HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/24/2013 - RegularSeptember 24, 2013 393
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 September 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
John Sharp of Fellowship Christian Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all
present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
taken.
Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:04 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: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator asked that item E.1 the
Request to appropriate $2,350 for Sabrina's Place from the Board Contingency fund be
removed as federal funding for an additional three (3) years had been received and the
interim funding would not be necessary.
394
September 24, 2013
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring October as National Crime Prevention
Month in the County of Roanoke (Richard Crosier, Community
Policing Coordinator)
The Clerk read the proclamation and Chairman Altizer made the
presentation. Chief Howard B. Hall was in attendance and thanked the Board for
declaring October as National Crime Prevention Month. All of the Supervisors offered
their thanks to the Mr. Crosier and Chief Hall.
2. Recognition of EMS personnel and Police Officer for rescuing two
people from a recent apartment fire (Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief
of Fire and Rescue; Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police)
In attendance for this recognition were Ryan Boughal, EMT /ambulance
driver; Hunter Mood, EMT in training; Ethan Dressler, Volunteer and Cara Jacobs,
Police Officer. All Supervisors offered their thanks.
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of Richard L. Atkinson and Kay S. Atkinson to rezone
approximately 4.068 acres from R -1, Low Density Residential,
District to AR, Agricultural /Residential, District, located at 4835
Poor Mountain Road, Catawba Magisterial District
There was no discussion. Supervisor Church moved to approve the first
reading and set the second reading and another public hearing for October 22, 2013.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 092413 -1 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM H- CONSENT AGENDA
September 24, 2013 395
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 September
24, 2013, designated as Item H - 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 — August 27, 2013
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Susan M. Bane, Legal Assistant, upon her retirement
after more than thirty -seven (37)years of service
3. Confirmation of designation of voting delegate to the Virginia Association of
Counties (VACo) conference to be held November 10 -12, 2013
4. Confirmation of appointments to the Building Code Board of Adjustments &
Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) and the Grievance Panel
On motion of Chairman Altizer to adopt the resolution and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 092413 -1.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO SUSAN M. BANE, LEGAL ASSISTANT, UPON HER
RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN THIRTY -SEVEN YEARS (37)
YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Susan M. Bane was hired in January 1973, and has worked within
the County Attorney's Office as a Clerk -Steno II, Clerk -Steno III, Legal Secretary and
Legal Assistant during her tenure with Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Bane retired on September 1, 2013, after thirty -seven (37)
years and seven (7) months of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during her time serving Roanoke County, Ms. Bane served with
three (3) County Attorneys; and thirty -two (32) members of the Board of Supervisors;
and
WHEREAS, she was one of three (3) County employees who were instrumental
in examining and recommending the use of desktop personal computers for word
processing and other office tasks; and
WHEREAS, she received her Certified Professional Secretary certification in
1986; and in 1990 completed the Legal Assistant certificate program from Virginia
Western Community College; and
WHEREAS, she has served on the Roanoke County Employee Advisory
Committee.
396 September 24, 2013
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 SUSAN M. BANE for more than thirty -seven (37)
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 Chairman Altizer to adopt the resolution and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
A- 092410 -1.1b
A- 092410 -1.c
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Local Finance Board Annual Report as of June 30, 2013
5. Proclamations signed by the Chairman
6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
August 31, 2013
7. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of August 31, 2013
8. Accounts Paid — August 2013
9. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of August 31, 2013
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:29 p.m., Supervisor 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, for library purposes, where discussion in an
September 24, 2013 397
open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of
the County. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 4:16 p.m. until 4:45 p.m.
At 3:30 p.m. Chairman Altizer recessed to the fourth floor for work session
and closed session.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss proposed Roanoke County Criminal
Justice Academy Construction — necessary agreements and
actions (Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator)
In attendance for this work session were Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant
County Administrator; Howard Hall, Chief of Police, Rebecca Owens, Director of
Finance and Bobby Russell, Superintendent, Jail Authority.
Mr. O'Donnell provided a presentation outlining the project description and
PPEA proposal procedures. He indicated this project will also require three (3)
agreements: Comprehensive Agreement, Land Lease with Roanoke City and
Operating Agreement with Roanoke City. Mr. O'Donnell outlined the funding sources
for the project. Chief Hall outlined how the training would be handled. Supervisor Flora
inquired who was working with the County and the Contractor to see if their fees are
appropriate. Mr. O'Donnell advised an outside advisor as Roanoke City is assisting in
this.
Chairman Altizer inquired if there was enough room to do whatever is
necessary. Chief Hall responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Flora inquired if there were other programs that could be
utilized with Chief Hall responding in the affirmative and advising this would be an
additional efficiency.
Chairman Altizer remarked this would benefits officers from both the
County and the City and would develop "camaraderie."
It was the consensus of the Board to move forward with this project.
The work session was held from 3:50 p.m. until 4:09 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
398 September 24, 2013
At 7:00 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to return to open session and to
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 092413 -2 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 Chairman 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: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring the month of September 2013, as the
tenth (10th) annual National Preparedness Month in the County of
Roanoke (Bill Hunter, Director of Communications and
Information Technology)
In attendance with Mr. Hunter was Pat Shumate, Chief Communications
Officer and Roy Davis, Lead Communications Officer. The Clerk read the proclamation,
which the Chairman presented to Mr. Hunter. All Supervisors offered their thanks to Mr.
Hunter and his staff.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Brambleton Baptist Church to obtain a Special Use
Permit in a C -1, Office, District for the operation of a religious
September 24, 2013 399
assembly on approximately 0.58 acre, located at 4313 Old Cave
Spring Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Philip Thompson,
Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition and advised had been approved by the
Planning Commission. Chairman Altizer opened and closed the public hearing with no
citizens speaking on this agenda item. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 092413 -3 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR THE OPERATION OF A RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY ON 0.58
ACRE LOCATED IN THE C -1 OFFICE DISTRICT AT 4313 OLD
CAVE SPRING ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 076.20 -01- 16.00)
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE
PETITION OF TIM SPEAR AND JAMIE D. COX FOR
BRAMBLETON BAPTIST CHURCH
WHEREAS, Tim Spear, on behalf of Brambleton Baptist Church, has filed a
petition for a special use permit for the operation of a religious assembly to be located in
the C -1 Office District at 4313 Old Cave Spring Road, (Tax Map No. 076.20 -01 -16.00 )
in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
September 3, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on August 27, 2013; the second reading and public hearing on
this matter was held on September 24, 2013.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit for the
operation of a religious assembly to be located in the C -1 Office District at
4313 Old Cave Spring Road in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is
substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan, as
amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2 -2232 of the 1950
Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use permit is hereby
approved with the following condition:
Only one freestanding sign shall be permitted to serve all office
building tenants.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after
its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is
directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification
authorized by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Elswick to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
400 September 24, 2013
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. The petition of 3 B Properties LLC, to amend the proffered
conditions on property approximately 0.343 acre in size and
zoned C -2C, General Commercial, District with conditions, located
at 4345 Brambleton Avenue, Windsor Hills District (Philip
Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition advising that the Planning Commission
had approved. Mr. Thompson noted the petitioner was in attendance, just signed a
three -year lease. Chairman Altizer opened and closed the public hearing with no
citizens speaking on this agenda item. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 092413 -4 REZONING 0.343 ACRE LOCATED AT
4345 BRAMBLETON AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REMOVING PROFFFERED CONDITIONS FROM THE
PROPERTY, WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX
MAP NO. 76.20 -02- 06.01), UPON THE APPLICATION OF 3113
PROPERTIES, LLC
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 27, 2013, and
the second reading and public hearing were held September 24, 2013; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on September 3, 2013; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 1988, this property was rezoned from B -1
Business to B -2 Business for the purpose of constructing a dry cleaning business on
this property; and
WHEREAS, the owner at that time proffered certain conditions as part of that
rezoning; however, the current owner seeks to remove these conditions in order to
expand the potential commercial uses allowed on the property
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following proffered conditions on this property are hereby
repealed:
"To be constructed in substantial conformity with the Conceptual Plan.
That the property will be used for a dry cleaning establishment only. The
September 24, 2013 401
total square footage of signs on the subject property is limited to a
maximum of one hundred (100) square feet. No billboards will be erected
on the property."
2. That this action is taken upon the application of 3B Properties, LLC.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Being 0.343 acre of real estate located at 4345 Brambleton Avenue and
further described as Tax Map No. 76.20 -02 -06.01
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Elswick 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 approving the ninety -nine (99) year Lease of Explore
Park from the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (Doug
Blount, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism)
Mr. Blount outlined the ordinance to approve the lease of Explore Park
and advised there were three changes from the first reading: the lease will be effective
October 1, 2013, $100,000 from the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority would take
place on January 1, 2014 and the Commonwealth of Virginia had changed a section of
the lease language. He added the VFRA had approved the lease this morning. In
addition, there was a Community Meeting held on September 19, 2013 with
approximately one hundred (100) people in attendance. All comments from the meeting
have been forward to the Board.
Chairman Altizer opened the public hearing and the following citizens
spoke:
Bufford L. Overstreet — 8503 Bent Mountain Drive read the following:
"Now that it appears that the future of Explore Park is back in your hands where it
belongs in my opinion, I would like for you to consider a plan I put forth more than five
years ago. I purposed then, that the combined governments of the Roanoke Valley
develop Explore along the lines of Pipestem State Park in West Virginia. If developed
similar to Pipestem, Explore would provide a nice place for people to visit and even
vacation. It would definitely draw visitors from the parkway and areas within at least a
fifty to one hundred mile radius. Not everything at Pipestem needs to be, or should be,
402 September 24, 2013
included but most of it could and should, at least on some scale. The existing buildings,
etc. could be incorporated into the new park and expanded on so as to preserve the
nature of the park while offering more enticements for people to visit. The beauty of
Pipestem is that it blends nature and recreation perfectly and thus draws visitors
seeking one or the other. I also feel that the plan I envision would be perfect for a
public /private development. If properly done in a common sense manner, it could be
done quickly and relatively cheaply and in stages. I suggest, at this time, that you spend
some of our tax money and take a day trip to Pipestem to see what is offered and how it
could be adapted to work at Explore. Pipestem is only two hours away and is located
between Athens and Hinton West Virginia just North of Princeton on Route 20. 1 suggest
you make this trip before you consider doing anything, as it will give you guidance
regardless of what you do." Mr. Overstreet then stated he is a firm believer in common
sense; a firm believer in doing the right thing and is tight as bark on a tree. He does not
like to spend money unnecessarily; does not like to see public money spent
unnecessarily even more so. He has lived here in the Roanoke Valley since 1984 and
he loves it here, absolutely loves it and in those years only the City of Salem has done
anything worthwhile to entice people to this area. Since he has been here, they have
built the Moyer Sports Complex, a new football stadium, a new baseball stadium and
recently a new YMCA. Nobody has to say what that has done. They have had many
sports events brought in here; i.e. Stagg Bowl for one. Roanoke County, Roanoke City,
Salem are all part of one valley. We are not islands, we are not individual countries, we
are part of one valley and it is important in his opinion that we work that way if we want
to be a "destination city." We are not going to draw people from Atlanta or Philadelphia
or Miami, but we can draw them from Lexington, Appomattox, Radford, and Bluefield
and like I say it does not matter a whole lot to him because he is 73 years old and has a
list of ailments that long. So he probably will not live to see any of it, but he has
grandchildren that will and the Board does too. All he asks is that you don't hand this
off to the County Administrator, although he has no problem with him, go to your
constituents, which you have done. Find out what they want. Take the trip to Pipe
Steam; develop Explore and let it become the asset that it can be and should be and
will give the people of Roanoke a nice place. He can go where he wants to, most
people can; a lot of people cannot and if you offer the amenities at Explore that are at
Pipestem, almost anyone could treat his family to a nice vacation right here at home
and we have something that Pipestem does not have, Pipestem is out in the
boondocks, way out in the boondocks you have to want to go to Pipestem. Explore is
one of the most heavily traveled parkway systems in the United States. It is also cost to
our metropolitan population, 300,000. We have so many more things to offer once they
are here. We have the Museum, Petting Zoo, the lake, we have so many things that
can draw people here that Pipe Steam does not have and yet it is so similar. He stated
he knows there are a lot of conservative conservationists that do not want to do
September 24, 2013 403
anything. Ask them to go to Pipestem and see if they cannot be satisfied with what
happens up there."
Pete Haislip stated he appreciated the opportunity to speak to the Board.
He was trying to think about what he was going to say tonight and like Yogi Bear, deja
all over again. He was with the County five to seven years ago when three of the Board
members made a pretty significant decision, which he thought would really put Roanoke
County on the map and move us forward and that was with the Green Ridge Recreation
Center. He commends the Board for that decision and is here to commend the Board
for where he thinks they are going with Explore Park. He has been involved for quite a
number of years with the County as well as Explore Park and thinks it is a great deal for
Roanoke County citizens. He thinks the bottom line when looking at it, you need to
remember that Roanoke County had invested millions of dollars of County funds as well
as in -kind resources to try to help to create the Explore Park we all hoped it would be.
Roanoke County has a significant investment already in place. We also, and it is
probably not common knowledge, that Roanoke County Parks and Recreation is
operating the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitors Center and is also performing ground
maintenance in the main plaza area of the Park. So, there is already a significant
presence of Parks and Recreation there; money that has been budgeted. The Parks
and Recreation Department is there and so this to him is the next logical step to get
some level of management control to make it a success. He stated he thinks we all
know it can and will be. We need to protect Roanoke County's investment. Our State
parks are second to none, but as we all know some people wish it were a State park,
but State parks are strapped. What is going on in Richmond has left its mark. They are
great people. The other thing is do we really want 1,100 acres in Roanoke County
being managed by people in Richmond? He stated he thinks this Board knows the
answer to that and thinks he has one hundred and ten percent confidence in the people
at Parks and Recreation. They have proved it in the past and prove it now every day
that they will take Explore Park and working with the private sector, and he would
emphasize that in order for it to be successful you are going to have to have a huge
private sector investment in that facility. It is going to take time, but thinks from his
understanding of the agreement really puts in place what needs to be put in place for
the future of the Roanoke Valley as well as Explore Park. Explore Park also fits well
with the Roanoke Regional Partnership is trying to do, branding for outdoor recreation.
They have done a great job. The folks at the CVB with Landon Howard leading the
CVB are really stepping up the marketing of this valley and there is no question that
Explore Park is going to be and is a crucial piece of the future success of the Roanoke
Valley. He is excited. He was one of the ones that flew down to Orlando to meet with
Larry VanderMatten. When talking with Doug and looking at what is going on, he is
more excited now for the future of Explore Park. He thinks it is in the right hands for the
right reasons and the right people in place to make it a success and he certainly
applauds the Board and is looking forward to exciting things happening out there.
404 September 24, 2013
Bob Blankenship of 6025 Ponderosa Circle stated he represents Roanoke
County on the Greenways Commission and currently serves as the Chairman of the
Commission for the Roanoke Valley. We have provided a letter of support dated
September 23 to the Board and would just like to say that Roanoke County has their
full support. They have been working for a number of years to try and put three miles of
Greenway in Explore Park. There has been some talk about money, taxpayer money.
We have been able to return over $1 million of trail for every $50,000 of local taxpayer
investment. We think that is a really good return on investment. We have worked with
all of the localities. We work very well with Roanoke County, we feel like the
Greenways Commission and the Pathfinders for Greenways are well positioned to
partner with the County to help develop Explore Park in the most cost effective way.
We are all volunteers; they work for free and we support the County in this lease
agreement.
Landon Howard of 6123 Flamingo Drive a Roanoke County resident and
the privilege of being the President of the Convention and Visitors Bureau here in our
region. Mr. Howard thanked the Board for their vision and leadership. He also thanked
the Board for their support in investing in tourism and the CVB. The Roanoke Valley
Convention and Visitors Bureau is here in support of Roanoke County's interest in
investing in Explore Park and the opportunity it brings in product development for
tourism. Tourism spending is at a record level right now in our region. Just this past
year in 2012, $730 million was spent. Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salem, Franklin
County, Botetourt; that was $730 spent more by visitors in 2012 than was spent in 2011
that also created seventy -six (76) new full -time jobs in this region according to what the
State has shared with us. He stated he is also pleased to report that thus far in 2013,
between January and August, we have sold over 30,000 additional rooms over what
was already a record the previous year, we are up 4.3% in room sales for this area. So,
travel and tourism plays a key role in economic development and the growth of region
providing jobs and revenue. Tourism is a competitive business and we need to
continually engage and prospect for visitors for people to come to Virginia's Blue Ridge.
This kind of product development for Virginia's Explore Park is exactly what we need. It
will pay dividends and job creation and it will generate good revenue for operating our
governments and bringing home income for families. The CVB is wholeheartedly in
support of this and we encourage what the Board is doing. Thank you so much for your
support.
Lee Wilhelm stated he wanted to express his thanks for what the Board
has done to support tourism and more importantly support what we were able to pull off
in the last two years to fund tourism in this area. With that additional funds comes the
responsibility of coming up with a designation vision; what are we marketing for this
Virginia's Blue Ridge. Certainly, our outdoor amenities are a tremendous part of that
marketing vision. To him, Explore Park has been the "white elephant" in the room.
"What is going to happen to it" he gets asked all the time as we talk about the vision for
this area. He stated he cannot tell you that Supervisor Flora and he were just talking
September 24, 2013 405
before the meeting about the timing of this could not be better to have this coming in to
Roanoke County and to restart this vision to be able to work together and know what we
are trying to put together and market for the betterment of Roanoke County and the
valley as a whole. We stand ready to support the Board in anything they can to make
Explore Park a success.
James Garris of 3108 Honeywood Lane stated he would like to ask a
question of this Board; not so much to support one way or another yes or no ultimately
but to not sign the lease at this time. He stated he questions this because the case has
not been made in detail if the County can justify the cost of exactly what activities. It
seems like a time ago, we got rid of Explore Park because we had sunk a lot of money
into and got absolutely nothing. Now, we are going to lease it; sink God only knows
how much money into and get what? We have a nice wish list back here, but we do not
have a business plan. What we citizens need is a business plan; the wish list is nice but
that does not tell how you are going to be a success. There is also now something the
County Attorney has told us about the State having a provision to take this back if we
stop using it. To give the State this property for any reason whether we stop using it for
any reason he thinks is dead wrong. If you sign the lease, be sure to get that out of
there; that is horrible. Finally, he wonders if the old shell game that the County has
played before. Let him remind the citizens, a few years ago the County bought some
swamp land and said we were going to put a school on it and found out we could not
and we bought some more property and built a school on it. We stuck that property
under Parks and Recreation for about ten to twelve years and then we trotted it back out
when the citizens forgot about it and decided we needed to take the Library, turn it into
an income generating business property and build a new library on the swamp land.
We sunk a whole lot of millions of dollars into that; built a big huge palace over there
with a lot of wasted space, but that property is now in use, but that was the shell game
that the County played, sticking it under Parks and Recreation and he wonders if we are
doing the same thing here. Some of the items on the wish list are great, he has a few
more himself, but that does not get us to a successful project, business or anything else
that is successful. What gets us there is having a business plan. Please give us the
activities, the cost and how we can pay for them, justify them, exactly what we can do
and what we cannot and then maybe it will be great thing. Until then, he says let's not
sign this lease at this time.
Janet Schied of 1453 Wolf Creek Drive stated she is fully in support of the
County signing the lease and fully in support of the Department of Parks and Recreation
taking over this project. She stated she knows firsthand that the department can handle
it. They are a great group of people, hard working people who are used to doing a lot
with very little. She also represents the Town of Vinton on the Greenway Commission,
so like Bob Blankenship; she is speaking in interest of the Greenway system in
Roanoke County. She stated she hopes that the County will be involved with Explore
Park and signing this lease will finally led to the construction of the Roanoke River
Greenway along the river on Explore Park property. It is really the perfect marriage of
406 September 24, 2013
opportunity for tourism; she knows there is some talk of camping, both tent and RV
camping possibly at the Explore Park site and the continuation of the Roanoke River
greenway to Explore Park really starts getting us into the 25, 26, 27 mile length of
Roanoke River greenway and then really open up opportunity for running races, walking
events, triathlons marathons and having these events and having the Roanoke River
greenway be a destination. So, people are coming here to spend the night or spending
a long weekend and using that long greenway system for recreation. Once again, she
stated she hopes the Roanoke River greenway will be first and foremost in your mind
and the minds of the Department of Parks and Recreation in thinking about Explore
Park. It is time to finally have the Roanoke River greenway along the river in Explore
Park.
There were no additional speakers and Chairman Altizer closed the public
hearing.
All Supervisors spoke in support of this item. There was no additional
further discussion.
ORDINANCE 092413 -5 APPROVING THE NINETY -NINE (99)
YEAR LEASE OF APPROXIMATELY 1,100 ACRES OF
EXPLORE PARK FROM THE VIRGINIA RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, Roanoke County has negotiated a ninety -nine (99) year lease of
approximately 1,100 acres of real estate located along the Blue Ridge Parkway in
Roanoke County and Bedford County, known as Explore Park, from the Virginia
Recreational Facilities Authority; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County recognizes the value in establishing Explore Park
as a regional outdoor adventure park that creates recreational opportunities in eco-
tourism, as well as passive and active leisure activities, and economic development
opportunities that will provide financial benefits to the region; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority is authorized to lease as
lessor any real or personal property by Section 10.1- 1603(1) of the Code of Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County is authorized to acquire property by lease by
Section 15.2- 1800(A) of the Code of Virginia, and by Section 2.03 of the Roanoke
County Charter; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance authorizes the execution of a nine -nine (99) year
lease for this real estate from the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance was held on September 10, 2013, and the second reading
and public hearing was held on September 24, 2013.
September 24, 2013 407
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Lease Agreement with the Virginia Recreational Facilities
Authority for approximately 1,100 acres of real estate located in Roanoke County and
Bedford County, known as Explore Park, is hereby approved; and
2. That the rent shall be One Dollar ($1) per year for a total of $99, all of
which shall be prepaid in advance; and
3. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this
real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its 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
4. Ordinance amending Section 5 -26.2 "Licensure of Dangerous
Dogs" of the Roanoke County Code to provide for an increase in
the registration compliance period (Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the amendment. There were no changes from the
first reading. He further added that this was the result of changes to State law.
Chairman Altizer opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak on this
issue. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 092413 -6 AMENDING SECTION 5 -26.2.
"LICENSURE OF DANGEROUS DOGS" OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE IN THE
REGISTRATION COMPLIANCE PERIOD
WHEREAS, Chapter 5. "Animals and Fowl" of the Roanoke County Code
establishes procedures for the identification, keeping, and licensure of dangerous dogs;
and
WHEREAS, the 2012 Session of the Virginia General Assembly amended
Section 3.2 -6540 of the Code of Virginia to increase the compliance period for obtaining
a dangerous dog registration certificate; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the County Code in order to bring it into
compliance with the Commonwealth's enabling legislation for dangerous dogs; and
•
September 24, 2013
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on September 10, 2013, and
the second reading and public hearing was held on September 24, 2013.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Section 5 -26.2 of the Roanoke County Code be amended to read and
provided as follows:
Sec. 5 -26.2. — Licensure of Dangerous Dogs
(a) The owner or custodian of any dog found by a court to be a dangerous
dog shall, within forty -five (45) days of such finding, obtain a dangerous
dog registration certificate or license from the treasurer by paying the fee
required by section 5 -44 of this Code. The treasurer shall provide the
owner or custodian with a uniformly designed tag which identifies the dog
as a dangerous dog. The owner or custodian shall affix the tag to the
dog's collar and ensure that the dog wears collar and tag at all times. All
certificates or licenses issued pursuant to this section shall be renewed
annually as required by section 5 -44 of this Code. The community service
officer shall provide a copy of the dangerous dog registration certificate or
license and verification of the owner's compliance with the requirements of
this article to the state veterinarian.
(b) No dangerous dog license shall be issued until the applicant has filed with
the treasurer the insurance certificate required by section 5- 26.3 (c). The
treasurer shall immediately forward a copy of such certificate to the police
department and the county's risk manager for review and filing. The risk
manager shall immediately notify the community service and /or police
officer of any noncompliance with the provisions of section 5- 26.3 (c) of
which the risk manager becomes aware.
(c) Any license or renewal required to be obtained under this section shall
only be issued to persons eighteen (18) years of age or older who present
satisfactory evidence:
(1) Of the dog's current rabies vaccination;
(2) That the provisions of subsections (a), (b) and (d) of section 5 -26.3
have been complied with; and
(3) That the animal has been neutered or spayed
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
September 24, 2013 409
5. Ordinance creating the Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility
Authority (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman outlined the ordinance and advised there was one change
from the first reading in order to remove Montgomery County. Chairman Altizer opened
and closed the public hearing. There were no citizens to speak on this agenda item. All
of the Supervisors expressed on their support of this Authority.
ORDINANCE 092413 -7 CREATING THE WESTERN VIRGINIA
REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Virginia Regional Industrial Facilities Act, Chapter 64
of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (the "Act "), the governing bodies
of Botetourt County, Franklin County, Roanoke County, City of Roanoke, City of Salem
and the Town of Vinton, after public hearing, duly advertised, if required by law, have
determined that the economies of many localities within the region have not kept pace
with those of the rest of the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, providing a mechanism for localities in the creation to cooperate in
the development of facilities will assist the region in overcoming this barrier to economic
growth; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia has
recognized that regional industrial facility authorities will enhance the economic base for
the member localities by developing, owning and operating one or more facilities on a
cooperative basis involving its member localities; and
WHEREAS, regional industrial facility authorities and the powers vested in such
authorities shall be for the benefit of the inhabitants of the region, and other areas of the
Commonwealth, for the increase their commerce, and for the promotion of their safety,
health, welfare, convenience and prosperity; and
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke is authorized by the Act to participate in
such regional industrial facility authorities and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, in conjunction with other governing bodies hereby proposes to create
the Western Virginia Industrial Authority, a public body politic and corporate created
pursuant to the Act; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 10, 2013;
and the second reading and public hearing was held on September 24, 2013, and was
duly advertised.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia as follows:
1. The economic growth and development of Roanoke County, Virginia and the
comfort, convenience and welfare of its citizens require the development of
facilities; and
410 September 24, 2013
2. Joint action through a regional industrial facility authority by Botetourt County,
Franklin County, Roanoke County, City of Roanoke, City of Salem and the
Town of Vinton will facilitate the development of the needed facilities; and
3. Roanoke County is hereby authorized to execute the attached agreement
establishing the respective rights and obligations of the member localities with
respect to the authority consistent with the provisions of Section 15.2 -6400 et
seq. of the Code of Virginia.
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
6. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by amending
Section 21 -74, Application and Certificate of Disability.
Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons of Chapter 21.
