HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/28/2016 - Regular
June 28, 2016
309
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of June 2016. 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
Mark Hopkins of Shenandoah Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by
all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Peters called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman P. Jason Peters,Supervisors George G. Assaid,
Al Bedrosian, Martha B. Hooker and Joseph P. McNamara
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator; Daniel R.
O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Ruth Ellen
Kuhnel, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information
Officer and Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the
Board
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of Refuge Church to obtain a Special Use Permit in a
C-2C, High Intensity Commercial, District with conditions for the
operation of religious assembly on approximately 1.92 acres,
located at 4145 and 4173 West Main StreetCatawba Magisterial
,
District
June 28, 2016
310
There was no discussion. Supervisors Hooker’s motion to approve the
first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for July 19, 2016, was
seconded by Chairman Peters and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
2. The petition of Kate Madison Properties, LLC to rezone
approximately 0.99 acre from R-1, Low Density Residential,
District to C-1, Low Intensity Commercial, District on property
located at 3746 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District
There was no discussion. Supervisor Assaid’s motion to approve the first
reading and set the second reading and public hearing for July 19, 2016, was seconded
by Supervisor Hooker and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount
of $166,259 from the Virginia Information Technology Agency
Public Safety Access Point (PSAP) Grant Program (Bill Hunter,
Director of Communications and Information Technology)
Mr. Hunter outlined the request for the ordinance. There was no
discussion. Supervisor Peters motion to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for July 19, 2016 was seconded by Supervisor McNamara and approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
2Ordinance authorizing and approving amendment of a Lease
.
Agreement between Roanoke County and GrainComm, Inc. for a
communications facility on Barrens Road, adjacent to the Hollins
Fire Station (Rob Light, Acting Director of General Services)
June 28, 2016
311
.
Mr. Light outlined the request for the ordinance. There was no discussion
Supervisor Bedrosian’s motion to approve the first reading and set the second reading
for July 19, 2016 was seconded by Supervisor Assaid and approved by the following
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance to appropriate funds in the amount of $800,000 from
the Commonwealth of Virginia to the Department of Social
Services General Fund budget for fiscal year 2015-2016
(Christopher Bever, Director of Management and Budget; Joyce
Earl, Director of Social Services)
Mr. Bever advised there were no changes from the first reading. There
was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 062816-1 TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $800,000 FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016.
WHEREAS, The Department of Social Services receives, throughout the year,
additional funding for public assistance programs and services delivery; and
WHEREAS, for fiscal year 2015-2016 the Department of Social Services is
anticipated to receive $800,000 in additional funding for foster care and adoption
subsidies to offset expenditures incurred by Roanoke County for delivering these
services; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 2016, and the
second reading was held on June 28, 2016.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $800,000 is hereby appropriated from the Commonwealth
of Virginia to the Department of Social Services budget for fiscal year 2015-2016 for
assistance programs; and
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
June 28, 2016
312
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$10,000 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts (VCA) for the
Local Government Challenge Grant for fiscal years 2014-2015 and
2015-2016 (Christopher Bever, Director of Management and
Budget)
Mr. Bever advised there were no changes from the first reading. There
was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 062816-2 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 FROM THE VIRGINIA
COMMISSION FOR THE ARTS (VCA) FOR THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CHALLENGE GRANT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2014-
2015 AND 2015-2016
WHEREAS, Roanoke County applied for and was awarded a Local Government
Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts in the amount of $5,000 for
both fiscal year 2014-2015 and fiscal year 2015-2016; and
WHEREAS, the Local Government Challenge Grant is awarded for the purpose
of supporting Roanoke Valley arts organizations; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, through the annual budget appropriation
ordinances in fiscal year 2014-2015 and fiscal year 2015-2016 has provided the
required County match for the Local Government Challenge Grant; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 2016, and the
second reading was held on June 28, 2016.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $10,000 is hereby appropriated from the Virginia
Commission for the Arts from the Local Government Challenge Grant to Roanoke
County for the purpose of supporting Roanoke Valley arts agencies; and
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote:
June 28, 2016
313
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance authorizing and approving execution of a lease
agreement with the Roanoke County Schools for space located at
4850 Brambleton Avenue (on Cave Spring School Campus) to be
used as a police substation known as the South County
Substation (Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, County Attorney; Rob Light,
Acting Director of General Services)
Ms. Kuhnel outlined two changes to the lease in section 8 and section 9.
