispatch Center; (2) paging system for Fire and Rescue; (3) computer aided dispatch (CAD) and records management system for the Police and Fire and Rescue Departments; (4) wireless 911 Phase II equipment; and (5) 800 Mhz radio system. Additional information was provided regarding the current paging system which was installed in 1978 and the 800 Mhz radio system installed in 1987. Mr. Chambliss stated that proposers are being asked to evaluate the existing equipment and its life cycle. Both Roanoke County and Roanoke City currently operate analog systems. It was the consensus of the Board to continue moving forward with the Phase II scope of services evaluation. 3. Work session to discuss proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Code, Section 2-7 "Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred for Emergency Response". (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) This item was postponed until January 13, 2004 EVENING SESSION Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION Closed meeting held from 6:40 p.m. until 6:55 p.m. R-121603-8 At 7:02 p.m., JPM moved to adopt the certification resolution URC R. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Kenneth W. Kern, Police Department, after twenty-nine years of service R-121603-9 JPM motion to adopt resolution URC 7 S. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public hearing to receive comments on the Secondary System Six-Year Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2010 and the allocation of funds for Fiscal Year 2004-2005. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) (a) Approval of resolution for Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2010 and the allocation of funds for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 R-121603-10 JPM motion to adopt resolution URC (b) Approval of projects for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Revenue Sharing Program A-121603-11 JPM motion to approve staff recommendation (approve the project list and authorize the County Administrator to sign the letter of intent and defer appropriation of the $500,000 in funds until July 1, 2004) URC 2. Public hearing to receive comments on an administrative appeal requested by Galax Treatment Center, d/b/a/ LCG-Roanoke, from the Zoning Administrator's decision to refuse to certify zoning compliance for the operation of a methadone clinic to be located at 3390 Colonial Avenue in the County of Roanoke. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) Ed Natt, attorney for the petitioner, advised that the Galax Treatment Center was withdrawing their appeal. Based on the withdrawal of the appeal, no citizens spoke regarding this matter. T. PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 1. First reading of an ordinance to vacate a 20' waterline easement dedicated by Subdivision Plat and Revised Subdivision Plat of the Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, Lots 26-33, recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 171, and Plat Book 26, Page 11, respectively, and further shown on the Subdivision Plat of the Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, Lots 107-113, recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 83, across property owned by CBI Developers (Tax Map Nos.27.20-1- 29.1, 27.20-4-18 and 27.20-4-19), Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) 8 JPM motion to approve 1St reading 2"a reading - 1/13/04 AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Flora U. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a 127-foot broadcasting tower on 3.059 acres located at 6720 Thirlane Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Cellco Partnership (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Two citizens spoke regarding this matter and presented a petition opposing the special use permit Denial of petition 0-121603-12 JBC motion to deny the request for a special use permit URC 2. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a mini warehouse facility on 4.0 acres located in the 5300 block of Hollins Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Berk, LLC (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 0-121603-13 RCF motion to adopt ordinance URC V. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 1. Second reading of an ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by the amendment of Section 2-7. "Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred for Emergency Response." (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) This item was postponed until January 13, 2004 W. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of settlement with General Electric and others with regard to pending litigation, namely Roanoke County vs. General Electric (Dixie Caverns Landfill). (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) A-121603-14 9 JPM motion to approve staff recommendation (authorize the County Administrator to execute the settlement agreement on behalf of Roanoke County and to take such actions as may be necessary to conclude the litigation, all upon form approved by the County Attorney) URC X. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None Y. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Flora: He bid farewell to Supervisor Minnix and expressed his pleasure at having the opportunity to work with him. He noted that the Board and staff will still be able to see Supervisor Minnix through his service on the Western Virginia Water Authority Board. Supervisor Minnix: He expressed his appreciation to the citizens for allowing him the opportunity to serve as their representative for the past 12 years, and encouraged them to be active participants in what takes place in their government. He recognized County staff for the quality of their work, and he expressed appreciation to Elmer Hodge for his leadership. He voiced his pleasure at having the opportunity to serve with his fellow Board members, and asked that they continue to be good servants to the people of Roanoke County. Supervisor McNamara: (1) He stated that as Supervisor Minnix had done throughout his career, he was still giving the credit to others. He expressed appreciation to Supervisor Minnix for his years of service. (2) He advised that the Christmas Tree Lighting which was cancelled due to inclement weather this year will be held again next year, and noted that plans would be in place for an alternative date in the event that cancellations are necessary due to weather. (3) He expressed appreciation to his fellow Board members and the citizens for having the opportunity to serve as Chairman in 2003. (4) He wished everyone a safe, happy holiday season. Supervisor Minnix: On behalf of the Board, he expressed his appreciation to Chairman McNamara for his service as Chairman in 2003. Z. ADJOURNMENT TO TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2003 AT 9:30 A.M. FOR A JOINT MEETING WITH ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL, ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, 5204 BERNARD DRIVE, SW, 4T" FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY. JPM adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. until Tuesday, December 30, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. for a joint meeting with Roanoke City Council, Roanoke County 10 Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, SW, 4th Floor Conference Room, for the purpose of discussing the Western Virginia Water Authority. Note from the Clerk: The above meeting has since been cancelled. 11 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda December 16, 2003 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for December 16, 2003. 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, and will be rebroadcast on Wednesdays at 7:00 p.m. and on Sundays 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: Rabbi Manes Kogan Beth Israel Synagogue 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 1. Resolution of appreciation to H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix for twelve years of service on the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 2. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Thomas R. Walls, Social Services Department, after thirty years of service 3. Recognition of the Roanoke County Police Department for receiving re- accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) D. BRIEFINGS E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to appropriate funds as a result of operations for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003. (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) 1 2. Resolution requesting the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) to establish mandatory regulations for the operation of remote control locomotives. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) 3. Request to approve position of Office Support Specialist in the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's office. (Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board) 4. Request to ratify appointment to the Western Virginia Water Authority. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) 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. G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES First reading of ordinance to vacate, quit-claim and release a 20' sanitary sewer easement conveyed to the Board of Supervisors in Deed Book 1321, Page 354, and 10` well lot access easement conveyed to the Board in Deed Book 1044, Page 816, on property owned by the Achievement Center Foundation (Tax Map Nos. 26.16-2-13 and 26.16-2-12), Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES APPOINTMENTS 1. Building Code Board of Adjustments & Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) 2. Roanoke County Planning Commission (Appointed by District) 3. Southwest Development Financing, Inc. 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. 1. Approval of minutes -November 14, November 19, and December 2, 2003 2 2. Confirmation and ratification of committee appointments to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, Grievance Panel, Library Board, Roanoke County Planning Commission, and Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 3. Approval of resolutions of appreciation upon the retirements of the following individuals: (a) Michael R. Morris, Fire & Rescue Department, after twenty-eight years of service (b) Charles W. Vaden, Real Estate Valuation Department, after fourteen years of service 4. Request to accept and appropriate grant in the amount of $10,000 from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for use in conducting DUI checkpoints, aggressive driving enforcement, injury accident reduction and safety and child seat enforcement 5. Request to approve and adopt the revised Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) for the County of Roanoke 6. Request to accept the remaining portion of Valley Stream Drive, located in the Vinton Magisterial District, into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System K. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 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 Capital Projects 5. Accounts Paid -November 2003 6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended November 30, 2003 3 7. Statement of the Treasurer's accountability per investment and portfolio policy as of November 30, 2003 O. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel regarding settlement with respect to pending litigation, namely Roanoke County vs. General Electric (Dixie Caverns Landfill) P. WORK SESSIONS (4th Floor Conference Room) Joint work session with the Planning Commission for the purpose of discussing the Comprehensive Plan. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 2. Work session to discuss public safety building proposals under the Public- Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA). (Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator) 3. Work session to discuss proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Code, Section 2-7 "Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred for Emergency Response". (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) EVENING SESSION Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Kenneth W. Kern, Police Department, aftertwenty-nine years of service S. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public hearing to receive comments on the Secondary System Six-Year Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2010 and the allocation of funds for Fiscal Year 2004-2005.. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) (a) Approval of resolution for Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-2010 and the allocation of funds for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 (b) Approval of projects for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Revenue Sharing Program 4 2. Public hearing to receive comments on an administrative appeal requested by Galax Treatment Center, d/b/a LCG-Roanoke, from the Zoning Administrator's decision to refuse to certify zoning compliance for the operation of a methadone clinic to be located at 3390 Colonial Avenue in the County of Roanoke. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) T U V. W X. Y PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE First reading of an ordinance to vacate a 20' waterline easement dedicated by Subdivision Plat and Revised Subdivision Plat of the Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, Lots 26-33, recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 171, and Plat Book 26, Page 11, respectively, and further shown on the Subdivision Plat of the Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, Lots 107-113, recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 83, across property owned by CBI Developers (Tax Map Nos.27.20-1- 29.1, 27.20-4-18 and 27.20-4-19), Hollins Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a 127-foot broadcasting tower on 3.059 acres located at 6720 Thirlane Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Cellco Partnership (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 2. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a mini warehouse facility on 4.0 acres located in the 5300 block of Hollins Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Berk, LLC (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE Second reading of an ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by the amendment of Section 2-7. "Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred for Emergency Response." (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) NEW BUSINESS Approval of settlement with General Electric and pending litigation, namely Roanoke County vs. Caverns Landfill). (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS others with regard to General Electric (Dixie 5 Z. ADJOURNMENT TO TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2003 AT 9:30 A.M. FOR A JOINT MEETING WITH ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL, ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, 5204 BERNARD DRIVE, SW, 4T" FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY. 6 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION 121603-1 OF APPRECIATION TO H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX FOR HIS SERVICES AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM 1992 THROUGH 2003 WHEREAS, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix was first elected to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to represent the Cave Spring Magisterial District in November 1991, and served from January 1, 1992, until his retirement on December 31, 2003; and WHEREAS, Supervisor Minnix exhibited leadership by serving as Chairman during 1993, 1995 and 2001; and as Vice-Chairman in 2000; and WHEREAS, Supervisor Minnix has demonstrated a generosity of spirit and heart in his service to the citizens of Roanoke County, frequently going above and beyond his role as a supervisor to provide assistance to those in need; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County has undertaken numerous projects during Supervisor Minnix's twelve years on the Board, including the following: • Approval of school capital construction projects in excess of $100 million • Construction of Spring Hollow Reservoir and Water System • Construction of the Smith Gap Landfill • Creation of the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology • Development of the Vinton Business Center • National accreditation of the Sheriffs Office and re-accreditation of the Police Department • Installation of Automated External Defibrillators in County buildings • Delivery of the first State of the County Address for Roanoke County WHEREAS, many regional initiatives were begun or completed during Supervisors Minnix's tenure including signing of the cooperative agreement with the City of Roanoke to jointly staff the Clearbrook Fire Station; participation in regional summit meetings of local governments in Southwest Virginia; adoption of a Regional Economic Development Strategy; completion of the Roanoke Valley Fire & EMS Training Center serving Southwest Virginia; dedication of the Roanoke Regional Tactical Training Facility; opening of the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitors Center; and the creation of the Western Virginia Water Authority, of which Supervisor Minnix will become the first citizen representative for Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, in addition to his duties as a Board member, Supervisor Minnix also served with distinction on many committees and boards including the Audit Committee, the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, the Fifth Planning District Commission, the Social Services Board, the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Blue Ridge Zoological Society of Virginia, and the Lewis-Gale Bio-Ethics Committee. 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 H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX for twelve years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors wishes Supervisor Minnix continued success in his future endeavors. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: 2 AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Minnix A COPY TESTE: ~~~~~~~~Q~~ Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File 3 i ~ 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: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of appreciation to H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix for his services as a member of the Board of Supervisors from 1992 through 2003 ~j~ ~ I APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~'~ /~~°~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside to recognize H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix for his 12 years of service as a member of the Board of Supervisors. Also present at the meeting will be his wife, Janet. Following the meeting, a reception will be held at the Administration Center on the fourth floor at 4:30 p.m. to further celebrate the many contributions Supervisor Minnix has made to the County. ~- I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX FOR HIS SERVICES AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM 1992 THROUGH 2003 WHEREAS, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix was first elected to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to represent the Cave Spring Magisterial District in November 1991, and served from January 1, 1992, until his retirement on December 31, 2003; and WHEREAS, Supervisor Minnix exhibited leadership by serving as Chairman during 1993, 1995 and 2001; and as Vice-Chairman in 2000; and WHEREAS, Supervisor Minnix has demonstrated a generosity of spirit and heart in his service to the citizens of Roanoke County, frequently going above and beyond his role as a supervisor to provide assistance to those in need; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County has undertaken numerous projects during Supervisor Minnix's twelve years on the Board, including the following: • Approval of school capital construction projects in excess of $100 million • Construction of Spring Hollow Reservoir and Water System • Construction of the Smith Gap Landfill • Creation of the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology • Development of the Vinton Business Center • National accreditation of the Sheriff's Office and re-accreditation of the Police Department • Installation of Automated External Defibrillators in County buildings • Delivery of the first State of the County Address for Roanoke County 1 C! WHEREAS, many regional initiatives were begun or completed during Supervisors Minnix's tenure including signing of the cooperative agreement with the City of Roanoke to jointly staff the Clearbrook Fire Station; participation in regional summit meetings of local governments in Southwest Virginia; adoption of a Regional Economic Development Strategy; completion of the Roanoke Valley Fire & EMS Training Center serving Southwest Virginia; dedication of the Roanoke Regional Tactical Training Facility; opening of the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitors Center; and the creation ofthe Western Virginia WaterAuthority, of which Supervisor Minnix will become the first citizen representative for Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, in addition to his duties as a Board member, Supervisor Minnix also served with distinction on many committees and boards including the Audit Committee, the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, the Fifth Planning District Commission, the Social Services Board, the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Blue Ridge Zoological Society of Virginia, and the Lewis-Gale Bio-Ethics Committee. 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 H. ODELL "FUZZY" MINNIX for twelve years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors wishes Supervisor Minnix continued success in his future endeavors. 2 r r + AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION 121603-Z EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF THOMAS R. WALLS, SOCIAL SERVICES, AFTER THIRTY YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Thomas R. Walls was employed by Roanoke County on October 10, 1973, as an Eligibility Worker in the Social Services Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Walls retired from Roanoke County on November 1, 2003, as a Senior Social Worker after thirty years of service; and WHEREAS, during his years of employment, Mr. Walls worked in many different areas of Social Services including: Eligibility Services; the WIN Program in coordination with the Virginia Employment Commission; Family Services; Foster Care; and Custody Investigations; and WHEREAS, Mr. Walls was the coordinator of the Mediation Program for which Social Services received an award from the National Association of Counties; and received an award from the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services for innovative program interventions; and WHEREAS, Mr. Walls has served with professionalism and integrity, and through his employment with Roanoke County has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens, as well as consistently displaying an attitude of helpfulness and leadership to colleagues. 1 ~. 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 THOMAS R. WALLS for thirty years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~~~ Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File Dr. Betty McCrary, Director, Social Services 2 t ~. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C-p~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Thomas R. Walls, Social Services, after thirty years of service SUBMITTED BY: Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~:~•~ /~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Human Resources Department has notified us that Thomas R. Walls, Social Services, retired on November 1, 2003. Mr. Walls will attend the afternoon Board meeting to accept his resolution of appreciation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the attached resolution and present it to Mr. Walls with the appreciation of the Board members for his many years of service to the County. Ca AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF THOMAS R. WALLS, SOCIAL SERVICES, AFTER THIRTY YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Thomas R. Walls was employed by Roanoke County on October 10, 1973, as an Eligibility Worker in the Social Services Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Walls retired from Roanoke County on November 1, 2003, as a Senior Social Worker after thirty years of service; and WHEREAS, during his years of employment, Mr. Walls worked in many different areas of Social Services including: Eligibility Services, the WIN Program in coordination with the Virginia Employment Commission; Family Services; Foster Care; and Custody Investigations; and WHEREAS, Mr. Walls was the coordinator of the Mediation Program for which Social Services received an award from the National Association of Counties; and received an award from the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services for innovative program interventions; and WHEREAS, Mr. Walls has served with professionalism and integrity, and through his employment with Roanoke County has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens, as well as consistently displaying an attitude of helpfulness and leadership to colleagues. Ca 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 THOMAS R. WALLS for thirty years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C - 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of the Roanoke County Police Department for receiving re-accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside to recognize the Police Department for achieving re- accreditationthrough CALEA. The department was first accredited in 1992, and has since been reaccredited in 1997, 2000, and 2003. The standards created by CALEA address nine major law enforcement subjects: - Role, responsibilities, and relationships with other agencies - Organization, management and administration - Personnel structure - Personnel process - Operations - Operational support - Traffic operations - Prisoner and court-related activities - Auxiliary and technical services Present at the meeting will be Chief Ray Lavinder, Captain Phil Patrone, Lieutenant Scott Smith, and Officer Nancy Short. ACTION N0. A-121603-3 ITEM NO. E-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Results of operations for the year ended June 30, 2003 and appropriation of funds SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Everyone has done an outstanding job getting through a challenging fiscal year. We have done well because we have been very careful and also because the economy is beginning to improve. Recommend approval of the appropriation of $396,483 to fire and rescue capital for the new radio system or public safety building. The Board committed to using these funds for fire and rescue when the fee for transport was implemented. Because this is the first year under the increased rates, we are not sure if this will be an ongoing surplus or a one-time increase in excess of budget. Therefore it is better to place these funds in capital, which can be used towards major projects, until it is determined if the trend will continue. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: KPMG LLP has completed their audit of the financial operations of the County of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke Schools for the year ended June 30, 2003. The Audit Committee met on December 10, 2003 with KPMG to review their findings. KPMG LLP delivered a favorable opinion to the County and did not have any Management Letter comments. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is currently at the printers and should be delivered in the next week. Results of Operations of the County of Roanoke for the Year Ended June 30 2003: The County operations for the year ended June 30, 2003 resulted in expenditure savings of $484,411 as shown on Attachment I. Based upon the policy for rollover of year end savings the departments were able to request up to 60% of the savings within their own department for special purchases and programs approved by the County Administrator. These approved department rollovers total $209,439 and are outlined in Attachment II. This leaves a net expenditure savings of $274,972. Based upon the rollover policy this amount will be transferred to the capital fund unappropriated balance. The general fund revenues were $2,590,376 over budget as shown on Attachment I. A more detailed analysis of general fund revenues is outlined in Attachment II1. From this amount, the Board previously approved a rollover of $230,463 as part of the original 2003-04 budget appropriation for the HP migration project. Also, approved at previous board meetings during the 2003-04 fiscal year and appropriated from this amount were: • Voting Machines (7/8/03 meeting) $103,801 • Bulk Collection (8/12/03 meeting) 376.000 Total $479,801 Fee for Service revenues exceeded budget by $396,483. At the time the ambulance fee was approved, these revenues were committed to Fire and Rescue and will need to be appropriated accordingly. Staff recommends appropriating the funds to capital for a new radio system or for the Public Safety Building project. This leaves a balance of $1,483,629 to be added to the general fund unappropriated balance. No action is required from the Board for these funds to close to unappropriated balance. The general fund unappropriated balance at June 30, 2003 is $10,461,285. This is an increase of $1,390,629 from last year. At June 30, 2003 the General Fund Unappropriated Balance was 7.99% of the General Fund Revenues. Results of Operations of the Roanoke County Schools for the Year Ended June 30, 2003: Attachment IV is the report that was presented to the School Board on November 20, 2003. The School Board took final action to approve this report on November 25, 2003. The Schools ended the year with a surplus of $4,155,074. Based upon the adopted County budget ordinance, these funds will automatically be transferred to the School Capital Fund. A detailed schedule of the proposed capital uses discussed with the School Board is included in Attachment C. No action is required by the County Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Board has previously approved either by policy or board action the above items noted and the only action required by the Board is to: 2 1. Appropriate the fee for service in excess of budget of $396,483 to Fire and Rescue capital for a new radio system or for the Public Safety Building project. VOTE: Supervisor Church motion to appropriate the fee for service in excess of budget of $396,483 to a fire and rescue reserve account until a needs assessment is complete. Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ cc: File Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Richard Burch, Chief, Fire & Rescue 3 1.--~ Attachment County of Roanoke, Virginia Summary of General Operating Fund Revenues and Expenditures For the Year Ended June 30, 2003 Budget Actual Amount ___ Revenues $ 123,215,858 $ 125,806,234 $ 2,590,376 Expenditures and encumbrances (57,198,694) (56,776,208) 422,486 Transfers In 583,168 583,168 - Transfers Out (68,010,434) (67,948,509) 61,925 (1,410,102) 1,664,685 3,074,787 Previously approved items: HP Migration-approved as part of original 2003-04 budget Voting Machines-approved at 7/8/03 Meeting Bulk Collection approved at 8/12/03 Meeting Approved based on rollover policy: Departmental rollover per policy Transfer to Capital Unappropriated per rollover policy Excess Rescue Fees( Requires board action for appropriation) Addition to General Fund Unappropriated Balance Preliminary General Fund Unappropriated Balance at June 30, 2003 Adjusted General Fund Unappropriated Balance at June 30, 2003 (230,463) (103,801) (376,000) (209,439) (274,972) (396,483) 1,483,629 8,977,656 $ 10,461,285 C7 ~-°" C~' w+ C d t V R w+ a c O ~ ~ O ~ ~ Q O 0 ~+ ~ Q O d O O C.1 • d O Q. Q Q m d Z C ~ N O O O O O h 00 O O f~ ~ ~ CO O O O 00 d7 O ~ 0 0 Cfl O O LC) ~ 0 0 ~ ~- 00 f~ CO O CO T- Cp f~ ~ N CO Cfl O N O M r- ~ r r ~ N EA d~} Efl Efl H? ff3 (f-} d9 ffl E!? 69 ffl E!3 ~~ ~, ~~ ~~ CA t... U ~ Q Q a U ff ~ v ~ W W p ~ U U !O ~ O O c ~ -a -a o llam^, ~ ~ VJ L L ~ ~ ~ a? ~ ~ Q a ~ ~ U U . ~ > ~ C ~ .L a p L . U ~ N ~' ~ ~ W N ~ y ~ L L Yom.. N , ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ E E E `° ~' U U U ~ ~ U ~ ° U a ' i a o 0 0 ~ ~ o a~ a~ a~ U o U ~ a a ~ W O M N O O ~ O O ~f' f~ d' O ~ O ~ O ~ M ~ M N N ~ N 6F? b4 (f} E!-? 64 Efl Eft ~° ~~ ~. _ _ ~ a '~ ~ °~_ W o 6 _ ~ ~ C W ~ W L ~ -1..i p p ~ ~ U U ~ ' ~ ' ~_ _ ~ ' O o ~ O C J ` ~ ~.. ~ ~ c = O - O a - ~~ ~ a~ i ~ o ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ), ~ C Ca ~ o (a Ca U a ~ cn p ~ n ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ a ~~ a - a s a. ~ ~ a .C ~ LL, ..' U c~ ~. ~~ U w U U U U U U c o c U L U U O p ~ :~. C O ~ ~ U _ ~ ¢ - ~ ~ ~ a~ .~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ p cn p 'p C (6 ~ ~ U U C U C U ~ C W ~ N p O ~ ° ~ O N a U (0 ° C6 C6 N i O v m = w c n . ii a ii u. ~ a w a~ c a~ > N ~ ~, ~ O ~ N U '~ = ~ ~- O p o N U a ~ m ~ C a~ p f6 U «° CO p ii ~ ~- J ~ U ~ U ~ ~ N H ~ ca ~ O M 07 N a~ 0 6 ~.. °°' r~ ~ J = 07 00 C4 01 CO 00 C'7 N f~ N Cfl h r O O d' ct N 2V CD M CO O O ~p - ~ . CD d' M lf) O O 00 O ~ r CO N O ~' ~ l!7 O M N CO N I~ ~ C ~ N +'~+ O N ti M O O lf') 00 f~ O lf) O r CD In 07 r M d' Cfl f~ M M 7 V ~ ct ~ ~ O lf) 01 ~ CO d' f~ ~ O 07 ~' O N I.n ~ M M O O M tI') ~ r ~'' ~ ~ O ~ y CO O ~ ~ _ M ~ O L ~ QL d ~ C O r N ~ C D ~' v t f> ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ N N _ ~ j to Ef3 Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O N O m ct N CO N O t1'> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O O N O Cfl ~ ~ ~ 0 0 O ~ M O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO ~ Lf) lf7 O N M r 00 r d; 'd~ d O O O ct' ~ O O h 0 0 t(') ~ O l!') ti 0 N l(7 00 M CD O LCJ M~ 00 i ~ a N O O O 00 ~ O d' r r t~ N O O N 00 O Cfl CO O ~' ~- ' r 00 07 01 . O f~ C4 O r (D N ~ I` N O O OO M CO lf) O ~ CO r r 1 t! N ~ O 00 V- } ~ N M CD ~ d' r ~ N ~ r r 01 N N ~ M m ! ~ 07 CO CO O CO 00 I~ N M 00 C4 I~ r N O (~ O r I` CO In Ch CO 07 r ~ ~ CO d' M to O O r O N 00 O N O OD ti ~ ' 00 M ~ N ~- M O O ti - L' ct) N O N ti M O O d' N N m l!) O r d7 07 lf ) CO M ti O O N ~ O ~ p y M O ~ d' ~ tci N rn ~ci ti ~ c~ O N ~- u'i I~ d' c- ti ~ a6 N c7 c0 c`i O a0 ~ O to M M r Cp O r d' N O m oO O ti ti OD ~ O N ` O M h N N O N 0 0 CO ~ O d ~ O ,~ N c O N r ~ ti CD M 1~ N to f~ ~ M tf) t1) M r I ~ N N M CO d' d' ~ r N ~ N CO N ~i ~ M Li a~ d In N N ~., N ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ O ~ ~ N G i ~' ~ LL O ~ ~ U p C7 ~a L ~ ' V X (~ O U C ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ O y d N X X N ~ C p ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ x C p U X U N Q- " U O ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ U (B ~ N J ;? O ~ N N X ~ X N U N J ~ X X aLS N f6 ~ to L ~- p 'C f- ~ U ~ ~ F' C F- ~ p ~ ~ j V cII N i O N _ J L U C O ~ C L O O U ~ 0 ~ C L ~ ~ X ~ ~ LL -Q O ~ C ~ ~ d N C ++ ~ ~. a ~ cn O U y (~Q O > ~ ~ O ~ c0 I-' ~ O ~ vi C ~ ~ V1 ~ ~ L a~ C O ~ ~ c i, (0 ~ co ~ ~ j c o ~ o ~ - ,~ _ , O ~ '= ~ O ~ N ~ ~ N y ~ ' ~ ~ O N ~ L .~ CJ +. f/1 ~ C (C ~ U N + + O ~ N L +~ N C N Vi (~ L N C O a ~ d ~ f- (6 ~ N ~ ~ a O O ~ ~ m m ~ ~ _ ~ U O ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ U ~ F- m = ai o `~° ~ ~ ~ 6 ~= Attachment IV ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MEETING DATE: December 11, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Appropriation of Final Year-End Balance from School Operations for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2003 BACKGROiTND: As a result of year-end operations, actual revenue received exceeded budgeted revenue by $1,239,170 (or 1.16%), while under-expenditures in the major spending categories accounted for $2,950,987 (or 2.75%) of the year-end balance (Attachment A). The additional revenues collected were primarily due to the higher than anticipated enrollment for the school year. The actual enrollment used for state funding was 297 students higher than budgeted. This increase was the largest increase in enrollment experienced in the last 10 years. See Attachment B for a comparison of FY02-03 enrollment to prior years. Under-expenditures were attributable prir~larily to savings in the personnel budget ($2.4 million). The majority of this savings is related to a carryover of savings in the prior year base line budget (approximately $1.8). However, over $500,000 of savings resulted from lower payouts of accrued leave and severance pay to terminating employees this year, open-end contract expenditures were lower than budget by $90,000 and the lower retirement rate for non-professional employees yielded a $200,000 savings. The School Board took action during the development ofthe FY03-04 budget to appropriate $1.1 million of this savings for employee raises in FY03-04 and school buses. Based on that action, the year-end balance for FYO' -04 will likely be significantly lower than this year. As noted in the finalized audit for fisc~~l year 2002-03, the year-end fund balance for school operations is $4,190,157 less outstanding ncumbrances of $35,083 or a net of $4,155,074. The budget ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 14, 2002 indicated "that all school fund appropriations remaining at the e:id of the 2002-03 fiscal year not lapse but shall be appropriated to the School Capital Impro~~ements Fund in fiscal year 2003-04." SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Historically, the School Board has asked staff to identify and prioritize capital needs to be considered fc~r funding with the year-end balance. Last year, the School Board reserved the majority of the year-end balance for potential shortfalls during FY02-03 as Governor Warner was currently in the process of reducing the state budget to balance a budget deficit. However, public education was protected from these cuts and these funds were instead appropriated by the School Board to fund t?1e first year of the laptop initiative for FY03-04 and the Phase 2 minor capital projects. Although the state and the nation are begiiuling to show signs of recovery this year, it is believed that the current local, state, and national economies again warrant a conservative approach to spending ~_i the year-end balance. Consequently, staff is recommending the following: • $498,000 to replenish the school bus budget for summer 2005. These funds were reallocated by the School Board this year for additional personnel needed due to higher student enrollments. • $1,300,000 for expanding the Laptop Initiative into the 10th grade during FY04-O5. • $40,000 for purchasing four new pool cars primarily for out of town travel. • $1,020,732 for the Phase 2 capital projects expanded furniture and technology. • $1,296,342 reserved for future school capital obligations (i.e. laptop initiative for l lth grade). Attachment C outlines the recommendations and the reservation of prior year balances still available to the School Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of the fiscal year 2002-03 year-end balance of $4,190,157 per Attachment C. An informational report will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and the year-end funds will be placed in the School Capital Fund per the approved budget ordinance. At some point in the future, if the School Board determines that the reserve funds should be appropriated for non-capital expenditures, a new report will be presented for both School Board and Board of Supervisors approval. SUBMITTED BY: Penny A. Hodge, CPA Director of Budget & Finance Approved () Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To () Motion by No Yes Abs Barrineau Canada Irvin Roark Stovall • C -~ Attachment A Roanoke Count Schools Y Year-End Balance for FY 2002-2003 Unaudited Budget Year to Date Dollar Percentage 2002-03 Actuals Difference of Budget Revenues: State Revenue Federal Revenue Tuition, Rent & Interest Transfer from County Transfer from CPMT Transfer from Alternative Sch Beginning Balance Total Revenue Expenditures: 70 School Board 71 School Superintendent 72 Budget & Finance 73 Instructional Personnel 74 Transportation 75 Facilities & Operations 76 Administrative Personnel 77 Summer School 78 Community Relations 79 Instruction 80 Deputy Superintendent 81 Remediation & Testing 82 Career & Technical Education 83 Pupil Personnel Services 85 Staff Development 86' Guidance 87 Media Services 88 Pupil Assignment 89 Classified Personnel 90 Adult Education Total Expenditures Less: Outstanding PO's Balance at June 30, 2003 • 46,531,247 47,774,575 1,243,328 102.67% 175,928 202,876 26,948 115.32% 555,276 522,906 (32,370) 94.17% 54,979,534 54,979,534 0 100.00% 799,000 799,000 0 100.00% 55,220 55,220 0 100.00% 4,046,369 4,047,633 1,264 100.03% 107,142,574 108,381,744 1,239,170 101.16% 166,868 151,861 15,007 91.01 237,251 59,785 177,466 25.20% 9,593,629 9,522,466 71,163 99.26% 64,289,323 62,874,151 1,415,172 97.80% 896,1$3 $97,040 (857) 100.10% 3,690,081 3,730,612 (40,531)- 101.10% 7,339,876 6,945,902 393,974 94.63% 494,661 395,641 99,020 79.98% 46,900 42,172 4,728 89.92% 587,531 501,673 85,858 85.39% 900,514 _ 944,251 (43,737) 104.86% 103,564 77,327 26,237 74.67% 413,814 406,124 7,690 98.14% 2,088,374 1,993,273 95,101 95.45% 70,302 47,736 22,566 67.90% 323,769 323,817 (48) 100.01% 887,160 881,955 5,205 99.41 108,298 99,169 9,129 91.57% 14,754,912 14,230,781 524,131 96.45% 149,564 65,851 83,713 44.03% 107,142,574 104,191,587 2,950,987 97.25% 0 4,190,157 (35,083) 4,155,074 12/10/2003 __ Attachment B • • Average Daily Membership Attendance Months 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 September 13,691 13,753 13,881 13,956 13,875 13,852 13,871 13,911 14,094 14,385 October 13,691 13,779 13,923 13,954 13,854 13,840 13,844 13,943 14,125 14,347 Novem;~er 13,672 13,757 13,896 13,924 13,861 13,843 13,886 13,938 14,138 December 13,652 13,754 13,892 13,932 13,868 13,834 13,824 13,941 14,167 January 13,648 13,767 13,874 13,921 13,837 13,851 13,843 13,937 14,155 February 13,606 13,817 13,883 13,889 13,795 13,840 13,835 13,910 14,141 March 13,613 13,816 13,886 13,857 13,782 13,843 13,803 13,905 14,130 Gain (loss) since Sept (78) 63 5 (99) (93) (9) (68) (6) 36 (38) March ADM 13,652 13,721 13,863 13,898 13,862 13,856 13,865 13,930 14,127 Budget ADM 13,600 13,650 13,776 13,950 13,950 13,825 13,825 13,825 13,830 13,938 Over (under) budget 52 71 87 (52) (88) 31 40 105 297 Over (under) prior year N/A 69 142 35 (36) (6) 9 65 197 NOTE: The above figures do not include Regional School students. The table and graph reflect variances in Average Daily Membership (ADM) between September and March 30. State revenue is driven primarily by ADM as of March 30 of each year. This graph shows the fluctuating student enrollments in previous years. Enrollment Growth: Enrollment growth of 475 students (or 3%) from 94-95 to 02-03. As of October 31, 2003, enrollment has grown by 220 students (or another 2%) since last year. Change in Enrollment 14200 14100 March 30 14000 13900 `~M 13 g00 13600 13500 D~~ hob b ^~~ ~~ ADO O~ ~~ ni o~ q o~ o~ o~ o~ 0 0 0 Year r~ ~_~ ~~~ Revised 11-20-03 Attachment C Roanoke County Schools Staff Recommendations Year-End Balance for FY 2002-03 ~i Sources: FY00-01 year-end balance reserved FY01-02 year-end balance reserved FY02-03 year-end balance Previously Appropriated: Laptop initiative - 9th grade Personnel/payroll server upgrade Phase 2 minor capital projects Balance Available for Appropriation Recommended Uses: Reserve for music uniform rollover Outstanding encumbrances Restore bus funds used for new personnel in FY03-04 Replace 4 pool cars Laptop initiative - 10th grade Phase 2 expanded furniture/technology Reserve for future capital • Future Funding Needs: Laptop initiative - 11th grade (estimated) 1,400,000 Phase 3 projects (no further county funding) TBD FY02-03 Prior Years Total - 738,302 738,302 - 2,828,278 2,828,278 4,190,157 - 4,190,157 4,190,157 3,566,580 7,756,737 (1,240,912) (1,240,912) (100,000) (100,000) (1,478,200) (1,478,200) - (2,819,112) (2,819,112) 4,190,157 747,468 4,937,625 (16,919) - (16,919) (18,164) - (18,164) (498,000) - (498,000) (40,000) - (40,000) (1,300,000) - (1,300,000) (1,020,732) - (1,020,732) (2,893,815) - (2,893,815) 1,296,342 747,468 2,043,810 6 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: AGENDA ITEM: December 16, 2003 Results of operations for the year ended June 30, 2003 and appropriation of funds SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~%~-~'^~-' ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Everyone has done an outstanding job getting through a challenging fiscal year. We have done well because we have been very careful and also because the economy is beginning to improve. Recommend approval of the appropriation of $396,483 to fire and rescue capital for the new radio system or public safety building. The Board committed to using these funds for fire and rescue when the fee for transport was implemented. Because this is the first year under the increased rates, we are not sure if this will bean ongoing surplus or a one-time increase in excess of budget. Therefore it is better to place these funds in capital, which can be used towards major projects, until it is determined if the trend will continue. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: KPMG LLP has completed their audit of the financial operations of the County of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke Schools for the year ended June 30, 2003. The Audit Committee met on December 10, 2003 with KPMG to review their findings. KPMG LLP delivered a favorable opinion to the County and did not have any Management Letter comments. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is currently at the printers and should be delivered in the next week. Results of Operations of the County of Roanoke for the Year Ended June 30, 2003: The County operations for the year ended June 30, 2003 resulted in expenditure savings of $484,411 as shown on Attachment I. Based upon the policy for rollover of year end savings the departments were able to request up to 60% of the savings within their own department for special purchases and programs approved by the County Administrator. These approved department rollovers total $209,439 and are outlined in Attachment II. This leaves a net expenditure savings of $274,972. Based upon the rollover policy this amount will be transferred to the capital fund unappropriated balance. The general fund revenues were $2,590,376 over budget as shown on Attachment I. A more detailed analysis of general fund revenues is outlined in Attachment III. From this amount, the Board previously approved a rollover of $230,463 as part of the original 2003-04 budget appropriation for the HP migration project. Also, approved at previous board meetings during the 2003-04 fiscal year and appropriated from this amount were: • Voting Machines (7/8/03 meeting) $103,801 • Bulk Collection (8/12/03 meeting) 376,000 Total $479,801 Fee for Service revenues exceeded budget by $396,483. At the time the ambulance fee was approved, these revenues were committed to Fire and Rescue and will need to be appropriated accordingly. Staff recommends appropriating the funds to capital for a new radio system or for the Public Safety Building project. This leaves a balance of $1,483,629 to be added to the general fund unappropriated balance. No action is required from the Board for these funds to close to unappropriated balance. The general fund unappropriated balance at June 30, 2003 is $10,461,285. This is an increase of $1,390,629 from last year. At June 30, 2003 the General Fund Unappropriated Balance was 7.99% of the General Fund Revenues. Results of Operations of the Roanoke County Schools for fhe Year Ended June 30. 2003: Attachment IV is the report that was presented to the School Board on November 20, 2003. The School Board took final action to approve this report on November 25, 2003. The Schools ended the year with a surplus of $4,155,074. Based upon the adopted County budget ordinance, these funds will automatically be transferred to the School Capital Fund. A detailed schedule of the proposed capital uses discussed with the School Board is included in Attachment C. No action is required by the County Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Board has previously approved either by policy or board action the above items noted and the only action required by the Board is to: 1. Appropriate the fee for service in excess of budget of $396,483 to Fire and Rescue capital for a new radio system or for the Public Safety Building project. ~-1 Attachment I County of Roanoke, Virginia Summary of General Operating Fund Revenues and Expenditures For the Year Ended June 30, 2003 Budget Actual Amount Revenues $ 123,215,858 $ 125,806,234 $ 2,590,376 Expenditures and encumbrances (57,198,694) (56,776,208) 422,486 Transfers In 583,168 583,168 - Transfers Out (68,010,434) (67,948,509) 61,925 (1,410,102) 1,664,685 3,074,787 Previously approved items: HP Migration-approved as part of original 2003-04 budget (230,463) Voting Machines-approved at 7/8/03 Meeting (103,801) Bulk Collection approved at 8/12/03 Meeting (376,000) Approved based on rollover policy: Departmental rollover per policy (209,439) Transfer to Capital Unappropriated per rollover policy (274,972) Excess Rescue Fees( Requires board action for appropriation) (396,483) Addition to General Fund Unappropriated Balance 1,483,629 Preliminary General Fund Unappropriated Balance at June 30, 2003 8,977,656 Adjusted General Fund Unappropriated Balance at June 30, 2003 $ 10,461,285 ~- i d' N O O O O O f~ 00 O O I~ '~t' O M N O O In O O *~' 'a ~, ~ Cfl O O O 00 O O r- O O CO O O I~ O M O d7 00 M ~ O In r O O ~ ~ 00 I~ O O CO ~ O ~ I~ d' d7 00 ~ C~ O ti In ~ O O O N O M ~~ ~ O~ M ~ M ~ ~ i~ N N N ~ N O ~ ~ ~ a Q EA b9 b4 69 EAR 69 6R Ef3 Ef3 Ef3 d9 64 d9 Ef? 69 EAR E9 E!3 EA d9 ER A' ~ VW O i O ~ i L O O ~ Q' O OQ~' >- L O d ~ O ~ U p U fa U C f0 O ~ C ~ -p .~ ~ ~ N L ~ ~ U ~. CA (p L C N C N C N ' (6 L '(a C~ L~ C O (~ r--~ C .~ C ~ O ~ E ? . ~ .~ n.. . Q . o V (0 ~ ~_ . N ~ ~ = O ~ ~ O U O- ~ ~ ~ p ~ v ~ W W W ~ L ~~ .-. W O c ~ W ~ W <n N ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ;r O~ v v O N W v~ cn cn ~ L ~ ~ N U a~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ a~ a~ ~ ~ _ ~ o ~ O O O ~ > > -~ ~ o ~' O O C~ ~ ~ '~ c ~ -~ a a a a n ~ L '~ ~~ ~ E a = O O a ~ ~ ~ o E E E N _ ~ `. ~ o c c ~ ". p >. c o O O O L c O n ~ c O L ~ C N ~ C (6 O n c N L L L U U U d~+ / 1 L U~ L ~+ ~ L p L p L L N p ~ ~ ~ (~ fd CO Q U ~ N ~ a L ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E -p > > > C C C N ~ . ~ ~ p ~ p ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ o ~ a n. ~ ° ° ° o ~ c n c n < n ~ ~ o ~ u- ~ ~ E c E E ~ ~ U U U ~ a a ° U U w U U U U U U H ~n i in ~ d Z c ', ~ ~ ~ o U c O C c O ~. O U N ~ O .~ c9 ~ N O oZS ~- ~ Q O C N >, lC L W p N ~ N U ' U U N ~ ~ +. ~ ~ ~ a~ U a ~~ ~ o O o 0 o ~ N ~ ;~ a~ U N a~ U m ~ U W ~ c O cn -o ~ cn ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ O ~ (~ E ~ O .L o C ~ (a C (~ C t0 N U L O ~--~ U (~ U f~ N ~ E L C lq p p C = a i i i w m w c n a i i i ~ a U in ii ~ U U ~ ~ C C. d ~.- i _ (A (70 CD O CD CO M N f~ N CD ti ~ O O ~ 'ct N N CD M (D O O ~D ~ . CD ~t M lf') O Q1 00 O ~ r CD N ~ '~ f~ l1~ CD M CO CD N f~ 1~ ~ ~ N w O N ~ M ~ O lf') n0 f~ O lli O •-- CD ~ O) ~ c'7 ~t C~ f~ M M N 7 V ~ ~ ~ r I~ 07 l[) (A ~ CD ~ h ~ O (A ~ O N l[) d' M M O O ~ M M E f~ l17 r (A ~ Ov l!7 O I~ ~ CD O lf> M r ~ O O ~ ~ c6 ~ ~ ~ ~ Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O N O O d' N o0 O (A ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O N (71 ~ ~ (A ~ CO (O O +, M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD ~ l1~ l1~ O N M r (70 ~ ~fi ~ d Oi O O ~ lC) O O I~ O O ll'> t!7 O l!7 1~ O N l(7 CO M CD O In M CA C70 ~ O ~ O ~ ~ N ~ ~ N C~O CND 000 OM ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ O o00 ~ V- m O ^ CO N M CO ~ ~ r r N ~ r ~ r 07 N N ~ M ~ ~ fJ Ef? ~ Ef3 ~ ~ ~ O 00 O O CD 00 I~ N M (70 CO f~ ~ N ~ O CD ~ ~ C70 Ln ~ 00 Q) r Y ~ O ~ M l() O Q) ~ O N C70 CO N O C70 1~ ~ C70 M (7O 00 ~ M CD CO I~ = f/1 CD N ~ M O O ~ oD N O) ll') O ~ O D1 ll~ CD M ti CO ~ N ~ tt (70 = Q~ O ~ O ~ d' 'ct ~ N (n ~ f~ ~ cM O N ~- ~ f~ ~ ~ I~ ~ 00 N CM CO c'M ~ ao O M M ~ O O ~ ~ ~ N ~ O Q) t ' p0 O ti ti C C70 t ~ CO N O M N ( 0 O C~0 Q) 00 to (~ ~ ~ C ~ CO N r ~ I CD M I N l ) f~ O M !7 ,[) M ~ 1~ f~ 7 C70 O st p ~ N }} ~ Q ~ ~ N cM ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ N ~ N aD N C! i ~ I~ ~ ~ lL ~ ~ ~ r = Ef3 !i? 0 O r ~ N ~ L ~ O ~ ~ U p C~ L ~ ' V ~ ~ m ~ X cv ~ N W ~ ~ X ~ .~' ~ a O a ~ ~ ~ n. ~ O X ~ A ~ O_ ~ d m L O X at ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ C O U ~ _ ~ ~ I- N C U J ~ ~ ~ m d X (0 N U X C (Q >, F- N N > C X ~ O H ~ U N J ~ X N ~ ~_ U U = O 0) (CLQ N ~~ p LL ~ 'a ~ cue a m o m ~ ~ _ X ~ N ~ N ~ ~ a ? U ~ ~_ ~ J N O N O C O U °tS ~ ti N E ~ y ~ (U O ~ C c~ N i.i ~ Q . (~ ~ o ~ O ~ h O ~ ~ ° y m ~ U O 7 C N ~ 7 a°> ~ U ~ O ~' U ~ ~ 3 O O ~ ~ U ~i d 7 c 0 F- a~ U C ~ ~ a~ ~ a~ ~ma R C9 -~ Attachment IV ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MEETING DATE: December 11, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request for Appropriation of Final Year-End Balance from School Operations for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2003 BACKGROUND: As a result of year-end operations, actual revenue received exceeded budgeted revenue by $1,239,170 (or 1.16%), while under-expenditures in the major spending categories accounted for $2,950,987 (or 2.75%) of the year-end balance (Attachment A). The additional revenues collected were primarily due to the higher than anticipated enrollment for the school year. The actual enrollment used for state funding was 297 students higher than budgeted. This increase was the largest increase in enrollment experienced in the last 10 years. See Attachment B for a comparison of FY02-03 enrollment to prior years. Under-expenditures were attributable primarily to savings in the personnel budget ($2.4 million). The majority of this savings is related to a carryover of savings in the prior year base line budget (approximately $1.8). However, over $500,000 of savings resulted from lower payouts of accrued leave and severance pay to terminating employees this year, open-end contract expenditures were lower than budget by $90,000 and the lower retirement rate for non-professional employees yielded a $200,000 savings. The School Board took action during the development of the FY03-04 budget to appropriate $1.1 million of this savings for employee raises in FY03-04 and school buses. Based on that action, the year-end balance for FY03-04 will likely be significantly lower than this year. As noted in the finalized audit for fiscal year 2002-03, the year-end fund balance for school operations is $4,190,157 less outstanding encumbrances of $35,083 or a net of $4,155,074. The budget ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 14, 2002 indicated "that all school fund appropriations remaining at the end of the 2002-03 fiscal year not lapse but shall be appropriated to the School Capital Improvements Fund in fiscal year 2003-04." SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Historically, the School Board has asked staff to identify and prioritize capital needs to be considered for funding with the year-end balance. Last year, the School Board reserved the majority of the year-end balance for potential shortfalls during FY02-03 as Governor Warner was currently in the process of reducing the state budget to balance a budget deficit. However, public education was protected from these cuts and these funds were instead appropriated by the School Board to fund the first year of the laptop initiative for FY03-04 and the Phase 2 minor capital projects. Although the state and the nation are beginning to show signs of recovery this year, it is believed that the current local, state, and national economies again warrant a conservative approach to spending E-I the year-end balance. Consequently, staff is recommending the following: • $498,000 to replenish the school bus budget for summer 2005. These funds were reallocated by the School Board this year for additional personnel needed due to higher student enrollments. • $1,300,000 for expanding the Laptop Initiative into the 10~h grade during FY04-O5. • $40,000 for purchasing four new pool cars primarily for out of town travel. • $1,020,732 for the Phase 2 capital projects expanded furniture and technology. • $1,296,342 reserved for future school capital obligations (i.e. laptop initiative for 11~' grade). Attachment C outlines the recommendations and the reservation of prior year balances still available to the School Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of the fiscal year 2002-03 year-end balance of $4,190,157 per Attachment C. An informational report will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and the year-end funds will be placed in the School Capital Fund per the approved budget ordinance. At some point in the future, if the School Board determines that the reserve funds should be appropriated for non-capital expenditures, a new report will be presented for both School Board and Board of Supervisors approval. SUBMITTED BY: Penny A. Hodge, CPA Director of Budget & Finance Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To () Motion by No Yes Abs Barrineau Canada Irvin Roark Stovall -i Attachment A Roanoke County Schools Year-End Balance for FY 2002-2003 Unaudited Budget Year to Date Dollar Percentage 2002-03 Actuals Difference of Budget Revenues: State Revenue Federal Revenue Tuition, Rent & Interest Transfer from County Transfer from CPMT Transfer from Alternative Sch Beginning Balance Total Revenue Expenditures: 70 School Board 71 School Superintendent 72 Budget & Finance 73 Instructional Personnel 74 Transportation 75 Facilities & Operations 76 Administrative Personnel 77 Summer School 78 Community Relations 79 Instruction 80 Deputy Superintendent 81 Remediation & Testing 82 Career & Technical Education 83 Pupil Personnel Services 85 Staff Development 86 Guidance 87 Media Services 88 Pupil Assignment 89 Classified Personnel 90 Adult Education Total Expenditures Less: Outstanding PO's Balance at June 30, 2003 46,531,247 47,774,575 1,243,328 102.67% 175,928 202,876 26,948 115.32% 555,276 522,906 (32,370) 94.17% 54,979,534 54,979,534 0 100.00% 799,000 799,000 0 100.00% 55,220 55,220 0 100.00% 4,046,369 4,047,633 1,264 100.03% 107,142,574 108,381,744 1,239,170 101.16% 166,868 151,861 15,007 91.01 237,251 59,785 177,466 25.20% 9,593,629 9,522,466 71,163 99.26% 64,289,323 62,874,151 1,415,172 97.80% 896,183 897,040 (857) 100.10% 3,690,081 3,730,612 (40,531) 101.10% 7,339,876 6,945,902 393,974 94.63% 494,661 395,641 99,020 79.98% 46,900 42,172 4,728 89.92% 587,531 501,673 85,858 85.39% 900,514 944,251 (43,737) 104.86% 103,564 77,327 26,237 74.67% 413,814 406,124 7,690 98.14% 2,088,374 1,993,273 95,101 95.45% 70,302 47,736 22,566 67.90% 323,769 323,817 (48) 100.01 887,160 881,955 5,205 99.41 108,298 99,169 9,129 91.57% 14,754,912 14,230,781 524,131 96.45% 149,564 65,851 83,713 44.03% 107,142,574 104,191,587 2,950,987 97.25% 0 4,190,157 (35,083) 4,155,074 12/10/2003 ~- Attachment B Average Daily Membership Months 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 September 13,691 13,753 13,881 13,956 13,875 13,852 13,871 13,911 14,094 14,385 October 13,691 13,779 13, 923 13,954 13,854 13,840 13,844 13,943 14,125 14, 347 November 13,672 13,757 13,896 13,924 13,861 13,843 13,886 13,938 14,138 December 13,652 13,754 13,892 13,932 13,868 13,834 13,824 13,941 14,167 January 13,648 13,767 13,874 13,921 13,837 13,851 13,843 13,937 14,155 February 13,606 13,817 13,883 13,889 13,795 13,840 13,835 13,910 14,141 March 13,613 13,816 13,886 13,857 13,782 13,843 13,803 13,905 14,130 Gain (loss) since Sept (78) 63 5 (99) (93) (9) (68) (6) 36 (38) March ADM 13,652 13,721 13,863 13,898 13,862 13,856 13,865 13,930 14,127 Budget ADM 13,600 13,650 13,776 13,950 13,950 13,825 13,825 13,825 13,830 13,938 Over (under) budget 52 71 87 (52) (88) 31 40 105 297 Over (under) prior year N/A 69 142 35 (36) (6) 9 65 197 NOTE: The above figures do not incl ude Regional School students. The table and graph reflect variances in Average Daily Membership (ADM) between September and March 30. State revenue is driven primarily by ADM as of March 30 of each year. This graph shows the fluctuating student enrollments in previous years. Enrollment Growth: Enrollment growth of 475 students (or 3%) from 94-95 to 02-03. As of October 31, 2003, enrollment has grown by 220 students (or another 2%) since last year. Change in Enrollment 14200 14100 March 30 14000 13900 ADM 13700 13600 13500 ~~~b~^~~b~~ ooo'~o~Vo^~ Year _ ~. -i Revised 11-20-03 Attachment C ' Roanoke County Schools Staff Recommendations • Year-End Balance for FY 2002-03 Sources: FY00-01 year-end balance reserved FY01-02 year-end balance reserved FY02-03 year-end balance Previously Appropriated: Laptop initiative - 9th grade Personnel/payroll server upgrade Phase 2 minor capital projects Balance Available for Appropriation Recommended Uses: Reserve for music uniform rollover Outstanding encumbrances Restore bus funds used for new personnel in FY03-04 Replace 4 pool cars Laptop initiative - 10th grade Phase 2 expanded furniture/technology Reserve for future capital FY02-03 Prior Years Total - 738,302 738,302 - 2,828,278 2,828,278 4,190,157 - 4,190,157 4,190,157 3,566,580 7,756,737 (1,240,912) (1,240,912) (100,000) (100,000) (1,478,200) (1,478,200) - (2,819,112) (2,819,112) 4,190,157 747,468 4,937,625 (16,919) - (16,919) (18,164) - (18,164) (498,000) - (498,000) (40,000) - (40,000) (1,300,000) - (1,300,000) (1,020,732) - (1,020,732) (2,893,815) - (2,893,815) 1,296,342 747,468 2,043,810 Future Funding Needs: Laptop initiative - 11th grade (estimated) 1,400,000 Phase 3 projects (no further county funding) TBD [ ~ f AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION 121603-4 REQUESTING THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION TO ESTABLISH MANDATORY REGULATIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF REMOTE CONTROL LOCOMOTIVES WHEREAS, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) was created by the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 103, Section 3(e) (1). The purpose of FRA is to: promulgate and enforce rail safety regulations; administer railroad assistance programs; conduct research and development in support of improved railroad safety and national rail transportation policy; provide for the rehabilitation of Northeast Corridor rail passenger service; and consolidate government support of rail transportation activities; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2001, the FRA published Notice of Safety Advisory 2001-1 in the Federal Register addressing the establishment of recommended non-regulatory minimal guidelines for the operation of remote control locomotives; and WHEREAS, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) has requested that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, adopt a resolution banning the use of remote control locomotives in Roanoke County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that this Board requests the Federal Railroad Administration to establish mandatory regulations for the operation of remote control locomotives. 1 Be it further resolved that a certified copy of this resolution be sent to the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration and to Norfolk Southern Railway. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: Supervisor Flora A COPY TESTE: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 121603-4 adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by a unanimous recorded vote on Tuesday, December 16, 2003. Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration Norfolk Southern Railway 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution requesting the Federal Railroad Administration to establish mandatory regulations for the operation of remote control locomotives SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On November 18, 2003, Supervisor Altizer requested a work session on remote control locomotive (RCL) operations. On March 25, 2003, Mr. Michael Roop spoke on behalf of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) and expressed his opposition to Norfolk Southern's practice of using remote control technology for switching trains within yard limits. He requested the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution banning RCL. On December 2, 2003, the Board held a work session on this matter. At that work session, staff provided the Board with a summary on RCL operations and a Notice of Safety Advisory which recommend minimal guidelines for RCL operations, both published by the Federal Railroad Administration. After that work session Supervisor Altizer requested that a resolution be placed on the Board of Supervisors' December 16, 2003 agenda, requesting that the Federal Railroad Administration establish mandatory regulations for the operation of remote control locomotives. After the work session, staff contacted John A. Irwin, Public Affairs Director for NS Corp., and he sent a press release from the American Association of Railroads, a copy of which is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None ~„ . ~~+ ~..,-~ _, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION TO ESTABLISH MANDATORY REGULATIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF REMOTE CONTROL LOCOMOTIVES WHEREAS, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) was created by the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 103, Section 3(e) (1). The purpose of FRA is to: promulgate and enforce rail safety regulations; administer railroad assistance programs; conduct research and development in support of improved railroad safety and national rail transportation policy; provide for the rehabilitation of Northeast Corridor rail passenger service; and consolidate government support of rail transportation activities; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2001, the FRA published Notice of Safety Advisory 2001-1 in the Federal Register addressing the establishment of recommended non-regulatory minimal guidelines for the operation of remote control locomotives; and WHEREAS, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) has requested that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, adopt a resolution banning the use of remote control locomotives in Roanoke County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that this Board requests the Federal Railroad Administration to establish mandatory regulations for the operation of remote control locomotives. 1 ~~ ~ ~~ Be it further resolved that a certified copy of this resolution be sent to the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration and to Norfolk Southern Railway. 2 `~ AAR Press Release -from John A. Irwin, Public Affairs Director of NS Corp. Association of American Railroads Communications Department 50 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Contact: Tom White (202) 639-2556 For Immediate Release Data, experience prove remote control locomotive (RCL) technology keeps workers, rail yards safer WASHINGTON, November 28, 2003 -Digital technology is helping railroads throughout the United States change the way trains are operated in freight yards, making them safer in the process. Used in Canada for 10 years, U.S. railroads are now in the first year of implementing the technology in yards across the country. AAR President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger said that use of the remote control technology should sharply reduce the number of train accidents in rail yards, which is where more than half of all train accidents occur. Remote control technology allows an operator on the ground to use a handheld device to send digital signals directly to a computer onboard a locomotive. These signals select the locomotive's speed and direction. With conventional technology, train service employees in the yard direct locomotive operations either through hand signals or radio communications with the locomotive engineer. "The technology improves safety in yard operations by reducing the possibility of miscommunication," Hamberger said. "Experience shows that remote control sharply improves safety," Hamberger said. It has been credited with sharply reducing the number of yard accidents in Canada. Recent statistics from both of Canada's major railroads and preliminary data from U.S. railroads show just how much remote control improves yard safety. Between 1998 and 2000, Canadian Pacific Railway reported that the accident rate in operations where remote control was used was only one third of that in operations using conventional methods. Canadian National Railway reported that between 1997 and 2001, accident rates attributed to human factors were 44 percent lower where remote control was in use than in 1 E r operations using conventional technology. Preliminary data indicate that, during the first year and a half of implementation, the major U.S. railroads have experienced a 40 to 50 percent decline in accident rates using remote control compared to conventional rail yard operations. The Federal Railroad Administration studied the technology for nearly a decade, holding a series of public meetings to examine the safety of remote control technology. The FRA, which has responsibility for rail safety, issued guidelines for using remote control in 2001. Before beginning remote control operations, railroads file a certification training program with the FRA. Operating rules are also filed with the FRA. Major U.S. railroads began using remote control in some yards in 2002, after first reaching agreement with the United Transportation Union (UTU) over implementing the technology. That agreement provides for thorough training of employees who will operate the remote control units. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) challenged that agreement because it wanted control over those jobs for its members. But earlier this year, an arbitrator upheld the railroads right to operate under the agreement between the railroad industry and UTU. The BLE has responded by claiming that remote control operations aren't safe and getting local governments to pass resolutions opposing remote control operations. However, the BLE has signed agreements giving it control over remote control on at least two regional railroads. On those railroads, it has not challenged the safety of remote control operations and has not sought local government action against remote control. 2 ACTION N0. A-121603-5 ITEM NO. E-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve position of Office Support Specialist in the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In the past decade, the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office has experienced growth and expansion with regard to the variety of services provided to citizens, staff, and the Board. During this time, the functions of the office have evolved from a focus on performing administrative duties such as attending meetings and transcribing minutes, to a more active role in providing managerial support. With growing access to electronic information, citizens have come to expect and demand a higher level of service, and they are increasingly requesting rapid turnaround of information. The Clerk's Office has sought to keep pace with these changes by providing greater accessibility to information for citizens via the website and other avenues. The Deputy Clerk to the Board serves as the department's webmaster, ensuring that the website is updated weekly to reflect current agenda and meeting information. In 2004, an electronic records management system will be implemented which will allow citizens and staff the opportunity to access and search board records online, as well as providing a more secure, cost effective medium for storage of records. In addition to the need to keep pace with the demands for greater availability of information, there has also been an increase in the number of board meetings and special events held annually. In 2001, the Clerk's Office staff attended and handled the necessary preparation and follow-up for 21 Board of Supervisors meetings; in 2002, there were 29 meetings and in 2003, this number had increased to a total of 41 meetings. Part of this increase can be attributed to a greater focus on regional initiatives, which have in turn resulted in an increase in meetings. Throughout this time frame, responsibility for special events such as the annual State of the County Address and the investiture ceremony for newly elected officials have also been added as functions of this office. While these are positive changes which have contributed to higher levels of service for Roanoke County citizens, they have placed significant demands on the limited staff in the office. We have attempted to handle the increased work load through the use of overtime and the addition of part-time personnel. As is often the case with part-time personnel, there has been some turnover when employees seek full-time employment, and this has necessitated re-hiring and re-training. As a result of the increase in meetings and job responsibilities, it is requested that the Board approve the addition of an Office Support Specialist position to provide the clerical assistance necessary to manage the increasing functions of this office. FISCAL IMPACT: The salary and benefit costs associated with this position would total $30,000 annually, and it is recommended that this money be taken from the Board Contingency Fund and appropriated to the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the addition of the Office Support Specialist position in the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office. 2. Do not approve the addition of the Office Support Specialist position in the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. 2 VOTE: Supervisor Church motion to approve staff recommendation (approve the addition of the Office Support Specialist position in the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office and appropriate $15,000 from the Board Contingency Fund to cover salary and benefit. Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ cc: File Diane Childers, Clerk to the Board Joe Sgroi, Director, Human Services Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance 3 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: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve position of Office Support Specialist in the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~+^~ ~ ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In the past decade, the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office has experienced growth and expansion with regard to the variety of services provided to citizens, staff, and the Board. During this time, the functions of the office have evolved from a focus on performing administrative duties such as attending meetings and transcribing minutes, to a more active role in providing managerial support. With growing access to electronic information, citizens have come to expect and demand a higher level of service, and they are increasingly requesting rapid turnaround of information. The Clerk's Office has sought to keep pace with these changes by providing greater accessibility to information for citizens via the website and other avenues. The Deputy Clerk to the Board serves as the department's webmaster, ensuring that the website is updated weekly to reflect current agenda and meeting information. In 2004, an electronic records management system will be implemented which will allow citizens and staff the opportunity to access and search board records online, as well as providing a more secure, cost effective medium for storage of records. In addition to the need to keep pace with the demands for greater availability of information, there has also been an increase in the number of board meetings and special events held annually. In 2001, the Clerk's Office staff attended and handled the necessary preparation and follow-up for 21 Board of Supervisors meetings; in 2002, there were 29 ~~ meetings and in 2003, this number had increased to a total of 41 meetings. Part of this increase can be attributed to a greater focus on regional initiatives, which have in turn resulted in an increase in meetings. Throughout this time frame, responsibility for special events such as the annual State of the County Address and the investiture ceremony for newly elected officials have also been added as functions of this office. While these are positive changes which have contributed to higher levels of service for Roanoke County citizens, they have placed significant demands on the limited staff in the office. We have attempted to handle the increased work load through the use of overtime and the addition of part-time personnel. As is often the case with part-time personnel, there has been some turnover when employees seek full-time employment, and this has necessitated re-hiring and re-training. As a result of the increase in meetings and job responsibilities, it is requested that the Board approve the addition of an Office Support Specialist position to provide the clerical assistance necessary to manage the increasing functions of this office. FISCAL IMPACT: The salary and benefit costs associated with this position would total $30,000 annually, and it is recommended that this money be taken from the Board Contingency Fund and appropriated to the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the addition of the Office Support Specialist position in the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office. 2. Do not approve the addition of the Office Support Specialist position in the Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION N0. A-121603-6 ITEM NO. E-4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Ratification of appointment to the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY At their meeting on December 11, 2003, the initial six members of the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) Board recommended that George W. Logan, a resident of the City of Salem, be selected as the seventh member of the Board. Mr. Logan will serve a four-year term which will expire on December 11, 2007. A copy of Mr. Logan's resume is attached for your review. This appointment must be ratified by the County of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke. The City of Roanoke has placed this item on their agenda for the December 15 council meeting, and we will report the results of their action at the Board of Supervisors meeting on December 16. VOTE: Supervisor Altizer motion to ratify the appointment of Mr. Logan. Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ cc: File Mary Parker, Clerk to City Council Western Virginia Water Authority 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. [ `L~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Ratification of appointment to the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY At their meeting on December 11, 2003, the initial six members of the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) Board recommended that George W. Logan, a resident of the City of Salem, be selected as the seventh member of the Board. Mr. Logan will serve a four-year term which will expire on December 11, 2007. A copy of Mr. Logan's resume is attached for your review. This appointment must be ratified by the County of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke. The City of Roanoke has placed this item on their agenda for the December 15 council meeting, and we will report the results of their action at the Board of Supervisors meeting on December 16. RESUME GEORGE W. LOGAN November 2003 THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA Darden Graduate School of Business Administration Visiting Lecturer, 1996-Present EDUCATION Episcopal High School; Alexandria, VA 1959-1963 University of Virginia, BA History, 1963-1967 Darden School, University of Virginia, MBA, 1969-1971 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1993-Present Alliance Logistics Center sp.zo.o; Warsaw (Blonie), Poland. Co-owner and Chairman of the Managing Board. Two million square foot logistics park. 2002-Present RGC Resources; Roanoke, VA. Director and Member of the Audit and Executive Committees. 2000-Present NSW, LLC, Roanoke, Virginia. Former wholly owned Siemens subsidiary, purchased in leveraged by-out September 2000. Director and investor. Company makes wide variety of extruded resin products and filtering media for the environmental market. 1998-Present MariCal, Inc., Portland, ME. Director and Member of the Executive Committee. Biotech company licensing calcium receptor (CaR) intellectual property to world-wide aquaculture enterprises. 1997-Present Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation; Roanoke, VA; 1997-Present. Director, member Audit and Executive Committees. Roanoke Electric is a mini-mill with nine locations in VA, SC, OH, WV and TN. Founded in 1955. Publicly held, RESC. 1995-Present Davis H. Elliott Company; Roanoke, VA. Director. High voltage electric transmission and distribution contractor. 1994-Present Valley Financial Corporation (Parent of Valley Bank, N.A.). Roanoke, VA. Founder and Chairman of the Board. $300 million community bank, opened May 1995. Publicly held,VYFC. 1989-Present Pine Street Partners, LLC; Roanoke, VA Principal. Developing enterprise investments. Commercial real estate and early stage start-up investments, plus mezzanine activity. 1979-Present Burris Foods, Inc.; Milford, DE, 1979-Present. $800 million low-temperature contract food distributor and cold storage warehouse operator. Privately held. First non-family director, 1979. 1974-1986 Frigid Freeze Foods, Inc; Salem, VA. CEO and Director. (Also served as Senior Vice President, PYA/Monarch Division of Sara Lee Corporation, 1986-1988). Food Service Distribution. Merged with Sara Lee Corporation, Chicago, 1986. -2- PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (con't.) 1978-1986 Frosty Acres Brands, Inc.; Atlanta, GA. Director, 1978-1986. Vice Chairman, 1982-1984. Chairman, 1984-1986. National food service and retail buying cooperative. 115 members, $3 billion annual purchases. 1976-1986 Communications Today, Inc.; High Point, NC. Co-founder and Chairman of the Board. Trade publisher in the furniture industry. Privately held. Founded June 1976. Sold April 1988 to Reed PLC (now Reed-Elsevier) London, England. 1971-1974 Capital Cities Broadcasting; New York, NY. (Now part of Disney Co.) Business Manager of Women's Wear Daily. Trade Communications. 1967-1969 Defense Intelligence Agency; Washington, D.C. Special Intelligence/Special Activities Office. U.S. Army Reserve (ASA) 1968-76. OTHER ACTIVITIES - Visiting Lecturer, Instituto Centroamericano de Administration de Empresas (INCAE); Alajuela, Costa Rica and Managua, Nicaragua. (A two-year case method graduate business school). 1989-Present. - Raven Society, University of Virginia - Board of Commerce, Commonwealth of Virginia, 1985-1992; Vice Chairman, 1990-1992. CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES 2000-Present Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA. Board of Trustees. Vice Chairman of the Board and member of the Executive Committee. 1996-Present Carilion Health Systems, Roanoke, VA. Board of Trustees. Director, Chairman of the Investment Committee and member of the Executive and Compensation Committees. 1996-Present George Washington's Fredericksburg Foundation; Fredericksburg, VA. Board of Trustees. Treasurer, 2000-2001, Chairman, 2002-Present. 1989-Present Foundation for Management Education in Central America. Washington, D.C.; 1989-Present. Director, Secretary and Chairman of the Grants Committee, 1992-2003; President, 2003 - .Foundation supports INCAE in Costa Rica and Nicaragua. 1986-1996 Western Virginia Foundation for the Arts and Sciences; Roanoke, VA. Board of Directors, 1986-1996. Chairman of the Board, 1994-1996. Director Emeritus. 1982-1993 American Committee on U.S./Soviet Relations. Washington, D.C. Board Member, 1982-1993. Secretary, 1990-1993. ' -3- .. ~.-y CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES (con't.) ~ ~ 1979-1996 Western Virginia Second Harvest Food Bank; Roanoke, VA. Commissioner, 1992-1996; Chairman of the Board, 1995-1996. 1980-1997 Episcopal High School, Alexandria, VA. Trustee and Board Chair (1988- 1997). Chairman Emeritus. Numerous other non-profit boards since 1975. BUSINESS ADDRESS Pine Street Partners, LLC 2217 Crystal Spring Ave., SW, Suite 200 (courier address) Roanoke, VA 24014 Mailing Address P. O. Box 1190 Salem, VA 24153 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. CS - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance to vacate, quit-claim and release a 20' sanitary sewer easement conveyed to the Board of Supervisors in Deed Book 1321, Page 354, and a 10' well lot access easement conveyed to the Board in Deed Book 1044, Page 816, on property owned by the Achievement Center Foundation (Tax Map Nos. 26.16-2-13 and 26.16-2-12), Hollins Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The petitioner, the Achievement Center Foundation, is the current owner of the property and requests that an unused 20 ft. sanitary sewer easement and an unused 10 ft. access easement be vacated and released. The existing sanitary sewer easement was originally acquired by deed of easement, recorded in Deed Book 1321, Page 363, and the existing 10 ft. access easement was originally acquired by deed recorded in Deed Book 1044, Page 816. During the recent survey of the petitioner's property, it was discovered that the existing sanitary sewer line was not located within the dedicated 20' easement. During the same survey, it was also discovered that the gravel access road to a Roanoke County well lot was not located within the dedicated 10' easement. To rectify these discrepancies, the Achievement Center Foundation has agreed to relocate both of these easements as shown on Plat Book 27, Page 47, labeled as Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2 shows the existing 20 ft. sanitary sewer easement and the new 20 ft. sanitary sewer easement dedicated in Plat Book 27, Page 47. Exhibit 3 shows the existing 10 ft. access easement and the new 10 ft. access easement dedicated in Plat Book 27, Page 47. ~i FISCAL IMPACT: Roanoke County will assume the costs associated with the preparation and recordation of the release deeds for the easements to be vacated. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance to vacate, quit-claim, and release the original 20 ft. sanitary sewer easement as shown on Exhibit 2, and the 10 ft. access easement as shown on Exhibit 3. 2. Decline to adopt the proposed ordinance and authorize relocation of the County sanitary sewer line and well lot access road to the existing easements. 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, DECEMBER 16, 2003 ORDINANCE TO VACATE, QUIT-CLAIM AND RELEASE A 20' SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT CONVEYED TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN DEED BOOK 1321, PAGE 354, AND A 10' WELL LOT ACCESS EASEMENT CONVEYED TO THE BOARD IN DEED BOOK 1044, PAGE 816, ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ACHIEVEMENT CENTER FOUNDATION (TAX MAP NOS. 26.16-2-13 AND 26.16-2-12) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by deed of easement dated March 3, 1990, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1321, page 354, the Trustees of Azusa Street Ministries, U.P.C.I., a predecessor in title to the current owner, the Achievement Center Foundation, conveyed a 20' sanitary sewer easement to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, upon and across the parcel of land identified upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 26.16-02-13; and, WHEREAS, by deed dated June 30, 1976, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1044, page 816, the Roanoke County Public Service Authority conveyed a 10' access easement to and from a County well lot to the Board of County Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, upon and across the parcel of land identified as Tax Map No. 26.16-02-12; and, WHEREAS, during a recent land survey of the Achievement Center Foundation's property, it was discovered that neither the existing sanitary sewer line nor the gravel access road to the County's well lot was within the County's respective easements; and, WHEREAS, by `Resubdivision & Easement Plat for Achievement Center Foundation' dated November 18, 2002, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in 1 r ~ t "'~ 1 ,~~ ~ Plat Book 27, page 47, the property owner has corrected the discrepancies by dedication of the easements in their respective correct locations to the County; and, WHEREAS, the Achievement Center Foundation has requested that the original unused easements as described above be vacated, quit-claimed and released by the County; and, WHEREAS, the new easements meet the requirements of the affected County departments and the relocation will accurately reflect the Countys actual usage of the easements. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on December 16, 2003, and a second reading was held on January 13, 2004. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject real estate (unused sanitary sewer easement and well lot access easement) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interest in real estate renders it unavailable for other public uses. 3. That the 20' sanitary sewer easement conveyed to the County by deed of easement dated March 3, 1990, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1321, page 354, across the property of the Achievement Center Foundation identified upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 26.16-02-13 in the Hollins Magisterial District of Roanoke County, designated as "APPROX. LOCATION 2 `~,.~ EXISTING 20' S.S.E. D.B. 1321, PG. 363 TO BE VACATED" on the `Resubdivision & Easement Plat for Achievement Center Foundation' dated November 18, 2002, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 27, page 47, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, be and hereby is authorized to be vacated, quit-claimed and released. 4. That the 10' well lot access easement conveyed to the County by deed dated June 30, 1976, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1044, page 816, across the property of the Achievement Center Foundation identified upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 26.16-02-12 in the Hollins Magisterial District of Roanoke County, designated as "EXISTING 10' ACCESS EASEMENT (D.B. 1044, PG. 816) TO BE VACATED" on the `Resubdivision & Easement Plat for Achievement Center Foundation' dated November 18, 2002, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 27, page 47, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, be and hereby is authorized to be vacated, quit-claimed and released. 5. That Roanoke County will assume the costs of preparing and recording the deeds of release associated with this action, to be paid from the available funds of the Department of Community Development. 6. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish this vacation and release, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 3 • ~f ~ al t4 'od 'sss 'a'o + I r00'SZI 3 DD 6£.OSS- ~ ~~ ~' HJd(7H9 Nb'1h3168S3bd . , ~ i 39DLN N33b0 _ _ _ i~ V ~. ~~ S _ _ iq ~~ ~ ~~WIw --_-__~ ___ _______ ___ -__,..~1 °~~ _ ~°o V y'rg u F'!Ol Jd 'G!8: 'a'O 1P13/Y35N3 3Nl7 -~ `~~ ~. ! ~j ll_J ~ 4I T ~ '.iN53 3h;7 SSnl X31Y.M ;d78nd ,OZ ~s'~ `-~.1 i d~. of ~, ONtLSiX3 ,Or ~ ~. ~ i, 1,2 ~ c„ M3N 3N/7d3LN30 ~ oy~ I c~ R /~-~ _ , ~ \ ~`~ 1` ~ r~ -7` 1 ,1~. ~ er~no 73~rtlo / ~ a~'~mr +1 z a U ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ U an ~ rrw~~ ~~~ ~ Z _ ~ I ,' ~ ! 7N !~ .ry i~ ~~ .p8 bs pp~~ h VC b~~1 r~ ~c~o- ~~ ~l~ >~ °~~ ~Q ~a~ Q~i h~ ;~ QW~ }\ ~N _4 WQ`° I '' - ~ U W e O V to 0; N ~ 'Q ~~. ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ J 1 Q J O (`~L~ .+) Si ~ abI U a`~ z I~ +! `^ hie ~I ~II b~ ;u .'N~ O~ 2 0 ~ Its ~J V j~ ~a I O~ aa 0~ -. W ~ O~ ~2 I ak ,`2£~ 4 O 1 °' e H L' ~~I~BN z~ ~ ,~aoss In ~ ._`- uJ 1 l d Y .~ o ~.il ~ ~ rh C7' ~~ ZO m ~~~~ VQ ~ w a r0 - V O ~W a~ o ~ . ~ ff -, £6L[ ~d 'sss[ ~s'a ~ V 9N/Id( Y2/830 ~P JIUYIY a 2 ~ ¢ fe 2 .!/N ~ti W ~3 h /~~• 2~4~it$ N /~ I Q~h _ _ ~~u F 117.99-~ . / ?~~ ~ 01-9-£L'LZ {Y1 ~N~Q ~a ~e"_,--- ti, 5694,_-~ ~ j\ C 4Y£l 'Od 'ZBSI '6'O p .f.3i1b%N M32JDNV S1M37 ~f '' I ~ V ~ d/N ~~~ r F ~ N s~~ / ~, {~~~"~ / ~, lLZ 'sd SD91 8'D .il , -. ~ w .orwo lH1 n3io .~N\ ~~y~0,~ /,~`b / a ^ ONYO 'JNnHN 37 ~ i~~~ /.S>;7 ~~ ~, elf ~ , V ~ ~ ~ ~ / ti~99 /~/ / ti ~ Q N~ 1~.~ W> 2~ 9 yh / ~~10 / ~k ~~ /// zW i ~ ~ ~ /y'}b O ~/! 43 N / / 5~~/ // / 2~ 2'" ~ ~o~a~ / ~ ~ ~ /~ r ~~ ~o ' N o ~ ^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rl u ~ ~~ °°j ~~~ ~ !~ ~'%o J V O N , ~O) ~hO b i 3 .rll; o ~~ 2 , 1i \ ~!n.. I ~ \ ~; o ~ .L i '~~, ~ W ~ j 4+s y µ ~ Oi XO~odY~l ~~ ~' ~ l Z Ff,_ 65`bp v i sl, ' z, ! l ti yY~Oj~~ ''~A7 ~ -rH1 /0 'SS%~E'olS h Z6 a LL-9-£I'LZ 7N1 ' a o L44 'sd rt4! ~ 0 37,0o x1Lan>' Hd3LS h~ 3700 ~3 3 ~ " J Z __ C ~'q^ ~~ ~, yh,~ g~Z m= ~"^i ~~z o ZvO3~~Z~~Wp~pS~~ _ ~~~ ~~C~wry 41 .~'! ~ a~Q~accvi=rnmv¢o~~oiov LJ ~N ~D U' Nw _l~ ~~~ N \ ti 4~ ~~~~~YF~c~a oQ~m 0~ Z ~ - 1 - - O Vip~ as ~~ ` ° ZC' -__-~ ,I ~ ~/ . Z f. i~ , m i wV mKp ~m = qa Q ~~5 No N 1S 1HS/MO ~ Q _"- s ~ --~ m 0 £!Dl Jd '8861 '8'0 NdNSnd~ 3NlYN'bb7~10 3' 32/0003H1 j/N o c n --- oho I £L-s-£l'LZ lY1 69 "Jd 'SS '8 iH No%~uvrd 30NY7 N d/N N __._ 41-9-£l YZ iY! II 4as ~d 'LS41 •a'o Ntnror77ibd La3NS ~ NdrvrLVbd 73YH.''.LYY .!/N M7x :sa ~ 133H1S_S3NOP c 30N3~' J U W o W II z x ~ ~~ ," ~ ~ ~ v Q v ~O~ a4~~ e~~~k3 ~~3~~~ C7 ~a~l~~i s Z m N ° w -) c N R V ~ r~u 0 ~ ~m ;?~ ~ LLWr~ ~ 3 c S (~' " i u N t0 U' `j °_ - U O Q N w J (n.0 W ~ z~ 8 ~ as ~00, &S.84S~- k _ ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ y h ~n Q ~7 ~7' ' ~ '• O O J' ~ °j ~ 4~ Z£7 ' jai `h r / ,y° kti 4] O 2 " ~ /~ ~~' ~ 0 ~3a ~ O '~ ~p h' O 0 0 b to ti e e h ~7 2 ^ sSti O N m .. c N a~. ,M y ~° C~ i ~L~ ~ ~ W 1 I ~ 3 _~ W ~ I o~ ~~~ ~ V ~ I 1 i 1 ~ ~W I ~4~ =~2 I L J I ; l l I I i ~ 2e W N N3~u V I ~ ~ O 4711 1 a ry ~~ ~ 2a°~ eW W W2 ~ I ~~ v 0 2W W~ I ~ ^~ I 0 6i L7\ .~ i 2~ ~s ~ V I il-'~~ ~ \ ~ N o ~ \ ~3ti M ~~YY\\~~~ \\ N~ _ c-7 .q ~U~ ~ j y 4j \ ~---' ~~ ~'~-_ ` 4 ~ i O Q / ~~ 23r O~ ~~~~~~ ~ d. = o o ~~ h / / ~ ~9 o JV~~~~ Vet" ~ ~ ~ oQ ~ N ~- ,~. Q ~ ~ 0 0 4 ~, Q ITT 2 ACES -9Np N/F T~'~ 'f 1~9~ ~9, Ep '9 C,n,4Gy ~<'6, 6.\ ~srst Fp'S'D 2' ~,S il~,53.~)36 ~ ~3p 2~j 27' ~TpT~ ~ C~J ~ ~•`~'~., ^~ 1 \fl "~ ~rn\ ~~ ~\ ~~~ Z~~ --~ I ~ ~` t I ~ 1 ~ 1 ' I /, ~, ~ e ~, "~ a- ~' cR~EK~,%~ 1~ ~' \ C 7 J 549 X43 ~i ,2p ~ S~NT~,Q~7M~ 2Op 4 J , NSE~ NSE'/y ~ pUB[ C °TE ~s ~S~~ENr S~S/ °~s ~~ ~~o ~\ Ati N/F JESSE JONES, JR. ELIZABETH JONES h! B. ~57, PG 454 ,TAX MAP #26. 15-2-14 .: LEGEN© ss SAN/TARY SEWER M,4NHOLE ~ CLEAN OUT ® t~YATER METER ~- SIGN ~ LIGHT POLE ,~' UTILITY POLE ~' FENCE oHV a ~ERHE-~L~ ~Y/RES / / _._ ~~~' FENCE OHU -------- U ~_ APPROX. LOCATlON~'-'` ZONE X(UNSHADED) APp Q ~ s~ EX/S NG 2O CAT/O/~ !-~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ B 13,27 F,GS S E. .-~~ 7"p BE V'~pATED 36.3 ~. ~2 o~ ~ ~ T. M. #26 J ~ '~ ~s~ ¢ S6 ~v c,~~,9s ~ \ CENTERLINE NE ~.~~ ~\ ~'99' ~ 20' .SANITARY .: ~ °'`'.\ ~ ~ ~6~ ~' -~ ~ \~ s ~ ~. ~ \ ~S'~ O `'~ ~`SS~ ~. ~ \ ~~~ N \ r~ ~o ~ ~ \ ~~ ~ ~~ c, ~ CENTERL/NE NEW PR/~ATE- tn 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT w v .ZB 1.23' ~ ~t- qQ~,~ ?~~ ~O ~~ ,~ MOB f J~ /n •. ~3 ~~~ \ ~\ n'7 r` a ~ \ ~~~ ~~ ~ y ~ ___. ~ ~n 0 rn ~_ I zz ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~z ~ L1D ~ ~ ~~ -~ ~ L9 I ~~ ~ --, ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ cn~~ ~ ~ l !I L4 ti ~~` ti ti ~ r i •1 `on ~o ~ z ~ ~ i l i I z `~, -~~~ ~~I I I I ~m~ ~o l~ J/ I c'' I ~ ~ ~ z a 1 ~ a z ~+-~ I r i I ~~~ ,,.~._ '~ J ~7 ~ ~' ~~ ~~ la ~ JC~~ .~ , S'T~~~7 v 25 R~ 1~o L31 1~ ~-_ W o ©N ~ N ~ N/F o ~~ v ~ a rn MICHAEL PRILI~I MAN to ~~ ~, ~ °~ N SHER/ PRILLAMAN ti ~ D.B. 1461, PG. 984 0 4' p ~ I I T.M. 27.13-6-14 o b~~ ` ~~ ~ rn ~ ~ `~ o ~ ~ o' ti °~ ti ~ v w ~ ~ ~ N/F o' 10~•1y _ ,,, ~ ~ LANCE PARTLETON ~ N p W.B. 55, PG. 64 ~ L32 -~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T,M. 27.13-6-13 ~' ~ I /~C a o ~ ~ ~ c ~~ ~ ~ Z ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o~ ~ ti ~ ~ ~~ w~ ~ N/F y / ~ ~ ~''{ STEPHEN OGLE ~ o ~ /UD/TH OGLE o ~ D. B. 1473, PG, 447 0 L" -- - - ._.._ ._ ____ ~ T M. 27.13-6-12 - s48 ~8'00'~ ~ oa oo'~TOT.~ ~ - - m --_..._._._ ~,,, ~, w N/F y t;., LE Nl-(UNG DANG ,. o nisi i r;~i !?ANT' ~~ k? i ~~ ~ ~~~ N C~~~n~ ~Z~~~Z I ~.b ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ o O z ~. FENCE N5 i 0 a nom-' R ~ ~ ~ p ~tii `~~~i ,~ - 92.07 52.4 N52'38'48'~Y 159.59' t ~ w, Nom,, y ~ o ~. / ~ :'y ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ I - 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: December 16, 2003 Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS (FIRE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS) The four-year term of Thomas A. Darnall will expire on January 22, 2004. 2. ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (Appointed by District) The four-yearterm of Donald R. Witt, Cave Spring District, will expire on December 31, 2003. 3. SOUTHWEST DEVELOPMENT FINANCING, INC. The two-year term of Wendi Schultz, Tourism and Event Coordinator, will expire on January 1, 2004. Ms. Schultz has been contacted and indicated that she would be willing to serve an additional term. 1 R AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION 121603-7 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 December 16, 2003 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 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes -November 14, November 19, and December 2, 2003 2. Confirmation and ratification of committee appointments to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, Grievance Panel, Library Board, Roanoke County Planning Commission, and Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 3. Approval of resolutions of appreciation upon the retirements of the following individuals: (a) Michael R. Morris, Fire & Rescue Department, after twenty-eight years of service (b) Charles W. Vaden, Real Estate Valuation Department, after fourteen years of service 4. Request to accept and appropriate grant in the amount of $10,000 from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for use in conducting DUI checkpoints, aggressive driving enforcement, injury accident reduction and safety and child seat enforcement 5. Request to approve and adopt the revised Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) for the County of Roanoke 6. Request to accept the remaining portion of Valley Stream Drive, located in the Vinton Magisterial District, into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System 1 ~ ti ~ 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 with Item 3 removed, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES : Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolutions in Item 3, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES : Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development William Driver, Director, Real Estate Valuation Richard Burch, Chief, Fire & Rescue Ray Lavinder, Chief, Police Jimmy Chapman, Grant Administrator, Police Department Gerald Holt, Sheriff 2 ~" I _T ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION 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 December 16, 2003 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 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes -November 14, November 19, and December 2, 2003 2. Confirmation and ratification of committee appointments to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, Grievance Panel, Library Board, Roanoke County Planning Commission, and Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 3. Approval of resolutions of appreciation upon the retirements of the following individuals: (a) Michael R. Morris, Fire & Rescue Department, after twenty-eight years of service (b) Charles W. Vaden, Real Estate Valuation Department, after fourteen years of service 4. Request to accept and appropriate grant in the amount of $10,000 from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for use in conducting DUI checkpoints, aggressive driving enforcement, injury accident reduction and safety and child seat enforcement 5. Request to approve and adopt the revised Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) for the County of Roanoke 6. Request to accept the remaining portion of Valley Stream Drive, located in the Vinton Magisterial District, into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System 1 ~,~ 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. 2 ACTION NO. A-121603-7.a ITEM NO. J-2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Confirmation and ratification of committee appointments to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, Grievance Panel, Library Board, Roanoke County Planning Commission, and Roanoke Valley Resource Authority SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE: At the December 2 meeting, Supervisor McNamara requested that John M. Hudgins, Jr., member at large, be placed on the December 16, 2003, agenda for ratification. He will serve athree-year term which will expire on December 31, 2006. Supervisor McNamara also nominated Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator, to serve an additional three-year term which will expire on December 31, 2006. GRIEVANCE PANEL: At the December 2 meeting, the Board met in closed session to discuss appointments to the Grievance Panel. There was a consensus of the Board to nominate King Harvey and Karen Ewell, alternate members, to serve additional three-year terms which will expire on October 28, 2006. LIBRARY BOARD (Appointed by District): At the December 2 meeting, Supervisor Church nominated Josie Eyer, Catawba District, to 4 serve an additional four-year term which will expire on December 31, 2007. Supervisor McNamara nominated Sheryl L. Ricci, Windsor Hills District, to serve an additional four-year term that will expire on December 31, 2007. ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (Appointed by Districtl~ At the November 18 meeting, Supervisor Flora nominated Gary Jarrell, Hollins District, to serve afour-year term which will expire on December 31, 2007. ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY: At the December 2 meeting, Supervisor McNamara nominated Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services, to serve an additional four-year term that wi II expire on December 31, 2007. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above appointments to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of pirectors, Grievance Panel, Library Board, Roanoke County Planning Commission, and Roanoke Valley Resource Authority be confirmed and ratified. VOTE: Supervisor Minnix motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ~ [~ Mr. Church ® ~ ~ Mr. Minnix ® ~ ~ Mr. Altizer ® ~ ~ Mr. McNamara ® ~ ~ cc: File Blue Ridge Behavioral Health Care File Grievance Panel File Library Board File Roanoke County Planning Commission File RVRA File 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: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Confirmation and ratification of committee appointments to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, Grievance Panel, Library Board, Roanoke County Planning Commission, and Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE: At the December 2 meeting, Supervisor McNamara requested that John M. Hudgins, Jr., member at large, be placed on the December 16, 2003, agenda for ratification. He will serve athree-year term which will expire on December 31, 2006. Supervisor McNamara also nominated Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator, to serve an additional three-year term which will expire on December 31, 2006. GRIEVANCE PANEL: At the December 2 meeting, the Board met in closed session to discuss appointments to the Grievance Panel. There was a consensus of the Board to nominate King Harvey and Karen Ewell, alternate members, to serve additional three-year terms which will expire on October 28, 2006. LIBRARY BOARD (Appointed by District: At the December 2 meeting, Supervisor Church nominated Josie Eyer, Catawba District, to serve an additional four-year term which will expire on December 31, 2007. _" Supervisor McNamara nominated Sheryl L. Ricci, Windsor Hills District, to serve an additional four-year term that will expire on December 31, 2007. ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (Appointed by District): At the November 18 meeting, Supervisor Flora nominated Gary Jarrell, Hollins District, to serve afour-year term which will expire on December 31, 2007. ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY: At the December 2 meeting, Supervisor McNamara nominated Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services, to serve an additional four-year term that will expire on December 31, 2007. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above appointments to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, Grievance Panel, Library Board, Roanoke County Planning Commission, and Roanoke Valley Resource Authority be confirmed and ratified. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~- ,~, q - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of resolutions of appreciation upon the retirements of the following employees: (a) Michael R. Morris, Fire & Rescue, after twenty-eight years of service (b) Charles W. Vaden, Real Estate Valuation, after fourteen years of service SUBMITTED BY: Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Human Resources Department has notified us that Michael R. Morris and Charles W. Vaden retired on December 1, 2003. They have advised us that they will be unable to attend a Board meeting and requested that their resolutions be mailed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the attached resolutions and direct the Deputy Clerk to mail them to Mr. Morris and Mr. Vaden with the appreciation of the Board members for their many years of service to the County. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION 121603-7.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF MICHAEL R. MORRIS, FIRE 8~ RESCUE DEPARTMENT, AFTER TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Michael R. Morris was employed by Roanoke County on April 1, 1975, as a firefighter with the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department; and WHEREAS, Firefighter/EMT Morris retired from Roanoke County on December 1, 2003, aftertwenty-eight years and eight months of service; and WHEREAS, Firefighter/EMT Morris` professionalism and integrity during his many years of service contributed significantly to the development of the Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department; and WHEREAS, Firefighter/EMT Morris, through his employmentwith 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 MICHAEL R. MORRIS for more than twenty-eight years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~.1~~ . ~ r~~~ Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File Richard Burch, Chief, Fire & Rescue 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF MICHAEL R. MORRIS, FIRE & RESCUE DEPARTMENT, AFTER TWENTY- EIGHT YEARS OF SERVICE S-3,a WHEREAS, Michael R. Morris was employed by Roanoke County on April 1, 1975, as a firefighter with the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department; and WHEREAS, Firefighter/EMT Morris retired from Roanoke County on December 1, 2003, after twenty-eight years and eight months of service; and WHEREAS, Firefighter/EMT Morris` professionalism and integrity during his many years of service contributed significantly to the development of the Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department; and WHEREAS, Firefighter/EMT Morris, through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to MICHAEL R. MORRIS for more than twenty-eight years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. M ~ ' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION 121603-7.c EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF CHARLES W. VADEN, REAL ESTATE VALUATION, AFTER FOURTEEN YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Charles W. Vaden was employed by Roanoke County on January 2, 1989, as an Appraiser in the Real Estate Valuation Office; and also served as Senior Appraiser; and Assistant Director of Real Estate Valuation; and WHEREAS, Mr. Vaden retired from Roanoke County on December 1, 2003, as the Assistant Director of Real Estate Valuation after fourteen years and eleven months of service; and WHEREAS, Mr. Vaden has been a member of the Virginia Association of Assessing Officers, and has a professional designation through the American Society of Appraisers, currently holding the treasurer position for the local chapter; and WHEREAS, Mr. Vaden has served with professionalism and integrity, and through his employment with Roanoke County has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to CHARLES W. VADEN for more than fourteen years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and 1 r FURTHER, the office of Real Estate Valuation expresses their heartfelt thanks to Mr. Vaden for being a great supervisor, friend, and devoted employee during his tenure with Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES NAYS cc: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara None A COPY TESTE: Q ~~~ Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors File Resolutions of Appreciation File William Driver, Director, Real Estate Valuation 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF CHARLES W. VADEN, REAL ESTATE VALUATION, AFTER FOURTEEN YEARS OF SERVICE T-3.~ WHEREAS, Charles W. Vaden was employed by Roanoke County on January 2, 1989, as an Appraiser in the Real Estate Valuation Office; and also served as Senior Appraiser; and Assistant Director of Real Estate Valuation; and WHEREAS, Mr. Vaden retired from Roanoke County on December 1, 2003, as the Assistant Director of Real Estate Valuation after fourteen years and eleven months of service; and WHEREAS, Mr. Vaden has been a member of the Virginia Association of Assessing Officers, and has a professional designation through the American Society of Appraisers, currently holding the treasurer position for the local chapter; and WHEREAS, Mr. Vaden has served with professionalism and integrity, and through his employment with Roanoke County has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to CHARLES W. VADEN for more .than fourteen years of capable, loyal and dedicl~ted service to Roanoke County; and ;;' ___.- ~~~~~ FURTHER, the office of Real Estate Valuation expresses their heart felt thanks to Mr. Vaden for being a great supervisor, friend, and devoted employee during his tenure with Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. 2 ACTION NO. A-121603-7d ITEM NO. J-4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and appropriate grant in the amount of $10,000 from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for use in conducting DUI checkpoints, aggressive driving enforcement, injury accident reduction and safety and child seat enforcement SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: James R. Lavinder Chief of Police Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Police Department conducts numerous DUI checkpoints per year. DUI checkpoints provide an effective tool used to strictly enforce DUI violations. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has provided grant funding for officers working DUI checkpoints at their overtime rate. The grant funding will also cover Aggressive Driving Enforcement, Injury Accident Reduction and Safety and Child Seat Enforcement. FISCAL IMPACT: The Department of Motor Vehicles has provided $10,000 in grant funding with no matching funds required. The grant period runs between October 2003 and September 30, 2004. ALTERNATIVES: At this time no alternative funding is available, and the funding is provided to the Department with no requirement of matching funds. If accepted, these funds should be appropriated to the Roanoke County Police Department's uniform personnel overtime and FICA accounts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance and appropriation of the Department of Motor Vehicles grant in the amount of $10,000. VOTE: Supervisor Minnix motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ cc: File J.R. Lavinder, Chief of Police Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance Jimmy Chapman, Grant Administrator, Police Department 2 0 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: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and appropriate grant in the amount of $10,000 from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for use in conducting DUI checkpoints, aggressive driving enforcement, injury accident reduction and safety and child seat enforcement SUBMITTED BY: James R. Lavinder Chief of Police APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~,,',`,, ~~~'~-` County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Police Department conducts numerous DUI checkpoints per year. DUI checkpoints provide an effective tool used to strictly enforce DUI violations. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has provided grant funding for officers working DUI checkpoints at their overtime rate. The grant funding will also cover Aggressive Driving Enforcement, Injury Accident Reduction and Safety and Child Seat Enforcement. FISCAL IMPACT: The Department of Motor Vehicles has provided $10,000 in grant funding with no matching funds required. The grant period runs between October 2003 and September 30, 2004. ALTERNATIVES: At this time no alternative funding is available, and the funding is provided to the Department with no requirement of matching funds. If accepted, these funds should be appropriated to the Roanoke County Police Department's uniform personnel overtime and FICA accounts. ~ ~'_, _ 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance and appropriation of the Department of Motor Vehicles grant in the amount of $10,000. ACTION NO. A-121603-7.e ITEM NO. J-5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve and adopt the revised Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) for the County of Roanoke SUBMITTED BY: Richard E. Burch Chief of Fire and Rescue APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Each locality in the state is required to have an Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) adopted by their respective governing body. The EOP is the reference document used in the Emergency Operations Center and by officials in the event of a local emergency. One recent example of the use of the plan was the effort to aid the community during the tire fire on Starlight Lane. Historically, this plan was primarily used for natural hazards such as floods, hurricanes, ice storms, etc.; but recent events such as September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, school incidents, etc., have required the transition to an "All Hazards" plan. The plan is required to be reviewed each year and re-adopted every five years. This year (2003), our plan requires re-adoption. Our plan also contains extensive revisions and additions due to various federal and state mandates that have been put in place in recent years, primarily in the area of Homeland Security and associated planning. The County Administrator remains the Director of Emergency Management and daily functions of emergency management are delegated to the Coordinator of Emergency Management within the Fire and Rescue Department. The Fire and Rescue Department will facilitate a drill within the next year to test and further revise this plan as necessary. The new plan has been reviewed and edited by the departments effected and a copy of the new plan is in the Clerk to the Board's office if you desire to review it. 1 s FISCAL IMPACT: If the plan is not adopted, potential funding could be impacted such as grants or the ability to receive assistance in the event of emergencies. No additional expenses are required if approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: County staff recommends approval and adoption of the EOP. VOTE: Supervisor Minnix motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ cc: File Richard Burch, Chief, Fire & Rescue 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: December 16, 2003 Request to approve and adopt the revised Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) for the County of Roanoke Richard E. Burch Chief of Fire and Rescue Elmer C. Hodge ~=~-- ~~~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Each locality in the state is required to have an Emergency Operation Plan (EOP) adopted by their respective governing body. The EOP is the reference document used in the Emergency Operations Center and by officials in the event of a local emergency. One recent example of the use of the plan was the effort to aid the community during the tire fire on Starlight Lane. Historically, this plan was primarily used for natural hazards such as floods, hurricanes, ice storms, etc.; but recent events such as September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, school incidents, etc., have required the transition to an "All Hazards" plan. The plan is required to be reviewed each year and re-adopted every five years. This year (2003), our plan requires re-adoption. Our plan also contains extensive revisions and additions due to various federal and state mandates that have been put in place in recent years, primarily in the area of Homeland Security and associated planning. The County Administrator remains the Director of Emergency Management and daily functions of emergency management are delegated to the Coordinator of Emergency Management within the Fire and Rescue Department. The Fire and Rescue Department will facilitate a drill within the next year to test and further revise this plan as necessary. The new plan has been reviewed and edited by the departments effected and a copy of the new plan is in the Clerk to the Board's office if you desire to review it. ,,~~.~ FISCAL IMPACT: If the plan is not adopted, potential funding could be impacted such as grants or the ability to receive assistance in the event of emergencies. No additional expenses are required if approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: County staff recommends approval and adoption of the EOP. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2003, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION 121603-7.f REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMAINING PORTION OF VALLEY STREAM DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the streets 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 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 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: Supervisor Minnix Seconded by: None Reauired Yeas: Supervisors Altizer. Church, Flora. Minnix, McNamara Nays: None ~~9~ ~~~ ~ Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors pc: Arnold Covey, Director, Department of Community Development Virginia Department of Transportation File I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 121603-7.f adopted by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by a unanimous recorded vote on Tuesday, December 16, 2003. Brenda J. Ho n, Deputy Clerk A ~ f3. rp ~A ~. a -. - ~` _ ,, AQf~ i G ~ ' .- ,. - ,k ~ .~ % ~_ ~ -- ~ 4. DESCRIPTION Valley Stream unve - ~~ ~~ I t ~I ~G ~~,... ~~~~• •• ~--~ with Cedarmeade Drive to the northwest intersection ,.,~+E, r.A~arn,Pade Drive. LENGTH RIGHT OF WAY ROADWAY WIDTH SERVICES Miles Feet Feet Houses i 0.17 50 38 ~ 5 h r . W 1 - p. 5~ ~ 4871'37 4.45 .1 ~ ~ . ,~W \ ~ ~~ 1 ~~ ..X s fl ~'\,' `RI v2"58" i~,•1 1 _ • ; fix,., 4 " .~, i, 1 ~ ~-~ 1300 r , • , ~~ ~ 0 ~w ~~ ~ z ~ ' 8 ~ K. ~.',.~ N8. ,.w ~ 75Z 59 ,! a L ' N g 110.00 ~.{- ~ .- ' ~ 59 o : ~ ~ N 5~•~ ~ t" - ''li;, , e. 8 ~~ ; ~' "` 1,1 h" s Sre ~ 1 ~ \} m 1 ~ 0 r Y .` ~ 1 , , 2 l a 5 5 10/~I g `1 tl. , .~~' .t \ 5 ~4 5,5 1\ ~w ~ , ~ n '1 ry ~ ~R ~ ~sg . T~'i 1 t 4 ~y~~ ry ~° 6 ' p . ,~ _ t'-;' 7th:' ~ N ~ ~ ~ a~, . ~ ~ , , 1 o W ~ /, yam.. t 1'b~l gf 3Y 5B ~ ~ ~1 ` ..~ x ~ zl 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ N 1 ,.i N 30.00 . Pli" 1 1 „ t `~ ~ "' ~. '... b 0 w " 1 ~ 1 ~e `' n ~ j '~ , ~ { ~a 1 h a 0.0 N ~ ~ , ~ Ad v Brookfield:, Section 4 +9i ~ ~ ° `` M`T X11 ~ .~ R h , ~^ i ¢` ti ~~ ,'ky %~~ ' w , ~ " ~,. h, I , Q / . ~ - w 1 ~l . <~~:' ::~ ., ?v, PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY ~~ ~,~~ 7 . --- Brookfield, Section 1 ~Q.GYu:. ~ J'IY~1 1r ~Z~+~~L'.l:i L.'~1PEi~d1Y~1~ B, BROOKFIELD, SECTIONS 1 & 4 Acceptance of the remaining portion of Valley Stream Drive into The Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. Sheet 1 ' H 4~ h ~, w n7'75'= / 15 S.: i i V~CIN~T~' ~- i ._ - K ~, F"ti. • ~V ~ 1 3 ~ ` ryry •. ~~ W 1 ~ 4 4~ `~Ja \`` m ~~ y ~` ~ha ~ 'q1, l , ~ a 5 4 a ~ ~ ~ .,0 ~ A~ y. tia -.- i . / G ...,,_~/`yam / /y oo ~~ 9` 4 ~, ~ ;,e_~ ^ y '1 ~~ ~) ~ '; ~ '-- _, > ~~:) s r N ^ ~ ~ ~ i`ti~ ~ - S ~.•( _ r ', ~ '~ '~ ~~~ ~ ~ 1 4~~'~1 ~. Brookfield, Section 4 PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION LENGTH RIGHT OF WAY. ROADWAY WIDTH SERVICES Miles Feet Feet Houses 30 3 Valley ~ .cam Drive -from the southeast intersection 0.08 50 wig t .~ neade Drive to its cul-de-sac. ~9 __ ~ :::~_. ?~pA.l~t3~~' ~"J~I:1~T`~ BROOKFIELD, SECTIONS 1 & 4 ~.~~'Fd.~~'s~•~ir~ fig' Acceptance of the remaining portion of Valley Stream Drive into ~Q:d~.r~T1IVI?`Y ~~~~,~~~~~~~ The Virginia Department of Transportation Sec®ndary System. a Sheet 2 • • H~ 'o C m E U V7 m _a ... O ~ E o m ~ ~ Cn ~ N e--I L a c d o n U m a Q a v C Q Q ~. Z O }- C C Q m E 2 ~. _C __yy~ a KJ m 7 H G) O ~ HH ~ ~7 S W ~ ~ ~ a m H ~g ~, S. ~ c Cm O O ~ YU ~ O ~ V O ~ E m .~ R ~ Z .~ y N ~ N D O { C ~ } ~ t cn .,.< 0 o ~ ~ (:. ~ $ m - ~ m Ul ~ O N ~ .--I . ~ v O O ~ II m !-~ s z c 0 a 3 O O ~ ~ ul Ul Q Q Q W W W m O a O m d m ID i m m d° m p d m a d ~ a d Q (~ Q Q U U U ~ ` a O O O O O HH W W W o 0 0 o n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < H H H ~ $ ~ H ~ H Q d b y ~ m m ~ 0 m O m t ~ y y o f CJ o 0 o n o ~ ~ Y II 0 ~ m ` ff dj G d 0 ~ O O 0 H m ~ fL e ~ ~ a FF b ~ o FF b ~ a FF b 2 a F a o ~ c F a p a LL p ~- ~ L% o 1- ~ tL o F- f1 l% o F- 4 t% o Y- 6. LL h- d LL H CL ~ o s 3 ~ ~j O ~ C/] V] s Q Q ~ z ~ d ~ ~ ~ o d ~ _ n c~ I v ~n I m I r u I o z ,... P~, _.,,.~.. F w U t{- { w O Z O 4 U )- U ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~- ~n AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept the remaining portion of Valley Stream Drive, located in the Vinton Magisterial District, into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge G~~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Fralin and Waldron, the developer of Brookfield, Sections 1 & 4, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requesting that they accept 0.17 mile of Valley Stream Drive from the southeast intersection with Cedarmeade Drive to its northwest intersection with Cedarmeade Drive, and then 0.08 mile of Valley Stream Drive from the southeast intersection with Cedarmeade Drive to its cul-de-sac. The staff has inspected this road, along with representatives of VDOT, and finds the road is acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No County funding is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to VDOT requesting that they accept the remaining portion of Valley Stream Drive into the Secondary Road System. S ~ THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, IN REGULAR MEETING ON THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2003, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING: RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMAINING PORTION OF VALLEY STREAM DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the streets 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 clearand 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: Seconded by: _ Yeas: Nays: A Copy Teste: Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors pc: Arnold Covey, Director, Department of Community Development Virginia Department of Transportation File ~t-„„ ~ ^"~ .~ Q..~ ~.L`~ • .~~ ~ DESCRIPTION - 4~~~~ ~. Valley Stream Drive -from the southeast intersection ~;~, j~~o~~irzr~ ~ ~~; ~ with Cedarmeade Drive to the northwest intersection %' ~h -~ ~. with Cedarmeade Drive. ,~~~~,~~~~,® ,- ~"~~ `~~ ~ .~`'-. -•- LENGTH RIGHT OF WAY ROADWAY WIDTH SERVICES Qe~`~P~~°~ ~ ~ ` ~'~' ~,~"~ ;°~ ~ Miles Feet Feet Houses i G~ y~~~ of i P \ ~ +\'J i - ~.-' ~~ ~ \ \ = ;, ,r~75, .~~ 9 ~ 0.17 50 ~ ~ 4• Zy- ` S ~ ~ A fi' ~s~ s ,a ~ Cp y~ ~ die `t \ ~° 1 ` ; __ ~ ,~a ~ ., K *~ t '\ °' r~ 4072 JfW t ~ ~•~ m ~ , - " ~ , 9 , 1 m~ 1S0 00 ~ QY ,p _ m~ p 1 ~ ! ~a ~ 18 N 5j52 50 ~ , , ^ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ y 5i525j'C~ ~ ~~r,~, ~.~ -~ ~ i °~~ ~~ `~~'.'~. ,~ ~ i ry~ ~8' ~~ `tee W $ 9• W ~ i __ ~ ~ \ ~~ ` t. 8 ```~ irk' •, ~ P 51g2,5g J5 s`1• •~- 1s1 ~ 1,,m. p.. u' ~ ~. i 'ct' n 'y 120.0 ~~.1, _ ;~.. a: ~ ~L', 5f.r~'59 5 t. Foi" ~.t z ~. ~1 ~~5'i N - t t~> N 170.00• ~' `.. l h c,. lc 4" ry ~n1 w a' rz0o° ,y- , J l ~ ryes ~ 9 U 0 52~5~1 - ~`• v I '~~ Q ~' w - .--T ~~, ~ ~/i29 :. r ~~ o ~ ^. 1 q p IO ROPOSED ADD x~, .. t i °" ~ j% ~~ - ~ ~ ~~ - i ~ SHOWN IN GRAY G s ; rya ! f ~1 ~ ' /J (( Brookfield, Section 4 ,~' -~' ~' ~~ ` r' ~ •~.' ~~~) ~ ~~ 4' l ~ ~~ i' { k,y ~~ ~ rye. ` , ` ~/ ~~ 7 r %y ~ 7"5' t ` Brookfield Section 1 ~~~~~ ~~~~~ BROOKFIELD,ISECTIONS 1 & 4 ~~'F._~~RT'1VTP ~1,~' Acceptance of the remaining portion of Valley Stream Drive into ~~;~~~'j~i jay ,j)~',~~'~~;~~,~r~,jV~ The Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. Sheet 1 ' i IbS m' ----~----~7^ qb ti ~' N\\ ~~ ti~~j . ~ o" __ ~~ ~ F~ h a~~ !~ w h h~ ~../` 5 ~a ~,y, ~._,~ 1 y ti~ f i 3 i i i q~ ^p ~ `, ~ ff <,.F i ~,, cA4 it '~' , `, ~ ,~ ~~ , Brookfield, Section 4 PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN GRAY DESCRIPTION Valley Stream Drive -from the southeast intersection with Cedarmeade Drive to its cul-de-sac. LENGTH Miles RIGHT OF WAY Feet ROADWAY WIDTH Feet SERVICES Houses 0.08 50 30 3 RO.Al~'f~l>`'.E' C~~Il`~'~`Y' ~~'F.~.~3''1Vfi f~F' BROOKFIELD, SECTIONS 1 & 4 Acceptance of the remaining portion of Valley Stream Drive into The Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. -~ Sheet 2 V3 ~il 71 3 ~ ~ ~~~` ~I C 7 'o U H~ x O C G~ m L U 4 m a ~ M ~ O ~"~ ~ N c-i L a 'D c ;, 0 0 U d C~ Q7 m E O c ~ ~ ~. 0.~ ~ ~ ~ o ~, p ~n Q ~ H m ~ W N ¢ C/] O ~ 4 0 Q„ a i w H 4gQ S 1~ pQ]~ M V~ W Ci) Q ~ O 11. ~ vs L ~ Z ~ o o r m Q < Z .~ N ~ N O E o C V. } C Ci ~ C/1 O ri. 2 O O n a m ~ m ull N ~ r-i O _~ ~ ~ ~ U O O m ~°- ffi z c !h C 3 O 9 Q` ~ ~ f~ Q Q W W W ~ Q Q m Q W m a m a m a m a m a o a a c U V U o II O O O c O O ~~ O H H H c ~ H m N $ ~ U 0 0 ~ 0 Q < H H H W ~ ~ c b y (/] C/1 !~ I o m ~ ~ o n @ o ~ C o U o 0 o n o v a m o o z ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m s D _~ O ~_ a FF 6 ~ a ~ O ~_ C FF a O ~ o FF b O a - U ~i p ~- a u: ~ r n. u., O r a ti O r- a. ti r- n. ~ r d S }- ~- x m a L 0 y ~ ~ ~ & y ~ ~ a B H H ~ ~ Z ~ ~ rr~~ C G / 7 m O - .~ N I n c f ~ I W f.. 61 Z O ,ate ~~ yW O a m 1 a u a c ~ - r E t { +- `o H ~ o. ~ e C 2 e O c ~ $. d U ` r U E ~ L V L ~ ~-~ GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Prior Report Balance Addition from 2002-03 Operations Audited Balance at June 30, 2003 July 1, 2003 Explore Park Loan Repayment Balance at December 16, 2003 of General ~ Amount Fund Revenue; $8,977,656 6.60% 1,483,629 10,461,285 25,000 10,486,285 7.71 Changes below this line are for information and planning purposes only. Balance from above $10,486,285 $10,486,285 7.71 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 2003 - 2004 General Fund Revenues $135,971,831 6.25% of General Fund Revenues $8,498,239 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator ~-a CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 10/28/2003 110/28/2003 Amount Audited Balance at June 30, 2003 $360,172.56 Transfer from Department Savings 2002-03 274,972.00 Equipment and software for electronic records managemer (73,057.00) system for Clerk to the Board of Supervisor's Office Reimbursement from Water Fund for debt service payment 11,000,000.00 made related to Spring Hollow Reservoir Balance at December 16, 2003 $11,562,087.56 I Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge c~-~'~ County Administrator N -?~ RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount From 2003-2004 Original Budget $107,940.00 July 8, 2003 Appropriation towards Roanoke Regional Airport Alliance (8,193.00) July 22, 2003 Appropriation towards Project 50 Capital Campaign (10,000.00) July 22, 2003 Reserve towards Project 50 Capital Campaign (5,000.00) August 12, 2003 Appropriation for debris removal and stablilization (15,000.00) Balance at December 16, 2003 $69,747.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge G`~ 1~ County Administrator N-~1 FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS 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 Savings from 1997-1998 debt fund 321,772.00 FY1998-1999 Original budget appropriation 2,000,000.00 FY1999-2000 Original budget appropriatio 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,219,855) 780,145.00 Savings from 1998-1999 debt fund 495,363.00 FY2000-2001 Original budget appropriatio 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (1,801,579) 198,421.00 FY 2001-2002 Original budget appropriatio 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (465,400) Savings from 2001-02 debt fund 116,594 1,651,194.00 FY 2002-2003 Original budget appropriatio 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (2,592,125) (592,125.00) FY 2003-2004 Original budget appropriatio 2,000,000 Less increase in debt service (2,202,725) (202,725.00) Balance at December 16, 2003 $8,435,088.00 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 School Budgeted Start-Up Costs HVHS/Glenvar Middle (35,047.00) July 1, 2002 Transfer to Operating in original 2002-03 Budget (566,818.00) July 1, 2003 Transfer to Operating in original 2003-04 Budget (250,000.00) Balance at December 16, 2003 - Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge off County Administrator ACTION NO. ITEM NO. N ' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Accounts Paid -November 2003 SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge ~~a County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors Payroll 11 /7/2003 Payroll 11 /21 /2003 Manual Checks Voids Grand Total Direct Deposit $ - $ 808,617.15 792,648.94 Checks Total - $ 4,711,011.24 154,397.53 963,014.68 183,419.87 976,068.81 496.28 496.28 $ 6,650,591.01 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. r M O O N N m y a. ~ CE .~ .~ L d O C, O W O C 7 O U 0 ~ N O N w °O d .,. C ~i/ W 0 .~ V Q C CE b d a+ c~ W O A E v N O N V O Vl O\ l~ vl ~O N ~O N [~ vl l~ M [~ l~ M Q\ N O ~ O~ V'l ~ D\ N [~ [~ ~ O N O ~ i [~ M ~ D\ O 7 ~n N vi oo ~ ~--~ oo O~ t~ N ~n O O N O ~O V ~n ~n ~O ~O oo N ~n oo .-~ O ~ ~n O o0 ~ u O N -~ M ~D 7 V ~O l~ a\ O V1 V vl vi oo V1 ~O Q\ .-~ 00 ~ ~ M r vl O ~ ~ O V [~ Q 7 d N d' N M M M M N M M M N ~!1 ~' M M M ~--~ M V N ~--~ ~--~ O M n ~--~ W N L y O ~ R ~ ~ Q d M ~!1 00 7 O 00 D\ ~ ~ ~ N V'1 ~--~ O\ V lam. 00 Vl 00 ~ ~ _O V ~ O Vl M ~--~ O\ .--~ 00 7 M N M [~ O ~D O O\ ~ t~ l~ l~ W M M ~ Vl U N 40 O V'1 M V 00 M ~ [~ O ,~ N pp ~ ~ ~ a~i V ^-~ [~ vl ~O O M N l~ N M ~ ~ O 7 --~ N M D\ N N ~ M o0 ~--~ ~ O~ ~"~ N O tY o0 V' v1 N u N n vl .--i O ~--~ ~ N ~Y M N oo D\ O ~--~ M ~ a\ Vl r [~ .-. ~ ~-. .--~ M ~ M ~"~ V O M -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "" ~ V 7 l~ V'1 l~ ~--~ M O O O\ M M [~ N -~ M N N 7 M [~ [~ .-. tY ~ V~ O~ ~--~ O W 01 01 ~ N ~O M 7 r. O N N o0 ~ ~ M V ~ --~ ~ ~ vi h M N~ v'i ~ O~ ~--~ ~ O~ ,7 Pq V' N V 7 V ~ .-~ .-. N .. M M N M -~ I~ V1 N ~D N N ~-+ Vl M oo vl D\ ~--~ ~ --~ N V'~ N O~ ~ O ~O -~ V N l~ V o0 D\ V N N d ~ N Q\ M O o0 N N N ~~ oo N N O~ N M V O~ ~O v1 l~ M ~O ~O M oo [~ O M B 0\ ~ 00 V1 00 00 V 7 01 l0 [~ N l~ ~O M M .-. N 00 V1 M •--~ [~ ~ [~ V1 00 .-. O\ l~ l0 O O\ ~--~ A ~ N 7 00 M 00 [~ O ~O l~ 00 V1 U l~ O O ~O ~O N 00 M O [~ N O ~--~ ~ O 7 ~O ~ --~ ~' a0. ~ 00 -. V'1 ~ N ~ 00 00 .M-i V'1 O~ ~ M M ~O .--i .-. .-. O .N. ~ W 01 O ~O O oo l~ O "" l~ [~ 7 ul M D1 M N ~--~ 7 V N O\ N M N ~O ~O D\ vl V1 ~' L~ y .M.. N N .-. ..., ,_, d ~ ~ a M ~O O ~D ~ M ~O O O ~--~ --~ l~ M --~ O --~ M V' 0 0 0 O O ~O M ~O d' O N O N M p V1 N O M D\ O~ N oo .-. Vl V M 00 ~O ~D N l~ M [~ .~ ~O ~O o0 00 00 ~O .--~ N N O~ V'1 l~ M .~i = V'l ,-. l~ M 7 Vl 00 ~ W 7 ~ O Vl l~ [~ O Vl 7 N ~--~ d\ O ~--~ N M M ~ h V D1 ~O 00 V 7 M .-. V1 l~ N 7 ^~ ~ \O ~ N V 01 7 7 V [~ 00 [~ V M ~ l~ l~ Vl V'1 .~-I O ; M~ V1 M N M ~--~ 00 ~--~ Q~ 00 N M ~--~ Vl l~ ~-. W M M O M C ~ 7 d\ ~ V ~ N M .--~ M 7 V ~a 'C d 9 G W t O •L u 0. = 0 0 0 0 0 0 --~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l~ O O O 00 O O O O V l~ O O O\ U M O M O '~t M M G O O O O O O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l~ O O --~ V' 0 0 0 0 O O O vi D\ O O N V'1 ~ o ~ O O O O t~ O ~--~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~ ~ O o0 ~ O V O ~O -~ ~ O Vl a^ ~ oo O H O ~n ~n V ,~ 'O 0 0 0 0 0 vi O O v'i O O O M vl O oo M ~O vi oo Oi O N N O~ ~D N vi vi V O O O N~ O 7 O O O oo l~ l~ M O~ V ~O d\ W r .--~ N~ V V V 7 M 0 ~ O\ M M O~ W ~O N O ~/1 D\ [_~ ~ Qa 00 O M V'l .~ M Vl ~ M l~ d' ~O ~O N N ~O l~ O~ M M ~O .--' \O ~O ~O l0 O C A N N ~O ~O V '"' ^"' _" N~ N N V' --~ M N M N s :. 0 W O ~ T ~ ~ ~ „a „ ~ x o ,. „~ N W cC v i ~' U ~ o ~ .a ~ [`_° ao' 'b k' ~ °' on ~ ~ O o „ Y Q ~ on ~ ~ C7 E-' O .~ a H~ ~~ ~~~ c. ti~ •~ ~ '~ o 0 0~ a~ o° •C c o U o o •~ "a"'~`'~~ ~a~':~a! °' ~ ~ ~ oaa oUw~w ~- ~ ~ $U o o. `aY`n cup ~v~i ~ ~ .~? ~ '~ °~ ti N ~ ~ a ~ CL ca _U 'b w a b ~ ~ ~`" ``" ~ ~ ~ ~ W °~ :a °~ is ~ v, o Vl ~ O C! Y O G ti y ~.. p W ~ ~ .., O ~ ~ U >" y ~' ~ y ~ `a ro O ci `~ G q bD b00 ~ N > U 'b 4. ~ t, C..) k, ~ ~, ~ ~ as N ~ o a~ ._ & au~ ~ ~ b y .H ~ y a~ a~ }. ~. ~ v o ~ ~ a'"i '~ v a`i 'O O N O 6l cO O O ~ N O '~ '" O cC '~ S'. cC ~ O -~ .C ~ N N .f. ,~ O N O O ~ d ,L' N .C ~ ~ rxaaaaaU Ww~[-~~xE-OQaawUaiwa;rx000S;~u:zv~~O~OOF- w O_ ~--~ N_ _M ~ O --~ N M ~ h ~ ~ 00 O\ O ~--~ N 'cY l~ 00 ~ O N DD O --~ ~ O --~ V M O ~O N M N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M~ V V~ V1 V1 U1 lp ~p ~p ~ pp pp O~ O~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O N ~ ry d Q~ Q = C rl d N ~ ~ ~ m a Q t y ~ ~ ~ d ai m ~" 'b d C bA L 0 C O co-. O C 7 O U M O M ti 'O b G W ~o 0 ~L W t C ~Or G N O d t ~. 0 W N y '~ u y G f. ~ G itl w7 FO '~ Q ~ y~ C A ~ L G C O d u OD 'fl 0 r W N f1 N V OD O N "1. N N O M N b N H N O V M 0 F b c i C7 Q 0 n N O N z w 'b G a w L F C7 e 0 .. G O W r, 0 o ~ `~' o ~ vi o C O ~ N ~+ v d v 1-i N a w w w L N G O (~ G Ri ~ ~ W °~ v k, a N w `~ ~~ ~. V ~ W ~ q C~ o ~ _, Ca v ~ e 09 ° $ °' a o ~ W W m 0.1 ,~ m N ~ I 00 ~ v °' O E u O u ~ v ~ ~ :7 CO .C .~ L d O C C~ O ~i w O a+ L" '~ O U Q t` N O z w °O u ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 Q y C t• a W ~ x ~ ~ W M Q O M .--i b 'O G W 7 'i. 0.i s C O 0 d s O W u C G V G G E a0 p v+ C O W i ~ r _. a o °1 ,~,~ G W 0~0 P7 b C W L d G O ti 'O G 7 W ~; O I!1 pp M V O~ V'I ~--~ N 7 O M M O~ N M N ~O ~-+ O ~D ~O 7 00 O [~ ~ ~--~ M ~O p~ l~ l~ N M M N ~t 00 ~D M O N 00 ~-+ 00 ~D O O~ Vl N O~ ~--~ p~ N 00 Vi l~ M ~p N '[F N ~--~ V'l O~ N N O O M M N I!1 N) ~O V~1 M~ (III M M M M M M N M d' ~~ ~~ M In ~ 4'1 V M ~O O M ~ M N M O~ V M O M ~ ~--~ ~~ 7 M Vl Vl 00 00 O~ ~ OD N O O~ N O O vi '~ ~ ~ N V1 V1 M O N o0 0o O: [~ 7 .-I oo M 7 O~ ~O _ D O O N M ~ N O V t~ vl N 00 N o0 v'i O~ ~O ~--~ vl 7 01 l~ O~ ~O N Q~ ~O ~O r ~ of ~--~ M ~--~ 7 00 [~ N O~ O~ N O O M ~ N l~ O~ O N 00 t` ~ O O N~ 00 ~ V ~ M l~ .--~ '• OZ V1 .-+ ~p I!1 ~O l~ 01 p¢ l~ M l~ ~O Vl l~ I ;, Vl 00 ~ l ~ M V In N O In Vi O [~ ~O -~ ~O N t~ O --~ O ~D O~ N O~ v1 In ~t oo ' ~A O M [~ M 7 M oo '-I N O l~ O O O l~ Vl vl O [~ Vl i O ~--~ N V~ v 7 00 --~ O~ M l~ I/1 M V O~ M M O N V'~ 00 O~~ N N T [~ ~O ~--~ l~ M Vl V1 ti r V'1 M l~ .-w •-i .--i ~-. Vi •--~ •-i ~ N I!1 00 00 "+ ~O M O~ O~ V l~ ~--~ ~"~ 7 r ~ 7 0o V1 d' 00 O O~ 00 N ~O O M N c~ ~O In O ~O N OQ 7 N l~ In O ~O O ~O M oo ~C N oo ~n O O t~ ~O vi t7 vi N 00 [~ O~ V1 01 e1' O~ N 01 7 ~O ~ v1 ~ 7 00 Ch ~ N ^-~ ~O 00 M N l~ N V1 O~ O M M 00 I~ ~ N O [~ M 7 V O~ Vl V' 01 V O M O ~O I!1 ~O ~O l~ ~O V1 Vl ~p 00 O M O ~ 00 00 V 7 ~, ~O O Q~ .ti ~ ul fy, M [~ O~ N M V ~ ~, O~ l~ N 00 O~ V1 N r ~ 7 N V1 O Vl ~ 7 W M ~ ~ O O~ O ~ V! I!1 l~ N .-.. N O S M ~ V V O M N V' O N M N N v1 . -i N ~ M N ~ ~D N O ~ 00 M M --~ O N M O~ ~ M M M ~t M N O~ N .-. .-. In .-. ,--~ M .-. 0o vi O M O O O O~ oo O O t~ ~O In oo O O O V v1 O Q O O O M~ ~--~ O ~ ~ 7 0 O~ 0 0 ~ O~ M O M O O O ~D O O~ O ~O 7 0o O~ V O O l~ M 00 N O ~--~ M 00 00 00 V O O O~ l~ l w O M V1 00 N O~ [~ O ~ OQ N N V1 N [~ N ri ~ ~ V'l ~D ~O M V l~ l~ 00 ~O l~ N N ~--~ 7 N M N 'r ri r W N O ~O ~ ~ ~ i ~ m N O V M O~ oo ~O O~ ~D ~ M ~ '[t' N O \O ~~ N 7 o0 00 O~ O 00 In M 7 7 0o O 00 rn vl 7 7 ~ <t N 00 N O N l~ 00 O I!1 N N M In ~ V M l~ 7 ~O N M ri O O h ~O N O~ N M Ch M O~ O N t7 ~ N o0 V ~ O 01 ~O N ^~ N O~ O N ~ M l~ ~O N N N M ~--~ O O ~D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O~ M 00 O O 00 O~ O o0 00 ~O O O t7 ~ ~ O O 7 O ~ ~ M O O N l~ --~ O M ~ ~ O~ VI N V1 V N O V t~ -. [~ In O~ M N ~ Vl v1 l~ ~ M O -~ Q~ ~D M N O O o0 O O O O 00 v1 O~ In V O~ M ~D O M Vl N V ~O oo N M M O~ O~ ~O O O O~ O O O O O~ In V O~ N \O M N O V1 V N V1 O ~--~ M I!1 M O V"I M v'1 Vl O M vl ~p ~O N~ 00 N O O ~ N M o0 7 00 O~ N M A O t~ t~ l~ O t~ oo O~ N Vl O N M l~ O~ O O~ N H V V' .~. M ~ M 'ci' [~ 00 ~ N O ~ ~ ~ O V v? l~ /'~ M ~ M N v'i l~ M l~ N o0 7 N M N V1 v1 O~ O t~ N O~ In M O~ ^~ [~ O~ ~O 01 l0 Ch O o0 V1 ~ M M l~ O~ ~ V1 N O~ I!1 M O~ ~ M V'l O~ O l~ M ~O ~O M N M N O~ O 00 O~ O ^~ M M O~ M V ~--~ .-. n N ~ ~ N h~ ^' d' ~ 00 00 ~+ .~-~ N O~ vi ~O 7 M N '~-~ M N ~--~ 00 M ~ N ~" i w R 4 y .~ .~ ^O ,~ ~ C U Q W d o ~0., U q'~ V ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ C7 `~ ~ o •~ ~ ~ e U O ~ ~ W C O_ O_ _O O O O 0 ~. ~ ~ iy 'u U 7 ~ `~ y ~, ~ ~ o (, ~ N O --~ N O O O O O U W .~i ~ Y N ~ CN ~ A ~ U G U v o"i °~ ~ ~ c~ ~ o U py ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ e a u. U ~ ~'' O ~--~ N M V 0 0 0 0 M M M M O O O O Q 0 L ~ m y ~ ~G7. _ q pa ' ~ , o U A7, y ~ ~ ~ ao C7 ~ ~ W ~ C7 c ^+ N M ~ Vl ~O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O .~. ti U ~ ~ Q O R N y ~ ~ ~~ 3 b ~~ °:, ~ C ~ U I.U. ~ t0 ai-'-. N ti Y ~ U _ ~ U U U .y-i ~ xi V] N Q • O ~ xi ~ a v~ U a ~ v°~ c ^~ M ~ Vl ~O (~ 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v'I vi In In In v~ v-, O O O O O O O O .U U a O O a ~ '° E ° v Q V ~ N M ~ " d G O O ~' W [a © P m N 9 on v a q E ~ 7 u ~ G ep C ~ r`~- CC ' .~ .~ L O C C~ a w ~ O C 7 O U N o z G. °O u u C v ~ .~'. ~ ~ ~ 9 ; A y G ~, a k1 i ~ ~ ~ M O M ti 9 .b G W 'O O a r G O ~" V) 0 v r O W u C ~ e E_ m C O W d a, a9 Z 9 C W 00 7 0.1 b G W u C C7 °o .. 7 C 7 W M Q~ ~p V O~ O V~ In Vl O~ V O O O N O N M 7 ~O O~ ~ M L~ vl V1 00 M O ~O O O M pp N 00 Op 00 O~ [~ Op l~ ~--~ --~ ~O ~ M ~--~ Iry O N O R M l~ M M Vl Q~ er M N ~ rl N O~ O N O~ V1 00 O N M O -~ O O R 00 M M ~O N l~ O 00 ~O ~D v1 O O~ ~ l~ l~ O O oo ~O ~--~ O .~r N 00 00 [~ vi ~O t~ O O~ l~ oo ,-. O O ~O 7 t~ ~O M O~ l0 O ~ M vi Vl O '~Y 7 ^' M O O V ~ N ~--~ vl l~ ~p M 00 ~O O 00 M ~O O O O V 7 ~O 00 ~ ~ [~ V N ~--~ l~ 00 M O l~ ~O O ~--~ O~ V1 O oO O~ 40 [~ M O~ ~O oo ~O N O~ N M O l~ O~ N oo ~O ~ ~ N ~O M N l~ M N ~D ~--~ V~ 7 N l~ M --~ M N M N ~ C CO O M l~ Vl N O 'V' l~ O O~ O O ~D N l~ l~ ~ rl ~O O ~"~ vl M ~O O Vj v1 M N O O --~ t7 0o O~ GO V 00 O 7 ~O O~ M O ~ O ~--~ v1 O O O ~ [~ ~O ~ N _ _ ~ O vi O ~, ~ ~ N O M oo M 7 ~ V N t ;, ~O 00 M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ ~ ~ "~ ~D M . i ~ W O . . ~ rl ~ i!1 N 00 p p ~ f7 N N In N .-. ~ ~O ~ N l~ r 7 M O O ~ O O O O O O O V O O O ~ O O O 0p O O e~ 0 0 0 0 O O O N 0 0 0 1^~ O O O N O N 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 00 0 0 0 M 0 0 O N ~ 0o V) v'i V1 ~ N N M O r rl O h oo ~D O ~ ~ ~ N O O O N n v'i N ~ V O t~j _ 'c7 O 7 l~ l~ N N 0 0 0 l~ 00 l~ ~O ~ ~ O N ~ d' ~ O ~ O 7 M 0 0 0 7 ~ [~ O i . 00 00 ~ ~O 00 ~O l~ ~ M O ~ M l ~ ~ ~p ~ ~ .-. M N 7 M ~O ~ ~ ~ O ~ O O •--~ N 7 V^ O l~ l~ r-i ti O O N ~ O O O ~O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O M V O O~ N O N O ~ O O O O O O O O O O ~O [~ oo ~ N \O ~--~ O O~ 00 O l~ O O [~ N V1 M 00 ~ O ~--~ ~ _ V v'~ M M O~ O vl O O V O N M V) O --~ l~ .-~ ~O 7 O~ O O .~ O V O O l~ ~ --~ O ~ ~ ~O l~ O ~O O~ M t~ l~ l~ vi O O -~ Oi M oo M .-i V1 .--~ ~!1 .--I [~ W V1 00 O 00 M V'l O l~ O~ ~ 7 N l~ R ,--. O vl vl M V1 N ~O ^+ I~ ~ [~ M OD N ~ ~" i N M ~ ~ M L ~ ~~i 'y U ~ ~ d 8 4 LL 0 ~ C p y ° v b ~ c a ~ > U ~ C ~N~~ ~ b ~o~ ~ °O ' y y ~ Q ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~,Y~ ~ ~. F. o y ~ a ~~ Y ~x ~ . ~a ~> ~ d ~ ~ d oW ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~b ~,a, a ~ N s o ~~ ~ ' ~ s NH w ~.>A. w ~ ~ o id W Op ~ '~ .O .~'. F. ~ U ~ U .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ Z ~ ~ F t, ~ p C~J O O ~ O ~. K N ~ O "' ~ ~l U c a U W U c O W A S H Ix U c L ~~ O c N M O O N M V1 O O O O N M 7 ~D l~ O O O O O O N O O ~ b ~ r ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O o o O O O O O O O O O O O F e w L f' -ti ~~ ACTION NO. ^' ITEM NUMBER I Y ° AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003. AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of November 30, 2003. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: BANKERS ACCEPTANCE: SUNTRUST CAP 1,422,675.02 1,422,675.02 CASH INVESTMENT:: ALEXANDER KEY - LIR 5,295.77 5,295.77 CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS: SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA SAVINGS & LOAN 100,000.00 100,000.00 COMMERICAL PAPER: ALEXANDER KEY FED 1,002,420.56 BRANCH BANKING & TRUST 2,000,485.56 EVERGREEN 3,901.65 MORGAN KEEGAN 4,800.83 SUNTRUST 1,998,971.95 SUNTRUST CAP 309,458.96 5,320,039.51 CORPORATE BONDS ALEXANDER KEY FED 230,481.75 EVERGREEN 3,027,065.25 3,257,547.00 GOVERNMENT: ALEXANDER KEY FED 9,991,205.56 ALEXANDER KEY -Sub Acct 4,017,348.00 EVERGREEN 8,352,497.83 MORGAN KEEGAN 2,000,000.00 SUNTRUST -CAP 8,421,733.78 32,782,785.17 LOCAL GOVT INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL OPERATION (G.O.) 9,046,248.18 9,046,248.18 i }~ ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003. AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of November 30, 2003. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: BANKERS ACCEPTANCE: MONEY MARKET: ALEXANDER KEY FED EVERGREEN ALEXANDER KEY -Sub Acct SUNTRUST-CAP SUNTRUST -SWEEP WACHOVIA TOTAL 5,252,665.90 97.89 326, 923.04 4,947,130.65 7,919,066.21 2,301,532.69 20,747,416.38 72,682,007.03 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~P - ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Joint work session with Planning Commission to discuss the Comprehensive Community Plan SUBMITTED BY: Janet Scheid Chief Planner APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~`'~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff will present an overview of the comprehensive planning process and a status report of the current work being done to update and revise the Roanoke County Community Plan. Five issues are being addressed in this update: economic development, transportation, storm water management, growth management and utilities. The Planning Commission will be present. 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: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss public safety building proposals under the Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act (PPEA) SUBMITTED BY: Dan O'Donnell Assistant County Administrator APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~%~""" ~'"" ~' County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On October 28, the Board of Supervisors voted to move three Public Private Educational Facility and Infrastructure Act (PPEA) proposals for a new Public Safety Communications Center/Public Safety Building to the detailed design phase of the process. We have since met with all three proposer teams to discuss the scope and expectations for this next phase. One of the teams, SafetyFirst, has chosen to withdraw from the PPEA process rather than submit a detailed design phase proposal. The remaining firms, Northrop- Grumman and Public Facility Consortium, have indicated that they will continue working with the County to develop detailed design proposals. During the work session, we would like to bring the Board up to date on several items involved in the detailed design phase proposal. One important item is site selection. It is essential that a site be located that has access to major transportation routes and is in a good location for radio transmissions. Another concern is the consideration of upgrading the 800 Mhz emergency radio system as part of the project. Assistant County Administrator John Chambliss, who has been working with the public safety departments to plan for future radio system upgrades, will update the Board on the current emergency ~- ~ radio system status. We will be asking proposers to give us several options for levels of upgrades in the next phase of the proposal process. In addition to discussing the scope for the phase II proposals, we will be reviewing our updated time table for the project should the Board decide to move forward to construction of the facility. As the Board has already acted to move the proposals on to the detailed design phase, the purpose of this work session is informational. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of continuing through the detailed design phase is minimal as there is no obligation on the part of the County to proceed with construction until after the execution of a comprehensive agreement with a chosen development firm. Firms submitting detailed design phase proposals for the next phase must deposit a total of $50,000 with the County to be used to pay for the County's costs associated with analysis of proposals and plans. There is no fiscal impact on the County other than staff time until and unless a Comprehensive Agreement is executed between a development firm and the Board of Supervisors at the conclusion of the detailed design phase process. ., ACTION NO. ITEM NO. r-,3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Code, Section 2-7 "Reimbursement of expenses incurred for emergency response" SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On March 12, 2002, the Board of Supervisors amended the Roanoke County Code by the addition of Section 2-7. "Reimbursement of expenses incurred for emergency response to accidents or incidents caused by driving while impaired." This section authorizes the County to attempt to recover reasonable expenses incurred in providing appropriate emergency response to accidents or incidents arising from the operation of a motor vehicle, engine, train, or water craft while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In determining "reasonable expenses", a locality may bill a flat fee of $100 or a minute-by- minute accounting of the actual costs incurred, but liability shall not exceed $1,000. On October 14, 2003, the Board considered at first reading an ordinance to expand this ordinance to include additional traffic offenses: reckless driving, driving without a license, and leaving the scene of an accident. The 2003 session of the General Assembly expanded the coverage of this legislation to include these additional offenses. The Board requested a work session on October 28, 2003, to consider two issues: expanding the coverage of this ordinance, and the costs and benefits of collection activities. This work session was postponed until December 16, 2003. On November 18, 2003, the Board adopted a resolution identifying its legislative initiatives for the 2004 session of the Virginia General Assembly. One of these initiatives is to amend the State enabling legislation by increasing the flat fee from $100 to $500. ,, ~ ~. ..._- Administratively Ihave advised County staff to limit collection activities only to charges involving accidents. The number of cases involving accidents for 2002 is as follows: Year 2002 Accidents Involving Charges: DUI 43 Drivin without a license 8 Reckless 175 Leave the scene 7 Total Char es 233 The number of cases involving "incidents" is as follows: Year 2002 Incidents: DUI 203 Drivin without a license 176 Reckless 316 Leave the scene 7 Total Char es 702 Of the 1467 traffic accident reports, 175 charges were filed (12°/0) alleging reckless driving. Staff has surveyed other localities concerning their collection activities. No other local government in this region has adopted such an ordinance. Chesterfield, Loudon and Virginia Beach use the flat fee approach, having determined that the minute-by-minute accounting is not cost effective, and in many instances, results in a lower cost recovery than the flat fee. This conclusion is consistent with Roanoke County's data. For example, using an average of $.57 per minute ($34 per hour for two police officers) fora "simple" DUI incident, the time expended at the scene of arrest is on average 20 minutes. One officer could be involved for up to 3 hours in some instances (transport to magistrate and jail, paperwork, interviewing witnesses, etc.). The following administrative costs are not recoverable: monitoring cases to conviction (since only convictions are eligible for cost recovery), retrieving the data from the CAD system for minute-by-minute accounting, separating out volunteer fire and rescue time, preparing and mailing demand letters, preparing and handling collection cases in general district court, and other costs of collection. As in all collection matters there is a significant number of judgments that are uncollectible. The Treasurer advises me that he places a higher priority on the collection of delinquent taxes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following: (i) do not amend Sec. 2-7 at this time, (ii) monitor the use of this expanded legislation in other localities to determine its suitability for Roanoke County (iii) continue to collect reasonable expenses from DUI accidents, (iv) use the $100 2 flat fee to minimize administrative costs and expenses, and (v) use minute-by-minute accounting in those rare situations when justified by the expense of the emergency response. 3 ~ '~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION 721603-8 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 McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES : Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A OPY TESTE: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Closed Meeting File ~, "~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION 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 Q Roanoke County, Virginia. ' ti AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION 121603-9 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF KENNETH W. KERN, POLICE DEPARTMENT AFTER TWENTY-NINE YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Kenneth W. Kern was employed by Roanoke County on December 15, 1973, as a Dispatcher; and after serving as Deputy Sheriff, was promoted to Detective in the Criminal Investigations Division; and later promoted to Sergeant and Lieutenant; and WHEREAS, Lt. Kern's most recent assignment was supervising the animal control, traffic and school resource programs; and WHEREAS, Lt. Kern was one of the original members of the Police Department which was established 1990; and WHEREAS, Lt. Kern retired from Roanoke County on November 1, 2003, after twenty-nine years and ten months of service; and WHEREAS, Officer Kern has served with professionalism and integrity, and through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to KENNETH W. KERN for more than twenty-nine years of capable, loyal and 1 '~, dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolutions of Appreciation File Ray Lavinder, Chief, Police 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. R -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE .BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Kenneth W. Kern, Police Department, after twenty-nine years of service SUBMITTED BY: Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk to the Board APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge '~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Human Resources Department has notified us that Kenneth W. Kern, Police Department, retired on November 1, 2003. Mr. Kern will attend the evening Board meeting to accept his resolution of appreciation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the attached resolution and present it to Mr. Kern with the appreciation of the Board members for his many years of service to the County. day AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF KENNETH W. KERN, POLICE DEPARTMENT AFTER TWENTY-NINE YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Kenneth W. Kern was employed by Roanoke County on December 15, 1973, as a Dispatcher; and after serving as Deputy Sheriff, was promoted to Detective in the Criminal Investigations Division; and later promoted to Sergeant and Lieutenant; and WHEREAS, Lt. Kern's most recent assignment was supervising the animal control, traffic and school resource programs; and WHEREAS, Lt. Kern was one of the original members of the Police Department which was established 1990; and WHEREAS, Lt. Kern retired from Roanoke County on November 1, 2003, after twenty-nine years and ten months of service; and WHEREAS, Officer Kern has served with professionalism and integrity, and through his employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to KENNETH W. KERN for more than twenty-nine years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and 1 ,.. ~--~ i -- . FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, and productive retirement. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003. RESOLUTION 121603-10 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM SIX-YEAR CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2010 AND APPROVAL OF THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2004-2005 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 16, 2003, to receive comments for the adoption of the Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal Years 2004-2010; and the adoption of the funding for Fiscal Years 2004-2005; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors does hereby approve the adoption of the Secondary Road System Six-year Construction Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal Years 2004-2010 and allocation for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 as set out in the attached Secondary System Construction program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested to be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency Office along with a duly attested copy of the proposed Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal Years 2004-2010 by the Clerk to the Board. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None cc: A COPY TESTE: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors File Virginia Department of Transportation Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development 1 ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER ~,..)' - ~ , C1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing and request to adopt the Secondary System Six-Year Construction Plan for fiscal years 2004 through 2010 and the allocation of funds for fiscal year 2004-05 SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Arnold Covey, Director Department of Community Development Elmer C. Hodge £~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 33.1-70.01 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, the Board of Supervisors is required to conduct a public hearing on the Secondary Road System Six- Year Construction Plan to receive public comments. This plan was developed jointly by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Roanoke County staff. The projects identified were a result of requests received by County citizens, VDOT, and the Board of Supervisors during the past year. The plan before the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors was presented at a work session on November 18, 2003. At the work session, County staff explained the funding for the next five years and the distribution of this year's allocation of approximately $3.07 million between the two funding categories (Countywide incidental construction items and numbered projects). This year two projects, Hardy Road and Montcap Trail, have been added to the numbered project list. No other changes were made. Staff is now requesting the Board of Supervisors to conduct the public hearing and approve one of the following alternatives and impacts. 1 J-~~Q ALTERNATIVES: Conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution approving the Six-Year Secondary Road Construction Plan for fiscal years 2004-2010 and allocation of funds for fiscal year 2004-2005. 2. Conduct the public hearing and defer approval of the Six-Year Secondary Road Construction Plan for fiscal years 2004-2010 until staff can review additional comments received at the public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1. 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM SIX-YEAR CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2010 AND APPROVAL OF THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2004-2005 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on to receive comments for the adoption of the Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal Years 2004-2010; and the adoption of the funding for Fiscal Years 2004-2005; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors does hereby approve the adoption of the Secondary Road System Six-year Construction Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal Years 2004-2010 and allocation for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 as set out in the attached Secondary System Construction program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested to be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency Office along with a duly attested copy of the proposed Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan for Roanoke County for Fiscal Years 2004-2010 by the Clerk to the Board. 1 i ACTION NO. A-121603-11 ITEM NO. S-1.b AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve projects for fiscal year 2004-2005 VDOT revenue sharing program. SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) annually provides localities the opportunity to receive state matching funds for the construction, maintenance, and improvement to primary and secondary roads in the state's highway system. The Commonwealth of Virginia provides $15,000,000 for the matching program and limits localities to $500,000 each. However, if fewer or more than 20 counties participate, the County's share of money will be reduced or increased proportionately. The fiscal year 2004-2005 revenue sharing program contains 85 projects totaling $1 million in construction improvements. Roanoke County and VDOT staff presented these projects with maps and justifications for inclusion in the fiscal year 2004-2005 revenue sharing program at the November 18, 2003 Board of Supervisors work session Receiving no requests to modify or change the priority list, staff is requesting that the Board approve the priority list for the fiscal year 2004-2005 Revenue Sharing Program. FISCAL IMPACT: The funding is normally shown in the Department of Community Development operating budget for fiscal year 2004-2005. 1 [r ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the project list and authorize the County Administrator to sign the letter of intent and defer appropriation of the funds ($500,000) until July 1, 2004. 2. Decline to participate in the revenue sharing program for fiscal year 2004-2005. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1. VOTE: Supervisor McNamara motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ^ ^ Mr. Church ® ^ ^ Mr. Minnix ® ^ ^ Mr. Altizer ® ^ ^ Mr. McNamara ® ^ ^ cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer Rebecca Owens, Director, Finance 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. S - ~ .,b AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Request to approve projects for fiscal year 2004-2005 VDOT revenue sharing program. SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) annually provides localities the opportunity to receive state matching funds for the construction, maintenance, and improvement to primary and secondary roads in the state's highway system. The Commonwealth of Virginia provides $15,000,000 for the matching program and limits localities to $500,000 each. However, if fewer or more than 20 counties participate, the County's share of money will be reduced or increased proportionately. The fiscal year 2004-2005 revenue sharing program contains 85 projects totaling $1 million in construction improvements. Roanoke County and VDOT staff presented these projects with maps and justifications for inclusion in the fiscal year 2004-2005 revenue sharing program at the November 18, 2003 Board of Supervisors work session Receiving no requests to modify or change the priority list, staff is requesting that the Board approve the priority list for the fiscal year 2004-2005 Revenue Sharing Program. FISCAL IMPACT: The funding is normally shown in the Department of Community Development operating budget for fiscal year 2004-2005. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the project list and authorize the County Administrator to sign the letter of intent and defer appropriation of the funds ($500,000) until July 1, 2004. 2. Decline to participate in the revenue sharing program for fiscal year 2004-2005. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1. ~` ACTION NO. ITEM NO. cJ " AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Administrative appeal by Galax Treatment Center, d/b/a LCG-Roanoke, from the Zoning Administrator's decision to refuse to certify zoning compliance for the operation of a methadone clinic to be located at 3390 Colonial Avenue SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A person aggrieved by a decision of the Zoning Administrator interpreting or applying a proffered condition which is part of a conditional rezoning may petition the Board of Supervisors for a review of this decision. The Galax Treatment Center, d/b/a LCG- Roanoke, has appealed a decision of the Roanoke County Zoning Administrator to the Board of Supervisors. On September 30, 2003, David Holladay, Roanoke County Zoning Administrator, advised the attorney for LCG-Roanoke that the operation of a methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue is not consistent with a condition proffered at a March 28, 1989 rezoning, which limited the use of this property to "medical offices for the practice of family medicine." Mr. Holladay determined that the operation of a methadone clinic is not the "practice of family medicine," and that it would violate this proffered condition. This appeal to the Board does not address LCG-Roanoke's other issues: (i) the appeal to the Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals (which is scheduled for December 17, 2003) of the Zoning Administrator's decision concerning the definition of "medical office" in Sec. 30-30-29-4 of the zoning ordinance and that this definition does not include a methadone clinic, (ii) the appeal to the Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals of the Zoning Administrator's decision that a text amendment under Sec. 30-29(B) is required to authorize such a use, or (iii) the claim of "vested rights" under Sec. 15.2-2307 of the . . ~R ., Code of Virginia (which is currently a pending action in the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke). To assist the Board in rendering its decision on this appeal, you will find the attached documents and exhibits: 1. Counsel for LCG-Roanoke's appeal to the Board of Supervisors including the Zoning Administrator's September 30, 2003 opinion 2. County Attorney's response to appeal 3. Code sections: Sec. 30-15 of zoning ordinance, and Sec. 15.2-2301 of the Code of Virginia 4. Ordinance adopted on March 28, 1989 with proffered conditions 5. April 25, 1997 rezoning application, legal notice, and May 27, 1997 staff report to the Planning Commission 6. Ordinance No. 062497-11 7. Minutes from the June 24, 1997 meeting of the Board of Supervisors ALTERNATIVES: After hearing the evidence and testimony of LCG-Roanoke and the Zoning Administrator the Board may either: 1. uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator, that the proffered condition limits the use of the property at 3390 Colonial Avenue to the practice of family medicine, that the operation of a methadone clinic is not the "practice of family medicine", and that the operation of a methadone clinic would violate this condition; or 2. grant the appeal of LCG-Roanoke, that the 1997 proffer is plain, clear and unambiguous (it provides that "the rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of medicine"), that the proffered condition does not limit the use of the property to the family practice of medicine, and that the 1989 proffer is no longer applicable to this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board conduct this hearing on the appeal by LCG-Roanoke, and render its decision based upon the facts, evidence, documents and testimony of the parties. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. _T- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance to vacate a 20' waterline easement dedicated by subdivision plat and revised subdivision plat of the Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, Lots 26-33, recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 171, and Plat Book 26, Page 11, respectively, and further shown on the subdivision plat of the Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, Lots 107-113, recorded in Plat Book 26, Page 83, across property owned by CBI Developers (Tax Map Nos. 27.20-1- 29.1, 27.20-4-18 and 27.20-4-19), Hollins Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge ~`'~~ County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The petitioner, CBI Developers, LLC, is the current owner of property and requests that an unused 20 ft. water line easement be vacated. The existing water line easement was originally dedicated to the public by subdivision plat, recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 171, and revised in Plat Book 26, Page 11. CBI Developers, LLC, revised their subdivision development plans for The Village at Tinker Creek, Section 1, relocating the 20 ft. water line easement to another location to allow a different configuration of lots as shown on the approved development plans. To be able to build houses on Lots 118 and 119, it is necessary to vacate the 20 ft. water line easement encumbering these lots. The easement being vacated is shown on the attached plat. The Department of Community Development and the Utility Department have both reviewed the submitted plans and approved them for construction. Both departments have no objection to the vacation of this easement. -~_. FISCAL IMPACT: CBI Developers, LLC, will be responsible for all costs associated with the vacation of this 20 ft. water line easement. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance to vacate the water line easement as shown on the attached plat. 2. Decline approval of the vacation of the water line easement as shown on the attached plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. -~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 ORDINANCE TO VACATE A 20' WATERLINE EASEMENT DEDICATED BY SUBDIVISION PLAT AND REVISED SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 26-33, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 25, PAGE 171, AND PLAT BOOK 26, PAGE 11, RESPECTIVELY, AND FURTHER SHOWN ON THE SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 107- 113, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 26, PAGE 83, ACROSS PROPERTY OWNED BY CBI DEVELOPERS (TAX MAP NOS. 27.20-1-29.1, 27.20-4- 18 AND 27.20-4-19) LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 25, page 171, and revised subdivision plat of record in Plat Book 26, page 11, for "THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 26- 33", dated July 23, 2002, and revised September 3, 2002, the developer, CBI Developers, LLC, dedicated and created a "NEW 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT", shown on Sheet 2 of said plat; and, WHEREAS, by subdivision plat for "THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 107-113", dated February 24, 2003, and of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 26, page 83, said waterline easement was relocated by dedication of a `New 30' Public Water & Sanitary Sewer Easement'; and, WHEREAS, the existing 20' waterline easement is unused and no longer required; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner-Developer, CBI Developers, LLC, has requested that the subject 20' waterline easement, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, be vacated pursuant to §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County, will not interfere with the provision of public services, and has been approved by the affected County departments; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); the public hearing and first reading of this ordinance was k _~ held on December 16, 2003, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on January 13, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the "EX. 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT P.B. 26 PG. 11" shown cross-hatched on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement having been dedicated and created as "NEW 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT" by subdivision plat and revised subdivision plat of "THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 26- 33", dated July 23, 2002, and revised September 3, 2002, and recorded as aforesaid in Plat Book 25, page 171, and Plat Book 26, page 11, respectively, and being further shown on the subdivision plat for "THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 107- 113", dated February 24, 2003, and of record in Plat Book 26, page 83, located in the Hollins Magisterial District, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 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, CBI Developers, LLC. 3. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with § 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 2 ~ _ ', - i \LEX. 11' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT P.B. 26 PG. 11 I ,r FUTURE LOTS EXISTING 15' PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT _ -- P.B. 26 PG. 83 ~~ "- _-- _ EXISTING PUBLIC WATER & SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT P.B. 26 PG 83 LOT 117 LOT 118 ~3.-, __--- ---~ ~ Z~> I I O M v /~ EXISTING ~ ~ I 3 ~ \ 30' PUBLIC I (~ WATER & SANITAR~ ~ J~ SEWER EASEMEN \.B. 26 PG 83 ~ ~ ~ O . z ~ ~ ~~ ~. EX 20 PUBLIC ~ ~ ~ ~ z a, 0 . ~ WATERLINE EASEMENT P B 26 PG 11 ~ ( I Q ~ . . . F. ~ ~ ~~ I ___-- - ~ --~ --~-- ._ - _ I EXISTING ~ - I PUBLIC WATER & SANITA Y SEWER o~ I P. EASEMEN B. 26 PGA 83 ~_` I I ~\\II ->~1 LOT 119 LOT 1 I 20 I I 3 ^~ ~ Nk ~~0 ~ (TIE ONLY) I = I I / --N 14'37'22" W 103.89' (TOTAL) ~ ' ~ SOUTH BATTERY DRIVE 32' R/W (PRIVATE) I I ~--e - - ~- ~~ i I ~~ ~ EXISTING 15' PRIVATE ~/ / ~ EX S.S.E. STORM DRAI~J EASEMENT P.B. 26 PG. 3 P B 26 PG 83 ' LOT 104 I LOT 103 ~ LOT 102 ') ~ LOT 101 I EX 11' P.U.E. FUTURE LEGEND: P.B. 26 PG. 83 --~-i~ LOTS ~ IRON PIN SET S.S.E. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT P.U.E. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 1~IBIT A ~~Z,TH OF Df ~G'r ~' ro ~~~o j x v DA A. PggE~~RFAT/E/~R ~ No. t /lf / `~ MATTERN & CRAIG, INC. 701 FIRST STREET ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24016 TELEPHONE (540)345-9342 HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF ROANOKE VIRGINIA VACATION PLAT FOR THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK SHOWING VAC~ATXMi OF EXISTING 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT (P.B. 28, PG. 11) SITU1ITE ON PLANTATION ROAD BEING THE PROPERTY OF CBI DEVELOPERS, LLC SCALE: 1" = 40~ DATE: 10/31/03 PLAN N0. APPROVED: NOTARY AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 ORDINANCE 121603-12 DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CELLCO PARTNERSHIP (VERIZON WIRELESS) TO CONSTRUCT A 127-FOOT BROADCASTING TOWER ON 3.059 ACRES TO BE LOCATED IN THE 6700 BLOCK OF THIRLANE ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 37.10-1 -4) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Cellco Partnership (Verizon Wireless) has filed a petition for a special use permit to construct a 127-foot broadcasting tower on 3.059 acres to be located in the 6700 block of Thirlane Road (Tax Map No. 37.10-1-4) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 2, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on November 18, 2003; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on December 16, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: On motion of Supervisor Church to deny the request for a special use permit, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A COPY TESTE ~~~ ~-- Brenda J. olton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development 1 Janet Scheid, Chief Planner William Driver, Director, Real Estate Valuation Paul Mahoney, County Attorney -` PETITIONER: Cellco Partnership CASE NUMBER: 27-12/2003 Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 2, 2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: December 16, 2003 A. REQUEST The petition of Cellco Partnership (Verizon Wireless) to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a 127 foot broadcasting tower on 3.059 acres located in the 6700 block of Thirlane Road, Catawba, Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Several citizens spoke about additional traffic and speeding on Thirlane Road. There were citizen comments concerning the visibility of the tower as well as decreased property values. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. John Murphy presented the staff report. Jack Ellinwood, Richard Sayers, Esquire, presented the proposal for Cellco Partnership. The tower is proposed in conjunction with a switching station. Mr. Thomason asked about the location and necessary height of the tower. Ms. Hooker inquired about the lighting alternatives and any future expansion needs for the tower. Mr. Witt asked about any noise generated from aback-up generator. D. CONDITIONS 1. The site and location of the broadcast tower shall be in substantial conformity with the concept plan prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc. dated October 22, 2003. 2. The maximum height of the broadcast tower shall be 127 feet. 3. The broadcast tower shall only be constructed in conjunction with the proposed 17,000 square foot switching station. 4. The broadcasting tower shall be monopole in design. 5. The lighting shall be in accordance with the October 8, 2003, FAA approval, pertaining to Obstruction Markings and Lighting Regulations. 6. Any and all fixed antennas and microwave dishes shall be light gray in color to match the tower. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Ms. Martha Hooker made a motion to approve the request, reading from a finding of facts, for a favorable recommendation with the conditions. Motion carried 5-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission STAFF REPORT Petitioner: Cellco Partnership (Verizon Wireless) Request: This is a petition for a Special Use Permit for the construction of a 127-foot, monopole broadcast tower, to be used in conjunction with a small metropolitan switching center, on a C-2 zoned parcel. Location: 6700 Block of Thirlane Road Magisterial District: Catawba ProfferedlSuggested 1. The site and location of the broadcast tower shall be in substantial conformity Conditions: with the concept plan prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc. dated October 22, 2003. 2. The maximum height of the broadcast tower shall be 127 feet. 3. The broadcast tower shall only be constructed in conjunction with the proposed 17,000 square foot switching station. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a request for a Special Use Permit fora 127-foot monopole broadcast tower used in conjunction with a metropolitan switching station in the 6700 block of Thirlane Road on a C-2 zoned parcel. The site is designated as Core in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The proposed broadcast tower generally conforms to the Community Plan. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Broadcast Towers are permitted in the C-2, General Commercial District with a Special Use Permit. Site plan review shall be required. VDOT entrance approval shall be required. Review for compliance with the Emergency Communication Overlay District (ECO) at time of site plan review. Subject to FCC licensing requirements and FAA approval. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background -The applicant is currently leasing space in the Valleypointe Park for a broadcast tower. The expansion of service for wireless service cannot be achieved at the current location in Valleypointe. The application indicates that three alternative sites have been considered prior to selecting the subject site. One site noted in the application was at the existing location in Valleypointe. This site was rejected due to the airport's flight path and private restrictions within the park. A second site was in the 7300 block of Williamson Road. This site was rejected due to tower height restrictions and the site was outside of the service area that would possibly require and additional site near Interstate 581. The third site was on Woodhaven Road but was not feasible due to tower height restrictions. The proposed broadcast tower special use permit request is unlike other broadcast tower requests that have been evaluated in the past. This broadcast tower request is linked to a 17,000 square foot, manned, metropolitan switching station facility. The proposed facility will employ six (6) network employees. The typical broadcast tower request has been a remote site for an unmanned, single-use provider that has available leasable tower space for outside service providers. Due to the applicant's emphasis on their site's security leasable space on the broadcast tower to outside service providers (outside of Cellco Partnership) is not planned for this broadcast tower. TopographyNegetation -The subject property is currently approximately 10 feet below Thirlane Road. There is generally a level building pad with a gradual slope to the rear of the site. The base elevation of the specific site of the broadcast tower is 1213 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). At this site the maximum tower height would be 1340 AMSL which is below the height of Green Ridge with an elevation of 1500 feet AMSL. The trees on the rear of the site range from approximately 30 to 50 feet in height. The site is not located within a FEMA designated floodplain. Surrounding Neighborhood -The site fronts on Thirlane Road approximately .33 miles from Peters Creek Road, The Thirlane corridor immediately intersecting with Peters Creek Road is zoned C-2 with several hotels/ motels, restaurants, office buildings as well as an industrial zoned lot for sheet metal work across Thirlane Road. The subject property is the last C-2 zoned parcel. The properties from the subject parcel to Woodhaven road are all zoned R-1. There are several structures on Thirlane Road, closer to Woodhaven Road, that have been inventoried by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Several of the structures were constructed in the early 1900s but have been modified, thus reducing their historic value. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout /Appearance -The site is proposed to be developed as a small metropolitan switching station for a wireless communication facility. The first phase includes a 17,000 square foot, one story, communication service facility with a 127-foot broadcast tower. The proposed facility is a manned operation that houses wireless telephone microwave and network equipment. The broadcast tower is constructed of non- reflective, galvanized steel. The microwave parabolic dishes are 4 feet and 6 feet in diameter. The FAA will require the broadcast tower to be lighted. Parking is shown in front of the building with the proposed broadcast tower to the south (rear) corner of the building away from the adjoining residential zoning district. Utilities for the proposed broadcast tower are to be provided underground. The rear of the site is shown as future expansion area. The proposed monopole broadcast tower is proposed to have several types of antenna including directional panels and parabolic dishes. The number of antenna and systems on the broadcast tower by Cellco Partnership's affiliate of companies is sufficient for collocation purposes. The general area is already served by over-head utilities. The site is not located within a Blue Ridge Parkway Viewshed area as shown in the Community Plan. Potential Site Limitations -The proposed location of the 127-foot broadcast tower and switching station has some future expansion issues that need to be considered. The FAA Aeronautical Study has evaluated the subject site and determined that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities with a maximum height of 127 feet and with the requirement of dual lighting (white/red). The applicant has rejected several other sites due to height restrictions. The subject site with a FAA imposed 127 foot maximum height leaves no room for tower height expansion if needed for future growth. Several of the other sites that have been rejected by the applicant were rejected because of height limitations with their close proximity to the Roanoke Regional Airport. Community Meeting - On November 19, 2003, a community meeting was held at the Hollins Library with representatives from Cellco Partnership to outline the details of the request to the neighbors. Several of the neighbors asked about possible interference from the network transmissions on their household and church's radio and television equipment. Some residents expressed strong concerns about additional traffic that would be generated as a result of the switching station portion of the facility. The neighbors had 2 concerns about vehicles speeding on Thirlane Road between Peters Creek Road and Wood Haven Road. Staff has contacted the Police Department to address speeding concerns. Access/Traffic Circulation -Access to the proposed facility will be from Thirlane Road. The application indicates that here will be six (6) employees staffing the facility in the first phase. The Roanoke County Traffic Engineer has evaluated the proposed use and determined that on average there should be no more than 3.5 additional trips during the morning peak hour and 3.5 trips during afternoon peak hour. No negative traffic impacts are anticipated. The posted speed limit on Thirlane Road is 25 mph. VDOT will require a commercial entrance and necessary permits for this site. Fire & RescuelUtilities -Fire and rescue service will continue as presently served. Public water and sewer are available to the site for the proposed building. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The subject parcel is designated as Core in the 1998 Roanoke County Community Plan. The Core designation encourages high intensity urban development. The Community Plan discourages broadcast towers on ridgelines. A 127-foot broadcast tower at the proposed location is below the peak of Green Ridge which is the closest ridge line. The proposed broadcast tower is a monopole design which is encouraged over alattice-type tower. This request is in a commercial district where there are currently over-head utilities in place. It is the intent of the County to fully comply with all of the applicable provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other federal and state laws and allow the communication industry the right and responsibility to provide communication services within their service areas. STAFF CONCLUSIONS The site is zoned C-2, General commercial with a Core future land use designation. The proposed broadcast tower is a monopole design with multiple antennas and is not on a ridgeline. The area is currently served by overhead utilities. Staff recognizes that with a 127 foot limitation imposed by the FAA on the proposed broadcast tower that there needs to be discussion between the Planning Commission and the applicant on future growth of the wireless network. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss with the applicant the height limitations of the proposed broadcast tower and how that may require any additional Cellco Partnership broadcast towers in this vicinity in the future. The request generally conforms to the broadcast tower guidelines and policies as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff does recommend that the applicant work with the FAA to see if there are some alternatives or options that may be explored related to the marking or lighting of the proposed broadcast tower. CASE NUMBER: # 27-1212003 PREPARED BY: J. Murphy HEARING DATES: PC: December 2, 2003 BOS: December 16, 2003 ~~~ MEMO T0: Martha Hooker Vice-Chair Roanoke County Planning Commission FROM: Jack Ellinwood CC: Marshall Pearsall -Verizon Wireless ENGINEERING Richard Sayers - MFGS CONCEPTS INC. John Murphy -Planner, Roanoke County DATE: November 21, 2003 FILE: 02119.01 COM RE: Thirlane Road -Broadcast Tower SUP Dear Martha: We appreciate your input and questions at the community meeting that was held at the Hollins Public Library Wednesday evening. Since our meeting, we have tried to gather solid comparative data that would help to mitigate your concerns about the tower lighting that has been mandated by the FAA. Verizon Wireless has provided some very helpful information that will help you to better understand the intensity of the strobes that will be mounted at the top of the tower - as follows: Definition of Candela -The candela is the foundation unit for the measurement of visible light. The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 x 1012 hertz and has a radiant intensity in that direction of 1/683 watt per steradian. The candela is abbreviated ~~cd" and its standard symbol is Iv. The candela is then used to define the lumen and other quantities used in the measurement of visible light. It is approximately equal to the old unit "candlepower" and is generally taken to be equivalent. The white strobe that will be installed on the Thirlane tower produces 20,000cd. The red strobe produces only 2,000cd. The following is comparative data relative to other recognizable, light emitting objects. Object Candela Light Emitting Diode (LED) 0.005 Candle 1 100 Watt Incandescent Bulb 150 Auto Headlamp (high beam) 100,000 Lighthouse 300,000 Flashtube (peak value) 1,000,000 P.O. Box 619, Fincastle, VA 24090 Phone 540-473-1253, Fax 540-473-1254 \Memo Martha Hooker - Candela.doc 1/1 ~~,""` ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CELLCO PARTNERSHIP (VERIZON WIRELESS) TO CONSTRUCT A 127-FOOT BROADCASTING TOWER ON 3.059 ACRES TO BE LOCATED IN THE 6700 BLOCK OF THIRLANE ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 37.10-1 -4) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Cellco Partnership (Verizon Wireless) has filed a petition for a special use permit to construct a 127-foot broadcasting tower on 3.059 acres to be located in the 6700 block of Thirlane Road (Tax Map No. 37.10-1-4) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 2, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on November 18, 2003; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on December 16, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Cellco Partnership (Verizon Wireless) to construct a 127-foot broadcasting tower on 3.059 acres to be located in the 6700 block of Thirlane Road in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: (1) The site and location of the broadcast tower shall be in substantial conformity with the concept plan prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc. dated 1 r October 22, 2003. (See Exhibit C in Petitioner's Special Use Permit Application prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc.) (2) The maximum height of the broadcast tower shall be 127 feet. (3) The broadcast tower shall only be constructed in conjunction with the proposed switching station. (4) The broadcasting tower shall be monopole in design. (5) The lighting shall be in accordance with the October 8, 2003, FAA approval, pertaining to Obstruction Markings and Lighting Regulations. (6) Any and all fixed antennas and microwave dishes shall be light gray in color to match the tower. 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. 2 r AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 ORDINANCE 121603-13 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO BERK, LLC TO CONSTRUCT A MINI-WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON 4.0 ACRES TO BE LOCATED IN THE 5300 BLOCK OF HOLLINS ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 39.05-2-1.1) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Berk, LLC has filed a petition for a special use permit to construct amini-warehouse facility on 4.0 acres to be located in the 5300 block of Hollins Road (Tax Map No. 39.05-2-1.1) in the Hollins Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 2, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on November 18, 2003; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on December 16, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Berk, LLC to construct amini-warehouse facility on 4.0 acres to be located in the 5300 block of Hollins Road in the Hollins Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following condition: (1) A buffer yard shall be established to the rear of the property, utilizing Type B, Option 2 from the Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards standards. 1 (2) No off-premise advertising signs shall be constructed on the property. (3) A minimum 15' wide riparian buffer shall be designed and installed along the edge of pavement from the access point to the southern property line. This buffer shall be between the storm water detention facility and the developed area and will help with storm water quality for this site. This buffer shall be a combination of groundcover, shrubs, and trees. (4) 100% of the storm water runoff from the developed site and impervious surfaces shall be detained in a storm water detention facility. If there is a portion of the site's storm water runoff that cannot be detained in a storm water detention facility, then the applicant shall request written permission from the Roanoke County Engineering staff to take alternative measures for detention. (5) The buildings shall be neutral in color. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None A OPY TESTE: Diane S. C ilders Clerk to the Board of Supervisors 2 cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Community Development Janet Scheid, Chief Planner William Driver, Director, Real Estate Valuation Paul Mahoney, County Attorney • • • wo~'poorWawvo a~uaplnoad :peW3 E6Zb-bEE (Ob5) ;xej b6Zb-bEE (Ob5) 590bZ eNis-0A 'll!W sauoo8 peoy ~{eN 6 LS NIAIIJYIA ~XDA(~OX X77 )18Sff ~° XO.~~[.LI'Tl~7d,~~SI10H,~>I6'M INIYIf ` lOI III S?l33Nl~fif3 ~N11711SN®J to ,snot r'7 7dn,Ld3~tVO~ N N N J W U a z a gg N Ih ~ J w x Z IWy7 ~ LL LL U F ~. ~ yy~~ ` ( p ~ K QQ N ow N O N N IL Z O ~ i m v o Y a ,~, NU ~ Q a n K Z J LLLL ooo~ m W 11 l ON l a g ~QjT ro ~i I/] W r ~Q D¢ 0.' U K W ~<Z~O Q~ W ~~ m ' lnW ~ III 0 Oy N' 0 O 6 U U U ..1 _I J O o O U N ~ . -e-~ Q~LLI~y N CW9 Q W 7~ O ~ V)~ O q m~ Q ~. W > > W 0. 4 u) ~ 11 e Z F ~ W N N o o ¢ Oho °rN g v W J O U' 2 W ~ NC7 ~ 0 c W ~N Q~.~.. 17 U L:1 Z Z Z O W ~ m O ~ tAW ~mN%%`~~n ~W x ~ O„ U ~[y N O U f D ~ II lU V) W W W ' fJj R W Z r U' W 7(A O~ O O N N y N y Z C9 U' C7 V' CQ7g O N W I""+ U a Q O m W U' W O . ~ W W O JO 'pF/~ Z U 0.'O mp O a~ O t~/(J ~V(1 W_~(( W W W N ~o J(J pQ NI = via0 x N ~ OZ I- ~ «5c~~1 ZaJO ~ ~m m ~ .,.-..... -..o ZR (9N ~ ~~ J {y Ii. WmIL O O W ~ x'yn uQIV~ ~ O O O lr ar r u ~ ~ I o Uw wo .~ o W~$ g~~~~~r m .- wz_S ALL. wW ¢ s Q " z z V` Y ()_rn ?O j~~ Q Q i Ocn W ~N to m a Ou i Z ~a i w J W cj IV U~ U C11U U W W tnW W W M 0] O OU J r I yI W 3 Z - aa (~ ~ U1 (~ (n (n II U Z Q F- F- r r r Z U ~ ~~ U~ O mJO ~C)~ ZU~.-Nr ~ - ~ ~ ~q U~Q F-W~WU rU ~U F Z z p~ ~ ~ x o~ a ao~ w ~3 . _ --_ _ ~ _. I,-' I._~-- U U h ~ ~: ~ m Y Z m~ °'o v ~ ~romC.co vl O [] V V V 7'.~~ ~ A~"+4. (~ W z Q D O O lV •- j I I ~` o O J Oi I I U N ~ O O O a w z o `j K W ; cn s ~ ~ ~ ~ w ° 3 w v w ~ O m 2 m m q m U O m Q a ~ Q U ~- LdJ Y aasunwl{ ~~ ___ r - - - ~ i -- - ---- I~ -- _ 1 _ _ _ I _____- __) _ N w _____ __~.~__-ry O o~ I ~ "-_ _. ._ O O = -_._.....__t~__ _. _ ~ T-. .. 1 " ..- -..-- .._.. _.._ O NO / Y O ^~ -___~ ~ O -_-______ t _-_ -- ~- i?rl ~__________-, _ i ~" ___ ________O _'~'~--^ ~~ - R - ~ J _---- -------- --- __ ~ 1,. sew-- __ "~ ~~ 40X10' UNlT$__ l ~ It~'r. I I tk7„~- ..11 I~ F I ~ - ~.~`~ ~__ `I I - _ __ I za ____-___ --a-. RY _- - - __ - l[7 y Z -_..___-____-_ - .. t --- - _ - 10 7 0 ~ ~ upP~a: -4a~X-re~ -aNIT~ - - ~ j ~~, ~, ~ __--_ _~°- N N LOWER: RV STORAGE ~ _ ~~.~ L_ t ------ ----- ------- ~ ~- ~; i ~ ,, 1- ~ ) _ ~ ' ` ~ - S ' I ~ 10 ~ - I „~, ~ j ~ I~ ~ / ~. ; -~" ~ S TORMWATER ~~vtANAGEMENi A ~ ~ _ I I I v~ k ~ . -' - ~ - I i R~ ------- .. _.. ~ ~ J .-__ . jll I .,~ o ! ` I ~. ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~I I CYO ~- - -j- - _ _; ~ . _ ~ i ~ i )~' II) X _ _ ~-- --- ~ ~_~~~ ~ ~-I I ~ ~ h~v 'v ~~ I aL ~ 'U \ 3NV7 N~V2l313030 ,OOZ - ~ ~-.- ~ X - f ~y r 5 ~ '- ~ ~ _, I i ------ 11 ar z z 1 - ~:;~ ',,: -- _ ~ T y ~ _® i __ _ __-- -e~--_- NOLLINS ROAD ~~~ PETITIONER: Berk, LLC CASE NUMBER: 28-12/2003 Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 2, 2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: December 16, 2003 A. REQUEST The petition of Berk, LLC to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a mini warehouse facility on 4.0 acres located in the 5300 Block of Hollins Road, Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizens spoke. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Chris Lowe presented the staff report. Mr. Goldsmith from Providence Engineering expressed concern that he may not be able to provide a 25' wide riparian buffer as was suggested in the staff report. Due to the expected amount of property VDOT would acquire, Mr. Goldsmith felt more comfortable with 15'. Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lowe if this would be sufficient and Mr. Lowe said that it would need to be a minimum of 15'. Mr. Goldsmith said that he could do that and that if he could he would try to get it as close to 25' as possible. Mr. Goldsmith also asked if it was possible to change condition 1 from Type B, Option 1 to Type B, Option 2. It would require more vegetation but a 10' shorter buffer yard (20' instead of 30'). Mr. Lowe agreed that that would be a sufficient alternative. Mr. Goldsmith said he and his client felt that the conditions were reasonable, fair, and made sense and that he could design his site with those conditions in place. No other discussion took place. D. CONDITIONS 1. A buffer yard shall be established to the rear of the property, utilizing Type B, Option 2 from the Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards standards. 2. No off-premise advertising signs shall be constructed on the property. 3. A minimum 15' wide riparian buffer shall be designed and installed along the edge of pavement from the access point to the southern property line. This buffer shall be between the stormwater detention facility and the developed area and will help with stormwater quality for this site. This buffer shall be a combination of groundcover, shrubs, and trees. 4. 100% of the developed site and impervious development shall be detained in a stormwater detention facility. If for some reason because of site constraints, there is a portion of the site that cannot be detained in a facility, then the applicant shall to send a letter explaining the constraints of the property and receive permission from the Roanoke County Engineering Staff to take alternative measures for detention. 5. The buildings shall be neutral in color. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Todd Ross made a motion to approve the request with the conditions. Motion carried 5-0. F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other ,„,,. `,. ,` Janet Scheid, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission STAFF REPORT Petitioner: Request: Location: Berk LLC Special Use Permit for Mini-Warehouse Use 5300 Block Hollins Avenue J ~, .~° Magisterial District: Staff Suggestions: Hollins The staff suggest the following conditions: 1. A buffer yard shall be established to the rear of the property, utilizing Type B, Option 1 from the Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards standards. 2. No off-premise advertising signs shall be constructed on the property. 3. A 25' wide riparian buffer shall be designed and installed along the edge of pavement from the access point to the southern property line. This buffer shall be between the stormwater detention facility and the developed area and will help with stormwater quality for this site. This buffer shall be a combination of groundcover, shrubs, and trees. 4. 100% of the developed site and impervious development shall be detained in a stormwater detention facility. If for some reason because of site constraints, there is a portion of the site that cannot be detained in a facility, then the applicant shall to send a letter explaining the constraints of the property and receive permission from the Roanoke County Engineering Staff to take alternative measures for detention. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a Special Use Permit to allow mini-warehouse use. Currently the plans for the site are amini- warehouse project, which would occupy the 3.28 acres of the 4.0 acre site. There is also an office/apartment shown on the plans. The apartment is allowed only as a residence for a resident manager of the mini-warehouse facility. The site is zoned I-2, Industrial, and is designated Principal Industrial in the Roanoke County 1998 Community Plan. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Site Plan Review required. VDOT approval required. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background -Currently the property is vacant. The petitioner owns the property Topograph~/Ve etg ation -The property slopes slightly from front to back. The property is not heavily vegetated and has railroad tracks to the rear, which provide a berm which also acts as a buffer to the rear residential properties. To the front of the property parallel to Hollins Road, there is a creek bed. ~,, `~ Surrounding_Neighborhood -The property to the north and south which is adjacent to this property is also zoned I-2. To the west which is across Hollins Road is zoned C-2, and the property to the east which is to the rear, is residential. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Background -The petitioner would like to develop this property for amini-warehouse development on 3.28 acres of the 4 acre property. Site Layout/Architecture -Conceptually the applicant shows 52,850 square feet of mini warehouses broken into 4 different groupings. Three of these buildings run parallel with Hollins Road and one runs perpendicular. This plan utilizes two 3.28 acres of the 4.0 acres. An access point is shown at the northern portion of the property along Hollins Road. A storm water detention facility is shown along the front of the property between the mini-warehouses and Hollins Road. The plan also shows a 2500 square foot office/apartment. Access/Traffic Circulation -If a new commercial entrance is permitted, a right turn lane may be required for the site and a left turn lane could also be a possibility. VDOT is in the process of acquiring additional right of way for Hollins road improvements. The applicant's conceptual plan appears to show proposed widening but it has not been verified by VDOT as of yet. Fire & Rescue/iJtilities -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 Development has no objections to this petition but is concerned about the continuing development of low employment intensive uses along this corridor. The planned widening of Hollins Road will be a major capital investment only to promote low employment land uses such as mini warehouses and container depots. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN The site is designated as Principal Industrial in the 1998 Community Plan. Principal Industrial objectives promote environmental design practices in their development and become assets to surrounding neighborhoods. A key consideration is the impact of the development to surrounding neighborhoods. Guidelines suggest that when industrial development is adjacent to residential areas, the applicant shall apply exceptional design measures to achieve compatibility. Proper screening and buffers, taking advantage of slopes, and protecting natural features and resources will lessen the impact to residential neighbors. This rezoning for a special use permit for mini-warehouses would conform to the current Roanoke County 1998 Community Plan. 2 /~~..,....C 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS This is a request for a Special Use Permit to allow mini-warehouse use. The site is designated Principal Industrial in the Roanoke County 1998 Community Plan and does conform to these standards. CASE NUMBER: 28-12/2003 PREPARED BY: Chris Lowe HEARING PC: December 2, 2003 BOS: December 16, 2003 DATES: bounty 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 i7se ®n9y Date received: Received by: C~ Application fee: PCBZA date: Placards issued: BOS date: ~. r Case Number ~ -- ~ ~;, ~, ~t mil' ~ ALL APPLICA.'VTS Check type of applicat' filed (check all that apply) ^ Rezoning Special Use ^ Variance ^ Waiver ^ Administrative Appeal Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: 800-782-9731 Berk, LLC Work: PO Box 400 Cell #: Cloverdale, VA 24077 Fax No.: 540-992-3007 Owner's name/address w/zin Phone #: Berk, LLC Work: PO Box 400 Fax No. #: Cloverdale, VA 24077 Property Location Magisterial District: Hollins 5300 Block -Hollins Rd Community Planning area: Tax Map No.: 39.05-02-01.01 Existing Zoning: I2 ze of parcel(s): Acres: 4.0 Existing Land Use: Vacant REZONLVG,SPECIAL USEPER'11ITf1ND Wr1IVER.~PPLICff_NTS (R/S/W) Proposed Zoning: I2 with SUP Proposed Land Use: Mini-warehouse Does the cel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? ~ No ^ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS Yes 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 ^ ~~ VARI~IIVCE, WAITER A1VD ADMIIVISTRA~TIVE APPF~iL APPL ICfiNTS (U/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): ' ~ ~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 1 i'" concept plan Application fee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners .hereby certify that I am either the owner of the r rty or the owner's t con act purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. ,- . ~ '~ {i~ ' Owner's Signature 2 JUSTIFICATION F®R REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR WAIVER RE(~UEST 1 Id "~ Applicant Berk LLC }.._.. ,~,, 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. As stated in the Roanoke County Ordinance (Section 30-62-1), the purpose ofthe I-2 zone is to provide locations within urbanized areas suitable for more intensive industrial uses. The proposed usage of the parcel is for mini warehouse storage. This facility will serve urban areas and, therefore, needs a convenient location. The site's access to Hollins Road as well as the surrounding neighborhoods, facilitates the transportation and storage activities that the site will produce. Due to the location of the site, the proposed use(s) will not add significantly to traffic congestion or large vehicles in more densely developed areas. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community ..Plan. The proposed project will provide rental storage space, thereby providing many of the residents of the- County with a more convenient location to store excess materials or valuables. It also provides County with more tax income: without imposing. a significant burden on County infrastructure. 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 owner's goal is to develop the 3:28 acre site into a mini storage facility. The development will increase the existing property value. The proposed entrance to the development will be designed to accommodate the impending widening ofHollins Road. The development will slightly increase traffic on Hollins Road, adding a maximum of 129 average daily trips on Saturdays (peak daily generator). Public sewer and water impacts will be nominal; the estimated water demand is 400 gpd. Public water and sanitary sewer lines are .accessible from the property. The effect on power supply in the area will also be nominal. The proposed development will have minimal effect on schools and fire and rescue services. Erosion and Sediment Control measures will be provided to mitigate impacts on downstream properties. The existing drainage channel and depression on the property will be an ideal location for stormwater management. The proposed use for this site does not produce significant noise or air pollution as is the potential for other industrial sites. 3 r~,~. CONCEPT PLAN CFIECKLIST t1 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: AL~PPLICANTS y a. Applicant name and name of development ~J 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 V e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties L.~ g. All property Lines and easements i.~ h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights i/ i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development C.~ j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECL4L USE PERMIT APPLICANTS /k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site f//1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers ~//m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals V` n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections V 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 I c that all items re uired ' e c ecklist above are complete. _ / ~ j ~ /~ - i' Signature of applicant Date 7 ~r~~..+- +... AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO BERK, LLC TO CONSTRUCT AMINI-WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON 4.0 ACRES TO BE LOCATED IN THE 5300 BLOCK OF HOLLINS ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 39.05-2-1.1) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Berk, LLC has filed a petition for a special use permit to construct amini-warehouse facility on 4.0 acres to be located in the 5300 block of Hollins Road (Tax Map No. 39.05-2-1.1) in the Hollins Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 2, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on November 18, 2003; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on December 16, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Berk, LLC to construct amini-warehouse facility on 4.0 acres to be located in the 5300 block of Hollins Road in the Hollins Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following condition: (1) A buffer yard shall be established to the rear of the property, utilizing Type B, Option 2 from the Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards standards. 1 ~' .._... e~, (2) No off-premise advertising signs shall be constructed on the property. (3) A minimum 15' wide riparian buffer shall be designed and installed along the edge of pavement from the access point to the southern property line. This buffer shall be between the storm water detention facility and the developed area and will help with storm water quality for this site. This buffer shall be a combination of groundcover, shrubs, and trees. (4) 100°/0 of the storm water runoff from the developed site and impervious surfaces shall be detained in a storm water detention facility. If there is a portion of the site's storm water runoff that cannot be detained in a storm water detention facility, then the applicant shall request written permission from the Roanoke County Engineering staff to take alternative measures for detention. (5) The buildings shall be neutral in color. 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. 2 ROA1V'OKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~~. • F -~' Applicants Name: Berk, LLC Zaning: Rezoning From I2 TO Special Use Tax Map No. 39.05-2-1.1 ~~.,, . ~ d1Nr~N1A ;~?~OAIV0~1 ° ~ ~° worpoontlaw~n7a~uaplno,ld :pew3 ~~ ~ v f6Zb-b£E (Ob5) :xej b6Zb-bf£ (Ob5) _ ~'~ ~~,~g ~ ° ~ O ~~~ m 590bZ el~l6-0A'IIIW Sauoog peoy ))eN 6L8 = Z uor,~.cr~r,~d~,~snorr,~~eM ~wW ~ m a v S?133N1~N3 ~lVI17l]SNOJ m .. ~ z t a ,Ln0~IV771~n,Ld9~A~0~ = m Y E 'w /lVlt7~~lYlJ/Y~.3~/V~V~llOil~- v ro m~ t o ~n0^ VVV ~l ~ O 0 0 I O 0 O 1 J N O J I 0 rn mo ~°z w zx 3 U rQ- !- N W ~ p o _ J < W a M M a (n J W Gg V ~ t O ~LL d' N ~ $w ~ ~ N I U F.. = O [n N O w N N I W ~ 'j ( I I Q a N ~ Q Z QQ Z VJ 22 W ° ~ NU v!L y0 N tt]00, ~ V LL Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q No oy N d W °°`t NNn ~'.x 3 QN ~ ~ W {NjJ U U U ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ W ~ O~$ ~~ ~I ~v j m FW (7 9 XI~ K ~ ij eF- p0 U W (~ N ~ Q ~` _ LL Ii LL N LL ` { y ~ ZW OY0 0 (/lNL tl~ $ ~ Q11 ~ W m W LL d N g ~ ~ ~ MJ ZZZ = ~ W [7 mul ~o~ ~ ~ ~ C¢g~ W a U W ~ NpU' W w W N_ ~ ~ U' U' C7 u~ - J W~ O ~_ % p ~j Q¢ W y XJ Q O I O~ 1- f F- w Y ~ Y "'O ww WwfA ~ gOW7~ ~>" O `~ C7 (7N(7U 99~99 ~ ~ ~+ a < U ~U 9LL ~ ~ ~~ ac mg `°° W ~ W O m Z m >U' N ~ NLLQ WO= f 0 8 ^ O^? (~()a~ a Z C CIm mm ~^...^.~~~^.^ lp- F _Z U' ^LE s (~ - tD ~i O mLL ^O F ~ o x W 3~ Z~ ¢ W ~ LLa LL E OR'O O F- WI- t!)F 2z ~ Q m c9w w N ~ ~ a cnmW ~ g z ¢ ~m ¢ O V i ~] U CilU ZQ 9v 0 Q~Q luw3 Z ~ ~ O z (~~ ( NN(3UU ~?~a.aa ~NN U. ~ ~ Q II oo U LL ~ ,I N Q I' s~ W w yw UZ - ~ a ~o U m m ~~ Uy LL I-Q O FQ r ~U r-U V Z ~ z ~ 3 ~ w ~ a o~ ~ 0 Q U W Y ' ' Utl SNIl70H --- X ,~ - - - - _ - ------------ - -- ___. --------'------~Q- r - _. -~ ~ ------- ,-- .~ .. _ _ _~-'~v ---' .._ ~._.._ cn~ - - _ -- - ~ ~ O __-~ 2 -_ Q ,_ _.__t..- 1 -^--- -.. _.. _.-- .. ~ ~.. .. -t-' _ _-___ ~.o----- -,-r~ o -------_ _ / o ~o o ~ 40'-3(49'--hINITS------------- ' .. -___ -- I - - ~l ___ _ __ L -~ ~ a ,; _ 1 w ~ y, u~ __~. ~I._.. -- 01 h ~ I Oa --______.._.____ ;_ _ ~ '- 40 X 10 UNIT$ ~ I 1 - - - -- --..AA„ ---- 1 -- - T7~~~ --~ --8 {~W t„ -- i ~,.. ~ rt i--" " [ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, _ _-- _ __-_-- f-- ©w ~ J ~ _ ____ __0. n _m I _ Aso-¢ ~ r . ~~ -- m ~ °o UPP-€R: -4D'Xtb' -UNITS" --------L- ~ ~~ 1 - ~ - ' 1070 o"w LOWER: RV STORAGE - - - -~ ~ ~ I U - -~ - ~ N N _ ___ --- ---- -- r 3 x P~ i u=_ .. , _ t - ----- ~ ~ ~,~. _ ~ _ ~ . ~ . ;~.=a-- ,.~~ i - - - I~ ~ -- - ~- -- - -~ - , ~~ - I I I 4'R / _.._..__ STORMWATE - ~~e _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _,,-- ~ i / 1 ddANAGEMENT AREA F, f- f. -- - - ..- . - ~X ^a I "' 3NV1 N~313030 ,OOZ --}~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~ _ I ~ I ~ ; NOLLINS ROAD ACTION NO. .ITEM NO._ y - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Second reading of an ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by the amendment of Section 2-7. "Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred for Emergency Response" SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: I!n March 2002, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County adopted Ordinance 031202-6 amending the Roanoke County Code by the adoption of a new Section 2-7. "Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred for Emergency Response to Accidents or Incidents Caused by Driving While Impaired." This ordinance is authorized by Section 15.2-1716 of 1:he Code of Virginia. To be liable for emergency expenses in responding to any accident or incident, the person must first be convicted of one of the specified offenses. "fhe 2003 Session of the Virginia General Assembly expanded Section 15.2-1716 of the Code of Virginia to authorize any locality in the Commonwealth to adopt a local ordinance to recover in a separate civil action the reasonable expenses incurred in providing appropriate emergency response to include the following: 11. Reckless driving when such reckless driving is the cause of the accident or incident 2. Driving without a license or driving with a suspended or revoked license 3. Improperly leaving the scene of an accident l"his provision of the State Code limits the reasonable expense to an amount not to exceed $1,000 in the aggregate for a particular accident or incident. The County may bill a flat fee of $100 or aminute-by-minute accounting of the actual costs incurred. To minimize administrative expense the County has billed the flat fee of $100. V~ The attached draft ordinance implements the provisions of this enabling legislation. The first reading of this ordinance was held on October 14, 2003. The second reading was scheduled for October 28, 2003, and postponed to December 16, 2003. This ordinance may be revised by the Board upon further review during the work session scheduled for earlier in this meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: Since this ordinance was adopted, the County has attempted to collect the $100 fee from 30 persons convicted of a DUI. We have recovered $1,860 (62%) in DUI fees and $176 (32%) of the $544 spent in court fees. These figures do not include collection costs, such as staff time for collecting the data on actual costs incurred and for court appearances. The County filed 16 civil actions in General District Court to collect the emergency response expenses, using the $100 flat fee amount. The number of additional cases and the amount of additional expenses recovered as a result of this amendment is unknown as this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the attached ordinance. 2 x ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2-7. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County adopted Ordinance No. 031202-6 amending the Roanoke County Code by the adoption of a new Section 2.7 "Reimbursement of expenses incurred for emergency response to accidents or incidents caused by driving while impaired" providing the County with an opportunity to recover its reasonable expenses in providing an appropriate emergency response to such accidents or incidents. This ordinance was authorized by Section 15.2-1716 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the 2003 session of the Virginia General expanded Section 15.2-1716 of the Code of Virginia to also include reckless driving, driving without a license, and leaving the scene of an accident; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, herebyfinds that the amendment of Section 2.7 to include these violations of State Code is in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 14, 2003; and the second reading was postponed from October 28, 2003, to December 16, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 2-7. Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred for Emergency Response to Accidents or Incidents Caused by Driving While Impaired be amended to read and provide as follows: 1 '~' Chapter 2. Administration Article I. In General **** Section 2-7. Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred for Emergency Response to Accidents or Incidents Caused by Driving While Impaired, Reckless Driving, Driving Without a License, and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. (a) Any person who is convicted of violation of Section 12-8 of this Code, or of Sections 18.2-51.4, 18.2-266, or Section 29.1-738 of the Code of Virginia, when his operation of a motor vehicle, engine, train or water craft is the proximate cause of any accident or incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response; or of Section 46.2-852 reelatinq to reckless driving, when such reckless driving is the proximate cause of the accident or incident; or of Section 46.2-300 relating to driving with out a license or driving with a suspended or revoked license; or of Section 46.2-894 relating to improperly leaving the scene of an accident, shall be liable in a separate civil action to the county, for the reasonable expense thereof, in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) in the aggregate for a particular accident or incident. In determining the "reasonable expense," the County may bill a flat fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00) or aminute-by-minute accounting of the actual costs incurred. (b) As used in this section, "appropriate emergency response" includes all costs of providing law-enforcement, firefighting, rescue, and emergency medical services. (c) The provisions of this section shall not preempt or limit any remedy available to the commonwealth, the County, or any fire/rescue squad to recover the reasonable expenses of an emergency response to an accident or incident not involving a violation of any of the above mentioned State Code sections as set forth herein. 2 UI 2. Any expenses recovered shall be deposited into the General Fund and appropriated annually to the Police Department and the Fire & Rescue Department operating budgets based upon an estimate of the proportional expenses incurred in responding to such accidents or incidents. 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. 3 ACTION N0. A-121603-14 ITEM NO. W-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to execute settlement agreement with General Electric and others with regard to pending litigation, Roanoke County vs. General Electric (Dixie Caverns) SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Case No. 90-623, styled Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County v. General Electric Company et al., alleging that General Electric (GE) and Virginia Fiberglass Products (VFP), among others, disposed of hazardous substances at the Dixie Caverns Landfill in Roanoke County, Virginia, causing the County to incur costs responding to the release or threatened release of those substances into the environment. Several of the defendants filed counterclaims against each other and the County. The representatives of the parties have negotiated a settlement agreement and mutual releases to conclude this litigation. This action requests Board approval of this settlement agreement. If approved by all the parties, this settlement agreement must then be submitted to the court for its approval. It is anticipated that the court will approve this settlement before the end of the year. To avoid the costs and uncertainty of litigation, the parties have settled this matter among themselves without any party acknowledging liability. FISCAL IMPACT: GE will pay to the County's attorneys in escrow $390,000. VFP will pay to the County $90,000 in three annual installments of $30,000 each with the first payment to be held in escrow. The escrow payments shall be released to the County upon the signing of the final order dismissing this case. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the County Administrator be authorized to execute the settlement agreement on behalf of Roanoke County, and that he be authorized to take such actions as may be necessary to conclude this litigation, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. VOTE: Supervisor McNamara motion to approve staff recommendation Motion Approved Yes No Abs Mr. Flora ® ~ [~ Mr. Church ® ~ ~ Mr. Minnix ® ~ ~ Mr. Altizer ® ~ ~ Mr. McNamara ® ~ ~ cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney E ` w _ S J 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: December 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to execute settlement agreement with General Electric and others with regard to pending litigation, Roanoke County vs. General Electric (Dixie Caverns) SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Case No. 90-623, styled Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County v. General Electric Company, et al., alleging that General Electric (GE) and Virginia Fiberglass Products (VFP), among others, disposed of hazardous substances at the Dixie Caverns Landfill in Roanoke County, Virginia, causing the County to incur costs responding to the release or threatened release of those substances into the environment. Several of the defendants filed counterclaims against each other and the County. The representatives of the parties have negotiated a settlement agreement and mutual releases to conclude this litigation. This action requests Board approval of this settlement agreement. If approved by all the parties, this settlement agreement must then be submitted to the court for its approval. It is anticipated that the court will approve this settlement before the end of the year. To avoid the costs and uncertainty of litigation, the parties have settled this matter among themselves without any party acknowledging liability. ~, '~~ ,_„ / i FISCAL IMPACT: GE will pay to the County's attorneys in escrow $390,000. VFP will pay to the County $90,000 in three annual installments of $30,000 each with the first payment to be held in escrow. The escrow payments shall be released to the County upon the signing of the final order dismissing this case. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the County Administrator be authorized to execute the settlement agreement on behalf of Roanoke County, and that he be authorized to take such actions as may be necessary to conclude this litigation, all upon form approved by the County Attorney. 11 ~f ~~ ~ ~ PY> (~ 0~_ XY>Q~ ~ E~- c ~~~ , , ~ )~ _ ~~~~ ~~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ sI~P~ ~U ~ ~~ ~ i ~ °~~" ~---- ~ ~J C,~ __1_ ~ c~~ ~ -i "~ ~ ~ oar ,___---. ~ 1~~~ 1 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ IG~V~ '~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~s ~-~~ ~ ~-- ~ s ~ ~l afi~ ~~ c~~1 + ~~ • n ~ ~u ~ ~ ~~~ J / ~~~1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~L~~ I ~=~ ,~ ~.~ ~,~ ~~~c~~~~~~ - _ 33~fo -L ( ~ ~ ~. ~ ~.s? ~3aq - F Q--~~~Y~m S 33 3a G> ~c~.~ 11~_ _.._ 334 W p~&[e Cceek _~r~m-_: _ : _ 333' ~~~ ~'_r~~ ,~ ~~ 3339-~63 d'ebble ~r~Pk ,"~.., .rte 333~_3-,~J __ ~sXrQ~=i ~0.sJ,.~ _ I~ ~^l YV~eCQII ~,.,` _ 3 ~3 q ~Z '~~45- C~-~-- .. ~C~~°l C~~~ nn a.,~ ', ~ ~ t~ s ~~ 33y~ - F ~3 ~ - -_ ~~ ~~ _ << ~33~~E_ - 33U/ ,r 'f 1 _G. .. -- r,~on - - - - - --_. _ p~c~~ ~ ~-C~~~ ~~ ~~ << <~ ~~~~k ~. << 3 Leo ~ ~ -c - - ~, j ~ J _ __ _ ~3~~~~ _ Yom` ~ c ~--, z ,~ __ ~" _~ - ~-4tii'l~-V' m~~Q..d~~-~li~/~leC /OC2S~7~ ~ 4 -- :._3.3.3 6 I-- C -~c,~ d~s~-~ `~.~ C~ - - ---~ - _-_ _. --- -- - -P ~~Sb - - - _ ~ ~, _~ ~-~~~ ~ ~ ~ -_~- ~._ ~ _ --- - - - - ---:__ c~_ :__ ~_~ _ -- - ~ ~ ~~- --~ c. Imo---_ -- _ P~~_--~.- _ ~,~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~. _ e~b1~c -reek l-~ X336 ~J - __ ` ~ f~ " ---___ ~- _ ~'~~ l ~~ G~~ tai ~-c~" zSS~ ~~ ~ _~ 33z i ---_ - _ _- ~~~~ __ ~, _ ~, ~S 3 -~- ~ c ~Qc ce ~ ~ ~~ Z~uw- - --- - - ~ - - -- -_ _ - --- _ ~°~ ~ __ _. ~~~ ~~ ~~~~ db fir- `--, ~`~~ wboD~G.~rJ ~ J rr ,r I; - -_~.3 ~~`"' .s ry L wi' ~ (/ L v 7 ~GCP ~ ~~ 'a `~ C~~~ ~ I~li~ '~ ~'1~~~ CG I o n,~ ~ l~gVe 2k-~P . al/alb Cain ~~i ~ ~ ~. ~~~ .fir q~ ~Q~~~ 3~s- ~~~~~~es ~~Vd ,~o~..u,~- zee ~~ ~, C ~ ~ ~ t- ~ p ~ `. ,. l3 ~ _ _ •~o rC//~c -S ~ !%~ ~ 3.5"x.5' ~'ee` _ ;o ~= ~ - / ` ~ r }~o~n~ ~ c.c,~ i~r•~ 3 ~!_~_~~~~~~~o ; ~ p~_ ~',~ ~ `Yoe s ., 3 ,.gip ~ C~a ' ~ a i ~ ,~_9 _ - - - ~~ ~ ~a _ _~ _ ~ ~ ~ /~a __ __~'~' - - - 34`~ ~ __ -- _ ate, c~3 . ~~o ~ ~' °~ I ~f ~ f~r~ra~~ 1~Pn _ 3~.~t~ ~ v C y~~ ,~i'ook. fl r ~~a ~ ~ ~5 ~ ~~~~ ' ' - LJ ~? ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ I ~~~~, 15~ ~~, ~~~~~~ i~~c~,~L~ 3~~ 3~ ~ ~~ ~:~~ ~~ ~~ ~ 1_ ~.~~-- .~ ,F _ ~ ~ '~,~ a -1 ra ~~~~ ,, ~l ~ ~ c~ f -~ ~~~- ~. _~, ~~ ~ ~ ~Y -r"wv~~~J 2_ - - - ~ - -7_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ~,~ _ ~ ~~ d~ ~rrv~-_- _ -= `. -- I I , .. /_: l- ~- - ~~ - - - - - - - - - - - ,~ ~ __~ :, - -~_ _ v_ ~ ~~ -- .~_~ -- --- -.,3111 ~.- ~~~ r,~s`_ _1 _`~~f _~ . s . _- ~ --_ ~~ a-~~ __---. v, <~ , /,. .. [7 1 r ` ,~ - t _ - - ~~~ ~ ~ ~_ ~~ ~ ~~ .,7 ~ ' ~ vt~ . ~ i~ ~.. ~-, \ Jv-~ c.~... ~ ~...~. '3 ~ I c ~ . L. ~-I (,n~t,~ c~wc Z,c i ., L C - ~-~._ _. . ~ ;, _ ~! ~ ~ ~ ,: ~~~ C~ l Vl y ~~ u -,~~ /~ ; , .~ /' f ~ ~ r ,~~ ~I ~1~s1 ~T~~~ G ~ ~ ~ ~~ic ~~~~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~,~~~2Tl~~~T" _____ _~ ___-_ _ __ _ _ _ --_i - ----- - ~~--~------ 33 nZ-G_--------_------------- ----------------- ------__--_- _ __ _-__330__- c__-. _ _ __-___-_ ______ _-- _ _ ____ _ _. ___ _. --- ~. ~. 3~~~ ' -__ ___ --- ~ G~ __ ~-- -- --_ _ _ _ ---- - -_ _ __ _ _ _ _ . 3 3o c- G-- __ __--- _ _ __ Q~~~ --- 3~U1-1C _ --- ------__-----------------~-------__ _ -- _ _ _ ---_ ` Q~' - ----- _. - -__ ---- ____~~~-~-1~ -------- ------__-_--- ----_ __._ _ -------- 1~-~~---,~2-~ ~- ---,- ,, I ~~1ViY~VI°L~ i ~- ~~ ~a„ __- ___ - - - ---- _-- 3 3° y ~-------------__-_ __--.._-____- _ __-._-_.-__- ---- - _.____-__-. ~4 _`_~30~ _ _ __ __ _ _ - - - ___ V _~ ~ _ __~~=a -0-~ - ____ _ __ - ------ _ _ ~~~---- ~3a~`Lc -----------------------_ _-- ___ _ _ ~ ----- 3 3~_P~ ---- ----- - ------ - _ _ __ _ ____ __ - _ _. 00' lO-ZO-60'6£ Z-I oo•zo-ao-so•s~ z-i ~ oN hays ~o' Go-ao-6o~s£ z-i OSI~O :•oN wwoa # ~~~add 3NOz :~8 pa~aay~ s ~ JAS :~8 ddb JAS :~8 u61sa^ f -~-_~ __ .._ , ~ i-- -~ „ -- .' r ',-~ ~ il• ° ~ ~ Q I ~ 9'LSI l :~f'}I ~ b I ~ ~ ~' ° ~ w z I I ~'l '1,~''I 3 w I t I ;, ?Fr?1 ~,. n ~ ~ ¢ t 'r ,.,~ . n ~ S3NI~ 2l~M3S 1. g I i ~~ ~~~ ~. i I 1, tl x _ ~ ~ ~'1~ O ~ ~\ J ~' 1 ;~; o ~ ~ , ~~ :~ ~ ~ i 1 ~ ~~~ fl'li~ ~ ~~: J ~~ ~ ~ I ~, i,.. ~. J ~~ '\ 5'ExdS000' ~ ~ I J ~``k' (2fOOl: ~ I I , ~ ~ I I I ~ N ,, A ~ ~,,,~ ~ ~ ~ 1C °o I r j , m o z t~.~. ~, 1 ,. ? ,3 i'~' ~ a a ~ S30bdS b=SlIN{1 OL. 1~,.` ~' ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~~ 1 z „ „~ r(} S31 X01 1 ~ ~ Y `~ :' ~, - *r , ~o< ~ ! i ,~,,, W 4f ~ i g ~w' ~ ~ i 0 90l ~>r (~~~- - ~N~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~'~.~'~~ w rn ~ +' i~ ,1,. ~ ~ 1 + ~ ~ ; L~ ~,""g 31b''1 2~3M S 1 ff ~ ~1.-~ w -- I ., r .. ale suois~na ~lIW~J= i .,1 jN .b~`; ~~1Sil ~9.31dW0~ 2~0• _.. ~ 1\ , , 32~1~ JNI ~~ - ;, ..;v, viifn~ ~ - - '( . i -i ti'S90Z ~ i ~! :._ t ~ 1 f I ~1 I ~ -f-j ' I i i~ i ~l ( i ' ~f ' '? ~I ~1~, I~ I~1~ r'I i~~ 1 k ~ ~ it , 1 i ,' i ' ' ~ 1 I I ~ ~ II 1~ \~ 'I . I f ~! !, ~ ri ii f i ~, -i l ~ ~I i ~ ~ ! i 1 '~ ~ ~ I ~~~ of aoarvo~.~ ti ,A ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ a 1838 C~~~xn#~ of ~2n~t~~C~~ Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 Joseph McNamara, Chairman Windsor Hills Magisterial District Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman Hollins Magisterial District Mary F. Parker, CMC Roanoke City Council 215 Church Street, SW Roanoke, VA 24011 December 19, 2003 Michael W. Altizer Vinton Magisterial District Joseph B. "Butch" Church Catawba Magisterial District H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix Cave Spring Magisterial District Attached is a copy of Action Item No. 121603-6 ratifying the appointment of George W. Logan to the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA). This action item was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, December 16, 2003. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~~c.~..~ Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Attachment cc: Western Virginia Water Authority File :E: FAX: X72-2005 (540) 772-2193 VOICE MAIL: (540)772-2170 E-MAIL: bos ~ co. roanoke. va. us o~ RoaN ~,~ ~. Z ~~ ~ .a2 1838 C~aixx~t~ ~f ~n~x~v~ Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 Joseph McNamara, Chairman Windsor Hills Magisterial District Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman Hollins Magisterial District December 19, 2003 John A. Irwin, Public Safety Director Norfolk & Southern 3 Commercial Place Norfolk, VA 23510 George Gavella, Associate Administrator Federal Railroad Administration RRS-1 Mail Stop 25 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20590 Michael W. Altizer Vinton Magisterial District Joseph B. "Butch" Church Catawba Magisterial District H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix Cave Spring Magisterial District Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 121603-4 requesting the Federal Railroad Administration to establish mandatory regulations for the operation of remote Control Locomotives. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, December 16, 2003. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~ ~J Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Attachment cc: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney File ICE: FAX: VOICE MAIL: E-MAIL: 772-2005 (540) 772-2193 (540) 772-2170 bosC~co.roanoke.va.us o~ aonruo,~~ ~• ~~ Z ~ az ~~~~~ ~~ ~~x~~.~ 1838 Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 Joseph McNamara, Chairman Windsor Hills Magisterial District Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman Hollins Magisterial District December 17, 2003 Rabbi Manes Kogan Beth Israel Synagogue 920 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24016 Dear Rabbi Kogan. Michael W. Altizer Vinton Magisterial District Joseph B. "Butch" Church Catawba Magisterial District H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix Cave Spring Magisterial District On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you for offering the invocation at our meeting on Tuesday, December 16, 2003. 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, eph McNamara, Chairman oanoke County Board of Supervisors FAX: 6 VOICE MAIL: ~-2005 (540) 772-2193 (540) 772-2170 E-MAIL: bos ~ co. roanoke.va. us OF AOANpb~ ~ ' A ;. p 2 ~7 a ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ 1838 Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 Joseph McNamara, Chairman Windsor Hills Magisterial District Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman Hollins Magisterial District December 17, 2003 Mr. Charles W. Vaden 2203 Mountain View Road Vinton, VA 24179 Dear Mr. Vaden: Michael W. Altizer Vinton Magisterial District Joseph B. "Butch" Church Catawba Magisterial District H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix Cave Spring Magisterial District Enclosed is a resolution of appreciation upon your retirement which was unanimously approved at the December 16, 2003, Board Meeting. The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and its citizens thank you for your many years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to the County. I am also pleased to send you a throw which was exclusively designed for Roanoke County. We hope this throw brings you enjoyment and remembrances of your time at the County. It will be mailed in a separate package and if you do not receive it within a week, please contact the Board office at 772-2005. If you would like to have your resolution framed, please bring it to the Clerk's Office, at the Roanoke County Administration Building, 5204 Bernard Drive, at any time. It has been our experience that framed resolutions may be damaged when mailed. Please accept this resolution and Roanoke County throw with our best wishes for a productive retirement and continued success in the future. Sincerely, Joseph McNamara, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosure Cc: William Driver, Director, Real Estate Valuation 'E: 6 FAX: VOICE MAIL: E-MAIL: '72-2005 (540) 772-2193 (540) 772-2170 bos~co.roanoke.va.us OF µOANp,I.~ a ~ ~ A z ~ °~ ~ C~~~~~ ~~ z~~xx~~r.~Z..~ 7838 Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VA 24018-0798 Joseph McNamara, Chairman Windsor Hills Magisterial District Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman Hollins Magisterial District December 17, 2003 Mr. Michael R. Morris 5725 Castle Rock Road Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. Morris: Michael W. Altizer Vinton Magisterial District Joseph B. "Butch" Church Catawba Magisterial District H. Odell "Fuuy" Minnix Cave Spring Magisterial District Enclosed is a resolution of appreciation upon your retirement which was unanimously approved at the December 16, 2003, Board Meeting. The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and its citizens thank you for your many years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to the County. I am also pleased to send you a throw which was exclusively designed for Roanoke County. We hope this throw brings you enjoyment and remembrances of your time at the County. It will be mailed in a separate package and if you do not receive it within a week, please contact the Board office at 772-2005. If you would like to have your resolution framed, please bring it to the Clerk's Office, at the Roanoke County Administration Building, 5204 Bernard Drive, at any time. It has been our experience that framed resolutions may be damaged when mailed. Please accept this resolution and Roanoke County throw with our best wishes for a productive retirement and continued success in the future. Sincerely, Joseph McNamara, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosure Cc: Chief Richard Burch OFFICE: FAX: VOICE MAIL: X540) 772-2005 (540) 772-2193 (540) 772-2170 E-MAIL: bos ®co. roanoke.va. us o~ POANp,~,F ti ~~ ~ ~ Z z ~ a ..rasa DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us C~~~z~r#~ ~f ~~~~oC~.C.e P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 December 17, 2003 Ms. Anne Marie Green, Director Roanoke County General Services Roanoke County Public Service Center 1216 Kessler Mill Road Salem, VA 24153 Dear Ms. Green: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service on the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for afour-year term. Your term will begin on December 31, 2003, and expire on December 31, 2007. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed, or re-appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. State law requires that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participation on this Board. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have this oath administered. Mr. McGraw has asked that you bring this letter with you. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, ~~ C~~Q~~ Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosure cc: John Hubbard, CEO, RVRA Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court ~F ROANp~.~ ~ ~~ y z ~ 2 ~ a~ 1838 DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us Mr. Gary Jarrell 8110 Webster Drive Roanoke, VA 24019 Dear Mr. Jarrell: P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 December 17, 2003 BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you as a member of the Planning Commission representing the Hollins Magisterial District for afour-year term. Your term will begin on December 31, 2003 and expire on December 31, 2007. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. State law requires that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participation on this Board. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have this oath administered. Mr. McGraw has asked that you bring this letter with you. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, C~~~xn~~ u~ ~Z.a~txc~~.~ Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosure cc: Janet Scheid, Chief Planner Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court o~ pOANp~~ ~ '~ z ~ 2 °v a T838 DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us Ms. Josie Eyer 710 Blacksburg Road Catawba, VA 24070 Dear Ms. Eyer: P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 December 17, 2003 BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton ~ co.roanoke.va.us The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service on the Library Board. I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Library Board representing the Catawba Magisterial District for afour-year term. Your term will begin on December 31, 2003 and expire on December 31, 2007. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. State law requires that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered rp for to your participation on this Board. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have this oath administered. Mr. McGraw has asked that you bring this letter with you. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, C~n~xxrt~ .~f ~ o~tz~v~ ~'~~ Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosure cc: Diana Rosapepe, Director, Libraries Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Circuit Court O~ ROANp~.~ a ~ ti ~ y Z Z ~ a 1838 DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us Ms. Sheryl L. Ricci 5368 Luwana Drive, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Ms. Ricci: P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 December 17, 2003 BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton®co.roanoke.va.us The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service on the Library Board. am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Library Board representing the Windsor Hills Magisterial District for afour-year term. Your term will begin on December 31, 2003 and expire on December 31, 2007. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. State law requires that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participation on this Board. Please telephone Steven A. McGraw, at 387-6205, to arrange to have this oath administered. Mr. McGraw has asked that you bring this fetter with you. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, ,~ ` ~U' C~.~.~c~e2v~ Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosure cc: Diana Rosapepe, Director, Libraries C~Snixnt~ .off ~n~rtoC~Ce Steven A. McGraw, Clerk, Clrcult Court OF µOANp,Y~ ti 'A ~ 2 y~ z ~ a~ 7838 DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us Ms. Karen Ewell 6347 Juliet Court Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Ms. Ewell: P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 December 17, 2003 BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Grievance Panel. am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as an alternate member to the Grievance Panel for another three-year term. Your new term began on October 28, 2003 and will expire on October 28, 2006. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, C~a~txr~~ n~ ~v~x~.o~e ~~J~~ Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosure cc: Joe Sgroi, Director, Human Resources OF ROANp~-~ ti p z ~ z ~ a 1838 DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERKTO THE BOARD Email: dchilders®co.roanoke.va.us P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 December 17, 2003 Mr. S. James Sikkema Executive Director Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare 301 Elm Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24016-4001 Dear Mr. Sikkema: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~Pco.roanoke.va.us This will inform you that at their meeting on Tuesday, December 16, 2002, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ratify the appointment of John M. Hudgins, Jr. as an at-large representative on the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors. His three-year term will expire December 31, 2006. On behalf of the supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please convey to Mr. Hudgins our sincere thanks and appreciation for his willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, ~~/~ Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: Mr. John M. Hudgins, Jr. Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council James E. Taliaferro, III, Assistant City Manager, City of Salem Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Town of Vinton Gerald A. Burgess, County Administrator, Botetourt County Larry V. Moore, Sr., County Administrator, Craig County of Roanoke C~ozxxr#~ of ~.a~xx~~~ o~ ROANp,~.~ ~ ~ z ~ a ~.~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ 7838 P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 DIANE S. CHILDERS FAX (540) 772-2193 CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders ~co.roanoke.va.us December 17, 2003 Mr. King Harvey 5227 North Garden Lane Roanoke, VA 24019 Dear Mr. Harvey: BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Grievance Panel. I am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as an alternate member to the Grievance Panel for another three-year term. Your new term began on October 28, 2003 and will expire on October 28, 2006. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Enclosure cc: Joe Sgroi, Director, Human Resources 0~ ROANp,F~ ~ 'A 9 2 y7 ~ 2 v a 1838 DIANE S. CHILDERS CLERK TO THE BOARD Email: dchilders~co.roanoke.va.us Mr. Dan O'Donnell Assistant County Administrator County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Dear Mr. O'Donnell: P.O. BOX 29800 5204 BERNARD DRIVE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2005 FAX (540) 772-2193 December 17, 2003 BRENDA J. HOLTON, CMC DEPUTY CLERK Email: bholton~co.roanoke.va.us The members of the Board of Supervisors wish to express their sincere appreciation for your previous service on the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors. am pleased to inform you that, at their meeting held on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors. Your three-year term will expire on December 31, 2006. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, or appointed to any public body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act. Your copy is enclosed. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Sincerely, ~~ Enclosure C~nix~~ .~f ~u~trt~~.e Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: S. James Sikkema, Executive Director Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare enda'F-lolton -Program for Fuzzy's Reception Page 1 From: Diane Childers To: Butch Church; Joe McNamara; Mike Altizer; Richard Flora Date: 12/12/03 12:55PM Subject: Program for Fuzzy's Reception Attached is the program for Fuzzy's reception on Tuesday, December 16. The reception will be held on the 4th floor following the afternoon session of the Board meeting, and time has been set aside for each of you to offer some remarks. We will present Fuzzy with a Roanoke County throw and a framed resolution during the Board meeting. At the reception, Joe and Elmer will present him with a monogrammed money clip and a gift certificate. As has been the custom in the past, the Police, Sheriff, and Fire and Rescue Department will present badges from each department which have been framed in a shadow box. In addition, the employees have prepared a scrapbook of memories for Fuzzy. Janet Harris will be sending you a scrapbook page if you would like to submit something for inclusion in the scrapbook. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke Phone: (540) 772-2003 Fax: (540) 772-2193 CC: Brenda Holton; Elmer Hodge; Mary Brandt __ Brenda-lolton - Reception, Program.doc Page 1 Reception for H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix Board of Supervisors Member 1992-2003 December 16, 2003 4:30 p.m. Welcome and Introductions Joseph P. McNamara, Chairman Comments Joseph P. McNamara, Chairman Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman Michael W. Altizer I Joseph 8. "Butch" Church Special Presentations Joseph P. McNamara, Chairman Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator Rick Burch, Fire & Rescue Chief Gerald Holf, Sheriff Ray Lavinder, Police Chief Clerk's Office Staff On behalf of all Roanoke County Employees Closing Remarks ~' H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix i.. - GOl1N~'`f OF ROANOKE , ~~.-` L ~ 2003 Retiremen# Re~olt~tion Form ._ ' _ _ ._ ~,, (To be completed at the exit interview session with the retiring employee) Name of Employee: ~nP~-~, 11 1~Pr,--~ ~ ~ ~j r ~ (o Q Dates of Employment: ~~, ~~_ ~ ~ 7~ Current Position: ~- e~~~cp,,r. - ; ~-~-P,-~,-~ ~ Retirement Date: ~]o~~,,,.-~,~~ ~ ~~~ Length of Service: a~ ~, n x~ f~rrm~~.~ ~Q'el"`-"~'~ ~ ~1IG -r't"'C Previous Positions Held: ~;~;~,~..l.nh,o,r- -- - „-- (1_ ~ __~..._ Other Information: SKIS C. ~~ ,~,~ r; ~ e Board Meeting dates during retirement month: ~ ~ Nov em e ~ ~ - 3 ~~ 2 ~ f ~~-Pr,-~ ~- ~ ~ ~, ~ _ V Plans to attend board meeting on ~ :O ate. Would like to attend a board meeting at a later date. Date requested is: Does not plan to attend a board meeting. Please mail resolution. Human Resources Signature Date ~~ L~ e ~~ncar~~- COUNTY OF ROANOKE Retirement Resolution Form (To be completed at the exit interview session with the retiring employee) Name of Employee: ~1~rc,0.5 1~, V Vc.L~ ~,5 Dates of Employment: lC~ `~G ~ ~~ - l0\~~~3 Current Position: Retirement Date: I l 1 ~ 1 ~-C~U3 Length of Service: ~ ~1.~G,a(5 Previous Positions Held:~J~`~_ ~~OS...~ ~ ~~~~ ___ _ _ _ . ~ ~G-~ Other Information: ~Clre'SS' ~q`~ ~C~ rirc ~L ~.1~, .v~, a~153 Board Meeting dates during retirement month: ~~ ~ ~ ~~,~ ~ 3 ~, ~... 2> 1 ~- ~ 11403 c~ 3'c~ ~.~, ~--- ~' C4~ ~.M. . ~_ Plans to attend board meeting on 1 ~--1I~.U~ ~ 3:C~~m , date. Would like to attend a board meeting at a later date. Date requested is: Does not plan to attend a board meeting. Please mail resolution. t~1~~~3 Human Resources Signature Date '. Tom Walls started his employment with the County as an Eligibility Worker. He then took a Social Worker position and ended his employment as a Senior Social Worker. All these positions were in the Department of Social Services. Tom states that he worked in several different areas during his employment in the Department of Social Services, listed below: • Employment Services in the WIN program in coordination with the ~ S ~ Virginia Employment Commission. <~ • Family Services ~ ~ • Foster Care ~ • Custody Investigations y • Tom states he was the Coordinator of the Mediation program for a ~ time and Social Services received an award from the National ~ ~ Association of Counties for this program. • Tom states he received an award from the Commissioner of the ~ -- Department of Social Services, Larry Jackson, for innovative program interventions. • Tom states he ended his employment working in the Foster Care program. Brenda Holton - Re: Kenneth W. Kern retirement Page 1 From: Ray Lavinder To: Holton, Brenda Date: 12/9/03 9:12AM Subject: Re: Kenneth W. Kern retirement Brenda, Please add: Lt Kern began his a career as a dispatcher, and after serving a short time as a deputy sheriff, was promoted to detective, he remained as a member of the Criminal Investigations Division for almost ten years and then was promoted to Sergeant, he was then promoted to Lieutenant and finished his career in that position. His most recent assignment was supervising the animal control, traffic, and school resource programs. Brenda please alter this in any way that will make the resolution better, if you need any additional information please let me know. »> Brenda Holton 12/08/03 09:34AM »> Ray, Attached is a resolution of appreciation for Kenneth W. Kern who retired on November 1, 2003. Mr. Walls indicated to Human Resources that he would like to attend the Dec 16th Board meeting at 7 p.m. to accept his resolution. Would you review the draft attached and add anything you feel might make it more personal? Thanks for your help, Brenda COUNTY OF ROANOKE Retirement Resolution Form (To be completed at the exit interview session with the retiring employee) Name of Employee: ~~lC'~Ci~c~ C l . ~C~r r -~~' Dates of Employment: ~ l I `'~5 - ~ ~ I30~0?~ Current Position: ~j t'c~k~h-~-cr ('r\~C"C ~- ~~.~CvC.~ Retirement Date: ~ ~--~ I ICa3 Length of Service: a $ V~ r ~ ~^C~S , Previous Positions Held: _~1'C ~ ~.;,ey~.`c1G,t~~ ~ F\ r~ ~4--~~.~~ Other Information: Pcl~~.r~S ; X1'015 ~,n,,-~~`e.. 1~pc~ k~,, ~y' , Board Meeting dates during retirement month: 1) Plans to attend board meeting on 2) Would like to attend a board meeting at a later date. Date requested is: Does not plan to attend a board meeting Please mail resolution. ~R~a. c 11 5IC)..3 Human Resources Signa ure Date date. e COUNTY OF ROANOKE Retirement Resolution Form (To be completed at the exit interview session with the retiring employee) Name of Employee: ~r[),~C ~ ~` , V~[~~ Dates of Employment: 3 ~~1- '~\ Current Position: 5~ ~ ~ t~' l~ Retirement Date: ~~ ~\03 Length of Service: ~ ~ uCS fiI mc~S . Previous Positions Held: ~C~I~CY ~1~e~ C~-~-c. A55CSSMe,n~~ -~ Other Information: .'~cSS ; G? ~3 ti~~r~~~\~ 1~ ~. Board Meeting dates during retirement month: ~~ - T--~ - ~ -~- Plans to attend board meeting on _.~~ 2~ - - date. Would like to attend a board meeting at a later date. Date requested is: Does not plan to attend a board meeting. Please mail resolution. v I Human Resources S nature ~ c~ a3~~ Date -- --_ `Diane "hilders - Ad: Six-Year Construction Plan L~-~__~~ __ _ __ From: Diane Childers To: legals@roanoke.com Date: 11 /25/03 4:11 PM Subject: Ad: Six-Year Construction Plan Martha, - --- Page 1 Attached is a legal notice to be published on December 2 and 9. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke Phone: (540) 772-2003 Fax: (540) 772-2193 Diane ^hilders - 12-16-Six Year Construction Plan.doc _ Page 1 ~- ~ _ ... Memo To: Diane Childers, Clerk to Board of Supervisors From: Arnold Covey, Engineering and Inspections Subject: Legal Notice Date: November 19, 2003 Please advertise the following notice in The Roanoke Times: THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:00 P.M. ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SECONDARY SYSTEM SIX-YEAR CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 THROUGH 2010 AND THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR FY2004-2005. Thank you. Please publish in The Roanoke Times: ~. Tuesday, December 2, 2003 Tuesday, December 9, 2003 j Direct bill for publication to: ARNOLD COVEY COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VA 24018 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 .~ ~. ~ MEMO To: Diane Childers, Clerk to Board of Supervisors From: Arnold Covey, Engineering and Inspections~~ Subject: Legal Notice Date: November 19, 2003 Please advertise the following notice in The Roanoke Times: THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:00 P.M. ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SECONDARY SYSTEM SIX-YEAR CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 THROUGH 2010 AND THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR FY2004-2005. Thank you. Please publish in The Roanoke Times Tuesday, December 6, 2003 `~~e Tuesday, December 13, 2003 Direct bill for publication to: ARNOLD COVEY COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE, VA 24018 Diane Childers - 12-16-Community Development.doc Page 1 _.~ t _.~ ~_._._._ ~~ ~I ~~ LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Cellco Partnership to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a broadcasting tower on 3.059 acres located at 6720 Thirlane 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 28, 2003, Diane S. Childers, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times: Tuesday, December 2, 2003 Tuesday, December 9, 2003 Direct the bill for publication to: Cellco Partnership c/o Verizon Wireless Attn: Marshall Pearsall 1810 Magnolia Street Richmond, VA 23222 804/321-0132 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ~ Diane Childers - 12-16-Community Development.doc Page 2 LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Berk, LLC to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a mini warehouse facility on 4.0 acres located in the 5300 block of Hollins Road, Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 28, 2003 Diane S. Childers, Clerk Please publish in the Roanoke Times: Tuesday, December 2, 2003 Tuesday, December 9, 2003 Direct the bill for publication to: Berk, LLC Attn: Ron Kessinger P.O. Box 400 Cloverdale, VA 24077 540/992-4242 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: Diane Childers Clerk to the Board P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 2 - - -- Diane Childers -Ads: Cellco Partnership; Berk, LLC From: Diane Childers To: legals@roanoke.com Date: 11 /20/03 9:34AM Subject: Ads: Cellco Partnership; Berk, LLC Good morning Martha, y-y-_ _ -_ Page 1_I Attached are two legal ads to be published on December 2 and 9, 2003. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board County of Roanoke Phone: (540) 772-2003 Fax: (540) 772-2193 ~ Diane Childers - RE: Cellco Partnership; Berk, LLC .. ~__- - _ __ _ ~_ W.:. _- _ _ --_~ __.._..~ ~_ _ ____~..~... __ - __ _ _.._ „ . _ ~. From: Martha Plank <Martha.Plank@Roanoke.com> To: 'Diane Childers' <DCHILDERS@co.roanoke.va.us> 1 'I r' ~ Date: 12/1/03 10:14AM 'j~" ~' ~3 Subject: RE: Cellco Partnership; Berk, LLC 1 Z Thanks Diane. Ad will run Dec. 2 and 9 -cost is 149.42. LEGAL NOTICE~~ROANOKE COUNTY~~BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Cellco Partnership to obtain a Special Use Permit to operate a broadcasting tower on 3.059 acres located at 6720 Thirlane Road, Catawb~ Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 28, 2003Diane S. Childers, Clerk (2265696) Martha Fisher Plank The Roanoke Times Legal Advertising Rep. Ph.: 540-981-3440 Fax: 540-981-3415 Email: legals@roanoke.com > From: Diane Childers > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:34 AM > To: legals@roanoke.com > Subject: Ads: Cellco Partnership; Berk, LLC > «File: 12-16-Community Development.doc» > Good morning Martha, > Attached are two legal ads to be published on December 2 and 9, 2003. If > you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. > Diane S. Childers > Clerk to the Board > County of Roanoke > Phone: (540) 772-2003 > Fax: (540) 772-2193 Page 1 Diane Childers - RE: Six-Year Construction Plan From: Martha Plank <Martha.Plank@Roanoke.com> To: 'Diane Childers' <DCHILDERS@co.roanoke.va.us> Date: 11 /28/03 1:44PM Subject: RE: Six-Year Construction Plan thanks Diane - ad will run Dec. 2 and 9 -cost is $72.30... THE ROANOKE COUNTY~~BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:00 P.M. ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2003 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SECONDARY SYSTEM SIX-YEAR CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 THROUGH 2010 AND THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR FY2004-2005.(2265314) Martha Fisher Plank The Roanoke Times Legal Advertising Rep. Ph.: 540-981-3440 Fax: 540-981-3415 Email: legals@roanoke.com > From: Diane Childers > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 4:11 PM > To: legals@roanoke.com > Subject: Ad: Six-Year Construction Plan > «File: 12-16-Six Year Construction Plan.doc» > Martha, > Attached is a legal notice to be published on December 2 and 9 > have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. > > Diane S. Childers > Clerk to the Board > County of Roanoke > Phone: (540) 772-2003 > Fax: (540) 772-2193 If you Page 1 _~ ~~ane_C_hilders - RE: Cellco Partnership; Berk, LLC ~ __ ~ ~_ __ ___~ -Page 1 ~ From: Martha Plank <Martha.Plank@Roanoke.com> To: 'Diane Childers' <DCHILDERS@co.roanoke.va.us> Date: 12/1 /03 10:19AM Subject: RE: Cellco Partnership; Berk, LLC Thanks Diane -this runs Dec. 2 and Dec. 9 -cost is 149.42. LEGAL NOTICE~~ROANOKE COUNTY~~BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Berk, LLC to obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a mini warehouse facility on 4.0 acres located in the 5300 block of Hollins Road, Hollins Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Community Development, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: November 28, 2003Diane S. Childers, Clerk (2265738) Martha Fisher Plank The Roanoke Times Legal Advertising Rep. Ph.: 540-981-3440 Fax: 540-981-3415 Email: legals@roanoke.com > From: Diane Childers > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:34 AM > To: legals@roanoke.com > Subject: Ads: Cellco Partnership; Berk, LLC > «File: 12-16-Community Development.doc» > Good morning Martha, > Attached are two legal ads to be published on December 2 and 9, 2003. If > you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. > Diane S. Childers > Clerk to the Board > County of Roanoke > Phone: (540) 772-2003 > Fax: (540) 772-2193 Diane Childers -Village at Tinker Creek legal ad.doc Page 1 ,. `k I ~" LEGAL NOTICE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, at its meeting on December 16, 2003, 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 first reading on the following matter, to-wit: """-~ ORDINANCE TO VACATE A 20' WATERLINE EASEMENT DEDICATED BY SUBDIVISION PLAT AND REVISED SUBDNISION PLAT OF THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 26-33, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 25, PAGE 171, AND PLAT BOOK 26, PAGE 11, RESPECTIVELY, AND FURTHER SHOWN ON THE SUBDNISION PLAT OF THE VILLAGE AT TINKER CREEK, SECTION 1, LOTS 107-113, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 26, PAGE 83, ACROSS PROPERTY OWNED BY CBI DEVELOPERS (TAX MAP NOS. 27.20-1-29.1, 27.20-4-18 AND 27.20- 4-19) LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS 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, Virginia. All members of the public interested in this matter may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. Dated: November 26, 2003 Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Please publish on the following dates: Tuesday, December 2, 2003 Tuesday, December 9, 2003 Please send the invoice to: CBI Developers, LLC c/o Jerry Godsey, President 6101 Plantation Cir. Roanoke, VA 24019 (540) 537-4028 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: Diane S. Childers, Clerk Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County P.O. Box 29800 ---- - -- €Diane Childers -Village at Tinker Creek legal ad.doc Page. 2 } ~ - ... Roanoke, VA 24018 Diane Childers -Village at Tinker Creek legal ad Page 1, From: Vicki Walker To: legals@roanoke.com Date: 11 /26/03 11:12AM Subject: Village at Tinker Creek legal ad Hi Martha, Please run the attached ad as indicated. Let me know if you have any questions. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving! --Vicki Vicki Walker Legal Secretary (540) 772-2071 vwalker@co.roanoke.va.us CC: Diane Childers; Vickie Huffman Diane Childers -Tinker Creek Village Water Line Easement Vacation Page~11 From: Vicki Walker To: Diane Childers Date: 11 /26/03 10:09AM Subject: Tinker Creek Village Water Line Easement Vacation ... Is attached. I will bring Exhibit A and email the legal ad. Thanks. Vicki Walker Legal Secretary (540) 772-2071 vwalker@co.roanoke.va.us [-Diane Childers -Legal Notice.doc Page 1 1 #~ .. s W 4 1. Legal Notice Roanoke County Board of Supervisors The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on December 16, 2003, in the Board Meeting Room on the 1S` Floor of the Roanoke County Administration Center at 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, on an Administrative Appeal requested by Galax Treatment Center, Inc. The appeal is taken from the Zoning Administrator's decision to refuse to certify zoning compliance for the operation of a methadone clinic to be located at 3390 Colonial Avenue in Roanoke County, Virginia. A copy of the Application for Administrative Appeal is available for inspection in the Clerk's Office for the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA 24018. Dated: November 25, 2003 Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Please publish on: December 2, 2003 December 9, 2003 Send bill to: Diane S. Childers, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 Diane Childers -Public Notice-Administrative Appeal-Galax Treatment Center Page 1 ~; ,r-• - ~ From: Sue Bane To: legals@roanoke.com Date: 11/19/03 3:56PM Subject: Public Notice-Administrative Appeal-Galax Treatment Center Please publish the attached legal notice on December 2 and 9, 2003. Thanks, Sue Bane Legal Assistant Roanoke County Attorney's Office sbane@co.roanoke.va.us 772-2007 772-2089 (fax) CC: Diane Childers; Paul Mahoney Dia~1e Childers - Re: Legal Ads -Methadone Clinic Page 1 ~' From: Paul Mahoney To: Diane Childers Date: 11 /3/03 10:33AM Subject: Re: Legal Ads -Methadone Clinic Diane: My office will prepare the legal notice, and send it to the newspaper. Of course, we will send the bill to you! Paul »> Diane Childers 11/03/03 10:16AM »> Paul, Do you want to handle the legal ads for the methadone clinic appeal on December 16 or do you want us to take care of it? CC: Sue Bane f Dia~1e Childers - Re: dates for admin. appeal -methadone clinic From: Janet Scheid To: Paul Mahoney Date: 10/29/03 11:03AM Subject: Re: dates for admin. appeal -methadone clinic Ok, Dec. 16 it is. My understanding is it does NOT have to be on a consent agenda. I'm assuming it will be in the evening session but not as a public hearing. Since it is a Board action only will you or Diane handle the legal ads? Anything else I /we need to do? »> Paul Mahoney 10/29/03 10:58AM »> BOS wants to hear appeal on December 16. Then the BZA would hear its appeal on Dec. 17. Janet Scheid, Chief Planner Roanoke County Department of Community Development P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540)772-2094 »> Janet Scheid 10/29/03 10:03AM »> Any direction from the BOS about what date to hear the appeal to them? Page 1 CC: Arnold Covey; Bill Richardson; Christopher Lowe; David Holladay; Diane Childers; John Murphy; Susan Carter; Tammi Wood; Tim Beard Consent Agenda item Ratification of seventh member of the Western Virginia Water Authority Notes From agenda staff 12/8/03 Mr. Hodge said that they want to have a WVWA meeting this Thurs at 10 a.m. with six people to consider seventh member. He mentioned a Closed Session meeting. After the meeting, he and Darlene will poll their Board members by phone and see if they can reach agreement. If they reach agreement, they will select the seventh member at that meeting and it will become public. Then this action will be ratified at the City and Board meetings. If they do not reach agreement at this meeting Thursday, this item will have to be walked on next week. If they reach agreement, we can put name in item and put on agenda. He said to put in the summary of the item that this person is appointed based on ratification of both localities. November 14, 2003 1023 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 November 14, 2003 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 28, 2003, for the purpose of attending the Regional Leadership Summit meeting with the area legislators. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 12:10 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph McNamara, Vice-Chairman Richard C. Flora MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. "Butch" Church, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix OTHERS PRESENT: Michael A. Wray, Supervisor-Elect STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senate John Edwards, Senator-Elect Brandon Bell, Delegate Morgan Griffith, Delegate Ward Armstrong, Delegate-Elect William Fralin 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. IN RE: WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS 6 November 14, 2003 1025 the basis of realistic costs which will reflect actual educational practices and include capital, operating and maintenance costs. He noted that all of the localities have education as their number one priority, and stated that anything the legislators can do to provide assistance would be appreciated. Taxing and Funding: Mayor Tarpley stated that the General Assembly should eliminate the distinction in taxing authority of Virginia's cities and counties. He feels that counties should possess the same authority as cities to levy taxes on tobacco products, lodging, meals and admissions. However, he advised that some counties, such as Craig County, may not have the same problems as Roanoke County. He reported that when the City of Salem raised its tobacco tax, a cigarette business moved to Roanoke County. He feels that Roanoke County should have the same right to tax tobacco products as does the City of Salem Mayor Tarpley stated that the General Assembly should not limit or restrict existing local revenue sources, and that the funding for Virginia's Regional Competitiveness Program (RCP) was eliminated in 2002. The General Assembly needs to fund this important program. The Commonwealth established the RCP in 1996 and since that time, more than 227 regional projects throughout Virginia have been supported by RCP funds. Each dollar of RCP funds has been leveraged with 19 dollars of non-state funds. In the Roanoke Valley-Allegheny region, RCP funds have been used to support regional industrial parks, workforce development/education, tourism and infrastructure development. 6 November 14, 2003 1027 the localities so that they can vote to locate manufactured housing in the areas where they are desired. Transportation: Chairman Steven Clinton, Botetourt County Board of Supervisors, advised that even though I-81 has been discussed many times, it must be brought up again. Even though he is representing the entire region, he has a particular interest in {-81 since Botetourt County was recently declared the deadliest stretch of I- 81 by the Roanoke Times. The tragedies continue as solutions are sought without adequate funding. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has less then $200 million allocated in the six-year plan for I-81 and the two Public Private Transportation Act (PPTA) proposals each cost about $6 billion. It will take approximately 180 years to improve I-81 at current public funding levels. He stated that this is not the first generation to be faced with the challenges of funding roads and in 1956, the methods of financing were not permitted to deny the construction of the highway system. Chairman Clinton asked why the Commonweaith would do anything less than North Carolina which has unveiled a plan to widen Interstate 95 the entire length of the state, 182 miles, from four to eight lanes, at a cost of approximately $3 billion and will use tolls as part of the funding mechanism. He asked that the legislators continue to work on solutions for I-81 and not be derailed due to lack of monies. All of the localities have passed resolutions supporting the rail initiative but the economic and 6 6 November 14, 2003 1029 and requested that it be revenue neutral. He advised that there are ways for the tax system to be more efficient and he hopes that all parties will come together to achieve tax restructuring. Mayor Smith advised that the AirTran website asks the question of where service should be supplied next and Roanoke is not listed as one of the cities. He requested that everyone go to the AirTran's website and suggest that Roanoke would be a good site for service. IN RE: CLOSING COMMENTS Mayor Don Davis, Town of Vinton, advised that he also received the email asking for additional service areas for AirTran. He expressed appreciation to everyone for attending the meeting and advised that these issues being mentioned are very important and the localities need help from the legislators. Many of the citizens that the local officials represent are asking many questions such as why are taxes being raised, why is there no additional money for education, why is nothing being done about the most dangerous stretch of interstate highway in the state, and why are there so many trucks on I-81. Although the legislators are responsible for passing laws which affect the citizens in all of the jurisdictions, the local officials are an integral part of the equation because they try to provide citizens with the services they deserve and expect. This is difficult to accomplish when funding for state mandated programs is being reduced and localities cannot use taxing power to generate revenues. The only way to generate revenue is to cut expenses or raise taxes, and it is difficult to cut expenses 6 November 14, 2003 1031 rail solution concept for I-81 and advised that a study is being conducted by the Secretary of Transportation. There must be a rail component to solve the enormous transportation problems of the Commonwealth. The rail component can be financed with a surcharge on freight and there would be a tremendous benefit to getting the trucks off the interstate and onto the rails. A huge amount of the traffic on I-81 is truck traffic which starts in one state and ends in another state with Virginia being the bridge state. The studies say that 20% to 30% of the long-haul interstate truck traffic could be potentially diverted from the highway to rails. Senator-Elect Brandon Bell: Senator-Elect Bell expressed appreciation for being included in this meeting and advised that all of the items being presented could be supported but there are problems in the details of each item. He suggested that the group, collectively and individually, contact their legislators as quickly as possible upon any announcement from the Governor between now and December 17 since the budget must be introduced by December 20. He will reserve judgment and listen to whether or not proposed legislation might be beneficial or detrimental to the localities. He indicated an interest in serving on the Transportation Committee, the committee on which Senator Bo Trumbo previously served. He stated that if major legislation is proposed with significant changes, he will listen to all input. 6 6 November 14, 2003 1033 Delegate Griffith advised that he does not agree with the need for passenger rail because it requires a population mass within the corridor being served by the rail to make it feasible. It is understood that the passenger rail system will not be a profit-driven, but the system would lose considerable money and not even be feasible. He would not consider this until someone shows him a program for people to ride the train from one city to another for business reasons and not just for tourism. Delegate Griffith advised that while he does not have any problem equalizing taxing authority for cities and counties, they do not operate the same way. It is true that Roanoke County and some other urban counties may operate similarly to cities, but there are many other rural counties that do not. Cities have responsibility for their roads while VDOT handles snow removal in counties. The City of Salem does its own snow removal. When discussing equalization, both sides must be reviewed because in the future, the cities will claim that while counties are raising revenues from these taxes, the cities still have to clean the streets and the counties do not have this expense. To treat the situation fairly, you have to look at the comprehensive package and make sure that it is truly equalized. Delegate Griffith advised that he looked forward to hearing from local officials and asked them to view the Internet regularly to check on the bills being considered. Due to the large number of bills being considered each day, some of them may contain provisions that affect a locality that are not apparent to the legislators. He asked that the local officials inform them of their concerns by calling the number to his 6 6 November 14, 2003 1035 renovations and construction but unfortunately there will be no relief in the next session, However, the economy does appear to be improving and the state revenues may change by January 2005. The state needs to be prepared over the long term for both the peaks and valleys. That preparation was started with the rainy day fund and in retrospect, perhaps more funds should be set aside for the tough times. Virginia is a low tax state and the temptation to raise or cower taxes should be resisted. Delegate Armstrong advised that he is convinced that I-81 has to be addressed and corrected since it is the most dangerous road in the Commonwealth and probably in the nation. He believes that both freight and passenger rail are important. Since rail operations are expensive endeavors, he does not foresee sufficient funds for this in the next couple of years. He expressed appreciation for being invited to attend the meeting and invited those present to visit him when they come to Richmond. Delegate-Elect William Fraiin: Delegate-Elect Fralin advised that he was excited about the opportunity to work with those present. He agreed with Delegate Armstrong that this group needs to work cooperatively and he pledged his willingness to cooperate. He advised that one of the things not mentioned was funding for cultural organizations which is very important. He has asked to serve on the Transportation Committee but there has been no response to his request at this time. He stated that anyone who needs to talk to him can call 776-7499 which is his direct number. Mr. Strickland advised that one of the things clearly stated today was the advice to work together and advised that this group does work together on a regular November 19, 2003 1069 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 November 19, 2003 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Room 159, 215 Church Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia, this being an adjourned meeting from November 18, 2003, for the purpose of a joint meeting with Roanoke City Council concerning the proposed Western Virginia Water Authority. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ralph Smith called the meeting to order for the City of Roanoke at 9:43 a.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ralph K. Smith, Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Linda F. Wyatt MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris, Council Members Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. STAFF PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; George C. "Chip" Snead, Assistant City Manager for Operations; Mike McEvoy, Director of Utilities; Jesse Hall, Director of Finance; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Acting Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order for the County of Roanoke at 9:44 a.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. "Butch" Church, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Vice-Chairman Richard C. Flora 6 November 19, 2003 1071 Mr. Hodge advised that he continues to be amazed at how well things are going, and indicated that staff has overcome all the challenges that have been encountered. He stated that the staffs have provided excellent reports and alternatives to challenges that have been encountered. He commended the employees and staff working on the teams. IN RE: UPDATE ON ASSET REVIEW AND UTILITY RATES Mr. Robertson stated that the asset evaluation and draft rate study have been received. He noted that some revisions need to be made, and advised that concrete information should be available within the next 30 days. Mr. McEvoy stated that the consulting firm has done a good job with the first draft and he advised that a substantial amount of detailed information had been submitted and needs to be reviewed. He stated that staff will be reviewing the information to verify that the assumptions made by Black and Veatch are accurate. Mr. Robertson indicated that the final report will project a 10 year horizon, and he noted that this information will be beneficial to both Roanoke City and Roanoke County. He stated that in preparing the report, water lines were examined to determine dates of installation, size of the lines, replacement value, and depreciation. Ms. Burcham stated that originally staff had hoped to present the information contained in the report to City Council and the Board of Supervisors at today's meeting; however, they are still actively engaged in reviewing the reports. She 6 6 November 19, 2003 1073 Council Member Cutler questioned if there was an incentive built into the rate structure to conserve water. Mr. Hodge advised that staff will need the guidance of the Board of Supervisors and City Council regarding this philosophy. He advised that Roanoke County feels that conservation is important. Mr. Robertson advised that Roanoke City's conservation rate is based on a volume charge, and Roanoke County's is built into the step process whereby the base rate increases as the volume used increases. Council Member Cutler advised that he would support building conservation incentives into the rate structure. In response to an inquiry from Mayor Smith, Mr. Robertson advised that staff anticipates having final information available for review by early December. IN RE: OTHER REPORTS Attorneys' Report: Mr. Hackworth advised that staff plans to bring a concurrent resolution to both governing bodies in mid-December 2003 that would adopt the articles of incorporation of the Authority. A public hearing will need to be held, and both governing bodies will have to review and act on the concurrent resolution. Once this has been accomplished, the articles of incorporation can be submitted to the State Corporation Commission (SCC). The timeline indicates that an operating agreement will be brought to both governing bodies in mid-January, and Mr. Hackworth indicated that a lot of work remains to be done to accomplish this objective. He stated that he and Mr. Mahoney have devised athree-page list of issues that must be resolved for inclusion in the operating agreement. He recommended that the pace of the meetings November 19, 2003 1075 resolution, will adopt the articles of incorporation. This will then be sent to the SCC and it is anticipated that the approval will essentially be a pro forma matter, although there are several issues that may require additional review and Mr. Mahoney advised that he is currently attempting to resolve these issues. It is anticipated that approval by the SCC will be received in February 2004 along with a charter. At this time, the Authority becomes legally operable. The Authority Board members will then need to establish the following, pursuant to the provisions in the State Code: budget and rates; adoption of policies, procedures, and bylaws; and selection of key officials. He further advised that from February -June 2004, the Board of Supervisors and City Council will be functioning alongside the Authority Board. It is anticipated that as of July 1, 2004, there will be a transition to full operation by the Authority Board. Supervisor Minnix stated that he had numerous questions such as where and how often the Authority Board will meet, where they will obtain staff to assist in operations, how their billing will function, etc. Mr. Robertson advised that there are approximately 20 teams currently meeting and researching many of these issues and providing information to a steering committee. The steering committee will then provide this information to the Board of Supervisors and City Council, as well as the Authority Board. Supervisor Altizer stated that the Authority Board members appointed at today's meeting will become a part of the staff negotiating teams and will be involved in the review process, enabling them to learn more of the details of the inner workings of 6 November 19, 2003 ~ 077 Council Member Cutler stated that the new Authority Board will need to brief the sixth and seventh members once they have been appointed. In addition, he questioned if the Authority Board would be meeting in an unofficial capacity until July 1, 2004. Mr. Hackworth responded that the meetings will be unofficial until the SCC approves the articles of incorporation. Council Member Cutler also recommended that informational meetings for the citizens be held with the various civic leagues which hold standing organizational meetings in order to improve attendance at the meetings. Council Member Wyatt stated that she agrees with this idea in theory; but if additional meetings with all the civic leagues are scheduled, the investment of time necessary to attend these meetings may impede the ability to move forward with the formation of the Authority. She suggested prioritizing the issues that need to be accomplished. Council Member Bestpitch recommended sending information to these organizations offering to do a presentation if requested. He advised that the President's Council in Roanoke City meets monthly and they could assist in conveying information back to the various civic groups. Ms. Burcham stated that once answers to some of the pending questions are received and publicized, it will generate greater citizen interest and possibly attendance at future informational meetings. Finance Report: Mr. Hall advised that the focus recently has been on providing information to the consultants regarding the rate study report and subsequently reviewing the draft report to ensure that the data was interpreted correctly. He further stated that Roanoke City and Roanoke County have closed on Virginia 6 6 November 19, 2003 1079 Council Member Bestpitch moved to appoint the following individuals to serve as Roanoke City's representatives on the Western Virginia Water Authority Board: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager, to serve athree-year term; M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member, to serve atwo-year term. He advised that the third appointment of a citizen representative is to be designated as soon as possible. The motion was seconded by Council Member Wyatt. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris IN RE: COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS BY CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Supervisor Church stated that we are on the threshold of one of the most important issues facing the Roanoke Valley, and indicated that we should not overlook any areas to be considered. He advised that the questions from citizens will begin to be more focused and they will become more involved as the implementation process continues. He thanked his colleagues on the Board of Supervisors and City Council, as well as the staffs, for their efforts in this regard. Council Member Bestpitch stated that the rate structure should include incentives for conservation. He also voiced his pride in the staff for their work which has brought the project to this point. He expressed thanks to the citizens and stated that 6 6 November 19, 2003 1081 together on as many issues as possible and once this is accomplished, it will break down barriers and thus expand regional cooperation efforts beyond this area. IN RE: CLOSING REMARKS Mayor Smith emphasized the need to communicate with citizens regarding what is being done with regard to the implementation of the Authority and any proposed changes in services. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Mayor Smith recessed the Roanoke City Council meeting at 10:41 a.m. until Friday, November 21, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. at the Roanoke Higher Education Center for a joint meeting of the Council and Roanoke City School Board. Acting Chairman Altizer adjourned the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting at 10:41 a.m. until the December 2, 2003 Board meeting at 3:00 p.m. Submitted by: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Approved by: Michael W. Altizer Acting Chairman 6 December 2, 2003 ~ 083 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 December 2, 2003 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 December, 2003. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph McNamara, Vice-Chairman Richard C. Flora, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. "Butch" Church, 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; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by the Reverend Branan Thompson, Windsor Hills United Methodist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS 6 G December 2, 2003 1085 WHEREAS, during his tenure as Treasurer, Mr. Anderson also served as President of the Treasurers' Association of Virginia; President of the National Association of County Treasurers; as Roanoke County Voting Delegate to the National Association of Counties (NACo) for many years; and as a NACo Steering Committee Member; named Treasurer of the Year by the Treasurers' Association of Virginia in 1986; and received the Victor E. Martinelli Outstanding Treasurers Award in July 1996, and WHEREAS, Mr. Anderson has been a good friend and neighbor to the citizens of Roanoke County by serving as President of the Vinton Host Lions Club; President of the Dogwood Festival of Virginia; Treasurer of Vinton Masonic Lodge #204; Treasurer of the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (Explore Park); and as a member of the Roanoke Valley -Allegany Regional Commission and it's Legislative Committee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, on its own behalf and on behalf of the citizens of Roanoke County, does hereby extend its sincere appreciation to ALFRED C. ANDERSON for twenty-eight years of service to the residents of Roanoke County; and FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does hereby extend its sincere best wishes to Mr. Anderson in his future. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None 2. Presentation from the U. S. Marine Corps Reserve Unit and the Marine Corps Lea ue and appropriation of 7 500 proceeds from the 8th Annual Marine Mud Run 1st Sgt. Reeves and Mike Shepherd made the presentation to Chairman McNamara. Also present were Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, and Eddie Ford, Recreation Supervisor. 3. Recognition of the Fire and Rescue Department for receiving the 2003 Virginia Association of Counties VACo Achievement December 2, 2003 1087 in this indicator. Over the last 100 years, every segment of the U. S. population's health care has improved, with the exception of teenagers. The teen pregnancy data is just one indicator of the health status of teenagers as a group. Dr. O'Dell advised that teenagers are less likely to seek health care treatment due to the fact that they are generally healthy. In conjunction with these concerns, Dr. O'Dell noted that the rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia have increased. She stated that the gonorrhea rate in Roanoke City is three times the state average, and some aggressive initiatives are underway to address this problem. One of the problems with gonorrhea and chlamydia is that infected males do not seek treatment and therefore do not remove themselves from the pool of infection. Supervisor Altizer questioned why the public health spending per capita in Roanoke County, which is $13.75, was roughly 3%2 times less than the rate in other localities. Dr. O'Dell advised that this figure is partially a local match for the state's funding. Because Roanoke County pays a higher percentage share due to their greater revenue capabilities, this results in a lower per capita spending rate. Supervisor Altizer also noted that the percentage of the population age 65 and older is approximately 16% in Roanoke County, and he questioned if this number fluctuates with regard to the average age of the population in Roanoke County? Dr. O'Dell stated that between 1995 and 2000, the average age has remained relatively stable. 6 6 December 2, 2003 1089 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, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 120203-2 REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANALYZE A SECTION 15.2-2232 REQUEST -COMMUNITY WELL FACILITY -BACK CREEK AREA WHEREAS, on October 31, 2003 Roanoke County received a request to allow the development of a privately owned community well facility on property behind Back Creek Elementary along Route 221 south; and WHEREAS, this privately owned public utility facility is not shown on the adopted Comprehensive Plan of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2232 provides the authority to the Roanoke County Planning Commission to determine if this facility is substantially in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined the need to study the issue, analyze the land use impacts of such a facility and receive public input; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is granted by the Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2232 sixty (60) days to complete such a study unless an extension of time is requested of the governing body; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that additional time to thoroughly study this Issue is necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Planning Commission is requesting an additional 90 days (for a total study time of 150 days) to study the Section 15.2-2232 request for the development of a privately owned community well system in southwest Roanoke County. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None December 2, 2003 1091 AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer NAYS: Supervisor McNamara IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Supervisor McNamara requested that John M. Hudgins, Jr., member at large, be placed on the December 16, 2003, agenda for ratification. He will serve a three-year term which will expire on December 31, 2006. Supervisor McNamara nominated Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator, to serve an additional three-year term which will expire on December 31, 2006. 2. Library Board (Appointed ~ District) Supervisor Church nominated Josie Eyer, Catawba District, to serve an additional four-year term which will expire on December 31, 2007. Supervisor McNamara nominated Sheryl L. Ricci, Windsor Hills District, to serve an additional four-year term which will expire on December 31, 2007. 3. Roanoke County Planning Commission (Appointed ~ District Supervisor Minnix advised that he will yield this appointment to Supervisor-Elect Michael A. Wray. 4. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Supervisor McNamara nominated Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services, to serve an additional four-year term which will expire on December 31, 2007. 6 6 December 2, 2003 1093 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 Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 120203-4.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF GLEN MEADOW 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 (T 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, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara Nays: None RESOLUTION 120203-4.g REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF STRATFORD WAY, JULIET COURT, AND HAMLET TRAIL INTO THE December 2, 2003 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Continaency Fund 4. Future Capital Projects 1095 5. Accounts Paid =October 2003 6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended October 31' 2003 7. Report from VDOT of changes to the secondary road system in October 2003 IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Altizer: (1) He extended condolences to Eric Thomas, member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, and his family on the recent death of his daughter in a car accident. He advised that Miss Thomas was also the granddaughter of Delegate Vic Thomas. (2) He thanked the School Board for their actions on behalf of the residents of Hill Drive. Supervisor Church: He thanked the School Board for their actions with regard to the school attendance issue on Hill Drive, and stated that the situation had to be corrected. He requested that staff work to prevent similar occurrences in the future. Supervisor McNamara: He advised that the Roanoke County Tree Lighting Ceremony will be held at the Brambleton Center on December 4 at 7:00 p.m. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS (4th Floor Conference Room) 1. Work session to discuss remote control locomotive operations. Paul Mahoney, Count Attorne 6 6 December 2, 2003 ~ ~g7 Supervisor Church questioned if remote control locomotives would be operated near neighborhoods or schools. Mr. Mahoney advised that the answer depends on how you define a rail yard. It was the consensus of the Board to place the resolution on the December 16 agenda for consideration. 2. Work session with citizens to discuss Back Creek development. Elmer Hodge, Count Administrator) The work session was held from 5:20 p.m. until 6:15 p.m. Mr. Hodge advised that members of the Planning Commission, as well as representatives from the development community, were present at the meeting. He stated that the focus for this discussion is on the issue of development itself, rather than a specific proposed development. He voiced concern with "leapfrog" development, some of which relies on community water systems. He noted that this type of development goes beyond the existing infrastructure of a locality and impacts roads, water and sewer, schools, and fire and rescue services. He noted that possible solutions to this issue are part of the current Comprehensive Plan review, and stated that these solutions must be incorporated into the County's policies and procedures in order to protect ridge tops and view sheds in the future. He indicated the desire to have developments be compatible with the existing infrastructure. 6 6 December 2, 2003 1099 Robert Seymour, 7552 Boxwood Drive, stated that it is clear that there is a consensus of concern and noted that more individuals would be present if they felt there was something that could actually be done to remedy the situation. He offered the assistance of the citizens in helping the Board to address these areas of concern, and stated that because the developers do not cause these problems, it does not relieve them of the responsibility to not exacerbate the situation. He stated the need to strengthen the Comprehensive Plan. Don Witt, member of the Roanoke County Planning Commission, stated that in the early 1990s, Roanoke County had a citizen's visioning process. One section of this process, which dealt with growth management, encouraged growth in the urban services area. He advised that increasing density and encouraging growth in the urban services area was the basis for the Comprehensive Plan. Supervisor Flora noted that some of the school information that was cited was inaccurate, and advised that Hidden Valley High School has not yet reached capacity. He concurred with most of the citizens recommendations; however, he stated that downzoning can create legal problems. He advised that density is the issue that must be addressed and that lowering density will decrease the number of houses, which will in turn lessen the impact on the infrastructure. Supervisor McNamara stated that many of the concerns expressed by the citizens are the same ones that were discussed by the Board at their recent retreat. He indicated that everyone appears to share concerns about community water systems. December 2, 2003 1101 Comprehensive Plan; (4) staff is reviewing development/utility ordinances, as well as development standards with respect to storm water management. With regard to the pending Section 2232 review of the David Vaughn and Ron Jackson property, Mr. Mahoney stated that the Planning Commission will need to determine if the proposed development is in substantial conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. If the decision is appealed to the Board of Supervisors, they will need to judge the facts in the appeal. Mr. Mahoney advised that he did not want to prejudge or prejudice a matter that may come before the Board in the future. Mr. Hodge recommended that the County proceed with the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan, and advised that the Community Development office will conduct administrative reviews to ensure that development on marginal lots is not allowed. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:18 p.m., Chairman McNamara moved to go into closed session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (1) discussion of the appointment of specific public officers, namely Grievance Panel. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 4:25 p.m. until 4:42 p.m. 6 6 December 2, 2003 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 6:16 p.m. Submitted by: Diane S. Childers Clerk to the Board Approved by: Joseph P. McNamara Chairman 1103 Administrative Appeal by Galax Treatment Center, d/b/a LCG-Roanoke Exhibits Index 1) Counsel for LCG-Roanoke's appeal to the Board of Supervisors including the Zoning Administrator's September 30, 2003 opinion 2) County Attorney's response to Appeal 3) Code sections: Sec. 30-15 of zoning ordinance, and Sec. 15.2-2301 of the Code of Virginia 4) Ordinance adopted on March 28, 1989 with proffered conditions 5) April 25, 1997 rezoning application, legal notice, and May 27, 1997 staff report to the Planning Commission 6) Ordinance No. 062497-11 7) Minutes from the June 24, 1997 meeting of the Board of Supervisors December 16, 2003 6 ~ ~. !''nnnfv of 12n~r.._.:o For Staff Use f)nl i° Communit Develo ment y p Dace received: Received by: ' Planning & Zoning Application fee: PC/BZA date: 5204 Bernard Drive P 0 BOX 29800 Placards issued: BOS date: Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Case Number ALL APPLICANTS p~~-A~' ~(ARp A , l~q~', ESQ .. , 3 912 ELECTRIC ROIA[3, ROr4I~JECE VA 2 4 0.18 Check type of application filed (check all that apply) ®OIARD ~ SUPERV ~ SflRS ~ Rezoning O Special Use O Variance O Vdaiver ~ Administrative Appeal Applicants name/address wlzip Phone: 1-800-345-6998 lnc. Work: 725-8180 (Edward A. Natt) Galax Treatment Center , d / ~ / a LS.~-Roanoke Cell #: FaxNo.: X72-0126 (Edward A. Natt) P. 0. Box 27 Galax VA 24333 Owner's name/address w;zip Phone #: Wi I f iam F. (Sr.) 8 Kathleen Bal I Work: 7715 Fort Mason Drive Fax No. #: Property Location Magisterial District: Cave S r i n p ' 3390 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 Communit;~ Planning area: Cave ri Tax Map No.: 77.11-01-57 Existing Zoning: C-1 Cond i t i ona l ' Size of parcel(s): Acres: 1 .231 acres . Existing Land Use: former medical office ' 'REZONING SPECIAL USE PERIVIIT~.ND WAIY~'R APP~ICARTTS (R~S~ 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 t'te requested Use Type? Yes No ~' NO, A VARIANCE I5 REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No VARL4IVCE, WAIVER ANB AI~tpII1VISTRATII'E APPEAL APPLICA!'ti'TS (V/K'/AA) Variance/Vdaiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Natt Esq . Administrator's decision to LCG-Roanoke addressed to Edward A eal of Zonin A . , . g pp appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance 'ruder date of Sept . 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application compiete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION Vi'~II,L NOT' BE ACCEPTED IF Al~~' OE TI£ESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R,'5/i'F' V/AA R/S/W V/AA R/SrW ~r/AA Consultation 8 lJ2" x 1J" concept plan ~ ~ Application fee }( Appiication Metes and bounds description Proffer, if applicab}e ' Justification Water and sewer application )( Adjoining property owners 1 hereby certify that 1 am either the owner of the property or r contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. tt ~®~ ,~_ eA ...~ Owner's Signan,re ~'pA .. ~ ~~,~. - ~' ON FOR ADiVII1V'ISTRATIVE APPEAT; ~tEQIJEST ,T(JSTIFICA'I'I Applicant Ca l ax Treatment Center f nc. d/b/a L.CG-Roanoke Please respond to the following as thoroughly as possible. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. 2. Evidence supporting claim: See attached. 6 J r '•' , ~p f,' ±~ •~ t ~- , ~ Y RDanoke County Co~-unoty D~'Valopment~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,D~ vision o~ f~~ann~ng and Zoninr~ Roanoke Times l,eaal Advertisement Fee Information Applicant: Galax Treatment Center, Inc. Cate: d/b/a l.~-Roanoke This is to notify you that the Planning and Zoning staff will prepare your legal ad and email it to The Roanoke Times. Please call The Roanoke Times Legal Department ~ (~4t3~ 981.-3416 to set up payment for the ad prior to the deadline date stated below. pa meat Deadline Dates: PC: Y BC?S: Variance: ' Admin. Appeal; X If payment is not made to the Roanoke Times prior t® the deadline date, the ad wil! not be run and the application will not be heard at the hearing, 0 7 GALAX TREATMENT CENTER -ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL Galax Treatment Center, d/b/a LCG-Roanoke, hereby notes its appeal to the determination made by David Holladay, Senior Planner, Zoning Administrator, in his letter of September 30, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto. The September ' 30, 2003 letter was written in response to the business license application filed by LCG-Roanoke for the operation of a methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue in Roanoke County. The Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed use was not in compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and thus refused to certify zoning compliance. This appeal is taken from that decision and is, in effect, an appeal of each issue raised in the Zoning Administrator's letter. This a eal is taken ursuant to Section 30-15-3 of the Roanoke County pp P Code. The appeal is specifically raised as to each and every point set out by the Zoning Administrator in his letter including, without limitation, the following: 1. The proposed use is sufficiently different from any use type defined in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and would require an amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. In making his determination, the Zoning Administrator referred to three particular points: (a) Intensity of proposed land use; (b) Security of proposed facility; and . (c) Physician not necessarily on staff. 2. The Zoning Administrator further was of the opinion that the June 24, 1997, ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors, which changed the proffered conditions on the site, contained a "inadvertent" error when the word "family" was not included in Condition 1. The Zoning Administrator made the determination that the word "family" should have been included. 3. The Zoning Administrator determined that he could not certify zoning compliance until an amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance had taken place. An appeal is made to this decision inasmuch as the Zoning Administrator must work within the parameters of the existing ordinance. It is not permissible for the Zoning Administrator to simply state "until an amendment is made, I cannot certify zoning compliance." 4. The Zoning Administrator, in his September 30 letter, states that he "considered new information gathered over the past few weeks" in making his determination. LCG-Roanoke would specifically state that no additional 1 information was sought from it at any time during the process and in support thereof, would state as follows: 1\JOLLY\SYS\USERSICBaumgardnerlZONING\LCG-Roanoke appea BS.doc Page 1 of 4 I ' (a) By letter of April 24, 2003, Edward A. Natt, counsel for LCG-Roanoke, sought a determination from the Zoning Administrator as to whether or ' not a methadone clinic would meet the definition of a medical office under Section 30-29-4 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. ' (b) By letter of June 5, 2003, the Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed clinic would meet the definition of a medical office in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. (c) That during the period from April 24 until June 5, 2003, any questions initiated from Roanoke County were answered by Mr. Natt on behalf of his client. (d) That LCG-Roanoke did not refuse, on any occasion, to supply ' information and none of the information provided by LCG was inaccurate or changed from the April 24 request or the June Stn letter. (e) That despite such, the Zoning Administrator, in his September 30 letter, states that new information has been gathered. LCG-Roanoke would state that all of the points raised by the Zoning Administrator in the September 30 letter were, in fact, the same as existed on April 24tH June 5t", and thereafter. LCG-Roanoke did not change the scope of its request and, if asked, would have responded in the same manner in . April as it did in September. Thus, LCG-Roanoke would state that the following issues were available for consideration by the Zoning Administrator following the April 24 request and have not changed since: (i) The classifications contained in the NAICS industry classification; ' (ii) The hours of operation and scheduling of appointments; iii The securit of the faciiit ; O Y Y (iv) The staffing of the facility. Thus it is inappropriate for the Zoning Administrator to change his opinion based on new information gathered when that information is exactly the same that existed in April. ~I Insofar as the point raised by the Zoning Administrator relating to the "inadvertent" omission of the word "family" in the 1997 amendment, LCG-Roanoke would cite existing law stating that an ordinance has the effect of law and, unless it is ambiguous, one cannot resort to extrinsic evidence, legislative intent or any other factors. If the language of the ordinance is plain, clear and unambiguous, that 6 \\JOLLY\SYS\USERS\CBaumgardner\ZONING\LCG-Roanoke appea BS.doc Page2of4 language must control and one cannot look outside the plain meaning of the language. The ordinance has the effect of law as written unless it is ambiguous or unclear. The language of the 1997 proffer is very clear, it contains the {anguage "the rezoned parcel be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of medicine." That language is clear and unambiguous and must be read exactly and is not subject to any interpretation. It also must be given its full meaning and effect. For the above reasons, and for reasons to be stated at the appeal, Galax Treatment Center, Inc., d/b/a LCG-Roanoke, would respectfully request that the Zoning Administrator's decision of September 30, 2003 be reversed and that LCG- ' Roanoke be issued a certificate of zoning compliance so that it may obtain its business license to operate a methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue. 1 fl Inherent in the Zoning Administrator's decision is the determination that LCG- Roanoke did not have vested rights to operate a methadone clinic at said site. The Zoning Administrator's letter does not specifically address this but, since the September 30t" letter is in response to the question of whether or not LCG-Roanoke was in compliance with the zoning ordinance, the Zoning Administrator must have, in his determination, considered whether or not LCG-Roanoke had vested rights. Therefore, the appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals also requests a determination that LCG-Roanoke had vested rights. In support thereof, LCG-Roanoke would state as follows: As to significant affirmative governmental act, Section 15.2-2307 of the Code requires that the governing body has accepted proffers or proffered conditions which specify a use related to a zoning amendment. Ordinance 062497-11 adopted June 24, 1997 specifically states that this C-1 property will be used for the operation of medical offices for the practice of medicine. In addition, the Zoning Administrator's opinion of June 5, 2003 specifically states that a methadone clinic meets the definition of medical office. Thus there has been a significant affirmative governmental act relating to the property. 2. LCG-Roanoke relied in good faith on the existing ordinance and the opinion of the Zoning Administrator. Evidence will be presented at the hearing to demonstrate that, based upon the June 24, 1997 Ordinance and the June 5, 2003 letter, LCG-Roanoke proceeded to obtain a lease for the property, took steps to obtain approval of regulatory agencies and further implemented a procedure to staff and make renovations to the building in order to operate a methadone clinic. 3. LCG-Roanoke incurred expensive obligations and expenses in diligent pursuit of the project in reliance on the significant affirmative governmental act. These included, without limitation, the entering into of the lease, making arrangements for installation of security systems and other renovations to the building, initiating processes to staff the premises, seeking governmental ' 1\JOLLY\SYS\USERS\CBaumgardnerlZONING\LCG-Roanoke appea BS.doc Page 3 of 4 approval, and undertaking other expenses in relation to this project. Thus, LCG-Roanoke had obtained vested rights to use the property at 3390 Colonial Avenue for the operation of a methadone clinic. \\JOLLY\SYS\USERS\CBaumgardner\ZONINGILCG-Roanoke appea BS.doc Page 4 of 4 ~` 4 ~OANp~. t. ~ F ~ A. F ~ z p a ~.~ ~~~~ 7838 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' DIRECTOR, ARNOLD COVE`! ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, GEORGE \N. SIMPSON, III, P.E. CHIEF PLANNER, JANET SCHEID ii September 30, 2003 Edward A. Natt Osterhoudt, Prillaman, Natt, Helscher, Yost, Maxwell & Ferguson, PLC P.O. Box 20487 Roanoke, VA 24018 Re: Business License Application for LGC-Roanoke, 3390 Colonial Avenue DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS MAPPING/GIS PERMITS PLANNING & ZONING STORP~WATER MANAGEMENT Dear NIr. Natt, LI C. n In response to the business license application for LGC-Roanoke, a client of yours that wishes to open a methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue, please be advised of the following. The proposed methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue would be a change of use which, per Section 30-10 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, requires a certificate of zoning compliance. As Zoning Administrator, I have determined that the proposed use is sufficiently different from any use type defined in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, and, per Section 30-29 (B), will require an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance. until such amendment is made to the zoning ordinance, I cannot certify zoning compliance. When requested by you on September 12, 2002 to render an opinion regarding a methadone clinic, my initial response on September 18, 2002 was to define the use as a Halfway House in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. The use was not specifically defined in the zoning ordinance, but had operational and physical characteristics of aHalfway House, per the zoning ordinance defmition the "rehabilitation, counseling and supervision of persons suffering from alcohol or drug addiction". On April 24, 2003, you requested an interpretation of a methadone clinic with respect to the definition of Medical Office in the zoning ordinance. After reviewing the proposed use described in your letter, a methadone clinic was, again, not specifically defined in the zoning ordinance, but had operational and physical characteristics of aMedical Office, per the zoning ordinance definition the "use of the site for facilities which provide diagnosis, minor surgical care and outpatient care on a routine basis, but which does not provide overnight care". On June 5, 2003, my response was that the proposed use described on April 24, 2003 would be defined as a Medical Office in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018 • PHONE (540) 772-2080 • FAX (540} 772-2108 Recycled Paper I~ J C ~i Mr. Ed Natt Page 2 On September 23, 2003, .LGC-Roanoke requested a busil~ess license to operate an opiod treatment center, or methadone clinic, at 3390 Colonial Avenue. After considering rew information gathered over the past few weeks, it is my opinion, as Zoning Administrator, that the use is significantly different from Halfway House, Medical Office, or any other use type defined in the Roanoke County- Zoning Ordinance, and will require an amendment to the text of the ordinance. The North American Industry Classification System (NAILS} lists a separate and distinct industry classification for "Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Center". This classification offers guidance for a new use type to be defined in the zoning ordinance. Tel reaching this decision to require a text amendment, the following points have also been considered. These points further demonstrate that the proposed use is :not consistent with the definition of a medical office in Section 30-29-4 in the zoning ordinance. Tl~tensity of proposed land use: The descriptions of the unscheduled arrival of patients anywhere between the hours of 5:00 am until 2:00 pm are much different from scheduled appointments at a typical doctors' or dentists' office. The early arrival of patients would have a greater impact to the surrounding neighborhood than typical scheduled visits during regular business hours for off ce and professional uses found in the C1 district. 2 Security of the proposed facility: When asked on September 18, 2003 about security for the proposed facility, staff from the Life Center of Galax responded that a security guard would be on premises during operating hours and they were considering a security fence and gates around the facility. These security measures are not consistent with a typical Medical Office in the Cl zoning district, but more consistent with a use such as a Hospital in the C2 zoning district.. 3 Physician not necessarily on staff: The description of the medical staff at a proposed methadone clinic has changed from the above-referenced September 12, 2002 ietter, to the above-referenced Apri124, 2003 letter, and to responses to our questions of Life Center staff. In the September 12, 2002 ietter, the staff description stated that "Either a physician or licensed nurse would be on duty at all hours of operation." In the April 24, 2003 letter, the staff description stated that "The clinic would be staffed by a licensed physician, as well as licensed nurses." When asked on September 18, 2003 about physician staffing, the Life Center of Galax responded that "There will not necessarily be a physician on staff, at the site, each day." Further review of the varying descriptions of the proposed staff has led to a different analysis of the proposed operation. Per Section 30-29-4 of the zoning ordinance, "Medical offices are operated by doctors, dentists, or similar practitioners Licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia." ' Mr. Ed Natt ' Page 3 to addition to the above information regarding methadone clinics in general, please be advised of the ' following regarding the specific site in question. Section 30-15 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance allows conditional zoning. A review of the zoning at 3390 Colonial Avenue shows the 1 1 zoning classification of C 1 C. On March 28, 1989 the property was rezoned from R-1 Single Family Residential District to B-l, Office with Conditions District. Condition #1 states "The rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of family medicine." It is my opinion, as Zoning Administrator, that the operation of a methadone clinic is not the "practice of family medicine", and would violate condition #1. On June 24, 1997, the property was rezoned to amend condition #3, in order to amend a proffered concept plan. While no mention of changing any other conditions was made in the application for rezoning, the word "family" was not included in condition # 1 of the revised proffer statement, signed by the applicant. This mistake appears inadvertent, but does not change the applicability of Condition #1 limiting the use of the property to the "practice of family medicine". In conclusion, the proposed methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue would be a change of use which, per Section 30-10 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, requires a certificate of zoning compliance. The proposed use is sufficiently different from any use type defined in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, and, per Section 30-29 (B), will require an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance. Until such amendment is made to the zoning ordinance, I cannot certify zoning compliance. In addition, the property at 3390 Colonial Avenue was rezoned on March 28, 1989 from R-1 Single Family Residential District to B-1, Office with Conditions District. Condition #1 states "The rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of family medicine." It is my opinion, as Zoning Administrator, that the operation of a methadone clinic is not the "practice of family medicine", and would violate condition #l. Please be advised, per Section 30-24-3, that appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals maybe taken by any person aggrieved by any decision of the zoning administrator. Appeais must be made within thirty (30) days after the entry of the decision appealed from by filing with the administrator and with the Board of Zoning Appeals, a notice of appeal, specifying the grounds thereof. In addition, please be advised that, per Section 30-15-3, any zoning applicant, or any other person aggrieved by a decision of the administrator made pursuant to the provisions of Section 30-15, may petition the Board of Supervisors for the review of the decision of the administrator. A:11 such petitions for review shall be filed with the administrator within thirty (30) days from the date of the decision for which review is sought. All such petitions shall specify the grounds upon which the petitioner is aggrieved. II L~ Ed Natt Page 4 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 772-2092. Sincerely, David Hollada z~ Y Senior Planner, Zoning Administrator Cc: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Elmer Hodge, County Administrator Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development Janet Scheid, Chief Planner ADJOINING PROPEPTY OWNER LISTING Tax Map No.: 77.11-01-57 (3390 Colonial Avenue) Applicant: Galax Treatment Center, lnc. Owners: William F. (Sr.) and Kathleen Ball ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS This list as follows are those property owners who own property beside, behind or across the street from the subject property noted above: COUNTY OF ROANOKE Official Tax Number / Owner's Name Property Address and Mailing Address 77.'11-01-47 George Wayne and Susan S. Moore 3338 Woodland Drive 3338 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24015 77,11.01..q,g Steven L. and Donna S. Pleshman 3344 Woodland Drive 3344 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24015 77.11-01-50 Mark Andrew and Rena Pop Graham 3346 Woodland Drive 3346 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24015 77,1 ~! -01 _~~ ~ Occidental Development Ltd. 3455 Colonial Avenue ATTN: Donald J. Williams 7901 Crawfordsville Road Indianapolis, IN 46224 77.11-01-58 Roanoke Orthopaedic Center, Inc. 0 Ogden Road 4064 Postal Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 77.11-01-59 Allen H. and Elizabeth H. Oberlin 0 Colonial Avenue 3652 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 \\JOLLY\SYSIUSERS1CBaumgardnerizONING1Life Center-Galax APO.doc Page 1 of 1 October 21, 2003 December 16, 2003 COUNTY ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE TO APPEAL ' The Galax Treatment Center d/b/a/ LCG-Roanoke has appealed the decision of the Roanoke County Zoning Administrator to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. ' LGC-Roanoke applied for a business license to open a methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue. The business license application required a certificate of zoning ' compliance. On September 30, 2003, Roanoke County Zoning Administrator David Holladay ruled that the operation of a methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue was not consistent with a condition proffered by the owner of this property which limited the use ' of this property to "medical offices for the practice of family medicine." The Zoning Administrator determined that the operation of a methadone clinic is not the "practice of family medicine" and that it would violate this proffered condition. ' William F. Ball, Sr. and Eugenia H. Ball own a 1.23-acre parcel located at the corner of Colonial Avenue and Ogden Road, identified as 3390 Colonial Avenue. On ' March 28, 1989, the property was rezoned at the request of the owners from R-1 Single Family Residential District to B-1 Office District with conditions. The 1989 rezoning was accompanied with ten conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the owners. ' Condition No. 1 provided as follows: "the rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of family medicine." ' On April 25, 1997, the owners filed a second rezoning application for this property. In its application the owner stated "the revised conceptual plan provides for the expansion of parking facilities only." They further stated that "this request does not ' provide for, or request, any change in zoning or request any change of use for this property." The stated purpose of this rezoning was to amend the conditions in order to expand an existing parking lot. After the Board held a public hearing, it adopted the ordinance granting the ' owners' request. The only changes or amendments made to the zoning of this property are shown in the highlighted portion of the ordinance, and the highlighted language of the ordinance only references additional parking. The expansion or intensification of the use ' of the property by the deletion of the word "family°' as an adjective modifying "medicine" was not considered or made known to the Board. The deletion of the word "family" was not highlighted or signified in any manner in the revised list of proffered ' conditions signed by the owners. It is unknown if the removal of the word "family" was an inadvertent mistake or a purposeful misrepresentation. ' The Zoning Administrator determined that the mistake appears inadvertent, but concluded it does not change the applicability of the condition limiting the use of the property to the "practice of family medicine." Questions Presented 1. Is the use of the property at 3390 Colonial Avenue subject to the proffered condition limiting its use to the "practice of family ' medicine?" ' The stated purpose of the 1997 application by the owners was to amend their concept plan to allow for additional parking. The owners stated in their application that their request was not for any change in zoning or any change in use for the property. The ' published legal notices stated that the only purpose was to expand the existing parking lot. The staff report and minutes of the meeting before the Board of Supervisors indicated that the only change was to the third proffered condition relating to the parking. ' Finally the prepared ordinance showed by highlighting and strike-through that the only change to the 1989 ordinance related to the parking. The owners submitted an amended proffer of conditions that omitted the word "family" from the first proffered condition. However the owners did not advise the Board of this change. Instead they told the Board that the only change was for parking. ' Deleting the limiting word "family" from the first condition (which limits the use of the property to the "practice of family medicine"), has the practical effect of expanding ' or intensifying the use of this property. Sec. 15.2-2302 of the State Code (and Sec. 30-14-4 of the County Code) provides that there "shall be no amendment or variation of conditions ...until after a public hearing before the governing body advertised pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 15.2- 2204." Sec. 15.2-2204 requires the advertisement to contain a descriptive summary of ' the proposed action. The legal notices published with the 1997 rezoning failed to include any reference to expanding or intensifying the use of the property by deleting the word "family" from the first condition. The descriptive summary in the notices related only to expanding the parking. An amendment that fails to give the required notice is void and of no effect. ' Since the legal notice failed to satisfy statutory standards necessary to expand the use of the property to uses other than the practice of family medicine, the ordinance adopted after this notice did not expand or intensity the use of the property. The property continues to be subject to the first condition, which limits the use of the property to the "operation of medical offices for the practice of family medicine." 1 6 2 2. Is the operation of a methadone clinic consistent with the "practice of ' family medicine?" The National Library of Medicine (Third Edition 1993) defines "Family Practice" ' as that "branch of medicine concerned with the provision of continuing, comprehensive, primary health care for the entire family." It is distinguished from "Addiction Medicine", which is the "branch of medicine concerned with the study, prevention and ' treatment of addictive diseases; the physiological and psychological disorders associated with substance dependence." ' The American Board of Family Practice defines its specialty as one "which is concerned with the total health care of the individual and the family. It is the specialty in breadth which integrates the biological, clinical, and behavioral sciences. The scope of family practice is not limited by age, sex, organ system or disease entity." It is based upon the heritage of the general practitioner. It is a medical specialty which provides for the continuing and comprehensive health care for the individual and family. ' The American Society of Addictive Medicine (ASAM) seeks to certify its members as an addictionist, who is a physician who specializes in the prevention, ' diagnosis, and treatment of addictive disorders such as alcohol, cocaine, stimulants, cannabis, nicotine, opioids and other drugs. ASAM has its own certification requirements which are different from those of a Family Practice specialist. From these definitions it is clear that there is a distinction between these two specialties in the medical field. Based upon these medical distinctions there is a difference between a medical office and a medical office limited to the practice of family medicine. There is also a difference between a methadone clinic and a clinic limited to the family practice of medicine. A methadone clinic is not designed to address the total health care of the individual and the family. It is not designed to provide for the continuing and ' comprehensive health care of the individual and family. It is limited to addressing the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of addictive disorders. ' The operation of a methadone clinic is not consistent with the practice of family medicine. ' 3. Is the operation of a methadone clinic in violation of a proffered condition limiting the use of the property to the "practice of family medicine?" ' The use of this property is subject to the first condition of the 1989 rezoning ordinance, which limited the use of the property to the "operation of medical offices for the practice of family medicine." A medical office for the practice of family medicine ' provides continuing and comprehensive health care for the individual and the family. 6 ' 3 A methadone clinic is a different use from that of a medical office for the ractice p of family medicine. A methadone clinic provides assistance to individuals suffering from t addiction. It dispenses methadone to its patients. It does not provide diagnoses, minor surgical care and outpatient care on a routine basis. It lacks an on-site medical doctor. ' Methadone will be dispensed by a nurse, but nurses are not "doctors, dentists, or similar practitioners licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Sec. 30-29-4 County Code, definition of "medical office"). ' The proffered condition limits the use of this property to a medical office for the practice of family medicine. A methadone clinic is not a medical office for the practice ' of family medicine. Therefore a methadone clinic is inconsistent with this proffered condition. Allowing such a use that is inconsistent with this proffered condition would be a violation of the zoning ordinance. CONCLUSION ' The property at 3390 Colonial Avenue is subject to the 1989 proffered condition limiting its use to the "practice of family medicine." The operation of a methadone clinic is not consistent with the practice of family medicine and this operation would be in ' violation of this proffered condition. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors should uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator. ~~ u 1 1 ° u NextPage LivePublish Page 1 of 1 SEC. 30-15. CONDITIONAL ZONING; GENERALLY. (A) In accordance with the authority granted to Roanoke County per section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, the owner of property for which an amendment is requested may voluntarily proffer in writing reasonable conditions, in addition to the applicable regulations for the requested zoning district. All proffered conditions must be signed by the owner of the property. (B) Roanoke County's acceptance of proffers pursuant to this authority shall be in accord with the procedures and standards contained in section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. (C) All conditions proffered by the owner shall meet the following standards: The rezoning itself must give rise for the need for the conditions. i u n The conditions shall have a reasonable relation to the rezoning. 3. The conditions shall be in conformity with the community plan. 4. The conditions must be clearly understood and enforceable. 5. The conditions must not require or allow a design or standard that is less restrictive than the general provisions of this ordinance. (D) Any such conditions should be submitted prior to the start of the commission's public hearing on the amendment. All conditions shall be submitted prior to the start of the board's public hearing, and shall also be submitted in accord with any adopted board policy pertaining to the submittal of proffers. If proffered conditions which substantially modify the nature or impact of the proposed use, are made by the owner after the commission's recommendation on the amendment, the administrator shall recommend to the board that the amendment be referred back to the commission for further review and action. The commission shall have the authority to schedule a new public hearing for any request so referred. The applicant shall be responsible for all advertising costs associated with the new public hearing. (E) The commission and the board shall not be obligated to accept any or all of the conditions made by the property owner. (Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1f., 4-27-99) http://livepublish.municode.com/19/lpext.dll/Infobase3 5/1/1 b3f/1 cb9/1die?fn=document-... 12/10/2003 LIS > Code of Virginia > 15.2-2301 § 15.2-2301. Same; petition for review of decision. Page 1 of 1 rep V10US ~ next Any zoning applicant or any other person who is aggrieved by a decision of the zoning administrator made pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2299 may petition the governing body for review of the decision of the zoning administrator. All petitions for review shall be filed with the zoning administrator and with the clerk of the governing body within thirty days from the date of the decision for which review is sought and shall specify the grounds upon which the petitioner is aggrieved. (1978, c. 320, § 15.1-491.5; 1988, c. 856; 1997, c. 587.) previous ~ next ~ new search ~ table of contents ~ home 6 htt»://le~l .state.va.us/c~i-bin/le~p504.exe?000+cod+15.2-2301 12/10/2003 r ~a w o ^ ~ M H W H z 0 U ' O H A w 0 'a a a J u i J t e,~^~`, VIRGINIA: ' Y 1'q4 BEFORE THE BOARD OUPR ~- RS , OF ROAL~TOKE COUNTY +~~, A 1.231 acre parcel of land, ) generally located on the North ) side of Ogden Road at ) 3511 Ogden Road within the ) FINAL ORDER Cave Spring Magisterial District, ) and recorded as parcel 77.11-1-57 ) in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: y ~r'~- WHEREAS, your Petitioners, William F. Ball and Eugenia H. Ball, did petition the Board of County Supervisors to rezone the above-referenced parcel from R-1, Single Family Residential District to B-1, Office with Conditions District, for the purpose of constructing. and operating medical offices. WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Board of County Supervisors did hold a public hearing of the petition on March 28, 1989, at which time, all parties in interest were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after full consideration at the public hearing held on March 28, 1989, the Board of County Supervisors determined that the rezoning be granted with conditions proffered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land, which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel 77.11-1-57 and recorded in Deed Book 1297, Page 1639, and legally described below, be rezoned from R-l, Single Family Residential District to B-l, Office with Conditions District. a - 11 - [. C 1 i ii n Legal Description of Property: BEGINNING at a point on the north side of Ogden Road, S. W., corner to the land of the Knights of Pythias of Roanoke, Va.; thence with the north side of Ogden Road, S. W., N. 74° 09' 07" W. 63.86 feet to a point; thence continuing with the north side of Ogden Road, S. W., N. 63° 34' 45" W. 153.52 feet to a point; thence~N. 16° 15' S0" W. 67.92 feet to a point on the east side of Colonial Avenue, S. W.; thence with the east side of Colonial Avenue, S. W., N. 29° 43' 19" E. 174.08 feet to a point on the east side of Colonial Avenue, S. W., corner to Lot 5, Ogden Hills; thence S. 51° 27' E. 294.05 feet to a point; thence S. 32° 28' W. 147.37 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING, containing 1.231 acres according to a plat of survey by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers & Surveyors, Ltd., dated October 12, 1988. ~~~ BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Com,nission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. ADOPTED on motion of Supervisor Robers and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Garrett NAYS. None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens Deputy Clerk cc: File Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections Terry Harr-ngton, Director, Planning John Wiley, Director, Real Estate Assessment - 12 - 6 ~ ~~~- .y VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY ' A 1.231 acre parcel of land, ) generally located on the North ) AMENDED side of Ogden Road at ) PROFFER 3511 Ogden Road within the ) OF ' ~, Cave Spring Magisterial District, ) CONDITIONS °~ and recorded as parcel 77.11-1-57 ) o in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) `"' TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: Being in accord with Section 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia and Section 21-105E of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioners, William F. Ball 2 W and Eugenia H. Ball, hereb voluntaril roffer to the Board Y Y P H 0 of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia the following o conditions to the rezoning of the above-referenced parcel of H `n land: 1. The rezoned parcel will be used for the 0 a construction and operation of medical offices for the 'w w '~ practice of family medicine. The current building on ' subject property will be retained and an addition built in the same style will be added to the rear of said existing ' building. 2. The medical practice will be limited to no more ' than three (3) physicians. BIRD, KINDER BC HUFFMAN 3 . The development of the property will be in TTOq NEYS AT LAW OANOK E, VIRGINIA substantial compliance with the concept plan,,„'submitted with ' the application for rezoning. - 13 6 ~ ~8~ ~ 4. The "small evergreen trees" shown as a part of " Type 'C' Buffer" will be at least five 5 feet in hei ht ( ) g ' at planting. 5. The."fence" shown as a part of the "Type 'C' ' Buffer" will be~constructed of wood and will be at least six ' (6) feet in height, and will be in place prior to the commencement of construction of the site. ' 6. The "small evergreen trees" will be placed in a staggered manner on each side of the "fence". 7. Alltrees and natural vegetation will be saved ' as possible. 8. Outside lighting at the building will be ' residential in appearance, and the lights and poles will not exceed ten (10) feet in height. 9. Parking lot lighting will not exceed five (5) feet in height. ' 10. Signage will be limited to fifty (50) square ' feet and will be substantially as shown on Exhibit "A" attached. ' Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM F. BALL EUGENIA H. B LL By: ' Counsel for Pe ition Carr L. Kinder, Jr., Esquire BIRD, KITdDER & HUFFMAN ' P. O. Box 2795 Roanoke VA 24001 s/G162 6 ' - 14 - PETITIONER: WILLIAM & EUGENIA BALL ' CASE NUMBER: 14-6/97 Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 3, 1997 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 24, 1997 i i A. REQUEST Petition of Dr. William F. Ball and Eugenia H. Ball to rezone 1.231 acres from C-1 conditional to C-1 conditional to expand an existing parking lot, located at 3390 Colonial Ave., Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Frank Caldwell, representing the property owner, presented the request explaining that additional parking was needed on the site to accommodate the demands of the medical practice. C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Witt asked how the people visiting the doctor would get from the new lower parking lot to the front door of the building. Mr. Caldwell said that the new lower lot will be for employees, and that steps will need to be incorporated into the design. They have not been designed at this time, but will need to be located to provide access and avoid the large 40" tree. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS The development of the property will be in substantial compliance with the concept plan revised on 4/23/97 to show additional parking and submitted with the application for rezoning to amend proffered conditions. Proffered conditions 1-2 and 4-10, which are attached, will remain the same. E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt moved to recommend approval of the petition with proffered conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomason, Hooker, Witt, Robinson, Ross NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan. -Vicinity Map _ Staff Report _ Other / .~ Terrance Harrington, ~ecretary Roanoke County Planning Commission t VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY A 1.231 acre parcel of land, } generally located on the North ) AMENDED side of Ogden Road at ) PROFFER 3511 Ogden Road within the ) OF Cave Spring Magisterial District, ) CONDITIONS and recorded as parcel 77.11-1-57 ) in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: Being in accord with Section 15.1-491.1 et seg,. of the Code of Virginia and Section 21-105E of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioners, William F. Ball and Eugenia H. Ball, hereby voluntarily proffer to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia the following conditions to the rezoning of the ~^ above-referenced parcel of land: 1. The rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of medicine. The current building on subject property will be retained and an addition built in the same style will be added to the rear of said existing building. 2. The medical practice will be limited to no more than three (3) physicians. 3. The development of the property will be in substantial compliance with the concept plan revised on 4/23/97 to show additional parking and submitted with the application for rezoning to amend proffered conditions. 4. The "small evergreen trees" shown as a part of "Type 'C' Buffer" will be at least five (5) feet in height at planting. a ' 5. The "fence" shown as a art of the "T e 'C' Buffer°° P YP will be constructed of wood and will be at least six (6) feet in height, and will be in place prior to the commencement of construction of the site. 6. The "small evergreen t1rees" ,will be placed in a staggered manner on each side of the fence . ,, ~ 7. All trees and natural vegetation will be saved as possible. i 8. Outside lighting at the building will be residential in appearance, and th e lights and poles will not exceed ten (10) feet in height. 9 . Parking lot lighting will not exceed five ( 5 ) feet in height. 10 . Signage, will be limited to fifty { 50 ) square feet and will be substantially as shown on Exhibit "A" attached. Respr ;,,. - submitted, WIL~IAM F. BALL ~~ EU IA H. BALL r^. U 1 1 ~, LEGAL NOTICE The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on '' Tuesday, June 24, 1997, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Dr. William F. Ball and Eugenia H. Ball to rezone 1.231 acres from C-1 conditional to C-1 conditional to expand an existing parking lot, located at 3390 Colonial Ave., Cave Spring Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: June 6, 1997 1 _~~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Please ublish in the Roanoke Times P f Tuesday, June 10, 1997 Tuesday, June 17, 1997 Direct the bill for publication to: William & Eugenia Ball c/o T. P. Parker & Son PO Box 39 ' Salem, VA 24153 (540) 387-1153 1 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p~ol~~~~~ SEND REPORT ~ JUN-06-97 FRI 11 40 ~ # DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# ~ O1 JUN-06 11 38 LEGAL ~~'~~" 0 SEND CANCEL ~ ~ 02 11 ~ 38 LEGAL 1' 34" 4 SEND OK ~ TOTAL 1' 34" 4 ~ 1 GRAND TOTAL TIME: 93H 30M 415 .GAGES: 16271 ~ For staff use only «~~, y(~sjnan COUNTY OF ROANOKE DEPT. OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5204 Bernard ~r.~.. P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 i 540 772-2068 FAX (540) 772-2108 date received:' r ceived by: ~ '2-S 41 ~ l~r*-- applica ' P /BZA date: placards issued: BOS date: ~ ~s A Case Number: / ;7 p. Check type of application filed (check all that apply}: ® REZONING ^ SPECIAL USE ^ VARIANCE Applicant's name: Dr. William F. Ba11 & Eugenia H. Ball Address: T. P. Parker & Son, Frank B. Caldwell, III, Agent P. 0. Box 39, Salem, VA 24153 Phone: 387-1153 Zip Code: Owner's name: Dr. William F. Ball & Eugenia H. Ball Phone: 772-0555 Address: 3390 Colonial Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24018 Zip Code: Location of property: Tax Map Number: 77.11-1-57 Southeast corner of intersection of Ogden-Road and Colonial Avenue Magisterial District: Cave Spring Community Planning Area: Cave Spring , Size of parse! (s): Existing Zoning: B-1 Conditional ' 1.231 acres Existing Land Use: Medical Offices - sq,ft. . Proposed Zoning: Revise Proffered Site Plan Proposed Land Use: Revise existing parking lot to provide ............................. For Statf Use On/y Use Type: additional spaces. Does the parse( meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YES X NO IF N0, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for_ the requested Use Type? YES X NO IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. , If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? YES NO Variance of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL TVOT BE ACCEPTED IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ws v wa v Fvs v X Consultation X 8 1 I2" x 1 1" concept plan X Application fee X Application X - ~S` Metes and bounds description X «« Proffers, if applicable Justification N~ >~~~: Water and sewer a lication X Ad'oinin pp ~ g property owners .. l hereby certify that l 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. 6 Owner's Signature: ~~~QKEk' ~ ~>/ ~ . ~ QG€~/~ For Staff Use On/y: Case Number Applicant Dr. William F. & Eugenia H. Ball The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit 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. The property .was Zoned B-1 Conditional for Medical Offices on March 28, 1989. This zoning allowed up to three Doctors and the Conceptual Site Plan by T. P. Parker & Sori dated January 26, 1989 was proffered. Parking shown on the Conceptual Plan -was adequate for the operation of the office for approximately eight years. The practice is receiving a third Doctor in July, 1997. Additional parking is needed to accommodate the residents of this community who have come to depend on this office for their medical needs. The attached revised Conceptual Plan is proffered to show requested parking additions to meet the needs of the Medical Office. n The Comprehensive Plan shows this property as Neighborhood Conservation. This request has no impact. on the Comprehensive Plan. This request does n.ot provide for, or request, any change in zoning or request any change of use for. this property. 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/rescue. The revised Conceptual Plan provides for the expansion of parking facilities only. The expansion does not impact any adjoining residential areas. No additional entrances on Odgen Road or Colonial Avenue are requested. There are no impacts on public services, facilities, water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, or fire and rescue. Final configuration of the additional parking is subject to requirements of Site Plan approval by Roanoke County. ~i (P~ 1 of 1) ~~~i\ ~~~ ~, ~ ~ ~,~ „~ ,~ aA~ `r ~,~~ , '~ 1 \ ~r~ro.'K'r~ l ~ 1 ~'~, 1' \ ~~ ~ \, ~ ~ ~~1 ~' J~1 I _~ II ~ I I ~ n ,aow, A °.~`'.~ III l ' f 1, ~ ~ ~ ~~~ I 1 i ~I JI / PJ 'r~'l .F ~ 1 1 ~ ~ > I f ~ ~ ~ •1 N r ~1~.~ .~.re, -- -- - -- - -- -- -- -- - =a~aa~ I I ~-d^ „~„A,9 NfN ~X9,~. ..W... ~. ~ ---- 4~r N,.,w. "~ _~~ ,.. r ,,a.,,. , .... . ....,,.~_ -..~.,~ 9..NN. N~ r...,.. -e-_ .._.. a ........ ~s.,~:.N. g 9~N ~ ~d.r..l~«~.~ ~9~X ~..l. 1 / \ \~ _ VICINl1Y MAP ` _~ / ' ~~s. ~ ~ yy ~ i ~ r. ~~ r~~ r `d \dK;t~ i\ ~~N1 DETAIL _ 1 t~~"" ~ ~ @,ENCHM ARK: I yam( ~ ~<~_ ~ ~ A A 1 n.nr ur yam' ~ \ \ d-.,,r"~'-, _ as ~~ ,4 - ~ ~? ~ ~~ 4L~J , ~ ~\ E~'_'E L ` oN, ~ A "~ _ s rat $p. T ~."~ "~ ~~,r.. ~ `\ ~ _ro~` _ --_.i ..o ~»V~ y. ~~qq Ki M / SITE PLAN SHOWING _ 1 _ / ! PARKING L07 EXPANSIO \•C4 ~y ~~ __ ~_ `E rc -. _.. -'~ _.__„o, ~, . 7/'~~ fDV ROANOKE FAl71LY NWIdNE. X `-(~-- ~~/ I n ~., r 9N TE .U9O C0.ONIM AKNUY ~\ ~, _~ ~ ~~ ~~~• CA gSPItMG StEX~AI OISTFII j W~ NOM[ COUNTY, NFCXHA 5r % _, ~_a ,,,, ~PU, a„~p-> ~ wM"°.{~ SCALF: 1' ~ 0" DATC' !l +UI.Y ~_A' ~E, <~ ~ .a ~ .w _ gtF. M6~~ ____ O • ~'~ ' ~'_~ _w.~ a,~ R, ~PR~LS .M w. u~ .e-a.~,.a TPPB.S `~ I _ N .W 37 ~ ~<< S ~~~~~5 P 0 S~ ~ffi °~ _1~ ~; ;~~ c q ~,c~ 1 ~. :) ~a 1~ - 'i 1 1 a __ \ ~-`~~ ~`\ 1l oar L A n ~$ 9 0 ~ ~T o 8~~9~ $~ m y i~ ~,m n .ro ~~ Zn ~ '$ Z n Z i 1' ~ ,x ~ ~ m z n ~1 ,m ~o 'z $~ ~ :sa.s aaaR s ~F~ gee "sz~~e"~QS .. ~~ ss~ '~°°-~~'x °°s - ~~ 6~;=C o"S ~~- , a,~ ~s~=a' :~~ s I ~~ i y I ~w ,q ~ ,~ . t A ~ r ~ _~~ :~i~$ '~ _~_° I ~ ~, } q' t 1'~ 4 a S ~ ,^ ~: ~A N ~~„ r ` Y 1 Y 1 n~ 4 J Y g, ~. r r ~.~~~ _~~~ I , ~:.. ~ o g f , ~.~ I A .. _.._ 1~~', J'- 1 -- 7 ~2t . A~r ~~ J A ~ r-_ ~; ~ .~ r ~ ~ ~~ r :r, ,,,,~ :., D ~~ _^ ~v .a ~ TPP&S ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS County of Roanoke Department of Planning ' P. 0. Box 29800 Raanoke, VA 24018 ATTN: Mr. Terry Harrington T. P. Parker, P.E., L.S. (1919-1989) John T. Parker, P.E., L.S. Frank B. Caldwell, III, P.E., L.S. 25 April 1997 ' RE: Amendment of Proffers Dr. William F. Ball & Eugenia H. Ball Colonial Avenue and Ogden Road ' Roanoke County Dear Terry: ' Please find enclosed an application to amend the original proffered Conceptual Plan for the•Medical Office of Dr. William F. Ball at the intersection of Ogden Road and Colonial Avenue. The original rezoning provided for a proffered Concept Plan with parking thought to be adequate for the practice. The rezoning allowed up to three (3) doctors in this office. Due to the ' community response to Dr. Ball's practice, there has been an increase in demand for both medical services and as a result parking spaces for this property. A third doctor, which is the maximum allowed under the original rezoning, is scheduled to begin ' practice at this location in July. The attached Revised Concept Plan requests approval by Roanoke County to add additional parking spaces on this property to accommodate both the present demand and ' the demand to accommodate the additional doctor. Our concept does not request any additional entrances off of Ogden Road or Colonial Avenue. Under the original rezoning, the only concerns exhibited by the surrounding properties were those of the neighbors on the upper side of the clinic. Dr. Ball constructed a buffer along this property line and has maintained it. The addition of the parking, which we have proposed, will not in any way impact those ' residents who have homes adjoining this property. This doctor's office serves a significant need of the ' neighborhood and is consistent with the use of the properties in this immediate area. The addition of this parking does not reflect any change in the use of this parcel and will alleviate inevitable ' congestion on this piece of property if parking is not expanded beyond the scope of the original Concept Plan. ' - T. P. Parker & Son - 816 Boulevard • Post Office Box 39 • Salem, Virginia 24153 • Telephone 703-387-1153 • FAX 703-389-5767 County of Roanoke Department of Planning ATTN: Mr. Terry Harrington 25 April 1997 Page 2 Thank you very much for your consideration and, please call if you have any questions regarding this request. Very truly yours, T. P. PARKER & SON /. '""1y2:.e'~'C `Frank B. Caldwell, III, P.E., L.S. FBC/msc Enclosures cc: Dr. William F. Ball 6 County of Roanoke ' Department of Planning and Zoning Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: David Holladay ' DATE: Ma 27, 1997 Y ' SUBJECT: Petition by William F. Ball & Eugenia H. Ball to rezone 1.231 acres from C 1 conditional to C 1 conditional, in order to amend proffered conditions. In 1989, this property was rezoned from Rl to Cl with conditions to develop a medical office. In the same petition, the Future Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan was amended from Development to Transition. ' Ten conditions were proffered for the development of the property. These conditions limited the number of practicing physicians to three, guaranteed retention of the existing home as part of the office, directed the design of buffer yards and screening, directed conservation of existing vegetation where possible, limited signage, and limited outside lighting. The conditions also required substantial compliance with the concept plan submitted with the rezoning. The site was developed in compliance with the site plan, and except for some screening trees which have died, appears to continue to conform with all of the proffered conditions. ' A third physician will soon join the practice, and the owners have decided that they will need more parking spaces. The proposed parking lot expansion is not in substantial compliance with the original proffered concept plan. Thus the purpose of this petition is to amend proffered condition #3. If the rezoning is granted, proffered condition #3 would read: "The development of the property will be in substantial compliance with the concept plan revised on 4/23/97 to show additional parking and submitted with the application for rezoning ~to amend proffered conditions". Proffered conditions 1-2 and 4-10, which are included in your packet, will remain the same. The concept plan shows 4 new parking spaces to be added to the existing parking lot. Anew parking area would be constructed in front of the existing lot. Seven spaces are shown in the new parking area, with a possible expansion area of 8 spaces. The total proposed number of spaces ' is 45, including the possible expansion area. The driveway to the new parking area would be connected to the existing driveway. No new entrances would be created from either Ogden Road or Colonial Avenue. Landscaping would be required in the interior of the parking area, as well as where the new parking area adjoins the public right of way. In addition, one new handicap parking space will be required based on the total number of parking spaces. While the construction of the new parking area would require removal of several trees, a 40-inch red oak is shown to remain. The new parking area appears to be designed in order to preserve this significant mature tree. All of the vegetation designated "to remain" on the original concept plan is likewise designated on the revised concept plan. No new parking spaces are proposed adjacent to residential properties. Staff has noted that some of the screening trees have died and have not been replaced. This can be corrected during site ' plan review. The proposed parking lot expansion conforms with the policies and guidelines of the Transition land use designation of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. No negative impacts are anticipated. Staff recommends rezoning with amended conditions. 7 1 n i r 0 t1r'9C~.~.% iJ~~u~t~'..f7 V ~r~ii~SJ '~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1997 ORDINANCE 062497-11 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.231 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 3390 COLONIAL AVENUE (TAX MAP N0. 77.11-1-57) IN THE CAVE SPRING. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1, CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1, CONDITIONAL, UPON THE APPLICATION OF DR. WILLIAM F. BALL AND EUGENIA H. BALL WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held June 24, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 3, 1997; 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 Gasification of a certain tract of real estate containing 1.231 acres, as described herein, and loca#ed at 3390 Colonial Avenue, (Tax Map- Number 77.11-1-57) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-1, Conditional, Offce District, to the zoning classification of C-1, Conditional, Office District, with amended proffers. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Dr. William F. Ball and Eugenia H. Ball. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following amended conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, 1 6 Virginia, hereby accepts: (A) The rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of medicine. The current building on subject property will be retained and an addition built in the same style will be added to the rear of said existing building. (B) The medical practice will be limited to no more than three (3) physicians. (C) The development of the property will be in substantial compliance with •:.ii?i. i:•:iiiiii:i}`i":::j4ii~i:iii::~:.-..::~:.•:.ii. :.:: i,. •:. vr:::.:: _:: :: •. :: 4;i.~:•: :•.:: :. :•.::::.y: ;:..:::.i v:.i :•::.x :.. ::.:..::: ........i ..:..::: ,~f.; .: .. .., ;.:_::.; • :::t.~:::~F:'V.j~~'i:~ik~d~M:V!~~~':i ~ .a~:{.1c~~ :: ::i~~~~:~~ub~•:1.1~~11i1C~~:~~:1x~:~~:~i::{;Yf the concept plan ~p~~~~~:~~'Lz*~,:i :::::::::::::::::::::::.................:..........:.:P.:::.~::::.:.~ :.::::.~::::::::::::.::::::::::._:::.,.:::.:.:::::.:......:.:, ~pp~~t~q~. ~a~ ~~:~~nlrlg t~ ,~+f~l~~s~?tt5~~!`~C(Cp~.tl ~~~o!~~:. (D) The "small evergreen trees" shown as part of a 'Type 'C' Buffer" vial be at least five ()feet in height at planting. (E) The "fence" shown as part of the'Type'C' Buffer" wiN be constructed ofi wood and will be at feast six (6) feet in height, and wild be in place prior to the commencement of construction of the site. ' (F) The "small evergreen trees" will be placed in a staggered manner on each side of th.e 'fence." (G) All trees and natural vegetation will b:e saved as possible. ' (H) Outside lighting at the building will be residential in appearance, and the fights and poles will not exceed ten (10) feet in height. I Parkin lot G htin will not exceed five 5 feet in hei ht. () 9 g 9 () g (J) Signage will be limited to fifty (b0) square feet and will be substantially i~ i as shown on Exhibit "A" attached. ' 4. That said real estate is more fully described as fol-lows: BEGINNING at a point on the north side of Ogden Road, SW, corner to the {and of the Knights of Pythias of Roanoke, VA; thence with the north side of Ogden Road, SW, N. 74° 09' 07" W. 83.36 feet to a point; thence continuing with the north side of Ogden Road, SW, N. 63° 34' 45" W. 153.52 feet to a point; thence N. 16° 15' 50" W. 67.92 feet to a point on the east side of Colonial Avenue, SW; thence with the east side of Colonial Avenue, SW, N. 29° 4.3' 19" E. 174.08 feet to a point on the east side of Colonial Avenue, SW, corner to Lot 5, Ogden Mills; thence S. 51 ° 27' E. 294.05 feet to a point; thence S. 32° 28' W. 147.37 feet to the Place of Beginning, containing 1.231 acres. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. A!I 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. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens A COPY TESTS: ~. Mary H. Allen, CMC Caerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 3 6 NAYS: ABSENT: None Supervisor Nickens 4. June 24, 1997 389 Ordinance to rezone 1.231 acres from C-1 Conditional to C-1 Conditional to expand an existing parking lot located at 3390 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Dr William F Ball and Eugenia H. Ball. (Janet Scheid, 0-062497-11 1 Planner Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ORDINANCE 062497-11 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.231-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 3390 COLONIAL AVENUE (TAX MAP NO. 77.11-1-57) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1, CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1, CONDITIONAL, UPON THE APPLICATION OF DR. WILLIAM F. BALL AND EUGENIA H. BALL WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held June 24, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 3, 1997; 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 1.231 acres, as described herein, and located at 3390 Colonial Avenue, (Tax Map Number 77.11-1-57) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning n ~'~ u ~ 1 June 24, 1997 classification of C-1, Conditional, Office District, to the zoning classification of C-1, Conditional, Office District, with amended proffers. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Dr. William F. Ball and Eugenia H. Ball. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following amended conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (A) The rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of medicine. The current building on subject property will be retained and an addition built in the same style will be added to the rear of said existing building. (B) The medical practice will be limited to no more than three (3) physicians. (C) The development of the property will be in substantial compliance with the concept plan revised on 4/23/97 to show additional parking and submitted with the application for rezoning to amend proffered conditions. (D) The "small evergreen trees" shown as part of a "Type'C' Buffer" will be at least five (5)feet in height at planting. (E) The "fence" shown as part of the "Type 'C' Buffer" will be constructed of wood and will be at least six (6) feet in height, and will be in place prior to the commencement of construction of the site. (F) The "small evergreen trees" will be placed in a staggered manner on each side of the "fence." (G) All trees and natural vegetation will be saved as possible. (H) Outside lighting at the building will be residential in appearance, and the lights and poles will not exceed ten (10) feet in height. (I) Parking lot lighting will not exceed five (5) feet in height. (J) Signage will be limited to fifty (50) square feet and will be substantially as shown on Exhibit "A" attached. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the north side of Ogden Road, SW, corner to the land of the Knights of Pythias of Roanoke, VA; thence with the north side of Ogden Road, SW, N. 744 09' 07" W. 83.36 feet to a point; thence continuing with the north side of Ogden Road, SW, N. 634 34' 45" W. 153.52 feet to a point; thence N. 164 15' 50" W. 67.92 feet to a point on the east side of Colonial Avenue, SW; thence with the east side of Colonial Avenue, SW, N. 294 43' 19" E. 174.08 feet to a point on the east side of Colonial Avenue, SW, corner to Lot 5, Ogden Hills; thence S. 51 ° 27' E. 294.05 feet to a point; thence S. 324 28' W. 147.37 feet to the Place of Beginning, containing 1.231 acres. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by June 24, 1997 391 this ordinance. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens The motion carried by the 5. Ordinance to rezone approximately 2.75 acres from R-2 to C-2 to construct a drugstore, located at the corner of Route 419 and Brambleton Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the 0-062497-12 ORDINANCE 062497-12 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 2.75-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF ROUTE 419 AND BRAMBLETON AVENUE (PART OF TAX MAP NOS. 77.13-5-37, 77.13-5-40, TAX MAP N0.77.13-5-38) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF C&C DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held June 24, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 3, 1997; 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, petition of C&C Development, L.L.C. (Janet Scheid, Planner) Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy,. Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens Special Use Permit Application Broadcast Tower For Cellco Partnership (Verizon Wireless) Tax Parcel 37 - 1- 4 6720 Thirlane Road Roanoke County, Virginia Prepared By: s f ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, INC. r:: 20 SOUTH ROANOKE STREET C~fliC. FINCASTLE. VIRGINIA ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, INC. Creating Success 20 S Roanoke Street PO Box 619 fincaefke, Viryinia 24990 540.473.1233 fax 510.473.7254 t t 1 1 .ENGINEERING I CONCEPTS, INC.I Board of Supervisors & Planning Commission CEO Planning and Zoning Department 5204 Bernard Drive PO Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Re: Special Use Permit Application Broadcast Tower - 6720 Thirlane Road Tax Parcel 37.10 - 1 - 4 Roanoke County, Virginia October 24, 2003 Dear members of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission: On behalf of our client Cellco Partnership (Verizon Wireless), we hereby submit an application for a special use permit allowing for a broadcast tower on the parcel identified above along with our application fee of $40.00. In addition to the application, we have provided various supporting documents relative to the proposed tower site and switching center that conform to the requirements of the broadcast tower pre-application checklist that is enclosed. We hope that the information that we have provided is adequate to facilitate your review and approval. We look forward to appearing before you at the December public hearings and presenting our application to you in person. ' Respectfully submitted, Engineering Concepts, Inc. ' Jack Ellinwood Chief Operations Officer ' CC: Marshall Pearsall -Verizon Wireless Richard Sayers, Esquire - MFGS ' P.O. Box 619 20 SOUTH ROANOKE STREET FINCASTLE, VIRGINIA 24090 540.473.1253 FAX 540.473.1254 (~'nnn+v of RnannkP For Staff Use Orily Community Development Date received: Received by: Planning & Zoning Application fee: PC/BZA date: 5204 Bernard Drive P O Box 29800 Placards issued: BOS date: Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Case Number - - ALL APPLICANTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) ©Rezoning X Special Use ©Variance ©Waiver ©Administrative Appeal Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: (8041 347-2572 Cellco Partnership Work: (804) 329-1039 (551) 180 Washington Valley Road Cell #: (804) 347-2572 Bedminster, New Jersey 07921 Fax No.: (804) 321-0398 Owner's name/address w/zip Phone #: (540) 362-1918 Preferred Leasing Company Work: (540) 362-1918 6720 Thirlane Road Fax No. #: (540) 362-1625 Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Property Location Magisterial District: Catawba 6720 Thirlane Road Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Community Planning area: Hollins Tax Map No.: part of 37.10 - 01 - 04 Existing Zoning: C2 Size of parcel(s): Acres:3.059 Acres upon subdivision Existing Land Use: Unimproved Parcel REZONING SPECIAL USE PERMITAND WAIVER APPLICANTS. (R/S/V~ Proposed Zoning: N / A Proposed Land Use: Operation of a telecommunication facility -Small Metropolitan Switching Center 8 Tower Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes X No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes X No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes No VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (V/W/AA) Variance/Waiver of Section(s) N / A 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 NnT RE ACCEPTED IF ANY (7F THE ITEM5 ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/S/W V/AA X Consultation R/S/W V/AA x 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan R/S/W V/AA X Application fee x Application X Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable X Justification x Water and sewer application X Adjoining property owners SE 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. See Attached Authorization Letter Owner's Signature 2 JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR WAIVER REQUEST Cellco Partnership (d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless) Applicant 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. See Attached Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. See Attached 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 Attached 3 JUSTIFICATION,FOR VARIANCE REQUEST Applicant Cellco Partnership (d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless) 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, describe how 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. See Attached 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. See Attached 3. The hardship 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. See Attached 4. The variance will not be of a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties or the character of the district. See Attached 4 J(JSTIFICATION FOR AD1I~NISTRATIVE APPEAL REQUEST Applicant Cellco Partnership (d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless) Please read the factors listed below carefully and in your own words, describe how the request meets each factor. If additional space is needed, use additional sheets of paper. 1. Reasons for appeal: See Attached 2. Evidence supporting claim. See Attached s i 1 CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST' A 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. i 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 ' I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. ~a~~~~~.~~~ Signature of applicant 10-24-03 Date 6 r ' NSTIFICATION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR WAIVER REQUEST ' ~ Applicant: Cellco Partnership 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 ur oses of the Roanoke Coun P P rY Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning ' district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. ' Applicant proposes to construct a telecommunications facility on a three (3) acre site zoned C-2 (General Commercial District) and located on Thirlane Road in Roanoke County. The site will be created through the subdivision of a larger tract. The facility will be comprised of a small metropolitan switch center and a 127-foot broadcasting ' tower. The C-2 district was created to provide sites for a variety of commercial and service related activities serving large areas of the county. Land uses permitted in this ' district include "communication services" which is defined in the Roanoke County Code to include, among other things, telecommunication service centers. Since Applicant's facility also includes a broadcasting tower, a special use permit is required. 'The facility ' will replace Applicant's current cell site and microwave hub located at 5228 Valley Pointe Parkway in Roanoke County. The proposed 17,000 square foot facility will house vanous wireless telephone microwave and network equipment and will be manned initially by approximately six network employees. The facility will further the purposes ' of the designated zoning classification by providing improved and expanded wireless communication services to a large geographical area, including Roanoke County, Roanoke City, Salem City and neighboring counties. A coverage map showing the areas ' that would be served is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The facility will be located in close proximity to the I-581 corridor, a major arterial thoroughfare. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies - ' contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. The comprehensive development plan for C-2 districts permits a wide variety of service- ' related uses designed to enhance the quality of life for residents of the county. The proposed facility will increase the service coverage area and enhance existing wireless communication services in the Roanoke Valley. The existing facility is inadequate to meet the growing and expanding needs of the business and residential communities ' throughout the Roanoke Valley. Pursuant to its proposal, Applicant will also construct a 127-foot monopole broadcasting tower which has been approved by the Federal Aviation ' Administration ("FAA"). A copy of the FAA Determination Letter dated October 8, 2003 is attached hereto as Exhibit ""B". The new tower will replace Applicant's existing antenna site located at its current facility at Valley Pointe Office Park. The tower and telecommunications facility will meet the design guidelines prescribed under the Community Plan and the more stringent standards set forth in Section 30-87-2 of the Roanoke County Code. The proposed facility will promote the Plan's goal by providing quality development of an unimproved site. The proposed site will be developed in a manner that will be harmonious with its surroundings and result in a significant improvement in its general appearance. The facility will be constructed in conformity with adjacent commercial properties. The facility will provide necessary network connections to Verizon Wireless cell sites and switch facilities in and outside of Virginia. 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 proposed facility will have limited impact on the surrounding community and adjacent properties. Both commercial and residential communities surround the site. Northside High School is located to the west of the property but is buffered by an open field bordered by trees and foliage. A map of the site location prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc. is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Photographs of the existing site with comparison shots depicting the proposed 127' tower from various viewpoints around the property are attached hereto as Exhibit "D". The first phase of the facility will be comprised of a one-story building containing approximately 17,000 square feet. Applicant will have the option to expand its facilities, as need dictates. Access will be provided from Thirlane Road, a county maintained road. Adequate public utilities, including sewer, water, and electric are already available at the site. The site is located in close proximity to the I-581 corridor and is accessible by fire and rescue services. Initially, Applicant intends to operate the new facility with a maximum of six network employees. The minimal labor force will not adversely affect vehicular or pedestrian traffic in or around this area. Directional lighting will be installed so as not to disturb or affect neighboring properties. The facility will house an emergency generator containing a hospital grade muffler to minimize noise. The site will also be adequately landscaped and screened to provide compatibility and harmony with adjacent properties. The proposed use will not impede or otherwise interfere with the future development of the surrounding properties. Since the facility will be a part of the Verizon Wireless telecommunications network, Applicant will have sole responsibility and control over all safety and security issues pertaining to the facility and the property. The impact on public services and facilities will be minimal due to the nature and size of the facility and the limited number of employees working at any given time. 1553-03\VerizonUustificationRezoning(Final) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING CELLCO PARTNERSHIP'S APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR BROADCASTING TOWER The following information is provided by the Applicant to address the additional requirements set forth in Sections 30-87-2 (C)(2) and (D) of the Roanoke County Code: 1. Alternate Tower Sites. Applicant currently leases space from Liberty Properties for its broadcasting tower located on 5228 Valleypointe Parkway in Roanoke County, Virginia. For various reasons discussed elsewhere in this application, Applicant wants to relocate its broadcasting facility and to construct a new small metropolitan switch center on a wholly owned site. Applicant initially targeted 4 separate sites located in Roanoke County to relocate its facilities. Due to the nature of the facility, the type of operation conducted by Applicant and the limited number of available properties in the market area, Applicant narrowed its search to the following 4 sites: a) 5162 Valleypointe Parkway. b) 9.53 Acre site in the 7300 block of Williamson Road. c) 6720 Thirlane Road. d) Wood Haven Road Site. Following an extensive 3 year investigation process on the subject sites, Applicant determined that the site located at 6720 Thirlane Road was the only feasible alternative. This determination was based upon the following facts: (i) The 5162 Valleypointe Parkway site was rejected due to the proximity to the airport. The stringent height restrictions necessitated by the airport's flight paths preclude Applicant from constructing a tower sufficient to meet its operational needs. In addition, the commercial development encompassing this particular location is currently subject to a negative covenant prohibiting the construction of any tower. (ii) The Williamson Road site was also rejected due primarily to the flight path restrictions mentioned above. In addition, this site would not provide the coverage area needed for Applicant's operational needs and would require the placement of an additional tower along the I-581 corridor to maintain current services. (iii) The Wood Haven Road site was rejected due to the proximity to the airport and concomitant height restrictions on the tower. See Exhibit "E" -Roanoke County Sites 2. Collocation Sites. Applicant did not consider collocating on any existing tower sites due to the following factors: (i) the security concerns associated with the operation of a small metropolitan switch center; (ii) the need to control access to the facility and equipment; (iii) the ability to expand its telecommunication services and/or coverage area as future needs dictate; (iv) the uniqueness of the switch center facility in providing and controlling necessary network connections to other cell sites and switch center facilities systemwide; (v) the need to operate and maintain a proprietary tower to serve Verizon Wireless and its subsidiaries in providing network connections systemwide; (vi) the ability to regulate and control elevation levels of its antennae and microwave dishes to maintain optimal signal strength; and (vii) the lack of viable broadcast towers in the vicinity due, in part, to the proximity to the airport. Applicant's security guidelines require strict access to the facility and precludes the use of the facility by any party not part of the Verizon Wireless system. This is one of the main reasons Applicant is relocating from its existing facility since it is leased and access cannot be controlled. 3. Photographic Simulations. Photographic simulations showing the relationship of the proposed broadcasting tower and associated antennae and microwave dishes to the surrounding community have been attached to the application as Exhibit "D" to which reference is hereby made. 4. Terrain & View-shed Analysis. A computerized terrain analysis showing the visibility of the tower and associated antennae and microwave dishes is attached hereto as Exhibit "F" to which reference is hereby made. 5. Coordination with Existing Communication System. In the first phase of construction, Applicant will construct a switch center containing approximately 17,000 square feet and a 127' monopole tower. The facility will be a regional hub for the Verizon Wireless network and will replace an existing microwave hub site located at Valley Pointe Office Park. The new facility will allow Applicant to: (i) expand its existing telecommunications equipment; (ii) provide for redundancy in its networking system; (iii) meet the needs of the expanding residential and commercial markets; and (iv) provide the necessary network connections to Verizon Wireless' cell cites and switch facilities in and outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This connection will be accomplished through a combination of the equipment provided at the new facility, Verizon Wireless' privately owned microwave network, and existing landline telephone companies, such as Verizon Communications and Cox Communications. A radio frequency transmission design report is attached hereto as Exhibit "G". 6. Balloon Test. An on-site "balloon" or comparable test will be conducted at the site and all relevant data from the test will be reported at the scheduled hearing date. 7. FAA Approval. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a letter dated October 8, 2003 from the Federal Aviation Administration approving the construction of an antenna tower 127 feet above ground level. 8. Tower Heieht. Applicant intends to construct an FAA approved 127 foot monopole tower at the site which is well within the 199 foot maximum height restriction promulgated under the Roanoke County Code and well below Applicant's standard 250 foot tower. 9. Construction Requirements. The proposed design and specifications for the construction of the facility and tower will meet all code requirements, including the more stringent requirements set forth in Section 30-87-2(D) of the Roanoke County Code. The monopole tower will be a galvanized, non-reflective steel structure. The panel and microwave antenna attachments will be as depicted by the cut sheets within Exhibit "H". The microwave dishes will be 4 and 6 foot diameter attachments that spiral down the tower at various mounting heights and directional angles (also see Exhibit "G"). ' 10. Environmental Impact. The proposed facility and tower will be located off an existing public road and will be in close proximity to a major arterial highway. The site also has sufficient utilities to service all operational needs. The visibility of the tower from the surrounding community will be minimal due to the limited height of the tower; the construction materials used; the other buildings in the area; the existing buffer provided by the trees and ' foliage in and around the property; and the additional proposed screening that will be implemented. The site design provides for sufficient buffering and screening to minimize the visual impact of the facility in the surrounding neighborhoods. There will be minimal impact on existing roads and utilities in this area since the facility will be manned initially by no more than six (6) employees. Noise pollution will be minimal due to the use of a hospital grade muffler for the emergency generator that will be installed. ' 11. Collocation Policy. Although Applicant normally supports and participates with others in collocating communication equipment, the proposed facility is unique in that it will be a regional telecommunications hub for the Verizon Wireless network. This will not be the standard " " ' for lease tower facility since Applicant will build, own and operate a regional facility in conjunction with its tower. To provide the necessary network connections for and to secure the significant amount of proprietary data and voice traffic routed on its system, Applicant must maintain sole control and access to the tower. However, the tower will be available for collocation by Applicant's affiliates and subsidiaries. The tower will also allow Applicant to provide for redundancy in its communications network through its microwave dishes and landlines. If the current microwave hub were to go off line for any reason, Applicant would be incapable of providing a secondary or backup communication system. In addition, the limitations placed on the height of the tower by FAA and the number of antennae and microwave dishes to be installed by Applicant do not allow for any third party collocation since Applicant needs the ability to expand as the market dictates. Initially, Applicant intends to install 12 panel antennae and up to nine microwave dishes on the tower. The proprietary nature of this facility is also critical for providing secure and unimpeded communications during natural disasters and other emergencies. 12. Li htin The referenced FAA Determination Letter requires the Applicant to ' provide a limited amount of lighting for the tower due to its proximity to the airport. The lighting is minimal and should not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhoods. t rrs\Verizon\ThirlaneAdditionalInfo-Final J 10/23/2003 14:55 FAX 540 7767155 r' •~ ~u~~~~V9~w~ Y t ROANORE CO COffi DEV x£10 0 Applicant Name: Date: Consultant Starr Member: ~r'OAl~C~S'F(~1~.'1:G TQ~1~1bERS• A.Ni~ A'S`j:O:C'F~ll'~ED ,4A1fiEIV~~I'k FERMI i I'ED B`( RIGHT: • New and replacement broadcasting towers arEd associated antenna not e;ccaeding thirty (30) feel In height and located within any commercial or industrial zoning district prov!de.d: a) the proposed tower is a monopefe type design; b) tli~ genera! area •of the proposed tower is currently served by above ground utilities including electric power and telephone pales.; acrd d) zll ether use and design standard's for t!ie constn.tction of the hroadcasting tower and associated facil!tfes are met. ~knte,ntlas may be Installed on any existing structure w!thin the Cown~ty prov!ded said antenna does not meet the d'efitiitlQn of a broadcast!ng tower, does not increase the fre~ight'of •the exisitng structure mare than ten (10) feet, and does n•ot result in the structure and antenna exceeding the maximum structure height for that zoning district. ' • Temporary towers erected for a period not to exceed twenty-or}e days. ~hE Ft~LLOWING INFORMATION SHAL!_ BE REOIJIRED AS PART OF THE SpECtAL SSE PERMIT FOR A ' BROADCAST I OWER 1N ADDI T 10N T 0 STANDARD APPLICATION REQUIREMS~J T 5. L Uti!!ties that are currently present on site: t/(¢~(~~~~~ ~~~f~ ~jeWP~t G~ah i ~a(~(~ Util!ties required that are not currently present on site: Expected route of linkage: e,e Cb•~.~ f'd~t Estimated noisy level in decibels: evte~~'t'v~- N'Dy -'1"a-t C-t4'ddo U/l~L~l~r ~ ~5 dBf~ Btoar'~~ is Tmw~~/ Structure Type: " 'Monopole ^ Latt!ce Tower ^ Guyed Tower ^ Stealth Design (description) ^ Other (description) Proposed height of tower excluding antenna: 121 r Existing height of surrounding tree canopy and/or buildings: I,i.Ltii';6r fist i{p~~ ~3 y 2535 ~ZU.1'~: dD~D{^n Construction material and finish of tower. Speeii'ic tower location Material: $.~~\ Finish: ~alJd,n ~ypct Long!tude: "Latitude: '" Ground elevation in mean sea level ofthe-proposed tower site: IZl3 ~~4hnsc.~ Tower has structural ability to accommodate: ~ne ~ ^ Two ^ Three ~ther pro~de se5 ~) o,~f A~~Eenna or Qihe D~vir_m~ Attached To To~Ner ` ^ Omni-Directional Antenna ~Dlrectional Panel ~arabolic Antenna ^ Whip Antenna . ^ Other (description) Material and finish of the proposed antenna(s). Dimensions of Antenna(s) -height /width /depth NlateriaL• /~•ly,n~iatwt Finish: tl~j-t}~-~'pt~~Ve~ (Qrl (D 5" l The following information mus# be submitted separately in either.a written or mapped format. Received Time Oct,23. 2:5gpM 10/2~/200a 14:56 FAX 540 7767155 ROANOKE CO CO)0 DEV ~, . .~ Information on how the proposed site relates to the applicant's existing communication system, including number of other si#es within the Roanoke Valley, and the location of the antenna at each site. ~A map designating the specific coverage area(s) desired with any overr1ow areas denoted se ar2tel . ' P Y A list, with a map, of all of the alternative sites considered or evaluated to serve the area oi` this proposed tawEr, including other existing tower sites in the vicinity. This should include any co-locations considered and the specific technical, legal or other reasons the other site(s) were rejected. Provide conceptual site plan drawn to scale, depicting the location ofi support structures, equipment enclosures, landscaped areas, fences, lighting, access, limits of disturbed (and, average slope of the site, ownership and use of adjoining properties, etc, n/ Provide accurate, to scale, photographic simulatiens showing the relationship of the proposed broadcast LJ tower and associated antenna to the surroundings. Photographic simulai:ions should include the relationships of any new or modified road or utllit`j corridors necessary to serve the proposed broadcast tower site. ' Provide a computerized terrain analysis showing the visibility of the proposed froadcast tower and antenna at the requested "Height and location, Ifi new or modified road, access or utility corridors are proposed, the terrain analysis sha(I also show the visibility of these new or modified features. Provide detail sheet for broadcasf tower structure, Provide an accurate description and photograph of the proposed tower structure, including antenna. 1 r-,~ Provide detail sheet of any antenna or devices attacF~ed to tower including electrical and mechanical ~ (.~ spccincai;ions for antenna systems. I hereby certify that: All required submifta/'s to the PAA, as required by Zoning Ordinance Secfion 30-87-20.6, have been submitted. A required on-site ba/loon or comparable test will be pen'ormed on the dates of for the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for ,and on the dates of for the Board of Supervisors public hearing scheduled for 1, the applicant, s~ha/l be responsible for all fees associated with the tiling of the application, including the reasonable cost of any independent analysis deemed necessary by the County to verify the need for the ne~iv broadcast tnwr?r Signature: Date: __~D~Z~-~o3 X009 Received Time Oct~23, 2:5gpM ., IENGINEERINGI (CONCEPTS INC. DESCRIPTION OF TRACT "A" A certain tract or parcel of land in the Catawba Magisterial District, ' Roanoke County, Virginia, said land being situated on the western side of Thirlane Road, bounded and described as follows: ' BEGINNING at a PK nail set in the western right of way of Thirlane Road, Virginia Secondary Route 626, in the line of Preferred Leasing Company, Inc., from which a'/4 inch rebar found bears S 54°28'35"Eat 341.54 feet; ' Thence leavin said Thirlane Road an I g d a ong a new dlvlslon Ilne through ' the property of said Preferred Leasing Company, S 45°09'00" W 647.34 feet to a '/ inch capped rebar set in the line of G. Douglas Watts, from which a '/4 inch rebar found bears S 47°56'58"Eat 99.10 feet; ' Thence along Watts N 47°56'58" W 87.60 feet to a '/z inch rebar found, corner to Watts; ' Thence S 39°06'31" W 205.46 feet to a 1-inch rod found in the east right of way of Northside High School Road, Virginia Secondary Route 1420, corner to ' The County School Board of Roanoke County; Thence leaving Watts and said Route 1420, and along said County School ' Board, N 43°11'46" W 50.45 feet to a 2-inch iron pipe found, corner to said School Board; t Thence N 39°15'14" E 200.95 feet to a capped rebar found, corner to said School Board; ' Thence N 50°59'46" W 55.67 feet to a stone found, corner to Gertrude Rogers; ' Thence leaving said School Board and along Rogers N 44°47'55" E, passing a 3/ inch iron pipe at 355.1 feet, in all 363.50 feet to a % inch capped rebar set, corner to Jerry A. Jackson; Thence leaving Rogers and along Jackson N 45°37'55" E 264.92 feet to a '/2 inch capped rebar set in the west right of way of Thirlane Road; P.O. BOX 619 ^ 20 SOUTH ROANOKE STREET ^ FINCASTLE, VIRGINIA 24090 ^ 540.473. 1253 ^ FAX 473. 1254 ' Thence leaving Jackson and along the western right of way of Thirlane Road, S 54°28'35" E 195.02 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.059 acres ' as shown on a plat by Engineering Concepts, Inc., titled "Subdivision Plat for Preferred Leasing Company, Inc. Showing The Division of Tax Parcel 37.10-1-4 Property of Preferred Leasing Company, Inc. Creating Hereon Tract a (3.059 ' Acres) Tract B (4.724 Acres) Situated Along Thirlane Road Catawba Magisterial District Roanoke County, Virginia October 14, 2003 E.C.I. Project # 03071 ". ' Being a portion of the property conveyed to Preferred Leasing Company, Inc. in Deed Book 1558, page 1311 and recorded in the Clerk's Office, Roanoke County ' Courthouse, Salem, Virginia. 1 1 W j l7 Q fj., ~-! iY S. NASH ~ No. 001881 ~ /D-2~o3 ,¢, ~~ s~,~~_° r' ' WATER & 4 W R RVICF FOUEST FO Ai DATE: L D ~Zq• ~ 03 APPIZCANT INFORMATION ' {Please Type or Print) r~PPLICANT: G~~ ~Go ~a~-}~v~eu-sln ~ ADDRESS: v.erizo~ ~« .ess PHONE: gD4 --34'l - 25^TZ ' O'SY`IER : "5aw~~ !•~5 Ap~ltc.a~-F-~` ADDRESS• PHONE: ' AGENT ~ ~ ~ ~- ~~ ~~~ ~ooc : . ADD RESS. Gv~~tueeri~Cj CcKCCpt-y, T-~c ' PHONE: ~ ¢c~ - 4l3 - Z S 3 l So lnlas In, ~~-~-oh ~lal (e~ ~,aa~( ~~d,M~~ste~-~ ~le~~eu-~P°~ O7a2~ - O - fox (nl~l _ ~~~caSt~~,~Ir~iv~id Z~{-oq.a ITE INFO MATION DEVELOPMENT NAME: _`Jw~all YVLe~',r-~Pol~t-d.,n ~w~tcl~~v~~ Ce~•lea- LOCATION (FURNISH COPY OF MAP): _5ee C~uc.~~t p (a ~ - (o-?Za `~ ~r(J~•2 ~.~ ' TA.Y MAP NO.: `~ . I O -- l - ,~~cr sudd~v . GZ •-•-- ~ACREAGE: 3. ~5`i ZONED: TOTAL UNITS: '-. TOTAL LOTS: 1 ~n.ew 7.'I$~- R.~QIJESTED SFRVI S~ 'WATER FACILITIES: COUNTY: '/• WELL: 'SEWER FACILITIES: COUNTY: ~ ~ SEPTIC SYSTEM: IS BUILDING TO BE SPRINKLED? E ~ FLOW REQUIRED? ~ DO G.P.M. 'DESCRIPTION OF WORK Include an S ecific uestions : J' c ~ Y P Q ) ~~~ 'ac~~r ~ -r!'os Sw~dL~ „~~~ed~, ire _ 5pc'~ ~ kl•e.~ ~ ~e -~a q ~ o c- ~q,u,~ p,,ti,~ ~--~ ~u ~ ~ r? -fie 1 co 2~u, pw~ eti.~~ . ~P v ~ ~ trc~ S ~ew e,r -~I o ~ IGNATURE OF APPLICANT J ~* APPLICATION MUST BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY BEFORE IT CAN BE PROCESSED. 1 Radio Fre uenc Transmission D ' g y esagn Report Verizon Wireless -Roanoke MTSO Site Man: cannon J ~~ - i ~ I ~~ ~ r ~~ fi ~ ~ ~ - _'-- ,~' t • i . `~ w\ r~ ~ k ,, ~ - 1 _-~ • ` •Mwree h~ Catawba _ . _ Knob ~ y'J {~ - _ - Mountain _ .<~ rr ;Ca~rtawb~ r v .Glebe Mills-' 4 r I' ~ jS.T `v~~_ _r - ~ `~k- Y Dalevdle ~' - ~ ~ -~ i.~ ~~ -~;~~ j ~ r I Tinker Mtn ~~/ ~ ~. - •kj ~~ r~..~ i~. 20 y-` _i ~ _~ - ~ -~ . ~ '~ -`~. ~ ~, F .. ~ ~- j .j Trolrtville ~~ 1 __ 7 y I I ~ I Flatt''op ` ..aa _ , _~-"' i f ~. <t 5 ~ ~ ,y ~ , ~ ~ t . 3 1 ~, ~4'' J ' ~~~ f` ~ Mason~Cove S ti4 - - .,° ~~ ~~I`~-t-.~: ~ #~..~t,. ~ l oyner ~ ~. ... 'Mf Mountain'1 r> '• ~ i i 1 ~. ~__ ~ '~ F r ~ r Thirlane r` r `~ ~ ~~ _ :~ ~ ^ ~, ~ z1 '' f v ~ a^ ~ i. ~ ~~ , ~ ~ ,. ~~ f - Peters Creek ~'°+ .. * { ~ I Websie ~ _ ~,' ~y - Pinkerton , ,, *c ,r ..~ 4~ .: ~ M'! Read ~ ~ ~ ~. y ]5 r" ~~ pa's. 117 ~ '~` Hollins ~„ Mountam~'~ - ~ ~«~~- v >~-~ ~ •Tihlrlan e• t^ I `` , , -, ~ r~ji = - , ~ , k . f i-. ~. _ \ ' ,71 1 1`~ i' t R ti ~ ~ rl 4 ~• T • -~ ~. s ~.~ r ,Roanoke$RegionalNtloodrum Field-.~ } `--- 1' ~ ~ r~ ~. r :. t 7' 118 / ~r at'- • Vinton '~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ? r , t ~ ~ __ . ~]Ir - ar m ' ~ • ~ i 'S` ~ ~ ' ~i S er ~ ~ ~~ •, . , a. Kesl Ih~ - ~ ~i ,~~ ,, .I! Downtown Salem ~ ~~~ ~ ~ o, ~ ~~°: ~ , M1\lnob l ~ '- •~ ' ~ ' .y ,~ P.nur '#. .r y2f'~ .1 'Hill ~_ A `~ ~_ t ~ ~ ' { ~ ' ~~ ~ ,. ~, • l.; r ~ y. ;,w ~ 1n t~ ~ a.~{~- -. ~i r3 i ,' 1581 ,.~ ~ _ y,,* ti ~ Beverly Heights I .~- 11 Me~rOSe AVe ~ .115 ~ ~' ~i 'r ~~ ~ v + +c f `Hardy ~~ >: rf+y Salem '7 :•~ r 1 vuxol `` ~ y ~ c ~ , _ ~ , I ar %'_L :;~tiz7yf"~'~.~~sr- ;;w 11 ( '~ ~ ,- . Jw_y_ ~ t ~- }'a~'+c `-. i~ - zn ,,t ~ ^. Windy Ga ' . ~`,-=-', , ~;- r ~'_ h p ? ~ ~ . ~?,rx~ , f -----' fi I ~~~ ~~ ~ `Downtown Roanoke ;~_ '~ (~ - ~~ ~ ~ 1 `~ ~', .L' r !~ r->. ; _ I Y ~. ~' , r` ,'it? 1r .Twelve - .~.~ , 'r. ,~ _ - ~~~, - - e~-r~' _,^.- ~ ~~Pbagara j ~ ~ -~, ~~~- t ~ - s X10 { ~ .= dee 1 ~ _ i ` r ~ ~ ~ ' s ~,T ~ Franklin Rd ` ~ JJJ ~ ' .' z•-_ ~ 12 Clock Knob ;~. ~''~ cat a,s` ~&~°~ ,'_-.~ , ' ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ 1 ~:. (~~ ,;, '` 4.-~ ~ ` ~ ~ ' '~ ~ a Wertz Orchard w •. ~ R an ke Ifeuntain ~ t ~ ~ r~~ ~rRa eat~l+r a ~ Ltesliet.,: ~ '~., ~ 1~..'~ lr ' ~ r ~~ S ~""~(• . , ^._ ~~~ ~. =~ 1 '~ dk" ~- ~ ~ F~ ~ _ $~ g M:j ` ~. _v ~ yri}.,~ Roanoke ~F ^~ Y ~ ,t "~. \ hl ` ~.. 4-- ~ t '','--iJ c. _„~ , 1~ lT~u-- ll. Mountiin _.. S ~ ~t~ '' ~,-- ,,,'r~l `~v ~,,,5.~• r, St 1' r ummit G arkey ~ ~- ~ c ,, ~~ ~` ,Mountii~ , ~~ ~ ~ ~„i "~;~ } 4~. ~ -t _.. i^' F a 4 :r -~. /'i~r r( t ~ ~ ~ _ y ~+ y ~t ~.i F ~ ~ 1 .. ~ ,tj. D ~i ~ ~ Panther. 0. >, p .~ y~ ~ ~ .. I'' ~ eu, A ~ Knob I { ~' l . t ,' Mas ns ~-, I ~ v /r 4 __ t. ~ - ( t\, 1, J ~~ S" L Ly rhr nb ~ ( 21 -~ _ - j' ~i ~~ ~-.,~ i t c~'}`~~ ` 1 ~ ~' ~ Y . i} ) ._} r.~F~+ fi F ,. ~ f _, k r .i i ~ , r ti, t r' , ri ~~ ~ ~° ~ '' r ~ ~,t. fi '~ ~ ~ i r e to ` ~y '^r _r, '_~ . !. -~ .. ~ N ~ ~ ,4.~Y? 1 ~ ' ~ ~ . ' Bull- ~• i ~,1__. t , y = --- l i ~"S~-,1~ . . r r _,_ !'~ : I ~ _ . t , / . i!.~ ~' e . Fun d ' F - P .~ 'Knob ~,. ~ "~~~ y `. ! + .~ i ~ ,} ,I t _ f ~,_ T.~ 116 f • ~ - $' - ~- ~ ~ Belx ~YIOUr1SaH1 $ i~ ~ ~ - P• Murray '~+.. `~ ;~ ~r*_ ~ ~ Knob- ~- - - ~, " Z ` 7 ' .Y bra ~ rl, / ~7 ` t ,.. 'J 1 - : . c 5 ~-s , `~ i , Prelim Study: Page 4 ~ October 23, 2003 Y V a .a ~ R y = C O m C. t0 '~'' C ~ _C ~ O ~ d c ~ ~ 3 _ ` r • Y k.:.1 ~ ~ .~ C C ~--;', , ~C ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~' d C O ~ y ~ ~ ~ .N I L.! LL N m U ql 7 C d _' >, d ~ a~+ d ~ Q ~ w d . H O y ~ d ~ d ~ ~ x ' ~ ~ O a = o N ~ c C Y D O 1` N r ~` ~~ _'J ~. ~ C i .W d ~ d d ~ C u i _ -- ;-- ..~ ,.,, r5'~~~ey116 P. 02/07 Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study No. Eastern Regional Office 2003-AEA-1584-OE 1 Aviation. Plaza-AEA-520 Prior Study No. Jamaica, NY 11434 2003-AEA-1241-OE Issued Date: 10/8/2003 DIANE WAI,BH, REGULATORY VIRGINIA 10 RSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 30 INDEPEND~TCE BLVD WARREN, NJ 07059 ** D8T$RMINATION 08 NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ;* The Federal Aviation Administration has completed an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., 'Section 44718 and, if applicable, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure Type: Antenna Tower Location: ROANOKE, VA Latitude: 37-19-44.26 NAD 83 • Longitude: 79-59-44.26 Heights: 127 feet above ground level (AGL} 1340 feet above mean eyes level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on .the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is (are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure should be marked and/or lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1 K change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, a med-dual system - Chapters 4,8(M-Dual),&12. It is required that the enclosed FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be completed and returned to this office any time the project is abandoned or: X At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, part I) ' _X Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height .(7460-2, Part II) ' Ae a result of this structure being critical to flight safety, it is required that the FAA be kept appraised as to the status of the project. Failure to respond to periodic FAA inquiries could invalidate this determination. This determination expires on 4/8/2005 unless: (a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office. (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC fo.r completion of Page ~:l .~.._~..~aa~ 1 uJ~CJf ' construction, or the date the FCf: denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECT]:VE PERIOD OF•THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED TO THIS OFFICE AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE ' EXPIRATION DATE. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition on or before 11/7/2003. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must ' contain a full statement oa: the basis upon which it is made and be submitted in triplicate to the Manager, Airspace Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C. 20591. ' This determination becomes final on 11/17/2003 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes ' in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice ' to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. ' This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public-use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study ' disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation, An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA ' during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA~s decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). A copy of .this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission if the structure is subject to their licensing authority. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (718)553-4520. ' on any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2003-AEA-1584-OE. ~" ~-`~"`~ (DNH) 220565 armine Gallo Manager, Airspace Branch ' Page 't ..~~.. ~~~ , w a i~LLCJJ ivC i wuKtc 7572209116 P .04107 Frequency Aa~a £ar ASN 2003-AEA-1584-OB ~~ FRBQpBNCY HIGH FRBQU$NCY FRBQUSNCY, ~ t1NI7' B1tP 8RP UNIT 680 894 MHz .5 KW _ _ _ . „L„ . ~,,, ti W 1 ,[CLCJJ rvt i wurt-c 7572209116 P .05107 ' ~ 1 i 1 ~I~ 1 Aeronautical Study 03-AEA-1554-OE PROPOSAY.,: To construct an antenna tower to a height of 127 feet above ground level (AGL), 1,340 feet above mean sea level (ANSI,). J,OCATIOI'3:..The structure would be located 0.99 nautical miles (NM) west of Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field Airport ~ROA), Roanoke, Virginia. PART 77 ORSTRUCTiON STANDARDS EXCEEDED: Section 77.23(x)(5) Airport Surfaces bypeneh~ating Sectlon 7725(x) (Horizontal Surface) by l 5 feet - a height that exceeds a takeoff or landing area of an airport, as applied to ROA. NEGOTIATION: was attempted with the proponent, but filed height and location was required to melt planned coverage- CIRCULARIZED: This aeronautical study was circularized for public comment on June 10, 2003. AERONAUTICAL COMII~IENTS RECEIVED: One letter objectirrg to the proposed structure was received from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Aviation. The Depaztmcnt of Aviation objected because the proposal exceeded Part 77 obstruction standards and may adversely impact operations at Roanoke Regional/Woodtum Field Airport. 1'he Department of Aviation also stated that they would oppose any penetration to TL~RP's surfaces, especially the precision approach surface. Notes An objection based on the premise that a structure exceeds a Part 77 obstruction standard by itself cannot corrstitute an adverse or substantial adverse effect, unless it Carr be substantiated by factual evidence of specific aeronautical effects. AERONAUTICAL STUDY RESULTS: The location of this proposal is within the Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field Class C airspace. The proposed site would be located in a suburban residential area, approximately 500 feet northeast of Northside High School, north of state route 117 and half mile south of LT_ S. interstate route 81. Terrain in this azca north of SR 117 begins to rise rapidly to a height in excess of 1,500 feet atop Grccn Ridge. Take off Runway 33 and landings Runway 15 are not authorized at night or during 1FR conditions due to terrain. Other terrain and topogt'aplric features are nearly ration. _... _~ ~~~~ ~~•~~ VCKILUIV W1KtLt55 NtIwu11K 7572209116 P.06i07 ROA has 4 hard surfaced runways. Runway G/24 is G,800 feet in length by 150 feet wide and has hrigh intensity runway lighting. Runway OG is also served by a medium intensity approach light system and an LDA instrument approach. Runway ]5/33 is 5,810 feet in length by 150 feet wide and has high intensity runway lighting_ Runway 33 is also served by a medium intensity approach light system and an ILS instrument approach. Runways 06, 24 and 33 have a variety of non-precision instrument approach procedures, and all prohibit ci_*cling approaches to Runway 15 and northwest of Runway 6/24 The proposed structure would not impact any plans on file, including plans for a Runway 24 precision approach. The structure would adversely impact the Roanoke Rrgional/Woodrum Field Airport traffic pattern airspace. FAA Handbook 7400.2E, paragraph G-3-8d, states that any structure that would exceed a Part 77 obstruction standard is considered to have an adverse effect on the airport traffic pattern airspace. There would be substantial adverse effect if a significant voltutve of VFR aeronautical operations were affected. This proposed structure's AMSL height of 1,340 feet is well below any traffic pattern altitude and the structure's location is well outside the final approach trapezoid for any VFR or 1FR procedure. Again, surrounding terrain, trees and other topographic features are as high or higher than this structure and the adverse impact to VFR aeronautical operations would not be considered substantial. When properly obstruction lighted, this structure can be visually acquired and avoided. The structure would not adversely impact any present or future VFR or 1FR terminal procedure. The stmcture would Trot impact any VFR or IFR cnrouG° procedure. The structure would not have a cumulative impact on airy existing or planned airport. The structure would exceed obstruction standards and should be obstruerion lighted in accordance with FAA AC 70/74G0-1K,chapters 4, S and 12, dual lighting with red/medium intensity flashing white system 2 1 C! 1 1 ,.,,, , ~„~ ".,,..,,.., v.i • ,.,,., vu~ i ~~n W 11\LLLJJ ~ v~ i w~~~n Aeronautical Study 03-AEA-1584-OE, ROan_oke, VA CINCIIUNATI SECTIOIHAL AERONAUTICAL CHART SCALE 1:500,000 Also available on our webslte, http://aea.faa.Qov/annia tsoea AA/ 3 3 TfITl11 O fwr7 19 Vsrizon w..~.d~y EI~IGINlEERII~IG COPICEPTS, IB~IC. so s. Rome sr., ro eox 619 FNGASTI.E, VRC~MWA 24090 340.475.1233 FAX: 340.473.1234 THIRLANE ROAD PROPOSED 127' MONOP Not to Scale 10/21/03 ozi~s WESTERN VIEW NORTHERN VIEW w..~.dro SOUTHERN VIEW EP~lGINEERIIdG COP~ICEPTS, IP~lC. 20 S. ROANOKE ST., PO BOX 619 FNVCASTI.E, VIRG~INMA 24090 340.473.7239 FAX: 340.479.1234 THIRLANE ROAD PROPOSED 127' TOWER Not to Scale 10/21/03 02119 1 19 WAson TMrlon~\~hdo~\81m~\4km O /Z7'\1Mw YNrl.dp SOUTHWESTERN VIEW eNa ooNC~rs, ric. TH I R LA N E ROAD Nat to ~a~e 'O~RO~ANO~~~ ~ 61~ PROPOSED 12 7' ~ o~z~ X03 sao..~a.nss Mx: s.oa~ans. MONOPOLE TOWER ozi ~ s NORTHWESTERN VIEW i ZONING CLASSIFICATION: C2 MINIMUM LOT AREA: W/PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER: 15,000 sq. ft. PROVIDED: 133,250 sq. ft. MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE: W/ PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER: 75 ft. PROVIDED: 195 ft. MAXIMUM W/D RATIO: SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: FRONT YARD: SIDE YARD: REAR YARD: N/A 30 ft. NONE 15 ft. SETBACK PROVIDED: FRONT YARD: SIDE YARD: REAR YARD: 137.40 ft. 35.3' AND 38.5' 361.8' IIGH ~/~~9,1, ~ SAD SITE'' ~'Pp,9o \~~> 0 ~~ ~~ ~o~° ~~ 5 GR~E~ ~c~ P~~~ TOWER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: MINIMUM PER ZONING DISTRICT.•IN NO CASE LESS THAN OF HEIGHT WHEN ADJOIN RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE 40~ OF i27'=50.8' TOWER SETBACK PROVIDED: MEETS MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS SETBACK FROM NEAREST RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE=354' ~ ~ L 1 TA N ACCESSORY BUILDING REQUIREMENTS: SIDE YARD AT FRONT BUILDING LINE: MUST BE LOCATED r ~~ n ~O SIDE YARD AT REAR BUILDING LINE: NONE J K REAR YARD: 15 ft. BUILDINGS PROVIDED: NONE PROPOSED ~ ER S H I P ALLOWABLE COVERAGE AND HEIGHT: MAIN BUILDING: 50.`~ MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: 90.`~ ACCESORY BUILDING COVERAGE: N/A~' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: 45 ft. MAX ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT: 8 ft. "ROPOSED COVERAGE AND HEIGHT: WAIN BUILDING: 12 9.~ MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE.• 28,190 ,4CESSORY BUILDING COVERAGE.• NONE PROPOSED MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.• 1 STORY ~lAX ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT.• NONE PORPOSED ENGINEERING CONCEPT: WIRELESS) F PLAN ZO S. ROANOKE ST., PO BOX 61~ F~MC'~IS1Z~ V~G~ ?~OAO 50.473 1253 fAJ~ 140.~7~ >Z~ _ ~,, ~ ., ~~ -~~~~ ~~Y ~~~ THIKLANE ROAD --~,~~ -- -- -,.. _ o ~ -~- xx `~ ~~~ SITE ZONING .~_ Y S y r}r y -~~. ~ 7 l ~ ,~ ~ - IMULATION s ~~~ _ ~ ~ PHOTO S ~ ~ ~ f_~-~ ~--~~~~ POSITION KEY MAP _ ~~ ~r , ~.: ~ II N3r7~2 0° ""_ ~ ~ .' SOURCE: DeLorme ~~ r:. ~ } ; 1~ ~ f~ .- . -~ ~~ ~" ~ Printed: 12/2/02 ~.^ i ~ i ' PROPOSED THIRLANE ROAD * ~,~.;~` _ TOWER SITE -127-FOOT ~ ~ ~~ ' ' SCALE ' ~ MONOPOLE STRUCTURE ~' t ~~ ., ~ ~ _ - l~ ~ ' 1,000 0 1,000 ._, n . i'~ -- - .ter s=~ rva~° ~-s~° ~, ~ , ' FEET 1 ~ ' .4 I ~ ~~ _ s •~rk: '~ i ~ t ~ 1 ~_; ' ~~ • SITE 1: NORTHSIDE H.S. PARKING LOT 650 FEET FROM PROPOSED TOWER Y• '~' ~ .I ~~.• !'Z ~•• ^~ . ~~ • •S _~ •-.~ .~ ~. Vii;. ,`-~ ~.. _ z. •- ~4' ~` 1 11 very Ol7wlre~ess N ~IRLANE ROAD E GINEERING CONCEPTS, INC. )POLE TOWER 205.ROANOKEST.,POBOX619 CCh00~ Parking Lot FINCAST~E, VIRGINIA 26090 540.473.1 253 FAX: 540.473.1254 ~f Roanoke, Vi rg i n i a i PROPOSED ~IRLANE ROAD ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, INC. )POLE TOWER 205.ROANOKEST.,POBOX619 1 School Parking Lot flNCASTLE, VIRGINIA 24090 540.473.1253 PAX: 540.473.1254 ~f Roanoke, Vi rg i n i a II ~~ 1 EXISTING IIRLANE ROAD ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, INC. )POLE TOWER 20 S.ROANOKEST..POBOX619 from Thirlane Road FINCASTIE. VIRGINIA 24090 540.473.1253 FAX: 540.473.1254 ~f Roanoke, Vi rg i n i a ~. ~h;. ~ t' . ~ ~~. 1 u i PROPOSED ~IRLANE ROAD ENGINEERING V~/ER CONCEPTS, [NC. POLE TO 205.ROANOKEST..POBOX619 from Thirlane Road FINCASTLE, VIRGINIA 24090 540.473.1253 FAX: 540.473.1254 ~f Roanoke, Vi rg i n i a .~ ~ 1~ ~. E ,~~ (, ,, ~ f r, r ,~ 1 it 1 EXISTING lIRLANE ROAD ENGINEER[NG )POLE TOWER CONCEPTS, [NC. 205.ROANOKEST.,POBOX619 ~w from Valleypointe 540.473`E253 FAXA540 4073.1254 ~f Roanoke, Vi rg i n i a PROPOSED ~IRLANE ROAD ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, INC. )POLE TOWER 205.ROANOKEST.,POBOX619 ;w from Valleypointe FINCASTIE. VIRGINIA 24090 540.473.1253 FAX: 540.473.1254 ~f Roanoke, Vi rg i n i a t ,a .h. yy. f .'Sa , EXISTING #IRLANE ROAD ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, ANC. )POLE TOWER 205.ROANOKEST.,POBOX619 k Road Interchange FlNCASTLE, VIRGINIA 24090 540.473.1253 FAX: 540.473.1254 ~f Roanoke, Vi rg i n i a • • • • • verl 017wrreless 11RLANE ROAD ENGINEERING CONCEPTS, INC. )POLE TOWER 205.ROANOKEST.,POBOX619 k Road Interchange FINCASTLE. VIRGINIA 24090 540.473.1253 FAX: 540.473.1254 ~f Roanoke, Vi rg i n i a f i --;.~. r ~ i.~ ''^' ~ t, ~,i . s • ~ , ^~ ~ _,. ~ s, `+= \\:~ ~~ ~ ~, .cif ~~-F ,~i~ ~ ~.~ ~i J . ~~~ x :`~°~ /~, t _.^ l f.~ y. l ~` !1 ~ i .L`` yi. L~,~ ~, C V ~ . y dK ~ C"~ :" ~.~ ~ ~ ~ f'~ ~~" ~! ~~ Y. ,:~i"_'~~ a "` ,~f f ~~ ~ 1 -yY~ • y~. S y1Nr . T.~ e, ~.\~~ ~ j: ~, f..<• ,.' "r `4 ~ . •'tit \.' .' ~~ ,,.,.,z. 1r ~ f i I y (~, .. }..e,V ` t ' ~\\{~ ~,. "i. ., ! ~+ ~~ ~ Y^~ `~ " ~ r~ ~ ~t~~ ` N~~N Thirlane Road E EERING coNCEPrs, ANC. ?7' Monopole Tower 2O S.ROANOKEST.?080X6,9 I Map 5 Mile Radius FlNCAST~E. VIRGINIA 24090 540.473.1253 FAX: 540.473.1254 Jo Horizontal Scale Radio Freque~acy Transmission Design Report Verizon Wireless -Roanoke MTSO System Map: 37° 37' 30" 30' 22' 30" 15' 37° 7' 30" 80° 22' 30" 15' 7' 30" 80° 52' 30" 45' 79° 37' 30" Blue -Denotes Possible Paths L i ~; h t 1~ l u c-Denotes Alternate Paths Sites that do not have lines connecting them to the Thirlane site are not possible without relay sites or taller towers. Prelim Study: Page 5 October 23, 2003 V~I'IjIQ/1 Radio Frequency Transmission Design Report Verizon Wireless -Roanoke MTSO Structure Elevation Drawing: Drawing for illustration only. Fills, cross-members, hatchings, and tower faces are not to scale. Top of Steel @ 125' AGL Proposed 4' HP4-107 114' AGL facing: Tinker Mtn(51.16°) Proposed 6' PAR6-107 C~ 114' AGL facing: 12 Clock Knob(210.81 °) Proposed 4' HP4-107 ~ C~ 108' AGL facing: Downtown Salem(232.95°) Proposed 4' HP4-107 ~ C~3 100' AGL facing: Pinkerton(247.00°) Proposed 4' HP4-107 C~ 94' AGL facing: Peters Creek(52.29°) TCS Consultants, InC. Wireless Communicatbn Design 4- Rodney P. Shackelford rsha ckelford @ tcstx. com •~ htt0://www.[CStx.COm ® October 21, 2003 $UbJBCt: Structure Elevatbn Drawing Dr8WID9: Monopole / Roanoke MTSO CUSIOrll2r: Verizon Wireless Proposed 6' PAR6-107 C~ 108' AGL facing: Summit(165.55°) ~- Proposed 6' PAR6-107 @ 100' AGL facing: Windy Gap(136.87°) Proposed 4' HP4-107 C 90' AGL facing: Vinton(108.90°) ~ Proposed 4' HP4-107 @ 84' AGL facing: 1581(137.78°) 40'-0" Not to scale Ground Elevation:1220 ft. AMSL V~17 Ij~/1 Prelim Study: Page 6 October 23, 2003 Radio Frequency Transmission Design Report Verizon Wireless -Roanoke MTSO TCS Consultants has compiled this report to better understand possible path layouts and tower loading for Verizon Wireless' new MTSO Planning effort. These are possible (Preliminary) considerations and not engineered and surveyed options. Prime Sites: Antenna Forward Path To: Centerline Frequency Antenna Path Distance Azimuth (AGL) (GHZ) Type ~M~) De rees (True) Pinkerton 100' 11 HP4-107 1.92 247.00° Downtown Salem 108' 11 HP4-107 4.09 232.95° 12 Clock Knob 114' 11 PARE-107 7.68 210.81° Summit 108' 11 PARE-107 7.94 165.55° Windy Gap 100' 11 PARE-107 7.20 136.87° I581 84' 11 HP4-107 2.26 137.78° Vinton 90' 11 HP4-107 5.21 108.90° Tinker Mountain 114' 11 HP4-107 4.91 51.16° Peters Creek 94' 11 HP4-107 0.43 52.29° Prelim Study: Page 1 October 23, 2003 V~I'I~f1 Radio Frequency Transmission Design Report Verizon Wireless -Roanoke MTSO I 0 c u a.a.a u.. ~..:....: .. .~........ Antenna Frequency Antenna Path Distance Forward Path To: Centerline (AGL) (GHz) Type (Ml) Azimuth De rees (True) Melrose Ave. N/A 11 HP4-107 107 4 2.00 4 30 20.68° 26 33° Salem N/A 11 1 - HP 107 PARE . 44 7 . 07° 17 Wertz Orchard N/A 1 11 - 107 PARE . 71 7 . 47° 357 Starkey N/A - 107 HP4 . 92 5 . 340 05° Franklin Rd. Downtown N/A N/A 11 11 - HP4-107 . 5 08 . 324.23° Roanoke Hardy N/A 11 PARE-107 . 8.97 295.25° ATE.. ~x1.,-.lr.,i.lo D.,+l~e. Path To: Frequency (GHz) Path Distance (Mi) Forward Azimuth Degrees (True) Glenvar 11 8.61 64.91° Pedlar Hill 6 15.72 61.69° Wheelin Hollow 6 20.15 57.67° Christiansburg 6 23.28 56.76° Boones Mill 6 13.35 352.08° Hales Ford 6 21.69 306.33° Stewartsville 11 11.00 273.18° Bonsack 11 7.29 267.82° Blue Ridge 6 12.53 246.86° Prellm Study: Page 2 ~~ October 23, 2003 V~/Yj!Qfi Radio Frequency Transmission Design Report Verizon Wireless -Roanoke MTSO Montvale 6 18.79 258.71° Fincastle 6 12.32 210.05° spec 6 15.96 229.41 ° Boblet 6 21.68 233.69° Prepared By: Rod P. Shackelford Date: October 23, 2003 Prelim Study: Page 3 October 23, 2003 V~P1~11 DB848H65E-XY 15.7 dBd, Log Periodic Antenna S. 806-960 MHz ..-..,.,r~..,., • Excellent azimuth roll-off,15.209G naduction in cell to cell overlap • Superior front to back ratio . Low profiler low wind load for easy zoning • Outstanding field r+ecordr.with thousands of units deployed, world wide e a a ~® dB Director® ^_ ~ --~ ;; i -: -# •.,,,; ro Vertical 880 MHz (Tilt=O) ll lzi l Mew chilliif:all ~c Frequency (MHz): C~ 806-960 Weight: 39 Ibs (17.7 kg) Polarization: Vertical Dimensions (LxWxD): 96 X 20.5 X 9 in Gain (dBd/dBi): 15.7/17.8 2438 X 521 X 229 mm) ( Azimuth BW: 65° Max. Wind Area: 9.1 ft~ (0.85 m') Elevation BW: 7.5° Max. Wind Load (@ 100mph): 364 Ibf (1619 N) Beam Tilt: 0° Max. Wind Speed: 125 mph (201 km/h) Front-to-Back Ratio' (d8): 4o Radiator Material: Brass VSWR: <1.4:1 Reflector Material: Passivated Aluminum Impedance: 50 Ohms Radome Material: ABS, UV Resistant Max Input Power: 500 Watts Mounting Hardware Material: Galvanized Steel Lightning Protection: DC Ground Connector Type: 7/16 DIN -Female (Back) Opt Electrical Tilt: 0°,4°,6° Alt. Connectors: Type-N Female 'Typical Values Color: Light Gray Standard Mounting Hardware: DB380-3 Pipe Mount Kit, Included Downtilt Mounting Hardware: D65083D, optional 8635 Stemmons Freeway Dallas, Texas U.S.A 75247-3701 DallaslFt.Worth Area Tel: 214.631.0310 Fax: 214.631.4706 Toll Free Tel: 1.800.676.5342 Fax: 1.800.229.4706 Date: 12/18/2002 www. deci belprod ucts.com dbtech(g?decibeloroducts.com tsa Horizontal 880 MHz (Tilt=O) zv ii i r :~. DB846G90A XY ~ • . D~ 13 dBd, Log Periodic Antenna d6 Director® 80696, 870-960 MHz GEN3VPOLTM YYM1Y°~~ • Excellent azimuth rolioff, reducing sector to sector Interference and reducing soft hand-offs • Air dielectric feed system, no screws, rivets, welds, or solder In RF element feed path ....strong vertical side lobe suppression ~ • • Law profile appearance and lowvrind loading profile for easier zoning approvals a a6 6 786 Horizontal 850 MHz (Tilt=0) z:6 6 ro ---a r. Vertical 850 MHz (Tilt=O) Electrical ,, Mechanical Frequency (MHz): 806-896 870-960 Weight: 21 Ibs (9.5 kg) Polarization: VeRipl Vertical Dimensions (LxWxD): 72 X 6.5 X 8 in Gain (dBd/d61): 13/15.1 13.5/15.6 (1829 X 165 X 203 mm) Azimuth BW: 90° 90° Max. Wind Area: 4 ft' (0.37 m~ Elevation BW: 13° 13° Max• Wlnd Load (~ 100mph): 160 Ibf (712 N) Beam Tilt: 0° 0° Max. Wind Speed: 125 mph (201 km/h) USLS" (d6)• >20 >20 Radiator Material: Brass Front-to$ack Ratio* (dB): Reflector Material: 40 40 Passivated Aluminum VSWR: Radome Material: <1.33:1 <7.33:1 ABS, UV Resistant IM Suppression -Two 20 Watt Carriers: -150 dBc -150 dBc Mounting Hardware Material: Galvanized Steel Impedance: 50 Ohms 50 Ohms Connector Type: 7/16 DIN -Female (Back) Max Input Power: 500 Watts 500 Watts Cdor: Light Gray Lightning Protection DC Ground DC Ground Standard Mounting Hardware: DB380 Pipe Mount Kit, Included Downtik Mounting Hardware: DB5083, optional 8635 Stemmons Freeway Dallas, Texas U.S.A 75247-3701 Dallas/FtWorth Area Tel: 214.631.0310 Fax: 214.631.4706 Warranty: 5 Years ' Typical Values Toll Free Tel: 1.800.676.5342 Fax: 1.800.229.4706 Date: 9/27!2002 www. dec i belproducts. com dbtechCo~decibeloroducts. com OCT-22-2003 00 06 VERIZON WIRELESS NETWORK 7572209116 ., ,• r r• r r r r r..• ;; . 10.5•I7.7GHa* Antenna Inputs. All antenna VSWR values are specified wlih CPR and PDR Ilanges. Other optional flanges may result in equal or slightly higher VSWR. Contact Andrew for details. ,, Pressurizalion. Feeds are pressurizable to 10 Ib~n2 (70 kPa). ValuUne®Antennas. fee page 127. Regulatory Compliance Cross F/B VSWR RPE U S FCC ETSI ETSI Gain, dBi Beamwidth Pal. Ratlo max. Type Number Diameter It (m) Number(s) 101 74 78 Class Gain Low Mid-band Top Degrees Disc., dB d8 (R.L., dB) I ~.~ ~~-'~tcz_? UHX ~`~~ Ultra High Performance Antennas -Dual Polarized Antenna Inputs: CPR90G and PDR100 UHX4-ill? 4 (1.2) 2098 2097 A - - 3 2 2 40.0 43 6 40.4 0 44 40.8 44 4 1.6 1 1 33 33 70 80 1.08 (28.3) 1.06 (30.7) UHX6-107 6 (1.8) 2141 2142 A - - 3 . . . . I) UHX8-107 6 (2.4) 2124 2125 - - - - - 46.0 46.5 46.8 0.8 33 80 1.06 (30.7) ') UHX10.107 10 (3.0) 2127 2126 A - - 3 2 47.6 48.0 48.3 0.7 5 33 33 82 80 1.06 (30.7) 7) 06 (30 1 r) UHX12-107 12 (3.7) 2128 2129 A - - 3 2 49.4 49.8 50.2 0. . . ,~ ,;.: ~~ Hi h PeNormance Antennas -Super High Cross Pol g arization Discrimination -Dual Polarized /) HSX , ~'~:~ Antenna Inputs: CPR90G and PDR10D 1 HSX4.107 4 (1.2) 2314 2312 A = _ 2 2 3 2 39.8 43 5 40.2 43 9 40.6 3 44 1.6 1.1 40 40 64 72 1.10 (26.4) 1.08 (28.3) HSX6-107 6 (1.8) 2316 231 B A . . . HSXB•107 8 (2.4) 2 2 2320 2322 A 46.0 46,5 46.8 0.8 40 75 1.06 (30.7) 4) HSX10-107 10 (3.0) _ _ 2 2 2340 23311 A 47.6 46:2 48.6 0.7 40 75 1.06 (30.7) 3 HSX12.107 12 (3.7) - 2362 2364 A - 3 2 49.2 49.6 50.3 0.5 40 80 1.06 (30.7) 7 HPX ~ ~~`,='~ High Performance Antennas -Dual Polarized .7) Hp ',. ~ ` ;: Antenna Inputs: CPR90G and PDR100 - .7) HPX4-107 4 (1.2) 2 2 2460 B 40.0 40.3 40.6 1.6 3D 62 1.10 (26.4) HPX6-107 6 (1.8) = Y 3224 A 2 2 43.6 44.0 44.4 1.0 30 70 1.D8 (28.3) HPXB-107 8 (2.4) 3175 A - - 2 2 46.0 46.4 46.8 0,8 30 70 1 06 (30.7) _ i.4) HPX10-107 10 (3.0) 3173 A - - 2 2 47.9 48.3 48.6 0.7 30 7D 1.06 (30.7) HPX12-107 12 (3.7) 3190 A - - 2 2 49.4 49.8 50.2 0.5 30 72 1.06 (30.7) 1 High Performance Antennas -Single Polarized , Antenna Inputs: CPR90G and PDR100 17) ~FIP4-107 4 (1.2) 3429 A - - 2 2 40.0 40.4 40.8 1.6 30 61 1.08 (28.3) l7 - HP6-107 6 (1.8) 3 2 3222 A 43.6 44.0 44.4 1.0 30 70 1.06 (30.7) ~ HP8.107 B (2.4) = _ 3174 A 3 2 46.0 46.4 46.8 0.8 30 li 1.06 (30.7) HP10.107 10 (3.0) 3250 A - - - - 47.9 48,3 46.6 0.7 30 70 1.06 (30,7) 6 3) HP12-107 12 (3.7) 3188 A - - 2 2 49.4 49.8 50:2 0.5 30 70 1.06 (30.7) 0_ '~; High Performance, Duai Beam Antennas -Dual Polarized Angle Diversity 0. HDX ,: ., ~. Antenna Input: CPR90G 9. 1 78 10 26 4) 1 10.7) HOXB-107 8 (2.4) 3791 3793 A - - 2/3 2 47.6 47.9 48.1 0.8 26 ( . . 3787 3769 1 HDX10-107 10 (3.0) - - 4352 4353 A 3 2 47.6 47.9 48.1 0.8 22 78 1:10 (26.4) 4354 4355 t3.1) ~ Standard Antennas -Single Polarized 26 PAR Antenna Inputs: CPR90G and PDR100 26 ~ PAR6-1g7" 6 (1 B) 3743 A - - 1 2 43.2 43.6 44.0 1.1 30 60 1.06 (30.7) 26.4 PARE-107" 8 {2.4) 3745 A - - 1 2 45.8 46.2 46.6 0.8 30 63 1.06 (30.7) ire PXL Standard Antennas -Dual Polarized Low VSWR PL Antenna !opals: CPR90G and PDR100 12 4) I?6 PXL6-107 6 (1.8) 3183 8 - - - - 43.6 44.0 44.4 1.0 30 49 1.06 (28.3) . i2 PXLS 107 B (2 4) 31 B5 B - - - - 46 0 46.4 46.8 0.8 3D 50 1.06 (30.7) i2 PXL10-107 10 (3.0) 3187 B - - - - 47.9 48.3 48.6 0.7 30 52 1.06 (30.7) PXL12-107 12 (3.7) 3199 B - - - - 49.4 49.8 50.2 0.5 30 53 1.D6 (30.7) i2 Standard Antennas -Single Polarized Low VSWR Antenna Inputs: CPR90G and PDR100 P.02i02 E: `. S- ~ -... ,. y~ t'' `~ J A ~~~ ~~ i ~_ rJ . ~ r~~,., ,~, E~ 9 ~~ _ > ,., ::; - , 5 , t: . PL4.107 4 (1.2) 3214 8 40.1 40-5 40.9 1.6 30 46 t.ue (ets.:~) PL6.107 6 (1.8) 3101 B - - - I 43.6 44.0 44.4 1.0 30 51 1.06 (30.7) , ~_ PL8-107 g (2.4) 3249 B - - 1 2 46.0 46.4 46.8 0.6 30 53 1.06 (30.7) 130 PL10-107 10 (3.0) 3200 8 - - - - 47.8 48,2 48.5 0.7 30 54 1.06 (30.7) PL12-107 12 (3.7) 3116 B - - 1 2 49.4 49.6 50.2 0.5 30 60 1.06 (30.7) ' Reference ETSI Document EN300833 tar 3 to 60 GHz ~ ' Mulliband antennas are available for this frequency band. See pages 93-94. "` Uses focal plane reflector and feed system 11, ' U,K. 0800-250055 • Australia 1800-803 219 • New Zealand 0800-441-747 Received Time~Oct•24•~10~48AM~ Visit us at: www.andrew.com DREW. TOTAL P.02 of Sabre monopoles are 18-sided steel tapes designed to carry communication equipme- microwave, cellular, PCS, ESMR and two-H These high-strength steel poles are availa~ feet and are constructed of slip-fit taperE easy on-site assembly. Sabre monopoles are made of high-strenc a minimum yield strength of 65 ksi. Sabre custom engineers each monopole tc applications. Sabre hot-dip galvanizes all steel parts tc uncompromising integrity in severe climate, http://www.sabrecom.com/products/monopole. btml EBVGINEERING CONCEPTS, II~lC. 20 S. ROANOKE ST., PO BOX 619 Fr1cASTi.~, v~ec~A 24090 340.473.1233 FAX: 340.475.1234 THIRLANE ROAD PROPOSED 127' Not to Scale 10/21/03 02119 NFORMATIONAL RACTOR SHALL TH RESPECTIVE 'IFICATIONS THIS DRAWING EPRESENT A ~R ELECTRICAL PRI IOKING FROM THE INSIDE THE SHELTER. IP ALL UNUSED HOLES. )LOR CODE: PHA+BROWN (B), IMMA+YELLOW (Y). ELEUAT/O~~AIL NOT TO ~ Ve/'1 wireless ~IOi GONC@Ti~, NG 20 S. ROAPIOKE ST., b OOX 614 FNdG1STLf. N~ON~A 24040 340.479.1239 FAX: 340.479.1234 RELEASE ISSUE N0. DATE REVISIONS 0 +~ DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SITE NAME Thirlane Road SITE ADDRESS TITLE Monopole View DRAWING SCALE As Shown ECI PROJECT # 02119 DATE October 21, 2003 DRAWING NUMBER 1 1 1 Administrative Appeal by Galax Treatment Center, d/b/a LCG-Roanoke Exhibits Index '1) Counsel for LCG-Roanoke's appeal to the Board of Supervisors including the Zoning Administrator's September 30, 2003 opinion 2) County Attorney's response to Appeal 3) Code sections: Sec. 30-15 of zoning ordinance, and Sec. 15.2-2301 of the Code of Virginia 4) Ordinance adopted on March 28, 1989 with proffered conditions 5) April 25, 1997 rezoning application, legal notice, and May 27, 1997 staff report to the Planning Commission 6) Ordinance No. 062497-11 7) Minutes from the June 24, 1997 meeting of the Board of Supervisors December 16, 2003 ~ ~. (~l.~tr~1-rr of finny.. _.rn FOL' ~taff USe ~n10' VVLLi1G~ VL 1\VC111V 1y. \.. Communit Develo meat ~' p Date received: Received by: t Planning & Zoning Application fee: PCIBZA date: 5204 Bernard Drive P ~ BOX 29800 Placards issued: BOS date: Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 ' (540) 772-206$ FAX (540} 776-7155 Case Number ALL APPLICANTS ~I'A~' ~ARp A . NATT, ESQ . ; 3 912 E LECTR 1 C RO>~11), [~IOKE VA 2 4 018 Check type of application filed (check all that apply) ®OiARD OF SUPERV 1 SOF2.S O Rezoning D Special Use D Variance D Waiver ~ Administrative Appeal ' Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: 1-800-345-6998 Inc. Work: 725-8180 (Edward A. Natt) Galax Treatment Center ' , d / b / a I.l.~-Roanoke Cell #: P. 0. Box 27 Galax VA 24333 Fax No.: ?72-0126 (Edward A. Natt) Owner's name/address w/zip Phone #: 1Ni I I i am F. (Sr.) ~ Kath f een Ba I 1 Work: 7715 Fort Mason Drive Fax No. #: Property Location Magisterial District: Cave S r i n ~ ~ ' 3390 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 Community Planning area: Cave r i Tax A4ap No.: 77.11-01-57 Existing Zoning: C-1 Cond i t i ona Size of parcel(s): Acres: 1 .231 acres Existing Land Use: former med i ca I office ' REZONING SPECIAL USE PERMITAIJD WAIVER APPLICANT'S (R/S/W} Proposed Zoning: Proposed Land Use: di ? i ct str Does the parcel meet the minimum. lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested Yes No IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the nunimum 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 A1VI) ADIvIINISTRATIt'~ APPEAL APPLICANTS (V(K'/AA) Variance/R'aiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: ' Appeal of Zoning Adm.inistrator's decision to LCG-Roanoke addressed to Edward A. Natt, Esq.. .appeal of Interpretation of Section(s) : of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance t ~nde r date o f Sept . 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION VvILL NOT BE ACCEPTED LF Al~~' OF Tl^IESE IT.i/A4S ARE MISSING OIt INCOMPLETE. ' R/5/~'F" V/AA R'S/W V1AA R/S%W V/AA Consultation 8 i/2" x 11" concept plan ~ )( P.pp[ication fee }( Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable 1 Justification Water and sewer application )( Adjoining property owners 1 hereby certify that 1 am either the owner of the propert}~ or r contract purcl;aser and am acting with the knowledge and consent of the owner. ~ ®^ ~ i...._; ~ Owner's Signature ~~~~,~. ILISTIFICATION FOR ri.DNIIIv'iSTRATIVE APPEAT, REQUEST Applicant Ca I ax Treatment Center f nc. d/b/a L.~-Roanoke Please respond to the following as thoroughly as possible. If additional space is needed, use additional. sheets of paper. 1. Reasons for appeal: See attached. 2. Evidence supporting claim: See attached. 6 5 °T` . , /* ~ ~. ~ t `\ .^~ t Roanoke County Community Development Division of ,F'/anning anc/ Zoning Roanoke Times Legal ~I dvertisement Fee Information ' Applicant: Galax Treatment Center, Inc. late: d/b/a LCG-Roanoke This is to notiry you that the Planning and Zoning stafF will prepare your legal ad and email it to The Roanoke Times. ' Please call The Roanoke Times Legal Department ~ (54oj 981-3415 to set up payment for the ad prior to the deadline date stated below. Payment Deadline Dates: PC: B(35: Variance: ' Admin. A eal: X pP If payment is not made to the Roanoke Times prior to the deadline date, the ad wi/I not be run and the application will not be heard at the hearing. 7 ~- GALAX TREATMENT CENTER -ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL Galax Treatment Center, d/b/a LCG-Roanoke, hereby notes its appeal to the determination made by David Holladay, Senior Planner, Zoning Administrator, in his letter of September 30, 2003, a copy of which is attached hereto. The September 30, 2003 letter was written in response to the business license application filed by LCG-Roanoke for the operation of a methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue in Roanoke County. The Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed use was ' not in compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and thus refused to certify zoning compliance. This appeal is taken from that decision and is, in effect, an appeal of each issue raised in the Zoning Administrator's letter. This appeal is taken pursuant to Section 30-15-3 of the Roanoke County Code. The appeal is specifically raised as to each and every point set out by the ' Zoning Administrator in his letter including, without limitation, the following: 1. The proposed use is sufficiently different from any use type defined in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and would require an amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. In making his determination, the Zoning Administrator referred to three particular points: (a) Intensity of proposed land use; ' (b) Security of proposed facility; and . (c) Physician not necessarily on staff. 2. The Zoning Administrator further was of the opinion that the June 24, 1997, ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors, which changed the proffered conditions on the site, contained a "inadvertent" error when the word "family" was not included in Condition 1. The Zoning Administrator made the determination that the word "family" should have been included. 3. The Zoning Administrator determined that he could not certify zoning compliance until an amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance had taken place. An appeal is made to this decision inasmuch as the Zoning Administrator must work within the parameters of the existing ordinance. It is not permissible for the Zoning Administrator to simply state "until an ' amendment is made, I cannot certify zoning compliance." 4. The Zoning Administrator, in his September 30 letter, states that he "considered new information gathered over the past few weeks" in making his determination. LCG-Roanoke would specifically state that no additional information was sought from it at any time during the process and in support thereof, would state as follows: In' u~ 6 \\JOLLY\SYS\USERS\CBaumgardnerizoNING1LCG-Roanoke appea BS.doc Page 1 of 4 f (a) By letter of April 24, 2003, Edward A. Natt, counsel for LCG-Roanoke, sought a determination from the Zoning Administrator as to whether or ' not a methadone clinic would. meet the definition of a medical office under Section 30-29-4 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. (b) By letter of June 5, 2003, the Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed clinic would meet the definition of a medical office in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. (c) That during the period from April 24 until June 5, 2003, any questions initiated from Roanoke County were answered by Mr. Natt on behalf of his client. (d) That LCG-Roanoke did not refuse, on any occasion, to supply information and none of the information provided by LCG was inaccurate or changed from the April 24 request or the June Stn letter. (e) That despite such, the Zoning Administrator, in his September 30 letter, states that new information has been gathered. LCG-Roanoke would state that all of the points raised by the Zoning Administrator in the September 30 letter were, in fact, the same as existed on April 24tH June 5t", and thereafter. LCG-Roanoke did not change the scope of its request and, if asked, would have responded in the same manner in ' April as it did in September. Thus, LCG-Roanoke would state that the following issues were available for consideration by the Zoning Administrator following the April 24 request and have not changed since: (i) The classifications contained in the NAICS industry i classification; (ii) The hours of operation and scheduling of appointments; "i The securit of the facilit ; (i-) Y Y (iv) The staffing of the facility. Thus it is inappropriate for the Zoning Administrator to change his opinion based on new information gathered when that information is exactly the same that existed in April. Insofar as the point raised by the Zoning Administrator relating to the "inadvertent" omission of the word "family" in the 1997 amendment, LCG-Roanoke would cite existing law stating that an ordinance has the effect of law and, unless it is ambiguous, one cannot resort to extrinsic evidence, legislative intent or any other factors. If the language of the ordinance is plain, clear and unambiguous, that \\JOLLY\SYS\USERS\CBaumgardner\ZON~NG\LCG-Roanoke appea BS.doc Page 2 of 4 t I~ u language must control and one cannot look outside the plain meaning of the language. The ordinance has the effect of law as written unless it is ambiguous or unclear. The language of the 1997 proffer is very clear, it contains the language "the rezoned parcel be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of medicine." That language is clear and unambiguous and must be read exactly and is not subject to any interpretation. It also must be given its full meaning and effect. For the above reasons, and for reasons to be stated at the appeal, Galax Treatment Center, Inc., d/b/a LCG-Roanoke, would respectfully request that the Zoning Administrator's decision of September 30, 2003 be reversed and that LCG- Roanoke be issued a certificate of zoning compliance so that it may obtain its business license to operate a methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue. ' Inherent in the Zoning Administrator's decision is the determination that LCG- Roanoke did not have vested rights to operate a methadone clinic at said site. The Zoning Administrator's letter does not specifically address this but, since the September 30t" letter is in response to the question of whether or not LCG-Roanoke was in compliance with the zoning ordinance, the Zoning Administrator must have, in his determination, considered whether or not LCG-Roanoke had vested rights. Therefore, the appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals also requests a determination that LCG-Roanoke had vested rights. In support thereof, LCG-Roanoke would state as follows: 1. As to significant affirmative governmental act, Section 15.2-2307 of the Code requires that the governing body has accepted proffers or proffered conditions r which specify a use related to a zoning amendment. Ordinance 062497-11 adopted June 24, 1997 specifically states that this C-1 property will be used for the operation of medical offices for the practice of medicine. In addition, the Zoning Administrator's opinion of June 5, 2003 specifically states that a methadone clinic meets the definition of medical office. Thus there has been a significant affirmative governmental act relating to the property. 2. LCG-Roanoke relied in good faith on the existing ordinance and the opinion of the Zoning Administrator. Evidence will be presented at the hearing to demonstrate that, based upon the June 24, 1997 Ordinance and the June 5, 2003 letter, LCG-Roanoke proceeded to obtain a lease for the property, took ' steps to obtain approval of regulatory agencies and further implemented a procedure to staff and make renovations to the building in order to operate a methadone clinic. 3. LCG-Roanoke incurred expensive obligations and expenses in diligent pursuit of the project in reliance on the significant affirmative governmental act. ' These included, without limitation, the entering into of the lease, making arrangements for installation of security systems and other renovations to the building, initiating processes to staff the premises, seeking governmental e \\JOLLY\SYS\USERS\CBaumgardner\ZONINGILCG-Roanoke appea BS.doc Page 3 of 4 I i~ i~ i~ i~ i~ 1 approval, and undertaking other expenses in relation to this project. Thus, LCG-Roanoke had obtained vested rights to use the property at 3390 Colonial Avenue for the operation of a methadone clinic. 6 ' \\JOLLY\SYS\USERS1CBaumgardner\ZONING\LCG-Roanoke appea BS.doc Page 4 of 4 ~~ PoanJpfi~ ~.. Z 9 o a 1838 ~~~ ..~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, ARNOLD COVE`! ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, GEORGE VV. SIMPSON, III, P.E. CHIEF PLANNER, JANET SCHElD September 30, 2003 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS MAPPING/GIS PERMITS PLANNING & ZONING STORP~NJATER MANAGEMENT Edward A. Natt Osterhoudt, Prillaman, Natt; T~-Ielscher, Yost, Maxwell & Ferguson, PLC P.O. Box 20487 Roanoke, ti'A 24018 ' Re: Business License A lication for LGC-Roanoke, 3390 Colonial Avenue pP Dear NIr. Natt, ' In response to the business license application for LGC-Roanoke, a client of yours that wishes to open a methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue, please be advised of the following. The proposed methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue would be a change of use which, per Section 30-10 of the ' Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, requires a certificate of zoning compliance. As Zoning Administrator, I have determined that the proposed use is sufficiently different from any use type ' defined in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, and, per Section 30-29 (B), will require an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance. Until such amendment is made to the zoning ordinance, I cannot certify zoning compliance. When requested by you on September 12, 2002 to render an opinion regarding a methadone clinic, my initial response on September 18, 2002 was to define the use as a Halfway House in the Roanoke ~I County Zoning Ordinance. The use was not specifically defined in the zoning ordinance, but had operational and physical characteristics of aHalfway House, per the zoning ordinance definition the "rehabilitation, counseling and supervision of persons suffering from alcohol or drug addiction". 'I On April 24, 2003, you requested an interpretation of a methadone clinic with respect to the definition of Medical Office in the zoning ordinance. After reviewing the proposed use described in 'I your letter, a methadone clinic was, again, not specifically defined in the zoning ordinance, but had operational and physical characteristics of aMedical Office, per the zoning ordinance definition the "use of the site for facilities which provide diagnosis, minor surgical care and outpatient care on a 'I routine basis, but which does not provide overnight care". On June 5, 2003, my response vas that the proposed use described on April 24, 2003 would be defined as a Medical Office in the Roanoke ~I County Zoning Ordinance. ,~ P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018 • PHONE (540) 772-2080 • FAX (540) 772-2108 Recycled Paper 0 Mr. Ed Natt Page 2 On September 23, 2003, LGC-Roanoke requested a business .license to operate an opiod treatment center, or methadone clinic, at 3390 Colonial Avenue. After considering new information. gathered over the past few weeks, it is my opinion, as Zoning Adminisirator, that the use is significantly different nom Halfway House, Medical Office, or any other use type defined in the Roanoke County- Zoning Ordinance, and will require an amendment to the text o.f the ordinance. The North American Industry Classification System (NAILS) lists a separate and distinct industry classification for "Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Center". This classification offers guidance for a new use type to be defined in the zoning ordinance. Izl reaching this decision to require a text amendment, the following points have also been considered. These points ~rther demonstrate that the proposed use is not consistent with the definition of a medical office in Section 30-29-4 in the zoning ordinance. Intensity of proposed land use: The descriptions of the unscheduled arrival of patients anywhere between the hours of 5:00 am unti12:00 pm are much different from scheduled appointments at a typical doctors' or dentists' office. The early arrival of patients would have a greaier impact to the surrounding neighborhood than typical scheduled visits during regular business hours for off ce and professional uses found in the C 1 district. 2 Security of the proposed facility: When asked on September 18, 2003 about security for the proposed facility, staff from the Life Center of Galax responded that a security guard would be on premises during operating hours and they were considering a security fence and gates around the facility. These sectrity measures are not consistent with a typical Medical Office in the C1 zoning district, but mare consistent with a use such as a Hospital in the C2 zoning district.. Physician not necessarily on staff: The description of the medical staff at a proposed methadone clinic has changed from the above-referenced September 12, 2002 letter, to the above-referenced April 24, 2003 letter, and to responses to our questions of Life Center staff. In the September 12, 20021etter, the staff description stated that "Either a physician or licensed nurse would be on duty at all hours of operation." In the Apri124, 2003 letter, the staff description stated that "The clinic would be staffed by a licensed physician, as well as licensed nurses." When asked on September 18, 2003 about physician staffing, the Life Center of Galax responded that "There will not necessarily be a physician on staff, at the site, each day." Further review of the varying descriptions of the proposed staff has led to a different analysis of the proposed operation. Per Section 30-29-4 of the zoning ordinance, "Medical offices are operated by doctors, dentists, or similar practitioners licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia." 1 Mr. Ed Natt ' Page 3 ' ~~ ~ ~ 'c ~ Ueneral lease be advised of the (n addition to the abov„ information r,.~ardinD methadone cline sin , , p ' following regarding the specific site in question. Section 30-1~ of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance allows conditional zoning. A review of the zoning at 3390 Colonial Avenue shows the zoning classification of CIC. On March 28, 1989 the propertywas rezoned from R-1 Single Family Residential District to B-l, Office with Conditions District. Condition ,#1 states "The rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of family medicine." It is my opinion, as Zoning Administrator, that the operation of a metr~adone clinic is not the "practice of family medicine", and would violate condition #1. On June 24, 1997, the property was rezoned to amend condition #3, in order to amend a proffered concept plan. While no mention of changing any other conditions was made in the application for rezoning, the word "family" was not included in condition # 1 of the revised proffer statement, signed by the applicant. This mistake appears inadvertent, but does not change the applicability of Condition #1 limiting the use of the property to the "practice of family medicine". conclusion the. ro osed methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue would be a change of use ~ ~ P P which, per Section 30-10 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, requires a certificate ofzoning ' compliance. The proposed use is sufficiently different from any use type defined in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, and, per Section 30-29 (B), will require an amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance. Until such amendment is made to the zoning ordinance, I cannot certify zoning compliance. In addition, the property at 3390 Colonial Avenue was rezoned on March 28, 1989 from R-1 Single Family Residential District to B-l, Office with Conditions District. Condition #1 states "The rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of family medicine." It is my opinion, as Zoning Administrator, that the operation of a methadone clinic is not the "practice of family medicine", and would violate condition #1. ' Please be advised, per Section 30-24-3, that appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals maybe taken by any person aggrieved by any decision of the zoning administrator. Appeals must be made wifnin ' thirty (30} days after the entry of the decision appealed from by filing with the administrator and with the Board of Zoning Appeals, a notice of appeal, specifying the grounds thereof. In addition, please be advised that, per Section 30-15-3, any zoning applicant, or any other person aggrieved by a decision of the adminisirator made pursuant to the provisions of Section 30-15, may petition the Board of Supervisors for the review of the decision of the administrator. All such petitions for review shall be filed with the administrator within thirty (3 0) days from the date of the decision for which review is sought. All such petitions shall specify the grounds upon which the petitioner is aggrieved. 0 t Ed Natt Page 4 i If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 772-2092. Sincerely, David Holladay Senior Planner, Zoning Administrator Cc: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Elmer Hodge, County Administrator Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Aznold Covey, Director of Commzmiiy Development Janet Scheid, Chief Planner 6 i ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER LISTING Tax Ma~No.: 77.11-01-57 (3390 Colonial Avenue) Applicant: Galax Treatment Center, lnc. Owners: William r=. (Sr.) and Kathleen Bal! ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS This list as follows are those property owners who own property beside, behind or across the street from the subject property noted above: COUNTY OP ROANOKE Official Tax Number / Owner's Name Property Address and Mailing Address 77.11-Q1 -47 George Wayne and Susan S. Moore 3338 Woodland Drive 3338 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24015 77.11-Q1-48 Steven L. and Donna S. Fleshman 3344 Woodland Drive 3344 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24015 77.11-01-50 Mark Andrew and Rena Pop Graham 3346 Woodland Drive 3346 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24015 77.11-01-55 ~ Occidental Development Ltd. 3455 Colonial Avenue ATTN: Donald J. Williams 7901 Crawfordsville Road Indianapolis, IN 46224 77.11-01-58 Roanoke Orthopaedic Center, Inc. 0 Ogden Road 4064 Postal Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 77.11-01-59 Allen H. and Elizabeth H. Oberlin 0 Colonial Avenue 3652 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 \\JOLLY\SYSIUSER~\CBaumgardnerlZONING\Life Center-Galax APO.doc Page 1 of 1 October 21, 2003 ' December 16, 2003 COUNTY ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE TO APPEAL ' The Galax Treatment Center d/b/a/ LCG-Roanoke has appealed the decision of the Roanoke County Zoning Administrator to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. ' LGC-Roanoke applied for a business license to open a methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue. The business license application required a certificate of zoning ' compliance. On September 30, 2003, Roanoke County Zoning Administrator David Holladay ruled that the operation of a methadone clinic at 3390 Colonial Avenue was not consistent with a condition proffered by the owner of this property which limited the use ' of this property to "medical offices for the practice of family medicine." The Zoning Administrator determined that the operation of a methadone clinic is not the "practice of family medicine" and that it would violate this proffered condition. William F. Ball, Sr. and Eugenia H. Ball own a 1.23-acre parcel located at the corner of Colonial Avenue and Ogden Road, identified as 3390 Colonial Avenue. On March 28, 1989, the property was rezoned at the request of the owners from R-1 Single Family Residential District to B-1 Office District with conditions. The 1989 rezoning was accompanied with ten conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the owners. ' Condition No. 1 provided as follows: "the rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of family medicine." ' On April 25, 1997, the owners filed a second rezoning application for this property. In its application the owner stated "the revised conceptual plan provides for the expansion of parking facilities only." They further stated that "this request does not ' provide for, or request, any change in zoning or request any change of use for this property." The stated purpose of this rezoning was to amend the conditions in order to ' expand an existing parking lot. After the Board held a public hearing, it adopted the ordinance granting the owners' request. The only changes or amendments made to the zoning of this property ' are shown in the highlighted portion of the ordinance, and the highlighted language of the ordinance only references additional parking. The expansion or intensification of the use of the property by the deletion of the word "family" as an adjective modifying "medicine" was not considered or made known to the Board. The deletion of the word "family" was not highlighted or signified in any manner in the revised list of proffered conditions signed by the owners. It is unknown if the removal of the word "family" was an inadvertent mistake or a purposeful misrepresentation. The Zoning Administrator determined that the mistake appears inadvertent, but concluded it does not change the applicability of the condition limiting the use of the property to the "practice of family medicine." 1 Questions Presented 1. Is the use of the property at 3390 Colonial Avenue subiect to the ' proffered condition limiting its use to the "practice of family medicine?" The stated purpose of the 1997 application by the owners was to amend their concept plan to allow for additional parking. The owners stated in their application that their request was not for any change in zoning or any change in use for the property. The ' published legal notices stated that the only purpose was to expand the existing parking lot. The staff report and minutes of the meeting before the Board of Supervisors indicated that the only change was to the third proffered condition relating to the parking. Finally the prepared ordinance showed by highlighting and strike-through that the only change to the 1989 ordinance related to the parking. ' The owners submitted an amended proffer of conditions that omitted the word "family" from the first proffered condition. However the owners did not advise the Board of this change. Instead they told the Board that the only change was for parking. ' Deleting the limiting word "family" from the first condition (which limits the use of the property to the "practice of family medicine"), has the practical effect of expanding ' or intensifying the use of this property. Sec. 15.2-2302 of the State Code (and Sec. 30-14-4 of the County Code) provides that there "shall be no amendment or variation of conditions ...until after a public hearing before the governing body advertised pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 15.2- 2204." Sec. 15.2-2204 requires the advertisement to contain a descriptive summary of ' the proposed action. The legal notices published with the 1997 rezoning failed to include any reference to expanding or intensifying the use of the property by deleting the word "family" from the first condition. The descriptive summary in the notices related only to ' expanding the parking. An amendment that fails to give the required notice is void and of no effect. ' Since the legal notice failed to satisfy statutory standards necessary to expand the use of the property to uses other than the practice of family medicine, the ordinance adopted after this notice did not expand or intensity the use of the property. The property continues to be subject to the first condition, which limits the use of the property to the "operation of medical offices for the practice of family medicine." 7 ii u 2. Is the operation of a methadone clinic consistent with the "practice. of family medicine?" The National Library of Medicine (Third Edition 1993) defines "Family Practice" as that "branch of medicine concerned with the provision of continuing, comprehensive, primary health care for the entire family." It is distinguished from "Addiction Medicine", which is the "branch of medicine concerned with the study, prevention and treatment of addictive diseases; the physiological and psychological disorders associated with substance dependence." The American Board of Family Practice defines its specialty as one "which is concerned with the total health care of the individual and the family. It is the specialty in breadth which integrates the biological, clinical, and behavioral sciences. The scope of family practice is not limited by age, sex, organ system or disease entity." It is based upon the heritage of the general practitioner. It is a medical specialty which provides for the continuing and comprehensive health care for the individual and family. The American Society of Addictive Medicine (ASAM) seeks to certify its members as an addictionist, who is a physician who specializes in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of addictive disorders such as alcohol, cocaine, stimulants, cannabis, nicotine, opioids and other drugs. ASAM has its own certification requirements which are different from those of a Family Practice specialist. From these definitions it is clear that there is a distinction between these two specialties in the medical field. Based upon these medical distinctions there is a difference between a medical office and a medical office limited to the practice of family medicine. There is also a difference between a methadone clinic and a clinic limited to the family practice of medicine. A methadone clinic is not designed to address the total health care of the individual and the family. It is not designed to provide for the continuing and comprehensive health care of the individual and family. It is limited to addressing the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of addictive disorders. The operation of a methadone clinic is not consistent with the practice of family medicine. 3. Is the operation of a methadone clinic in violation of a proffered condition limiting the use of the property to the "practice of family medicine?" The use of this property is subject to the first condition of the 1989 rezoning ordinance, which limited the use of the property to the "operation of medical offices for the practice of family medicine." A medical office for the practice of family medicine provides continuing and comprehensive health care for the individual and the family. 6 3 A methadone clinic is a different use from that of a medical office for the practice of family medicine. A methadone clinic provides assistance to individuals suffering from ' addiction. It dispenses methadone to its patients. It does not provide diagnoses, minor surgical care and outpatient care on a routine basis. It lacks an on-site medical doctor. Methadone will be dispensed by a nurse, but nurses are not "doctors, dentists, or similar ' practitioners licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Sec. 30-29-4 County Code, definition of "medical office"). ' The proffered condition limits the use of this property to a medical office for the practice of family medicine. A methadone clinic is not a medical office for the practice ' of family medicine. Therefore a methadone clinic is inconsistent with this proffered condition. Allowing such a use that is inconsistent with this proffered condition would be a violation of the zoning ordinance. ' CONCLUSION ' The property at 3390 Colonial Avenue is subject to the 1989 proffered condition limiting its use to the "practice of family medicine." The operation of a methadone clinic is not consistent with the practice of family medicine and this operation would be m ' violation of this proffered condition. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors should uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator. J ~ ' ' NextPage LivePublish Page 1 of 1 SEC. 30-15. CONDITIONAL ZONING; GENERALLY. ' (A) In accordance with the authority granted to Roanoke County per section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, the owner of property for which an amendment is requested may voluntarily proffer in writing reasonable conditions, in addition to the applicable regulations for the requested zoning district. All proffered ' conditions must be signed by the owner of the property. (B) Roanoke County's acceptance of proffers pursuant to this authority shall be in accord with the procedures and standards contained in section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. (C) All conditions proffered by the owner shall meet the following standards: 1. The rezoning itself must give rise for the need for the conditions. f 2. The conditions shall have a reasonable relation to the rezoning. 3. The conditions shall be in conformity with the community plan. 4. The conditions must be clearly understood and enforceable. 5. The conditions must not require or allow a design or standard that is less restrictive than the general ' provisions of this ordinance. (D) Any such conditions should be submitted prior to the start of the commission's public hearing on the ' amendment. All conditions shall be submitted prior to the start of the board's public hearing, and shall also be submitted in accord with any adopted board policy pertaining to the submittal of proffers. If proffered conditions which substantially modify the nature or impact of the proposed use, are made by the owner after the commission's recommendation on the amendment, the administrator shall recommend to the board that the ' amendment be referred back to the commission for further review and action. The commission shall have the authority to schedule a new public hearing for any request so referred. The applicant shall be responsible for all advertising costs associated with the new public hearing. ' (E) The commission and the board shall not be obligated to accept any or all of the conditions made by the property owner. ' (Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1f., 4-27-99) http://livepublish.municode.com/19/lpext.dll/Infobase3 5/1/1 b3f/1 cb9/1die?fn=document-... 12/10/2003 LIS > Code of Virginia > 15.2-2301 § 15.2-2301. Same; petition for review of decision. Page 1 of 1 rp evious ~ next. Any zoning applicant or any other person who is aggrieved by a decision of the zoning administrator made pursuant to the provisions of § 15.2-2299 may petition the governing body for review of the decision of the zoning administrator. All petitions for review shall be filed with the zoning administrator and with the clerk of the governing body within thirty days from the date of the decision for which review is sought and shall specify the grounds upon which the petitioner is aggrieved. (1978, c. 320, § 15.1-491.5; 1988, c. 856; 1997, c. 587.) previous ~ next ~ new search ~ table of contents ~ home 6 httn://1 e~ 1. state.va.us/c~i-bin/le~p504.exe?000+cod+15.2-2301 12/10/2003 ,~ ' ~ 0 M H w H z 0 U ' O H Q w 0 a a a J r. .,'~ ~~ .. ~.w, VIRGINIA: ~,. '~~~~~. BEFORE THE BOARD OUP w~ ~RS OF ROANOKE COUNTY °~~,`„ A 1.231 acre parcel of land, ) generally located on the North ) side of Ogden Road at ) 3511 Ogden Road within the ) FINAL ORDER Cave Spring Magisterial District, ) and recorded as parcel 77.11-1-57 ) in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: ~~~'- T ~: , .. WHEREAS, your Petitioners, William F. Ball and Eugenia H. Ball, did petition the Board of County Supervisors to rezone the above-referenced parcel from R-l, Single Family Residential District to B-1, Office with Conditions District, for the purpose of constructing. and operating medical offices. WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Board of County Supervisors did hold a public hearing of the petition on March 28, 1989, at which time, all parties in interest were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after full consideration at the public hearing held on March 28, 1989, the Board of County Supervisors determined that the rezoning be granted with conditions proffered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land, which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel 77.11-1-57 and recorded in Deed Book 1297, Page 1639, and legally described below, be rezoned from R-1, Single Family Residential District to B-1, Office with Conditions District. - 11 - ' Legal Description of Property: 3 e~~ .r ~.1 BEGINNING at a point on the north side of 0 den 5 Road, S. W., corner to the land of the Knights of ' Pythias of Roanoke, Va.; thence with the north side of Ogden Road, S. W., N. 74° 09' 07" W. 83.86 feet. to a point; thence continuing with the north side of Ogden Road, S. W.~, N. 63° 39' 45" W. 153.52 feet to a point; thence •N. 16° 15' S0" W. 67.92 feet to a point on the east side of Colonial Avenue, S. W.; ' thence with the east side of Colonial Avenue, S. W., N. 29° A3' 19" E. 174.08 feet to a point on the east side of Colonial Avenue, S. W., corner to Lot 5, Ogden Hills; thence S. 51° 27' E. 294.05 feet to a point; thence S. 32° 28' W. 147.37 feet to the PLACE ' OF BEGINNING, containing 1.231 acres according to a plat of survey by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers & ' Surveyors, Ltd., dated October 12, 1988. BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary ' of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. • ' ADOPTED on motion of Supervisor Robers and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Garrett NAYS. None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens Deputy Clerk cc: File Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning John Wiley, Director, Rea l• Estate Assessment - 12 - 6 ' ..3e~' ~- -~ ' VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY ' A 1.231 acre parcel of land, ) generally located on the North ) AMENDED side of Ogden Road at ) PROFFER 3511 Ogden Road within the ) OF a, Cave Spring Magisterial District, ) CONDITIONS ~ and recorded as parcel 77.11-1-57 ) o in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) ' ~"~ TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: Being in accord with Section 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia and Section 21-105E of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioners, William F. Ball H H and Eugenia H. Ball, hereby voluntarily proffer to the Board ' 0 of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia the following U o conditions to the rezoning of the above-referenced parcel of ~ land: ' ~ 1 Th the ill b d f d l . e rezone parce w e use or 0 x w construction and operation of medical offices for the a '~ practice of family medicine. The current building on ' subject property will be retained and an addition built in the same style will be added to the rear of said existing buildin g. ' 2. The medical practice will be limited to no more than three (3) physicians. BIRD, KINDER T cCC HUFFMAN TOR NE S AT 3 . The development of the property will be in Y LAW R OANOK E. VIRGINIA substantial compliance with the concept plan., ,'~s ubmitted with the application for rezoning. 6 - 13 - ~. ~~~ P 4. The "small evergreen trees" shown as a part of "Type 'C' Buffer" will be at least five (5) feet in height at planting. 5. The "fence" shown as a part of the "Type 'C' Buffer" will be~constructed of wood and will be at least six (6) feet in height, and will be in place prior to the commencement of construction of the site. 6. The "small evergreen trees" will be placed in a staggered manner on each side of the "fence". 7. All trees and natural vegetation will be saved as possible. 8. Outside lighting at the building will be residential in appearance, and the lights and poles will not exceed ten (10) feet in height. 9. Parking lot lighting will not exceed five (5) feet in height. 10. Signage will be limited to fifty (50) square feet and will be substantially as shown on Exhibit "A" attached. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM F. BALL EUGENIA H. B LL By: Counsel for Pe ition 6 Carr L. Kinder, Jr., Esquire BIRi~, KI:QllER & HUFFMAN P. O. Box 2795 Roanoke VA 24001 s/G162 - 14 - PETITIONER: WILLIAM & EUGENIA BALL ' CASE NUMBER: 14-6/97 Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 3, 1997 ' Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 24, 1997 ' A. REQUEST Petition of Dr. William F. Ball and Eugenia H. Ball to rezone 1.231 acres from C-1 conditional to C-1 conditional to expand an existing parking lot, located at 3390 Colonial Ave., Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN COMMENTS Frank Caldwell, representing the property owner, presented the request explaining that additional parking was needed on the site to accommodate the demands of the medical practice. ' C. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSION Mr. Witt asked how the people visiting the doctor would get from the new lower parking ' lot to the front door of the building. Mr. Caldwell said that the new lower lot will be for employees, and that steps will need to be incorporated into the design. They have not been designed at this time, but will need to be located to provide access and avoid the ' large 40" tree. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS ' The development of the property will be in substantial compliance with the concept plan revised on 4/23!97 to show additional parking and submitted with the application for rezoning to amend proffered conditions. Proffered conditions 1-2 and 4-10, which are attached, will remain the same. 1 E. COMMISSION ACTION(S) Mr. Witt moved to recommend approval of the petition with proffered conditions. The ' motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomason, Hooker, Witt, Robinson, Ross NAYS: None ' ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE ' None. G. ATTACHMENTS: _ Concept Plan _ Vicinity Map _ Staff Report -Other / .~ .~ //'~~i ~ i.G ' L `LL ~• vL Terrance Harrington, ~ecretary Roanoke County Planning Commission I~ VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY ' 1.231 acre arcel of land, } p' p ) AMENDED generally located on the North pROFFER side of Ogden Road at ) OF 3511 Ogden Road within the ) CONDITIONS Cave Spring Magisterial District, ) and recorded as parcel 77.11-1-57 ) in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: Being in accord with Section 15.1-491.1 et se of the ' Code of Virginia and Section 21-105E of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioners, William F. Ball and Eugenia H. Ball, hereby voluntarily proffer to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia the following conditions to the rezoning of the !~ above-referenced parcel of land: 1. The rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of medicine. The I current building on subject property will be retained and an addition built in the same style will be added to the rear of said ' existing building. 2. The medical practice will be limited to no more than 1 three (3) physicians. ' 3. The development of the property will be in substantial compliance with the concept plan revised on 4/23/97 to show additional parking and submitted with the application for rezoning to amend proffered conditions. The "small evergreen trees" shown as a part of °'Type 4. ' 'C' Buffer" will be at least five (5) feet in height at planting. 1 ~. i~ i~ t 5. The "fence" shown as a part of the " Type 'C' Buffer°° will be constructed of wood and will be at least six (6) feet in height, and will be in place prior to the commencement of construction of the site. 6. The "small evergreen trees" will be placed in a staggered manner on each side of the "fence". possible. 7. All trees and natural vegetation will be saved as 8. Outside lighting at the building will be residential in appearance, and the lights and poles will not exceed ten (10) feet in height. height. i~ 1 9 . Parking lot lighting will not exceed five ( 5 ) feet in 10 . Signage. will be limited to fifty { 50 ) square feet and will be substantially as shown on Exhibit "A" attached. Resp, ._. - submitted, WIL~IAM F. BALL /C ~~ ~ / CC,~~, ,, 1. ~EU IA H. `BALL LEGAL NOTICE The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. on ' Tuesday, June 24, 1997, in the Board Meeting Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Dr. William F. Ball and Eugenia H. Ball to rezone 1.231 acres from C-1 conditional to C-1 conditional to expand an existing parking lot, located at 3390 Colonial Ave., Cave Spring Magisterial District. A copy of this application is available for inspection in the Department of Planning and Zoning, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, VA. Dated: June 6, 1997 ~' Mary H. Allen, Clerk blish in the Roanoke Times Please pu Tuesday, June 10, 1997 Tuesday, June 17, 1997 Direct the bill for publication to: William & Eugenia Ball c/o T. P. Parker & Son PO Box 39 ' Salem, VA 24153 (540) 387-1153 SEND ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p~o,~~~~~ ~ SEND REPORT "~ ' ~ JUN-06-97 FRI 11 40 ~ ~ TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# ~ # DATE START RECEIVER ~ O1 JUN-06 11 38 LEGAL ~~'~~" 0 SEND CANCEL ~ ~ 02 11 38 LEGAL 1'34" 4 SEND OK ~ TOTAL 1' 34" 4 ~ ~ GRAND TOTAL TIME; 93H 3011 415 .1?AGES~ 16271 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Por Stall Use Only: Case Number Applicant Dr. William F. & Eugenia H. Ball The Planning Commission will study rezoning and special use permit 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. The property .was Zoned B-1 Conditional for Medical Offices on March 28, 1989. This zoning allowed up to three Doctors and the Conceptual Site Plan by T. P. Parker & Sori dated January 26, 1989 was proffered. Parking shown on the Conceptual Plan was adequate for the operation of the office for approximately eight years. The practice is receiving a third Doctor in July, 1997. Additional parking is needed to accommodate the residents of this community who have come to depend on this office for their. medical needs. The attached revised Conceptual Plan is proffered to show requested parking additions to meet the needs of the Medical Office. ' 7 ri The Comprehensive Plan shows this property as Neighborhood Conservation. This request has no impact on the Comprehensive Plan. This request does n.ot provide for, or request, any change in zoning or request any change of use for. this property. ~I The revised Conceptual Plan provides for the expansion of parking facilities only. The expansion does not impact any adjoining residential areas. No additional entrances on Odgen Road or Colonial Avenue are requested. There are no impacts on public services, facilities, water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation, or fire and rescue. Final configuration of the additional parking is sub1ect to requirements of Site Plan approval by Roanoke County. ~. 6 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/rescue. (~e 1 of 1) 1 0 ~l'I ~ y' \ ~\-- ~~ 1 ~\~~ 111 nr~ll ~~ ~~~ ~~ v~ + /a a,ww ~`: r~ ~ ~, ~ ! ~ i 11 .,~. _I .... ~ '° I I ' +' i 1t ~ ~. `~~~ ~ i ~ ~ 1 I ~I ~i ~ ` Y,y'1~~, ~ ~1 ;D ,y ~' 1 ~, N 1 •t ~r~. --- -- -- -- -- -w„. ,e, ~1~ ---ffff ...n e,,..rs 1 ~ .w~. _C __ ..__.. C ....._. mwo~. ;a ~' wx: 'w a.w~~ numww~+mr a as mr. ~ :~ 4n rw«m.ns / SITE 4~ ^~ :im'PMC.w, '.U.~.ns ~. \ ~~ vf~rm AlaP ~..u.u~~~\ - ,~~ , ~\ ~'^~r~1"rte a 1 E ~ ~ J~ n -- --~= -_ I 1 ~~~ f! _;,.~ `I, ~^n~~~ '. R R, ~ ~, w•1~PLANiMG ^Y` \ ~ ~N4_M-~` I _ ~ ~ ". ~ ~ ~ ~~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~v • 11mw nz ~_!~1 \ ) \ 1 l -s- ~ ~ ,r I t •~w « --l-~ ~.. /~n- ~1i 1 Ip ~~S' ~~ ._% ~..ro M ~ ~ >a ~, _ _ ~.~^ ~J1 GVgISPRING MA4151EFIAL OISiMLT L.. 5: ~i\-_~~~~ ~ fo ___.. ....___~m _/ DPD, r>~~-r®a{[ 1 ~~~•% ANNNE COUNtY. NFGNIA ,,.~~ En R scACE: ,• - la• oArc I~ ,ul.r Icer i l ~-{ _ RSF. #68 _ _ r. r. rAxrzen rnoi +/ \~,_~~• 1w .n n<n RAW VAR1L5 .. w.. ww. "`°°..a __._ TPP&5 ..~, SHEER 1 OF 2 . i~ =,.~~Yf4. 3 1 ~-~'n 1~ 1 S ~c~c eS ~-k ~'. S ~ « c e 1 is ~_-~~ 3.b1~' S ~. ~m ~~ ~~ &" ;. , ~ / \ - z~ `~`~, o j'W~ 5 ~ ~ ~.N? ' ~. ~ I e . '~ ,' 3 'i oft `g. ,A, n .~~ . ~ ~~ x 0 a o m g ~~ a° ~ v ~ N ~ ~D ~ , Z ~ m~ ~ ~ Z ~ n Hmr {$ ~~a~ ~ ym ~ m H p4 r ~ ^^ ro Y > Z i ~~ Z n ~ m Z ~1 ~ ~, ~ ~ Z ~ ~ m ~ R' `' i ~ rr 0 a z ~~~ ~~~""o me ~, ^oR N~ aY ,"~ o0 ~- og 6~;°C oS ~Hi gs;~3 >S~ z ~ ~ :~ g~S~: ~ ~•3 ~. R ~~ ~ , e"'pd o`..I£ ' ~~~r ... i H ii ~ bi4n3 ~ n ____. ....... ... _._ -gig ,,..^ a ~ R, ' ~, ~ -~ ~' ~ - _ _ ~`~-_, ~- _' _ _ - ~,~ ~~~ a cow= ., ::. - ~, 4 A ~ . '2 tl~~~ ~ II Ui Vai.~._j ~.6 ;~1.~+ ' ' ~ A.;...~ 7 1 ~ q 5' ~ + =' ~ ~ ~---- _ V• D F ~ `__~ n Q U ,~„ . N ~ Nv A ~ ~ y I1 ~# g~ a: I ~ ~~~~ r~`~ ~ . r ~ ~~ =Q I ~ ~ ~ ' ~~-[-A L _ _. -- ~ -- 1 TPP&S ' SURVEYORS PLANNERS County of Roanoke Department of Planning ' P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 ATTN: Mr. Terry Harrington T. P. Parker, P.E., L.S. (1919-1989) John T. Parker, P.E., L.S. Frank B. Caldwell, III, P.E., L.S. 25 April 1997 ' RE: Amendment of Proffers Dr . William F . Ball & Eugenia H . Ball Colonial Avenue and Ogden Road Roanoke County Dear Terry: ' Please find enclosed an application to amend the original proffered Conceptual Plan for the• Medical Office of Dr. William F. Ball at the intersection of Ogden Road and Colonial Avenue. The ' original rezoning provided for a proffered Concept Plan with parking thought to be adequate for the practice. The rezoning allowed up to three (3) doctors in this office. Due to the community response to Dr. Ball's practice, there has been an increase in demand for both medical services and as a result parking spaces for this property. A third doctor, which is the maximum allowed under the original rezoning, is scheduled to begin practice at this location in July. The attached Revised Concept Plan requests approval by Roanoke County to add additional parking spaces on this property to accommodate both the present demand and ' the demand to accommodate the additional doctor. Our concept does not request any additional entrances off of Ogden Road or Colonial Avenue. Under the original rezoning, the only concerns exhibited ' by the surrounding properties were those of the neighbors on the upper side of the clinic. Dr. Ba11 constructed a buffer along this property line and has maintained it. The addition of the parking, which we have proposed, will not in any way impact those residents who have homes adjoining this property. This doctor's office serves a significant need of the neighborhood and is consistent with the use of the properties in this immediate area. The addition of this parking does not reflect any change in the use of this parcel and will alleviate inevitable ' congestion on this piece of property if parking is not expanded beyond the scope of the original Concept Plan. ' - T. P. Parker Sc Son - 816 Boulevard • Post Office Box 39 • Salem, Virginia 24153 • Telephone 763-387-1153 • FAX 703-389-5767 i~ County of Roanoke Department of Planning ' ATTN: Mr. Terry Harrington 25 April 1997 Page 2 ~i~ Thank you very much for your consideration and, please call if ' you have any questions regarding this request. Very truly yours, ' T. P. PARKER & SON /~ ~~~ i -'Frank B. Caldwell, III, P.E., L.S. I, ' FBC/msc `~ Enclosures cc: Dr. William F. Ball i~ ~~~ County of Roanoke ' Department of Planning and Zoning Memorandum ' TO: Planning Commission FROM: David Holladay DATE: May 27, 1997 ' SUBJECT: Petition by William F. Ball & Eugenia H. Ball to rezone 1.231 acres from C 1 conditional to C 1 conditional, in order to amend proffered conditions. In 1989, this property was rezoned from Rl to Cl with conditions to develop a medical office. In the same petition, the Future Land Use Guide of the Comprehensive Plan was amended from Development to Transition. ' Ten conditions were proffered for the development of the property. These conditions limited the number of practicing physicians to three, guaranteed retention of the existing home as part of the office, directed the design of buffer yards and screening, directed conservation of existing ' vegetation where possible, limited signage, and limited outside lighting. The conditions also required substantial compliance with the concept plan submitted with the rezoning. The site was ' developed in compliance with the site plan, and except for some screening trees which have died, appears to continue to conform with all of the proffered conditions. ' A third physician will soon join the practice, and the owners have decided that they will need more pazking spaces. The proposed parking lot expansion is not in substantial compliance with the original proffered concept plan. Thus the purpose of this petition is to amend proffered condition. #3. If the rezoning is granted, proffered condition #3 would read: "The development of the property will be in substantial compliance with the concept plan revised on 4!23/97 to show additional parizing and submitted with the application for ' rezoning ~to amend proffered conditions". Proffered conditions 1-2 and 4-10, which are included in your packet, will remain the same. r The concept plan shows 4 new parking spaces to be added to the existing parking lot. Anew parking area would be constructed in front of the existing lot. Seven spaces are shown in the new ' parking area, with a possible expansion area of 8 spaces. The total proposed number of spaces is 45, including the possible expansion area. The driveway to the new parking area would be connected to the existing driveway. No new entrances would be created from either Ogden Road or Colonial Avenue. t Landscaping would be required in the interior of the parking area, as well as where the new parking area adjoins the public right of way. In addition, one new handicap parking space will be required based on the total number of parking spaces. While the construction of the new parking area would require removal of several trees, a 40-inch red oak is shown to remain. The new pazking azea appears to be designed in order to preserve this significant mature tree. All of the vegetation designated "to remain" on the original concept plan is likewise designated on the revised concept plan. No new arkin s aces are ro sed ad'acent to residential ro erties. Staff has noted that some P g P P Po J P P of the screening trees have died and have not been replaced. This can be corrected during site plan review. The proposed parking lot expansion conforms with the policies and guidelines of the Transition land use designation of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. No negative impacts ' aze anticipated. Staff recommends rezoning with amended conditions. [] n 0 n 1 ~Li~.~~~~~u~~t~c3 ~er;fud AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1997 ORDINANCE 062497-1 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF ' A 1.231-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 3390 COLONIAL AVENUE (TAX MAP NO. 77.11-1-57) IN THE CAVE SPRING. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1, ' CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1, CONDITIONAL, UPON THE APPLICATION OF DR. WILLIAM F. BALL ' AND EUGENIA H. BALL WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held June 24, 1997; and, ' WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 3, 1997; 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 1.231 ' acres, as described herein, and located at 3390 Colonial Avenue, (Tax Map- Number ' 77.11-1-57) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-1, Conditional, Office District, to the zoning classification of C-1, Conditional, Office District, with amended proffers. ' 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Dr. William F. Bal! and Eugenia H. Ball. ' r ert has voluntaril roffered in writin the 3. That the owner of the p op y y p g ' following amended conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (A) The rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of medicine. The current building on subject property will be retained and an addition built in the same style will be added to the rear of said existing building. (B) The medical practice will be limited to no more than three (3) physicians. (C) The development of the properly will be in substantial compliance with ::::::the t ~ d.:w~:ttt m~. ~. . >SU~t . ce La :: ::: ,.:< ::::~~~~>:to::Show>:a Cfltfona ::.a~'#~ln ~ ;>~r~d ::.............................................: the con pt p n ~~v~s~~i..;p>'~;:;.::::::.~::::.~::::::: :.....:........................:.:............:.:.....p.:::.:::::::.::g:....................................,..........::.......:.....:. ..~ > :::e .. ;: :: i~ ::;:;> :::<:>.-'~:j~`:"::;;:.:::~:.;. ,;.,,,,;:<.:~``:~ , . n ::: a4>~a~~I`~~.....4~f...C~~..G~"~,.~l.~~k.....~~.. (D) The "small evergreen trees" shown as part of a 'Type 'C' Buffer" vial be at least five (5)feet in height at planting. (E) The "Fence" shown as part of the'Type'C' Buffer" will be constructed of wood and will be at least six (6) feet in .height, and will be in place prior to the commencement of construction of the site. (F) The "small evergreen trees" vial be placed in a staggered manner on each side of the "fence." (G) AI,I trees and natural vegetation wial b:e saved as possible. (H) Outside lighting at the building will be residential in appearance, and the fights and poles wi l not exceed ten (10) feet in height. (I) Parking lot lighting will not exceed five (5) feet in height. (J) Signage will be limited to fifty (50) square feet and will be substantially 2 6 as shown on Exhibit "A" attached. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the north side of Ogden Road, SW, corner to the land of the Knights of Pythias of Roanoke, VA; thence with the north side of Ogden Road, SW, N. 74° 09' 07" W. 83.36 feet to a point; thence continuing with the north side of Ogden Road, SW, N. 63° 34' 45" W. 153.52 feet to a point; thence N. 16° 15' 50" W. 67.92 feet to a point on the east side of Colonial Avenue, SW; thence with the east side of Colonial Avenue, SW, N. 29° 4.3' 19" E. 174.08 feet to a point on the east side of Colonial Avenue, SW, corner to Lot 5, Ogden M+LIs; thence S. 51 ° 27' E. 294.05 feet to a point; thence S. 32° 28' W. 147.37 feet to the Place of Beginning, containing 1.231 acres. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30} days after its final passage. AIf 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. Supervisor Min~nix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the recorded vote: following AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, CIVIC Caerk to the Board of Supervisors cc: File Terry Harrington, Director, Planning & Zoning Arnold Covey, Director, Engineering & Inspections John W. Birckhead, Director, Real Estate Assessment Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney 3 e n NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens June 24, 1997 38~J 0-062497-11 L 4. Ordinance to rezone 1.231 acres from C-1 Conditional to C-1 Conditional to expand an existing parking lot, located at 3390 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Dr William F Ball and Eugenia H. Ball. (Janet Scheid, Planner Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ORDINANCE 062497-11 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.231-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 3390 COLONIAL AVENUE (TAX MAP NO. 77.11-1-57) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1, CONDITIONAL, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-1, CONDITIONAL, UPON THE APPLICATION OF DR. WILLIAM F. BALL AND EUGENIA H. BALL WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 1997, and the second reading and public hearing were held June 24, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 3, 1997; 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 1.231 acres, as described herein, and located at 3390 Colonial Avenue, (Tax Map Number 77.11-1-57) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning 0 _i 7 ii i l 7 39O June 24, 1997 classification of C-1, Conditional, Office District, to the zoning classification of C-1, Conditional, Office District, with amended proffers. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Dr. William F. Ball and Eugenia H. Ball. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following amended conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (A) The rezoned parcel will be used for the construction and operation of medical offices for the practice of medicine. The current building on subject property will be retained and an addition built in the same style will be added to the rear of said existing building. (B) The medical practice will be limited to no more than three (3) physicians. (C) The development of the property will be in substantial compliance with the concept plan revised on 4/23/97 to show additional parking and submitted with the application for rezoning to amend proffered conditions. (D) The "small evergreen trees" shown as part of a "Type'C' Buffer" will be at least five (5)feet in height at planting. (E) The "fence" shown as part of the "Type 'C' Buffer" will be constructed of wood and will be at least six (6) feet in height, and will be in place prior to the commencement of construction of the site. (F) The "small evergreen trees" will be placed in a staggered manner on each side of the "fence." (G) All trees and natural vegetation will be saved as possible. (H) Outside lighting at the building will be residential in appearance, and the lights and poles will not exceed ten (10) feet in height. (I) Parking lot lighting will not exceed five (5) feet in height. (J) Signage will be limited to fifty (50) square feet and will be ~~ ~~ substantially as shown on Exhibit A attached. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the north side of Ogden Road, SW, corner to the land of the Knights of Pythias of Roanoke, VA; thence with the north side of Ogden Road, SW, N. 744 09' 07" W. 83.36 feet to a point; thence continuing with the north side of Ogden Road, SW, N. 634 34' 45" W. 153.52 feet to a point; thence N. 164 15' 50" W. 67.92 feet to a point on the east side of Colonial Avenue, SW; thence with the east side of Colonial Avenue, SW, N. 294 43' 19" E. 174.08 feet to a point on the east side of Colonial Avenue, SW, corner to Lot 5, Ogden Hills; thence S. 514 27' E. 294.05 feet to a point; thence S. 324 28' W. 147.37 feet to the Place of Beginning, containing 1.231 acres. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by 0 L June 24, 1997 391 this ordinance. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens 0-062497-12 5. Ordinance to rezone approximately 2.75 acres from R-2 to C-2 to construct a drugstore, located at the corner of Route 419 and Brambleton Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of C&C Development L.L.C. (Janet Scheid, Planner) Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Eddy, Minnix, Harrison, Johnson NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens ORDINANCE 062497-12 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 2.75-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF ROUTE 419 AND BRAMBLETON AVENUE (PART OF TAX MAP NOS. 77.13-5-37, 77.13-5-40, TAX MAP N0.77.13-5-38) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON ~~ THE APPLICATION OF C&C DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 1997, and ~~~~~ the second reading and public hearing were held June 24, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on June 3, 1997; 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, i i u ~I 0 i 7 i C Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, The 2002-2003 fiscal year presented many challenges and opportunities. Staff planned for the provision of services to our citizens and to accomplish many of the priorities set by the Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke County School Board while maintaining a fiscally conservative philosophy in regards to taxation and spending. Even though presented with budgetary reductions from the Commonwealth and an uncertain economy, many initiatives were accomplished that benefited the citizens of Roanoke County and the Roanoke Valley. The following are a few highlights of those accomplishments: • No increases in taxes or fees to our citizens. • Funding of 6 additional dispatchers for Public Safety E-911 to absorb the cellular E-911 calls that are being transferred to localities from the Virginia State Police enhancing our citizens safety. • An additional School Resource Officer for Hidden Valley High School to enhance our children's safety. • An increase in funding for CORTRAN, the public transportation system used by our elderly and the disabled. I am pleased to report that our auditors, KPMG, completed the audit of the financial operations of both the County of Roanoke and Roanoke County Schools for the year ended June 30, 2003. A favorable opinion was delivered to both the County and Schools with no management letter comments. Through careful planning, budgeting, and monitoring of revenues and expenditures the County had total savings of $3.1 million dollars for the year ended June 30, 2003 as shown on your Attachment I. Of this amount $484,411 represents departmental expenditure savings. Based upon the policy for rollover of year end savings the departments were able to request up to 60% of the savings within their own department for special purchases and programs approved by the County Administrator. These approved department rollovers total $209,439 and are outlined in Attachment II which was included in your board packet. This leaves a net expenditure savings of $274,972 which will be transferred to the capital fund balance based upon the rollover policy. Actual revenues received exceeded budgeted revenues by $2.6 million dollars. The additional revenues collected were primarily from increased tax collections in the areas of personal property, sales, business license, meals and cellular phone tax. This is attributed to a more positive economic climate. A detailed analysis of the general fund revenues is outlined in Attachment III. As a result of previously approved Board actions, $710,264 was appropriated from year end excess to fund the HP Migration Project, Voting Machines and Bulk Collection, so no action is required by the Board. Revenues from fee for service. exceeded budget by $396,483. At the time the ambulance fee was approved, these revenues were committed to Fire and Rescue and will need to be appropriated accordingly. Staff recommends appropriating the funds to capital for a new radio system or the Public Safety Building. This leaves a balance of $1,483,629 to be added to the general fund unappropriated balance. This addition to our General Fund further strengthens our governments financial base to offset any downturn in the economy. No action is required from the County Board for these funds to be added to the general fund balance. The Roanoke County Schools ended the year with a surplus of $4.1 million. The additional revenues collected were primarily due to the higher than anticipated enrollment for the school year. The expenditure savings were related primarily to savings in the personnel budget. The School Board approved this surplus for capital expenditures on November 25, 2003. Attachment IV in your packet details tie results of operations for the year ended June 30, 2003. " ~-rv~~ l-f-o~~}.~ is here from the Roanoke County Public Schools should you have any questions. The economic outlook for the Roanoke Valley is optimistic. With a diverse employment base, ready access to major markets, and compelling quality of life, Roanoke County is well positioned for continued economic growth in the years ahead. While I am very pleased to present favorable financial information for the year ended June 30, 2003, the upcoming year will present many challenges and opportunities as well. Reductions in state funding and an uncertain economy continue to impact the County. Difficult choices are made as the budget is developed and it represents a balance between available resources and needs. This balance is achieved using the objectives and priorities established by the Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke County School Board. Our commitment to you our citizens is that we will continue to be stewards of the tax-payers money while providing services to you as well as striving to accomplish many of the priorities set by the Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke County School Board . The only action required by the board is to appropriate the fee for service in excess of budget. Staff recommends approval of item 1 which is to appropriate the fee for service in excess of budget of $396,483 to Fire and Rescue capital for a new radio system or the Public Safety Building. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. MEMORANDUM TO: Diane Childers FROM: Billy Driver DATE: December 15, 2003 SUBJECT: Members of Board of Equalization Three members of the Board of Equalization will need to be replaced due to term limits and resignation. These three members were from the Windsor Hills, Vinton and Cave Spring Districts. Mr. McNamara had asked if we could submit some names of citizens from these three districts. They are Steve Claytor from the Windsor Hills District, Jim Lugar and Sadie Weddle from the Cave Spring District, and Eric Thomas from the Vinton Magisterial District. Please let me know if you need additional names to be recommended for the Board of Equalization. If any of the Board of Supervisors would need additional information on the Board of Equalization qualifications please let me know. 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 'dR~ ~~'~ From: Paul M. Mahoney Date: July 21, 2003 Subject: Board of Equalization The 2003 Session of the Virginia General Assembly adopted legislation introduced by Delegate Morgan Griffith to substantially change the qualifications, appointment, and terms of individuals to local boards of equalization. These boards are created to hear citizen complaints and to equalize local real estate tax assessments. This legislation will-have a significant impact on Roanoke County since on its effective date of January 1, 2004, it will force Roanoke County to appoint two new members to this Board. The first significant change restricts a person's membership on a board of equalization to no more than nine consecutive years, and upon the expiration of nine consecutive years, that person shall not be eligible for reappointment to the board for a period of three years. Galen Conner (Vinton) has served on Roanoke County's Board of Equalization since 1988. B. J. Brewer (Cave Spring) has served on Roanoke County's Board of Equalization since 1992. Neither one of these individuals will be eligible for reappointment in January 2004. J. C. Taylor (Catawba) has served since 1996, and Andy Clingenpeel (Hollins) and Wanda Manuel (Windsor Hills) have served since 1999. The next significant change required by this legislation is the new qualification requirements. Thirty percent of the members of the board shall be commercial or residential real estate appraisers, other real estate professionals, builders, developers, or legal or financial professionals, and at least one such member shall sit in all cases involving commercial, industrial or multi-family residential property unless waived by the taxpayer. The next change requires that once in every four years each member of the board of equalization shall take a continuing education course provided by the State Tax Commissioner. In the past in order to be eligible for appointment to the board a prospective member had to take a course of instruction for board of equalization members by the State Tax Commissioner. The old course of instruction was typically completed in one-half of a day. This new legislation will require the Tax Commissioner to up-date the basic course of instruction to incorporate the provisions of the new legislation including but not limited to what constitutes evidence of generally accepted appraisal practice and fair market value. At this time the State Tax Commissioner's office is unable to advise us as to an anticipated time commitment by a member for this continuing education instruction. As you are aware the judges of the Circuit Court appoint the members of the board of equalization. Since the late 1980s the judges have welcomed recommendations from the members of the Board of Supervisors of individuals for possible appointment. Since this legislation mandates the removal of two existing members and imposes new requirements for qualifications for new members, we want to inform the members of the Board of Supervisors of these changes so that the Board can begin considering at an early date replacements for Mr. Conner and Mrs. Brewer. Any new recommended appointees should also be considered in light of the new qualification standards (30% of the members of the Board shall be commercial or residential real estate appraisers, other real estate professionals, builders, developers or legal or financial professionals). Either Mr. Driver or I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have concerning this legislation and its effects on Roanoke County. C: Elmer C. Hodge • • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ O O ,~ `C `C O ~ ~ ~ r ~ '~ `_'' C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p-. c~ p.. 7~ 0 0 x n 0 N 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ r+ ~, n ~.., . ~ ~' ~- ~ ~ A~ CD O ~ r-r- t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~' o ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ r `~ ~ ~ n ~ , C~ ~° d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CAD ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ O ~ - ~ N ~ y ~ n b ~ ~ o o ~• n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ 9 ~~ c~ ~. 0 b W ~~ (~\) \ L CAD ~- CD r~ ~. 0 `"~~ O ~ ~ O CAD r+ O ~ ~ O O ~ v~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ o ~ 0 0 CD f~ ~~ N ~ C~D O ~- CD ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ o 0 ~. `..~ ~--- O CD F"~~ M~~/~ O `W V M o O ~ (~ ~ ~ CD ~ ~ ~ r~-r- CAD ~ ~ ~~ r ~. ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- 00 °o ~ ~ ~, F.., . N ~ UG ~~ (r4 CD ~J (~ \ L ~--r- ~d ~~ Cf4 '~ 0 m 0 C~ 0 A~ ,--~ O C/] r-i- 9 h--+ M~-+ h--+ ~M V O ~• n CD t~ b .r, \ 1 M--~ F~ F^~+, ~• c~ 0 O d ~- n~ \ 1 ~- h~+ O -p 00 0 0 N d '--~ C!'4 ^~ F-+ ~` ~D ~- ~. ~yy~ V ~f h~ h--~ F--~+ Cl4 0 -~ ~--- r+ CD CD ~r 'i'ce V 1 N W .-. bG ~- CD 2"~~ ^~ i--~-~ ~, F~+ 0 M~ Il 1 h~+ ~. 0 ~. CD -P 0 V 1 ~. /y~ V `~f V ~~ Cf4 0 0 ~--~ CD ~ouNry -~-OT o, O w +'~.`r n oa ~~~ b~Nl J~1~r x O `~ O r+ ~-+ • `C 0 ~- ~ ~ v, x O O CD n ~-- • ~---~ 0 ~• V1 • • • N N --~ O O ~ O O `O 00 W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ o ~ ~, ~ ~ O ~ ~. ~ °o ° ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ o• ~' ~ ~ O o ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~-- ~-~h p ~ Oh ~ ~ ~ r ~ O ~ ~ rC~r- +~ O o. ~ ~. n ~C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ • O ~• O ~- c~ • ~--~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~- ~ ~C ~ ~ CD ~ ~' ~ o ~., ~ °o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ r-~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~g ~ ~ t ~~ r ~~ • r ~ ~' ~' ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ `~ C~ ~ ~ CD r^~' I • N O 0 -p ~. r ~. /^~' ,\ O O d c~ ---~ . c~ r~ (^~' • N O O -P 0 ~. ~. ~. 9 V ~-+ i--+ C/1 CD ~- ~'S 0 ---+ C/~ e--r r ~. l 1 C'~ CD ~ 9 .~ U ~~ 4' ~~ (N ~r ~~ h rn~ Y N O 0 ~. C~ c~ N O J 0 c~ N O ~--~ N d ~. c~ N O O 0 ~~ ~. c~ N O O Oo d ~~ N O O t~ 0 ~. ~. c~ Y b 0 N H n 0 0 a~ r ~. ~ 1 C7 CD i--+ i--~ r-t- M--.+ 0 C/1 e--r C/~ e--r F"i 0 J C/~ e--r ~~ ~ ~ cn ~ ~- ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ o ~ Q'' o ~~ ~ ~ o O O O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ¢' ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ c~ ~ ~ ~ O~ CD ~v a 9 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~. 0o c~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ .. ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ .. ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ o o ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~. ~ ~ ~, ~ ~• ~ ~, ~ ~, o o A' ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ c ~ ° ~' ~ N 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ C CD O ~ ~ CD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '-h U4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ U, ~ ~~ ~ o ~ `~• ~ ~: ~. ~ o `~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ v~ O CD ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~' ~ ~ c ~ o ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~'' o ~ o ~ o ~ ° '~' o ~ ~ ~ o ~' ~. o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ c 0 ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O Q.., ~' O ~ CD U, ~, r~ ~-' ~ ~ ~ ~ rr- (74 CD ,. ~ ~ ~ ~. O '~~ ~ n ~ ~p ~ O ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• N ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~- ~ ~ ~. °• ~ ~ ~ ~ can N ~ CD n ~ G~ ~--+ O 0 c~ b w ~D \ J-~ Q ~~ Q. -!- Q ~~ r'!- Q r+~ 9 rr ~ n` ~ -1 ~~ a iC i `0 r °~ m n o ~~ ~ 0 0' ~ o :, o w °j m ~W u U m ' ~ y m a 47 O H •y ;: r ~ p r G. p ~ ! 0 ~, O~ ~ n ~~ ~-• ~ !`~ 0~ ~l ~ ~~Aa.@O i' ~fi `~3 r~ ~ n~ C... oc~ ~ ~0 -tl ~.h r r ~, n na~ n N i' , ~, oo-mi C . ~ . 0... n Z ~~ M a ow ~ ` -' } ^` 5 n i n r - u O O S °i ~ ~ _'t ~sr Go : NN[ ~ r _ i Z ~ m, p d m W W ~1. A 4 Q Z ~ ~~ l ,y ' C~)O O r-h. P 0o N / Fl ~s f ~ ~ 4r. :{ ' m r:' ~ r+ Q r r -'~ C -° i 2 ~ n i 7 r+ c~a 0 .. ,~~ !! 0 ~~ ~j 1aC ~a2 °aa ~~ iii T R- ~ 0 i ~ m a I N m ~~ Q ~ ~ Q ~ Q r+~ ~ Q ~--~ ~-+ n O d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ bd ~~.~ ~~. N ° ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ° ~ ~ (rG ~' O O ~-.r Y N ^ ~ ~ G~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CD ~ ~ ~ o ~. CD ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ---~ . O ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ o o ~ ~ c~ o r+ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ cv p' ~ 0 ~ N v1 ~ p 00 ~ ` ~' v N ~ 1 CD ~ ~..~ c~ ~ o ~°-~ ~ w CD ~ } ~ c~ ~.:° n ~ ~ ~ o ~ c~ ~ ~ r-- ~ ~,, r--r ~ ~ cP ~ ~d ~ ~` O ~ _ o ~' ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ cn ~' O~ ~ ~ ~o ~ r ~ ~• ~ ~ `~ ~ O ~ . ~ ~ ~h C1'Q ~ v1 ,.~ ~- CD ~--~ v1 n ~ ~' o~ ~• ~~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ o' ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~- o --~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ ~ O '-~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ CAP + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r+ ~ r--r ,..~ CD '~ ~ ~ ~ CD ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~o ° ~ ---~ • ~ ~...~ ~ . ~' `~ C~ ~~ ~ v c ~' • Cn ~ CD n ~--~ C~ ~. ,..,~ o ~. o ~' ~~ o ~ ~ n 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ n c~ ~. ~ ~ n ~ ~o U4 ~ ~' Or4 ~ ~' ~•~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ vn cn W 0 ~. n c~ .P b' R :.-- k C ~ ~~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- CD ~ o: ~~ ~: O `~ ~ O ~ . _ w ~- ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ o si ~ - ~' O O .s a- s ~- ° r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• o~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ g 2,~ CD ~~ ~•-.•~ O 9 ~y g ~ ¢+ 4 o a~ ~ ~~,~ ~~ ~-~ ~p ~O .~ O ~~ C/1 C/1 i--~ CD ~-~ • lr/^~ c~ 0 a n 0 n c~ V_ N ~', F~-+ • h~+ H~ ^~ ~--~+ ~+• 0 c--r c~ a o' C/1 c--f C~ 0 n ^ ^ ^ ^ o ~~~ o ~ ~ ~ `D b 0 0\ o n CD n ~. co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~- ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ o I F"~, o' ° ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ o ~ y. o ~ ~ o ~ °-~ ~ ~, ~ n o ~ c-~ ~~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ _U4 O OZ ~ I -~-- • ~ r0 -~-~ n ~ ~' '~ UQ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p p N ~ ~ ~~ o• ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~ ll, CD C~ r+ CD c~ ~. 0 .~ v •~~ ~~ ~k 5chud Roanoke County 2003 Community Plan M ~, F Z ~ 2 a B3 ~\, ~`~~,\~~ Department of Community ~~ '~ Development ~~ ~\ Board O/ Superviso Work Session December 16, 2003 WHAT IS A COMMUNITY PLAN? • A blueprint for the future growth and development of the County. • A long-term (15-20 years) plan that provides direction in making decisions about: ~.~dand development, :y7~lir~ services, • antl'~res~ource protection. WHAT DOES THE 1998 COMMUNITY PLAN SAY? • The Plan was developed after 3 years of community input. • It emphasizes 5 broad community-wide themes: ~ ®a Regionalism; ~~8)~ustainability; • 3~ommunity Identity; • 4) S~~ic~Beauty; • 5) Qual)~y o'f, Life. ~:, 1 WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE PLAN? • Staff and Planning Commission have undertaken a 10-month update and revision of the Plan. • Emphasis has been placed on the following - ~ --areas: `v,~l') economic Development; ~'• 2)~Public Utilities; • 3j`$tormwater Management; . 4) Transportation Issues; • 5) GrO~ibth Management. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT C,ca1~ . Market the County's industrial 8 commercial property; • Encourage the retention & growth of local businesses; r'C~eate 8 maintain marketable inventory of sites; • Promote &encourage regional partnerships. t:, ~~ ~'~, PUBLIC UTILITIES . Western Virginia Water Authority ._~ ~.:~ ;. ~~ Faa~o on r`n raa~ Comm. Alan 2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Gcal~ • Manage stormwater from new development & redevelopment; • Manage stormwater quantity & quality; :orrect & fund existing drainage deficiencies . ~: ~~, ~~, TRANSPORTATION ISSUES • Consider present & future transportation implications when making land use decisions; • Make efficient use of taxpayer's money allocated for transportation projects; • Guide the use of transportation infrastructure to control air ,.....__ pollution, traffic, & livability problems; "~`~• Pla~an influential role in regional transportation decisions; • Provitfe.progressivesolutlons 8. technology to users of the transportation network; ,\ • Expand citizen participation in the transportation planning process. u GROWTH MANAGEMENT • Encourage residential development where public infrastructure (such as schools, roads, water, & sewer) are in place to support it; • Discourage residential subdivisions where infrastructure does not exist to support it; :.r-Encourage appropriate in-fill development; • Encourage a mix of uses including residential, retail, & office; ~ • Support residential impact fee legislation at the State level. ,, 3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN • Upon approval of the revised Community Plan: . Staff will prepare ordinance amendments that will implement the Plan. ordinances will be reviewed and approved Board of Supervisors. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN ~. Rezone interchange districts for commercial & industrial uses. ,L ,1 z. Agricultural Zoning Districts: I~tliln~ CO • Increase minimum lot size in AR, AG-1, & AG•3; • Revise frontage requirements; • Require Special Use Permit for major subdivisions (5 houses or greater) in Agricultural areas. s. Establish an Urban Service Boundary (USB): Require public water 8 sewer in USB; ~~- '~t,'"' Downzone residential property that is: "~~. In rural land use designations; •'~Yn lantl use taxation. • Dedaiop new R-1A district-allow greater density for areas nutsitie planned residential subdivisions. • Revise~lusterordinance. a. Revise Pti~ure`Land Use map. TIMEFRAME • Revised Plan will be presented to the Planning Commission in February 2004. • Zoning Ordinance amendments will be .pc~sented in April-May 2004. ~~ ~~ ~'~ dk 4 Questions \ Comments P AN F _ 9 7 ~ 2 a ~" ~ / 3 \~ Roanoke County \\Gpmmunity Plan Update Board O/Supervisors' Wokk Session December 16, 2003 Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, Mr. Hodge and senior Staff. ,~-.l~r~.. ~ . -~ ~r Today s board meeting ~~~ ~~ e you -e ~r opportunity to express your sentiments toward Supervisor Minnix and his service to the residents in the Cave Spring Magisterial District and to the citizens of Roanoke County. I would like to take the few minutes available for citizen's comment to share some thoughts and sentiments with Supervisor Minnix. 1 I have known and worked with "FUZZY" for over 25 years. During that time he has, been unselfish with his use of time to help the youth and adults in his district and the county. I have vivid memories of Fuzzy volunteering countless hours working with the youth in the Cave Spring district in the high school athletic program. Whether it was football, track, or softball over the years, Fuzzy helped athletes realize their goals and potentials. Before funding was available to compensate the number of coaches needed for programs and before there was a sharing of Z maintenance responsibilities between the county recreation department and the schools, Fuzzy and others provided invaluable assistance to the coaches and athletes. Fuzzy helped by coaching, marking fields, transporting students and helping maintain programs that were just starting or would not be offered without volunteer assistance. Charlie, Jack, Wayne, Otis, Richard, Mike, Jerry, Don, Steve, Paul, Ben, Garland, Estey, and Beth appreciate your efforts as do the hundreds of students you worked with. 3 The same is true of your commitment to other groups in the district and the county. Whether is was water in basements in Penn Forest or flooding in North and East County, OR snow on 220 causing serious challenges for motorist OR fires at the retirement home in North County or tire fires in South County, you were always there, concerned, and available for citizens to share their concerns and to work toward solutions. You represent what is best about local government -care for and service to the community. Your representation style always defects attention from yourself and encourages support for fellow board members and county employees. Your 4 listening ability and ability to find common ground characterize your time on the board. The good thing about the ending of your term on the board is your willingness to continue to serve the community regarding the important issue of water resources. I have no resolution for you, no large check for you, but I do express the thanks and appreciation of hundreds and hundreds of citizen who are grateful for your service to the Cave Spring Magisterial district and Roanoke County. S AGENDA ITEM NO. ~Y%~ PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE ~' CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~1 ~.,~~ ~~-c.~s~-~ ~ .%~I, ~ .~ ~,~ 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, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman 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 Cierk written authorization from the group allowing the individual to represent them. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NAME: i~~~ ,~, i-v~~~ ADDRESS: 5sy~~ f7~x' ~~~t i~r~, ~/ f 1"~, ~~A Zoo ~ PHONE (OPTIONAL}: ~~ l" - ~~~s" GROUP/ORGANIZATION: ~~~- 6 b VIRGINIA'S EXPLORE PARK Milepost I I S on the Blue Ridge Parkway Administered by Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority Virginia Code § 10.1-1600 et seq. in partnership with The River Foundation, Inc. LR.C.§501(c)(3) Post Office Box 8508 Roanoke, Virginia 24014-0508 (540) 427.1800 FAX (540) 427-1880 www.explorepark.org BUDGET REQUEST FOR 2004-06 BIENNIUM VIRGINIA RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY A political Subdivision of the Commonwealth for VIRGINIA'S EXPLORE PARK Virginia's Explore Park is a unique public-private partnership, whose primary partners are the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority and The River Foundation, Inc., anon-profit 501(c)(3) charitable organization founded exclusively to advance the Explore Park project. The River Foundation's responsibilities arc planning and resource development for the Park and securing financial support for the Park from private sources. All of Explore Park's buildings, with the exception of the new Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center, have been constructed with private contributions secured by The River Foundation. Once Park facilities are built and operational, the Authoriry assumes ownership and maintenance responsibilities for those facilities. The Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (the "Authoriry") was created by the General Assembly in 1986 (Virginia Code §10.1-1600 et seq.). The Authority is governed by a 13-member Board of Directors appointed by the Governor and administered by a staff headed by an Executive Director selected by the Board. The Authority is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia. According to its statute, it was created to (1) provide a high quality recreational attraction in the western part of the Commonwealth; (2) expand the historical knowledge of adults and children; (3) promote tourism and economic development in the Commonwealth; (4) set aside and conserve scenic and natural areas along the Roanoke River and preserve open-space lands; and (5) enhance and expand research and educational programs. Explore has simplified this ambitious mission into the Park's four core tenets-Education, Preservation, Conservation, and Recreation. Explore Park's needs for the biennium are two-pronged -the need for continued operating support is critical to fulfill the Park's mission of providing quality education and recreation programs, and the need for capital improvements is critical to keeping the Park open, functional, and safe for the thousands of visitors who enter each year. The Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority respectfully requests $200,000 over the biennium ($100,000 per year) for operating support and $250,000 over the biennium ($125,00 per year) for capital improvements at Virginia's Explore Park. For more information, please contact Jo Nelson, Development Manager, or Debbie Pitts, Interim Director at (540) 427-1800 ext 327 and ext 323 respectivel}~, or ~ilelson(»ehplorehark.org or DPITTSC7~co.roanole~.va.us. BUDGET REQUEST FOR NONSTATE AGENCY 2004-06 BIENNIUM VIRGINIA RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY A political Subdivision of the Commonwealth for VIRGINIA'S EXPLORE PARK submitted by Roger F. Ellmore Executive Director Virginia's Explore Park Post Office Box 8508 Roanoke, VA 24014-0508 (540) 427-1800 October 2003 AGENCY PROFILE A. Official Name and Location 1. Virginia's Explore Park Location and Address: Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority 3900 Rutrough Road Post Office Box 8508 Roanoke, Virginia 24014-0508 Virginia's Explore Park is physically located in Roanoke and Bedford counties at milepost 115 on the Blue Ridge Parkway. B. Agency Overview 1. History: The Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (the "Authority") was created by the General Assembly in 1986 (Virginia Code § 10.1-1600 et seq.). The Authority is governed by a 13-member Board of Directors appointed by the Governor and administered by a staff headed by an Executive Director selected by the Board. The Authority is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia. According to its statute, it was created to (1) provide a high quality recreational attraction in the western part of the Commonwealth; (2) expand the historical knowledge of adults and children; (3) promote tourism and economic development in the Commonwealth; (4) set aside and conserve scenic and natural areas along the Roanoke River and preserve open-space lands; and (5) enhance and expand research and educational programs. The name adopted for the property acquired and managed by the Authority to achieve these goals is Virginia's Explore Park. 2. Organization Summary: Virginia's Explore Park is a unique public-private partnership, whose primary partners are the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority and The River Foundation, Inc. (the "Foundation"), anon-profit 501(c)(3) charitable organization founded exclusively to advance the Explore Park project. From 1985 until June 1994 when the Park officially opened to the public, The River Foundation provided the staff and office space necessary to plan, develop, construct, manage, and operate the project. During the pre-opening stage, the Foundation conducted an intensive community planning process resulting in a comprehensive master plan for development of Explore Park, purchased 1,100 acres of land for Park purposes, helped obtain funding for and aided in the 2 design of the one-and-one-half-mile public access parkway spur off the Blue Ridge Parkway into the Park, and supervised on-site construction projects. On June 30, 1994, the Authority entered into a cooperation agreement with The River Foundation, Inc. The Authority assumed ownership of and operational responsibility for Virginia's Explore Park. The River Foundation's responsibilities became planning and resource development for the Park and securing financial support for the Park from private sources. All of Explore Park's buildings, with the exception of the new Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center, have been constructed with private contributions secured by The River Foundation. Once Park facilities are built and operational, the Authority assumes ownership and maintenance responsibilities for those facilities. The Authority's staff includes an Executive Director; Senior Directors of Facilities and Programs, and Resource Development, who report to the Executive Director; Directors of Finance and Development; a Program Sales Supervisor and Program Sales Coordinator; and approximately 25 educational and operational staff members in full-time, part-time, and seasonal positions. In addition, the Park relies heavily on volunteer assistance. 3. Major Activities: Virginia's Explore Park's Outdoor Living History Museum is open to the public on weekends in April from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. From the first week in May through the last week in October each year the park is open Wednesday through Saturday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Sundays. In addition the Outdoor Living History Museum is open to school tour groups by reservation in April and November. The Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., seven days per week from April through November 15. Recreation programs are available, seven days a week, from 9 a.m. until 8 p.m., May 30 through August 31; from 9 a.m. until 7 p.m., April 1 through May 30 and September 1 through October 30; and from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., November 1 through March 31, weather permitting. Admission to Virginia's Explore Park Living History Museum is contingent on the age of the visitor and the number of people in the group of visitors. General admission to the Living History Museum is $8.00, $6.00 for seniors over 60, $4.50 for children ages 3-11, and free admission for children under 3 years of age. Discounts are available for groups of 15 or more persons and for school tours. For those visitors wishing to use only the recreational facilities, there is a $3.00 per day fee. Admission to the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center, the Arthur Taubman Welcome Center, and the Society of American Forester's Trail is free. 3 Education -Explore Park's Outdoor Living History Museum with its many original and some replica structures and costumed interpreters paired with the surrounding natural environs provide the perfect atmosphere in which students can learn in a positive, interactive environment. Education of young people is at the core of its mission, and Explore Park has proven to be an effective adjunct education facility for students within atwo-hour radius of Roanoke. A day typically spent in the classroom learning lessons in history and the natural sciences can now be enjoyed in a highly charged, kinesthetic learning environment found within the venues of Explore Park. It has been said that children learn 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see, and 80% of what they experience. Anecdotal evidence, as well as direct response from the school systems to which we provide services, corroborates these statistics. Because of timing and travel issues, thousands of school children do not have the educational enrichment opportunities available to them through a visit to the Park. In order to serve these children, Virginia's Explore Park sends outreach programs into the schools. Outreach programming can also be used as a supplement to a Park visit, complementing classroom studies, providing enrichment, and offering a uniquely entertaining educational package. During the 2003 fiscal year, Explore Park served 12,811 students from 30 school districts, in addition to 25 private and numerous home schools. In addition, 11,814 general visitors participated in the Park's programs. Recreation -Virginia's Explore Park prides itself in the variety of its outdoor recreational offerings. The Mountain Bike Trail System encompasses 12 miles of varied grade trails designed to meet International Mountain Bicycling Association environmentally friendly standards. The system is designed to include a 1-mile beginner's loop, 7.25 miles of intermediate trail, and 4 miles of advanced trail. The Park also offers a Mountain Bike club. If water sports are more appealing to the visitor, they may participate in canoeing, kayaking, or fishing on the Roanoke River. Explore Park is an excellent launch point for a voyage down the river to Smith Mountain Lake. Rental of canoes and kayaks is provided. Fishing is also enjoyable year `round. The Point - at the confluence of Back Creek and the Roanoke River - is a local favorite for catching stripers and bass. If hiking is the visitor's interest, the Park offers miles of designated hiking trails of varied lengths and difficulties. If the visitor wishes to include a piece of education on their hike, the Park offers the use of the Back Creek Nature Trail or Society of American Foresters Trail. Both can be enjoyed self-guided or with the environmental education staff. 4 Finally, if all these recreational opportunities seem too energetic, Explore Park is a great place to visit for picnicking or simply enjoying the abundant beauty and wildlife of the Blue Ridge Mountains. During the 2003 fiscal year, 2,724 visitors registered for recreational day passes to the Park. Preservation -Preserving Virginia's cultural history is paramount at Explore Park. In order to preserve this rich heritage, Explore Park salvages and restores historic structures from throughout the region that would have been lost to development or decay and uses them as the backdrop to tell the stories of early Virginia. Currently the Park is home to six structures including a German double-crib "bank barn" from the Salem area, circa 1800; Kemp's Ford School, circa 1860, from Franklin County; the Hofauger Farmstead, circa 1837, originally located in Roanoke County; the Mountain Union Church, circa 1880, from Botetourt County; the Brugh Tavern, circa 1790, also from Botetourt County; and the Slone Gristmill, circa 1880, from Franklin County. In addition to the above listed structures, Explore Park has possession of twelve additional structures, which are catalogued and warehoused. They have been claimed for preservation purposes due to their significance to the region or to prevent demolition and will be reconstructed as funding becomes available. Conservation -Virginia's Explore Park serves as a model for conservation in western Virginia. Of the Park's 1,100 acres, 800 are set aside as natural areas. In addition to natural area protection, all other construction and programming at the Park is done with conservation and environmental protection in mind. Conservation programs at the Park include the American Chestnut reintroduction site, the Trail Through Time created by the Society of American Foresters, astate-of--the-art wastewater treatment (drip irrigation) system, and geothermal heating of the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center. Explore Park hosts the Izaak Walton League's Save Our Streams program for the Roanoke Region and the Roanoke River Watershed Conference. In 2000, Explore Park received the Virginia Watershed Award in recognition of comprehensive, innovative excellence in providing educational and economic incentives to locally protect and restore water quality. In 2003, Explore Park was named regional administrator for the federally mandated storm-water detention education program. This program, commonly called EarthWISE-water, is provided for Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and the town of Vinton. Other environmental programs were upgraded in 2003, including the addition of a full-time environmental educator; a butterfly garden specifically designed for school groups; and our Children's Discovery Garden built by The Home Depot, which is designed to teach basic earth sciences to younger children. 5 Other - In addition to paid visitation, the Park also fulfills an important community need by serving weary Parkway travelers at the Arthur Taubman Welcome Center and the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center; and hungry diners at the Brugh Tavern, the numbers of which are not reflected above. Total attendance at Virginia's Explore Park in fiscal year 2003 was 74,220. 4. Mission: The mission of Virginia's Explore Park is to help each visitor rediscover the history of the land and the people of western Virginia through experiences that reveal the past and illuminate the future. As stated in the Authority's enabling legislation, Explore Park was created to (1) provide a high quality recreational attraction in the western part of the Commonwealth; (2) expand the historical knowledge of adults and children; (3) promote tourism and economic development in the Commonwealth; (4) set aside and conserve scenic and natural areas along the Roanoke River and preserve open-space lands; and (5) enhance and expand research and educational programs. Recreation -Virginia's Explore Park's recreational opportunities are designed to meet the needs of visitors from the athletic enthusiast to the recreationist looking for a relaxing day of strolling along miles of sensitively designed trails and paths, fishing or boating in the Roanoke River, or riding along miles of mountain bike trails. Education - In 1995, Virginia's Board of Education adopted Standards of Learning (SOLs) in four core subject areas, including science and history and social science. In 1997, the same Board established Standards of Accrediting in Public Schools in Virginia (SOAs) to hold students, schools, and school divisions accountable for the results of the state-administered SOL tests. The Standards of Learning adopted by the state Board of Education are aggressive and have proven to challenge all levels of the educational hierarchy. Class time now must be meaningful and keenly directed. The potential loss of accreditation bundled with a perceived loss of funding have teachers and administrators working hard to find better and different ways to teach young minds the knowledge required to successfully pass the tests. In some instances, the rote classroom environment doesn't seem to be the answer. Virginia's Explore Park is helping meet the needs of the public school system's dilemma through its SOL-compliant science and history and social science programs. Explore Park also serves to enhance and expand research and educational opportunities for both professionals and non-professionals. Explore Park hosts 6 scholarly conferences including the Blue Ridge Symposium and the Watershed Conference. It also provides laboratory experiences for wildlife management studies and water quality studies. Tourism and Economic Development -Explore Park plays an important role in tourism and economic development not only for Roanoke County, but also for the western region of the Commonwealth. Explore Park is the largest attraction on the Blue Ridge Parkway and is home to the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center (BRPVC), a unique center created in partnership with the National Park Service and Roanoke County. The BRPVC serves as the gateway and information center for the Roanoke region and for the Virginia stretch of the Blue Ridge Parkway, the second most visited park in the National Park Service system. Its primary goal is to educate travelers about offerings in the region and the state, encouraging them to stay longer, visit additional attractions and locations, and plan future trips in this area. Conservation -Explore Park is committed to the conservation of Virginia's natural resources. To this end, 800 acres of the 1,100 currently owned by the Park are set aside as natural areas. The Park is also concerned with the protection of regional wildlife and is currently working with the National Wild Turkey Federation to establish feed plots and observation stations, so that enthusiasts can enjoy nature without interfering with it. The Park also serves as host to numerous regional programs related to conservation and environmental preservation. The Park's commitment to conservation is shown not only in this programming, but also in the design of the Park itself. The Park has astate-of- the art wastewater treatment system, a geothermal heating system in the new BRPVC, and has developed plans for aworld-class education center built with sustainable architectural concepts. 5. Evaluation: Explore Park evaluates its progress in several ways. Key to the evaluation process is the use of visitor report cards and event evaluation forms. Feedback is received from schoolteachers through formal requests and informal conversations. Information is also garnered through thank-you notes sent from schools and other visitors. Additionally, regular staff assessment of programs and services is provided through management and team reviews. Each year, both Boards of Directors also review the work of the Park and its progress in meeting its mission as set forth by the General Assembly. A joint Board retreat is held each year to establish plans and set goals for the next year. 7 C. Justification Explore Park's needs are two-pronged -the need for continued operating support is critical to fulfill the Park's mission of providing quality education and recreation programs, and the need for capital improvements is critical to keeping the Park open, functional, and safe for the thousands of visitors who enter each year. The Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority respectfully requests $200,000 over the biennium ($100,000 per year) for operating support and $250,000 over the biennium ($125,00 per year) for capital improvements at Virginia's Explore Park. The operating support would allow a qualified staff of interpreters, educators, and administrators to continue to provide a quality, hands-on experience for all Park visitors. With the personnel and operations services portion of the Park's budget in place, attention to other funding sources could focus on capital construction and enhancements to the Park's facilities and offerings. Capital improvements for the next two years will focus on infrastructure needs to ensure accessibility, safety, and comfort of visitors to the Park. The timeline for capital improvements is based upon receipt of acknowledgement of approval of funds. From receipt of acknowledgement, the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority will immediately begin the procurement procedure for services based on the State of Virginia Procurement Act including a 90-day bid period commencing with the release of a request for proposals, and followed by a pre- bid conference, sealed bid acceptance, negotiation, and award of contract. Priorities for use of state capital improvement funds are as follows: Year 1: Repair and paving of roadways and parking lots; and repair, prime and double-seal of internal pathways (including line painting) TOTAL YEAR 1 Year 2: Infrastructure to Native American site (including electric, water, phone, and restrooms) Water tank infrastructure (including pad, fencing, electrical service) Infrastructure to colonial fort site (including electric and restrooms) Water Service improvements to outlying facilities (including addition of pumping system) TOTAL YEAR 2 125,000 $125,000 40,000 20,000 40,000 25,000 $125,000 8 Without the state appropriation, high-quality historic and environmental education programs would be severely restricted or impossible. Hands-on activities and small group interpretation would be lost in favor of handouts for self-guided tours and limited hours of operation. The Park would not be able to operate at close to its potential and would lose its significance to the region and state that it was designed to enhance. In short, without state support, Virginia's Explore Park would be unable to fulfill its mission and the state's investment would be severely diminished if not voided altogether. The requested state appropriations would help finance Explore Park's basic operation for the biennium. Local government funding is expected to continue, to provide much of the necessary match for the state grant. It is anticipated that private individuals, corporations, and foundations will also continue to provide funds for operational support and capital improvements. The Park also continues to watch its earned-income centers grow. D Prior State Appropriations Year Amount Purpose 1997-8 $400,000 Operating Support $250,000 Capital Improvements 1998-9 $400,000 Operating Support $350,000 Capital Improvements 1999-0 $500,000 Operating Support $350,000 Capital Improvements 2000-1 $300,000 Operating Support 2002-3 $60,287 Operating Support 9 MATCHING FUNDS VIRGINIA RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY APPROPRIATION REQUEST Requested State Appropriation 2004-2005 2005-2006 Operating Expense $100,000 $100,000 Capital Expense $125,000 $125,000 Total Requested Appropriation $225,000 $225,000 MATCHING FUNDS 2004-2005 2005-2006 Amount of Proposed Match $225,000 $225,000 SOURCE OF PROPOSED MATCH Generous local government funding and private donations as well as admission and gift shop revenues are expected to continue to provide for the necessary match for the state grant. Authority staff and board members, working in cooperation with The River Foundation, will continue to develop maximum public, private, corporate, and grant monies in support of the continuous expansion of operations and development of facilities at Virginia's Explore Park. 10 ExploYe No1v! PARK Its Mission ...Its Vision Preserving the Past Enhancing the Present Securing the Future The mission of Virginia's Explore Park is to help each visitor rediscover the history of the land and people of western Virginia through experiences that reveal the past and illuminate the future. The River Foundation, Inc. and Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority P. O. Box 8508 Roanoke, Virginia 24014-0508 Milelxut 1 I S cm the Blue Ridge Parkway Administered by Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority Virginia Code § ] 0.1.1600 et seq. in partnership with The River Foundation, Inc. LR.C. §501(c) (3) Post Office Box 8508 Roanoke, Virginia 24014.0508 (540)427-1800 FAX (540) 427-1880 www.explorepark.org Education • Preservation • Conservation • Recreation V 1 It V 11V 1 h J EXPLORE Explore Now! Initiative Page 2 2004 Executive: Summary Virginia's Explore Park, as originally envisioned, is amulti-faceted anchor attraction that teaches visitors about western Virginia's unique natural and cultural heritage, encourages environmental protection, creates a diverse recreational venue, and stimulates western Virginia's economy. The Park has done an admirable job of meeting this mission in its 10 short years of operation, especially the education, preservation and conservation components. To move to a higher level of success, Explore must face and overcome three primary challenges: (1) the need for financial stability; (2) the need to dispel myths about Explore Park and build public understanding about its value to the community; and (3) the realization of the third component of its mission-Recreation. Explore Park, in conjunction with Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism, has developed atwo- year plan to address these challenges that will enable the Park to generate additional revenue to cover direct costs and to implement the public recreation phase of its mission. Key strategies outlined in the plan include increasing the number of users of the Park, increasing the frequency of visits by users, increasing the rental of Park facilities, and increasing community support for the Park. In order to achieve these strategies, Explore Park must: • Create marketing that promotes the outdoor recreation opportunities available to the public while dispelling myths; • Increase partnerships that facilitate the growth of the Park and the support of the community; • Enhance visitor services and conveniences; • Expand programming and amenities to target special groups; • Increase free programming at the Park to draw new and repeat visitors; • Develop recreational programs and amenities; • Increase hours of operation and the length of the open season • Improve accessibility of facilities to serve "special needs" populations; and, • Encourage special interest clubs to use the facility. Dedicated funds are needed for this two-year plan to become a reality. These funds will cover costs of additional staffing, development and outfitting of new programs, improvements to existing amenities, and several one-time infrastructure outlays for projects including the construction of a playground, additional picnic areas, lighting for nighttime activities, and the construction of a small stage at the Brugh Tavern for performances. The River Foundation is currently seeking private funds to put this plan into action. These funds will enable the Park to increase public access and usage, generate additional revenue to improve financial stability, and implement the public recreation phase of our mission. Explore Now! Initiative Page 3 2004 Its Mission ...Its Vision From its conception in 1985, Virginia's Explore Park has been envisioned as a multi- faceted anchor attraction that would teach visitors about western Virginia's unique natural and cultural heritage, encourage environmental protection, create a diverse recreational venue, and stimulate western Virginia's economy (see economic impact information, attached). The essence of its ambitious mission can be summarized with the use of just four words-education, preservation, conservation, and recreation. Explore Park has done an admirable job of meeting its mission in its 10 short years of operation, especially the education, preservation and conservation components (see Park history and mission information, attached). The recreation component has yet to be adequately developed. Preserving the Past Education and Preservation Explore Park's focus since it opened to the public in July 1994 has been centered on two parts of its mission-education and preservation. Thanks to the generosity of the private sector, the Park has been extremely successful in achieving recognition as a premier outdoor living history museum in western Virginia by preserving 22 buildings from this region and bringing many to life with the stories they tell. The museum includes both reconstructed and replica structures interpreting three eras in early Virginia-1671, 1740, and 1850-and a favorite visit for area school children, western Virginia residents, and tourists. Through funds from individuals, corporations, and foundations, Virginia's Explore Park also has in place a welcome center, a historic restaurant, and staff offices. Through the assistance of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Federal Government, and the County of Roanoke, roadways and footpaths have been developed, as has the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center, which serves as a information center for Parkway travelers and is complete with exhibit galleries and a state-of--the-art theater. However, 2002-03 was a difficult year at Explore Park as it continued to suffer the effects of budget cuts from the General Assembly as well as a couple of local governments that also had to tighten their belts due to revenue shortages. Through it all, the Park was able to preserve the integrity of the programs offered, particularly educational programs, and even opened one new venue-the long-awaited 1850s Slone's Grist Mill. In 2002, 13,503 school participants from 34 public school districts and 31 private schools experienced the on-site Standards of Learning (SOL)- compliant educational programs in the areas of History, Science, and the Social Sciences. Although the Park is closed for the season from November through March, educational programming continues. Historic and environmental education staff provide outreach programs in schools throughout the Park catchment area (approximate two-hour radius around Explore Park). Explore Now! Initiative Page 4 2004 Pepsi continues to help sponsor this increasing effort through underwriting programs in all Roanoke Ciry and County schools, in addition to some schools in Montgomery and Botetourt counties. As with on-site programs, all outreach programs meet SOL objectives. Outreach programs reached 2,753 children in 2002-03. Two new educational sites are currently under construction-a Native American dugout canoe site on the Roanoke River and an 18`h century fort. Both are scheduled to open 2003-04 and will add positively to the educational enjoyment at the Park. In addition to these new sites, education staff regularly revise programs and create new ones to keep up with the needs of the region's school children, as reflected in the continuing changes to the Standards of Learning and the introduction of the "No Child Left Behind" program. Conservation Explore Park is establishing itself as a regional leader in conservation. Explore utilizes state- of-the-art technologies-its drip irrigation wastewater treatment system utilized by the Arthur Taubman Welcome Center, Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center, and Brugh Tavern, as well as geothermal heating and cooling at the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center. In addition to making a commitment to conserve the natural beauty of the 1,100 acres known as Explore Park (800 of which are set aside to remain wilderness area), Park staff are also taking a lead in the conservation of natural resources throughout the Roanoke Valley. Several environmental programs call the Park home, including the Izaak Walton League's Save Our Streams program and the Upper Roanoke River Watershed Conference. In 2003, environmental education programs were upgraded, including the addition of a full-time environmental educator; a butterfly garden specifically designed for school groups; and our Children's Discovery Garden built by The Home Depot, which is designed to teach basic earth sciences to younger children. The Park has also been awarded a significant regional contract to provide storm water retention and water quality education programs-known as EarthWISE-on-site and off-, to professionals, the general public, and school students. As part of this initiative, Explore Park has hosted a series of professional workshops and Waterways Family Days this summer with approximately 300 in attendance. Recreation Less time and attention have been spent on recreation amenities and programming. The central focus of Explore Park's recreation program to date has been the mountain biking trails. Currently there are twelve miles of IMBA (International Mountain Bicycling Association) standard trails including a beginner's loop, an intermediate section, and an advanced loop. The mountain biking trails are not only a local favorite, but also a favorite of riders from across the United States. Much of the construction and maintenance of these trails is provided through volunteer efforts of the trail patrol. Explore Now! Initiative Page 5 2004 Other recreational amenities include the Shenandoah Life Picnic Pavilion, six miles of hiking trails, and limited access to the Roanoke River for fishing, canoeing, and kayaking. Amenities nearing completion are ahandicapped-accessible fishing deck, a birding trail, and a wildlife observation station. These projects have also been moved forward through volunteer efforts, but must now be completed by Explore Park. Enhancing the Present "There's no time like the present!" is an old adage that for years has served as a call to action for projects both large and small. Explore Now! resounds with that same belief that Now-the present-is the right time for Explore Park to face challenges creatively and turn weaknesses into opportunities. To do this, Explore Park has strengthened its partnership with Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism as it moves to enhance the present. What challenges face Explore Park and must be dealt with in the present? The first and probably most obvious is the need for financial stability. Through a five-year memorandum of understanding that commenced in July 2001, Roanoke County has filled Explore Park's funding breach by providing monies lost from the state as well as offering selected in-kind services. This initiative, however, must be seen as a lifeline, not as along-term solution. Explore, as with all organizations with preservation and education in their missions, will never be totally self-sustaining. Over the next two years, the Park must evolve in such a way as to generate additional revenue to cover direct costs. The second challenge is dispelling the myths about Explore Park and building public understanding about our value to the community. For years, Explore Park has held the distinction of being the "best kept secret" in the Roanoke Valley. The Park can no longer afford to be a secret. Explore Park is not just a historic park; it's a place where families can recreate and have fun at a variety of venues. It's not too far to drive; it's just seven miles from downtown Roanoke. It's not too expensive; hour for hour enjoyed, it's cheaper than a movie. Explore must be recognized by the community as a unique, multi- faceted resource for western Virginia that not only provides learning opportunities, top-rate entertainment, professional development, and recreational programs, but also serves as an economic stimulus from which Virginia can benefit. The third challenge is in the realization of its fourth core tenet-Recreation. Although the Park has made a good start by building the mountain biking trails and providing limited access to hiking trails and the Roanoke River, there is much to do before Explore Park will be seen as a first-class recreational facility. Attention must be paid to improved accessibility and usability of the facilities. Additional amenities must be built. Recreational programming, both passive and active, must be developed. How will Explore Park deal with these challenges? Explore Now! Initiative Page 6 2004 Explore Park, in conjunction with Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism, has developed atwo-year plan to increase operations, offerings, and accessibility that will enable the Park to generate additional revenue to cover direct costs and to implement the public recreation phase of its mission. This plan, which focuses attention on the local audience consisting of individuals and families seeking leisure-time activities, is outlined below. Key strategies include: • Increase the number of users of the Park, • Increase the frequency of visits by users of the Park, • Increase the rental of Park facilities, and • Increase community support for the Park. In order to achieve these strategies, Explore Park must: • Create marketing that promotes the outdoor recreation opportunities available to the public while dispelling myths about the Park's offerings, accessibility, and location; • Increase partnerships that facilitate the growth of the Park and the support of the community; • Enhance visitor services and conveniences by focusing on customer service initiatives; • Expand programming to target special groups such as families with young children, scouts, senior citizens, bird watchers, outdoor enthusiasts, etc.; • Increase free programming at the Park to draw new and repeat visitors; • Develop organized recreational programs, both active and passive; • Increase hours of operation to allow residents the opportunity to use the Park after work; • Increase the length of the open season to include March and November for recreational access, and the winter months for special programming; • Improve accessibility of facilities to serve "special needs" populations; • Enhance and increase recreational amenities for picnicking, hiking, biking, fishing, boating, etc.; and, • Encourage special interest clubs to use the facility. Implementing these strategies does not come without cost-both physical and material. Additional staffing will be necessary to extend hours of operation and to maintain new facilities. Funds will be needed to develop and outfit new program offerings. Improvements to existing trails and outdoor facilities will be required, as will the completion of the area around the handicapped-accessible fishing deck and the birding trail. Finally, several one-time infrastructure outlays will be needed to move the Park forward, including the construction of a playground, additional picnic areas, lighting for Explore Now! Initiative Page 7 2004 nighttime activities, and the construction of a small stage at the Brugh Tavern for performances. Securing the Future Will these initiatives meet the current challenges faced by Explore Park? Yes. They will position the Park to generate additional revenue to cover direct costs, build community support, and allow for the implementation of the public recreation component of its mission. Through preserving the past-the tradition Explore has built as a premiere outdoor living history museum and adjunct educational facility-and enhancing the present by upgrading and developing recreational programs and amenities, Explore Park's future will be a secure one. s Economic Impact Study (excerpted) An Economic Impact Study of Virginia's Explore Park was completed by the Department of Economics at Roanoke College on May 10, 2003. The study bases its calculations on information from 2002 operations. Two well-established impact models were used during the study: 1. Money Generation Model (MGM2), which is concerned with the effects of the spending of tourists in the area being studied. Economic impact= Number of Visitors X Average spending per visitor X Multiplier Table 3. Economic Impacts of Visitor Spending: Direct & Secondary Effects Direct Effects Sector/Spending Category Direct Sales $OOO's Jobs Personal Income $OOO's Value Added $OOO's Motel, hotel, cabin or B&B 115 3 38 57 Cam in fees - - - - Restaurants & bars 496 14 169 235 Admissions & fees 219 6 76 124 Gamblin - - - - Other vehicle ex enses 23 0 7 11 Local trans ortation 14 0 8 10 Retail Trade 295 8 150 235 Wholesale Trade 47 1 19 32 Local Production of Goods 44 0 3 6 Total Direct Effects 1,252 33 469 709 Secondary Effects 532 ~ 19Z 332 Total Effects $ 1,784 40 $ 661 $ 1,041 Multiplier 1.43 1.23 1.41 1.47 Source: output of MGM2 model w 2. Money Generation Model Operate (MGM20perate), which is concerned with the income of the employees of the park and businesses that provide goods and services to the Park Table 5. Economic Impacts of Park Operations and Construction Source: output of MGM20PERATE model Spending Category Park Budget Local Total Sales Sales Total Jobs Total Personal Income Total Value Added A. Impacts of Park Payroll Wages and Salaries 605,181 605,181 605,181 Benefits 45,000 45,000 45,000 NPS Jobs (annual, full & part-time) 15.0 NPSJobs-Seasonal (annual equival ent) 16.0 Induced effects of NPS Payroll 508,110 8_2 178,178 302,112 Payroll effects 650,181 508,110 39.2 828,359 952,293 Total Impacts of Park Operations (Salaries+Operating) 650,181 - 508,110 78.5 1,006,536 1,254,406 C. Construction Impacts 55,765 41,824 61,973 0.7 24,839 30,300 D. Total Impacts (Payroll 8~ Construction 570,083 79 1,031,375 1,284,706 Final notes from the study state: Tourism can be thought of as an export of the region to other regions both within the USA and abroad. A strong demand for the region's exports (strong tourist spending) can create demand to fuel the region's economy. Most cultural institutions (symphony orchestras, museums, zoos, etc.) have a limited potential to attract visitors from different metropolitan areas, since most metropolitan areas will have similar institutions. Virginia's Explore Park, however, is unique, and has potential to attract visitors. If one number had to be selected to represent the yearly impact of the new dollars brought into a radius of 100 miles around Virginia's Explore Park, that number would be $1,784,000. ~~~ rt=~ Partners !`-~, vihGitYIA~S ~Y,pL(}~,~ ver Foundato PA R £. Prnale Fundraising, Capital Planning. & Strategic Planning.: ~~; , . EXPLORE PARK Ro~ Hoke ounty ~° 1,a ~ Operational & , k, Program ~,. - Support, 8 Strategic Planninc - ~ ~z, ; - ,.: / .~, a ~~~ ~~~ _ ~ , ~~4' t The River Foundation rx ~" I V?RGINIA'S EXPLORE . - River Foundation Pa x K Private Fundraising, Capital Plannirig,.& Strategic Planning _ EXPLORE PARK anoke ~ ~ ..County Operalional Pro9~m Support, 8 Strategic Planning ~~i'S~ .r ~~~~`` Investments in '~~RC;hiA~s' Virginia's Explore Park EXPLi~RE Tom Brock, President -The River Foundation PAAf~ 'r • The chart below shows the estimated level of support from public and private sectors from July 2, 1985 to April 2003. Federal Investment $13,324,500 State Investment 16,410,288 Community Investment Local Governments $3,615,845 Private Sources $11,894,205 In-kind Gifts $1,000,000 Total Community Investment '16,510,050 Total Investment to Date $46,244,838 2 0 ~ \t ' , ~ - The River Foundation ~a VTRGINIA's' Tom Brock, President EXPLORE PARK ~,.~~:. Recent Accomplishments ... ~. April 2000: " _ ,.},.~.~ ~~..~u Ground broken for the ;, ~' Blue Ridge Parkway ' Visitor Center that ~ o includes visitor ~~ u r information, gift shop, ~ti ~~",~, ~` + "~ and exhibit galleries. '~ + .~ d ~'~~ ~~ t_ N ~ '' _ /~: .~~ ,y'~ The River Foundation 'v'iKG1i~lA'S EXPLC,~RE Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center PARK May 2001: Dedication of the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center, marking the completion of a joint project between the National Park 4 17r _, ~ ~~~~ ~_~ -~ - ~~ m, ~~ - ~a '~ 3 ,~~~,~ ~~~ , ~ The is VIRGINIA'S XPLC~RE P .._ .......................... PARK July 2001: Partnership Agreement signed between the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority, The River Foundation, and Roanoke County providing the County additional programming opportunities. River Foundation artnership Agreement "Roanoke County will provide additional financial support and in-kind services, when possible. VRFA will continue to own and operate Park through original agreement with The River Foundation. " ~.: ',~ • ~ • 0 ~' ~ - ~~ The River Foundation VIRGINIA'S EXPLORE Totero Village ........_ - PARK n %, a June 2002: , .,~ _-~-~- ~~ Relocation and ` ~ ~ r, expansion of the Totero l"" ~` Village site. Design is ~ ;~, ` ~ _ based on post-hole mold ~ `;"'~ patterns from similar sites in Buzzard Rock and Ellett Valley Native American settlements. w~+. ;, ~. ~~ -~.( a'~~~ The River Foundation i VIRGINIA'S EX~'LORE Slone's Grist Mill ty, ~ PARK ~. ~' September 2002: ~~ ' ~:~"R' ~,~' _ ;; ~,r ~_ Dedication of n~ Slone s Grist Mill ~~, . ~. an authentic 19~' ~ ,~, ~_ i ~! century structure that ~~~ ~ '~-~ ~ -,,rti~-.~ ,~~, is fully operational. r~;~,~`--~-~ ;• ~ ~°~,~~ ~i.rater , _ ;~ z * . ;; • • . 0 .~ti 4 The River Foundation ~ ,~ r VIRGINIA'S EXPLORE PARK A brief his tory of capital develo pments... Sept. 10, 1991: Groundbreaking for May 4, 1998: The Roanoke River ~ p - the Hofauger House, Explore Pazk's Parkway formally opens. a. =~- - B ~ tl a first historic reconstruction project. May 6, 1998: The Arthur Taubman - - - Grand opening took place on June 4, Welcome Center dedication and _ =' ~~"~!, 1992. opening. July 2, 1994: Explore Park opens [o Junc 14, 1998: The first three miles - the public. Other structures in place of a 30-mile mountain bike trai] - ~; , include Houtz Bam, Kemp's Ford network open. Today, 12 miles are '" ' School, replica Blacksmith Shop, completed including beginner to May 17, 2002: Salem k;;.T ` Wray Barn, and various smaller advanced loops. Turnpike, 1.8-mile perimeter = structures. ~ road around Explore Pazk, Aug. 24, 1999: Roanoke Explorer dedicated and opened. April 19, 1998: Mountain Union batteau dedicated at a public Church dedication and opening, ceremony. June 22, 2002: Expanded April 28, 1998: Historic Brugh A riI 26, 2000: Ground broken for p Native American area, Totero Village, dedicated Tavern restaurant dedication and Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center. opening. Dedicated on May 7, 2001. Sept. 20, 2002: Dedication of Slone's Grist Mill. ^~ ~~r ~~~~~~~`~ Virginia Recreational ~~ ~ ~ Tacilities Authority VIRC,TNIA`S EXPLORE 'ver Foundatio PARK Private'Fundraising, Capital Planning, $ Strategic Plannin ~L xaanoxe ~ounty Operational & Program Supporf& Strategic Planning • • 6 9 ~~' ` ,'~. Virginia Recreational ,f ~~~ . Facilities Authority VIRiiIN1A'S Marc Taubman, Chairman EXPLORE PARK What is the VRFA? Apolitical subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia created in 1986 to ... • Provide a high quality recreational attraction in the western part of the Commonwealth; • Expand the historical knowledge of adults and children; • Promote tourism and economic development in the Commonwealth; • Set aside and conserve scenic and natural areas along the Roanoke River and preserve open-space lands; and • Enhance and eland research and educational ~rocrams. • Manage and operate Virginia's Explore Park. .- ~-~ ~y ~ Virginia Recreational ,~ ' ~~ Facilities Authority VIRGIiaA'S ;~.,;; - EXPLORE " ~ PARE: Mission & Vision ~. r F_ ~" Conservation -Education -Recreation The mission of Virginia's ~+.. w•`. --',~ ',. ~ ~ Explore Park is to help ` ,,-~~ ~ ~'= each visitor rediscover the '~ - z history of the land and the ~,, people of western Virginia '~' ~ ~, . ~''~,r through experiences that ~ ~ ~t' ~~ ~~ reveal the past and illuminate the future. ~ ~ ~;. ~ - .y~r ~- . =~ - ~~ • 1 1 ~~ • 7 a ~~~~" Virginia Recreational ~ ~~ _,`~~~'~~ Facilities Authority VIRGINIA'S EXPLORE _....._....... _.__..... PARK `'~ '~~ Explore Park's operational priorities ... ,.~;~ Educational programming Historical preservation Environmental conservation Recreational opportunities _ _, ~. - :e .. - ,~~~«t+6cr. -y`_ ~` Virginia Recreational ,,'i ~vlxciN%~~s~ Facilities Authority - : E:XPLOR.E Where we are ... Y::;;.,; PAR K • The Livint; History area provides afirst- class tourist destination, local attraction, and a classroom for thousands of children each year. • Modern facilities provide rental venues for meetings, workshops, weddings, family reunions, and civic programs. •' The EarthWISE environmental proeram provides regional storm water management educational programs for Roanoke County, Roanoke City, and Vinton. • The Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center serves as a regional information center for Roanoke Valley tourists. ~,~ r-~ ~ '~-, ~. • • a ~~~~ ~ ~ Virginia Recreational ~.a~~ ~ b ~? -~ Facilities Authority V1RiiIN[A'S EE FARE pAR~ - Where we are going ... +~ ~ - _~ • Maintain the quality of the living history program and existing facilities. • Focus on people in the park. ., .. .. ,~, • I_mprove access to existing outdoor _ `~ recreational facilities. • Enhance education, recreation, and entertainment through ongoing ca ital - ~ ~ ;- development. ~''~ tf -gyp., u • Partner with Roanoke County Parks, Recreation, & Tourism to develop the Explore Now initiative. ~_- • • 0 J ~', ~~ EXPLORE NO W.~ i IRGINIA'S Roanoke County Recreation and E~~I.,~RE Explore Park staff are currently ... • Creating a plan to provide more and • Sharing resources to create programs, improved access to the Roanoke events, and workshops for the public. River for fcshing, canoeing, and • Increasing marketing and advertising to kayaking; raise public awareness of programs and • Improving existing birding, hiking, facilities; and mountain biking trails; • Developing plans to create a play~~round and children's historic playhouse village; • Providing more picnic areas and shelters for public use; • Seeking funding to extend the hours of operation for public access. `, ~~ ,~'' ~` `\ Y_:~ ; EXPLORE NO W.~ 'v~~clhl"' Current develo ments... E~FL~R~ P PA x [~ Roanoke County Recreation and Explore Park staff are currently ... • Installing CLASS software system to automate reservations and registrations; • Planning a regional Senior Citizens Festival for May 2004 in honor of Older American's Month; • Offering low-cost and free programming in the hospitality plaza area like the Bluegrass on the Lawn music series; • Finalizing the bid package for fabrication of the Visitor Center exhihits to advertise this fall, with construction beginning this winter; -'V ~~,, •Developing youth summer camp programs; •Providing Explore Park outreach programs at each Roanoke County After School for Kids site; _~_ .w,Y ~'h ~ ~ wi ~: "~= y~ .. ~-~~; c, != ,, 7 ~, , F ~ a- _, !_ ~ a `~` ~.`~ ~`; ~. - ;~' • • 10 0 ~ EXPLORE NO W.~ ~ ' Tom Brock, President VIRGINIA S The River Foundation EXPLORE PA R I: The Future... Hancock-Cartledge '~ ~ Education Center ' amphitheatre, of which approximately ,~ .~ ,~' ~ ,. ` ~ -`~ $500,000 has been •~''`~ `~" ``~ raised to begin this ~,.~~~ ,,~ ~J :, ~ project. ~Fr,,,st~ esu~-.- ~` ~r y~S~~r'.' ~ r~h1s I u~ -~ ,max ~ry ( rt 14~,.t ~fl~,~yl~ .~'~r~h~r ti W~ d'~/ ~. t ;e ~ 3 I yiRGINIA'~ EXPL(:?RE PARK ~; ~ Frontier Fort, scheduled to open July 3, 2004, during the All American Birthday B ash- Explore Park's l0a' birthday celebration weekend. EXPLORE NO W.~ The Future... I _, ~ `- - J'; • • 11 e ~ ti~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ An Invitation To You.. . 4IRGINIA'S EXPLORE __PARK_ We ask that you visit Virginia's Explore Park to experience the history, recreation, and natural resources of western Virginia's premier attraction. • • 12 .'~~,, AGENDA ITEM NO. 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. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS SUBJECT: ~ ~ ~2.~~ WHEN CALLED TO THE LECTERN, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS 1=0R THE RECORD. 1 AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3} minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman 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 I authorization from the gr '' ryrrn ~n shaN file with the Clerk written ' "gem. ~a-~c~ o-1~Q ~l~ PLEASE PRINT LEG NAME: ~ ~~ ~ ADDRESS: ~~~ ~ PHONE (OPTIONAI GROUP/ORGANIZATION: '~ , ~;~;~~ I'O THE BOARD AGENDA ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: ~ P.1 ~ ORDINANCE CITIZEN COMMENTS ~orl~-~, ~}~,U.`~ ~- 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, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW: ^ Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to comment, whether speaking as an individual or representative. The Chairman 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 S ADDRESS: ~Q~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~., ~ (~ (~ PHONE (OPTIONAL): (,~~~ ~ a, (9 5 -'~ y a~-~7 GROUP/ORGANIZATION: (~,~~1G~-~-~ r1 ~~,~ ~(Y~~~--~•-~.~~ a~ ~~~h~~ 6 a My name is Lisa Allagas. I live at 6828 Thirlane Road. I'm here to oppose the building of a cell phone tower in our family community. For 2 years we looked and prayed for the right home while we lived in a small rented house. Our children didn't want to leave their friends and we didn't want to leave our church. It was GOD that blessed us with our home and property. If a cell tower had been present on or near the property we would not have chosen this location to build our home and raise our children. Exposure to these waves could cause many health problems according to studies found on the Internet. Examples are: increased risk of brain cancer, leukemia and other cancers; cardiac, neurological and reproductive health effects. We are not against the improvement of technology, when it does not adversely affect the human life that lives in the vicinity of the structure itself. We are against the potential harm that this may cause our families. We should not have to trade our health for any technological gains. There is no price for peace of mind or good health. The value of our properties have consistently risen in the past, but will drop dramatically if this structure is erected in our neighborhood. At the last meeting one of the spokesmen for the cell phone tower brought up the 9-11 terrorist attack. How should we feel about bringing something that close to our homes that may be threatened by terrorists. In closing, would you choose to raise your family next to a tower with waves and lights going constantly not knowing the future of your family's well-being? Our community does not nor should you. Health Effects associated with cell phone towers - Dr.lVeir Cherry Page 1 of T ,. Analogue cell phones use FM RF/MW signals and digital cel[ phones use pulsed microwaves that are very similar to radar signals. FM radio, radar exposures cause significant and. dose response increases in brain cancer,. leukaemia and other cancers,. and cardiac, neurologicafl and reproducti~ health effects. Hence it is highly probable that cell sites and cell phones are causing many adverse health effects. Already cell phone radiation has been shown to significantly increase all these effects. Public health surveys of people living in the vianiiy of cell site base stations should be being carried out now, and' continue progressively over the next two decades. This is because prompt effects such as miscarriage, cardiac disruption, sleep disturbance and chronic fatigue could well be early indicators of the adverse health effects. Symptoms of reduced immune system competence, cardiac problems, especially of the arrhythmic type and cancers, especialty brain tumour and leukaemia are probable. However, since cell phone radiation. has already been shown to reduce melatonin, damage DNA and chromosomes, surveys should look for a very wide range health effects and not be limited to a narrow set. In carrying. out health surveys, the researchers must be mindful of the actual and realistic radiation patterns from cell sites and not to make the mistake of assuming a simple, uniform radial pattern. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/orange/cherryonbasestations.htm 12/2/2003 SIGHTINGS Page I of ~ 3. Creation of a "binding effect" to radioactivity in the atmosphere, thus causing a marked increase in the amount of alpha-and beta- particle saturation in foods; 4. Creation ofcancer-causing agents within protein hydrolysate compounds in milk and cereal grains; 5. Alteration of elemental food-substances, causing disorders in the digestive system by unstable catabolism (breakdown) of foods subjected to microwaves; 6. Due to chemical alternations within food substances, malfunctions were observed within the lymphatic systems, causing a degeneration of the immune- potentials of the body to protect against certain forms of neoplastics (cancerous growths}; 7. Ingestion of microwaved foods caused a higher percentage of cancerous cells within the blood serum (cytomas); 8. Microwave emissions caused alteration in the catabolic (breakdown) behavior of glucoside-and galactoside-elements within frozen fruits when thawed in this manner; 9. Microwave emission caused alteration of the catabolic (breakdown) behavior ofplant-alkaloids (elemental substances) when raw,. cooked, or frozen vegetables were exposed for even extremely short durations; 10. Cancer-causing free-radicals were formed within certain trace- mineral molecular formations in plant substances,. and in particular, raw root-vegetables; and 11. In a statistically high percentage of persons, microwaved foods caused stomach and intestinal cancerous growths, as well as a general degeneration of peripheral cellular tissues, with a gradual breakdown of the function of the digestive and excretive systems. CATEGORY II: DECREASE IN FOOD VALUE: Microwave exposure caused significant decreases in the nutritive value of all foods researched. The following are the most important findings: 1. A decrease in the bioavailability (capability of the body to utilize the nutriment) of B-complex vitamins, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, http://www.rense.com/health/microwaves.htm 12/2/2003 SIGHTINGS Page 2 of 4 , essential minerals and lipotropics in all foods; 2. A loss of 60-90% of the vital-energy field content of all tested foods; 3. A reduction in the metabolic behavior and integration-process capability of alkaloids (basic plant substances in fiiiits and vegetables), glucosides and galactosides (basic plant substances}, and nitrilosides (basic plant substances); 4. A destruction of the nutritive value of nucleoproteins in meats, and; 5. A marked acceleration of structural disintegration in all foods. CATEGORY III: BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE: Exposure to microwave emissions had an unpredictably negative effect upon the general biological welfare of humans also. This was not discovered until the Russians experimented with highly sophisticated equipment, and discovered that a human did not even need to ingest the material substance of the microwaved food substances: that even exposure to the energy-field itself was sufficient to cause such adverse side-effects that the use of any such microwave apparatus was forbidden in 1976 by Soviet state law. The following are the enumerated effects: 1. A breakdown of the human "life-energy field" in those who were exposed to microwave ovens while in operation, with side-effects to the human energy field of increasingly longer duration; 2. A degeneration of the cellular voltage-parallels during the process of using the apparatus, especially in the blood and lymphatic sera; 3. A degeneration and destabilization of the external-energy activated potentials of food-utilization within the processes of human metabolism; 4. A degeneration and destabilization ofinternal-cellular membrane potentials while transferring catabolic (breakdown) processes into the blood serum form. the digestive process; 5. A degeneration and circuital breakdown of electrical nerve- impulses with in the junction-potentials of the cerebrum; http://www.rense.com/health/microwaves.htm 12/2/2003 6. A degeneration and breakdown ofnerve-electrical circuits and loss of energy-field symmetry in the neumplexuses (nerve-centers) both in the front and the rear of the central and autonomic nervous systems; 7. Loss of balance and circuiting of the bioelectric strengths within the ascending reticular activating system (the system which controls the function of waking consciousness);. 8. A long-term cumulative loss of vital energies within humans, animals and plants which were located within a 500-meter radius of the operational equipment; 9. Long-lasting residual effects of magnetic "deposits" were. located throughout the nervous system and lymphatic system; 10. A destabilization and interruption in the production of hormones and maintenance of hormonal balance in males and females; 1 1. Markedly higher levels of brainwave disturbance in the alpha, theta, and delta-wave signal patterns of persons exposed to microwave emission fields, and; 12. Because of this brainwave disturbance, negative psychological effects were noted, including loss of memory, loss of ability to concentrate, suppressed emotional threshold, deceleration of intellective processes, and interruptive sleep episodes in a statistically higher percentage of individuals subjected to continual range-emissive field effects of microwave apparatus, either in cooking apparatus or in transmission stations. FORENSIC RESEARCH INDICATIONS: From the twenty-eight above enumerated indications, the use of microwave apparatus is definitely no advisable: and with the decision of the Soviet government in 1976 (see Introduction to Category III), present scientific opinion in many countries concerning the use of such apparatus is clearly in evidence. Due to the problem of random magnetic residulation and binding within the biological systems of the body (Category III, 9), which can ultimately effect the neurological systems, primarily the brain and neuroplexuses (nerve-centers), longer-term depolarization of tissue-neuroelectronic circuits can results. Because these effects can cause virtually irremissable damage to the neuroelectrical integrity http://www.rense.com/health/microwaves.htm 12/2/2003 SIGHTINGS of the various components of the nervous system (L R_ Luria, Novosibirsk 1975c), ingestion of micmwaved foods is clearly contraindicated in all respects. Their magnetic-residual effect can render the pyschoneural-receptor components of the brain more subject to influence psychologically by artificially-induced microwave radio frequency fields from transmission stations and TV relay-networks. The theoretical possibility of psychotelemmetric influence (the capability of affecting human behavior by transmitted radio signals at controlled frequencies) has been suggested by Soviet neuropshychological investigations at Uralyera and Novosibirsk (Luria and Perov, 1974x, 1975c, 1976x), which can cause involuntary subliminal psychological energy field compliance to operative microwave apparatus. DOCUMENT PREPARED BY: William P. Kopp A. R. E. C. Research Operations. http://www. rense. com/health/microwaves.htm Page~4 12/2/2003 Health Effects associated with cell phone towers - Dr. Neil C~ierry ~ Page 1 of l T Analogue cell phones use FM RF/MW signals and digital cell phones use pulsed microwaves that are very similar to radar signals. FM radio, radar exposures cause significant and dose response increases in brain cancer, leukaemia and other cancers, and cardiac, neurological and reproductive health effects. Hence it is highly probable that cell sites and cell phones are causing many adverse health effects. Already cell phone radiation has been shown to significantly increase all these effects. Public health surveys of people living in the vicinity of cell site base stations shouk! be being carried out now, and' continue progressively over the next two decades. This is because prompt effects such as miscarriage, cardiac disruption, sleep disturbance and chronic fatigue could well be early indicators of the adverse health effects. Symptoms of reduced immune system competence, cardiac problems, especially of the arrhythrrric type and cancers, especially brain tumour and leukaemia are probable. However, since cell phone radiation has already been shown to reduce melatonin, damage DNA and chromosomes, surveys should look for a very wide range health effects and not be limited to a narrow set. In carrying out health surveys, the researchers must be mindful of the actual and realistic radiation patterns from cell sites and not to make the mistake of assuming a simple, uniform radial pattern. i http://pages.britishlibrary.net/orange/cherryonbasestations.htm 12/2/2003 SIGHTINGS Page I of 4 3. Creation of a "binding effect" to radioactivity in tfie atmosphere, thus causing a marked increase in the amount of alpha-and beta particle saturation in foods; 4. Creation ofcancer-causing agents within protein hydrolysate compounds in milk and cereal grains; 5. Alteration of elemental food-substances, causing disorders in the digestive system by unstable catabolism (breakdown} of foods subjected to microwaves; 6. Due to chemical alternations within food-substances, malfunctions were observed within the lymphatic systems, causing a degeneration of the immune- potentials of the body to protect against certain forms of neoplastics (cancerous growths}; 7. Ingestion of microwaved foods caused a higher percentage of cancerous cells within the blood serum (cytomas); 8. Microwave emissions caused alteration in the catabolic (breakdown) behavior of glucoside-and galactoside-elements within frozen fruits when thawed in this manner; 9. Microwave emission caused alteration of the catabolic (breakdown) behavior ofplant-alkaloids (elemental substances) when raw, cooked, or frozen vegetables were exposed for even extremely short durations; 10. Cancer-causing free-radicals were formed within certaintrace- mineral molecular formations in plant substances, and in particular, raw root-vegetables; and 11. In a statistically high percentage of persons, microwaved foods caused stomach and intestinal cancerous growths, as well as a general degeneration of peripheral cellular tissues, with a gradual breakdown of the function of the digestive and excretive systems. CATEGORY II: DECREASE IN FOOD VALUE: Microwave exposure caused significant decreases in the nutritive value of all foods researched. The following are the most important findings: 1. A decrease in the bioavailability (capability of the body to utilize the nutriment) of B-complex vitamins, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, http://www.rense.com/health/microwaves.htm 12/2/2003 SIGHTINGS essential minerals and lipotropics in all foods; 2. A loss of 60-90% of the vital-energy field contem ofall tested foods; 3. A reduction in the metabolic behavior and integration-process capability of alkaloids (basic plant substances in fruits and vegetables}, glucosides and galactosides {basic plant substances}, and nitrilosides (basic plant substances); 4. A destruction of the nutritive value of nucleoproteins in meats, and; 5. A marked acceleration of structural disintegration in all foods. CATEGORY III: BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF E~'OSURE: Exposure to microwave emissions had an unpredictably negative effect upon the general biological welfare of humans also. This was not discovered until the Russians experimented with highly sophisticated equipment, and discovered that a human did not even need to ingest the material substance of the microwaved food substances: that even exposure to the energy-field itself was sufficient to cause such adverse side-effects that the use of any such microwave apparatus was forbidden in 1976 by Soviet state law. The following are the enumerated effects: 1. A breakdown of the human "life-energy field" in those who were exposed to microwave ovens while in operation, with side-effects to the human energy field of increasingly longer duration; 2. A degeneration of the cellular voltage-parallels during the process of using the apparatus, especially in the blood and lymphatic sera; 3. A degeneration and destabilization of the external-energy activated potentials of food-utilization within the processes of human metabolism; 4. A degeneration and destabilization ofinternal-cellular membrane potentials while transferring catabolic (breakdown) processes into the blood serum form the digestive process; 5. A degeneration and circuital breakdown of electrical nerve- impulses with in the junction-potentials of the cerebrum; Page 2 of http://www.rense.com/health/microwaves.htm 12/2/2003 SIGHTINGS Yage~ ~ Ot 4 :; ,..;,. 6. A degeneration and breakdown ofnerve-electrical circuits and loss of energy-field symmetry in the neuroplexuses (nerve-centers) both in the front and the rear of the central and autonomic nervous systems; 7. Loss of balance and circuiting of the bioelectric strengths within the ascending reticular activating system (the system which controls the function of waking consciousness); 8. A long-term cumulative loss of vital energies within humans, animals and plants which were located within a 500-meter radius of the operational equipment; 9. Long-lasting residual effects of magnetic "deposits" were located throughout the nervous system and lymphatic system; 10. A destabilization and interruption in the production of hormones and maintenance of hormonal balance in males and females; 11. Markedly higher levels of brainwave disturbance in the alpha, theta, and delta-wave signal patterns of persons exposed to microwave emission fields, and; 12. Because of this brainwave disturbance, negative psychological effects were noted, including loss of memory, loss of ability to concentrate, suppressed emotional threshold, deceleration of intellective processes, and intemiptive sleep episodes in a statistically higher percentage of individuals subjected to continual range-emissive field effects of microwave apparatus, either in cooking apparatus or in transmission stations. FORENSIC RESEARCH INDICATIONS: From the twenty-eight above enumerated indications, the use of microwave apparatus is definitely no advisable: and with the decision of the Soviet government in 1976 (see Introduction to Category III), present scientific opinion in many countries concerning the use of such apparatus is clearly in evidence. Due to the problem of random magnetic residulation and binding within the biological systems of the body (Category III, 9), which can ultimately effect the neurological systems, primarily the brain and neuroplexuses (nerve-centers), longer-term depolarization of tissue-neuroelectronic circuits can results. Because these effects can cause virtually irremissable damage to the neuroelectrical integrity http://www.rense.com/health/microwaves.htm 12/2/2003 SIGHTINGS Page 4 of 4 of the various components of the nervous system (I. R Luria, Novosibirsk 1975c), ingestion of microwaved foods. is clearly contrain..dicated in all respects. Their magnetic-residual effect can render the pyschoneural-receptor components of the brain more subject to influence psychologically by artificially-induced microwave radio frequency fields from transmission stations and TV relay-networks. The theoretical possibility of psychotelemmetric influence (the capability of affecting human behavior by transmitted radio signals at controlled frequencies) has been suggested by Soviet neuropshychological investigations at Uralyera and Novosibirsk (Luria and Perov, 1974x, 1975c, I976a), which can cause involuntary subliminal psychological energy field compliance to operative microwave apparatus. DOCUMENT PREPARED BY: William P. Kopp A. R. E. C. Research Operations. http://www.rense. com/health/microwaves.htrn 12/2/2003 My name is Lisa Allagas. I live at 6828 Thirlane Road. I'm here to oppose the building of a cell phone tower in our family community. For 2 years we looked and prayed for the right home while we lived in a small rented house. Our children didn't want to leave their friends and we didn't want to leave our church. It was GOD that blessed us with our home and property. If a cell tower had been present on or near the property we would not have chosen this location to build our home and raise our children. Exposure to these waves could cause many health problems according to studies found on the Internet. Examples are: increased risk of brain cancer, leukemia and other cancers; cardiac, neurological and reproductive health effects. We are not against the improvement of technology, when it does not adversely affect the human life that lives in the vicinity of the structure itself. We are against the potential harm that this may cause our families. We should not have to trade our health for any technological gains. There is no price for peace of mind or good health. The value of our properties have consistently risen in the past, but will drop dramatically if this structure is erected in our neighborhood. At the last meeting one of the spokesmen for the cell phone tower brought up the 9-11 terrorist attack. How should we feel about bringing something that close to our homes that may be threatened by terrorists. In closing, would you choose to raise your family next to a tower with waves and lights going constantly not knowing the future of your family's well-being? Our community does not nor should you. ..--~ ~~ ~- ~H 1 y~ ~..j~::~.. r hi~M ~;'~~, wa ~ e "~, `` ,~ ~. ~~-_ _~ ~ ~~~fi~ r ~~ ~, w ~ ~ .~ i ~~ «" Petition to Disallow the Cell Tower Thirlane Road Residents. This petition is for Thirlane Road residents to express their concern about the Cell Tower to be erected at 6720 Thirlane Road. Also to petition the Roanoke County Board to Disallow this project. Residents of Thirlane Road signatures below. ~~~/~ ~1 rl s ~~~ f~~p f~/Ud~ ~a y ~ ~ol 1~~~ ~i~~i~~. ~'~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~- D , rte 7~~~ ~~ ~- ~J ~~~ ~ d ~ g~~-~ r~. ~ h ~. ~.~ ~, ~z a- ~ ~ t f 1 ~ -,-e- 2J f ~Z~4 ~~X ~s~ ~o~ Petition to Disallow the Cell ~`ower Thirlane Road Residents. This petition is for Thirlane Road residents to express their concern about the Cell Tower to be erected at 6720 Thirlane Road. Also to petition the Roanoke County Board to Disallow this project. Residents of Thirlane Road signatures below. /- , /~ 1 C~9~ ~r?ice ~ ~s r~ 9 .~ r~~rc~ ~~~.~.= ~z t~v %j~ C~c.w-~_ ~- ~~ ~ . ~~ ~,~~<~h,`~~- ~ w~ ~ Petition to Disallow the Cell Tower Thirlane Road Residents. This petition is for Thirlane Road residents to express their concern about the Cell Tower to be erected at 6720 Thirlane Road. Rlso to petition the Roanoke County Board to Disallow this project. Residents of Thirlane Road signatures below. a~~, Petition to Disallow the Cell Tower Thirlane Road Residents. This petition is far Thirlane Road residents to express their concern about the Cell Tower to be erected at b720 Thirlane Road. Also to petition the Roanoke County Board to Disallow this project. Residents of Thirlane Road signatures below. ~. -,--. J~ ~ 1 Petition to Disallow the Cell Tower Thirlane Road Residents. This petition is for Thirlane Road residents to express their concern about the Cell Tower to be erected at 6720 Thirlane Road. Also to petition the Roanoke County Board to Disallow this project. Residents of Thirlane Road signatures below. ~~b~- ~ . 1 ;! i ~ f '1.,•' ~ t ... {. ,~ / C`~_7 ^~~--illy! ~~ >~J,~ ~r.) Petition to Disallow the Cell Tower Thirlane Road Residents. This petition. is for Thirlane Road residents to express their concern about the Cell Tower to be erected at 6720 Thirlane Road_ Also to petition the Roanoke County Board to Disallow this project. Residents of Thirlane Road signatures below. ~, Petition to Disallow the ~~ll Tower Thirlane lZoad ~~sx~~tse This petition is for Thirlane Road residents to express their eancern about the Cell Tower to be erected at 6720 Thirlane Road. Also to petition the Roanoke County Board to Disallow this project. Residents of Thirlane Road signatures below. . I .~U"" C