Taxation to change the annual filing date to submit an application
for an exemption from between February 1 and March 31 of the
year for which exemption is claimed to between February 1 and
March 15 of the year for which exemption is claimed (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney; Nancy Horn, Commissioner of the
Revenue)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the ordinance to change the annual filing date to
submit an application. He advised there were no changes from first reading. Chairman
Altizer opened and closed the public hearing. There were no citizens to speak on this
agenda item. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 092413 -8 AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 21 -74, APPLICATION AND
CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY
AND DISABLED PERSONS OF CHAPTER 21. TAXATION TO
CHANGE THE ANNUAL FILING DATE TO SUBMIT AN
APPLICATION FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM BETWEEN
FEBRUARY 1 AND MARCH 31 OF THE YEAR FOR WHICH
EXEMPTION IS CLAIMED TO BETWEEN FEBRUARY 1 AND
MARCH 15 OF THE YEAR FOR WHICH EXEMPTION IS
CLAIMED
WHEREAS, Section 21 -74 of the Roanoke County Code currently establishes
that a person seeking an exemption under this division shall file an application for
September 24, 2013 411
exemption in affidavit form with the commissioner of the revenue between February 1
and March 31 of the year for which the exemption is claimed; and
WHEREAS, there are a large number of participants in the program and a high
volume of information is submitted to the commissioner of the revenue, a change in the
filing date will serve to have the application process proceed more efficiently; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 10, 2013
and the second reading and public hearing were held on September 24, 2013; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Section 21 -74. — Application and certificate of disability of Division 3.
— Exemption for Elderly and Disable Persons of Article III. — Real Estate Taxes of
Chapter 21. Taxation be amended to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 21 -74. - Application and certificate of disability.
(a) A person seeking an exemption under this division shall file an application for
exemption, in affidavit form, with the commissioner of the revenue, between February 1
and March 15 of the year for which exemption is claimed. Such application shall set
forth the names of any related persons occupying the property for which the exemption
is claimed and that the total combined net worth, including equitable interests and the
combined income from all sources of the persons specified in Section 21 -73 does not
exceed the limits prescribed in such section.
(b) A person claiming an exemption because he has attained the age of sixty -
five (65) years shall be required to file an initial application and make affidavit thereof
pursuant to subsection (a) above. This initial application will be valid for a period of
three (3) years and in intervening years, once the exemption is granted, such person
shall be required only to make an annual certification, on forms to be supplied by the
commissioner of the revenue, that the information on the last preceding affidavit filed
has not changed so as to violate the limitations and conditions provided in this division.
(c) If a person applying for an exemption under this division is under sixty -five
(65) years of age, he shall be required to submit annually, the application referred to in
subsection (a) above and each such annual application shall have attached to it a
certification by the social security administration, the veterans administration, the
railroad retirement board or the civil service commission which shall indicate that the
applicant has been determined to be permanently and totally disabled such that he is
unable to engage in any substantially gainful activities by reason of a medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to last for the
duration of such person's life. If such person is not eligible for such certification by any
of the above mentioned agencies, a sworn affidavit, by two (2) medical doctors licensed
to practice medicine in the commonwealth, to the effect that such person is so totally
and permanently disabled is acceptable, so long as the affidavit of at least one such
doctor is based upon a physical examination of such person by such doctor.
412 September 24, 2013
2. That this amendment to the Roanoke County Code shall be effective from
and after its adoption.
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
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution adopting policies for the protection of private property
rights in the development of Roanoke County projects or the
adoption of County ordinances (Eddie "Ed" Elswick, Supervisor)
The following citizens spoke:
Roxanne Christley stated she resides at Willow Valley Road in Roanoke
since 1989. She stated in considering a Property Rights Resolution, there is something
that this Board needs to keep in mind. Where does the County revenue stream come
from? To put it a little more plainly, you call it revenue and everyone else calls it taxes,
but back to the question -where does the County revenue come from? That 'revenue'
comes from everyone who lives in or owns a business, in Roanoke County, that you can
find some way to tax. This essential element always seems to be forgotten by those
who are elected to fulfill a duty to those who elected them. Is the majority of this Board
fearful to give the citizens of our County, at least an equal voice in land use planning
since we are the ones that ultimately pay the price for your decisions? A Property Rights
Resolution will confirm who is working for whom -that would mean that you are working
for us and not the other way around. Or does the Roanoke Chamber of Commerce, with
their unfounded anti - business rhetoric in regards to this Resolution, and their Political
Action Committee, unduly influence this Board's decisions? Apparently that organization
is attempting to influence this election so I consider that a valid question. The next
question I have about the Roanoke Chamber of Commerce is what is their agenda and
who on this Board is tied to their agenda? The point is that YOU work for us. Private
agendas do not belong on this Board or in any form of government for that matter. What
we deserve is actual participation in and an honest, transparent process. The reality is
that the Property Rights Resolution is an opportunity for this Board in more ways than
you can imagine. How about you endeavor to take a stand for the citizens of this County
and not the agendas of the Chamber of Commerce. We pay the taxes, we pay your
salaries; we deserve this Resolution. I would urge all five of you to think long and hard
and remember where the County Revenue comes from.
September 24, 2013 413
Joyce Waugh of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce and
County resident residing at 3522 Holland Drive stated she is here to express their
concerns about potential impacts of the property rights resolution on economic
development and the representative government in Roanoke County. The recent
recruitment of Ardagh Group to Roanoke County reinforced two valuable lessons on
economic development, some of which was mentioned earlier. One, Roanoke County
continues to have an excellent reputation as a business - friendly locality. Two, global
competition to recruit innovative companies like the Ardagh Group will continue to
intensify. Because Roanoke County is no longer simply competing with other localities
in the region along with the rest of the Commonwealth, but rather communities all over
the world. The County must continue its efforts to bolster its competitive advantages
and eliminate potential barriers to growth. The property rights resolution, while very well
intentioned would introduce an additional layer of bureaucracy into the zoning process,
potentially delaying decisions critical to securing a deal with the next Ardagh Group.
Beyond its impact on economic development, the resolution seems to be rather a
solution in search of a problem. As a long -time resident of Roanoke County and as a
representative of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, she has always found
both the Board of Supervisors, members of the Planning Commission to be readily
assessable to speak with us. In addition, County Staff had been diligent in providing
requested information in a timely manner. Perhaps most troubling in this is the
language in the resolution that seems to create a tiered system of access for speakers
participating in rezoning and site planning discussions. On what basis would
representatives of registered citizens or homeowners associations be allowed more
time to provide remarks than other individuals and business owners? Is this consistent
with the ideals of representative governments. Based on the reasons outlined in my
remarks, they respectfully request that you oppose this resolution.
Eldon Karr of 8011 Poor Mountain Road, Bent Mountain, VA stated he
would like to speak with the Board regarding a Resolution respecting and honoring
Citizens' Rights. This means (a) provide Citizens with information regarding actionable
agenda items far enough in advance of public hearings with staff pros and cons to allow
deliberate review and study; (b) renew your commitment to your constituency by
honoring all questions raised by dedicating the time necessary to respond thoughtfully,
prior to going forward with legal actions and (c) avoid embroiling citizens in political
manipulations by resorting to "greater good,'. "population density," "political district," or
"political party" arguments. An extraordinarily small percentage of the total voting
potential population in each magisterial district puts each of you in office. Only the
citizens most affected by your actions on their behalf dedicate the time to question your
decisions. Those citizens have earned and deserve your attention. Other special
interests including a wide variety of "business" interests, non - governmental
organizations (NMO), political parties, special interest lobbyists and yes, even county
administrative staff, all vie for your attention and favors. Though many of these entities
may very well be a part of your constituency, your obligation is to balance those
414 September 24, 2013
interests with those of the private citizen. As one of a few elected officials in Roanoke
County history, Ed Elswick has dared to question our local governmental process. His
efforts have been mocked by frustrated Democratic and Republican faithfuls and special
interests who fear the sovereignty of the citizen. Those of you whose term is expiring
and are not seeking re- election this year, Mr. Flora and Mr. Altizer, I encourage you to
spend your remaining time on the Board working with Mr. Elswick to refine his intent on
behalf of the citizens of Roanoke County. Ms. Moore and Mr. Church, your continued
service to the citizens of Roanoke County can only be enhanced by placing "Principles
above Politics" as you continue to serve your constituency.
James Garris of 3108 Honeywood Lane stated he has lived here for many
years. He advised he would like to support the motion; this County needs to enhance
the protection of individual property owners and small businesses. Government has a
lot of money and resources to overwhelm an individual, a family or a small business.
The laws of this County should very heavily favor the property owner. In fact, in this
Country's early years, a man could not vote or hold office unless he owned land. Land
or property was power; not so much today. Today, it is money; money is power and
basically the biggest supply of money gets to win. That is what he is most scared of.
The level of bureaucracy that some has said this will create will be a good barrier to
money, whether playing political games or having financial gains, this can provide a
layer a protection against that for all citizens, not just the property owner. Also, with this
resolution it appears that Ed Elswick deserves applause to dare to do some research
and information gathering for this law and the subject for which it covers. It looks like
some, which to criticize that, but wishes to remind them that the way in which he did it.