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 062816-3 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING
EXECUTION OF A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE ROANOKE
COUNTY SCHOOLS FOR SPACE LOCATED AT 4850
BRAMBLETON AVENUE (ON CAVE SPRING SCHOOL
CAMPUS) TO BE USED AS A POLICE SUBSTATION KNOWN
AS THE SOUTH COUNTY SUBSTATION
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Police Department (“RCPD”) desires to
relocate its South County Police Substation from its existing modular structure located
at 3330 Valley Forge Avenue to a building owned by the Roanoke County Schools
(“RCS”) formerly known as the Janus Learning Center located on the Cave Spring
School Campus; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with Roanoke County’s General Services Department,
the RCPD, has determined that the current structure no longer meets the needs of the
substation and that significant costs would be required to either replace or retrofit the
existing 960 square foot, double-wide modular style building to accommodate a current
space need of 1,800 square feet; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2016, the Roanoke County School Board voted to
approve a new lease with Roanoke County since the RCS has no need for the space
and the former tenant has vacated the building; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be
accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14,
2016, and the second reading was held on June 28, 2016.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
June 28, 2016
314
1. The lease of the building and grounds located at 4850 Brambleton Avenue
(known as the former “Janus Learning Center building”) as well as the
adjacent parking lot consisting of approximately thirteen parking spaces for a
term of one (1) initial ten year term, with two (2), ten year options, beginning
July 1, 2016, for a rate of ten dollars ($10) per year.
2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is hereby
authorized to execute a lease agreement on behalf of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County and to execute such other documents and
take such further actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all
of which shall be upon form and subject to the conditions by the County
Attorney.
3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Assaid to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Article I (General Provisions), Article II
(Definitions and Use Types), Article III (District Regulations),
Article IV (Use and Design Standards) and Article V (Development
Standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance) (John
Murphy, Zoning Administrator)
Mr. Murphy advised there were no changes from the first reading. There
was no discussion. Chairman Peters opened and closed the public with no citizens
speaking on this agenda item.
ORDINANCE 062816-4 AMENDING ARTICLE I (GENERAL
PROVISIONS), ARTICLE II (DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES),
ARTICLE III (DISTRICT REGULATIONS), ARTICLE IV (USE AND
DESIGN STANDARDS), AND ARTICLE V (DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS) OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Community Development staff have
identified multiple areas of the Zoning Ordinance in need of updating that have resulted
in the proposal of amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; and
June 28, 2016
315
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2016, after proper notice, the Roanoke County Planning
Commission held a public hearing on various amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and
recommended said amendments to the Board of Supervisors for adoption; and
WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning
practice are valid public purposes for such recommendations by the Planning
Commission and action by the Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 2016, and
the second reading and public hearing was held on June 28, 2016.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors as follows:
1. The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read and
provide as follows:
ARTICLE I – GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 30-24. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
Sec. 30-24-1. Powers and Duties.
(B) The BZA shall have the power and duty to authorize upon appeal or original
application in specific cases a variance from the terms of this ordinance as will
not be contrary to the public interest, when, owing to special conditions a literal
enforcement of this ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. No such
variance shall be granted unless the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done. To legally grant a variance, the BZA must be presented
evidence and make a finding that:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, to grant upon
appeal or original application in specific cases a variance as defined in § 15.2-
2201, provided that the burden of proof shall be on the applicant for a variance to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his application meets the
standard for a variance as defined in § 15.2-2201 and the criteria set out in this
section.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, general or special, a variance shall
be granted if the evidence shows that the strict application of the terms of the
ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property or that the
granting of the variance would alleviate a hardship due to a physical condition
relating to the property or improvements thereon at the time of the effective date
of the ordinance, and:
1. A property owner acquired the property in good faith and where by reason
of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of the property
at the time of the adoption of this ordinance, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary situation or
June 28, 2016
316
condition of the property, the strict application of this ordinance would
effectively prohibit, or unreasonably restrict the use of the property, or;
The property interest for which the variance is being requested was
acquired in good faith and any hardship was not created by the applicant
for the variance;
2. Due to the condition, situation, or development of immediately adjacent
property, the strict application of this ordinance would effectively prohibit,
or unreasonably restrict the use of the property, or;
The granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property and nearby properties in the proximity of that
geographical area;
3. That the granting of the variance will alleviate a clearly demonstrable
hardship, as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience sought
by the applicant.
The condition or situation of the property concerned is not of so general or
recurring a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a
general regulation to be adopted as an amendment to the ordinance;
4. The granting of the variance does not result in a use that is not otherwise
permitted on such property or a change in the zoning classification of the
property; and
5. The relief or remedy sought by the variance application is not available
through a special use permit process that is authorized in this ordinance at
the time of the filing of the variance application.
All variances granted must be in harmony with the intended spirit and purpose of
this ordinance. Specifically, the BZA must find that the strict application of the
ordinance would produce undue hardship. This hardship must not be shared by
other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity. The BZA
must find that the granting of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the
granting of the variance. Finally, the BZA must not grant a variance unless it finds
that the condition or situation of the property is not so general or recurring a
nature as to make reasonably practical the formulation of a general regulation to
be adopted as an amendment to this ordinance.
No variance request shall be evaluated considered by the BZA until after notice
and hearing as provided by section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, as
amended. In addition, posting of the property shall be required as provided for in
section 30-14-3 of this ordinance.
In granting a variance, the BZA may impose such conditions regarding the
location, character and other features of the proposed structure or use as it may
deem necessary in the public interest, and may require a guarantee or bond to
ensure that the conditions imposed are being and will continue to be complied
with.
June 28, 2016
317
Sec. 30-24-5. Certiorari to Review Decision of BZA.
(D) If upon the hearing, it shall appear to the court that testimony is necessary for the
proper disposition of the matter, it may take evidence or appoint a commissioner
to take such evidence as it may direct, and report the same to the court with his
findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall constitute a part of the
proceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be made. The court
may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the decision brought up for
review.
ARTICLE II – DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES
SEC. 30-28. DEFINITIONS.
(C) For the purposes of this ordinance, the words and phrases listed below in this
section shall have the meanings described below.
Residential chicken keeping: The keeping of up to six (6) female chickens (hens)
in non-agriculturally zoned areas as an accessory use to a single family residence is
subject to the standards set out in chapter 5, animals and fowl, section 5-38—standards
for residential chicken keeping.
Variance: A reasonable deviation from the provisions regulating the size or area
of a lot or parcel of land, or the size, area, bulk or location of a building or structure in
accordance with section 15.2-2201 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. In the
application of a zoning ordinance, a reasonable deviation from those provisions
regulating the shape, size, or area of a lot or parcel of land or the size, height, area,
bulk, or location of a building or structure when the strict application of the ordinance
would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property, and such need for a variance
would not be shared generally by other properties, and provided such variance is not
contrary to the purpose of the ordinance. It shall not include a change in use, which
change shall be accomplished by a rezoning or by a conditional zoning.
SEC. 30-29. USE TYPES; GENERALLY.
Sec. 30-29-5. Commercial Use Types.
Bed and breakfast inn: A single family dwelling, or portion thereof, where short-
term lodging is provided for compensation to transient guests only. The operator may or
may not live on the premises. Meals may be provided to guests only. Up to fifteen (15)
guest rooms may be provided.
June 28, 2016
318
Country inn: A business which offers accommodations and dining in a rural area.
Overnight lodging of up to thirty (30) rooms is available and a full-service restaurant
may provide meals to guests and the general public.
Special events facility: A place, structure, or other facility used for the assembly
of or intention of attracting people for cultural, ceremonial, celebratory purposes or civic
clubs for which there is a leasing fee. Such assembly includes, but is not limited to,
anniversary and birthday celebrations, reunions, weddings, and receptions. Music
concerts or festivals as a primary use shall be considered an outdoor gathering.
ARTICLE III – DISTRICT REGULATIONS
SEC. 30-32. AG-3 AGRICULTURAL/RURAL PRESERVE DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-32-2. Permitted Uses.
(B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-
19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as
listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Bed and Breakfast Inn *
Country Inn *
Special Events Facility *
SEC. 30-33. AG-1 AGRICULTURAL/RURAL LOW DENSITY DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-33-2. Permitted Uses.
(B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-
19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as
listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Bed and Breakfast Inn *
Country Inn *
Special Events Facility *
SEC. 30-34. AR AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-34-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
June 28, 2016
319
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
2. Residential Uses
Single Family Dwelling, Detached (Zero Lot Line Option) *
SEC. 30-36. AV AGRICULTURAL/VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-36-2. Permitted Uses.
(B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-
19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as
listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Bed and Breakfast Inn *
Country Inn *
Special Events Facility *
SEC. 30-53. C-1 LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-53-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Business or Trade Schools *
SEC. 30-54. C-2 HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-54-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Business or Trade Schools *
SEC. 30-61. I-1 LOW INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
June 28, 2016
320
Sec. 30-61-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Business or Trade Schools *
SEC. 30-62. I-2 HIGH INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-62-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Business or Trade Schools *
ARTICLE IV – USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS
SEC. 30-80. USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS.
SEC. 30-82. RESIDENTIAL USES.
Sec. 30-82-12. Single Family, Detached (Zero Lot Line Option).
(B) In the AR, R-1, R-2, R-3 or R-4 districts, within a common development, one
interior yard may be equal to zero for single family detached dwellings, subject to
the following additional criteria:
3. Minimum side yard opposite the zero yard: Ten (10) feet; fifteen (15) feet
in AR.
4. Maximum building coverage: Forty (40) percent; twenty-five (25) percent
in AR.
SEC. 30-85. COMMERCIAL USES.
Sec. 30-85-8.1. Bed and Breakfast Inn.
(A) General Standards:
June 28, 2016
321
1. The owner or manager shall provide full-time management of the
establishment at all times when the facility is occupied by one (1) or more
guests.
2. The establishment shall not contain restaurant facilities, but may provide
meal service for transient, overnight guests only.
3. Up to fifteen (15) guestrooms may be provided for paying guests.
4. Outdoor events such as weddings, receptions, and similar activities may
be conducted as accessory uses.
5. The establishment shall front on a public road and the site shall have
direct access from the public road.
Sec. 30-85-8.6. Business or Trade Schools.
(A) General Standards:
1. A permanent structure shall be required on site for classroom type
training.
2. A Special Use Permit shall be required for any outdoor training component
associated with this use.
Sec. 30-85-13.1. Country Inn.
(A) General Standards:
1. The owner or manager shall provide full-time management of the
establishment at all times when the facility is occupied by one (1) or more
guests.
2. The establishment may contain restaurant facilities that provide meal
service to overnight guests and the general public.
3. Up to thirty (30) guestrooms may be provided for paying guests.
4. Outdoor events such as weddings, receptions, and similar activities may
be conducted as accessory uses.
5. The establishment shall front on a public road and the site shall have
direct access from the public road.
Sec. 30-85-24.6. Special Events Facility.
(A) General Standards:
1. The site shall front directly on and have direct access to a publicly owned
and maintained street.
2. When adjoining a residential use type, a Type C buffer yard in accordance
with Section 30-92 shall be provided along the property line which adjoins
the residential use type.
June 28, 2016
322
ARTICLE V – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SEC. 30-91. OFF STREET PARKING, STACKING AND LOADING.
Sec. 30-91-3. Number of Parking Spaces Required.
Sec. 30-91-3.4. Maximum Off-Street Parking.
(A) To avoid excessive surpluses that increase development costs and impervious
surfaces, impervious parking shall not be provided in quantities greater than ten
(10) percent above the required minimum, unless any parking above the ten (10)
percent threshold is permeable or pervious, or is provided through the use of
structured parking.
(B) The maximum number of off-street parking spaces permitted, as established in
Section 30-91-3.4, shall not apply to parking areas utilizing a permeable or
pervious paver surface or to parking structures.
(C) Parking that exceeds the requirements below shall comply with the following
standards:
Increase in Additional Standards
quantity over
minimum
Landscaped Landscaped Islands Parking Surface
requirements
Medians
Up to and Contain small, Comprised of at least None
including 10% deciduous trees 10% bioretention
planted every 20 planting islands in
linear feet accordance with
Roanoke County's
Contain 3 small
Stormwater
shrubs in addition to
Management Design
requirements of
Manual (or)
Section 30-92-3b.
Over 10% Required every Comprised of at least Parking spaces
other parking aisle 20% bioretention provided above the
planting islands in 10% maximum
accordance with shall be surfaced
Roanoke County's with a permeable
Stormwater or pervious surface
Management Design or other low impact
June 28, 2016
323
Increase in Additional Standards
quantity over
minimum
Landscaped Landscaped Islands Parking Surface
requirements
Medians
Manual (or) design alternative
in accordance with
Contain small, Contain 6 small
Roanoke County's
deciduous trees shrubs in addition to
Stormwater
planted every 20 requirements of
Management
linear feet Section 30-92-3b.
Design Manual or
other permeable or
pervious surface
as approved by the
Zoning
Administrator.
Sec. 30-91-5. Alternative Modes of Transportation.
Sec. 30-91-5.1. Bicycle Parking Standards.
(A) In lots with greater than fifty (50) spaces, a minimum of one (1) bicycle parking
space shall may be provided on-site for each twenty (20) off-street automobile
parking spaces.
(D) When bicycle parking is required shown on a parking plan, there shall be a
minimum of two (2) spaces provided but not more than twenty (20) bicycle
spaces provided will be required at a single site.
(E) For every four (4) bicycle parking space provided above the minimum
requirement, the number of impervious vehicular parking spaces required by
Section 30-91-3-3 30-91-3.3 may be reduced by one (1). The number of
impervious vehicular parking spaces shall not be reduced by an amount
exceeding five (5) percent.
(F) If the vehicular parking area is lighted, the required bicycle parking shall also be
lighted.
(G) Bicycle parking shall be located within fifty (50) feet in the general proximity of an
entrance to the building or within a building if the location is easily accessible for
bicycles and shall comply with the design standards set forth in Roanoke
County's Design Handbook.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
June 28, 2016
324
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 062816-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM K- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for June 28,
2016, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 5 inclusive, as follows:
1. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $7,105 to the Clerk of
Circuit court from the Commonwealth of Virginia for fiscal year 2015/2016
2. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $3,000 from the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) to retrofit current
trash containers to make them bear resistant
3. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Donald R. Karnes, Risk Manager, upon his retirement
after more than twenty-one years of service
4. Confirmation of appointments to the Length of Service Awards Program
(LOSAP/VIP) Board
5. Confirmation of appointment to the Planning Commission (by District)
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
A-062816-5.a
A-062816-5.b
RESOLUTION 062816-5.c EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO DONALD R. KARNES, RISK MANAGER, UPON HIS
RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF
SERVICE
June 28, 2016
325
WHEREAS, Donald R. Karnes was employed by Roanoke County on January
20, 1995; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Karnes retired on June 1, 2016, after twenty-one years and four
months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Karnes, throughout his employment with Roanoke County, has
been instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of
Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, during Mr. Karnes’ time serving the citizens of Roanoke County he
held several positions in the Finance Department including Purchasing Manager,
Contracts and Major Projects Specialist and Risk Manager; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Karnes developed and taught safety training programs,
maintained the worker’s compensation program for the County, and worked diligently
with departments to answer questions and provide support; and
WHEREAS, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the
DONALD R. KARNES
appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to for more than
twenty-one years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
A-062516-5.d
A-062516-5.e
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke:
Noah Tickle stated his comments were due in part to BOS affects/effects
concerning school board activity and the questions that must be answered about Our
Roanoke Co VA Catawba Magisterial District's School Board Representative, Who was
duly vetted, endorsed and duly elected; then strong-arm pressured to resign. Doesn't
sound right, does it? Whereas, if indeed there was an obvious conflict of interest that
should have barred the candidate from service on the school board, then how was it
legal for him to run and why was he allowed on the ballot in the first place? Whereas: If
he was legally elected and legally allowed to take office with great ceremony and oath
of office and-when it came time to vote on his wife's promotion and after her being on
June 28, 2016
326
the promotion list long prior to his election, why was he forced out of office rather than
being allowed to recuse himself from that vote. Then should ALL board members be
eliminated/resigned because they have friends and family on Roanoke County taxpayer
payroll? School boards vote on such decisions one person at a time, not as a whole
group without considering each potential promotion one at a time. He could have
recused himself from commenting and voting on any of the promotions being made at
that time? But, no, he was strong armed outed. Whereas, how is his resignation from
the school board not evidence of extortion and a threatening, illegal quid pro quo
demand that he step down in return for the approval of his wife's promotion? It not only
creates the appearance of extortion, it invites and demands a public investigation of
criminal activity and abuse of power, regardless of all of their love affirmations for him;
Caesar was loved to death with daggers. (This is where the real conflict of interest lies
in his opinion.) Whereas from where does the Roanoke County School Board's
authority to appoint a temporary representative come? Where in the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, state law, local law, state or local regulations, or
organizational bylaws is the school board granted this authority? The people of
Catawba Magisterial District have the authority by State Code not representatives of the
school board from other Magisterial Districts determining who the Catawba
representative to the school board would be. Whereas, if they do not receive answers to
these questions demonstrating that what has happened is both legal and ethically
acceptable, what recourse do they have other than demanding these answers from the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, or, failing that, demanding that the State
Department of Education investigate the matter? Or, should they get a lawyer to advise
them and help them determine whether or not this is a police matter? The people of
Roanoke County Catawba Magisterial District, the people who lawfully elected this man,
have a right to know what happened. State Code says they have the right of election for
whom they chose. What do we not understand about we elect our representative? They
have a right to the facts; to the truth. Catawba has always been the area of the “red-
headed step-child” and “Let's dump it there” location; like an asphalt plant. It is not him
personally harping this. In the past, groups were organized to oppose this sort of
behavior. A former Board of Supervisor Chairman once said, “Who cares about what
happens out in the hinterlands.” and when concerns from Catawba were presented, the
Board member at that time agreed. The sad state concerning Catawba at that time
also. This is just me saying.
June 28, 2016
327
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports.
The motion was seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt
3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
May 31, 2016
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of May 31, 2016
5. Accounts Paid - May 31, 2016
6. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of May 31, 2016
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he has two items. One of them is the
Broadband and knows we have debated this issue and had the local providers in here
and talked about this issue extensively and it is no secret that he is the only supervisor
not support moving in the direction that we did with the Roanoke Valley Broadband
Authority. There are a lot of things that concern him and he will mention a couple here.
One of the biggest is the secrecy of the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority. He
asked a month ago to have the Director, Frank Smith, come and speak to our Board.
After we voted, (we voted that we were going to be a part of this now with tax payer
dollars) he thought it was important to know exactly how those taxpayer dollars are
being spent. No one else on this Board thought it was important to know. He ask the
County Administrator, who stated he sent it out to all the other Board members and no
one thought it was important enough to have Frank Smith back in here to talk about
what it is and how they spend money, how they acquire new customers. His biggest
concern when we hooked up with the Broadband Authority was if the Broadband
Authority is wildly successful that means they are taking customers from current
providers, i.e. the Verizon, Cox, or Comcast. If they are not successful, we are losing
taxpayer dollars and throwing it down the drain. It was lose/lose proposition and he
does not like lose/lose proposition and he does not know how to look at the whole
broadband thing; whether he wants them to succeed or not. On one end, if they don’t
succeed, we just dumped $5 million down the drain of taxpayer dollars and that is part
of his money. As he said before, if they succeed, they are taking business aware from
the current providers. Now, he has been approached by the media and he is sure many
June 28, 2016
328
of the other supervisors have on some of the things that were happening down in
Bristol. We talked about this before we even voted i.e. all the corruption that had
happened right down the road from us with another Authority and this Authority, when
investigated, and was doing business just like Roanoke County, taxpayer dollars,
private, did not tell anybody about how they were making their money or spending. We
have nine convictions, contractors, two Board of Directors, Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer, Financial Officer, General Counsel and two Vice Presidents all are in jail
because of corruption. Now, some of the corruption included tax fraud, pressuring
companies for gifts in violation of procurement rules, fake invoices and using inside
information to secure contracts. The remedy, the Assistant District Attorney, Zachary
Lee who did the investigation said there is a simple way to not have this happen. He
said a lack of transparency was a major factor in VVU’s culture of corruption, a lack of
transparency. He stated, “There needs to be a lot of transparency in any government
organization where money is involved. There needs to be willingness, a desire for
things to be looked at and there should not be a desire for privacy, a desire for the
books not to be looked at.” He mentioned this because he specifically asked the
Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority has at least two customers that he knows of, PBS
and the Water Authority. He wants to know what deal they gave them. It seems like an
innocent enough question. What kind of deal did they get to go with the Roanoke Valley
Broadband Authority? Why is that such a difficult questions for anybody to answer?
The County Administrator, Tom Gates, will not answer that question and the Director,
Frank Smith, will not answer that question and they say that the client wants privacy.
Let me ask you this, about four to six weeks ago, we sold a piece of property to
Macado’s in Vinton. We went behind closed doors for the negotiation part of it, which is
fine, not everybody should know what kind of negotiation are going on when you are
trying to make a sale; that is not fair. After the deal was done, there was no more
privacy. Everybody knows what the deal was and it was a government entity selling
something to a private institution. Macado’s could not say, “You know what, I want
privacy. I don’t want anybody to know what I bought it for. You have to say it, we have
to let them know. The Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority is using taxpayer dollars to
make any kind of deal that they are making and yet will not let any of us know. How
does he know they are not giving it to them for a buck? How does he know that they
are luring the Public Broadcasting Service and say here it is for a buck, we just
subsidized the thing with taxpayer dollars and in fact give us some publicity on the
public television. How do I know that if no one is showing the books? We owe it to the
citizens of Roanoke County to let them know how their money is being spent, you owe it
to him as a taxpayer. He is paying for this $5.2 million that we just gave them, yet mum
is the word. So, let me just say this again, because when the corruption starts
happening, we can look back to this day and say, “I told you so.” This is an assistant
United States attorney. “Lack of transparency was a major factor in the culture of
corruption at the utility.” There needs to be a lot of transparency in any organization
where money is involved. There needs to be willingness. In fact, Frank should be
June 28, 2016
329
coming here. Mr. Gates should be talking to him and we should be having him here;
without me telling him. There should be a willingness and not a desire for privacy,
which is exactly what we have. A desire for the books not to be looked at. He guesses
the corruption that happened there with the contractor, from what he hears, they
changed their name, changed their CEO and they are doing business in Roanoke. I
guess the story will come out, he does not know. He will keep on top of this every time
we come here because the more privacy we have, the worse it is for the citizens of
Roanoke County. We need to stop this, we need to tell the people of Roanoke County
how their money is being spent. Enough said, but just like the United Way issue, he is
going to be bringing this up every two weeks and we are going to keep talking about it
until somebody is willing to be transparent. Second issue is the day before yesterday
the Supreme Court striking down restrictions on abortions in Texas and he advises that
every issue is a local issue. It is, he doesn’t care if it happening in Texas, California, but
everything is local because it happens locally somewhere. It just doesn’t happen only in
Texas as a whole or California. They were trying to pass having abortion clinics meet
certain standards, just basic standards having the doctors with privileges to the
hospitals. Abortion is such an evil practice. The fact that we allow it is unbelievable, but
we do. So, they are trying to make it so that it is at least safe if something happens.
This got struck down yesterday and this issue is so divisive in America. It is so divisive
and is tearing our Country apart, yet we have the ability to do something locally and we
never do it. None of the Supervisors will do it. He has mentioned before, we have
Planned Parenthood right here in Roanoke County, 800 some babies were killed in
2014 and he does not know the numbers for 2015, right here in the Roanoke Valley.
The United Way that we help facilitate by giving them money, do their fund raisers here,
allow them to do automatic withdrawals from employee paychecks. That is nice; United
Way funds gave over $100,000 to Planned Parenthood in 2015 and we as a Board sit
idly by and say it is okay. We could just sever our ties with United Way. United Way
has a right as they are a private company. Their CEO makes close to $200,000 a year.
We don’t have to give them money, but we do. We could tell them you are on your own
and can do what you want, but we are going to sever our ties, but we won’t. Our
County Administrator sits on their Board. He has asked him to step down; he should
not be on private boards of companies. It is a conflict of interest. For clarification, he
sits on the Board of United Way, not Planned Parenthood. There are 1,200 United Way
locations. Do you know how many give money to Planned Parenthood; out of 1,200
sixty and ours is one of the extreme locations that do it. Our United Way right here in
the Roanoke Valley is one of only sixty of 1,200 United Ways. The other United Ways
do not give money to Planned Parenthood. They don’t; they stay away from that. Ours,
right here in the Roanoke Valley gives money to Planned Parenthood and we are part of
that because we help facilitate United Way. He strongly urges the Board, we need to
get away from supporting them. Let them do it on their own if they want, but we should
not be facilitating them and not using one penny of taxpayer dollar to help United Way.
Let them do it on their own, but we do and we should stop.
June 28, 2016
330
Supervisor Hooker stated she just has one quick item and it is to highlight
a couple of students in are our area. We had three students in the Roanoke Valley who
were actually able to get their associates degree prior to getting their high school
diploma. Two of those students in Roanoke County, Denasha Dunaville and Gabrielle
Langhorne, both from Northside and she just wanted to commend them and
congratulate them. There are a couple of quotes she wants to read through because
this is really a great thing and it is something that she could see up really focusing on in
the years to come. “Now that the three have cleared the hurdles of pursuing both
degrees simultaneously, they each said all the work was worth it, but emphasized one
point. It was hard work.” “Each girl pursued her associate degree a little differently but
generally their paths included some combination of summer, night or online classes
crammed into high school schedules that were already full with AP classes, dual
enrollment classes and extracurricular activities. Langhorne in particular took the most
dual enrollment classes offered through Northside and evening classes at Virginia
Western to complete her degree. She worked evening classes around her
responsibilities as President of the County-wide student advisory council, a role that
required her to attend all the school board meetings. Dunaville also took dual-
enrollment classes, organized most of her college classes online instead.” She just
wanted to highlight this. It is a great opportunity for our students and an opportunity for
great savings for their family.
Supervisor Peters stated as we have come off a week of devastating
flooding in parts of Virginia and West Virginia, he would hope that you keep those
families and those localities in your prayers. He knows of many first responders who
have been in the thick of that and pray for their safety as they try to put all that back
together. Lastly, as always, he wanted to thank our staff, both County staff and school
staff for what they do to keep the County going day by day.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:37 p.m., Supervisor Peters moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A 1 Personnel,
namely discussion concerning appointment to the Western Virginia Water Authority. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 4:20 p.m. until 4:35 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
June 28, 2016 331
At 4:35 p.m., Supervisor Peters moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 062816-6 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Peters adjourned the meeting at 4:36 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
I 0-
.1 ' klke!./.
- •orah C. J P. J:son Peters
Chief Deputy -rk to the Board Chairman
June 28, 2016
332
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY