HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/24/2011 - RegularMay 24, 2011
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of May 2011.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
was taken.
Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church; Vice Chairman
Charlotte A. Moore; Supervisors Michael W. Altizer and
Richard C. Flora
MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator; Teresa Hamilton Hall,
Director of Public Information; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Reverend Dan Holloway of the Unity Church
of the Roanoke Valley. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of Roanoke County Detective Christopher S. Welch
for receiving the 2011 National Missing Children's Award (James
R. Lavinder, Chief of Police)
In attendance for this recognition were Chief Lavinder; Detectives
Christopher S. Welch, Dale Clark, Katrina Goodman; Lieutenant Chuck Mason and
Assistant Chief Terrell Holbrook. Each Supervisor thanked the Police Department for a
job well done.
290 May 24, 2011
2. Recognition of Solid Waste Employees for winning and placing in
the 2011 Virginia /Maryland /DC American Public Works
Association Equipment Rodeo (Anne Marie Green, Director of
General Services)
In attendance for this recognition were Anne Marie Green, Director of
General Services; Nancy Duval, Solid Waste Manager; Jim Vodnik, Assistant Director of
General Services and drivers Tim Burford and Tony Frymier. Ms. Green explained to
the viewing audience what is contained in the rodeo and stated that Tim and Tony were
great representatives of all of the County's drivers. Each Supervisor congratulated Ms.
Green and her drivers.
3. Introduction of Ms. Leslie Chappel, summer intern.
Chairman Church recognized Ms. Diane Hyatt, Assistant County
Administrator who introduced Ms. Leslie Chappel as the new summer intern. All
Supervisors welcomed Ms. Chappel to Roanoke County.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Reappointment of Special Assistant for Legislative Relations,
authorization to continue an agreement and an appropriation of
funds in the amount of $31,020 (Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney)
A- 052411 -1
Mr. Mahoney explained this request was to continue the arrangement the
County has had with Eldon James and Associates as legislative liaison, however, this
year he is requesting the Board add a subcontract with Sue Rowland of S R Consulting.
Mr. Mahoney advised Ms. Rowland is an expert in the Comprehensive Services Act
(CSA) field. He reiterated that he expects to see more initiatives in the future from the
General Assembly with regard to the CSA.
Chairman Church commented he felt it is vital to keep a continual watch
on what is going on in Richmond as it relates to this issue. All Supervisors expressed
their concern for keeping watch over the General Assembly as it relates to CSA.
Chairman Church moved to approve the staff recommendation. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
May 24, 2011 291
2. Appeal of a denial of a claim by Vernal D. and Kimber Holbrook
(5131 Springlawn Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia), Cave Spring
Magisterial District (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
A- 052411 -2
Mr. Mahoney advised Mr. and Mrs. Holbrook were in attendance and
would like an opportunity to speak to the Board with respect to staff's denial of their
claim for damages. He explained they had filed a claim for damages in the amount of
$37,198.91 and has provided the legal department a list of property damage. He stated
he has not discussed or debated with Mr. Holbrook the differences between
replacement costs versus depreciated costs. He advised he believed these were all
new costs for the damages. The damages were to the Holbrook's property on 5131
Springlawn Avenue and was the result of the heavy rains that occurred on Saturday,
April 16, 2011. He stated the Board may recall that the storms were somewhat
localized in SW County. He advised the County has had another claim that was filed
from the same weekend; in excess of $51,000. The Risk Manager, Don Karnes, has
investigated this claim. The amount of the claim exceeds his authority under the
Board's ordinance as to what he can settle. The claim was then sent to his office and
he assisted and consulted with him. It is Mr. Mahoney's recommendation that the
Board deny this claim stating he does not believe there is any negligence involved on
the part of the County based on the amount of rainfall. Mr. Mahoney explained it is his
understanding, sewage backed up into the Holbrook's home from floor drains and from
toilets, plumbing fixtures. After consultation with Butch Workman, the drainage crew
supervisor, surface water did not flow into the home. When this development was
constructed back in 1960, the stormwater facilities were adequate; they are not
adequate today. Mr. Workman and his crew had identified this area back in the late
1990's as an area for a possible drainage improvement project; that drainage
improvement project was abandoned. The Board at that time had indicated to staff that
they were unwilling to exercise its powers of condemnation and imminent domain. The
reason that project was abandoned was because one of the property owners refused to
provide an easement for the County. Mr. and Mrs. Holbrook are very frustrated. They
hear from the County that the County believes that it is the water authority's problem.
The Water Authority says it is the County's problem and I think they feel that they are
caught sort of in the bureauocratic middle. Under the State code provisions, a citizen
can appeal a denial of a claim to the governing body. The governing body can make a
decision to either approve or deny the claim. If the claim is denied, then that person
would have thirty (30) days to appeal that denial to Circuit Court and typically it is staff's
recommendation in these situations that the Board deny the claim and provide an
opportunity for the claimant to proceed to Circuit Court.
Mr. Holbrook advised he would like to "paint a little picture." He stated he
292 May 24, 2011
would like to go back to July 16, 2009 and waking up at 1:00 a.m. to hear stuff pouring
into his basement. Say it was sewage, and having your little girl screaming and crying
because your basement is filling up with three feet of water. He advised he called the
County and they came out and looked at it and said, "Yes, you do have a problem, we
understand there is a problem, we just cannot fix it right now." He advised he has a
letter from 1999, that specifically states there is a drainage problem and with that
drainage problem they said we were put on the docket. Phone calls were made in
January that told us we were 25 Phone calls were made in March that told us we
were 27 Phone calls were made in April to Butch Workman with no response. He
advised they lost every single thing in their basement; we had to rebuild. He advised
they brought up sovereign immunity. Mr. Holbrook stated they received a letter from the
County saying they would not do anything about it. We got a letter from the Water
Authority saying they would not do anything about it. Mr. Holbrook advised he can
honestly state this is not a Water Authority problem and would go to bat for that
because the only time he has a water problem in his basement is when his street floods.
If the water was backing up every six months or every year, then he could blame it on
the water authority, but the fact of the matter is it only builds up and he gets a flow of
water that is the size of a river down the side of his house. He emphasized he lives in
Roanoke County by Cave Spring Elementary, where there is no creek, no nothing. The
problem is a group of patio homes that were built behind his house. A wonderful
containment pond was built right behind his house as well, with a drainage pond. If you
are familiar with a containment pond, a containment pond basically sits, all the drains
come into that and the water slowly builds up and dumps into a ten -foot grate, which
slowly allows this pond to go out to the street, which is adequate drainage when it is
done correctly. Mr. Holbrook stated Butch Workman told him the contract was passed
because it was already being build upon; they knew it was done incorrect and they did
not fix it. When Mr. Workman came out to his house, again after April 16 his wife tells
him to look at the drainage pond. We walked to the fence and as we walked to the
fence it was slowly rising. Mr. Holbrook advised he has pictures that shows the chain of
events. As the pond slowly rises, it goes down the side of his house; he watched it and
was out there with a shovel trying to keep it away from his house. He advised he also
has pictures of six feet of water in his basement stairwell pouring through his doorway.
He explained he has a seven, five and a three year old and advised the water
practically knocked him off his feet due to the size and if his three -year old had been in
it, there would be a different discussion. The water rose past his kneecaps in the front of
the house, please understand that he lives on Springlawn Avenue with no creeks,
rivers, nothing. He advised he is in walking and seeing distance to the elementary
school. Three feet of water poured in his basement again, the difference this time was
was told that it would not happen. He stated he was told that the first time was an Act of
God. God causes rain, not disasters. Unfortunately, he cannot tell the Board about any
other type of disaster, but can tell the Board about what happened at his house. He
indicated his children's toys, their playroom, his dryer were in the basement. The house
May 24, 2011 293
has been up for sale for the past four weeks, it was taken off the market after they had
already bought another house. Mr. Holbrook stated he lost everything. Do you want to
look at your children's face when they see all of their toys go, every single toy they
owned was gone. He then advised Mr. Workman came out to his house along with Don
Karnes and he took them back and showed them the containment pond and the
drainage pond. He also showed them where the property owners behind and on the
patio homes where they are supposed to be keeping up the drainage pond and keeping
it cutback, which has completely grown over his fence and the pond is no longer visible.
He explained they have built a dam with grass growing over it so that the water would
not flow down their side into the pond, and diverts and goes right into the drainage
pond. Mr. Holbrook stated he has asked Mr. Workman on several occasions and has
spoken with a Supervisor from the Virginia Department of Transportation who happened
to be driving by when all of this happened and wrote a letter stating the same. He
advised he has had County employees come out to his house and look him in the eyes
and state they know it is a problem. He advised he had Mr. Workman call him on his
phone and say, "You know what, it is a problem and we are going to fix it, we will fix it,
we will fix the problem but understand when it happens again, will you call me, will you
call me because it is a sewer issue." He responded to Mr. Workman that his sewer has
backed up twice and both times flooded into his street and it came through. He stated
he has pictures that will verify and show exactly how much water dumped into his
basement through the stairwell as a result of the flood that does down the side of his
house. He explained the wall of water was approximately eight to ten feet wide, bad
enough to break his children's swing out front, ripped his deck up, took part of the fence
away and ripped up his driveway. He stated he did not add these items into the cost,
because he would fix those personally. So, he added, do I feel that Roanoke County is
not responsible, no. This was something that was known, talked about, called about
since 2006 and was going on way before then. We had asked for something to be
done. So say that the easement was not big enough that Roanoke County would not
condemn it. The easement is twelve feet, which is what the property owner would not
allow the County to use. He stated he went back and looked himself, and it would have
taken part of her fence. So, the Board stopped the process of putting in new pipes to
contain the water because of twelve feet. He further advised that his house is not the
only house that flooded and knows there was a hard rainstorm in Roanoke County and
Tanglewood and Colonial Drive was flooded, but he advised he can tell the Board in
2009 that was not the case. He stated that when he has to sit up every single night
because he told his wife after July it would not happen again, because that is what he
was told and he has to sit up every single night it rains and wonder whether they are
going to get water. He stated he has an issue with that because he lives in Roanoke
County, not a rural neighborhood. He stated he lives in Roanoke County where there is
a drainage problem that has been noted since 1998 and nothing has been done.
Accordingly, he asked the Board to look at that piece of the issue, not the fact that
someone is standing before them asking for a dollar amount; he will not get rich off of
294 May 24, 2011
$37,000, but he is going to finish his basement back to the way it was because he does
not have flood insurance, because he does not live in a flood area. He indicated not
many people living in the Cave Spring or Penn Forrest area of Roanoke County carry
flood insurance and if they need to everyone should be notified they need to carry flood
insurance. He advised the dollar amount of the claim is exactly what it cost for
Servepro to come in, clean his basement, rip the walls out, put new walls up, put
flooring back down, fix his shower back, fix his toilets back, fix his sinks that were just
put in and his door that was just put in within the last year and one half. He stated he
lost things that cannot be replaced; his wedding pictures, and the pictures of his children
growing up. There is not an amount of money you could give him that can replace
those. I can buy more toys, yes his children were upset. He stated he can buy things
for the house and they will get through this and will move, but he cannot fix pictures,
baskets that were given to them when his first child was born; he cannot fix things like
that. Outside forces happen as seen on television every day. If that is the case, and
we are going to blame the fact of property dwellings and drainage because it is not
adequate, but what do you tell all those families all over the United States that are
dealing with disasters every single day. "Sorry guys, we did not have adequate
preparation." He stated that is why he is having a little bit of a problem about adequacy,
because this has been known; it is not something that was just brought up and this is
twice in less than two years of the same exact thing, not one thing different. There was
enough water that it bowed his door from the outside.
Chairman Church commented from the Chair that he is really sorry that
the Holbrooks have had this kind of damage. He then asked Mr. Mahoney to talk about
what year this happened because he is trying to recollect what Board was sitting at the
time. Mr. Mahoney stated he thought it was in 1998.
Mr. Church stated he would have remembered this and he was not here at
the time. He then asked Mr. Mahoney about the twelve foot easement Mr. Holbrook
was talking about and asked Mr. Workman to come forward and provide a little
information.
Mr. Workman advised the twelve foot easement runs parallel to all the
properties through there and ends up in the creek behind and across the street. There
is a triangle piece that staff wanted to curb the new pipe away from the flow or with the
flow instead of against it like it is now.
Mr. Mahoney stated one of the problems with a lot of the older
subdivisions (this is a subdivision from 1960) is the easements on the property lines are
very narrow and so when you go in with a back hoe and you put those arm braces out,
a lot of times you need more than ten to twelve feet. Mr. Workman advised eighteen
feet is required. Additionally, assuming you received a wider easement and you came
across Springlawn to the adjoining property on the other side of the street which would
then eventually lead to the creek down below, as Mr. Workman is saying, you do not
want the new pipe to come in at a right angle to that creek. If it came in at a right
angle, there would be another problem of erosion and washing out and that was the
May 24, 2011 295
property owner who was reluctant to convey an additional easement, not only wider, but
also to angle the pipe that would come in at a 45 degree angle versus a 90 degree
angle. At that point, the direction from the Board was to talk to citizens to get donations
or buy the property, but if the citizen was reluctant, the Board direction was not to
condemn, so at that point, that project went off the list.
Chairman Church then asked Mr. Workman if in his opinion what part that
decision had in a so called "fix" of the problem. He asked Mr. Workman to discuss the
cause and effect.
Mr. Mahoney then asked Mr. Workman to also talk about what Mr.
Holbrook referred to in terms of the containment pond or drainage facility that serves the
patio homes and how the proposed project would tie into that correction.
Mr. Workman stated the pond above Mr. Holbrook was designed to
contain the new development. There are outside areas that drain around there that also
go to the pipe through Mr. Holbrook's property and if the project had been undertaken, a
twenty -four inch pipe would have gone through the property and a larger berm, etc.
There would have been a more defined contained area outside of that pond that would
have helped funnel the water into the pipe. As far as the other question regarding what
impact it had for the County not to do that, if staff had been able to go in at right angles,
it would have flowed out into the street just like it has been doing. Mr. Workman stated
it was not a good situation either way and would have been a complete fix if we could
have gotten the easement. Mr. Workman also stated the height limit under the street is
also inadequate sized, based on today's standard, which would require a twenty -four
inch pipe all the way through.
Mr. Holbrook stated his next question is if you look at the pictures provided
and you look at the containment pond, you will notice in some of those pictures there
are actual gutters that are coming in that have no water, that is the containment pond.
During this rain when the water was flowing out of the drainage pond, there was no
water coming into the containment pond, everything was coming from the development
behind was coming straight into the drainage pond that is only 8 x 8, the drains do not
run into the containment pond. He advised he has complained about this forever.
When they built the containment pond, the drains flow into the drainage pond. It is not
the amount of water that is flowing in; there is no water in the containment pond. He
stated he has taken pictures of it and that is why it was flooding. While the flooding was
going on, the containment pond was empty. The containment pond is set up, his Dad
was in building and he knows exactly how things work. He knows code; having looked
into them, and he is not stupid when it comes to this. Mr. Holbrook explained he runs a
nursing facility that is a multimillion dollar company. He watched it be designed with
drainage. There is a containment pond on that land, when those containment ponds
are built, the drains from those developments run into that containment pond because
that containment pond is a deep hole. The actual gutter that sits on top of the cement
block is ten feet, it is huge. The water fills up and as it hits the top of the culvert and it
slowly drains and runs to a drainage pond that is down below, which allows for
296 May 24, 2011
adequate water to get in there out of a pipe. He explained you cannot have a pipe that
allows it to rush in all at once because that is going to cause it to swirl and not go out.
As far as the easement goes, he understands what they are saying and he agrees with
that and understands what they are saying about backing up in the street, but let me
tell you I would much rather have it back up in the street than into his house. He stated
he would give Roanoke County the right -of -way on his land. He stated if the water
rushes into that person's house that would not give the easement; it will be a different
story. He explained his family is having to suffer with this problem and being told, "Yes,
it is a problem we understand, yes you have a big problem." The problem is not so
much just the pipe on the other side that cannot be accessed. It is the containment
pond, because if that was working properly we would not be having this problem as
much. There was a pond, a huge pond, which used to be on that land before the patio
homes were built. He advised his sister lived on that street for fifteen (15) years, before
that patio home was set there was a huge pond. He asked the Board where do you
think all the water that came off the mountain went to; it went into that pond. When the
patio homes were built that containment pond was put in to house that water. They built
a gully that went up and was supposed to trap the water coming off the mountain and
rush into the containment pond. This cannot be accomplished; because if you build a
damn on it will roll off. Additionally, somebody planted grass and a nice little tree
around it. So whose fault is it, is he supposed to go out there and dig that back up on
somebody else's property? Is he supposed to maintain the drainage pond? Is he
supposed to cut the trees down that keep it from going in there? Or, is that the
complaint when we come to the County and say look there is an issue with the
containment pond. There is an issue with the drainage pond. There is an issue with the
new development as far as how that water is collected, that is called code and he does
not feel it was followed because if he had this much water rushing in that is not an Act of
God or that is not an issue because of the amount of water. This has happened two
times in one year; it is going to happen again because no water sits in that containment
pond. The pictures verify this; you can look right at it. You can see the date and the
time stamped on the picture that shows exactly when the picture was taken so nobody
thinks we took it way after. This is what the drainage pond looks like as of right now
(shows the Board a picture.) This is what our street looked like as the water flowed on it
(shows another picture.) There are holes in the front of the street that VDOT is now
repairing because he had sink holes from the water sitting out there that went all the
way down; right over the top of the drainage pipe that goes underneath our road. Mr.
Holbrook stated he understands what everybody is saying about the 1960's when this
home was built and they were good back then, but what about now, because if these
were $500,000 homes and you were getting $350,000 claims and you were getting
issues with drainage, there would be a big difference. He stated his claim is not a lot of
money and understands that piece of it, but he still thinks he is entitled to those fixes
and those fixes from the County because this is something that was known.
Supervisor Moore thanked the Holbrooks for coming in and sharing their
May 24, 2011 297
story with the Board. She stated it is unfortunate that they have had not one but two
experiences of the same nature in the past two years. She advised she knows it has
been very difficult; Roanoke County has been researching and trying to improve the
stormwater system all over Roanoke County and staff has been working on that
diligently. Hopefully, one day it will be a huge improvement so that we do not have
issues like this.
Supervisor Altizer asked if he understood Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Holbrook
correctly in that the water that came into the house was it sewage.
Mr. Holbrook responded it was both, what happens is based on
information from The Water Authority there are grates on top of their culverts out front
that have holes in them. The water rushes down and sits on top of those and bubbles
down into the sewer system. The sewer system is not meant to hold that much water
that comes down because the water sits there and causes the backflow into the house.
It was also coming through the yard, which you can see in the pictures provided. What
happens is it builds up in the drainage pond and starts to roll down the back of the yards
and then it comes rushing through. Supervisor Altizer inquired if he had any kind of
sewer backup with Mr. Holbrook responding they would not cover it.
Chairman Church stated water and sewer backup will and would cover
water coming back through the drains and sewer. He advised he is saying that based
on his past experience. Mr. Holbrook advised he agreed and the first time it happened
State Farm covered it fine. This time Nationwide would not cover it because they stated
there is a clause in their policy with stormwater if it is caused through rain and there is
stormwater backup as well as sewer, they will not cover it. Chairman Church indicated it
is an option that the homeowner can purchase and it should be recommended to
everyone. There has been a big emphasis on it from the Federal and State level to
offer that coverage to property owners. Mr. Holbrook explained a sewer backup coming
from your toilet or overflows, or three or four inches in your basement is one thing,
however, with three feet he does not think there is any homeowner out there that
expects sewer water to backup due to a rain problem.
Chairman Church then asked Mr. Workman to address the issue
regarding the containment pond and the patio homes and what has happened there and
what has caused a negative effect. Mr. Workman responded that he is not sure. The
patio home area is pretty small and he thinks there is a thirty (30) acre drainage area
above that. The patio homes are only designed for what is required for their site. He
stated that he understands what Mr. Holbrook is saying. It is a huge pond; maybe it is
because there is so much area outside of the patio homes that is supposed to bypass
and he thinks that is probably what he is seeing there.
Mr. Holbrook stated he is also going with what he was told. He stated
what he was told about the gutter system and the containment pond and had discussed
with everyone who lives on the street and has lived there for thirty years. The problem is
when the patio ponds were built and that containment pond was put into place is when
the flooding started; they did not have problems before the patio homes were put in. In
298 May 24, 2011
that area, there are gullies that are built there for that water to run into to hit that
containment pond that are damned up, so how can the water rush in there. He advised
he showed that to Mr. Workman and Mr. Karnes when they came to his house. So how
can water rush into those things if they are dammed up and projecting up and going into
a drainage pond that is only eight feet by eight feet. It cannot hold that amount of water
and if that is the case, why did they not make that area bigger or clean it out to hold and
withstand that water.
Chairman Church then asked Mr. Mahoney for options for the Board and
what course it takes with approval or denial of this claim.
Mr. Mahoney responded that under option one the Board would approve
the claim for Mr. and Mrs. Holbrooke and the Board would authorize the payment of
$37,198.91. Under option two, the Board denies the claim and that would allow Mr. and
Mrs. Holbrook to pursue what other legal remedies they deem appropriate.
Supervisor Moore thanked the Holbrooks, Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Workman
and stated this seems to be a very complex situation with a lot of variables and perhaps
this is one that would better serve everyone to go before the Judge and let him hear the
case and make a decision. Supervisor Moore moved to approve the staff
recommendation to deny the claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of Sandra Finck to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R-
1 S, Low Density Residential, District with a special use permit for
a multiple dog permit for four (4) dogs on 2.24 acres, located at
2929 Elderwood Road, Catawba Magisterial District
There was no discussion. Chairman Church moved to approve the first
reading and scheduled the second reading for June 28, 2011. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
2. The petition of National Park Service /Blue Ridge Parkway, to
obtain a Special Use Permit in a AG -3S, Agricultural /Rural
Preserve, District with a special use permit to construct a
May 24, 2011
299
broadcasting tower on 27.612 acres, located off Honeysuckle
Road on Poor Mountain, Windsor Hills District
There was no discussion. Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first
reading and scheduled the second reading for June 28, 2011. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
3. The petition of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, Town
of Vinton, and Cardinal IG Company to amend the covenants,
conditions, and Master Plan on 99 acres zoned PTD, Planned
Technology Development, District at the Vinton Business Center,
located near the 2100 through 2400 block of Hardy Road and the
2100 block of Cardinal Park Drive, Vinton Magisterial District
There was no discussion. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first
reading and scheduled the second reading for June 28, 2011. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
4. The petition of Carol and Jason Lachowicz to rezone
approximately 5.476 acres from AG -3, Agricultural /Rural Preserve,
District, C -2C, General Commercial, District with conditions, and
C -1C, Office, District with conditions to AV, Agricultural/Village
Center, District and AG -3, Agricultural /Rural Preserve, District,
located at 8346 Bent Mountain Road, 8364 Bent Mountain Road,
and 8399 Strawberry Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District
There was no discussion. Chairman Church moved to approve the first
reading and scheduled the second reading for June 28, 2011. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
300 May 24, 2011
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code Chapter 21.
"Taxation ", Article III. "Real Estate Taxes ", Division 3, "Exemption
for Elderly and Disabled Person" To Provide Exemptions for
Disabled Veterans (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney advised he is recommending that the Board approve this
ordinance in order to provide staff guidance in which to implement a recent
constitutional amendment to provide a real estate tax exemption for veterans who have
served our Country and who have suffered a one hundred percent (100 %) service
connected and total disability. He advised he had worked very closely with Nancy Horn,
the Commissioner of the Revenue and her staff, Kevin Hutchins, Treasurer and his staff
and Kathy Jones in the legal department who has done a significant amount of research
on this. He stated he did want to indicate there is some controversary State -wide about
this. Some localities believe the constitutional amendment adopted by the voters last
November is self- executing; what that means is you do not need any local ordinance in
order to implement it. Other localities and he stated he is in the other locality camp
believe it would be helpful for the Commissioner of Revenue's staff and for the
Treasurer's staff to have some guidance in this area because he thinks there are some
questions, some gaps, some ambiguities that people have some questions as to what
applies and what does not apply. He further stated he thinks the General Assembly in
2012 is going to adopt some legislation to address those gaps, but the County has an
obligation now to implement this constitutional amendment because it was made
effective for the current tax year, that is the calendar tax year that began January 1 st of
this year. He stated Ms. Horn has indicated to him that she has over ninety veterans
who have come in to her office inquiring about this. He stated staff would like to give
some guidance. This ordinance attempts to address some questions that have
surfaced, i.e. when looking at it has to be a qualifying dwelling, it has to be the principal
place of residence of the veterans, but what if the veteran is in a nursing home. Staff
believes that it was the intent of the voters of the Commonwealth to provide this
exemption to our veterans. Mr. Mahoney questioned what if the veteran has talked to
an attorney and for estate planning purposes is not the "owner" of the property but they
have put the property in a trust for estate planning purposes, they are still obligated to
pay the real estate taxes. He stated from staff's point of view, we think it was the intent
of the voters to provide this exemption to the veterans who have one hundred percent
(100 %) service - connected disabilities. Another question deals with if you are a veteran,
when do you have to apply? He stated he realizes this is a new law and suggests the
Board consider a transition provision so that if you are veteran and want to take
advantage of this tax exemption you can apply any time during the current 2011 tax
year. After that, staff was considering coordinating with what is already in existence for
elderly and handicapped citizens and would look for an individual to make an
May 24, 2011 301
application between January 1 St and March 31 for future years. Another issue that Ms.
Jones has raised based on her experience being a JAG officer, is the fact that a person
can go to the Veterans Administration (VA) and apply for disability, but it may take two
(2) years before the VA works through its backlog and makes a decision. Based on
this, staff thought if a veteran obtains their determination two (2) years from now, but
made the application today, it may be a problem due to refunds over previous tax years.
If this ordinance is approved, Mr. Mahoney advised he may have to come back again
next year and alter it because the General Assembly may have filled in some of the
blanks. Mr. Mahoney explained this ordinance reflects an expansive reading, not a
narrow approach. He then advised Ms. Horn, Ms. Jones and Mr. Hutchins were in the
Board room to answer any questions.
Chairman Church thanked Ms. Jones, Ms. Horn and Mr. Hutchins and
stated he truly believes this Board is here today because of our veterans; open and free
government session because of the price these men and women paid. Chairman
Church then applauded Mr. Mahoney and staff for what they had done to try to eliminate
any type of roadblock for these men and women.
Supervisor Moore thanked everyone who worked so hard on this and
stated it is the least we can do for our veterans.
Mr. Mahoney advised they are having some difficulty getting a good
estimate of what the fiscal impact is. He indicated that the fiscal impact is not the
driving factor, but staff needs to report to the Board and come up with an estimated
$300,000 impact and at the same time he thinks by looking at some of the numbers that
might impact current year is $100,000. He advised staff really will not know until the
applications come in and everything is calculated, but that is the ballpark for fiscal
impact. Chairman Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for July 28, 2011. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
IN RE: ADOPTION OF PROPOSED BUDGET AND SECOND READING OF
ORDINANCE
1. Resolution adopting the fiscal year 2011 -2012 budget, including
the fiscal years 2012 -2016 Capital Improvement Plan, for Roanoke
County, Virginia (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management
and Budget)
Mr. Robertson explained this was the second reading of the ordnance to
adopt the fiscal year 2011 -2012 budget, which included the School Budget. He
explained there was one change from the first reading; under proposed expenditures
302 May 24, 2011
the following language will be struck. "In addition to the above revenues and
expenditures, $2 million of the unappropriated balance is appropriated to a reserve for
contingency for unanticipated or emergency expenditures." Mr. Robertson explained
staff would like to strike that language from the resolution because this section was
originally added to accommodate emergency economic development prospects when
there was a requirement for a public hearing for any budget amendment that exceeded
$500,000. This public hearing requirement has been amended and is now one percent
(1 %) of the County budget, which is $1,896,000. In addition, the better reason to strike
that language is a new accounting pronouncement that will be coming out GASB 54,
which has to do with the reporting of fund balance amounts. The inclusion of this
paragraph, if we were to include, would remove the $2 million from unappropriated
balance and staff wants to keep this in our unappropriated balance for the purpose of
meeting our eleven percent (11 %) goal. There was no discussion. Chairman Church
commented that he thinks the Board has always thought of the unappropriated fund
balances as an emergency fund.
RESOLUTION 052411 -3 APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2011-
2012 BUDGET FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Section 15.2 -2503 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
provides that the governing body of the County shall prepare and approve an annual
budget; and
WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and
fiscal planning purposes only; and
WHEREAS, this budget contains a complete itemized and classified plan of all
contemplated expenditures and all estimated revenues and borrowings for the ensuing
fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, a brief synopsis of said budget was published as required by the
provisions of Section 15.2 -2506 of the State Code, and the public hearing as required
thereon was held on April 26, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia:
1. That there is hereby approved the annual budget for fiscal year 2011 -2012
for Roanoke County, Virginia, as shown on the attached Schedules.
2. That the preparation and approval of this budget is for informative and
fiscal planning purposes only.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
May 24, 2011
303
County of Roanoke
Adopted FY 2011 -2012 Budget
May 24, 2011
Revenue Estimates
Amount
General Fund
General Government
General Property Taxes
$ 118,985,000
Local Sales Tax
9,474,340
Telecommunications Tax
4,200,000
Business License Tax
5,575,000
Bank Franchise Tax
525,000
Utility Consumer Tax
3,650,000
Motor Vehicle License Tax
2,020,000
Recordation/Conveyance Tax
1,075,000
Meals Tax
3,630,000
Hotel/Motel Tax
775,000
Other Local Taxes
711,000
Permits, Fees & Licenses
575,610
Fines and Forfeitures
835,400
Interest Income
269,100
Charges for Services
3,144,433
Commonwealth
9,857,782
Federal
3,740,000
Other
1,953,112
Total General Government
$ 170,995,777
Communications & Information Technology
7,561,883
Comprehensive Services
6,627,799
Law Library
27,175
Public Works Projects
175,693
S B & T Building
444,580
Recreation Fee Class
4,442,000
Criminal Justice Academy
202,172
Police Special Programs
1,000
County Garage
2,242,864
Total General Fund
$ 192,720,943
Debt Service Fund - County
8,031,694
Capital Projects Fund
4,230,635
Internal Service Fund
1,301,360
School Operating Fund
131,373,270
School Nutrition Fund
5,704,000
304
May 24, 2011
School Debt Service Fund
13,654,394
School Grants Fund
5,508,401
School Capital Fund
904,000
School Textbook Fund
798,477
School Bus Fund
910,000
School Laptop Insurance Reserve
358,600
Total Revenues All Funds
$ 365,495,774
Less: Transfers
(107,856,516)
Total Net of Transfers
$ 257,639,258
Proposed Expenditures Amount
General Fund
General Government
General Administration
$ 2,900,259
Constitutional Officers
13,087,654
Judicial Administration
865,732
Management Services
3,200,379
Public Safety
23,922,567
Community Services
11,076,112
Human Services
20,007,899
Non - Departmental
11,368,810
Transfers to School Operating Fund
64,006,726
Transfers to School Insurance - Dental
477,299
Transfers to (from) Capital Fund
(1,317,385)
Transfers to Debt Service Fund
16,937,402
Transfer to Public Works Projects
175,693
Transfer to Comprehensive Services
3,253,000
Other
1,033,630
Total General Government
$ 170,995,777
Communications and Information Technology
7,561,883
Comprehensive Services
6,627,799
Law Library
27,175
Public Works Projects
175,693
S B & T Building
444,580
Recreation Fee Class
4,442,000
Criminal Justice Academy
202,172
Police Special Programs
1,000
County Garage
2,242,864
Total General Fund
$ 192,720,943
Debt Service Fund - County
8,031,694
Capital Projects Fund
4,230,635
Internal Service Fund
1,301,360
May 24, 2011 305
School Operating Fund
School Nutrition Fund
School Debt Fund
School Grants Fund
School Capital Fund
School Textbook Fund
School Bus Fund
School Laptop Insurance Reserve
Total Expenditures All Funds
Less: Transfers
Total Net of Transfers
131,373,270
5,704,000
13,654,394
5,508,401
904,000
798,477
910,000
358,600
365,495,774
$ (107,856,516)
$ 257,639,258
In addition to the above revenues and expenditures, $2,000,000 from the Unappropriated
Balance is appropriated to a Reserve for Contingency for unanticipated or emergency
expenditures; and funds allocated to the Unappropriated Fund Balance must be
appropriated by the Board of Supervisors before such funds may be expended.
2. Ordinance appropriating funds for the fiscal year 2011 -2012
budget (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
Mr. Robertson explained this was an ordinance to appropriate funds for
fiscal year 2011 -2012 and pointed out there were two changes from the first reading.
The first change is the same as the previous item and is the $2 million language to be
struck. The second change has been added, section number nine (9) to approve the
two -year supplement for the Plan II employees that was approved by the Board on May
10, 2011. A salary supplement needs to be approved by an ordinance, so Mr. Mahoney
and Ms. Hyatt have agreed adding this to the budget appropriation ordinance would
serve that purpose. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052411 -4 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE
2011 -2012 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public hearing was
held on April 26, 2011, concerning the adoption of the annual budget for Roanoke
County for fiscal year 2011 -2012; and
306
May 24, 2011
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 10,
2011, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 24, 2011, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2011, and ending June 30, 2012, for the functions and
purposes indicated:
County of Roanoke
Adopted FY 2011 -2012 Budget
May 24, 2011
Revenues:
General Fund
General Government
$
170,995,777
Communications & Information Technology
7,561,883
Comprehensive Services
6,627,799
Law Library
27,175
Public Works Projects
175,693
SB &T- Social Services Building
444,580
Recreation Fee Class
4,442,000
Police Special Programs
1,000
Criminal Justic Academy
202,172
County Garage
2,242,864
Total General Fund
$
192,720,943
Debt Service Fund - County
$
8,031,694
Capital Projects Fund
$
4,230,635
Internal Service Fund - Risk Management
$
1,301,360
May 24, 2011
307
School Funds:
$ 761,116
Commonwealth Attorney
Operating
$
131,373,270
Nutrition
1,028,559
5,704,000
Capital
Total Constitutional Officers
904,000
Debt
13,654,394
Bus
910,000
Laptop Insurance Reserve
358,600
Grant
5,508,401
Textbook
798,477
Total School Fund
$
159,211,142
Total All Funds
$
365,495,774
Expenditures:
General Government:
General Administration
Board of Supervisors
$
291,611
County Administrator
282,180
Public Information
182,190
Asst. Co. Administrators
351,363
Human Resources
710,140
County Attorney
546,940
Economic Development
535,835
Total General Administration
$
2,900,259
Constitutional Officers
Treasurer
$ 761,116
Commonwealth Attorney
1,001,313
Commissioner of the Revenue
775,854
Clerk of the Circuit Court
1,028,559
Sheriffs Office
9,520,812
Total Constitutional Officers
$ 13,087,654
Judicial Administration
Circuit Court
$ 237,972
1 '
May 24, 2011
General District Court
Magistrate
J & DR Court
Court Service Unit
Total Judicial Administration
Management Services
69,940
1,590
21,086
535,144
$ 865,732
Real Estate Assessments
$
813,315
Finance
Building Maintenance
1,192, 503
Public Transportation
Total Community Services
525,000
Management and Budget
Human Services
275,912
Procurement Services
$ 2,216,906
393,649
2,130,944
Total Management Services
$
3,200,379
Public Safety
Contributions -Human Service, Cultural,
Police
$
10,893,568
Fire and Rescue
VA Cooperative Extension
13,028,999
Elections
Total Public Safety
$
23,922,567
Community Services
General Services
$ 4,896,586
Community Development
4,214,972
Building Maintenance
1,964,554
Total Community Services
$ 11,076,112
Human Services
Grounds Maintenance
$ 2,216,906
Parks and Recreation
2,130,944
Public Health
369,098
Social Services
10,302,439
Contributions -Human Service, Cultural,
Tourism, Dues
1,290,468
Library
3,294,779
VA Cooperative Extension
84,382
Elections
318,883
May 24, 2011
SCI•
Total Human Services
Non - Departmental
Employee Benefits
Miscellaneous
Internal Service Charges
Total Non - Departmental
Transfers to Other Funds
Transfer to Debt - General & Schools
Transfer to (from) Capital
Transfer to Schools
Transfer to Schools - Dental Insurance
Transfer to Public Works Projects
Transfer to Internal Services
Transfer to Comprehensive Services
Total Transfers to Other Funds
Unappropriated Balance
Board Contingency
Total General Government
Communications & Information Technology
Comprehensive Services
Law Library
Public Works Projects
SB &T- Social Services Building
Recreation Fee Class
Police Special Programs
$ 20,007,899
$ 2,675,297
1,976,500
6,717,013
$ 11,368,810
$ 16,937,402
(1,317,385)
64,006,726
477,299
175,693
933,630
3,253,000
$ 84,466,365
$ 100,000
$ 170,995,777
$ 7,561,883
$ 6,627,799
$ 27,175
$ 175,693
$ 444,580
$ 4,442,000
$ 1,000
310 May 24, 2011
Criminal Justice Academy
$
202,172
County Garage
$
2,242,864
Total General Fund
$
192,720,943
Debt Service Fund - County
$
8,031,694
Capital Projects Fund
$
4,230,635
Internal Services Fund - Risk Management
$
1,301,360
School Funds:
Operating
$
131,373,270
Nutrition
5,704,000
Capital
904,000
Debt
13,654,394
Bus
910,000
Laptop Insurance Reserve
358,600
Grant
5,508,401
Text Book
798,477
Total School Funds
$
159,211,142
Total All Funds
$
365,495,774
2. That the County Administrator may authorize or delegate the authorization of
the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one department to
another.
3. That all funded outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital, at
June 30, 2011, are re- appropriated to the 2011 -2012 fiscal year to the same department
and account for which they are encumbered in the previous year.
4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of
the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project or until
the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates the
appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to close out the
project and transfer to the funding source any remaining balances. This section applies
May 24, 2011 311
to appropriations for Capital Projects at June 30, 2011, and appropriations in the 2011-
2012 budget.
5. That all school fund appropriations remaining at the end of the 2010 -2011
fiscal year not lapse but shall be appropriated to the School Capital Fund in fiscal year
2011 -12 as follows:
a.) Two - thirds (2/3) of the year -end balance in the school operating fund will
be allocated to the Major School Capital Reserve;
b.) One -third (1/3) of the year -end balance in the school operating fund, will
be allocated to the Minor School Capital Reserve;
6. That all General Fund unexpended appropriations at the end of the 2010-
2011 fiscal year not lapse but shall be re- appropriated, as provided by Resolution
122104 -4, as follows:
a) Forty percent (40 %) of these unexpended appropriations shall be
transferred to the unappropriated Minor County Capital Fund Reserve;
b) Sixty percent (60 %) of these unexpended appropriations shall be re-
appropriated to the same department for expenditure in fiscal year 2011-
2012.
7. That all General Fund revenues collected in excess of appropriated revenues
shall be re- appropriated, as provided by Resolution 122104 -5, as follows:
a.) Revenues in excess of budget will first be allocated to the General Fund
Unappropriated Balance, until the maximum amount for the current year
is met, as specified in the General Fund Unappropriated Balance Policy,
as adopted by Resolution 122104 -2;
b.) The remainder of revenues in excess of budget will then be allocated to
the Major County Capital Fund Reserve
8. Rescue fees collected by the Fire and Rescue Department in excess of
budgeted amounts will be reappropriated and allocated to the Fire and Rescue Capital
Reserve.
9. That all Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Plan 2 employees that were hired
by Roanoke County prior to May 10, 2011, will receive up to four (4) payments of a
supplement to minimize the financial impact on these employees of paying their
member contribution for the Virginia Retirement System. Each payment is based on
two point seven seven five percent (2.775 %) of their base salary. These payments will
be made in July 2011, January 2012, July 2012 and January 2013. The employee must
still be employed by Roanoke County at the time of the payment to receive the
supplement.
The intent of this supplement is to minimize the financial impact on these
employees of paying their member contribution for the Virginia Retirement System for a
(2) two year period. These employees must now pay the five percent (5 %) employee
portion of the VRS contribution, but were hired by Roanoke County before this change
went into effect. Funds needed to pay the supplement for the two year period will be
312 May 24, 2011
set aside from the VRS savings resulting from the change to the Plan 2 funding
recognized in the 2011 -2012 fiscal year.
10. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2011.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
3. Ordinance authorizing the granting of a fifteen foot utility
easement to Appalachian Power on property owned by the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (Tax Map No. 097.05 -01-
26.00) for the purpose of an underground electric power line to
the new South County Library facility, Cave Spring Magisterial
District (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained this was the second reading of this ordinance and
there were no changes from the first reading. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052411 -5 AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF A
FIFTEEN FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN
POWER ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP NO. 097.05 -01- 26.00)
FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
POWER LINE TO THE NEW SOUTH COUNTY LIBRARY, CAVE
SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (AEP) requires a permanent utility
easement for purpose of providing electrical service to the new South County Library
from an existing overhead electric line; and
WHEREAS, granting this utility easement for an underground electric line is
necessary for the operation of the new South County Library; and
WHEREAS, the proposed utility easement to the South County Library will serve
the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of
the citizens of Roanoke County.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by
May 24, 2011 313
ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on May 10, 2011, and a second
reading and public hearing was held on May 24, 2011
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the interest in real estate to be conveyed is hereby declared to be surplus, and
is hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Appalachian Power
Company for a utility easement.
3. That donation to Appalachian Power Company of a utility easement for
purpose of an underground electric line, as shown on a plat titled "Proposed Right of
Way on Property of Roanoke county Board of Supervisors ", prepared by Appalachian
Power Company and dated April 26, 2011, is hereby authorized and approved.
4. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be
necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the
County Attorney.
5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 052411 -6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM J- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for May 24,
2011, designated as Item J Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 4 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes —April 26, 2011
2. Request to appropriate $14,086.32 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court from the
State for fiscal year 2010 -2011
3. Request to renew the Fiscal Agent Agreement between the County of
Roanoke and the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority
4. Request to execute a Memorandum of Agreement for participation in the
Roanoke Valley Sustainability Consortium
314 May 24, 2011
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of April 30, 2011
5. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of April 30, 2011
6. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of April 30, 2011
7. Accounts Paid — April 2011
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:36 p.m., Chairman Church moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2.3711.A.1. Discussion
concerning appointments to the Court Community Corrections Alcohol Safety Action
Program (ASAP) Policy Board; Court Community Corrections Program Regional
Community Criminal Justice Board; Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission;
Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission — Metropolitan Planning Organization;
Virginia Western Community College Board; Western Virginia Water Authority; Section
2.2.3711.A.3. Namely acquisition of property for public use for economic development
purposes, where the discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the
bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County and Section 2.2- 3711.A.5.
May 24, 2011 315
Discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an
existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the
business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the County. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 6:16 p.m. until 6:52 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
At 4:39 p.m. Chairman Church recessed to the fourth floor for work
session and closed meeting.
1. Work session to review the 2011 Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) Grant (Ray Lavinder, Chief of Police)
In attendance for this work session was Ray Lavinder, Chief of Police;
Terrell Holbrook, Assistant Chief of Police; W. Brent Robertson, Director of
Management and Budget and B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator. The work
session was held from 4:46 p.m. until 5:27 p.m. Chief Lavinder advised the Police
Department received notification the Justice Department is offering Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) grants. Since there is a need for police officers and they
understand the financial constraints the County is operating under, it was Mr.
Goodman's suggestions that a work session be held to discuss.. He indicated that for
six officers the cost would be $280,000 for three years, in addition the County would
have to pay $11,688 per year because the County starting salary is low and must pay
five percent (5 %) above in order to be competitive, plus equipment. He indicated the
department can utilize old vehicles, but new equipment is preferable.
Supervisor Flora stated the dilemma is the first three years are great, it is
the fourth year when the County would have to bear the full cost; "At some point, you
have to pay the piper." He then inquired if this was discussed last year with Chief
Lavinder stating he did not think so.
Mr. Goodman stated the previous discussion was in regard to the
firefighters and at that time he recommended not to pursue the grant because of the
equipment issues; he sat down with the Chief and advised him to talk to the Board and
explain his situation with the department and how he would like to pursue this, but he
stated he also told the Chief as he did with the Fire Department, he could not
recommend it, because of the unfunded equipment and the unknowns as to what would
be occurring three or four years from now with revenues. Additionally, he noted if staff
316 May 24, 2011
were to pursue the grants and get the grant, he feels it would be important to provide
them with the same equipment as all other officers.
Supervisor Flora stated there have been some discussions about the
grants around and a lot of smaller agencies are passing them by. He stated he
suspects that the larger urban agencies that have a fair amount of turnover would not
have an issue because they are going to have those slots available in four years no
matter what, so for them because they are going to have to equip the officers anyway,
they get three years with most of their salaries paid and the fourth year with the turnover
they have, expect to pick it up.
Mr. Goodman pointed out during the budget process the Chief had sought
six (6) additional officers, which he believes is a precinct, but could not recommend
those either so he thinks it is important that the Chief has the opportunity to talk to the
Board and express his concerns about his staffing levels.
Supervisor Flora stated there is a fair amount of uncertainty.
Chairman Church inquired when was the last time the Board was able to
add officers for the Police Department with Chief Lavinder responding 2007 with six
positions, but they were withdrawn in 2008 before they were filled.
Supervisor Altizer stated he guessed the Board can always identify need:
the Police Department, Fire and Rescue. He commented he thinks if staff does apply
there is going to be a presumption that others will be done, when staff has elected not to
do those yet. He advised everyone is hoping that within two years we are in better
shape, we do have some positive signs, but what happened if it does not and with
worrying about what the State can possibility do to us, he stated he don't know if we can
go out spending money four years out that we do not have right now. He further added
he cannot justify that in addition to telling fire and rescue the same thing, especially in
Mt. Pleasant in my own district, who just lost their volunteer rescue squad and we just
have to be mindful that there is a day you have to pay the piper. Supervisor Altizer
stated he thinks the Board needs to err on the side of caution to see what next year and
the year after brings. Hopefully, we are back into those things when we can start doing
some additions to some of those public safety positions that we know we need, but for
right now, I think we are going to have to wait and see. He stated he thinks the
economy is coming back somewhat, but he has a fear of what the State is going to do
us and the potential of what they could pass down to the County.
Supervisor Flora inquired what is the Police Department's annual turnover
in the enforcement area with Chief Lavinder responding between five to seven percent
(5 -7 %). Chief Lavinder stated that the federal agencies are starting to hire and that
gives him some concern, as they seem to have plenty of money and they pay much
better. He explained he knows a number of his staff have applications in with the
federal agencies.
Supervisor Flora inquired if there was any obligation to accept the money
if you receive it and when was the deadline. Chief Lavinder advised the deadline is
May 24, 2011 317
June 15, 2011; most of the paperwork is done, it is just a matter of putting in the number
of officers and the amounts.
Supervisor Flora inquired if there is any way staff can identify a certain
number of applicants, new hires that could reduce the upfront costs; not give new
equipment, etc and then after eighteen (18) months start looking at your turnover and
start holding positions open that in three years, there could be five (5) slots already
there. If the economy turns around on the other hand, then the Board could probably
look then at increasing the actual number of officers. Mr. Goodman stated it is his
understanding of the Cops Grant, that is what it is called, is that if you hire that
individual, there is an expectation of continuation of employment for that individual.
Chief Lavinder stated the way he understands how this grant works is you must
designate three, four or five (3,4 or 5) slots, however the initial three -year period, you
have to have a named person in that cops grant slot. No matter what happens within
another unit within the Police Dept. that is not affected by this grant.
Mr. Goodman asked what would happen if staff applied for six (6) and got
six (6), but we hold them back for eighteen (18) months. Supervisor Flora explained he
agreed, but sometimes you can and cannot afford to hire them on; now would not be the
best time to hire six additional police officers.
Mr. Goodman stated he feels the job of a police officer is getting much
more complicated than the citizens may understand. It is very demanding, stressful,
there is a lot of computer work, paperwork and takes more than just patrolling. If they
arrest someone, they are tied up a whole shift. Chairman Church commented their job
is a little more unique than that, they are one of the few people that can walk out the
door in the morning and there is no guarantee that they will be coming back. Routinely,
people are not shooting at our Fire and Rescue people, but they may with a Police
officer. Mr. Goodman stated that is why we provide additional benefits in regard to
retirement and line of duty and things of that nature to recognize that it is additional
exposure.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if the grant is received is the Department
obligated to accept it or spend it with Chief Lavinder advising no. Supervisor Altizer
then asked, if the Departments obtains the grant and personnel are not hired, does that
harm the Department's chances in the future for additional grants or the Department
receives it and then turns it down. Chief Lavinder responded that he is not certain and
stated the Police Department has turned down grants in the past and that does not
seem to affect the Department's ability to receive them.
Mr. Goodman stated when the Chief was talking about the six positions
that were funded in the middle of the year, there was no money budgeted for any of the
equipment and things of that nature. We sat down in 2009 and discussed it. We made
a decision not to kill the positions, but during the budget process for the current year, we
try to add additional money. Mr. Goodman asked Mr. Robertson how much money we
added to the operating budget for the Police Department. Mr. Robertson responded
over a couple of years; approximately $300,000 has been added. Mr. Goodman
318 May 24, 2011
advised the Department is operating on a very tight budget and staff tries to recognize
that to provide additional funds. Additionally, Mr. Goodman commented unfortunately,
until the revenues change significantly and with other priorities there is a huge demand
for the schools and other projects, we are not going to be able to greatly expand our
level of service, because where we used to have five and eight percent (5 to 8 %) annual
growth and revenues, we are looking at zero to two percent (0 to 2 %) now. Mr.
Robertson advised staff had budgeted just under two percent (2 %) growth for next year.
Mr. Goodman explained most of that growth was $1 million for the Department of Social
Services. If you remove that million dollars, and $350,000 for the Sheriff's office, the
end result is in the range of one percent (1 %) growth and with one percent (1 %) growth
it is going to be extremely difficult for the Board or the County to really look at expanding
any kind of service unless we eliminate something else that we would consider less
priority. Supervisor Altizer commented Roanoke County is eating $180,000 that the
State put back on the County this year in the line of duty. He commented he
understands where Supervisor Flora is coming from, if you hire the people and you
have a vacant position to swap them out, there is no net and no gain.
Mr. Goodman advised the issue is the ability to expand services with the
revenues that the County has and hopefully, we are seeing some things in a three -
month trend that appears to indicate it might be going up, but we did not want to
recommend additional revenues based on a three -month trend if we were not sure for
revenue growth that was sustainable. We are still continuing to monitor. He then asked
Mr. Robertson if he had noticed any changes since their last discussion. Mr. Robertson
stated he feels it has been fairly constant over the last several months; however Mr.
Driver is still seeing what he considers erosion of the value of what houses are selling
for now. A lot of the meals tax and sales are holding constant, which gives us room for
optimism, but still a short trend.
Mr. Altizer stated this is a dilemma, everyone knows there is a need, but
he is just afraid to go out on a limb and end up committing and then have to cut people
loose or the vacancies are not there. He stated he understands the human nature of
the Chief's position in thinking this way. As people are lost, new employees will need to
be trained and go through the academy, which takes approximately nine months. Chief
Lavinder advised it takes at least nine months. Supervisor Altizer stated so when you
take that and throw it into the mix, going out there and he can see where the need
would be and the thought would be we just need to keep people in the pike, keep rolling
the dice and hope that the time when the bill comes due we have that many positions.
Mr. Goodman stated he thinks they have addressed some of that with the over hires;
and asked Chief Lavinder how this was working. Chief Lavinder responded you are
never fully staffed. He stated he saw some numbers in the newspaper that are not
actually right, but thinks Roanoke County is down a little bit more than was quoted in the
newspaper a few weeks ago. We are looking probably in the fall academy to hire about
ten people, but with the over hires we have to find money within the budget.
May 24, 2011 319
Supervisor Altizer stated it is a continuing evolution of being behind. It is
the same way at the regional jail; every police academy there is seven to eight people
every time. He stated he understands the principal of where you can get caught up in
really justifying in your mind not filling the position and trying to roll the dice. He
explained he is not advocating this is the prudent thing to do, but at the end of the day,
and with four years to pay that bill, he would much rather look at it on a year to year
basis and see what the revenues and everything come up to and then do it.
Supervisor Moore stated she thinks the thing to do would be wait, she
understands that the department always needs officers and can never catch up. She
stated she thinks with the economy picking up and with new businesses coming within
the next year, hopefully taxes will increase and the economy will get better and the
Board can take another look at it. That way, there is no obligation.
Supervisor Flora stated the whole thing may be academic, given the
number of positions there are nationwide and the needs in the urban areas, we could
make application for two and get nothing. There are not that many slots available.
Mr. Church advised it was the consensus of the Board to decline and
instructed Mr. Goodman to put the Police Department in a higher line for the future.
Before the next work session began, Mr. Mahoney briefed the Board on a
Green Ridge safety inspection which he, Don Karnes, Risk Manager; Daniel O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator and representatives from VACO participated in.
Everything was looked at including processes and procedures, equipment. Everything
appeared good and ready to go for the Memorial Day opening. Roanoke County has
had a lot of claims out at Green Ridge, nothing major. We wanted to work with Staff
there so that everything was safe for our citizens. Mr. O'Donnell advised that staff is
very safety conscious and have done a very good job with risk management. Chairman
Church advised that he had also been out there for approximately an hour on Sunday
and had a good discussion with Matt Henke and staff. Mr. Mahoney advised that Green
Ridge was ready for another successful season.
2. Work session to discuss an ordinance amending the Roanoke
County Code Chapter 13. "Offenses — Miscellaneous ", Article I.
"In General ", Section 13 -4. "Discharge of firearms, air guns, etc.,
generally" by the addition of a new section numbered 13 -4.1.
"Discharge of firearms near dwellings" (Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney)
This work session was held from 5:30 p.m. until 5:54 p.m. Mr. Mahoney
outlined the background associated with this proposed ordinance. He detailed over the
last decade, the General Assembly has placed restrictions on local governments with
regard to firearms, which was included in the materials provided to the Board in the
agenda packet. He indicated he and Mr. Church had been approached by a citizen who
expressed concerns about people who are hunting in close proximity to his home;
320 May 24, 2011
indicating that he lived in the Masons Cove area. After discussion with Chairman
Church, he had prepared the ordinance to address the problem of people discharging
firearms or hunting in close proximity to people's homes. At the Board meeting on May
10 there was a first reading and the Board requested a work session before the
second reading.
Chairman Church stated this does not prohibit anyone from shooting on
their own property and public roads come under the same distance restrictions, one
hundred (100) yards, three hundred (300) feet. He stated he does not think any of the
Board is against gun rights, as he is not.
Supervisor Moore inquired how close this person was to the residence,
with Chairman Church responding the citizen did not provide him with an exact number
but he stated "well less than one hundred (100) yards ". Supervisor Moore then asked
how this ordinance would be enforced. Chairman Church stated it would be just like
any other ordinance, a phone call to the Police Department. It would be like any other
ordinance that was being violated. Supervisor Moore then inquired if the citizen heard
the gun or did he see the person with Chairman Church responding he saw the person.
Mr. Mahoney stated enforcement is a problem and it is like any other
ordinance Roanoke County has, there are two situations. If he knows the person, he
could go to a magistrate and convince the magistrate to issue a warrant. The second
approach is if you do not know who it is, you do not want to go out and confront the
person. If you do call the police, probably by the time they show up the person is long
gone. Enforcement will be problematic and will have to be observed by the officer, just
like any other ordinance.
Supervisor Altizer then inquired if he wanted to target practice on his
property, but if his son comes over and pulls out a gun and starts targeting with him is
he breaking the law? Chairman Church responded that the Board had discussed
adding giving permission or consent by the homeowner. Supervisor Altizer then stated
this ordinance pertains only to people who are discharging a firearm without permission
from the property owner that they are on.
Supervisor Flora stated unless you have a dwelling within one hundred
(100) yards of where you are shooting. Mr. Mahoney stated he does not think the
Board would want him to go in the back of his yard in Penn Forrest discharging
firearms. Supervisor Altizer stated no, but there are other rules and regulations that
take that into consideration. For example, if he is looking at a acre of land and he can
do something in his backyard because he is not within a hundred (100) yards of a public
road, but if he reads the ordinance right, you can shoot within a hundred (100) yards of
a house if you are on your own property and with what you are saying now, if he gives
permission to my son or whomever, they are exempt from this. Virtually, all you have
that you are creating an ordinance for is a person who is on a piece of property that
does not have permission to be there to fire a firearm. Supervisor Flora stated he is
coming from "it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in hunting with a firearm or to
May 24, 2011 321
discharge a firearm within one hundred (100) yards of a dwelling, house or occupied
building not his or her own."
Supervisor Altizer stated if he has a piece of property that is ten (10) acres
and he is shooting in one direction and there is nobody for five (5) miles, but his lot is
only one hundred and fifty feet wide, and if there is a house on the other side of that and
he is firing away from that house, is he in violation or not? Mr. Mahoney stated the way
the ordinance is drafted he would be in violation. Supervisor Altizer stated what if he is
flushing a rabid fox out of my backyard. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Moore stated if you live in an area where houses are close
together and one house is a hunter and the other house has five kids and they are out
playing and it is hunting season, she could potentially see a problem.
Supervisor Flora stated he is looking at Section 15.2.1209, and there are
some exceptions. Mr. Mahoney stated there are limitations and qualifications with
respect to the two enabling statutes. Mr. Flora proceeded to read the code and asked if
this ordinance was adopted would it only apply for property with less than five (5) acres?
Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Moore stated it would only pertain to where the house is
located. For example, if you live on five or six acres and the neighbor could be two
hundred feet beside you so even if you shoot out the back, it is still in violation because
the property is less than three hundred (300) feet. Mr. Mahoney stated Supervisor
Moore was correct, but thinks we have the same issue with respect to the prohibition of
being within one hundred yards of a public road, public school. He stated he thinks the
Board is raising very serious and legitimate issues, however the police department is
going to have problems attempting to enforce, but at the same time whether you are
within a hundred yards of a house, school, park, road, I think we have that same kind of
interpretation problems. Chief Lavinder advised this is not an issue
Supervisor Altizer stated he guessed this was the issue as it relates to
himself. It appears from the Chief's response that in Roanoke County most people
discharge firearms in a safe manner. The State laws that we have now are doing
everything in subdivisions, he stated he thinks encompassing the rural areas will
prohibit some people from utilizing their land or do some of the things they are doing
now safely. He explained the concern he has is we are going to breach over somehow
and take some property rights from people, even though the argument can be made
that the State has already done that in a subdivision, but from a safety standpoint.
Chairman Church responded that he has been against more government all his
life with Supervisor Altizer stating it was no reflection on his bringing the issue forward.
Chairman Church asked how many laws were on the books that are trouble to enforce,
maybe one hundred, but does that mean we do not put in an ordinance that could
protect two or three children playing on a swing set, all it would take is one time and he
understands where the Chief is coming from, but what if the call is a fatality. Mr.
Mahoney stated currently under State law, if he fires into an occupied dwelling, is that a
class 11 felony. Chief Lavinder responded it is a felony. Chairman Church stated he is
322 May 24, 2011
not trying to invent government; he is trying to put something in an ordinance that will
perhaps save a life.
Supervisor Altizer responded it is a legitimate request; it is just a balancing
act of what we can do and how we affect different people. He stated he does not know
that the Board could ever adopt any law that is going to adapt to every situation. He
stated he is of the opinion that we are affecting more good people with this than we are
people who are being reckless with a firearm.
Supervisor Flora asked if this ordinance is intended to be County wide
with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmation. Supervisor Flora stated but the first
paragraph of the legislation states in any area of the county, which in the opinion of the
Board of Supervisors is so heavily populated as to make such conduct dangerous to the
inhabitants thereof, however Catawba Valley, Bent Mountain and parts of Back Creek
and Mt. Pleasant are extremely rural. Mr. Mahoney stated as County attorney, he could
argue within the sound discretion of the governing body.
Supervisor Moore stated in looking into the future she knows that more
people are moving into more rural areas as the urban areas are becoming
overpopulated and people are moving out and she thinks as that happens we are going
to have more children running around, more people walking in the woods and site
seeing and bird hunters and all kinds of things. She stated she lives on six (6) acres
and she loves to target shoot and does not know if her neighbor is 300 feet, but thinks
we can never be too cautious and looking into the future and trying to address this now.
She further stated she does not want to take away hunters or shooters rights but thinks
we can never be too protective of everyone and we need to do that so she does not
have a problem with changing this ordinance.
Supervisor Flora stated he recognizes the dilemma, but certainly hates to
put a hardship on people. He is trying to find middle ground. If staff could actually
identify the areas that are densely populated, but then it would be impossible for the
Police Department to enforce it. They would have to know the demographic of every
section of the County. Chairman Church stated that is the same with any ordinance.
Supervisor Flora suggested that the Board should obtain Supervisor Elswick's opinion
on this matter.
3. Work session to review the funding recommendation for Line of
Duty (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
The work session was held from 5:55 p.m. until 6:06 p.m. Ms Owens
reviewed the material in the agenda packet with the Board and stated there were
several options. Ms. Owens explained each option and outlined the self- insured
workers compensation component. Ms. Owens stated at this point in time the VACoRP
option would be advantageous because of the self- funding component, it is self- funding,
an intergovernmental contract and protects against "coming up with the funds" for the
reserve level. Ms. Owens also indicated she has surveyed other localities and
May 24, 2011 323
explained the results of the survey. She advised that staff is recommending opting out
of VRS and going with VACoRP. Additionally, she advised this should be evaluated on
an annual basis to move toward the goal of self- insuring and had been put on the
agenda for tonight's Board meeting.
Supervisor Flora stated the reason the workers compensation piece
comes into play is that they have the records and can predict what could happen down
the road.
It was the consensus of the Board to move forward with the staff
recommendation.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Church moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 052411 -7 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
324 May 24, 2011
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of congratulations to the William Byrd Girls Swim
Team 200 Medley Relay for winning the 2011 VHSL State Group
AA Championship
Supervisors Altizer and Flora joined Chairman Church on the floor to
congratulate the Team. In attendance for this recognition were Allen W. Journell,
Deputy Superintendent of Roanoke County Schools; Coach Krista Martin; and the entire
team. All Supervisors congratulated the team.
RESOLUTION 052411 -8 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE
WILLIAM BYRD GIRLS SWIM TEAM 200 MEDLEY RELAY FOR
WINNING THE 2011 VHSL STATE GROUP AA CHAMPIONSHIP
WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in
Roanoke County teaching cooperation, sportsmanship and athletic skill; and
WHEREAS, the William Byrd High School Girls Swim Team 200 Medley Relay
won the 2011 Virginia High School League (VHSL) State Group A/AA Championship on
February 26, 2011, in Christiansburg, Virginia with a time of 1:49.44, setting a new
school record; and
WHEREAS, State Champion Kacy Edsall also won the 100 Backstroke with a
time of 57.37, breaking her own school record; and
WHEREAS, the Lady Terriers are coached by Krista Martin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the
members of the WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS SWIM TEAM 200 MEDLEY
RELAY: Kacy Edsall, Kali Edsall, Courtney Heck and Annie Lane; for winning the 2011
VHSL State Group AA Championship; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends its best
wishes to the members of the team, the coaches and the school in their future
endeavors.
On the joint motion of Supervisors Altizer and Flora to adopt the resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
May 24, 2011 325
1. Ordinance to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance
(John Murphy, Zoning Administrator)
Mr. Murphy explained the need to amend the ordinance and the items
amended. There were no changes from the first reading. No citizens spoke and there
was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052411 -9 AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF
THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, in June 2009, the Planning Commission and Community
Development staff identified several areas of the zoning ordinance to review and update
dealing with, but not limited to: parking and parking structures, solar energy systems,
private roads, fuel centers, religious assembly, home occupations, accessory
apartments, private stables, multiple dog permits, temporary family health care
structures, conditional zoning, enforcement procedures, nonconforming uses,
broadcasting towers and the board of zoning appeals including reducing the appeal
period for certain use violations; and
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2011, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a
public hearing on various amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and recommended said
amendments to the Board of Supervisors for adoption; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2011, the Board of Supervisors held a work session on
said amendments; and
WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning
practice are valid public purposes for such recommendations by the Planning
Commission and action by the Board of Supervisors; and,
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 10, 2011, and the
second reading and public hearing was held on May 24, 2011.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County as follows:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read and provide as
follows:
ARTICLE I — GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 30 -15. CONDITIONAL ZONING; GENERALLY.
Sec. 30 -15 -4. Amendments and Variations of Conditions.
(B) There shall be no amendment or variation of conditions created pursuant
to the provisions of this ordinance until after a public hearing by the
commission and board advertised pursuant to the provisions of section
15.2 -2204 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. However, where an
amendment does not affect conditions of use or density, a local governing
326 May 24, 2011
body may waive the requirement for a public hearing. The cost of all
public advertisements shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
SEC. 30 -21. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES.
(B) Property owners, permit applicants, and /or establishment
owners /managers, as applicable, shall be notified in writing via certified
mail of violations of the provisions of this ordinance. The administrator
shall, in the notice of violation, state the nature of the violation, the date
that it was observed, and the remedy or remedies necessary to correct the
violation. The administrator may establish a reasonable time period for
the correction of the violation, however in no case shall such time period
exceed thirty (30) days from the date of the delivery, mailing or posting of
the notice, except that the administrator may allow a longer time period to
correct the violation if the correction would require the structural alteration
of a building or structure.
(C) If the administrator is not able to obtain compliance with these provisions
in accordance with the procedures outlined above, civil and /or criminal
procedures may be initiated in accordance with county law.
SEC. 30 -23. NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES; GENERALLY.
Sec. 30 -23 -2. Nonconforming Uses of Buildings, Structures or Land.
(1) If a non - conforming residential or commercial building or structure is
damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster or other act of God, such
building or structure may be repaired, rebuilt or replaced to eliminate or
reduce the non - conforming features to the extent possible without the
need to obtain a variance. If such building or structure is damaged greater
than 50% and cannot be repaired, rebuilt or replaced except to restore it to
its original non - conforming condition, then the owner shall have the right to
do so. The owner shall apply for a building permit and any work done to
repair, rebuild or replace such building or structure shall be in compliance
with the Uniform Statewide Building Code and the County's floodplain
regulations. Unless such building or structure is repaired, rebuilt or
replaced within two years of the date of natural disaster or other act of
God, such building or structure shall only be repaired, rebuilt or replaced
in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. If the non - conforming
building is in an area under federal disaster declaration and it has been
damaged or destroyed as of a direct result of conditions that gave rise to
the declaration, then the owner shall have an additional two years to
repair, rebuild or replace the building or structure.
SEC. 30 -24. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
Sec. 30 -24 -1. Powers and Duties.
(B) The BZA shall have the power and duty to authorize upon appeal or
original application in specific cases a variance from the terms of this
ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, when, owing to
May 24, 2011 327
special conditions a literal enforcement of this ordinance will result in
unnecessary hardship. No such variance shall be granted unless the spirit
of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. To
legally grant a variance, the BZA must be presented evidence and make a
finding that:
3. That the granting of the variance will alleviate a clearly demonstrable
hardship as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience
sought by the applicant.
Sec. 30 -24 -2. Applications for Variances.
(B) The BZA shall not consider substantially the same request for one (1)
year, unless it is the subject of a motion to re -hear.
Sec. 30 -24 -3. Applications for Appeals.
(A) Appeals to the BZA may be taken by any person aggrieved or by an
officer, department, board, or bureau of the county affected by any
decision of the administrator, or from any order, requirement, decision, or
determination made by any other administrative officer in the
administration or enforcement of this ordinance. Appeals must be made
within thirty (30) days after the entry of the decision appealed from by filing
with the administrator and with the BZA, a notice of appeal, specifying the
grounds thereof.
(B) An appeal period of ten (10) days may be made for a notice of violation
involving temporary or seasonal commercial uses, parking of commercial
trucks in residential zoning districts, maximum occupancy limitations of a
residential dwelling unit, or similar short -term, recurring violations.
(C) The administrator shall forthwith transmit to the BZA all of the papers
constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken.
An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed
from unless the administrator certifies to the BZA that by reason of facts
stated in the certificate a stay would cause imminent peril to life or
property. In such cases, proceedings shall not be stayed unless a
restraining order is granted by the BZA, or by a court of record, on
application and on notice to the administrator and for good cause shown.
ARTICLE II — DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES
SEC. 30-28. DEFINITIONS.
(C) For the purposes of this ordinance, the words and phrases listed below in
this section shall have the meanings described below.
Act of God: A natural event, not preventable by any human agency, such as
flood, storms, or lightning. Forces of nature that no one has control over, and therefore
cannot be held accountable.
Alley: An open way that affords a service (i.e. garbage collection, delivery, mail)
means of access to an abutting property, which allows homeowner or property owner
use /access, but is not maintained by any local, state or federal government.
328 May 24, 2011
Buffer, riparian: A natural vegetated area left undisturbed or an established
vegetated area, adjacent to the bank of a watercourse, through which stormwater runoff
flows in a diffuse manner so that the runoff does not become channelized and which
provides for infiltration of the runoff and filtering out sediment and other nonpoint source
pollutants from runoff before it reaches a watercourse.
Disaster. Any (i) man -made disaster including any condition following an attack
by any enemy or foreign nation upon the United States resulting in substantial damage
of property or injury to persons in the United States and may be by use of bombs,
missiles, shell fire, nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological means or other weapons
or by overt paramilitary actions; terrorism, foreign and domestic; also any industrial,
nuclear, or transportation accident, explosion, conflagration, power failure resource
shortage, or other condition such as sabotage, oils spills, and other injurious
environmental contaminations that threaten or cause damage to property, human
suffering, hardship, or loss of life; and (ii) any natural disaster including any hurricane,
tornado, storm, flood, high water, wind - driven water, tidal wave, earthquake, drought,
fire, communicable disease of public health threat, or other natural catastrophe resulting
in damage, hardship, suffering, or possible loss of life.
Identification sign: A permanent sign displaying only the name of a subdivision,
multifamily housing project, shopping center, industrial park, office park, church, school,
public or quasi - public facility or similar use type.
Lighting plan: A plan showing the location, height above grade, type of
illumination, type of fixture, the source lumens, and the luminous area for each source
of light proposed.
Parking area: An area provided for the temporary parking of operable motor
vehicles and bicycles, including any related aisles, parking spaces, ingress and egress
lanes, turning and maneuvering areas, private garages, incorporated landscaped areas,
and similar features meeting the requirements established by section 30 -91 but not
including any part of a public right -of -way or public street.
Parking, off - street: Spaces on premises rather than on the street for the
temporary parking of one (1) or more operable motor vehicles and bicycles conforming
to the parking area standards of section 30 -91.
Parking structure: A structure, or portion thereof, composed of one (1) or more
levels or floors used for the temporary parking of operable motor vehicles and which
may include other permitted uses. A parking structure may be totally below grade (as in
an underground parking garage) or either partially or totally above grade with those
levels being either open or enclosed. For purposes of this definition, a parking structure
includes a building for a standalone parking facility use or a structure for parking which
is accessory to a permitted principal use.
Pasture: An area covered with grass or other plants used or suitable for grazing
by horses or ponies.
Recreational vehicle: A vehicle which can be towed, hauled or driven, designed
and used as temporary living accommodations for recreational, camping or travel uses
May 24, 2011 329
only. Recreational vehicles shall include travel trailers, pick -up campers, motor homes,
tent trailers or similar devices used for temporary mobile housing, boats and personal
watercraft.
Solar collector. Any device used to collect direct sunlight for use in the heating or
cooling of a structure, domestic hot water, swimming pool or for the generation of
electricity.
Solar energy: Refers to radiant energy (direct, diffuse, and reflected) received
from the sun.
Solar energy system: Any solar collector or other solar energy device along with
its ancillary equipment whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage,
and distribution of solar energy for space heating, space cooling, electric generation or
water heating.
Temporary family health care structure. A transportable residential structure,
providing an environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for a mentally or
physically impaired person, that (i) is primarily assembled at a location other than its site
of installation, (ii) is limited to one occupant who shall be the mentally or physically
impaired person, (iii) has no more than 300 gross square feet, and (iv) complies with
applicable provisions of the Industrialized Building Safety Law and the Uniform
Statewide Building Code.
Underground structure: A structure that is entirely or the majority of the structure
is below grade.
Undeveloped land: Land in its natural state before development.
SEC. 30 -29. USE TYPES; GENERALLY.
Definitions.
Fuel center. Any building, structure, or land used for the dispensing, sale or
offering for sale at retail of any vehicle fuels, oils or accessories. This use can be a
standalone business or accessory to another business.
Outdoor gathering: Any temporary organized gathering expected to attract five
hundred (500) or more people at one time in open spaces outside an enclosed
structure. Included in this use type would be music festivals, church revivals, carnivals
and fairs, and similar transient amusement and recreational activities not otherwise
listed in this section. Such activities held in public parks, university campuses or on
public school property shall not be included within this use type.
Parking facility: Use of a site for surface parking or a parking structure unrelated
to a specific use which provides one or more parking spaces together with driveways,
aisles, turning and maneuvering areas, incorporated landscaped areas, and similar
features meeting the requirements established by this ordinance. This use shall not
include a parking structure accessory to a permitted principal use, such as a private
garage in a residential or agricultural district.
Restaurant, drive -in or fast food: An establishment primarily engaged in the
preparation of food and beverages, for either take -out, delivery or table service, served
330 May 24, 2011
at a counter, a drive -up or drive through service facility or by curb service. Typical uses
include drive -in or fast food restaurants or coffee shops.
Scrap and salvage services: Places of business primarily engaged in the
storage, sale, dismantling or other processing of uses or waste materials which are not
intended for reuse in their original forms. Typical uses include towing services, paper
and metal salvage yards, automotive wrecking yards, junk yards, used tire storage
yards, or retail and /or wholesale sales of used automobile parts and supplies.
ARTICLE III — DISTRICT REGULATIONS
SEC. 30 -36. AV AGRICULTURAL/VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT.
Sec. 30 -36 -2. Permitted Uses.
(B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to
section 30 -19. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more
stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for
those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Fuel Center*
SEC. 30 -41. R -1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30 -41 -2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk ( *) indicates
additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use
and design standards, for those specific uses.
1. Agricultural and Forestry Uses
Stable, Private*
2. Residential Uses
Accessory Apartment*
Multiple Dog Permit*
3. Civic Uses
4. Miscellaneous Uses
(B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to
section 30 -19. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more
stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for
those specific uses.
1. Residential Uses
2. Civic Uses
3. Commercial Uses
SEC. 30 -42. R -2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30 -42 -2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk ( *) indicates
May 24, 2011 331
additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use
and design standards, for those specific uses.
1. Residential Uses
Multiple Dog Permit*
(B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to
section 30 -19. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more
stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for
those specific uses.
1. Residential Use
SEC. 30 -47. PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Sec. 30 -47 -2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted in the planned residential development
district.
However, no use shall be permitted except in conformity with the uses
specifically included in the final master plan approved pursuant to section
30 -47 -5. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more stringent
standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those
specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Fuel Center*
Sec. 30 -47 -3. Site Development Regulations.
(A) Each planned residential development shall be subject to the following site
development standards.
9. Streets in the PRD district may be public in accordance with VDOT and
county standards or may be private in accordance with the private road
standards specified in the Roanoke County Design Handbook. In
reviewing the PRD preliminary master plan, the commission may
recommend, and the board may approve, one or more private streets
within the proposed district.
SEC. 30 -51. NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30 -51 -2. Permitted Uses.
(B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to
section 30 -19. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more
stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for
those specific uses.
1. Commercial Uses
Fuel Center*
SEC. 30 -53. C -1 OFFICE DISTRICT.
Sec. 30 -53 -3. Site Development Regulations.
General standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific
uses, see article IV, use and design standards.
(B) Minimum setback requirements.
332 May 24, 2011
2. Side yard: None.
SEC. 30 -54. C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30 -54 -2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk ( *) indicates
additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use
and design standards, for those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Fuel Center*
SEC. 30 -57. PCD PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Sec. 30 -57 -3. Site Development Regulations.
(A) Each planned commercial development shall be subject to the following
site development standards:
5. Public streets in the PCD district shall be built in accordance with
VDOT and Roanoke County standards. In reviewing the PCD
preliminary master plan, the commission may recommend, and the
board may approve, one or more private streets within the
proposed district. Private residential streets in the PCD district
shall be built in accordance with the private road standards
specified in the Roanoke County Design Handbook. Construction
details for private residential streets shall be submitted with the
PCD preliminary master plan.
Sec. 30 -57 -7. Revisions to Final Master Plan.
(B) All other changes in the final master plan shall be considered minor
amendments. The administrator, upon receipt of a written request of the
owner, may approve such minor amendments.
1. If the administrator fails to act on a request for a minor amendment to
the master plan within 30 calendar days, it shall be considered
approved.
SEC. 30 -58. CVOD CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Sec. 30 -58 -4. Permitted Uses and Use Restrictions.
(B) Unless prohibited in 30- 58 -4(A) a special use permit shall be required for
all uses listed as a special use in the underlying zoning district. In
addition, the following uses shall require a special use permit within the
Clearbrook village overlay district. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional,
modified, or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and
design standards, for those specific uses.
2. Commercial Uses
Fuel Center*
SEC. 30 -61. 1 -1 LOW INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30 -61 -2. Permitted Uses.
May 24, 2011 333
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk ( *) indicates
additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use
and design standards, for those specific uses.
6. Miscellaneous Uses
Parking Facility*
SEC. 30 -62. 1 -2 HIGH INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30 -62 -2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk ( *) indicates
additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use
and design standards, for those specific uses.
6. Miscellaneous Uses
Parking Facility*
(B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to
section 30 -19. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more
stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for
those specific uses.
2. Commercial Uses
Fuel Center*
SEC. 30 -63. PTD PLANNED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Sec. 30 -63 -3. Site Development Regulations.
(A) Each planned technological development shall be subject to the following
site development standards:
5. Public streets in the PTD district shall be built in accordance with
VDOT and Roanoke County standards. In reviewing the PTD
preliminary master plan, the commission may recommend, and the
board may approve, one or more private streets within the proposed
district. Private residential streets in the PTD district shall be built in
accordance with the private road standards specified in the Roanoke
County Design Handbook. Construction details for private residential
streets shall be submitted with the PTD preliminary master plan.
Sec. 30 -63 -7. Revisions to Final Master Plan.
(B) All other changes in the final master plan shall be considered minor
amendments. The administrator, upon receipt of a written request of the
owner, may approve such minor amendments.
1. If the administrator fails to act on a request for a minor amendment to
the master plan within 30 calendar days, it shall be considered
approved.
SEC. 30 -71. EP EXPLORE PARK DISTRICT.
Sec. 30 -71 -3. Permitted Uses.
334
May 24, 2011
(D) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to
section 30 -19. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more
stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for
those specific uses.
1. Miscellaneous Uses
Broadcasting Tower*
ARTICLE IV — USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS
SEC. 30 -81. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY USES.
Sec. 30 -81 -5. Stable, Private.
(A) General standards:
1. Minimum lot size: Two (2) acres.
2. A private stable shall be permitted only when accessory to a single -
family dwelling.
3. No more than one (1) horse or pony shall be permitted for every two
(2) acres of pasture area.
4. Stables, corrals, and other confined areas shall be setback at least 50
feet from any property line. For the purpose of this section, perimeter
fencing of a yard shall not be considered a confined area.
5. Private stables shall prepare and follow a management plan for
responsible and environmentally safe management of all animal
wastes. Such plan shall be approved, when required by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water. Animal waste
shall not create a nuisance or health hazard to adjoining property
owners.
6. A plot plan shall be required showing the location of the single - family
dwelling, the location of the required horse or pony shelter, the location
and type of fencing, and the acreage of pasture.
7. A special use permit shall be required on lots less than five (5) acres in
an R -1 zoning district.
SEC. 30 -82. RESIDENTIAL USES.
Sec. 30 -82 -1. Accessory Apartments.
(A) Intent. Accessory apartments afford an opportunity for the development of
small dwelling units designed to meet the special housing needs of
persons with fixed or limited income, and relatives of families who live or
desire to live in the county. Accessory apartments provide a degree of
flexibility for home owners with changing economic conditions and /or
family structure, while providing a reasonable degree of protection for
existing property values. In addition, these provisions are provided to
formally recognize previously established apartments and provide for
improved safety and physical appearance.
(B) General standards:
May 24, 2011
335
1. An accessory apartment shall be permitted by right as an accessory
use to a detached single family residence.
2. An accessory apartment may be located in a structure other than the
principal structure on the lot if a special use permit has been obtained
by the property owner.
3. Maximum floor area: Upon completion of the construction, the
accessory apartment shall not contain more than fifty (50) percent of
the finished floor area of the principal dwelling unit located on the same
lot, but in no case shall the accessory apartment exceed 1,000 square
feet.
4. Only one accessory apartment shall be allowed on any one lot or
parcel, and the owner of the property shall reside on the premises.
5. Exterior entrances to an apartment in a principal structure shall be
located so as to appear as a single family dwelling.
6. Minimum floor area of the apartment: Three hundred (300) square
feet.
7. One parking space shall be required in addition to required parking for
the principal dwelling and no separate driveway shall be permitted
except as otherwise permitted in the subsections below.
8. Health Department approval of sewage disposal shall be submitted
prior to issuance of a building permit for an accessory apartment.
(C) Additional standards in the AG -3 and AG -1 districts:
1. An accessory apartment may be permitted by right in a building other
than the principal building provided:
a. The parcel contains a minimum of three (3) acres.
b. The building in which it is located complies with all applicable
zoning requirements for a principal building.
(D) Additional standards in the AV, AR and residentially zoned districts:
1. A detached accessory apartment may be permitted in a building other
than the principal building with a special use permit provided:
a. The parcel meets the minimum lot size requirement of the zoning
district it is located in.
b. The accessory building shall comply with all applicable zoning
requirements for a principal building.
c. A separate driveway shall be permitted for a detached accessory
apartment on parcels larger than two (2) acres.
(E) General standards in the C -1 and C -2 districts, independent of the general
standards above:
Sec. 30 -82 -3. Home Occupations, Type I and Type II.
(B) General standards:
336 May 24, 2011
3. There shall be no outside storage of goods, products, equipment, or
other materials inconsistent with a residential use associated with the
home occupation. No toxic, explosive, flammable, radioactive, or other
hazardous materials used in conjunction with the home occupation
shall be used, sold, or stored on the site. The sale of firearms as a
home occupation shall be prohibited.
4. There shall be no sale of goods or products not produced on the
premises except for an individual representative for cosmetics or crafts
for offsite events.
6. Deliveries related to the home occupation shall be limited to the
United States Postal Service, parcel delivery services, and messenger
services. The commercial delivery by tractor trailer of materials or
products to or from the premises shall be prohibited.
(C) Additional standards for all Type I home occupations:
8. No advertising through local media, including telephone books, flyers,
and the internet shall call attention to the residential address of the
home occupation.
Sec. 30 -82 -4. Multiple Dog Permit.
(A) General standards:
4. A special use permit shall be required on lots less than five (5) acres in
an R -1 or R -2 zoning district.
Sec. 30 -82 -9. Manufactured Home Park.
(H) Streets and walkways:
1. Private streets shall be allowed within a manufactured home park and
shall be constructed in accordance with the private road standards
specified in the Roanoke County Design Handbook.
2. Manufactured home lots not served by a public or private street may
be served by a walkway, trail or bikeway, provided such pathway
serves the front, rear, or side of the manufactured home lot. Each
pathway shall be constructed of a hard - surface, or gravel material, and
shall have a minimum width of three (3) feet.
Sec. 30 -82 -13.1. Single Family Dwelling, Attached and Detached (Cluster
Subdivision Option).
(F) Street and access requirements.
1. All residential lots within a cluster subdivision shall have frontage on
and access to a publicly dedicated or maintained street or a private
street constructed in accordance with the private road standards
specified in the Roanoke County Design Handbook.
Sec. 30- 82 -14. Townhouses.
(B) General standards:
May 24, 2011 337
9. If utilized, private roads shall be constructed in accordance with the
private road standards specified in the Roanoke County Design
Handbook.
Sec. 30- 82 -16. Temporary Portable Storage Containers.
(B) General standards:
7. Temporary portable storage containers cannot be located in the
floodway or floodplain overlay district without meeting the standards in
section 30 -74, as amended.
8. Temporary portable storage containers shall be permitted on a lot for a
period not to exceed thirty (30) consecutive days within a six (6) month
period. For extensive construction projects a written extension may be
granted by the zoning administrator.
9. Maximum cumulative size of temporary portable storage containers on
a property shall not exceed one hundred thirty (130) square feet.
10. There is a limit of one (1) portable temporary storage container per lot.
11. A zoning permit shall be required to be obtained prior to the placement
of a temporary portable storage container by the department of
community development with sufficient information, as determined by
the zoning administrator, to determine compliance with all applicable
regulations such as:
a. Size of container
b. Location
c. Delivery date
d. Removal date
e. Purpose of container
f. Container provider contact information
SEC. 30 -83. CIVIC USES.
Sec. 30 -83 -3. Community Recreation.
(A) General standards:
1. Any parking lot, outdoor activity area, swimming pool, or ball field or
court which adjoins a residential use type shall be landscaped with one
row of small evergreen trees in accordance with section 30 -92 along
the property line adjoining the residential use type. Where night -time
lighting of such areas is proposed, large evergreen trees shall be
required.
Sec. 30 -83 -5. Educational Facilities.
(A) General standards:
1. Any parking lot, outdoor activity area, ball field or court, or stadium
which adjoins a residential use type shall be landscaped with one row
of small evergreen trees in accordance with section 30 -92 along the
property line adjoining the residential use type. Where night -time
338 May 24, 2011
lighting of such areas is proposed large evergreen trees shall be
required.
(C) In residential districts, the maximum building coverage shall be 40 percent
and the maximum lot coverage shall be 60 percent of the total lot area.
Sec. 30 -83 -7. Park and Ride Facility.
(A) General standards:
2. Park and ride facilities shall comply with the parking facility standards
listed in section 30 -87 -4.
Sec. 30 -83 -9. Religious Assembly.
(B) In residential districts, the maximum building coverage shall be 40 percent
and the maximum lot coverage shall be 60 percent of the total lot area.
(C) In the AG -3, AG -1 and AR districts, the maximum building coverage shall
be thirty 30 percent and the maximum lot coverage shall be fifty (50)
percent of the total lot area.
(D) In the AG -3, AG -1, AR, and R -1 districts a special use permit shall not be
required for the expansion of an existing use provided all of the following
conditions are met:
a. The total gross floor area of the expansion itself does not exceed
15,000 square feet; and
b. The gross floor area of the expansion is not more than two hundred
(200) percent of the existing gross floor area; and
c. The expansion does not include a principal worship area expansion of
more than fifty (50) percent of the existing permanent seating.
All other expansions must obtain a special use permit.
(E) Additional standards in the C -2 district:
1. All new religious assembly uses require a special use permit.
2. Expansions of existing uses are permitted by right.
SEC. 30 -84. OFFICE USES.
Sec. 30 -84 -3. Financial Institutions.
(A) General standards:
1. All drive - through windows shall conform to the standards for drive -
through facilities contained in section 30 -91 -6.
SEC. 30 -85. COMMERCIAL USES.
Sec. 30 -85 -3. Automobile Dealership, New.
(A) General standards:
1. Outdoor display areas in conjunction with automobile sales shall be
constructed of the same materials required for off - street parking areas
as required in section 30- 91 -4.3, parking area surface standards.
Sec. 30 -85 -4. Automobile Dealership, Used.
(A) General standards:
May 24, 2011 339
1. Outdoor display areas in conjunction with automobile sales shall be
constructed of the same materials required for off - street parking areas
as required in section 30- 91 -4.3, parking area surface standards.
Sec. 30 -85 -14.5. Fuel Center.
(A) General standards:
1. Bulk storage of fuel shall be underground pursuant to the standards
established by the National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
2. Fuel dispensers shall be located at least 30 feet from any public street
right -of -way, and shall be located at least 100 feet from any adjoining
residential use type.
3. When adjoining a residential use type, a Type C buffer yard in
accordance with section 30 -92 shall be provided along the property
line which adjoins the residential use type.
Sec. 30- 85 -16. Gasoline Station.
(A) General standards:
2. Fuel dispensers shall be located at least 30 feet from any public street
right -of -way, and shall be located at least 100 feet from any adjoining
residential use type.
3. When adjoining a residential use type, a Type C buffer yard in
accordance with section 30 -92 shall be provided along the property
line which adjoins the residential use type.
(B) Additional standards in the AV and NC districts:
Sec. 30- 85 -24. Restaurant, Drive -In or Fast Food.
(A) General standards:
2. A special use permit shall not be required for any fast food restaurant
that is located within a shopping center (excluding outparcels) that
provides delivery service but does not propose drive -in or curb service.
SEC. 30 -87. MISCELLANEOUS USES.
Sec. 30 -87 -3. Outdoor Gatherings.
(A) General standards:
2. In addition, a detailed plan shall be submitted of all facilities to be
provided in accordance with the following guidelines:
e. Any lighting installed for the gathering shall be directed away from
adjoining properties and public rights -of -way, and shall not exceed
one -half (0.5) foot candle measured at the property boundary of the
site.
Sec. 30 -87 -4. Parking Facility.
(A) General standards:
2. Structured parking facilities shall comply with section 30- 91 -4.5,
parking structures.
340 May 24, 2011
SEC. 30 -88. ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES.
Sec. 30 -88 -2. Accessory Uses: Residential Use Types.
(A) Residential use types may include the following accessory uses, activities
or structures on the same site or lot:
9.Temporary family health care structures in accordance with section
15.2- 2292.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended.
ARTICLE V — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
SEC. 30 -90. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
Sec. 30 -90 -1. Information Required.
11. Off-street parking areas and parking spaces including handicapped
spaces, loading spaces, shopping cart corrals, and walkways
indicating type of surfacing, size, angle of stalls, width of aisles, and a
specific schedule showing the number of spaces provided and the
number required by this ordinance.
SEC. 30 -91. OFF STREET PARKING, STACKING AND LOADING.
Sec. 30- 91 -2.2. Recreational Vehicle and Commercial Vehicle Parking.
(A) In the AR district and in all residential districts:
1. Except for vehicles parked within multi - family developments all utility
trailers and recreational vehicles, shall be parked behind the front
building line, unless space is provided in a completely enclosed garage
or other building. For the purposes of this section only, a corner lot
that fronts on two (2) streets shall have only one (1) front building line
in accordance with section 30- 100 -7. In the case of a unique house
configuration the zoning administrator shall determine the parking
location for the recreation vehicle, based on having no interference on
sight distance in accordance with section 30- 100 -8.
Sec. 30- 91 -3.2. Spaces for Disabled Parking.
(A) Generally, the number of parking spaces reserved for the disabled, except
for single- and two - family dwellings, shall comply with the following table
and shall count toward the minimum number of off - street parking spaces
reauired.
Total Off - Street Parking Required
Parking for Disabled Required
1 to 25
1
26 to 50
2
51 to 75
3
76 to 100
4
101 to 150
5
151 to 200
6
201 to 300
7
301 to 400
8
401 to 500
9
May 24, 2011 341
501 to 1,000
2 percent of total
1,001 and over
20 plus 1 for each 100 over 1,000
(B) Disabled parking aisle and space dimensions shall comply with the current
edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.
Sec. 30- 91 -3.3. Minimum Parkina Required.
(E) Commercial Use Types
Equipment Sales and Rental
See Schedule A
Fuel Center
1 space per employee, plus required
stacking space
Funeral Home
1 space per 4 seats in main chapel, plus 1
space per 2 employees, plus 1 space per
company vehicle
Sec. 30- 91 -3.4. Maximum Off - Street Parking.
Sec. 30- 91 -3.5. Shared Parking.
Sec. 30- 91 -4.5. Parking Structures.
(A) General standards:
1. Parking structures shall be subject to the minimum yard, setback and
height requirements applicable in the zoning district in which the
structure is located, except for below grade parking structures.
2. All parking structures with at least one wall facade exceeding 100 feet
in length shall incorporate vertical or horizontal variation in setback,
material, or fenestration along the length of facades visible from a
public right -of -way.
(B) Access and Circulation standards:
1. Parking spaces and aisles shall conform to the standards set forth in
the Roanoke County Design Handbook.
2. Parking spaces, aisles, approach lanes and maneuvering areas shall
be clearly marked with directional arrows and signage to ensure the
safe and efficient flow of vehicles.
(C) Lighting:
1. Parking, access and pedestrian areas shall have adequate illumination
for security and safety, and shall comply with section 30 -94, exterior
lighting.
2. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be energy efficient with standards and
fixtures (poles, vertical supports) not exceeding a height of 15 feet
measured from the surface of the parking area.
(D) Landscaping:
1. Landscaping for parking structures shall be provided in all yards
pursuant to perimeter landscaping requirements for surface parking
areas. However, where the location of such structure with respect to
342 May 24, 2011
property boundaries and adjacent structures will substantially inhibit
the growth of required trees, such trees may be located along another
perimeter of the site in a manner approved by the administrator.
2. Parking structures shall not be required to provide planting islands or
landscaped medians within the parking structure.
3. A minimum of five (5) percent of the area of the top level of a parking
structure must be permanently landscaped where the top level of the
structure has a four (4) foot or less vertical distance from street grade
or is directly accessible from the street.
4. Top level landscaping shall consist mainly of evergreen planting
material, such as groundcover and small shrubs, and may include
large pots that have a minimum diameter of three (3) feet measured
from the inside of the planter and a minimum height of three (3) feet.
5. Parking structures located entirely below grade shall incorporate the
required perimeter landscaping into the overall landscaping plan for the
site and shall be designed to have adequate soil depth above the
parking structure to ensure healthy tree and landscape growth.
Sec. 30- 91 -5.1. Bicycle Parking Standards.
Sec. 30- 91 -5.2. Motorcycle Parking Standards.
Sec. 30- 91 -5.3. Mass Transit Options.
SEC. 30 -92. SCREENING, LANDSCAPING, AND BUFFER YARDS.
Sec. 30 -92 -6. Applicability of Regulations and Requirements.
(F) Additional screening requirements:
1. All refuse service (dumpsters /containers) and outdoor storage areas in
all zoning districts shall be screened from surrounding views per
section 30 -92 -5 and as shown in the Roanoke County Design
Handbook. Height of screening must be a minimum of six (6) feet.
2. Ground level and roof top mechanical equipment shall be screened or
landscaped per section 30 -92 -5 and as shown in the Roanoke County
Design Handbook.
SEC. 30 -100. MISCELLANEOUS.
Sec. 30- 100 -2. Yard, Setback, Coverage, and Height Requirements.
(E) A structure that is entirely below grade (underground) shall be exempt
from the minimum setback requirements of that zoning district. In the
case of a unique setback for a partially underground structure, the
administrator shall determine the setback for the structure based on
having no interference on sight distance with section 30- 100 -8. Portions
of an underground structure which are below grade shall not be counted
when calculating lot or building coverage.
Sec. 30- 100 -13. Solar Energy Systems.
(A) The purpose of this regulation is to promote the safe, effective and
efficient use of solar energy systems installed to reduce the on -site
May 24, 2011
343
consumption of utility supplied energy and /or hot water while protecting
the health, safety and welfare of adjacent and surrounding land uses.
(B) Solar energy systems are permitted in any zoning district and may be
installed upon receipt of the necessary permit(s) from the County and
subject to the following use and design standards:
1. General standards:
a. The design of the solar energy system shall conform to applicable
industry standards.
b. A solar energy system shall provide power for the principal use
and /or accessory use of the property on which the solar energy
system is located and shall not be used for the generation of power
for the sale or donation of energy to others, although this provision
shall not be interpreted to prohibit net metering.
c. A solar energy system connected to the utility grid shall provide
written authorization from the local utility company acknowledging
and approving such connection.
d. All mechanical equipment associated with the operation of a solar
energy system shall be considered ground level equipment and
shall be screened from any adjacent property per section 30 -92 -5.
e. Solar collectors shall be placed such that concentrated solar
radiation or glare shall not be directed onto nearby properties or
roadways.
f. If a solar energy system is abandoned or is in a state of disrepair it
shall be the responsibility of the property owner to remove or repair
the solar energy system.
2. Roof - Mounted Solar Energy Systems:
a. A roof - mounted system may be mounted on a principal building or
an accessory building.
b. A roof - mounted system shall not exceed the maximum building
height for the type of building (principal or accessory) it is mounted
to based on the underlying zoning district; and shall not be more
than three (3) feet higher than the finished roof to which it is
mounted. In no instance shall any part of the solar energy system
extend beyond the edge of the roof.
c. The minimum roof - mounted system setback shall be equivalent to
the principal structure or accessory structure setback requirements
of the underlying zoning district.
3. Ground - Mounted and Pole- Mounted Solar Energy Systems:
a. A ground- or pole- mounted system shall conform to the accessory
structure setbacks of the underlying zoning district; and shall not
exceed 15 feet in total height.
344 May 24, 2011
b. The surface area of a ground- or pole- mounted system, regardless
of the mounted angle, shall be calculated as part of the overall lot
coverage. The surface area of a ground- mounted system shall not
constitute more than ten (10) percent of the allowable lot coverage
or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less.
c. All exterior electrical lines from a ground- or pole- mounted system
to any building or other structure shall be located underground.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Flora announced the Planning Department is working on the
Peters Creek/Hollins Plan and the third meeting will be held on Thursday, May 26, 2011
at the Burlington Elementary School at 6:30 p.m. in the Cafeteria.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 7:17 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
Deborah C.'J&ks Joseph B. "Butch" Church
Clerk to the Board Chairman