He did engage the County Attorney and engages many folk and yes he got some things
that were possibly on a website or a blog, but he reminded the Board our State
legislatures and our Congressional legislatures do that all the time. In fact, in
Washington they do a lot worse, but many of your pacts have sample legislation on their
websites that anyone can download. What happened here was the County is not happy
since the County Attorney may not necessarily agree with this legislation and that
someone would go outside his expertise. He stated he has been a citizen activist long
enough to have seen a pattern that our County Attorney if it is a small person or a small
business or organization like a soccer team, he is more than happy to be aggressive or
bullied. If you have a lot of money or you are big business, like that too tall building, Mr.
Mahoney tucked his tail between his legs and ran like a scalded dog. Now, he likes Mr.
Mahoney, he has great conversations with him; he is highly intelligent and effective.
Chairman Altizer reminded Mr. Garris to contain his comments to the Chairman. He
does respect Mr. Mahoney, but that is the pattern that he has seen. Hence, when a
property owner comes in front of this County for any subject, the County Attorney's
opinion may influence you more than he thinks what the law should allow. This law may
give more protection for the property owner in that situation.
September 24, 2013 415
Jim Woltz of 10654 Sugar Camp Creek Road, Bent Mountain advised he
is the newest member of Planning Commission and stated he has watched some of
these petitions come before the Commission for some of the provisions in here, but he
is a strong advocate of property rights and free use of one's property. In 1973, he
started investing in Roanoke County land; was twenty -two (22) years old and have
continued for forty years and he has a substantial investment in properties here in this
county. There are certainly ample rules and regulations that are already restricting a lot
of property uses. We have zoning in place. He stated he is a firm believer of quiet, safe
and enjoyment of one's land. He thinks it is important. In general, he agrees with most
of the revisions in this proposed resolution. He advised he spoke with Philip Thompson
today just to go over the review of the Planning Commission process that is currently in
place. He advised he does think citizens need to be informed; they need to be noticed.
Many of these items are already in place, but we have lacked some staff to implement
some of them; he got this information from Philip. One other comment about property
use, he does praise the staff and Philip Thompson for all the work and the many hours
they did. We have tried to work through a zoning ordinance change that would actually
give back some rights to people. These are old rules and regulations that have been on
the books for a number of years; times have changed, needs have changed and would
suggest that if the Board wanted to do a joint session with the Planning Commission
that would work through some of those to try to get some of those zoning issues
changed that would strengthen some of use of the properties that require special use
permits, etc. With regard to the resolution, website clarity, he thinks there are probably
some things to improve website clarity. We do have software in place to work through
the archive items. He advised he thinks clear public notice is important and thinks we
have in place ways to mail notice to people and this comes up as new zoning or new
developments are of significance that we feel like neighbors and people need to be
given written notice; he does believe in that. The times he has in provision number 5,
he does think it is important to increase the times for citizens and for also a group of
people. Item number 6, possibly to use, maybe not make it mandatory, but use a
citizens review committee in certain instances might not be a bad idea, but he is also a
business person and understands that every property development has different things
that effect it, i.e. topography, access issues so sometimes the site review acceptations
are needed. So, he is just voicing his support of property rights as they affect people's
ownership in investment in Roanoke County and would be glad to work through any of
those provisions from the Planning Commission standpoint.
Shawn Horn advised he is representing the Roanoke Regional
Homebuilders Association and certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak and give
their thoughts on this resolution. He started off by saying that this is not a situation of
people being against property rights or against people having rights on their property.
However, it is a situation that they felt they needed to speak out against this resolution
as it is written. He is going to touch on those items as they relate to the rezoning
process and their industry. He stated he thinks there are a lot of things in there as
416 September 24, 2013
mentioned by Mr. Woltz as far as process. If the County wants to look at their own
process, their own advertising things like that certainly they are free to do so
administratively or through the Board or otherwise. Speaking strictly about the rezoning
process and as this resolution as it is written relates to that process. It is certainly our
opinion that the rezoning process that this describes is generally in place. Again short
of advertising changes, etc. you have a Planning Commission who is appointed by the
Board who are elected by the citizens. You have an application process, staff review
process, two public hearing processes, all of which are advertised and citizen input
welcome. On anything that he has certainly been involved in personally and seen
around, if it is a major site plan or rezoning you have additional public meetings. So, a
lot of this is already in place and seems to be quite frankly a little bit redundant and
maybe the wording could be improved to get to the point that you are trying to get to.
The second item that we talked about and our primary concern is the reference to the
site plan review committee and its relationship to site plan review. The site plan review
in the County is a by right site plan; the property is already zoned, the use has already
approved through the zoning ordinance so administratively through the review process.
If you were to introduce a site plan review committee into that process you are looking
at additional time, staff dollars, County dollars and in fact frankly you are stepping on
the rights of the person who owns that property; whom the ordinance says by right they
could develop a piece of property in a certain way and then you are going to have
another group come in and say no you cannot, we do not agree with that, but by right
they can. So, it is kind of working against the idea of what the resolution is supposed to
be. Thirdly, to make you aware, currently the rezoning process in Roanoke County is
the longest in the area; three months compared to a month and one half in Salem and a
month and one half in Roanoke City. So, any additional layers to that is just going to
increase that time, make Roanoke less competitive with the adjoining localities, so we
would ask that you not adopt this resolution at this time.
Supervisor Elswick stated he appreciated everyone coming tonight and
hope that everybody is actually reading this resolution. One point in particular is with
the Site Plan Review Committee, maybe it was not communicated as well as it should
have been, maybe he should have looked at the words a little bit longer. It is only to be
used when there are special cases, rezoning, and a Walmart kind of situation. If an
area is already zoned for development, there is no Site Plan Review Committee and so
the impression that is supposed to be one, he is sorry that someone got that. He does
not anticipate that a Site Plan Review Committee is going to be established very often.
It is for major rezoning where there are citizen concerns. As far as this resolution, to
some extent it started a year or so ago and there was a situation where the Planning
Commission had listened to a proposal from a developer on a couple of occasions and
some of the citizens who would be living in the area where this process would go one
and the project would be built had strong objections to it. In any of the public meetings
or any of the other meetings where the project was discussed, citizens were limited to
three minutes; and he asked that the Planning Commission allow those citizens to be
September 24, 2013 417
given not equal time, but at least some time to speak to the Planning Commission as
the Developer had done and he was denied. To him, it makes sense that citizens need
to be involved in the process because they live near these projects and it is in their
County and it affects their way of life. This resolution, a lot of citizens have provided
him input into it and that is way he likes it. He stated he will never, ever propose
something to put before this Board that is of a significant nature without asking citizens
their opinions and getting their input. Anybody that would infer that we are supposed to
act alone and not respond to our constituency is wrong. It has been revised in major
ways. A lot of things that were brought up in our work session and prior session in a
Board meeting have been taken out and he sent a copy of it to the rest of the
Supervisors and Mr. Church responded and based on that the other three are eight not
going to approve tonight and they have already made their minds up or they did not
have time to look at it or they are saving their comments or suggestions for tonight.
What he really wanted it to be was a cooperative kind of thing, a thing that we could all
agree to and approve and it has not turned out to be that, but, we are going to go on
because its gives citizens in his humble opinion an improved voice in the process. Any
public hearing that is conducted in the community is a one -way presentation. Our staff
will come and present the project. Citizens in that community listen and they respond
as best they can because it is the first time they have heard about the project. They
have not had time to organize themselves; time to look at the project and decide is it
good or bad and so just a few questions from the audience is all you will ever get and
this allows the citizens the opportunity then to start working with the County staff, the
developer early in the process. If the Developer knows early in the process that citizens
have concerns that he did not think about, then he could modify his proposal early in the
process and guess what, he might avoid a law suit at the end of the process and he
might end up with a proposed development that even he likes better. It does not make
sense to wait until everything is cut and dried before citizens have the opportunity to
express their feelings and to him instead of slowing down the process, it will speed it up
because it will avoid possibilities of law suits and a lot of hearings with hundreds of
people showing up and the end of what everybody thought was going to be the approval
process. So, he thinks it is positive and it would benefit and if it takes three months in
Roanoke County to get a project approved and a month and one half somewhere else,
that is something we ought to look at as a County and maybe this might shorten that
period a little bit. Again, it is not going to apply to every project that comes before the
County. If the project makes sense and the area is zoned that way, it is not going to
apply to that. He stated he would also like to say he would like to hear from the rest of
the Board to tell him what they see that might be changed on the resolution, whether
they agree with it or whether they object to it.
Chairman Altizer reminded the crowd not to applaud.
418 September 24, 2013
Ricardo Moreira of 3790 Fairnburn Drive stated he has lived in Virginia for
about twenty -three years. He left Brazil because of the loss of a lot of freedoms and
citizens rights. One of the things he thinks is most important and beautiful about
America is the Declaration of Independence; the pursuit of happiness; the pursuit of
property. Ownership is a basic human right and if do not have property you do not have
rights. He would like to request the Board represent the people in the County that
elected them to help protect their rights and pass this resolution. If you have to do
some changes, but as long as you protect the individual rights will be greatly
appreciated.
Supervisor Moore stated that she would like to say to Ed that she respects
and think all of the Board respects him in trying to make something better. The biggest
issue that she has with this resolution is that it violates one citizen's rights over
another's. How do we decide as a Board or as a neighbor who has the property right?
Is it you or your neighbor, who decides that? We have to have government. There is
not one ordinance that can take care of every property right situation. It is impossible.
We give our citizens an opportunity to come and speak, we have community meetings
and thinks the process that we have in place now works very well.
Supervisor Flora stated a lot of time is spent in this resolution talking about
the Site Plan Review Committee. Some of the other stuff is strictly reciting just exactly
what we already do, but the Site Plan Review Committee he can see where certain
rezonings instead of taking three months, depending on how many you might get in a
month or in a couple three months, it could run the process out to nine months or even
more just because of the bureaucratic requirements. This looks like big government to
him. It really complicates the process and he initial thought was well if we are trying to
stop economic development in the County, this is a really good first step because it is
going to complicate a lot of the processes. If you just want to recite what we are doing,
which he thinks is pretty much in item 3, when they talk about residential, agriculturally
zoned property. It cannot be rezoned to commercial industrial without a public notice,
which is required or a public hearing, which are required. Those are just reciting what
we already have. It has already been spoken to once, but once an application is made
for a rezoning or conditional use permit, a special exception whatever the case might
be, that application goes through a process that not only includes staff review but also
includes community meetings and sometimes more than one community meeting is
held. Before it ever gets to the Planning Commission level of holding a public hearing
and then when it comes to us, we hold another public hearing, which gives the people
an opportunity to speak; they can speak at the community meeting, planning
commission level and at the Board of Supervisors level. We have had most of our
rezoning are like tonight, there is no opposition, no discussion so why burden it down
with a Site Review Committee when you are taking off some conditions we put on in
1988. We have had rezonings here where we have had thirty (30) plus people speak
and everyone has been given their time and actually he thinks we went to after midnight
on a rezoning. So, to say that we do not give people an opportunity express their
September 24, 2013 419
opinion is incorrect. Now, we cannot make everybody happy so the ones who leave
here unhappy are the ones who probably think we do not give me an opportunity to
speak, but we do beyond what the State code requires. The State code requires only
notices be given to adjacent property owners. We give notices way beyond the
adjacent property owners. There is no requirement in State code for community
meetings and we provide community meetings also. He just thinks this could create a
burdensome situation where economic development efforts could be hampered
significantly.
Chairman Altizer stated he is going to go down line by line. Number one,
operating guide of detailed procedures for the conduct of meetings; he does not know
what that means other than the Planning Commission could adopt procedures of
conduct. He does not know whether they have them or not. He has never heard that is
a major issue of conduct at the meetings. Next, let citizens be made aware of the
Planning Commission website that all the meetings, audio recordings are available for
review at the time at the Roanoke County Administration building. You do not need a
resolution to do that. He thinks a simple request. Mr. Thompson, if the Board advised
you to do ahead and make sure there is something on the website, don't you think staff
could look at a way to do that correctly, Mr. Thompson responded in the affirmative.
You do not need a resolution for number one. Next that the Roanoke County Planning
Commission and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors require that detailed
agendas for upcoming meetings archived meetings including instructions for searching
words or phrases. We already do this. Are there some things in there that makes it
hard for our citizens to search? Probably so, that is not a property rights issue, that is
an informational issue and what we can do to help you he will ask staff right now with
the consensus of the Board maybe you can have a class for citizens who want to come
in and find out how to use search for phrases. We can have somebody with that
information that can walk people through that; you don't need a resolution to do that,
that is not a property rights issue. This is an administrative issue that gives you better
access and hopefully easier access to what we do. Next, that Roanoke County
residential, agriculturally owned areas may not be rezoned to commercial without public
notice. We are required to do that, we do that. Next, provisions of the comprehensive
plan shall be reviewed at the meetings held by the County. What happens at the
Planning Commission comes to the Board in a report. It is communicated to us whether
it is in the comprehensive plan. Next, document quality of life and other cost benefits to
the public and the support thereof. Who is going to measure and who is going to say
what is cost benefit; who is going to do that. It is somewhat ambiguous in that some
people would say it is hard to tell if that is a cost benefit. Is it the type of business you
put in, you don't have a drugstore in the area of the locality so you put one. Number
four, requiring in the event of a significant rezoning, affected property owners be
notified; that already happens. Property owners will be provided an opportunity to
participate; he thinks that does happen. Everyone in an area gets to present their
opinions in a public hearing not once but twice right here in front of the Board as well as
420 September 24, 2013
the Planning Commission. Time limits for the Planning Commission: the Board does
not dictate the timing, but the Planning Commission adopts their own rules. Who is
going to determine when you have a Site Plan Review Committee, who is going to
determine how you form that committee and then after the fact somebody comes back
and on another one and says you did not form a committee for ours. Who is going to
make that determination of who you do it for and how you do it? What do you do if you
have four or five at a time? Does that mean you going to appoint four or five
committees to take and go through this? This process has served citizens of Roanoke
County for a long, long time. He is also concerned that it will slow down the process.
There is no way that it can speed it up. You know, when you get in to talking about
rezoning and large crowds, there has been things put in here about making a decision
that is contrary to the amount of people that show up at a rezoning. Most of the people
that he talks to that come in here against something; the majority of that is through fear.
Fear of the unknown and that is understandable. When it is personal, everybody really
fears the worse. He thinks that this Board is not any different. He thinks we understand
that. It is up to this Board to take the personal out of it. We understand and we know
more of the fact of what is and is not going to happen. One of the biggest turn out of
people, this was before his time, was the Walmart on Route 460. Property values were
going to plummet, traffic was going to be terrible, and it was going to be absolutely
terrible. It did not happen and you know that community about three or four years later
a big Lowes went right in beside that Walmart and believes there were two people that
came to speak about that. Because people understood that Walmart wasn't a bad as
they said and it did not kill their property values. We as individual Board members we
understand that when certain things are going to change, there is a fear; it
encompasses a lot of us no matter whether it is in our own neighborhoods or what. This
Board is supposed to have the experience and the knowledge and to know how these
things happen, what they do to people's property values, whether they will, whether they
won't. There were a lot of people against the Regional Jail and rightfully so. They were
afraid; they did not know what it was going to be. We heard things from people that
there would be excess traffic from hundreds and hundreds of people coming there to
visit tying up the roads. People were worried about six -foot high barbed wire fence, gun
turrets on the corner with people standing there with machine guns. It never happened.
He is the Chairman of that Authority; he sees a lot of the folks up there now and they
say, "It's not as bad as we thought it was going to be." They embrace it in the
community; to them it just looks like a big warehouse sitting out there. So, he can tell
you that he understands emotion, the fear of the unknown. This Board, any of the five,
it is incumbent upon us to know whether those fears are personal, perceptional or real.
Sometimes we understand that they are real and they give us concerns on certain
rezoning and we turn them down. There are things in here that are not property rights
issues; they are administrative issues. There are things in here that can simply be done
by asking staff to do to make better access on the website of audio recordings and
things of this nature; whether it is Community Development or someone in IT or
September 24, 2013 421
whatever being able to answer questions on how to search the website or whether to
have classes for citizens a couple times a year that want to come in and take part of
that. Things like that can happen that are administrative and not property rights issues.
Property rights issues are a delicate thing. It took the General Assembly about six
years of study to go through and understand property rights and try to get it right and he
thinks they did. There is nothing here in this that is about emininent domain. Eminent
domain is covered by the State constitution and then it was changed. There are things
that can be done in here that are just administrative things that he thinks would not be
hard to accomplish. There are things in this resolution that are truly not property rights
issues. There are things in here that give him a lot of heartburn in that they are either
number one effect somebody else's rights or is going to put rezonings and special use
permits and things of this nature even further and further along. This Board has a
history of if we do not understand; we do not know, we have put off some and we will.
When we don't think everything is right, we will put it off. There is no set timetable that
a rezoning has to get turned around in a certain amount of time. When it is right, it
should be turned around in a certain amount of time, but if there is something still wrong
with it when it comes to the Board or the Planning Commission then it should be
developed. So, these are my remarks and how he feel about it and that is what he is
willing to support to try to do to help get some administrative things done that he thinks
would be advantageous to our citizens, but there are some things in here that he is not
going to support; just not going to do it because it is not right and before he does
something that is going to take away somebody's rights to give someone else a little
more, he absolutely will not do that.
Supervisor Church stated in his opinion maybe this proposal could end up
with some positives coming out of it. He has spoken with Mr. Elswick many times and
have spoken with him and told him quite honestly could not support some of the items.
It does not mean that Mr. Elswick or himself care less or more about citizens. He stated
he thinks he speaks with certainty when he says he does not believe that anybody on
this Board has had the opportunity to have landed in their district or area two landfills,
Spring Hollow Reservoir, ammunition dump, firing range, regional jail, a driving range,
an asphalt plant and he could go on and on. We have had on more than one occasion
it was past 1:00 in the morning. He does not remember if that was Keagy Village or the
asphalt plant or the regional jail or maybe all three of them. We have five to six to
seven hundred people lined up. What he is afraid of is the unintended consequences.
Mr. Elswick has brought forward proposals that were brought to him by his citizens. He
cannot fault him for bringing those forward. He thinks that if any one of us had a group
of citizens that we are responsible to account to and represent; that is our job to
represent them to the best of our ability; to bring their interests forward. This is not item
to be criticized. Maybe some in the area that want to make it a political event, but that is
sad and unfortunate. The bottom line is he can support certain pieces of this because
he has been there and done that. As the senior member of this Board, mainly about the
talking time, we have gone through so many scenarios when speakers would not have
422 September 24, 2013
enough time to speak, but the Chair has discretion and we have made that work out
pretty good. We have had the Chair allow other speakers to "buy" their time over at
least two times; sometimes nine (9) minutes for a speaker. When we have three
hundred (300) people in this building, maybe more counting the one ones upstairs,
common sense needs to come into play and make sure you hear them. He stated he
believes that things that could be done to streamline the communication process could
and should be done. Are they in a property rights resolution; he is not sure. But the
bottom line is, people do need to feel like they are part of the process and if there is a
lack of communication or record keeping or accessibility to information regarding
zonings and rezoning and issues, administratively we can do that and we should do
that. He is under the impression that certain parts of this could be beneficial; the time
limits, the recordkeeping, he has said this so many times during the last dozen years
ago, but the Planning Commission is not binding on this Board. It has have been
binding on this Board of Supervisors and he believes there is a fallacy there that a lot of
citizens believe if they do have a problem with the Planning Commission process, they
feel like it is over or it is won; either way you want to look at it. There have been so
many issues given to us by the Planning Commission that they have approved five to
zero that the Board has denied five to zero; countless numbers, countless. There are
times and processes for the people to make their voice heard. Maybe there is a
breakdown in communication that they feel like in the Planning Commission process
that they were not heard. It did not do any good; the decision is over. Well, you still
have another month and one half to bring things forward to this Board. Things are
reversed many times from the Planning Commission to our Board. It is pretty simple in
this Board members opinion. The Planning Commission members are all appointed
citizens by the Board, but when the meeting is over they go home and fall asleep. We
need to, must and do face the people when it comes to the final decision and
circumstances can change in a rezoning. Proffers can change. Reconsiderations can
be and you can name a multitude of other issues that can be reviewed and looked at by
the time it gets to this Board. So, it is not just that we reverse randomly what the
Planning Commission does. He stated he thinks we have a process that in most cases
does a pretty good job. He has never been one to think just because an ordinance has
been on the books for fifteen (15) years we ought to leave it alone. To the contrary, if we
have issues that we can help clear up, he thinks we should always be open to that, but
let me tell you, he has been on the down side of the issues that happen to not go my
citizens ways; it is part of the process that you give equal time to come before this
Board. We don't have to throw rocks at each other; and we do not. There are volatile
issues, high profile, controversial items, the Regional Jail was so big they had to have
the civic center and he may have been the only one there that was not for it other than
his people. The bottom line is a decision was made and it is something that he cannot
say in all honesty that he people did not get a time to talk or did not get a time to
express their views. So, he wants to commend Supervisor Elswick; he is not to be
September 24, 2013 423
frowned upon not to be thought of anything except a hard working supervisor taking
care of his people.
Supervisor Flora stated you can add as many meetings as you want to
add, you can do a site plan review committee and you can meet five or six times. You
can extend the process from three months to four, five or six months. In the end it all
comes down to the collective wisdom of the five supervisors. So all those meetings do
not mean anything until it gets to the Board. It is up to the Board to make a decision to
come to a conclusion on whether or not the request before the Board is the appropriate
one for that community and that neighborhood. We come to that decision
independently and we take different routes to get here, but we have to make that
decision and it could be the same process we are doing now or you can go through a
much lengthier process, but it is going to all come down to one thing and that is this
Board sitting up here, what is their opinion and what conclusions did they come to. He
stated when he does it, he listens to what everyone has to say, but in the end, he has to
decide whether or not that request or that use for that property is the highest and best
use for that property. If it is, he can support it; if it not the highest and best use for that
property he cannot support it. We have had a number of those where we did not agree
and had split votes on rezoning, but we came to those decisions differently and that is
because each one of us has a mind of our own and we can come to the conclusion all
on our own and we don't have to have someone tell us how to do it. When you look at
this and so much of this has nothing to do with property rights. It is all about a process
and you do not have to change the process to get the same results. Trust him, it is not
going to change the end result no matter how long you draw out the meeting, how many
meetings you have, the end result will still be the same when it gets here because that
decision is made by the five (5) people sitting right here and they do not take it lightly,
he can tell you that. They do not take that responsibility at all lightly. He cannot speak
for anyone but himself, because he is the only one that knows what thought process he
goes through. Rezonings are sometimes no brainers, and sometimes you have to go
through a lot of analysis within your own mind of what is right and what is wrong and
you have to come to the conclusion that you have to be able to defend and probably if
you ask the five (5) Board members after we make a decision, you are going to have
five (5) different answers because we will maybe come to the same conclusion but we
use different routes to get there. This resolution and his biggest fear after a lot of
reading and he read it and he made notes on it, his biggest concern here is that it is
sufficiently vague enough that no matter what the County does it will be wrong; it is just
that vague. Some of those things have been pointed out. If you want to adopt a policy
and procedures, you need to be very specific, otherwise interpretation is going to get in
the way of doing what is right.
Supervisor Elswick stated he is not going to take long because he knows
how the vote is going to turn out, but he does want to respond just a little. Basically this
was to make the process more organized. All of you mentioned that there have been
community meetings and community meetings, well those people get three (3) minutes.
424 September 24, 2013
When eight hundred people sign a petition for Keagy Village stating they want their
voices heard and they only get three (3) minutes, why cannot we give them ten (10),
what is the big deal. When he did his three (3) minutes on the Green Ridge Recreation
Center that is all he was allowed. That is all other citizens were allowed. English
lawyers got hours of time and he would like to see the process be a little more positive
towards our citizens and not people who do not even live in Roanoke County and give
our citizens the opportunity to participate in the process and he thinks they can improve
it and not delay it and certainly not go to nine months; that is ridiculous. One of the
comments, neighbor versus neighbor, which neighbor has the rights. There was one
sentence in our first version of this resolution about a person can do what they want to
with their own property as long as they do not violate ordinances. That is not in this
current ordinance. So what, if this resolution simply affirms what we already do, how
many times tonight have you heard people repeat themselves. Well, why cannot we
repeat it in a resolution? If it makes the citizens obtain a little more confidence that the
Board is there for them, we said it twice, we support you citizens and we will protect
your rights. About the agenda, I could try to get it at home and you have to scroll
through a hundred pages to get to the one you are looking for, and if you don't believe
that come to his house and try it. We should make it like our laptops work here, where
we have the little insignia on the right and you can go to which one that you want and
that is not a big deal. If some of you don't like the idea that there are things in here that
are not property rights issues, we can change the title, he does not have a problem with
changing the title to say property rights, plus administrative issues. The point to that is if
you responded to him three (3) weeks we could have worked these out, he would
changed that title and he would have explained some things to you that obviously are
not clear. Who determines when the SBRC is set up? In the resolution, it says SBRCs
are set up by request. Keagy Village people would request it. Walmart people would
request it; that is how it is set up. You get a petition from citizens saying that they would
like a site plan review and you set one up. If you don't get a petition, you don't set one
up and that is not going to happen very often. Since he has been on the Board he
thinks it has happened twice and that is in almost four (4) years. Our history indicates
we don't approve what we don't understand. He agreed with that, maybe it should have
been read earlier; maybe we should have gotten a little better understanding. There is
nothing in this resolution that takes anybody's proper rights away.
RESOLUTION 092413 -9 DENYING POLICIES FOR THE
PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF ROANOKE COUNTY PROJECTS OR THE
ADOPTION OF COUNTY ORDINANCES
WHEREAS, private property ownership is the foundation of individual liberty for
American citizens; and
September 24, 2013 425
WHEREAS, in 2012 the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia voted to
amend Article 1, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia further defining "public uses"
and that no private property shall be damaged or taken for public use without just
compensation; and
WHEREAS, property owners' rights are subject to the confines of the law and
what is prescribed in Roanoke County zoning and other requirements; and
WHEREAS, the County intends to manage growth in a positive way acting
conservatively and with deliberation when making decisions that will affect our quality of
life and that of our children's children as stated in Chapter 2 of the Roanoke County
Comprehensive Plan and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, the County has adopted ordinances and programs to preserve the
integrity of the surrounding mountains and open space as emphasized in the Roanoke
County Comprehensive Plan: Resource Preservation and
WHEREAS, the County supports the "right to farm" as found in the Code of
Virginia 3.2 -301 and encourages mutual respect among farmers, non -farm owners and
rural visitors to protect individual property rights, responsibilities and privacy; and
WHEREAS, the County seeks to bring a higher degree of communication and
transparency between elected or appointed officials and the neighbors affected by
zoning and site plan decisions. This is to be done by improving and clarifying the
procedures used by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors
thereby assuring citizens' input is an integral part of this process in keeping with the
Comprehensive Plan goal: To achieve the highest possible level of citizen participation
in all elements of Roanoke County government by keeping our citizens informed and
educated on public policy issues and maintaining an open, democratic, and easily
accessible governmental system; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County hereby agrees to
establish the following policies for the implementation and development of County
projects.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors as follows:
1) That the Roanoke County Planning Commission develop an Operating Guide or
Detailed Procedures for the conduct of meetings; and that citizens be made
aware on the Planning Commission website that all the meetings' audio
recordings are available for review at the Roanoke County Administration
Building on Bernard Drive, by appointment. Also, these procedures should make
it clear that citizens are encouraged to fully express their views on proposed
changes.
2) That the Roanoke County Planning Commission and Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors require that their detailed Agendas for upcoming meetings and their
426 September 24, 2013
archived meeting minutes include instructions for searching words or phrases
inside their long Portable Document Format (PDF) documents. Written
instructions are needed to help the public readily access the information and its
potential significance.
3) That Roanoke County residential or agriculturally zoned areas may not be
rezoned to commercial or industrial zoning without public notice and public
hearings held by the County in the immediate affected area in order to receive
public input, prior to the fulfillment of all other rezoning requirements in State
Code. The vision and other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan shall also be
reviewed at the meetings held by the County on any potential rezoning from
residential or agricultural land use. Prime natural assets such as rivers, lakes,
parks, and mountains may not be rezoned to commercial or utility use unless
there is documented potential quality of life and other cost - benefits to the public
in support thereof.
4) That Roanoke County require in the event of a significant rezoning, affected
property owners be notified in writing prior to Planning Commission review, and
the property owners will be provided an opportunity to participate in an
information session where particulars of the plan and possible impact will be
available for review. Property owners and /or their representatives may present
their opinions of the proposed zoning changes to the Planning Commission and
the number of citizen responses and their opinions must be reported by the
Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors as they consider the change.
5) That the Roanoke County Planning Commission and Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors establish new time limits for speakers participating in rezoning and
site plan development activities. Specifically:
a) Registered Associations: Recommend up to 10 minutes be allocated for
representatives of a civic, citizens or homeowners' association registered
with the county. Others members may register on the Speakers List, as
individuals, and speak as individuals.
b) Registered Individuals: Recommend all individuals who are appearing on
their own behalf or on behalf of a business shall be allocated 3 minutes to
address the Commission.
6) That the Roanoke County Planning Commission establish a Site Plan Review
Committee (SPRC) process to be available as a tool for the County Board to vary
the uses, heights, setbacks, density, and form of development for proposed site
plan exceptions and rezonings. Each zoning area in Roanoke County permits a
certain type and level of development "by- right ". Beyond this, certain zoning
areas provide for a special exception by "site plan" that allows for greater
flexibility and use, density, and form of development. The key to the success of
the Site Plan Review Process is that additional development rights serve as an
incentive to seek a special exception by site plan and participate in the process.
The additional development rights available through a site plan exception are the
September 24, 2013 427
incentive for the developer to participate in the site plan review process, and the
review and negotiation process allows the County to better achieve its goals set
forth in The Comprehensive Plan.
7) The SPRC shall be comprised of a SPRC Chair, citizen members, and
representatives of the civic groups and neighborhood organizations in Roanoke
County impacted by proposed rezoning or site plan exceptions, as a mechanism
for the Planning Commission and citizens' community groups to have input on
such proposals prior to the formal public hearings held by the Planning
Commission and County Board of Supervisors. A special emphasis is to be
placed on inviting citizens to participate in SPRC meetings for proposed site plan
exceptions and rezonings. Members of the SPRC will be chosen by the group
requesting a review. The review will be conducted by county staff and the SPRC
for review when the plan is presented to the Planning Commission.
8) The Site Plan Review Committee process provides a forum in which the site plan
applicant, County staff, the Planning Commission, and citizens' community
groups can review, discuss, and comment on proposed site plan exceptions and
rezonings, to advise the Planning Commission on the SPRC consensus (pro or
con) and any outstanding issues or potential significant community concerns or
conditions that warrant further consideration.
9) Also, the Site Plan Review Committee shall make available in a location to be
determined by the County Administrator all proposed design documents and
revisions of the site plan applicant for the public's review should interested
citizens not be able to participate in SPRC meetings. The site plan review
process ends with a formal public hearing before the Planning Commission and
the results being documented and reported to the County Board of Supervisors.
10) That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors should state why the community
group's position and recommendations were denied should the County Board
reach a decision contrary to the civic organization or community group's
representative.
11) That Roanoke County Board of Supervisors' Work Sessions include provision for
at least one outside speaker at the sponsoring member's request, such as a
representative of a neighborhood or community group or someone very
knowledgeable on the applicable issue, to assist the Board member sponsoring
the proposed resolution or ordinance and to add increased perspective (pro and
con) for all Board members' consideration and understanding.
12) That no County officer or employee shall enter upon private property except as
authorized by law. Police emergencies, fire events, warrants issued by the
sheriff, property inspections and normal social service visits are conducted as
required without advance notice. Non - emergency visits to private property must
be conducted during the normal work day with advance notice to the property
owner. Exceptions to this policy may be granted by the County Administrator
and such exceptions must be approved by a majority of the Board of
428 September 24, 2013
Supervisors.
On motion of Supervisor Elsick to adopt the ordinance, the resolution was denied
by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisor Elswick
NAYS: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Altizer
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke:
Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane in Salem, Virginia stated later this
month, a long- awaited event that 'last happened in 2007 will recur, like a returning,
comet, streaking across the sky dooming ominous happenings upon us all. He
refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's ('IPCC) "fifth assessment
report," part of which will be published on September 27, 2013. There have already
been leaks from this 31 -page document, which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific
discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, there is a glimpse of the key
prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since
these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm that
NGOs such as when ICLEI started their campaign to help seize control of local
politics with carbon deception. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a
result of man -made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in
2007. This same situation of Chicken Little scare tactics goes on in every way with
all types of governance. This example as well as many others is the reason the
Property Rights Issue presented here by Supervisor Elswick is so very important. In
all ways, local governance should resist hijacks of all sorts by protecting Property
Rights. The end game of the green sustainability movement is control over every
aspect of humanity. Take their Bibles, Guns, private homes, private personal
property and herd them into UDAs for control their way. The green sustainabilists
and many other socialist have been after property rights to control Americans. The
sustainabilists' mentality of governance are easily deceived because they have the
condition of "men will rule and rule they will." This the way of the omniscience. They
fall for it every time. This new property rights issue honors the frame work of liberty
as presented by our founding documents. In that if one is concerned with what's
happening nearby. Grievance is sought under laws that are in place to deal with
such matters. Governance needs to remove its rule of omniscience from the lives of
citizenry, focus on the enumerated duties allowed them by our Constitution, their
oath of office and let liberty ring. We are a nation of laws in charge, governance
needs to step aside. Regulations are not needed. We have laws. The property rights
September 24, 2013 429
issue that has been stated here is a good step ahead as well as de- funding ICLEI
Do that and help Liberty ring. Our children and grandchildren will appreciate it.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moore stated she would like to take a moment and
congratulate Katie Moretz, who teaches third grade at Oak Grove Elementary School
and Betsy Hall, who teaches fourth grade at G. W. Carver in Salem for their
appointments by Governor McDonnell to the Teacher's Cabinet. Congratulations to
both.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Thompson to jot down on his notes item F —
1, Mr. and Mrs. Atkinson had a couple of questions that he will get with him tomorrow
via email. He then congratulated Northside for defeating the powerhouse Salem over
the weekend. It was such a nice thing for the kids, very seldom does anybody beat
Salem. Congratulations to both Northside and Glenvar, who are both doing very well.
Supervisor Elswick stated he would like to mention that he saw something
a couple of days ago that kind of made him be proud of our Police Officers. You
normally see them in circumstances that they are not really positive; they are writing
tickets or they or having to deal with a burglary and keeping an eye on things. When a
car stalled at the intersection of Colonial and Rt. 221 in the left turn lane, there were two
police cars behind it and he was uncertain as to what was going on, but one of the
officers got out of his car and came through the intersection, stopped traffic and told all
of us that were waiting on the other side, "we just have to get this vehicle out of the way,
just wait a little while." He was very positive, smiling; he was going to go something
nice, "would you just mind waiting until we get this car out of the way." Two (2) more
police cars came and there was a total of four (4) and the reason is the officers
themselves pushed that vehicle away from the intersection so the traffic could clear; that
was a nice thing to see Police Officers engaging that kind of activity and to show that
their attitudes are positive and he thinks Mr. Hall has some impact on that and if they
had not done it and followed some of our previous policies it would have cost that
vehicle driver at least $600 in a towing fee. This was a neighborly thing for them to do
and at some point in the not too distant future, he would like for us to look back into us
setting up our own County group to determine who is going to do the towing in Roanoke
County, not a big issue and not a big hurry to do it, but still thinks it would be the right
thing to do for citizens.
430 September 24, 2013
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 9:33 p.m.
Pgbmitted by: _ Approved by:
, Deborah C J s Michael W. Altiz r
e
Clerk to the rd Chairman