Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/23/2013 - RegularJuly 23, 2013 295 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 July 2013. Audio and video recordings of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES Before the meeting was called to order an invocation was given by Pastor Josh Coldren of Crossroads Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER taken. Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The roll call was MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer; Supervisors Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Eddie "Ed" Elswick, Richard C. Flora and Charlotte A. Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; and Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Dorothy "Dot" Hayes, upon her retirement from the Social Services Advisory Board after nine (9) years of service (Joyce Earl, Director of Social Services) 296 July 23, 2013 The Clerk read the resolution. In attendance for this recognition were "Dot" Hayes and her grandchildren. All Supervisors offered their congratulations and thanks. RESOLUTION 072313 -1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO DOROTHY "DOT" HAYES, UPON HER RETIREMENT FROM THE SOCIAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD AFTER NINE (9) YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Dorothy "Dot" Hayes was appointed to the Social Services Advisory Board on May 11, 2004; and WHEREAS, Ms. Hayes will retire from the Social Services Advisory Board on July 31, 2013, after nine (9) years and two (2) months of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and WHEREAS, during her appointment to the Board, Ms. Hayes continued to serve as a Chief GED Examiner for our citizens and dedicated her life to continuing education and lifelong learning for all; and WHEREAS, during the years she served on the Social Services Advisory Board she continued to be an advocate for all citizens who faced challenges due to language and educational barriers, and WHEREAS, with her calm demeanor and collaborative style, Ms. Hayes worked with the director and members of the DSS Advisory Board to promote the mission of social services in the community while earning respect and support by demonstrating an unfailing commitment in serving the citizens of Roanoke County; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to DOROTHY "DOT" HAYES for more than nine (9) years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution granting a waiver to David Redick, Tournament Chairman for the JJ Redick Celebrity Golf Tournament to be held at Ballyhack Golf Club on Saturday — August 10, 2013, under July 23, 2013 297 Section 13 -23 of the Roanoke County Code to the provisions of the County's noise ordinance, Article II. Noise of Chapter 13. Offenses — Miscellaneous (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney outlined the request. Supervisor Church reiterated the time would be until 11:30 p.m. with Mr. Mahoney confirming. Supervisor Church commented he is in favor of this resolution. There was no discussion. RESOLUTION 072313 -2 GRANTING A WAIVER TO DAVID REDICK, TOURNAMENT CHAIRMAN FOR THE JJ REDICK CELEBRITY GOLF TOURNAMENT TO BE HELD AT BALLYHACK GOLF CLUB ON SATURDAY — AUGUST 10, 2013, UNDER SECTION 13 -23 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COUNTY'S NOISE ORDINANCE, ARTICLE II. NOISE OF CHAPTER 13. OFFENSES — MISCELLANEOUS WHEREAS, David Redick, Tournament Chairman for the JJ Redick Celebrity Golf Tournament, will be playing music outdoors on Saturday, August 10, 2013, from 6:00 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. at the Ballyhack Golf Club located at 3609 Pitzer Road, Roanoke, VA; and WHEREAS, in order to accommodate the advertised time frame and to benefit the community by raising funds to be donated to CHIP of the Roanoke Valley and the Children's Miracle Network, Mr. Redick is requesting a waiver of the County noise ordinance from 6:00 p.m. until 11:30 P.M., on Saturday August 10, 2013; and WHEREAS, Section 13 -23 of the Roanoke County Code establishes certain standards for the Board of Supervisors to grant waivers from the provision of the Roanoke County Noise Ordinance to avoid undue hardship upon consideration of certain factors set forth in sub - section (b) of Section 13 -23 and after making certain alternative findings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the provisions of Section 13 -21. Specific acts as noise, sub - section (5) and Section 13 -20. General prohibition of Article II. Noise be WAIVED from 6:00 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on Saturday, August 10, 2013. 2. That this waiver is granted specifically to David Redick, Tournament Chairman for the JJ Redick Celebrity Golf Tournament for the event scheduled at the Ballyhack Golf Club on Saturday, August 10, 2013. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: July 23, 2013 AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA 1. The petition of Blue Ridge Autism and Achievement Center to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R -1, Low Density Residential, District for operation of an educational facility, primary /secondary on approximately 2.967 acres, located at 8132 Olsen Road, Hollins Magisterial District Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first reading and set the second readings and public hearing for August 27, 2013. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance renewing a contract to provide Commonwealth Attorney's services to the Town of Vinton for the 2013 -2015 fiscal years and appropriation of $10,920 for each year (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) Ms. Owens reviewed the request for the ordinance. There was no discussion. Chairman Altizer moved to approve the first reading and set the second readings and public hearing for August 13, 2013. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Ordinance accepting the conveyance of a parcel of real estate adjacent to the Roland E. Cook Elementary School (Tap Map #60- 16-19-39) from the Roanoke County School Board to the Board of Supervisors (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney explained the request for the ordinance. There was no discussion. July 23, 2013 299 Chairman Altizer moved to approve the first reading and set the second readings and public hearing for August 13, 2013. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None 3. Ordinance appropriating the Local Government Challenge Grant in the amount of $5,000 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) Mr. Robertson explained the request for the appropriation and ordinance. There was no discussion. Chairman Altizer moved to approve the first reading and set the second readings and public hearing for August 13, 2013. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance approving agreements between the County of Roanoke and Roanoke County Schools for use of space on tower sites for County Schools radio equipment and appropriation of $600 (Susan Slough, Assistant Director of Communications and Information Technology) Ms. Slough outlined the request for the agreements. She advised the staff had met with the landowners and there were no issues. There were no changes from the first reading on July 9, 2013. ORDINANCE 072313 -3 APPROVING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE AND ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS FOR USE OF SPACE ON TOWER SITES FOR COUNTY SCHOOLS RADIO EQUIPMENT AND ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING $600 TO THE COUNTY RADIO REPLACEMENT FUND WHEREAS, the County School Board for Roanoke County has requested the Board of Supervisors to approve agreements authorizing the installation of radio 300 July 23, 2013 equipment on the Crowell's Gap and Ft. Lewis Mountain towers required for implementation of the school system's new digital radio system; and WHEREAS, the County School Board for Roanoke County will reimburse Roanoke County for the additional electricity and maintenance expenses at the two (2) tower sites; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on July 9, 2013, and the second reading was held on July 23, 2013. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the agreements between Roanoke County and County School Board for Roanoke County for the use of the Crowell's Gap and Ft. Lewis Mountain towers is hereby approved. 2. That the sum of $600 is hereby accepted and appropriated to the County's Radio Replacement Fund (463010) to offset costs incurred for maintaining the radio system. 3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Ordinance appropriating $4,256.70 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia for fiscal year 2012/2013 (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) Ms. Owens outlined the ordinance. There were no changes from the first reading held on July 9, 2013. There was no discussion. ORDINANCE 072313 -4 APPROPRIATING $4,256.70 TO THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 FOR TECHNOLOGY TRUST FUNDS WHEREAS, Technology Trust Funds, representing fees collected by the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office in the amount of $4,256.70 have been received from the Commonwealth of Virginia earmarked for the purpose of maintenance; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and July 23, 2013 301 WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on July 9, 2013, and the second reading was held on July 23, 2013. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the sum of $4,256.70 is hereby appropriated from the Commonwealth of Virginia to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for maintenance purposes for fiscal year 2012/2013; and 2. That this ordinance shall apply to fiscal year 2012/2013. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None 3. Ordinance appropriating $380,000 to the Social Services budget for fiscal year 2012 -2013 (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) Mr. Robertson outlined the ordinance. There were no changes from the first reading on July 9, 2013. Supervisor Church explained this is not extra funds; comes from the State. There was no additional discussion. ORDINANCE 072313 -4 APPROPRIATING $4,256.70 TO THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 FOR TECHNOLOGY TRUST FUNDS WHEREAS, Technology Trust Funds, representing fees collected by the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office in the amount of $4,256.70 have been received from the Commonwealth of Virginia earmarked for the purpose of maintenance; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on July 9, 2013, and the second reading was held on July 23, 2013. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the sum of $4,256.70 is hereby appropriated from the Commonwealth of Virginia to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for maintenance purposes for fiscal year 2012/2013; and 2. That this ordinance shall apply to fiscal year 2012/2013. 302 July 23, 2013 On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None 4. Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, authorizing the issuance and sale of its General Obligation Refunding Bond and appropriating anticipated upfront savings of approximately $508,000 to Solid Waste Department (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) Ms. Owens explained the ordinance and that the funds are targeted for general services. There were no changes from the first reading on July 9, 2013. There was no discussion. ORDINANCE 072313 -5 APPROPRIATING $380,000 TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 -2013 WHEREAS, The Department of Social Services receives throughout the year additional appropriations for public assistance, services delivery and administrative costs; and WHEREAS, The State has made available additional appropriations of $345,000 for adoption assistance and $35,000 for staff and operations; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on July 9, 2013, and the second reading was held on July 23, 2013. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the sum of $380,000 is hereby appropriated from the sources and for the purposes as follows: $345,000 to Adoption Subsidy (602000- 5771), $4,000 to Postage (601000- 5210) $3,000 to Gas, Oil and Grease (601000- 6080), $2,000 to Tires, Tubes and Parts (601000- 6091), $1,000 to Lease of Equipment (601000- 5410) $3,000 to Office Supplies (601000- 6010), $2,000 to Copy Paper (601000- 6018), $2,000 to Small Equipment & Supplies (601000- 6013), $2,000 to Stand By (601000 -1045) and $16,000 to miscellaneous operating costs (601000 -5850) and to appropriate same revenues from the State. 2. That this ordinance shall take effect for fiscal year 2012 -2013. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the July 23, 2013 303 following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed by District) Supervisor Elswick recommended the appointment of Jason Moretz for a one -year term to represent the Windsor Hills Magisterial District to expire August 31, 2014. Confirmation was placed on the Consent Agenda. Vice Chairman Moore recommended the appointment of Barry Beckner for a one -year term to represent the Cave Spring Magisterial District expire August 31, 2014. Confirmation was placed on the Consent Agenda. Supervisor Church recommended the reappointment of Christina Flippen to represent the Glenvar Magisterial District for a one -year term to expire August 31, 2014. Confirmation was placed on the Consent Agenda 2. Economic Development Authority (EDA) (appointed by District) Chairman Altizer recommended the appointment of Leon McGhee to represent the Vinton Magisterial District to expire September 30, 2017. Confirmation was placed on the Consent Agenda. 3. Roanoke County Stormwater Advisory Committee Supervisor Church recommended the appointment of Michael Keen to represent the Catawba Magisterial District. There is no term limit. Confirmation was placed on the Consent Agenda. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 072313 -7 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 304 July 23, 2013 That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for July 23, 2013, designated as Item Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 3 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes — June 25, 2013 2. Resolution in support of full -time staffing of Port of Entry #1412 3. Confirmation of appointment to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed by District); Economic Development Authority (EDA) (appointed by District) and the Roanoke County Stormwater Advisory Committee (RCSWAC) On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS The following citizens spoke: Mr. Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane in Salem, Virginia stated he has been a Roanoke County resident since 1956. He advised Greenhouse owners produce CO2 to help increase plant yields in their greenhouses. So, is this the saving tons -n -tons of elemental carbon he has been hearing about? That's the message from greenhouse growers on CO2 generators sold by greenhouse supply companies across the United States and Canada 1,500 ppm of carbon dioxide outdoors. It is being stifled to about 400 ppms "not by mankind" but by God's nature; man's effect is less than 1/2 of one - percent. The generators automatically provide the carbon dioxide needed to meet "maximum growing potential" for only pennies a day;" CO2 generators "improve plant quality" and "increase production." They run on propane or natural gas, turning fossil fuels into carbon dioxide. This is all so very right for nature. Why does this work to radically improve plant growth, health and yields? Because "are you ready for the truth "? carbon dioxide or CO2 is a plant nutrient. Ever had chemistry 101? We all seem to love this out of one side of the mouth flowers, fruits, vegetables, but no we whine out of the other side of the mouth as we ride along on the "international council of local environmental initiatives ". ICLEI's ", load of political deception about elemental carbon. Also, we see here lots of so called photo ops or Kodak moments, well deserved awards, plaques, certificates, etc. The folks that "feed us" using elemental carbon forms of nutrients deserve this same sort of respect and recognition; like the local individual farms. They work hard and have to listen to our complaints about prices. As we eat their bread and not by the sweat of our brow. Also, patriotic efforts of taxpaying citizenry like our very own Roxanne Christley's effort to support our military. Our board July 23, 2013 305 member Elswick who encourages the protection of personal property rights. I say not just a recognition certificate but a trophy with a figurative feature of our beloved Andrew Lewis standing proudly atop. No photo op Kodak moment needed. They will have a trophy proof Andrew Lewis is one patriot that would honor our citizenry that care to support liberty throughout the land. He would not allow any mainland European Socialist infiltration into his area. So, today let us defund ICLEI and convey some honor to our local farmers that wish for more Co2 and liberty minded citizenry, Ms Christley and Mr. Elswick for their patriotic duties. It is long past due. Call it The Andrew Lewis Patriotic Award Trophy. Mike Bailey of the Hollins District spoke concerning the resolution that was pulled for Row4nne Christley. He was not present at the last Board meeting, but it is his understanding that at the July 23rd BOS Meeting, Supervisor Ed Elswick made a motion to recognize the community's effort and generous contributions to the Operation Bedsheet Project. This project was an outpouring of bedsheet donations and collection to be sent to a MASH unit in Afghanistan who it was believed were in need of our support. Because the military has since denied the need for this effort, Chairman Mike Altizer has removed Mr. Elswick's motion from today's agenda stating such a resolution would cause harm to the Board's resolution process. Regardless of the actual need for the project, he is proud of the community response and hopes we would be encouraging others to act with such generosity in the future. To those who immediately respond to a call for help rather than go and find a police officer, or those who see smoke and come running rather than wait for the fire department to arrive to put out the flames and to all those who run toward the sound of danger rather than run away from it, he thanks you. Mr. Elswick was trying to acknowledge our community's kindness regardless of the actual need for it. Such a resolution would not harm Roanoke's reputation. It would show what kind of people we are. Rochelle Sibitzky of 4754 Tobey Road in Salem, Virginia introduced her mother Lisa who was with her at the podium. She advised they have started what is going to be the first twenty -four (24) hour available military support group for Southwest Virginia. She stated they have come here today to request a letter of intent. They are currently in deliberations with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in obtaining their nonprofit status. They are a licensed business in the State of Virginia. The IRS is requesting letters of intent from different sources in order to go ahead and grant them their status. She contacted one of the Board members and was advised to come to the Board meeting and speak. The letter simply has to state not that it is an obligation, but once they receive their non - profit status from the IRS, Roanoke County and the Board of Supervisors would possibly be willing to give us a donation or be a funding source, not necessarily funding the entire program and the project they have going, but just being a source of it. She advised she has also contacted Roanoke City, Bedford, Lynchburg and all the areas they would be covering and she is in contact with them as well and waiting to hear back from them on the things they have decided. Since they are both Roanoke County residents and the business is licensed in Roanoke County, 306 July 23, 2013 they came here first. She advised they have copies of flyers, our business cards and a mock letter of intent they have written up to provide each Board member if they want. She reiterated this is what they simply came for, to see if the Board would be willing to give them and their business a letter of intent for the IRS. Chairman Altizer advised if she would turn her materials over to the County Administrator he would consult with the County attorney and the County Administrator will get back her and let her know if we can do this for them. 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, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Accounts Paid — June 2013 5. Quarterly Report — Community Development Activities 6. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy as of June 30, 2013 7. Proclamations signed by the Chairman IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Moore congratulated the Cave Spring Volunteer Rescue Squad for their fifty -five (55) years of dedicated service to our citizens. They have done a great job and we appreciate you. Supervisor Church stated he was not planning to make comments today, but what has happened is over the past six to seven months of our Board meetings, groups have come in and spoken on various issues and one was the Green Ridge Recreation Center. He did not jump at the first one, but after he received more than a handful of emails and phone calls, citizens in his area are asking what is with the Board not saying something positive and good about the Green Ridge Recreation Center. He replied there is plenty of positive and good things about it. He wants to compliment the leadership of Doug Blount and his entire staff of the Parks, Recreation and Tourism department. He advised he wanted to mention some things that he already knew and he got the updated numbers that maybe a lot of people do not know about Green Ridge. Obviously, most of this Board approved that facility. They are not in excess of 2,800 membership units, over 7,000 members of which over seventy percent (70 %) are July 23, 2013 307 Roanoke County citizens. So in addition to paying the mortgage payment as of fiscal year ended June 2013, it is in the black at approximately $170,000. He stated he thinks this is pretty amazing due to the fact we have had some really terrible weather in May and June; rain almost fifteen (15) days out of twenty (20) for Splash Valley. So he wanted to go on record to say we have a viable facility out there, he knows there are citizens around the valley, some of which love it, some of which think we have no business there but the fact that it is there, it is thriving, it is prospering he thinks hats off to the citizens who have made this happen. Another thing they wanted him to mention is that it provides such a facility for the children, grandchildren and visitors coming in from out of town. It gives them a place they can go and not spend a ton of money, but yet have a great time. So again congratulations to County staff, sometimes we Board members are amiss in not recognizing something that is really going along great guns and knows there are some detractors from it, but as it is with anything we do. Again, wanted to make some positive comments and wish it many, many years of financial success. Supervisor Elswick stated he wanted to talk a little bit about the recognition of RoxAnne Christley and all those people who volunteered. He understands why the Chairman, Mr. Altizer, wanted to take it off the agenda because there was some concern from the military and the media that there was not necessarily a need, but that was not the intent of the recognition. RoxAnne Christley led the effort; she was not the only one. There were a number of volunteers involved and from his perspective, any time in his district we get an outpouring of volunteerism, he thinks we need to recognize that. If what they did was significant or insignificant then we can point that out. In this case, there were more than beds sheets sent to our soldiers. There were a lot of personal cleanliness items, food, other items that soldiers might need and there were lots of contributions from people like Kroger and others. We understand in fact the sheets were used. Perhaps the military spokesperson had not been to a front line location where soldiers were treated soon after they were wounded. Obviously, in that case there is going to be some sheets that are not necessarily the cleanest. Volunteers were very important in this effort, they should have been recognized. It does appear that further investigation by the media, Fox News, the Drudge Report, local newspaper, any of those media personalities that were involved if gone further and gotten information from the front line treatment centers, they might have put a different perspective on it. In addition to that, we got a note from the National Association of Counties that there is an organization called the Network of Care program that is being used more and more by localities and what it does is provide soldiers with easily searchable network where they can find whatever programs and other things that might be available to them. He will provide the information to Mr. Goodman and look at and see if that is something that we want to participate in. It sounds like it is a beneficial kind of program for returning soldiers. Supervisor Altizer stated he will respond about the recognition. As Chairman, and this is a decision that he made, not this Board. It is the Chairman's call 308 July 23, 2013 on the agenda and he takes very seriously the process of the things we do and how we do them and what they mean. There was certainly some negative publicity reported in the Roanoke Times, and other areas, there were things in that article which some were answered and some were not. For him and the process he holds and the Board holds as far as recognitions, there was somewhat of a controversy and until that is cleared up. This is nothing against Ms. Christley; volunteers certainly in every effort to service veterans is an admirable thing and they go from one to another. They just don't stop with one. It was his intent and still his intent to protect the process that we have and he felt this did have some things contrary to being able to do that. It is no reflection on anyone. Volunteers work hard in giving to our veterans; more people need to do it. That is the reason and when Mr. Elswick asked to put on the agenda this past Tuesday when he asked the clerk to put it on, he called Mr. Elswick and he made this decision. We can agree to disagree but it is his belief when you believe you are doing the right thing for the right reasons then you have to stick with it and that is what he has done. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 3:51 p.m., Chairman Altizer moved to go into closed meeting following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A 3. Discuss or consider the acquisition of real property, namely acquisition of property for use as public park and recreation purposes, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County; Section 2.2- 3711.A.7. Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to probable litigation, namely, G &H Construction, where such consultation or briefing in open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the public body and Section 2.2- 3711.A.29. Discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, namely, a proposal for a project under the Public- Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 for a criminal justice training facility, where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None The closed meeting was held from 6:05 p.m. until 7:51 p.m. Chairman Altizer recessed at 3:54 p.m. for a ten minute break to be following by work session and closed meeting. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS July 23, 2013 309 In attendance for this work session were Brittney Money, Crime Analyst, Assistant Chiefs Warner and Mason. Officer Rick Crosier, Community Policing Officer. Chief Hall went through a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board. Chief Hall advised there are currently two target areas. Their proactive strategy is to try and reduce accidents and to get more officers in the needed areas. Additionally, they are going to try and work regionally, i.e. Roanoke City is having the same issues. Chief Hall added he wants to take the mapping regional and eventually put on the website. He advised he will work into their strategic plan. Supervisors Altizer and Church both commented that the information was helpful and is a great tool to place the officers where they are needed for the highest results. The work session was held from 4:09 p.m. until 4:51 p.m. 2. Work session to discuss a Roanoke County property rights resolution (Eddie "Ed" Elswick, Supervisor) The work session was held from 4:51 p.m. until 5:59 p.m. Supervisor Elswick stated the Board will remember this was brought up at a prior meeting and there was some discussion and some questions about it and Mr. Church recommended that we delay it and have a work session on it; that was a good idea. There has been a lot of work done on it since then because we gave one copy to the Clerk on July 16, 2013, and it has been revised since then based on the Board's comments, other research and citizens giving us their input via emails and phone calls. The resolution has been changed almost on a daily basis. He is trying to recognize all the issues that the Board had with it and that citizens have suggested where the Board might make a change. Chairman Altizer made some valid points about what was open to interpretation and he is hoping it is more clear and precise, but it does not change the intent that we all want to do which is to protect our citizens as much as we can. He is always of the opinion that government has no rights that citizens do not give them and that the rights of our citizens should be of the highest priority. As a matter of fact, this resolution started out as the result of the federal and state people taking a look at property rights and Congressman Goodlatte has made some comments on it and Jim Sensenbrenner and HR 1944, and both made the comments that "property rights are central to liberty in the County and to our economy." Goodlatte says, "private ownership of property is vital to our freedom and our prosperity and it one of the most fundamental principles embedded into the Constitution" and to a large extent this resolution is simply an affirmation of that and our current ordinances. It is a positive kind of thing saying to citizens that we respect your property rights and will do all we can to honor them because they are the people that put us here, it encourages them to participate and lets them know that we are going to listen to them and it does not do away with zoning and 310 July 23, 2013 planning, it just incorporates additional safeguards and increases our transparency and allows future businesses and investors to understand the importance that Roanoke County puts on their rights as property owners because business owners have property rights also. We want the best quality of life for the people in the County and hopes this resolution affirms to them that we will do all we can to make sure that the quality of life and their rights are protected. We have had our own vision statements about property rights and about community identity, quality of life, land use issues and one of the goals of land use on all new and redeveloped sites are designed to be in harmony with its surroundings and improve the general appearance of a site and strengthen community identity and that is where the property rights of people who live in various areas in the County come into effect. Most people want to retain their quality of life and make sure it is optimum. So, we will go through the resolution. This revised copy that was handed out indicates by the blue printing represents changes that were made. He stated he is not going through all of the "whereas" unless someone has a question. Starting with number one, it is pretty much self - explanatory that we should give citizens property rights the highest priority during deliberations regarding planning and zoning. Supervisor Elswick commented that as he goes through these, if a Board members sees a problem or an issue or something that you think should be changed, just stop him and we will discuss and do our best to satisfy your concerns. Supervisor Church inquired of Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Goodman, or someone from Community Development that he thinks it would be beneficial to explain how does this differ, if at all, from our current handling when rezonings are taking place. Can one of them elaborate, probably Paul would be the most knowledgeable. He stated he thinks it would be beneficial if we could point out this is what we do, this is what we do not do, here is the change. Mr. Goodman explained when we have a rezoning request, it is very common but not always, nothing is one hundred percent (100 %), but typically we have a community meeting before it goes before the Planning Commission where staff and the applicant for the rezoning will meet with community members, either in a church or a governmental facility nearby, wherever it is occurring and then it goes to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, pursuant to State code, gives proper notice to adjacent property owners as defined by the code. It is well described, he will not go into details, but they can be provided. In Roanoke County we go beyond just the State standards. We try to contact more people; we can give you some examples of cases where we have done that. He thinks it would be better to show the Board. Then, the Planning Commission will conduct their own public hearing and then at an appropriate time provide an advisory recommendation to the Board, who holds their own public hearing and rely on all these notices and prior meetings that led up to the Planning Commission meeting and included in those notices is the fact that the Board of Supervisors will be conducting a public hearing at a certain date. So, in regards to a rezoning, we can speak well to the fact that we do give our citizens an opportunity. A good example would be when he first came here in 2009, the asphalt plant, which was a July 23, 2013 311 very detailed, complex issue. It took months and he knows that Supervisor Church was deeply involved in it. There were community meetings; meetings without the applicants in the community that Supervisor Church attended and that process worked out to where most people, not everybody, were satisfied with the response. This is the type of example that we can show to our citizens that we try to be responsive. Once again, we are not going to be perfect, nothing is one hundred percent (100 %), we are never going to meet everybody's expectations because when you rezone property someone is not going to like what is happening, but conversely the person who owns the property is trying to utilize the property for the best and highest use; that is the difficulty that the Planning Commission, the Planning staff and the Board of Supervisors find when trying to balance those issues with competing interests; you have the property owners trying to get the best and highest use, adjacent neighbors and other properties are looking at the impact on the new use the people are proposing and then you have the community as a whole looking at not just the immediate area. So, the Board has a difficult time trying to balance those many issues. On the rezoning, he stated he can speak highly that Roanoke County tries to do a good job and thinks our people do a very good job on rezoning. Supervisor Church stated he agreed and asked Mr. Mahoney to comment and stated since he has been on this Board he feels like there is more common ground than we have uncommon ground. We, as a County and as department, taking meetings and taking a look and taking input from adjacent property owners, etc. He again asked Mr. Mahoney if he concurs that we have a lot of common ground already in place. Mr. Mahoney stated one concern that he would raise is he would be reluctant to be misleading people and in paragraph one we say one thing that property rights are the highest priority. He would respectfully suggest they are not the highest priority, public health, safety and welfare is a competing equal priority and there are going to be many instances when an individual's private property rights are going to collide directly with public health safety and welfare. As Mr. Goodman indicated the Board's job or role is to balance those legitimate, competing public policy principles. If on the one hand he is saying in paragraph one, my property rights are the highest priority, but then in paragraph three, I say, well not really, public health, safety and welfare, etc. His point is we are misleading people by affirming one principle to the denigration of other legitimate principles. Supervisor Elswick asked Mr. Mahoney how he would revise the document; would you combine item one and item three or in item one would you add in equal priority with public health, safety and welfare? Mr. Mahoney responded his suggestion is that our Constitution speaks very eloquently and concisely to those points and is any kind of affirmation or reaffirmation even necessary. To him, what is the purpose, what is the message we are trying to deliver and if the message is we say one thing, but we do something different, he is afraid we are sending the wrong message to our citizens. 312 July 23, 2013 Supervisor Elswick responded so you are saying not do either one or number three and just forget about it and tell everybody to read the Constitution. Mr. Mahoney responded no, he is suggesting let's go back to the very beginning and what is the purpose. Is there a problem that has to be solved? If there is a problem that has to be solved. Supervisor Elswick stated there has been, yes sir. Mr. Mahoney stated as he suggested in his memorandum to the Board, let's address the specific problems and correct those problems either by amending the comprehensive plan, changing the zoning ordinance, changing code enforcements. If there are specific issues that have violated these Constitutional or statutory objections, let's correct them. Supervisor Elswick stated that is why this document was created. It is a proactive attempt to let people know if there are issues, we would like to avoid them in the future and therefore, we as a Board say that we respect your property rights and maybe they should not be the highest priority, maybe that word ought to be changed to something else, but thinks it is important and appropriate in this day and age when we see more and more infringement into our rights that we as a Board say, we think your property rights are important. Supervisor Church stated to Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Goodman and everyone, what he was trying to do, maybe poorly communicated, was to find a common ground that we already have some processes in the works. A prime example dealing with health and safety is the asphalt plant. That was a polluted, a poison in the air situation that was proposed to be going right into an area as you well know. It was not allowed. He was trying to find common ground that we could work forward on, not destructively. Chairman Altizer stated he has a history of being a stickler for words. Now, when we start talking about property rights and we start talking about property rights just from a planning and zoning standpoint you get into a play on words and there are the things that he worries about. It has nothing to do with property rights, but doing something, the obligation for us when we create something and we are creating law, is to create good law, not confusing law, not misleading law, not a law that gets out of hand. If using Route 460 for example there is some land out there that is owned by a certain corporation for quite a while, owned it for years. It is in a commercial district. Right behind them a subdivision is built over the years and they bought knowing it was commercial and then all of a sudden they want to sell it and put a shopping center there. Whose rights are we going to respect? Are we going to respect the rights of people that came later and built their homes or are we going to respect the property rights of the people who owned the land before the subdivision ever got there. So, this is where it gets hard, he admits that whether it be property rights or anything else that we do, he is just a stickler on words but when he sees something that says, "citizen's property rights shall be given the highest priority." First of all, which citizens do you do that to? Is it residential first, commercial second? He stated he thinks that is where we get in here July 23, 2013 313 as a Board, not that we are disagreeing with certain things but wordings that we use can be misconstrued. If we adopted that right there, he could see someone coming in and wants to build something in a commercial zone on a piece of property in my district and the people behind it come. Well, those people as well as the people on that land both have property rights. But, then it becomes incumbent upon Roanoke County to have safeguards in place to take care that we are not going to allow something there that is going to emit a poisonous gas; kill the people behind them. Different things there. He stated he thinks the Board has to be absolutely careful in what it does and how we change this. There are too many ways it could go. It could in a lot of different ways that somebody thinks, they are the ones protected under the highest priority rule and the other person saying, "Well no, it is me, I was here first you came later." In the wording and some of the things it creates that is where he has some problems with some of this because it creates confusion and thinks we would have to be very careful. Supervisor Elswick asked if he was referring to item number one. Chairman Altizer responded affirmatively stating they would go one by one. Supervisor Elswick stated in that example, someone was there first and at that time they had certain rights as a result of them being the first one there. Then, when it was decided that a subdivision could be built bordering their property, they either gave up part of their rights or their rights were infringed upon and that happens. The new people have property rights also, but they are different because when they bought their houses, they had to have understood that their rights were a result of them living in a subdivision, there were certain things they could not do, there were things they could do and this neighbor who was there first had certain property rights, which were obviously changed as a result of the new development that went in so you can respect both property rights. The original owner does not have the same property rights he had initially because another developments went in next to him. Chairman Altizer stated part of what Supervisor Elswick is saying is true. The part he disagrees with is the only way you lose your property rights or status of your property rights is when government takes an action, not by the fact that somebody built a subdivision based on the fact that it was there. Where does it stop? Supervisor Church inquired if Chairman Altizer was speaking about "by right." For example if you own a plot of land that by right a person could come in and build. If so, I see where you are coming from. In other words, if you can build a pharmacy by right, you would not even have to come to this Board. Chairman Altizer stated but who took those rights and when you have a statement that says all citizens property rights shall be given the highest priority. He added he thinks then all citizens expect their property rights come first and he thinks that is where we have to be careful here. He stated he is not saying none of these work. Some of them may work and some of them may not. He is just going to make sure, this Board member, if he is going to vote to create law, it is going to be good law and it is going to be balanced and understandable. Law that staff can adequately go 314 July 23, 2013 out and enforce it. That is all he is saying. Supervisor Elswick stated now the asphalt plant was mentioned as one where citizens were listened to. An issue we had in Hunting Hills recently, 500 hundred signatures on a document, 800 signatures on a petition at Keagy Village. Now, he was saving that discussion for later on. In the case of the asphalt plant and the Hunting Hills one we had recently, the citizens prevailed. In fact, the Keagy Village one is different than the other two, the wishes of eight hundred (800) people at Keagy Village were not adhered to. So, we do not always listen to people and give them as much priority as maybe we should and we will discuss that later on when we get to item number ten (10). Chairman Altizer stated he tends to disagree with "we don't listen to people" even in the high impacts. He stated he thinks they do listen. He thinks they focus on a land use decision and base it on land use facts, the same way the Planning Commission does and the same way that the Board does. Supervisor Elswick commented but there are instances where the Planning Commission did not listen to the Keagy Village audience and he knows of another group of citizens that the Planning Commission refused to even listen. Chairman Altizer stated he is not going to debate the issue because he does not know which one it is. Keagy Village, some of the people were against it and some were not. They like it out there now because they got a road out there. Things like that happen and he thinks this Board has always been very deliberative in deciding how that we are going to do rezonings, how we are going to look at everything and thinks for the most part, we have done that. Now when we say the highest priority, he really makes this statement with all due respect, when you say the highest priority, if that is the driving point upon which we rezone land and have a zoning ordinance, then we would be better off to put a voting machine up here and let people come in and vote. Supervisor Elswick stated but in item two and item three, we explain that the County does zoning and ordinances. Chairman Altizer advised he is only talking about number one because if they do not stay focused and do one at time, we will be here until 11:00 p.m. Supervisor Elswick stated so he understands that Chairman Altizer thinks that item number one should be changed, deleted or forgotten about? Chairman Altizer stated right now he does not think item number one does anything but get us into trouble. He stated he thinks everything that we do with the language that is in there he thinks what Supervisor Elswick is saying is that private property rights should be given highest priority and people are going to expect that no matter whether it is the first one there or the second one there. Supervisor Elswick stated does Chairman Altizer agree that citizen's property rights ought to be of a high priority though? Chairman Altizer stated he thinks they all should be, but who is going to prioritize who has the highest right. Supervisor Elswick stated given a choice, most people would say they would rather have citizens rights be first as opposed to government rights being first July 23, 2013 315 because government is supposed to be there to serve the people, not to ordain and dictate to them. Would you be satisfied if we changed the wording and take out highest priority and make it a very high priority? Chairman Altizer responded he thinks you get into the same thing, you are talking about everybody. He does not know how you do this one, he is just being honest. He stated he does not know how you do this one. Supervisor Elswick replied so Chairman Altizer does not want to make a statement that citizens property rights shall be given high priority. Chairman Altizer responded when you can do it and clarify that and get information from staff on how you are going to prioritize everybody's right within a given situation, then he will look at number one, but that is the thing, the Board cannot sit here and say that and then have people come here for a public hearing and say wait a minute, my rights have the highest priority. The Board is going to be sitting here refereeing who thinks they have the highest rights. Supervisor Flora advised he has the very same question written down here about if there is a request for a rezoning, a petitioner and neighbors. The petitioner wants to rezone his property because he wants to do something else with his property; he wants to use it some other way, but you have a neighbor who does not want him to do it. Whose property rights prevail? The person who wants to use his property differently or the person who does not him to use it differently? It seems, you have a conflict in number two, because it says, "property owners have fundamental rights" and the second one in there is controlling. I have the right to control my property, but the fourth one in there says I have the right to enjoy my property. You have the petitioner who wants to control his property; you have the neighbor who is opposed who wants to enjoy his property. Both are equal, now who wins? Supervisor Elswick stated he would think that in those kinds of situations, you start with what it was and what it is and any change is affecting both of their property rights. It is improving one's rights and not improving the other person's right and it would have to be settled. Supervisor Flora asked who makes that decision. Supervisor Elswick responded it either goes to court, we do it or somebody sits down with those people and tries to mediate the situation. Supervisor Flora stated is that not exactly what we do during a public hearing with a rezoning now? Supervisor Elswick responded he knows that the Board tries. Supervisor Flora stated he thinks the Board is fairly successful in it. Supervisor Elswick stated he supposed that there are some that would disagree with that. Supervisor Flora responded probably, but he would question how many of this Board's decisions have been appealed to the Circuit Court because somebody disagreed vehemently. He does not know that we have had an appeal in decades. 316 July 23, 2013 Supervisor Elswick responded this Board does a good job, but there are instances and there is not many of them where citizen's property rights are not respected. Supervisor Flora stated he is pointing out the conflicts. There are conflicts between even the first one and then there are conflicts between the first one and the second one and there are actually conflicts within the second section also. Supervisor Elswick responded but it says that property owners' rights are subject to the confines of the law and what is prescribed in Roanoke County's zoning ordinances and other requirements so it doesn't give them an exclusive right to their rights it says there are some controls as to what you can and cannot do. If a neighbor wants to do something, that isn't in agreement by their current law or current ordinance, it is not going to happen. Supervisor Flora stated but somebody is giving up their "fundamental right." Supervisor Elswick stated not necessarily because the next door neighbor if he objects to it then it is not a right that he had to begin with because we had an ordinance or a law that says the other neighbor can make that change if he wants to. Supervisor Flora responded so his property rights are actually subject to whatever laws, federal, state and local. Supervisor Elswick responded absolutely. Supervisor Flora remarked so you really don't have a fundamental property right in itself. Supervisor Elswick responded we have certainly moved in that direction since the Constitution was written. Supervisor Flora advised he is trying to make a point here that we have a conflict and if you don't resolve the conflict, you have a worthless document. Supervisor Elswick stated we put in words on item number two saying that there are zoning, there are ordinances, and there are laws that also limit an individual's property rights. We tried to recognize that and he guessed at this point he does not know of any other way to resolve a minor conflict as far as he is concerned. We took out "as they see fit." In reference to your comment the last time. We no longer say they can use it as they see fit as long as it does not infringe upon their neighbors rights. Supervisor Moore stated but how would we know what the neighbor's rights would be. Like Mr. Flora said, we would have neighbor pitted against neighbor. When we have a rezoning, the Planning Commission staff has meetings. All the citizens who want to come to the meetings give their input on the situation. The Planning Commission goes out to that property, talks to those citizens. We have more community meetings and then it comes to us as a Board and then we have a public hearing. She does not know or understand how we could be more fair than that without just letting the citizens decide and having a community meeting of their own and they come together and tell us what they want. She does not understand. July 23, 2013 317 Supervisor Elswick stated he agrees, for almost all situations that come up we do a good job of evaluating and the Planning Commission does too and the County staff. A lot of analysis is conducted. Good decisions are almost always made and he thinks those decisions generally are consistent with the words that are in item two and three. To him, it is an affirmation of what we do. Supervisor Moore stated even into item four, timely information, copies of a cost benefit analysis where appropriate, who pays for that? An opportunity to challenge the proposed governmental action. They have an opportunity when they come to a Board meeting and the Planning Commission to say this is why we do not think this is right or that we want this opposed to that and we listen to them and make a decision. Supervisor Flora stated they would have to challenge it within the limits of whatever the law is; that is clear you cannot challenge without having some statutory right to do it. Supervisor Elswick asked what would be wrong in item four when we already provide timely information to citizens concerning possible property rights infringement. We do that when there is a change going on in the community and citizens have the opportunity to speak to that and he thinks we are also responsible for informing them that there may be some loss of value to their property as a result if so and they should be compensated for it. Supervisor Flora stated he does not think the County should put itself in a position of saying either your property is going to gain value or lose value; that is risky. Supervisor Elswick responded but if the County is taking an action that affects the property value of a citizen, why should the County not say to that citizen, "we are going to do this and oh by the way it is going to devalue your home." Supervisor Flora questioned how do we know if it is going to be devalued. Supervisor Elswick commented either some realtors can tell you, your eyes can tell you, the nature of the change itself will generally say so or common sense will reflect because of the nature of the change that there is going to be an impact in the neighborhood. It happened to him with an AEP power line. It was very obvious that it was going to take half the value of his property. Chairman Altizer commented there is nothing the Board can do about that. It does happen and as Supervisor Flora stated there is a risk. He added he was not on the Board when it happened, but he followed it; it was the rezoning and the building of a Walmart in Clearbrook. Everybody in the world came and spoke and it was going to kill their property values, etc. He stated he thought they felt that it would, never happen. The study went back and got done and it did not happen and then they went and built a Lowe's there and he does not think hardly anybody spoke against that Lowe's. He reiterated that he does not think the County can be in the business of telling someone that they will lose or you will gain from your property by a zoning decision. Supervisor Elswick stated if you put a landfill next to a citizens' property, would you not think a landfill next to your property would devalue your property? 318 July 23, 2013 Chairman Altizer said he could not answer that now because the one in his district has been closed for a while. Mr. Goodman responded the County had developed one in West County. Supervisor Elswick stated he cannot imagine there would be too many people that want to live next door to a landfill. Maybe Walmart works, maybe Keagy Village works and nothing is devalued even though people thought it would be, but there are examples of where a property is devalued as a result of government action. There is no question about it. Mr. Goodman commented in regards to the landfill, the one in West County, he does not think Supervisor Church was on the Board at the time, but he served as a Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) representative for the Town of Vinton and there was a property value protection that the Roanoke County Board at the time mandated in order to protect the property value of the adjacent property owners and the Resource Authority is required by action of the Board in an arm - length transaction. An arm - length means you are not selling it to your daughter or another family member. A true arm - length transaction and is below the assessed value and he thinks they can go up to three assessments, then the Resource Authority will pay that difference to the property owner to protect their property values. The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors has a history of dealing with this concern on major governmental projects and they did it with the landfill. Chairman Altizer remarked this Board sitting right here did the same with the Regional Jail. Supervisor Church inquired if Mr. Mahoney was here on the regional landfill with Mr. Mahoney responding the affirmative. As you will recall, Mr. Goodman is correct. He was not sitting on the Board and made the vote, however there were people out in the Bradshaw area adjacent to that area that were upset, who were saying, "oh my God ". Who wouldn't say that? There was (and he did not know it at the time) protection put into place by a group of citizens. When you talk about lengthy, you are talking about a huge commitment of land, facilities and everything else. He does not know if the landfill is good or bad to talk about, but he knows after coming on the Board, his citizens have informed him about what did happen and Mr. Goodman is correct. Mr. Goodman stated another component of that was Roanoke County required that trash be delivered by train. He stated he thinks it was one of the first, local deliveries by train to a local landfill internally within the County. They had to do a railroad. Mr. Mahoney added the railroad was done to avoid the truck traffic. Supervisor Elswick stated with regard to item number five, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Code 1 -219 -1 assures people that they are going to get a recovery for diminished property value as a result of changes. Chairman Altizer stated that is part of the Constitution; and you are right. This section only pertains to public taking of someone's property, eminent domain. Roanoke County goes out and condemns and takes, you are absolutely right. July 23, 2013 319 Supervisor Church commented the County has not done that since he has been on the Board. Chairman Altizer recessed the meeting at 5:32 for a ten - minute recess. The meeting was called back into order at 5:42 p.m. Supervisor Elswick stated with regard to items one and two, the Board is obviously stuck; a difference of opinion. Could we go past those and in the meantime over the next few weeks could the other Board members provide him with ideas about whether or not there is anything we can say related to item one and two that everyone might agree with and go on to item three. Please give him your suggestions about the way it might be changed. So, if that is okay, let's go on. Once he gets ideas on how to reword, he will put in and can be discussed at a later date. Supervisor Flora stated he would suggest that everyone basically agrees that property rights are important and from his personal experience, he had less problem with government infringing upon his property rights than he has with his neighbors and individuals. He advised he owns property that is in a rural area, just like where Mr. Elswick lives, except it is less inhabited. The biggest problem he has with his property rights there are people poaching on his property. This is all about government imposing unnecessary and undue standards and requirements on people. If we could make this thing more into a policy statement in terms of less specific things and make it more generic, holistic and talk about advantages, the goals of the County in dealing with issues, rather than being so specific and talk about, "I've got the right to use my property the way I want to. ", which is what number two pretty much says. But, at the same time, I have the right to enjoy his property which means that his neighbor cannot use his property the way he wants to. He stated he thinks if we turn it into a statement of this is the way we want to handle Roanoke County business and make it more generic and not quite as specific. He advised he is not going to volunteer to write, either because he has enough on his plate right now outside of this Board to deal with more like taking the approach like you are writing a comprehensive plan, but a comprehensive plan on dealing with the public and dealing with citizens. He added he thinks what they have here is incredibly specific and in some cases as we pointed out, contradictory. When you get real specific is when you start getting contradictory. Supervisor Elswick stated he will try to do some rewrites on one and two. Supervisor Flora stated talk about goals and objectives. Supervisor Elswick stated if he sends it out via email to the Board in the next few weeks; give him some responses prior to the Board Meeting by email as to whether or not it sounds ok or whether or not it should be said differently. Chairman Altizer stated he agreed with Supervisor Flora, it goes to the point of just like our zoning laws. Why do we have some special use permits? Because we know we are not good enough to devise an ordinance that either says something can go anywhere in 247 square miles or that in some places it can, but we are just going to make an ordinance that says this is not allowed anywhere. That is not fair. He 320 July 23, 2013 would say go through them all. Let's try to take five (5) at a time, get them done and get feedback from everybody and then we will go back and do the final six. Let's have that discussion. Let's do it like that and let's make it more like goals and not two people at conflict that stand before the Board and say, "My property rights are the highest priority." There is really no defined ways to say who has first dibs on property rights. We all have certain property rights, some of those rights have been affected by ordinances and zoning classifications that we have done, but why don't we try it that way. Send it out to everybody, get feedback, take the first five or six and get the discussion on that. Supervisor Elswick inquired beyond five and six, did any of the Board take a look at the rest of them and tell him where these ought to be changed via email. Supervisor Elswick stated he could sit here and discuss this all night. He will try to come up with some examples of where maybe citizens should have been given a little more priority and send to the Board. Supervisor Flora commented let's see if we can word this to keep us and further Boards out of hot water. Supervisor Flora stated take a look at number twelve. He really does not think the Board of Zoning Appeals has the statutory authority to resolve property rights issues. Supervisor Elswick stated it says mediate. Supervisor Flora replied that he does not think they have the statutory right to do that. They can grant variances and that sort of stuff, but he does not think they have the power to resolve and does not think the Board can give it to them because the State is pretty clear in what this Authority's powers are. Supervisor Elswick asked who would have the mediation responsibility, just the Board? Supervisor Church asked Mr. Mahoney to respond, stating it would be a tough call for the Board. Mr. Mahoney responded the Board of Zoning Appeals does not have that statutory authority. Number two, the person or the party or the entity that makes those decisions, the umpire if you will, is an old man or old woman in black robes. They are called judges. Seriously, they make those decisions as to what Supervisor Elswick is addressing. They make those calls as to whether or not government has infringed upon people's private property rights. We have a system and that system calls for, and as Supervisor Elswick has pointed out, where the citizen has the right to challenge that action. Where do you challenge that action? You challenge it in front of a Circuit Court judge. It was the consensus of the Board to strike item number twelve. Supervisor Elswick asked for the first five and eleven. Chairman Altizer stated the Board can do whatever Supervisor Elswick wants, but number eleven is going to be a tough one. He is not saying it cannot be worked out. July 23, 2013 321 Supervisor Elswick stated what the Board has discussed really goes pretty much down through five, so it would be six, seven. Chairman Altizer stated let's go with the first five, twelve is gone and then the Board will do the last five. Is that okay? Supervisor Elswick stated in the meantime tell him what the other Board members think might be wrong with ten, eleven or those last five so that maybe he can have those modified by the time we discuss it again, okay. Chairman Altizer agreed, stating but we will concentrate on the first five. Vice Chairman Moore then inquired about everything before item number one, the whereas clauses. She stated she has real issues with a lot of these, a lot of questions with them. For example, with every one of them there is some contradiction in it and a little bit of ambiguous statements. "Whereas the County intends to manage growth in a positive way acting conservatively and with deliberation when making decisions that will affect our high quality of life and of our children" and "The County seeks to empower our citizens to protect and maintain their neighborhoods and communities from actions that might be a detriment to their peace and tranquility." Who would determine which citizens? She stated she thinks this oversees and if we worked on this part of it and maybe made that where it flowed and it really took out some ambiguous perceptions that maybe the other ones would fit better. Supervisor Elswick stated would Ms. Moore mind in an email to him providing him with some suggested changes to the "whereas ". Supervisor Flora advised just take the negative out and put in positive statements. Positive would be the opposite of the negative so it would be the County's goals, not to do certain things that would negate some of that negative stuff. We have nothing to do with taking and compensation, that is already in the State constitution that is already there. The first whereas is already in the State Constitution, the taking of public uses and all for private property. That is all defined, we are dealing with the State and we have to abide by the State Constitution. Chairman Altizer pointed out that all we are doing in item one is repeating what is in the Constitution. We have nothing to do with taking and compensation; that is already in the State Constitution. He advised he is referring to the first whereas, the taking of public uses and all; private property, that is all defined. We are a Dillon Rule state and we have to abide by the State Constitution. Supervisor Elswick inquired what is wrong with saying the Constitution says something. Mr. Mahoney stated if Board members are going to be sending emails to one another about changes he would suggest that those emails go to all Board members. For some strange reason, he gets this idea that someone might be FOIAed or someone in the back row or you will receive a Freedom of Information Act request for each and every one of your emails and he would suggest that if they do send emails, that you copy all Board members. 322 July 23, 2013 Supervisor Flora stated Mr. Mahoney made a good point, but in addition to all Board members a staff member can keep it in some sort of organized fashion. Chairman Altizer stated they should all be sent to the Clerk. Supervisor Church stated that is correct, but that is who they are going to call. Chairman Altizer advised he would set this as another work session the first meeting in September. There was no further discussion. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION At 7:52 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. RESOLUTION 072313 -8 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies; and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None July 23, 2013 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m. bmitted by: Approved by: 323 G Deborah C. ck Michael W. Altizer Clerk to the d Chairman 324 July 23, 2013 PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK